What's new

Does Anybody Remember...

jojo

Patron
When staff were not allowed to converse with students and the only communication allowed was quoting LRH? I have a very clear recollection of being on course in the early 80's and that was the rule. I was so put off by this that I threatened my course sup that if she didn't talk to me like a normal person I was out of there.

It was the most bizarre thing I had ever experienced and I still can't believe I stayed through that.

The only thing I could find on the internet regarding this was http://leavingscientology.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/quoting-vs-thinking/
but Jefferson Hawkins was referring more to a trend in how people--staff and public alike--evolved from thinking individuals to robotic ronbots. What I am remembering is a time when quoting LRH was the only communication allowed in the course room.

If you were around for this or know more about it please give me more info on this weird phenomenon.
 

Petey C

Silver Meritorious Patron
Can that be true? I do know that staff were not allowed to answer students' questions about course materials but always had to refer to the texts ...
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
From the (Course) Supervisor's Code (CofS link):
8. The Supervisor should be able to answer any questions concerning Scientology by directing the student to the actual source of the data. If a Supervisor cannot answer a particular question, he should always say so, and the Supervisor should always find the answer to the question from the source and tell the student where the answer is to be found.​
There's also a silly HCOB called, I think, Student Questions, that says the only answers allowed to a student's question about his materials are "the answer is in (reference)" or "what word did you misunderstand?" or something like that.

But is would be a very poor supervisor who would robotically apply that and say no other words at all to a student who didn't get something he was studying. A course pack would often not contain enough information to answer the question, assuming the student actually had understood what was written in front of him. It would be a point of fine judgment as to how much other material to "import" in. I used to operate on a basis of the bare minimum needed to allow the student to get on with his course proper. Often a single paragraph from somewhere else would take a couple of minutes to resolve the problem, and that always seemed like the best solution to me. A robotic "solution" would be a fruitless hour with the word clearer looking for mu's when the real problem is that the needed data isn't in what he has just studied.

Paul
 

jojo

Patron
From the (Course) Supervisor's Code (CofS link):
8. The Supervisor should be able to answer any questions concerning Scientology by directing the student to the actual source of the data. If a Supervisor cannot answer a particular question, he should always say so, and the Supervisor should always find the answer to the question from the source and tell the student where the answer is to be found.​
There's also a silly HCOB called, I think, Student Questions, that says the only answers allowed to a student's question about his materials are "the answer is in (reference)" or "what word did you misunderstand?" or something like that.

But is would be a very poor supervisor who would robotically apply that and say no other words at all to a student who didn't get something he was studying. A course pack would often not contain enough information to answer the question, assuming the student actually had understood what was written in front of him. It would be a point of fine judgment as to how much other material to "import" in. I used to operate on a basis of the bare minimum needed to allow the student to get on with his course proper. Often a single paragraph from somewhere else would take a couple of minutes to resolve the problem, and that always seemed like the best solution to me. A robotic "solution" would be a fruitless hour with the word clearer looking for mu's when the real problem is that the needed data isn't in what he has just studied.

Paul

I definitely remember it being applied literally but not only to course materials but any kind of communication like Hello, how are you? It only lasted for a few weeks as it was a completely insane way of operating and I remember other people being totally put off by it too. When it was finally over I was told it was just an experiment.

I also remember being referred to LRH references when asking a question on course which was not exactly the same thing.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I definitely remember it being applied literally but not only to course materials but any kind of communication like Hello, how are you? It only lasted for a few weeks as it was a completely insane way of operating and I remember other people being totally put off by it too. When it was finally over I was told it was just an experiment.

Fair enough. But experiments like that may have been based on a program issued by Int Management, or some bright idea originated within a single org, or anywhere in-between.

In 1987 I implemented a radical idea in my courseroom at ITO of the students literally understanding *every* word of their course materials. I gave it up after a few weeks of lots of tears. That saga is covered in my ESMB post here. The students involved might have thought it was some pilot program down from Int, but it was only me trying out a bright idea.

