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

---

Author: Paul Misiunas
From: misiunas@fza.org (Paul Misiunas)
Subject: Re: FZA.ORG: The State of Case, a personal report
Date: 1999/04/28
Message-ID:  <373582c3.26331638@news1.newscene.com>#1/1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References:  <37265e6e.37954539@news1.newscene.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: FreeZone America (http://fza.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: misiunas@fza.org
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology


On 28 Apr 1999 15:22:50 -0400, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton) wrote:

>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.

You really should get out more often. Enforcing your own viewpoints on
myself and my creations falls completely in line with your ideas on
the use of force. I am not your friend, your comrade-in-arms, nor your
admirer. Get over it.


>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.

Thanks for that explanation. I'm glad that you didn't let me down.
You're everything we've come to expect from years of hard work and
training.


>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.

Like I care that you want me to follow your conditions. First you
disassociate yourself from FZA because of a personal upset, then you
want me to follow your guidelines to resolve "my" issues. Maybe I
should start to smoke, drink lots of coffee, and sail the high seas
too.


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

Sure. I also tend to confuse money with theta. It happens all the
time.

"discipline of thought" is actually a very funny term and relates well
with your idea of force.


>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.

So it's now come to the point where you seek the support of Hubbard,
as if the reference "proves" your positioning. Like I care.

If I am understanding this correctly, you believe that "force" must be
used to put oneself on top of the food chain and anything other than
that would be called "sweetness and light", which of course must be
destroyed. I stand by the term "domination".

It was my understanding that the "FreeZone" encompassed much more than
just the Scientology-copyrighted scriptures. If it's only all about
Hubbard, then I should be changing the name of "FreeZone America" to
something less intrusive. Maybe "FreeZealots of America", where
"standard tech" and the use of force can be survived.