Hi again, any info on these folks?

[Crummy]

OK thanks,I am not a tech trained person. I have just noticed in myself and others that we don't tend to have high views of people we have wronged and tend to be critical and demeaning towards them. I see it in myself sometimes.
If I hear a guy saying" My wife is a real loser,and you know what makes me really sick about her,........"
Right away I think " Gee,I'll bet he cheats on her or sees hookers or something"


Thanks for expanding my knowledge on the other possible causes involved here. crummy
But actually I have only personally seen my explanation so that is what's true for me right now.

 

[uncle sam]

To Mr. Crummy

You make me curious as to the moniker that you are employing--pray tell-- please explain....
ps-I like it

 

[Crummy]

What,you don't believe that is my real name?

 

[uncle sam]

Crummy

No I do not believe that is your real name. But- please explain what it means to you and why you chose it.

 

[Carmel]

<snip>
Personally I feel no need to criticize or belittle any scientologist or even LRH. It does seem that a large number of people have experienced improvements in their lives.There also seem to be many who where harmed.

Also I actually believe the theory about overts and MWHs being behind most natter,and complaining etc.and I just don't understand why some others don't see how this works.
<snip>

Hi Crummy, welcome here!

Hey, I believe in the o/w theory too and have seen it in play. However I saw that theory get pretty well "butchered" or twisted and used destructively within the ranks of the CofS, as a means of control/compliance.

I think there's a vast and obvious difference between "natter" (and someone "motivating"), and that of valid criticism. Sometimes a few "belittling" jokes can blow "charge". I agree though that continual carping criticism can be an indicator of something else. I think it foolish to not look at the facts and call something how it is, for one's own benefit and the benefit of others - to label this as "natter" is a big mistake IMO. Doing so has opened the door and aided the CofS in getting away with too many atrocities to name, and has left individuals who are hanging onto a lie in a pretty bad mental state.

I saw many make improvements in their lives through scn (and I was one who did too), however, things kept changing through the '80's, '90's and '00's on the technical front, and it seems that the percentage of people "gaining" through the likes of auditing, got smaller and smaller. One could debate the gain vs loss through scn tech till the cows come home, but I think there's no debate on the harm the CofS can do (and does), using the "tech" to really stuff over their crew, staff and public.

 

[Crummy]

Uncle Sam, I don't know what to say.
Carmel I agree with what you say.
I have very briefly visited other Scn themed sites in the past and what stuck me as odd was the determined,long-term fixation some of the posters had on the negative qualities of LRH,SCN,Orgs,and all scnists in general. I was just struck by the intensity. I thought wow, if some people want to pay the orgs for services great,if you don't,don't and go on with life.
If there was ever anybody on this planet damaged and abused by tech/out-tech and poor treatment more than myself I would be surprised, yet I guess I am lucky in that I feel no need,and I see no potential personal gain in constantly pointing out negatives in others or in the structure of an organization that I have no connection with what-so-ever.-crummy
Edit: I guess I come across as having an attitude but in reallity I realize I am not a very enlightened person and certainly am NOT any kind of smart,period. Basically what I'm saying is I really don't understand some folks, and frankly I'm OK with that. crummy

 

[Free to shine]

Uncle Sam, I don't know what to say.
Carmel I agree with what you say.
I have very briefly visited other Scn themed sites in the past and what stuck me as odd was the determined,long-term fixation some of the posters had on the negative qualities of LRH,SCN,Orgs,and all scnists in general. I was just struck by the intensity. I thought wow, if some people want to pay the orgs for services great,if you don't,don't and go on with life.
If there was ever anybody on this planet damaged and abused by tech/out-tech and poor treatment more than myself I would be surprised, yet I guess I am lucky in that I feel no need,and I see no potential personal gain in constantly pointing out negatives in others or in the structure of an organization that I have no connection with what-so-ever.-crummy
Edit: I guess I come across as having an attitude but in reallity I realize I am not a very enlightened person and certainly am NOT any kind of smart,period. Basically what I'm saying is I really don't understand some folks, and frankly I'm OK with that. crummy

Here's a story for you to read Crummy. And welcome.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=2483

 

[Free to shine]

First of all Crummy, welcome to the list.

Please try to take the following in the spirit it is intended, which is to enlighten yourself with regard to what look to me like very clear misconceptions / false data concerning "natter" and "complaining", etc.

What exactly is your level of auditor training, Crummy?

Every Scientology Auditor who has trained to Level III is taught to use Prepared Lists for correcting various session errors and/or other difficulties that can cause a PC difficulties in auditing. One of the most fundamental and important of these Prepared Lists is the L1C Session ARC-Break List.

If you have access to a Scientology Academy Level III course pack or a set of Technical Bulletins, you can verify how accurate Clearbird's online version is for yourself, but the most important points I wish you to consider are these:

(1) this prepared list is used for handling "nattery" PC's:

"Used by Auditors in session when an upset occurs, or as ordered by C/S. Handles ARC Broken, Sad, hopeless or nattery pc's. Questions can be prefaced with 'Recently' 'In this life' 'On the Whole Track' or used without."

