What's new

David Mayo, Bill Robertson, Robin Scott -More Truth Revealed and Realities uncovered

AnonKat

Crusader
picture.php

Is that an auditing session ?
 

AnonKat

Crusader
You are absolutely right of course and that is why I onley focussed on the money motivation. Ironic really that people use money motivation to accuse Rathbun like if they were Church Members.


The major difference (and the reason comparing the two is a false equivalency) is that Mayo was not a Scientology thug who plotted the destruction of anyone opposing himself, Mr. Rinder, Mr. Miscavige, Mr. Yager, et al. Instead, he was a highly respected auditor, a position very different from any other Church position, as well as a person entrusted to ensure the quality of people's auditing planet-wide by the Church for many years (and Hubbard's own auditor, and developer of NOTS, the HRD and probably other piloted programs).

There is no comparison.
 
I can see how the sudden arrival of a recently exited Class XII Snr C/S Int could be both a blessing and a curse, particularly if that person had the typical SO Arrogance.

Arrogance was not the case with David. :no:

The reason for 'noses out of joint' had more to do with the commonly recurrent theme of 'standard tech flame wars' among independents. There is something of a tendency among some who leave to doubt those who stay 'in' longer than they themselves did. In the worst cases this can lead to open disputes about tech & hurt feelings.

David was unique in that he was readily received with an overwhelmingly warm welcome by the greater number of the disaffected due to the high regard so many had for him as a result of prior experience with him in the church. The story of his departure was also unusually horrific for that time.


Mark A. Baker
 
Sigh, fucking churches should not have gag agreements. Imagine the Chatolic Church having gag agreements with their abuse victimes. Well maybe in America

I don't disagree with the sentiment expressed. Frankly, I think gag agreements are contrary to the public interest in all cases and should not be enforceable clauses of any contracts. They are however perfectly legal and standard aspects of many commercial contracts and legal settlements.


Churches shouldn't be allowed to incorporate, nevermind then be allowed to enter into contracts based on fraudulent services and issue gag orders on apostates.

I disagree, U. Churches need some form of legal structure as do other groups. Corporations are a key way in which this can be accomplished. The problem lies not with incorporation itself but with the permissive character of laws defining & regulating corporations in the u.s. as they are today.

Corporations in the united states need to be legally deprived of the civil rights which have been extended to them by the courts. There is no need for a corporation to have all the civil rights that a citizen or resident immigrant has, it is contrary to the well being of the commonwealth.


Mark A. Baker
 

draetti

Patron
[QUOTE
The main person in making this paradise ("as scientology should be") possible was David Mayo as the trusted one to procure the tech, of which none of all local involveds had enough to guarantee the future of the movement.

You are mistaken in your thought that "the locals" didn't have enuff of the materials. We had ALL the materials. That was the LA locals. I don't know where you were.
Bent Corydon's Mission was still hanging in there when David hit the LA area. There was a booming Independent Field. I myself had begun to deliver NOTs to trusted friends who were leaving COS.
For the record, not every practitioner in the LA field was thrilled that David had come along and sort of announced himself as THE Sr C/s among us. Many of us already had C/Ss that we were happy with, and had PCs that were not 'bogged', nor was it felt that we had need of someone coming in to organize the Field operations. A lot of us were thru with organized anything.
But we did have ALL the materials ( except the Flag NOTs pak, which happily came along about that time.
My recall has holes in it.
I am at an age where too much cannot be expected, but I assure you that the Field had everything that was needed and wanted, and if not immediately at hand, we knew where to get it.
David quickly became known and much respected in his AAC. Some of the brightest people gravitated to his practice. It didn't take long for AAC to become a bustling practice, and word of mouth was bringing the highest trained tech terminals into his Sta Barbara offices. David was and is loved.
FYI.

chlng

I see, chlng, and I didn't want to make someone lesser by expressing my thankfullness to David Mayo.

Two things which you probably didn't get:

I'm in Europe, and "local" meant in my vicinity. The transfer over the distance was probably by far more efficient and fast with an organisation than without. (Why the AACs run the show mainly - as far as I know - and not Candacraig or Dianasis or an other European Center which may have started at the same time is out of my knowledge. The nearby AAC was just the first contact I had with Tech out of the Church. But I could imagine - also if I had had a choice - David Mayo was known to me, and the Senior CS in Church, and I was needing trust and authority at the time - I very probably would have chosen the AAC also if had known other options.)

I also told my story as from my viewpoint and impressions then. It doesn't claim truth or perfect evaluation, it's just how I experienced things.

But in general, not seen from this point, I completely understand that an organisation "wins" not necessarily "to right" in competition with a loose network of individuals. In general I would tell that's much more paradise. The picture of paradise was against the relative hell before, not the absolute best situation imaginable.
 

rhill

Patron with Honors
people use money motivation to accuse Rathbun

Everyone is free to earn a living. I myself do from time to time point out that Marty earns a living from delivering Scientology. My point is not to condemn that he earns a living from it, but to point out he is most likely inherently biased when it comes to find objectively about Scientology and Hubbard. It's because of that sort of economic bias there are such concepts as "disclosure" and "conflict of interests." David Mayo's case just can't be used for comparison here, so it's total nonsense to use him to make a point about the "hypocrisy" you say you see out there.
 

AnonKat

Crusader
Everyone is free to earn a living. I myself do from time to time point out that Marty earns a living from delivering Scientology. My point is not to condemn that he earns a living from it, but to point out he is most likely inherently biased when it comes to find objectively about Scientology and Hubbard. It's because of that sort of economic bias there are such concepts as "disclosure" and "conflict of interests." David Mayo's case just can't be used for comparison here, so it's total nonsense to use him to make a point about the "hypocrisy" you say you see out there.

Yes it can , he alsoo made a living once delivering scientology

I am using this aspect.
 

rhill

Patron with Honors
Yes it can , he alsoo made a living once delivering scientology

I am using this aspect.

You were not, you focused on his settlement with the Church following following years of legal assault, not on his business for delivering Scientology (for which he got legally assaulted by the Church, and "denounced" by Marty just a few days ago.) Look at your demotivational poster again.
 

tiptoethrutheminefield

Patron with Honors
Everyone is free to earn a living. I myself do from time to time point out that Marty earns a living from delivering Scientology. My point is not to condemn that he earns a living from it, but to point out he is most likely inherently biased when it comes to find objectively about Scientology and Hubbard. It's because of that sort of economic bias there are such concepts as "disclosure" and "conflict of interests." David Mayo's case just can't be used for comparison here, so it's total nonsense to use him to make a point about the "hypocrisy" you say you see out there.

Regarding the New Wage in general, it would be nice to see some supposed 'guru' able to make a living that DOESN'T involve the same con they paid into.

If Marty were able to take his super-ableness and make a living outside of selling Scientology, I'd have some respect. As it is, none.
 

David Mayo

Patron with Honors
The "legal" terms?

Serves no purpose whatsoever. David is bound by the legal terms of the agreement whatsoever they may be provided only in that they are legally constituted.


Mark A. Baker

This reminds me of a point that I have often wondered about. What if the terms of the "agreement" violate the Constitution of the United States of America, especially in regard to Free Speech as well as other clauses? What if, speaking in supposition, the agreement was signed under duress, possibly including one or more death threat(s) toward self and loved one(s)?

In such circumstances could such an agreement still be binding?

If so, WTF! :omg::omg::omg:
 

Jachs

Gold Meritorious Patron
I just heard 911 being called to Hemet for multiple asshole walnut cracking emergency at the mention of the Constitution of the United States.
 

David Mayo

Patron with Honors
Drop ALL gag orders!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whatever "reform" the Church will undergo, one point of credibility would be to drop unilaterally the enforcement off all gag agreements, giving back to the gagged people their freedom to write and talk their mind and experiences freely without any penalty whatsoever.

There will be no true reform without that step.

Absolutely!

Take up the cry: Drop all gag orders! Drop all gag orders! ...
 

Jachs

Gold Meritorious Patron
One would , in such a situation that is heavily forced under duress with death threats against kin and self say it is not enforceable and is Criminal and would TOTALLY violate the Constitution of the United States of America.

Shouldnt be binding.

and YES WTF!! :omg::omg::omg:
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
This reminds me of a point that I have often wondered about. What if the terms of the "agreement" violate the Constitution of the United States of America, especially in regard to Free Speech as well as other clauses? What if, speaking in supposition, the agreement was signed under duress, possibly including one or more death threat(s) toward self and loved one(s)?

In such circumstances could such an agreement still be binding?

If so, WTF! :omg::omg::omg:
No.. In such circumstances a gagorder would be invalid.. If it's not invalid it would be plausible reason for starting a civil war.. IMO... But I ain't no lawyer..

:unsure:
 

David Mayo

Patron with Honors
Point of credibility

Whatever "reform" the Church will undergo, one point of credibility would be to drop unilaterally the enforcement off all gag agreements, giving back to the gagged people their freedom to write and talk their mind and experiences freely without any penalty whatsoever.

There will be no true reform without that step.

Brilliant! Take up the cry.

Free the gagged!

There will be no true reform without that step.

Free the gagged!

There will be no true reform without that step.

Free the gagged!

There will be no true reform without that step.

D
 

David Mayo

Patron with Honors
Provided they arfe legally constituted!!!!

Serves no purpose whatsoever. David is bound by the legal terms of the agreement whatsoever they may be provided only in that they are legally constituted.


Mark A. Baker

... provided only in that they are legally constituted.

Hear ye, Hear ye, Hear ye.
 
Top