My goodness, what a lot of deliciously provocative questions. I will
answer the ones that appeal...
Jour0 wrote:
> Hi Claire! (and John, too, if you want to answer)
> Thanks for the nice comments (I think I like your style, too!).
> For what it's worth, I'm pretty well convinced (not positive, but I have a high
> level of certainty ;-) ) that you are not a troll. Some people you'll never
> convince, but I imagine that most of us will be more likely to believe you with
> the passage of time.
Surely. The inexorable passing of time doth unmask us all...
> As I've said before, I'm delighted that you're posting here. Many of the
> pro-Scientology posters we've had in the past have been unable to answer ANY
> questions, extremely nasty, and/or incoherent. Although you haven't been able
> or willing to answer ALL questions (which seems only fair to me - heck, I'm not
> willing to answer all questions either, and I don't even want to give my real
> name), you have been willing to answer many questions, without being mean or
> incoherent.
> My impression of you so far is that you're quite happy with your Scientology
> experiences so far. As I've said, I'm glad you've had good experiences.
> I might also say that, with one notable exception, most of the active
> Scientologists I've met have seemed reasonable and more or less friendly.
> Understandably, they aren't too happy to see me picketing, but lately even the
> non-OSA folks have been a little more willing to at least return my "good
> afternoon"s.
> I don't know how much you've read of my posts, so here's a really quick
> summary: I was a lurker on a.r.s. for about a year before I started picketing
> in April; since then, I've picketed about 15 times (maybe 20 if you count
> different locations on the same day). I am not interested in bringing down CoS;
> I'm concerned about what I consider to be credible allegations of illegal and
> hurtful activities. If I see credible evidence that those activities have
> ceased, or that I was wrong about them ever happening, I'll be happy to find
> another outlet for my activism.
> Like you, I won't promise to answer all questions, but if you have questions
> for me, by all means pose them. You can also find out more about me, my
> picketing, and my concerns at members.aol.com/jour0/index.html .
> Here are a few questions I have for you. If you'd rather not answer some,
> please feel free to say so. (As far as I can see, you're not here as an
> official spokesperson for Scientology, so I'm happy to take whatever answers
> you want to share.) Just for fun, I'll include my own answers to these
> questions.
> How long have you been in Scn, roughly?
> (I was in for about a week, more than ten years ago.)
A number of years. When I was a kid my Dad was into it and I used to go
with him to the local mission. I couldn't figure out what all those
boring adults were doing. :-) but I guess I could even count that as
being in scn, which would make me almost a "lifer".
> About what percentage of the tech would you say you know?
> (I probably know about 1%, maybe less.) (There's an AWFUL lot of it.)
Boy, you said a mouthful. Why, LRH has stuff on civic improvements,
social betterment, war, Freudian analysis, the ever-popular space-opera,
children, marriage, families, governments, history, navigation,
engineering, and of course, auditing and studying. Unbelievable
galaxies and galaxies of stuff. So I would definitely say, what with
all this wealth of material, that I *definitely* know less than 50%.
> Have you ever experienced any part of the tech not working for you? Would you
> care to tell me what it is?
> (I haven't applied enough of it to see - although the one auditing session I
> had was a failure.)
I'm sorry that auditing session didn't work out. They can be dynamite,
if done properly.
Such tech as I have applied correctly has always worked for me. The
only time it didn't was when I misapplied it. (I can be *such* a
doofus, at times)
> Is there any part of the tech you disagree with? Would you care to tell me what
> it is?
> (Yes. I think the scientific evidence disproves the theory of the reactive
> mind, for starters.)
Gee. That's interesting. I don't.
I agree with such tech as I have encountered (somewhere in the
neighborhood of less than 50%) but to be honest there is some tech that
is so amazing and revolutionary that it is hard for me to take it in at
first, til I have had some life experiences to back it up with.
> Is there any part of Hubbard's writings APART from the tech that you disagree
> with? Would you care to tell me what it is?
> (Yes. I think his anti-feminist pronouncements, which I THINK are not part of
> the tech but I don't know for sure, are icky. His comment about kissing little
> girls in Dianetics gives me the creeps, too.)
I think that he was a man with opinions (we all have 'em, you know) and
that in some ways his opinions would maybe have been affected by the
generation and social milieu in which he was raised. Those I would take
with a grain of salt, perhaps.
> Have you experienced any anti-feminist treatment or gender bias in Scientology?
> (Rather than keep typing " Would you care to tell me what it is?", I'll just
> say for all questions, I'd be interested in specific examples if you have any
> and care to share them.)
