From pilot@hiddenplace.com Thu Jul 02 14:00:32 1998 Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.229.87.25!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!206.117.249.5!news-wis-88.sprintlink.net!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 33 - JULY 2, 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT Organization: The Pilot's hidden place Lines: 2931 Date: 2 Jul 1998 14:00:32 Message-ID: Reply-To: pilot@hiddenplace.com Distribution: world NNTP-Posting-Host: 155.23.26.33 Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.clearing.technology:59067 POST33.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 33 - JULY 2, 98 PILOT POSTS TO ARS/ACT This does not include "Super Scio Tech - Level Zero Training Checksheets" which has also been posted because that is over 60K all by itself. ========================================== Contents: subj : Super Scio - Rinder on Dateline subj : Super Scio - The AI Pedrito Story subj : Super Scio - A Great LRH Quote subj : Super Scio - TOTAL FREEDOM subj : Super Scio Humor - July 4th Celebration subj : Super Scio - To Kevin Brady on July 4, PR, and Comm Lag subj : Super Scio - Becoming a CofS Reverend subj : Super Scio - Has Minty Alexander Blown? subj : Super Scio - New CofS Tape Release subj : Super Scio - To ID32 on Lisa subj : Super Scio - Continuing Conversation with Delaware Street subj : Super Scio - Feeling Safe (attn Thomas) subj : Super Scio Tech - Defining Happiness Etc. (Attn Jack & Beth) subj : Super Scio Tech - Self Clearing Sequence (Attn David Guest) subj : Super Scio - Book Distribution (Attn Anthony, Michael etc.) subj : Super Scio Tech - Fishman Version of OT 7 (Attn John Alexander) subj : Super Scio Tech - Splits And GPMs subj : Super Scio Tech - To CBW on Expectations and ARC Breaks subj : Super Scio Tech - To Homer on Dramatizations And Meta Case subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Lurker Zero on the Title Plus the following which were posted over a week ago but are included here for completeness subj : Super Scio - TAPE COUNTS (Attn Martin Hunt) subj : Super Scio - ANSWERING DELAWARE STREET subj : Super Scio - TO DATELINE VIEWERS ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Rinder on Dateline RINDER ON DATELINE Apparantly the CofS has decided that Heber's anti-psych rants are too out PR. Of course those are just a put on, and they make the hardcore loyalists cheer, but the damage to the CofS image is so bad that they could be labled as "Worsening Shore Relations" which is a terrible ethics offense. So this time they only used Rinder. They must have drilled his TRs extensively. He was on the CBS segment on Lisa earlier this year and his TRs were terrible, not only plastic and glassy eyed but it seemed like he was about to break up at one point. His TRs were smooth and natural (although maybe a little trace of covert hostility showed through) on the NBC Dateline segment about Bob Minton. But they never taught him to think. All he knows is chapter and verse of HCO Policies. And that he knows cold and believes in without question. So he opened his mouth and immediately shoved his foot in it. And when that foot was firmly lodged between his teeth, he then proceeded to footbullet mightily. Here are a few examples > Copyright 1998 National Broadcasting Co. Inc. ÿ > NBC News Transcripts > DATELINE NBC (10:00 PM ET) ÿ > > June 16, 1998, Tuesday > > "The Crusader" .. > Hockenberry: L. Ron Hubbard says, We do not find critics of > Scientology who do not have criminal pasts. Over and over we > prove this. We have this technical fact: Those who oppose us > have crimes to hide.' Do you believe that? > > Mr. Rinder: Sure. > > Hockenberry: People who oppose you are undoubtedly criminals? > > Mr. Rinder: I believe that, yeah. > > Hockenberry: Is Bob Minton a criminal? > > Mr. Rinder: I think that we will--we will discover that at some point. And another - > Mr. Rinder: I don't know what motivates this guy. I don't know what--but, > on the other hand, if you ask me, do I know what motivates Timothy McVeigh > to go blow up a building because his view is that the people sitting inside > that building are violating the rights of citizens of the United States, I > don't know why he does that. I don't--I don't know that you could... > > Hockenberry: Now, you've just compared Bob Minton to Timothy McVeigh. > > Mr. Rinder: No, motivation. Like, what is it that motivates someone to--to > do that, I don't know. I don't know how you tell someone does that before > they do it. > > Hockenberry: All right, but you very deliberately compared Bob Minton to > Timothy McVeigh. > > Mr. Rinder: All right. And yet another concerning ex-OSA agent Frank Oliver. > What can you tell me about Frank Oliver? > > Mr. Rinder: Well, I can tell you a couple of things. First... > > Hockenberry: (Voiceover) Rinder then proceeded to make, on camera, a number > of unsubstantiated charges against Oliver. But the only evidence of > Oliver's run-ins with the law was this document, purporting to show the > driving record of a Frank Oliver. Among some speeding tickets, it shows an > improper lane change. I'm not sure that Rinder is even aware of what he did. He has probably star rate checked out the policies on handling critics so many times (and even demonstrated them in clay) that he believes them to be self evident truths. He probably thinks that the public will find his actions to be reasonable and justified. But he has just announced, very firmly and with GOOD TRS and GREAT CERTAINTY, that the current CofS is completely sure that anyone who criticises them must be doing so because they are a criminal and that they will move against them on that basis with full confidence that the critic really is a criminal even if the exact crimes have not yet been discovered. It reminded me of the Aiatolla Khumani ranting about the American Satan. This will be extremely unpopular with the general public and will haunt the CofS in future encounters with the media. As for Bob Minton, he came off very well and I thank him for exposing this hateful practice of dead agenting to the mass media. Although this has been exposed before, I don't think that it has ever been so clearly outlined and demonstrated. This is one of the areas where a major and honest reform is needed. This kind of behavior makes the tech look bad. The critics will point and say "look what a terrible product the tech produced". And I would come back and say that Rinder is not an example of tech but the product of idiotic policies. But I'd be arguing with my pants down around my ankles because Rinder is representative of the current management hierarchy. It's time for things to change. The first step on the road to recovery is to recognize that there is something wrong. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - The AI Pedrito Story THE AI PEDRITO STORY On 16 Jun 98, nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) posted on subject "More lies about Hubbard the intelligence agent" > "based on Hubbard's involvement in U.S. intelligence operations, > particularly in Latin America" ????? > > Ha, that's a laugh! > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > Publishers Weekly > > May 25, 1998 > > SECTION: No. 21, Vol. 245; Pg. 70; ISSN: 0000-0019 > > IAC-ACC-NO: 20769158 > > Al! PEDRITO'; book reviews > > L. Ron Hubbard and Kevin Anderson, foreword by Dan Sherman. Bridge, $ 25 > (1384p) ISBN 1-57318-121-8 > > An original story by Hubbard (Battlefield Earth), who's deceased, has been > expanded into a novel by Anderson (several X-Files novels), with mixed > results. The original story, according to Sherman's foreword, is based on > Hubbard's involvement in U.S. intelligence operations, particularly in > Latin America. Pedrito Miraflores, a swashbuckling Che Guevara type, is the > exact physical double for painfully straight (and excruciatingly bored) > U.S. Navy lieutenant Tom Smith. A Russian-Cuban plot leads to their > switching places, whereupon they proceed to make love to each other's > girlfriends, alternately sabotage and uphold each other's causes, and join > forces against the CIA and the FBI. Parts of this book are just as zanily > satiric as Hubbard's celebrated lampoon of pulp writing, Typewriter in the > Sky, and, as you'd expect from both Hubbard and Anderson, the pacing is > brisk and the action plentiful. The central conceit wobbles under the load > of a full novel, however, and too often the satire slides into silliness or > relies on gender and ethnic stereotypes. Even so, fans of nonstop, slightly > goofy SF should enjoy this one. Simultaneous audio; author tour. (June) Thanks anyway for calling my attention to this. I'll keep my opinions out of it, but I think that everybody, critics, loyalists, and freezoners alike might be interested in the LRH tape that the story came from. It was posted recently by Freezone Bible. It is number 3 of the Time Track of Theta lectures, originally HCL-20 from 1952 and it can be found in R&D Volume 10 or you can pick up the transcript through dejanews. The subject line was "FZ BIBLE 3/4 TIME TRACK OF THETA". Here is an excerpt from the transcript - : ... Some of this is accounted for : simply by, all of a sudden, being the other you - being the : other you. : : There are probably as many as four or five fellows on : earth that are almost my duplicate, for instance, : physiologically. Almost - poor fellows. Now, one of these : fellows used to get me in trouble all the time. : : I walked up the steps of the Cuban Embassy one day and - : in Washington, DC, and there was a Spaniard coming down : the steps and he said, "Ay, Pedrito, como esta?" And : I said, "I'm very sorry, I'm afraid I don't know you." : : And "Oh, that's all right, Pedrito. I won't tell anybody : you're here." (laughter) : : And I said, "Well, that's fine" : : He said, "Well, you can even pretend you don't remember : me. It's still all right, Pedrito, I'm your friend" and so : forth and "I hope everything. comes out all right." : : And I said, "Well, thank you," and went on into the embassy. : : I forgot about it until one time I was in Puerto Rico, and : I was trotting down a trail and three Brazilians - : Brazillian engineers - were coming up the trail on horses. : They took one look at me and they said, "Ay, Pedrito, como : esta?" and threw their horses across my path. And they : wouldn't let me go anyplace. And then this stuff - : "You can tell us. We won't write anybody. We won't : let anybody know we saw you" - a big routine. And they : finally had me cornered so tightly that nothing would : do but what I went over and drank brandy with them and : played chess; and they sure figured out I was putting on a : good act. (laughter) : : To this day, none of those fellows would do anything but : claim that I was putting on a good act. : I finally found out who Pedro was. He'd undoubtedly run : into me, too. I finally found out who he was. He was the : son of a rich Brazilian family and he had the wrong : political color. And he had gone bad in an awful hurry : down in Brazil, and he was being looked for by the police : of about five or six countries, as well as the parents of : several girl. : : And during the war - during the war, I got a report that : I had reported in at a place where I hadn't been. And my : ears went up like a foxhound's, ha-ha-ha-ha, because : Pedrito was a Nazi. And my picture was on file with the : Federation Aeronautique Internationale as an international : pilot, and those were in France. And full records of me : were captured when the Germans took Paris. And, of course, : all they had done was backtrack me, look me up, take ahold : of Pedrito and cross orders. : : I don't know what happened to Pedrito. I often wondered : what would have happened if I'd ever met Pedrito in the : line of duty during the war. : : I am sure, though, to this day - to this day, that there : is more there than just a physiological resemblance. Very Interesting. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - A Great LRH Quote A GREAT LRH QUOTE TAPE 15 APR 59 SHPA-11 THE CODE OF A SCIENTOLOGIST The Special Hubbard Professional Auditor's Course (SHPA) Released on cassette as "Skills of a Theta Being". -- begin fair use quote --- To observe the obvious, it is necessary that you be able to confront the real. And when you start falling away into "Well this is the way it is because Ron said so" or "This is the way it is because I read it in a book. And this is the next thing we do". We get into something like the old, old, old story of the great teacher who taught a neophyte. And before each lesson, the great teacher tied his cat to the edge of the bed - the bedpost - and then sat down on the bed to teach the neophyte some of the secrets of life - spiritualism, in this particular case. So the years went on and one day the neophyte, now become a master, got ahold of a student to teach the student all the secrets of spiritualism. Now he says "The first thing you do is tie a cat to the post of the bed". (Laughter) --- end quote ---- This one belongs in "Ron The Freezoner". Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - TOTAL FREEDOM TOTAL FREEDOM Since Independence Day is coming up (at least in the US), I started thinking about Freedom, and especially about the freedom I joined CofS to gain. It was the freedom to be different, to be individual, to do what I wanted, and yet still to be successful and get along well with people. In the fifties and sixties, the society was like a box, a mould that you had to fit into. It's less today, but it's still there as evidenced by things like "Politically Incorrect". There were the Beatniks and then the Hippies, but they lost society's benifits along with its barriers. A better way was needed. How do you dissolve the establishment without loosing the benifits of civilization? How can you have everybody be different and yet have them live together in peace and harmony? How do you put a racist and a black militant together in the same room without having them kill each other. The society's solution is laws and police, and those go bad so you soon have more laws and police, and everybody has to conform and walk in straight lines. The Scientology solution was to relieve the charge that kept people at each other's throats. A few minutes of bullbaiting, a bit of light two way comm, maybe even run an engram, and your former bigot was over it and willing to live and let live. You didn't "cure" homosexuality, you just blew people's charge on it so that they would leave each other alone to do what they wanted. You didn't try to make people the same, you delighted in the variety. Total Freedom has the liability of giving people the freedom to hurt and destroy each other. So you always have to step back and put a limit on it because the other guy also has his right to be free and not to be smashed. But if man is basically good, then removing the charge that makes him viscious allows you to reduce the barriers and the need for barriers until it all goes all the way back up to a harmonious co-existance. But the way out is always in the direction of less barriers and fewer rules rather than more. That makes it a road to freedom and the evidence of it would be an ever increasing level of personal freedom and the right to be different. In the old days, Ron ranted against authority, against fixed rules and ridgid moral codes. Many of us came in for that breath of fresh air. And we came in for how to have your cake and eat it too. How to be different successfully. How to break the rules and win. How to be so able that you stood above the crowd instead of lying on the ground below it. Suddenly there was a crowd of lone wolfs from all over the land gathered together for the first time and learning that they could live together without snapping and snarling. Learning that they could have real ARC and understanding and yet not have to be in compulsive agreement. It was certainly an independence movement, a revolutionary organization with the goal not of overthrowing the establishment but of dissolving it by making it obsolete. That was the high point, and that's where organization should have stopped. We were always in the business of making individuals and removing rules rather than imposing them. But something very bad happened. The freedom was replaced by chains. Ron has said that if you tore the walls down around a prision, the prisoner's would rebuild them, and this seems to have happened. With the Sea Org, Standard Tech, Ethics, and all the other solid barriers, we have become trapped into a new solidity every bit as onerous as the old one. I'm not going to point fingers now, that one could be chewed over endlessly. But I simply want you to notice how many walls are in place. We have made a U-Turn on the road to Total Freedom. It's about time that we get ourselves pointed back in the right direction. Your in Total Freedom, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Humor - July 4th Celebration HUMOR - JULY 4TH CELEBRATION This just in from the loyalist officers hiding in the 4th dimension. The super duper orthodox CofS 4th of July Celebration, with a spectacular list of events! 1. POTATO SALID THROWING CONTEST See how many RPFers you can hit! 2. THREE LEGGED RACE Men Only! A final solution to those awkward 2D problems. Once you've walked on it, it will never be the same again. 3. THE GREAT MISCARRIAGE - JEFFERSON DEBATE A few samples of how the illustrious DM solves the social problems - TJ - Freedom of Religion DM - Freedom to Persecute our splinter groups TJ - Freedom of Press DM - Freedom to Dead Agent TJ - Freedom of Speach DM - Freedom to Sue for copyright violations And finally DM's ultimate solution: "That f*cker Jefferson really needed the Introspection Rundown". 4. THE HOORAYING BUSTATHON Busts of LRH will be carried around on sedan chairs and segments of the crowd will compete in yelling "Hip Hip Hooray" the loudest. Delightful! 5. NEW GOLDEN AGE RELEASE Yes, THE GOLDEN AGE OF ETHICS is upon us! You can now do amends projects at the org for any overts you ever comitted anywhere on the whole track! Only a few lifetimes worth of work and you can FEEL CLEAN AGAIN! 6. RICE AND BEANS EATING CONTEST This goes hand in hand with the new Golden Age of Ethics. Warm up for it now. 7. NEW GROUP PROCESS This new process will blow all your stops on money. Bring pleanty of 20 dollar bills. We will be throwing them at the registars up on stage so as to blow all stops and inhibitions on giving money to the org. 8. MUSICAL ENTERTAINMENT During our search through Ron's research notes, we found previously unknown recordings of him singing famous old classics. Delight to the Old Man singing "Tea for Two" and "The Bear Went Over The Mountain". Following this, Helena K will sing "Bad Girls" and then DM will join her in a duet of the money song from Cabaret. 9. FIREWORKS There will be a crew of OTs mocking up the most spectacular fireworks ever. Anyone who can't see them has their ethics out and can get immediate handling at the Golden Age of Ethics booth. 10. SOLVING THE PRESIDENT'S PROBLEMS As a final cap to the festivities, DM will announce the results of the new Why Finding mission which discovered what is wrong in the White House. We don't want to give the show away, but here is one of the profound Whys that were discovered: MONICA BLEW BECAUSE SHE HAD MISSED WITHHOLDS. ---------- Just Joking and Degrading. Except for the Gold Age of Ethics, which really is being released this weekend (but I don't know any details). HAVE A HAPPY 4TH, And keep an eye out for that upcoming ABC show, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To Kevin Brady on July 4, PR, and Comm Lag TO KEVIN BRADY ON JULY 4, PR, And Comm Lag (Kevin has been posting on the fza.org discussion groups, telling heartfelt stories, talking about starting a group in the Rhode Island area, and trying to organize a 4th of July get together.) First of all let me thank you for the curtesy invitation to your 4th of July celebration. Obviously I must decline, but its good to know that I'd be welcome. And you have my good wishes and postulates. In case you are feeling a bit disheartened about the weak response to your messages, I wanted to point out a few things. If you will look at post14 from Nov 97 in the Pilot Archives, you will see a breakdown of Solo Nots stats by region. Almost 40 percent of the Scientologists are in California and many are in other countries. The eastern US only has about ten percent. That includes Clearwater, New York, and Washington. The New Yorkers ride the subway, don't know how to drive, and think that going to Rhode Island is comparable to visiting a foriegn country. So only the Boston area is accessible. The entire Boston / Rhode Island area probably only represents about 1 percent of the Scientologists. The fza discussion boards are new and a bit obscure. I would guess that there are only a few hundred lurkers reading them. Taking the 1 percent figure above, there are probably only 2 or 3 people in all of New England who even know that you are planning a 4th of July celebration. The discussion boards are a nice place for cozy chats and I expect them to catch on and gather a following, but that will take time and even if they were big and popular, they are not well organized for promoting events. For announcements, you need to post them to ACT and even to ARS and maybe even to ASE. On ARS you would be aiming at simply notifying any fence sitting lurkers rather than getting into arguments with the critics, so a simple mild announcement would be best. That will at least get your message out to an immensly larger population of lurkers. Then you have to allow for inertia, other commitments, and most especially fear of OSA. Even if you reached a hundred people in your area, only a handful might show up on short notice. The comm lag here is immense. I drew an analogy of the Catholics copyrighting the Bible back in chapter 1 of the Super Scio book which I posted in February of 1997. I talked about it a number of times thereafter and it was almost a year all together before the idea started catching on. Now the comparisons to the Protestant movement are continual on ARS, but I was talking into a vacume on this one for a long time. It's like you start pumping energy into a vacume over and over and you see no effect and then suddenly it starts coming back ten fold. You have to allow for that. The huge numbers of fringe Scientologists are mostly not aware of what is going on. A little bit of media exposure of freezone Scientology could make a vast difference here. If something is right and you patiently lay groundwork, the boom when it happens will be beyond your wildest expectations. The trick is to hang on without going down tone. Good Luck In Your Endevors, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Becoming a CofS Reverend BECOMING A COFS REVEREND On 20 Jun 98, Steve Jebson continued the discussion on "How do you become a CoS "Reverend"? >Warrior wrote: >> >> >>In article <358bd2e9.56626922@enews.newsguy.com>, mirele@newsguy.com >> >>Deana Holmes asked: >> >>> >> >>>How do you get this title? Is it a part of one's hat? >> >>>Please enlighten me and I'm sure, others. >> >> >On 20 Jun 1998 10:35:04 -0700, Warrior wrote: >> > >> >> The way one becomes a "reverend" in Scientology is by doing a short >> >>little course called "The Minister's Course". It takes about 20 hours >> >>(less for a fast student) to complete the Scientology course of study >> >>to be certified as a "minister". >> >> > >Right. The course when I saw it was a little longer than this, but >I'm sure essentially the same. It includes a few PLs and one thin >(a little over 100 pages) book to teach all a Scientology 'minister' >needs to know about religion. I think it was called 'The Great >Religions >of the World', or something similar. > >> In article <358f1607.14678973@news.atnet.at>, ralph@atnet.at Ralph >> Hilton added: >> > >> >As an interesting side note many peole were rushed through this >> >course when Flag moved to land in 1975. >> >There was a book on the course about comparative religion. >> >Most of the copies available for study were photocopies illegally >> >made by Sea Org copyright terrorists. >> >I also observed various copyright terrorists using photcopies of >> >the book "Brighter Grammar". >> >> A similar thing was done in PAC. The Sea Org males were told we >> all had to do the "Minister's Course" because the US Government's >> Selective Serice System would be re-activating the draft. It was >> therefore explained to us that by being "ministers" we would be >> exempt from being drafted into military duty by reason of being >> ordained ministers. >> >> Personally, I believe the real reason for ordering male Sea Org >> members to complete the course was related to the ongoing (at that >> time) IRS tax cases. I figured that by having more "ministers", the >> cult would *appear* to be more "religious". My opinion is that we >> SO staff were told an "acceptable truth" by someone in the Guardian >> Office. > >I disagree with this conclusion. When I was on staff in an org, the >same order came down - this was in Dec 79 or Jan 80. I remember >specifically that it came from the GO. I assumed at the time that >it was a response to the taking of American hostages by Iran just >before this, which led to talk of war and a renewed draft. > >> In PAC, female SO members were not required to do the course, but >> they were not forbidden either. > >Women can't be drafted, of course. Further evidence that the whole >scheme was an involved form of draft-dodging. Also, if the draft >had been brought back, it could have been used to threaten staff >who were thinking about leaving. > >I wonder how this was handled when there really was a draft? Maybe >Pilot or somebody else who was around orgs in the Vietnam period >can say how they avoided losing male staff to the draft. I did the Minister's Course in 1968. At that time it was a long checksheet, about twice as long as an academy training level, and it was pretty much never done by anybody unless they needed to be able to cover the Chaplin's post. At that time The Chaplin was in the Qual (qualifications or QC) Division, had to be a trained auditor, and had some power to fix things for somebody who was having trouble in the org. It was generally done as a second hat by the senior review auditor or Qual Sec and other review auditors such as myself usually did the checksheet so that we could cover the post if the official Chaplin was tied up on other cycles. This was at one time a major org correction and fix it type post where you needed all your auditor training and policy knowledge to try and sort things out. In later years they decided to make The Chaplin a PR action and moved it out of Qual and into the public divisions, basically cutting the Chaplins balls off. Up until that time, sometimes a fiesty Chaplin would take on Ethics or Execs or C/Ses and really try to fix something and they had the authority of the Qual Sec behind them. The checksheet I did had that "Great Religions" book (I think it was "The Great Religions By Which Men Live", but it has been decades). I remember it as being shallow but resonable. I recall it as a paperback of 200 or so pages, but maybe I'm remembering another book that was on the checksheet. And the checksheet also had other things on it like star rate checking out on The Book Of Revelations etc. as well as lots of early LRH tapes. It wasn't really a shallow course although it was no more than a drop in the bucket on an immense topic like comparative theology. But at least it was a real start on the subject. Then in, I think it was 1969, the order came down that all professional auditors in the US had to be Ministers for legal reasons. The long and arduous Minister's checksheet was immediately replaced by a quickie Minister's course less than a quarter of the size of the previous one and every Class 2 or above auditor on staff was ordered to do the course. It has never been the same since. And, as noted in the earlier postings, the org periodically has a big push to make ministers for one leagal reason or another. So they are a dime a dozen. The order, by the way, applied to men and women alike, so we had lots of cute girl auditors walking around in mini-skirted minister's costumes and occasionally performing Sunday Services and Marriages etc. That was still the sexually loose sixties era so everybody (including me) thought it was jolly good fun. As far as the draft goes, there was about a year of US Drafting before the quickie ministers course came out. Since the psychs were considered Fair Game, it became a matter of pride that any trained auditor could cave the Draft Board psych in and get a 4F. I remember one guy who just went into the draft psych and sat there doing total TR 0, reacting to nothing. Eventually they delicately moved him to a wheel chair and rolled him down to the street and out of the building at which point he thanked them and went on his way. Another guy told them that he didn't want to die in yet another 3rd rate war on a 4th rate planet on the edge of the galaxy. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the OTs chanted implant items at the psych. Fair game after all. But here I'm only guessing because I was lower level and couldn't be told about OT stuff then. As far as I know, no staff or trained auditors or OTs were inducted, at least not at the large org where I was at. The rumor was that you should put Scientologist down in big bold letters on the papers that the draft board had you fill out because they were getting scared of us and what we'd pull next. There was one fringe public guy who did get drafted. Then he went AWOL and came running into the org for help. Ethics and the Chaplin handled him, got him hooked up with a lawyer, and he got a court ruling that he never should have been inducted in the first place, being mentally unfit for military duty, and he got away with the whole thing. But we were really lucky that nobody got committed while playing these games with the psychs. In retrospect, I think that the draft board psychiatrists were bending over backwards to let us off and shared much of the anti-war sentiment that was sweeping the country at that time. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Has Minty Alexander Blown? QUESTION - HAS MINTY ALEXANDER BLOWN? On 16 Jun 98, skanda@postoffice.pacbell.net replied on subject "ROD FELCHER'S WHO IS?" > Patrick L Humphrey wrote: > > > In <6lsri6$qt7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, rod_fletcher@hotmail.com writes: > > > > > Does anyone in this news group know whose address this is: > > > > > 14025 15th Ave. NE > > > Seattle > > > WA 98125-3188 > > An apartment complex? Residents of building are:Massoud Aflakian, M. > Alexander, Jenny Butterfield, LP Campbell, J. Fecht, Albert Finston, > Kristina Forsberg, HS Fuji, Julie Holgerson, Heidi Hopkins, Pai-Ling & Rob > Jones, DL Lamont, DN McClellan, Robert Nadon, Tracy Olsen, J. Singer, > Matthew A. Streff, Melissa & Pim VanMeurs and HR Wiles. > > See http://www.infospace.com Has Minty Alexander (class XII) blown flag? Is that what this is all about? If so, it was a major footbullet, she was one of the few competent people left there. Is this rod-fletcher's latest stupid idea about who I really am? Is that what his other foolish innuendos (in other messages) were about? Is OSA really that clueless? I would not post this kind of data myself, and I am only guessing that the M. Alexander in the apartment complex above is Minty, but since it has already been posted and OSA appears to have the address and be trying to scare her, it would seem more helpful to her for me to bring this out into the open rather than to have them go after her thinking that she is me. Last I heard, Minty was still auditing at flag, but I don't have any recent data. Does anybody have any real information? And in case she happens to be reading this, let me wish her all the best, whether she is in or out or freezone or whatever. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - New CofS Tape Release NEW COFS TAPE RELEASE For the tape fanatics such as myself, the org has finally released the 2nd American ACC (Advanced Clinical Course) of 1953 on cassette. They are calling it "The Rehabilitation of the Human Spirit". This is one of the big sets - 67 lectures from the end of 1953. I don't have the new list of titles. The original titles are in the Tape Master List I put out recently. They might (or might not) have dropped a few lectures from this series (maybe they just combined some short ones). Unfortunately the price is outrageous as usual. $2250.00 (1800 with IAS lifetime). But it is one of the biggest and most advanced ACCs. A must for tech scholars. I just wish that they'd get over this monopoly pricing. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - To ID32 on Lisa TO ID32 ON LISA I notice that you're getting into arguments with the critics about the Lisa business. You're correct in observing that non-Scientologists don't really understand and they tend to push this one as a button in a yellow journalism sensationalized manner. But the out-points at Flag on this are so gross as to be indefensible. So I tend to stay out of it and encourage you to do the same. It does bother me that they say "Scientology Killed Lisa" when, as far as I'm concerned, what killed her was a lack of real Scientology at Flag. But it becomes horribly difficult to explain to somebody who hasn't trained in the subject. The idiots at Flag took one sentence out of an HCOB and misapplied it in the most unbelieveable manner possible. The sentence was in total violation of all the basics. Maybe Ron wrote it on a bad day, or maybe somebody else wrote it for him, or maybe it was meant to be applied lightly in the sense of giving her a few hours of peace and quite. But instead they keep her in isolation for weeks and eventually she dies of abuse and neglect. If you know the tech well, you know that you could kill a healthy and sane person this way simply by destroying their communication lines over a long period. Just think of the implications in terms of cut-comm, crashed havingness, and interiorizaton. This kind of handling is the thing that CCHR was formed to oppose. If they had any integrity, CCHR would be joining the pickets at Flag. Scientology did not kill Lisa. Sea Org fanaticism did. I have on a number of occasions sat up all night with someone who was suicidal, freaked out, and/or in a psychotic break. In all cases, I maintained two way comm, I did assists, I ran objectives, and most important, I simply was there with them as a caring and helpful terminal. In every case, they were better by the morning. Of course I'm not talking about long term psychotics here but just somebody who has just been pushed over the edge one way or another. Things like somebody blowing staff, falling into hopelessness and dispair, taking some drugs, and then deciding that the right thing to do was to kill himself. On one particular occasion, I was the Ethics officer, and I still handled this way. If it had been anywhere away from the Sea Org, someone who cared and knew some tech would have gone and sat with her and helped her pull through. Even if they fumbled around and only knew a few assists and how to listen, they would have gotten her through by the simple fact of careing and communicating. I would not blame an organizaton for one screw up. The trouble is that their operating basis is aligned towards making messes like this. The right thing to do would be to demand official policy changes rather than to blame the religion for the faults of a fanatical and foolish organization. Just a little bit more ARC, some more "think for yourself", a little less KSW and a lot less Robotism and they could have avoided this one. It highlights what is wrong with the Sea Org. This one really worries me. It blackens the reputation of the subject and its one of the ways that the CofS is dragging Scientology into the grave. I hate to tell anyone to stop talking about anything. I think that that's a mistake. If you can find a way to hit this one from a better angle, please do so. But don't be standing on quicksand. What Flag did with Lisa was not tech as far as I'm concerned. In general I enjoy the things that you're posting. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Continuing Conversation with Delaware Street CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION WITH DELAWARE STREET On 18 Jun 98, nobody@nowhere.com (Delaware Street) responded to my earlier post on topic "Super Scio - ANSWERING DELAWARE STREET" The cumulative dialog is getting too large for a single post, and your last reply contained something that struck me as an outright lie. So I felt that I should just address that one point this time. Up until now I have been assuming that you were honest but misguided. Perhaps I was wrong. But maybe you didn't really mean to say this or there is some misunderstanding. So I felt that I should give you a chance to clarify or retract your statement. Here is my statement and your response. > > I would encourage you to listen to early tapes, lots of > > them. > > I have. All of them. They are excellent for auditors and pre-OT's > who are honest and have respect and truly wish to help others "make > it" on the road to OT. All of them. Really? I would say that this is flat out impossible and an outright lie. I can't even say that I've heard all of them, and I've probably heard twice as many as the top technical people in the CofS and maybe four times as many as the average Class 12. Even those volenteers who do transcripts for Gold don't have access to the full archives. Only a few people in Gold or in the top management hierarchy at Helmet or Flag would have the required access. And I haven't heard of anybody like Miscaviage being a tape fanatic. So I doubt that there is anyone like that. But if there is, they would be high level Sea Org. Since you have already stated that you're not staff, that rules you out anyway. Unless, of course, you are incharge of Gold and we are trading one big lie for another. Furthermore, some of the tapes are confidential, and the confidential Staff Clearing lectures are not on any level. So the only orthodox people who might have heard all confidential tapes would have to be one of the handful who were training with Ron in 1964 and they would also have to be Class 8s and FEBC graduates to have heard the other confidential tapes. I doubt that there is anyone who is still in who can make that claim. As far as anyone else goes, you would have to be a tape fanatic like me to even get close. There are quite a few of us. None of them would make an asshole remark like "all of them". You don't do that after you've had to hunt through