OSA Investigations "Enemy" Point System Document

[SweetnessandLight]

I don't know if this has already been posted here, I couldn't find it. The link also has more interesting information if you are a critical thinker or a skeptic and interested in debunking the concept that Corporate Scientology is a religion, and should continue to enjoy legal protection as such.

This text is taken from Perry Scott's "The Scientology Comparative Theology Page", which has other interesting articles and items as well:

http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/CoS/Theology/index.htm

From: ronisxenu@aol.com (RonIsXenu)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: TRACK YOUR POINTS AGAINST OSA!
Date: 16 Sep 1997 21:39:23 GMT
Lines: 345
Message-ID: <19970916213901.RAA04033@ladder02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder02.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
SnewsLanguage: English

This documents how OSA is to track "enemies" via a point system. How many
points can YOU rack up against OSA? Post your results! This posting and
my others have me well above 20 unhandled "points!"

-------------

INVESTIGATIONS SECTION


INVESTIGATIONS SECTION VFPs: 1. A FULLY ESTABLISHED,
PRODUCTIVE DSA INVEST SECTION WHICH BRINGS ABOUT THE FAILURE
OF INFLUENCE OF HOSTILE GROUPS OR PERSONS.

2. THE REQUIRED INFORMATION FURNISHED TO GUIDE THE
PROGRESS OF SCIENTOLOGY.

1. TOTAL UNHANDLED ATTACKS AND ATTACKERS (GDS)
Ref: Advice updated RE GUARD STAT
Advice 27 March 72 COUNTER ATTACK TACTICS
Advice 28 March 72 INTELLIGENCE PRINCIPLES

This is a guard stat with 0 at the top.

This stat is counted:

1 point for every attacker

Plus:

1 point if the attack is local

2 points if the attack is regional

4 points if the attack is national

The points remain on the stat until handled.

The category of attacks are listed below:

1. TM infringement, each TM Infringement counted as per
the TM Infringers handled stat of Invest. (NOTE: if a
report is received of a possible TM Infringer, this must be
verfied as inactive within 4 weeks or it gets counted on
this stat as a TM Infringer until verified as inactive or
until handled.)
2. External Influences - where an org is being influenced
by External Influences and this is not handled by OSA.
Also each External Influence who has not been handled.
This would include any actions done by TM Infringers which
affect the org or the field.
3. A suit filed against a Church entity or individual.
4. Any lost suit.
5. A print media hit - a newspaper or magazine story which
is an attack.
6. An attack on the TV by an individual eg. an entheta
source who has gotten on a TV talk show to forward an
attack, or on a radio show.
7. A TV program that is an attack on the Church.
8. Legislation proposed in any area that hinders our
operations in that area.
9. Legislation passed in any area that hinders our

-page break-

operations in that area.
10. An entheta book published.
11. Any legislative or governmental inquiry initiated into
the Church.
12. Any Scientology activity closed down through
opposition actions.
13. Government restrictions imposed upon the Church.
14. A legal case not involving the Church but resulting in
a judgement that is an attack upon the Church.
15. A civil suit filed on the Church.
16. A civil judgement against the Church
17. A deprogramming attempt on a Scientologist.
18. A penal (criminal) complaint against a Church or a
staff member filed.
19. A penal (criminal) complaint against a Church or a
staff member being acted on.

For every attack, the attack goes on the stat with a point
value according to whether it is a local, regional or
national attack plus the attacker behind the attack goes on
as an additional point if not already on the list.

When the actual situation is HANDLED, by terminatedly
handling the attacker the points come off the stat (one
attacker may be behind a number of attacks and when
handled, the accumulated points for the attacks originated
from that person would all come off the stat). The
exception would be if an Attacker is verified as being
handled yet an outstanding attack still exists in some
form, that attack remains on the list until handled (while
the Attacker and any handled attacks come off the stat).

Clearly, the Attacker MUST be correctly isolated and named
before he can be handled and this stat goes up.

For purposes of calculating the list of UATTACKS to begin
with, each DSA Invest Officer should list out the major
attacks connected to each of its current attackers going back
to the point when they started attacking (in many cases this
can be several years or even a decade - for the initial
calculation of this stat it is not intended to get into a
huge administrative cycle and some approximation of attacks
based on existing file data may be necessary). Each attack
will have to be classified as to whether it was a local,
regional or national attack for purposes of calculating the
stat.

Each DSA Invest Officer is to format their UATTACKS breakdown
by listing out the names of the attackers with the attacks
under each name, with the attack designated as to whether it
was a local, regional or national attack. The attacker with
the most attacks should go at the top of the list. The
purpose of this admin system is to be able to see at a glance
who we are getting the most attacks from. If there is more
than one attacker behind an attack, then that attack would be
placed under the name of the major attacker with the name of
the second attacker in parenthesis next to the attack so it
is clear that the attack would not come off the list until
both attackers are terminatedly handled. If the major
attacker gets terminatedly handled, the attack would then be
placed under the name of the second attacker.

If there are attacks for which there are no known
attackers, these are placed at the end of the list until
the attackers behind them are known.

-page break-

Following is an example to illustrate this:

1) JOE BLOGS = 1 POINT
A) LA TIMES ENTHETA ARTICLE 15 JAN 1980 - REGIONAL
= 2 POINTS
B) ENTHETA TV APPEARANCE 1 MAY 1982 - LOCAL = 1 POINT
C) ENTHETA BOOK "CULTS" 1984 (FRED FRAME ALSO BEHIND
IT) - DISTRIBUTED NATIONALLY = 4 POINTS


Subtotal = 8 POINTS

2) FRED FRAME = 1 POINT
A) ENTHETA LECTURE BOSTON UNIV 15 DEC 1983 - LOCAL =
1 POINT
B) DEPRO ATTEMPT ON SUE SMITH MARCH 1984 - LOCAL = 1
POINT
C) 14 MEDIA ATTACKS 1976-1980 - ALL REGIONAL = 28
POINTS

Subtotal = 31

ATTACKS WITH NO KNOWN ATTACKERS:

A) 12 JUNE 1981 RAID ON MISSION - LOCAL = 1 point
B) JULY 1987 ATTEMPTED DEPROGRAMMING ON BILL SMITH -
LOCAL = 1 POINT

Subtotal = 2

Etc.


Once formatted as per the above, each DSA Invest
Officer should forward this breakdown to the OSA Cont where a
master Continental list of UATTACKS will also be kept and
updated. Each cont should have a break down the UATTACKS by
the DSA office responsible for handling each attack/attacker.


2. NUMBER OF ATTACKS PREDICTED AND REPORTED PLUS WHOS
FOUND BY APPROVED ESTIMATE OR EVAL. (GDS)

Ref: Dispatch RE: NEW STAT
OSA NW ORDER 42 INTELLIGENCE, ITS ROLE
OSA NW ORDER 35 INTELLIGENCE, ESTIMATIONS
AND PREDICTIONS
HCO PL 17 FEB 66 PUBLIC INVESTIGATION SECTION
Advice 28 March 72 INTELLIGENCE PRINCIPLES


This stat is a weekly point value for the total number of
threatened attacks found by Defensive minus points for
any unpredicted attack or any attack which has been
predicted which then goes unhandled and occurs despite
the prediction. The stat is not accumulative. The
points are valued as follows:

Local Attack - 1 point
Regional Attack - 5 points
National Attack - 10 points

An unpredicted attack, or unhandled predicted attack counts
minus 10 times the above point value.

