trepidatious

Smilla

Ordinary Human
sorry i didn't get back to you yesterday AT. i read your post just as my computer time ran out


sort of odd you should choose two of the more overblown charges against ron for your riposte. the first actually isn't serious child abuse. no, i don't like the idea of locking a kid up. thankfully and by the grace of god i wouldn't do it. i don't condone it and if i were in a position to block it i would. still it's not impossible but that is very unlikely to seriously traumatize a kid. it makes the kid pretty uncomfortable but doesn't injure. children are very resilient. once the kid gets out their going to be so happy about it they'll bounce right up the tone scale and leave the moment in the past, a thing they might recall later or might not.

and something else. i doubt many people on this board are truly aware of the astonishing magnitude of the influence of dr. benjamin spock's postwar writing on childrearing on societal standards and attitudes. in the world in which ron was born and raised locking a kid up for a day or two wasn't even considered child abuse

by our current standards which i endorse and practice it is thought to be abuse. it still isn't severe. hey! anyone see the recent documentary on bukowski? that kid got abused. three times a week from the age of five until he was eleven his german father marched him into the bathroom had him drop his pants put his hands on the windowsill and whacked his hindside eight, ten, fourteen times with a leather belt. jesus! you think that's bad? there was a middleaged woman in the office at the cab company where i worked in the nineties and i got to know her driving her home a few times. you wouldn't expect it in a middle class jewish home but her parents beat her badly. the worst incident resulted in 147 stitches in the ER. THAT is serious child abuse.

the guy with the peanut...
i'm not into hazing. that college frat boy crap ain't my style. but although i am not trained and certified as an army DI i am qualified for the task. i am ready willing and able to address a recruit as "maggot" with unrestrained tone 40/one point five TR-1 and smack my right combat boot into his rump if it sticks up while he traverses the low crawl pit. you want to acheive mission objective and bring your men home that's how you train your troops. the peanut with the nose around the deck is an acceptable disciplinary action. the guy was 50 and the usual cutoff age is 45 but if he had no physical infirmity i wouldn't nitpick on that point. you didn't mention that he had to perform in front of his wife and child. in front of his wife is considered a serious violation of the form and in front of his child a gross and highly pejorative violation.

yeah. right on. it is entirely proper to question ron's character and it's meaning in relation to his work.

but...

bottom line...

michealangelo was a pederaast. i'm sure some of my fellow prods would cheerfully wallpaper the ceiling of the sistine chapel but it ain't gonna happen. and though it was kept out of the gossip columns and scansal sheets, our much beloved dulcet voiced crooner bing crosby was a bigtime wifebeater and childbeater. you think that's gonna stop your local DJ from playing "white christmas" 473 times this december?

hey AT, i notice on one of your posts on this thread you were in 25 years. i didn't know that.

please...

if you would be so kind...

tell me...

were you one of our ex-scn kids born in who escaped or did you walk in on your own? public? staff? SO? trained auditor? if so could you give a thumbnail estimate of WDAH? did declare clear?

time short, more later

1. Locking the child up was major child abuse, and he should have been arrested and brought before a court for doing it.

2. You demean the US military by implying that they would feel OK about someone doing that to a soldier.


I can hardly believe that you actually mean what you have said about those two incidents.

They are both examples of extreme and sadistic abuse.

I'm shocked and saddened by what you posted.
 
sorry i didn't get back to you yesterday AT. i read your post just as my computer time ran out


sort of odd you should choose two of the more overblown charges against ron for your riposte. the first actually isn't serious child abuse. no, i don't like the idea of locking a kid up. thankfully and by the grace of god i wouldn't do it. i don't condone it and if i were in a position to block it i would. still it's not impossible but that is very unlikely to seriously traumatize a kid. it makes the kid pretty uncomfortable but doesn't injure. ...

Absolutely untrue, CB. A chain locker is a very dangerous and unsanitary shipboard environment. Among merchant seaman It is only entered with caution and never alone. On a well run ship individuals are NEVER left alone in the chain locker for any period of time, much less confined in one deliberately.

Not only is confining a child in a chain locker apt to prove traumatic, it constitutes deliberate & reckless child endangerment; i.e. child abuse. Only a severely disturbed individual would consider otherwise.

