Disconnection - alt.religion.scientology

Message from discussion Disconnection

Claire Swazey

More options Jul 3 1998, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

From: Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com>

Date: 1998/07/03

Subject: Re: Disconnection

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

Ceon Ramon wrote:

> In article <359ADEEF.FE3E6...@home.com>,
> Claire Swazey <swa...@home.com> wrote:

> >H Alan Montgomery wrote:
> [...]

> >> >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 have been around in alot of orgs & missions and
> >> >I am telling you that I have rarely seen incidents of disconnection.
> [...]

> >> The problem with that type of analysis is that you can NEVER
> >> disprove an assertion. It always comes back to "What is true for me,
> >> is true." Claire, if you choose to believe that the disconnection
> >> policy is as you describe, that is fine, but other people have had
> >> different experiences. By saying that you have the final word you
> >> invalidate their experiences by saying that they are wrong or
> >> misguided or just plain lying. Have you considered that the reason
> [...]

> >If management habitually in an arbitrary manner told people to
> >disconnect from family when all that was needed was a little
> >communications- if that *really* was common, it certainly would have
> >happened to me. Yet out of 7 orgs and missions where I've been on
> >lines- 0 asked or told me to do so. I think that says something.

> What it says to me is that you've had a good experience with
> scientology. What all the rest of your posts say to me is that
> whenever an issue is raised to challenge your understanding of
> scientology, you are going to reply that you haven't experienced
> it and no one you know has ever experienced it.

I have said plenty of other things.Perhaps you were not paying
attention.

> You're too smart to go so far as to assert that therefore such
> abuses don't occur.

> However, your personal testimony does absolutely nothing to invalidate
> the hundreds of personal stories that have been posted and webbed
> by those who have experienced scientology in significantly different
> ways. Sorry, I don't mean to be reductive or dismissive, but I can't
> quite grasp why you're here -- I mean, after you've said a dozen times
> that your involvement with scientology has satisfied you and you never
> saw, experienced, or even heard of any of the abuses that have been so
> well documented here and elsewhere, I don't see what else you have to
> offer. You reply to every post that your personal experiences with
> scientology have been completely satisfactory.

Would you rather I came from a vantage point of no experience whatsoever
and just promoted hearsay? That is a tactic I have seen here on
occasion. (And,no, I don't mean everybody on a.r.s)

> Good. I'm glad for you. But, and excuse me if this is an
> impertinent question, what are you doing here?

Same thing everyone else is doing here.Putting in my two cents.This *is*
usenet,after all.

> Once you have "witnessed" for your religion,

I do not "witness"

>once you've told
> us that you have found a way to happiness and fulfillment in it,
> once you've said that you've never personally experienced any
> of the abuses that have been documented in first-hand testimony
> and affidavits and books and posts, what else do you have to share
> with us?

I have never claimed that there are no abuses or that CofS is a perfect
organization. It is plain to see that you either have not read all my
posts or that you have but did not really pay attention to what was in
them.

> It's not as if you're writing any kind of insightful analysis,

Thank you.

> or a thoughtful defense of practices that are commonly
> misunderstood or misinterpreted. All I see you doing is
> meeting every question, objection, or issue with a post
> that reduced to its basic component is, "I never experienced
> that."

Not every question. Not even close.

> No offence, but this sounds like "Good roads, fair weather" talk.

> --Barbara

No it isn't. If you want good roads fair weather talk I can give it to
you but that is not what I have been doing here. And why do you say no
offense when clearly such is intended?

Reply to author Forward