ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
I don't know. Is this more fuel on the fire? If yes, then I'm adding to it. :happydance:

Dan Koon restated and posted this today:
dankoon
2012-07-10 at 07:04
G-man, as for the sci-fi aspect, you may or may not know that LRH wanted David Mayo to pilot sending Clears right onto NOTs, skipping OT III, but Miscavige got Mayo shitcanned before he had a chance to do the pilot. And, yes, isn’t that great news about Mark Shreffler!
Here: http://isene.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/my-current-stance-on-scientology/

A couple of good comments on that page.

I'm as curious as the next person about all this, I guess. :yes:

ILove2Lurk
 

Veda

Sponsor
I don't know. Is this more fuel on the fire? If yes, then I'm adding to it. :happydance:

Dan Koon restated and posted this today:
dankoon
2012-07-10 at 07:04
G-man, as for the sci-fi aspect, you may or may not know that LRH wanted David Mayo to pilot sending Clears right onto NOTs, skipping OT III, but Miscavige got Mayo shitcanned before he had a chance to do the pilot. And, yes, isn’t that great news about Mark Shreffler!
Here: http://isene.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/my-current-stance-on-scientology/

A couple of good comments on that page.

I'm as curious as the next person about all this, I guess. :yes:

ILove2Lurk

This has already been addressed. Marty and Dan Koon are misrepresenting. The worst part is that David Mayo cannot say anything.

Does Marty skip OT 2 and OT 3?

Answer: No.

The question is, "Why not?"

My understanding is that David Mayo, apparently, wanted a pilot. Hubbard had nothing to do with it and, when he found out about it, nixed it.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I do not approve of putting "Marty" as a prefix on compound words. The reason for this is that when I read it really fast it looks like "Martyrworld"... :coolwink::dieslaughing:
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
This has already been addressed. Marty and Dan Koon are misrepresenting. The worst part is that David Mayo cannot say anything.

Does Marty skip OT 2 and OT 3?

Answer: No.

The question is, "Why not?"

I sure would! Lol I'd reject every single aspect that wasn't "mine". But I'd be a total squirrel if I did that.

I won't be doing that though. I have moved on from Scientology. I'd rather just meditate! :)
 

Veda

Sponsor
This has already been addressed. Marty and Dan Koon are misrepresenting. The worst part is that David Mayo cannot say anything.

Does Marty skip OT 3?

Answer: No.

The question is, "Why not?"

My understanding is that David Mayo, apparently, wanted a pilot. Hubbard had nothing to do with it and, when he found out about it, nixed it.

Typo correction re. "Why not skip OT 3?"

PS. But why not skip OT 2 also?

It's as crazy, and as sci fi as OT 3.
 

Veda

Sponsor
"...Close to a hundred former members of the Church of Scientology have sojourned to our home to resolve their Scientology experiences. The vast majority leave still considering themselves Scientologists, and better ones than they were when they arrived. A smaller part of that majority continue on with their pursuit of higher levels of Scientology counseling and studies...."

Marty Rathbun, from 'What's Wrong with Scientology?'


LRH.jpg


"Every individual person has their own comm line to LRH. And certain things have happened in the Church over a number of years that have gotten in between that comm line... ARC broken... whatever it is, that serves to cut across your comm line with LRH...

"Whatever is going to facilitate your own comm line with LRH is going to be the most pro-survival thing for you..."

Dan Koon, editor for 'What's Wrong with Scientology?'


As far as I can see, this book is not having any sort of significant influence on either "wogs," or on ex-Scientologists, or on Scientologists.

Until someone such as Tony Ortega or Mark Bunker, or Ursula Caberta, start praising it, I'll think I'll let it do a slow "fizz" into oblivion.

I'm sorry that some poeple have been - to varying degrees - "handled" by the book, but they are few and, short of some news, I think the subject has been covered (on this and other threads) as much as I care to cover it.
 

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
My understanding is that David Mayo, apparently, wanted a pilot. Hubbard had nothing to do with it and, when he found out about it, nixed it.