An attack is defined per the definitions of an attack as
covered under the UATTACKS statistic.

-page break-

A bonus of 10 points is given for any Who found by AVC
approved evaluation and 5 points for a Who found by
approved estimate.

As can be seen, for a prediction to be viable it must be
predicted in sufficient time to handle the matter before it
becomes a full blown attack and a handling must be worked
out and exchanged. The actual handling may be executed by
Support Unit, Staff Security Sub-Unit, HCO, Dept of I&R,
Legal Off or PR Off, but the Defensive Unit is responsible
for ensuring that the prediction product is actually of
quality and exchangeable and utilized to beneficial result of
preventing the attack.

To be counted, the prediction must be reported in writing
in some manner to the proper publics who should know and/or
act on the data (which reporting may even be in the form of
a stat breakdown if it is clearly communicated in an
exchangeable manner with sufficient time, place, form and
event to be understood.)

The stat reflects external prediction as well as internal
prediction lines.

Internal prediction activities must be aligned with the
purpose and functions of the Office of Special Affairs and
Departments of Special Affairs, which are external facing
units. It is the Staff Security Sub-Unit that monitors the
prediction and handling of matters which interface between
internal and external. The Department of Special Affairs is
interested in matters which if not handled could result in
external attacks, different from security situations which
are simply an HCO matter - for example a PTS Type A situation
which just needs to get a standard handling (and would
concern us only if there are enemy connections or indicators
of something that will turn into an external attack unless
handled); whereas a PTS C found on lines would of course be
of interest to us. Valid Staff Security matters include such
things as detection and handling of enemy infiltration;
detection and handling of the source of external influences
preying on the backs of orgs, etc.

Key references on Staff Security functions and duties and
areas of prediction activity which would validly be
represented on the WHOATTACKSF stat, and which deliniate
matters which are the hat and function of HCOs are:

SPD 2 OCT 88 ORGANIZATIONAL SECURITY
SO ED 4234 HCO AND OSA COORDINATION ON SECURITY AND
INVESTIGATION MATTERS
OSA NW ORDER 42 INTELLIGENCE, ITS ROLE
OSA NW ORDER 64 RUNDOWN ON INTELLIGENCE
HCO PL 21 APRIL 70 FIELD ETHICS


3. NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING THREATS (GUARD STAT)
Ref: Advice 16 Feb 82, NEW STAT

This stat is a guard stat and is the total outstanding
threats. This would cover any predicted attack about which
information has been received. Once the threat is handled it
comes off the stat.

4. NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING SECURITY THREATS (GUARD STAT)
Ref: Advice 16 Feb 82, NEW STAT


-page break-


This stat measures the total amount of outstanding security
threats and risks and is an upside down graph with zero at
the top. A security situation for OSA/DSA is as defined
under the WHOATTACKS Found stat.

5. NUMBER OF THREATS SEEN, THREATENED OR REPORTED
Ref: Advice 16 Feb 82, NEW STAT

Per the above listed advice, this stat shows the amount of
security threats that are found and reported. A security
situation for OSA/DSA is as defined under the WHOATTACKS
Found stat.

6. NUMBER OF THREATS HANDLED

Per the above listed advice, this stat shows the amount of
threats that are handled.

7. COMPLAINTS ACTED UPON
Ref: HCO PL 17 Feb 66 PUBLIC INVESTIGATION SECTION:

This stats measures the number of complaints against
attackers that were acted upon by authorities.

This is defined as the number of complaints filed with
anyone who is in a position of authority and acts upon the
complaint and thus impinges on an attacker (e.g. judicial,
governmental, civil, employer, landlord, etc). Each time
the complaint is acted on counts 1. Not cumulative.

8. NUMBER OF OPPOSITION ADVANTAGES LOST
Ref: HCO PL 16 Feb 69 Iss II, BATTLE TACTICS

This stat measures the advantages of the opposition which
were lost due to the application of standard Invest tech.

Total number of advantages lost by the opposition that week
as a direct or indirect result of Invest actions. See the
above HCO PL for a description of the type of activities
that would count on this stat. Not cumulative.

DEFINITIONS:

OPPOSITION: A person or group actively opposing the
Founder, Scientology or the Church of Scientology or its
principles or activities and/or threatening its survival or
expansion.

9. DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE OBTAINED AND USED
Ref: HCO PL 17 Feb 66 PUBLIC INVESTIGATION SECTION
Advice 8 June 73 INTELLIGENCE, ITS ROLE

This stat measures the evidence that has been obtained
against attackers and was put to use.

Documented evidence obtained that indicates a crime or
useable evidence regarding a Who or an opposition terminal,
and is deemed useable by counsel, PR or Legal.

This stat is counted on the basis of one point for each
evidence of a crime documented deemed useable by counsel,
PR or Legal.

A 5 point bonus is given for each piece of documented
evidence that is USED by counsel, PR or Legal. (If the
data contained in the documented evidence is used, it can


-page break-

still be counted as a DOCEV, whether the actual document is
used or only the data.) Not cumulative.

[namaste]

Excellent post. Thank you. Good information to have.

This sounds like it could be a really fun game. If we could come up with a way to find out or keep our own scores we could even have leagues, tournaments, and lots of exciting competitions amongst ourselves.

Lots of potential here.

[SweetnessandLight]

Thank you!

I say all you creative gamer types, knock yourselves out, we might as well get some fun out of this!

("If it ain't fun, it ain't Scientology!") :coolwink:

[HCObringOrder?]

There was an earlier thread with some similar info as I recall, but perhaps there was only a link to start.

Interesting to see that some of the root docs are G.O. time era.
Also it seems that OSA NW Orders is an odd series.
I first read it as North West, but perhaps New World Orders is correct.
Anyone know?

[Dulloldfart]

There was an earlier thread with some similar info as I recall, but perhaps there was only a link to start.

Interesting to see that some of the root docs are G.O. time era.
Also it seems that OSA NW Orders is an odd series.
I first read it as North West, but perhaps New World Orders is correct.
Anyone know?

The OSA NW orders, as far as I recall, are reissues of older LRH non-HCO PL issues, like LRH Guardian Orders.

Paul

[Ted]

TL;DR

However, it goes to show what an introverted, wack-job of self-important, micromanagement this organization really is.

Assuming it's stated purposes are honest and factual, there is but one valid stat for the organization: Number of individuals and companies in the org's field that are flourishing and prospering according to their own goals, purposes, and ideal scenes.

All stats relative to the scientology organization should revolve around the above. Anything else is superfluous or outright bullshit.

With each passing year, the scientology field gets dirtier and dirtier. As the flow of new people into orgs grinds to a halt, the dirty field stat should level off. That's one way to control it.

[Cherished]

The document is in the Frank Oliver docs (see wikileaks).

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?kitihmghjlz

[Terril park]

TL;DR

However, it goes to show what an introverted, wack-job of self-important, micromanagement this organization really is.

Assuming it's stated purposes are honest and factual, there is but one valid stat for the organization: Number of individuals and companies in the org's field that are flourishing and prospering according to their own goals, purposes, and ideal scenes.

All stats relative to the scientology organization should revolve around the above. Anything else is superfluous or outright bullshit.

With each passing year, the scientology field gets dirtier and dirtier. As the flow of new people into orgs grinds to a halt, the dirty field stat should level off. That's one way to control it.

Also the stats reward attacking the environment. As opposed to first policy of maintaing friendly relations.

[Terril park]

2) FRED FRAME = 1 POINT
A) ENTHETA LECTURE BOSTON UNIV 15 DEC 1983 - LOCAL =
1 POINT
B) DEPRO ATTEMPT ON SUE SMITH MARCH 1984 - LOCAL = 1
POINT
C) 14 MEDIA ATTACKS 1976-1980 - ALL REGIONAL = 28
POINTS

Subtotal = 31



Its clear these stats came before the main impact of the net. However
extrapolating from the above, I'been posting at a conservative estimate 3
invitations per week to do tech outside COS for roughly 10 years, lets call
them internet media attacks.

Thats roughly 1500 points.

However they are in the category of "international" which isn't
acknowledged as a category, but its got to be 5 per pop.

Thats roughly 7500 points.

That don't count other posts I made which are more numerous. Got to be at least as many.

Then two years worth of monthly protests? Got to be worth a few points.

And I am list owner of two FZ forums. Have an FZ website.

Maybe an extra few credits for stat pushing on all this? :)

[SweetnessandLight]

LOL Terril, your stats are straight up and vertical! Good for you, you darling man, keep up the good work!!! :p :happydance:

[Veda]

Also the stats reward attacking the environment. As opposed to first policy of maintaing friendly relations.

Don't worry. There are stats for "maintaining friendly relations" too.

(In fact, when Hubbard was writing letters to the FBI, in the 1950s, claiming that people were communists or communist sympathizers, he was very friendly with some of those same people.)

"Find out who your friends are, develop them. Find out who your enemies are, destroy them."

"PR is overt. Intelligence is covert."

Hubbard developed his PR tech as cover (to which he attached the so called "first policy of maintaining friendly relations"), after he developed Scientology covert Intelligence (Fair Game) tech.

PR tech is wrapped around Intelligence tech, per his instructions.

That's a clue, old chap.

[Terril park]

LOL Terril, your stats are straight up and vertical! Good for you, you darling man, keep up the good work!!! :p :happydance:

Perhaps I should use straight up and vertical for my sig line.:whistling:

[Terril park]

PR tech is wrapped around Intelligence tech, per his instructions.

That's a clue, old chap.

You contradict yourself re his policy on that.

You say:- "PR is overt. Intelligence is covert."

This is from PR series 7 :-

Next two lines:-

"PR is at its best when it begins and ends overtly.

Intelligence is best when it begins and ends covertly."


" It can be a serious error to cross intelligence and PR

They are two different fields. They have two distinctly
different technologies."

As ex OSA or GO or whatever I bow to your superior knowledge.
But perhaps you may wish to check for any misunderstandings?

First policy dates from march 1950. Way before GO/OSA and PR series.

He of course took this from the vast data base of wisdom that exists.
He was no dummy!

Perhaps best expressed by the Sage of bethlehem:-

"Love thy neighbour as thyself"

" Turn the other cheek"

The parable of the good Samaritan.

This Sage probably gave better lecture than LRH.

[Veda]

You contradict yourself re his policy on that.

You say:- "PR is overt. Intelligence is covert."

This is from PR series 7 :-

Next two lines:-

"PR is at its best when it begins and ends overtly.

Intelligence is best when it begins and ends covertly."


" It can be a serious error to cross intelligence and PR

They are two different fields. They have two distinctly
different technologies."

-snip-



They don't mix; they complement each other.

For example, Intel frames someone for a crime he/she didn't commit, and then PR - separately - promotes that the person is "under investigation," etc.

Another example, Intel concocts a plan to send Scientologists out to buy a particular Hubbard Fiction book (in batches retail) in a specific location during a specific week, making it (fraudulently) a "Bestseller," than - separately - PR promotes it as having been a Bestseller.

Intel "creates facts" by forgery, fraud, or "setting up" a person, and then that created fact (a lie), becomes a "fact." Once a "fact," it becomes a "truth" and can be used in PR.

'First policy' is a joke, and always was.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=31490&postcount=3

[Terril park]

They don't mix; they complement each other.

For example, Intel frames someone for a crime he/she didn't commit, and then PR - separately - promotes that the person is "under investigation," etc.

Another example, Intel concocts a plan to send Scientologists out to buy a particular Hubbard Fiction book (in batches retail) in a specific location during a specific week, making it (fraudulently) a "Bestseller," than - separately - PR promotes it as having been a Bestseller.

Intel "creates facts" by forgery, fraud, or "setting up" a person, and then that created fact (a lie), becomes a "fact." Once a "fact," it becomes a "truth" and can be used in PR.

'First policy' is a joke, and always was.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=31490&postcount=3

Your above comments violate :-

" Never use lies in PR" PR series 2.

This and other matters have become celebrated footbullets.

First policy a joke? Go tell Jesus!

Enjoying your re -writes of green on white. :)

[Veda]

Your above comments violate :-

" Never use lies in PR" PR series 2.

This and other matters have become celebrated footbullets.

First policy a joke? Go tell Jesus!

Enjoying your re -writes of green on white. :)

Now, you're mixing PR with Intel.

Once Intel (covertly) "creates a fact," in the various ways described above - and in the link I provided you - it IS a fact. For example, it was a fact that Paulette Cooper was indicted by a Grand Jury for making bomb threats - that indictment by a Grand Jury WAS a FACT, and was "TRUE."

And the people - in PR, in Scientology - who were told that she had been indicted, believed it was true. They had NO awareness that Paulette Cooper had been covertly framed by Scientology covert Intel "dirty tricks."

Another example (which apparently didn't register the first time): Fraudulent means was - discreetly, behind the scenes - used to create "Best Seller" status for Hubbard's 1970s Science Fiction books. The average PR person (or the average Scientologist) telling people that these were "bestsellers" really DOES believe it. It's right there on the 'New York Times' list of bestsellers. It's a FACT. It's "true." and - even per 'PR Series 2' - it is a FACT.

But, of course, it's a lie.

"Reality is basically agreement."

"A datum is an invention which has become agreed upon and so solidified... To get to this state it has to be thoroughly agreed upon. When it is thoroughly agreed upon it becomes, then, a truth."

What do you think Hubbard meant when he used the terms "nicey nicey PR" and "PR of PR"?

This is Scentology, remember? "Reality is basically agreement."

Have you read 'PR Series 18'? (Three sentences of which are contained in this link, but please read the entire issue. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=219727&postcount=54) and have you - carefully - read all of the PR Series issues? Have you read the confidential PR Series issues? and other related confidential issues?

If you have - which I doubt - you haven't understood them, or the subject of "PR" in Scientology, or - frankly - Scientology itself.

And you sure as heck don't understand Hubbard if you're comparing him to Jesus.

I accept that you really don't grok Scientology, even though you promote it with great enthusiasm and oozing "ARC."

And this is a problem with many Scientologists. Scientology deeply influences them, yet they - in important areas - don't understand it.

Worse, it appears to have been meant to be that way, per its devious and manipulative founder's design.

And I'm very sorry that this is the case. It certainly is a mess.

Or, as it has been called, a trap.

