SCIENTOLOGIST ADVOCA

Elizabeth McCoy <emccoy@jade.mv.net>

> Do you care enough about your religion to become inFormed?
>
>I'm reading comp.org.eff.talk. I'm sure I'll see the court decision
>there.
Great. That's all I ask. Become inFormed.

>When I can do so using money that I have earned myself, rather than my
>non-Scientologist spouse's, yes. Considering that I'm reading this group,
>I'd *really* like to pick up as much of the literature as I can.
Great. I usta be a Cramming Officer so I can refer you to the exact policy and tek. > These policies issued from hiS Orifice and cannot be changed.
>
>Perhaps not. Perhaps I can convince people that the Net actually falls
>under a slightly less "intuitive" section of policy.
Starrate Keeping Scientology Working, young lady. There is nothing intuitive about the application of tek or policy. It is to be followed exactly. Surely you have this HCOPL handy in the front of your unfinished HQS pack. I'd post it, but your cult had that right of free speech taken away. <wah!>

> Christianity has moderated in the past couple of
> hundred years. Or hadn't you heard?
>
>Yes -- *PRECISELY* my point! Given time, a weird fringe religion with
>some funny beliefs moderates itself, gains enough members who are
>comfortable with themselves enough that they don't act like fanatics all
>the time,
[no offence to peckerwoody, Vera and Milne, I assume]

>and gains acceptance as "just another religion." It is not
>entirely fair to judge a new religion by all the old ones kicking around
>that have had all the rough edges worn off.
I'm here to blunt those sharp edges so kids won't bump into them and get hurt. They won't be dulled by anything but direct opposition. But hey! That's just my opinion, right? > And cannot be changed. [policy]
>
>That is the theory. My personal opinions on that policy are in a state of
>flux which I don't care to discuss on the Net just now.
Ah, ha! You *are* blocking. [not that there's anything wrong with it] We can talk about (or not) anything you want. Feel free to be evasive or criptic. (not that you are) > You are one of the very few scienos who attempts to
> communicate. Unfortunately you are not in a postition to
> *do* anything about any of its numerous flaws.
>
>Nothing huge. I've got my contacts.
>
> Why don't you join the C-org and try to get some reform
> happening?
>
>Because I happen to have a life right now,
This is both obvious and telling. [Woody, are you listening. *She's* got a life! There's hope for you ... someday.] Sorry for the detour.

Yes, it's *good* to have a life. I had one once, too. Nothing grand, you know. Just a modest, little one, with a wife and beautiful, infant daughter named (coincidentally) Beth.

>and don't want to move to the
>other end of the country away from my spouse, three fishtanks, Power Mac
>7100AV, or five cats. Besides, where would I get the time to work on my
>writing in that case? I don't want to be a crusader. I want to be an
>author.
[See peckerwood, you could have those things too, if you'd stop making a humoungous fool out of yourself for long enough to blow.] Sorry, don't know what came overt me. > >> >Isn't this one of these "listing questions" that's supposed to be bad and
> >introvertive?
>
> No, it isn't.
>
>You sure?
Chile, I was the Chief Cramming Officer at the Flag Land Base for years. Read The Laws of Listing & Nulling HCOB (red vols) if you won't take my word for it.

> So join staff and see if the complaints are invalid. If they
> are not, do something about them.
>
>My mom's on staff -- I'd think that's probably enough.
Right. What's her post? Is she an auditor? Is she Oatea?

