Re: Young's story = old story
[09 Feb 1998]

There is no testing in Scientology. It is Law... There are no sideroads to travel. No excursions. No wondering. No questioning.

Main Index A.R.S. Web Summary Ex-Scientologists Speak

From: writer@eskimo.com (Robert Vaughn Young)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Young's story = old story
Date: 9 Feb 1998 18:46:21 GMT
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Lines: 116
Message-ID: <6bnitt$5lp$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>
References: <6bn97d$n1r$1@news3.microserve.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: spln alt.religion.scientology:260033

Stan Hill (stanhill@dxnet.com) wrote a reply that is highly defensive and
a tad inflammatory but more rational than usually appears here from that
quarter so it deserves a reply. It will make no difference to him but I
want others to read what he can't:

: What Young says is easy to allege. How does he know the dog didn't run
: out the front gate and get hit by a car along the way?

We live a good distance off the road, accessed by a long dirt road that
the dog does not travel. (Hang on!) He stays at the house, which is on
ample land. He was let out at about 8 a.m., which is his routine. About a
half hour later, he could not be found. He was found about 10 a.m. four
miles north, on the main highway, traveling south (towards home), bleeding
heavily from the mouth. That also happens to be the route to the ferry to
get off the island, which is about two more miles north from where he was
found. (And conveniently, the next ferry was to have been at 10:05. Work
it out, Stanley. ) If he had been found heading north, one might say he
had run north, even though he had never left the property before. But
given the distance and his direction, no, sorry. The timing and direction
matches with him being taken and dumped by someone who then jumped on the
ferry a few minutes later.

As to being hit by a car, there were no other abrasions below the head.
Granted a dog can be hit only in the head but even the vet, who
treated him, couldn't say it. Most of the injury was to the mouth, as if
someone had jammed something there. A major tooth was broken. The lip was
torn from the gum and seriously ripped.

: Who would "beat up" a dog?

Get real, Stan. You can't be that thick, can you?

: Armstrong used this trick too. "Someone tried to kill me. They drove me
: off the road - I don't have any proof but I know it must be you."

Hardly. Read on.

: Graham Berry said that it was attempted murder when the engine on his
: commercial flight failed and they had to land unexpectedly.

No, Graham Berry never said that. Wrong attorney. Get your facts right
before you try to refute or accuse.

: It is convenient to blame everything on Scientology while making your
: living creating horror stories and selling yourself for this purpose.

No, no, Stanley. I don't blame everything on Scientology and you will not
find one quote from me that comes close to it.

So why, Stanly, do OTHERS think Scientology did it? (And let me be quite
clear here. Harassment of SPs is done by RTC/Dept 20 personnel or those
hired by RTC/Dept 20 personnel, per LRH policy, not by "Scientology.") The
reason will be found in the campaign waged against the animals that my
wife and I rescue. The role of your PI David Lee in this campaign is now
well documented. After all, he left his card in enough places and was seen
in enough places. Plus the history of attacks on us for the past few
years, admitted to by your own DSA Seattle to the Seattle Times. And since
the island was being leafletted a couple of days before, attacking us with
lies (now refuted by a large story in the local island paper), would you
be shocked to learn that people might think it is Scientology? Would such
people who saw Stacy on "60 Minutes" and then see a harassment campaign
have any reason to link the two events?

Stanley (actually, to everyone else), I don't need to tell people that I
believe that Scientology-paid agents are behind this. They tell me.

: You know, your wild claims only encourage this sort of thing. If they're
: going to get blamed whether they did it or not, maybe you will cause
: people to do the things you are accusing them of. Now you can claim this
: is a threat too - it isn't. Is is just a request for some intelligence
: to be displayed.

Fair enough. I would make the same request but I've been in your shoes
more than you will ever know. I know that even if you read this, you can't
accept it. The technology doesn't allow you to accept it because it is a
criticism and criticism is forbidden. It's there in the ethics codes. In
fact, you'll really find it in the HCOB "You Can Be Right" where LRH says
that being made wrong actually creates unconsciousness. Isn't that
interesting that he would think that? But then, you can't really discuss
that, can you?

The rest of this is for others as he can't participate in this.

That is one of the saddest parts of what one endures in there. You can't
express your opinions of LRH writings, unless it is favorable, of course.
You can't challenge, joust, test an idea. You can't sit around in an
evening and take on an idea, turn it around and see how it works. This is
the very essence of a free society: the ability to express an idea and to
challenge it and to test it. There is no testing in Scientology. It is
Law. The material is to be "read and duplicated." If you have a question
about it, it is because you have a misunderstood word. Look it up. Now
apply it. But don't discuss. Don't sit around and wonder if you might have
an original idea that Hubbard did not. You can't. To say you can is to
make you an SP. No, the "path" has been mapped and you are to travel it.
There are no sideroads. He even tells you this, doesn't he? There are no
sideroads to travel. No excursions. No wondering. No questioning.

Is that what Grade Zero (Communication) is with the final ability of "Able
to communicate to anyone on any subject"?

Ah, yes. I remember now. "Yes, I can. I just choose not to." Right. That
was the reply the Party members said in the old Soviet Union. "I can speak
out against my Party, if I want. I just choose not to."

Been there. Done that. Threw away the t-shirt.

To Stan: It is very difficult to come to realize that one is actually
giving up freedom in there. But when you can have that realization, it is
incredibly liberating. It is a bit embarassing, but liberating.

I wish you that freedom.

-- 
*----------------------------------------------*
Robert Vaughn Young * The most potent weapon of the oppressor is *
writer@eskimo.com * the mind of the oppressed. - Steve Biko *
*----------------------------------------------*