Shunning and vilification alive and well in the Indie Field.

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
You're kidding, i know, because no one who is out could think, a sec-check could improve their Bridge progress. i take you for a much brighter person than that. Do you want a sec-check?:coolwink:

Yessssssssssssssss pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
me me me

As me when I masturbate
Do I come to read internet
do I speak against LRH
Am I connected to sp's
Do I have sex with my gorilla

:happydance:
:biggrin:
 

freethinker

Sponsor
I am happy for you, that was powerfull. What stage of release was that?:coolwink:
Yessssssssssssssss pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
me me me

As me when I masturbate
Do I come to read internet
do I speak against LRH
Am I connected to sp's
Do I have sex with my gorilla

:happydance:
:biggrin:
 

Vittorio

Patron Meritorious
This subject came up on another thread, but I think that it's important enough to warrant it's own.

In one of the statements highlighted above, it appears that Sneakster has assigned Pat Broeker a 'Condition of Treason' and announced that he will be shunned, should he ever make any approaches to the Indies.

The comments about him blocking and altering messages to Hubbard, laughing the day after Hubbard died, and the accusation that Broeker fraudulently claimed to have copies of un-released OT levels, seem to have been made to cast Broeker as a 'criminal' in the Scientology sense. Obviously these three actions - if true, would be considered by On-Source Scientologists as High Crimes and Suppressive.

After having gone so far as to assign a 'Condition of Treason' to Broeker, and declaring that he will be shunned by the Indies should he ever approach them, are you, in the light of his 'High Crimes' also declaring him to be a Suppressive Person?

As the vast majority of frequent posters on this site are critical of Hubbard, are we also to consider ourselves to be in a Condition of Treason in your eyes, and in the eyes of the Indies?

Are we also guilty of 'High Crimes' when we laugh and joke about Hubbard?

Are we SP's?

Terril I am not giving you specifics about my shunning in the FZ, so you can dead agent me, which is all you will do and all you have done, as you are working with the IFA, to 'promote, protect, preserve' at all costs. In fact, I personally believe that your late night phone calls to your friends are actually crammed full of third partying. I am also not dragging the other people involved into it. I state that I was bad mouthed behind my back, totally unjustly and it is true. I am not in Scientology anymore and don't wish to be 'handled' by your PR and ethics techniques used to destroy critics. I am not giving you personal information about myself on a public forum. I do not trust you.

Actually, as you are completely unable to make any comment about the opening post on this thread which I have quoted above, I have just remembered the shunning in the Freezone which happened recently. You recently shunned Diana and tried to get others to do the same. You defended yourself to me, saying you never sent information to the Freezone Survivors, it was taken from a forum. What on earth were you thinking posting such information on Scientology-Freezone forum, where you know full well that other people may disconnect or attack her as a result, per Scientology policies?

But posting what you did on Scientology-Freezone forum was designed just to do that, because that is how the Scientology system works and you used your very public KR just for those ends.

Further proof that religious shunning happens in the Freezone.
 
Last edited:

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Shunning (and vilification) is a touchy subject but it seems, to me, to be a facet of societal conditions. I know people of several different religions and some with no religious affiliations at all who practice a form of shunning (and will vilify those shunned at the drop of a hat). There are people, even family members, with whom they'll allow no interaction or communication. These people were never involved in the CofS, the Freezone or Independent scientology. It always strikes me as an odd effort to avoid having to address issues but it seems that some people are just unable to resolve or accept differences in others. Go figure? :confused2:

Disclaimer: None of the above means that I approve of or excuse the practice, it's simply an observation that shunning and vilification of others exist as a part of life and livingness.
 

Vittorio

Patron Meritorious
Shunning (and vilification) is a touchy subject but it seems, to me, to be a facet of societal conditions. I know people of several different religions and some with no religious affiliations at all who practice a form of shunning (and will vilify those shunned at the drop of a hat). There are people, even family members, with whom they'll allow no interaction or communication. These people were never involved in the CofS, the Freezone or Independent scientology. It always strikes me as an odd effort to avoid having to address issues but it seems that some people are just unable to resolve or accept differences in others. Go figure? :confused2:

Disclaimer: None of the above means that I approve of or excuse the practice, it's simply an observation that shunning and vilification of others exist as a part of life and livingness.

