Newsgroup Postings : Re: FZA.ORG: The State of Case, a personal report

Re: FZA.ORG: The State of Case, a personal report
From: ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton)
Subject: Re: FZA.ORG: The State of Case, a personal report
Date: 1999/04/28
Message-ID: <37784e25.343960007@mgate.telekabel.at>#1/1
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.1
Organization: [clear-l] Art Matrix - Lightlink Electra Gateway V2.6
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology


On 28 Apr 1999 11:50:07 -0500, in alt.clearing.technology misiunas@fza.org
(Paul Misiunas) wrote:

>For those who are removing links to FZA on their web pages: You must
>be confusing me with someone that cares. Good riddance. It's about
>time that you took me seriously. I would encourage more to do the
>same.

It seems pointless to continue links to a page that might become a family
cartoon show without notice. Asking to be taken seriously when you just
unmocked what for many people had become a stable datum doesn't make sense.

>Next comes the terse 1.1. comment immediately followed by the refusal
>to accept any further communication. I look forward to the usual
>patter. Why not go for the whole enchilada and declare me FreeZone
>SP#1, with Phil being #2, Penday #3 and maybe that Mourer fellow #4.
>When domination doesn't work theres always suppression to fall back
>on.

1.1 is one of the commonest misunderstoods and put downs in scn. 1.1 means
~covert~ hostility. If you notice the hostility then it isn't 1.1 .Actual
1.1 is not that common. The person is happy and smiling in their open comm
with you while slagging you off covertly. The usual give aways are that the
friendliness is somewhat overdone and they praise excessively as a door to
acceptance of future evaluation. They also seem to have a tendency to
patronize endearingly.

>Tommy/Zero/Ra or whatever you are now calling yourself: In this
>thread, a statement was made in reference to stability ensuring trust.
>I wonder if that went over your head as well.
>
>
>Thanks all, for providing the demonstration.
>
>
>It looks like I have associated myself with the "FreeZone" based upon
>a misunderstanding. I thought that "Free" referred to the idea of
>freedom of religion, but I see that it's more accurately come to be
>defined as a place in which domination can continue to be exercised.
>The suppression and degradation of those who are not aligned with
>certain specific ideologies demonstrates that the rigidity of thought
>is not an unknown idea outside of the "mother church".
>
>Please continue torturing the lost souls...
>

You obviously have a disagreement with quite a few people about their mode
of communication. Yet it doesn't seem that you have made serious attempts to
resolve those disagreements with open communication on the newsgroup.

I think you are confusing "rigidity of thought" with "discipline of
thought".

Hubbard wrote a policy on 7 February 1965 called "Keeping Scientology
Working". A lot of the "FZ" seems to consist of people who never understood
that policy. This is a universe of force. One cannot handle it unless one is
willing to move up through that band of force and hopefully eventually above
it. Its not easy and lots of heavy bpc flies around with even minor errors.
The "sweetness and light" approach doesn't make Clears and OTs. It does make
for a nice pleasant newsgroup where everyone is treated in the nicest
possible way and those who would wreck what has been created with much hard
work over the years are respected for their "right to express their
opinion".

The torturing of souls is not from those who are a bit harsh in their
insistence on proper application of the tech. It is from those who encourage
them to wander from pretty stone to pretty stone in an eternity of Q&A. That
is the true nature of hell.




--

Ralph Hilton
http://Ralph.Hilton.org