Paul
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I was at NY Org in about 1979. I was on a course in the Acadamy. I was studying an LRH policy. I came across the word "eminent" in a sentence, but it was obviously a misprint. The word SHOULD have been "imminent". One would have to be a complete idiot NOT to notice that. :confused2:

It means, "about to happen, soon to occur". The word on the page, which obviously was a misprint, was "eminent". "Eminent" means "distinguished, notable". I pointed it out to the Supervisor. The Supervisor told me, "find your misunderstood words". When I persisted he suggested that I was "requesting unusual solutions and originating weird ideas" and demanded again that I clear up my misunderstood words. I persisted, and soon got VERY annoyed that a "sane person" could actually fail to "see the obvious" (what ever happened to "obnosis"?).

The Supervisor told me to "clear the words fully". I already knew exactly what the words meant, but I did it anyway. Of course, it WAS still a misprint. Word Clearing couldn't solve THAT problem. The problem WAS "in the materials". The Supervisor and others did not at all like it when I said that - that the problem was "in the materials themselves".

I spent 4-5 hours between Qual and Ethics, and NOBODY on staff could actually be there comfortably, pay attention, and be sensible. I was even yelled at for attempting to "cause trouble" and "enturbulate the courseroom" with my "weird demands for unusual solutions". What they ALL did was rotely "apply the materials exactly". It was truly mindboggling to me that grown adults, who supposedly were "bright and more aware because of Scientology" could be such imbeciles. I was involved in Scn until about 2000, and this rotenesss of application NEVER went away (even on Flag).

I finally ended up in front of the ED of the Org! Can you imagine that? I explained the situation with the misprint to him, and he said, "it seems to be a misprint, write up a report, and go back on course". I finally found one human being who could be there, comfortably look, and see that it was a misprint.

While that in itself speaks volumes of people's inability to observe instead of think, one should ask what did all the thousands of others do who read the LRH issue? I have no doubt that some dubbed-in "imminent" automatically. If anyone cleared "eminent", and used that word, since there wasn't any definition that could have the sentence even partially make sense then God only knows what they went away thinking. :confused2: But that IS Scientology. Scientologists walk around with MANY strange ideas in their heads.

I wrote up the situation and it was corrected about three years later. Just because a person "feels good" or is "VGIs" about reading something does NOT mean that they understand it correctly. It simply means that they "feel good". People can F/N when they "think" they understand something correctly – even when they actually don't. THAT happens a great deal in Scientology.

Anyway, this was one of my earliest experiences with the ROTE RIGID lunacy that I came to know so well in Scientology, which occured in some form or another MANY times after that, where the "thinkingness", of the Scientology participant, based on crazy EXACT LRH directions, blocks and prevents any calm observations and sensible dealings with other people. I learned early on that there was MUCH idiocy in Scientology, based on "exact application of LRH materials", so I also learned to NOT "make waves" because I didn't want to get wrapped up in the endless lunacy of the Scientology machinery. I wanted the "Bridge" (at the time), and I decided that I wasn't going to allow stupid Scientologists or the rote application of idiotic LRH policies to interfere with that.

Just another of MANY contradictions in the world of Scientology.
 
Last edited:

Oneflewover

Patron with Honors
I was at NY Org in about 1979. I was on a course in the Acadamy. I was studying an LRH policy. I came across the word "eminent" in a sentence, but it was obviously a misprint. The word SHOULD have been "imminent". One would have to be a complete idiot NOT to notice that. :confused2:

It means, "about to happen, soon to occur". The word on the page, which obviously was a misprint, was "eminent". "Eminent" means "distinguished, notable". I pointed it out to the Supervisor. The Supervisor told me, "find your misunderstood words". When I persisted he suggested that I was "requesting unusual solutions and originating weird ideas" and demanded again that I clear up my misunderstood words. I persisted, and soon got VERY annoyed that a "sane person" could actually fail to "see the obvious" (what ever happened to "obnosis"?).

