In article <OauxjkVb#GA.
...@nih2naaf.prod2.compuserve.com>, Ethan says...
>>As for showing Enzo respect, well, hey Enzo, look at this
>>R-E-S-P-E-C-T just like the song. There I showed him some respect.
>>Enzo deserves only as much respect as he earns just like the rest
>>of
>>the world population. Not a bit more.
>>roxthefox1
>>SP3
>Okay, okay. I'm assuming Enzo is just a "public" scientologist who
>wants to fairly debate his religion on this channel.
>Ethan
Some background on Enzo, from one of his first posts to a.r.s. almost
one year ago:
===
Vaughn and I -- Part 1 of 2
Author: Enzo Piccone <e
...@ermes.it>
Date: 1998/03/22
Forum: alt.religion.scientology
Yo, Vaughn.
Who'd have thought, twenty-some years ago by the back door of the Manor, that
the next time we'd be chatting would be by computer and in public?
As an aside, sometimes I consider evolution is moving this tired planet so
slowly that I could drop off without getting bruised. I remind myself that
"need of change" or "demand for improvement" are relative quantities from one
person to the next, and that no one's obliged to change his own considerations
about these just to make things more interesting for me.
Nevertheless, there are, of course, continuing changes in mechanics, which
make at least some things more interesting. And here we are.
I've only one thing I'm debating after reading yours, and that's how much to
write here. Volume. You've likely had experience similar to mine: the
electronic conversation starts with a few paragraphs, takes little or no time
to get interesting, and within days you're spending hours at the keyboard
doing what you used to accomplish in minutes of live communication.
Volume and time, then.
And priorities. Life outside of a.r.s. goes on.
Not to mention Netiquette, which may have I know not exactly what to do with
what we're doing here, but which I'm satisfied to ignore at the moment.
Tell you what, then. What say we continue to splurge for the moment? Bit of
free for all which may put a good number of our readers to sleep -- then
again, we're not obliging them to bear with us, are we? Then, as our
discussion develops, perhaps we can narrow things down to a few main issues
we're both more interested in, and see if it's in either of our interests to
close some gap on these. And if not, uncross paths.
So, this one's going to be long, as I'll be making few attempts at brevity.
>: I was wondering what might be taking you so long, Vaughn.
>Nothing really horribly complex or sinister. I don't spend that much time
>on ARS any more and the damned feed to my ISP is so lousy that...well, I
>digress. Fortunately, yours came through. Otherwise I would have missed it
>and no one would believed me. (sigh)
Great. And I know what you mean both about feeds -- as I wrote someone else
a few days ago, mine's a tad faster than the snails in my back garden, which
are still hibernating -- and about credibility.
Also, I don't know about you, but I have no trouble finding stuff on DejaNews
sometimes -- and particularly when I remember to look for it, which is what I
did last night to find yours -- and other times it just takes more time than
I consider is worth the bother. So, I'm sending you a copy of this via e-
mail, as you suggested, and I'll look for your reply in mine.
A last thing I've just of before I go on: I'm going to take hours writing
this. I like writing and I can spend as long as I like on it. I prefer just
looking at things: one thing or another, whatever strikes my fancy. Writing,
then, becomes as well one of my favourite "excuses" for looking -- imagining,
speculating, whatever. All of this to say that I'm not in a hurry and will
not be setting or trying to meet deadlines during our discussion. As I don't
imagine you're in any hurry either, shall we both feel free to take our time?
I expect this will go in tomorrow's mail. After that, my responses may or
may not be so quick.
>Now I'm gonna snip out a lot so we can shorten things up here and I can
>get down to yours. (And by the way, you still have one of the most
>elequent styles around. But be careful or OSA will say Stacy is writing it
>for you.) [inside ARS joke]
Compliment appreciated. Did get the joke. Did laugh.
>: As I've written, I've been a Scientologist for almost exactly twenty-six
>: years. I got into Scientology in Toronto in February 1972. I got onto
>: staff several weeks later. By November of the same year I was already
>: working at GOWW (Guardian's Office World Wide), which was the international
>: headquarters of the GO. I knew personally, and worked with, several of the
>: people who later went to jail.
>Which brings up a question I had in my earlier post: how's Jane and what's
>she doing? Do you know?
