Shunning and vilification alive and well in the Indie Field.

[I told you I was trouble]

My emphasis

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

I don't think the term 'picking on each other' covers it Mark ... and it makes ESMB sound like a kindergarten.

As you know I don't like to see group muggings and will stand up and say so if I see it.

However, if someone were to keep swanning into an alcoholics anonymous meeting (Ex alcoholics) flashing and promoting bottles of cheap whisky as a suggested alternative to becoming sober ... or was constantly trotting along to an anti (or EX!) pedophilia group waving a large bag of sweeties for the children whether allowed to or not I think he would expect to get his doo dahs ripped off (though only verbally in the case of the ESMB tek promoters).



How do you feel about the following ESMB rule being abused here?

Is it OK with you?


My emphasis.

What is the purpose of the board?

The board is for Ex Scientologists of all "denominations" to get together and talk things over.

Some leave the church because they are forced out by some insane ethics order yet remain true believers; some left of their own accord because it stopped making sense; some find the tech truly workable but management corrupt; some find the earlier tech workable but call the Golden Age of Tech the "work of squirrels"; some don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and some feel that there is no baby at all.
Some practice Scientology alternatives, some practice Freezone Scientology, some use bits and pieces in their daily lives and some want nothing more to do with it.

It is likely that most people are happy where they sit in regards to Scientology. They have their minds made up about it and no amount of discussion will change that. This board is not meant to be a vehicle to plead your case, reconvert the fallen or preach your brand. It is designed to allow people to connect up, gain some understanding of our differences, learn to respect each others opinions and find some peace with it and hopefully within ourselves.

I guess I'm black and white on this issue ... I don't respect anyone that preaches their brand here, and doubt I ever will.

Claire has suggested a truce and that certainly works for me, if all the rules are respected.

​

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Correction to post below (too late to edit it).

The Preaching your brand thing is from the FAQ's (not the rules).

I still feel the same (but I was wrong on that).

​

 

[Claire Swazey]

I do think people (and I am not aiming this at anyone. Just in general) should refrain from preachiness. Those who are done with Scn or were never involved and don't want to be doing any of it aren't going to want to be preached to/at. People who are into Scn probably would not like it, either. So we are agreed there.

I think these boards are great for information. I think they're great for solidarity/friendship.

I will say this- and I think many may disagree and I really don't mean to offend you, honestly- but I don't see a problem with someone letting people know that if they did want to do non CofS Scn, they have a venue/venues. I have received requests as to where do I go, can you hook me up with so and so.

But then again, maybe that could be accomplished with just something in a sig line as opposed to post content. That might still bother some people but if it were the only thing, probably less people would be offended.

ITIWT, one of the things that kept me in the cult a while, was thinking oh jeez, I can't get Scn anywhere else, there goes my salvation. Now, I know one can do just as well - often better- with other things. But I did not used to think so. And there are people out there who are as I was. If they would leave CofS, that would be the main thing, because CofS's destruction and/or implosion is the main thing, IMHO. If they knew that this particular "stop" or hangup wasn't even a problem, that would be good.

Again, I am NOT advocating posting success stories and stuff. I am very fond of Terril but that's something where we aren't in 100% agreement. He knows I feel that way and he's cool with it.

I have noticed that when people know someone still practices Scn outside CofS, that sometimes some of them project proselytizing that isn't even happening. But, OTOH, sometimes people do proselytize. It would be better if we could just all get on the same page and really know where the other guy was coming from instead of imagining or speculating it then solidly believing it.

A way to do that would be to ask the person instead of tell him or her.

But the Indie/FZer/Windie (windy? Spelling?) would have to also give a little to get a little, too, right? He or she might have to dial it back, so to speak, and make people more comfortable.

Obviously we are never going to all please all the people all the time. (way too many alls in that sentence. I'm so buzzed with caffeine now, I can't even sit still!) But maybe some of the hurts we cause each other could be minimized.

Sometimes people aren't so good to each other but I really think that some of the hurts and fights and all are due to misunderstandings and assumptions. Maybe we could reach out to each other more.

I'm telling you this now- if, say, a fellow critic who maybe I never got along with at all, who, I felt, really was uncool or unfair or whatever- if they were in my neck of the woods and needed something and couldn't find anyone else locally to assist them, I would not say, oh geez, remember when you told me that the dog ate my homework? Hell no. I'd come out, make John change their tire, or whatever it was. And it wouldn't be with an air of martyrdom-I'm-trying-to-keep-from-choking-the-shit-out-of-you, either. It would be done willingly and I'd be glad I was home when they called.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I understand what you are saying Claire.

I suppose the truth is that I'd almost prefer people to stay in the cofs than do the FZ/Indie thing because I feel that one is as bad as the other (re potential to create cultic thinking, introversion and all those things I have been going on about for waaaay too long!) and the cofs is far more expensive which tends to impede progress.

