Marty Says Scientology Was Once Tolerant?

Terril park

Sponsor
Div6 is correct here.

Scn and being on staff in the '50's and up until '68 was a blast of fun.

We could use personal judgment in the application of tech during that period. I did verbal introductory lectures three nights a week in London Org getting 40 people to attend each night. And had the fun of dealing with them eyeball to eyeball and making friends!

My live into lectures were such fun and so popular word got out to the SHSBC students who used to come up from EG to London to sit in and learn what the hell all the fun and wins were about! Fancy that! A winning scene! :duh:

I also ran the weekend Comm Course and often took over a coaching scenario to give my individual students huge wins . . . fancy that! The sup actually doing the drill with a student to coach to a win :duh:

Then "standard tech" came out, the intro lecture format of dealing with people eyeball to eyeball was killed and in its place was put an LRH video/lecture. (Yawn!!!!) And Comm Courses became a muzzled exercise in boredom :nervous:

Hell, staff in Melbourne and in London earned and were actually paid a living wage! Fancy that!:duh: We co-audited and advanced our cases . . . fancy that! :omg: We helped people and each other! My God . . . try that in orgs now :nervous: Try making a judgment call and using any initiative now :omg: (Only if you want a dose of punishment for it:grouch:)

We actually did the right thing by people . . . it wasn't all about the $$$ stats for Thursday. And because we did the right thing by folks, we had an abundance of traffic demanding service that made us viable.

In the old days we used to come up with all kinds of initiatives to get things going and/or handling scenarios as long as they were in alignment of correct tech or good sense.

And regardless of what some who were never there nor involved or otherwise benefiting from any personal experience of those times and events say, those were the good old days!

Rog

Even later, years after I did the FSM course under you, we'd hang out at Tottenham court road just for fun.

Still do, but on the other side of the street so's to speak.

Whnat comes around goes around, or whatever.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Div6 is correct here.

Scn and being on staff in the '50's and up until '68 was a blast of fun.

We could use personal judgment in the application of tech during that period.

-snip-

And regardless of what some who were never there nor involved or otherwise benefiting from any personal experience of those times and events say, those were the good old days!

Rog

If one was "with the program," it could be fun.

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/Life/11-1968/scientology/med_scientology_00.jpg

From the 1955 'Manual on Dissemination of Material':

"...the communication line [to the non-Scientology public] is that Scientologists do not pose any threat, that Scientologists are good citizens, and that they can be trusted with problems of a private and confidential nature... another frame of mind that we would like to see the public have and register is that people attacking Scientologists [such as 2nd wife, alleged Russian spy Sara Komkovadamanov, "Communist" 'Book One' publisher Ceppos, or "AMA owned oil man" Don Purcell] have something wrong with them... [Note: Criticism was regarded as "attack," even then.]

"No Scientologist should ever consent to take a position on a panel or public stage engaging in debate of Scientology with some other subject. This is an entirely unclear communication line... Any such debate engaged upon demeaned or degraded Scientology by permitting it to be talked about contemptuously before a group - a thing which SHOULD NEVER BE PERMITTED [Capitalization in original]...

"NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO, yourself, much MORE CHARGING, and you will WIN..."

And, from the same 1955, 'Manual on Dissemination':

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.

"The law can be used very easily to harass... If possible of course, ruin him utterly."

Metered 'Security Checking' began around 1960, one 'Security Check' question was, "Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about LRH?"

And from an 'HCOPL' of 15 August 1960:

"If attacked [including 'criticism' or 'squirrelling'] on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture [sic] enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace... bring into a state of complete compliance... This is done by high level ability to control and in its absence by low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert..."

The following is a message from Ron from 1965, and concerns "Squirrels."

"Treatment - They are each Fair Game, can be sued or harassed... harass these persons in any possible way":

http://suppressiveperson.org/spdl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=290&Itemid=30

Also from 1965:

"Such Suppressive acts include public disavowal of Scientology... public statements against Scientology."

And from 1966:

"Investigate noisily the attackers... You find out where he or she works or worked, doctor, dentist, friends, neighbors, anyone and phone 'em up and say, 'I'm investigating Mr./Mrs._____ for criminal activities'. You say now and then, 'I already have some astounding facts', etc. etc. (Use a generality) - It doesn't matter if you don't get much info. Just be NOISY."

Well, you get the idea.
 

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
Putting someone on one's ignore list says a lot more about the ignorer than the ignored.


To a degree it is similar to disconnection... and to that degree... it exhibits an ineptitude of intelligence, not to mention intolerance (mainly of that side of themselves that they MUST KEEP SUPPRESSED!

If someone feels that it is necessary... then why not just do it... why the public notice of intent? ..... pure immature, adolesent unwillingness to confront what one is trying to 'squash'.... and what they are trying to squash is THEIR OWN THOUGHTS.

You may now put me on your ignore list. :)

And you may certainly waste your time on idiocies if you wish.

You may even wish to support and give life to idiocies.

It is not my choice.:)

R

See Rog,

This is why is not a good idea to trust anyone who has a pro sci mentality...

They only see what they want to see.

Flash may well be a troll... Ok... now what? Big fucking deal!!

So easy to say 'hey dude.. you're trolling... I'm a watching... and enjoying your handy work. Keep it up... I'm learning a lot!'

Using the ignore option... sure it's part of the board. But it's use is for the person who cannot deal with another's comments.... NOT as a tool to public decry someone. There's a big difference. Yet either choice is in my majestic opinion... a cop out. Not that I'd label one who does so as incompetent... it's my rules that I follow and offer from time to time if any have any interest.

This board is far more able to handle the ramblings of any type than may be recognized. That's it's maturity and intelligence.

Of course, each of us is wherever we are at... at this time.

No need to publicly display one's need to disconnect as a put down to the other that oneself cannot deal with. Really... that is none other than childish.
 

Royal Prince Xenu

Trust the Psi Corps.
Putting someone on one's ignore list says a lot more about the ignorer than the ignored.


To a degree it is similar to disconnection... and to that degree... it exhibits an ineptitude of intelligence, not to mention intolerance (mainly of that side of themselves that they MUST KEEP SUPPRESSED!

If someone feels that it is necessary... then why not just do it... why the public notice of intent? ..... pure immature, adolesent unwillingness to confront what one is trying to 'squash'.... and what they are trying to squash is THEIR OWN THOUGHTS.

You may now put me on your ignore list. :)

I agree. I haven't "ignored" anyone on this board.

KV, if one has determined that a poster here is a troll then putting him onto your ignore list would align with Forum Rule#8 (Don't feed the trolls"), would it not? And then saying something about it could alert others to the fact that someone is trolling.

If you really suspect someone is trolling, report a post and one of the moderators will scan that person's posts and decide whether to leave alone or ban.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Pardon Me My Dears . . .

Pardon me my Dears,

But I see you falsely accusing me of labeling or accusing another to be a "troll." If you are real and honest, you should know I have not used that word or sentiment at all :no:

RogerB
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I agree. I haven't "ignored" anyone on this board.



If you really suspect someone is trolling, report a post and one of the moderators will scan that person's posts and decide whether to leave alone or ban.

I disagree. People have the right to killfile or put others on ignore. Otherwise, no offense, but by your logic, spam filters/files would be inadvisable.
 

Veda

Sponsor
If one was "with the program," it could be fun.

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/Life/11-1968/scientology/med_scientology_00.jpg

From the 1955 'Manual on Dissemination of Material':

"...the communication line [to the non-Scientology public] is that Scientologists do not pose any threat, that Scientologists are good citizens, and that they can be trusted with problems of a private and confidential nature... another frame of mind that we would like to see the public have and register is that people attacking Scientologists [such as 2nd wife, alleged Russian spy Sara Komkovadamanov, "Communist" 'Book One' publisher Ceppos, or "AMA owned oil man" Don Purcell] have something wrong with them... [Note: Criticism was regarded as "attack," even then.]