If you need to confine a person on shipboard, confine them to quarters, not an industrial space. That's insanity.


Mark A. Baker
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
<snip>
we run recruits ragged sometimes ourselves. but. we run 'em ragged running right alongside 'em. we are free men and women.
<snip>
.

Ah, "run 'em ragged", eh. Hmm, back then as a "free man" I never found the guy who could get me to run the first for him, period.

In the SO I ran into lots of people with big mouths but none had much going but waving policy...oh, and "thinking" volume was a substitute for logic.

Oh, blowhards, that's the word I was looking for !
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
sort of odd you should choose two of the more overblown charges against ron for your riposte. the first actually isn't serious child abuse. no, i don't like the idea of locking a kid up. thankfully and by the grace of god i wouldn't do it. i don't condone it and if i were in a position to block it i would. still it's not impossible but that is very unlikely to seriously traumatize a kid. it makes the kid pretty uncomfortable but doesn't injure. children are very resilient. once the kid gets out their going to be so happy about it they'll bounce right up the tone scale and leave the moment in the past, a thing they might recall later or might not.

You do know that a chain locker can KILL a person?

From Understanding Scientology, by Margery Wakefield

The chain locker was a small compartment at the bow of the ship where the excess chain attached to the anchor was wound up and stored. It was a cold, dark wet area frequently inhabited by rats. It was into this compartment that people would be lowered as a form of "ethics," or punishment. It was a dangerous form of punishment, since at any moment the chain could be released, and the person in the chain locker, if not careful, could be caught in the outgoing chain.

In several cases, children were put into the chain locker as punishment for misdeeds. In one case Hubbard ordered a five year old deaf mute girl into the chain locker "to cure her deafness." In another case a four year old boy was kept in the chain locker for two weeks because he ate some telex tape. His mother was told that he was actually a very old thetan in a young body, and should not be given sympathy because of his young body. (3) This is a common conception of children in Scientology.

You SHOULD know that locking a young child up for TWO WEEKS would constitute child abuse. Is there seriously anybody who does not know this? With the RATS, no less.

Hubbard abused children. Neglect. Emotional abuse. Trauma. Ruined lives. You think they MIGHT not remember this? Seriously? Go ask Sharone Stainforth if she remembers.

From kidshealth.org:

Neglect
Neglect is any action — or inaction — on the part of a caregiver that causes a child physical or emotional harm. For example, withholding food, warmth in cold weather, or proper housing is considered neglectful. Basically, anything that interferes with a child's growth and development constitutes neglect. This also includes:

  • failing to provide medical care when a child is injured or sick
  • locking a child in a closet or room
  • placing a child in a dangerous situation that could lead to physical injury or death

Abandonment is a type of neglect. This occurs when a child is left alone for extended periods of time or suffers serious harm because no one was looking after him or her.


Emotional Abuse

Emotional abuse or psychological abuse is a pattern of behavior that has negative effects on a child's emotional development and sense of self-worth. Ignoring a child or withholding love, support, or guidance is considered emotional abuse. So is threatening, terrorizing, belittling, or constantly criticizing a child.

The man was evil. Those two acts ALONE. May he rot for the whole of his damned eternity.
 
Last edited:

Gadfly

Crusader
The man was evil. Those two acts ALONE. May he rot for the whole of his damned eternity.

It really doesn't matter what any of us wish. None of us, including Hubbard, can run away from oneself. You can drop the body, and you can let the mind dissolve, BUT you will still be who and what you are, and THAT will define and attract wherever and however you find yourself at some later time - aka "Gadfly's Theory of Karmic Consistency". :coolwink:

We each will get exactly what we deserve - at least that is how things make sense to me in my own little handy-dandy model of all-that-is. :biggrin:

That is why, if you care at all about your future, that you be really fuckin' careful to do your absolute best to understand and adhere to these fine words:

Do Unto Others as You Would Have Others Do Unto You

Obviously, that maxim was not very meaningful, pertinent, important or applicable to Hubbard. :no:
 
1. Locking the child up was major child abuse, and he should have been arrested and brought before a court for doing it.

2. You demean the US military by implying that they would feel OK about someone doing that to a soldier.


I can hardly believe that you actually mean what you have said about those two incidents.

They are both examples of extreme and sadistic abuse.

I'm shocked and saddened by what you posted.

i stand corrected on the chain locker, it was worse than i thought. it remains far short of extreme abuse. 147 stitches in an ER is extreme abuse. i'm a vet. in the army actions of the peanut degree are uncommon in garrison but are not over the line. worse does occur sometimes and goes over the line. sometimes action is taken to address such abuses and sometimes not but the proper standards do exist. there are training exercises which are known to occur in the field which i will not report on this board. c'est la guerre
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
i stand corrected on the chain locker, it was worse than i thought. it remains far short of extreme abuse. 147 stitches in an ER is extreme abuse. i'm a vet. in the army actions of the peanut degree are uncommon in garrison but are not over the line. worse does occur sometimes and goes over the line. sometimes action is taken to address such abuses and sometimes not but the proper standards do exist. there are training exercises which are known to occur in the field which i will not report on this board. c'est la guerre

You're obviously no psychologist.
 
i stand corrected on the chain locker, it was worse than i thought. it remains far short of extreme abuse. 147 stitches in an ER is extreme abuse. ...

The 'worst case scenario' of a chain locker accident wouldn't leave enough left for stitches. Doubtful you'ld find much that was stitchable. On the 'plus' side, it would all be over very very quickly, a matter of seconds not minutes.


Mark A. Baker
 
Ah, "run 'em ragged", eh. Hmm, back then as a "free man" I never found the guy who could get me to run the first for him, period.

In the SO I ran into lots of people with big mouths but none had much going but waving policy...oh, and "thinking" volume was a substitute for logic.

Oh, blowhards, that's the word I was looking for !

how come you stayed in so long AT?

it's sort of ironic that i firmly defend the core of the subject but i didn't stay all that long. i found it worth long hours low pay and eating several rations of crap. but i have some very firm and exacting standards and i was pushed too far three times and then gone. three strikes. one out. same rules as last year
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
The 'worst case scenario' of a chain locker accident wouldn't leave enough left for stitches. Doubtful you'ld find much that was stitchable. On the 'plus' side, it would all be over very very quickly, a matter of seconds not minutes.


Mark A. Baker

Indeed - the person would be pretty much mincemeat. A four year old wouldn't even know enough to recognise the first signs of danger.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Can you time-tag this period? Before or after Star Wars 1? I heard that the major success of SW took the wind out of the sails vis a vis Revolt In The Stars, with Hubbard dismissing RITS afterwards, making a comment that "the charge had been blown" off that area with SW's massive success...


At first I thought you were joking on that part about Hubbard saying that Star Wars "took the wind out of the sails" for REVOLT IN THE STARS. Then I realized you were serious.

But, then I saw the Hubbard comment that "the charge had been blown" and was sure you were joking.

Then I realized that you were serious (again).

STAR WARS was released to theaters on May 25 1977. Hubbard began writing REVOLT IN THE STARS after that in July of 1977. Six months after STAR WARS was theatrically released, Hubbard finished his screenplay and filed for copyright in November of 1977.

Now for why I assumed you were joking at first. . .

The blockbuster success of a movie like STAR WARS would only not "take the wind out of the sails" of a script like REVOLT IN THE STARS, it would exponentially increase the chances to find studio production deal! Not just blowhard Hubbard's script, but the entire genre of Sci-Fi and "Space Opera" had its floodgates opened when the film industry saw the astonishing revenues pouring in from George Lucas' movie.

For anyone that worked in the industry, that excuse would sound like a joke, exactly the reason I thought you (or Hubbard) were kidding. It would be like saying that the astronomical return-on-investments for the founding APPLE investors killed the interest of tech investors to put money into newer companies like Yahoo, Google or Facebook.

If Hubbard had said that to an industry professional they would have laughed in his face.