I certainly can't stop anyone from preaching their tek here but I've always felt that as long as some of us stand up and oppose it (when it's warranted) then anyone new here or lurking may at least think twice and run for the hills ... ie when lectures are delivered complete with accompanying 'tone scales' and other slightly altered cofs tekky stuff to the ever loving Indie/FZone followers that seem to be hypnotized by it all.

It would be so easy just to ignore or even accept the tek pushing and proselytizing (here) once we have each reached a place of comfort ourselves (by that I mean freed from the indoc or at least well on that road) but I know how much Alanzo, Zinj, Mick, and others affected me when I was new here and still a bit 'culty' and it was the shock of reading some of their aggressively anti cultic thinking posts that knocked me sideways and out of the cultic tekky thinking, for which I will be forever grateful.

It would have been easy at that early stage to have perhaps tacitly joined the FZ/Indies ... and then it would have been doubly hard to flick them off while trying to flick the cofs as well ... and I would probably have just left ESMB instead and not gained as much as I did from being here.



I am tired of discussing it constantly though and have been for some time, so I guess the FreeZoners and Indies will very soon have their wish and I will refrain from saying anything to them about their tek.

I know that they will never get tired of promoting their tek here though which I do find sad.

BTW I love it that you are talking again.

​

 

[Claire Swazey]

Thanks, ITIWT,

You know I'm not one to be short on words. I want to be candid with you and I hope that you will be ok with what I'm about to say.

I sometimes get really brief when I think things are getting too problematic. I've been made to understand in no uncertain terms that I am watched, monitored and that I need to be really careful. So going forward, I'm going to have to continue to be really brief in certain situations. As I did on a.r.s. when I was still in the church but had awakened to what they really were and knew that critics and exes were (mostly) quite right- I will have to self censor (I was posting under my real name and sometimes getting called in for ethics handlings) . I'm fine with that but I am not fooling myself about my position in the ESMB hierarchy. That's been made abundantly clear.

When the post and thread and the responder warrants, I am more than happy to discuss things in detail. If not, however, then I'm going to respond back curtly and unhelpfully.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Thanks, ITIWT,

You know I'm not one to be short on words. I want to be candid with you and I hope that you will be ok with what I'm about to say.

I sometimes get really brief when I think things are getting too problematic. I've been made to understand in no uncertain terms that I am watched, monitored and that I need to be really careful. So going forward, I'm going to have to continue to be really brief in certain situations. As I did on a.r.s. when I was still in the church but had awakened to what they really were and knew that critics and exes were (mostly) quite right- I will have to self censor (I was posting under my real name and sometimes getting called in for ethics handlings) . I'm fine with that but I am not fooling myself about my position in the ESMB hierarchy. That's been made abundantly clear.

When the post and thread and the responder warrants, I am more than happy to discuss things in detail. If not, however, then I'm going to respond back curtly and unhelpfully.

I think I know what you are saying ... and actually (for a while at least) I believe you have made a good decision, but its a shame because you are big fun when you are feeling able to just relax and be yourself, which is (I think) what most here are striving to be.

​

 

[Claire Swazey]

Sure, hon. And you'll be seeing me relax and get chatty quite a bit. Won't be always, but that's life.

So here's some chattiness: (and totally off topic for thread title) Because, for some reason, this is the thing most on my mind today.

I was at a jeweler and they had this GORGEOUS necklace. I felt like I would die if I didn't buy it. I was like, ok, what IS that? Answer: triple strand lab created pink briolet side strung (so they alternated side to side) sapphires. Oh, cute! How much? Oh, I think it's 995.00, says saleslady. I said, no, that's not a dollar sign and a 995.00. That's a dollar sign, a 1 and a 995.00. It's 1995.00. EEEEK! But sooo pretty. So she makes me try it on. Look a magnet clasp. Oh, looks so nice with your black sweater. We can let you have it for 1340.00. I'm like nooo, I don't think so.

So I can't get this damn thing out of my mind. So I go on line looking for something similar. Didn't find exact thing but DID find strand of genuine pink sapphire rondelles (little round ones) on a temporary fishing line type strand, meaning it's not a necklace yet. 15" worth so if someone stuck it on a chain for me, it would make a nice sparkly necklace. So I was at another jeweler's today. A neighborhood one, one of those modest little places that have been around for years. I take stuff there to be repaired. So I was picking up something I had fixed and asked the guy if he does stuff like that, restringing and whatnot. Yes.

So all day I've been thinking about pink sapphire rondelle beads.

Oh, plus I got these other ones, they're green and and...I'll tell ya later. I'm toddling off to bed with visions of twinkly necklaces in my head...

 

[I told you I was trouble]

LOL!

Just buy them and worry about getting them strung later.

Nighty night.

