Purple Rain
Crusader
Ooooooohhhhhh! We get our knickers in a twist over here! Lol!
Boards & Lists Breed Grudge Matches... It Just Happens
- Thread starter clamicide
- Start date
Ooooooohhhhhh! We get our knickers in a twist over here! Lol!
Caroline
Patron Meritorious
I understand it is your opinion. But you have made some factual assertions. And when have members of membership organizations become beyond reporting on? You have to be fair with all membership organizations, otherwise your position is invalid, wouldn't you agree?
But okay, ESMB is a sort of membership organization. There are rules and criteria here, and ESMB's leadership certainly claims high standards, and there's bla bla bla bla. Everyone can hang their virtual shingles on the ESMB site. And even here evil lurks, and even doesn't lurk. If you can whitewash all the other membership organizations, then I could consider the whitewashing of the Scientology membership organizations.
But you dispatch the analogous membership organizations you have knowledge of: "nothing to do with Scientology." And that's true; let's stick to Scientology and Scientologists, and the facts. It is obvious that you and others are defending the Scientologists' claims and their adherence to KSW, which includes also defending their non-adherence to KSW, while ignoring their fraudulent claims all Scientologists make to wogs. There is of course no rational and moral defense, so the defenders, as long as they defend, only have irrational, immoral defenses -- bullying in its various techniques. I am not unique or alone in this observation, and of course there is the record here for everyone to observe, so I can imagine things getting even more vicious and irrational before it resolves. Let's get back and deal with facts. If all the people on ESMB cannot do that because of the bullying it brings on, then bully for the bullies.
These are serious claims that the IFA and IFA-certified auditors make. Let's deal with the claims. It is bullying to attack the messenger who communicated their claims. If I was a vulnerable exiting KSW Scientologist needing help, and if I saw Karen's promo pages, or watched her video on Priest-Penitent Privilege and Scientology Inc., and if I witnessed the incredible amount of support, admiration, etc., that Karen gets in her social network, and how anyone who challenges her is vilified and attacked, I'd probably accept Karen's claims, and pay her money for a standard tech review. (Or, I might turn to another IFA-certified practitioner for help if I saw their web site or video first.) Because I was a Flag-trained Ethics Specialist, and used Hubbard's ethics system on the inside, I'd no doubt also be submitting ethics reports to IFA through their online form, and doing my part to Keep Scientology Working in the FZ.
How do you know field auditors have always been pretty much impossible to control? I worked for awhile "in the real world" as a field auditor in Clearwater, and I was not at all hard to control. I paid my IHELP tithes and followed their rules to the best of my ability.
Purple Rain
Crusader
The only person I see here bullying anyone is you.
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Caroline, You made certain assertions in your "questioning post". The particular assertion being discussed here was couched with the word "apparently" (if I remember it correctly). I wonder where this "apparency" stems from, do you have any evidence or dox to back up the opinion-tendered-as-fact? The questions you asked were, as I understood it, addressed to the Readers here, they hardly seemed addressed to Karen. Some have chosen to answer your hypothetical assertions/questions and some have chosen to question your assertions and "questions". It's a discussion, right?
Purple Rain
Crusader
If one questions the EGO of one of the "heroes", it's vilification obviously. Despite the fact that one of these "heroes" has broadly published claims of "victimization" across google-indexed message boards to hundreds of millions of people around the globe which could substantially affect the financial position of the defamed person, largely due to the fact that most people do not wish to do business with those who "victimize" others.
Of course, if one was to stand before a judge in court with only the defence of "truth" as a recourse to the obviously defamatory comments - it would behoove one to be able to produce an actual "victim" of the plaintiff or other documentary evidence that this alleged "victimization" has actually occurred.
Wouldn't it?
Waiting.
As it is, I can only say, "Bravo and congrats! Black ops executed like a true believer!"
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Sometimes "feet of clay" just look like dirty feet. 
Caroline
Patron Meritorious
It sounds from what you're saying that you've lost track of your memories, which makes sense because of the way the threading was handled. But the post you're probably referring to is now available, and has been available for some days. So how about a citation and link, and for that matter a quote, so we can discuss this without one lobe tied behind your brain[SUP]®[/SUP]?
Free to shine
Shiny & Free
I don't know about anyone else but I get confused when conversations on the same subject are carried out across different threads. It is possible to copy a post across to the right thread, just saying.
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Wow! Where did that ad-hom come from?
Are you asking me to quote your own post?
OK, I didn't really want to repeat your unfounded allegations against Karen but, just for the record, here it is; http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...of-Scientology&p=795620&viewfull=1#post795620
You said, "Karen's "standard tech" Ethics Reports apparently now go to the IFA."
I call BULLSHIT on that "apparent" delusion-stated-as-fact!
Last edited:
David Mayo
Patron with Honors
Hey, Lulu B, I'll go for SMC = Sliding Mode Control
That's my best impression of what best describes most of what is going on here.
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Not Simply Misunderstood Confusion? I would have thought that was much more likely.
Lulu Belle
Moonbat
You know, I do have to agree with you, at least in theory.
If a person is a member of an organization and the organization says they have certain rules/criteria, and the person is representing themselves as being a member, it is fair to say they play by those rules. If they don't they should remove themselves.
I don't think the reality of the way it is is the same as the theory, but honestly I can't argue with you. You are technically on point.
Karen will have to address that issue herself.
Caroline, you are obviously the kid who, when coloring, stayed inside the lines.
Others, not so much.Field auditors within the church were known even by LRH to be pretty much uncontrollable. Remember that policy about "pcs roughed up in the field would go to the orgs to be cleaned up." Don't remember it exactly; it was like 100 years ago when I last read it. It was kind of understood that they were out there doing their own thing.
