Culture & Lifestyle

Rave

Who would protest scientology?

Posted 33 months ago|46 comments|603 views
VIDEOS
Written by
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
There's been a great deal of interest on Rant Rave lately regarding scientology, and also those that are critical of scientology. I, myself, have posted several times, in attempt to provide a counterbalance to some of the outrageous comments and claims of the group; but the question is why?

According to members of the organization, that would prove that I am some sort of bigot. That I hate all religion, hate humanity, and only want what is "bad" for people. By their claims (implied and directed to me) I must be a criminal, drug user or paid by "big pharma".

In fact, I am none of these things. I've served my Country proudly (and those of you that have served in any military would attest- an extra paycheck from "big pharma" would have certainly helped pay the bills!). I am active in several charities, one of which I formed in order to provide opportunities to homeless families. I also, and this may be a surprise to a scientologist or two, support religious freedoms in the US and abroad.

Because, truly, this issue is not about religion. Out of respect for their beliefs, I won't go into detail, but I (and most, nearly all critics) completely support their right to believe what they want. That is their right, and I would fight to the death to support it. It's not about that. Any protest is in no way an attempt to undermine their "religious" rights or beliefs.

And, of course the proponents of scientology do realize this, despite claims to the contrary. Phrases like, "why don't you protest Mormon Churches, they do this/that?" or "why aren't you protesting the Catholic Church, after what they do to little boys?" are not only an attempt to deflect criticism, but also display an alarming hypocrisy in which they seem to advocate protest against another group while claiming they, themselves are victims.

Of course, it also lends credence to the fact that protest can be a valid tool for reform. Not destruction. Reform. And it has a long history of doing so!

And that, essentially, is why I criticize the management of this group. That is why the movement calling themselves "Anonymous" was born. Not to destroy, not to overturn or harm (although there are perhaps individuals within that would like to do so, the collective opinion is a peaceful one), but to allow for change and reform, or at the very least transparency.

Why them, they would ask. Again, they would refer to other religions in an attempt to offer a sort of legitimacy for their actions. It's on their own site; 'The Amish shun, why can't we practice disconnection?' 'Other religions hide their secret texts, why can't we?'.

But, there are no recognized religions operating today that have the same level of allegations against them, or the sheer number of members that have fled with horror stories of prison camps, forced abortions and harsh punishments and conditions.

That is why I criticize. Not to destroy or to undermine- but because I truly care. I care about those that left loved ones behind. I care about those that dedicated decades of their life to this group only to leave broke, jobless and unable to fully function in this world. I care about my sister, who I saw slowly descend and change into someone else entirely, and who tearfully told me that she couldn't talk to me, or her mother, or her father, or her sister, unless we joined scientology as well.

But more than (nearly) anything, I care about the person sitting on the internet late at night, looking at their life and about to make a major decision. To that person, while you may be told to "find out for yourself" and "come into an org"- realize that you hold the power and the pocketbook. And no one can take that away from you. Visit an org if you would like, read as many books as you can afford, if you wish- but realize that the critics' opinion is as valid and, occasionally, as wild as the scientologist's opinion... you're the middle ground.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
33 months ago: On another thread, Jack H Remington says, you hate $cientology, therefore you hate religion. And nothing could be further from the truth. Personally, I do not give a d&mn who or what people pray to or worship.
What I do protest about is exactly what Mark has mentioned above. I do not have a loved one in the cult as Mark does, but I can empathise with all who have lost someone to this sick cult.
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: And I, also, don't hate religion! I think that it can be a very positive force in one's life, and each person should have the freedom of their own beliefs.
But while I don't care what one THINKS, I do certainly care what one DOES.
Louanne
Louanne
Los Angeles, CA
33 months ago: "According to members of the organization, that would prove that I am some sort of bigot. That I hate all religion, hate humanity, and only want what is "bad" for people. By their claims (implied and directed to me) I must be a criminal, drug user or paid by "big pharma"."

