Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Are "Leaving Staff" Sec Checks Reverse Processing?

  1. #1
    Unbeliever uniquemand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    North Kingstown, RI
    Posts
    8,722

    Default Are "Leaving Staff" Sec Checks Reverse Processing?

    I have read issues that talk about critics of scientology being considered anti-scientologists, which is just another way of saying Supppressive Persons, IMO.

    We know that LRH wrote issues declaring SPs fair game. We also know that he wrote that one of the things that should be done with such people, if they show up at Qual, is that they should be reverse processed.

    I'm wondering if the decision to leave staff actually is seen as reason to consider a person a critic/anti/SP, and if at this point, Qual starts reverse processing them, and if the Leaving Staff Sec Check isn't this in practice. Certainly, on mine, they never let me flatten anything they found, and asserted I had more that I had not told them, which is reverse processing if you ask me!

    Thoughts? Are leaving staff routing forms pretty much naive, really being nothing more than a signal to management that they need to destroy this person?

  2. Likes Wants2Talk liked this post
  3. #2
    Silver Meritorious Patron Tim Skog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In Tucson next to a saguaro watching tubleweeds
    Posts
    1,172

    Default

    You might just have something there.
    So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious or otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men. -- Voltaire

    Cheer up, things could be worse, so I cheered up and sure enough, things got worse.

  4. #3
    Gold Meritorious Patron clamicide's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,931
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uniquemand View Post
    I have read issues that talk about critics of scientology being considered anti-scientologists, which is just another way of saying Supppressive Persons, IMO.

    We know that LRH wrote issues declaring SPs fair game. We also know that he wrote that one of the things that should be done with such people, if they show up at Qual, is that they should be reverse processed.

    I'm wondering if the decision to leave staff actually is seen as reason to consider a person a critic/anti/SP, and if at this point, Qual starts reverse processing them, and if the Leaving Staff Sec Check isn't this in practice. Certainly, on mine, they never let me flatten anything they found, and asserted I had more that I had not told them, which is reverse processing if you ask me!

    Thoughts? Are leaving staff routing forms pretty much naive, really being nothing more than a signal to management that they need to destroy this person?
    Interesting concept. I could actually see this in the SO, but someone in that area would have to respond.

    I can only speak for our org. Doing Leaving Staff Sec Checks was one of the worst assignments in the world. It was the auditor who usually got threatened with the SP declare if they didn't find all the giant withholds that was causing this guy to want to leave. Guy still wants to leave=you're missing withholds on him=Suppressive Act. There was such a fixed idea that only withholds caused this desire that the idea was to keep adding questions to the list until you finally got the ones that were causing the guy to want to blow. If the guy could never be allowed to be 'clean', perhaps that could be seen as reverse processing. It took a HELL of a lot for everybody to finally give up and let the guy declare to the completion of the Sec Check. Wound up with claiming the guy was a no-responsibility case, or if the auditor later got in ANY trouble, it was all the auditor's fault.

    There were a couple of times our org did try to work on getting people declared who wanted to leave staff. It didn't happen, and it was told to the terminals trying to get this done that wanting to leave staff in itself was not cause for an SP declare. Don't know who the rational soul was that kicked those packets back.
    I don't recognize you--I've changed a lot. Oscar Wilde

    "I used to have a lot of faith in humanity before the advent of the website 'comment' section" -- Jim Gaffigan

    I joined a religion started by a science fiction writer that used a double cross as its symbol, and then they tried to sell me a bridge.....what could have possibly gone wrong?

    We are soldiers of life against these artificial minds. From "The Enemy" by Tramontane.

  5. #4
    Patron Meritorious Lesolee (Sith Lord)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK
    Posts
    969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uniquemand View Post
    We also know that he wrote that one of the things that should be done with such people, if they show up at Qual, is that they should be reverse processed.
    Could you gives us a reference to this.
    I don't recall this at all.
    Lesolee, the Enlightened Sith.

    Beware of the Dark side. Anger, fear, aggression ...
    The Dark side of the Force, are they.

  6. #5
    Gold Meritorious Patron FinallyFree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clamicide View Post
    Interesting concept. I could actually see this in the SO, but someone in that area would have to respond.

    I can only speak for our org. Doing Leaving Staff Sec Checks was one of the worst assignments in the world. It was the auditor who usually got threatened with the SP declare if they didn't find all the giant withholds that was causing this guy to want to leave. Guy still wants to leave=you're missing withholds on him=Suppressive Act. There was such a fixed idea that only withholds caused this desire that the idea was to keep adding questions to the list until you finally got the ones that were causing the guy to want to blow. If the guy could never be allowed to be 'clean', perhaps that could be seen as reverse processing. It took a HELL of a lot for everybody to finally give up and let the guy declare to the completion of the Sec Check. Wound up with claiming the guy was a no-responsibility case, or if the auditor later got in ANY trouble, it was all the auditor's fault.

    There were a couple of times our org did try to work on getting people declared who wanted to leave staff. It didn't happen, and it was told to the terminals trying to get this done that wanting to leave staff in itself was not cause for an SP declare. Don't know who the rational soul was that kicked those packets back.
    So THAT'S why I never got my sec check.... probably why others never got their sec check's.
    Sweet memories
    I never thought it would be like this
    Reminding me
    Just how close I came to missing
    I know that
    This is the way for me to go
    You'll be there
    When you know what I know
    And I know...