> How about following policy and writing a Knowledge Report
> about the Outek being perpetrated on innocent wogs, here on
> ars?
>
>Here is where my lack of referance material really hurts -- I *don't*
>know the correct procedure to follow here, and I don't have the correct
>policy to point to and say "So and so is doing such and such wrong
>according to this paragraph right here."
>
>This is one of the things that I'd *like* to have the policy right in
>front of me, so I *can* see where somebody's doing something wrong. And
>so I can make sure that *I* am not doing anything egregious myself, for
>that matter!
Here is where I can help. When you get ready to look at policy and tek to determine *exatly* what the OSA operatives who post to ars are doing wrong (per policy) and write up something along the proper lines within scn, let me know, and I'll hat [sic] you on the exact references, or at least direct you to them so you can become inFormed. >Unfortunately, the cash rather is a problem, as I will not use my
>spouse's money to purchase things he currently considers text doorstops.
>*sigh*
You will thank him some day. > That day, I submit, may never come unless we can force these
> things into the light.
>
>I submit that some things may be easier if the "critic" plays by all the
>rules, quietly within the system, using diplomacy and gentle reason.
That is what I did, both within the cult for 16 years and since I got out. That's what I'm doing on internet and in Federal Court. All within the system. Both inside and out. >Perhaps I am wrong. I am capable of being wrong. But I'd like to find
>that one out for myself.
Wise decision. But, as I found out the hard way, 15 years later, it's sometimes better to listen to others who've been there. >Give me the texts to do that chapter-book-and-verse, and I don't think
>I'd be in an Ethics office. We won't know until I try, unfortunately, and
>that may take a while. "Sey la vie."
From your comments below you're "not ready to confront" the project. When you are, I'll still be here to help. Just let me know. > Policy requires you to writeitup. Why don't you at least try?
>
>Because I'm lazy and don't have the forms right here and don't know the
>email addresses to send to.
Snail-mail or your local org's communications system (in baskets and all) will be more on-policy. > Elizabeth, you are not to blame for anything. I know this
> and so do the others on ars.
>
>No, but the phrasing was... ambigious.
Okay, I do admit it. I partially blame the customers of scn for not caring about the conditions of the staff who have devoted their lives to helping them. Mr. and Mrs Seenoevil want their sessions on time, after all. Staff can, if their stats are up, visit with their children during Hygene Time, while doing their laundry, *every* Saturday morning (that the org isn't in a lower condition).

>But I *don't* think destroying the *spiritual* tech along with
>whatever policies you hate is the answer.
I'm not destroying. I'm EXPOSING ... inForming, if you will. Besides, it's not just the viciousness of the policy I hate. There is no single scieno principle I would not be happy to debate with you. We could start with ARC and work our what through Zenu. A to Z. It would make interesting reading if you picked some tek ... the comm formula, the conditions, the first principle of existence ... any d*rned thing you want. Allow me to present the argument ... you take the affirmative.

What's say? Y'up for it?

>The spiritual policies shouldn't be tampered with, that I agree with.
Great, let's talk about those things you believe.

>Management policies, on the other hand, will probably change as the
>culture itself evolves. *People* will change -- things will be
>intrepreted differently.
None of it can be interpreted. Read your KSW. All that can be done is to get it followed. >At its beginnings, Christianity was often hated, denounced as a baby-killing
>cult, has some periods of corruptness, etc. But it's now the basis for a
>*lot* of people's beliefs! Nobody has to say, "Thou shalt not
>discriminate on the basis that so and so is a Christian."
>
>It took it nearly 2000 years, start to present-day, to get that
>acceptance. Cut the new kid on the block a little slack here and there!
>Yeah, if there's something bad going on, stop it, but the whole *theory*
>ain't bad.
Slack? How can you dare to call yourself a net.person and dare to use the word Slack in relation to scn? >This is what makes exterior criticism so hard to sort out -- many seem to
>want to abolish the Church entirely, both because they think it's corrupt
>(or something) and because they don't believe in the
>psychological/spiritual gains that members believe they've gotten. If
>you want somebody to go defensive, *attack* that person! If you want them
>to freeze up and try to ignore everything you say, attack them on valid
>points and invalid points both. Soon they'd rather die than admit you
>might have *any* validity whatsoever.
>
>I don't say it's *right*, but it's fragging *understandable*, and ought
>to be taken into account by anyone who's trying to change *ANY* group.
Or person. Quite right. > It will be forced to change because we are making the
> practices and policies public. It's called reform. It is
> the action in which I am engaged.
>
>Maybe so. Maybe there will be internal reforms of the things you consider
>bad, too. Your path.
Been there, tried that. > Stupidity doesn't begin to describe it. I gave my life to
> the cult. My family. My future. My Immortal Soul was
> placed in their hands.
>
> I was disgarded like some piece of worthless trash when I
> questioned the cruelty exerted against staff. I did it in an
> on-policy manner. It made no difference. Spreading your
> hands will not give me back the 15 years or the family your
> cult robbed me of.
>
>No, it won't. But *nothing* I do can "fix it and make it better"
>instantly. I don't have a time-machine at my beck and call.
Nobody expect's anything instant except at the drivethru at McDonnels. > Jeeze. Nobody's blaming your, Elizabeth. I'm just asking
> you to help reform your church.
>
>I'm not so sure -- from this side of the screen, it looks like you're
>trying to 1: convince me that the administration is rotten to the core,
>and 2: that I should join you in attacking it in public.
I'm trying to convince you only to investigate for yourself and do what your integrity calls for you to do. >That is not what I consider reform. I'm not going to do that. I'm going
>to handle things the way *I* wish to handle them, and maybe those ways
>aren't as strong as you'd like, or as you'd do them. But this is my
>choice.
Don't get your knickers in a knot, kid. S'not what I'm saying. I don't recommend "my way" to anybody. My way is totally wrong, except for me. >I don't ride your Cross-Town Bus. :-) I'm working on the contragrav
>armchair.
Our loss. > Write it up. See how it's handled.
>
>Eventually, I shall probably do that. But first I think I want to finish
>a short-story that I'm working on.
Good idea.

