Claire Swazey is now an ex Scientologist

[olska]

Actually, scnforum.org is my message board and has been for several months. But yeah, I started as a mod there when it was Geir's.
<>
Point of fact, I've not said anything about my spiritual state or status or label thingie (eg: OT, Clear) on scnforum.org in a while, in fact. Perhaps the "someone" to whom you refer should say whatever his or her concerns are to my face (so to speak). I'm not difficult to find.
<>

How very interesting -- not. Actually, it's pretty simple and straightforward and the question of whether or not Claire is an "OT" can be easily put to rest by this statement on that forum under the section "Purpose of TSF":

"TSF is a moderated discussion forum. Moderation is done by OTs and posts are pruned for references to upper level confidential material ... "

Moderation is done by "OTs"; Claire is a moderator; ergo, in the opinion of all who care about such things, Claire is an "OT".

 

[Voltaire's Child]

How very interesting -- not. Actually, it's pretty simple and straightforward and the question of whether or not Claire is an "OT" can be easily put to rest by this statement on that forum under the section "Purpose of TSF":

"TSF is a moderated discussion forum. Moderation is done by OTs and posts are pruned for references to upper level confidential material ... "

Moderation is done by "OTs"; Claire is a moderator; ergo, in the opinion of all who care about such things, Claire is an "OT".

Hi, Olska,

Well, I guess it interested a couple people enough to reply, eh?

So, you know I do love a logic exercise. So here goes:

• It doesn't say that moderation is solely done by OTs. It says it's done by OTs.
  
• A lot of exes refer to their previous state/status/label doohickey they attained (spent oodles of money and time for) when they had been in the cult. I've seen exes refer to themselves as OTs, Clears, and Class (whichever number it happened to be for that person). Yet they were exes.
  
• My designation vis a vis scnforum.org is that of admin/message board owner.

 

[olska]

Hi, Olska,

Well, I guess it interested a couple people enough to reply, eh?

So, you know I do love a logic exercise. So here goes:

• It doesn't say that moderation is solely done by OTs. It says it's done by OTs.
  
• A lot of exes refer to their previous state/status/label doohickey they attained (spent oodles of money and time for) when they had been in the cult. I've seen exes refer to themselves as OTs, Clears, and Class (whichever number it happened to be for that person). Yet they were exes.
  
• My designation vis a vis scnforum.org is that of admin/message board owner.

Have it any way you like. I'm only going by what it says on that particular forum -- you (or anyone interested) can look it up, just as I did. Because I was curious, 'k?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Hi, Olska,

Hope you're doing well.

With regard to our conversation; I don't have to still be a Scn'ist to have had OT levels having been completed in my past or to have done this or that service. I either did it or I didn't. Just like some exes I've seen who often mention that they did OT 7 or that they are a classed auditor or something like that.

VERY soon after Geir asked me to be a moderator, last year, I came out as not being an indie Scn'ist anymore. Geir was ok with it and elected to still retain me as moderator. It's his stricture anyway, not mine, though I do know the thoughts behind it.

And, as I said, it's my board. I'm no longer a moderator. I'm admin.

Now, seems to me that it was a bit of a bone of contention for some people out there in Cyberland (you know, here and there, as the saying goes) when I was calling myself a Scientologist after having left CofS. And now it's a bone of contention (there's been at least one post on this thread referring to me as still being a Scientologist) that I don't do that anymore. It's a bone of contention for some that I don't answer every personal question. It's a bone of contention for some that I used to be a mod and now am an admin on Scnforum.org. It appears that I'm getting boned. But if so, we're all in luck since I like getting boned...

Aside from that, the purpose of this thread was to discuss a watershed moment for me. It was and is pretty special to me and I invite readers to share in my joy.

 

[olska]

Hi, Olska,

Hope you're doing well.

I am doing fine and dandy, as is usual for me these days.

With regard to our conversation; I don't have to still be a Scn'ist to have had OT levels having been completed in my past or to have done this or that service. I either did it or I didn't. ...

With regard to our conversation, I pointed out that on that particular forum, since you are (still) listed as one of the moderators, and since on that forum under the section "Purpose of TSF" it says:

"TSF is a moderated discussion forum. Moderation is done by OTs ... "

... that it would follow, for those who read or use that forum and who care about such things, that on that forum you are represented as an "OT."

And that anyone who wants to know can go and read it for themself, just as I did.

Now, seems to me that it was a bit of a bone of contention for some people out there in Cyberland (you know, here and there, as the saying goes) when I was calling myself a Scientologist after having left CofS. And now it's a bone of contention (there's been at least one post on this thread referring to me as still being a Scientologist) that I don't do that anymore. It's a bone of contention for some that I don't answer every personal question. It's a bone of contention for some that I used to be a mod and now am an admin on Scnforum.org. It appears that I'm getting boned. But if so, we're all in luck since I like getting boned...

You can represent yourself anywhere anytime as anything your little 'ol heart desires; but as I have neither a bone nor a dog in this particular fight, it matters not to me one way or another. HTH

 

[Voltaire's Child]

The whole point is that I'm NOT representing myself as any particular label/quantity anymoar.

I'm admin of that board and that's all there is to that.

Frankly, re this thread, I think discussion of the afore mentioned watershed moment might be moar apropos, particularly now that I've answered the queries in detail and done so more than once.

 

[Isene]

It's Claire's forum. She can do as she likes

 

[olska]

The whole point is that I'm NOT representing myself as any particular label/quantity anymoar.

I'm admin of that board and that's all there is to that.

Yeah, I mean really!

There on the forums of that board you are clearly listed as one of the moderators and thereby the board/forum (mis)represents you as a moderator, when really you’re NOT a moderator;

and then right there on the forum it clearly states that the forum is moderated by “OTs,” thereby not only (mis)representing you as a moderator, but as an “OT” moderator! Even when you’re not.

I mean, not that you’re not an “OT” (only you would know, because how could anyone else make that judgment about something so personal and private) but that you’re not a moderator, nor are you representing yourself as a moderator, or an OT, or an OT moderator -- or any other label/quantity/thingie.

Only the silly forum is doing all that (mis)representing, right there on the f’ing internet for all the world to see! Must be terribly frustrating!

You might want to have a little chat with the board admin and get that straightened out . . . .

 

[Voltaire's Child]

To those folks who've asked...

about my beliefs.

Ok, it's been a year. It's going well.

I still have a lot of regard for things I've learned in the past in Scn. I just don't want to call my fluffy hodgepodge of ideas "Scn". A few of my FZ friends had asked me if I don't believe in any of it or have any use for it (Tech, etc) anymore. I wouldn't say that. I just would rather look at the basic idea and not the label.

I have seen people-including myself whenever I had any- do well with Scn auditing. I've also seen people do quite well with other methods. I no longer believe that Scn's set of ideas is the best thing out there. I think Hubbard hit the nail on the head sometimes. This is something not all my (non FZ) friends think, but I think he did. But when I read certain works by other people who never did any Scn, I've found concepts that were very similar that either were stated as well or sometimes better.

Let ideas and wishes and desires and intentions and deeds be like food. We take it in, it's part of us, and it's not a radish or pasta anymore. Now it's part of us. And by that I don't mean any snotty analogy about waste products or fat, I mean, that anything good in it went to nourish us but then we went on walking around and doing things to go get more other nourishment. It didn't have to always be spinach, radishes, chicken, whatever. Sometimes it could be barley or cheese.

 

[programmer_guy]

Equivocation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I don't see why it matters ... Fluffy has seemed happier this last year and to me that is what really matters.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Right. Back when I was still referring to myself as an Indie Scientologist, I had quite a few discussions wherein the other parties said that they didn't think I should call myself a Scn'ist since I didn't go for all of it and all this. Since then, my beliefs have wandered even farther afield. So if it seems wonky for me to be calling myself a Scn'ist and it seems wonky for me to be saying I'm not one, well, obviously it's not the Scn'ist label or lack of that label that's the point of concern for those individuals.

Of course some people aren't going to share the same philosophical views I have. I mean, I have friends who think there's no way anyone is around after death and I have others who are full on traditional Christian. I have liberal friends and my husband's VERY far right in his politics. Yet these people are all part of my life. We all have to live together. I mean, what would I do if I was to get really hung up on the differences in views and beliefs? Try to change them? That wouldn't work. Make negative comments to them? That wouldn't work, either and it would only spread disharmony.

I also value some of the things I learned as a Catholic girl- things I'd been encouraged to discount and deride when I was in CofS. That doesn't make me Catholic, either. I'm not going to do the ideological label thing anymore. But you know which one I'd pick if I had to? Buddhist.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I'm not going to do the ideological label thing anymore. But you know which one I'd pick if I had to? Buddhist.

Taoist is good too, covers a lot of bases and is not easily pinned down. Taoist gives you a lot of wriggle room.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Voltaire's Child]

As you know, I'm all about the wiggle room....

 

[TG1]

I'm not going to do the ideological label thing anymore.

This. I like this. I like this a lot. I like this really, really a lot. A whole lot.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Buddist is OK .............but ................................ can I have my robe is something besides that gad awful orange?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Since we're all about wiggle room, any color you want...robe, no robe, purple robe, plaid robe...

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I also created this thread on WWP:

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/7-chit-chat/best-scientology-auditing-i-ever-received-73500

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I was talking to a really good friend of mine about this thread and he said that thread necromancy is not good and that I should not have responded to it under any circumstances. Too late now, of course. But I think underscoring the true underlying thought of this thread isn't a bad thing, particularly since I'm evidently still rather controversial.

This thread isn't about whether I went OT or consider myself to still be this or that or whether I don't. Or what I should call myself or what others think I should call myself or what I should do. It's not about scnforum.org. It's not about any of that. It's about my desire to not let a label define me. Because, in fact, that's what I was doing.

I'm all about freedom of speech for everyone; for people who still practice Scn outside CofS; for people who think it's utter tripe and bollocks; for people who want to speak out against the cult. Hell, I'd even be for freedom of speech for CofS, except that they always want to include lies, abuse, coercion, frivolous lawsuits, browbeatings (and, in the realm of the physical, REAL beatings) and so on. Those are NOT things I'm in favor of. Not when CofS does them. And not when critics, skeptics and exes do any of those things.

I'm also for looking at other things. Other methods, other ideas, other information. Had I not been for those things, I'd still be in the cult, and I'd still be worried about other practices. I'm not, though. Recently, I went to a workshop where a number of the techniques and ideas were definitely not from Hubbard. Loved it. It's not the only thing I'm doing. Do I retain and use things I learned years ago? Yes. And some of those are things I learned as a Catholic, not just Scn ones. All there really is, is information and ideas. That's all it is to me.

I created this thread because I wanted to get away from labels. Recently, thread necromancy was enacted with the result of about three people talking about- guess what! Labels. I hope that others can have the learning experience I've had!

 

[FinallyMe]

Excellent clarification, Fluffy! I have always objected to being labelled because the labels were always wrong to greater or lesser extent and it always resulted in me feeling that no one could "see" me, no one could understand me. I ALWAYS felt insulted by the "not" label in Scientology -- I was not such-and-such a grade or auditing level, and therefore I was incapable of something. My OT III boyfriend talking with the OT III woman with whom he cheated on me, and telling her he admitted to me that he had cheated and that I didn't take it well because I had not done OT III yet and was into "owning bodies" (yes, I was listening in on the other phone line). I was ANGRY and my auditing level had nothing to do with it - I'm certain that "cheating" is not an ability gained on OT III, but the label was used as a justification.

Labels are a limited and limiting definition or description for anything. Even if your label of me is true, it's still incomplete.

My experiences OUT of Scientology have proved to me that any level of auditing you have achieved (the label) has NOTHING to do with what kind of person you are.