And the other absurdly hilarious excuse about "the charge being blown already" is easily disproven by the simple fact that a successful movie inspires worldwide audiences to want more and their hunger is so ravenous that many copycat movies proliferate (with success) and the first film itself generates sequel after sequel, creating the phenomenon known as a "movie franchise" (e.g. Star Wars I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII) There are many examples of these kind of franchise films such as James Bond (23 sequels), Harry Potter (8), Star Trek (11), Friday The 13th (12), Rocky (6) and many others.

By the way, it is very true that Hubbard and ASI and the other Scientologists that were nervously trying to pitch REVOLT IN THE STARS to a fully disinterested Hollywood, did in fact claim that the movie would "blow 4th dynamic charge" and "destimulate the 4th dynamic". They said these things, I know, because they said them to me personally when trying to impress me before they knew whether or not my industry contacts would be of use to them. I had no involvement in anything to do with that project beyond looking over the screenplay, which I found so boring that I could not actually read it. Same reaction I had to Hubbard's Sci Fi books, with one notable exception.....

While I couldn't stand reading Mission Earth or Battlefield Earth (although I tried to several times and couldn't make it more than a couple chapters in before tossing it aside with a cringe) I did really enjoy reading his other Sci Fi called Scientology.



ps: Screenplays and movies do not "blow charge". If they work, they entertain. Scientologists are so freaking retarded that they think they are auditing out charge when they are actually playing make-believe (acting) in front of a camera. What self-important clowns!
 

Gadfly

Crusader
At first I thought you were joking on that part about Hubbard saying that Star Wars "took the wind out of the sails" for REVOLT IN THE STARS. Then I realized you were serious.

<snippage>

ps: Screenplays and movies do not "blow charge". If they work, they entertain.

Scientologists are so freaking retarded that they think they are auditing out charge when they are actually playing make-believe (acting) in front of a camera.

What self-important clowns!

Gawd, I am bowled over with laughter!!

smiley_ROFL.gif


I love how you said that, so simple, yet so true (in a metaphorical sort of way), they "are so freaking retarded".

Sometimes just a short phrase can sum it all up so very well! :thumbsup:

The way they interpret and experience all reality through their fictional set of make-believe blinders (the Scientlogy paradigm) just cracks me up, and worse, how they have this crazy notion that "their way is the ONLY accurate and legitimate way".

Again,

smiley_ROFL.gif


Who knew? You can blow charge watching movies, huh? Cool!

But, hey it is a lot cheaper and whole LOT MORE FUN than that Scientology Bridge to Total Goofiness.

Warning: Please, no fecal references on this thread. If you do so, the post will be removed by a moderator and placed on one of Gadfly's other retarded threads.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
I was doing training at the Tampa org for my A - E steps for my first SP declare.

I had recently seen the movie, Battlefield Earth, and the students were on break standing around talking. Someone brought up Battlefield Earth. I had to be careful what I said, because I sure as hell couldn't come out all critical when I was on my steps to get undeclared. :duh:

But, I couldn't help it. :no:

I suffer from GNMS - Gadfly Noisy Mouth Syndrome. :lol:

I formed it into a PR comm using ARC by saying. "while I really liked the book, I mean the book was so extremely great, it was sad that the movie was such a poor rendition of what was a truly fantastic book". Others started talking about it negatively too, but it didn't take long for that cloud of guilt and nervous hysteria to settle in as they got quiet, and self-monitored themselves into silence - lest they commit that horrible Scientology crime and actually say what they REALLY think.

I hated that about involvement with Scientology. All the pretending and taking extreme care to NEVER say what you really were thinkiing. :puke2:


LOL

A Scientologist could literally get Declared SP if they said that Ron's movies (Battlefield Earth, Tech Films, etc...) and his music ("Thank You For Listening", etc...) totally sucked.

Anyone who thinks this is a joke or an exaggeration doesn't have a clue what is really going on in Scientology.

Scientology says you will have "Total Freedom" but the hard reality is that you do not even get to have your own opinion.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Before the release of Battlefield Earth (the movie not the book). Our mission holder was so excited. She told us that there were deals for action figures and that it just might be this movie will put Scn. on the map.

Scn. seems to always be chasing after a golden horizon that they never catch.


After Battlefield Earth, the CoS did in fact release the first action figure, which although lacking any superpowers and being quite small, nonetheless generated hundreds of millions of dollars of licensing and merchandising revenues.

