Debut post.
|
|
|
|
Being a newcomer to this group I am finding it very difficult sorting out
the topics and/or tactics employed in this newsgroup. I am a relative new
user of this incarnation of the web/net, however I familiar with Usenet
from the early 80s and I doubt whether anyone would have tolerated the
level of nonsense postings that seem to infest this group. However this
is straying from the point.
I am interested in any discussions people wish to have about Scientology,
as long as it doesn't descend into a variation of "the truth is out
there, but only I (or Ron, or the tech) has it".
I am very familiar with CoS but my memories are from an earlier era. To
cite my quals: Clear 1979, ED Mission of London, Dissem Sec. CoS
Kitchener. For those Scientologists who care: Blown staff member 06/80,
who knows when the comm ev was held.
I have visited some of the more interesting web sites that are critical,
and find them interesting. What I would really like is some sort of
access to documents/sites that chronicles the changes since I was last
involved. Even during the early 80s there were wars (I remember big
flare ups at FLAG re power between FB, CMO, and MO staff). It was clear
that when old Ron bit the dust that there would be a major power struggle.
Any one who can point me in the direction of this information would be
appreciated.
This leads to what I am really interested in. I think that groups like
Scientology (and I would include religions as much as other cults) have a
common structure that allows them to not only appeal to people but also
to appear that they are "working." This is the great tenet of
Scientology and its apologists: "IT WORKS". However what they ALWAYS
fail to tell you is that SCIENTOLOGY DEFINES HOW YOU WILL KNOW WHETHER IT
IS WORKING. Not only does it tell you exactly what to look for, it also
tells you the meanings of those terms should you become confused by such
terms as "happy", "sad", "better", "ability", "being".
I could go on and on but I am sure that many of you, especially those who
have toiled within its depths, have some idea what I am talking about. I
would be interested in any responses to this.
For those defenders of the faith I am interested in having conversations
as long as they are civil and actually comprise communication that is
more than an acknowledgement without response.
To those of you valiantly struggling to uphold the integrity and
independence of communication on the net, I salute and support you. I
know very well how CoS deals with those who besmirch its name. That is
the problem with those who seek to change the world. They sacrifice the
present for an imagined future.
Shannon Daniel Kealey
--