And to present to others a supposed system of enlightenment and have it be a trap is, to say the least, seriously rude.

You've got yourself one seriously rude guru there.

And good luck with that.

[Ted]

Your above comments violate :-

" Never use lies in PR" PR series 2.

This and other matters have become celebrated footbullets.

First policy a joke? Go tell Jesus!

Enjoying your re -writes of green on white. :)


Most sensible people would not see First Policy as a joke. It is just good sense. It is assumed this policy was written from strength.

All things considered, i.e. destructive actions of the GO, SO, ethics policies, LRH's own contradictory orders and advices... This is much violation of First Policy that came from the same man who wrote it.

If his writings do anything to expose the man, LRH must have been a mixed bag of good sense and idiocy. It now appears to me that First Policy was written from good sense and cowardess. Once the coward-side gained strength it let loose its case, First Policy fell by the wayside.

In good sense, I can't reconcile the message of "What Is Greatness" with the image a couple of middle-aged men pushing a peanut around the deck of the Apollo while their shipmates and family watched and LRH bellowed, "Faster! Faster!"

Thank you Veda and Terril for this moment of enlightenment.

[Mystic]

I hereby declare myself to be 12 points per minute.

[Blownforgood]

2. External Influences - where an org is being influenced
by External Influences and this is not handled by OSA.
Also each External Influence who has not been handled.
This would include any actions done by TM Infringers which
affect the org or the field.

3. A suit filed against a Church entity or individual.

4. Any lost suit.

5. A print media hit - a newspaper or magazine story which
is an attack.

6. An attack on the TV by an individual eg. an entheta
source who has gotten on a TV talk show to forward an
attack, or on a radio show.

7. A TV program that is an attack on the Church.

8. Legislation proposed in any area that hinders our
operations in that area.

9. Legislation passed in any area that hinders our
operations in that area.

10. An entheta book published.

11. Any legislative or governmental inquiry initiated into
the Church.

12. Any Scientology activity closed down through
opposition actions.

13. Government restrictions imposed upon the Church.

14. A legal case not involving the Church but resulting in
a judgement that is an attack upon the Church.

15. A civil suit filed on the Church.

16. A civil judgement against the Church

17. A deprogramming attempt on a Scientologist.

18. A penal (criminal) complaint against a Church or a
staff member filed.

19. A penal (criminal) complaint against a Church or a
staff member being acted on.




LRH wrote up these points. These are the chink in the armor. Check out my current tally.

2. External Influences - where an org is being influenced
by External Influences and this is not handled by OSA.
Also each External Influence who has not been handled.
This would include any actions done by TM Infringers which
affect the org or the field. DONE

3. A suit filed against a Church entity or individual. DONE

4. Any lost suit. I/P

5. A print media hit - a newspaper or magazine story which
is an attack. DONE (many times over)

6. An attack on the TV by an individual eg. an entheta
source who has gotten on a TV talk show to forward an
attack, or on a radio show.DONE (many times over)

7. A TV program that is an attack on the Church.DONE

8. Legislation proposed in any area that hinders our
operations in that area. I/P

9. Legislation passed in any area that hinders our
operations in that area. I/P

10. An entheta book published.DONE

11. Any legislative or governmental inquiry initiated into
the Church. I/P

12. Any Scientology activity closed down through
opposition actions.I/P

13. Government restrictions imposed upon the Church. I/P

14. A legal case not involving the Church but resulting in
a judgement that is an attack upon the Church. I/P

15. A civil suit filed on the Church.

16. A civil judgement against the Church.

17. A deprogramming attempt on a Scientologist.DONE

18. A penal (criminal) complaint against a Church or a
staff member filed.DONE

19. A penal (criminal) complaint against a Church or a
staff member being acted on.DONE



Until next time...
BFG

[HappyGirl]

:thumbsup: :cheerleader: Wow! As those Aussies say, cool bananas BFG!! :hifive:

[Veda]

Most sensible people would not see First Policy as a joke. It is just good sense. It is assumed this policy was written from strength.

All things considered, i.e. destructive actions of the GO, SO, ethics policies, LRH's own contradictory orders and advices... This is much violation of First Policy that came from the same man who wrote it.

If his writings do anything to expose the man, LRH must have been a mixed bag of good sense and idiocy. It now appears to me that First Policy was written from good sense and cowardess. Once the coward-side gained strength it let loose its case, First Policy fell by the wayside.

In good sense, I can't reconcile the message of "What Is Greatness" with the image a couple of middle-aged men pushing a peanut around the deck of the Apollo while their shipmates and family watched and LRH bellowed, "Faster! Faster!"

Thank you Veda and Terril for this moment of enlightenment.

The so called "First Policy" appeared, not in 1950, but in HCOPL of 2 September 1970.

The overt/covert model for Scientology dates back to 1938, when Hubbard wrote of his (hidden) "real goal." There's nothing contradictory about Hubbard having Charles Reisdorf push a peanut around the deck of the Royal Scotsman with his nose (later Apollo), and his writing 'What is Greatness?'

It's a pattern, a paradigm, a template, a design. One carefully constructed, brick by brick, over many years. 'Battle Tactics' of February 1969 does not conflict with 'First Policy' of September 1970. 'Fair Game' (1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, etc.) and "What is Greatness?' (1966) are not contradictory; they are complementary, One is covert, The other is overt (publicized.)

[Mystic]

BFG so cool.

He came, he saw, he conquered.

[SweetnessandLight]

Most sensible people would not see First Policy as a joke. It is just good sense. It is assumed this policy was written from strength.

All things considered, i.e. destructive actions of the GO, SO, ethics policies, LRH's own contradictory orders and advices... This is much violation of First Policy that came from the same man who wrote it.

If his writings do anything to expose the man, LRH must have been a mixed bag of good sense and idiocy. It now appears to me that First Policy was written from good sense and cowardess. Once the coward-side gained strength it let loose its case, First Policy fell by the wayside.

In good sense, I can't reconcile the message of "What Is Greatness" with the image a couple of middle-aged men pushing a peanut around the deck of the Apollo while their shipmates and family watched and LRH bellowed, "Faster! Faster!"
Thank you Veda and Terril for this moment of enlightenment.

Amen to that, brother....amen. :yes:

[Ted]

I should have been more careful in editing. The men were not just pushing a peanut, they were pushing it with their noses! That makes a huge difference to anyone not familiar with the story.

[SweetnessandLight]

Yes, while down on their hands and knees on the splintery deck...

[thefiredragon]

Its clear these stats came before the main impact of the net. However
extrapolating from the above, I'been posting at a conservative estimate 3
invitations per week to do tech outside COS for roughly 10 years, lets call
them internet media attacks.

Thats roughly 1500 points.

However they are in the category of "international" which isn't
acknowledged as a category, but its got to be 5 per pop.

Thats roughly 7500 points.

That don't count other posts I made which are more numerous. Got to be at least as many.

Then two years worth of monthly protests? Got to be worth a few points.

And I am list owner of two FZ forums. Have an FZ website.

Maybe an extra few credits for stat pushing on all this? :)

WoW!
You sure have lots of points!

[Enthetan]

They don't mix; they complement each other.

For example, Intel frames someone for a crime he/she didn't commit, and then PR - separately - promotes that the person is "under investigation," etc.


