Path: rambo.bobo.net!xs4all!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!xs4all!Cabal.CESspool!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: informer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Hello Critics of Scientology and Scientologists; Date: 05 Aug 1998 17:15:44 PDT Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] Lines: 57 Message-ID: <35cdf621.14357987@news.concentric.net> References: <35c6175c.21491954@news.tiac.net> <1998080320580100.QAA00593@ladder01.news.aol.com> <6q5b7l$vnf$1@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net> <35c84332.15254488@news.atnet.at> <35ca711b.4027794@news.concentric.net> <35ca7e1e.30341204@news.atnet.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts035d02.lax-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Xref: rambo.bobo.net alt.religion.scientology:97489 ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton): >On 05 Aug 1998 10:47:13 EDT, informer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) wrote: > >>ralph@atnet.at (Ralph Hilton): >> >>>I don't have the policy to hand but this is correct. Data given up in sec checks >>>is not considered "sacred". It is turned over to HCO and is considered >>>actionable. >> >> Definitely so, Ralph. >> >>>Even session data is non-actionable for the person receiving the auditing only. >> >> There is no non-actionable confession in the cult. An auditor is >>required by Reports policy in Vol 4 of the OEC to write an ethics >>report on any out-ethics the mark gives up in session. > >By actionable I meant subject to ethics/justice penalties. Certainly the C/S would order some sort of condition handling if the auditor wrote a report about the mark's out-ethics, no? Can't audit over a known out-ethics sit, right? >At least that is the >theory. My observation matches your statement in terms of what actually occurs. It has to occur. That's the tek. If a Div. 6 reg, for example, confessed in a regular session that he had been false reporting his stats for months, you know punishment would occur, right? >>>If a person gives up data relating to the actions of others then that is >>>considered actionable. >> Giving up someone else's overts or withholds is a sign of similars >>of their own. >What I meant was that if I said in session something like that Xemu and I had >gone out and screwed a couple of hookers then although theoretically I would not >be hauled into ethics on the matter Xemu might well be. Unless you had successfully hidden it from your auditor. Then you would have been audited over an out-ethics sit, continuous withhold, and would now need cleanup in that specific area. A sec check, to find out if you had told all, might be in order to ensure other w/hs are not missed and/or audited over. >>>So the only overts which it would not be considered correct for Jesse to discuss >>>are those given up by an individual in the course of their own auditing. >> I'll leave up to Jesse what he wants to reveal about whom, and how. >OK. I was intending to clarify CofS stated policy rather than evaluate what >Jesse should or shouldn't do. Who knows on what "moral compass" Jesse now steers his life. (But I bet it's not by anything Elrong ever said.) Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *