Paging Garry Scarff

[Claire Swazey]

My feelings don't enter into this, it's what I know. Scientology IS child abuse, so why do these people support it?

It strikes me you are still very much wrapped inside Scientology re your third paragraph.

I think if someone discusses a critical (of Scn) passage someone writes in a favorable way and someone else jumps all over him, then it's obviously personal feelings entering into the picture. As I recall, you were suspended for it.

I've written nothing about Scientology or any opinions I have regarding it. That's your own projection and imagination. I've defended people's right to criticize Scn just as fervently. I don't care if Terril or you or anyone else is a member of the Sacred Pie of Light Church- I'll defend their rights to post and to not be slammed. That hardly makes me an adherent of that church.

 

[Sharone Stainforth]

I think if someone discusses a critical (of Scn) passage someone writes in a favorable way and someone else jumps all over him, then it's obviously personal feelings entering into the picture. As I recall, you were suspended for it.

I've written nothing about Scientology or any opinions I have regarding it. That's your own projection and imagination. I've defended people's right to criticize Scn just as fervently. I don't care if Terril or you or anyone else is a member of the Sacred Pie of Light Church- I'll defend their rights to post and to not be slammed. That hardly makes me an adherent of that church.

I wasn't suspended, I was given an enforced holiday.Make of that what you will.

I didn't say you were an adherent of the "church", I said you still seem wrapped up in Scientology re your third paragraph.

 

[Sharone Stainforth]

That is a really HUGE MIS-IDENTIFICATION.

Saying "Scientology IS child abuse" is about as absurdly over-generalized as saying "Scientology is making a better world". Each is unsound.

And, then making a further LEAP of "logic" and saying that therefore, somebody like Terril, who enjoys SOME specific detailed aspects of the very large subject of Scientology, "supports child abuse" is even MORE absurd.

It is like making this sort of ridiculous logical leap.

Some members of group A kill dogs.

Andrew is a member of group A.

Thus, Andrew kills dogs.

NOT TRUE!!!!!!

That is the SAME sort of logic used when stating that Terril supports child abuse. Such logic betrays an extreme failure to differentiate and notice REAL and actual differences. When Hubbard stole from Korzybski's studies of general semantics and stated that logic and sanity involve the ability to notice similarities, identities and differences, he was correct.

THAT idea is correct and accurate, not because "it is Scientology", but because if one takes the time to examine such things, it simply is true.

There are many nutty ideas and behaviors involved in by the Church of Scientology. There are some ideas and practices that occur outside (and even inside the Church) that are NOT nutty and abusive.

Please talk SPECIFICS. Speaking in large sweeping generalities doesn't do anybody any good. And minds that wallow in such vague generalities, whether for or against, are very confused minds.

For instance, when I was in the Sea Org for a few years, at local org, continental and Flag management levels, I NEVER saw anyone stuck into a chain locker, or even physically abused, though I later read isolated stories about such things. Yes, I saw lots of emotional and mental abuse, and while the Church of Scientology surely HIDES instances of child abuse when they occur to protect its image and PR, I never much saw that it actually operates with the aim in mind to cause such things. In truth, if the Sea Org could have its way, it seems that they would rather NOT HAVE KIDS THERE AT ALL, since just as Hubbard and Scn management have said repeatedly, taking care of kids in such a 3rd/4th dynamic environment is DEV-T (for them).

But again, please talk specifics when tossing around such generalities. While specific instances of child abuse have occurred in the Sea Org, I don't see that the organization really DESIRES to create such things on a continual basis, and the subject of Scientology itself doesn't promote such things per se. Yes, specific policies such as the RPF and "children's RPF" promote abuse, but that is ONLY in the Sea Org, and I am pretty sure that few or none of the people who use some aspects of Scn "tech" OUTSIDE the official Church environment have any use or tolerance for such things. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe there are "children RPFs" in the Freezone along with strict KSW applications of "advanced chain locker tech". :confused2:

I'm going to give a couple of small passages out of John Duignan's book The Complex.This is consistent with children in the Sea Org in 1967, just as it is today, just as it was when John was in.It is L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology and raising children.

My own troubled childhood had left me highly sensitised to the needs of children and I have always had a lot of time for them.As in the Complex, I thought the Sea Org kids in Saint Hill were actually treated with cruelty. They were assigned to the same 'Cadet Org' and did full production days. This entailed schooling from 9am till 3pm, followed by cleaning work at Walsh Manor or at Saint Hill between 4pm and,at earliest,6pm. It would sometimes go on till 10pm.The shifts rotated and those off cleaning duties would have to study for the same gruelling hours. I hated the hubbard teaching that children are actually 'adults in small bodies' and are responsible for any condition that they find themselves in.

One beautiful June Sunday morning, I was on my official hygiene time and I noticed that all the Cadets looked unusually down and upset. They were dejectedly mopping floors and dusting around inside the manor. Outside the grass was green, the sun shone and the world looked beautiful. I asked the kids what was going on and they told me they were doing 'lower conditions'. These were kids as young as eight years old and no older than twelve who should have been running around outside having fun.Most were already traumatised due to the long months, and in one case two years, two years of enforced seperation from their parents.Now they were being put on lower conditions! This was a system of mental introversion, self critisism, oppression and physical confinement. I suddenly got really angry - actually furious.

Pages 245 and 246 of The Complex.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I wasn't suspended, I was given an enforced holiday.Make of that what you will.

I didn't say you were an adherent of the "church", I said you still seem wrapped up in Scientology re your third paragraph.

I think "enforced" says it succinctly as do the events preceding.

I'm an ex Scientologist - not just ex CofS. I'm not an adherent of anything other than, perhaps Buddhism. And you only know that because I bothered to share that here. You don't know jack shit about me.

 

[Claire Swazey]

That's an unfair assessment of Claire, who has over and over stated her own position. Just because she doesn't agree with yours doesn't make her a cult lackey. We're all here working towards the same end - exposure of the crimes and criminals that comprise the cult of Scn and an end to its abuses. All of them.

Sharone, you have so much anger in you. I understand that you went through hellish events, but I think you might find better ways to handle that anger than posting here. I hope that you will, because you deserve to find peace.

When I first started participating in public fora, many people were - and still are- very friendly. It's change my life and some of my dearest friends were made on fora.

However, there were a number of people who were outraged that I was in CofS- which I was when I first started posting. Later, I left the cult. That wasn't good enough for those who'd been outraged. They were still pissed. Then, later, I became an ex Scientologist. No ifs ands or buts. Those people were still not happy with me and to this day still aren't.

Sometimes some people will accuse me of being a Scientologist every time I don't uphold the status quo or someone's idea of the status quo. That's unimaginative, foolish and irresponsible and to my mind is one of the attitudes that sometimes detract from Scn criticism and activism.

 

[Smurf]

Sometimes some people will accuse me of being a Scientologist every time I don't uphold the status quo or someone's idea of the status quo. That's unimaginative, foolish and irresponsible and to my mind is one of the attitudes that sometimes detract from Scn criticism and activism.

You hit it on the head, Claire. There are some critics, especially from the Old Guard, who will attack & malign you as the enemy if you don't see the world as they see it.

I've also been told by OG in the past that it's OK to lie & fabricate evidence to do battle with Scientology because the critics are on the "good side" and Scientology is on the "evil side". I never understood that rationale.

 

[Veda]

-snip-

I've also been told by OG in the past that it's OK to lie & fabricate evidence

-snip-

Who?

 

[Claire Swazey]

You hit it on the head, Claire. There are some critics, especially from the Old Guard, who will attack & malign you as the enemy if you don't see the world as they see it.

I've also been told by OG in the past that it's OK to lie & fabricate evidence to do battle with Scientology because the critics are on the "good side" and Scientology is on the "evil side". I never understood that rationale.

It's black and white/end justifies the means thinking. It's not dissimilar to what I saw in the cult.

Some critics are against freedom of speech and of spiritual practice while they (correctly) observe that CofS is against those things and criticize CofS for them. Yet when they say and do those same things, it's ok.

Projection is also involved. They don't like the person's comment so that makes the person OSA/suspicious/a scientologist/ stupid whatever. The same people who told me that I could not possibly legitimately call myself a Scn'ist (after I left CofS and was an Indie) have, once I disclosed my not being a Scn'ist anymore, said that I was a Scn'ist.

Now, as far as your criticism goes, Smurfie, you actually accomplish plenty because you stick to facts. Information is power and you know it. And you don't lie. You don't need to. The truth is damning enough and you possess a whole lot of it.

 

[Sharone Stainforth]

I think "enforced" says it succinctly as do the events preceding.

I'm an ex Scientologist - not just ex CofS. I'm not an adherent of anything other than, perhaps Buddhism. And you only know that because I bothered to share that here. You don't know jack shit about me.