"No Scientologist should ever consent to take a position on a panel or public stage engaging in debate of Scientology with some other subject. This is an entirely unclear communication line... Any such debate engaged upon demeaned or degraded Scientology by permitting it to be talked about contemptuously before a group - a thing which SHOULD NEVER BE PERMITTED [Capitalization in original]...

"NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO, yourself, much MORE CHARGING, and you will WIN..."

And, from the same 1955, 'Manual on Dissemination':

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.

"The law can be used very easily to harass... If possible of course, ruin him utterly."

Metered 'Security Checking' began around 1960, one 'Security Check' question was:

"Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about LRH?"

And from an 'HCOPL' of 15 August 1960:

"If attacked [including 'criticism' or 'squirrelling'] on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture [sic] enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace... bring into a state of complete compliance... This is done by high level ability to control and in its absence by low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert..."

The following is a message from Ron from 1965, and concerns "Squirrels."

"Treatment - They are each Fair Game, can be sued or harassed... harass these persons in any possible way":

http://suppressiveperson.org/spdl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=290&Itemid=30

Also from 1965:

"Such Suppressive acts include public disavowal of Scientology... public statements against Scientology."

And from 1966:

"Investigate noisily the attackers... You find out where he or she works or worked, doctor, dentist, friends, neighbors, anyone and phone 'em up and say, 'I'm investigating Mr./Mrs._____ for criminal activities'. You say now and then, 'I already have some astounding facts', etc. etc. (Use a generality) - It doesn't matter if you don't get much info. Just be NOISY."

Well, you get the idea.

Pardon me my Dears,

But I see you falsely accusing me of labeling or accusing another to be a "troll." If you are real and honest, you should know I have not used that word or sentiment at all :no:

RogerB

Just curious. Roger, can you see this post?
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
Marty may be even more dishonest than L. Ron Hubbard.

A poster asked him if there was anything at all written by Elron that Marty thought could be modified. It was a carefully written post.

Quote:
Glibby // November 12, 2009 at 10:46 pm | Reply

"Marty, you describe two groups that you see as being the opposite extremes: DM on one side, and the Scientology haters on the other.

Maybe there’s a third extreme group, and that would be those who won’t point at one single thing about Scientology that LRH wrote that should be done away with because it’s just wrong.

Is there Anything that came from LRH’s lips or pen that you think has no place in a religion, because it results in people being harmed? Are those words too strong? To put it more gently, is there anything that should at least be modified?

I am not a hater or a book burner. I’m just a wog who wonders about things like believing in “homo novis” which sounds like racism or elitism to me, or disconnection, or declaring people SP, or even writing KR’s or sec checks, which to me should never happen. You could argue that there are people who are evil and need to be disconnected from, but really? How often in life do you come across such people? I have known maybe 1-2 in my 50+ years.

So, I know I am a guest here, and appreciate that I may be interfering, but I want to ask, because I have read your interviews in the SP Times, and I have watched your interviews, and read a lot of this blog, but as far as I can tell you haven’t addressed if there is anything about the tech or LRH’s writings that you would change.

If there is, maybe you think it’s there between the lines, but I don’t think so, and I am curious to know. And it would be great if you could be specific, not just, “Oh there are a few things here and there.”

If you can’t think of anything concrete, then that’s the answer. I am not going to judge, but I think some people would like to know. Thanks in advance."


Marty's reply:

martyrathbun09 // November 13, 2009 at 3:44 am | Reply

"He wrote what he wrote, and one can apply what one chooses. I am no position to edit or revise his work any more than he or the church have any business editing, revising or deleting what I write."

This as amazing. To me, this treatment of the question, which was so well written, so polite, and also such an important question in the circumstances, shows total contempt for anyone wanting to really deal with whatever might be wrong in scientology.

Even if there were no other issues about Marty, this alone is enough to show that he is a supporter, and protector of all the evil that is done by scientology, the source of which is L.Ron Hubbard.

Abuses of scientology and scientologists are being hidden by Marty, not exposed, not even criticised, or even discussed.
His only Target is DM.

Just give it time, db, and soon there will be "independent declares" on goldenrod and all that.
 
Top