And in so doing, OSA takes somebody who might have had a passing annoyance with Scn, and transforms him into a sworn, lifelong enemy. Major footbullet.

This sort of stuff only works short-term, and only to the extent that the OSA action is such that the target is intimidated into eternal silence, AND the target has no friends who get pissed off at the OSA attack. If the targets ever lose their fear of OSA, then you have the current phenomenon.

OSA creates enemies wholesale while "handling" people retail.

[Veda]

And in so doing, OSA takes somebody who might have had a passing annoyance with Scn, and transforms him into a sworn, lifelong enemy. Major footbullet.

This sort of stuff only works short-term, and only to the extent that the OSA action is such that the target is intimidated into eternal silence, AND the target has no friends who get pissed off at the OSA attack. If the targets ever lose their fear of OSA, then you have the current phenomenon.

OSA creates enemies wholesale while "handling" people retail.

A "pure" covert operation would begin and be completed without any visible connection to Scientology. That means the person would know that stuff was happening, but wouldn't know its source.

Once it became a matter of public record, then Scientology - as an apparent bystander - would comment, in its "PR."

That's the way it's supposed to "work."

Mainly, people hear about the times it didn't "work."

"Tech is out in Orgs" right now, so this tech - to some extent - is "out" too.

In this thread, however, I wasn't debating the degree of success of this particular part of Scientology tech, only attempting to describe the relationship of Scientology PR tech to Scientology Intel tech. :)

[SweetnessandLight]

Thanks, Veda, for doing so! It helps me to see things clearer and understand the current situation more. :)
I hope it will be informative for others, as well.

[SweetnessandLight]

And in so doing, OSA takes somebody who might have had a passing annoyance with Scn, and transforms him into a sworn, lifelong enemy. Major footbullet.

This sort of stuff only works short-term, and only to the extent that the OSA action is such that the target is intimidated into eternal silence, AND the target has no friends who get pissed off at the OSA attack. If the targets ever lose their fear of OSA, then you have the current phenomenon.

OSA creates enemies wholesale while "handling" people retail.

Good point Enthetan- does anybody who really knows about them have any respect left for the people who are planning and carrying out OSA operations, whether from the "justice" or "legal" (there's an oxymoron!), Intelligence gathering or Public Relations aspects of OSA?

No-one I know, even in the general public, once they understand the truth of what the entity we know as OSA is and does, here in America and abroad, feels anything about them other than they, including everyone they hire or conscript as "volunteers", should be fully investigated, prosecuted and imprisoned for multiple criminal activities, likely under the RICO act.

No blatent criminal activity of that depth and magnitude can prosper for long.

[FinallyFree]

WAIT! I am an attacker because I post my opinion, thoughts and experiences?

So basically ANYONE who does not agree 100% with scientology is an attacker? My, that will be a very long list indeed.

OSA would be prudent to simply list all those in good standing and then shoot at everyone else.

[Zinjifar]

WAIT! I am an attacker because I post my opinion, thoughts and experiences?

So basically ANYONE who does not agree 100% with scientology is an attacker? My, that will be a very long list indeed.

OSA would be prudent to simply list all those in good standing and then shoot at everyone else.

That would be 'out-PR'

Zinj

[Shredder]

Ah, so all things are possible.

Thank God for free speech and human rights.


I guess that LRH in all his wisdomology and arrogance

never suspected that one person or that an individual

could have such freedom of speech

and have alignment with the many other individuals

reaching all the way from from one side of the world

to the other to help each other.


Ahhh thank god we are in the age of the Inter(national)net.

[Gadfly]

WAIT! I am an attacker because I post my opinion, thoughts and experiences?

So basically ANYONE who does not agree 100% with scientology is an attacker? My, that will be a very long list indeed.

OSA would be prudent to simply list all those in good standing and then shoot at everyone else.

Yes, that is exactly right. You ARE an attacker, to them, exactly BECAUSE you post YOUR heartfelt opinion, thoughts and experiences that aren't 100% glowingly supportive of or in agreement with all things LRH, Scientology, David Miscavige and International Scientology Management!

That is exactly how it functions. Remember, Scientology is the ONLY group on the planet with a "disagreement remedy", which are a set of auditing processes designed to find, address and handle ANY and ALL disagreements with ANYTHING about Scientology. Though, I suppose in very oppressive political regimes (not uncommon on planet Earth), the most efficient "disagreement remedy" is a bullet to the brain.

A key basic slant or bias in Scientology is that everything about it is 100% valid, totally "right", "beyond error", and THUS BEYOND QUESTIONING. Sincere questioning, no matter how valid, is viewed and interpreted by them AS criticism and attack. If you see something as an outpoint, mention it, and bring it to their attention, then YOU become the subject of the investigation! Simple basic Scientology behavior as directed by Hubby Dub the Tubby Flub.

The moment you attempt to shine any light onto Scientology in any way, in a questioning manner, no matter how sincere or honest or legitimate, then YOU find yourself quickly under THEIR shining light of questioning and inspection. That is the way it has always been, due to EXACT LRH policy direction in the area.

Many ex-members started his or her "road out", by noticing and bringing some obvious outpoint to the attention of some staff member, HCO or RTC. Often the concerned ex-member was trying to "help" in some way, to "correct" what they saw as a deficiency. But as always, as per EXACT LRH instruction in the matter, ANY and ALL questioning is seen as "bad", and as being a sign of "disaffection". Disaffection from what? Disaffection from the 100% unquestioning attitude and total acceptance of whatever Hubbard and INT management say "is the truth".

The concept of "disaffection" is a BIG DEAL in Scientology. It means not being aligned 100% with the current rah-rah-rah viewpoint being pushed down the Scientology command channels. Of course, these days, there are just SO MANY disaffected people, that it is utterly impossible for them (the C of S) to EVER have any hope of "cleaning up the (muddied) field".

"You are either with us or you are against us". THAT is a key attitude inherent in the severe absolutist vision of Scientology. It is an insane attitude, as it leaves no slightest wiggle room for any personal deviation of viewpoint from the tight little box of enforced Scientology beliefs, attitudes and agreements. To understand the key basic Scientology beliefs, see:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=15476

Within the context of "you are either with us or you are against us", of course, ANY questioning in any form, takes on the color of an "enemy" to these imbeciles. Thus, questioning, and ALL expressions of free speech, are impossible with the framework of Hubbard's Scientology network. :grouch:

It will probably always be that way until the last OSA staff member walks out of the finally dissolved and collapsed Church of Scientology.

[Ted]

Yes, that is exactly right. You ARE an attacker, to them, exactly BECAUSE you post YOUR opinion, thoughts and experiences that aren't 100% glowingly supportive of or in agreement with all things LRH, Scientology, David Miscavige and International Scientology Management!

That is exactly how it functions. Remember, Scientology is the ONLY group on the planet with a "disagreement remedy", which are a set of auditing processes designed to find, address and handle ANY and ALL disagreements with ANYTHING about Scientology. Though, I suppose in very oppressive political regimes (not uncommon on planet Earth), the most efficient "disagreement remedy" is a bullet to the brain.

A key basic slant or bias in Scientology is that everything about it is 100% valid, totally "right", "beyond error", and THUS BEYOND QUESTIONING. Sincere questioning, no matter how valid, is viewed and interpreted by them AS criticism and attack. If you see something as an outpoint, mention it, and bring it to their attention, then YOU become the subject of the investigation! Simple basic Scientology behavior as directed by Hubby Dub the Tubby Flub.

