<sigh>

You sucked me into it, I'm gonna waste time and answer this.

<scarff>Just this once</scarff>

John or Claire Swazey wrote:

> What people? And why am I included in this? I'm just myself, ya know.
Oh, I thought you were a scientologist. Part of the Borg. You people.

And no, you're not yourself, you are running Hubbard's program.

> He was frightening and harassing the girl and she responded accordingly.
> She'd most likely have reacted the same way had she been a member of
> something else working some other order-taking thing.
Oh, sure! 'Frightening and harassing.' You people have a queer idea of harassment when you think it's aimed at you. He asked a pertinent question about scn compatibility. Pretty terrifying, yup.

Please note that she returns with something a little more ominous than a simple question, a phone trace. Did you miss that somehow?

[cuts] > Oh, so two wrongs *do* make a right. So if some Scientologists somewhere
> on the planet are unfair or act like jerks in any way, then it's ok for
> someone to harass telephone order takers who are taking orders for a
> Dianetics book. After all, in your words, it was just "fun".
I think you'd better word-clear harassment to greater depth. Would you get this frothy over a question about which toothpaste you use? How can you possibly misconstrue the inquiry, "Is scientology compatible with Christianity?" as harassment? You guys are secretly ashamed of your beliefs to the point that you're that tender in that 'special place?' > Here's a novel idea- why not keep such confrontational, nasty infighting
> amongst the proper parties? ie: You are pissed at person A. Yell at
> person A.
>
> C
You are pissed at person A. Scream that A is harassing you and intolerant of your right to kill your parishioners! Sheesh, I never seen such a dumb cult. At least Heaven's Gate could create halfway decent web pages, and they could spell.

I suspect you people are under orders now to squall about harassment in order to collect a body of work which could potentially be used to manipulate public opinion about the motives of cult critics, a sweeping DA operation if you will. It may work to an extent. Your cult may have Judge Schaeffer fooled at this moment. Poor happy, friendly scienos, abused by a wog world they never created! If the good judge ever researches *why* people picket scientology, all her sympathy will evaporate like virga on a summer day.

In the meantime, keep on squawking about harassment. It demonstrates that you don't understand the meaning of the word.

-- barb "copy c:\clams.scn c:\scienos\scienos.pod"

- Sten (Koos Koos) Arne

>The end justifies the means? You know better than that.
Hubbard's writings contain dozens of references to "the end justifies the means".

The invalidity of criticism As Lord Justice Stephenson rightly observed, the extreme breadth of Hubbard's code of "ethics" effectively outlaws a wide range of activities which are not only common rights but, where testifying to courts is concerned, are part of a citizen's duties. This is, however, completely consistent with Hubbard's contempt for what he dismissively referred to as "wog morality". In particular, he refused to accept the validity of any criticism of Scientology:

"Attackers are simply an anti-Scientology propaganda agency so far as we are concerned. They have proven they want no facts and will only lie no matter what they discover. So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us - only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don't use us.

I speak from 15 years of experience in this There has never yet been an attacker who was not reeking with crime. All we had to do was look for it and murder would come out.

They fear our Meter. They fear freedom. They fear the way we are growing. Why?

Because they have too much to hide."

[Hubbard, "Attacks on Scientology", HCO Policy Letter of 15 Feb 1966] Another key article on Hubbard's view of criticism was first published in Scientology's Certainty magazine in 1968 (and repeatedly republished thereafter, most recently in vol. 1 issue 2 (Spring 1997) of the Office of Special Affairs' internal newspaper, Winning):

"Now get this as a technical fact, not a hopeful idea. Every time we have investigated the background of a critic of Scientology we have found crimes for which that person or group could be imprisoned under existing law. We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts. Over and over we prove this.

Politician A stands up on his hind legs in a Parliament and brays for a condemnation of Scientology. When we look him over we find crimes - embezzled funds, moral lapses. a thirst for young boys - sordid stuff.

Wife B howls at her husband for attending a Scientology group.

We look her up and find she had a baby he didn't know about.

Two things operate here. Criminals hate anything that helps anyone instinctively. And just as instinctively a criminal fights anything that may disclose his past ...

