Tom Martiniano defends Admin Tech and the SO; blames current management.

Terril park

Sponsor
It was because stats were down. I really hate the word boom. Anybody can boom a stat but the hard part is keeping it there. Let's suppose that Tom indeed did everything he posted why didn't he maintain that? Well on ESMB people here know the reason. Scientology can be boomed. It's just nobody can maintain it.

Much silliness about weekly stats. Pilot wrote good commentary on that.

However the missions way outproduced the orgs and expanded
really well, until they were smashed. They didn't have to allow the networks
into their premises.

As is written somewhere stats have to be held down. :)
 

Out-Ethics

Patron Meritorious
doesn't make sense.

hubbard says the tech is self correcting.

so why is that old st hill boomed. and why is that tom's org in detroit boomed. and why is it that the mission network prior to 1981 was booming.

Well. where are all these people who were part of booming? why aren't they still a part of the organization?

tom says because of some sp that took over. but hubbard said the tech is self correcting. so how can this be?

no make sense to me.

if the tech is so great, then why aren't all the old timers and everybody who ever bought a book involved?

probably the greatest thing hubbard did was to get PR in his promo pieces that the organization sends out weekly and daily. What about word of mouth, hub says it is the best. seems to be missing if the mother church need send out pr/promo pieces.

You bring up very good points here. The definition of boom is a period of great prosperity or rapid economic growth. The orgs and missions back in the 70s had rapid economic growth but were unable to maintain that because of Hubbard and eventually the Sea Org. Scientology reminds me of the traveling saleman who pulls into a town to sell this magic snake oil. People get excited, buy the product, the peddler makes a ton of dow but has to exit town as word gets out that the snake oil doesn't work. This salesman can go town to town selling this magic snake oil as word doesn't spread fast. This is what happened in the 70s. Hubbard had a product "the bridge" which was the snake oil. Public came in but after a while not getting the results promised so they left.

It's funny but I read more accounts where people write that it was more fun back then in the 70s. My theory is that Hubbard came up with the SO in the 60s but it actually took many years to get this worked out. The SO in the 70s while managing the orgs was not the same as it is today so the orgs and missions had more freedom to operate. As the years rolled on into the late 70s and up to Hubbard death the SO grew and took control thus there was the missions and orgs crashing with very few public and staff. From there DM had to re-establish Scientology but did so with more stringent control leading up to the current state. Had Hubbard not created the SO Scientology would have been in fragments today if at all.

Tom is just a guy who drank the koolaid and really believes in Hubbard and Scientology. What he fail to understand is there was never a bridge and mix that in with some workable tech you get believers. Mighty tasting koolaid! At least that is my memory of him. Actually a charming fellow but then I heard the same about Hubbard.
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
Kids, you're missing the big picture / big variable that drove the "70s boom" [sic].

Everybody getting into Scientology back in the 1970s was a hippie / ex-hippie / student / baby boomer / in their twenties. Everything was fun back then.

More significantly, they (we) were the baby boomer demographic bulge bracket. You could have started a cult based on anything back then, and it would have "boomed."

Wait, they did start cults on everything back then. Before I got into Scientology I was into LSD, Kundalini yoga, the peace movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, astrology, Unitarianism, macrobiotics, and ... I'm sure there were more. Obviously, my generation loved "trying" stuff.

And then they wanted to try different stuff. After trying Scientology, a lot of people went on to groove on cocaine, multiple partner sex, day trading, getting real jobs, raising and supporting kids, buying homes, etc. Most of that wasn't compatible with Scientology. Yes, a lot of people here did try to combine becoming grown-ups while also staying in Scientologyl. But the inherent conflict and stresses of combining those two things drove most people out of the church.

We forget that the people who hang out at this board are not your typical Seventies Scientologists. We are just the ones who stayed. Almost everyone else left a lot faster than we did.

:hysterical:

TG1
 

Gib

Crusader
Kids, you're missing the big picture / big variable that drove the "70s boom" [sic].

Everybody getting into Scientology back in the 1970s was a hippie / ex-hippie / student / baby boomer / in their twenties. Everything was fun back then.

More significantly, they (we) were the baby boomer demographic bulge bracket. You could have started a cult based on anything back then, and it would have "boomed."

Wait, they did start cults on everything back then. Before I got into Scientology I was into LSD, Kundalini yoga, the peace movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, astrology, Unitarianism, macrobiotics, and ... I'm sure there were more. Obviously, my generation loved "trying" stuff.

And then they wanted to try different stuff. After trying Scientology, a lot of people went on to groove on cocaine, multiple partner sex, day trading, getting real jobs, raising and supporting kids, buying homes, etc. Most of that wasn't compatible with Scientology. Yes, a lot of people here did try to combine becoming grown-ups while also staying in Scientologyl. But the inherent conflict and stresses of combining those two things drove most people out of the church.

We forget that the people who hang out at this board are not your typical Seventies Scientologists. We are just the ones who stayed. Almost everyone else left a lot faster than we did.

:hysterical:

TG1

so much then for admin tech, ie stats are generated internally, and/or somebody is holding or pushing the stat down. :laugh:
 

Dean Blair

Silver Meritorious Patron
I was staff in Detroit Org from 1971 until 1978. I worked as Qual Sec, HGC auditor, Supervisor and every now and then as an executive. When I took over as Qual Sec after the Day/Foundation split in 1973, I recruited 14 staff for Qual and we ran the org all the way to St Hill size in 1974. Our org ran like a well-oiled machine, running all-hands body routing, all-hands intro lectures, regging and supervising on the basic courses in order to stuff the academy with students. I then supervised the academies 60+ students and put everyone through the Primary Rundown, after which they became “Super Literate.” As a result we had 22 Intern auditors in the HGC and we delivered 850 in-the-chair hours per week with a million student points in the academy alone per week. We had so much fun producing that no one really wanted to take a day off be because it was more fun to produce in the org than it was to do something else. Detroit was good Boot-Camp Training because we really learned how to “Play the Piano” and put all the functions together to boom Scientology in our area and we did.