PS Check "Etsy" too, there are some beautiful pieces there.​

 

[Claire Swazey]

Yah, I did buy the ones on line (not the 1995.00 ones at the jeweler's though) and I am gonna have 'em restrung soon.

 

[Smilla]

I take exception to Scientologists of any flavour monitoring this forum with the intention of pouncing on any newly-out, confused, unsure people, who might make easy meat for one of Scientology sub-cults. There is a possibility of exploitation and harm in that. Outside from that, I'm happy enough to rub shoulders with people who are still believers, and like some of them quite a bit.

 

[Claire Swazey]

People on all sides of the equation pounce here. I myself have been pounced on a billion times by people were far greater fucktards than any Indie or FZer and I'm not shy about saying so.

If they obey the rules of conduct, it should be fine. If they don't, that's when I call it pouncing.

 

[GreyLensman]

The question of an LRH-ordered Sec Check on DM (to be administered by Prince and overseen by Mayo?) raises an interesting question. Is DM a suppressive person? If so, maybe the Indies should declare him? After all, if the Indies are fundamentalist (in the sense of founder infallibility) then they must follow the application of ethics, and declares, etc., right? (It's meant as an amusing question.)

The real question that comes to my mind is which of the following is closer to reality:

1. The church is in a current mess because of Miscavige's misleadership (that might be the Rathbun-Rinder position?). OR
2. The church is in trouble because it evolved into exactly what LRH admin policies and LRH-generated culture would predict and lead it to evolve into. (By culture I mean things like paranoia of enemies everywhere, unbending assumption of authority, certainty that one knows it all already -- which LRH ironically points out is the first barrier to learning.)

My own sense is that the church needs to go through a radical restructure, but it cannot as long as LRH is infallible. Until that infallibility falls to reality, and the good is used and the bad rejected, the church remains imprisoned within the bars of a dead man's mind.

2. which is inclusive of 1.

Miscavige is exactly what policy demands (both public and secret).
And he's an asshole in the Hubbardian tradition.

 

[Mike Laws]

I may be incorrect, but I think the sec check being referred to was a Hubbard-ordered sec check on DM, where Prince was the Sec Checker (not the Sec Checkee), and Mayo the C/S. Of course, it likely would have been disastrous for DM's immediate career ambitions towards High Priest of the cult. And what's implied is that due to the bond between DM and Broeker at the time, DM was able to weasel having the Sec Check being forwarded to Hubbard blocked, removed from the comm, destroyed or whatever. Anyway, the story is documented somewhere or other.

I am quite certain you are correct on this point.

 

[Smilla]

Non-Cof$ Scientology is still vilifying Aida Thomas, and what's more they are also using dead-agenting sites and YouTube against her.


[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5pFV1dtWHg[/video]

"1. Aida Thomas the “squirrel” ( non-standard ) auditor

Here’s is a report from a fellow Freezone auditor Terril Park:


“Recently Aida went to Durham in the UK to audit two people, a mother and daughter. After she left I received 2 mails from the mother detailing her upsets with Aida.


Aida once told me that she starts all clients with ethics handlings. It looks to me that Aida has some big misunderstandings with ethics although she considers herself an expert. Aida also seems paranoid about doing interviews with people to then have them go to other auditors. This may be because of screwy ethics actions."


http://www.aida-thomas.com/


[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec4BcAw8xOQ[/video]


"About

This blog is dedicated to all the people Aida Thomas has slandered and “Fair Gamed” over the years:

1. Marty Rathbun
2. Mike Rinder
3. Ken Urquhart – ( Class IX auditor, worked with LRH directly )
4. Terrill Park
5. Catherine Zoltan
6. Richard Hernandez
7. Ralph Hilton
8. Pierre Ethier – ( Class XII auditor )
9. Catherine Ethier
10. Ivan Obolensky
11. Nancy Walcott
12. Myself"


http://truthaboutaidathomas.wordpress.com/about/

Same old Scientology, same old hate. Same old hypocrisy.

 

[Infinite]

Non-Cof$ Scientology is still vilifying Aida Thomas, and what's more they are also using dead-agenting sites and YouTube against her.

This is Steve Layton - you know, Timothy Higgs/Truthseeker - up to his usual virtual defecating again, isn't it?

 

[Smilla]

This is Steve Layton - you know, Timothy Higgs/Truthseeker - up to his usual virtual defecating again, isn't it?

I have no idea, but it's perfectly in keeping with the way she was cyberstalked and cyberbullied here.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Aida is also a non CofS Scn'ist.

 

[Infinite]

..

No cat has 9 tails. One cat has one more tail than no cat. Therefore, one cat has 10 tails.

 

[Smilla]

..

 

[Claire Swazey]

I wonder what the hell you are talking about. I mean, if you have a question about what I wrote, ask me.