The moment you attempt to shine any light onto Scientology in any way, in a questioning manner, no matter how sincere or honest or legitimate, then YOU find yourself quickly under THEIR shining light of questioning and inspection. That is the way it has always been, due to EXACT LRH policy direction in the area.

Many ex-members started his or her "road out", by noticing and bringing some obvious outpoint to the attention of some staff member, HCO or RTC. Often the concerned ex-member was trying to "help" in some way, to "correct" what they saw as a deficiency. But as always, as per EXACT LRH instruction in the matter, ANY and ALL questioning is seen as "bad", and as being a sign of "disaffection".

The concept of "disaffection" is a BIG DEAL in Scientology. It means not being aligned 100% with the current rah-rah-rah viewpoint being pushed down the Scientology command channels. Of course, these days, there are just SO MANY disaffected people, that it is utterly impossible for them to "clean up the field".

"You are either with us or you are against us". THAT is a key attitude inherent in the severe absolutist vision of Scientology. It is an insane attitude, as it leaves no slightest wiggle room for any personal deviation of viewpoint from the tight little box of enforced Scientology beliefs, attitudes and agreements. To understand the key basic Scientology beliefs, see:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=15476

Within the context of "you are either with us or you are against us", of course, ANY questioning in any form, takes on the color of an "enemy" to these imbeciles. Thus, questioning, and ALL expressions of free speech, are impossible with the framework of Hubbard's Scientology network. :grouch:

It will probably always be that way until the last OSA staff member walks out of the finally dissolved and collapsed Church of Scientology.


It is important -- my perspective of course -- to appreciate the traits of the narcissistic personality. Scientology, Hubbard's alter-ego, is a reflection of his narcissism.

You might as well have used the text on this web site (http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/index.html) by Joanna Ashmun as an outline for your writing above.

Here's a bit from that web site. Red highlights are my addition:

Narcissists are (a) extremely sensitive to personal criticism and (b) extremely critical of other people. They think that they must be seen as perfect or superior or infallible, next to god-like (if not actually divine, then sitting on the right hand of God) -- or else they are worthless. There's no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists. They can't tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, "Please don't do that again -- it hurts," narcissists will turn around and do it again harder to prove that they were right the first time; their reasoning seems to be something like "I am a good person and can do no wrong; therefore, I didn't hurt you and you are lying about it now..." -- sorry, folks, I get lost after that. Anyhow, narcissists are habitually cruel in little ways, as well as big ones, because they're paying attention to their fantasy and not to you, but the bruises on you are REAL, not in your imagination. Thus, no matter how gently you suggest that they might do better to change their ways or get some help, they will react in one of two equally horrible ways: they will attack or they will withdraw. Be wary of wandering into this dragon's cave -- narcissists will say ANYTHING, they will trash anyone in their own self-justification, and then they will expect the immediate restoration of the status quo. They will attack you (sometimes physically) and spew a load of bile, insult, abuse, contempt, threats, etc., and then -- well, it's kind of like they had indigestion and the vicious tirade worked like a burp: "There. Now I feel better. Where were we?" They feel better, so they expect you to feel better, too. They will say you are nothing, worthless, and turn around immediately and say that they love you. When you object to this kind of treatment, they will say, "You just have to accept me the way I am. (God made me this way, so God loves me even if you are too stupid to understand how special I am.)" Accepting them as they are (and staying away from them entirely) is excellent advice. The other "punishment" narcissists mete out is banishing you from their glorious presence -- this can turn into a farce, since by this point you are probably praying to be rescued, "Dear God! How do I get out of this?" The narcissist expects that you will be devastated by the withdrawal of her/his divine attention, so that after a while -- a few weeks or months (i.e., the next time the narcissist needs to use you for something) -- the narcissist will expect you to have learned your lesson and be eager to return to the fold. If you have learned your lesson, you won't answer that call. They can't see that they have a problem; it's always somebody else who has the problem and needs to change. Therapies work at all only when the individual wants to change and, though narcissists hate their real selves, they don't want to change -- they want the world to change. And they criticize, gripe, and complain about almost everything and almost everyone almost all the time. There are usually a favored few whom narcissists regard as absolutely above reproach, even for egregious misconduct or actual crime, and about whom they won't brook the slightest criticism. These are people the narcissists are terrified of, though they'll tell you that what they feel is love and respect; apparently they don't know the difference between fear and love. Narcissists just get worse and worse as they grow older; their parents and other authority figures that they've feared die off, and there's less and less outside influence to keep them in check.

[Gadfly]

Great point Ted, about Hubbard's narcissistic personality. :thumbsup:

This explanation and view aligns well with easily observable patterns of behavior with him and the Church of Scientology. How can any person fail to see this? :duh:

[SweetnessandLight]

Thanks, Gadfly and Ted, for those excellent posts. :clap:

Lurkers, LOOK, don't think! :) Read everything you can get your hands on about Corporate Scientology, and then make up your own minds if it is a group you should be a part of and support, with your money, time and talents! :thumbsup:

[Veda]

A discussion of the overt (visible)/covert(hidden) nature of Scientology:


TL;DR

However, it goes to show what an introverted, wack-job of self-important, micromanagement this organization really is.

Assuming it's stated purposes are honest and factual, there is but one valid stat for the organization: Number of individuals and companies in the org's field that are flourishing and prospering according to their own goals, purposes, and ideal scenes.

All stats relative to the scientology organization should revolve around the above. Anything else is superfluous or outright bullshit.

With each passing year, the scientology field gets dirtier and dirtier. As the flow of new people into orgs grinds to a halt, the dirty field stat should level off. That's one way to control it.


Also the stats reward attacking the environment. As opposed to first policy of maintaing friendly relations.


Don't worry. There are stats for "maintaining friendly relations" too.

(In fact, when Hubbard was writing letters to the FBI, in the 1950s, claiming that people were communists or communist sympathizers, he was very friendly with some of those same people.)

"Find out who your friends are, develop them. Find out who your enemies are, destroy them."

"PR is overt. Intelligence is covert."

Hubbard developed his PR tech as cover (to which he attached the so called "first policy of maintaining friendly relations"), after he developed Scientology covert Intelligence (Fair Game) tech.

PR tech is wrapped around Intelligence tech, per his instructions.

That's a clue, old chap.


You contradict yourself re his policy on that.

You say:- "PR is overt. Intelligence is covert."

This is from PR series 7 :-

Next two lines:-

"PR is at its best when it begins and ends overtly.

Intelligence is best when it begins and ends covertly."


" It can be a serious error to cross intelligence and PR

They are two different fields. They have two distinctly
different technologies."

As ex OSA or GO or whatever I bow to your superior knowledge.
But perhaps you may wish to check for any misunderstandings?

First policy dates from march 1950. Way before GO/OSA and PR series.

He of course took this from the vast data base of wisdom that exists.
He was no dummy!

Perhaps best expressed by the Sage of bethlehem:-

"Love thy neighbour as thyself"

" Turn the other cheek"

The parable of the good Samaritan.

This Sage probably gave better lecture than LRH.


They don't mix; they complement each other.

For example, Intel frames someone for a crime he/she didn't commit, and then PR - separately - promotes that the person is "under investigation," etc.

Another example, Intel concocts a plan to send Scientologists out to buy a particular Hubbard Fiction book (in batches retail) in a specific location during a specific week, making it (fraudulently) a "Bestseller," than - separately - PR promotes it as having been a Bestseller.

Intel "creates facts" by forgery, fraud, or "setting up" a person, and then that created fact (a lie), becomes a "fact." Once a "fact," it becomes a "truth" and can be used in PR.

'First policy' is a joke, and always was.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=31490&postcount=3

[Veda]

Part 2:


Your above comments violate :-

" Never use lies in PR" PR series 2.

This and other matters have become celebrated footbullets.

First policy a joke? Go tell Jesus!

Enjoying your re -writes of green on white. :)


Now, you're mixing PR with Intel.

Once Intel (covertly) "creates a fact," in the various ways described above - and in the link I provided you - it IS a fact. For example, it was a fact that Paulette Cooper was indicted by a Grand Jury for making bomb threats - that indictment by a Grand Jury WAS a FACT, and was "TRUE."

And the people - in PR, in Scientology - who were told that she had been indicted, believed it was true. They had NO awareness that Paulette Cooper had been covertly framed by Scientology covert Intel "dirty tricks."

Another example (which apparently didn't register the first time): Fraudulent means was - discreetly, behind the scenes - used to create "Best Seller" status for Hubbard's 1970s Science Fiction books. The average PR person (or the average Scientologist) telling people that these were "bestsellers" really DOES believe it. It's right there on the 'New York Times' list of bestsellers. It's a FACT. It's "true." and - even per 'PR Series 2' - it is a FACT.

But, of course, it's a lie.

"Reality is basically agreement."

"A datum is an invention which has become agreed upon and so solidified... To get to this state it has to be thoroughly agreed upon. When it is thoroughly agreed upon it becomes, then, a truth."

What do you think Hubbard meant when he used the terms "nicey nicey PR" and "PR of PR"?

This is Scentology, remember? "Reality is basically agreement."

Have you read 'PR Series 18'? (Three sentences of which are contained in this link, but please read the entire issue. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=219727&postcount=54) and have you - carefully - read all of the PR Series issues? Have you read the confidential PR Series issues? and other related confidential issues?

If you have - which I doubt - you haven't understood them, or the subject of "PR" in Scientology, or - frankly - Scientology itself.

And you sure as heck don't understand Hubbard if you're comparing him to Jesus.

I accept that you really don't grok Scientology, even though you promote it with great enthusiasm and oozing "ARC."

And this is a problem with many Scientologists. Scientology deeply influences them, yet they - in important areas - don't understand it.

Worse, it appears to have been meant to be that way, per its devious and manipulative founder's design.

And I'm very sorry that this is the case. It certainly is a mess.

Or, as it has been called, a trap.

And to present to others a supposed system of enlightenment and have it be a trap is, to say the least, seriously rude.

You've got yourself one seriously rude guru there.

And good luck with that.


Most sensible people would not see First Policy as a joke. It is just good sense. It is assumed this policy was written from strength.

All things considered, i.e. destructive actions of the GO, SO, ethics policies, LRH's own contradictory orders and advices... This is much violation of First Policy that came from the same man who wrote it.

If his writings do anything to expose the man, LRH must have been a mixed bag of good sense and idiocy. It now appears to me that First Policy was written from good sense and cowardess. Once the coward-side gained strength it let loose its case, First Policy fell by the wayside.

In good sense, I can't reconcile the message of "What Is Greatness" with the image a couple of middle-aged men pushing a peanut around the deck of the Apollo while their shipmates and family watched and LRH bellowed, "Faster! Faster!"

Thank you Veda and Terril for this moment of enlightenment.


The so called "First Policy" appeared, not in 1950, but in HCOPL of 2 September 1970.

The overt/covert model for Scientology dates back to 1938, when Hubbard wrote of his (hidden) "real goal." There's nothing contradictory about Hubbard having Charles Reisdorf push a peanut around the deck of the Royal Scotsman with his nose (later Apollo), and his writing 'What is Greatness?'

It's a pattern, a paradigm, a template, a design. One carefully constructed, brick by brick, over many years. 'Battle Tactics' of February 1969 does not conflict with 'First Policy' of September 1970. 'Fair Game' (1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, etc.) and "What is Greatness?' (1966) are not contradictory; they are complementary, One is covert, The other is overt (publicized.)

[Veda]

Part 3:


And in so doing, OSA takes somebody who might have had a passing annoyance with Scn, and transforms him into a sworn, lifelong enemy. Major footbullet.

This sort of stuff only works short-term, and only to the extent that the OSA action is such that the target is intimidated into eternal silence, AND the target has no friends who get pissed off at the OSA attack. If the targets ever lose their fear of OSA, then you have the current phenomenon.

OSA creates enemies wholesale while "handling" people retail.


A "pure" covert operation would begin and be completed without any visible connection to Scientology. That means the person would know that stuff was happening, but wouldn't know its source.

Once it became a matter of public record, then Scientology - as an apparent bystander - would comment, in its "PR."

That's the way it's supposed to "work."

Mainly, people hear about the times it didn't "work."

"Tech is out in Orgs" right now, so this tech - to some extent - is "out" too.

In this thread, however, I wasn't debating the degree of success of this particular part of Scientology tech, only attempting to describe the relationship of Scientology PR tech to Scientology Intel tech. :)


Thanks, Veda, for doing so! It helps me to see things clearer and understand the current situation more. :)
I hope it will be informative for others, as well.

[Mystic]

There are sources of "attacks" on any and all of tulpa Hubbard's spews far beyond the tulpa's programming for which there are no stats and never will be.

A rather huge but simply stated one: Time.

And another: Life.

[Veda]

#1: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=392325&postcount=38

#2: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=392327&postcount=39

#3: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=392331&postcount=40

[Anonycat]

Excellent info -- keep it coming.

[SweetnessandLight]

:) Bump :)

[Lurker5]

Bump :ohmy:

[SweetnessandLight]

Maybe we should send this to that cop in D.C. who didn't help Sparrow! :confused2:

Might enlighten him a little... :eyeroll:

[SweetnessandLight]

LRH wrote up these points. These are the chink in the armor. Check out my current tally.

2. External Influences - where an org is being influenced
by External Influences and this is not handled by OSA.
Also each External Influence who has not been handled.
This would include any actions done by TM Infringers which
affect the org or the field. DONE

3. A suit filed against a Church entity or individual. DONE

4. Any lost suit. I/P

5. A print media hit - a newspaper or magazine story which
is an attack. DONE (many times over)

6. An attack on the TV by an individual eg. an entheta
source who has gotten on a TV talk show to forward an
attack, or on a radio show.DONE (many times over)

7. A TV program that is an attack on the Church.DONE

8. Legislation proposed in any area that hinders our
operations in that area. I/P

9. Legislation passed in any area that hinders our
operations in that area. I/P

10. An entheta book published.DONE

11. Any legislative or governmental inquiry initiated into
the Church. I/P

12. Any Scientology activity closed down through
opposition actions.I/P

13. Government restrictions imposed upon the Church. I/P

14. A legal case not involving the Church but resulting in
a judgement that is an attack upon the Church. I/P

15. A civil suit filed on the Church.

16. A civil judgement against the Church.

17. A deprogramming attempt on a Scientologist.DONE

18. A penal (criminal) complaint against a Church or a
staff member filed.DONE

19. A penal (criminal) complaint against a Church or a
staff member being acted on.DONE



Until next time...
BFG

Very good work, BFG! Terril, you have some competition here! :D

[SweetnessandLight]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7080/7002778135_31a165393d_z.jpg

[Adam7986]

Holy shit I can picture the stat graph for OSA the last couple of months.
http://www.forexmicrolot.com/img/pages/information/education/forex-school/fundamental-analysis/usdcad-three-year-graph.gif

[SweetnessandLight]

Christmas BUMP! :biggrin:


http://www.retrojunkie.com/gif/christmas_animated_gif_11.gif

[Blownforgood]

2013 UPDATE

2. External Influences - where an org is being influenced
by External Influences and this is not handled by OSA.
Also each External Influence who has not been handled.
This would include any actions done by TM Infringers which
affect the org or the field. DONE

3. A suit filed against a Church entity or individual. DONE

4. Any lost suit. FAILED (but they did spend 10 million dollars fighting it...)

5. A print media hit - a newspaper or magazine story which
is an attack. DONE (many times over)

6. An attack on the TV by an individual eg. an entheta
source who has gotten on a TV talk show to forward an
attack, or on a radio show.DONE (many times over)

7. A TV program that is an attack on the Church.DONE

8. Legislation proposed in any area that hinders our
operations in that area. I/P

9. Legislation passed in any area that hinders our
operations in that area. I/P

10. An entheta book published.DONEI/PI/P
11. Any legislative or governmental inquiry initiated into
the Church. DONE

12. Any Scientology activity closed down through
opposition actions.I/P

13. Government restrictions imposed upon the Church. I/P

14. A legal case not involving the Church but resulting in
a judgement that is an attack upon the Church. I/P

15. A civil suit filed on the Church. DONE

16. A civil judgement against the Church.FAILED

17. A deprogramming attempt on a Scientologist.DONE

18. A penal (criminal) complaint against a Church or a
staff member filed.DONE

19. A penal (criminal) complaint against a Church or a
staff member being acted on.DONE

Here's to a GREAT 2013!

Until next time...
BFG

[SweetnessandLight]

Attaboy, BlownForGood!! :thumbsup: :happydance:

Any other Freedom Fighters like to record their "stats" here? :biggrin:

[Purple Rain]

2013 UPDATE

2. External Influences - where an org is being influenced
by External Influences and this is not handled by OSA.
Also each External Influence who has not been handled.
This would include any actions done by TM Infringers which
affect the org or the field. DONE

3. A suit filed against a Church entity or individual. DONE

4. Any lost suit. FAILED (but they did spend 10 million dollars fighting it...)

5. A print media hit - a newspaper or magazine story which
is an attack. DONE (many times over)

6. An attack on the TV by an individual eg. an entheta
source who has gotten on a TV talk show to forward an
attack, or on a radio show.DONE (many times over)

7. A TV program that is an attack on the Church.DONE

8. Legislation proposed in any area that hinders our
operations in that area. I/P

9. Legislation passed in any area that hinders our
operations in that area. I/P

10. An entheta book published.DONEI/PI/P
11. Any legislative or governmental inquiry initiated into
the Church. DONE

12. Any Scientology activity closed down through
opposition actions.I/P

13. Government restrictions imposed upon the Church. I/P

14. A legal case not involving the Church but resulting in
a judgement that is an attack upon the Church. I/P

15. A civil suit filed on the Church. DONE

16. A civil judgement against the Church.FAILED

17. A deprogramming attempt on a Scientologist.DONE

18. A penal (criminal) complaint against a Church or a
staff member filed.DONE

19. A penal (criminal) complaint against a Church or a
staff member being acted on.DONE

Here's to a GREAT 2013!

Until next time...
BFG

It will certainly be a milestone year for the church! Lol!

[SweetnessandLight]

Bumpity-bump for the Newbies! :thumbsup:

[c-orgy]

2 random observations:

1. People do not get "deprogrammed" from true self help groups.
From the examples of the OSA stats--The fact that the Scientology uses "deprogramming attempt" on one of it's adherents as a stat is a de facto admission that it is a cult.

and B:
How is "posting a blog" = 1 point and "publishing a book" = 4 points?
Is the damage of 4 Marty posts equal to 1 Lawrence Wright book?
Stupid people cling to numbers and statistics when they cannot observe or grasp concepts. It's fine to use stats as an indicator, but you have to be smart enough to design, interpret and sometimes toss out the stats.

That is all....

[lotus]

And don't forget,


''life is a game'' per $camology

How many points did you got last week?????
How many ennemies did you TERMINATELY handled????

I am waiting a confirmation
that of one of my ennemies (he criticized me)
is terminnaly ill (dying)
so I can be upstat this week :happydance:

I KNOW my thetan is totally in control over MEST and CAUSE over life
Life is a game I can win!

http://imgs.mi9.com/uploads/game/3794/call-of-duty-world-at-war-game-art-picture_1024x768_57364.jpg

[Idle Morgue]

Attaboy, BlownForGood!! :thumbsup: :happydance:

Any other Freedom Fighters like to record their "stats" here? :biggrin:

Do you want Freedom Fighters inside or outside the cult?:coolwink:

Okay - here are the one's INSIDE THE CULT that have done damage to the Church of Scientology, unknowingly, and have stats!

Tom Cruise
Katie Holmes
Suri Cruise
Conner Cruise
Isabella Cruise
Nicole Kidman
John Travolta
Lisa Marie Presley
John Travolta
Kirstie Alley
Kelly Preston Travolta
Jett Preston RIP
Tommy Davis
Joe Feshbach - the one who died at the age of 57 after all three L's, OT Ate and Super Power rundowns
Jessica Rodriguz Feshbach
Anne Archer
Greta Van Susteren - OT Ate
John Coale - Greta Van Susteren's husband - OT Ate - dieing of cancer? Greta Van Susteren's husband John Coale is fighting cancer (posted on Tony Ortega's blog)

All of these thetan's have contributed to negative PR for the Church of Scientology.

Out of the Cult
Every single one of you who make one post of the truth about what Scientology is, what they really do to people are contributing to the motion and you are all in fricken POWER!!
Luis Garcia
Michael Fairman
Mike Rinder
Marty Rathbun
Claire Headley
Marc Headley
Arnie Lerma
Jefferson Hawkins
Jenna Miscavige
Ron Miscavige
Roane Leake - Hubbard's granddaughter
Ron Miscavige JR
Debbie Cook
Wayne Baumgartner
Michael Pattison
Jason Beghe
Tory Magoo
Pat Broeker
Annie Broeker - RIP
Lisa McPherson - RIP - she is still doing damage - she did not die in vain!
Maria Pia Gardini - RIP
Hy Levy - RIP
Greg Arnold - Private Investigator hired to follow Pat Broeker for 25 years by the Co$
Paul Marrick - " ^
Paul Haggis
Lucas Canton
David Love
Anonymous

I am getting tired and I realized there are just too many to post - but good job everyone. Effective blows every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every single week - blow after blow after blow until it is dismantled and just a faded bad memory!!

http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/

Just found this new website ^^