"You see, take
a gun (they are all over the place), put a bullet in there (also easy).
Now locate the whereabouts of Gerry (requires some doingness), then go to
him (take a plane, that's fastest), wait for him (at some place), pull your
gun (does not require much musclepower), then aim (some will have problems
with this), and finally pull the trigger..(keep your hand steady or you'll
miss altogether). Easy no?"
Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org> wrote in message news:<3b37f01opvg8f6juc7pruuvu2ctkd6dn6e@4ax.com>...
> On 8 Jul 2004 03:35:01 -0700, spacetraveler2000@hotmail.com
> (Spacetraveler) wrote:
>
> >Gerry,
> >
> >We have an unfinished communication. You may have missed it, I
quote
> >the relevant parts below. I am still awaiting your response.
>
> Excellent. I have hoped a long time to have a conversation with a
> Scientologist on this basis.
<snip>
>
> Please identify all these things you call "all these things"
to which
> you're referring.
Whatever that was happening during the time you were there. I believe
you speak about these things on your site.
> > Fredric Rice, Barwell and some others are just repeating
> >others and have no personal experience whatsoever (as it seems).
>
> That's probably untrue, but in any case an irrelevancy.
Definitely not, those who have not actually been there can not relate
all information properly, they can only rely on hearsay and others.
Persons who have been there can in fact tell from what they have
experienced and seen, Rice, Barwell and others never speak in these
lines.
> Would you say
> that Paulette Cooper has no personal experience of Fair Game? A
> reasonable person would say that she has years of personal experience
> of Fair Game.
Some others does not automatically include Paulette Cooper, does it?
> But most importantly, please provide your own personal experience.
> What posts have you been on during what years? What do you know about
> the "Suppressive Person" doctrine?
I don't think it will suit any purpose to tell about that without
directly relating it to matters discussed. Anyhow I have been involved
with many missions (longterm establishment projects actually), have
been posted in CMO and various HCO's (Flag & LA). I do not intend to
disclose personal details, I prefer to keep my anonimity for personal
reasons.
> Have you done any of the
> Suppressive Person indoctrination courses such as "How to Shatter
> Suppression" or the "PTS/SP Detection and Routing" course
or
> "Overcoming Ups and Downs in Life" course or any of the variations
of
> these? Have you ever had a PTS C/S 1 indoctrination?
Actually no, haven't done any of the above. I was however ethics &
msn
trained.
> Using your standard, since you are a Scientologist, you have no
> personal experience whatsoever of the wog world® would you not
agree?
Disagree. I came into Scientology quite late. Have done quite some
studies prior to getting involved. Amongst other history, geology,
mythology, some psychology and various other subjects.
> And you have no personal experience whatsoever of wogs® would
you also
> not agree? So you have no personal experience whatsoever of
> indisputable wogs® Fred Rice and Charles Barwell on which to base
your
> claims and opinions about them, would you also not agree?
Disagree as explained above. Assuming business is no good business. I
think that my judgement about those 2 persons are pretty accurate.
Their behaviour towards acknowledge that.
> >Scientology was under heavy artillery at times.
>
> Please detail what "heavy artillery" the cult was under and
at which
> times.
Mid/later-60s for one, Scientology was attacked in the media, there
are various books that also talk about these things published early
70s or nearabouts. It caused KSW to be written and fair game
implemented.
> It is very obvious to me that Hubbard invented "attacks"
from
> "enemies" to be able to "motivate" and to "justify"
his fair gaming of
> good people.
>
> See, e.g., HCOPL 16 Februray 1969 "Battle Tactics." Hubbard
writes:
> This is a Defense Paper on material developed after 18 years of
> ceaseless attack by a foreign enemy.
> [...]
> But there are also wars of attrition. We are engaged in one where
> total destruction of us has been the enemy's aim for, at this writing,
> 19 years. This is barbarian warfare, thus the enemy must have had very
> positive fears and terrors about us. Since he fought for total
> attrition.
>
> [End Quote]
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1969-02-16-battle-tactics.html
>
> There is, of course, no proof whatsoever of these claims by Hubbard
of
> 18 years of ceaseless attack by a foreign enemy (the Marcabians?),
or
> of this "enemy" waging a 19-year war of "total attrition"
against
> Scientology the aim of which was the cultists' "total destruction."
>
> But if you can identify this "enemy" that Hubbard generalizes
about
> here, and also identify all the incidents, with supporting
> documentation, that comprise that 18 years of ceaseless attack by a
> foreign enemy, and comprise that 19-year war of "total attrition"
> against Scientology the aim of which was the cultists' "total
> destruction," now is a great opportunity.
