Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:

David Mayo:

Bernie:

David Mayo:

Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

No no no Dave. The questions are straight above under your eyes, no need
of re-statement. We are *not* speaking here about the tech or believes
here, but about *cultish_behavior*. I would like to know what cultish
behavior DM displayed (because I never saw any), and DM wants to know
because he probably would like to improve himself. But you are not
helping him in this direction, you are making accusation in such a way
that he can't learn from them. So, did you recover from your illness and
can now answer the question which is straight above here? Or maybe you
did already in some other post I didn't see.

Bernie:

Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine:

Bernie:

Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

No! no, no, no and no. The question is *not* about the tech, it's about
alledged cultish behavior displayed by David Mayo (see above).

[snipped the whole discussion about the tech, because it's getting a bit
confused]

I kept only the above paragraph of the whole discussion, which I think
summarize the essence of what you said. Can we agree that you are saying
that the mind control element of Scn is build within the tech itself,
while I am saying that the tech and the cultish mindset are two separate
things (like a knife is not responsible of my killing someone or
buttering my bread)?

What can I say more on this that I didn't say yet? All I can say is that
things are not the way you see them. It's very important to see exactly
for oneself what the cultic or mind-control element is. That's the only
way to be free from it. As far as I am concerned, I may be wrong, but
the phenomenon is very clear for me, and I can see exactly at which
point the cultic mindset joins in with the tech, but then also at wich
point it separates from it. If you say "everything is flawed at the
start by the evil intention of the founder, and so everything is
mind-control the moment it has the Scn label on it", then I think that,
if you will ever pardon me, you do not have a correct conception of what
a cultic mindset really is. I may even go as far as saying that this
*is* a cultic mindset, a black & white view, a "we are all good/they are
all bad" attitude.

That's all that is left to be said. I do hope, for the benefit of
everyone, that you will nuance your position with time. But maybe you
have no mean to do that, because maybe (I don't know your background)
you only have an external view and not an inside one.

Bernie:

Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

What did DM specifically do that you can qualify as cultic (see on top
of this p/m)?

Yes, kind of, but frankly I am more interested by the first question.

Cheers,
------
Bernie

OK, ok. Above (before) is my earliest reply. I simply drawed the raw
conclusions without further explanations. This because I was tired of a
discussion that was only turning round and round. I will make an effort
and try to (re)explain my viewpoint expanding on the paragraph quoted in
my previous reply.

Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine wrote:

First, I think the means must not be confounded with the ends. A knife
(the mean) isn't dangerous by itself. It's only if I use it with the
intention to kill (the end) that it takes this meaning. If I use it with
intention to butter my bread (an other end), it becomes actually quiet
useful. So the means are not the ends.

Second, I don't even think that the hidden goal of Scn is brainwashing. I
think the mind control, the cultic aspect of Scn arouse as a
*consequence* rather than an end. A consequence of LRH uncontrolled ego,
helped with the consent and reverberation of uncontrolled ego of the
followers.

Now lets take some concrete examples.

I think that some of the most useful part of the Scn tech is the relief
of 'charge', or whatever you choose to call this phenomenon that can be
easily experienced. In a safe setting (a session), you follow some
systematic steps (the communication cycle), respectuous of the person (no
evaluation), and you can actually end up with the relieve of the tension,
the problem, or whatever. I find this part of the Scn tech better than
anything else I know (psychotherapy, etc).

But what I object to, is the 'cumulative' aspect of this technique. The
Scn theory have it that the 'incidents' are linked in chains, the
totality of the chains forming the 'reactive bank'. I think there is no
such thing. Of course, some past traumatic incident can be associated to
some other traumatic incidents that bear a similitude, but I don't think
it works in a mechanical way such as is described in Scn. The whole thing
is much too simplistic. Obviously, if you don't have cumulation, you
don't have a reactive bank, and of course you don't have a clear. If you
don't have a clear, you don't have OT and you don't have a bridge to
total freedom. If you don't have total freedom, you don't have a
religion, and you don't have a “we possess the ultimate truth” and an
“all people opposing Scn are opposing the ultimate truth”, and all the
rubbish we can witness. All the cultic mindset.