individual orgs and search hard and fight scarcity of materials. Now there are some not too bright briefing course graduates who think that they got to hear all the tapes when they did the BC. Of course the tech volumes list thousands of tapes that are not on the BC, but some people are so afraid of getting M/Us that they wouldn't read a page unless it's explicitly on their checksheet. So maybe you're just ignorant. If it is just ignorance, please find out what you're talking about here. I posted a huge tape master list and you can find it at fza.org. But since you're orthodox, you might prefer to look at the chronological list of materials which is up at www.scientology.org. I think that mine is better done, but even the official list will prove my point. How, for example, did you get to do the 70 some odd hours of tapes on the 4th ACC? Only a handful (which are the only one's of this series that I've heard) were available on reels in the 1970s. None have been issued on cassette. I couldn't find this set in any of the org's whose qual archives I checked. And the R&D series probably wouldn't get to these for another 20 volumes. I'm hoping that there might be some unauthorized copies floating around in the freezone, but you would consider it an overt to listen to those. Maybe you're a really old timer who did an ACC or two. But all of them? No way. Right now I think that you're just making things up for PR reasons. It's no wonder that you called me a liar so many times in your last post. As Ron says, the overt speaketh loudly in the accusation. The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Feeling Safe (attn Thomas) FEELING SAFE (Attn Thomas) On 18 Jun 98, tjfielder@earthlink.net (Thomas Fielder) asked on subject "Dear Pilot" > Dear Pilot, > I'm curious - what would have to occur in the CofS for you to feel safe in > revealing your identity? > > Tom Really feeling safe would mean that they would have to make massive policy changes and broadly announce them to the world. They would have to rewrite the policies and Flag Orders on things like "always attack" and handling critics and suppressives and they would have to put all materials into the public domain and stop harrassing squirrels. Simply making a few promises or mild reforms would not be enough because they might change their minds next month or come after me covertly. There are other things I'd like to see like improved conditions for staff, a more liberal application of 1950s tech, more honesty in advertising, and so forth. But I could be out in the open and talking if they weren't primed to shoot first and ask questions later. In actual practice, I think that I will either be outed or will say the hell with it and come out in the open eventually. I don't plan my actions based on how safe they make me feel. Some of the people around me are more worried than I am, actually. I simply weigh benifit against risk and play my hand carefully. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Defining Happiness Etc. (Attn Jack & Beth) DEFINING HAPPINESS ETC. (Attn Jack and Beth) On 20 Jun 98, shadowjack@supernews.com (jack) asked on subject "Attn The Pilot - A Question of Definition" > I have had no Scientology training. I have had extensive training in one of > the so-called FreeZone "splinter" groups. I've read much of your work, and > I enjoy your point of view. > > Based on your experience and training, how would you define these terms: > > Happiness > > Enlightenment > > In my reading of the FreeZone materials, I have not seen these terms defined. > > From your perspective, what is the purpose of Life? > > regards, > > jack Ron Hubbard defined these things in terms of goals and games. Life is a game, Happiness is making progress towards a goal and Enlightenment would be knowingness and/or exteriorization. He observed that the thetan "must have a game", but I would say that that is not basic but simply goes very very early on the track. That would mean that life as a game would simply be a relative truth rather than an ultimate. I think that he came close when he realized that the true cycle of action was "Create, Create, Create" and that the lower level apparant cycle of action of "Create, Survive, Distroy" was an early abberation. Games have beginings and ends and therefore are in this lower band, whereas infinite creation is boundless. My own slant on this is in the first few sections of The Cosmic History chapter (chapter 2) of the Super Scio book. I think that we are balancing nothingness with an infinity of creation. Playing games or working towards achieving a goal is creative. You think up ways to overcome obstacles. That is creative. You mockup strategies. That is creative. You be things and do things. That is creative. And you get to have things, and those are creations. It is all simply a formalized and narrowed down creation rather than a boundless one. Even in simple conversation, you are creating things to say. Creating things is real happiness. Unfortunately, creations get rejected or invalidated. That may be basic on bypassed charge. And so one narrows down and creates in more and more limited zones. Instead of mocking up universes, one creates an artfull flower arrangement while setting the table. And then somebody invalidates that and we end up with the creation of an upsetting divorce. So our basic target would be the rehabilitaton of the ability to create. That would put creative processing right up at the top of the scale. Unfortunately, the early (1952) work with creative processing was done in the absence of the modern data on bypassed charge and upsets which is needed to handle the invalidation and rejection of creations. I think that Ron was right in identifying the top as co-existance of static. Co-existance because its a hairsbreath short of everybody merging into a singular static. I think that at that level we mockup and exchange an endless variety of creations just for the fun of it. The internet has a touch of this, with people not only visiting websites but mocking them up as well. The easier it is for the individuals to create, the less you need organization and formality. And this leads to more interest and variety. Just compare the CofS cookie cutter Scientologist On-Line sites to real websites created by individuals. Look at how much more fun it is to visit websites done by enthusiasts instead of corporations. People do these for the fun of it rather than to make money. Now imagine that all the economic constraints are gone. The individuals are gods who don't depend on having anything but can mock up anything that they need or want easily. If you take away the economic drive, most of the net would still be there. And then imagine that those are real universes instead of websites. Places where you can create or experience anything. And they come and go and change at the whims of the creators. An infinity of creation, never stopping, never becoming fixed or boring. That's where I think we're headed. ---- Beth Guest recently asked # End of case? # Is there such a thing? Of course. But its at the very top as described above. One rung lower and you have people invalidating and arguing and fighting about their creations. We can't yet hit or impact each other at that level, so its really just communication. Enforced and inhibited communication, like people trying to censor the net or spam it. As above, so below. The parallel is very close. We keep recreating a shadow of our original downfall within the universes that we have become entrapped in. And of course we also have a shadow of the more basic caseless state. As Ron said, you can always rekindle native state. So we have caseless moments as we walk the road upwards. But these are lower harmonics, so you find case again when you take the next step upwards. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Self Clearing Sequence (Attn David Guest) SELF CLEARING SEQUENCE (Attn David Guest) On 13 Jun 98, David Guest wrote in reponse to "Super Scio - Publishing Plans (attn Ivy, Fza, etc.)" >In article , The Pilot > writes > >>. >> >>There has been a good bit of feedback on the early sections >>of the book and that helps me to anticipate questions and >>problems. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have made it into >>the later chapters yet and I would really like to get some >>feedback on those too. > >I've got as far as Chapter 25, working intermittently for about 6 months >now. > >I skipped Ch 20 which was unreal for me. I tried but couldn't solo that >stuff at all. Maybe that Chapter is out-sequence or maybe it's just me >case. There is no single ideal sequence that would fit everybody. Joe might find A easier and Bill might find B easier. It doesn't even say anything about their relative case states. So don't worry about it and pick it up at a later time. The chapter is based on materials from the 2nd and 3rd ACCs. The process in 20.1 is one of the more powerful exteriorization processes. Ron even uses it in group processing. It is the first step of SOP 8-C, so it would have been used on new public immediately after objectives in those days. But of course he was not trying for processes that always worked on everyone at that time. The approach was more along the lines of pick up half the people with one spectactular process and then pick up the other half with a different spectacular process. This is why I say that you shouldn't try to force everything in self clearing to run in the manner of standard tech. And as the case changes, what will or wouldn't run will shift around, which is one of the reasons why multiple passes are preferable. >I'd like to see more general guidance on the best ways to run multiple >commands and mulliple flow process i.e. if there are say 4 commands in a >set , do you cycle through them getting one item on each or get as miuch >as you can on cammand one, then move onto command two etc. I've tried it >both ways & still haven't really settled onto any one 'best' method. As a general rule of thumb, one item each would be faster and easier, keeps flows in balance, and has the benifit of drilling shifting one's attention. And that way you don't have to make a judgement call as to when to shift commands. But the exception is if you have multiple answers pouring out rapidly. And another is that you might have a whole bunch of things as part of one big answer. So it does take a bit of judgement, and your own feelings of comfort or discomfort is a big clue. > >-- >David Guest - "Careful with that Box, Pandora." > >" Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters" - Bob Dylan. Thank you for the feedback. I enjoy your posts. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - Book Distribution (Attn Anthony, Michael etc.) BOOK DISTRIBUTION (Attn Anthony, Michael etc.) There has been lots of helpful discussion and information about spreading around the self clearing book lately on ACT. On 21 Jun 98, "Michael Hunsaker" posted on subject "Attn PILOT and others - Self Clearing book" # I have taken up the Pilot's and Antony Phillips request for people in # the US to make available and distribute the Pilot's Self Clearing # book. I am charging $30 to cover my costs on the copying, binding, # etc. This price will cover postage for a Book Rate mailing which is # slower, but cheaper than first class. # # Anyone who wants a copy can e-mail me at mikegh@concentric.com for # more information or use snail mail to: # # Mike Hunsaker # 831 Main Street # Martinez, CA 94553 # # or by phone: # # (925)372-3231 (Mon.