Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
He's still being a Sea Org "exec", trying to control everybody and get their ethics in.
Ken and Yvonne Schick Resignation
- Thread starter Mike Laws
- Start date
He's still being a Sea Org "exec", trying to control everybody and get their ethics in.
Oh goody. As inevitably as tits, we've gotten around to the hoary 'Doing OSA's Work' charge.
There has yet to have been a manipulative marketer and factional partisan who hasn't managed that leap in the more than a decade since it made its first appearance.
But, let's examine this; What does 'Safe' mean in this context? It's pretty obvious: 'Safe' means 'Not presenting a reality that the target can't accept'.
In that sense, ESMB was *never* 'Safe'. Thank God. And, it's always been a battleground of ideas; luckily a fairly cordial one. But, that doesn't mean it's adopted Ron's 'acceptable reality' gradients. Nor does it mean it's been 'safe' from Merchants of Manipulation; people with an agenda, dead set on defining the limits of expression. They've always been with us and have *failed* in their attempts; whether it was 'activists' who wanted an 'activist' board or Minton War Revivalists or MindFuck Light enthusiasts. (Who predate the 'New Independents' by quite a ways.)
And, the charges range from 'Unfair to Zonies' to 'Zonies Taking Over!' Until it all dies down and the Natter resumes at its usual level of polite heterogeneous hubbub.
No doubt OSA has its fingers in any spat it can find. On any side. So what? The intent is to destroy communication, whether by raising the furor to repulsive levels or stifling it to mandated 'acceptable truth'. But, finger in and third partying aren't what makes the differences of opinion and the expression of them. Those come free with every box of New Improved ESMB Natter.
Zinj
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
To Mike Laws:
It's a big wide world out here, and much of it is not under your control. The people who express themselves on this forum do so how they see fit. You will never be able to change that.
You can try your best to get everyone to conform to your sense of manners, but you will fail utterly, time and again. Your sense of manners, your sense of ego, your sense of being a "big being", are all very touchy, obviously. And judging by the hurt feelings expressed in your post that people are not complying with your orders - these things are all very delicate in you and easily ruined.
The fact is that the "Church" you had a hand in running for so many years ruined thousands of families, kidnapped people, de-frauded them - some out of their life savings - and then did whatever they could to ruin them utterly if they spoke out or sought justice in any way.
Some of your friends (Marty and Mike) RAN those operations on people for decades.
I'm afraid you are looking at your own karma, Mike.
That your own karma has so little respect for you and your sense of manners reflects how little respect you showed to others for so many years.
So I say, "Man up".
It's the only way out for you.
It's a big wide world out here, and much of it is not under your control. The people who express themselves on this forum do so how they see fit. You will never be able to change that.
You can try your best to get everyone to conform to your sense of manners, but you will fail utterly, time and again. Your sense of manners, your sense of ego, your sense of being a "big being", are all very touchy, obviously. And judging by the hurt feelings expressed in your post that people are not complying with your orders - these things are all very delicate in you and easily ruined.
The fact is that the "Church" you had a hand in running for so many years ruined thousands of families, kidnapped people, de-frauded them - some out of their life savings - and then did whatever they could to ruin them utterly if they spoke out or sought justice in any way.
Some of your friends (Marty and Mike) RAN those operations on people for decades.
I'm afraid you are looking at your own karma, Mike.
That your own karma has so little respect for you and your sense of manners reflects how little respect you showed to others for so many years.
So I say, "Man up".
It's the only way out for you.
Mick Wenlock
Admin Emeritus (retired)
does it matter? It is the same old tired "waaahhhhh everyone is being nasty" tripe that has been endemic since the early days of ARS. Who cares if they EVER come to ESMB? They have gotten out - well they have taken the first step. They got out without ever coming here so what the fuck is the big deal apart from you taking some time to have a quick whinge?
Why do they HAVE to come here? Simple answer - they don't
Most exes don't actually come here. The majority of those that come here do not post.
So telling off those who do post to pander to those who are not even here is a total waste of fucking time.
Mick Wenlock
Admin Emeritus (retired)
You miss my point Scooter.
People commented on what they read in Laws' post. His post was a re-post of what he had been sent.