Actually, what really proves that you have trouble being unbiased is the fact that you state invented allegations against yourself (that have never been said by anyone) and accuse Scientologists of making them. Obviously you feel compelled to use lies for the purpose of attacking the Church of Scientology.
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: Wow- where did that come from? I don't even know where to start.
Let's start with a simple transitive exercise, and see if that clears things up.
i. These allegations have been made by scientologists against critics of scientology.
ii. I am being critical (in the pure sense of the word), and have raised some of the same points as those critics in i.
ergo, there are members of the organization that would make that same claim.
Would you feel better if I said "some members"? I can do that, if you would agree that those allegations do not apply to me- that would mean that at least one scientologist does not feel that way, and lend creedence to your point. Do you believe those things of me?
Now, Pat, of course, has called me at least a criminal, and I believe accused me of being on the pharma payroll, but I lose track :)
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: Of course, posts here (such as by glorybox and Jack) cover several of those points by themselves :)
33 months ago: Wait, Louanne? The Louanne who went by "Shutterbug" (and "COFS" before that) on Wikipedia? Oh my gawd, you're, like, a legend among those who know about you! You're the one whose edits from Scientology-owned IP addresses finally got the whole organization banned from Wikipedia articles about Scientology! Wow... I just wanted to say "thanks!"

-Hey(a)Noni(mous)Noni
33 months ago: Bias is very easy when reasonable people look at what the cult does. And my bias is towards those who oppose the cult, about 100 to zero.
There is a massive weight of evidence against the cult in respect of the way they treat their members, ex-members, families of members and critics. The cult has exactly no (i.e. zero) redeeming features.
When the cult disappears, the world will be a better place and their members will at last be free. And as a member of Anonymous, I will do whatever it takes to make that happen sooner rather than later.
Louanne
Louanne
Los Angeles, CA
33 months ago: "Wow- where did that come from? I don't even know where to start."

Maybe by re-reading your own writings?

"i. These allegations have been made by scientologists against critics of scientology."

Those allegations have been made by some nut cakes that are not Scientologists for the purpose of claiming that Scientology members would state something like that. I guess you talked to yourself there.

"ii. I am being critical (in the pure sense of the word), and have raised some of the same points as those critics in i."

You have every right to. So what? So you think throwing around "critical" generalities makes you special in some way? I am still waiting for some specific arguments. Anything else is a waste of time.

- L
33 months ago: @Louanne - your colleagues, Terryeo and Remington never answer direct questions. Why should Mark answer your questions? Go back to the postings that Mark has mentioned and read them up yourself.
Your sick cult works on harrasment and inuendo, always attacking, as directed by your "leader" elron. You are a very well behaved disciple, obeying his every whim.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
33 months ago: Well, Louanne, let's start at the beginning. Are you aware that L.Ron Hubbard, in his very first self-help book, Dianetics, makes many claims for special abilities through his therapies? He emphasizes that he has tested his therapies on 270 people and that his results are as consistent as the results of chemistry or physics.

Yet, the results he claims do not appear, not even once, in the almost 60 years since the book was written. Scientology does not mention this in the book, in preface, in afterword, or in footnotes. Yet they charge thousands of dollars for Dianetic therapy.

This alone would be reason enough to actively oppose Scientology. But it is just the beginning.
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: Except that I do answer questions, even the insulting ones.
(theory- this isn't the same Louanne I used to know. Too aggressive- to harsh).
Would you call Pat, from your other forum, a nut cake, Louanne?
Who said I thought I was special? I don't remember saying that. If you want specific arguments, feel free to weigh on what I've posted elsewhere. I said what I wanted to say here, and you're a very welcome (although certainly angry) guest.
I fail to see how I can be blamed for wasting your time... if you're the one doing the posting :)
33 months ago: "Obviously you feel compelled to use lies for the purpose of attacking the Church of Scientology." - Louanne

Pot calling kettle black:
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM." — L. Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952"
"The student should be coached on a gradient until he/she can lie facily." — L. Ron Hubbard, "TR-L"
"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them."
" Affidavit of William Franks (3 April 1985)
16. While I was Executive Director of the Church of Scientology, we continually attempted to shield L. Ron Hubbard from any legal liability as a result of Church of Scientology activities. To do this, we continually lied in sworn affidavits and depositions about our contacts with L. Ron Hubbard, his control of the Church of Scientology, and our knowledge of his whereabouts. These perjurious statements were intentionally and willfully made, with the knowledge of Hubbard himself. In fact, he ordered many of the statements to be made."