> Ancient history versus current practice, Elizabeth. I'd have
> joined a protest against the Christians too, if those things
> were still practiced. You are blocking.
>
>The point is that the Christian policy is very old. The Scientology
>policy is still new. Protest it, sure, but realize that on a cosmic scale
>of things, it's like tossing a baby bird out of the nest and complaining
>that it can't fly.
That "baby bird" is a hunting carnivor in search of "raw meat". > Don't you care to become familiar with how your religion
> works?
>
>Yes, I do, when it becomes necessary. But I don't have the personal
>funding to go out and buy the materials just now. It hasn't, previously,
>been *that* important to me.
I can help you with the references as soon as Judge Whyte returns my property and rights to me. You up for it then. No charge [except perhaps in that pretty little "bank" of yours]. > >I'd say that if it makes the "victim" feel
> >better to do pennance (and doing penance/making amends can be good for
> >the soul -- look at 1500 or so years of "confession and pennance"...),
> >then there is no harm to it. I'm sure there are better ways. I'm sure
> >there are worse ones -- stocks, flogging, walking barefoot to Rome to
> >apologize to the Pope...
>
> When such practices are voluntary, not part of thougt-reform
> punishment, they are simply barbaric. When forced on people,
> they are criminal.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "when such practices are voluntary ... they
>are simply barbaric." I'm really not -- why do you say that?
Doing pennance is a voluntary thing. If the RPF were voluntary, it would be simlply barbaric. It is a forced program and therefore a form of slavery and undue-influence. Illegal. You see what I mean? > >Your opinion vs. my opinion. I don't think it will be
> >*quite* so extreme as Waco, if such a thing happens.
>
> Less children will be killed because staff are forced to have
> abortions at the Hemet compound? That's quite an improvement
> over Waco.
>
> You're getting extremist. This one's strictly one opinion
>against another, and I don't think it will do either of us any good to
>discuss it.
As you wish. But I've been there and know the conditions inside the C-org. > >If you think your tactics are valid, I surely will not convince you
> >otherwise.
>
> I'm listening.
>
>Truly? But you don't believe that working within the system can help --
>because you tried, and somehow somebody screwed up.
I will never place myself under any jurisdiction other than God and the laws of the USA again. I'm not about to do Steps A-E (look it up in Vol 1, green) just so I can chit OSA for being incompetent.

>Maybe it *can't*
>work for you. Maybe it *can* work for me. I am not in your situation, and
>probably can't point at one little thing and make you say "OH! YOU'RE
>RIGHT! That *is* a better way to handle things!"
I accept our differences in experience and perspective with gratitude. >No, if that's the case, it's not easy to reverse. But not impossible, for
>any organization.
Especially if the FBI knocks on the door and says "Stop!" > But it's not all you can find out about ... if you care to.
>
>One of the reasons I'm *reading* this frotzing group....
That's why the arsers love you.

> Force? All I'm doing is spraying electrons on the inside of
> your CRT.
>
>True, true -- but I think you are trying to manipulate me into doing so,
>by use of words and psychology.
Something like what they accused Socrates of: "Making the weaker arguement defeat the strong"? Or something much more sinister, like "Looook into the blinking cursor. You are becomming Esspee. Esspee ..."

By the way, I resent that implification. I'm not trying to do anything by make interesting conversation with an interesting person. (you're the best I can find)