-Sat. 10am to 5pm. You can leave a message at # other times.) # Great. This sparked a lot more discussion on this thread. The next is from much further along on the same topic. On 23 Jun, Antony Phillips posted > Concerning The Pilots book Self Clearing, and a thread on act about the > books prospects, and the fact that printed copies are being offered, > first in Europe and now in USA: > > Lurker zero wrote (23-06-98): > > Maybe tailor the book for > > current scientologists by including a preface containing the "what is > > and isn't true about Scientology" piece from Super-Scio and various > > snippets of Pilot posts such as the rally for reform. > > We had not thought of that. What we have done (we = Asbj›rn and I for > Europe) is start the book with a brief introduction (saying how you can > get it on Internet, and via Asbj›rn, an advert for IVy, a note reading: > "There is an Internet list of those working on this book. Write to: > > majordomo@lightlink.com > > with single message line: > > info selfclearing-l" > and another note reading: > ********* > In this booklet is included The Self Clearing Home Page, before Self > Clearing itself, and, at the end, the Pilot's Reform Page. > > While the exercises in this book do not require a knowledge of > Scientology, those who have had contact with the Church of Scientology > are well advised to first read the Pilots Reform Home Page, at the end > of the book. > > All are well advised to work through the book, exercise by exercise, > rather than reading the whole book before doing anywork. > ***************** > > Maybe there are other suggestions. I'd like the printed version we are > selling to be as "user Friendly" as possible to _all_ types of persons > > Lurker zero also wrote: > > I'm disappointed that there isn't already a Grand > > Council of freezone reformers that meet regularly and form agendas and > > act as a cohesive unit. > > Interesting. I think our strength is that we are _not_ an > organisationally united unit, which can be attacked, and which can hold > long winded committee meetings which get no where, and which can regard > other committe members as "out ethics" :-). > In the present situation we need good comm lines. Internet is a godsend > Ron (the young Ron) did not have. But poor com (or overloaded comm > lines) could be a weakness. > > One could perhaps oversimplify by regarding the present official scn org > as a CCH org, with emphaisi on "bad" control. (ref, IVy readers: first > empire). > What we are doing could better be based on ARC (IVy readers: 2nd Empire) > with a strong emphasis on tip top communication. > > Incidentally, with regard to "Grand Council of freezone reformers" after > the second Independent congress in Switzerland (I suppose about 1986/7) > a communications network was formed, in which I was a member. > Reluctantly Joe van Staden became leader. He evolved an admin scale for > it which, if I remember rightly and am not confusing with an earlier > auditors association in the org, basically gave our purpose as checking > that tech was standard :-). For that or other reasons that network > failed. There are people around who can do something (like Mike > Hunsaker, Homer Smith, Paul Misiunas, many more). Grant them a bit of > beingness, give them some encouragement, and positive suggestions, and > we will go a long way. Exactly. But the mistake is in trying to impose standards and dramatizing control. Communication is a good idea. Thank God for the internet! Councils, congresses, and communications networks are good ideas as long as they are done to promote communication rather than impose control. But right now its important for all the fringe Scientologists to see and understand what is going on as they gradually begin to show up on the net. There has been too much third pary by the org, too much confidentiality, and too much lack of communication. So its best to have everything right out here where it is in plain sight and easy to find. I wish that more of the freezone groups felt safe in talking out in the open. > CB Willis wrote (22-06-98): > > I doubt it will be a big seller to those who are not already interested in > > scn. Many have intellectual curiosity, but few have the persistance for > > solo Work on self, and without ongoing working relationship with a helping > > professional, I see the material being trivialized from non-application. > > I am tempted to think of the socalled Dianetics boom in 1950. One can > not believe what the orgs say, but I have got the impression from some > old timers that there was quite a deal of activity. Book One Dianetics > was far too primitive for "Any two people can do it" (emphasis on any). > But we are fifty years later. It looks to me like the Pilot has been > unusually meticulous in both discarding nonsense from Scientology, and > giving forth useable material in a far briefer and more understandable > language than DMSMH. What we lack is a vested interest that will make > loads of money by investing in promotion of the book. But this lack > could be bypassed by good results. > > A lot could have happened to improve things in fifty years that have > passed. > > All best wishes, > Ant > > -- > Ant Antony A Phillips > ivy@post8.tele.dk > tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69 > Box 78 > DK - 2800 Lyngby > Editor, International Viewpoints (= IVy). See Home Page: > http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/ There was a brief but powerful Dianetics boom. Miller's book is a good source because he is biased in the other direction and therefore wouldn't exaggerate in Ron's favor. He recounts a number of old stories and experiences from that time period and they match what I have heard. DMSMH has some wild phenomena that are easily verified. My own experience of trying an age flash immediately threw somebody into an incident and made it obvious to me that the book was valid and powerful. So the book spreads fast by word of mouth and there is an immediate boom, especially among the readers of Astounding Science Fiction magazine. But you can't make clears by running prenatal motivators in this lifetime. So disillusionment sets in quickly and the boom collapses. Self Clearing has easy try-it-yourself techniques of considerable power. It should boom the same way. Since it doesn't make false promises or try to sell soap, I would expect it to keep spreading around and make a well respected place for itself. Even if it only appeals to a small percentage of the population, if it is really valuable to them then it will spread quickly and that will get it well publicized. Even a best seller only sells to a tiny percentage of the population. Publicity is the key to reaching most of the fringe Scientologists. They are rarely at the org and they are scared of the Squirrels and Psychs. They can't fight the org because they believe it would be an overt and they can't go into the org because they get pounded and harrassed and they can't abandon the subject because it is the road out. So they sit there in apathy and wait. I think that there are at least a half million like that out there who would open their eyes and wake up if they just read the Scientology Reformer's Homepage nothing to say of stumbling onto the Self Clearing book in a bookstore. You all have my appreciation for the work you are putting in on this. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Fishman Version of OT 7 (Attn John Alexander) FISHMAN VERSION OF OT7 (Attn John Alexander) On 19 Jun 98, John and Deirdre Alexander posted on subject "Attn Pilot Re Guide to Confidential Data" > The following processes which appear in the Fishman version of OTVII are > Dianology/Eductivism processes which were written, published and > copyrighted by Jack Horner: > > 1. "OT7-3" refers to "CDP" (Creative Definition Procedure) and "MCP" > (Meaning Control Procedure) - see the note after "OT7-7" in Fishman, > acknowledging these as Eductivism procedures. These procedures came out > in Eductivism Technical Bulletins ETB 139-A (May 28, 1975) and ETB 144 > (April 12, 1975), and are more akin to Knowledgism's "Clean Slate" > process than to Scientology word clearing. > > 2. "OT7-44" - "How could you appreciate another as a human being?" > etc. (5-way bracket) came out under the designation E9-18, in Eductivism > Technical Bulletin 59R (March, 1971). > > 3. "OT7-47" - "Go to a place with lots of people, etc." This is > essentially a COHB era Scientology process, but the particular wording, > and in particular the use of the term "Life Source" ( Eductivism term > for "thetan") are pure Eductivism. This came out under the designation > E9-8, in Eductivism Technical Bulletin 59R (March, 1971). > > 4. "OT7-48" - The "famous six lines" - "Find some plants, trees, etc., > and communicate to them individually" etc. was first published by Jack > Horner in November of 1969, and was reissued under the designation D10-4 > in Dianology Technical Bulletin DTB:60R (September 7, 1970). > > The wording of each of the above is exactly the same as it appears in > the Fishman OTVII, except that the Fishman OTVII adds the word > "thetan" in parentheses after "Life Source." The Fishman version of > OTVII appears to possibly have come from a compilation of processes that > was put together by Lawrence West, and which included the above. > > Aloha, John Alexander Very good. I'll note this in the next version of the Guide (which will be 1.3). I plan to update it every few months. It did have more steps than I remembered from doing old OT 7. But it had a later date than when I had done the level in CofS. So I assumed that things had been added later (as I noted in the guide). Now it turns out that this version is a composite. Old OT 7 was short and I felt that it was a bit of a toss off because of having had the extensive training of intention that is in TR8. I think that all the CofS OT 7 steps are included in this compilation, but it has been many years and I can't guarantee it. At a guess, I would think that about half of the steps in the Fishman version represent the entirety of the old CofS level. The additions fit in smoothly, align well with the purpose of the level, and are in accordance with 1950s basics. This shows yet again that we should have an evolving subject with many contributors rather than a frozen single source. Are the DTBs and ETBs available? Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Splits And GPMs SPLITS AND GPMS On 15 Jun 98, "N. D. Culver" posted on subject "Re The GPM - definitions" > Geo S Bolton wrote: > > To make an analogy, I think you may be an excellent > > place to go to get the alternator fixed on my car > > since you specialize in alternators, but to think you can > > fix everything on the car with only adressing one part of > > it, we may disagree on this but it is my opinion that GPM's > > are one single aspect of case. > > The exactly balanced forces and identities in GPMs are the result > of a 'split' of the being. The action of 'splitting' is probably > the very first 'do' of a being, if not the first then early enough > to be very basic. > > Robert and the Pilot have focused a lot of their tech on handling > 'splits' and 'divided froms', this is very effective and handles > case phenomena that you might not think would be related. > > ndc Ralph Hilton responded - : Robert does this??? Please quote references. To which VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) replied # It's obvious - an integral part of the tech. I have handled more # "separation from Theta" and "fallen from grace" type incidents # in their various forms with all their hellish charge than # I would want to count. The basic theme is that the being # "fragments" himself and puts in automaticities to perpetuate # the fragmentation. This was done in "no-time", entirely by # postulates - which remain in effect up through the present. # Coaching is never done to get these incidents, they just fall # in the lap of the pc at a certain point. # # Robert I'm glad you posted this. I hadn't realized that you were working with splits. When I first saw NDC's post I assumed that he had meant to say Ralph and Pilot. I do find your observations to be valuable. I think that the splits go much earlier than GPMs. My own definition for GPM is the mass formed by the abandonment of identities in persuit of a goal. I think that it's a late track phenomena because the being does that as a solution to being smashed by force and that can't happen to him until he has decayed significantly. Of course I think that you're undercutting GPMs rather than running them. Real GPM handling does deserve a good run at some point, but it's only one grade out of many. Of course GPMs contain PTPs, overts, ARC Breaks, secondaries, engrams, shocks, spilts, and just about everything else we know of casewise because they developed later than these things and we don't discard the older methods just because we've found an even messier way to abberate ourselves. But engrams go earlier on the track. Unless a valence can be smashed, there is no reason to jump from identity to identity. It is not just that he shifts identities, that goes all the way back, the abberation is that he abandons them as he shifts and leaves abilities behind as well. And shocks obviously go earlier than engrams. You can shock a being without hitting him with force (wife shocks hubby by telling him that she just had a sex change operation), but how could you hit him effectively without a shock? If A depends on the presence of B but B does not depend on the presence of A, then B must be the earlier of the two factors. Separation from static might be thought of as a split, so perhaps this is basic. But I don't think of that one as an abberation. It seems fine and even desirable as long as there is communication between the split offs. I tend to think of enforced and inhibited communication as the first abberation. I think that the unconcious fragmentation comes a little bit later, and obviously there is out comm in that case. I only consider splits to be one of many case factors. It only gets a small section in the Self Clearing book and one big chapter in Super Scio. It gets a bit more attention in my posts because it's an area I'm still handling on my own case right now. But I also remember how important NOTs seemed to me for awhile and how completely it fell away as a case factor when I completed. The main LRH refrence on splits is the Time Track of Theta lectures that FZ Bible posted recently. This is from the same lecture series (Hubbard Colledge Lectures - HCL) as the early Nots material. I would not be surprised if his later sketch of an OT lineup put this at the end. Taking a wild guess, if OT 9 to 12 are an upgrade of old 4 to 7, and his planned original OT 8 is OT 13, then he might have real handling of actual GPMs around OT 14 or 15 followed by a few more levels of stuff from the early ACCs and then splits up at around OT 18. Unfortunately, whatever research notes he left at the end are being sat upon by the CofS so we can only guess. My own though is that there is no significant later research but only a sketch of how to organize early materials into modern OT levels. As far as bridges go, I prefer the idea of doing multiple light passes across many areas rather than trying to work one area at a time to full completion. All these OT numbers begin to get a little silly when you start to think about running grade 1 on the problems related to creating universes. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To CBW on Expectations and ARC Breaks TO CBW ON EXPECTATIONS AND ARC BREAKS On 12 Jun 98, "C. B. Willis" responded to my post on "Super Scio - Remembering Raymond Kemp" > Pilot writes: > : You mock up that with which you are ARC Breaking. > > : Its not just that you mock up ARC breaks in the sense of > : letting yourself get upset. You also mock up the thing > : that you are ARC breaking with. > > : Very profound. > > : He [Ray Kemp] will be missed. > > Fascinating! > > Does that mean that we should expect less of people? > It's one thing to be realistic, see people for how they are in PT, > but another to go downscale because of expecting less of people. > Some people are brought upscale because of our high expectations for them. > > Our expectations for others' ethical behavior are > positive postulates for them. (Some situations are, granted, ethically > controversial.) > > - CBW I quite agree with you about expectations. I meant something different about ARC Breaks. One goes in to teach a class of students. One has high expectations and teaches them well and so one gets better performance on the average. But they are not all alike and their behavior and accomplishments vary and you see this and you accept each of them as they are, and you still continue to expect more of them without becoming upset with them. Or one goes in to teach a class of students and has a fixed picture of what a student should be that one is mocking up. These students do not match that picture. Some learn well but behave poorly. Some behave well but learn poorly. Some are poor in both regards. Some both learn and behave well in general but are arrogant and do not like you. None of them match the picture that you have mocked up. Eventually one ARC breaks with all of them. I'm not sure that this fits all varieties of ARC Breaks. But it certainly fits some of them. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - To Homer on Dramatizations And Meta Case TO HOMER ON DRAMATIZATIONS AND META CASE On 13 Jun 98, Homer Wilson Smith continued an earlier discussion on subject "Re The Structure of GPMS". I think that he was responding to Alan. >> > Yeah, I am not this way. The force and mass gets more solid the >> > instant I even LOOK for an item. In fact LOOKING and ASKING, and SEEING >> > are themselves dramatizations to my bank, and the very act of auditing >> > items or identities or significances, caves in the masses involved in >> > looking, seeing, trying to know and their opposites in the first place. >> >> Not good. >> >> > Perhaps this is a form of meta case. >> >> By meta case...do you mean running several different areas at the same time >> spanning several different spectrums? > > By meta case I mean running the basic mechanics of a conscious unit, >where the basic dramatizations are learning by looking, asking questions, >etc. > > If looking and asking what questions is itself a dramatization, >then all of normal auditing (Whats it, Itsa) will be a limited process, >as it will eventually restimulate the meta case more than it runs >our the normal case. > > Knowing The Proof kind of destroys auditing the lower case, because >the pc is always going "What am I doing here answering what questions?" >He knows down deep that answering "What?" is not going to free him, >except within the context of the lower game. I like "The Proof". I posted something on it awile back. It is a good analysis. But it does not have the implications that you're assigning to it here. First let me remind you of the old Hermetic datum, "As above, so below". Things wrong at the higher level, this meta case that you are talking about, will manifest down here at the mundane level. You will rock this thing occasionally. The trouble is that we don't have a good road map at that level. Knowing deep down that answering is not going to free him is a really nasty postulate that could give lots of trouble in auditing. But knowing the proof does not force this other foolish idea. Thinking that you can't get free comes from charge, not from having higher awareness. >> > You get identities like A LEARNER or A TEACHER at a VERY high meta >> > level beyond which is utterly beyond my comprehension. >> >> You meaning me? > > No. I mean anyone. The basic mechanic is to learn by looking. > >That's a LEARNER. Someone who doesn't know what is, who is trying to >know what is and does so by being an effect of incoming cause from >external sources. > > That is defacto nuts. No. Its just a via. Simply doing something in a roundabout manner instead of directly. Sometimes thats fun. > > Take a look at it from the TROM point of view. > > The pc has this HUGE dramtization, trying TO KNOW and trying TO BE >KNOWN. He wants to know and he wants the auditor TO KNOW HIM. > > Now THERE is some charge. Doesn't matter what, what the hell >is the pc trying to know for? Why does he think an auditor can help >him? At lower levels this works as it works within the mechanics >he is operating in. But at the level from which those mechanics arise, >its building charge that will sink a planet. Just because something is charged does not mean that it only exists because of charge. Having to get laid is charge. Once the charge is gone it doesn't mean that you stop doing it, it just means that you don't have to and do so at your will rather than as an effect of case. > In particular with me and the proof, I try to get the auditor >TO KNOW the proof, so he can audit me at the meta level, and he >says oh yes, I got that, and he didn't, and he won't for another >20 years at which point he will probably die from it, and so to >get auditing I have to settle down into the lower level mechanics and >audit what the auditor can deal with, which is "whats it and itsa." Itsa is not just talking and is not constrained to looking and is not, actually, restricted to the current viewpoint or mundane manifestations. You might well have trouble with auditors not duplicating where you are at and not knowing what needs to be run. So they can't handle your Itsa line. That doesn't make Itsa invalid, it just highlights the need to having an auditor of comparable magnitude. That one is a serious problem. > So the meta level case is this weave of postulates that goes >"Something exists, I don't know what, if I look I will learn, but maybe I >won't like what I learn so maybe I shouldn't look etc." > > Most lower level auditing handles that second part, the refused >looking out of fear of learning. But the first part, the desire to find >out by looking in the first place, doesn't get touched. That's 'healthy'. Just bad C/Sing. You already know enough to mockup processes to run buttons like this one. > Learning and teaching then become one way flows, MUST DO'S, and the >ability to look by creative knowing goes by the boards. > > It's sort of like trying to audit a pc without clearing help first. >Auditing is a process of learning by looking, and if there is charge on >learning by looking, then auditing will go down hill, until that charge is >blown first, or at least blown during sessions as they go along. I never thought that auditing was limited to learning by looking. Often it is by just knowing. Sometimes the auditor asks and bang, you just know, and something big falls apart. Those are the really fast spectacular EPs and the big OT keyouts. > Help sucks Alan, you all chide me for this, but its the truth. Help >is a lousy postulate, its a you can't do. Eventually one needs to help >people out of help, and eventually one has to 'learn' that learning is a >trap. These things are levels on a scale. You rise above them rather than ranting and fighting against them. > Those lost in the lower mechanics won't understand this, it will >sound obscene to them. Those with a glimpse of the higher mechanics will >know it rings true. > > Homer Looking and Knowing are buttons which can be flattened, and both are below Create (unless something is created there is nothing to know). Your understanding is way up there, but you need to look at these things from a slant of how to work your way out of the trap rather than from the view of how to make yourself depressed. And you especially have to watch out for begin caught by logic. Hoisted by your own petard because it makes logical sense to be trapped. That one's on "To Reason" which is way below "To Know" but far above the human condition. I'm aligning these using the penalty universe goals series, which is just an implant, but its so early that it has to come close to the real pattern or else it wouldn't have stuck. Be theta the solver rather than theta the problem. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio Tech - Answering Lurker Zero on the Title ANSWERING LURKER ZERO ON THE TITLE On 19 Jun 98, lurker0@hotmail.com (Lurker Zero) asked on subject "Super Scio - what does it mean" > I've downloaded the Super Scio book and read the beginning 80 pages or > so and I haven't seen a definition of Super Scio. > > I am assuming that Super Scio is short for Super Scientolgy and the > author just shortened it to avoid the wrath of the copyright lawyers? Basically yes. Also, some people on the upper levels at Flag started calling the subject Scio among themselves back around 1980. And since I was talking beyond the normal bounds of Scientology, "Super" seemed appropriate. It had a nice ring to it. But maybe my subconscious was at work because I can read a bit more into it now in retrospect. The "super" reminds me of Superman and there is a Clark Kent like analogy to my anonymous activities. And since Scio means To Know in Latin, Super Scio could be defined as transendental knowledge both of the actual activities of the CofS (chapter 1) and the levels of OT beyond the CofS bridge. Sometimes it might be better not to define or over explain a really good inspiration because you might not entirely know why yourself (at least not consciously) when it first occurs to you. I felt that way about the title when I thought it up. It felt like it had immense implications. Hope you like the book, The Pilot ========================================== subj : Super Scio - TAPE COUNTS (Attn Martin Hunt) TAPE COUNTS (Attn Martin Hunt) On 13 Jun 98, martinh@islandnet.com (Martin Hunt) responded to my post on subject "MASTER LIST OF LRH TAPES 1/3" >In article , >pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) wrote: > >>MASTER LIST OF LRH TAPES 1/3 >> >>MASTER LIST OF LRH TAPED LECTURES: > >.... > >>Also, anyone who does have an extensive tape collection needs >>a simple text file which they can download to their own >>computer and annotate as desired. I have been handwriting >>annotations on the old flag master list (source #1 below) >>for many years in this manner and I needed to do this >>computerized version for my own use and wished to make it >>available to others so that they could benifit from my >>work instead of having to repete it. > >Wow. An impressive bit of work, sir. > >What is your final tally of the number of individual tapes? > >-- >Cogito, ergo sum. http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~av282/ > ... looking for a good .sig quote The master list originally numbered the tapes sequentially and runs to number 2910. Then they added inserts with .1 type notation and eliminated duplicates (with cross references) due to having the same tape at different dates etc. Then of course there are the subsequent adjustments from the Gold list, R&D volumes, etc. I was also curious how many were in the final list I came up with, so I did a grep on the abbreviation for each month, brought the output up in an editor, eliminated lines that did not have lecture titles in them and took the line count. That gave me the number of tapes by month as follows: Jan 298 Feb 221 Mar 251 Apr 168 May 157 Jun 232 Jul 252 Aug 186 Sep 149 Oct 333 Nov 330 Dec 305 total 2882 This might be off by one or two, and there were a few tapes that were in unknown months, so the total is probably around 2900. There is also the matter of packageing. Where things were also broken up into half hour versions, I used the 1 hour reels. For example, Time Track of theta was on 2 hour long reels but is now out on 4 half hour cassettes. So it would be possible to count these as 3000 or so. Some of the very early tape production was originally on half hour mini-reels (5 inch instead of 7 inch) before they switched to one hour and repackaged things. Most 1950s lectures are around 1 hour long (or 50 something minutes), with some exceptions like the 7th ACC that used half hour lectures. Some of the repackaging is due to the org grouping pairs of short lectures into a single one hour lecture when appropriate because they were reproducing these on one hour reels. The later lectures, especially the Briefing Course, are on 90 minute reels, with some lectures being 80 something minutes. It's probably around: 600 lectures at 90 minutes 2100 lectures at one hour 200 lectures at 30 minutes Giving about 3100 hours of lecture. Since some are a few minutes short, this brings us back to about 3000 hours. Transcripts seem to be a bit over 50K per hour, so a complete set of transcripts would be about 160 MB. The whole set would easily fit on a single CD Rom along with both sets of tech volumes and the policy volumes and all the books. Taking Ralph's figure of 9MB per hour in MPEG3, we get 27 GB for audio, which would need about 75 CD Roms. If it was one or two MB per hour in Real Audio, then it becomes 10 or 20 CD Roms. Of these 2900 lectures, 58 are marked % because there is no copy available. Maybe they have found these or transcriptions of them and I just don't know about it. And there are 254 marked ">" because they seem to be confidential. I hope this inspires some people to get busy. Although 3000 is a lot, it's a finite number, ARS gets almost that many messages a week. Best, The Pilot PS. Usually I only post periodically to reduce my exposure. ========================================== subj : Super Scio - ANSWERING DELAWARE STREET ANSWERING DELAWARE STREET First of all, my appologies. I had not realized who you were. Of course my OT perceptions could be way off, and I expect you to deny this in either case, but it seems to me that you are an old friend and the current leader of the GO in exile, operating on your old orders without sanction from the modern CofS. OSA, of course, is afraid of you and considers you a loose cannon who is out of control, but they handle you with kid gloves and say a prayer every morning in the hopes that you remain loyal because you know far too much from your old post. We actually have quite a lot in common. You are bypassing on Div 7, and I am bypassing on Div 5. You are operating under the misconception that I am associated with some freezone organization and you probably have your people nosing around Alan's or Lamont's looking for me. You would be better to search for me at the complex, I do drop in there occasionally. And my connections run to old tech terminals who are still in good standing but who have been silent for far too long. But it would be better if you spent your time looking into the current management. I honestly do not know who is a misguided good guy and who is really out to suppress the subject. Admittedly I make fun of David Miscavige sometimes, he is supposedly in command and is making a mess of things, but I really can't tell if he is a manipulated dupe or one of the black hats. You would know things from the old days, like about that ED who was a double agent. I don't expect you to post these things or even admit that they exist, but please look. I think that it would benifit everyone to find out the real story and groups like Veritas are too late on the chain. You're probably thinking that I'm some kind of crazy squirrel. But everything I'm doing is firmly grounded in and ordered by the early ACCs. Especially the 3rd ACC, which I consider to be the high point of the OT research. I'm really hoping that somebody posts those tapes because I do not intend to supplant Ron but only to enhance him and to make the tech accessible to the common man. People should have a chance even if they do not have hundreds of thousands of dollars and a fanatical viewpoint that is acceptible to those who are currently in power. I would encourage you to listen to early tapes, lots of them. Then you might understand what I'm doing. The LRH quotes I use are not the exceptions, they are the rule for the 1950s. I'm not misrepresenting his words or twisting them out of context. I know your 2D did one of the late ACCs, but that's not enough, just one narrow view of a much broader subject. And even he has a wonderful story of being coffee shopped on spotting spots in space with fantastic gains. I suppose that I should anwser your earlier post, so here goes: On 12 Jun 98, nobody@nowhere.com (Delaware Street) answered my earlier post on subject "Super Scio - Delaware Street Invalidates LRH" >For The Pilot > >First of all, I have a comment to make about this. I am not active in >Scientology. I do not support and will not support any attacks >against Scientology by disgruntled ex-members. I will not play into >the "agendas" of such persons. How about the agendas of current members who are trying to salvage the tech before Int Management drags it into the grave with them. >My presence and posts on ARS have been >used to further only complaints against Scientology as a subject and >as the organization exists. I am not in agreement with being part of >that. I weighed the circumstances and decided that putting forward >the viewpoint that there are other points of view about Scientology >would be worthwhile and even "owed." Owed becuase the representation >of Scientology as a subject and organization that I personally >witnessed is so far above what is represented here on ARS and for that >matter alt.clearing.technology. ACT is not any kind of accurate >representation of Scientology AT ALL! ACT is not that far off base. It has much of the flavor of the 1950s. As I've said elsewhere, an army needs its scouts exploring the new terrain. You could have standard tech adherents and pioneers working in ARC instead of fighting. I agree that ARS is dominated by critics, but the reason for that is issue authority. If real Scientologists had the freedom to speak openly, it would present a different picture. The OSA handlers and people with issue authority look like morons and are nasty besides. They've had too much sec checking (see my recent post of an LRH explanation of why that makes them mean). They give the whole subject a bad name. Almost nobody is in your position of being able to communicate freely without OSA daring to bother them. >The main agenda of ARS is -- known. I believe it is tiresome and >simply becuase it isn't my reality and I wouldn't want it to be >anyone's reality I have and do oppose ARS. > >Just as fervently I opposed those who would use auditing data for >their own ends, I oppose what is going on here and elsewhere. Don't >tell me you don't know what I am referring to. Actually I don't, unless you are talking about things that are discussed on the newsgroups. My sources are in CofS rather than outside of it. The only things I know of freezone or critics are what is on the net or what was being passed around on the fringes (like issues of Free Spirit etc.). And I applaud your stand on misusing auditing data. Things like using reverse processes, apply datums backwards to create entrubulation, violating the sanctity of the confessional, pushing buttons to get money, and so forth are gross out ethics. >You may have noticed I haven't posted in awhile. I have checked this >newsgroup for the first time, this morning in over two weeks and two >weeks ago, I decided I would not even observe what is going on on ARS. >I don't need to tell you my thoughts, most here would consider them >pathetic for their own warped purposes. I guess it was just theta knowingness that called you to the terminal when my post to you hit the news system. >On: 12 Jun 1998 14:00:20 >Message-ID: >Subject: Super Scio - Delaware Street Invalidates LRH > >pilot@hiddenplace.com (The Pilot) > >>DELAWARE STREET INVALIDATES LRH > >As a matter of fact in reference to your post and allegations, I have >not done so. > >>On 22 May 98, nobody@nowhere.com (DelawareStreet) posted in reply >>to my previous post on "Super Scio - Quote About Clear (To Rognnet)" > >>> On: 19 May 1998 14:00:13 >>> Message-ID: >>> Super Scio - Quote About Clear (To Rognnet) >>> >>> The Pilot wrote: >>> >>> >QUOTE ABOUT CLEAR (TO RGONNET) > >>> >I would say that the 1965 definition (and the corresponding >>> >DMSMH definition of 1950) is sales hype, and I think that >>> >the 1958 definition is the honest one (I've talked about >>> >this elsewhere, see the Scientology Reformer's Homepage). >>> >>> The "How to get squirrel data" homepage you mean. > >>The Scientology Reformer's Homepage does not contain tech >>data. > >It is still unuseable. Not worth anyone's time. Reform is needed. The outpoints are endless. Have you actually read the webpage? >>I know that you might think that tech which I write might >>be squirrel (even though it isn't), but the Reformer's page >>is not a tech writing. So its not squirrel even by your own >>organization's standards. > >I am not a representative of any organization. Anything that is not >in original form, to me is suspect. Anything and everything. You are >deliberatly making up further alterations of the original data we are >referring to. I don't like that. I didn't like such a thing when I >first happened across it years ago. It is tough enough to deal with >certain things. You and your freezone sit back and claim you have the >better answers and are "better." I don't care what you say about the >data. > >It is worthless with your bias and other "agendas." I do have a bias towards tech rather than policy. I have a bias towards freedom rather than slavery. I have a bias in favor of the old days rather than modern Sea Org behavior. I have an agenda to make real OT, both for myself and others. I do object to stops put on that line. As Ron says, once you start on the road to truth, you'd better keep going. But somebody has built a stone wall halfway down the road and I plan to keep going despite them. >>It is a heartfelt story of an ex-staff member. > >>THE ONLY TECH ON THE REFORMER'S PAGE CONSISTS OF LRH QUOTES. > >>Lots of LRH Quotes. > >>Accurate Ones. > >>Check them out. I dare you to. > >I don't need to. I have most if not all of the data. Which I bought >on my own, with my own money. Me too. So you agree the quotes are all correct. So how about doing what Ron says. >>> >But a literal minded fanatic >>> > might wake up if they get >>> >hit with all of Ron's varying definitions and statements >>> >about Clear. >>> >>> Well, is it good to wake them up? >>> >>> > On that basis, this is a good quote to >>> > pass around. >>> >>> Or round file. > >>ROUND FILE? > >Yes round file, because you have placed doubts and uncertainties about >the "quotes" about clear - in your post to rgonnet - that are very >easily fit in the catagory of questionable. That is why I would and >have, tossed it to the round file. You are the opportunist here, and >you actively infuse your own interpretations into the body of data you >comment on and do so with the intent to sway your audience to "your" >so called "freezone." I would be just as happy to see the org reform. But if it can't and the present collapse continues, the only tech that survives will be in the freezone. That's why I want all of LRH's works out there. And we owe it to people who were betrayed and driven off to give them another route to the tech. So I have a two pronged approach, both inside and outside. And if both succeed, all the better, freezone and orthodoxy could florish and prospher together if only the fighting would stop. In modern times, the Catholics occasionally work together with the Protestants rather than trying to kill them as happened in the middle ages. I think that this is a good thing. I hate holy wars. >>REALLY? > >>ROUND FILE AN LRH QUOTE? > >No, as I wrote above, just your comments, interpretations and uses of >them. > >>Have you lost it completely? > >No. I lost other things. Of greater magnitude. Because of people >who believe and act as you and your "friends" do. Are you sure that you have spotted the correct source? >>Do you realize that the org could declare you an SP for >>that one statement alone. It is a high crime. Please star >>rate HCOPL "Tech Degrades" immediately. > >Obviously this did not at the time apply and does not now. I am not a >staff member. I respect Ron's data, and his organization. I know >what integrity is. Me too. That's why I'm talking freely and standing up for what I