IHELP was formed to try to change that; putting out all kinds of rules that field auditors were supposed to abide by. I worked in a service org in LA for many years and I can tell you that there were constant reports of field auditors who didn't play by the rules. Many of them hated IHELP, did not want to pay the dues, did not want to come in for cramming and cleanup, and did not want the org messing with them and their pcs. The farther away from the SO base they were, the harder it was to control them.
I remember when the Class VIII project launched at AOLA and the person running it was trying to get all these VIIIs in, many who were or had been field auditors. She told me they were the "most disaffected group she had ever dealt with in her life". She got hung up on a lot.
Maybe your understanding of what it was like to be a field auditor is different than mine. You were in CW, and because you were so close to Flag, you were probably a lot more regulated than someone in, say, Texas.
But i would say, as a whole, the church had a very uneasy relationship with field auditors, and considered a lot of them "off the rails".
Last edited:
BardoThodol
Silver Meritorious Patron
Neither Rush Limbaugh, nor Al Sharpton, nor Jesse Jackson could have said it better.
The concatenation of abstract ambiguities is a losing art--not quite lost, but certainly sliding down that slide.
Ah, to have the fervor of a Crusader for a Cause! What meaning it lends to our existence.
Sweet.
Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead!
Caroline
Patron Meritorious
You communicated that you don't remember where I said "apparently," and didn't provide the questions you're asking about. We all want to avoid a grudge match, right?
We're all working through and around the confusion that missing and moved posts generate. I've been having the same problem you apparently have been having, trying to deal with the threading and discussions going on in multiple threads. It is clear that you have misunderstood what I wrote. I was trying to avoid your being at a disadvantage, or me or others being at a disadvantage, because of missing posts or uncertain language, not telling you that you were already in that disadvantageous condition -- with one lobe tied behind your brain[SUP]®[/SUP]. In no way was I implying that you are intellectually inferior. I believe you are completely aware of what you're doing.
FTS and claimide also commented about the confusions we're working through and around.
phenomanon
Canyon
This piece of data may or may not be pertinent to this "discussion", but I will tell you that in a conversation with Marianne Hagen,( one of the very first adherents to Ron's Org, and high up on their Org Board),
I was told that LaMont Johnson , whom we were discussing, should report to "Ethics Central". That tells me that at least in Ron's Org, which as far as I know, is part of IFA, there is an " Ethics Central", so what would they do there if no reports were submitted?
I think that Karen is more in the Marty Mode, and they may or may not file KRs with the IFA. But if they are claiming standard tech, then they are filing ethics reports. They might use 'wiggle words' and say that they don't file KRs, but a rose by any other name blah blah blah.
In the 33 years that I was a member in good standing, I never once wrote a Knowledge Report.
But, baby, I wrote plenty of ethics reports as an auditor at AOLA's HGC. We who audited OT Preps, or Confessionals of any sort, wrote 4 copies of any "out ethics", and clipped them to the front cover of the PC folder ( see Front Cover Items). One copy stayed in the folder. One copy went to the C/S. A copy went to Ethics, and I dunno where the 4th copy went.
The auditor admin ( what the auditor writes up after a session) became so burdensome, that the HGC auditors hated doing the Preps. For every auditing hour, there was a comparable amount of time spent on the admin.
Hoe this helps someone. Anyone.
I was told that LaMont Johnson , whom we were discussing, should report to "Ethics Central". That tells me that at least in Ron's Org, which as far as I know, is part of IFA, there is an " Ethics Central", so what would they do there if no reports were submitted?
I think that Karen is more in the Marty Mode, and they may or may not file KRs with the IFA. But if they are claiming standard tech, then they are filing ethics reports. They might use 'wiggle words' and say that they don't file KRs, but a rose by any other name blah blah blah.
In the 33 years that I was a member in good standing, I never once wrote a Knowledge Report.
But, baby, I wrote plenty of ethics reports as an auditor at AOLA's HGC. We who audited OT Preps, or Confessionals of any sort, wrote 4 copies of any "out ethics", and clipped them to the front cover of the PC folder ( see Front Cover Items). One copy stayed in the folder. One copy went to the C/S. A copy went to Ethics, and I dunno where the 4th copy went.
The auditor admin ( what the auditor writes up after a session) became so burdensome, that the HGC auditors hated doing the Preps. For every auditing hour, there was a comparable amount of time spent on the admin.
Hoe this helps someone. Anyone.
Purple Rain
Crusader
I guess you must feel
like Tina the Stupid Mermaid. Switching to the other lobe of her brain® might help.
Last edited:
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
FWIW (not much), my understanding is that Marianne's branch of the Ron's Org is separate from the European folks. I don't know the whys or wherefores but the way I heard it she has gone her own separate way from the others.
In fact the freezone factions generally, Ron's Orgs included, often remind me of the different branches of the Radha Swami Sant Mat Movement in that they all stem from the same source originally but have branched off into separate organizations which aren't all necessarily in communion with one another.
Mark A. Baker
AnonyMary
Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Do you mean a member in good standing of the FZ or of the church?
Note: for perspective, LaMont Johnson died nearly 14 years ago, in 1999. The FZ changed since then and I don't thing growth was one of the changes, not until the last couple of years.
Purple Rain
Crusader
Do you mean a member in good standing of the FZ or of the church?
Note: for perspective, LaMont Johnson died nearly 14 years ago, in 1999. The FZ changed since then and I don't thing growth was one of the changes, not until the last couple of years.
Sounds a bit like:
Why Do Narcissists and Borderlines Lie So Much?
Similar threads
