Looking For Jim Auger

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
He was a true friend, and I'm hoping to find a way to contact him. Some here may have known him or know him now. He was Staff Staff Auditor for Boston Day Org in 1990.

Thanks.
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Still looking for Jim Auger, but I'd like to add a request if anyone has present information on David Aden, Graham Parker, Shane O'Donohoe, Brian Oulighan or Mark Boucher. That's about it on the people I worked with at Boston Day in 1989-1990. Last word I had on Graham was that he was ED Boston Day, last word on Aden was that he was OSA PR, but I'm not sure how recently he held that post.

Gracias! Even if you don't want to put them in touch, tell a little story about them! I miss those guys, they were all good to me.
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
I can't find any contact info. I'll bet he left the Church. He had a backbone, and did what he thought was right, whatever "ethics" said. When I was declared, he used to come and have lunch with me sometimes, and say things like "As far as I know, this is still a free country, and I don't think you're suppressive." Blew me away. I figure with that sort of philosophy, he's out.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I can't find any contact info. I'll bet he left the Church. He had a backbone, and did what he thought was right, whatever "ethics" said. When I was declared, he used to come and have lunch with me sometimes, and say things like "As far as I know, this is still a free country, and I don't think you're suppressive." Blew me away. I figure with that sort of philosophy, he's out.

So, it's a free country, but, he still believed in 'suppressives'. What do you suppose his position would be on civil liberties for Suppressives? Something like Ron's?

Zinj
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Whatever his position is, I'm sure it's HIS. He might agree with Ron on many things (or he might not, these days, I don't know), but he obviously didn't believe that my spurious declare order held any merit. He knew me better. I believe in "suppressives", in terms of people who commit crimes because they know of no better way to survive, or are crazy, etc. I don't believe that people who are opposed to the Church of Scientology are Suppressives, or that "psychs" are, or that such people are stuck in incidents millions of years "down the track". But there are such things as pathological liars, sociopaths, etc., and that's how I think of Suppressives.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Right. Just because someone believes that it is possible for another person to be a suppressive, does not mean that the person believes civil rights would not apply. You've already demonstrated that Jim Auger was prone to thinking outside the box and didn't agree with Hubbard or the church on all this stuff.

It's just like there are people who believe there are such things as sociopaths and their views on the sorts of rights such people would have vary greatly.
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
The glaring examples are the violent criminals and the thieves (blue or white collar), but included are those who violate or conspire to violate human rights. Some scientologists would fall into that category, those who agree with the idea of "disposing them quietly and without sorrow". Others may have seen that phrase, but not taken it to mean killing people or even imprisoning them or denying them any rights, instead simply moving them out of your space. I don't give Hubbard that much liberty, I think he did mean the worst form of disposal, at least at times. R2-45: was it a joke? I don't think so. (R2-45, for those who don't know: R stands for routine to clear someone, 2 is the second route mapped out, and the 45, to my knowledge, stands for using a .45 caliber weapon to remove someone from entanglement with their body/mind)

I have the right to consider someone "suppressive", just as a Christian has a right to view someone as "evil". I don't, actually, use that term, but that's another story: I have the right to. This doesn't mean I would deny them any rights. It does mean that I would be on my guard when dealing with them, and only deal with them when I had to.

For instance, I have an ex-girlfriend who I would say was "PTS", or in my own terminology, overwhelmed, completely out-of-control of her life. Her state is so troubled that when she's around me, she makes me late for work, she misses appointments with me (I still try to help her, as she's now homeless after a long series of self-sabotaging incidents which she failed to avoid, even after many times acknowledging to me that she knew she had a problem, that she knew she needed help, etc., she just wouldn't stop), can't keep a job. Originally, perhaps, this was through no fault of her own, I don't know, but at this point, she is consciously staying connected to people who dose her on heavy duty drugs at "parties", and even is connected to prostitutes (not Emperor's Club girls, either). At times in the past, I offered her a place to stay, but I can't run the risk she might steal my things, invite over people who would, etc.

So, I DISPOSED of her. I didn't kill her, Zinj! I didn't deny her any rights, other than the PRIVELEGE of staying with me, in my home. I told her I'd be happy to help her fly back to her family (pride stops her, she'd rather be homeless and risk rape/degradation), put her through college or other job retraining so that she has credentials, but to no avail.

How would you handle it, Zinj?

How would it be different from the way I disposed of the situation? Of course, in my situation, I can't say I didn't do it without sorrow: I have human empathy.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
The glaring examples are the violent criminals and the thieves (blue or white collar), but included are those who violate or conspire to violate human rights. Some scientologists would fall into that category, those who agree with the idea of "disposing them quietly and without sorrow". Others may have seen that phrase, but not taken it to mean killing people or even imprisoning them or denying them any rights, instead simply moving them out of your space. I don't give Hubbard that much liberty, I think he did mean the worst form of disposal, at least at times. R2-45: was it a joke? I don't think so. (R2-45, for those who don't know: R stands for routine to clear someone, 2 is the second route mapped out, and the 45, to my knowledge, stands for using a .45 caliber weapon to remove someone from entanglement with their body/mind)

I have the right to consider someone "suppressive", just as a Christian has a right to view someone as "evil". I don't, actually, use that term, but that's another story: I have the right to. This doesn't mean I would deny them any rights. It does mean that I would be on my guard when dealing with them, and only deal with them when I had to.

For instance, I have an ex-girlfriend who I would say was "PTS", or in my own terminology, overwhelmed, completely out-of-control of her life. Her state is so troubled that when she's around me, she makes me late for work, she misses appointments with me (I still try to help her, as she's now homeless after a long series of self-sabotaging incidents which she failed to avoid, even after many times acknowledging to me that she knew she had a problem, that she knew she needed help, etc., she just wouldn't stop), can't keep a job. Originally, perhaps, this was through no fault of her own, I don't know, but at this point, she is consciously staying connected to people who dose her on heavy duty drugs at "parties", and even is connected to prostitutes (not Emperor's Club girls, either). At times in the past, I offered her a place to stay, but I can't run the risk she might steal my things, invite over people who would, etc.

So, I DISPOSED of her. I didn't kill her, Zinj! I didn't deny her any rights, other than the PRIVELEGE of staying with me, in my home. I told her I'd be happy to help her fly back to her family (pride stops her, she'd rather be homeless and risk rape/degradation), put her through college or other job retraining so that she has credentials, but to no avail.

How would you handle it, Zinj?

How would it be different from the way I disposed of the situation? Of course, in my situation, I can't say I didn't do it without sorrow: I have human empathy.

Hubbard invented a whole *category* of people he called 'Suppressives'. It was an absolute category; it was permanent. It had attributes, but, once you had identified the subject as a 'Suppressive', you knew with certainty that the *other* attributes were also present. Like knowing that a 'guitarist' will have finger callouses. A 'Suppressive' will have bad breath.

Ron said so.

It's one of Ron's 'absolute' categories; like 'Clear'.

Lots of Hubbardites like to water down Ron's 'categories', because, experience says that there are no more 'absolute' Suppressives than there are 'absolute' Clears.

Which defeats the entire purpose of the category. Yet, because Ron invented it, it *must* mean something. So, the practicing or lapsed Hubbardite 'dubs in' his own meaning for the category; as long as the category and 'label' are allowed to stand.

Because Ron said so.

Your friend rejected the 'Church' declaration of you. Why? Because he knew that the description of you was false. He thought you were treated badly; why? Because, as far as *he* was concerned, you were 'not suppressive'.

The corollary is that, if you *are* suppressive, then the rest of the Suppressive Person Doctrine would be applicable.

Not because there is no such thing as a 'Suppressive Person'; because, after all, Ron said there were, and gave very detailed descriptions of them. And, recommended that they have no civil liberties and that one could do *anything* to such a person, without compunction.

So, your friend didn't reject the treatement of 'Suppressives' as mandated by Ron; here merely decided, on his own, and in contradiction of 'Scientology Ethics' that you weren't one.

But; had you been one, well then... whatever's right.

There are no 'Suppressives'. In our society, people have rights and guilt and conviction and punishment are handled on the basis of *those* rights; not on the basis of Ron's 'PTS/SP Rundown' and related 'Ethics' issues.

There are no 'Suppressives'. There are any number of objectionable and offensive personal traits which include those Ron threw into his 'Suppressive Person' shoebox, but, they are not *absolute* and, having bad breath does *not* imply or even suggest that the *other* 'suppressive traits' are also present.

God; Hubbardites are so in love with Ron's labels that they'll hang on to them long after the sweater is shredded.

Zinj
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
I use the term about as much as you, Zinj. Does that make you a Hubbardite? I think it does. I made it plain that I don't use that term, I think in other terms, and I'll state that I take each person as an individual. Sometimes I decide a person is a dangerous nut. I feel just fine about calling that a suppressive. You don't have to like it.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
I use the term about as much as you, Zinj. Does that make you a Hubbardite? I think it does. I made it plain that I don't use that term, I think in other terms, and I'll state that I take each person as an individual. Sometimes I decide a person is a dangerous nut. I feel just fine about calling that a suppressive. You don't have to like it.

Ron not only invented a 'category' of 'Suppressives', but a prescription for how society *should* handle them. That prescription has nothing to do with civil liberties, rule of law or anything other than Ron's own magical jujoo 'knowing how to know' of spotting the suppressive.

Your friend ignored the 'Scientology Ethics', not because he rejected the concept of 'Suppressives', but, because he himself had determined that you were *not* one.

Nothing about objecting to the category itself, or Ron's (and His 'Church's') suggested handling for 'Suppressives'.

Wrong for *you*, but still fine as a principle.

As for the rest of your argument; I may 'use' the term 'Suppressive' sometimes, in discussing Scientology's insane taxonomy and theories, but, what you're suggesting is that by 'saying' Suppressive Person, I'm doing the same as someone who actually *believes* in the concept.

Pretty lame.

Zinj
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Actually, you have no idea what Jim believed or didn't believe. You're just asserting your own view of scientologists as though it applied to all of them. As usual, in order to be right, you're being wrong.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Actually, you have no idea what Jim believed or didn't believe. You're just asserting your own view of scientologists as though it applied to all of them. As usual, in order to be right, you're being wrong.

:shrug: The only thing I know about Jim Auger is what you told me about him. The only thing I know about his thoughts is what you told me about them.

Zinj
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, and what I said was that he didn't consider me to be a Suppressive Person, no matter what the piece of paper said, and he wouldn't follow the guidance about not being connected to me, despite the authority of the organization for which he worked contravening his will. I respect that. You consider it lame. That's the difference, I think.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Right. Hubbard's views about SPs are not that different from the textbook explanations of sociopaths.

Also, Hubbard said he meant quarantine people when he said "dispose of quietly and without sorrow". I hasten to add that I don't believe in that, but it's different from saying Hubbard meant to murder them.
 
Top