We are slowly and carefully teaching the unholy a lesson. It is as follows: "We are not a law enforcement agency. BUT we will become interested in the crimes of people who seek to stop us. If you oppose Scientology we promptly look and will find and expose your crimes. If you leave us alone we will leave you alone"."

[Hubbard, "Critics of Scientology", 1968] This underlies the concept of "Dead Agenting"; as a critic of Scientology invariably has a criminal past, all that is needed to discredit (or "Dead Agent") the critic is to expose that past. Or so a Scientologist would claim. It is this belief which lies behind, for instance, Major Target #1 of OSA's "558 Program" in Greece - "Priest Alevizopoulos investigated with his crimes exposed."

However, Hubbard seems to have been conscious that publicising past indiscretions does not always work. In 1960, he wrote (emphasis added):

"If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace."

[Hubbard, "Dept of Govt Affairs", HCO Policy Letter of 15 Oct 1960] This can be a dangerous tactic, as it leaves Scientology wide open to libel writs; it backfired disastrously in Canada in 1995, where the Church was ordered to pay the highest libel damages in Canadian history after defaming Supreme Court judge Casey Hill.

>Bruce was trying to harass and frighten an order taker. Look at the
>wording of the post. Look at the name of the title. Look at the
>responses. ("LOL"! for example. Didn't look like a quest for
>information, now did it?)
"harass and frighten an order taker"??? Get real, Claire. You are blowing this way out of proportion. Look within your cherch for hundreds of examples of REAL harassment and frightening actions. Your cherch has an extensive history of such abuses.

>Ask someone who isn't trying to take orders for a book?
Poor little order taker. Someone asked a very embarrassing question and you are trying to tell us that she was harassed and frightened. This doesn't speak very well for all those cherch courses that make one "more able".

>Two wrongs don't make a right.
Your statements that the two "wrongs" can be compared is ridiculous.

>I maintain this.
>
>I don't like this behaviour from *anybody* and that includes fellow
>Scientologists.
I don't particularly like behavior that rationalizes the disgusting actions of your cherch.

>Have you ever been contacted, called, whatever, when working in a public
>place where the person's intent was to have some fun at your expense?
>Like a crank call type thing.
>
>They don't *really* want to know if you have Prince Albert in a can.
How does the childish prank, "Prince Albert in a can", compare with your cherch's official policy of harassment?

Fair Game "A Suppressive Person or Group becomes 'Fair Game'. By Fair Game is meant, without right for self, possessions or position, and no Scientologist may be brought before a Committee of Evidence or punished for any action taken against a Suppressive Person or Group during the period that person or group is 'fair game'."

[Hubbard, Introduction to Scientology Ethics (1967)] This is far from being a theoretical sanction and has been applied to critics and dissident Scientologists on many occasions. Perhaps the clearest example is that of Amprinistics, a group founded in 1965 by a group of breakaway Scientologists. Hubbard wrote a directive of breathtaking ruthlessness on how to deal with the dissidents:

"They are each fair game, can be sued or harassed ...

(2) Harass these persons in any possible way...

(4) Tear up any meeting held and get the names of those attending and issue SP orders on them and you'll have lost a lot of rats."

[Hubbard, "Amprinistics", HCO Executive Letter of 27 September 1965] "Fair Game" was supposedly canceled in October 1968, as follows:

"The Practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.

This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."

[Hubbard, "Cancellation of Fair Game", HCO Policy Letter 21 October 1968] As this letter makes clear, though, the only thing canceled was the publication of Fair Game orders, not the policy itself. This was confirmed in 1981 in the trial of Jane Kember (Guardian World-Wide) and Mo Budlong (Deputy Guardian for Information World-Wide), the second of the two cases arising out of the Operation Snow White scandal:

"Defendants, through one of their attorneys, have stated that the fair game policy continued in effect well after the indictment in this case and the conviction of the first nine co-defendants. Defendants claim that the policy was abrogated by the Church's Board of Directors in late July or early August, 1980, only after the defendants' personal attack on Judge Richey [the presiding judge in the trial of Mary Sue Hubbard et al]."

[Sentencing Memorandum of the United States of America, USA v Kember & Budlong, US District Court or the District of Columbia Criminal No. 78.401(2) & (3)] Finally - and this is not mentioned at all by Scientology spokesmen - the policy letter supposedly canceling Fair Game was itself canceled on the orders of the current Scientology leadership, in HCO Policy Letter of 8 September 1983, "Cancellation of Issues on Suppressive Acts and PTSness" (the most recently published policy on Fair Game).