So, IMHO, the relieving part is valid, although YMMV (you see Dave am
learning fast), but the cumulative aspect is false, and the un-scientific
attitude of LRH not allowing his technique to come under cross
examination is already cultic behavior, and the tons of derogative
remarks and paranoia against the established healing profession under
which he buries his tech is also cultic behavior, his constant repetition
and assertion that the 'tech works' and is the only valid thing around,
is already mind control. All this amounting at the end, almost
inevitably, into a cult.

If LRH had enough 'spiritual maturity' to avoid the trap of cult, I think
the valid aspects of the tech, such as the relief of emotions and past
trauma, might have been by now integrated as one of the many techniques
at the disposal of Man, for the biggest benefit of all. But since, by
LRH’s attitude, the tech is embodied in a context of absolutism and
delusion, it may just be lost, because any sane man will at some point
have no other choice than to kick the whole thing off. But it remains
that, when stripped off all the delirium in which the tech is surrounded,
some parts may be put to good use, and are not necessarily mind control
techniques per se.

Another example. It is true that, if in some sentences there are some
words you don't understand, you may misunderstand the whole sentence. So
it has it's importance. But then, it is blown into all proportion by the
cultic assertion that if you don't understand, it's *only* because you
have a misunderstood. Then, because you have a misunderstood, you make
'overts'. Because you make 'overts', you blow Scn. Then, if you want to
leave, they make you clear documents instead of listening to your
grievances. This all is nonsense and can be said to be mind control
techniques. But it remains that the misunderstood word, used in a
non-cultic setup, and put in the right context, could be something
useful. And so with many other things in the 'study tech', such as the
correct proportion of significance and mass, such as the gradual steps
progression, etc.

I could go on and on, on many different fields. This makes Scn actually
something remarkable and is the real initial attraction, not so much
because of the mind control aspect. Of course, some critic do not want to
admit this fact, because maybe they are afraid that if you admit that
there is something useful in the Scn technique, then after all Scn could
be right and the critics could be wrong. Not something they are ready to
admit, especially after all the effort they invested in their fight
against the cult. But, IMHO, their reaction on this subject is based on
fear or ignorance rather than an effort to be objective and to understand
the actual mechanisms, and I cannot condone this attitude, because it
really is the same attitude displayed by the cult mindset, and at the end
it will only be ineffective and even counter-productive.

For me, Scn is a cult. There is just so much mind control and cultic
elements involved, and I think it is very important to underline and
expose these for what they are. But then, I think it is equally idiotic
to try to force all the techniques in one's own little pet theory of mind
control and that of the “evil cult”. It is as simplistic and stupid as
the cult attitude itself. Why not try to be objective in all these
matters? What are all these critics so afraid of? For me, where there is
fear, there is no freedom, there is no objectivity and truth, and there
is no love because you have to call in hate to justify how right you are.

--------
Bernie

In article <31B77962.1...@arcadis.be>, Bernie <b...@arcadis.be> writes

Right.  Now I *think* I understand what you're talking about.
I have not accused David Mayo of anything.  Perhaps you should look at
the original point where I entered the conversation.

QUOTE{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{

             [Hoffer]       .....as it very accurately lists and

This may be an unwellcome thing for you, as the person who helped
develop and extend much of it, but many of us here think the tech
(a) doesn't work and is based on falsehhods, (b) is actively dangerous
and has regularly driven people nuts, and (c) many of the practices of
the tech are in fact control methods for the authoritarian cult
structure and it is very hard to truly separate the two and still
have anything worthwhile left in the "tech" half of the division.

There is some suspicion of you, as having worked so closely
(albeit for good motives) with Hubbard in developing something which
harmed a lot of people, and I am afraid the answer is "a good deal
of it". I will give more detail in a later post, but I am tired and ill
now and can't do it justice tonight.

No, clearly not.

Perhaps you should give some details of the auditting processes
you are currently proagating, and I will tell you how I react to
them.  If they still feature the exorcism of spirit fleas ("body
thetans") you are right I will not have much enthusiasm for them.
But I really can't give a reaction when I have no clear idea
of what's in them!

You will see that it is EFISCHER who talks of David Mayo
being "cultishly inclined".  All I say is that maybe she
meant by this that he was still involved with the BELIEFS
rather than--as David sees it--still involved in the
authoritarian POLICIES AND BEHAVIOURS of the CoS. That
is all I said and the extent of my interest in that part
of the conversation.

David also made remarks about "I don't see why people are
suspicious of me" [because of continued connection with the
tech?] and "why **should** I drop the tech anyway?".
This is the part of the conversation that interested me
and which I repsonded to.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes. All I did was offer a suggested explanation
for --- I did not reaffirm or make my own --- a statement by efisher.

[snipped any nonsense trying to put me on trial for what efischer said,
and which I neutrally tried to explain for all of 30 seconds]

Um.  I think a method which gets a person mildly dazed and
suggestible by staring at a point,  that teaches them to be
physically controlled and then under the verbal direction
of another, is allied to all sorts of other methods to
destroy normal comprehension of language and normal critical
thinking is for one purpose only.  What you are looking
at is a .45 automatic. A .45 automatic is for shooting people.
If you use it for hammering in nails you are not putting
it to its real use and, if you do so not undestanding what
it is and do that loaded with the safety catch off, you
are probably going to shoot yourself in the foot or worse.

Only consider a set-up whose inner revelations consist
of learning to have a delium tremens vision of the world
in flames, learning to mimic parasitosis, thinking you
are literally divine, and finally realising <snigger>
that the original mad author was in fact god. I bet the
leaked version of OT8 "the truth revealed"  **is**  the
genuine article---any comments, David?

We're not going to agree on this, but I really do
think the tech is irredemable harmful and not
just "coz I feel it so" but for carefully thought
out reasons. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm not, and never was. Ask efisher why she said what she said--not me.

--Regards,                        Woof Woof,     Glug  Glug--
  X E M U *                     Who Drowned   theJUDGe's Dog ?
   s p 4   \        |\       answers on  (alt.religion.scientology!
           /~~~~~~~  @----,  and on page (/x/clam/faq/woofglug.html    
-;'^';,_,-;^;  : : : :http://www.demon.net/castle/x/clam/index.html
      ______________________________________________________
      "L.Ron Hubbard is the P.T.Barnum of religious leaders"
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Thank you Bernie, whoever you are, the following is an excellent
compilation of what occurred on these threads.  You did a better job of this
than I could have and I appreciate that.  I too, await the answers of either
Dave Bird or efischer to my questions which you have SO clearly laid out
below.

Rev. David Mayo
"So many have fallen, yet so far left to go ... "
- -------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMbgfFOmCyCdNXuVZAQGsMgP8Drd95CQyfsuhX8e9fALjH5XPKZkFO2K2
rbOFK22S38D3MPqkY3Q7sdjWwVsPkjwzWD4hVQ8j3Xkmu3IL37hkVM1OK3EVBhJC
kBWxND5bp0+jdE8y8LLQIUDY0IzWS7vE0GsH5h8ZM9FxEQpnEoGOYDvVyq3aIPQp
anwaenJ5Lhg=
=P194
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[p&m'd]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 6 Jun 1996 18:54:37 +0100, Dave
Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

Not true, Dave Bird.  In your own words:

Above you accuse me of propagating a version of Scientology(tm) tech yet
(as I have pointed out repetitively) you do not know what version of "tech"
I propagate --if any.  In the absence of any factual knowledge, you make an
accusation based on a preconceived opinion of yours or based on an opinion
you have accepted, without verification, from a third party. (pun intended)

Not true in that I did not develop much of Scn tech

AND

this is an ad hominem attack --frowned on on a.r.s if it is used against
you but not otherwise?

[...]

All the more reason for you to be factual and for me to demand factual
substantiation of opinions.

[...]

For the LAST time, what do YOU think I am  "proagating" and/or from whom
did you get that "information"?

If I am "proagating" the "auditting" you think I am, how is that harmful.
(I assure you that if you answer and if your answer is true and if it is
harmful, I will cease it immediately.)

If you do not answer, or do not answer factually, then I will allege that
you are wittingly or unwittingly forwarding the explanation that RTC has
used to justify why they have tried to destroy me.

My point exactly.  Yet you did give your reaction(s).

Please substantiate or retract.

Please don't hide behind efischer.  You did so also.

Furthermore, you also said that I was "insufferably arrogant" for
expressing my opinion that copyright violations had played into the hands
of
the RTC and less the cause of the critics and I pointed to copyright
lawsuits that upheld my opinion.  I also advocated exposure of unacceptable
behaviour and said why.  In a later post, I detailed the lawsuits I had
referred to.

False assertion.  I said that I had been and was sorting out which was
harmful and why and which was not.  Rather different than the
interpretation
above.

No, you first came in on the side of disapproving of my opposition to
copyright violation, which lead to "insufferable opinion"(s).

Dave, I don't dislike you and I do not think your opinions are insufferably
arrogant but I do think they are ill informed.  I am no longer asking you
to
do anything about any of this.

[...]

Express my "insufferable opinion" in the face of ...

... your "carefully thought out reasons"?

Could it ever occur to you and others on this n.g. that my analyses of
which of the "tech" is harmful and why, might be of benefit to those who
have been adversely affected?  or to those who may be?

Or do you prefer to just shut me up in case I shake a biased or
preconceived opinion?  Hell, I might even ask you to *think* for yourself
instead of just writing it all off as bad.  But if that was the case, how
come so many "insufferably arrogant" people like me got so into it?  Oh,
yeah, the question answers itself, so conveniently.

I was, too.

I did ask her, too.

For the second time, who did?  Do you know?
 or am I asking an "insufferable question"?

Rev. David Mayo
"I like dogs and cats."  --me

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMbgwremCyCdNXuVZAQG+qgP/ewaptrNd60ZxpwduJluyOD+avBPDlrsD
elBfGgjzLmmgKMGldfMjuKeROYtglBd02TJDzuKhZTpeqXl6Mqzedt0DJ1zjj9YI
m4eRU7Yyms1rK4moGnyurX3gZ11QW3qHB0BUYoWqPjNMhsvcN2q5+UhHdEbjCLQ4
AuEVJZ94xV4=
=Zkg6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Responding to David Mayo <m...@lightlink.com>:

  Right.  David was Senior Case Supervisor during the development of a
number of rundowns by El Rotundo.  He compiled the briefings he
received from the Phattard on NOTs into the rundowns which now
comprise Oat Tea 4-7.

  Depends on who's doing the frowning, bro.  I certainly am not here
to argue with people, but rather in my chosen role:  answering
people's questions.  

  If you want, David, I will even answer questions about your beliefs
that folks may have.  If you think it will help.  

  It is generally assumed by the population that, as dictated by what
passes for culture in merka, everyone is marketting something.

  Ah, depending on what you are doing, let me count the ways.

  Cool.  I-mo take you up on that.

  Russ Meadows use to tell me that El Ron was sure to have shot
anybody who was a 'popular figure' in scn besides himself.  After
watching for a few years, it certainly was true.  And it is a
tradition poodleboy naturally had to continue.

  <raises hand>  I did.  But your analysis would only be useful, IMO,
if you share it freely as a gift, and are willing to discuss the
reasoning behind your beliefs.  Plus it would be nice to know your
pricing structure, if any.

  If you don't say anything worth discussion, you are not so open to
change as you claimed above.  But I certainly don't have 'David's
Beliefs' as a front-burner topic that we've got to get right to the
bottom of <excuse the dangling participle> because people are
certainly in much greater danger of being injured elsewhere.

  Have I somehow given the impression that I might not have thought
out my position?  Sorry.

  You have no reason not to be proud of yourself, your intellect, your
insights, and your years of work trying to help people.  I certainly
do not consider you one of 'them' that stole our church from us.

  But still I believe you to be blind of the 'connections of evil'
that make up the basic structure of the scieno-tek.  I believe I can
explain it to you and everyone else, if we stay calm and take our
time.  But no hurry, eh?  

  We have serious crimes by those who stole scn to first expose, I
believe.  To me, however, it is fascinating to see how the beliefs and
practices of the cult lead (IMHO) *inevitibly* to those crimes and
abuses.  [p/m]

            Rev. Dennis L Erlich   * * the inFormer * *
                    <dennis.l.erl...@support.com>
                        <inF...@primenet.com>

In article <4p9bn2$...@light.lightlink.com>, David Mayo

I have no ideas what other people think, but I think (all on my little
own) that it would be *extremely* interesting to see your analysis of the
tech.

So, please, if you want to share your thoughts, don't felt that we (well,
I) do not welcome your input.

[p & m to David]

   Jens

------ No PGP signature, no authenticity. Vive La France!! ----------
Scientology[tm] ?? Check it out at http://www.scientology.org *and*
http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html
Report interesting conclusions to alt.religion.scientology ;-)