I spent 4-5 hours between Qual and Ethics, and NOBODY on staff could actually be there comfortably, pay attention, and be sensible. I was even yelled at for attemptiong to "cause trouble" and "enturbulate the courseroom" with my "weird demands for unusual solutions". What they ALL did was rotely "apply the materials exactly". It was truly mindboggling to me that grown adults, who supposedly were "bright and more aware because of Scientology" could be such imbeciles. I was involved in Scn until about 2000, and this rotenesss of application NEVER went away (even on Flag).

I finally ended up in front of the ED of the Org! Can you imagjne that? I explained the situation with the misprint to him, and he said, "it seems to be a misprint, write up a report, and go back on course". I finally found one human being who could be there, comfortably look, and see that it was a misprint.

While that in itself speaks volumes of people's inability to observe instead of think, one should ask what did all the thousands of others do who read the LRH issue? I have no doubt that some dubbed-in "imminent" automatically. If anyone cleared "eminent", and used that word, since there wasn't any definition that could have the sentence even partially make sense then God only knows what they went away thinking. :confused2: But that IS Scientology. Scientologists walk around with MANY strange ideas in their heads.

I wrote up the situation and it was corrected about three years later. Just because a person "feels good" or is "VGIs" about reading something does NOT mean that they understand it correctly. It simply means that they "feel good". People can F/N when they "think" they understand something correctly – even when they actually don't. THAT happens a great deal in Scientology.

Anyway, this was one of my earliest experiences with the ROTE RIGID lunacy that I came to know so well in Scientology, which occured in some form or another MANY times after that, where the "thinkingness" of the Scientology participant blocks and prevents any calm observations and sensible dealings with other people. I learned early on that there was MUCH idiocy in Scientology, based on "exact application of LRH materials", so I also learned to NOT "cause waves" because I didn't want to get wrapped up in the endless lunacy of the Scientology machinery. I wanted the "Bridge" (at the time), and I decided that I wasn't going to allow stupid Scientologists or the rote application of idiotic LRH policies to interfere with that.

Just another of MANY contradictions in the world of Scientology.

I've been through that too. Several times. It was really a joke when we used to have to locally type up a new HCOB or HCOPL in stencil format for use in those Gestetner machines. The typos could be pretty funny, and of course the course Supes would still have to go through the motions. What do your materials state. What word didn't you understand. Go get a method 4. What word just prior to the area of confusion was misunderstood? Off to the ethics dungeon with you.

Where it got touchy was when I'd catch LRH not making any sense, or contradicting himself from an earlier issue (while maintaining nothing is ever cancelled unless he himself cancels it, thereby locking the contradiction into perpetuity).

On a bigger picture level, it shows how little Hubbard actually thought of humanity's ability to think for themselves, that he tried to force people to permit his words to be their highest authority. "Don't think.....just regurgitate me!!"
 
Last edited:

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Anyway, this was one of my earliest experiences with the ROTE RIGID lunacy that I came to know so well in Scientology, which occured in some form or another MANY times after that, where the "thinkingness", of the Scientology participant, based on crazy EXACT LRH directions, blocks and prevents any calm observations and sensible dealings with other people.

Typos and inaccurate texts are actually covered in Hubbard's Study Tapes. If a sup ignores typos he's just a lousy sup who doesn't know Study Tech well, quite apart from the common-sense factor.

Paul
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Typos and inaccurate texts are actually covered in Hubbard's Study Tapes. If a sup ignores typos he's just a lousy sup who doesn't know Study Tech well, quite apart from the common-sense factor.

Paul

From my many years of experience with Scientology at many different levels (public, staff, Sea Org, SO management, etc), it seems that the endless and severe push for KSW, along with the attitude that to do otherwise is "out-ethics", usually results in a continual LACK OF COMMON SENSE.