believe in. >Your agenda is strictly against the Church of Scientology. And you >are not from or -- with -- the Church of Scientology. I have trouble >believing you about anything. I do not trust you or your data and >will have nothing to do with anything you are doing. > >>I'm allowed to say things like that if I feel like it because >>I can have my own opinion and occasionally I disagree with >>Ron (not usually, but sometimes). But you are not allowed >>to or else you get in trouble. > >Your generalization about me you wrote above is false. I stand corrected. I assumed that you were an OSA handler instead of ex-GO. But think of all the Scientologists who can't talk freely. It violates basics. >>Since you trashed the quote itself, I'll repeat it here. It >>really is a true LRH quote. In fact I was correcting the >>slight alter-is that was introduced by rgonnet's having >>translated it back from the French translation. > > >># From Tape SHSBC-322 renumbered 353 >># >># 6311C07 (standard tape IDs are the 2 digit year followed >># by the 2 digit month followed by a "C" and then the two >># digit day). >># >># Title "Relationship of Training To OT". >># >># From near the end of the tape. >># >># "Our interest in the state of Clear is so microscopic >># as to be a yawn, see; it's of no importance at all. >># The state makes somebody more comfortable - so what? >># You can make a sick man more comfortable by putting a >># pillow under his head, see?" > >That isn't the only context that *you* presented the quote Mr. Pilot. >Do you want me to quote your original? You inference was full of bias >in your use of the quote you revisite above. > >Bias against the Church of Scientology, RTC I suppose or the whole >legally valid organization. You are using me to further your efforts >against the Church Organization. There is a bit of truth to that. I don't like how RTC has suppressed the use of the tech. As to legally valid, that runs straight into the first ammendment. I honestly believe that the subject really is a religion. That means that Freedom of Religion applies. They should act like the Guideon Society distributing free bibles or at least condoning volenteers who want to do things like that. Do you support the tech, or an organization of robots that wants to control it? Ron was always warning against those who would try and control the subject. >Why don't you complain about Psychiatry and what they are doing in the >world? In case you haven't noticed, I don't say anything bad about CCHR. I only expect them to be honest in their investigations. But that whole topic pales in comparison with blocking a road to truth. This is the fight that I consider important. >>I like LRH quotes and want to seem them accurately presented. > >This to me is just a lie. I don't believe you. Do you honestly think that I would have gone to all the hours of work necessary to post that LRH tape master list if I didn't like LRH lectures? >>Why don't you post some too? > >I don't want to, and I haven't gone to the effort of requesting formal >permission from the copyright holder. Legally you don't need it. And I would think that you would want to anyway. >>> Because it comes from you and the "freezone." >>> Group with ideas like it is okay to do what ever you want with >>> Scientology, regardless and no matter, which has brought widespread >>> misuse and misapplication. What misuse? All I see is that there is almost no use and no application and no real OTs coming out of the CofS. KSW is worthless if it makes you so afraid of using the tech that you drive it out of existance. >>"Any auditing is better than no auditing" - L. Ron Hubbard > >Misapplication, out ethics and tech alter-is and violation of >copyrights is a serious matter. > >A matter I note that you have completely immersed yourself in. I stand with LRH on this rather than obeying RTC interpretations. >>> Justified here by the anti-Scientologist's >>> you wish to assist. Just to get a chance to take a jab at the >>> legitimate organization from which you apparently were once a part. > >>Still am a part actually. And I have lots of friends. > >So do I. > >>Try looking over your shoulder sometime. > >There's nothing there. I am alone. I hope you mean right this moment rather than in general. I'll be truely shocked if Bruce has left you. >>> >Best, >>> >>> >The Pilot >>> >>> Delaware Street > > >>Maybe I was a little too rough in the above. I just finished >>answering that idiot rod_fletcher and it put me in a bad mood. > >Once again, I would disagree with you. For many reasons, I disagree >with you and those who are doing as you do. As for rod_fletcher, I >don't know him. I don't consider him an idiot. I consider you an >idiot. You put me in a bad mood. I don't like what you are doing >one bit. > >You use conflict to meet your aims, if you in fact achieve them. I >am not interested in such chaos and turmoil. Not at all. I will >never have anything to do with you and groups like yours. Actually I'm trying to cool down some of the fighting. I think I've won a bit of respect and understanding for people who believe in the tech. >>You do talk a bit more sensibly than some of the other >>OSA handlers. > >I am not an "OSA handler" as you say. I am not active in Scientology, >as I have posted several times before. But you just have to use such >comments to place me in between every available conflict you can find >on the "issue." The issue of rules about posting to ARS. The issue >of allegations of OSA actually posting here. All unconfirmed by me. >I have something to tell you. I would fight my way through them to >tell you of how I oppose you and your's. Misapplication of auditing >data is not good. You fit into that catagory, squarely. Nope. As I said, listen to early ACCs. I'm doing what Ron says. As to OSA handlers, you and I know that they are real. >That you trifle is amazing to me. I don't trifle, I just have orders of magnitude more exposure to LRH tech than you do. I do know what I'm doing. Listen to a few thousand lectures. Even Class 12s only study a tiny percentage of the tech. >>Try listening to some of the old LRH tapes. Read Dianetics 55, >>especially the parts about secrecy and so forth. > >Try? I have listened to so many you would be surprised. I have read >almost all the books. I do not have the negative view you hold. >I have my own experience and have known many people who went clear and >OT from the early days. I have a wealth of information. I will not >lend to your efforts. Ever. Get more data and re-evaluate this one. >>We only have this one tiny moment in eturnity (LRH again). > >>Don't waste it on a GPM flip flop from freedom into slavery. > >I haven't. > >>ARC, > >I wonder. > >>The Pilot > >At the least, you are interested in harrassing and I have a strong >feeling you don't really care as you say you do. If your >understanding is so great then why don't you clean up your act? Your >on a bad road Pilot. The road to truth isn't bad. >Don't thank me for anything I am not interested. > >Delaware Street Think for a moment on what would actually be safest. A single big strong organization with a key central point that could be subverted, or a large number of independent organizations where there is no single target. Think of what would really be better for the tech, to spread it around the planet without restraint or to lock it away in vaults. Think of the relative importance of communication. Is this a minor datum or is it the universal solvent and senior to other things in tech and policy. Obviously I do hope to win you over to the cause. Not necessarily to me personally or my self clearing book or the freezone, but to the general cause of bringing sanity and freedom back into the organization. I honestly do think that the points for reform that I listed on the webpage are critical to the survival of the organization and if you will work towards those I will be happy with you even if you choose to rant against me and my other works. I'll sign this with ARC again despite your skepticism, The Pilot PS. Usually I only post periodically to reduce my exposure. I saw your post and decided to make an exception in this case. ========================================== subj : Super Scio - TO DATELINE VIEWERS TO DATELINE VIEWERS Last night (Tuesday, June 16, 1998), you saw a presentation of The Church of Scientology as an evil cult of fanatics who assume that anyone who attacks them is a criminal. This is quite true. It is also false. In its early days, Scientology was what you might think of as a new age religion seeking spiritual enlightenment, much like Zen or Est. It included things similar to past life regression techniques and mental exercises like those in the so called Tibetan secret (or "ear-whispered") teachings. It was ahead of its time, appearing in the 1950s before such things became acceptible. It began in the US in the McCarthy era and soon found itself under attack. By the 1960s, there were such things as the FDA raid on the Scientology organization in Washington, DC, and the ban on Scientology in Victoria, Australia. Eventually the organization began to defend itself and a militant senior strata known as the Sea Organization (or Sea Org) was established above the ordinary Scientologists and churches of Scientology. And this included a secret service known as the Guardian's Office (GO) which knew no law but its own and eventually (after doing so successfully for over a decade) was caught infiltrating the US goverment. It's modern replacement is now called the Office Of Special Affairs (OSA). Last night's television show included one of their ex-secret agents coming clean. So there really is a cult of dangerous fanatics currently running the Church of Scientology (CofS). But these are not representative of ordinary Scientologists and they are not a true expression of the Scientology Religion. Most Scientologists are seeking higher spiritual truth and self enlightenment. But there have always been people of a fanatical bent, and these are encouraged and supported in their spiritual blindness by the current ruling hierarchy. They are the visible face that you see today because no others dare speak within the organization for fear of excommunication (known as declaring somebody suppressive) and the "fair game" style "dead agenting" attacks with which the organization silences anyone who dares to speak up. But there is a reform movement within Scientology that seeks to restore the higher goals, gentler behavior, and spiritual truths that should never have departed from an organization dedicated to seeking enlightenment. This reform is hotly denied by the fanatics currently in power. And there are vast numbers of Scientologists who are hiding on the sidelines, too fearful to speak out and too loyal to turn against the organization, and yet unwilling to participate in the rampant fanaticism. And then there are the Freezone Scientologists, who are practicing their faith outside of the current organization and who are continually attacked and harrased by the orthodox fanatics. The fanatics attack the freezone with the same "fair game" and "dead agenting" tactics that they use against critics, they send in secret agents to disrupt any freezone organizations, and they use the copyright laws to sue and destroy any believers in Hubbard's works who would try to use them outside of the orthodox organization. And so there are many Scientologies, and many kinds of Scientologists. Do not judge the many by the actions of the few. I am a reformer within the Church and therefore can not speak out safely and freely. Thanks to the internet, I am able to spread the word anonymously despite the dangers posed by those who would seek to suppress truth. Normally I only post periodically to reduce my exposure. I am makeing an exception in this case because of the significance of last night's broadcast. I have made my own works, which are aimed at furthering the true persuit of enlightenment through Scientology, freely available on the internet at no charge. See the URLs below. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== The following trailer was used on these posts ------------------ The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net. See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm Some translations are available, see In German - http://www.cso.net/mt/pilot.htm In Russian - http://www.user.cityline.ru/~cisergem/ and www.aha.ru/~espinol and http://www.tagil.ru/~sk/pilot/pilot.html. The MASTER LIST OF LRH TAPES which I posted recently is available both at fza.org and at http://wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de/~krasel/CoS/tapes.html All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives #33 and posted to ACT. See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG. Note that some of my posts only go to ACT. I cannot be reached by email. I watch ARS and ACT for messages with Pilot in the subject line. ------------------