The above exerpts are from: http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/lying1.html
33 months ago: But $cilons are not allowed to see these websites, are they?
So it is not possible to confirm that these are actual documents.
But, as long as Wogs can see them, I'm OK with that.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
33 months ago: No lies are needed to attack Scientology.
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: "Actually, what really proves that you have trouble being unbiased"

In the same sense that I am biased towards street gangs, drugs in schools and nigerian email fraud. (don't think I'm comparing the subjects, but the concept)

I see a problem that exists, and can't pretend that it doesn't. I'm not biased, I'm aware. There's a difference.

Besides, if you look up the definition of the word "bias", it's defined as "a line or cut across a fabric that is not at right angles to a side of the fabric". Clearly, that's not me.
33 months ago: Provocateur - all of us answer direct questions, your allegation is groundless. However, I do understand that you don't understand that when you say; "Why should I clear up the words I misunderstand", that you don't understand the answer. And etc with other questions, critics often don't understand the answers. When they do understand some piece of the answer, they immediately go into a rave about an additional criticism, thus assuring themselves they were not responded to.

Frederick - you asked if Louanne was aware of something. You did not ask anything about the something. But you likely don't realize what you communicated in words, it not being the intent of your communication to inform yourself of Louanne's awareness of Hubbard's early conclusions.

Provocateur - your quote regarding what Hubbard said about lies refuses the context he said it within. While that is a valid datum, about the lies, he is making a point that eludes you.
Provocateur - TR-L (if it exists) is not taught to the public. In years of of study I have not encountered it. However, I can assure you that would be way to cause a person to become comfortable in telling lies. It is only good sense applied into a specific area. The appropriate gradient will result in a facile student.
Provocateur - As for William Franks (3 April 1985) affidavit, I am always suspicious of anyone who fails at anything, only to "attest" as to that anything's validity. This is like a baseball player who does will in high school, is hired by the big leagues, fails miserably and then "attests" about the unfair treatment he was subject to.

33 months ago: No Mark, you really are biased. Anonymous has essentially declared war against the Church, has made clear its intention to "destroy the Church in its present form".

Your biased evaluation of that attitude is stated above: "Not to destroy, not to overturn or harm (although there are perhaps individuals within that would like to do so, the collective opinion is a peaceful one), but to allow for change and reform, or at the very least transparency."

Whereas the active elements of Anonymous would strongly prefer you understand the situation differently.

Bottom line? Scientology is about helping. Some people fail to understand this idea. Others do well with this idea and find the Church helpful to themselves, and to others. You're bais prevents you from understanding the bottom line, the foundation on which Scientology rests. If you don't want to study or associate with Scientology or Scientologists, fine, good. Have a nice day.
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: That may be all well and good, Terryeo- but why would you assume I'm a member of "anonymous"? Am I on some membership list somewhere? Have I claimed to be a member, or as you assuming?

But, then again, you claim that I run counter to 'my own' aims. Doesn't make much sense.

Again, I do wish to allow reform and transparency. I was very clear that I don't want destruction or harm. I, too want reform and transparency- both good things. Why are you opposed to transparency from a religious-based organization?

33 months ago: Mark, I did not state or assume you are a member of anonymous. Why do you assume that I assume that you are a member of anonymous? Then, rather than be polite about the unresolved, as yet undetermined matter, instead, you accuse me of assuming.

But then again, I point out the bias in your view.

But then again, no one is answerable to you. You accuse me of opposing "reform" when that question appears to be beyond your ken. You accuse me of opposing "transparency" when we are both aware that anyone can walk into any Church, anywhere who will be cheerfully greeted and welcomed (excepting a handful of persons who have proved they are incapable of getting along in the Church).

Briefly, you are reading criticism into my statements, refusing to be responsible for the bias you clearly express, while, at the same time, accusing freely on issues as yet unexpressed. oh hum, sounds terrible, have you considered a profession as a media writer?
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: Either that was your point, or you forgot a segue :)

You said: "No Mark, you really are biased. Anonymous has essentially declared war against the Church, has made clear its intention to "destroy the Church in its present form"."

