Date: XXX, XX XXX 199X XX:XX:XX -0700
From: Ron Chester <ron@Theta.com>
Subject: [deleted for security reasons]
To: xxx@yyy.com
Message-ID: <XXX@apollo>
[personal detail & greeting deleted] Here's the story. As TNX Administrator, it is sometimes necessary for me to look around ars a bit, usually in response to applications for TNX that have been submitted. I have also become our liaison with the person handling the Internet at OSA Int, and we have developed a good working relationship. As a result of a number of comm cycles with OSA , I learned that the Church does not want any Church public posting to this entheta forum. We have never made a point of this publicly on TNX, because we found that, in the past, TNX posts that discussed how to handle ars somehow ended up reposted to ars. As an alternative, I worked up a write-up that addresses the most commonly asked questions about ars. I send this to people when needed on a case by case basis, rather than posting it to all of TNX. Now a while back I was looking around ars, because of an application to TNX that we had received. In the course of doing that, I discovered that you had posted quite a few messages to ars. So before saying anything to you about it, I called OSA to see if they had changed their view of this at all. Once again, I found that they consider that it is their hat to handle ars, and they do not want any public posting to ars for any reason. They asked me to refer you to the relevant policies, and to ask you to stop. So here goes. I will separately email you (from my other address) our write-up of TNX rules about handling entheta on the net. I want to emphasize an LRH quote that we use at the beginning of that writeup: "The man who has no impulse to set things right is insane." -- LRH, "Operation Manual for the Mind" lecture So we acknowledge your efforts as stemming from a sane impulse to clean up this entheta site! And there is even a possibility that you did it in coordination with your local DSA. (If so, please let me know.) I have found that sometimes there is a lack of coordination between OSA Int and the local level. In any case, here are some policies that would be good to look at. Please take the time to look them over in their original form, not just the parts I have quoted here. And recognize that my intention is not to make you wrong in any way, or to indicate anything about your case or any ethics situation. But this tech needs to be aligned, as it applies to ars (which LRH never wrote about specifically). 1. Data Series 43RA: Evaluation and Programs (OEC Mgmt Series, Vol 1, p. 172) This just establishes that OSA has the hat of "handling the public and acceptance of Scientology..." 2. HCOPL 16 Aug 66 Iss II Clearing Course Security (OEC Vol 1, p. 627) "Any sort of squirrel activity, contact with declared SPs or suppressive groups... would be grounds for suspicion." It also states that there would be no grounds for suspicion, if unsolicited mailings received from suppressive groups are turned in unread to the Ethics Officer. 3. HCOPL 7 Jun 65 Iss II Entheta Letters (OEC Vol 2, p. 661-9) This is the basic hat write-up on how to handle entheta comm, which isthe dead file system. "Therefore it is illegal as can be to handle entheta letters or ethics reports in any other way than to and by Ethics." -- p. 663 "Dead file does *not* cover business firms demanding bills, government squawks or dangerous suits or situations. [OSA now handles the latter- RC] It covers only entheta public letters received on any line including SO #1." --p. 664 "Ethics seeing somebody answer an entheta letter ... should order a hearing on the person." --p. 666 "It is the *full* intention that: 4. That the line be cut completely." --p. 667 4. Admin Know-How Series 16: Suppressives and the Administrator (OEC Vol 1, p. 1028-30) "An SP (suppressive person) is unable to change because he cannot, himself, confront. He is badly "out of valence". --p. 1028 "Our policy is we don't waste time on them. To cater to them is to betray 90 percent of the population. So we set them aside for another day. --p. 1029 5. HCOB 10 Sep 83 PTSness and Disconnection (OEC Vol 1, p. 1041-4) "If one has the right to communicate, then one must also have the right to not receive communication from another." --p. 1041 "The term "disconnection" is defined as a self-detemined decision made by an individual that he is not going to be connected to another. It is a severing of a communication line." p. 1042 "An Ethics Officer can encounter a situation where someone is factually connected to a suppressive person, in present time. This is a person whose normal operating basis is one of making others smaller, less able, less powerful. He does not want anyone to get better, at all." --p. 1043 "In such an instance the PTS isn't going to get anywhere trying to "handle" the person. The answer is to sever the connection. "To fail or refuse to disconnect from a suppressive person not only denies the PTS case gain, it is also *supportive* of the suppressive-- in itself a Suppressive Act. And it must be so labeled." --p. 1044 6. PR Series 27: The Enemy Line (OEC Mgmt Series Vol 3, p. 102-3) "There is a maxim in PR or advertising that A MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC. An enemy group usually originates several carefully worked-out entheta statements." --p. 102 "NEVER FORWARD AN ENEMY CAMPAIGN ON YOUR OWN OR OTHER LINES! Don't deny rumors for that is what they want you to do." --p. 103 Whew, that's a lot! BTW the three most important are probably #3, 5, & 6, especially #6. This is what I have observed on ars. Nearly everytime an on-lines Scn'ist posts a message, regardless of its content, it brings on an entheta response (and sometimes many) from the sps. So even though you may not quote their entheta (and thus forward it along), your response gives them a reason to state it again, and again and again... I believe this may be the main reason OSA does not want public posting to ars. I have seen threads started by Scn'ists that have been followed by a dozen or more entheta replies. Or a Scn'ist will post a reply to a thread, and this will spawn another batch of entheta responses. So if we post anything, no matter how theta, to an entheta forum, it can cause the volume of entheta to increase many times over. That's why the sps love it when Scn'ists start posting to ars. It gives them another chance to state their enemy lines over and over again. I created TNX so there would be a theta forum for Scn'ists, so that they could leave ars behind. Per #4 above, I think your time would be better spent on TNX, rather than messing around with ars. Leave that task to the staff at OSA. Again, no make wrong intended. Let me know if you have any questions or disagreements on any of this. Thanks... Ron Chester TNX Administrator

Go Back