No, I don't. Hope she and Kevin (her husband) are both doing fine. Aside
from some irreconcilable differences, I liked them both.
>: I left WW less than two years later because of irreconcilable differences
>: with the then Deputy Guardian for Public Relations. I returned to staff a
>: year later to give it another go, but ended up leaving again less than two
>: years later. This time it was irreconcilable differences with the Guardian.
>With Jane?
Indeed. Summer of 1977, I think it was. Unless it was the summer of 1976.
Exact dates is not one of my fortes, and here it matters not at all.
We ran into each other on the day I was routing out; seconds actually, before
I walked out of the Manor. You'll enjoy hearing what she said, which I'll get
to in a moment. Before I do, I'd like to explain something. It's along the
line of something I wrote in my last.
I've never been interested in emphasising my differences of opinion with
others. These differences are what they are, and I don't consider they need
be emphasised or otherwise exaggerated. The difference, itself, will do.
Similarly, in a group situation, which is more complicated (more people), I've
made zero time for the dubious purpose of making myself right and others
wrong. As I've never had particular difficulty making my differences of
opinion obvious, I've not thought it necessary to get into this sort of thing.
Back to Jane [Kember, convicted felon] and me.
A week or so prior to my departure from WW, I'd sent up an eval(uation) to do
with recruitment of staff. It couldn't have been more simple, and I'd
actually considered it unnecessary. All it called for was the implementation
of some policy which was not being applied, so I'd seen no need to do a
full-blown eval in the first place. Just apply the policy.
Anyway, I did the eval, and it went up lines for approval. No problem until
it got to Jane. She didn't like it. Too simple. No "Who" preventing
recruitment from happening, which was more along the lines of her own guess.
Perfectly valid guess -- there's no shortage of people preventing things from
happening -- but that's not what I'd seen.
Apparently she was quite annoyed and decided to bypass me and do another eval
herself. So, the next order I received from her was to compile various data
she wanted for it. As I've mentioned, I'd already spent more time on all of
this than I'd thought necessary. And I don't like wasting my time. I sent up
something I could put together quickly and got on with other work. It wasn't
what she wanted and she got a tad more annoyed.
Kevin, her husband and my senior in Services Bureau, tried good-naturedly, if
under some apparent strain, to cajole me to back down from my own position and
provide Jane something more along the lines of what she wanted. I let him
understand that I just wasn't interested.
Didn't make myself right. Didn't make him wrong. Didn't make Jane wrong.
Didn't make anyone wrong. I just let him understand I wasn't interested. As
I say, I don't like wasting my time. And more so if I consider I'm being
ordered to do so. Within the hour I was informed that I'd been taken off
post.
After that it was just the routine admin procedures until I was out of WW. No
fuss, no strain, no problems. I was asked to look over the ethics conditions,
of course, but at this point I was looking forward to doing so myself, as I
wanted the opportunity to wrap up some loose ends in my own thoughts. Here,
too, there was no fuss, no strain, no problem.
Overall I was quite disappointed, because once again -- this was the second
time I'd gotten myself routed out -- I considered that I'd not been allowed to
work in a manner which I thought was simply saner and more productive than
what had been asked of me.
What I didn't get hung up on, though, was what I considered to be the
inadequacies of others. Others' inadequacies are something with which we're
all quite familiar, and I wasn't interested in hanging up merely because I'd
just experienced another disappointing dose of them. I was interested in what
I might do to make myself more useful than I'd found it possible to be at WW.
Time to finish the story.
Jane had come down to Services Bureau to pick up Kevin for dinner and saw me
ready to leave. Our gazes met, we smiled, and then she walked over. It was
evident that she didn't feel entirely comfortable, but Jane wasn't someone to
back down either, and her manners, with myself certainly, had always been
impeccable.
As an aside, bad manners are something I've never had a lot of time for
either. Inside or outside of Scientology, one encounters these with one or
another degree of frequency. Isn't it interesting that when some of us do,
simply maintaining our own manners, and without in the least backing down, is
sufficient to effect the rapid, if not immediate, return of another's manners?
As I was about to relate, then, I don't remember her exact words -- it's now
better than twenty years ago -- but the following is a faithful rendition.
"Hello, Enzo. Everything all right?"
"Yes, fine, thanks."
"I'd like to say something to you before you leave.
...
read more »