Veda,

I know you have a bit more "insider information" than I do. Would you mind looking at this quote from the article "David Mayo on the Origin of NOTs," which is about the period when Hubbard was then handing over the technical hat to Mayo for good. Seems that it was gonna be Mayo's hat to come up with pilots to try out from that point forward. :confused2:

I've always been puzzled by this part of the Mayo story. It certainly presents a different side to the final act of the drama. (Have you ever seen the rest of this letter? What's on the website is apparently only an excerpt, so it says.)
"From 1979/1980 forward into 1982, I began to develop and release new technical procedures and began a long term project of `studying and researching, reviewing and correcting and possibly replacing the existing levels and developing new ones,' (a near paraphrase of how Hubbard described my work in a memo he wrote on or about April 14, 1982, in which he outlined what he expected me to continue to do in the event of his death). Until that time and even for a few months after, Hubbard thought highly of my work, frequently commended me and considered me to be his replacement for `technical' (i.e., relating to auditing techniques) matters. He went further in that memo, to say that it would be up to me to develop OT VIII (which contrary to PR statements, did not exist at that time) and subsequent levels. I was rather dismayed by this news as I had really been expecting him to do that; I wondered, if he as `The Founder' of the subject had not managed to develop these OT levels and the OT powers he had claimed for them, how could he expect me to able to fulfil his obligation --he had just tossed me the ultimate Hot Potato!"

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs/origins/mayo-history.html

Thanks, Veda! :yes:

ILove2Lurk
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
<snip>

Sorry, that doesn't work, for the reasons given below:



Paul

I'm not sure what "doesn't work" for you, Paul. While Hubbard was alive, what were "standard" were the latest releases, the latest rundowns, the latest grade chart. Standard tech was a changing picture as long as Hubbard was experimenting on us. He never stopped his "research." "Standard tech," for reasonably practical purposes, however, stopped when he stopped producing it. If it wasn't that way, you get an absurdity in which "standard tech" in Scientology is whatever Hubbard did not produce.

The "Basic Books" contain Hubbard's foundational theories as he synthesized them from many sources, such as Robert A. Heinlein, Joseph A, Winter, John W. Campbell Jr., A. E. van Vogt, Alfred Korzybski, Aleister Crowley, Snake Thompson, Freud, Julia Flavia, Jim Beam.

Procedurally, the Standard Tech rule was very simple. Where Hubbard's technical instructions come into conflict because of new standards, the answer is to apply the later instructions. Persisting with an earlier standard would be squirreling.

You would know that Sea Org auditors had to keep our "High Crimes" in PT, which meant that we had to keep up with Hubbard's technical bulletins. From KSW Series 11 Executive Responsibility for Technical Excellence:

Hubbard said:
Technical excellence is not just the concern of technical personnel. Administrators and executives alike in all orgs and internationally are responsible for seeing that Scientology is kept working.

Having crashing misunderstood words or no technical training does not excuse any lack of responsibility for ensuring the quality of the technology and may not be used as a justification in any Committee of Evidence that results from out-tech having been found in an area.

HOW TO ENSURE TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE

Whether trained or not, there are many ways in which incorrect application can be detected. Here are just a few ways it can be done, and this is by no means a complete list:

1. Stamp out all instances of verbal tech.

Ref: HCOB 9 Feb. 79 HOW TO DEFEAT VERBAL TECH
HCOB 15 Feb. 79 VERBAL TECH: PENALTIES​

2. Make sure you have an established and efficient Qualifications Division.
Ref: HCO PL 31 July 65 PURPOSES OF THE QUALIFICATIONS DIVISION​

3. Ensure that high-crime checkouts are done and that the log is kept in PT for inspection by the executives.

Ref: HCO PL 8 Mar. 66 HIGH CRIME​
[...]

Hubbard, L. R. (1980 25 January). HCO PL Executive Responsibility for Technical Excellence. Organization Executive Course Technical Division 4 (1991 ed., pp. 33-4). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

The progress of "Standard Tech" followed Hubbard's ongoing research, which required that technical personnel keep up with the bulletins he kept pumping out.

