What kind of people are we?

You turn it into a comm game? :)

I was thinking more along the lines of ... rather than allowing the cult to empty your bank account, you can save your money by getting one of these to achieve the same results

Butt-Kicking-Machine[1].jpg
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Originally Posted by ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn
How do you reform a con game?

1. Point finger outward. Emphatically announce: "They are bad!"

2. Point finger inward. Emphatically announce: "I am the Reformer!"

3. When questioned about your long history of complicity with the bad people, simply say: "You are nattering and hating instead of reforming!" Then disconnect them.
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
How do you reform a con game?
Maybe by adding a bit of honesty at the beginning of a session?

Auditor patter: 'Pick up the cans! - Anything you say will be used against you in a Commitee of Evidence, or a Court of Law, or a Smear Campaign, or maybe just to introvert you! - Erh.. Forgot something.. WUT.. Oh yea! - You do not have the right to remain silent!'

:yes:
 
Here's an example of *one* thing that's wrong with Marty:

From his blog: ...

If you are going to cite specific material from MR's blog to make a point, Z, then at least provide a link so others can verify the accuracy of your remarks. I was going to respond to the comment you cite on MR's blog but to do so I need to find the damned thing and then verify that you have accurately cited his remarks in their original context.

IF the remarks you cite are accurate then MR deserves to be called on it. The culling of folders for any purpose beyond those aspects of auditing tech protected by client & session confidentiality, although a common practice in the church, is a clear violation of the Auditor's Code.

IF as an auditor MR is willing "to bend the point" on client confidentiality THEN he should be made to openly acknowledge his willingness to violate the Audtor's Code in such matters.


Mark A. Baker
 
Well, when folder culling was done in the GO, it was done without asking or advicing the auditor... That way the auditor didn't have to experience any code break.. See?

See my prior post remarks about "a common practice in the church". :eyeroll:




Thanks for the link.


My query to MR:
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/mike-rinder-on-todaytonight/#comment-39530
Mark A. Baker // July 25, 2010 at 7:38 pm

Marty, the following statement which you made in response to Peeler leaves the impression that you support the culling of folders as long as such culling is “not excessive”.

“John, Good point. I am working on a post about how overboard they are now going on pc folder use. It used to be they’d use a tid bit or two to create an introversion. Now, there is wholesale culling and analysis and use to wage all out mental warfare on people.”

Does that in fact represent your view on the matter?

No matter who has in the past “authorized” such activities the culling of folders for data to be used for any purpose beyond what is essential for client benefit and accordingly priveleged by client & session confidentiality (e.g. FESing, C/Sing,etc.) is ethically irreconcilable with the Auditor’s Code.

Any auditor who is an advocate or supporter of such conduct must accordingly be regarded as a danger to pcs and others.

p.s. Congratulations to you & your wife on your recent marriage.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.


Mark A. Baker
 

Veda

Sponsor
Well, when folder culling was done in the GO, it was done without asking or advicing the auditor... That way the auditor didn't have to experience any code break.. See?

Public service link:
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/mike-rinder-on-todaytonight/#comment-39227

:yes:

"Wholesale culling... to wage all out mental warfare" didn't start with Miscavige; it's been occurring since the 1960s, probably earlier.

"No rights of any kind" for "anti-Scientologists," "1.1s," those "below 2.0 on the Tone Scale," "SPs," has been part of the "Scientology Philosophy" since Scientology began.

Per Scientology "Ethics," there are a class of people who are "no longer protected by the Codes" of Scientology. This includes no longer protected by the Auditors Code.

The Auditors Code states: "I (the auditor) promise never to use the secrets of the preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain."

Of course, there's a big footnote attached to this, as Suppressive Persons, having "no rights of any kind," are "no longer protected by the codes of Scientology"; and "putting in" a person's ethics by using session information to steer the person in a more "pro-survival" direction is not "punishment," and "pushing the buttons" of a person to motivate him to buy more auditing (his only chance to escape the dwindling spiral and Hubbardian hell), or to comply in some other fashion with Scientology, would not be "personal gain," but rather "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics." i.e., "forwarding Scientology," which is, after all, the only hope for Mankind.

There are some who still consider themselves to be "auditors," but no longer regard themselves as Scientologists. Having an honest and realistic view of what Scientology is, they know the "Scientology Philosophy" trumps the "Auditors Code," and so cease being Scientologists.
 
Last edited:

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
What kind of people are we?

Haven’t we learned anything from our experiences in Scientology about what happens when shady characters told us that “purpose is senior to policy?“

We lose our souls when we make allies of people with a devious nature and a history of harming others.