(2) There are 39 possible causes for ARC-Breaks (which might result in a PC being nattery / complaining / upset / whatever) on that list. Only one of them is missed withholds (#2 after #1 Listing Errors)!

(3) #20 is "Has a wrong reason for an upset been given?" and #37 is "Has someone evaluated?", both of which you just personally committed upon a great many persons who read this forum.

What you have just done is seriously and severely Out Tech per Standard Scientology.

You are further in violation of HCO PL PTS Type A Handling wherein Hubbard tells us that the biggest cause for a Type A (family or friends antagonistic to Scientology) situation is some dumbass [my word, not Hubbard's] Scientologist misapplying the tech on the people around him and thereby creating upset.
You should know that many OSA operatives have been specifically trained, in accordance with Hubbard orders, to deliberately misapply the above Tech on C of $ enemies as a form of Black Scientology intended to screw up their cases and cave them in.

I am not accusing you of having done so deliberately, Crummy. But you should know what fire it is you are playing with.

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous

WTF? :confused2:
We are not in an org anymore....
You really think this is a way to welcome a new member?

 

[Zinjifar]

WTF? :confused2:
We are not in an org anymore....
You really think this is a way to welcome a new member?

The Tech is a recursive ser-fac primarily aimed at rationalizing the validity of The Tech. All the rest is just collateral damage.

Zinj

 

[Alanzo]

WTF? :confused2:
We are not in an org anymore....
You really think this is a way to welcome a new member?

I disagree with Sneakster's conclusions about "the fire" he is playing with. But I do appreciate the point he is making.

Through his supporting evidence of the correction list he mentions, he proves that even "The Tech" does not say that the sole cause of natter is overts and withholds on the person or subject you are "nattering" about.

So any time anyone ever rammed your own OWs down your throat for the only reason you were speaking of something derogatorily, know that they were FOS: Even within Scientology's own standards.

Now, the thing to do is find the times that LRH pushed "OW's" as the only cause of natter.

Then you see how manipulative LRH was, and you see that even HE did not believe in Scientology.

 

[Dulloldfart]

If you have access to a Scientology Academy Level III course pack or a set of Technical Bulletins, you can verify how accurate Clearbird's online version is for yourself, but the most important points I wish you to consider are these:

(1) this prepared list is used for handling "nattery" PC's:

"Used by Auditors in session when an upset occurs, or as ordered by C/S. Handles ARC Broken, Sad, hopeless or nattery pc's. Questions can be prefaced with 'Recently' 'In this life' 'On the Whole Track' or used without."

(2) There are 39 possible causes for ARC-Breaks (which might result in a PC being nattery / complaining / upset / whatever) on that list. Only one of them is missed withholds (#2 after #1 Listing Errors)!

Surely the questions in total are designed to cover possible causes for ARCXen, sad, hopeless or nattery pcs? That is different to every single question being a possible cause for a pc being ARCXen, sad, hopeless or nattery.

I recall a whole slew of issues about repeating natter being caused by MWHs, but none about repeating natter stemming from ARCXs (apart from the HCOB about a MWH being behind an ARCX).

(I'm not commenting on the validity of any of this, merely its existence in HCOBs etc.)

Paul

 

[TheSneakster]

The Tech is a recursive ser-fac primarily aimed at rationalizing the validity of The Tech. All the rest is just collateral damage.

Zinj

As if you even knew what a "service facsimile" really means within the scientology theoretical framework, the one that Class IV auditors train on and which processing Grade IV is supposed to address?

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* a scientologist.

 

[TheSneakster]

Please try to take the following in the spirit it is intended, which is to enlighten yourself with regard to what look to me like very clear misconceptions / false data concerning "natter" and "complaining", etc.
I am *not* anonymous

WTF? :confused2:
We are not in an org anymore....
You really think this is a way to welcome a new member?

No, we are not in an org anymore. That is relevant to my post in what way, please ?

When said new member uses incorrect Scientology theory to indirectly accuse pretty much the entire forum membership and critic community of having overts and missed withholds (which happens to be a standard OSA propaganda line with the C of $ membership against the critic community, I might add) -- well I get to respond within the Scientology framework why such a thinly veiled accusation is neither technically correct nor even remotely fair.

Allow me to add this little additional bit from the Scientology framework that I forgot to mention in my original post:

HCOB 2 JAN 1971 Illegal Auditing

"Challenging people out-of-session as 'having withholds' is illegal.

Auditing is done by auditors who are trained and is done on regular
lines. ".

The full text of this HCOB (technical bulletin) appears here posted by Emma herself.

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous.

 

[TheSneakster]

I disagree with Sneakster's conclusions about "the fire" he is playing with. But I do appreciate the point he is making.

Through his supporting evidence of the correction list he mentions, he proves that even "The Tech" does not say that the sole cause of natter is overts and withholds on the person or subject you are "nattering" about.

So any time anyone ever rammed your own OWs down your throat for the only reason you were speaking of something derogatorily, know that they were FOS: Even within Scientology's own standards.

Alanzo, that is more or less my point. Thank You.

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous

 

[Roland ami]

Hi Crummy,

I might have known you. I was around AOLA in the 80's, auditing as public (interene and other things) for the OTb preps elig HGC.

Welcome to the real world!

Roland Aldridge

 

[Lulu Belle]

I might have known you. I was around AOLA in the 80's, auditing as public (interene and other things) for the OTb preps elig HGC.

Does AOLA still have one of those, or does everyone have to do Preps at ASHO now?

Does anyone know?

 

[Challenge]

The trouble with this is that the average Scientologist fails to recognize the difference between "natter" and "protest". I'll give a couple examples from my own experience. One day I reported for work in the Mission, and as I entered the front door to the Reception area I noticed a rather large stain on the carpet. It looked like bloodstain, and was about a foot across and eighteen inches long. I said to the Receptionist, "there is a stain on the carpet that looks like blood". Reception ( who was also a Cl 6) said 'quit nattering about it. I'm not even aware of it."
Another example is when I was on the Cl 8 course at AOLA I reported a student who was taking notes from a CL 8 tape. I told the Sup that Marty was taking notes from the tape. The sup, Joan Seifert, said " what's wrong with that?" I said that the tapes were confidential, and no note-taking was allowed. She said " where does it say that?", and I told her that it says so right on the tape, which it does. A couple days later I found out that she had written me up for nattering about the 8 course.
What the majority of critics are doing on these boards is Protest. We are protesting tha abuses of COS. I'm certain that 'Churchies" are told that we natter, and it's because we have overts and that we are criminals, etc etc.
and otherwise we would not be telling these stories. That's 'shore story'.
There is a fine line between Natter and Protest, and it is one well worth observing.

CHLNG

 

[TheSneakster]

The trouble with this is that the average Scientologist fails to recognize the difference between "natter" and "protest". I'll give a couple examples from my own experience. One day I reported for work in the Mission, and as I entered the front door to the Reception area I noticed a rather large stain on the carpet. It looked like bloodstain, and was about a foot across and eighteen inches long. I said to the Receptionist, "there is a stain on the carpet that looks like blood". Reception ( who was also a Cl 6) said 'quit nattering about it. I'm not even aware of it."
Another example is when I was on the Cl 8 course at AOLA I reported a student who was taking notes from a CL 8 tape. I told the Sup that Marty was taking notes from the tape. The sup, Joan Seifert, said " what's wrong with that?" I said that the tapes were confidential, and no note-taking was allowed. She said " where does it say that?", and I told her that it says so right on the tape, which it does. A couple days later I found out that she had written me up for nattering about the 8 course.
What the majority of critics are doing on these boards is Protest. We are protesting tha abuses of COS. I'm certain that 'Churchies" are told that we natter, and it's because we have overts and that we are criminals, etc etc.
and otherwise we would not be telling these stories. That's 'shore story'.
There is a fine line between Natter and Protest, and it is one well worth observing.

CHLNG

^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Noticing something non-optimum and pointing it out" is one of the earliest, gentlest steps
towards correcting someone or something, per the HCO PL Ethics Review, even. Within the
Scientology organizational framework, it is Policy to do so.

Any and all efforts to apply the steps of Ethics Review on the organization by Scientology staff
or public or non-Scientology public have uniformly met with savage attacks by the organization
against those trying put in Ethics on them (for example, the 1981/1982 Mission Holders disaster).

Whether people in the critic community or amongst the Anons or whom ever have even realized
it or not, they have been applying or attempting to apply most of the actions described in this
particular Hubbard policy upon the organization until Ethics goes in on them.

That may never happen before the organization is completely destroyed/disbanded.

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous

 

[nexus100]

The trouble with this is that the average Scientologist fails to recognize the difference between "natter" and "protest". I'll give a couple examples from my own experience. One day I reported for work in the Mission, and as I entered the front door to the Reception area I noticed a rather large stain on the carpet. It looked like bloodstain, and was about a foot across and eighteen inches long. I said to the Receptionist, "there is a stain on the carpet that looks like blood". Reception ( who was also a Cl 6) said 'quit nattering about it. I'm not even aware of it."
Another example is when I was on the Cl 8 course at AOLA I reported a student who was taking notes from a CL 8 tape. I told the Sup that Marty was taking notes from the tape. The sup, Joan Seifert, said " what's wrong with that?" I said that the tapes were confidential, and no note-taking was allowed. She said " where does it say that?", and I told her that it says so right on the tape, which it does. A couple days later I found out that she had written me up for nattering about the 8 course.
What the majority of critics are doing on these boards is Protest. We are protesting tha abuses of COS. I'm certain that 'Churchies" are told that we natter, and it's because we have overts and that we are criminals, etc etc.
and otherwise we would not be telling these stories. That's 'shore story'.
There is a fine line between Natter and Protest, and it is one well worth observing.

CHLNG

So what is the line? What does it consist of?

 

[Zinjifar]

As if you even knew what a "service facsimile" really means within the scientology theoretical framework, the one that Class IV auditors train on and which processing Grade IV is supposed to address?

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* a scientologist.

Maybe I *do* know what it is because I *didn't* 'train on it'

That's my 'theoretical framework'

Zinj