Thats true. And disconnection is also legally supported. However, when I discover someone a spiritual wreck due to their Freezone experiences and shunning and who then tells me that they were warned to stay away from me and told stuff that is contrary to their experiences of me as then I take issue. And this is despite me being completely gung-ho at the time. Actually, I never felt the need to discuss my bad experiences with the Freezone with anyone. I followed the "standard" procedures and it didn't work. But when I did eventually start telling people, they all unanimously agreed that I had made the right decision and knowing the people involved knew that I was telling the truth.

I should have learnt my lesson the first time. If anyone wants to study Scientology they can do so at home. They can download all the materials and they can decide for themselves how they feel about it and if they wish to use any of it.

When Marty is beating people up on his blog and Sneakster and Terril are here defending him and talking about Scientology without the abuses, then I think F**k that, that is not how it is!
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
In what parallel dimension or alternate universe? :dieslaughing:

Pat Broeker has been shown by Jesse Prince and David Mayo to have conspired with David Miscavige to alter and block reports going up to Ron Hubbard from CMO INT, including the results of Jesse Prince's Hubbard ordered Sec Check.

Steve "Sarge" Pfauth reported that Pat Broeker was laughing and joking with David Miscavige at Creston Ranch, the day after Hubbard died, when every one else was in tears.

Then there is the matter of Pat Broeker pretending to be in possession of non-existent ready-to-issue OT IX and X levels.

Oh, no. That boy is known to be a traitor to Ron Hubbard and would get no traction at all with the Independent Scientologists. :no:

This subject came up on another thread, but I think that it's important enough to warrant it's own.

In one of the statements highlighted above, it appears that Sneakster has assigned Pat Broeker a 'Condition of Treason' and announced that he will be shunned, should he ever make any approaches to the Indies.

The comments about him blocking and altering messages to Hubbard, laughing the day after Hubbard died, and the accusation that Broeker fraudulently claimed to have copies of un-released OT levels, seem to have been made to cast Broeker as a 'criminal' in the Scientology sense. Obviously these three actions - if true, would be considered by On-Source Scientologists as High Crimes and Suppressive.

After having gone so far as to assign a 'Condition of Treason' to Broeker, and declaring that he will be shunned by the Indies should he ever approach them, are you, in the light of his 'High Crimes' also declaring him to be a Suppressive Person?

As the vast majority of frequent posters on this site are critical of Hubbard, are we also to consider ourselves to be in a Condition of Treason in your eyes, and in the eyes of the Indies?

Are we also guilty of 'High Crimes' when we laugh and joke about Hubbard?

Are we SP's?

Giving you enough rope. Double-checking my online documents.

I will respond later this evening, as I have errands to run right now.


That was all he wrote.

 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Then quit picking on each other. As I said before, everyone here's part saint, part sinner.

I'm seeing anger expressed by people on both sides.

It's time to put that anger aside, even when/if it's justified. Is there any way people in this equation could agree to disagree, live and let live, and if not, then ignore in a benign-not-talking-to-other-people-about-it sort of way?
 

Ladybird

Silver Meritorious Patron
Then quit picking on each other. As I said before, everyone here's part saint, part sinner.

I'm seeing anger expressed by people on both sides.

It's time to put that anger aside, even when/if it's justified. Is there any way people in this equation could agree to disagree, live and let live, and if not, then ignore in a benign-not-talking-to-other-people-about-it sort of way?

Now there is a plan!
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Multiple choice quick reply form.

The content of the post you are replying to does not matter.

Check one or both boxes. Do not write outside the box, or your reply will be void.

( ) Stop picking on Terril - he's my friend.

( ) There's two sides to every story - everybody's got good and bad qualities.

Press 'submit reply.'
 

Petey C

Silver Meritorious Patron
Smilla, based on this statement I doubt that you have ever been a Scientologist. I haven't gone digging in your posts to find out, and won't, but a proper Scientologist would welcome a sec check as a means of uncovering thoughts that are impeding Bridge progress. If someone is really concerned about human rights they won't stay in the CoS for long.

Smilla may not have been a proper Scientologist, but she's acting like a proper ex Scientologist. I was a Scientologist and SO member and never welcomed a sec check. So maybe I wasn't a proper one either, but I sure am a proper ex!
 

Ladybird

Silver Meritorious Patron
Multiple choice quick reply form.

The content of the post you are replying to does not matter.

Check one or both boxes. Do not write outside the box, or your reply will be void.

( ) Stop picking on Terril - he's my friend.

( X ) There's two sides to every story - everybody's got good and bad qualities.

Press 'submit reply.'

I chose the 2nd choice where I put my X. In your post that I quoted.

I didn't know you could alter a post you were quoting. OMG! I am gonna have to put my tinfoil hat on and think about this!
 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
Multiple choice quick reply form.

The content of the post you are replying to does not matter.

Check one or both boxes. Do not write outside the box, or your reply will be void.

( ) Stop picking on Terril - he's my friend.

( ) There's two sides to every story - everybody's got good and bad qualities.

Press 'submit reply.'
I wouldn't dare not check the first box...
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Multiple choice quick reply form.

The content of the post you are replying to does not matter.

Check one or both boxes. Do not write outside the box, or your reply will be void.

( ) Stop picking on Terril - he's my friend.

( X) There's two sides to every story - everybody's got good and bad qualities.


Press 'submit reply.'

I would never say to stop picking on someone because the person was my friend. I have answered people who were asking if I was like married to the person and why did I defend him etc etc, with the truth, though. Not the same thing.

I find it amusing and slightly frightening that some folks have actually said to me that it's tiresome to see me defend Terril, yet they don't find it tiresome that people are flaming him. THAT commentary, which is also not the subject matter of the forum, didn't get remarked upon as objectionable.

Here's another choice you coulda put in your quick reply form

( ) Let's talk about issues and post content rather than about individual contributors.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Also, I said quit picking on EACH OTHER. I've seen a number of my non CofS Scn buddies picking on each other and/or critics here.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Also, I said quit picking on EACH OTHER. I've seen a number of my non CofS Scn buddies picking on each other and/or critics here.


I believe that is an unrealistic request.

We are discussing an emotive subject here, and there are 'pro, against and somewhere in the middle viewpoints' being tossed back and forth ... many are ridding themselves of the rules of cultic type thinking like ARC and the need for it to be used and achieved as an 'end phenomena' that will result in 'understanding' ... but it isn't neccesary and it certainly isn't a requirement.

Most of the time in the cult it was false 'ARC and understanding' that all and sundry achieved, used to keep everyone on the same cultic page (further indoctrinate) or to sell something or recruit someone!

:coolwink:

It's refreshing for many to see real people with real personalities having real discussion and it is as a result of some of these discussions that people are getting free of the cultic rules that strangle and suppress real emotion and honest responses.

Many here are trying to work out which parts of their personalities are really them and which are cultic and on top of that there are social skills to be learned (or relearned) for use in the real world ... ESMB allows us to work through this and as long as the ESMB rules are stuck to I don't see the problem.

:no:

 
Last edited:
I believe that is an unrealistic request.

...

Many here are trying to work out which parts of their personalities are really them and which are cultic and on top of that there are social skills to be learned (or relearned) for use in the real world ... ESMB allows us to work through this and as long as the ESMB rules are stuck to I don't see the problem.

:no:


The way I understand the esmb rules they preclude 'picking on each other' as Fluff suggests. At least that is what I believe is Emma's intention with regard to encouraging mutual respect on the board.


Mark A. Baker
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
A truce is suggested

As I said elsewhere a few minutes ago,
I do think some people will expect certain people to say certain things even when they really aren't, and then there's no persuading them. To be perfectly honest, I was discussing that in IRC with someone I know, and I know that this has happened to that person and to others.

However, I've seen the SAME thing happen on FZ yahoo group lists. They REALLY didn't like it when I indicated my disgust with the Ethiers. It got as nasty as any flamewar anywhere and as foolish. Lots of allegations.

And I've seen some of my FZ friends be unfair to each other on this board. I personally think they're relatively polite to the NON Scientologists here, but obviously,not everyone would agree with me. That's fine, you're entitled.

There's been too many hard feelings. I'm seeing really good people hurt each other.
So the thing is, we're all dickheads sometimes. ALL of us. And we've hurt each other. Sometimes people go after each other. Sometimes they don't, but they defend themselves in such a way that leaves a scorched earth type thing. A Pyrrhic victory!

I really see only one solution and that's to forget or at least put aside who's wrong and who's right and who was mean. Has anyone involved in a flame war, even the ones who are usually "on the bottom", so to speak, ever been in a position to say they never did anything wrong here and were never mean to anyone? I really do NOT think so.

So they can spend time discussing who's right who's wrong who sucks etc. But that doesn't go anywhere. Do any of you readers see stuff getting better with these situations? I surely don't.

Originally I thought we could just all hash it out. If someone says "you weren't a staff member though you claim you were" (Imaginary/hypothetical example) I thought, ok, counter that with the truth. But it doesn't work.

The only thing to do is have a truce where everyone just goes, yeah, sometimes I was a dick, and if you were a dick, too, well, you weren't the only one. We may never agree. Let's just move forward.
 
Top