Hubbard's technical bulletins, policy letters, FO's, lectures, etc., came down from Hubbard through his technical hierarchy. Revisions to his material were "assisted by LRH Technical Research and Compilations." According to Rathbun, Dan Koon spent "thirteen years as a senior researcher and writer for the L. Ron Hubbard Technical Compilations Unit." Dan Koon and the rest of the tech hierarchy know what standard tech is, and it's ridiculous to argue otherwise. Lying of course is both senior to standard tech and is standard tech.

People who wanted to apply earlier renditions of standard tech or who wanted to experiment in other ways, were deemed squirrels and excommunicated. Or they just blew. That's been true since the first splinter group.

Because the tech, "standard" or not, is pseudo science and does not work as claimed in any environment or time, and never has, we're really talking about the progress of an illusion.

But I absolutely knew on the inside what Standard Tech meant. And it is virtually impossible that members of Scientology's tech hierarchy didn't and don't know what Standard Tech means.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Veda,

I know you have a bit more "insider information" than I do. Would you mind looking at this quote from the article "David Mayo on the Origin of NOTs," which is about the period when Hubbard was then handing over the technical hat to Mayo for good. Seems that it was gonna be Mayo's hat to come up with pilots to try out from that point forward. :confused2:

I've always been puzzled by this part of the Mayo story. It certainly presents a different side to the final act of the drama. (Have you ever seen the rest of this letter? What's on the website is apparently only an excerpt, so it says.)
"From 1979/1980 forward into 1982, I began to develop and release new technical procedures and began a long term project of `studying and researching, reviewing and correcting and possibly replacing the existing levels and developing new ones,' (a near paraphrase of how Hubbard described my work in a memo he wrote on or about April 14, 1982, in which he outlined what he expected me to continue to do in the event of his death). Until that time and even for a few months after, Hubbard thought highly of my work, frequently commended me and considered me to be his replacement for `technical' (i.e., relating to auditing techniques) matters. He went further in that memo, to say that it would be up to me to develop OT VIII (which contrary to PR statements, did not exist at that time) and subsequent levels. I was rather dismayed by this news as I had really been expecting him to do that; I wondered, if he as `The Founder' of the subject had not managed to develop these OT levels and the OT powers he had claimed for them, how could he expect me to able to fulfil his obligation --he had just tossed me the ultimate Hot Potato!"

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs/origins/mayo-history.html

Thanks, Veda! :yes:

ILove2Lurk

This has to do, mainly, with what became new OT 4, new OT 5, new OT 6, and New OT 7.

It was also during this time that David Mayo wrote 'The Harmonics of Clear' HCOB, which resulted in Hubbard "blowing up" - being angrily displeased. It would be years until David Mayo would be able to face the truth which was that "PR and marketing considerations" motivated Hubbard to re-define "Clear" downward, and make other "technical" announcements re. "Clear."

For a time, after leaving Scientology, there was an "OT 8" at David Mayo's break-away center, developed by David Mayo, but it was eventually withdrawn.

I wish David Mayo were able to speak on his own behalf. All I can tell you is that Marty Rathbun and Dan Koon are misrepresenting what occurred.

Throughout Scientology's history, when Hubbard expressed confidence in another in a high place in the organization, inevitably, sooner or later, the same person, once the recipient of high praise, would be condemned and denounced by Hubbard.

David Mayo was no exception.
 
That is true, Mark-ster.

And this may have caused him to reach a point where it won't matter what he does or says.

But then again, if he admitted and apologized to/about his past deeds and showed that he had a clue and regretted it all deeply, maybe that would change. Ok, I'm mixing grammatical tenses but you know what I mean.

:waiting:

He's been 'out' for eight years and he hasn't been shy about posting his views.

:waiting:


Mark A. Baker
 
I couldn't care less about others (good) opinions of the tek ... but I doubt I will ever understand the need to constantly keep re enforcing their beliefs on an Ex scio board ...

And for the Nth time time, ITYIWT, EX-scientology is NOT the same thing as ANTI-scientology, however much you may wish it were. Nor will constant repetition change that to align with your wishes.


Mark A. Baker :)
 
'Standard Tech' is an opinion. Discuss, challenge, or refute.

Obviously. It all started as hubbard's statement of opinion. He is on record as having changed his mind about it several times before his death. Every person who has ever stopped to consider it has framed their own ideas about it. Thus more opinions.