What else could that mean?

Please note: cheerful greetings are not the same as transparency. I'd answer to it, but please point out where I accused you of opposing reform?
33 months ago: @Terryeo - "However, I do understand that you don't understand that when you say; "Why should I clear up the words I misunderstand", that you don't understand the answer." Citation please. In what thread did I say that?
And if you answer questions directly, may I ask you a few direct questions and get pertinent answers?
33 months ago: INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE - TR L

Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1 [glossary]. To train the student to outflow [glossary] false data effectively.

Position: Same as TR-1

Commands: Part 1 "Tell me a lie". Command given by coach. Part 2 interview type 2 WC by coach.

Training Stress: In Part 1 coach gives command, student originates a falsehood. Coach flunks for out [glossary] TR 1 or TR 0. In Part 2 coach asks questions of the student on his background or a subject. Student gives untrue data of a plausible sort that that student backs up with further explanatory data upon the coach further questions. The coach flunks for out TR 0 and TR 1, and for student fumbling on question answers. The student should be coached on a gradient until he/she can lie facily [sic].

Source: http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/trl.htm
33 months ago:

THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them. … He's got to tell you lies in order to continue control, because the second you start telling anybody close to the truth, you start releasing him and he gets tougher and tougher to control. So, you can't control somebody without telling them a bunch of lies.

-L. Ron Hubbard, Technique 88 [offsite], "On Control and Lying"

Source: http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/lying.htm
33 months ago:

Handling truth is a touchy business also. You don't have to tell everything you know — that would jam the comm line too. Tell an acceptable truth. … So PR becomes the technique of communicating an acceptable truth — and which will attain the desirable result.

-L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 13 August 1970 Issue II PR Series 2, in the Volunteer Minister's Handbook

Source: http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/lying.htm

And thus endeth the lesson. I think that this shows that lying is a "religious" rite in $cientology.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
33 months ago: Terryeo said this--"Frederick - you asked if Louanne was aware of something. You did not ask anything about the something. But you likely don't realize what you communicated in words, it not being the intent of your communication to inform yourself of Louanne's awareness of Hubbard's early conclusions."

I didn't go into the details Terryeo because there are so many and I wanted to keep my communications short. I know what I wrote and I think anyone who read it would understand it. I wondered if she is aware of the claims in Dianetics which have never been corrected. I am telling her reason enough of why I protest Scientology and I imply that there are other reasons. That is the topic. She did not answer my question. You didn't give an answer that was beyond an attack at my coherence.

Perhaps one of you would like to answer these questions to the best of your ability. Which of Hubbards claims in Dianetics are false? Why are they false if he experimented on 270 people, claimed his work to be a science, claimed it to be without exception, claimed it to be over 15 years and claimed the results to be as accurate as experimental results in chemistry and physics? Why has the cult never footnoted, prefaced, or anotated editions, noting mistakes? Why was the only official denial AT ALL done at the behest of the American government, with a sticker that said "For Religious Purposes Only". (I hope I have the sticker content correct-- I have never seen it and I believe it is no longer used).

I don't know if you are official spokespeople or private individuals but please don't tell me you can't speak for Scientology. Show me how free you are and give me an opinion. Avoiding the question or the double-curved reply will further convince me that you are brainwashed shills.

33 months ago: I think it was very brave of Mark to identify more about himself and why he protests Scientology. I think its very brave of him to (possibly) be using his real name on here. I agree wholeheartedly with his assessment of the reasoning behind Anonymous and why we do what we do.


We have not come for what you HOPED to do, we have come for what you DID.
We seek justice from the law in the names of those victims who can no longer speak for themselves. Remember, you pulled it in.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
33 months ago: Louanne - your reputation precedes you. Glad they let you out again, if indeed it is you; perhaps you've been rebuilt, bigger, stronger, faster...

Anyhow, let's see how you're doing.

"i. These allegations have been made by scientologists against critics of scientology."

Those allegations have been made by some nut cakes that are not Scientologists for the purpose of claiming that Scientology members would state something like that. I guess you talked to yourself there."

"These allegations" being that critics of the organisation are:

Hate mongers, criminals, bigots, don't want people to be helped, anti-social, anti-humanitarian, drug users, paid by "psychs"

All these allegations come from Hubbard quotes taken from his lectures, policy letters and books, all of which form the beliefs of members of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology.

This explains why all of these allegations have been directed at critics, not just Anonymous, by spokes people for the organisation calling itself the church of scientology - such as Tommy Davis - since the organisation was first noticed for being the malign infection of society it is, sometime in the mid to late 1950's.

I have personally been told that I am under the control of the "psychs" by on other wise nice old man who sincerely believed I would club him & drug him up if I could get away with it. This "nut cake" was wearing a "Dianetics" T Shirt at the time and accompanied with 3 others also wearing the same. I was holding a sign saying "The guys with the Stress Test cart are Scientologists trying to recruit you" (very effective I might say).

A security guard employed by the local org reported to us that the people inside were just waiting for us to commit "criminal acts" so they could call the police, much to his and our bemusement. All 7 "nut cakes" inside were staff members, plus 2 kids.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
33 months ago: So Louanne, while I can accept that you as a newbie here and Terryeo as an old hand may not have directed such accusations against Mark or myself let's not kid ourselves about how you as members of your organisation are told to see critics.

It's a stated fact that the organisation to which you subscribe views "Anonymous" as a group of bigoted cyber terrorists, criminals that are anti-free speech and pro-hate.

It isn't just Anonymous though, you also have a web site dedicated to exposing the truth about your earlier critics and what evil and nasty people they are. Incidentally did all these previous critics so openly declare war on the organisation calling itself the church of scientology as the Anonymous video did?

Fact is you cannot be a member of Anonymous, but for the record I'm as close as it gets. I understand why you view me and others like me as you do but understand this, like Mark I don't care about the beliefs of scientology. I am only concerned about what the organisation calling itself the church of scientology does. While I had nothing to do with the manufacture of the original message from Anonymous to Scientology video I do believe the organisation has "to be dismantled in its present form".
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
33 months ago: "ii. I am being critical (in the pure sense of the word), and have raised some of the same points as those critics in i."

You have every right to. So what? So you think throwing around "critical" generalities makes you special in some way? I am still waiting for some specific arguments. Anything else is a waste of time.

Louanne, a lot of the criticisms are general criticisms because they deal with the general beliefs the organisation calling itself the church of scientology instils into its members.

These general beliefs are not to be confused with the philosophies regarding auditing, past lives, Xenu, children being adult thetans in small bodies etc.

They are the general beliefs the organisation indoctrinates members with that affect how they interact (or not) with society. They are beliefs such as:

1. There is a global conspiracy against Scientology (we are at war) orchestrated by the psychiatric industry. Creates an isolationist and aggressive "them and us" mind set.

2. Scientology is right everything else is wrong, we are the only ones who can - save the planet, save humanity from the downward spiral etc. Creates a sectarian elitist group think that facilitates immoral acts being perpetrated against outsiders. (for the greater good).

3. Critics are criminal, evil, sub human - enables aggressive and immoral behaviour to be enacted by members against critics by branding them as not human - not to be empathised with.

4. We are on a special mission to save humanity, we are its only hope. Reinforces separatism and elitism. Everything can be justified to facilitate the goal of the organisation because it is the most important goal there is, salvation for all, (who deserve it).

I could go on but I fear I am at my limit.
Frederick
Frederick
Canada
33 months ago: Speaking only for myself:

Hate monger-- not generally.
Criminal-- NO
Bigot-- I like to think not.
Don't want to be helped-- The lawn is a mess, other than that I don't want to be helped
Anti-social-- perhaps a wee bit, certainly more than most
Anti-humanitarian-- Definitely not
Drug Users-- No, not even alcohol or tobacco which seem rampant among the cult
Paid by "psychs"-- If I could find one to pay me I'd take it.

There.

