SP Times Round 2 - Moar speaking out!

Ladybird

Silver Meritorious Patron
I prefer the saying: "A million flies can't be wrong", when you are referring to s**t.:omg:


That's a classic Shadow!

I just wish the L. Ron Hubbard/scientology fans would go eat their Sh(*)t covered raisins somewhere else, preferably behind closed doors.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
There's an LRH ref, BC tape, where He suggested that if a pc weren't going to give up the withhold you bring a gorilla type into the session room for support -- a gang of two so to speak. Gang bang sec checks must have originated from this.

Thank you. First I heard of it. Do you know which tape?

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Sorry, no. It's been a l-o-n-g time. :confused2:

Probably could be found on the sec checker course.

Not that I recall. I used to sup it, as well as did it. However, I had never heard of gang-bang sec checks at that point, so it might not have made much of an impact. Thanks anyway.

Paul
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hmmm, I listened to the entire SHSBC lecture series on night QM watches at ASHO Foundation (when they were still cassettes in binders) over the course of many months and I do not recall Ron Hubbard ever saying that, not even as a joke. :no:


Since such an action would completely violate Session Rudiments and maybe half the Auditor's Code, there is no way in hell Ron Hubbard would ever have instructed auditors to use that as a method of "pulling withholds".

But you made the claim, Ted. Please provide verifiable documentation of it.

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous. I *do* forgive.


Sorry, Sneakster. He wasn't joking. Neither am I.

I have long passed the point where I am going to provide LRH references. And, if I did, of what value would that be to you?
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
The value to me would be determining whether Ron Hubbard actually said what you claim or not, since an exact citation can be checked and a vague "on some BC lecture" (of which there are more than 400) cannot.

You were quite happy providing an "LRH reference" as long as you could say something negative about Hubbard (ie: that he originated the gang bang sec check technique in a BC lecture). When you are called on it, you suddenly clam up? :lol:

The truth is not served at all by false embellishments, whether due to faulty recollection or deliberate malice. :no:

I'm only interested in the exact truth, whether good, bad or indifferent. :thumbsup:

The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth.

So, "Docs or GTFO" applies here. :grouch:

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous. I *do* forgive.


So you call me a liar in a roundabout way. Fuck you and the hall-monitor horse you rode in on.

Best I can do for you right now is to tell you to do the course. I studied the BC while doing 30 hours of auditing a week. When Hubbard said something pertinent to the auditing I was doing, I remembered it. That would be reel-to-reel tapes, non-sanitized for political correctness or deletion of persons since declared SP.

I will admit, the ref might be an HCOB. But, at this point I do believe it was a taped reference.

Anyway, if you knew what constitutes evidence and if I were inclined to produce it, only the exact audio would be acceptable. Even then I suspect you would cast doubt.

That you would not remember two or three sentences stated over the course of hundreds of hours of talk, while you were supposed to be doing night watch, is not surprising.

Had you done your studies well you would realize that a good auditor does not give the pc a command he cannot enforce or otherwise see through to completion. Your "GTFO" applies here. You can't enforce it, and I am not going away.

For now, I'll end off on this subject and give you the last word.

I am not anonymous. Hit me with your best shot. :D
 

Terril park

Sponsor
So you call me a liar in a roundabout way. Fuck you and the hall-monitor horse you rode in on.

Best I can do for you right now is to tell you to do the course. I studied the BC while doing 30 hours of auditing a week. When Hubbard said something pertinent to the auditing I was doing, I remembered it. That would be reel-to-reel tapes, non-sanitized for political correctness or deletion of persons since declared SP.

I will admit, the ref might be an HCOB. But, at this point I do believe it was a taped reference.

Anyway, if you knew what constitutes evidence and if I were inclined to produce it, only the exact audio would be acceptable. Even then I suspect you would cast doubt.

That you would not remember two or three sentences stated over the course of hundreds of hours of talk, while you were supposed to be doing night watch, is not surprising.

Had you done your studies well you would realize that a good auditor does not give the pc a command he cannot enforce or otherwise see through to completion. Your "GTFO" applies here. You can't enforce it, and I am not going away.

For now, I'll end off on this subject and give you the last word.

I am not anonymous. Hit me with your best shot. :D

The difference is very likely PC edited cassettes as opposed to original reel to reels.

Ted hasn't been here that long, but has been a regular poster on ACT and occasionally ARS for at least a decade that I've been reading his posts. I
don't recall Ted ever having lied, nor anyone calling him a lyer.

I think it very likely Hubbard made such a comment. I think in general every excess and atrocity in and from the SO and miscavidge has at its root some piece of Hubbard twisted and distorted. Specially when it comes to the area of sec checking. If Miscavidge couldn't at least give some token justification for gang bang sec checks I'm sure far many more would have left, and he probably couldn't have brought off the Mission holders fiasco.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Did the (reel-to-reel) SHSBC. Also supervised it. Never heard that reference either.

Whether he DID or DID NOT say it, it seems hardly important because of all the LRH ADVICES and confidential issues that are not BPI. In truth, there exists (contrary to "policy" about HIDDEN DATA LINES) a rather vast number of secretive Hubbard orders, directives, plans, schemes, capers, etc.

I stopped trying to reconcile Scientology against any other standard than WHAT IT DOES.

If gang-bang sec checks are done, then it IS policy, written or unwritten.

So, no need to know who said what or not.

If an Islamic terrorist blows up an airplane, I don't need to study the Koran to see if it was on or off policy. The newspaper/internet is all the info that is required to understand it.

It's easier to live this way, I find. Simpler. Happier.
 

knn

Patron Meritorious
I stopped trying to reconcile Scientology against any other standard than WHAT IT DOES.

If gang-bang sec checks are done, then it IS policy, written or unwritten.

So, no need to know who said what or not.

If an Islamic terrorist blows up an airplane, I don't need to study the Koran to see if it was on or off policy. The newspaper/internet is all the info that is required to understand it.

It's easier to live this way, I find. Simpler. Happier.
Exactly. Especially when there is a lot of scripture (like Bible or Scientology materials) one can always find a quote for or against something.

Moreover, as a rule of thumb, noone can understand "-ism speak" except the followers of -isms. When Satanists talk about "human sacrifice" they may mean "ejaculation".
 

Veda

Sponsor
Exactly. Especially when there is a lot of scripture (like Bible or Scientology materials) one can always find a quote for or against something.

You're using HelluvaHoax's valid observation as an excuse for presenting a much used defensive line. "You can't understand Scientology, since its (so complicated) that it can't be understood. Besides there's a quote for or against just about anything."

That's a neat way of shutting done any one's attempt at critiquing Scientology.

Scientology is based on the overt (publicized)/covert (behind the scenes) model, per its founder's design.

Recognizing the patterns in Scientology, it's possible to understand it.

Moreover, as a rule of thumb, noone can understand "-ism speak" except the followers of -isms. When Satanists talk about "human sacrifice" they may mean "ejaculation".

I'm not a follower of Scientology and I understand Scientology-speak.

You're thinking of Aleister Crowley, who wrote of sacrificing male children and, when asked about it, explained that it meant ejaculating during (certain) Magic(k)al rituals.

There are actual Satanists who really do mean human sacrifice when they say "human sacrifice."

You're trying too hard - The question is, "What are you trying (too hard) to do?"
 

knn

Patron Meritorious
You're using HelluvaHoax's valid observation as an excuse for presenting a much used defensive line. "You can't understand Scientology, since its (so complicated) that it can't be understood. Besides there's a quote for or against just about anything."

That's a neat way of shutting done any one's attempt at critiquing Scientology.
No, that's a way to shut down a Scientologist who smacks you with "What is Greatness" as soon as one has valid criticisms.

Scientology is based on the overt (publicized)/covert (behind the scenes) model, per its founder's design.
Exactly. And as soon one tries to criticize that one gets smacked with "Never do anything illegal" or "Those who criticize are criminals". Whatever one says to criticize the Church can always be countered with some "scripture". Just like in the bible: You think it's written there "You shall not murder"? No, it's written there "Love others like yourself" thus suddenly murder is OK if you do it out of love.

If you accuse the Church of criminal actions they say "Oh, no no, look this HCOPL, it's forbidden to do anything illegal".
As soon as some Scientologists are caught doing criminal actions they say "Oh, that was an action of a handful of idiots who didn't understand our beliefs. We declared them SP and we would like to point out that the HCOPL clearly states to abide by the law of the land". STOP. You need to cut through all that written irrelevancies. My point is: You can not judge any religion EXCEPT by the behavior of their followers.

Another example is the employee status. Per "written scripture" the Church has no employees. Per reality they do. Thus "Look, don't read".

Recognizing the patterns in Scientology, it's possible to understand it.
I think only ex-Churchies (Wollersheim etc) can come close to understand the Church, just like I don't think any outsider could understand "Jehovah's witnesses" no matter how many Watchtowers and reports he reads.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
No, that's a way to shut down a Scientologist who smacks you with "What is Greatness" as soon as one has valid criticisms.

The response to being presented with 'What is Greatness?' is to note that it's a PR piece.

One could add that it's not policy of any kind, and that it was published, as a 'Broad Public Issue' PR blurb, at the same time that the (1965) Fair Game Law-applying Guardian's Office was (quietly, behind-the-scenes) established (in March 1966). One could also add that Hubbard gloats over the assassination of John F. Kennedy (whom he regarded as an enemy) in the same piece, but that would be too much information too fast.

"It's a PR piece," says it succinctly.
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
The response to being presented with 'What is Greatness?' is to note that it's a PR piece.

One could add that it's not policy of any kind, and that it was published, as a 'Broad Public Issue' PR blurb, at the same time that the (1965) Fair Game Law-applying Guardian's Office was (quietly, behind-the-scenes) established (in March 1966). One could also add that Hubbard gloats over the assassination of John F. Kennedy (whom he regarded as an enemy) in the same piece, but that would be too much information too fast.

"It's a PR piece," says it succinctly.


I have a theory that behind every PR piece and every "technical advancement," as referred to by Hubbard, there are activities that the general scientologist would find despicable. Unfortunately, I do not have the reference materials or time to verify or disprove that theory.
 

knn

Patron Meritorious
The response to being presented with 'What is Greatness?' is to note that it's a PR piece.

One could add that it's not policy of any kind, and that it was published, as a 'Broad Public Issue' PR blurb, at the same time that the (1965) Fair Game Law-applying Guardian's Office was (quietly, behind-the-scenes) established (in March 1966).
I doubt that "It's mere PR" would cut it. Just like "OT Levels are mere fantasy" wouldn't convince any Scientologist either. "Are you a Christian? Well, the 10 commandments are a PR stunt".

After all "What is Greatness" aligns well with other statements of Hubbard while the Grey-Rag punishments have been cancelled and the GO has been dismantled. So you cannot claim "it's a PR piece to distract from other works", since "What is Greatness" still exists, while the other works don't.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Did the (reel-to-reel) SHSBC. Also supervised it. Never heard that reference either.

Whether he DID or DID NOT say it, it seems hardly important because of all the LRH ADVICES and confidential issues that are not BPI. In truth, there exists (contrary to "policy" about HIDDEN DATA LINES) a rather vast number of secretive Hubbard orders, directives, plans, schemes, capers, etc.

I stopped trying to reconcile Scientology against any other standard than WHAT IT DOES.

If gang-bang sec checks are done, then it IS policy, written or unwritten.

So, no need to know who said what or not.

If an Islamic terrorist blows up an airplane, I don't need to study the Koran to see if it was on or off policy. The newspaper/internet is all the info that is required to understand it.

It's easier to live this way, I find. Simpler. Happier.

Excellent!:thumbsup:

While it is fine to understand the policies, how various policies conflict, and understand from a sociological persepctive how Scientology "operates", in the end I treat anything as a black box.

I don't care what goes on inside. I don't care about the claims, the assertions, the promises, the intentions or the PR goals. I look at only what I can see - actual behavior in the real world:

forced disconnections
broken families
lying manipulative Scientology spokesmen and women
abuse
very unadmirable behavior
members who commit nasty acts in the name of forwarding their religious belief system
noisy investigations against real or imaginary "enemies"
overwhelming lawsuits
lies, lies, lies, lies, and more lies
endless deception, misrepresentation and deception
covering up real crimes of their own to continue some illusion
creating phony crimes to make others look bad

The REAL world of organized Scientology behavior is disgusting. It amazes me how there all these Scientology Church members walking around, thinking how wonderful they and their Church are, believing completely that they are saving the universe from eternal oblvion, but in reality how they each support an insidious monster. Contradictions within contradictions that far too few members are willing to confront and accept for what it truly is. :duh:
 

knn

Patron Meritorious
Ack to Gadfly.

The REAL world of organized Scientology behavior is disgusting. It amazes me how there all these Scientology Church members walking around, thinking how wonderful they and their Church are, believing completely that they are saving the universe
Exactly.

Whatever they WANT, whatever they CLAIM, whatever they QUOTE is irrelevant.

Wherever they go, country after country, they cause trouble and upset. Instead of pointing the fingers to the "SP press" and "Evil psychs" they should really look at themselves.

And as I pointed out critics sometimes also make the mistake of trying to prove something by quoting LRH. This is as unfruitful as trying to prove to a Muslim that Islam is bad by quoting the Koran. It's useless. Instead you have to point out the full list from forced abortions to noisy investigations. From lawsuit harassements to youtube footbullets.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I doubt that "It's mere PR" would cut it. Just like "OT Levels are mere fantasy" wouldn't convince any Scientologist either. "Are you a Christian? Well, the 10 commandments are a PR stunt".

After all "What is Greatness" aligns well with other statements of Hubbard while the Grey-Rag punishments have been cancelled and the GO has been dismantled. So you cannot claim "it's a PR piece to distract from other works", since "What is Greatness" still exists, while the other works don't.

It is mere PR, and - amazingly - while that might elicit a dismissive response from a faithful Scientologist, it has a way sinking in over time, especially since most Scientologists - on some level - already know that it's a true statement.

The Fair Game Law was "cancelled" in name only. The "handling" of "SPs," as specified by Hubbard, was not "cancelled."

The G.O. was never "dismantled." It was renamed O.S.A.

Yes, 'What is Greatness?' still exists, as a PR piece. The Destructive cult of Scientology PR dept. even edited out the paragraphs where Hubbard sadistically gloats, etc., and made a real nice 'n slick PR video from it.

The other works still exist too, and Hubbard added more - and worse - in the late 1960s and the 1970s.

And in the early 1970s, Hubbard even developed Scientology PR tech, and it complements his Scientology Intelligence tech. There's even a "PR of PR tech," to shroud the actual (complete, partly confidential) PR tech.

I hope that you're not comparing 'What is Greatness?' to 'The Way to Happiness', another PR "particle," written by Hubbard after the court-ordered release of thousands of pages of damning documentation, which included Hubbard' Fair-Game-Law-applying (mostly confidential) Scientology Intelligence Tech.
 

Div6

Crusader
Let us not forget this little fluff piece:

"That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others."
 
Top