Since hubbard's death more than 25 years ago a subject which has always been murky has become downright opaque. None of this is a problem unless you accept the belief that it is all perfectly clear just as hubbard said it was.


Mark A. Baker
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
--snipped--

Have any "wogs" fallen for the show yet?

Problem is, I'm still waiting for the first "handled wog" to appear.


Are there any "wogs" out there who have been "handled" by Marty's book?


SUCCESS STORY
by Vinnie Wogarino


Despite my interest in Ron Hubbard's technology, I have remained
a wog my entire life--because of the barbaric practice of declaring
people to be SP, thereafter disconnecting and fair gaming them
forever. But, something wonderful has happened to me after
reading Mr. Rathbun's book which fully explained that Ron says
the door must always be 'left open a crack'. This has handled my
considerations and restored my faith in the workability of the tech.
I consider Mr. Rathbun's book to an invaluable tool that 'opens the
door
' to improved conditions. Why, just this morning I had a most
enturbulating situation that made me extremely hot and unhappy
and I used Mr. Rathbun's book to solve the problem. In the sweltering
heat, my car suddenly stopped running and I was nearly suffering heat
exhaustion inside the car while waiting for a tow truck to arrive. Then
I remembered that I could use Mr. Rathbun's book and Ron's wonderful
advice to keep the door open a crack. I immediately propped up Mr.
Rathbun's book so the door was held ajar, allowing the freshest theta
breeze to enter. My eternity is now within my reach. Thanks Marty & Ron!
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
And for the Nth time time, ITYIWT, EX-scientology is NOT the same thing as ANTI-scientology, however much you may wish it were. Nor will constant repetition change that to align with your wishes.


Mark A. Baker :)


:lol::lol::lol:


But, but but Mark ... you have repeated that (to me) at least a million times ... knowing it will change nothing.

:confused2:

I'm an EX and I'm anti, that works for me just as being a scientologist works for you.

Everybody happy?

Ask anonymous about being anti ... I believe it achieved more than those just sitting around chatting about the tek.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
...

Keeping MartyTech Working

ASSUMPTIONS: Whereas. . .

"A" defines the part of tech people say they agree with.
"B" defines the part of tech people say they do not agree with.
"IS" defines Indie Scientology.
"H" defines happiness.

One may thereby extrapolate a mathematical equation for The Way To Indie Happiness:


H = (IS) - (B) + (A)


Each Indie must work out the formula for themselves, alone, without evaluation or invalidation from Mr. Rathbun as to correctness. In this way all Indies are maintained in a state of Wini Perpetualis. Hence, the motto of Independents:


VENI VIDI WINI
I came - I saw - I won
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Pointing out where someone's post veers into the irrational is not trying 'to shut people up'. It is shining the light of reason upon unreason.


Mark A. Baker

Thanks for posting that, Mark. I haven't been reading her posts for a bit, so I'd not seen that.

Point of fact, I have posted very little about John, previously. Only done so a bit, here and there. If that would be an awfully odd criterion for "broken record".

I was trying to be candid about how I felt about Smilla's post. So if that's like a broken record, then what does that make the others who've been posting on this thread? I've heard the same opinions from quite a few contributors over and over again. And what of it? People do that on discussion groups. They do it whenever they're not doing it-LOL.

If honestly discussing how something makes me feel and stating disagreement constitutes trying to shut people up, then what is it they're doing when they post their opinions- of not only the issues, but also their opinions of other people? I mean, I really don't care, though, because it's a forum. Nobody can shut anybody else up ,really, anyway. But it does kind of seem like a double standard.

I'm not trying to shut anyone up. It has occurred to me that some other people may want to shut me up-that thought has crossed my mind sometimes- but then again, I thought, so what?? Even if they were- and that's by no means a certainty- what does it matter? It's a forum post. That's all. And if they aren't trying to shut anyone up- then, ok, sure. It works out the same, either way, though. So it wouldn't matter if that were the situation.

It seems like a lot of hysteria and nonsense over someone giving an opinion and her reasoning behind it.
 
Top