>
> After manufacturing this "enemy," who is nothing more than
good people
> identified as "Suppressive Persons," Hubbard orders these
attacks:
> - waging a war of total attrition on SPs;
> - going all the way in and obliterating SPs;
> - expending the maximum of SPs;
> - making the war costly to the SPs;
> - cutting off SPs' communications;
> - cutting off SPs' funds;
> - cutting off SPs' connections;
> - depriving SPs of political advantages;
> - depriving SPs of connections;
> - depriving SPs of power;
> - taking over SPs' territory;
> - raiding SPs;
> - harassing SPs;
> - making the SPs attack wrong targets or persons;
> - bringing public opinion to a frenzy of hate against SPs;
> - using standard wartime propaganda against SPs;
> - degrading the image of SPs to beast level;
> - capturing and using SPs' comm lines;
> - treating all skirmishes with SPs like war.
>
> That is Fair Game.
Defining what a Suppressive Person is may clarify that. And then if
you studied the history of man through all ages you can perceive some
pattern of behaviour towards information/doctrines/studies that claim
to free man in some way. I studied history very extensively. With my
understanding of all that it would be very incongruous to assume that
Scientology would not have been met with such opposition.
>
> > Is one not allowed to
> >find some way to defend oneself against attacks?
>
> Well sure. But remember that Scientology does not permit "defend."
> Only "attack."
Depends what it is about, it does not forbid it, does it.
>
> And the "some way" that Hubbard ordered is Fair Game.
>
> Hubbard could have ordered that Scientology not respond, or that they
> respond with reason, truth and a higher level communication. Instead
> he ordered that Scientologists respond with unreason, lies and low,
> nasty, solid, overt and covert levels of communication, with attacks
> on persons.
There is a gradient scale for such. HCOPL Ethics Review, look it up.
Meaning it is not true what you say, I never did any of all that when
I was there and I still don't at this time.
> That is why it is impossible to find a Scientologist that responds
> with reason, truth and a higher level communication. It is necessary
> to leave Scientology to be able to respond in that manner. And, of
> course, leaving Scientology is considered by the Fair Gamers a "High
> Crime" or "Suppressive Act," which must be responded
to with unreason,
> lies and low, nasty, solid, overt and covert levels of communication.
Is not true actually. It suffices to refer to the applicable
references. I had little problem with leaving in that respect. Where
does it say that leaving is a suppressive act or a high crime?
Another side however is the agreements of staff and so on. Many of
those consider you somehow to desert the group, and you may very well
be treated like some enemy. But this is what people do. May I also
remind you of that few staff went to study! They were supposed to take
their 2½ hour on a daily basis, how many did that? And if you don't
study you don't get the tools how to deal with things happening in the
organization either. And then you make up your own little squirrel
activity.
> Also, a private army, or navy, is not allowed to wage war against
> citizens, even if claiming it is waging the war to defend itself from
> attacks. The Scientology cult is in the military/law enforcement zone
> in its activities, plus seeks to infiltrate, influence and dominate
> those zones.
It seems to be that way at this time, yes.
> > The simplicity of it
> >is, if you do not, you WILL go under.
>
> No, that's a false datum. Hubbard's I would imagine. It is justified
> by the "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
>
> If you are an organization such as Scientology that is based so
> totally in the SP doctrine and manifests in the world with Fair Game,
> then yes, your organization will go under if you do not dramatize the
> SP doctrine and do not Fair Game.
>
> If, however, an organization is not a Scientology-type organization
> and is not based in an SP doctrine, then that organization will not
> necessarily go under if it doesn't respond to criticisms with Fair
> Game.
Only criticisms, or not agreeing with Scientology does not get you
fair gaimed. It needs a little more doingness. And please don't call
it my organization, it isn't. It is this simple, if you have a cougar
jumping on you, you better do something, if not you will surely die.
> Also, you seek to position or define Fair Game as a *response* or a
> *defense* to attacks. That positioning or definition is, however,
> completely fallacious. Hubbard lets slip the reality, that Fair Game
> is a philosphy, policy and practice of preemptive attacks and war,
in
> HCOPL 25 February 1966:
>
> [Quote]
>
> To get wholly over to cause we must select targets, investigate and
> expose _before_ they attack us.
>
> [End Quote]
> http://www.suppressiveperson.org/hate/pubs/pl-1966-02-25-attacks-on-scn-txt.html
> (Emphasis is Hubbard's.)
Problem is that this is not necessarily connected to some practice of
fair game. What is wrong with preparing your defence prior to being
attacked. People have doen this through all ages on any kind of
premises.
>
> And Hubbard orders in the same policy letters what this preemptive,
> pre-attack exposure is to be:
>
> [Quote]
>
> You can elaborate on the evidence we have found and lay it on thick
> attacking the attackers [_before_ they attack] only.
> [...]
> Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the
> attackers to the press.
>
> [End Quote]
>
> That's Fair Game.
It says "actual evidence", this is not the same as making up
stuff.
> >> >On both your site AND that SPDL site the reference actually
cancelling
> >> >fair game is not to be found.
> >
> >http://mccalcon.notlong.com
> >
> >> There is no cancellation of fair game. It has never been cancelled.
> >> Certain policy letters may have been "cancelled,"
> >
> >Then quote ALL of these references!
>
> What references? You can quote them if you want. I think you're trying
> to prove an irrelevancy, for which there is no proof.
You should have gone to the link I provided. They are all there to be
found.
HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"
Both these references are quoted in full on that site. I recall having
seen the first one at some time, I checked and I actually own a copy
of the second one, an original 'green on white'. What more proof do
you want?
> Fair game is the philosophy, policy and practice of Scientology.
>
> Hubbard lays out in "Battle Tactics" what is to be done to
SPs.
> "Battle Tactics" is still a Scientology cult policy letter.
The Fair
> Game tactics Hubbard ordered in "Battle Tactics" are still
the cult's
> tactics.
You are not referring to some broad publication issue: Central Orgs
Continental, Gos, PRO & Intelligence. That's not very many people. You
tell me that all Scientologists lie to you or something like that. It
was not standard practice to be used by all Scientologists. I recall
you even had to sign a bond to even be allowed to read it. Extreme
danger requires extreme action. I may not really like some parts,
however I can imagine that some times things can get rough.
> Call it my hidden standard, but I believe I will know when Fair Game
> ceases to be Scientology's philosophy, policy and practice. You don't
> recognize this very basic philosophy, policy and practice so wouldn't
> know if they ever stopped.
I don't recognize? Why do you think that?
> > You base an opinion on these
> >sites like that the 21 July 1968 issue does not exist.
>
> What sites? What do you claim I'm basing my opinion on? What opinion?
>
> > You simply say
> >that only the use of the name was cancelled. Is that honest?
>
> Yes. Scientology's and Scientologists' assertion that the philosophy,
> policy and practice of Fair Game was all cancelled, when all that was
> "cancelled" was use of the term "Fair Game" is
what is dishonest.
You don't mention:
HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"
Why not? They exist! You can quote them and still say: "But they
did
not follow them." What is the problem? Let your readers decide, only
don't leave out references that do exist.
> What Hubbard orders in "Battle Tactics" be done to SPs is
Fair Game:
> - waging a war of total attrition on SPs;
> - going all the way in and obliterating SPs;
> - expending the maximum of SPs;
> - making the war costly to the SPs;
> - cutting off SPs' communications;
> - cutting off SPs' funds;
> - cutting off SPs' connections;
> - depriving SPs of political advantages;
> - depriving SPs of connections;
> - depriving SPs of power;
> - taking over SPs' territory;
> - raiding SPs;
> - harassing SPs;
> - making the SPs attack wrong targets or persons;
> - bringing public opinion to a frenzy of hate against SPs;
> - using standard wartime propaganda against SPs;
> - degrading the image of SPs to beast level;
> - capturing and using SPs' comm lines;
> - treating all skirmishes with SPs like war.
>
> The philosophy, policy and practice of Fair Game is utterly obvious
in
> this policy letter. The PL simply doesn't use the term "Fair Game."
Again, it was not broad publication issue at all. I actually know of
very few people who knew about this while being inside of the
organization. I knew about it because I had access to these kind of
things. I am a curious type, I look and read. A missionair was also
trained to be like that.
> Do you agree that Hubbard was judicially declared a pathological liar?
> This is another great opportunity for you to do some actual honest
> research about ALL the lies Hubbard told . Hubbard needs it.
>
> > Quote
> >ALL of them!
>
> All of what?
HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"
> I'd like you to quote ALL of Hubbard's lies. That would be very useful
> in this discussion of honesty relating to Scientology.
In my opinion it is dishonest to quote the 1967 fair game issue &
the
21 Oct 1968 issue, but not the 21 July 1968 issue, nor the the 6 Oct
1970 issue, sorry. At least in writing as these issues lay out, the
practice of fair gaiming was cancelled. I said at least IN WRITING.
May be as you say they continued with it any way, but this is a
different matter. So treat them differently. Tell about both these
sides. If you don't mention them and people will find out about them
later on (and I have been throwing these issues in peoples faces
lately), they will start being critcal about what you have to say
elsewhere.
> > I don't expect anything honorable from Fredric Rice, but
> >I don't think that you are like him.
Fredric ignores this matter completely. He didn't add anything on his
fairgamed.org site (at least not the last time I looked)
> >> but fair game -- the
> >> philosophy, policy and practice -- remains exactly as it was
when
> >> Hubbard postulated it as his basic communication mode, his
solution
> >> for criticism, decades ago.
> >
> >Define criticism in this context.
>
> Same as it's used in this context in Scientology. An identifying of
> faults or demerits. Consider the merits and demerits of and evaluate
> accordingly. Criticisms are statements made by people, about whom
> Hubbard says this in HCOB 5 November 1967 "Critics of Scientology:"
>
> [Quote]
>
> 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.
>
> [End Quote]
>
> I say Hubbard is lying here. The easily provable fact is that we *do*
> find lots of critics of Scientology, of Hubbard's and Scientology's
> lies, of their nasty, abusive, criminal policies and practices, who
do
> not have criminal pasts.
>
> Hubbard lied about critics. And he lied about criticisms of his lies.
Did he? "random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out of fact
is
only an effort to reduce the size of the overt." (from HCOB
Justifications) I think he talks about that in the above. It's like
this. The goal of Scientology (or at least it claims that) is sanity,
prosurvival, finding the best solution for any problem, peace and so
on. It does at least claim this, does it not. A critic in that context
is someone who's goal likely is to be the opposite of that. Are you
still with me? The 'overt' is only introduced if it get's to the level
as described in HCOB Justifications. Can you back up your criticism
with clear evidence, observation and all that it is something else, it
at least is not 1.1 criticism, it's not directly 'overt' related.
This HCOB is probably one the most misunderstood issues ever. I know
very well that Scientologists in general throw this at you as soon as
you utter the least of criticism of any kind. Very, very tiring. But
this is what people DO! I don't care about these jerks. I told them to
clear up that issue or to get lost.
> Will you acknowledge that Hubbard lied in his HCOBs and HCOPLs?
I have questioned many things in his writings and I still may disagree
with him on various points, but I do not perceive he was lying, sorry.
> I am a critic, e.g., of Hubbard's "Suppressive Person" doctrine.
I say
> it is a dishonest, dangerous, evil and criminal doctrine. That's a
> criticism.
It is not 1.1 if you can back it up. At least in MY opinion it is not!
> You have so far refused to address the dishonesty, danger, evil and
> criminality of the "Suppressive Person" doctrine. This is
a criticism
> of you.
I have never refused that! I explained most of this in the foresaid.
Scientology claims to want only the good for all and so on. Those not
wanting that are opposing those goals. In that sense those who
actively are opposing that are most of the time referred to as
Suppressive persons. There are these characteristics (12), should be
easy. Once I had a person in an ethics hearing saying to me that I may
should look at that I might be a suppressive person because I had
displayed one of these 12 chacteristics at one time. ... and another
idiot came along .... This person was forgetting that one looks at the
majority of these characteristic of social or anti social. I met quite
a few of such individuals. Again this is what people do.
> > Policy is very well defined in the
> >Admin Dictionary, I assume you still have a copy of this.
>
> Let's see what Webster says: "a definite course or method of action
> selected to guide and determine present and future actions."
>
> And let's see what Hubbard says: "a definite course or method
of
> action selected to guide and determine future actions."
>
> Hubbard also says: "a principle by which the conduct of affairs
can be
> guided."
>
> HCO PL 25 November 1970
>
>
> > Policy is to
> >be followed, there are also a variety of policies which will defend
> >your rights if being wronged somehow. Do you deny that this is
so?
>
> Yes I do.
So we don't have the Creed of the Church of Scientology, justice
policies, orders, query of and so on.
> I have been wronged by the Scientology cult and Scientologists. Please
> identify what "policies" are being violated by the cult and
the
> cultists in what has been done to me. And identify what "policies"
> will defend my rights against these wrongs being perpetrated by the
> cult and its cultists.
>
> >
> >
> >> But on the subject of "cancellation" of policy letters,
please see
> >> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/sp/pl-1968-10-21-cancel-fair-game.html
> >>
> >> And now it is your turn to present your proof of your claim
that fair
> >> game is actually cancelled. This will be an impossible task
because
> >> fair game has never been cancelled.
HCO PL 21 July 68 "Penalties for Lower Conditions"
HCO PL 6 Oct 70 Issue III "Ethics Penalties"
> >
> >Policy is policy. What do I care about some jerks.
>
> It's your overt-motivator sequence.
Hardly, and you don't believe in this sequence anyway (or do you)?
> >During my time being intern for many years
>
> What does this mean?
>
> Please identify all your posts in the cult, when and where you held
> each, and what training and processing you did when and where.
I don't want to make it obvious who I am by giving all that
information. However I can share some of these things if relating to
the matter discussed. Besides that it doesn't say much what training
one has done. I have seen highly trained individuals as it seemed
unable to apply anthing they supposedly had learned. I was never
impressed by ribbons they had on their jackets, I looked at their
actions.
>
> > I have seen lots of idiots
> >doing the most insane stupid things.
>
> Please identify each Scientologist you've seen whom you believe is
an
> idiot, and exactly what insane stupid things each identified
> Scientologist idiot did and when.
I can fill up a book with this, quite some things happened during a
variety of years. I disclosed some of them to Tory Bezazian in a
response to her. Quoted below:
I recall that people said at Flag that one was not allowed to read
newspapers. It's all bad news and so on. But then LRH does not forbid
you to not read a newspaper. I recall that we had that weekly tapeplay
in the auditorium at Fort Harrison, and there we had FSO HCO personnel
stopping people from leaving that tapeplay before the end of the tape.
Because they said that one had to give honor to LRH first before
leaving the room, and this was done by clapping hands and screaming
"To LRH" or something like that. And they could not do this before
the
end of the tape, so people where physically stopped from leaving. Also
foreigners who's first language was not english (and there were quite
a few of them) HAD to attendtapeplay. I recall a supervisor being send
to RPF only because she asked: "Where is it written that one has to
clap your hands for LRH after finishing the daily 2½ hours study
term?" She was send to RPF, stats crashed in the courseroom and she
was returned to the courseroom(wrong why apparently). This is all
crazy. I can write a thick volumeof all such idiocy I have seen. This
is what people do. LRH did not advice any of these things.
>
> > Does this make L. Ron Hubbard
> >wrong,
>
> Well, it's a part of what makes Hubbard wrong. There are all sorts
of
> things Hubbard said and did that make him wrong. As part of your
> research, please identify ALL those things that make Hubbard wrong.
>
> When, e.g., Hubbard says "Scientology works," and it is speedily
and
> eminently provable that it doesn't, that makes him wrong.
Generally I find that people did not duplicate something and did
somthing else then what he actually said. This is not making him
wrong. I even caught myself judging that he was wrong about something
and then 10 years later I find out it was my own misconception, and
this doesn't mean it took 10 years to indoctrinate me with some
fix-idea.
> Hubbard makes Hubbard wrong. His dishonesty makes him wrong. The lies
> told by Scientologists representing the organization he built make
him
> a bit wrong.
I don't see how, sorry. This is peoples doing.
> Same with all the abuses and crimes perpetrated by
> Scientologists. Same with Scientologists' illnesses, accidents and
> deaths. They all add to Hubbard's wrongness. Scientologists, not wogs
> (R) make Hubbard wrong.
No, disagree. This is people. If you say: "Turn left!" and
you
persist to turn to the right and you fall down in some canyon, you may
blame yourself. You can't blame L. Ron Hubbard for your mixing up the
left and right. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
> They can't in reality, but Scientologists aren't allowed to believe
in
> reality. They believe in the ego, their illusions about themselves.
> Hubbard too was a big believer in his ego, so he would see the
> failures of his "tech," and his followers being such liars
and crooks,
> as making him plenty wrong.
No, people again. Many I've seen were somehow stuck in themselves,
however they generally also wanted to help, it was their blindness
that made them not look and doing the right thing.
>
> >don't see why it should.
>
> Look a little more deeply.
>
> >Did all things went well when
> >Christianity was first introdued?
>
> All things didn't went well when the wheel was first introduced
> either.
>
> > People anywhere are most of the time
> >quite unpredictable and irrational.
>
> Oh, you're a merchant of fear?
No, the reality of life itself. I studied history, politics and so on.
There is an obvious pattern in all of that.
> I assume you're including yourself in
> the group you call "people," and it doesn't give me a great
deal of
> confidence.