People were not responding to the Schicks BECAUSE THEY DID NOT POST IT.
I doubt they read the responses - and probably would not for quite a while yet because this is, after all, an entheta forum.
Had THEY posted THEIR announcement I would have thought it in grotesque bad taste to have been anything other than welcoming. (Not that I am all that much in favor of being nice to people merely because they have now decided they don't like DM. But at least at the very start a polite 'hello' would be OK)
The simple fact is - they did not. Laws' posted it.
And the simple idea that some people find him to be a tasteless git seems to have somehow got missed in all this.
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
Thanks, Kerry!
Thank you Kerry for that excellent post! When I first read what they said about reading on the internet I had an instinctive feeling that they had been lurking here and on lots of other sites. Why do we think that they won't come here and look, and possibly won't join us here on the board someday? After all, they are highly intelligent and pro-social, as most of us are!
If they were to post here directly, I'm sure they would have introduced themselves to us in a very different manner than what they said in the "we're leaving and this is why" letter that they wrote to their friends and family and COS contacts. I feel it is unfortunate that they were not allowed to make the choice of introducing themselves to us here on this board as so many of the rest of us have done, after lurking for a while to feel safe enough to trust communicating here.
It is likely they will read this thread, if not now, eventually, or someone will send them a copy, so once again I just want to say "Congratulations!" to them on finding their freedom, and I wish them the very best in life as Independents. I want them to flourish and thrive, as I'm sure they will!
If Mike has been upset with some of the more cynical thoughts voiced, maybe he was expecting a big hip hip hooray and didn't get quite the reception he thought he would. Nothing has been said or done that will harm the Schicks in any way. Most posts were welcoming and congratulatory in tone, in individual ways. Getting used to the scrum of differing voices and viewpoints takes a bit of doing, while, as Good Twin has pointed out, after conforming to such a degree for so long. I think we all agree that we are glad that they are out of COS!
I can speak with the perspective of one who stands outside looking in. One common thread that I have observed in all Ex church Scientologists is this, their emotions have been numbed or shut down to a degree to allow them to continue in that dysfunctional organization. While they are in recovery mode, and going through transitioning back into the normal world at large outside the tightly closed world of Scientology, their emotions are raw, as raw as any recovering addict going through withdrawals.
I'm not advocating we treat all Exes with kid gloves, but I do think it's wise to be as kind as possible to everyone newly out, whether they were public, staff, SO or CMO, and yes, even reformed and repentant OSA operatives, and other Executives, even though we don't want to like them or trust them, and some of them may have crimes that they need to answer for to law enforcement.
The more who are out of COS, whoever they are, the better for all of us. It lessens the evil that is Corporate Scientology, and makes the world a safer place for the rest of us.
Celebrate!
Just so it doesn't always end in porn- (I was going to post it anyway, it just took too long to write - I was hoping to outrun the ubiquitous available woman, but failed..
It's fantastic that the Schicks saw the light and left. It's also so commendable that they didn't do it silently, that they made it possible for their letter to be publicized. All the very very best to them in this new world of freedom of expression and the internet. All the very very best to them in their new life of finding meaning, as well as some of the heartaches they may face losing friends and family who are made to disconnect from them. I really like and respect what they said to those friends in advance. My hope is they have enough people to surround them and be a buffer for any suffering they will experience. They have anticipated it in their letter; it's a good thing they will not be completely surprised when it comes. Like others before them, they are like someone walking with a flashlight in the woods: yes, it is dark, but yes, there is also something bright moving forward.
The exposure to critical thinking/cricial minds (their own at least) would have given them benefits to a) make the choice to leave, b) inform a friend of theirs who was out that they were also out. How did they know that this friend, Mike, was out? Was it just because they were told there was a safe place to do it outside Miscavige's cult or did they read the net or what? How did they know about M&M? That's none of my business, they're just exciting questions to me because it means more and more information is getting IN.
Whatever, critical thinking is what got them out, it seems to me. Why would anyone imagine that exposure to critical thinking such as just happened here in this thread, together with such incredible stories of abuse, and others' stories of having left CoS -- could or would be harmful to them? Isn't critical thinking the very thing that made them and other people here and elsewhere long before this board was available, leave in the first place? Wasn't their own integrity what made folks before them bolt even when there was nowhere to "land."
Until the critical thinking on this thread was interpreted as harmful to the two very intelligent individuals who wrote this letter, nothing harmfully negative seemed to be transpiring. Just some differences of opinions restated here and there, and most of all, in other words, what Scientologists in CoS lack the most exposure to: freedom of expression/free speech/freedom of association. That last one is a huge red herring in some of these kinds of debates it seems to me.
Here's what the Schitks said that made a huge impression on me:
"...For any of you who want to know more about how we came to the decision, we suggest you think for yourself and look for yourself starting with the websites that report information Mr. Miscavige does not want you to have....
"Our decision is made. We do not welcome any handling from anyone who might feel so inclined or be so directed. If anyone shows up at our home unannounced and uninvited, we will assume it can only be a “mission” and you will be asked to leave with no further discussion. That said, we are not cutting our communication lines or disconnecting from anyone who wants to call us friend.
We do not know if retaliation will be unleashed against us. One factor that motivated us was the malicious attacks we saw against people who decided to leave the group. Perhaps you will be told how very “evil” we are. Perhaps information we gave in session or to an MAA assuming confidentially will be broadcast. Ask yourself, “What kind of church does this?”" ....
This is brilliant. What it tells me is they looked around and found what was useful and inspring - for themselves. They make the suggestion to look at the 3 websites they mention, but they don't tell anyone not to come here or anywhere else. It seems to me they now believe in freedom of choice so far as they can, and that is a wonderful thing, for sure!
And who are they talking about? They are not talking about cynical critics, they are talking about their most immediate friends and possibly relatives. They are talking about the behavior of the leadership of an organization they thought was benevolent and represented their values. They are talking about a(nother) psychotic maniac. They are not talking about critics who might harm them for having a different point of view.
But sure. I wish they were here rather than where they've landed, but that's actually an arrogant desire on my part: they are where they need to be now, not forgetting that before M&M ever came on the scene there were several Freezone and other independent places where LRH Scientology is still practiced they could have discovered and used as their way out of Hubbardland if that turns out to be their choice.
Marty and Mike are not the first alternatives to have presented themselves to the leavers of Scientology. The Schicks are in a much freer, much safer, much more "out there" anti-CoS environment than most of them that came before them except very recently. I don't know which "wave" they represent - the 3rd, 4th, or if it has been more of a dribble effect of leavers over the years. What's clear is they, unlike folks who left even five years ago, have more protection for having spoken out in the form of the media, in Australia the parliament, and elsewhere - especially Europe - where investigations are ongoing. In the 12 years I have been following this disgusting cult's activities, it has never been so identifiable as a negative organization by "the masses" as it is now.
Perhaps the impulse to protect isn't so necessary as it was when some of you left all those years ago. Not saying it isn't important always to be vigilant against these bastards. Wondering though, if what you're saying is along the lines of "don't say anything but 100% complimentary words" to a letter such as the Schicks above? Clearly there will be a balance somewhere; I certainly don't know exactly where it is.
I'm wondering if there is a parallel to what happened on OCMB with wanting certain voices out, fearing they were destructive to That board awhile back?
Thank you Kerry for that excellent post! When I first read what they said about reading on the internet I had an instinctive feeling that they had been lurking here and on lots of other sites. Why do we think that they won't come here and look, and possibly won't join us here on the board someday? After all, they are highly intelligent and pro-social, as most of us are!
If they were to post here directly, I'm sure they would have introduced themselves to us in a very different manner than what they said in the "we're leaving and this is why" letter that they wrote to their friends and family and COS contacts. I feel it is unfortunate that they were not allowed to make the choice of introducing themselves to us here on this board as so many of the rest of us have done, after lurking for a while to feel safe enough to trust communicating here.
It is likely they will read this thread, if not now, eventually, or someone will send them a copy, so once again I just want to say "Congratulations!" to them on finding their freedom, and I wish them the very best in life as Independents. I want them to flourish and thrive, as I'm sure they will!
If Mike has been upset with some of the more cynical thoughts voiced, maybe he was expecting a big hip hip hooray and didn't get quite the reception he thought he would. Nothing has been said or done that will harm the Schicks in any way. Most posts were welcoming and congratulatory in tone, in individual ways. Getting used to the scrum of differing voices and viewpoints takes a bit of doing, while, as Good Twin has pointed out, after conforming to such a degree for so long. I think we all agree that we are glad that they are out of COS!
I can speak with the perspective of one who stands outside looking in. One common thread that I have observed in all Ex church Scientologists is this, their emotions have been numbed or shut down to a degree to allow them to continue in that dysfunctional organization. While they are in recovery mode, and going through transitioning back into the normal world at large outside the tightly closed world of Scientology, their emotions are raw, as raw as any recovering addict going through withdrawals.
I'm not advocating we treat all Exes with kid gloves, but I do think it's wise to be as kind as possible to everyone newly out, whether they were public, staff, SO or CMO, and yes, even reformed and repentant OSA operatives, and other Executives, even though we don't want to like them or trust them, and some of them may have crimes that they need to answer for to law enforcement.
The more who are out of COS, whoever they are, the better for all of us. It lessens the evil that is Corporate Scientology, and makes the world a safer place for the rest of us.
Celebrate!
Since Ken and Yvonne are happily posting to MartyWorld I think it's safe to say that they're not shrinking violets who would be forced to flee unpleasant commentary (For those who don't follow such things, the 'tone level' at 'moving on up' tends to the extremes of gushing adoration and rabid vilification towards 'outsiders'.)
If they chose to post here, I'm sure they'd get the usual warm greetings, but, of course, (I hope), we wouldn't try to sweep the 'entheta' under the carpet, and that might be a sticking point.
People even say 'Xenu' here. In a very up-tone fashion. Is it safe?
Zinj
(For those who don't follow such things, the 'tone level' at 'moving on up' tends to the extremes of gushing adoration and rabid vilification towards 'outsiders'.)If they chose to post here, I'm sure they'd get the usual warm greetings, but, of course, (I hope), we wouldn't try to sweep the 'entheta' under the carpet, and that might be a sticking point.
People even say 'Xenu' here. In a very up-tone fashion. Is it safe?
Zinj
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
I don't quite get *this* reaction. Who's not letting them take their freaking time? I'm glad for everyone who escapes the 'Church' and, it's a good letter, as far as it goes. That they're OTVIII and VII respectively is OK in a PR sense, but, I'm a little cynical about the 'opinion leader' paradigm when it applies to Scientologists.
So, to the escapees; Congratulations and welcome out.
But, as good as the letter is, it's a bit of set piece marketing that Mike Laws chose to transplant here, straight from MartyWorld. The writers of the letter didn't post it here. They don't post here. More than likely they don't *read* here. ESMB is certainly not on their 'recommended reading list'
So, good for them, but, while there's no reason Mike can't post it here, I don't think I'll drop my cynicism about his purposes.
Zinj
That's a shame. A lot of people who leave the cult are still interested in Scn concepts. Sometimes this only lasts a while, sometimes they retain that interest. Depends on the person. But just publicly announcing departure from CofS- a "high crime" in CofS land takes guts since members are conditioned never to do that. It takes some moxie to do it and every person who leaves the cult- that's one in the eye for the cult.
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
I think most of us who were "in" are very aware that the view the church spiels to all parashioners is that all who leave are mean, nasty, evil, piece of shit SP's. Is that not true?
Why in the world anyone who wants to help people out of the church and help people when they get out would want to shit right in their face and prove the church's views of those who left was correct ?
That escapes me. I don't get it.
Who can help me understand this?
Why in the world anyone who wants to help people out of the church and help people when they get out would want to shit right in their face and prove the church's views of those who left was correct ?
That escapes me. I don't get it.
Who can help me understand this?
I'm sorry. I just can't find anybody shitting in their faces here. Probably the nastiest post in the whole thread was Mike's own, but, call it cynicism, I suspect that was done more for 'effect' than out of actual outrage. And, it was out of outrage over being accused of 'marketing'; not about shitting in Ken or Yvonne's face.
So, please provide an example of some juicy face shitting.
Zinj
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
And let's all keep in mind the manners one gets treated with on Marty and Mike's blog if you say anything outside of what they feel is "acceptable".
Like "L. Ron Hubbard is the Source of Scientology".
I was threatened with violence on Marty's blog for saying things like that.
So all this talk of manners, and "entheta", is not worth the pixels it blackens.
If you can't stand the heat of your own karma, stop cooking.
Like "L. Ron Hubbard is the Source of Scientology".
I was threatened with violence on Marty's blog for saying things like that.
So all this talk of manners, and "entheta", is not worth the pixels it blackens.
If you can't stand the heat of your own karma, stop cooking.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Well, there are such things as netiquette and there's also treating others the way one would like to be treated. IMO, there are people on some forums (not just Scn ones) who reduce others to an abstract concept and who use that as license to post some truly amazing things about them.
Also part of the human condition is a tendency to judge too much. Most of us, including myself, fall prey to that every now and again here and there. You know, that's fine, that's human, BUT what I've seen time and time again are people saying things in cyberspace that they'd never have the guts or inconsideracy to say IRL. So in addition to the golden rule quoted above, I'd say that a criterion would be, hey, if what you want to say is something you feel is too rude to say to their face IRL, then why post it where about several milliion times more people (including THAT person) can see it?
Hey, I have a great idea! Since ESMB is apparently turning into what OCMB was (causing Emma to start this board in the first place) why not send your bitter bunch of old men saying how bad it all was over to us?! Isn't that brilliant? Of course, we're going to keep our hotties, too.
Registrations are open.
Just sayin'.
Registrations are open.
Just sayin'.
SchwimmelPuckel
Genuine Meatball
What's the fuss about!? - So a couple of OT's has left.. I think that's pretty darn good and I'm delighted!
Allright.. Based on what they write in their letter I take it that they still don't want to have any comm-lines to damnable SP's.. People like me, who think's L. Ron Hubbard was a evil scam artist.. They wouldn't LIKE me to respond in any way at all.. If I said some shit about Hubbard they wouldn't like that.. If I didn't say any shit about him, they'd consider me 'covertly hostile' anyway.
Doesn't bother me really.. It's what I expect from scientologists.. It's in their policies after all..
Hmm.. For the above reason I was just going to post a rather bland acknowledgement to their departure from the Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology... That was if they'd posted themselves.. They didn't, so I intended to post nothing.
However.. From this thread I get the impression that such a 'bland acknowledgement' might be taken as me being sarchastic or sumthing.. (I feel like I'm being ambushed by closet scientologists!)
Erh?
Really.. If anything, I'm inclined to say my piece rather than sugar coat my responses..
Hubbard was a freakin' asshole!
Allright.. Based on what they write in their letter I take it that they still don't want to have any comm-lines to damnable SP's.. People like me, who think's L. Ron Hubbard was a evil scam artist.. They wouldn't LIKE me to respond in any way at all.. If I said some shit about Hubbard they wouldn't like that.. If I didn't say any shit about him, they'd consider me 'covertly hostile' anyway.
Doesn't bother me really.. It's what I expect from scientologists.. It's in their policies after all..
Hmm.. For the above reason I was just going to post a rather bland acknowledgement to their departure from the Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology... That was if they'd posted themselves.. They didn't, so I intended to post nothing.
However.. From this thread I get the impression that such a 'bland acknowledgement' might be taken as me being sarchastic or sumthing.. (I feel like I'm being ambushed by closet scientologists!)
Erh?
Really.. If anything, I'm inclined to say my piece rather than sugar coat my responses..
Hubbard was a freakin' asshole!
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
There was this whole other thread over newbies not being treated nicely enough, etc. Did I make that up?
SweetnessandLight
Crusader
No, I think he was projecting into the future...Nozzie did call Mystic that tho, I think...NAUGHTY!!!
You honey, are one of the hotties! I'm just waitin' for Mystic's response!
There hasn't been *one* other; there have been *dozens*, over years. Almost always by people attempting to control communication to what *they* consider acceptable.
But; very little face shitting anywhere. Even Marty got a fairly welcoming welcome, albeit, with some questions. And *that* was called 'ass raping'
Zinj
