> In article <359AE2B0.32D75...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
> > If my family were giving me a bad time about ANYTHING I am doing and > > trying to get me to stop doing whatever it was I would DEFINITELY have a > > problem with that.Wouldn't matter what it was, if it was what I wanted > > to do and my folks were making my life purgatory over it, I would have > > to either work with them to restore harmony in the family so that I > > could do the things I wanted to do (as an adult) or I would have to look > > long and hard at that relationship, whether I was connected with CofS or > > not.
> Sure. Those are decisions adults make. You don't need the organization to > which you belong to make them for you. You and I agree on that?
Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't. And this has come up before, believe me. It is the responsibility of Scientologists (and really,anyone) to do what they think is right regardless of what anyone else thinks is right. Even if the people in disagreement with them were Church Officials or what have you. This is something I truly believe and practice and I have not pleased all the people in the CofS all the time,for sure.
> > > > > You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from abusers > > > > > and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what > > > > > Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
> > > > > Tash
> > > > I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described > > > > my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to > > > > disconnect from them.
> > > I see nothing unusual about your family situation. I know loads of people > > > who have embraced faiths/beliefs different from those of their parents, > > > and even the *idea* that their chosen churches/organizations would demand > > > disconnection from family would be ludicrous. Why do you think your family > > > is unusual?
> > let's see, Daddy was squirreling,Daddy was asking the church for his > > money back (which he did get back),Mommy was rather vocal in her > > opinions about the Church (really cool Mom,but can be rather > > sharp-tongued) and other family member was in the psych ward with > > slashed wrists,electroshock therapy,various psychotropic medications, I > > was visiting her daily and I was under alot of pressure to support the > > family at this time in supporting her therapy--nah, nothing unusual > > about that. Why, I bet 9 out of 10 Scn'ologists surveyed have the exact > > same history. Sure,ok.
> That's my point; there is nothing unusual about it *outside of > Scientology*. It's *normal* outside of Scientology to have parents who > disagree with your choices and who are vocal about it. It's *normal* to > have friends who make choices different from those you would make, and to > support them in those choices because of the strength of the friendship > (and also because they might be right and you might be wrong). There is > nothing unusual in that. You seem to imply that it is unusual for a > *Scientologist* to be in such a situation, and perhaps that's so. But it's > not unusual outside of Scientology.
> <snip>
> > I have a couple other postings/replies on this as well with another > > example or two. I really have seen little or no demanding.
> OK. I look forward to reading your posts. I hope you will respond to DeoMorto.
Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats!
But seriously, I apologize for not answering.
All I can say is sometimes the tech and policy are not applied correctly. As my bias is toward the CofS, I believe this does not often occur. But that does not mean never.
It is the responsibility of any Scientologist or any non-Scn'ologist for that matter to only do what they think is right regardless of what anyone may feel. If a proposed ethics action is incorrect and the person believes or knows this to be the case, then that person has not only the right but the duty to let the Ethics Officer know what the facts are.
> CoS' theoretical ideals sound nice, and are certainly sometimes practiced in > members' experience, but here is a repost of an interesting case of forced > disconnection for only the flimsiest of connections -- and possibly simply for > the purpose of punishing non-CoS outsiders designated SPs, by causing them to > suffer family disruptions -- apparently ordered at some of the highest levels > of CoS.
> [REPOST FROM DEJANEWS]
> Subject: Relative of CBS-Mike Wallace ordered by Co$ to disconnect > From: Martin Ottmann <martinottm...@yahoo.com> > Date: 1998/05/19 > Message-ID: <19980519115254.5016.rocketm...@send1c.yahoomail.com> > Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
> [More Headers] > [Subscribe to alt.religion.scientology]
> The following is the content of a letter which was sent to Mary > Voegeding, Senior Executive of the "Flag Service Organization" in > Clearwater. The grammar and language shows that being a Scientologist > doesn't give you automatically better "communication skills".
> If anyone wants to forward a xerox-copy of this letter to Mike > Wallace, please send me your snail mail adress and you'll get one.
> Here it comes:
> Feb. 1, '98
> To: President, Mary Vogstin (sic) [Voegeding] > CC: MAA, Re: Rondi Leonard > CC: OSA > From: Gloria Tinney
> Re: Rondi Leonard, Solo NOTS Certainty auditor, being told that she > must disconnect from her mother-in-Iaw, Kappy Leonard because Kappy was > once married to Mike Wallace, CBS news "60 minutes" news correspondent.
> Dear Mary,
> The re is a potential flap going on concerning the above, Rondi > Leonard is my ex-husband's wife and is my daughter's step mother. > The situation, because Rondi has been at Flag now for 4 weeks at the > MAA and has not been able to continue her 6 months refresher and as a > result this has gotten onto my daughter Noelle's lines who I have been > handling and it violates KSW -ie. There is a misapplication of the > tech going on here re: this situation in my opinion. > I'll explain why: > Kappy Leonard, Rondi's "step" mother-in-law and her husband Ardy's > step mother, has not spoken to Mike Wallace in years. She had a son by > him, Chris Wallace who she sees regularly but she hasn't and does > not wish to be in comm with Mike Wallace at all. Rondi never has any > contacts with Mike Wallace at all and has maybe seen Chris Wallace his > son twice in 20 yrs. Chris Wallace is _not_ in any way antagonistic to > Rondi or Ardy about Scientology. Kappy is "interested" in Scientology > and has asked Rondi about the meter as > well as offering to take Rondi to the founding church to see the > renovations (Kappy lives in Washington, DC). Rondi and Kappy are in > good"_ARC_". > Rondi should not be asked to disconnect from a family member this > violates PTS tech of what LRH says about family disconnection. > If Rondi disconnects from her step mother-in-law this is sure to > create antagonism and bring attention to the fact that she is doing > so. It could create a vacuum effect which all manner of A=A=A be > filled into > the vacuum by family members such as Kappy or Chris Wallace. It can > make matters worse for us as a group as for Rondi and her family. They > cd (sic) [could] think that Rondi is being forced into this > =brainwashing= occults, etc. etc. This would make the church look > "bad." Rondi has been on the Solo NOTS Certainty level now for a year > and is setting a good example for the family as an in ethics > Scientologist. It does _not_ make any sense to cause her to disconnect > and create antagonism as well. It is out "PR" someone who is saying > that Rondi should disconnect. The person who is making this decision > is mis-duplicating the situation here and as a result mis-applying the > tech. I hope that you will be able to see me re: > this matter before I leave. > Rondi can be reached at 813-446-[XXXX] - she has been held up at the MAA > this cycle now for 4 weeks and taken off her lines. This situation has > gotten onto my daughters lines already and Noelle my daughter is > looking at this, this is not good PR for her as you know. I'm handling > her and want to get her moving on the bridge and this situation does > not help at all. She, (Noelle) has been really helpful to Rondi and > has encouraged Rondi to get the data communicated more clearly and > precisely re: this matter. But Rondi has been too upset by this and > unable to really get this communicated to the proper lines and > terminals. Someone is misinterpreting this family situation and making > Rondi the brunt of it. I can be reached at 813-441-[XXXX]. I'm here for > only a few days more so please do get back to me or let me see you? If > so what day and what time before Tuesday of next week? > Thanks for your consideration.
> ARC, Gloria Tinney > LA phone # 310-392-[XXXX] > == > Martin Ottmann, Scharnhauser Str. 19 > 73760 Ostfildern/Ruit, Germany
> "And you, you gonna get glasses!" > David Miscavige towards Martin Ottmann, Clearwater 1992 > _________________________________________________________ > DO YOU YAHOO!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Claire Swazey (swa...@home.com) wrote: : Ceon Ramon wrote:
: > How very medieval of you. : > : > You can't base your entire perception of reality on your own personal : > first-hand experiences.
: Yes,actually I can, but I know that you do not think this is a good : idea.
Claire prefers to lead a blinkered existence. Rather than take full advantage of her intellect, the ability to do research on subjects, to take advantage of the lessons learned from the past and from others, she confines herself to one little aspect - her personal experience. How sad. How narrow. What an enormous indictment of Scientology.
: Speaking as someone who has had a comm-ev,among other things, going to : Ethics is not the end of the world. Let's say that some staff member : did not like something a person did and for whatever reason,sent the : person to Ethics. That is the person's chance to get the situation : cleared up.
So - guilty until proven innocent, eh?
: > As I have said in another post, it is not that disconnection IS : > Disconnection is not as you perceive, Claire.
: Going to have to disagree with you on that one.
She only believes in her own *direct* personal experience, remember? That's the only thing that's true for her, so it's *true*.
Dear Claire.. I probably would not be in opposition to Scientology now if not for the disconnection policies it used while it thought noboby was looking
Zinj
In article <359B0C58.FBAFB...@home.com>, swa...@home.com says...
>> In article <359AE2B0.32D75...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>> > If my family were giving me a bad time about ANYTHING I am doing and >> > trying to get me to stop doing whatever it was I would DEFINITELY have a >> > problem with that.Wouldn't matter what it was, if it was what I wanted >> > to do and my folks were making my life purgatory over it, I would have >> > to either work with them to restore harmony in the family so that I >> > could do the things I wanted to do (as an adult) or I would have to look >> > long and hard at that relationship, whether I was connected with CofS or >> > not.
>> Sure. Those are decisions adults make. You don't need the organization to >> which you belong to make them for you. You and I agree on that?
>Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or >told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted >to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't. And this has >come up before, believe me. It is the responsibility of Scientologists >(and really,anyone) to do what they think is right regardless of what >anyone else thinks is right. Even if the people in disagreement with >them were Church Officials or what have you. This is something I truly >believe and practice and I have not pleased all the people in the CofS >all the time,for sure.
>> > > > > You want to defend the concept that it's wise to disconnect from abusers >> > > > > and molesters? Gosh, yeah, that's a good idea. But that's not what >> > > > > Scientological disconnection is about, and you know it's not.
>> > > > > Tash
>> > > > I don't know any such thing. I refer you to my post wherein I described >> > > > my unusual family and the fact that I have never been asked or told to >> > > > disconnect from them.
>> > > I see nothing unusual about your family situation. I know loads of people >> > > who have embraced faiths/beliefs different from those of their parents, >> > > and even the *idea* that their chosen churches/organizations would demand >> > > disconnection from family would be ludicrous. Why do you think your family >> > > is unusual?
>> > let's see, Daddy was squirreling,Daddy was asking the church for his >> > money back (which he did get back),Mommy was rather vocal in her >> > opinions about the Church (really cool Mom,but can be rather >> > sharp-tongued) and other family member was in the psych ward with >> > slashed wrists,electroshock therapy,various psychotropic medications, I >> > was visiting her daily and I was under alot of pressure to support the >> > family at this time in supporting her therapy--nah, nothing unusual >> > about that. Why, I bet 9 out of 10 Scn'ologists surveyed have the exact >> > same history. Sure,ok.
>> That's my point; there is nothing unusual about it *outside of >> Scientology*. It's *normal* outside of Scientology to have parents who >> disagree with your choices and who are vocal about it. It's *normal* to >> have friends who make choices different from those you would make, and to >> support them in those choices because of the strength of the friendship >> (and also because they might be right and you might be wrong). There is >> nothing unusual in that. You seem to imply that it is unusual for a >> *Scientologist* to be in such a situation, and perhaps that's so. But it's >> not unusual outside of Scientology.
>> <snip>
>> > I have a couple other postings/replies on this as well with another >> > example or two. I really have seen little or no demanding.
>> OK. I look forward to reading your posts. I hope you will respond to DeoMorto.
>> Tash
-- I don't believe in the tech; think it's rubbish; think Hubbard was a megalomaniac who in the end was eaten by the demons he released. Don't forget - Last Rat off the Ship Goes to Jail
Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote: >Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats!
Yep. Welcome to the fray. :>
>But seriously, I apologize for not answering.
>All I can say is sometimes the tech and policy are not applied >correctly. As my bias is toward the CofS, I believe this does not often >occur. But that does not mean never.
>It is the responsibility of any Scientologist or any non-Scn'ologist for >that matter to only do what they think is right regardless of what >anyone may feel. If a proposed ethics action is incorrect and the >person believes or knows this to be the case, then that person has not >only the right but the duty to let the Ethics Officer know what the >facts are.
Okay, a question - what "terminal" is available to non-Scientologists who've been mistreated by the COS? Examples:
In late 1994/early 1995 someone began canceling (deleting) ARS posts that were critical of Scientology. They deleted many posts containing secret materials, but also many that did not (including one of mine). Was this right? Who do I complain to to get this resolved?
Also in early 1995, COS lawyer Helena Kobrin issued a usenet control message designed to delete the entire ARS newsgroup. It failed, but was this right? Who do we complain to to get this resolved?
About the same time COS employees Andrew Milne and "Vera Wallace" (not her real name) contacted pseudonymous ARS poster TarlaStar's internet service provider and fraudulently obtained her real name, address and phone number and posted them to ARS. This is called "outing" on usenet and is *strongly* frowned upon. Was this right? Who should Tarla complain to to get this resolved?
In 1996 the COS began "spamming" ARS with thousands of repetitive "theta" messages trying to drown out discussion. This went of for months before it stopped - it wasn't working, but it made ARS difficult to read for many and impossible for some. Was this right? Who do we complain to to get this resolved?
And that's not all. Peaceful picketers have been assaulted on numerous occasions - sometimes by just having their leaflets forcefully grabbed, once by being spit at, once by having a picket sign spray-painted, several times by having outside sprinklers turned on to get them wet, once by having their candles blown out at a candlelight vigil, and several times by actually being physically struck. Is this right? Who should they complain to to get this resolved?
There's more, lots and LOTS more. Illegal raids, spurious lawsuits, unsupportable legal threats, attempts (sometimes successful) to get web pages and usenet accounts closed, the whole "if possible, destroy them utterly" ball of wax.
