How soon they forget.
In 1965/66, the "Clearing Course" finally had "eliminated the final barrier to full OT," and all one needed to do was the 'Creation of Human Ability' 'Route One drills' to make full OT. Then came "OT 3," and that was the big level that made full OT finally possible. Then, in 1979, came "NOTs," and that finally made full OT possible.
The old OT levels were fun, but they didn't "make full OTs" of people who weren't already "OT" anyway. And in 1979 I was told, much to my surprise, from a "tech terminal" at the Los Angeles Advanced Org, that "The old OT levels didn't really work, BUT NOW! with the release of 'NOTs' - well, here we go!"
When David Mayo visited Europe in 1986, and was asked about the "levels beyond 7" (beyond old 7, and beyond new 7, or "NOTs"), he answered honestly, and the eager Free Zoners (two words then, used only by Capt. Bill's Ron's Orgers) frowned in displeasure. If Mayo had just told them that there were all these wonderful levels above 7, that Ron had developed, etc., the Free Zoners would have been in his back pocket, but Mayo told the truth.
The Free Zone wanted lots of levels, levels, levels, levels! Gimme levels! And Scientology Inc. has been missing the boat by not providing them. Well, at least Pierre is giving them what they want.
More levels! And from Ron too!
Uh huh...
Veda, it's clear to me that when you speak of the "freezone" or "freezoners" you HAVE NOT GOT A CLUE what you are talking about.
I have NEVER seen you make ONE single sensible statement about the "freezone".
MANY freezoners regard Mayo quite highly and share his views of the tech.
So, CBR's associates didn't fawn over David Mayo? Bupkus!
Freezoners are NOT the Co$. They DON'T play follow the leader. That's why there are so many DIFFERING FACTIONS in the freezone. Even the RO's have factions. IFA is just an "association of somewhat like-minded people".
"Freezone" is a collective term for disparate individuals. There is no implied unity beyond some degree of interest in the tech of scientology. For many that degree of interest is very loose indeed.
Most of the people who post on ESMB would qualify as "freezoners" IF they CHOSE to consider themselves as such.
Emphasis added, plus "Huh?"
Decide what you
hate the most: the Co$, Hubbard, the subject of scientology, or the freezone. Then ...
GET OVER LUMPING ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS TOGETHER.
It's a sign of an unhealthy & obsessive fixation.
Mark A. Baker
The "Freezone" (one word) has been seeking for a long time to co-opt David Mayo as one of their own, often representing Mayo as having been part of the "Freezone," when Mayo, in fact, rejected the terms "Free Zone" AND also "Freezone."
The "Freezone" has been using Scientology PR tactics to "handle" people for some time, after all, as Ron said, "It's a PR world," but what you're doing here is dishonest, and you've done it many times before.
You take comments by me and carefully edit them so as to make
your point. (Why you assume that this will be effective, I've no idea.) But here you've done it again:
I describe the "Free Zone" of Ron's Orgs (with "Free Zone" as two words), and specifically note that it's Ron's Orgs, with two words for "Free Zone," and you quote me and carefully delete that.
"Professional" Scientologists pride themselves on their "PR skills," and as being masters of Human Emotion, (hard to believe, but they do!) and its influencing and control, and I know that you're a Scientologist, but jeez...
I was referring to Bill Robertson's 1986 "Free Zone's" group's reaction to David Mayo's comments about the levels "after 7," and you have me making a statement about the "Freezone," a "Freezone" for which you are, apparently, a PR representative.
It's the so called "Freezone" that seeks to "lump together" others as being in the "Freezone," even David Mayo who never was. And that's unwholesome, and not terribly honest. But it is very Scientologically PR teckky.
As for Pierre Class 12, do you classify him as part of the "Freezone"? Does he want to be so classified?
My final comment had to do, specifically, with Pierre and his PCs, who mainly are those who "want their LRH Bridge." Since there really is no "LRH Bridge" (in a positive sense), since "Bridges" lead somewhere, in this case to "Full OT," he's selling something that he doesn't have, in my humble, suppressive, anti-Scientology, anti-LRH, hateful, unhealthy and fixated opinion.
Usually those "wanting the 'Standard Tech' LRH Bridge" classify themselves as being in the "Freezone," that's why there is also the term "Independent," to separate the two views, the "Independents" not desiring the "Standard Tech LRH Bridge."
And only after repeated noting that there IS a difference - despite a years long effort (somewhat successful) to blur the two terms - do some in the "Freezone" (at least on this forum), recognize that there's a "Freezone" and also the "Independents."
So what was your problem again?
What is it that really bugs you? Is it that Xenu thing? What's the problem, and why are you wasting my time?
You really should look around, take a good look, I don't live in your "PR world," or in "Ron's PR world" either, and please don't use your Scientology PR tactics on me. It's icky.
! But at the same time so glad to be out! 