Hubbard contradicts the "manifestations of the three barriers to study" in the Study Tapes. But, nobody ever corrects it because nobody is allowed to "have Hubbard be wrong". I remember when I was given a test for the Student Hat and I got one wrong. It had to do with the manifestations of the barriers to study. The test "correct answer" was based on the HCOB. So, I went and showed them the tape transcript, which supported what I had stated on the test. They had to mark it "right", but NOT without a fight.

Now, for me, I never paid ANY attention to physical manifestations (i.e. stomach aches, feeling spinny, yawning, etc), and I considered Hubbard's statements on the matter a bit absurd. I was fairly bright, I never passed by MUs once I learned about them, and being "fast flow", I didn't have to do many demos, Clay Demos or practicals (I did "demos" in my head). That people are conditioned in Scn to monitor one's physical manifestations, in a sort of semi-conscious feedback loop, to determine how one is "doing on study", is ridiculous to me. To me, I either understand it or I don't. I could do any demo, and pass any "test", because I knew what answers they wanted. That didn't mean that I accepted or believed them all. Though, most people involved did and do.

My point is that Hubbard says MANY THINGS, often contradictory things, and while one can possibly put it all together in a way that might be useable to some, the way IT IS PUT TOGETHER and HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER by the official Church for many years has often been quite insane. And, that insanity is a direct result of Hubbard's instructions on HOW to run an organization, and especially on WHICH POLICIES ARE MORE IMPORTANT. The push for "KSW" and "exact application with no alterations" is at the top of the list. That constant and traditional demand often results in crazy behaviors by the C of S and by Church members.

Hubbard talked about "evaluating importances" and "comparable magnitude", and then he saddled adherents with the crazy notion that
"KSW" was FAR more important than just about anything else.
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
One of my most fun things happened at flag in the ot6 course room doing a emeter drill. to get on with it

I had done 3 interships with video passes and audited thousands of hours and this girl I got stuck with as a twin insisted a meter drill be done her way as she flunked the way I did it ( correctly ) every time. I was doing it her way ( wrong ) get on with it.

She called the sup over and told the sup she felt I'd go back to doing it my old way if she gave me a pass and she wanted me to sent to a re-train on the e meter ( I had a flag OK to operate an emeter ).

This gal had NO real training and no auditor training other than her solo auditing.

She sat there with a big gloating smile as the sup wrote and wrote on her clipboard.
Turns out it was a choke a horse cram for that gal. Never saw her again. Apparently, she had missed something.

Most sups were " What do you materials state ? " but the good ones knew where the typos were and where the additional material was when it was needed.

But robots were never hard to find.
 

Sindy

Crusader
I was at NY Org in about 1979. I was on a course in the Acadamy. I was studying an LRH policy. I came across the word "eminent" in a sentence, but it was obviously a misprint. The word SHOULD have been "imminent". One would have to be a complete idiot NOT to notice that. :confused2:

It means, "about to happen, soon to occur". The word on the page, which obviously was a misprint, was "eminent". "Eminent" means "distinguished, notable". I pointed it out to the Supervisor. The Supervisor told me, "find your misunderstood words". When I persisted he suggested that I was "requesting unusual solutions and originating weird ideas" and demanded again that I clear up my misunderstood words. I persisted, and soon got VERY annoyed that a "sane person" could actually fail to "see the obvious" (what ever happened to "obnosis"?).

The Supervisor told me to "clear the words fully". I already knew exactly what the words meant, but I did it anyway. Of course, it WAS still a misprint. Word Clearing couldn't solve THAT problem. The problem WAS "in the materials". The Supervisor and others did not at all like it when I said that - that the problem was "in the materials themselves".