What am I? A concerned citizen. I have attended gay rights demonstrations, abortion demonstrations, and now Scientology demonstrations. I would be proud to be a member of Anonymous if they will have me. I would like to see the church taken down in its present form, too. I don't think Anonymous will do it. In fact from what I have seen most have given up. But you never know what the future will bring. My prediction is that if anything is to happen in the near future it will be an implosion within an angry executive and resurrection from the ashes. But most likely the cult will use freedom of religion and the legal system to press on, at least in the USA. And that is why I have to keep doing this-- people have to be aware of what Scientology really is. If they "found out for themselves" they would be getting a horribly distorted view.
33 months ago: Damn. Dean and Frederick, I wish to hump each of you on the leg. Just one leg, and only for a brief time, but still...well said, gentlemen.

Who would protest scientology? Students, housewives, Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, artists, architects, scientists, doctors, priests, rabbis...the list goes on and on of people I've met who have spoken critically of the Church of Scientology.

2.5% of the world's population? Small potatoes. Most of the United States, Australia, France, Britain, and Germany regard the Church of Scientology as little more than a delusional crazy UFO cult. Each and every one of them is by the Church of Scientology's definition a suppressive person. 2.5%? By the time Anonymous has finished its campaign of information, Scientology will be lucky if that is the percent of people they can get to speak favorably of them.

Remember, YOU pulled it in.
33 months ago: Just to clarify Anonymous. We come from all walks of life - Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Gay, Straight, Pro-life, Pro-choice, Republican, Democrat, etc. But I think that the driving force behind our criticismof $cientology is that we believe that everyone should have an inalienable right to freedom of choice and that we protest against anyone who tries to remove that right.
33 months ago: @Terryeo - have I scared you off?
Another thread for Anonymous! Anonymous 1 - $cilons 0
33 months ago: Mark, on Louanne's site, you use the phrase "wordcleared subjective". That sounds very $cilonese to me. Are you really who you say you are?

"You’re crossing into dangerous waters, Lake. I’m assuming that you’ve wordcleared “subjective” "

Source: http://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/a-new-round-of-questions-go-ahead/#comment-4336
33 months ago: http://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/a-new-round-of-questions-go-ahead/#comment-4249

Sorry, wrong comment......
THE RONBOT HUNTER
THE RONBOT HUNTER
33 months ago: Louanne and Terryeo and the other little Ronbots like them are not ever going to change--why try?

Their mental state prohibits them from accepting that they are wrong. To survive as good little Ronbots they must in their minds be right or they will go down tone.

They are so cute in their brain-washed state that I pity them. But just a little for they are also very dangerous sub-human beings that seek to do harm to any living soul that opposes their GOD.

Remember that they would gladly get rid of you and me if they could. Their mind control conditioning for murder and harm to any SP will be approved by the Cult. They will get many brownie points for having destroyed SPs like me and you or any relative of a Ronbot that opposes their GOD.

I would welcome a lawsuit or any form of Ronbot fair game attack from any Ronbot anywhere!

Please do it and see what happens when you attack a Sovereign that knows how to claim the cult's and the Esquire's bonds.

THE ONE AND ONLY RONBOT HUNTER
All Rights Reserved.


33 months ago: However, from reading about those who eventually got the courage to get out, how many are inside still trying to convince themselves to take the chance?
The battered wife stays with her abusive husband because she doesn't know how she will survive out of the home and marriage. I am sure that there are many $cilons who would like to blow, but are concerned about life amongst the "wogs", i.e. the enemy. Especially those who were born into the cult and have no idea what life is like outside.
As Anonymous we should have some form of support system to assist these people in adapting to life outside.
Or not?
33 months ago: I've never encountered TR-L and I can't find anyone who has encountered TR-L. It sounds like a valid process. It sounds like a person could, by gradient practice, become more able to tell a lie in a natural manner.

But I also understand the implication. That being that anyone who walks into a Church of Scientology and begins a to study, soon encounters and becomes proficient at TR-L. (Again, I've never heard of it, I have never talked to any Scientologist who has heard of it). Clearly, in my experience, if it exists at all, it is not widely taught and therefore, used even less.

However, I do understand, this idea that Ron Hubbard put into print, this idea of gradiently practicing an action, practicing with a coach who watches closely and coaches you through many small improvements, could be applied to telling lies.

