Tech Good, Management Bad?

[Feral]

I've been wanting to challenge a mind set here for a while among Scientologists, heretical scientologists, FZers and fence sitters. The odd thing is this applies to me a bit as well. Mostly as I left the Church.

So here it is, if this Scientology is the tech of life and all that it is said to be how come the church itself hasn't prospered ? The staff and SO don't do well, the public don't show any real positive difference from their peers in the world at large. In fact if you take a real hard look you will even find the opposite.

There is a lot of discussion on the board based on the assumption that the tech is great and management is not and it is or has gone bad. That explains everything of course, all of the outnesses right down to the lack of the state of OT as a result from the OT levels, the abuse, secrecy and lack of expansion and popularity of the church.

Every now and then DM announces a magic bullet to remedy this, a piece of tech that will fix everything something that has been corrected from management created alterations, something wonderful. With each 'magic bullet' the church sells it's faithful they appear to go further down the road to the inevitable exposure that the tech does not and will not produce what was implied.

By magic bullet I'm talking about; KTL, LOC, Grades for OTs, New NOTS, GAT, GAK, Advanced pgms, new PTS SP courses and new books, ad-infinitum, each new re-release and sometimes re-re-release explaining away and remedying the failures of the past, which for those brief windows of convenience appear to be acknowledged.

The result? Inevitably more abuse, greater expense and tighter 'ethics' and control for and of the public and those 'out ethics' staff.

I can hear the FZers say; "exactly, it's the bad and suppressive management". Proves it doesn't it?

So, how good is this tech?

Then if we look at the horrible experiences execs and staff had endured while working on staff and even in the field with the church's awful justice and administrative techniques we see a similarly unfriendly environment of comm-evs and sec checks and abuse which over the years have become more and more draconian.

So, to all you FZers and others; I propose that this result is the inevitable result of an unworkable body of technology developed as bait to lure people in to agreement and alliance with Hubbard and his game of dominance over the minds of men. Hubbard's paranoia has mirrored itself like a cancer in his admin tech with classic creations like the RPF, Scientology justice, fair game, The elite SO, OSAs dirty tricks and many more.

Now before every one thinks I've joined the "it's all dreck" club and that I think none of it works. I'll say, like many here I had a lot of gain here and there from auditing and training. But I proppose those wins and pieces of workability were bits of bait laid along the trail called the bridge to keep us shelling out and to convince us that it WAS the carefully laid path out of here to OT god like abilities and states that have been alluded to since the PDC days yet have never manifest themselves.


What do you' techies' and ' Ronnites' not agree with here? .

 

[Leon]

OK. I'm going to give my answer here, because as I say elsewhere I am one of the few on this board who reckons that Scientology properly done is a vwery good thing. I have myself thought quite a bit about why I have done well with it and others haven't - I even saw this in the Org I spent so many years at - Cape Town.

The conclusion I came to was that I never saw Scientolgoy as a deal where I pay money and receive a package of benefits in return, accepting that I go through all the motions required of me. And as far as I can see most other people have to a fair extent done just that - they were promised xyz if they paid their money and did the bridge. So they paid their money, "did" the bridge and ended up saying where the fuck is my xyz?

There was much that LRH said that I and some buddies of mine just never took on board. I can't recall all of them now but they included things like the Sea Org being established to compensate for a failed naval career, LRH never being wrong and being in fact the only Scientologist whose ServFac was made mandatory on all by HCO policy, and many other things too.

All tiold I don't think I spent more than a few thousand dollars on Scio - maybe 3 or 4. I also spent about 12 years on Org staff. During that time I trained on everything I possibly could train on in South Africa plus the OEC/FEBC. Tachwise I was a senior class 4 grad with honours, a class 4 C/S interned with honours, XDn, etc etc.
In auditing I had up to Grade one plus many of the side rundowns - HRD, Integ, I can't remember them all. Probably about 5 or 600 or more hours in the pc chair.

So what was my approach? Number one was that I just knew that no one was going to "deliver" any gains to me. Scio was to me a big library of skills and knowledge and I would get only what I worked to get. It was always entirely and only up to me.

Number two was I didn't care a hoot about "courses" as such - I just did them for form sake - I set out with a purpose that I was going to understyand everything there was to understand in this subject. But everything. So I studied night and day books, tapes, red volumes, everything I could lay my hands on.

I also studied context - every related book and subject that contributed to an education in the mind and that was somehow linked. I devoured all I could find.

I got auditing wherever I could - mostly from students wanting someone to audit for their courses. I did all of the HQS auditing three times through. masses of Dianetics. Grade zero I paid for. Grade one and all the other rundowns from students. Grades 2 to 4 I never did (still haven't done).

From Power on up I did free in the Freezone in Joburg. Excal I paid for. Masses and masses of other solo auditing via Pilot and my own ideas.

So it all comes down to one word: involvement. I was always massively involved. I was never ever there to get, I was always there to do. I started out horribly PTS and miserable, I came out of it on top of the world. I will for ever be grateful for Scientology and the opportunities that became possible because of it.

 

[Alanzo]

People have joined movements for much less.

The Communists had nothing, and only a possible material future to gain. They didn't offer an ethics officer who might give you an excuse to thoroughly condemn your parents and other acquaintances as SPs, too.

The Christians only promised an afterlife. They didn't have auditors to help you fantasize your past life and guarantee your own ego's exaltation in a future life, too.

The Fascists? They could only envision trains running on time, but they could never promise x-ray vision into your co-worker's underpants.

Scientology offers so much.

How could you ever ask anyone to give it up?

 

[Been Done Had]

Very thoughtful post Feral,

I'm not tech trained or a FZer. But here's my take...

You're wrestling with the core issue I wrestle with. You have gone much further up the bridge than I ever did, so it's interesting you have to work to find value in your processing.

I think it is impossible that I could have gotten involved with Scientology, lost family to it and invested my money, blood sweat and tears if there wasn't something good at its core. But is there something good there? Or am I simply trying to ease the sting of having been a cult member (there I said it and I hate saying it.)

I'm of the opinion the tech COULD work. And often does. Now whether the tech AS APPLIED by the CofS provides lasting stable gains is doubtful.

Does Freezone tech of the appropriate vintage provide lasting gains?

Where are gains? Improvements in one's conditions and abilities. Gains. They can be subtle. Or massive.

But there is a difference between gains and the godlike abilities promised in tape after tape, book after book. Scientology is supposed to free us of this trap, to enable us stroll right out of the mest universe and spend timeless aeons cooing over each others mock-ups.

I think the culture of management inside the CofS is a horrendous soul killing monstrosity. Does that mean the tech doesn't work? The inference does seem valid that if a group has the means to elevate mankind, shouldn't that group be lighthearted and capable and pleasant?

The tech frees, but the church enslaves.

I have seen posts on this board that suggest techniques that created powerful INDEPENDENT beings were jettisoned.

Scientology like any other religious movement needs to undergo a reformation. It needs its Council of Nicea to sort through the materials and rebuild it.

I believe there needs to be a focused effort to rebuild the bridge. Keep what works, complete the research. Lose the middling or oppressive components.

The management tech is a total joke. It's ludicrous. Worse than being a joke it's toxic. It incubates abuse. Plain and simple. Lose it.

No matter what happens I predict radical changes for official Scientology in the near future.

 

[Carmel]

I don't like or agree that it has to be so damn finite, and I don't believe that I ever, ever will! Nor do I don't understand why so many try to make it so - it doesn't need to be.

I have no argument that some of the "tech" leaves a fair amount to be desired. I also have no argument that some policies, parts of policies, and LRH directives/advices were destructive in the extreme. I will however argue that some of it was damn good shit, and/or that there was some damn good shit there for the taking.

The dichotomies within the whole body of Scn have been thrashed to the hilt, here on ESMB and elsewhere - yes, they exist. Scientology 'itself' (not the CofS), had some pretty bloody destructive elements/advices in it, but so too did it have some pretty powerful concepts/tools that could certainly change conditions for the better if 'thought with', taken on board, and used.

Scn is not "good" nor "bad" IMO. It's both, and it's a whole gammut of things in between. I don't see how or why we have to try and lump it into one box or category. IMO, it's impossible and just foolish to do so. It annoys me when people try to, including when my husband does!

We don't have to be "pro tech" or "anti tech", and we don't have to make anything 'fit'. We can just look at it for what it was (the good and the bad), how we as individuals took it, what we did with it, and the effect it has had on us and others. If we deny 'truths', no matter how unpalatable they may seem, we'll be up shit creek for sure - Denying truths will certainly hamper one's ability to 'let go', to 'recover', and to 'move on'.

There's my rant, Mr Bloody MacKey! - I think you and Mr Bloody Underwood, must've been comparing notes!

 

[Thalkirst]

OK, I'll give my viewpoint.

After spending several years in the Sea Org, basically being a Scientologist 24/7, the tech and management aspects became inseparable.

For me, the healing occured when I could discard both.

I went through a phase when I thought that DM's is an SP, but the tech is fundamentally good. But I was still unhappy, still fixated on the subject, still "trapped".

Then a lot more reading later (especially the insightful posts of ex-Int people like Jeff Hawkins & BFG and some of the original SO members like Alan and DartSmohen) I realized that the "tech" is indeed faulty and does have suppressive elements (of course, Hubbard had some good and genuinely helpful observations as well). And after 10+ years of being a Scientologist, I finally realized that I ceased to become myself and I became Thalkirst the Scientologist, that comes with all the false happiness and counterfeit purposes the Church offers. I undoubtedly happy in the Church (especially after auditing) but none of the wins were long-lasting.

To experience real happiness, I had to become myself again, following my own purposes. I even found out that doing this that made me happy before Scientology (like reading sci-fi books from certain authors, taking long walks etc. - you know, it's completely personal) does have a therapeutic value is restoring my true self.

In Scientologese, I kind of exteriorized from the subject and I could see what it is really. But for that, I had to realize the so-called 'Standard Tech' is very incomplete and not better than the competition. It certainly looks better from the outside - with all these levels and terminology it surely looks scientific and methodical, but IMHO it just masks the fact that Hubbard was mainly experimenting and hoping and did not achieve much, but he was definitely 100% sure that he is right - just like any other cult leader. So, for me the 'tech' is mainly a collection of his bright ideas that have some workability (and some harmful side-effects as well), but they actually lead to nowhere.

Just my 2 1/2 cents.

 

[Lesolee (Sith Lord)]

So Feral, the key here seems to be to pick up the "bait", the good bits, and discard anything that doesn't work for you or your pc. This can apparently only be done outside the Co$.

I believe this will take a person further and faster than any other activity.

For me, if somebody's case has been fucked up by the Co$ then using Idenics, or horse therapy, or whatever, to help the person out is all fine. Whatever works for the person.

Going surfing and hangin' at the beach only takes you so far.

(The reason for suggesting Idenics etc is that the person can be so fucked up that they might ridge on help from a scientologist, but could get help from another type of auditing. )

 

[Vinaire]

OK. I'm going to give my answer here, because as I say elsewhere I am one of the few on this board who reckons that Scientology properly done is a vwery good thing. I have myself thought quite a bit about why I have done well with it and others haven't - I even saw this in the Org I spent so many years at - Cape Town.

The conclusion I came to was that I never saw Scientolgoy as a deal where I pay money and receive a package of benefits in return, accepting that I go through all the motions required of me. And as far as I can see most other people have to a fair extent done just that - they were promised xyz if they paid their money and did the bridge. So they paid their money, "did" the bridge and ended up saying where the fuck is my xyz?

There was much that LRH said that I and some buddies of mine just never took on board. I can't recall all of them now but they included things like the Sea Org being established to compensate for a failed naval career, LRH never being wrong and being in fact the only Scientologist whose ServFac was made mandatory on all by HCO policy, and many other things too.

All tiold I don't think I spent more than a few thousand dollars on Scio - maybe 3 or 4. I also spent about 12 years on Org staff. During that time I trained on everything I possibly could train on in South Africa plus the OEC/FEBC. Tachwise I was a senior class 4 grad with honours, a class 4 C/S interned with honours, XDn, etc etc.
In auditing I had up to Grade one plus many of the side rundowns - HRD, Integ, I can't remember them all. Probably about 5 or 600 or more hours in the pc chair.

So what was my approach? Number one was that I just knew that no one was going to "deliver" any gains to me. Scio was to me a big library of skills and knowledge and I would get only what I worked to get. It was always entirely and only up to me.

Number two was I didn't care a hoot about "courses" as such - I just did them for form sake - I set out with a purpose that I was going to understyand everything there was to understand in this subject. But everything. So I studied night and day books, tapes, red volumes, everything I could lay my hands on.

I also studied context - every related book and subject that contributed to an education in the mind and that was somehow linked. I devoured all I could find.

I got auditing wherever I could - mostly from students wanting someone to audit for their courses. I did all of the HQS auditing three times through. masses of Dianetics. Grade zero I paid for. Grade one and all the other rundowns from students. Grades 2 to 4 I never did (still haven't done).

From Power on up I did free in the Freezone in Joburg. Excal I paid for. Masses and masses of other solo auditing via Pilot and my own ideas.

So it all comes down to one word: involvement. I was always massively involved. I was never ever there to get, I was always there to do. I started out horribly PTS and miserable, I came out of it on top of the world. I will for ever be grateful for Scientology and the opportunities that became possible because of it.

I can totally grok what you said here, Leon. My approach has been very similar.

.

 

[Vinaire]

People have joined movements for much less.

The Communists had nothing, and only a possible material future to gain. They didn't offer an ethics officer who might give you an excuse to thoroughly condemn your parents and other acquaintances as SPs, too.

The Christians only promised an afterlife. They didn't have auditors to help you fantasize your past life and guarantee your own ego's exaltation in a future life, too.

The Fascists? They could only envision trains running on time, but they could never promise x-ray vision into your co-worker's underpants.

Scientology offers so much.

How could you ever ask anyone to give it up?

Scientology does give that x-ray vision. It is called "mocking up."

Actually all past is also a mock up.

.

 

[Vinaire]

I don't like or agree that it has to be so damn finite, and I don't believe that I ever, ever will! Nor do I don't understand why so many try to make it so - it doesn't need to be.

I have no argument that some of the "tech" leaves a fair amount to be desired. I also have no argument that some policies, parts of policies, and LRH directives/advices were destructive in the extreme. I will however argue that some of it was damn good shit, and/or that there was some damn good shit there for the taking.

The dichotomies within the whole body of Scn have been thrashed to the hilt, here on ESMB and elsewhere - yes, they exist. Scientology 'itself' (not the CofS), had some pretty bloody destructive elements/advices in it, but so too did it have some pretty powerful concepts/tools that could certainly change conditions for the better if 'thought with', taken on board, and used.

Scn is not "good" nor "bad" IMO. It's both, and it's a whole gammut of things in between. I don't see how or why we have to try and lump it into one box or category. IMO, it's impossible and just foolish to do so. It annoys me when people try to, including when my husband does!

We don't have to be "pro tech" or "anti tech", and we don't have to make anything 'fit'. We can just look at it for what it was (the good and the bad), how we as individuals took it, what we did with it, and the effect it has had on us and others. If we deny 'truths', no matter how unpalatable they may seem, we'll be up shit creek for sure - Denying truths will certainly hamper one's ability to 'let go', to 'recover', and to 'move on'.

There's my rant, Mr Bloody MacKey! - I think you and Mr Bloody Underwood, must've been comparing notes!

I think this is quite an astute observation and analysis from Carmel.

I look at Scientology as just a strong blip in a long effort of man to understand himself since ancient times. Scientology cannot be looked at in isolation, if one wants to come up with any usable assessment.

Scientology is simply one man's look at the accumulated knowledge of Man, and an effort to voice it in today's language of sci-fi. Obviously there are those concepts of "survive" and "engram" around which an effort has been made to organize rest of the data. This is this man's theory. But no theories are perfect.

That's all it is... a one-man effort... and that man had a big ego.

But, we can also look at all that knowledge, just the way this man did, and follow our own intelligence to evaluate it, while avoiding the pitfalls of ego this man fell into.

There is nothing stopping you from taking over the task this man attempted, and carry it forward, without botching it up the way this man did.

.

 

[Feral]

I don't like or agree that it has to be so damn finite, and I don't believe that I ever, ever will! Nor do I don't understand why so many try to make it so - it doesn't need to be.

Well if not that finite, what is it?

I have no argument that some of the "tech" leaves a fair amount to be desired. I also have no argument that some policies, parts of policies, and LRH directives/advices were destructive in the extreme. I will however argue that some of it was damn good shit, and/or that there was some damn good shit there for the taking.

Good, you're getting there!

The dichotomies within the whole body of Scn have been thrashed to the hilt, here on ESMB and elsewhere - yes, they exist. Scientology 'itself' (not the CofS), had some pretty bloody destructive elements/advices in it, but so too did it have some pretty powerful concepts/tools that could certainly change conditions for the better if 'thought with', taken on board, and used.

Sure, what's your point?

Scn is not "good" nor "bad" IMO. It's both, and it's a whole gammut of things in between. I don't see how or why we have to try and lump it into one box or category. IMO, it's impossible and just foolish to do so. It annoys me when people try to, including when my husband does!

So what of the 'prime postulate' that began the game?

And I agree I find it both good and bad, I think the good was bait to achieve various things that turned out BAD, like your gang bang sec check and a great deal of...well nearly everything that is going on in the cult today.

We don't have to be "pro tech" or "anti tech", and we don't have to make anything 'fit'. We can just look at it for what it was (the good and the bad), how we as individuals took it, what we did with it, and the effect it has had on us and others. If we deny 'truths', no matter how unpalatable they may seem, we'll be up shit creek for sure - Denying truths will certainly hamper one's ability to 'let go', to 'recover', and to 'move on'.

So WHY are you SO pro tech? When in extended discussions I find that you suspect or reject more data than I do!!!????

There's my rant, Mr Bloody MacKey! - I think you and Mr Bloody Underwood, must've been comparing notes!

[/QUOTE]
NO. We are 'thinking' with the whole package and weighing it up on the basis out how it turned out!!

 

[scooter]

I'm gonna answer by first telling a (true) story.

I got a text message from a friend begging for help.

His three day old nephew was in Intensive Care, had been resuscitated twice that night and the hospital had told the kid's mother that they probably couldn't do it again so be prepared for the worst.

I texted my friend back telling him to call me.

I spoke to him over the phone for a while and hatted him up on doing two assists to a specific EP on each and to alternate them if needed.

He went and did them - once each - and the kid was transferred to a normal ward and discharged from hospital not too long after.

No further complicatons and the boy's still doing fine a year later, despite having had a pulse rate that night of over 300 per minute - yes, that's right.

Yet the top of the Bridge has produced an OT VIIII Cl IV Auditor I know who is stupid, forgetful, and totally fixated on the opposite sex - and they're older than me.

I think it started out with a lot of workability but fell away badly as "The Bridge" was climbed - the hope was truly "a lick and a promise" of better things ahead.

DM's "success" in "keeping the dream alive has been his succession of magic bullets and the hope his audience has of at least one of these succeeding.

I've spent the last few months very critically analizing what 30 years "in" has done for me and it's given me some good things, but it's denied me the chance for sooooooo much more.

Like Leon, what I've gotten has been what I've worked on and sweated and slaved for.

It's not new abilities, it's the ones I always had but that I practised a lot as a Scientologist and thus took them to new heights I thought were new abilities, but on reflection, every one was there before I ever walked into the org in Lee Street in 1979.

 

[Ted]

I've been wanting to challenge a mind set here for a while among Scientologists, heretical scientologists, FZers and fence sitters. The odd thing is this applies to me a bit as well. Mostly as I left the Church.

So here it is, if this Scientology is the tech of life and all that it is said to be how come the church itself hasn't prospered ?

There is but one logical conclusion to your question: Taken as a whole, tech, policy, programs, orders, etc., Scientology tech and policy are NOT the tech of life, even though Hubbard led you to believe otherwise.


--
Ted

 

[NeXTep]

Admin tech, what admin tech?

I think there isn't such a thing as admin tech that has any value. At least it is definitely not high above any standard common sense and what businesses do anyway. Let's see a few points that are different:

Weekly stats for example. Anyone having been on staff knows what insanities have been committed in the name of stats and you must realize that your contribution cannot just be measured my a weekly stat in most cases.

Ethics.
Ethics is actually a euphenism for a punishment/redemption system and is designed to avoid having to fire an employee right away when you notice that he is not doing his job. It is not a system that handles a person's issues and thus at the most would serve to delay them until such time they can be addressed properly. Currently it is anyway only used to enforce a totalitarian system. In a business company there is no way one could make the application of ethics acceptable anyway.

Data Series:
Anyone having read them will realize the amount of propaganda Hubbard put into them as the all out solution to administrative problems. What did they give us. Nothing. In fact I remember when on staff in the eighties every dogshit hat to be evaluated and approved by WDC, RTC, GOD or whatever other 3 letter word you want to put in, causing immense delays to solutions that if common sense had been applied would have been solved. Most of those "evals" never got approved as none wanted to stick his head out too much by implementing the drastic measures that were needed. And those few that got approved and implemented by the time they were implemented were so far off the mark or washed out that they had to be cancelled again or had no impact whatsoever.

So the only thing that would make a difference IMHO is tech applied to the staff and they having their issues addressed and solved.

What we have now is that auditing is so expensive to deliver that any org at best can deliver it only to paying publics. Staff never get processed. As a consequence staff have to be mentally conditioned to believe they are OTs already if they "make things go right", "have no case on post" and you name it in order to keep functioning. This mental conditioning goes so far as to actually believe that they don't need any processing. Mental conditioning is a big trap as one may see some results right away but the effort to then suppress the upcoming negativity is immense and those skeletons in the basement will sooner or later come to get you. Then hell hath no fury.

In any case Scientology is doomed.

Just imagine, all current Scientologists will be exes.

 

[knn]

So here it is, if this Scientology is the tech of life and all that it is said to be how come the church itself hasn't prospered ? The staff and SO don't do well, the public don't show any real positive difference from their peers in the world at large. In fact if you take a real hard look you will even find the opposite.

I think the biggest mistake LRH made was to introduce ETHICS and the Sea Org.

I think it's safe to say that there wouldn't be a big anti-Church movement if there wouldn't be Ethics (including RPF), wouldn't be high prices, wouldn't be Sea Org (including abortions and RPF).

These are complete arbitraries.

• Imagine a bank where you want to deposit some money. A pretty straightforward request.
• You enter the building and you see on the 1st floor level some guys in marine uniforms. "The special bank corps". They are only allowed to marry amongst each other. Some of them are kept on rice and beans.
• Before you can deposit money you will be sec checked whether you have family members who work as reporters. Or whether you have inappropriate thoughts.
• If you ever dare to criticize the bank you will be SP declared and lose your money.
• 95% of the bank's staff don't work for customer services but are involved in internal self-management and in printing glossy brochures.
• Any other bank is sued in court for the use of terms like "money" or "interest".
• Moreover it costs you a fortune to get minor services, but the staff servicing you looks really tired and broke.

It's completely ridiculous. Completely arbitrary. Unless they don't completely revamp Ethics and Admin they will bleed out.

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

Wondering...

Well if not that finite, what is it?


Good, you're getting there!




Sure, what's your point?



So what of the 'prime postulate' that began the game?

And I agree I find it both good and bad, I think the good was bait to achieve various things that turned out BAD, like your gang bang sec check and a great deal of...well nearly everything that is going on in the cult today.



So WHY are you SO pro tech? When in extended discussions I find that you suspect or reject more data than I do!!!????



NO. We are 'thinking' with the whole package and weighing it up on the basis out how it turned out!!

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

Kevin, I found your original perspective quite valid and thought provoking.

Then Carmel came back from her own, personal viewpoint and perspective - which I found equally valid and thought provoking.

I was surprised to see the above post from you as it seems to be a bit invalidative of Carmel's views and observations, and you appear to be negating any perspective other than your own. :confused2:

Every single one of us is unique - and valuable - we need to all stick together and support the views, experiences, opinions and thoughts of the ones we know best and love. Just sayin'

Viva la difference!

Love,

EP

 

[Voltaire's Child]

No offense, but this is a common misconception among critics. I've seen many many posts that indicate that the authors believe Freezoners and other non CofS Scn'ists think that the only or primary problem with Scn is current management and not the tech.

Actually, many of us have on many occasions posted that there are problems with tech and policy itself and that this is exactly why current CofS management is as fucked up as it is.

The sticking point for some critics seems to be that they cannot imagine anyone having that view and still being interested in Scn so they gloss over it and assume that non CofS Scn'ists have a tech good (and LRH good) management bad outlook. It seems to be the only point of view they can imagine and attribute. But it's not what all indies think. Some do, yes, but many don't. And those who don't have posted accordingly here on ESMB on multitudinous occasions.

 

[Vinaire]

Well if not that finite, what is it?


Good, you're getting there!




Sure, what's your point?



So what of the 'prime postulate' that began the game?

And I agree I find it both good and bad, I think the good was bait to achieve various things that turned out BAD, like your gang bang sec check and a great deal of...well nearly everything that is going on in the cult today.


NO. We are 'thinking' with the whole package and weighing it up on the basis out how it turned out!!

I find this post uncharacteristic of Feral too.

.

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

A possible explanation...

I find this post uncharacteristic of Feral too.

.

Ah well... us males do tend ta get a bit "ser-facy" on the odd occasion.

So we'd hope the "chicks" would cut us some slack when we do.

 

[Lesolee (Sith Lord)]

I find this post uncharacteristic of Feral too.

Can't blame his BT's 'cos he's OTVII and ain't got none

He's good friends with Carmel, so it's not that serious