David Miscavich.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
LOL

Scientology says you will have "Total Freedom" but the hard reality is that you do not even get to have your own opinion.

Actually, they let you have your opinions about a great many things. The ONLY things you are not allowed to have any other opinions about are the subjects of Hubbard & Scientology.

And, while they don't generally give a shit what ones politics are, they will get involved in politics ONLY if it somehow serves THEM. They push the term "special interest group" to a whole new level!
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Actually, they let you have your opinions about a great many things. The ONLY things you are not allowed to have any other opinions about are the subjects of Hubbard & Scientology.

And, while they don't generally give a shit what ones politics are, they will get involved in politics ONLY if it somehow serves THEM. They push the term "special interest group" to a whole new level!

Not necessarily. They don't always let you have your own opinion about whether you should stay married, give birth to your own child or put some money away for college education, retirement etc.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Absolutely untrue, CB. A chain locker is a very dangerous and unsanitary shipboard environment. Among merchant seaman It is only entered with caution and never alone. On a well run ship individuals are NEVER left alone in the chain locker for any period of time, much less confined in one deliberately.

Not only is confining a child in a chain locker apt to prove traumatic, it constitutes deliberate & reckless child endangerment; i.e. child abuse. Only a severely disturbed individual would consider otherwise.

If you need to confine a person on shipboard, confine them to quarters, not an industrial space. That's insanity.


Mark A. Baker


OMG! I finally agree wholeheartedly with something you said.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Not necessarily. They don't always let you have your own opinion about whether you should stay married, give birth to your own child or put some money away for college education, retirement etc.

But, in all those cases it is only when it somehow would serve them or benefit them if 1) one got divorced, 2) one had an abortion, or 3) or one gave them all of ones retirement and/or college education fund money.

They let you have any opinion as long as having it doesn't take away for giving Scientology time, energy and money. But, if there is any competition between some "other intention" and flowing THEM power (giving them your time, money and energy), then they will interfere in that area of ones life.

The highest value in Scientology is "helping and supporting Scientology". All ethics conditions & justice codes revolve around THAT senior datum. The planets of Scientology rotate around THAT central idea. That is the Stable Datum in organized Scientology. There is no higher consideration. All plans, programs, orders and policies align with THAT top priority concern.

Once you have any opinion that results in some action that either reduces your giving them time, energy and money, or stops your from doing so, THEN they want to resolve any barrier immediately & terminatedly (get divorced, disconnect, have an abortion, empty your trust fund, etc.).

Really, Hubbard explains it all in policy, and the lemmings simply follow it exactly. The whole idea of a "terminated handling" means just what it sounds like - exterminate the source of the problem! :ohmy:

Hubbard lists out these as the two top primary things that must always be addressed and handled FAST:

Counter-Intention

Other-Intention


But to what? To the survival and expansion of Scientology.

So again, they don't give a crap what your opinions are until they somehow "hurt" them in some way. Also, to them "words hurt like sticks and stones", and they view ANY negative comments as a "harmful act" that falls under the category of "counter-intention". Of course enemies are the worst - the worst form of counter-inention.

But, "other-intention" doesn't lag far behiind. If you would rather go out bowling on Tuesday nights instead of attending the local OT Committee meetings, this will end you up in Ethics and probably being ordered to Sec Checks at your own costs. These will be assigned to you to address why you are blowing from uptone Scientology activities, or failing to expand out into the 3rd dynamic (as they feel you should to THEM).

They are nuts! And, it is all based on an exact application of detailed LRH materials.

apple_tree1.jpg
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
LOL

A Scientologist could literally get Declared SP if they said that Ron's movies (Battlefield Earth, Tech Films, etc...) and his music ("Thank You For Listening", etc...) totally sucked.

Anyone who thinks this is a joke or an exaggeration doesn't have a clue what is really going on in Scientology.

Scientology says you will have "Total Freedom" but the hard reality is that you do not even get to have your own opinion.
Lol. All true except that you do get to have your own opinion, you just don't get to share it with any other scientologist. Just kidding, I know what you meant. :thumbsup:
 
Top