On Sun, 31 May 1998 21:59:15 -0000, , starshad...@mindless.com
(Starshadow) wrote:
> I haven't time to do a search but I've read (I think maybe it was
>Margery Wakefield's account, --maybe somebody else, my memory ain't what
>it used to be-- maybe some others)some people being told to tag folders
>for confessions of juicy tidbits to store up to hold up against them
>later. No, of course I wasn't there, but I have read this in more than
>one account, I know. Like I said, I never fell for the scam so this is
>not first hand accounts, but I see no reason to doubt people who have
>proven trustworthy and whose accounts have been truthful thus far.
I don't dispute the fact that it might have happened, but there are
several other points to keep in mind: (1) it's not "standard
practice", and the vast majority of Scientologists will fight nail and
teeth to protect the confidentiality that has been trusted them. To
portray culling PC folders as something common and systematic is
highly misleading; (2) It has been said it was done it right in this
newsgroup as a "SOP" (standard operating procedure). I am still
waiting for the actual posts; (3) if there is a policy about that, I
would like to see it as well; (4) accounts from apostates, while not
to be discounted, have to be viewed with the greatest skepticism and
certainly should not be taken as the bible. The distortions and bias
are running high.
>> For auditors, though, PC folders are sacred and they will defend
>> intrusion with nail and teeth. To say that folder culling is a
>> standard operating procedure is an insult for those Scientology who
>> *do* care about not divulging confidential and personal information,
>> and they are the overwhelming majority.
> I do not believe this, for the above reasons.
Well, you are sorely mistaken, Starshadow. It just goes to show how
demonized and incorrect is the picture you have of the actual
situation.
>> Furthermore, I find it hypocritical on the part of those critics who
>> justifies the German government seizing personal folder to see if the
>> person confessed to a crime, to complain about the supposedly
>> disclosure of information from the CoS. This State intrusion in the
>> private realm is outrageous, and for critics to condone such actions
>> clearly shows that they have lost sight of whatever initially noble
>> feeling they might have had at the beginning.
> I haven't condoned such actions, but I don't know what the
>circumstances are or anything about that.
Note that I wasn't referring to you, only to those who have been
making such statements (or failed to do it when they should have done
it). But from what I read now in this post, I have little doubt that
you will end up supporting same.
>It may have been a post I
>missed. I'm not thrilled with the State intruding on private affairs but
>I am not a German or European citizen, and historically, Europe has a
>much more paranoid (and for reason) attitude toward fascistoid type
>groups, which I believe the cult to be than does the US.
Paranoid you said. Hardly rational.
>> >I criticise the Pope,
>> >and many do, but I've not seen accounts similar of a Vatican
>> >investigation of their critics.
>> Lucky for you that you weren't around during the Inquisition and other
>> niceties of the RCC.
> My dear, I'm talking about now, this century, this day and age.
>Not hundreds of years ago. Why is it anytime a critic mentions abuses of the
>Oo$, which clearly are current, including fair game, though no longer
>called that, apologists always scream "Old news" and yet when someone
>brings up a religion that does not so operate y'all bring up *centuries*
>old abuses?? Can't have it both ways, y'know.
I say that the root of discrimination is the same, it just takes on
new forms.
Furthermore, your use of the word "apologist" is incorrect as well. I
do not try to justify any abuses of the CoS. My use of this example
only aims to point out to mob reactions based on ignorance,
demonization and propaganda against minorities. This doesn't mean that
these minorities do not have something to be blamed on as well. Maybe
you wish to label scholars who defend the rights of minority religions
as "apologists" as well, like arsers do.
> I know it is a massive scam and that apparently you fell for it hook
>line and sinker, and that here and now, abuses are occurring, and that if
>Lisa was the *only* suspicious death from a quack treatment it is one
>death too many, but there are plenty more deaths laid at the cult's door,
>and that children are being neglected and abused, and so on and so on. If
>you want to call that deluded fantasy, go ahead. But when the whole house
>of cards collapses and you see what it turned you into, and what
>compromises you have made with the conscience the gods gave you, don't
>blame me for not trying.
You obviously "know" it all much better than me...
Usually, the contrary happens: it's when those who had discriminative,
racist, sexist, attitudes realize the wrong they have done that they
hardly understand how they could think along this line to start with.
>I will always fight against injustice wherever I see it.
Of course you do, most people do. The very basis of propaganda and
demonization is to exploit this positive human tendency. It's always a
matter of amazement for me to see how blatant injustice are being
committed under the guise of fighting for it. That's what I call
ignorance and delusion.
> I talked to elron himself, dearie, and he told me it was a scam. If
>that were all, I wouldn't be here. I'm here to keep more Lisas from
>happening. I will fight for that and for the innocents trapped in it, and
>that is that. They aren't able to, so I will speak out. If you think that
>is ignorant, time will tell, won't it, who stood up for right, and who
>for keeping quiet and complacent in the face of great evil.
Time will tell, indeed. When, for example, the current German
discrimination will be revealed for what it is, those who supported it
will be marked by a red mark through DejaNews.
Your labelization that I keep "quiet and complacent" is wrong as well.
I have repeatedly spoken up against the CoS. What I do is that I
*also* speak up against similar mistakes and injustice happening on
the other side. Your characterization that this simple fact represents
a support for the CoS shows that you are thinking in this case along
the same cultic line as the one you like to think yourself as
opposing.
>> From what I gather, Wolf isn't a Scientologist anymore, neither am I.
>> But the type of "criticism" to be found around here, fed by resentful
>> ex-members and sometimes benevolent but generally ignorant outsiders
>> is just so ridiculous that any thinking and informed person who has
>> had first hand experience with Scientology for a reasonably long time
>> just have to take a stand against.
> Your call. Mine is different. But I don't stay quiet and I don't think
>your cult is as benign as you say.
"Your cult"? WTFAYTA? I just wrote about the fact that I am not a
Scientologist, and you still refer to "your cult". Seems that there
isn't much point in this discussion, since you seem to want to read
what you wish I said rather than what I actually wrote.
>Every thing *I've* seen and heard
>tells me otherwise. My grandmother used to say "It's the stuck pig which
>squeals the most" and I see the pig squealing again and again, at
>peaceful pickets, at questions, at pointers to official web pages, for
>the gods' sakes.
Of course. Constant reinforcement within the same framework.
> It is evil, but it will fall. When it does *my* conscience will be
>clear. Will yours?
As you said: "Your call. Mine is different". Good luck.
Bernie
--
If you really mean to reform Scn and it's mngmnt
you won't accomplish it with charges of brainwashing,
fools and a dead man's ego (Wolf)
