Writings of Paul Adams:
Freezone Posts 0700-0750








Yahoo Groups Posted Messages










Message 700 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:06 am Subject: LRH and L. RON HUBBARD Trademarks I've been having fun lately playing around with Tess. Tess is the US Patent and Trademark Office's online search engine: Trademark Electronic Search System. I can't post a simple URL, but it's easy enough to find. I am not a lawyer, as they say, so don't rely on what I am about to say and do your own research, but if anyone more lawyerly says it's wrong please let me know. However, get a load of this.... If you go to our friends' main page at scientology.org and click on the trademark information link at the bottom, you'll get a page saying that the following are trademarks and service marks owned by RTC, and then an impressively long list of marks in different languages. You'll notice that it's not even complete, as it doesn't contain NOTS and many others. But two it does contain are, and I quote, "L. RON HUBBARD" and "LRH". Knowing our friends' litigious proclivities (i.e. they tend to sue your ass), one could be forgiven for avoiding even the mere mention of LRH or L. Ron Hubbard. As in, "we follow the tech of Lafayette Ronald H" and so on. After all, everyone knows the terms are trademarked, right? But Tess, bless her little cotton socks, reveals all. Yes, there is a live L. RON HUBBARD trademark. The serial number is 74258393. The class of goods and services it applies to is, "G & S: educational services; namely, planning and conducting courses in the fields of religion, education and philosophy. FIRST USE: 1985. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 1985." But note that the mark is only the stylized form of L. RON HUBBARD, the familiar signature. What about the mark L. RON HUBBARD in normal use, i.e. presented in standard character format without claim to any particular font style, size or color? The answer is... What mark? There *are* no live L. RON HUBBARD marks in that form. There are no dead ones either: there are two dead L. RON HUBBARD marks, #73486529 and #73486409, that were abandoned in 1986, but they were stylized versions too. How about the mark LRH? Everyone knows that only the CofS is allowed to deliver (trademarked) LRH-brand tech, right? And yes, they do indeed have two live LRH marks, #73522772 and #78359131. The first one is the stylized monogram as seen on Clear bracelets; the second is a design with the letters LRH atop a microphone and applies to tapes, CDs and CD players etc. What about the mark LRH in normal use, i.e. presented in standard character format without claim to any particular font style, size or color? The answer is... Right. You got it. There ain't one. Many have claimed the CofS doesn't deliver LRH tech any more. Well, trademark-wise, it seems no-one ever claimed to. This cannot be an oversight. I assume it is not something that can be trademarked. Wouldn't it be nice to see all those "Lafayette Ronald H"s searched-and-replaced with friendly "L. Ron Hubbard"s? I don't see any good reason to continue to deny that we use LRH tech. But later. Tess beckons.... Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 701 From: Paul Adams Date: Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:20 am Subject: SCIENTOLOGIST trademark Oh this is such fun. Even though I am still not a lawyer and you still act on these remarks at your own risk. I just checked in Tess, the Trademark Electronic Search System for the US Patent and Trademark Office. I was looking for that well-known trademark SCIENTOLOGIST. It's not there. From the TESS Help menu, introduction: "The TESS database contains only those trademarks that are Federally registered or that are pending (applications undergoing examination at the USPTO)." In case you thought trademarks had to be registered, this is from the USPTO Trademark FAQ: "Do I have to register my trademark? "No, but federal registration has several advantages, including notice to the public of the registrant's claim of ownership of the mark, a legal presumption of ownership nationwide, and the exclusive right to use the mark on or in connection with the goods or services set forth in the registration. "What are the benefits of a federal trademark registration? "Federal trademark registration has several benefits: ... "Constructive notice nationwide of the trademark owner's claim. "Evidence of ownership of the trademark." ******** Hmmm. That's strange. It's hard to believe the CofS would willingly lose those benefits by failing to register SCIENTOLOGIST. They seem to have registered everything else they could. Besides, wasn't there that brouhaha over the fact that they had done so? Let's check and see what's on the scientology.org trademark page... I've copied and pasted the whole page below, numbered the paragraphs, and deleted the irrelevant bits. QUOTE: TRADEMARK INFORMATION 1. The following are trademarks and services marks owned by Religious Technology Center... 2. CELEBRITY CENTRE...symbol. 3. SCIENTOLOGIST is a collective membership mark designating members of the affiliated churches and missions of Scientology. 4. The Lead the Way...are trademarks owned by.... 5. APPLIED SCHOLASTICS...are trademarks...owned by.... 6. THE WAY TO HAPPINESS...are trademarks owned by... 7. WISE...are trademarks...owned by.... 8. CCHR...are trademarks...owned by.... (Copyright symbol)1996-2003 Church of Scientology International. All Rights Reserved. UNQUOTE My comments: Paragraph 1 says RTC owns what's listed in Paragraph 2. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 list various trademarks and which non-RTC CofS corporation owns them. Paragraph 3 is about the mark SCIENTOLOGIST. Note that no statement is made as to who owns it. Note that it is not included in Paragraph 2, the list of marks that RTC owns. To summarize, this trademark notice *appears* to state that RTC owns the trademark SCIENTOLOGIST, restricting it to include only CofS members, but in fact it doesn't say that at all. The truth would seem to be exactly as TESS shows, namely that SCIENTOLOGIST is not a federally registered trademark, or even one where the application is pending. In short, ladies and gentlemen, another con job. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 702 From: Paul Adams Date: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:10 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]SUPER POWER trademark Super Power is worth millions of dollars a year to the CofS on an ongoing basis, even without their actually selling or delivering any. Here is an excerpt from a 2003 post to alt.religion.scientology--archived at http://tinyurl.com/gqoj/ --about the Cornerstone Club, which vacuums up donations associated with the SP building: "In Jan 2002, there were a total of 950 members on this list. In April 2002, there were a total of 968 members on this list. In Sept 2002, there were a total of 1019 members on this list In March 2003, there were a total of 1063 members on this list. "The Income total in Jan 2002 was $ 67,100,000.00 The Income total in April 2002 was $ 69,475,000.00 The Income total in September 2002 was $72,070,000.00 The Income total in March of 2003 is $81,345,000.00 " It would not be unreasonable to assume that the total amount of donations collected is over $100 million now. And how much is the building actually costing? Per an article in the St. Petersburg Times quoted in a.r.s.: "The exterior of the massive Flag Building, with an estimated cost of $50 million, is nearly complete, [CofS spokesman Ben] Shaw said. The interior is expected to be finished in early 2004." Whatever the actual figures are, Super Power is obviously a huge cash cow for the CofS. So what is the status of the SUPER POWER trademark? Cell phone off...sit back...pass the popcorn...lights out...curtains roll back... They abandoned it in 1993! Check it out yourself. Look it up in TESS. The serial number is 74003409. You would also need to see if they registered it differently. I checked all the items that come up when you put "SUPER POWER" into the search box, as well as all 174 items registered by Religious Technology Center. If it was registered as "SUCKER BAIT" by the Citizens Commission on Con Mens' Rights I wouldn't have caught it, but I think the search I did was adequate. Interesting, huh? And how does this affect the FZ? From a FAQ of the International Trademark Association at http://www.inta.org/info/faqsU.html "CAN A TRADEMARK FALL INTO THE 'PUBLIC DOMAIN'? "Yes, it is possible for a trademark to fall into the 'public domain' and become available for use by anyone. There are a few ways this may happen. When the trademark owner: *Permanently ceases using the mark, *Intentionally abandons it, or *Loses the exclusive right to the mark through misuse of the mark. "Even registered marks may be abandoned or cancelled, giving others the right to adopt and use the mark without infringing the rights of the former owner. In addition, a trademark may become the name for a category ('species') of goods or services, thereby ceasing to function as a mark and becoming, instead, the 'generic' term for the product or service." So there you go. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 703 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:20 am Subject: Trademarks L 10, L 11, L 12 Heads are going to roll on this one! From the US Patent and Trademark Office trademark FAQ: "For a trademark registration to remain valid, an Affidavit of Use (Section 8 Affidavit) must be filed: (1) between the fifth and sixth year following registration, and (2) within the year before the end of every ten-year period after the date of registration." RTC's registration for the trademark "L 10", TESS serial number 73462364, was cancelled under Section 8 on August 27, 2005. Yes, you read it correctly. The famous L 10, that makes millions of dollars for Flag, just had its trademark registration CANCELLED. To see that current status, check the TARR Status tab right at the top of the record. RTC's registration for the trademark "L 11", TESS serial number 73462428, was also cancelled under Section 8 on September 11, 2005. And to make the hat trick, RTC's registration for the trademark "L 12", TESS serial number 73462365, was cancelled under Section 8 on August 27, 2005. In other words, no-one in RTC sat down and spent hours and hours compiling a big chart of all their trademarks--like I'm doing now and they will be doing very shortly--and noting years ahead of time when they had to submit these bits of paper. Tsk, tsk. Time to reap the whirlwind... So what does it mean that the esteemed Religious Technology Center, Guarantor of Scientology's Future and Holder of (most of) the Dianetics and Scientology Trademarks, er, lost a few? I'm not sure. Wikipedia's article on trademarks says: "In the U.S., failure to use a trademark for this period of time, aside from the corresponding impact on product quality, will result in abandonment of the mark, whereby any party may use the mark. An abandoned mark is not irrevocably in the public domain, but may instead be re-registered by any party which has re-established exclusive and active use, including the original mark owner." Now, that quote is about abandoned marks, not cancelled ones. Note that it mentions "exclusive" use. If the CofS is the only place around that delivers ministerial services with the name "L 10", "L 11", and "L 12", then they shouldn't have any trouble re-registering it. However, if others have documentary evidence showing that they have also been delivering ministerial services with those names, it gets a little trickier. I am not a lawyer, as I keep saying. But if someone ordained as a minister in the Universal Life Church, say, (which you can do in the next five minutes over the Internet and it will hold up in court, I believe) accepts some money from someone in exchange for their own "L 11" service, which could be praying for the person's soul for exactly eleven minutes, or whatever, and wouldn't have to involve anything approximating the Flag service, that would seem to make it harder for the Holder of the Remaining Trademarks to claim exclusive use of the term. I don't know what exactly is involved in re-registering the mark. It would be interesting to observe some sheepish RTC exec explaining to the Trademark Office how they just sort of overlooked a bit of paperwork for a service that sells at about $1,000 an hour and makes millions. I'm not interested in delivering the L rundowns personally and being able to promote the name legally. But some other FZer might be, and such a person ought to be very, very interested in rapidly checking out the exact ramifications of RTC's HUGE fuck-up here. Just like with Super Power. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 704 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Oct 16, 2005 11:22 pm Subject: Re: SUPER POWER trademark --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , "Paul Adams" wrote: > > I don't get it either. I'm guessing that someone screwed up, but I > don't know. Now that I've looked through many more of these, I have more data. They filed the Super Power one near the end of 1989. In order to be granted the registration, they had to file an affidavit of use, i.e. show that they were giving services under this name. Since the nearest thing to a Super Power service being provided was--I assume-- the Clear Wallet Rundown, that didn't cut it and they finally ran out of time mid-1993 and the USPTO pronounced the trademark abandoned. I thought it was just sloppiness that they never refiled, but if they still aren't able to file an affidavit of use, then they have a problem if any FZer who's been delivering it wants to have a tussle over it and succeeds in registering it. Paul






Message 705 From: Paul Adams Date: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:37 am Subject: CofS trademarks I have just about finished my compilation of CofS English-language trademark data and all that's left now is to tidy it up a bit and collect all the designs. The next cycle is to analyze it all. For now, here is a rough and ready look at what the CofS says they own and which ones actually exist as live US registered marks in PT. I have only checked the US federal database. If they are saying they own a trademark or service mark, and omitting the data that they only registered it in Lithuania, I am treating it the same as if it is unregistered. For example, WISE's Hubbard College of Administration, which has branches all over the planet, including other US states, says on their web site: "The TIGER Symbol is a trademark and service mark owned by Hubbard College of Administration." There is nothing in the USPTO database as being owned by the Hubbard College of Administration, and that TIGER symbol is not there as being owned by WISE either. So I'll just consider it a false report for now. I checked over this list below, which I lifted from their official site at: www.scientology.org/p_jpg/tmnotice.htm Legend: (OK) means it is a valid trademark, without quibbling about any omitted data. For example, SOLO NOTS is a live trademark, but only with regard to the single US class 038 (books) and not services (the services ones were cancelled in 2005). Beats me why they registered that one--I don't see too many Solo NOTs books coming out of the CofS. (???) means huh??? I don't even know what this one looks like and if anyone does please let me know (seriously). It also isn't one which is registered to anyone obvious, like RTC, CST, ABLE, WISE, or anyone based on L. Ron Hubbard Way or in the HGB, or FSO. (no US mark) means it's not in the US database registered to one of the regular corporations, or even anyone at all. It may be registered in Kurdistan. I'm being polite with "no US mark". Since this is a list of CofS marks maybe I should label these few "FofS". ADVANCE!, (OK) APPLIED PHILOSOPHY, (no US mark) ARC STRAIGHTWIRE, (OK) AUDITED NOTS, (OK) BOOK 1, (no US mark) BOOK ONE, (no US mark) CAUSE, (OK) CELEBRITY CENTRE, (OK) CELEBRITY, (OK) CLEARSOUND, (OK) DIANETICS, (OK) E-METER, (OK) EXPANDED DIANETICS, (no US mark) FALSE PURPOSE RUNDOWN, (OK) FEBC, (OK) FLAG OT EXECUTIVE RUNDOWN, (OK) FLAG, (OK) FREEDOM, (OK) FREEWINDS, (OK) GOLDEN ERA PRODUCTIONS, (OK) HAPPINESS RUNDOWN, (OK) HCO, (no US mark) HQS, (no US mark) HRD, (no US mark) HUBBARD LIFE ORIENTATION, (OK) HUBBARD, (OK) INCOMM, (OK) KEY TO LIFE, (OK) L. RON HUBBARD SIGNATURE, (OK) L10, L11, L12, (all died in 2005) LIFE IMPROVEMENT, (no US mark) LIFE ORIENTATION, (OK) LIFE REPAIR, (no US mark) LRH DEVICE, (OK) MARK SUPER VII configuration, (OK) MARK SUPER VII QUANTUM, (no US mark) MARK SUPER VII, (OK) MARK V configuration, (OK) MARK V, (OK) MARK VI, (died 1995) METHOD ONE, (died 2005) NED, (OK) NEW ERA DIANETICS, (OK) NEW LIFE RUNDOWN, (OK) NEW VITALITY RUNDOWN, (died 2005) NOTS, (OK) OCA, (no US mark) OEC, (OK) OT, (OK) OXFORD CAPACITY ANALYSIS, (no US mark) PURIFICATION RUNDOWN, (OK) PURIFICATION, (OK) RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER, (OK) SAINT HILL, (no US mark) SCIENTOLOGY, (OK) SCIENTOMETRIC, (OK) SHSBC, (OK) SOLO NOTS, (OK) SOURCE, (OK) STANDARD ADMIN, (no US mark) STANDARD TECH, (no US mark) STUDENT HAT, (OK) SUNSHINE RUNDOWN, (OK) SUPER POWER, (died 1993) THE AUDITOR, (OK) THE BRIDGE, (OK) THE FLAG LAND BASE, (OK) TRUTH REVEALED, (no US mark) CELEBRITY CENTRE INTERNATIONAL logo, (???) CLASS IV AUDITOR Logo, (OK) CLASS V AUDITOR Badge, (OK) CLASS V GRADUATE Badge, (OK) CLASS V ORGANIZATION Logo, (???) CLASS VIII AUDITOR Badge, (OK) CLASS VIII Symbol, (no US mark) CLEARSOUND logo, (OK) CSI symbol, (OK) DIANETICS Symbol in a Circle, (OK) DIANETICS symbol, (OK) DIVISION 6 Symbol, (OK) FAST FLOW STUDENT Symbol, (OK) FLAG CREW symbol, (???) FLAG SHIP SERVICE ORG Symbol, (OK) FREEWINDS Logo, (OK) FSO Symbol, (OK) GOLDEN AGE OF TECH symbol, (???) HCO Badge, (no US mark) I HELP Logo, (no US mark) KEY TO LIFE Symbol, (OK) LIFE ORIENTATION Symbol, (OK) LRH signet, (OK) MARK SUPER VII QUANTUM symbol, (no US mark) MARK SUPER VII Symbol, (OK) MARK V E-METER symbol, (OK) New FSO logo, (no US mark) NEW OT VII completion pin, (OK} NEW WORLD CORPS Logo, (OK) OT AMBASSADOR symbol, (???) OT SYMBOL IN WREATH, (OK) OT Symbol, (OK) POWER PIN Symbol, (no US mark) PRO TRS Symbol, (OK) RELEASE PIN Symbol, (no US mark) RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER Corporate symbol, (OK) SCIENTOLOGY cross (rounded), (??? isn't this the same as the one below?) SCIENTOLOGY Cross, (OK) SCIENTOLOGY MISSIONS INTERNATIONAL Symbol, (OK) SCIENTOLOGY ON LINE logo, (???) SCIENTOLOGY Symbol, (OK) SEA ORG Symbol, (OK) SHSBC Symbol, (OK) SOLO AUDITOR Symbol, (OK) STANDARD ADMIN badge, (died 2004) STANDARD ETHICS symbol, (no US mark) STANDARD TECH symbol, (OK) SUPER POWER symbol, (???) THE LION symbol. (???) Scientologist is a collective membership mark designating members of the affiliated churches and missions of Scientology. (FofS--commented on before) The following are trademarks and service marks owned by the Association for Better Living and Education, Los Angeles, California, USA: APPLIED SCHOLASTICS (no US mark, logo only) NARCONON,(OK) ABLE, (OK) APPLIED SCHOLASTICS Logo, (OK) CRIMINON, (OK) NARCONON Logo (OK) ABLE ASSOCIATION Logo. (OK) THE WAY TO HAPPINESS (OK) THE WAY TO HAPPINESS logo (OK) are trademarks and service marks which belong to L. Ron Hubbard Library. The following are trademarks and service marks owned by World Institute of Scientology Enterprises International Los Angeles, California, USA: WISE, (OK) WISE logo (no US mark) Lion and Cubs symbol (OK) The following are trademarks and service marks owned by Citizens Commission on Human Rights Los Angeles, California, USA: CCHR, (OK) Citizens Commission on Human Rights (OK) CCHR Logo. (OK) Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 706 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:20 am Subject: Trademarks Chart The Chart of Trademarks is done at last. It is at http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/trademarks.htm It is a large, complete chart showing every single US trademark ever registered by the CofS since the beginning of time. It shows the name of the mark, which class(es) of goods or services are covered, the relevant dates, who owns it, the relevant numbers, and whether it is live or dead. For every single mark with a design, a copy of the design on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office is but a click away. I checked the links and they all work. Do you know what the logo for the Foundation for Religious Tolerance is? (It's item #69). Note this is for US marks only. It doesn't cover ones registered at a state level, or overseas. If someone says a CofS mark is registered with the US but it isn't on this chart, I would be VERY surprised if it turns out to be true. Enjoy! Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 707 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Oct 19, 2005 4:59 am Subject: Re: CofS trademarks --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > Interesting. I do have some questions: > > Do trademarks need to be registered to prove ownership? From the USPTO's trademarks FAQ: "Is registration of my mark required? "No. You can establish rights in a mark based on legitimate use of the mark. However, owning a federal trademark registration on the Principal Register provides several advantages, e.g., *constructive notice to the public of the registrant's claim of ownership of the mark; *a legal presumption of the registrant's ownership of the mark and the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration; *the ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court; the use of the U.S registration as a basis to obtain registration in foreign countries; and *the ability to file the U.S. registration with the U.S. Customs Service to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods." END QUOTE It doesn't say, but one would tend to think that failure to register would indicate the opposite of those points. > Registration > and use are not synonymous, and isn't use the proof of ownership? Unchallenged widespread use of the mark would certainly support a claim of ownership. But there is a difference between the past and the present. With regard to the mark "L 10", few FZers would have dared to openly use that mark while the CofS owned it. Now that no- one owns it, there is nothing to stop anyone using it, as far as I know. Obviously the CofS is going to continue to use it, but I don't see that they can enforce their unique use of it if it is not registered to them. > As the marks of the Ls are a bit ambiguous anyway, wouldn't > copyright be a more enforceable legal avenue for the CoS? > And RTC (or CST - let's just say the CoS) does own the > copyrights to those levels. The enforceability issue depends. But I'm making a song and dance about *trademarks* at the moment. Copyrights is next month! The CofS (say) owns the copyrights to the original wording of the HCOBs and tapes about the Ls, not the theory. > Also, is there a difference between mark abandonment and trademark > registration expiry? As long as the CoS continues to advertise and > sell the Ls, etc., the trademarks are not abandoned, are they? > Thus anyone found using them would be in violation not only of > copyright law but also of trademark law as they would then be > confusing a trademark and selling the same product. > Or so it would seem. > > Just wondering. For our purposes, I don't know if there is any effective difference between abandonment and expiry. In neither case does one own the trademark any more, if it was even registered in the first place (SUPER POWER was never registered by the CofS). Let's just look at "L 10" for now. As I understand it (usual IANAL disclaimer), since the CofS no longer owns the federally registered mark "L 10", from point 2 in the trademark FAQ above, they no longer have the *exclusive* right to use that mark. Which means you can legally promote and deliver an "L 10" spiritual body massage to someone, not to be confused with any Scn service with the same name. It doesn't have to be remotely similar to what the CofS delivers by that name. If it fits in the category of ministerial services (it doesn't have to be a Scn minister or bear any relationship whatsoever to auditing) and goes by the name of "L 10", it's OK. > Oh, and I've been informed that the following Trademarks > from RTC have expired: > > INTROSPECTION RUNDOWN > STANDARD ADMIN S > VITAL INFORMATION RUNDOWN > PERSONAL ACHIEVEMENT SERIES > CLEAR HORIZONS > TRUTH RUNDOWN > LIFE ORIENTATION > LIVINGNESS REPAIR RUNDOWN > SUPER POWER > CAUSE REHABILITATION RUNDOWN > CASE CRACKER RUNDOWN > KNOWLEDGE RUNDOWN > PROFESSION RUNDOWN > HAPPINESS RUNDOWN > NEW VITALITY RUNDOWN > SOLO NOTS > L 12 > L 10 > NED > METHOD ONE > NOTS > AUDITED NOTS > L 11 > SOLO NOTS > METHOD ONE > MARK VI Some but not all. Check my chart at http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/trademarks.htm for the full picture. Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 708 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Oct 20, 2005 7:16 pm Subject: Grade III Success Story My pc attested to Exp. Grade 3 today. You are welcome to use the success story if you wish, bb. "Grade III Success Story by [A.S.] "Seemingly short grade with quite a lot achieved/gained! "The most important gain I would mention is the ability to spot myself "moving" in and out of my case. Which resulted in my realisation that it is very pleasant to be able to spot it more and more often that I am going "down" the reactive path and then shortly after steer myself back out. It helps to stay away already from things not yet handled. Gives me more control during sessions as well as I can look at past events more analytical manner instead of being "keyed" into them. As a result of this "freedom" I have spotted several ideas about alcohol addiction and other human problems. "I have realized the background mechanics behind it which is true at least for me. "That is I have in the past as a being failed to solve a problem. The problem of not being able to enhance my mood at will. Thus I sometimes used alcohol to do this for me. By doing so I have degraded my command over my problems. "Now I realize that the goal is not to quit drinking but instead be able to pull out of problems and thereby enhance my mood at will. Just by wanting a better frame of mind. When this is achieved, then and only then will alcohol not be the best solution for a particular problem. "I have a general freedom from my bank and the grade of this freedom is growing every day now even without auditing. "Thank to my auditor and LRH." Paul http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 709 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:40 am Subject: http://www.scienowiki.org I have started--but don't own--a wiki about Scientology. It is part of Wikicities, a project started by the guy who launched Wikipedia. It uses the same software, so if you know how to edit a page in Wikipedia you know how to edit a page in Scienowiki. Or to look at it another