> > I don't think I'll be possessed any time soon, as far as I
> >understand that sort of thing. Too ornry.
>
> Wait till you get to Oatea 3. That's what you will be
> handling from there on in auditing. Exorcism. Are you up
> for being possessed and paying for the cure?
>
> Sounds fun.
Kids. >How *can* I find out the truth anymore? There's all these people with
>their axes to grind. Most of the stuff in the past is too tangled for me
>to want to get into it. Current events are easier.
We could stick to current events and basic scieno principles in our chats. > Check out Newmans Web page. He has all the necessary links.
> Read Operation Freak-out, Snow White. Read about Gabe
> Cezarez, Annie Rosenblume, Tanya Burden, Margery Wakefield,
> Hana Eltringham, et al. The data is available if your care.
>
>I've got his web-page written down and intend to go web-surfing sometime
>in the near future.
At's the way. > >Maybe I've got more faith in a "quiet, incremental"
> >path than you do. Let there be many paths.
>
> And some lead nowhere you want to go. Like to exorcism.
>
> I'll find out eventually. I've got forever. One or two wrong
>turns won't kill me.
If they lead you off a cliff, they can. > >Perhaps some things bother me -- perhaps some things don't. Perhaps I
> >figure that there are more than enough critics to pounce on the littlest
> >hint of wrong-doing, and I don't need to add my own concerns to the pot.
>
> Trying to supress free speech is not a "little hint of wrong-
> doing".
>
>No -- but my point is that even the little stuff gets pounced on.
When someone won't admit anything they've done wrong, it human nature to pick-pick-pick til they can't deny that they've done something wrong. > >I do wish that the enviornment here were less hostile all around and more
> >conducive to questions about the Why of various policies. If that were
> >the case, I would probably be asking questions. But the enviornment is
> >*not* conducive to innocent little questions; they'd get blown out of
> >proportion: "SCIENTOLOGIST FLAMES CHURCH POLICY!" "(but I just asked why
> >that book was so expensive!)"
>
> Oops. That's a criticism. The *fact* that your religion is
> not conducive to questioning and is hostile to critical
> thought should tell you something is very wrong.
>
>No, the "blown out of proportion" is in regards to numerous
>critics/flamers who would *take* my question and wave it like a
>battle-banner.
I can understand not wanting to be used by any person or group. I sorta feel the same way. > > >I don't say that it's *good* -- I think that actual valid criticisms
> > >should be addressed, no matter what the source. But considering history
> > >and human nature, I can say that the reactions are *understandable*.
> >
> > In terms of criminal not wanting to get caught and brought to
> > justice? Quite right.
>
>In terms of *anyone* tending to be defensive when they perceive
>themselves to be attacked.
We're not talking about *anyone*. We're discussing the founder of your religion writing policy which demands "Never defend, always attack." Do you want the date and name of the policy? The Volume and page # in the green vols? All part of the free service I provide. > Not that I'd accuse *you* of this [laziness], but don't you want to
> investigate some of these things?
>
>Sure. But I don't want to make a big deal about it, and I don't want to
>do Everything Now. I *know* what mega-stress and deadlines do to me. I
>don't like it. I get really hard to live with.
Ah, ha! Scientology can handle that. Quit being a dilettante and just do scientology. You won't have all those pesky responsibilities.

>[about the poodle] I have no data on him. I don't know
>if he's a jerk or not. I'm not going to accept your word that he is, I'm
>not going to accept somebody else's word that he isn't. I'm not going to
>be drawn into a discussion that requires me to have some opinion about
>his personality, because I have no data to form that opinion on.
Take it from someone who's met him. He's a right proper little sh*t. Very much like Vera, Talbot and Rick Davis. > Anything outside of Flag is considered "the field". You've
> only scratched the surface of scn. Do you care what lies
> within?
>
>Are you trying to imply that I'm a bad person not to know all this stuff?
No. Just that there are real concerns being voiced by intelligent, caring people here and that it would be nice to see a scieno able to address them honestly. >That I'm just iggernant and defending the entire Church, "right or
>wrong"? I think you've mistaken why I post, if that's the case. I'm doing
>my best to stay out of the issues that I don't have any ability to make
>judgement calls on for lack of data. I'm just here because I don't want
>everyone who reads this to think that all Scientologists are alike. I get
>enough flak about my beliefs as it is.
Sad, but probably theraputic in terms of cognative dissonance. >If I didn't care at all, I wouldn't read this group, and I wouldn't reply
>to your posts. But I'm not out to save the world before teatime. I've
>*been* part of a "change the world" effort, thankyouverymuch, and I don't
>intend to bang my head against walls more than once or twice a month.
Wise[tm]. >I can't even really "document out-tech" on ARS, because I've only been
>reading it for about three months, total, with a large hiatus in the
>middle! I'm not going to file KRs until I'm sure I'm not a "newbie" to do
>so. And then maybe I will. Or maybe I'll decided to do something else.
>
>--emccoy@jade.mv.net
Toadly your call, Elizabeth. Thanks for the nice chat, BTW. +--------------------------------------+ Rev. Dennis L Erlich * * the inFormer * * dennis.l.erlich@support.com + inForm@primenet.com "tar baby" --- þ SPEED 2.0L #1907 þ -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- inform@primenet.com * the inFormer * dennis.l.erlich@support.com +----------------------------------------------------------------+