: Re: Ralph, Cathy, the Bank Fire and the RPF

Re: Ralph, Cathy, the Bank Fire and the RPF
From: ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton)
Subject: Re: Ralph, Cathy, the Bank Fire and the RPF
Date: 1999/01/08
Message-ID:  <369a7a6d.20242641@news.telekabel.at>#1/1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References:  <36967727.661443375@news.dowco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: news@telekabel.at
X-Trace: news.chello.at 915832274 212.17.110.140 (Fri, 08 Jan 1999 22:51:14 MET DST)
Organization: Chello Austria
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Ralph@Hilton.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 22:51:14 MET DST
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology


On Fri, 08 Jan 1999 21:29:38 GMT, armstrong@dowco.com (gerry armstrong)
wrote:

(posted & mailed)

> 
>I had been meaning to ask Ralph about this for some time, and now is
>timely.

> 
>I wrote:
> 
>Are you sure it was not Cathy Rinder? Or did both she and Mike start
>fires?

It was Cathy

> 
>I'll check.
> 
>And a week earlier:
> 
>On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 04:05:59 GMT, ralph@hilton.org (Ralph Hilton)
>wrote in msg ABC show - my commentary
> 
>>During the time I spent on the RPF I was there on my own decision however insane
>>that might seem to others.
> 
>So this is an opportunity to discuss Ralph's RPF assignment.
>
>This discussion might be useful to Jeff Jacobsen, who, I recall, was
>some time back looking for information on Scientology's fires.
> 
>Ralph, are the following data accurate?
> 
>In May, 1977 there was a serious fire in the $cientology office
>building in Clearwater, where I was at that time the RPF Bosun. You
>and Cathy Rinder were assigned to the RPF for your parts in the
>causation of the fire. A secret, undistributed FCOassigned you and
>Cathy because it was thought that any admission of negligence on the
>organization's part would jeopardize the insurance claim. I saw the
>issue because I had to accept you into the RPF.

Yes except that I don't recall anything in the issue about "because it was
thought that any admission of negligence on the organization's part would
jeopardize the insurance claim"

>Can you provide details of what exactly happened?

The fire started in an electrical switchbox in an office on the 2nd floor
probably caused by a bad connection in the wiring behing the board.
At first I thought the smoke was from a fault in the air conditioner motor
so didn't immediately call the fire department. This was the reason for the
RPF assignment. Cathy saw the smoke and for whatever reason didn't set off
alarms nor call the fire dept. and was assigned to the RPF for this.

>I believe that, using normal terms and societal norms, and if I've got
>your assignment facts somewhere close to accurate, you were not in the
>RPF on your own decision. You were assigned there as punishment, just
>as a person assigned by a state court to prison, for the commission of
>a crime and perhaps even as a result of negligence, is there for
>punishment. He is there on his own decision, in that he did whatever
>he did, even by merely being there and communicating, but that is
>beyond normal terms and societal norms.
> 
>You did not decide to start a fire, or whatever you did, in
>furtherance of your decision to be on the RPF. You would rather the
>fire had not started. You were compelled by organization order and
>might to be on the RPF.

I accepted the findings of the FCO and agreed that there was a degree of
incorrect evaluation on my part which could have contributed to the extent
of the final damage due to delays. I therefore decided to accept the RPF
assignment and to that extent was there on my own decision.

>The fact that you benefited from your time in the RPF, is not a
>testament to the RPF's powers of spiritual rehabilitation but to the
>ability of the spirit to survive in and triumph over any slavery
>anywhere.  Non-opposition to RPF assignments is something like being
>dragged by a horse in the direction it's going. It's better than the
>other possibilities.

I would differ. I found the auditing on the RPF and the experience I gained
as a co-auditor and review auditor personally rewarding. These things for me
outweighed the bad aspects of the RPF.


--

Ralph Hilton
http://Ralph.Hilton.org