way, if you learn how to edit pages in Scienowiki you will then be able to edit pages in Wikipedia too and any other wiki using the same software. A wiki is an online project that *anyone* can edit. You don't even have to register and can edit anonymously if you wish. My initial reaction on hearing about this concept was, "They've got to be kidding!", thinking that the pages would rapidly get vandalized. Looking at Wikipedia, though, the concept works. Yes, some destructive actions do occur, but there are more constructive people interested in wikis than destructive people, so the vandalism tends to get rapidly cleaned up. It's rather like you go out on the street and see that someone has spray-painted some graffiti on the garage door so you just reach up and hit the reset button and it's back to the way it was before the spray artist arrived. You can't do that with a garage door, but you can do it with a wiki, so the concept tends to work out OK. As it says in the introduction, the Wikicity Scientology, also called Scienowiki, is about the subject, its founder, its official--and unofficial--organizations, the policies and people and what's really been going on there over the years. This community is open and unaffiliated with the Church of Scientology. I don't know if you have read the article in Wikipedia on Scientology. I don't like it much. It is written by non-Scientologists and tries to be neutral but it is bordering on critical and not very user-friendly to a Scientologist. I started Scienowiki as I wanted it to be written by Scientologists and to be the real deal, the whole truth, without PR. That means the pages, the articles, have to be written by the people who were and are there, those who created and are creating the scene. You! Wikipedia has a firm policy of only including data that is verifiable, i.e. it is common knowledge, or it has been published in some kind of credible form. If something is true, but has not been published or is similarly verifiable, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Scienowiki has a different policy. The data in it must be true, but it doesn't matter if it has not yet been published anywhere "credible". What will make an article credible is the many Scientologists who will contribute to it until anyone with personal knowledge can read it and go, "Yeah, that's the way it is". There is no similar resource available anywhere. Some individuals have written memoirs of various kinds, and most seem to have the ring of truth about them, but they are still individual anecdotes. Scienowiki is not a collection of individual anecdotes, but more a view of "This is the way it is", whatever some PR machine may say about it. Scienowiki is a work in progress. There is a basic framework, but it is not a done deal. Ever tried writing an encyclopedia by yourself? If you, personally, have ever wanted to set the record straight about what goes on, or what went on in Kipflosh Foundation org in 1983 when that mission arrived, now is your opportunity. I found Wikipedia rather large and well-established and forbidding to edit. On the contrary, Scienowiki is just a cuddly baby, and needs some nurturing to become as well-established and have as many articles as Wikipedia, but only ones about any aspect of Scientology. Will you help? Paul -- Visit Scienowiki at http://www.scienowiki.org or http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 710 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:35 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Creating the term Freezone --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > Good analysis and comments, XXXX. I'd only suggest a revision to one > point (below) as follows: > > "Freezone: A collective term for individuals and groups who practice > scientology and the various subsets and takeoffs of the subject apart > from the Church of Scientology (tm)." (wording could be revised) Sounds about right. I wrote an article a few weeks back about the different types of subsets and takeoffs here: http://scientology.wikicities.com/wiki/Help:In_or_out I'm not going to reformat it into a post. The article breaks down the different mental/spiritual technologies into seven categories. Of these, I would estimate that only one would seem to provide materials acceptable as Scn to all FZers; two would seem to provide materials unacceptable as Scn to all FZers; and the other four types would be iffy, acceptable to some and not others. In my opinion. In other words, there is a lot of variation among FZers. Paul -- Help edit Scienowiki at http://www.scienowiki.org or http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 711 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2005 2:37 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Wondering if there are any aussie CSes... --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > I am a clear [ccrd]. I am moderately tech trained [CL 0 / M1], own a > MK VI meter and my own lrh library [most lrh older vols & books, not > many tapes yet]. I do have other certs. I've spent a few years in Div > 4 & 5 hats in a CL V org back in the 80s and have been sort of off > lines the last 14 years. Hi XXXX, Welcome to our merry throng. It would be great if you edited an article about your old org at Scienowiki. I've been adding pretty info boxes to all the entries for delivery resources in there, both CofS and Freezone, and I will probably get around to the aussie orgs last as I'm doing it by time zones--say in two or three days. Just tell it like it is, or was, third person, with no PR or HE&R. The URL for your old org is at http://scientology.wikicities.com/wiki/Pasadena except substitute "Perth" or "Adelaide" or whatever the usual org name is for "Pasadena". Paul -- Add to Scienowiki at http://www.scienowiki.org or http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 712 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Oct 30, 2005 6:27 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] World Prices, FZ and CofS --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , "Paul Adams" wrote: > > I've been adding pretty info boxes to all the entries for > delivery resources in there, both CofS and Freezone, and I will > probably get around to the aussie orgs last as I'm doing it by time > zones--say in two or three days. Sorry, doing it by time zones is silly. I will probably do it by country. One very useful bit of information needed is a rough idea of what the orgs are charging for services in each country. The CofS does not have this data online that I can find, and nor does anyone else that I can find, apart from a few odd posts about US prices on a.r.s. I don't get org mags from all over the world. There is a Scienowiki article about prices, both Freezone and CofS, at http://scientology.wikicities.com/wiki/Price Basically it is a world comparison chart for just two items, the price of a 12 1/2 hour intensive and the price for Level 0. The different CofS membership discounts and so on are taken into account. I would appreciate the information from anyone reading this message in any non-US country on how much the local org charges for 12 1/2 hours and for the Level 0 course (not bookstore materials) at the IAS lifetime membership price, in local currency (not US dollars). This would be given in the insert included with the org mag, for instance. You can either edit it into Scienowiki yourself, or e-mail it to me at fzglobalguy at Yahoo.com, or even post it here if you think it merits it. I will update that article with world prices as soon as I get the data. Please don't assume that someone else will send in the data-- if it's not in the article then it hasn't been sent in yet! This article is not just for my personal pleasure. Like any Scienowiki article, it will available to anyone in the world with an Internet connection for as long as civilization lasts on this planet. I think it will be very useful to see at a glance world prices for auditing and training, both FZ and CofS. Don't you? Thanks very much. Paul -- Add to Scienowiki at http://www.scienowiki.org or http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 713 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Mon Oct 31, 2005 12:03 am Subject:[FreezoneOrg] Re: http://www.scienowiki.org --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > Ok, I did...but finding Elma in the first place wasn't easy!!! > > XXXX Thanks, XXXX. Finding one's way around gets easier after a bit, just like anything else. All the articles in the main space are at locations like: http://scientology.wikicities.com/wiki/Basic_basic and the heading of the article is the last part of the address. Choose the most obvious word and that is where an article should be. Apart from the first letter of the final term, it is case sensitive, so an article situated at .../wiki/Terril_Park will not appear if one enters ".../wiki/Terril_park" in the browser's address bar. There is an alphabetical list of all the pages, all the articles, with links to them, at: http://scientology.wikicities.com/wiki/Special:Allpages Plus there is a search engine in the left-hand column which will respond to any word in the text of the article you are searching for. Paul -- Add to Scienowiki at http://www.scienowiki.org or http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 714 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:35 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Who Owns the Trademarks? Who own the Scientology trademarks? According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office database, supposedly the definitive source for US federal trademark information since 1955, CST [Church of Spiritual Technology] was the original registrant on only seven. These are their own logo (2), the Mission Earth "Earth in fist" design (2), two Way to Happiness ones, and the Writers of the Future medallion design. They have had five trademarks assigned to them that had been originally registered by another, namely more of the above, the LRH Gallery design, and Illustrators of the Future. Yawn. So what about the juicy stuff? Well, surprise, surprise, the facts are murky. There is a famous agreement from May 1982 in which LRH supposedly gives all the then-extant trademarks and the rights to future registration of the rest to RTC. The ownership is encumbered, however, in that CST can go ahead and grab them all at any time in its sole discretion. This agreement was supposedly signed by LRH and notarized by David Miscavige. Whether or not LRH really did sign it is irrelevant if no-one has any proof to the contrary. There is a declaration supposedly from LRH filed by Sherman Lenske in a May 1983 court case saying, "I have transferred my religious trademarks to the Religious Technology Center, but I retain full ownership of any commercial applications of the marks as well as full ownership of all my copyrights and patent rights, none of which have been transferred." Along with the other goodies from his estate, all these would have ended up being transferred to CST and/or L. Ron Hubbard Library. At the time of the May 1982 agreement, the only marks which had been registered were the first eight on my trademarks chart at http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/trademarks.htm/ Does the declaration above refer only to those marks registered at the time, or the right to register future marks? Does CST or RTC own the trademarks now? And which ones? It actually doesn't really matter. Per the USPTO, which is realistically the correct source for the information, RTC is the current owner of most of them, and certainly the more important ones like DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY. But the ownership is not absolute. At any time, in its sole discretion, CST can step in and grab them all. It's like giving your ten year old kid a shiny new baseball bat to play with. It is "his", but if he starts beating up the neighbor's kid with it he isn't going to own it for long. The exact wording is reflected in the new trademark notice on my fzglobal site, most of which was taken verbatim from that agreement, namely: "DISCLAIMER: This site is not connected to or endorsed by the Church of Scientology. Dianetics®, Scientology® and others are trademarks and service marks owned by Religious Technology Center. This ownership is however subject to an option granted by LRH to Church of Spiritual Technology, a California corporation (hereinafter "CST"), to purchase all of the rights assigned to RTC under and pursuant to a May 1982 agreement for the sum of one hundred dollars ($100.00). This option shall be exercisable by CST at any time if CST decides, in its sole discretion and judgment, that RTC has failed to preserve and maintain the ethical use of the marks in accordance with the Scientology scriptures [i.e. LRH tech and LRH policy], or that RTC's ownership of the marks in any way places the marks in danger of appropriation by any entity that is outside or hostile to the religion of Scientology, or that RTC has permitted and is permitting use of the marks in any way that is contrary to the Scientology scriptures and seriously damages the religion of Scientology or the image or repute of LRH." Paul -- http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal Add to Scienowiki at http://scientology/wikicities.com