I spent 4-5 hours between Qual and Ethics, and NOBODY on staff could actually be there comfortably, pay attention, and be sensible. I was even yelled at for attemptiong to "cause trouble" and "enturbulate the courseroom" with my "weird demands for unusual solutions". What they ALL did was rotely "apply the materials exactly". It was truly mindboggling to me that grown adults, who supposedly were "bright and more aware because of Scientology" could be such imbeciles. I was involved in Scn until about 2000, and this rotenesss of application NEVER went away (even on Flag).

I finally ended up in front of the ED of the Org! Can you imagjne that? I explained the situation with the misprint to him, and he said, "it seems to be a misprint, write up a report, and go back on course". I finally found one human being who could be there, comfortably look, and see that it was a misprint.

While that in itself speaks volumes of people's inability to observe instead of think, one should ask what did all the thousands of others do who read the LRH issue? I have no doubt that some dubbed-in "imminent" automatically. If anyone cleared "eminent", and used that word, since there wasn't any definition that could have the sentence even partially make sense then God only knows what they went away thinking. :confused2: But that IS Scientology. Scientologists walk around with MANY strange ideas in their heads.

I wrote up the situation and it was corrected about three years later. Just because a person "feels good" or is "VGIs" about reading something does NOT mean that they understand it correctly. It simply means that they "feel good". People can F/N when they "think" they understand something correctly – even when they actually don't. THAT happens a great deal in Scientology.

Anyway, this was one of my earliest experiences with the ROTE RIGID lunacy that I came to know so well in Scientology, which occured in some form or another MANY times after that, where the "thinkingness", of the Scientology participant, based on crazy EXACT LRH directions, blocks and prevents any calm observations and sensible dealings with other people. I learned early on that there was MUCH idiocy in Scientology, based on "exact application of LRH materials", so I also learned to NOT "make waves" because I didn't want to get wrapped up in the endless lunacy of the Scientology machinery. I wanted the "Bridge" (at the time), and I decided that I wasn't going to allow stupid Scientologists or the rote application of idiotic LRH policies to interfere with that.

Just another of MANY contradictions in the world of Scientology.

:faceslap: Good grief! I know exactly what you mean. INSANE.
 

Lurker5

Gold Meritorious Patron
Oh yeah, I remember this. And the course supe I got into deep shit for getting him to actually converse with me. That episode and aftermath ended my scno days very fast - scared the freaking crap out of me - and I ran, played dead, moved no forwarding . . . Thank my lucky stars - THANK GOD ! :lol:
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Oh yeah, I remember this. And the course supe I got into deep shit for getting him to actually converse with me. That episode and aftermath ended my scno days very fast - scared the freaking crap out of me - and I ran, played dead, moved no forwarding . . . Thank my lucky stars - THANK GOD ! :lol:

The manner in which Scientology study (or auditing) is setup involves a perfect example of the rest of the Scientology mindset.

In Courseroom, Course Supervisor to student: What did YOU do wrong? What MU did YOU pass? What demo did YOU fail to do? You WOULD understand Ron perfectly if you didn't have some INNER problem preventing YOU from doing so. Ron's words and ideas are PERFECT, and you need simply grasp them.

Cramming to Auditor: Scientology auditing always works and gets great results. What did YOU do wrong?

The viewpoint imbedded within Scientology by Hubbard is that it is infallible. It ALWAYS works when CORRECLY APPLIED (ref: KSW). That is the FALSE DATA that the adherents accept and run with. Within that absurd context, ANY failure is due to some flaw or fault in the person or practitioner.

Hubbard never allows for the possibibility that maybe, just maybe, "Scientology just is not all it is cracked up to be".

:duh: :duh: :duh: :duh: :duh: :omg: :omg: :omg:

That is a key basic fixed idea, that Hubbard and Scientology are "perfect", that many a dedicated Scientology follower needs to extricate from his or her mind.
 

jojo

Patron
Oh yeah, I remember this. And the course supe I got into deep shit for getting him to actually converse with me. That episode and aftermath ended my scno days very fast - scared the freaking crap out of me - and I ran, played dead, moved no forwarding . . . Thank my lucky stars - THANK GOD ! :lol:
Thank you Lurker for confirming that this memory was real. I had mentioned it once or twice in the past but didn't find anyone who remembered it. I also remember my sup whispering to me "I can't" when I asked why she wouldn't talk to me in a normal way. They were literally not allowed to talk other than "LRH says.."

Crazy stuff!
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
I remember the same too

Everybody in my org was in fear of telling a ''verbal data'' that was a crime
So nobody talk to nobody a regular way -

No evaluation
no discussion about the tech
No discussion about the case
no critics
no natter

the only thing allow was to '' quote LRH'' -
AND show it where it was written in the materials

Everybody KR'd everybody for saying verbal tech
and this was the side effect of the ''mayo declare'' and the Rise of the nazi RTC
We were litterally at fear :unsure:

Really,

A nice [STRIKE][STRIKE]BT's[/STRIKE][/STRIKE] Rondroide cluster we were :melodramatic:
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
I was at NY Org in about 1979. I was on a course in the Acadamy. I was studying an LRH policy. I came across the word "eminent" in a sentence, but it was obviously a misprint. The word SHOULD have been "imminent". One would have to be a complete idiot NOT to notice that.

Maybe I'm just being arrogant or cynical, but I bet if you did a giant survey, a fair fraction of the population would be unable to distinguish those two words correctly. I wouldn't say you have to be a complete idiot to fall into that group. These are moderately hifalutin words, after all. Even a genius could screw them up, given a weak enough education.

The problem I see isn't that so many good word-clearing Scientologists didn't know what these words meant, but that so many Scientologists thought they knew better than they did. In general, a lot of Scientology seems to me to amount to a pseudo-education. You learn a bit of Hubbard's gobbledegook by rote, and Scientology tells you that you are now an expert in everything. The appeal is obvious, especially to people who haven't had enough real education to know the difference, but are sharp enough to recognize that expertise can be a good thing to have.

That's the nasty thing about education: you need to already have a certain amount of it, just to be able to realize what it is you don't yet have. Suppose I don't know much about anything, but I imagine that being an expert means knowing everything about something. Now, I can't really imagine what it would be like to know much more, about anything, than the little I know. So my picture of what it's like to be an expert on something is this: an expert is someone who only knows a few things, like me, but by some wonderful good fortune it happens that those few things that they know are all there is for anyone to know. So if some Scientologist gets me to memorize a few things, and tells me that now I have it all, I'm going to be happy. I'm an expert!

The truth, of course, is that expertise isn't like that at all. It means having to learn an awful lot more than you ever imagined you could possibly have to learn, but at the same time it means having your eyes opened to all the things you still don't know. Real experts are normally very cautious in pronouncing on their topics of expertise. They are painfully aware of how limited their knowledge really is.

Scientology claims to be about knowing how to know, but that's pseudo-education. Real education is rather more about knowing how not to know.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
The manner in which Scientology study (or auditing) is setup involves a perfect example of the rest of the Scientology mindset.

In Courseroom, Course Supervisor to student: What did YOU do wrong? What MU did YOU pass? What demo did YOU fail to do? You WOULD understand Ron perfectly if you didn't have some INNER problem preventing YOU from doing so. Ron's words and ideas are PERFECT, and you need simply grasp them.

Cramming to Auditor: Scientology auditing always works and gets great results. What did YOU do wrong?

The viewpoint imbedded within Scientology by Hubbard is that it is infallible. It ALWAYS works when CORRECLY APPLIED (ref: KSW). That is the FALSE DATA that the adherents accept and run with. Within that absurd context, ANY failure is due to some flaw or fault in the person or practitioner.

Hubbard never allows for the possibibility that maybe, just maybe, "Scientology just is not all it is cracked up to be".

:duh: :duh: :duh: :duh: :duh: :omg: :omg: :omg:

That is a key basic fixed idea, that Hubbard and Scientology are "perfect", that many a dedicated Scientology follower needs to extricate from his or her mind.



AUDITOR
Sir, we did exactly what you said.
Sir, we ran her on the Introspection Rundown.
Sir, we followed every one of your C/S instructions.
But, sir, she died anyways.

SCIENTOLOGY LEADER (Ron, Dave, et al)
You need to take responsibility for that.

AUDITOR
But, sir, we were following your orders.

SCIENTOLOGY LEADER
That's a justification. Do your lowers and
clay demo why it is suppressive to follow
an illegal order. Then do an amends project
and donate money to me for the damage you
have caused to my good name.

AUDITOR
Should I do an amends for killing the pc too?

SCIENTOLOGY LEADER
Yes, good idea. But, since she is dead I
will be forced to take the donation and hold
it for her until she picks up a new body--so
make that check payable to me also.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I remember the same too

Everybody in my org was in fear of telling a ''verbal data'' that was a crime
So nobody talk to nobody a regular way -

No evaluation
no discussion about the tech
No discussion about the case
no critics
no natter

the only thing allow was to '' quote LRH'' -
AND show it where it was written in the materials

Everybody KR'd everybody for saying verbal tech
and this was the side effect of the ''mayo declare'' and the Rise of the nazi RTC
We were litterally at fear :unsure:

Really,

A nice [STRIKE][STRIKE]BT's[/STRIKE][/STRIKE] Rondroide cluster we were :melodramatic:

Aha, yes. Could the OP be referring to the period just after the "How to Defeat Verbal Tech" and "Verbal Tech: Penalties" issues came out in February 1979?

Paul
 

LongTimeGone

Silver Meritorious Patron
Typos and inaccurate texts are actually covered in Hubbard's Study Tapes. If a sup ignores typos he's just a lousy sup who doesn't know Study Tech well, quite apart from the common-sense factor.

Paul

You've been out too long Paul. :happydance:
Not many course sups have your attitude and common-sense has no place in Scientology; the levels of frustration over this sort of thing are still fresh in my mind.
LTG
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I remember the same too

Everybody in my org was in fear of telling a ''verbal data'' that was a crime
So nobody talk to nobody a regular way -

No evaluation
no discussion about the tech
No discussion about the case
no critics
no natter

the only thing allow was to '' quote LRH'' -
AND show it where it was written in the materials

Everybody KR'd everybody for saying verbal tech
and this was the side effect of the ''mayo declare'' and the Rise of the nazi RTC
We were litterally at fear :unsure:

Really,

A nice [STRIKE][STRIKE]BT's[/STRIKE][/STRIKE] Rondroide cluster we were :melodramatic:

:duh: :duh: :duh: :duh:

WHAT DO YOUR MATERIALS STATE?

I remember talking to another student outside the courseroom at the NY Org in about 1980. We were simply talkign about some cool aspects of "ARC". The Tech Sec walked by, heard us, stopped and YELLED at us in mocked-up ANGER, "Knock off the verbal data". He wrote KRs on us, and we were each sent to ethics. For having a CONVERSATION about things we LIKED about something LRH wrote. The "verbal data" issues were relatively new, and as anyone knows who has been around Scientology, the "newest release" gets added exaggerated "attention".

Communication about anything involving Scientology concepts is highly discouraged outside of a courseroom per checksheet instructions, cramming, auditing, or word clearing.

It all gets slotted into "No Verbal Data".

That is why I think many Scientologists are unable to notice just how DIFFERENTLY each actually conceives of Hubbard, Scientology and the "LRH data". Because, they are forbidden from actually ever discussing it openly and freely with others.

Scientologists internalize the force and demands coming from the world of Scientology "out there", and learn to monitor and correct oneself in alignment with the many varied Scientology "do's and don'ts". Hubbard calls that "being ethical". I call it being an over-manipulated robot.
 
Top