> (Me: I wasn't in long enough to find out. From my limited contact with active
> Scientologists, it sure doesn't sound like there's gender discrimination, at
> least here in the Bay Area. I don't know whether that means the orgs are
> out-tech or not, since I don't know what constitutes "the tech".)
I truly have not seen any. That does not mean there isn't any. But I
have met a number of senior and middle echelon Church Officials that
were women, and it does not seem like CofS has a glass ceiling.
> I understand that you do not have the Net Nanny on your computer. Do you think
> the creation and distribution of the Net Nanny is a good idea, or overkill, or
> do you have some other reaction?
> (I think it's (a) not encouraging people to see for themselves and think for
> themselves, and (b) a footbullet that will become publicized and will reflect
> badly on Scn.)
I think it's something I do not wish to have, but I think I understand
why they came up with it, which was primarily,I gather, for the purpose
of keeping the confidential stuff and the really mean-spirited crap away
from public Scientologists. But as it's never been compulsory for
Scientologists to have the net-nanny, I don't think it constitutes a
foot bullet.
> As I said above, I have been picketing regularly for several weeks. Do you
> consider me to be a suppressive person?
> (I don't consider myself to be an SP. From what I've read of Scn ethics,
> though, I'm not sure how a Scientologist could NOT consider me one.)
Well, dearheart, I don't even know you. Although I did see some posted
picketing pictures of a charming young lady in red picketing jammies who
looked like a pretty nice being, all things being equal...
But I do not feel that everyone who disagrees with my religion is a
sociopath.
> Have you ever disconnected from anyone? If so, how many people?
> (Nope. In fact, I've tried, with pretty good success, to re-establish
> relationships with people with whom I've lost contact.)
Oddly enough, I have never had to, even with a father that was a
"squirrel" and who still has much of that particular outlook and another
family member who has a horribly extensive history of having had
invasive psychiatric treatments and a mother who has publicly said very
critical things about Scn (although not recently. With a daughter as
adorable and capable as myself, how could she? She kind of keeps it to
herself these days) and yet 7 Scn ctrs have seen fit to not ask me (much
less order me) to disconnect.
My husband has disconnected from his Dad for reasons totally unconnected
with Scn (his 4 non-Scientology siblings have all done so too) and
that's as close as this family has come to it... Oh yeah, and there was
this babe that really dicked me over in law class a couple times in a
row so I just stopped talking to her and acknowledging her altogether,
so maybe that counts, although once again that was totally unconnected
to Scn. So you have two out of two Swazey disconnections having nothing
to do with philosophical differences or orders from the Church... Could
this be significant to the truth and applicability of disconnection and
Scn families? Nah.
> Multi-part question here: Have you read the Introspection Rundown? If not,
> would you be willing to? If not, hypothetically assuming it instructs
> Scientologists to detain individuals in violation of at least California state
> law (I don't know what Florida law is), do you think it's a bad thing? If it
> does so instruct, do you think (a) it should be discontinued, (b) it should be
> continued while trying to change the law, (c) it should be discontinued until
> the law has been changed, and then reinstated?
> (I think it clearly calls for violation of CA state law and it should be
> discontinued permanently - or modified drastically to come into compliance with
> state law.)
The introspection rundown does not, as far as I have seen, have anything
to do with restraining or hurting people. Therefore it doesn't need to
be modified.
> Do you think Scientology is expanding, shrinking, or staying about the same
> size? (Over, say, the last five or ten years.) What evidence leads you to that
> conclusion?
Good question.Why do I feel like jackals and vultures are waiting for me
to answer this so they can pounce? :-)
I think it is either staying the same or expanding. I keep hearing (on
a.r.s.) about too many orgs in towns where there didn't used to be any.
Besides the Church told me they were expanding, and, golly gosh, that's
good enough for me!
> There - that should give you plenty to type on for a while. ;-) Please feel
> free to respond with questions for me, if you wish, which I also reserve the
> right to not answer.
I don't know that I can think of any,except maybe what is the best kind
of footwear do you find most comfortable for picketing.
> Also, I think I'll have a fairly busy week at work, so I might not get to reply
> until next weekend. Fortunately, articles seem to stay on AOL's newsfeed for a
> while.
> Thanks again for your contributions to the newsgroup! Even if you DO turn out
> to be a troll, you've been interesting!
Nah, I am what I say I am, except there is even more to the wonder and
glory that is Claire Swazey than I have previously disclosed. (got to
keep some of it under wraps,ya know!)
> Have a great week!
> Jour
I am! I'm on vacation for a couple days. I plan to do very little of
redeeming social value (except for posting on this fun ng) during this
time.
Claire