I think you have more of a problem with me, Claire. For speaking my mind and saying what I really think. YOU don't like it, that is obvious. I would speak more about Miscavige, but I never knew him, however, Claire, I DID know L. Ron Hubbard.I do know how children are brought up in Scientology because once, I was one of them, and I reckon so were you. The difference is I left, you didn't at least not on your own determinism.

No, and YOU don't know Jack shit about me either.

When you finally wake up, you might want to think about the lies you perpetuate, or are you going to get me banned for that also.I am not silly I know it was YOU that got me banned on enforced holiday.I am still here for the moment, but I reckon on very limited time, because my world view does NOT fit in with the rest of yours.

Are YOU trying to introvert me, cos you are doing a really bad job of it.

Have you read the Complex? I recommend you do because John Duignun is a scientologist that really escaped, and it is a mind trap that is very difficult to escape from.

 

[Gottabrain]

I think you have more of a problem with me, Claire. For speaking my mind and saying what I really think. YOU don't like it, that is obvious. I would speak more about Miscavige, but I never knew him, however, Claire, I DID know L. Ron Hubbard.I do know how children are brought up in Scientology because once, I was one of them, and I reckon so were you. The difference is I left, you didn't at least not on your own determinism.

No, and YOU don't know Jack shit about me either.

Sharone, Claire doesn't like me either, or the things I have to say. Your firsthand testimony is extremely valuable and as one of the few with firsthand knowledge, you belong here. Please don't let Claire suck you down into a firefight - you have far more important things to write and say and I and others want to hear them.

Sheila

 

[Claire Swazey]

I think you have more of a problem with me, Claire. For speaking my mind and saying what I really think. YOU don't like it, that is obvious. I would speak more about Miscavige, but I never knew him, however, Claire, I DID know L. Ron Hubbard.I do know how children are brought up in Scientology because once, I was one of them, and I reckon so were you. The difference is I left, you didn't at least not on your own determinism.

No, and YOU don't know Jack shit about me either.

When you finally wake up, you might want to think about the lies you perpetuate, or are you going to get me banned for that also.I am not silly I know it was YOU that got me banned on enforced holiday.I am still here for the moment, but I reckon on very limited time, because my world view does NOT fit in with the rest of yours.

Are YOU trying to introvert me, cos you are doing a really bad job of it.

Have you read the Complex? I recommend you do because John Duignun is a scientologist that really escaped, and it is a mind trap that is very difficult to escape from.

I'm not trying to do anything to you.

I've defended critics and criticism to OSA when they were trying to handle me and to some FZers who were upset by that sort of thing. I've publicly posted support for criticism many times.

You've falsely stated that I've leanings or participation toward/in Scn, whereas I've not posted any equivalent evaluations or suppositions about you. I haven't claimed to know you but you've posted suppositions about my stance that aren't correct and which were presented as fact. I neither post nor support lies. I don't need to wake up, I'm a wide awake ex Scn'ist and critic of Scn and of Hubbard.

The person who got you suspended was you-and the moderator. I think I vaguely recall hearing that more than one person reported your post. As for me, if it was before late December, then I definitely would have been one of them. After Xmas or so, I decided and enacted a new personal rule to not report any moar of 'em. I do continue to respond, though, when the spirit moves me.

 

[Gottabrain]

I'm not trying to do anything to you.

I've defended critics and criticism to OSA when they were trying to handle me and to some FZers who were upset by that sort of thing. I've publicly posted support for criticism many times.

You've falsely stated that I've leanings or participation toward/in Scn, whereas I've not posted any equivalent evaluations or suppositions about you. I haven't claimed to know you but you've posted suppositions about my stance that aren't correct and which were presented as fact. I neither post nor support lies. I don't need to wake up, I'm a wide awake ex Scn'ist and critic of Scn and of Hubbard.

The person who got you suspended was you-and the moderator. I think I vaguely recall hearing that more than one person reported your post. As for me, it it was before late December, then I definitely would have been one of them. After Xmas or so, I decided and enacted a new personal rule to not report any moar of 'em. I do continue to respond, though, when the spirit moves me.

18 times you've said "I", "me" or "mine". 6 times you've said "you" accusatively. There is nothing objective or worthwhile in this post - it is all personal.

Just drop it, Claire.

Correction: Make that 18 times you said I/me/mine and 8 times you said you or your accusatively. I missed a few.