Starshadow wrote:
> In article <3570DAD1.4...@micron.net>, wolft...@micron.net says...
> > Ydrrisil wrote:
<snip>
> > > I ended up in ethics trouble for saying precisely that.
> > > Then along comes a "new" hcopl and definition saying that everyone got it all
> > > wrong.
> > Here's my theory about that. I never had ethics trouble because I kept
> > my own counsel on such matters.
> So what you are saying is that if one spoke out about what they were
> thinking, they got in trouble, right? And that you didn't get in trouble
> because you "kept your own counsel"?
Noooo. What I'm saying is that I kept my counsel on such matters as we
were discussing. I also mentioned I typically had good stats (such as
they were, given Hubbard's dubious understanding of such things). It may
seem like a fuzzy distinction, but it is distinct. In any group
situation there will always be people who complain and people who don't.
Complainers aren't always heros and people who keep their own counsel
aren't always spineless. As far as getting in trouble... well, it never
occured to me that I could be 'in trouble'. On the few occasions in over
20 years when E/O's or MAA's had the temerity to 'call me in' I
basically told them they could do whatever they felt they needed to do
and not to be too upset if I ignored it. It wasn't as if they could
*make* me do anything....
> > While you seem to think that the only
> > way to be a Scn is to agree with everything or word-clear and do ethics
> > cycles until you do.
> Well, Wolf, it seems to me that if you doubt the workability of
> something and have to keep quiet about it in order to remain in it,
Keeping your own counsel is not the same as 'keeping quiet', as you use
it. When I state I kept my own counsel I am speaking to my perceptions
of the Scn system of stat mngmnt and it's workability. In my own jobs at
orgs, or in the missions I owned I pretty much operated in a fashion
that made sense to me. If it worked and aligned with some HCOPL, fine.
If it worked and violated an HCOPL then I kept my own counsel.
Understand? The common perception on this ng is that *all* Scn follow
*all* policy and tech *all* the time. Or at least attempt to. Well, I'm
here to tell you, this is a false perception on your part. If that were
the case, Scn would have fizzled and failed way back in the 60's.
> that
> is compromise of a belief system that the exes in this ng couldn't do, at
> least not once they saw that this kind of denial of culpibility in what I
> see as overall an "unworkable" "tech",
Since I don't view the tech, ftmp, as unworkable, your suggestion that I
compromised a belief system is out of line.
>and that once they got into the SO
> and saw it (the unworkability, and the unethical treatment of the
> idealistic masses) as rife within the whole system, that caused them not
> only to leave, but to leave noisily, whereas you kept your nose clean
> because all you were doing was selling the services, (which obviously
> have at least a feel-good effect if nothing else) and refusing to talk
> about that which you had any reservation about, no?
No. But you did a pretty good job of showing how the prejudicial
clam-calling mind think works. What I perceive as the primary fault in
the cry-baby, ex-SO, ARS bottom feeders is that they rushed headlong
into something as smelly as the SO. The SO is NOT Scn. Nor is it an
accurate representation of the membership of Scn. The SO is a deranged,
power-tripping control group that attracts two main personality types ->
control freaks and people looking to be punished.
I never refused to talk. What I don't do (and didn't then), was get in
the face of just anybody who sees things differently than I do...
particularly if there is nothing to be gained. This has as much to do
with any job or group as Scn. Be a little more open minded Starshadow
and you might see that butt-kissing, aggressive behavior, complaining,
whining, back-stabbing, lying, cheating, stealing and the entire host of
human foilables are no more or less present in Scn than they are in any
other work place.
> > BTW, the real secret to getting the most out of Scn is to never join the
> > SO.
> In my opinion the real secret is to never get involved in the scam in
> the first damn place. After hearing elron himself say it was a scam I
> couldn't be induced to spend a red cent on it.
FWIW, I have always been certain Hubbard did say that. In fact, I'm
pretty sure he said it when you say so. But that doesn't make Scn
techniques unworkable or Scn a scam. Hubbard did invent a religion.
That's true. But he drew from the work and studies of others in putting
it all together and building a structure for his religion to operate
within.
Here's an analogy for you to think about. You know as well as I that
anyone can go buy a book on Cold Reading and suddenly become a psychic.
Since I've seen a post where you claim to be a psychic, is it fair for
me to brand you as a scam artist because some, or even most psychics
are? In fact, since books and techniques exist which prove that one can
scam people while appearing to be a psychic, doesn't that automatically
make all psychics criminals? Or are you willing to defend both the
workability and usefulness of *some* of the lore of that area while
admitting that it is rife with fraud and deceit?
Wolf
