"HARD SELL"

"The following is is a telex sent from D/WDC chairman to Flag and all Estates Orgs and FOLO's (CLO's)

....

ALL PRICES CHARGED ARE FOR A PRICELESS COMMODITY -
PERSONAL ABILITY. HEALTH AND IMMORTALITY. GROUP
WELL BEING. A SALVAGED PLANET. JUST 21 YEARS AGO
A 100 BILLION BUCKS COULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT AN HOUR
MORE OF LIFE. A FEW HUNDRED OR A FEW THOUSANDS
NOW BUYS LONGER BODY LIFE AND PERSONAL IMMORTALITY.
....
SO REALIZE THE VALUE OF WHAT IS BEING BOUGHT AND
SOLD. WHAT'S THE VALUE OF IMMORTALITY TO AN EARTH
BOUND AND ECLIPSED BEING? YOU ARE RIGHT. IT WOULD
BE PRICELESS. THERE ISN'T THAT MUCH MONEY.
L. R. H. COMMODORE
OOD'S 24 FEB 1971"

[All capitals in original]

From: "Android Cat" <androidcat98@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Scientology lies - longer life.
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 07:49:13 -0500
Message-ID: <5d7ea$43bbc47c$cf7029e5$27194@PRIMUS.CA>

wbarwell wrote:

> BE PRICELESS. THERE ISN'T THAT MUCH MONEY.
> L. R. H. COMMODORE
> OOD'S 24 FEB 1971"
>
> (All capitols in original)

Hmm... Isn't Hubbard, you know, *dead*? So much for longer body life.

Of course, there seems to be this trick clause in Scientology membership contracts now where you agree that anything anyone promises, doesn't count. Even Hubbard's stuff is just "research". (As if Hubbard contucted any research in the garden variety wog humanoid meaning of the word!)

All public and private promises and claims are nullified by the contract that members must sign which includes a clause that states that staff members and organizations of Scientology make no promises of any benefit or change and that even the writings of LRH are only a record of his research and should not be construed as a statement of claims by the "church" or LRH. "Scientology Policy Directive 13 March 1996, Statements by Staff Members, (which is available on request) makes it clear that claims about the religion [sic] by staff members are not valid." (from a Celebrity Centre contract). I haven't seen the text of that directive.

I'd really love to see that policy directive (and who issued it). The fact that they refer to it as part of a legal contract without actually including it makes me smell a rat. It's almost like an unseen mystery clause in the contract--which already includes the Lisa Clause. It's "available on request", but I wonder how often that occurs and how staff react when that happens. Does *anyone* know what's in that directive?

-- Ron of that ilk.

Go Back