As individuals we lose our souls and as a group or nation we lose too.

The destructive actions Rathbun and Rinder took in Scientology and the harm they did to others stemmed from their character. And their character doesn't change because they took off their Sea Org uniforms.

It wasn’t just Scientology policy. I read the same policies. I didn’t do the things they did.

People want to cut them some slack because it is believed by many that they can help bring down the Church.

But if the Church of Scientology won't fail unless critics have the help of these guys then maybe it isn't so bad. If it is as bad as we think, then it will collapse by its own Karma.

If we bring them on our side in the fight then we are joining, compromising and reducing our character with theirs. Are we going to do that again?

If we have to elevate these guys to a higher position to bring down the Church, then I don't want anything to do with it.

I have to answer to my conscience. I am not doing it again.

Machiavelli would argue otherwise. “The ends justify the means” was his slogan.

But Cato would argue that compromising values for the sake of expediency always backfires in the long run. Always.

And I say that the means you use is the ends you will obtain. It is one of the great lessons of history.

One thing that disgusted me and made me ashamed of my country is when after World War II it hired former SS officers to help us in our struggle against the Soviet Union.
It showed the real character of American foreign policy.

Having anything to do with Rathbun and Rinder is analogous to this.

Critics, please don't sell your souls again just to have another "win."

The Anabaptist Jacques

Generally, those are also my thoughts. I won't get fooled again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUbGLVvfB7Y
 

Carmel

Crusader
... was not accepted on his blog. This suggest that he for reasons of his own does not wish to discuss whether or not he in fact still does support the practice of "folder culling".


Mark A. Baker
It probably suggests that he realises how very *telling* that comment of his was, on so many fronts, and that for obvious reasons he'd like it to go away.

Thankfully, it won't go away, coz little slips like this which Marty makes about major issues, only help expose where Marty is at and act as a warning to those who don't get it.
 

The Great Zorg

Gold Meritorious Patron
Just some comments I had to make... I've been quiet for too long.

"What kind of people are we?"
From my few months here at ESMB all I can conclude is that we are "Ex-Members: Past, Present and Future, Non-Members and Never-Been Members of the Church of Scientology" We are not ex-scientologists: there appear to be many here that still practice the so called "technology" of hubbard. So "Ex-Scientologist" just doesn't work. People who have never been scientologists are welcomed, so "ex" doesn't apply at all. There are also FreeZoner's here and Independents here, again still practicing what I believe to be whole-scale hypnotic indoctrination so again, "Ex" doesn't work. This observation of course excludes all the disallowed osa ops and trolls.

We lose our souls when we make allies of people with a devious nature and a history of harming others.
The tried-and-true, age-old "the enemies of my enemy are my friends is very reckless by it's nature, but also very useful.

As individuals we lose our souls and as a group or nation we lose too.
Damage control; war is heck!

But if the Church of Scientology won't fail unless critics have the help of these guys then maybe it isn't so bad. If it is as bad as we think, then it will collapse by its own Karma.
That statement is one of the most ridiculous things I've read here at ESMB.

If we bring them on our side in the fight then we are joining, compromising and reducing our character with theirs. Are we going to do that again?
"They" are already on our side, with "our side" being Ex-Members of the Church of Scientology, and Interested persons of course.

If we have to elevate these guys to a higher position to bring down the Church, then I don't want anything to do with it.
Really, who is "elevating" them? We know who and what these two bullies are. One can still work with bullies. You just have to stop them from bullying you while having to have to work with them, like in school or in the workplace or even in court.

Machiavelli would argue otherwise. “The ends justify the means” was his slogan.
Forgive my ignorance, but WHO? Why do you quote someone like this and then speak for him?

But Cato would argue that compromising values for the sake of expediency always backfires in the long run. Always.
Forgive my ignorance, but WHO? Why do you quote someone like this and then speak for him?
Also, why do only three or four of you continue a dialog about these people and appear to speak for them and decide what they would have decided? I find that VERY annoying.

One thing that disgusted me and made me ashamed of my country is when after World War II it hired former SS officers to help us in our struggle against the Soviet Union.
What former S.S. officers? The rocket scientists? The U.S. did what the Soviets were doing. Both countries are (were) insane, stockpiling enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life here on Earth!

It showed the real character of American foreign policy.
American Foreign Policy has always had it's dark side of justifiable mass murder here and there. Whenever the U.S. could NOT trample another nation and that nation had the potential of fighting back and kicking their asses, the U.S. has always turned around and sought peace. Proof is in the War of 1812, for starters.

Having anything to do with Rathbun and Rinder is analogous to this.
War is heck.

Critics, please don't sell your souls again just to have another "win."
Necessary politics in a dark time with dark players.

The Anabaptist Jacques[/QUOTE]
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
... was not accepted on his blog. This suggest that he for reasons of his own does not wish to discuss whether or not he in fact still does support the practice of "folder culling".
Mark A. Baker


:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Thanks for sending that post in to ShackBlog even though it was ultimately rejected.

I thought your question was perfectly well-framed in a balanced and graceful way to invite a simple, honest response.

What possible reason would a man have for censoring a reasonable question?

I am left with only one conclusion.

Unreasonable man.
 

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
What kind of people are we?

Haven’t we learned anything from our experiences in Scientology about what happens when shady characters told us that “purpose is senior to policy?“

We lose our souls when we make allies of people with a devious nature and a history of harming others.

As individuals we lose our souls and as a group or nation we lose too.

The destructive actions Rathbun and Rinder took in Scientology and the harm they did to others stemmed from their character. And their character doesn't change because they took off their Sea Org uniforms.

It wasn’t just Scientology policy. I read the same policies. I didn’t do the things they did.

People want to cut them some slack because it is believed by many that they can help bring down the Church.

But if the Church of Scientology won't fail unless critics have the help of these guys then maybe it isn't so bad. If it is as bad as we think, then it will collapse by its own Karma.

If we bring them on our side in the fight then we are joining, compromising and reducing our character with theirs. Are we going to do that again?

If we have to elevate these guys to a higher position to bring down the Church, then I don't want anything to do with it.

I have to answer to my conscience. I am not doing it again.

Machiavelli would argue otherwise. “The ends justify the means” was his slogan.

But Cato would argue that compromising values for the sake of expediency always backfires in the long run. Always.

And I say that the means you use is the ends you will obtain. It is one of the great lessons of history.

One thing that disgusted me and made me ashamed of my country is when after World War II it hired former SS officers to help us in our struggle against the Soviet Union.
It showed the real character of American foreign policy.

Having anything to do with Rathbun and Rinder is analogous to this.

Critics, please don't sell your souls again just to have another "win."

The Anabaptist Jacques

Cross post from another thread:

Ok, yes----I post occassionally on Marty's board. Some of you may wonder: Why?
Well, there's a little thing in the OSA manual called their bible, "The Art of War".
In it Sun Tzu says a few key things that OSA uses, all the time:
1) Master Sun
"Cause division amongst them" (page 54)
2) Cao Cao
"Send interlopers to cause rifts amongst them"
3) Meng Shi
"Strike at their gaps, attack when they are lax, don't let the enemy figure out how to prepare.This is why it is said in military operations that formlessness is the most effective. One of the great warrior-leaders said, "The most efficient of movements is the one that is unexpected; the best of plans is the one that is unknown".

Which is why I believe Anonymous has been so very successful. Also, once I noticed there was this huge
division amongst Critics, Marty and Anonymous, I looked at who that supported, and decided to try being in more communication, not less.

Does that mean we all need to agree? Hell no, and no, we won't either. However, can we all just agree to disagree, and keep our attentions focused on key issues we all agree on, such as the abuses of C of $? Imnsho--to me that's our best and most effective mode of operation. Even if you don't agree with this, my suggestion is try to post more FACTS about the organization known as the "church" of Scientology and their abuses that we all know, but MANY new people do not. People are leaving daily. They don't need to step out into this collision of views between people they thought were going to help them, or at least be supportive of them.
I speak from experience on this one....and I'm telling you, it's a VERY key time for people. They need you, or anyone they find safe. If it's ESMB or OCMB--fantastic. If it's WWP---also excellent. If that's Marty or Mike--that's great, too. They've helped a bunch of new people wake up and leave, and many speak out, also. Good for them! And on top of that, all (from all 4 groups) have helped educate *tons* of people about these very abuses. Yeah!

They're (new people) out, and that's #1 great. #2 is hopefully they'll feel safe enough to speak out.

For people calling each other criminals, please let me remind you of the 3 goals of the Top Secret OSA Int Internet gang, re the Net:
1) Distract off of any topic having to do with anything they don't want known.

I understand people *want* Marty and Mike to say more. Ok, fair enough. Do you think calling them criminals will motivate them to say more, or less?
Try to think of yourself in a similar position. Which would help you be motivated more?
I know for myself, at first I thought of M & M, and not really knowing them personally, just felt they were separate--as it is a bit of a closed group, or so it seemed. I realized I'd never even tried to communicate with that group---and I did, and it's been
far different than I thought. Then I really looked at my own personal views, and I have always said I am speaking out against the abuses, the Human Rights Violations of
C of $, which they all are against, also. I believe people have a right to believe whatever they want. The information is out there, and some shall look at it, some may never. I ~think~we all can at least agree that the abuses are # 1.


