What's new

Former CO of Flag Disses Rathbun in Int'l Business Times Article Comments

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Just a note to educate your file clerk a wee bit. David's wife was/is Harriet. Yes; both very nice people.

Yep...You're right...HARRIET...I'm embarrassed by my error. TKU. Please don't try and "educate" my "file clerk" anymore...Just correct my faulty, fragmented memory without using Scn buzz words. :thumbsup::coolwink:

Face:)
 

DanLocke

Patron with Honors
Yep...You're right...HARRIET...I'm embarrassed by my error. TKU. Please don't try and "educate" my "file clerk" anymore...Just correct my faulty, fragmented memory without using Scn buzz words. :thumbsup::coolwink:

Face:)

Nothing to be embarrassed about at all. You remembered who they are and that brought back good memories for people. I have also forgotten lots of names but remember the people "attached" to them. Ok with me - between you and I, no more Scientologese.

Dan
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Fascinating. Yes, I saw a similar challenge to someone on his public wall about an article in the Atlantic. The funny thing is, that one of these days one of the people that he challenges will read one of these posts and then WILL accept the challenge. Of course, Ron will immediately run to a Flag MAA and say, "I'm ready to do this! And the Flag MAA will go, what the fuck? You idiot, you are in a condition of confusion! But I will let you out of it if you buy 3 sets of basics for your local library!"


LOL

Back in the day, i thought Ron was a fun enough guy. I was paying public. He was the Flag boss. Well, I thought it was all fun and games until one day I had this conversation with him. It's virtually verbatim:


RON NORTON
(spots me and comes right up)
Hey, you're not wearing your hat.

HH
Wutt? What hat?

RON NORTON
Your FCCI hat.
You're not doing what you
are supposed to be doing.

HH
What are you talking about?

RON NORTON
You're an FCCI so your post is
going out there and getting money and
bringing it back here to Flag and giving it to us.


I don't recall what I said before walking away.

He was dead serious.

That's the mindset of a true cool aid drinker. Your job is to go get money for Scientology.

Not for yourself. For Scientology. LOL.

Incredibly stupid.
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Face,

I think you might have missed a chance to offer Ron some down-home advice in you own inimitable style.

So I'll chime in with what I think he needs to hear:

"You best not traipse around that field, son, unless you really
have to . . . you might get some manure on them shiny city boots."


attachment.php


Thanks a whole bunch, IL2k. :thumbsup: Couldn't have said it better me-self.:clap:

Here's what's been bangin' around in me mushed mash of a brain since I read Dan's unexpected and excellent OP...

I was at the FLB and remember when Ron's child was born there in the latter '70's (please correct if I'm wrong Dan, but IIRCC his wife's name was Sue...a dark haired, fair complected, lovely, statuesque and kind young woman).

Ron, our children were in the FLB Nursery together.

I hope that you and your child's mother are doing well but, more--much more--than that, I hope Y'all's child is free of "The Spell" and living a sovereign, happy and unburdened by their parents past "sins" life.


Face:)
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Whoa. Is that little gif really from this video? I haven't actually watched the video because it just sounds pretty annoying. But if she really looks like that in it ... whoa. I see what the noise is about. Whoa.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Ron had a daughter. Blonde girl. She joined and went uplines when she was really young. I want to say she was ten? She worked on the KTL development project for a long time.

Is she still in the Sea Org? Does anyone know?
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
LOL

Back in the day, i thought Ron was a fun enough guy. I was paying public. He was the Flag boss. Well, I thought it was all fun and games until one day I had this conversation with him. It's virtually verbatim:


RON NORTON
(spots me and comes right up)
Hey, you're not wearing your hat.

HH
Wutt? What hat?

RON NORTON
Your FCCI hat.
You're not doing what you
are supposed to be doing.

HH
What are you talking about?

RON NORTON
You're an FCCI so your post is
going out there and getting money and
bringing it back here to Flag and giving it to us.


I don't recall what I said before walking away.

He was dead serious.

That's the mindset of a true cool aid drinker. Your job is to go get money for Scientology.

Not for yourself. For Scientology. LOL.

Incredibly stupid.

Back when I was in the SO at Flag Bureaux, that WAS the attitude, or at least for me and a bunch of fellow SO members. We were busting our butts and working 16 hour days to "clear the planet". The idea that we were there to "service" public so that the public could have their wins and have a wonderful life? Screw that. If a public wasn't working as hard as an SO member (making money for services, being on course, FSMing) then he was a slacker.

I think the reason why SO people were driven so hard, and with so little rest, was precisely because it would have us have no sympathy for public who weren't "gung ho".
 

pkatz

Patron with Honors
I knew Ron Norton long before he was CO FSO. He was in Tech and, IIRCC, was at one time a Cramming Officer. We always got along fine in our brief interactions and I thought he was a fine feller. Now, those interactions were when I was a Senior Flag Exec back then so maybe he was "sucking up"--I dunno.

I was long gone before Norton became CO FSO. Debbie Cook I vaguely remember as someone that was in Tech...Maybe on the TTC. :confused2:

Face:)

Well, there were two Ron Nortons in the SO. The one I knew worked in the Engine Room aboard Excalibur, nice guy, Salt of the Earth, hadn't done much on the SCN Bridge at the time.

I also knew Jan Norton as a new SO recruit in the early 70's. I next ran into her in the early 80's. I had just arrived in CLW, knew no one and was completely ignorant of the upper echelons at FSO, having been away from SCN for nearly ten years. She was a highly-classed HGC auditor who had trained on Apollo under the Commodore.

She told me she married Ron Norton. I was flabbergasted. "Ron Norton the engineer?", I asked.

"Ron Norton the auditor", she replied.
 
Last edited:

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Whoa. Is that little gif really from this video? I haven't actually watched the video because it just sounds pretty annoying. But if she really looks like that in it ... whoa. I see what the noise is about. Whoa.

You need to watch. And yes, it is painful.
 

AnonLover

Patron Meritorious
Direct link to the Ron Norton comment:
http://www.ibtimes.com/top-scientol...9951054348985_889951054348985#f212b411d2880e4

He has now replied to Dan Locke (good job on getting him to engage Dan!)
Dan Locke Yes, I’ve yelled at people. I guess they feel it was for no reason at all. Anyone who has held an executive position anywhere knows that’s unlikely, but ok. And yes, when couples decided to have children I ended their contracts – how could they possibly do a good job of raising their children with the type of dedicated schedule we all had? Do you really think they should stay on staff?
But my real question to you is, do you think Scientology works or not? If not, we have no basis for a discussion as it wouldn’t matter. If you think it does, then who is working to improve the world with it? What are the executives of Scientology doing to improve the world with it? What are the detractors doing to improve the world with it – or for that matter, improve the world with anything?
I’m not trying to get into a pissing match with you or anyone else as I see it just creates a lot of hate. My interest now, as it has always been, is in education and helping people. Scientology does that – from my perspective, as I have personally gained a lot from it. I was trained by L. Ron Hubbard in Daytona in 1976, so I have a first-hand view of him – to say impressive would be an understatement.
It looks silly when I see people who have no first-hand knowledge of Scientology or the Church just repeating back what other people say.
So what I think is that we should all be doing something constructive to help – regardless of what “ism” you follow or if you follow no one.
 

DanLocke

Patron with Honors
My response to Ron:

Ron Norton ,I have had phenomenal wins with Scientology and continue to give wins with it as do many others outside of the Church of Scientology. The current situation is that the management of Scientology has worsened so much that there is very little "white" Scientology conducted within it. You have seen this with your own eyes, over and over again, Ron.


What interested you when you first got in, is there much of that at all anymore? You got involved as someone in the activity cared about you enough to get you signed up for your first service and then stuck with you to make sure that you got your bigger and better wins. Hats off to you and those people for all that.


And you read in your initial study of Scientology, you then read some very interesting management information, perhaps "An Essay on Management" by Ron, and that impressed you as well.


But then you joined staff, and you were puzzled in that you bore witness, over and over again to a darker side of Scientology. A Scientology that is indifferent and even callous towards weakness and lacks so many of the virtues touted in Ron's "Way to Happiness". A Scientology that praises individualism in one breath and then penalizes it and demands conformity and disconnection if you don't conform to it in the next breath. A Scientology that will give you support as long as you go completely with it, or are a celebrity, or have one hell of a lot of bucks, but will then attack you and demean you publicly if you fail to follow orders from angry execs who are fully indoctrinated into unreasonableness towards goals as a virtue more important than understanding others. A Scientology that tells its ethics officers to shoot first and ask questions later. (Even that's a lie - more generally it shoots first and then just keeps shooting and never asks questions.)


Your head is deep in the sand, Ron, but you are a smart enough person I believe, to take it out of the sand and do a REAL "locational" on the world of Scientology, Ron. You'll know how well the management is doing if you LOOK, and don't listen to David or watch those silly videos touting "unprecedented expansion". Your emperor's naked and so is his empire. Stop complimenting him! Take one week off and go to 5 or 6 of the "Ideal Orgs" and see if they match at all the Ideal Orgs that Ron outlined in the policy of the same name. Nice if they did, but it's way too bad that they don't. These orgs are, by and large, empty. Very few people getting trained or audited.


By the fruits of their labor you shall know them. Scientology management sucks in that they are not expanding Scientology, they are killing it. They are harming any good that Scientology could be doing by hurting people and lying to them.


Go read your Scientology emails. There will be one email imploring you to start a service for every ten telling you to donate some money to some completely off policy scheme to spend millions of dollars on some building. You'll see invitations to bake sales, talent shows and casino nights to donate money. "Solve it With Scientology?" Oh sure.


Now do this. Inside you agree with me, I am sure. So now let's decide to do something about it, yes? Look over the Debbie Cook email, Ron. It reads like a cramming order that could have been written by a Rip Van Winkle-Scientologist who fell asleep in 1975 and then woke up in 2010. There is nothing at all wrong in that email and there is 100% right in all that she says.


You'll say how wrong that she was to take that public. She didn't. She "noticed something non-optimum about something and commented on it to others", a COMPLETELY on policy action to do.


What happens if you report this sort of thing to whoever you might imagine is in charge in a Scientology organization? At best, you'll be ignored. At worst you'll be declared suppressive and your friends and family who want to continue to be with the Church will be told to disconnect from you.


You say "It looks silly when I see people who have no first-hand knowledge of Scientology or the Church just repeating back what other people say." I want to tell you something that looks a lot more silly than that… it's when people who DO have first-hand knowledge of Scientology and are aware of its value and who then continue to allow this very corrupt perversion of Scientology to continue without comment even as it degrades and destroys the technology itself. Your Facebook says that you are in PR. I'll bet you are good. Imagine what advice you would give the Church if you could even imagine that someone there would listen. (I know, that's very difficult to imagine.)


Remember, "all the trouble you get into with communication, you can get out of with MORE communication", Ron. In a couple of your public declarations at various sites in support of current Scientology, you have challenged people to public debate. I am surprised no one has taken you up on that, Ron. I'd be happy to engage you. I'd even hope you'd win. There's nothing I'd like better in a debate about Scientology to have it proven to me that it's expanding and treating people well. That's all I have ever wanted to have happen with the subject.
 

Sindy

Crusader
Eventually, some org person is going to tell Ron to disengage. Any open discussion of Scientology only serves to give info to people about how ugly things are.

We'll see. I'd love to engage in a civil conversation with the man.
 

Gib

Crusader
We'll see. I'd love to engage in a civil conversation with the man.

It won't be "civil", it'll turn to attack you. Ad hom it will be which is essentially the PTS/SP tech.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2011/05/26/classical-rhetoric-101-logical-fallacies/

"ad hominem- attacking the person instead of the argument. The goal is to discredit the argument by discrediting the person advocating the argument. Ad hominem attacks are popular in online discussions, especially when tempers flare. “Well, you’re wrong because you’re clearly an idiot!” That sort of blatant insult is easy to spot. Harder to detect are arguments that go something like, “Well, I don’t believe what Politician X has to say about the tax plan because he has said some absolutely crazy things in the past.” It may be true that Politician X has proven himself to be a nut job on a variety of issues, and this may affect his ethos, but it does not logically disprove what he has to say about the tax plan. He might be wrong on everything but this one issue."
 

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
. . .
Re: Ron Norton

In case you're interested in his mindset nowadays, here's Ron Norton's sworn affidavit from 2011.

Be forewarned: this PDF is located on the Lawrence Wright Going Clear COS rebuttal site.

It shouldn't leave any cookies on your computer if you use the link below to grab or look at the PDF.

It doesn't leave a tracking cookie on my machine. I checked.

But I won't totally guarantee it . . . in case you're the high-paranoid type. :nervous:

If you visit the site proper however, it leaves quite a few tracking cookies. I checked.

I guess I'm the high-paranoid type. :nervous: :biggrin:

Direct download link:

http://www.lawrencewrightgoingclear.com/sites/default/files/App11-Ron Norton.pdf

[ Or just go to this later post on the thread where the PDF has been extracted. ]


BTW, nowhere on that rebuttal site do they [currently] attempt to dead agent Steve "Sarge" Pfauth or anything he's ever said.