Is their an ethics officer non-Scientologists can bring their complaints to? Somewhere I can send a knowledge report where it wouldn't be ignored? I have a long, long list I'd like to bring to SOMEBODY'S attention. What do I do?
>Claire
Again, glad to see someone thoughtful and non-robotic in the COS camp for a change,
In <359B0C58.FBAFB...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or >told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted >to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't.
What if they would no longer allow you to "progress" in the "church" because of an unhandled SP in the family? Do you think this would change your mind?
Many other people did.
In <359B1642.66F0B...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:
>Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats!
Suggestion: just take the arguments of the people and respond in one post only.
*** FWIW- my 2 cents -- I vote on the side of Tilman --
So far, this thread has been a reasonably refreshing change from the on-going flame wars --
***I strongly urge everyone to back off for a few days and let Claire adsorb the previous 3 or 4 posts/questions.
I'm sure it would be a help to include specific references or sites that in **SHORT** form sum up the events referred to. Give claire a Chance to look at them.. She may not have the answers, or may not give ones that some like-- but give her a chance to respond before unloading additional " yea-buts"
*****
In article <35d4f099.78184...@news.snafu.de>, til...@berlin.snafu.de
(Tilman Hausherr) wrote:
<+In <359B0C58.FBAFB...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote: <+ <+>Of course. I make my decisions for myself. If the Church ever asked or <+>told me to do something I would think about it and decide if *I* wanted <+>to do it or not. If I didnt want to do it, I wouldn't. <+ <+What if they would no longer allow you to "progress" in the "church" <+because of an unhandled SP in the family? Do you think this would change <+your mind? <+ <+Many other people did. <+ <+In <359B1642.66F0B...@home.com>, Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote: <+ <+>Good grief!Am I supposed to respond to each and every post? Holy cats! <+ <+Suggestion: just take the arguments of the people and respond in one <+post only. <+ <+ <+ <+-- <+Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4] <+til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos <+ <+ Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails. <+ <+Find broken links on your web site: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html <+Annoy scientology by buying books: http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/bookstore.html
>> Barbara wrote, correctly: >> > This is total and utter hogwash. Disconnection is used to enforce the >> > Church's decisions as to who is suppressive and who isn't. It has nothing >> > to do with lives being made good, bad or hellish. Clare wrote: >> > >Not true. Barbara wrote: >> > Yes. It is true.
>> > --Barbara Claire wrote: >>>>No,it is not. >DeoMorto wrote: >> OK Clare - I have been declared by the Church. My stepson was ordered to >> disconnect from my wife because she is still married to me.
>> In my turn I was ordered to disconnect from John Nelson when he was >> declared - notwithstanding my disagreement about his declare.
>> I was in comm with a scientologist on lines and I advised the person that I >> was declared and "it was no problem" until they were told to disconnect.
>> Another old friend found a posting or two I had made and contacted me - >> after some back and forth discussing old times - "whatever happened to..." >> they ended up in a very nasty interview with the MAA AOLA and were told to >> disconnect.
>> That is four different occasions as examples that I have given you with >> four different MAA's/Ethics Officers.
>> The reason for the disconnections each time? I was declared.
>> To stay connected to a declared SP is to risk being declared yourself - I >> suggest you re-read the Policy High Crimes.
>> Disconnection is an odious policy used by the Church of Scientology to >> enforce its diktat on declaration of people as suppressive. It has nothing to >> do with whether or not the person is having trouble.
>> You may not like that fact but just bleating "its not true" flies in the >> face of a) experience and b) scientology tech and policy. In article <359C4FB6.29942...@home.com>, Claire wrote:
>No it does not. I have the experience and the tech and policy. So do >many of the other Scn'ologists I know (that is have similar experience) >I realize your experience was different from what is standard Scn >practice and nothing can make it right. But this was atypical.
>I am truly sorry for what happened to you. But that does not change the >fact that the general experience and Scn policies are different from >what you believe.
Atypical?!?!?!
Claire, you are either *clueless* about Scientology "ethics" policies with regards to disconnection or a flat-out, bald-faced liar.
I have the experience, the "tech" and policies. You are a bleedin' liar, I say!
Every time a person is declared and an "ethics order" is published declaring the person "SP", *ALL* Scienos everywhere (except for the "Justice Chief") are *forbidden* to associate or have communication with the "SP". Anyone violating the "SP Order" is guilty of committing a "suppressive act" which is a "high crime" in Scientology. It can and does get individuals who violate the order, declared "SP".
What do your materials state?????? (Clue: Look in OEC Volume One.)
Does this "SP" need to cite policy *for* you?????
By the way, if you did not receive permission from Scientology to read and post to this newsgroup, you have committed an "ethics offense"!! Have you not seen OSA Int's order on ars? If you have not, I suggest you check it out. You clearly have "know-best" in the "area" of "ethics" policies.