2) Degrade any and ALL activists exposing any thing they (DM and gang) don't want known.


Hello? Perhaps we've all gotten a bit blase' about Davey boy beating people up, but until this either STOPS or serious Justice occurs, it hasn't been said enough, imnsho. **Tons** of people have zero clue about this, so every TV show done is good for all of us.
(and unless you've done TV shows, my view is don't start calling others names or ragging on them for not doing enough). Try to keep in mind: We all unravel at different speeds.

3) Slime any public area, so people literally are embarrassed to even post there.


The above was told to me a few weeks before I quit that group, forever.

I hope that helps. While "in" C of $, at the next to the top, I found exclusion rampant, and it sucked.

I'm interested in inclusion, and connections.
I believe we all have things
we can share and it's important we respect each other,
and help each other. God knows we all have been through enough! May we have more of this: :gathering:>>>not this::fencing:

My love to you all.
:rose:
Tory/Magoo
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
1) The enemy of my enemy is *not* my friend
2) When 'Solidarity' becomes an excuse to demand unanimity of opinion it sucks
3) Doing 'Something' is *not* always better than doing nothing.
4) Just because somebody says he's doing something, or doing it for some reason doesn't make it true.
5) The 'Benefit of the the Doubt' has a limited shelf-life.
6) Chanting slogans is no substitute for discussion.
7) Chanting slogans in order to drown out opposing views is for people who can't support their own position or are unwilling to state their position honestly.

Zinj
 

Sign of Success

Patron with Honors
"What kind of people are we?"
From my few months here at ESMB all I can conclude is that we are "Ex-Members: Past, Present and Future, Non-Members and Never-Been Members of the Church of Scientology" We are not ex-scientologists: there appear to be many here that still practice the so called "technology" of hubbard. So "Ex-Scientologist" just doesn't work. People who have never been scientologists are welcomed, so "ex" doesn't apply at all. There are also FreeZoner's here and Independents here, again still practicing what I believe to be whole-scale hypnotic indoctrination so again, "Ex" doesn't work. This observation of course excludes all the disallowed osa ops and trolls.

We lose our souls when we make allies of people with a devious nature and a history of harming others.
The tried-and-true, age-old "the enemies of my enemy are my friends is very reckless by it's nature, but also very useful.

As individuals we lose our souls and as a group or nation we lose too.
Damage control; war is heck!

But if the Church of Scientology won't fail unless critics have the help of these guys then maybe it isn't so bad. If it is as bad as we think, then it will collapse by its own Karma.
That statement is one of the most ridiculous things I've read here at ESMB.

If we bring them on our side in the fight then we are joining, compromising and reducing our character with theirs. Are we going to do that again?
"They" are already on our side, with "our side" being Ex-Members of the Church of Scientology, and Interested persons of course.

If we have to elevate these guys to a higher position to bring down the Church, then I don't want anything to do with it.
Really, who is "elevating" them? We know who and what these two bullies are. One can still work with bullies. You just have to stop them from bullying you while having to have to work with them, like in school or in the workplace or even in court.

Machiavelli would argue otherwise. “The ends justify the means” was his slogan.
Forgive my ignorance, but WHO? Why do you quote someone like this and then speak for him?

But Cato would argue that compromising values for the sake of expediency always backfires in the long run. Always.
Forgive my ignorance, but WHO? Why do you quote someone like this and then speak for him?
Also, why do only three or four of you continue a dialog about these people and appear to speak for them and decide what they would have decided? I find that VERY annoying.

One thing that disgusted me and made me ashamed of my country is when after World War II it hired former SS officers to help us in our struggle against the Soviet Union.
What former S.S. officers? The rocket scientists? The U.S. did what the Soviets were doing. Both countries are (were) insane, stockpiling enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life here on Earth!

It showed the real character of American foreign policy.
American Foreign Policy has always had it's dark side of justifiable mass murder here and there. Whenever the U.S. could NOT trample another nation and that nation had the potential of fighting back and kicking their asses, the U.S. has always turned around and sought peace. Proof is in the War of 1812, for starters.

Having anything to do with Rathbun and Rinder is analogous to this.
War is heck.

Critics, please don't sell your souls again just to have another "win."
Necessary politics in a dark time with dark players.

The Anabaptist Jacques
[/QUOTE]


That's a pretty good and very explicative definition of Bigots and Hate- Mongers.
Yes, someone should face it soon or later. :omg::omg::omg:
 
Top