  7. #6
    Gold Meritorious Patron clamicide's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,931
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FinallyFree View Post
    So THAT'S why I never got my sec check.... probably why others never got their sec check's.
    Also, good luck getting an auditor's time "wasted" on 'non-paying-counter-intention-worthless-scum' if there is even a chance in hell of them auditing a paying public. We actually had staff who paid for theirs so they could actually get in session instead of spending their days on MEST work (obviously had family with $).
    I don't recognize you--I've changed a lot. Oscar Wilde

    "I used to have a lot of faith in humanity before the advent of the website 'comment' section" -- Jim Gaffigan

    I joined a religion started by a science fiction writer that used a double cross as its symbol, and then they tried to sell me a bridge.....what could have possibly gone wrong?

    We are soldiers of life against these artificial minds. From "The Enemy" by Tramontane.

  8. #7
    Unbeliever uniquemand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    North Kingstown, RI
    Posts
    8,722

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clamicide View Post
    Interesting concept. I could actually see this in the SO, but someone in that area would have to respond.

    I can only speak for our org. Doing Leaving Staff Sec Checks was one of the worst assignments in the world. It was the auditor who usually got threatened with the SP declare if they didn't find all the giant withholds that was causing this guy to want to leave. Guy still wants to leave=you're missing withholds on him=Suppressive Act. There was such a fixed idea that only withholds caused this desire that the idea was to keep adding questions to the list until you finally got the ones that were causing the guy to want to blow. If the guy could never be allowed to be 'clean', perhaps that could be seen as reverse processing. It took a HELL of a lot for everybody to finally give up and let the guy declare to the completion of the Sec Check. Wound up with claiming the guy was a no-responsibility case, or if the auditor later got in ANY trouble, it was all the auditor's fault.

    There were a couple of times our org did try to work on getting people declared who wanted to leave staff. It didn't happen, and it was told to the terminals trying to get this done that wanting to leave staff in itself was not cause for an SP declare. Don't know who the rational soul was that kicked those packets back.
    The guy who was doing mine was in a hell of a bind, then, because while admin idiots who don't understand the tech at all might think anybody leaving means they are "blowing" (a blow is ONLY a sudden, unexplained departure), I was actually leaving because my wife was pregnant, and I thought the most ethical thing I could do was get a job that paid enough money to support my family, and be a paying PUBLIC, so that I could get the services I needed to later come back as a better staff member.

    Link to document referencing the bit about reverse processing SPs

  9. #8
    Gold Meritorious Patron clamicide's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,931
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uniquemand View Post
    The guy who was doing mine was in a hell of a bind, then, because while admin idiots who don't understand the tech at all might think anybody leaving means they are "blowing" (a blow is ONLY a sudden, unexplained departure), I was actually leaving because my wife was pregnant, and I thought the most ethical thing I could do was get a job that paid enough money to support my family, and be a paying PUBLIC, so that I could get the services I needed to later come back as a better staff member.

    Link to document referencing the bit about reverse processing SPs
    Thanks for posting the link. I usually forget about the reverse processing clause. Oh, and yes...in your case? Going into agreement with you needing to leave for that would have been 'being reasonable'. You should have been able to make it go right to stay. Whether you 'blew' was irrelevant, you wanted to leave.
    I don't recognize you--I've changed a lot. Oscar Wilde

    "I used to have a lot of faith in humanity before the advent of the website 'comment' section" -- Jim Gaffigan

    I joined a religion started by a science fiction writer that used a double cross as its symbol, and then they tried to sell me a bridge.....what could have possibly gone wrong?

    We are soldiers of life against these artificial minds. From "The Enemy" by Tramontane.

  10. #9
    Gold Meritorious Patron FinallyFree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clamicide View Post
    Also, good luck getting an auditor's time "wasted" on 'non-paying-counter-intention-worthless-scum' if there is even a chance in hell of them auditing a paying public. We actually had staff who paid for theirs so they could actually get in session instead of spending their days on MEST work (obviously had family with $).
    My sister took a loan out to get her sec check.
    Sweet memories
    I never thought it would be like this
    Reminding me
    Just how close I came to missing
    I know that
    This is the way for me to go
    You'll be there
    When you know what I know
    And I know...

  11. #10
    Unbeliever uniquemand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    North Kingstown, RI
    Posts
    8,722

    Default

    Mine was added to my F/L debt, which I paid later.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. "Crimes" or "wrong doings" within the CofS?
    By Carmel in forum Staff "War Stories"
    Replies: 278
    Last Post: 9th August 2014, 03:18 AM
  2. Replies: 68
    Last Post: 26th July 2014, 05:19 AM
  3. "brainwashing", "Hypnotism", myths, facts, and how it relates to Scientology
    By Consensus in forum Evaluating/criticising Scientology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 21st July 2012, 06:15 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 25th May 2009, 10:41 PM
  5. To "other practices"and an "open mind"
    By GreyLensman in forum General discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 23rd February 2009, 04:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •