Blackmail is *exactly* how Scientology Tech utilises the PC Folder data. Have you seen the OSA training material?Originally Posted by Panda Termint
Blackmail is *exactly* how Scientology Tech utilises the PC Folder data. Have you seen the OSA training material?
"A person will never be free from Scientology if they use Scientology to explain Scientology - they will always be left with huge unexplained gaps that can never be answered because the answers Scientology gives are inadequate and false." - Alanzo
We need a "LIKE" button! ^^^
"There is nothing as wild in the books of Man as will probably happen here on Earth...it will happen and be allowed to happen simply because all this is so incredible that nobody will even think of stopping it until it is far, far too late"~LRH in "A History of Man"
What I'm about to say will sound otherworldly to many here, but I'll say it anyway, just to show how much the Scientology experience varied for different people.
To my recollection, as a Class IV auditor and while getting audited through OT IV, I neither received a sec check nor gave anybody a sec check. No one ever said to me, and I never said to anyone else while I or they were holding the cans, "I am not auditing you."
Perhaps my memory is faulty and I had a sec check. If so, it wasn't expensive or traumatic. Frankly, I don't think I ever had one.
I remember ruds, including O/Ws, as something that got checked quickly before getting to the meat of a session. No big deal.
I have no way of knowing whether my pc folders were culled for incriminating information of any kind that might have been put into a different kind of folder. Certainly, no one ever suggested to me I was a slimeball or unworthy or a criminal.
And for the record, I never gave a dime to the IAS.
Speaking purely rhetorically, WTF happened to Scientology?
Please, no answer is required. It really was a rhetorical question.
TG1
There is good evidence that this occurs but that is not the *primary* use of folder data. The most common use of folder data in scientology is in the programming and supervision of "cases".
Blackmail and the use of folder data to introvert and control people occurs and is, of course, one use of this data but it is, at least from a Technical view, neither the primary purpose nor use of folder data.
Yes, I've read the OSA training materials. OSA does what it does with what it finds in folders.
Dave Gibbons - Sydney, Australia. 34 years in scientology 1974 - 2008
No longer a scientologist.
I don't believe everything I read on the Internet.
I do believe everything I write.
Addendum: A friend has taken me to task for the above "benign interpretation" of the use of PC Folder data and so I include the following clarification from what I wrote in reply;
"Well, if you're a good Auditor you don't write stenographically. You note terminals, conditions, items etc and their attendant meter reads. You sometimes need to add detail to clarify what these notes mean but it is only in sec-checking where you're likely to find "blackmailable" material. The betrayal of trust as regards PC folders is unconscionable and I have no truck with it. My point in that post is that it's not as simplistic as Infinite seems to believe. As far as my experience in scientology goes my statement about the primary purpose and use of this data stands. There have undoubtedly been exceptions.
Panda"
Anyone who has worked in the Technical Division of a scientology organisation knows where the bulk of hours of effort are directed. Primarily this work is about "handling cases" and getting a person "up the Bridge". In more recent times there has been a heavy concentration on Sec-Checking as a result of unprecedented attacks on scientology. The fact that this activity seems to amplify the volume of and worsen the attacks doesn't appear to have sunk in at Upper Management levels.
I'm not saying that coercion and blackmail don't occur, I'm just saying that this is not the whole rationale behind scientology's obsession with record-keeping.
Dave Gibbons - Sydney, Australia. 34 years in scientology 1974 - 2008
No longer a scientologist.
I don't believe everything I read on the Internet.
I do believe everything I write.
Sounds like your friend has a problem with you speaking the truth. Can't please everyone.
Your follow up post is good but I considered the prior one to be perfectly clear as written.
Mark A. Baker
Well, you know how it is; you can't please all of the people all of the time but, then again, who'd want to?
I believe in honest reporting regardless of where that might lead.
Dave Gibbons - Sydney, Australia. 34 years in scientology 1974 - 2008
No longer a scientologist.
I don't believe everything I read on the Internet.
I do believe everything I write.
This is true. I interned on NED and audited some. I later became E/O held from above. 1978=82
The GO had their interests in whatever, but mostly from what was in their files. They blocked some people. They had little or no effect re ongoing PC
efforts. But if you were in their files they got interested and tended to fuck up. " Deliver what you promise" was not a policy they followed.
Meanwhile - anyone who has worked in Division 20 of Scientology knows where the bulk of the hours of effort are directed. Primarily this work is about "handling cases" and keeping a person under control. This has been a function of Scientology since the 1960s for which much tech was written and personally overseen by L Ron Hubbard. The fact that the effect of this activity doesn't appear to have sunk in is quite understandable: its scripture and, as such, cannot be wrong. Anyone who doubts that obviously has overts.
"A person will never be free from Scientology if they use Scientology to explain Scientology - they will always be left with huge unexplained gaps that can never be answered because the answers Scientology gives are inadequate and false." - Alanzo
OSA TRAINING MANUAL
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48399838/F...liver-Full-Hat
Longish download, but loaded with the BIBLE of OSA operations.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote