ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

justaguy's (silly) questions thread

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by justaguy, May 12, 2009.

  1. FinallyFree

    FinallyFree Gold Meritorious Patron

    I hired for LA Org for some time. We hired wogs. We had these people do all kinds of things. Filing was the easiest. We usually teamed them up with another staff member to show them the ropes. New staff who weren’t scn’s were generally left out of the staff meetings, all-hands and other various non-glorious activities that staff were involved in until these new staff were more indocteronated into the life of staff. It was done gradiently. And either they “stuck” (stayed on staff) or they didn’t. Another area that we would put new staff that weren’t scn’s (sorry WOG can be used as a derogatory description of a non-scientologist so I don’t always like to use it) was the Div 6 or the “new public” areas. But you had to be careful because they could get exposed to those critical of scientology.
  2. skydog

    skydog Patron Meritorious

  3. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    Wow, Cornpie. That's nasty. And if you do your homework, it's obvious that Paul's not in CofS.
  4. well_that_sucked

    well_that_sucked Patron with Honors

    Just like you eh Fluffy? After all, you are the official anti pro ex scientologist scientology apologist cult tech defender
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2009
  5. CornPie

    CornPie Patron Meritorious

    . Were these non-scientologist wog 'employees' paid minimum wage?
    . Roughly how many wogs did the org have in total, over the years, roughly?
    . Roughly on the avg, how many wogs did the org have at the same time?
    . What was their 'average' length of stay?
    . What's the 'maximum' length of stay you can remember, if they didn't join?
    . Did their 'employment' end if they didn't embrace scientology before long?
    . FinallyFree, wasn't the 'help wanted' sign really just masquerading as recruitment?
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2009
  6. FinallyFree

    FinallyFree Gold Meritorious Patron

    You know I read my post and realized that I changed the way I compose my posts due to another persons comment on another my posts here (specifically the words I use as I sometimes use scion lingo and other times I don’t)…. I am going to just talk the way I want to. To be plain: I am an ex-scientologist. Second generation scientologist, was on staff approx 7 years, I do not believe in the tech and I do not want any other versions of it. I have pretty much zero tech training, I have staff admin training. I am not “out” as an ex due to having all of my immediate family members (and some aunts and uncles) as well as many, many friends in scientology. I will be using the scion lingo because it is easiest for me to communicate certain principles which in the scn language mean something entirely different than other “real” languages. There – that rant was mainly for myself thanks for indulging….

    Okay to answer your questions:
    1. Non scientologist were paid like everyone else. They were never paid minimum wage. When pay would be VERY bad, the senior to any non-scientologist would be the person who paid the non-scn staff so they could handle them not to blow. There was a small push at one point to have HCO do this, since it made no difference WHO tried to handle the “wogs” when they got $5.oo for working 80 + hours, this got dropped.
    2. This is a rough estimate, but we had an average of maybe 4 or 5 non-scientologists recruited a month.
    3. The “wog” recruits did not stay very long, it was the rare occasion that they did and it was usually because they believed in scientology and that they could do some real good if they stayed. Plus they very much wanted the training and auditing. Those were always big pulls for any of them that did stay.
    4. If they were the norm: they left after the first or second time they were paid. It depended on how much they liked the people they were working with. If they were the rare ones they stayed as long as they could until they couldn’t afford it anymore. Usually we would very quietly push for a second job so they could stay. I can count on one hand the “wogs” that stayed and they stayed because they became scientologists and got entangled in the same trap the rest of the Ex’s.
    5. Like I said 0 if they didn’t join then they left after either their first pay or the second. Pay day was like a mass exodus of the “wog” staff. It was apathetically accepted as what just happened by the other staff.
    6. Answered and Yes.
    7. YES. You really couldn’t call it employment. That insinuates certain rights employees are granted that are not given by scientology when you work for them. I used this word due to the reason (rant) stated above. It was pure and simple recruitment with BIG attempts to wash over what they were really headed into.
  7. CornPie

    CornPie Patron Meritorious

    Thanks for your answers, and then some. Just a bit more please.

    1. Were these "employees" advised in advance how "little" they'd be paid?
    2. Were they led to believe it would be any different, than any other job?
    3. Were these "employees" subject to scientology sec-checks on the e-meter?
    4. Is it safe to assume, that it was your job to deceive, and now you're not proud of it.
    5. When they wanted out, were they subject to "ethics" handling, threats, etc?
    6. Did "ethics" threaten them with fairgame if they spoke out against scientology, like everybody else?
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2009
  8. clamicide

    clamicide Gold Meritorious Patron

    Good on you for not self-censoring.:)

    Our org also hired non-Scios, when they could. You'd see them at a staff meeting and they'd be announced and clapped for. Next week or so, they'd be gone. I've managed to mostly wipe the policy from my brain, so I don't remember the specifics, but there was a policy on doing this. They were mostly just rotating in and counted for the weekly staff hired stat. When they were really liked, there was a push to try to keep them, but it wasn't anything that was really pursued. It was pretty futile.

    When I left, the org still had ads in all the weekly free newspapers for hiring. They were told about the pay system and it was explained the whole chuch/no minimum guarantee, but they didn't understand how low it would actually be. At one point, we had HCO trolling outside the unemployment offices. Problem was, unemployment paid more. We had a couple of guys who did enjoy the camaraderie and actually made it a few months. The rest disappeared almost immediately. It was sort of a joke, you'd always see a few folks up near the front of the org doing their tests and paperwork and know there wasn't a chance in hell of them becoming a 'real' staff member.
  9. FinallyFree

    FinallyFree Gold Meritorious Patron

    1. It depends on who was recruiting them, some were and some weren’t. It was later determined that “full disclosure” would be better, but that was only after we had an unusual amount of “wogs” being recruited and blowing right away.
    2. Yes, they were led to believe the “wog” version of clearing the planet.
    3. Not at first. They would have to be “fully indoctrinated” (you would think that this would have been noticed by myself, but the truth is that as a scientologist you can definitely get this feeling of superiority – I think this was a major part of my personal blinders to the various out-points I witnessed on recruitment lines.) Ahhhh sec checks – that’s a whole nother story – any one here ever heard about the 200+ “tailor made LA Org Sec Check????” yeah….. went through THAT one twice. I always wondered what the “F” that was all about. Now I just think that DM was being very very paranoid and needed to know EVERYTHING LA Org staff were doing, thinking about doing or in the near future may START THINKING about doing. (oops ranting again)
    4. If they were still “wogs” there wasn’t too much you COULD say. You know there was the occasional “light” ethics handling but it was really geared towards a PTS handling rather than targeting the “wog” staff member as the source of the out-ethics. And what can you threaten a “wog” with who is till very much free?
    5. No, speaking out was never brought up that I know of. And how do you fairgame a “wog” staff member who is leaving – they don’t give a shit abut being declared – that isn’t THEIR road to freedom - and the “wog” staff hasn’t set up enough of a base of friends and family in scientology to use that against the staff member. So what are you left with? You either try to do a PTS handling (cause there HAS to be a SP if they want to LEAVE right? I mean who wouldn’t want to work under those conditions and get paid nothing….SP HAS to be there!) or you watch them walk out the door after a smile and a handshake wishing them good luck.

    Don’t let anyone here fool you. If you are indoctrinated enough - leaving scientology staff can be very very difficult. My own Mother was declared for leaving staff – her crime? Leaving staff. Why she went through her A-E and got back in I won’t understand. But that his her path and her life. It will be interesting when we finally freely talk about it.
  10. FinallyFree

    FinallyFree Gold Meritorious Patron

    Ahh yes... the good ole days. I hated recruiting. Hated it.
  11. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    I'm also an ex CofS member. My declare is of record. Whether or not I'm an apologist or still like Scn has nothing to do with anyone else being shitty to Paul or whether or not Paul is or is not still in the cult. Here's a clue: "Yawnguy". Never find a cultie creating anything like that!
  12. well_that_sucked

    well_that_sucked Patron with Honors

    Yellow pieces of paper mean nothing, actions do.

    You defend scientology cult tech, you defend other cult defenders and you attack vocal cult critics.

    And you do it all on the ex scientologist message board, where victims of the cult of scientology meet. And you do this while your sneaky little buddy Paul babbles the merits of cult tech like he eats it for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

    We've down this road before BIG RED LETTERS,Fluffy
  13. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Paul investigates things, and experiments, and is willing to say whether or not they had success or failed, reports where he thinks people are listening that can understand. One of those places is here. Paul has his views on Dianetics and Scientology technical applications, and when asked, explains them. I've found them mostly very sound. I don't agree with him about auras and chakras and stuff, but that's fine: he represents it as his beliefs, not as scientific fact.

    And of course, it's back to the old saw: opposing the Church is not the same thing as opposing the concept or practice of auditing. Even amongst those who consider auditing a good thing, generally (such as me), there are vehement arguments about which sorts of processes can be considered auditing, when they should be used, and how.

    Those who oppose the Church fall into many categories. Some are prior tech people, but most are not. Those who are not sometimes fall into the logical mistake of assuming that because auditing is used by the Church, it must therefore be damaging/bad, etc. Sometimes, it probably is. Sometimes it isn't. It doesn't logically follow that because an entity is bad, everything it does is bad, though. Even the most evil person you ever met probably once ate a sandwich. This doesn't mean that eating sandwiches is evil, or damaging. His INTENT by eating the sandwich might have been to get energy to do evil things, and I think that the Church's INTENT by providing auditing (at ridiculous rates, and under terrible, unproductive circumstances) is to garner money to use for further cultic activity, but that doesn't make the auditing itself evil.

    Keeping these things separate is part of sanity, which could be understood as the ability to properly differentiate and associate.
  14. CornPie

    CornPie Patron Meritorious

    Clamicide said in post #88>
    ...When I left, the [scientology] org still had ads in all the weekly free newspapers for hiring...
    ...They were told about the pay system...but they didn't understand how low it would actually be...
    ...At one point, we had HCO trolling outside the unemployment offices...

    FinallyFree said in post #90>
    ...I hated recruiting [for scientology]. Hated it...

    I (CornPie) say>
    Clamicide -- Deceptive practices, that's what I expect filthy-scientology, It's always the case. They're s***.

    FinallyFree -- Maybe try recruiting again someday, for a legitimate operation -- not scientology, and not some multi-level-marketing (MLM) hustle-ass operation, but a real company.
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2009
  15. justaguy

    justaguy Patron Meritorious

    Thanks guys. When I saw that help wanted sign, you know what my first thought was? Not "oh, what a blatant recruiting tool!" but "ooh! a job!".

    Yes, I am very, very, unemployed.

    *le sigh*

    So, it seems the only reason they hire wogs is to get their stats up.

    Que sad. :duh:
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2009
  16. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    So aren't all those non-Scios who sign employment contracts with the various orgs and leave after a week or two eligible for minimum wage too, per the documentation in the ongoing lawsuits from the Headleys and Laura D.?

    Could be interesting in the future when the dust settles.

  17. FinallyFree

    FinallyFree Gold Meritorious Patron

    My Opinion: YES. I am VERY interested in what come of the Headley's case. Marc is a VERY smart man. If he succeeds, and her has an EXCELLENT chance, I am really not sure how scientology as we know it today will survive. There WERE unemployment claims against my org – I don’t know how those claims were handled – that was confidential.
  18. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    Well, it does mean I'm not a cult member.

    I don't defend cult tech. I have stated many disagreements I have with various pieces of tech and policy that I felt made CofS the cult that it is and has been.

    I've talked to the press a number of times about Scn in a critical manner, too, in fact.

    I don't "attack vocal cult critics". I have had a few of them attack me and I won't sit still for that. I have defended many vocal critics of CofS and of Scn and have made friends with a number of them. I've defended them on forums and I defended critics and criticism to OSA when they sent someone to Seattle to come and handle me. Do you need a list of critics I've publicly defended and who've befriended me?

    I like Paul just fine but I like a lot of people here- some of whom want nothing to do with Scn in any way, shape or form. Paul's very much a "squirrel". He's diverged pretty far from Hubbard's stuff in many ways and I've always thought that this was/is a good thing.

    No, I'd remember this pack of lies had I had it levelled me before, unless you're confessing to morphing and attacking people under more than one nick and/or forum. Strikes me as probable.
  19. well_that_sucked

    well_that_sucked Patron with Honors

    Pack of Lies? You sure?

    I have been replying to your disgusting and continued cult tech defense and promotion for a while, starting with the get off the fence thread where you flipped out and admitted to being a scientology apologist.


    So much for sock puppets.

    You will not let people get on with the business of recovering from their very personal and fucked up cult experiences without interjecting your pro cult tech, FZ vomit or defending a pro cult tool every chance you get.

    Do a search, this forum is littered with your crap. Its sickening
  20. CornPie

    CornPie Patron Meritorious

    Yeah well, all of these "confidential agreements" p*** me off. The plaintiff starts out with high-minded ideals, because it's based on their principles, and I think it really is, to start with. Because no-no, it's never about the money! But then one day, filthy-scientology thinks they may lose the case, or be embarrassed if it were to go into open court. So scientology waves some money at the attorney and the plaintiff, but only if the plaintiff "settles", and signs away their right to speak out against them.

    Now the only way the plaintiff's attorney is going to get their (substantial) contingency fee is for them to coerce their client into signing the gag order -- which the attorney says isn't worth the paper it's written on anyway. In a sense, at this point, the attorney is now working against the "integrity" of their plaintiff/client. So the attorney advises, that in their "expert" opinion, their client should just sign the agreement. This way, the attorney gets their percentage, and presto, they don't have to do any work for their contingency fee. No work at all, such as going into open court, and fighting the case, in front of the world, and re-re-reporters. Plus who knows how much black-PR filthy-scientology is already exerting against the attorney -- so you can bet the attorney will really be pressuring their client into signing the so-called "meaningless" gag order.

    And I say f*** scientology, right up the a**hole. If you're going to sue them, do it for a justified amount, but a huge-huge amount, that will never be acceptable to them, that's really going to sting them hard. Tell your attorney the way it's going to be from day one, they're going to have to earn this one, because you actually "want" this to go to court, that's the point, take it or leave it. Force scientology into open court, so that all the mud will appear in all the newspapers. They're a bunch of dirty c***suckers -- give them a taste of their own medicine.

    Below are two videos of Gerry Armstrong, who "won" a settlement against filthy-scientology in 1986. But watching him on the videos, you'd think he lost. If he'd have stuck to his guns he'd be crowing like a rooster, but instead he looked like a broken man. Every time he uttered his knowledge of scientology it would cost him $50,000. Armstrong signed that agreement via the advice of his attorney, Michael Flynn, who was "supposedly" being fairgamed. The news coverage below shows video of Armstrong signing the agreement. Armstrong said he too was fairgamed by scientology for 5 years. My take on it is, he "sold his soul", when he signed the gag order. And even worse, he sold out the others who were pulling for him to win against filthy-scientology.

    In order to "win" an $800,000 settlement from scientology, Gerry Armstrong signed an agreement to pay a $50,000 fine per utterance of his scientology knowledge. And now he regrets doing it:

    Here's a news report about Gerry Armstrong, who signed a gag order for $800,000 in 1986:
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2009