Gradiently practicing, and becoming more adept at other things would be possible, too. Just being there, being there and listening, being there and communicating. Communicating as if you were in grief, talking as if you were angry, speaking as if you were bored, Cheerfully Communicating! Any of these and more could be done. Now, your task is to find out which of these are done in the Church, then make up a chart displaying what actions are most used by common people and which actions are least used. Bubble gum, bye bye.
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: Terryeo,
If you do a search for "TR-L scientology" in Google alone, you get 26,400 (granted, some are MTV), including from scientologymyths.info, nolanchart and several other well-known sites.
Actually, I'm a little bit surprised to hear you say that you've "never heard of it", since you posted on a nolanchart thread (http://www.nolanchart.com/article4781.html) at 2008-09-29 15:03:22, several days after someone posted a link and discussed TR-L (2008-09-10 21:03:18). So saying that you've never heard of it is suspect, when you're in a thread that discusses it.
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
33 months ago: Oh, same thing here: http://www.rantrave.com/Rave/Scientology-Have-You-Seen-the-New-Ads.aspx

and here
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4815.html

and here
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=70061

How can you say you've never heard of it, when you've been so involved in such discussions?
29 months ago: Tomles, http://www.rantrave.com/Rave/Scientology-Have-You-Seen-the-New-Ads.aspx does not have me commenting about TR-L.

Your http://www.nolanchart.com/article4815.html Doesn't have me discussing TR-L, either. You and I talk there about suppressive persons and Scienotlogy's definition of Ethics.

At http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=70061 I respond about Applied Scholastics, its secularity, its methods whereby a student learns more effectively. Raymond Hill (runs a critic's website) mentions TR-L.

In none of those twisted links, nor others, do I claim knowledge about TR-L, or claim that a TR-L exists. But a number of critics mention it, including Raymond Hill at your last link.

You are wrong. Fail. Plain wrong, foolishly wrong, unsupportably wrong. You Fail.
Mark Tomles
Mark Tomles
FPO, AE
29 months ago: Wow, this is certainly a blast from the past! Nice to see that you're following up, even if it only takes a couple of months for you to form a counter-argument.

Sadly, you didn't read my post very well.

I never did claim that you discussed, mentioned, or claimed knowledge of TR-L, now did I? Only that you posted in threads that discussed it. The point was that you would surely have knowledge of it, if you read any of the thread you were engaged in. Or do you frequently comment on threads that you have not read?

Sorry, I appear to have failed at failing, haven't I? Think about it for another couple of months, then post a reply.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
29 months ago: Mark has a fair point Terryeo, you must have heard of TR-L if only by posting in those threads that mention it. And Mark really did not claim that you discussed, mentioned of claimed any knowledge of it.

Re-read and word clear what Mark said if you don't believe me, or if you'd like to try to convince me Mark said what you claim.

This could be a semantic trap, although I suspect it was simply you misunderstanding.

Either way you failed by failing to understand or by failing to recognize it as a trap.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
29 months ago: Terryeo, by posting in the very places you posted you would have known that the organisation calling itself the church of scientology is on record as having a Training Routine: Lying.

You would know that TR-L features in several organisations' documents submitted in evidence and on record in several court cases as well as in affidavits.

At least you would know this if you read what you were posting about properly.

You may well say you've never heard of it (so it cannot exist) but that carries little weight because we have established there are quite a lot of things you don't know about your own organisation like all those secret Flag Order communications etc.
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
29 months ago: Terryeo. Ask about GO1314, 9 September 1974 which is the check list for the "Confidential Intelligence Course" circulated to the "Info Bureau only".

If you actually get to see the document, you won't but let's pretend you do, go to Part E,Drills and go down to number 9. Do TR-L - then you can ask what is TR-L?

If you are given a truthful answer, you won't but let's pretend you will, you will be told this starts with the command "Tell me a lie" and is aimed at training the student to "...give out false data with good TR-1. To Train to outflow false data effectively."
DeanFox
DeanFox
England
29 months ago: While you're at it you might as well ask to see GO 070571 - 7th May 1971 and find out about the SMERSH connection.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.