I was there and can tell you Tom has embellished this. There were no 14 staff in Qual and at best maybe 2-3. The FDN org did get up to maybe 70 staff members but Day org was very small. 60 plus students??? Never ever saw that. At times up to 20-25 in the course room. Million student points - well Tom must have counted the points from students from the 60s to help with that stat. I guess his memory is a little different from mine.

Thank you. I was also there from 1971 to 1975 and as I was reading Tom's essay I was saying to myself WTF? The Detroit Org was never booming and the staff were never paid enough to live on. Almost everyone moon lighted or had relatives who supported them.

My ex wife Lyn was there as well and she can verify what you say as well. Tom is dubbing in something which was not true.

I do believe that there were more people on lines back in the 70's than there are today or in any recent times but the Detroit Org was never ever booming.
 

OhMG

Patron Meritorious
Everybody getting into Scientology back in the 1970s was a hippie / ex-hippie / student / baby boomer / in their twenties. Everything was fun back then.

Yes, the majority of scn'ers were boomer druggie types. There was almost no people who were born from ~'61-70 unless their parents were already in. The next surge was when the boomers had children. I ran the numbers in the late 80's. Most of upper Church management were boomers.

A more dysfunctional demographic has never existed before in the U.S.
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
A more dysfunctional demographic has never existed before in the U.S.

LOL. Every generation gets that rap.

Just wait. You'll be even more offended by the coming generations. The world is always going to hell in a handbasket.

:)

TG1
 

OhMG

Patron Meritorious
LOL. Every generation gets that rap.


Nope. They are the 1st generation in US history to be medically (physically & psychologically) to less healthy than their parents generation. So, you are incorrect.
 
Nope. They are the 1st generation in US history to be medically (physically & psychologically) to less healthy than their parents generation. So, you are incorrect.

Depends on how one defines "healthy".

With regard physical health, artificial materials with indeterminate effects have been increasingly introduced into the environment since WWI, i.e. precisely since the onset of boomers. This includes not only the ubiquitous plastics and other synthetics which surround us, but perhaps more importantly the very character of the food supply as well as the increasing supplies of 'medications' which are a commonality of everyday life. That of course includes such over-the-counter substances as toothpaste, pain killers, anti-biotic creams, and similar which commonly include artificial ingredients added to "improve" function but for which the actual biological effect is not fully understood.

Similarly, earlier generations were far more active in the normal living simply as a result of the lack of "labor saving" devices. Meals took time to cook. Transportation was more limited. There was far greater reliance on pedestrian traffic. With the increasing "luxury" of the consumer economy as it has expanded since WWII physical activity is increasingly a "leisure time" option; ski trips, camping, going to the gymnasium. For many these activities give way to sitting on the couch, watching tv, playing computer games, etc.. Earlier generations did not have the option of remaining physically inactive to the degree that the post-boomer generations have had.

With regard "psychological" health of recent generations, the one thing that truly strikes me as fundamentally different with the "boomer" and "post-boomer" generations is their break with the reactive rigidity of earlier generations. My experience of the pre-war generations was they were culturally "fixed" and wholly intolerant of different cultures. It was simply taken as a given that their own cultural antecedents were innately superior in all ways to those of others. The boomers were the first generation to openly challenge such assertive certainties. Later generations have accordingly benefited from a tolerance towards the breaking down of cultural barriers which was simply unthinkable with earlier generations. And that is a key component of psychological health.

Of course many individuals and sub-groups remain quite rigid in their own thinking and customs. Not all post-boomers are enlightened little muffins of peace and light. There is even a prominent social reaction currently in vogue in some sectors which seeks to reassert the rigidity of earlier generations as a societal norm. But that is part of the breaking down of cultural limits; more distinct "flavors" of social interaction are recognized and openly tolerated as a part of the mix.

So what is really happening is that development in technologies and the alteration of the economy to reflect those developments is producing a transformation in lives and lifestyles in such a way as to revamp the way humans exist and to a point where the very definition of what constitutes an "healthy human" is subject to revision.

Things change.


Mark A. Baker
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
Nope. They are the 1st generation in US history to be medically (physically & psychologically) to less healthy than their parents generation. So, you are incorrect.

Well, at least one thing remains constant: People tend to get more cranky and critical as they age.

:hysterical:

TG1
 

Out-Ethics

Patron Meritorious
Thank you. I was also there from 1971 to 1975 and as I was reading Tom's essay I was saying to myself WTF? The Detroit Org was never booming and the staff were never paid enough to live on. Almost everyone moon lighted or had relatives who supported them.

My ex wife Lyn was there as well and she can verify what you say as well. Tom is dubbing in something which was not true.

I do believe that there were more people on lines back in the 70's than there are today or in any recent times but the Detroit Org was never ever booming.

The 70s was likely the best period for Detroit org in terms of staff and public. Staff pay was crap. Lots of cheap meals but the parties were great although FOLO was not too thrilled about that.

Like you when I read Tom's post I just couldn't let that pass. The weird part is I think Tom really thinks it was true.
 
Top