I don't intend to give you that confidence. Look at what I say, get
the concept of it and judge for yourself. Nothing is be taken or
accepted blindly, nothing at all. We are offering eachother the same
deal. That's all.
> >> Policy letters may or may not be policy. Policy letters may
or may not
> >> be followed. Policy may be counter to or in violation of what
is
> >> stated in policy letters. The policy may be to ignore or act
in
> >> violation of what is stated in policy letters. They are the
basis of any
> >> action or inaction of the organization.
> >> With the Scientology organization this is quite clearly the
policy.
> >
> >Was there any time that you did NOT enforce policy when you should
> >have when you were there? DID YOU?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. You appear to still be beating the dead
> policy horse. Policy may or may not be what is written in policy
> letters. That's the policy. Orders are senior to "policy."
That's the
> policy. Arbitraries are senior to "policy." That's policy.
Actually no, orders are only issued if not wearing your hat, which
means not enforcing policy. Orders are only senior to policy if in
some emergency situations. And orders can be queried as well, you are
never, never, never to follow them up blindly. There is very clear
policy about that!
> So, provide your list of ALL the times on each of your posts in the
> cult when you did NOT enforce policy when you should have.
I may have hesitated at times, but I did enforce policies and stood up
for my rights whatever oppostion, I never lost my integrity at any
time.
> >> >Attack, but do it on 'proper' grounds. Find the 'right'
target.
> >>
> >> And the "Suppressive Person" doctrine guarantees
you won't find the
> >> "right target." The SP doctrine is set up to create
wrong targets --
> >> good, loving people to attack. It's really nice for Scientologists
to
> >> have a class of people to fair game who are good, loving ones
who
> >> don't have the resources or the mindset to attack back. No
wonder the
> >> Scientologists feel so OT. Cowards.
> >
> >This is the way David Miscavige and friends go about it, this however
> >is not Scientology.
>
> No, this is false. What Miscavige and his cult do *is* Scientology.
I described earlier what the aims of Scientology are (or what it
claims to be), this definition should be used. In that context fair
gaming, injustice, waving away one's rights and so on is not
Scientology.
> You are defending and protecting Miscavige and his thugs when you
make
> this claim.
Hardly, when exactly recognizing the situation.
> What Scientology, the Miscavige regimers, are doing probably isn't
> found in Scientology policy letters
This all by itself makes it not being Scientology.
>, but that abusive, criminal
> activity is most definitely Scientology. Not putting its actual
> criminal policies in written directives or policy letters is
> Scientology policy. A vital function of policy letters, both during
> Hubbard's rule and now during Miscavige's dictatorship, is to hide
> policy.
This is not my experience, sorry. Have been Hatting Officer for 5
months or so. Policy was to be followed, no matter what. But at times
policy was seriously misunderstood, and then that was enforced, which
was not policy, and therefore not Scientology.
> Your function could be similar. You appear to be trying to cloak what
> is Scientology and what is Scientology policy with what is stated in
> policy letters that are intended to hide policy, and with your
> obfuscation "tech."
No, sorry. I was actually there. This is not what I saw.
>
> >This is other practices.
>
> No it is not. Fair Game is a Hubbard policy and practice, and now it
> is a Miscavige policy and practice, and Fair Game is Scientology.
> Scientology without Fair Game would not be Scientology. Scientology
> not hiding its actual policies behind contradictory policy letters
> would not be Scientology.
Which policies are contradictory to eachother?
Let's say that SPs and fair gaming are not synonym as many seem to
think.
>
> You have failed to prove otherwise.
It's obvious that a big change occured after L. Ron Hubbard
disappeared from the lines so around 1980. Are you denying that?
<snip>
>
> > and my understanding of these things
> >I happen to disagree with that.
>
> I guess you'd have to disagree that the good people targeted as
> "Suppressive Persons" by the Scientology cultists are being
wrong
> targeted.
I don't disagree. Quite a few got the wrong label, and that's MY
opinion.
> You'd have to, to do what you do.
What do I do according to you?
>
> But please identify in any case each person you know of who has ever
> been targeted as a "Suppressive Person" and detail exactly
why the
> targeting of each person as an "SP" was a right targeting.
It suffices to see how declares are being written, there are some
specific guidelines for that. HCOPL How to write an ethics order or
something. Apply the reference and you'll know!
>
> Here, start with me.
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/ga-sp-declare.html
>
> And here's the Fair Game page:
> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/index.html
I've read most of what you have there, some time ago or more recently.