The policy has thus been restored in all its unpleasantness.

>He scared a lady. She responded.
>
>She was responding to harassment.
>
>She did not initiate any of that.
>
>If someone called me up and was rude I would reserve the right to say
>*anything* I wanted to, that I deemed appropriate.
>
>And, remember, people who are frightened are not icons of rationality.
Where do you now get "scared a lady"? She just knee jerked the standard $cio threat to any and all criticisms.

>> You are denigrating a representative of the Scientology religion.
>Certainly not.
Yes you are, Claire. You are stating that this woman gets "scared" and feels "threatened" by "Prince Albert in a can".

You are making a joke out of the cherch's promises to "make the able more able".

>> If the operator did not have the answers, the question should have been
>> forwarded to someone who did.
>Not if she thought he didn't want to know- that he was just messing with
>her head.
Not much in that head if that was all it took to mess with it.

>But the public has to be actually asking questions, not just
>"bullbaiting".
As a $cientologist, she should have been able to handle this little embarrassing question with no problems. I'm sure she has had much more embarrassing questions asked of her. She was probably instructed to give the same answer.

>Had he called some other number and not received data for which he was
>looking he'd have stated this when he called the *ORDER TAKING PERSON*
>and said "Can you help me?"
>
>But he did not do this, by his own account.
Anyone who is in the front lines on sales can expect to have to answer questions or forward to someone who can. She made no attempt to do so. She simply made a veiled threat to the caller.

>C
Nice Dev-T, Claire. You have demonstrated amply the failure of $cientology to "make the able more able". Both with the poor "frightened and scared" order taker AND yourself.

"Perry Scott " wrote:

>Cool. Someone somewhere says things critics don't like, so it's open
>season on all Scientologists.
Balderdash. Bruce did not say he was calling "all Scientologists".

He called an 800 number for a specific CofS, Inc. terminal.

Scientology (the 3rd-dynamic organization) claims they are compatible with Christianity. The terminal is a bona-fide CofS public terminal.

The terminal was unprepared for questions from the public.

Somewhere in here, you could be more helpful by telling us the proper terminal for this question. (Hint: perhaps a DSA). All you are doing is causing more ARCx.

>> >And the title of the post, the jeering way in which this was written
>> >evidences the intent. Obviously.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. I interpret "ROTFL" to criticise the lack of training for official CofS, Inc. terminals.

>> If CofS, Inc. did not have this overt, there would be no "jeering".
>> (your words, not mine.
>The end justifies the means? You know better than that.
You failed to address the point. CofS, Inc. has an overt, and it is stacking overts on top of the original overt.

>I suggest that if you have a beef with person A, you take it up with
>person A.
>
>Not person B.
If you didn't get this the first time, here it is again.

CofS, Inc. (3d) has an overt against Christianity (another 3d). The question was posed to an official terminal of the CofS, Inc. group.

>> In fact, Hubbard DID say that Christianity is the result of the
>> observing madmen. I've seen the transcripts of the tape. So, the
>> question is a valid question. The only point of further discussion
>> is whether Bruce was asking the correct terminal.
>Bruce was trying to harass and frighten an order taker. Look at the
>wording of the post. Look at the name of the title. Look at the
>responses. ("LOL"! for example. Didn't look like a quest for
>information, now did it?)
You are dubbing in things that are not there. Maybe you need to talk to Bruce before pursuing this further.

>> From my observation of other reports, none of the standard public
>> terminals of CofS, Inc. have answered this question posed by Bruce,
>> so what should he do?
>Ask someone who isn't trying to take orders for a book?
The proper behavior for a bona-fide 3D representative is to forward the question to the proper terminal within CofS, Inc. It is NOT ok to further ARCx with a menacing "we're tracing this call."

>> >I've often been asked by critics if two wrongs make a right. So I guess
>> >you're implying they do if it comes out in the critics' favor. I see.
>>
>> You are criticising critics for playing by CofS, Inc.'s rules. Just
>> an observation.
>Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
>I maintain this.
>
>I don't like this behaviour from *anybody* and that includes fellow
>Scientologists.
Well, *you and I* can begin cleaning up the ARCx by not causing further ARCx and M/Us. We can also get to the bottom of the problem by pulling this overt that CofS, Inc. has against Christianity.

This banky reaction I see from CofS, Inc., their terminals, and members tends to remind me of an overt being pulled in session. The bank seems to first manufacture "we're being persecuted", rather than taking responsibility for the overt and dealing with it.

>> >> Yeah. How dare potential customers ask questions about a product?!
>> >
>> >Depends on why they do it. With intent to receive info or intent to
>> >harass.
>> Is it harrassment to ask questions? Personally, I would like an
>> answer from any Scientologist that reconciles the Class 8 tape with
>> CofS, Inc.'s claim to be compatible with Christianity.
>Have you ever been contacted, called, whatever, when working in a public
>place where the person's intent was to have some fun at your expense?
>Like a crank call type thing.
>
>They don't *really* want to know if you have Prince Albert in a can.
I don't really know if this is a crank call. Have you verified with Bruce that it was a crank call?

The question that Bruce asked is valid. Asking if someone has Prince Albert in a can is not a valid question. So, your example is non-sequitur.

>> Instead, Bruce gets a menacing "we're tracing the call". Is that
>> an answer? No, it's another overt. They're stacking up at an
>> alarming rate, Claire.
>He scared a lady. She responded.
She REACTED. Case on post. Her PRO TR0-BB is out and she needs a retread.

>If someone called me up and was rude I would reserve the right to say
>*anything* I wanted to, that I deemed appropriate.
Again, Claire, you are dubbing something in. I did not read a rude question.

Bruce wrote:

>I called the 1-800 number and asked the operator
>(who answered "Dianetics" in dull sleepy voice) if the
>practice of Dianetics was congruent with Christian
>teachings. She answered that Dianetics was non-denominational
>and could be used by any religion.
OK, this is the standard patter one gets from CofS, Inc.

terminals. It is a reactive response which requires some TR3. So, Bruce TR3'ed. That isn't rude; it's Standard Tech.

Bruce continues:

> I then asked her if it
>was not true that Hubbard taught that Christianity was a
>result of R6 programming observed in madmen? There was
>a few moments of silence on the line and she came back with
>"HOLD ON.. WE ARE TRACING THE CALL"...AND THEN HUNG UP!!!
The response to TR3 is ARCx?!?

>And, remember, people who are frightened are not icons of rationality.
Case on post.

>> >Sure. And a little telephone answering chickie is going to have all the
>> >data. Oh sure.
>> You are denigrating a representative of the Scientology religion.
>Certainly not.
OK. I would not call a terminal of CofS, Inc. a "little telephone answering chickie." I find it demeaning.

>> If
>> the operator did not have the answers, the question should have been
>> forwarded to someone who did.
>Not if she thought he didn't want to know- that he was just messing with
>her head.
This assumes facts not in evidence. I think you need to query Bruce.

>> Ref: Answer the Public's Questions. I
>> think Ron wrote something about that, but I don't have the HCOB.
>I'm sure he did.
>
>But the public has to be actually asking questions, not just
>"bullbaiting".
I have been asking this question for a couple years now. I assure you that it is not bullbaiting. (Maybe *I'm* the one dubbing in my sincerity to get this question answered onto Bruce's question.

However, you need to ask Bruce before assuming it was TR0-BB, rather than TR3 to get past a banky CofS, Inc. terminal.)

>> >She was just there to take orders for a book. And Bruce knew it. He
>> >didn't call her looking for information. This is obvious.
>> Maybe Bruce has already called 1-800-for-truth, and didn't get an
>> answer there, either. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
>He knew she was just there taking orders for a book.
>
>Had he called some other number and not received data for which he was
>looking he'd have stated this when he called the *ORDER TAKING PERSON*
>and said "Can you help me?"
>
>But he did not do this, by his own account.
The way I read it, Bruce called an 800 number from a "Book One"

commercial. The terminal answered "Dianetics". Since I don't know what the commercial said, I don't know if Bruce thought he was calling an order processing clerk, or an informational terminal for CofS, Inc.

And really, I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm evaluating the data without dubbing in anything.

>C
Perry Scott, SP 4.3, ScienoSitter 3X + ISP + 2 words Co$ Escapee

Go Back