Message 715 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2005 4:23 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Who Owns the Trademarks? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > Lots of useful info. Thanks. But the purported owner is not the > RTC. It is the CST. The CST loans the RTC the rights of ownership > and the RTC rents the use of materials to Int. Then the RTC flows > the money back to the CST The CST can pull the use of the materials > by RTC if they believe the RTC is not dilligently pursuing the proper > courses of action for expansion. Of course, they are unlikely to do > this as long as any money flow comes through. > > I think you are also trying to show that relationship later in your > post, but I didn't catch it at first. > > So we most likely have a forged signature in 1986, an assignment of > copyrights that LRH didn't own in 1982 (he had assigned them to the > HASI before that, did he not?) But could we prove this? Don't know. > > XXXX Whoa! I'm trying to cut through the murk and simplify the issue, not make it more cloudy. It doesn't matter who infers what. You can assert that the real owner of the trademarks is on Marcab if you want to, but it doesn't change what's in the USPTO database and what will stand up in a court of law. What documents support your opinion that CST owns the trademarks (not copyrights), XXXX? Have you looked in the USPTO database? If you haven't, are you implying that the USPTO records are irrelevant? Go to TESS, select the "New User Form Search (Basic)", and you will get a simple three-box search form: "Search Term", "Field", and "Result Must Contain". Enter "church of spiritual technology" (it's case insensitive and I'm lazy) in the first box; select "Owner Name and Address" in the second box; leave the default "All Search Terms (AND)" in the third. Hit "Submit Query". You will get 11 results, and you can click on them individually to see what they are. Poke around in the USPTO assignments database, searchable at http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments Go to that page and click on "Trademark Assignment". You will get a complex-looking page with twelve search boxes that says at the bottom in red text, "The database contains all recorded Trademark Assignment information from 1955 to November 1, 2005." You only need to fill in one box. Put the term "church of spiritual technology" in one of the boxes and see what you get. The quickest two to search that will provide the needed data are "Assignor/Assignee Name" and "Registrant Name". I understand that in an issue shown as HCO PL 15 November 1958, "The Substance and First Duty of HCO", LRH said he had assigned the rights to HCO (not HASI) and so maybe they weren't technically his to sign away. However, it's a big maybe. He said in that issue that all future marks would be owned by HCO, but by 1970 "HCO" as he had meant it in 1958 didn't exist. What does that mean? The LRH-sanctioned unit that handled legal stuff in 1970 was the GO! But I want to stay out of a speculative, "Oh, don't distract me with facts"-type discussion here. What does the evidence show? The first US registration of SCIENTOLOGY, registration number 0898018, was in 1970 and the registrant shows as LRH, not "HCO" or "HASI" or "Mr. Moonbeams". For all intents and purposes, as far as I can tell, in present time RTC owns almost all the trademarks, but that ownership can be taken away by CST at any time. This would have the same effect as CST owning them all and letting RTC use them for the time being, perhaps even for the next century, but that is not what the records show. Paul -- Add facts to Scienowiki at http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 716 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Nov 1, 2005 7:28 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Psyhoenergetics --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > For those interested in online testing of ESP or Psychokinesis > there is: > > http://www.mdani.demon.co.uk/para/pktest1.htm > > I did a little better on the PK test than the ESP test. Using TRs, > I believe, could improve scoring. At first (maybe second) glance, this online PK test from Michael Daniels PhD, Senior Lecturer in Applied Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, looks like a con. You choose to influence dropping balls to go either to the left or to the right and the results are analyzed. Which sounds maybe OK, except the left is colored repelling red and the right is colored soothing green. My thought was that the punter would tend to choose the right and the pre-programmed results would skew to the right, thereby "proving" a PK ability to the unwary. The ESP test and the other PK test do not have similar obvious flaws. Note that I wasn't trying to influence anything with my "PK powers". I don't doubt that others have demonstrated these and that I potentially could, but I haven't yet. I wasn't even following the program's progress but had it running in another window while I was reading something else. Someone could say I was still influencing it subconsciously, but such people probably also believe they influence the weather on Mars by their daily thoughts. My first result (10 balls, default speed) was "not significant" (ns); the second (50 balls) "good"/"fair"; the third (100 balls) "ns"/"ns". I didn't note whether the bias was toward the left or the right. I then got wise and started writing down the exact results. The next four, all at 50 balls and default speed, were "not significant" but four out of four were skewed to the right (I'll write this as 0 left and 4 right or 0-4), the soothing green. I then changed the speed to 100 for four tries and got 3-1; did another seven tries at 50 balls and default speed (3-4); cleared the browser cache and cookies for another eight and got 2-6. My cynical guess on this "PK test1" is that: 1. Anyone entering this site from a new IP address will score well the first few attempts ("well" meaning the results will favor choosing the right side of the screen, the green-colored area); 2. After the first few attempts, the results will appear to be random; 3. The only way to check up on it is to have access to a computer with a different IP address! So, my friends all around the planet with IP addresses different to mine, feel free to check it out. I am wagering that provided that computer hasn't been used to do this test yet, the first few tries will produce far better than expected hits on the right (green), then it will settle down to giving a random result. Any takers? Paul -- Add facts to Scienowiki at http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 717 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Nov 2, 2005 12:36 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Questions to Mat Lauer. --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > From my mail box. Mat Lauer is the presenter who > debated with Tom Cruise re psyche drugs or something. > Apparently we can send in questions. > > bb > > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9843197/ > > Here is a link. When they do the segment on > Scientology on the Today Show, Mat will present Qs. > DM may be on the show to answer. Great! Here's the "question" I sent in: "Why does the Church of Scientology insist on continuing its policy of enforced "disconnection", known in other religions as religious shunning? It is terrible PR for the CofS and breaks up loving families. This isn't when families choose of their own voltion to break up; it's when they are ordered to do so by the Church against their wishes. "The stock answer you might get is that people have a right to choose who to communicate to and yada yada yada, but it is a falsehood. What is really happening is the person has often been "declared a suppressive person" (i.e. excommunicated) for expressing disagreement with absurd or abusive Church International Management orders/policies, and the CofS is attempting to squash dissent and to prevent parishioners from seeing the truth about their Church on the Internet. "Obviously this isn't a question that I need an answer to. I would just like to see the CofS PR guy squirm as he lies through his teeth in attempting to answer it. He might say it doesn't ever happen--it would be good to have a file of a hundred cases on hand, including recent ones, to show that it does. "Then the CofS rep will have to say that they are all lying, so make sure you have dozens of them, preferably on video, weepy women and children who haven't been able to see daddy for ten years and so on." Paul -- Add facts to Scienowiki at http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 718 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Nov 2, 2005 4:38 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Googlefight This is funny. Go to http://www.googlefight.com/ and enter two search terms and see which gets more hits on Google. I tried Wikipedia versus Scienowiki and the result was: Wikipedia 155,000,000 Scienowiki 6 But I bet Scienowiki doubles its number of hits before Wikipedia does! Paul -- Feed Scienowiki at http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 719 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 3, 2005 6:17 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Upper Level Names There are problems in the FZ with the names of the levels above Clear, especially if one is delivering them. I wrote an article with the best solution that I could see. It is at: http://scientology.wikicities.com/wiki/Names It contains a chart, so I can't cut and paste it into this message. Now, trying to standardize something in the FZ is harder than trying to get people to answer an online poll, so I'm not going to jump up and down over it like I do with some things, but I think it is a good, permanent fix. Paul -- Feed Scienowiki--it's hungry! http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 720 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Nov 3, 2005 4:06 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Upper Level Names --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > What about naming the levels by won ability or awareness ? I`m referring to > the grade chart. You are welcome to call them whatever you wish, just as you can legally call yourself whatever you wish, within reason. But remember that when Prince, Mr. Purple Rain, changed his name for years to something unpronounceable, the press referred to him as "the artist formerly known as 'Prince'". His fans and entourage probably just called him "Prince" all along, although maybe not to his face. People have to agree on names. The best names to use for upper levels are those already commonly in use. When it is illegal to use those, the next-best names are those as near as possible to the commonly-used ones, using components also commonly in use in the same area. Even so, most people will continue to disregard the law unless compelled to change, and will continue to use the names they always have. Paul -- Feed Scienowiki facts for others' benefit at http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 721 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Nov 4, 2005 4:11 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Upper Level Names --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > > > > " The level delivered by Ron's Org after OT III" > > > > > > This is incorrect. Excalibur is "OT8" and is delivered any time > > after LRH OT3 thru OT7. NOTs levels are not part of the RO bridge. > > > > Whoops. Thanks for pointing out the error, XXXX. RO have no name > > problems like this so didn't need to be in the article at all. > > This is correct. Thanks, Paul. Man, you're good at this. You win, XXXX. :) Paul