Which is quite odd, when they've gone through the Larry Wright book and tried to locate and dead agent or defeat every error or mis-statement, no matter how minuscule, meaningless, insignificant, or unimportant.

Nothing on Sarge though, a long-term trusted LRH close friend, unquestioned confidant, final will signatory, and head of LRH security for years and years.
Tells you there's nothing there to rebut looks like. :ohmy:
 
Last edited:

DanLocke

Patron with Honors
. . .
Re: Ron Norton

In case you're interested in his mindset nowadays, here's Ron Norton's sworn affidavit from 2011.

Be forewarned: this PDF is located on the Lawrence Wright Going Clear COS rebuttal site.

It shouldn't leave any cookies on your computer if you use the link below to grab or look at the PDF.

It doesn't leave a tracking cookie on my machine. I checked.

But I won't totally guarantee it . . . in case you're the high-paranoid type. :nervous:

If you visit the site proper however, it leaves quite a few tracking cookies. I checked.

I guess I'm the high-paranoid type. :nervous: :biggrin:

Direct download link:

http://www.lawrencewrightgoingclear.com/sites/default/files/App11-Ron Norton.pdf

BTW, nowhere on that rebuttal site do they [currently] attempt to dead agent Steve "Sarge" Pfauth or anything he's ever said.

Which is quite odd, when they've gone through the Larry Wright book and tried to locate and dead agent or defeat every error or mis-statement, no matter how minuscule, meaningless, insignificant, or unimportant.

Nothing on Sarge though, a long-term trusted LRH close friend, unquestioned confidant, final will signatory, and head of LRH security for years and years.

Tells you there's nothing there to rebut looks like. :ohmy:

The whole thing about Sea Org members beating up other Sea Org members and being mean is a red herring for me and I aim to not focus there. It's part of the whole "tough and unreasonable" thing about SO members and it's ingrained and validated by about a half dozen pls and FOs. I don't think there's ever been too much of it; it's more the verbal stuff similar to what we see in this video and the bait and badger and the ridicule that execs do that grinds on one's soul after years and years of it in one's steady diet.

And that would be the case if David Miscavige was running it or anyone else other than some angel came down from God. It's going to stay that way as that truly was "Ron's brand" of Scientology, no matter how dumb; it's got his imprint.

What I would much rather chat about is the derailing of Scientology by off policy campaigns thare are described so well in the Debbie Cook email. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't even read it. There isn't a trained Scientology administrator on earth that could take issue with that email as it is written with references to hand, point by point. The policies and references that church members use to "dead agent" the Cook email are laughable. Whilst Debbie mentions valid in force policies, the church DA's with little snippets of old ACC lectures that very few people have ever heard or read and that were never intended to have the force of policy.

Ron tells me that he's going to address my responses to him tomorrow. He's already curtly dismissed Sindy as being "confrontational". What's wrong with confrontational? He was being rather confrontational as he was getting off Marty's withholds.
 

Gib

Crusader
The whole thing about Sea Org members beating up other Sea Org members and being mean is a red herring for me and I aim to not focus there. It's part of the whole "tough and unreasonable" thing about SO members and it's ingrained and validated by about a half dozen pls and FOs. I don't think there's ever been too much of it; it's more the verbal stuff similar to what we see in this video and the bait and badger and the ridicule that execs do that grinds on one's soul after years and years of it in one's steady diet.

And that would be the case if David Miscavige was running it or anyone else other than some angel came down from God. It's going to stay that way as that truly was "Ron's brand" of Scientology, no matter how dumb; it's got his imprint.

What I would much rather chat about is the derailing of Scientology by off policy campaigns thare are described so well in the Debbie Cook email. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't even read it. There isn't a trained Scientology administrator on earth that could take issue with that email as it is written with references to hand, point by point. The policies and references that church members use to "dead agent" the Cook email are laughable. Whilst Debbie mentions valid in force policies, the church DA's with little snippets of old ACC lectures that very few people have ever heard or read and that were never intended to have the force of policy.

Ron tells me that he's going to address my responses to him tomorrow. He's already curtly dismissed Sindy as being "confrontational". What's wrong with confrontational? He was being rather confrontational as he was getting off Marty's withholds.

well, you better keep that topic to hand, and do no get side tracked.

Just tr3 the questions, do you believe what Debbie cook said was true or not?
 
Top