Message 722 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Nov 5, 2005 9:07 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Who Owns the Trademarks? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > HASI was above all HCO's. It was a separate organization. My original statement was: "I understand that in an issue shown as HCO PL 15 November 1958, 'The Substance and First Duty of HCO', LRH said he had assigned the rights to HCO (not HASI) and so maybe they weren't technically his to sign away." HCO PL 25 November 1958, HCO Board of Review Function and Practice (New OEC Vol 7, p. 1171), states: "The HCO is the holder of all copyrights, trademarks, registered marks and the rights of all materials of Dianetics and Scientology". Half a page further on, "...an Academy or a HASI or another organization enfranchised by the HCO...has no right to examine. It can only train to the level specified by HCO. It is then up to HCO, through its HCO Board of Review, to examine and see if the standard is met." HASI was not above all HCO's. However, although I'm not going to spend five hours researching the full history of it, it does seem that the term "HASI" predated the term "HCO", and all the organizational changes over the years are enough to confuse anyone. Interestingly, those early HCO issues included mention of an encyclopedia about Dianetics and Scientology. The CofS has never produced one, apart from the issues and tape transcripts, but it just so happens that.... Paul -- Feed Scienowiki facts at http://www.scientology.wikicities.com






Message 723 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Nov 5, 2005 8:17 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Something afoot in East Grinstead! --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > Today I attended a mini FZ conference in EG. > ... > Also found out that Clive is a qualified C/S!!!! That's great, bb! If you had looked at Clive's Scienowiki page, serendipitously done three days ago, you could have seen that he was a C/S there. :) It's at http://scientology.wikicities.com/wiki/Clive_Nicol Paul -- Feed Scienowiki helpful facts at http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 724 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Nov 9, 2005 11:09 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] RTC loses another trademark! Religious Technology Center, Holder of the Remaining Trademarks, Guarantor of the Church of Scientology's future, has neglected to renew another trademark and it was cancelled four days ago by the US Patent and Trademark Office. It was registration number 1317343, #194 on my chart at http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/trademarks.htm/ It was one of the four Sea Org symbols registered that were covering the classes for, roughly: membership; auditing; books and magazines; training. The one that just died was the one for auditing. The training one breathed its last two days ago, but the USPTO usually delays before pronouncing death officially. The other two have due dates in 2009 and 2025. Tsk, tsk, RTC. You really should take notice of all the hard work I do for you. I wonder if this continued failure to take care of the trademarks (like L 10, L 11, L 12 a couple of months ago) means that RTC will get taken out per that option agreement? As in: This [trademark] ownership is however subject to an option granted by LRH to Church of Spiritual Technology, a California corporation (hereinafter "CST"), to purchase all of the rights assigned to RTC under and pursuant to a May 1982 agreement for the sum of one hundred dollars ($100.00). This option shall be exercisable by CST at any time if CST decides, in its sole discretion and judgment, that RTC has failed to preserve and maintain the ethical use of the marks in accordance with the Scientology scriptures [i.e. LRH tech and LRH policy], or that RTC's ownership of the marks in any way places the marks in danger of appropriation by any entity that is outside or hostile to the religion of Scientology, or that RTC has permitted and is permitting use of the marks in any way that is contrary to the Scientology scriptures and seriously damages the religion of Scientology or the image or repute of LRH. Paul -- Feed Scienowiki facts at http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 725 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:20 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] David Singer I read on a couple of lists today that famous churchie David Singer has been declared for disagreeing with DM. I don't know when this happened, assuming it to be true. Is he still involved in the rich-medical-professional-consulting business? If so, will he now feed his rich clients to upstat Freezoners instead of the CofS? Someone might want to pounce quickly. Paul -- http://www.fzglobal.org or http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 726 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:12 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: World Prices, FZ and CofS --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > It is obvious that I am undercharging per policy. No it isn't, XXXX. That policy was written for orgs. A nationwide or worldwide network of organizations selling comparatively high-ticket items needs to have such a policy to minimize infighting between orgs and deal- making by individual reges, among other reasons. With hamburgers or other low-ticket items it doesn't matter that the local franchisee sells them for $2.99, undercutting one across town by 50 cents. Per policy, a field auditor cannot charge less than the local org. There was never a policy set for field auditors outside the context of a network of orgs. There are lots of factors involved. I'm not going to list them all out in great detail in this post, but a few are: 1. Supply and demand; 2. Auditing isn't a commodity. A very competent Class VIII with decades of experience and ongoing study and his tech kept up to snuff with continual cramming/retread/retrain as needed is not going to deliver Expanded Grades as the same product as a fresh Class IV; 3. Cartel-type considerations that would oppose the simple supply and demand ones, as well as other supply-side agreements. It is not an easy subject at all. If someone wants to make a living auditing, in an environment where they are not swamped with business at any price they care to set, the price has to be high enough to be acceptable to the auditor and low enough to be acceptable to the customer. As well as the other way around, to some extent. One auditor might be able to live on $1,500 a week GI, another $250 a week GI. One might be willing to audit 25 hours a week, another ten. One auditor might be willing and able to live off charging $20 an hour, and be as competent as a friend ten miles away who cannot live off less than $50 an hour, but he doesn't want to undercut the friend. One auditor might have a public policy of charging $60 an hour, but then one month she's got no pcs lined up and along comes an old pc of hers who says, "Look, I want 100 hours auditing at 25 hours a week starting right now. Here's $2,000 cash. How about it?" And so on. Lots of factors. I've put on Scienowiki nineteen pretty info boxes for FZ delivery terminals, mostly individuals but including five ROs in EU, and ICAUSE. Of those nineteen, four state specific prices, and the rest say "Please call" or "Please e-mail". In creating the above, I just used info that was readily available on the Internet. If I happened to know what an individual usually charged, but their web site said "Please call", I put down "Please call". If I knew the person's name to be "George Jones" but he promoted himself as "Jason B", I called him "Jason B". Personally, I would like to know the asking price up front, without having to jump through hoops trying to find it. It's not as if it is illegal to sell auditing. It is illegal to call it "NED" or "OT levels" or other trademarked names, but it is not illegal to audit per se. I understand that with an individual auditor, realistically the price is probably negotiable, especially with a repeat customer or a friend. But it is still helpful to have an upfront price of "$60 an hour through Grades and Engram Clearing; $120 an hour above Clear" or whatever, as a guide for someone skimming through what is available to get some idea. After I had added new pages to Scienowiki for all the FZ delivery people I could find promoting in English on the Net--again, I just did those who are promoting openly, not those who I know audit but who don't have a website or something online saying so--I looked for CofS field auditors. I couldn't find a single one on the Net! There are loads of CofS Missions listed on CofS servers, and there are loads of individual CofS Volunteer Ministers listed on CofS servers. But CofS field auditors? Not a single one online. Trey Lotz for instance, well-known for years in the LA area as a field auditor, with display ads in the local Scientology Needs-and-Wants etc., has a regular cookie-cutter Scientologist Online page, but no separate website promoting his services. Maybe they are following the party line of how evil the Internet is and it should be avoided at all costs! Anyone know? Anyway, I think it would be a good idea for FZ practitioners to have a personal policy of how much they would generally charge a new client for auditing/training, and then post that openly. Edit your own pretty info box on Scienowiki and post it there. If you want to qualify it, and write more details, there is an unlimited amount of space on the page to the left of the box where you can write what you want (within reason), but just keep the standardized box format as it is. A delivery person called Sally Smith would have a page at: http://scientology.wikicities.com/wiki/Sally_Smith Paul -- Feed facts to Scienowiki at http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 727 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:05 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: New View --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > In the early days, an area would have people co-auditing books. > Someone who liked to talk would come in and give a pep talk. Excellent ideas, XXXX. Do you think it would work to have a sort of *visible* activity, where some people are paired up and auditing away, and there is a front table, and lots of people walk by and see this stuff going on and ask the guy at the front table, "What's that?". They get a brief introduction, then sit down in pairs with the rest where they won't be directly disturbed by the passers-by and run something simple and strictly muzzled with an instructor there to try and keep it all on the rails. Rather like walking past a restaurant where you can see what people are eating and going, "Mmmm. I might just try that." More show-and- tell than a plain printed menu. Paul http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 728 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Nov 15, 2005 5:58 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: New OT 3 course? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > Just started promotion on a new Forum. ( Tom Cruise > Chalkboard) > Someone posted this. Anyone ever hear of this? Its got > to be new, if indeed true. > > XXXX > > "In COS they now have a "prep course" for OTIII, > though I'm not sure what it's called. It's purpose is > to fill in all of the factual and logical gaps > inherent in OTIII. The course instructor provides > "evidence" of all those volcanos that didn't exist > when Hubbard said they did, etc. " That's strange. I wondered if the poster was just poking fun, so I went to that forum and checked, but he seems sincere and a forum moderator to boot. Why I think it strange is that of the more than one hundred students I supervised on OT3 theory, I don't recall a single one querying that point while on course or while auditing (or even looking like they had a question about it). Pointing it up ahead of time merely draws attention to the outpoints. Rather like, "Hi--My name's Johann--Welcome to Johann's Pet Store-- It's not true that our tropical fish have Legionnaire's disease--How can I help you today?" It's a pity one can't just call up the AO and ask! Paul -- http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 729 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:34 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: New OT 3 course? --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > It was my experience when i did OT3 in the church, that a vast > majority routing on to the Solo Course had no tech training > what so ever. > > This lack of formal auditor training and how do i operate this > emeter resulted in less than competent solo auditors. I myself was > asked to help out in Qual from time to time because of the over load > of solo auditors in cramming. A fair percentage of these solo > auditors in cramming were on OT3. Which org and when, XXXX? What you describe just sounds like lousy supervison. When I was supervising almost all of the solo auditors had had no tech training apart from Solo Part One, but they did just fine on Solo Part Two, OT1, 2 and 3. I think I had one (1) solo auditor wind up in Cramming in 18 months. That doesn't mean that they never made any errors, but the mistakes almost always resolved very rapidly with going over what they actually did and a referral to the materials. A strict "one flub and your ass goes straight to cramming" policy might work out OK with professional auditors in the HGC but it didn't fly well with "professional pcs", and would have ended up as no-service. When I was there in a service org (1972-1986) we gave service. Paul -- Scienowiki is still hungry http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 730 From: Paul Adams Date: Sun Nov 20, 2005 12:16 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] South Park No mention of this yet? Too hot a subject or something? The "Trapped in the Closet" episode of Comedy Central's South Park that slams Tom Cruise and Scientology is available for viewing right now with Real Player at: http://www.scientomogy.info/south-park.htm I just watched it. It goes into the OT3 story, among other things. I don't think it would restimulate anyone, but it would probably freak anyone out that thinks it should be kept under wraps. I'm wondering if anyone here has had to handle the curious question from friends or associates of "Is this really what Scientologists believe?" Paul -- No OT3 in the Scienowiki article at http://scientology.wikicities.com/wiki/Space_opera






Message 731 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:16 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: mystery symbol --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > Paul, > > I'm a little slow sometimes. Is this supposed to be important? Hi XXXX, It depends on your frame of reference. The symbol is the Church of Spiritual Technology logo. The mere act of viewing it doesn't cause the average person to go mad, go exterior or even get a hard-on. I would be surprised if it has any past whole track significance at all. Carved into the ground and a couple of hundred meters in diameter, at the sites of CST's underground vaults containing imperishable-ish LRH materials, it is supposed to be a beacon for a few trusted SO members, returning at an indeterminate time in the future after civilization has been nuked one way or another. With the Internet, it is now more likely to be a beacon for those seeking the precious metals LRH's words are recorded upon: the medium and not the message. Prerequisites to either type of person claiming the prize is the ability to remember the importance of all this beyond this lifetime's body death and into whatever future lifetime after Armageddon finds one back here again. Plus the ability to do an aerial survey from just the right height to be able to still see the symbols without wasting time searching too close to the ground. It might be easier to just remember the latitude and longitude, although that would presuppose some way of measuring such. Maybe the assumption is that each of the trusted few will be OT enough to find the designs on the ground by exterior perception. If you have Google Earth, you can plug these coordinates straight into the search box, and you will be taken right to the exact center of the design in each case. Petrolia, CA: 40.3683, -124.33335 Trementina, NM: 35.5242, -104.5720 According to http://www.lermanet.com/scientologyscandals/bunkersorvaults.htm somewhere around 1990 the CofS had spent $52 million on these vaults and was intending to spend another $114 million in the next five years to complete "the current phase" of its program. Some think it is important enough to apparently spend over $160 million on and keep it extremely confidential, more confidential than OT VIII, known only to a select few ultra-high-level Scientologists and more recently [potentially] anyone who has access to Google. Others don't give a rat's ass. Paul -- Feed Scienowiki for free at http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 732 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:09 am Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Clarity Meter and Mark VII I compared a regular Mark VII with a regular Clarity meter. For now I'm just going to give a summary of part of what I did and the most relevant results. I held a pair of cans connected to one meter in my left hand, and the other pair of cans connected to the other meter in my right. I adjusted the TAs and the sensitivities so that the needle motions were as similar to each other as possible. I swapped the cans between meters and hands, four different combinations, to minimise factors outside the meters themselves. Conclusions: 1. When reacting to changes caused by thoughts or gross body motions such as rubbing socked feet on the carpet or taking a deep breath, the needle motions were more or less identical: Tick for tick, rise and fall for rise and fall, F/N left swing for left swing and F/N right swing for right swing. 2. When reacting to changes caused by moving the TA knob and moving a finger on or off a can, the Clarity meter needle took about half a second to settle down and the Mark VII took about three seconds to settle down. 3. Several times a minute there were reactions noted on one meter and not the other. This was not related to one meter being more sensitive to thought or body electronics than the other, but to which hand was connected to which meter. The meter connected to my right hand reacted more, and about one tenth of a second faster most of the time, than the meter connected to my left hand. All this observation was done by eyeball, not using a frame-by-frame analysis of a video. It could be that almost imperceptible slows in an F/N would register better on the Mark VII. But it could also be that they would register better on the Clarity meter. I don't know. I recall reading various comments about how awful CofS meters read, including VII's, but I couldn't find such comments in a search. Possibly these comments came from a competing manufacturer or distributor. If anyone knows a URL with such comments, please let me know. Paul -- http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 733 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:57 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Clarity Meter and Mark VII --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > Paul, not interested in the body read manifestation, but rather is > the reaction to thought the same. Is the sensitivity the same? When > they are both cranked up as high as they go will they still get > similar reads? My first thought on seeing the reads on meter A and not on meter B were that meter A was more sensitive, and was picking up thoughts that meter B wasn't. If I had just done the tests with one set-up of hands and cans, I would have reached a false conclusion. At the points where the needle motions matched in size, the sensitivity setting did not read the same on each meter. I'm not going to give actual figures because it varied from test to test and I don't understand why yet. The sensitivity range for the Mark VII is greater than the Clarity meter. At the lowest setting, the Mark VII will go from TA .5 to TA 6.5 and the needle will stay on the dial throughout. At the highest, one dial drop is equivalent to about one hundredth of a division of TA. At the lowest setting, one dial drop on the Clarity meter I used covered about 1.21 TA divs, from TA 1.58 to TA 2.79 (with a 5000 ohms resistor). I didn't check it with different resistors. At the highest (sens 64), it covered about .01 divs, the same as the Mark VII. However, with the Clarity meter I used, the needle was dirty and unreliable at that sensitivity. At sens 48 it was totally fine, at which sensitivity setting one dial drop covered about .05 divs. At sens 56, with a magnifying glass, I could see a slight DN, covering about one tenth of one of those little one eighth of an inch divisions on the dial. At sens 60 it covered one half of one of those little divisions. At sens 64 it again covered one half of one of those little divisions, but the needle drifted a bit. These sensitivity tests were not done holding the cans. It might work with a corpse, but it is only with the utmost difficulty that I can keep the needle on the dial for even as long as half a second at sens 64 on a Clarity meter, even with a 3 1/2 inch plastic disc attached to the TA knob. I am not going to stop using my Clarity meter because of this finding with this one meter. Again, I must state that this is not a Consumer Reports test involving several new instruments bought randomly, but done with one model of each that I have access to, and these particular meters may or may not be up to the manufacturers' regular specifications for a new meter. Paul -- Scienowiki still needs world prices at http://scientology.wikicities.com/wiki/price






Message 734 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Nov 23, 2005 9:37 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Grade IV and Class IV Completion My pc attested to Expanded Grade IV an hour ago, on the eve of Thanksgiving. Perfect timing. Here is his success story (you can use it, bb, if you wish): "Grade 4 Success Story by [A.S.] 11/23/05 "As with all previous grades my gains were wide spread. "I realize that not all of my gains are covered by the official attest form. Other than those for which I had at least one instance for each gains from the chart I wold like to generalize my state: I have managed to discover the true reason which had been slowing my dreams, goals and research. Along with that I realized that I end up much much less in my case. Instead I find myself in present time and future figuring the next step. (Both in and out of session that is.) "I gained the ability to spot the events when I get keyed in almost as they occur and can now manage to steer my way out of it. I feel ready to face my dreams and make them come true." And with the pc's completion of Expanded Grade IV comes the auditor's long overdue completion of Class IV. Paul -- http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 735 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:52 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Clarity Meter and Mark VII --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > 1.) It is my observation that the two meters you refer to in > your post are in the physical universe. Do you agree? > 2.) I am not versed with the methodology you have outlined in > the experiment you presented. I have never ran across this in my > training or work. To test a meter I would refer to the Society of > Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards, as this is what I am most > familiar with. Do you prefer a different mode or standard of testing? > 3.) Have you studied the "Data Series 2 Logic" ? Hi XXXX, 1) and 3) Yes 2) My review was not a full, rigorous one and never pretended to be. I did it on the basis of "Any review is better than no review". I usually write about things I am familiar with, hopefully in a manner that communicates to the people who read my posts/articles and is also worthwhile one way or another. If only for its amusement value. If you have a test bench in your basement, great, do a review according to the standards you are familiar with and post your results. If it seems useful I will applaud, and if it doesn't I won't. If someone intends to do nothing except make comments about what *I* should be doing, more or less forcing me to spend time responding, it doesn't increase my ARC much. I enjoy writing, but only on my own terms. Paul






Message 736 From: Paul Adams Date: Thu Nov 24, 2005 6:20 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Three-Lane Highway to Freedom A year ago I asked myself the question, "Would the world be better off without the Church of Scientology?" To date I have not decided on an answer. A similar question, "Would the Church of Scientology be better off without David Miscavige?", is a no-brainer. Years after leaving the Sea Org or the CofS, and with the benefit of hundreds or thousands of hours of free reading and discussion, it is easy to narrow down the primary source of aberration in the CofS to DM. Yes, it could be argued that his behavior stems from dramatizing parts of LRH's behavior, but I don't see that such an argument would lead to a solution. Would removing DM from a position of power accomplish a total clean-up of the CofS eventually, with others' natural goodness coming to the fore? I don't know. Maybe not, but one has to start somewhere, and striking at the root of the rottenness would seem to give the most bang for the buck. I don't advocate removing DM through violence, even though in the PL "Ethics, the Design of" LRH said if all else fails to "find a 9-foot-high board fence...." Possibly DM will get removed via the legal system, finally being indicted and convicted in criminal court. But don't hold your breath. I think the solution lies in that classic and fascinating Milgram study on obedience to authority, summarized in a must-read article at:
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/milgram_perils_authority_1974.html In my own words, and extremely condensed, many ordinary people--the experimental subjects--were told to flick switches and administer electric shocks of differing severity to a victim. In reality no shocks occurred and the victim was an actor who screamed in agony and even played dead very convincingly. The subjects had qualms about their actions but in the main were fully obedient to the experimenter, the authority figure, who "took full responsibility" for the results and thus allowed the switch-flickers to assume little or no responsibility for their own actions. Against all expectation, almost all the subjects were willing to obediently inflict intense pain on another human being in preference to openly defying the experimenter, the person in charge. Note also that this astonishing obedience took place even though there was no real penalty for refusing to cooperate beyond lessening of ARC, whereas in real life the authority figure can usually deny money or services or freedom too. Three conclusions given in that article were: BEGIN QUOTE "1. The experimenter's physical presence has a marked impact on his authority -- obedience dropped off sharply when orders were given by telephone. The experimenter could often induce a disobedient subject to go on by returning to the laboratory. "2. Conflicting authority severely paralyzes actions -- When two experimenters of equal status, both seated at the command desk, gave incompatible orders, no shocks were delivered past the point of their disagreement. "3. The rebellious action of others severely undermines authority -- In one variation, three teachers (two actors and a real subject) administered a test and shocks. When the two actors disobeyed the experimenter and refused to go beyond a certain shock level, thirty-six of forty subjects joined their disobedient peers and refused as well." END QUOTE I will assume the present essential situation in the CofS is that of an insane leader with no remaining challengers, able to get away with murder because he is the supreme authority-figure and can enforce his will over the top of others' qualms with the threat of "Poof--no acceptable future for you". How could these three important Milgram points be applied to the present situation? The points are, again, 1) The experimenter's physical presence has a marked impact on his authority; 2) Conflicting authority severely paralyzes actions; and 3) The rebellious action of others severely undermines authority. In my opinion: 1. It would be foolish to try and change anyone's mind while they are in the physical presence of DM and his bully-boys. But the further away a person is from DM, the less impingement DM would have, just as life in the CofS is harshest at the Int base and maybe almost normal in the home of an off-lines churchie. 2. There is no flesh-and-blood person in the CofS of comparable magnitude to DM, to issue conflicting orders with the result of sense prevailing and DM's obviously-harmful orders not being carried out. But there is a candidate, namely LRH, present to a greater or lesser extent in the form of his ideas in the minds of Scientologists. Indeed, I would assume that to almost all Scientologists, absent danger from disobeying the tyrant, LRH has by far a greater authority. 3. Disobedient peers in the SO, or in the field, are hard to muster. As they appear one by one, they are slapped down by group-agreement of the obedient faithful, despite possible individual qualms, and never get to group together and form the required critical mass of a rebellious group of disobedient peers who by their very numbers alone would attract the more timid remainder. Here must lie the solution, the road to freedom, the three-lane highway to bye bye dwarfie. Any action by anyone that fits within these three points will help. In principle, LANE A: Don't expect any immediate changes within his inner circle. Communicate to anyone else on any comm line. Point the finger at DM alone, and not at those who have gone into his valence. Continue to repeat the messages. LANE B: Paralyze irresponsible obedience to DM's insane orders--and don't address any sane ones--by repeatedly setting up a conflict of authority, i.e. "DM says do bleep-bleep, but in HCO PL or HCOB blah-blah LRH says do blip-blip." Repeat this over and over, using any good examples, always in the form of DM says one thing but LRH says something very different. LANE C: Make it safe in as many ways as possible to be a disobedient peer. This could include a rallying point where potential rebels could see huge numbers of people they know, all visibly saying they're mad as hell and they are not going to take it any more. It wouldn't have to be in the physical universe; the Internet would work. Finally ceasing to hide behind a pseudonym would fit in here--anything that says, "Here I am, and I'm similar to you. We're all standing in open defiance, and we're all still breathing. Why don't you join us in the sunshine?" If one hundred hard-core followers gang up on one or two rebels, the rebels get toasted. If one hundred hard-core followers come up against ten thousand rebels, including most of those who supply the finances to keep the whole morally-sordid show going, what is likely to happen? Happy Thanksgiving 2005. Paul -- http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 737 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:47 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg] Re: Three-Lane Highway to Freedom --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , XXXX wrote: > > Isn't DM the head of RTC, the PR face for RTC, which, in turn, is run > by CST, a group that is not public. I think, like GW, the are the > front faces but not the top of the org board in terms of actual > management, decision making. I am very uncertain of the motives of the non-Scientology tax lawyers who nominally run CST. I don't know who really calls the shots there, and nor do you. I am familiar with their bylaws and articles of incorporation and the secret agreements that are online, and the conspiracy-theory stuff about the IRS secretly controlling Scientology for the CIA as they are terrified of what could happen if real OTs were getting made. What's the truth about all that? Hell if I know. Some people love to ensnare themselves in mysteries. I enjoy a mental challenge, but there comes a point where one needs more data to resolve something, and if the data is not available then it's time to move onto something else until it becomes available. I like dealing with the knowable. Someone else can speculate about how many pins would fit into the head of an angel. But I do know who is out there in the open crapping all over the good intentions of tens of thousands of persons of good will. I'm in comm with ex-Sea Org members who have worked for years with DM, including at least one senior RTC exec, and I have their observations in mind when I repeat: Target DM and DM alone. Paul -- http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 739 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:43 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Three-Lane Highway to Freedom --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > The SP is not always visible. These days it is, DM this and DM that > and boy is he being given validation for being there! Meanwhile the > situation continues to persist! > > We know that he is not the head huncho. The RTC and the Watch Dog > committee are run by the CST.... That last is pure speculation, Michael. You might believe yourself to be the reincarnation of the archangel (I'm not suggesting you do), but that does not make it so. The guys at www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com have taken some documents, genuine as far as I know, and embellished them into a dreamworld for which there is not a shred of hard evidence that I am aware of. Meade Emory once worked for the IRS. No dispute. I once worked for OSA Int for a couple of years. Does that automatically mean I secretly report back to them and in posting here am working from an OSA program? It is all wispy conjecture, great tales to excite the grandkids in front of the living room fire, but devoid of any substance. I'm not one to pooh-pooh ideas because they're not mainstream. I embrace all kinds of wacky theories, and even expound them sometimes. However, I don't embrace them because they're wacky, but because they make more sense to me than the ones they replace. If I become aware of facts that make some of my previously-cherished ideas untenable, I try to modify my ideas to accommodate the newly- appreciated facts. In the set-up of CST, there is the potential for all sorts of things. I agree. But where is the *evidence* for any of these supposed machinations actually occurring? The IRS secret agreement set up a comm line between the IRS and the CofS Tax Compliance Committee. So what? I have a comm line with bb and we speak on the telephone every few weeks or so. That doesn't mean we discuss, say, how to boost the profits in our slave trade business in young Albanian girls. The people I know who have worked with DM for years--and I mean worked with as Int execs, not saw him once, have painted a clear picture for me. He is the decision-maker. He's it. He doesn't look uncertain, disappear for a bit for a clandestine phone call or communion with the discarnate spirits of the great Magi, then return with his orders in place. There is mountains of stuff about DM freely available on the Net, that is electronically searchable from your desk. What testimony can you point to from anyone that worked with him that says he took orders from anyone? Or even hints at it? He may be an insane psycho, but all the mountains of evidence say he is the one calling the shots. One could argue that he is being manipulated by his own dedicated HAARP channel and is really just a puppet and receives orders channeled to him via a Marcabian modified tepaphone and is merely relaying orders from the true masters and just *appears* to be the one making the decisions. Yeah, yeah, straw man. But there is heaps and heaps of real-world evidence that he is the decision maker for the CofS. And NONE that he takes orders from anyone on how to run the CofS. Someone mentioned that a certain president is a puppet. OK, that's a theory. What's the evidence? Go look on the Internet and you can read scads and scads of reports from dozens of articulate people that make sense about the neocons and their agenda and one can trace it around and it makes a whole lot of sense. On the other side, the arguments for him being his own man look so full of holes. And just look at the man himself on TV. It's an easy decision to make. There are mountains of evidence. But where is the EVIDENCE that DM isn't the one calling the shots? Name one piece of actual EVIDENCE that points to one person other than DM who is setting a policy that DM is following! Oh, but, yip yip and meade emory and yap, yap, irs, and sherman lenske and the cia and yop yop and conspiracies and ace of clubs and lrh was replaced in 1972 and the librarian and secret symbols and forged wills and more yip yip and cst and yada yada yada I'm going to stop now. One kind of person deals in things that are real and visible and operates with tangible evidence, and another prefers dark mysteries and wouldn't appreciate a fact if it burrowed itself deep into his or her rectum. Paul -- No mysteries in Scienowiki http://scientology.wikicities.com P.S. Are we still on for golf on Saturday?






Message 740 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:00 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Three-Lane Highway to Freedom --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > Then what is your hypothesis as to why CST was created? Why are > apparently non-Scientologists, one who without dispute was upper > management in the IRS, on the board when any Scientologist knows > LRH's views on the IRS and those that worked for it? What is your > opinion on this? Hey XXXX, I don't consider my opinion on this to be very important. I change my mind about it. Sometimes I think it was set up so the US Gov't could pull the plug one day if they needed to; sometimes I think it was set up so LRH could come back next lifetime and take over the reins again if he wanted to; sometimes I think it was set up so that if a psycho somehow got into the position of running the CofS then he *would* be removed by the unanimous decision of the CST General Directors and trustees. Ho, ho. Non-Scientologists are not susceptible to threats involving their eternal future, although they can be blackmailed just like anyone else. The reason for the Special Directors being tax lawyers is stated in the articles/bylaws. Some might think this to be misdirection; I usually accept it at face value. Why that particular law firm? Why not? If you have been doing business with someone for years and the results have always been perfectly satisfactory, why change? There may be a thousand California lawyers who would have been equally satisfactory, but whoever was doing the initial selection (Starkey?) happened to pick them. Or him, and the others came along with him. Meade Emory is obviously an expert on IRS regulations and procedures. I know nothing about it and I'm not going to spend time researching it, but I would guess him to be considered one of the top authorities in the world on the IRS and how to deal effectively with them. If you want to be guided safely through a steaming swamp full of hungry teeth, you hire a local native and don't complain too much because he doesn't use Old Spice or read the Wall Street Journal. Sometimes I have other ideas about the whole set-up. But I repeat, who cares? They're just my opinions based on no more data than anyone else who reads this stuff, and they are no more valid or useful than anyone else's opinions. If someone comes up with some more *facts* I'll take another look. As it is, Error D6, Data Insufficient. Last night I started going over the NED course I did twenty-five years ago, and the first tape on it, 16 May 63 The Time Track, has very interesting data about suppositional realities as opposed to actualities, and I'll take the liberty of quoting a bit because I think it is relevant: "Well, the degree that an individual is on a suppositional kick measures directly his confrontingness--his ability to confront. The amount of suppositional isness that is added to actual isness measures directly the individual's ability to confront. "Now, that's a very involved and complicated statement, because it's almost too broad to embrace. This fellow goes down and he takes a look at this watercolor--down at the art gallery--he takes a look at this watercolor and he says, 'He should have...' Well, that 'should have' has measured the amount of not-confront he is doing at the--of the watercolor." Paul -- Feed Scienowiki facts at http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 741 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:04 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Standing in the Sunshine --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com XXXX wrote: > > Your point about using our real names is so right. We all > know there are many many people in the church who are good > hearted and would be a big help to us if they could see > us standing out here in the sunshine. > From this moment on I pledge to do what I can to help my > fellow thetans in and out of the church. > XXXX > clear 12006 > class 6 interned > Sacramento Calif Very good, XXXX. So who else is going to come out of the closet and join the Sunshine Club? Paul






Message 742 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:29 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Three-Lane Highway to Freedom --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com, XXXX wrote: > > I don't consider myself really expert in all this. > Don't think well with legal matters. So please anyone > rebut me on anything. (Rolls sleeves up). OK, bb, you asked for it.... :) Actually, I only want to comment on one thing. > [Ptsc said front groups] had pre-signed, undated > resignations. This could be the currant situation. I don't see how that would work with a non-Scn lawyer. It's just a bit of paper, obtained by coercion. It's not a binding contract. The bit of paper would work with a Scientologist afraid of having his immortality truncated by The Petty Satan, but surely not with a non- believer willing to go to court over it. Paul -- Look what some non-Scientologist put in the LRH article at http://scientology.wikicities.com/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard






Message 743 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:24 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Three-Lane Highway to Freedom --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.comXXXX wrote: > > --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com , "Paul Adams" wrote: > > ...itself deep into his or her rectum. > > a lot of rhetoric aimed at invalidating Michael. Note my penultimate word. I'm an equal-opportunity invalidater. When are *you* going to join the Sunshine Club, LR? Paul






Message 744 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:46 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: recent discussion on church of Scientology --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com XXXX wrote: > > I think a lot of this discussion of C of S misses the point. Whose point, my friend? For myself, I don't really care two hoots about the CofS. I can get on fine without them. I don't have lots of BPC from my adventures there and I am not seeking revenge. I'm glad for the experience. But there are others who have much more tied up there, whether in terms of money, time, attention or otherwise. Such as loved ones. Look at the heartbreak being caused by the enforced disconnection from loved ones whose only crime was to see more clearly and speak about what they saw. There are many other examples. I expect most of us have personal experiences on various flows of heavy abuses by some in the CofS, which actions are still ongoing. One can be serene and above it all; one can be in sub-apathy and below it all. There is not much effective difference between the two. I am somewhere in the middle and want to do something about it. I don't think I can do much to slow down the destruction of Earth's biosphere; I'm not that interested in speaking out about the escalating fascism in the US; I don't even give spare change to panhandlers on the street. But by God I can do something about the dwarf. Paul -- http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 745 From: Paul Adams Date: Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:21 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Super Power Series There are five issues on Usenet entitled "Super Power Rundown Series". I don't know who wrote them. I don't want to post them here, but I have some extensive comments about them, which I will be adding to, at: http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/superpower.htm Paul http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 746 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:21 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: One COS Error --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com XXXX wrote: > > Anyone who disagrees speak now or forever hold thy > peace. :) Far be it from me to avoid a good fight. I think Vitek's only real error was not in daring to think for himself and expressing what he had personally observed, but maybe in hoping that this was an appropriate forum in which to state his observations. Your English is fine, Vitek. Paul






Message 747 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Dec 14, 2005 2:11 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: How about a quick survey on Certs --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com XXXX wrote: > > Who would qual for the printer to validate that a cert is due? I guess the printer could reach out and assume responsibility for the tech quality and the validity of the certificate, but it seems like a completely separate hat to me. The validity of the completion is being affirmed by the names on the certificate and whoever signs it. This is often a rubber-stamp deal in the CofS. Those certs state that such-and-such an organization certifies that so-and-so has completed whatever, signed by the tech and qual staff responsible, plus the LRH Comm or whoever holds the "Keeper of the Seals and Signature" hat. At Saint Hill, the LRH Comm used to literally keep safe in his possession a box full of large seals, with which certs were validated. In the Freezone, the validity of the completion would be affirmed by the auditor, C/S, or course supervisor, and that would probably be all. Maybe just a single all-in-one delivery person and that's it. If there is some group involved, one could have "Norma's Squirrel Academy" or "Jay's HGC" or whatever splashed across the top. Paul http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal






Message 748 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:10 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: One COS Error --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com XXXX wrote: > > And here I was, wondering where you were! Lol. > > I'll say one thing: people in the FZ certainly seem to have adhering > to a standard mixed up with thinking for themselves. Seems to be > quite the button. Makes one want to go "hmmmm". > > XXXX I wasn't weighing in because I didn't consider this an appropriate forum for a nitty-gritty discussion along the lines of: LRH says on page ___ that "_______". Now, I have never seen or heard of this in real life with any human being living or dead since the dawn of man. Nor is it in the Library of Congress or the Encyclopedia Galactica. Have you seen it? Name one instance that you have personally observed of it with your own eyeballs, without giving weaselly answers and comments that avoid answering the question and are designed to introvert the questioner. And I still don't consider it an appropriate forum for such a discussion, so I'll let it ride. You may have noticed that I don't always go for the jugular when someone squirms around avoiding answering a direct question I have posted. It isn't that I haven't noticed the no-answer. Paul Scienowiki's LRH article still needs fixing up at http://scientology.wikicities.com






Message 749 From: Paul Adams Date: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:19 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Flow 1+ and Flow 1- Commands Here is something I just realized while looking over the "Super Power Rundown" commands online again, to add to my earlier posts on incorrect flow commands. I did add to my write-up on S/Power Series 1, by the way, for anyone following along. The Ethics Repair List is now part done too. Back to the flows. Let's pretend LRH wrote up a process in 1956, "Recall a kiss", to be run at that time as simply "Recall a kiss". Come 1969 or 1971, someone gets the order to triple and later quad it up. The flow commands, per the tech dictionary definitions, would be something like: Flow 1: Recall a kiss happening to you; (or more naturally) Recall being kissed. Flow 2: Recall kissing another. Flow 3: Recall another or others kissing themselves or others (I prefer that to "others kissing others"). Flow 4: Recall kissing yourself. If you look in the Grades process checklists and elsewhere where people have written four-flow processes, they often come out like this: "Flow 1: Recall a kiss. "Flow 2: Recall kissing another. "Flow 3: Recall kissing others. "Flow 0: Recall kissing yourself." Or sometimes: "Flow 1: Recall being kissed by another. "Flow 2: Recall kissing another. "Flow 3: Recall kissing others. "Flow 0: Recall kissing yourself." How did this come about? The errors in the above are: 1. "Recall a kiss" is not a pure flow 1 command, but includes more than "Recall being kissed". I think it is OK as a command, because it is a general catch-all command, and if the four flows as exactly defined were used then they could possibly miss out on things. Besides, LRH wrote it, and a CofS tech compiler would feel that he was on a firm footing with it. 2. "Recall being kissed by another" is not a full flow 1 command, as it covers less than "Recall being kissed". 3. The second and third commands of the sets are both flow 2 commands, with flow 3 missing completely. As mentioned in the earlier posts. 4. Where does kissing mother earth or Jimi Hendrix kissing the sky fit in? These are actions that people do, but they are not covered in the commands given. I think that a possible confusion stems from that "flow 1" command, the "Recall a kiss" type of command with the flow unstated. Because there isn't a name for that kind of command in a four-flow process. Using the label "flow 1" for this type of command could give someone an m/u, as "flow 1" does not have the published meaning of "The first command in a four-flow process, whether it is a true flow 1 command or not". Afterwards, everyone goes splooey because of the m/u and doesn't register that "Recall kissing another" is an identical flow to "Recall kissing others", so gaily runs the commands as given for thirty years without worrying about it. Well alright, that might not be the reason. But it's worth thinking about. My solution is to label those "flow 1" commands that cover more as "flow 1+" commands, but only where they do encompass more than flow 1. And to label as "flow 1-" those commands that are labeled "flow 1" but actually cover less than a genuine flow 1 command. So in a four-flow process, "Recall a kiss" would be a flow 1+ command; "Recall being kissed" would be a genuine flow 1 command; and "Recall being kissed by another" would be a flow 1- command. "So what?" you might say. I don't know if failing to differentiate among these different kinds of flow 1 command would cause any trouble with the pc or not, but they sure caused trouble with me (fuzzy thinking) until I just worked it out. And for some reason those Grade Checklists with the wrong flow commands have persisted for a quarter century or more. Paul






Message 750 From: "Paul Adams" Date: Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:39 pm Subject: [FreezoneOrg]Re: Characteristics of a Clear --- In FreezoneOrg@yahoogroups.com XXXX wrote: > > Hey Vitek, > > FYI, Roland is a distinguished gentleman. Roland is the person in the middle in the top photo at http://www.freewebs.com/fzglobal/pix.htm She was having a bad hair day. Paul



DISCLAIMER: This site is not connected to or endorsed by the Church of Scientology. Dianetics®, Scientology® and others are trademarks and service marks owned by Religious Technology Center.




Trademarks | POW Correspondence Course | Auditor Assessment Checklist | Course Supervisor Assessment Checklist | Abilities | Comparison | Writings | Upper Level Writings | Poetry | Food Replicator | Rubik's Shepherd | Rubik's Tartan | Pix | HGB Staff in 1994 | Links | Home | Paul's Scn Quals | Paul's ID | Paul's Pix | FZ Admin | Paul's Squirrel Academy | Scienowiki



Copyright ©2004, 5 by Paul Adams. All Rights Reserved.