Resolution of conflicts in Independent Scientology

[Ralph Hilton]

I have been pondering a while on why the so called "Freezone" has lots of conflicts.

It seems that there are lots of ARC breaks in the "Freezone". LRH said that generalizations cause ARC breaks.

The biggest generalization I see is the term "Freezone" being used by lots of very divergent groups.

There is no homogeneous "Freezone". The term was originally used by Bill Robertson for his offshoot. It was taken up by critics of Scientology generally as a term for anyone doing anything remotely similar to Scientology.

Terril wants to promote a homogeneous "Freezone".

Pierre recently stated that he wanted no connection to the "Freezone".

So my suggestion for resolving the conflicts is:

1. I discontinue the use of the term "Freezone" and create new websites using a different term which I have yet to discuss with those who are in alignment with me. The term "Freezone" can go back to its creator, Bill Robertson, and be used to refer to groups using his offshoot.

2. Terril can continue to advertise his homogeneous "Freezone" as he wishes. If I use a quite different term to describe our group then there shouldn't be problems in differentiation.

3. Pierre has already stated that he doesn't want to be associated with the "Freezone" so it seems a good idea that he uses his own term for his version of the tech.

4. My friends and I have put a lot of work into the creation of our websites and will continue to use the domains we established to feed into our new sites. That will include appropriate keywords.

I understand that quite a few people here consider Scientology unworkable garbage but am nevertheless interested in feedback about my suggestions.

 

[Ralph Hilton]

Hi Emma,
I was typing too fast and missed a couple of characters in the subject line. I can't see a way to edit it ???

 

[alex]

I have been pondering a while on why the so called "Freezone" has lots of conflicts.

It seems that there are lots of ARC breaks in the "Freezone". LRH said that generalizations cause ARC breaks.

The biggest generalization I see is the term "Freezone" being used by lots of very divergent groups.

There is no homogeneous "Freezone". The term was originally used by Bill Robertson for his offshoot. It was taken up by critics of Scientology generally as a term for anyone doing anything remotely similar to Scientology.

Terril wants to promote a homogeneous "Freezone".

Pierre recently stated that he wanted no connection to the "Freezone".

So my suggestion for resolving the conflicts is:

1. I discontinue the use of the term "Freezone" and create new websites using a different term which I have yet to discuss with those who are in alignment with me. The term "Freezone" can go back to its creator, Bill Robertson, and be used to refer to groups using his offshoot.

2. Terril can continue to advertise his homogeneous "Freezone" as he wishes. If I use a quite different term to describe our group then there shouldn't be problems in differentiation.

3. Pierre has already stated that he doesn't want to be associated with the "Freezone" so it seems a good idea that he uses his own term for his version of the tech.

4. My friends and I have put a lot of work into the creation of our websites and will continue to use the domains we established to feed into our new sites. That will include appropriate keywords.

I understand that quite a few people here consider Scientology unworkable garbage but am nevertheless interested in feedback about my suggestions.

Concept makes sense to me.

To me "freezone" means anything outside the church. A very general description.

Yes I see how this might be problematic, including how I perceive and act.

Branding might be an appropriate action.

But still....cooperating on common goals has a place, and fighting seems a bit dev-t.

alex

 

[alex]

Hi Emma,
I was typing too fast and missed a couple of characters in the subject line. I can't see a way to edit it ???

Ralph,

click edit

and then again click go advanced (next to the save button)

alex

 

[Ralph Hilton]

Tks.

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

I have been pondering a while on why the so called "Freezone" has lots of conflicts.

It seems that there are lots of ARC breaks in the "Freezone". LRH said that generalizations cause ARC breaks.

The biggest generalization I see is the term "Freezone" being used by lots of very divergent groups.

There is no homogeneous "Freezone". The term was originally used by Bill Robertson for his offshoot. It was taken up by critics of Scientology generally as a term for anyone doing anything remotely similar to Scientology.

Terril wants to promote a homogeneous "Freezone".

Pierre recently stated that he wanted no connection to the "Freezone".

So my suggestion for resolving the conflicts is:

1. I discontinue the use of the term "Freezone" and create new websites using a different term which I have yet to discuss with those who are in alignment with me. The term "Freezone" can go back to its creator, Bill Robertson, and be used to refer to groups using his offshoot.

2. Terril can continue to advertise his homogeneous "Freezone" as he wishes. If I use a quite different term to describe our group then there shouldn't be problems in differentiation.

3. Pierre has already stated that he doesn't want to be associated with the "Freezone" so it seems a good idea that he uses his own term for his version of the tech.

4. My friends and I have put a lot of work into the creation of our websites and will continue to use the domains we established to feed into our new sites. That will include appropriate keywords.

I understand that quite a few people here consider Scientology unworkable garbage but am nevertheless interested in feedback about my suggestions.

Freezone is a place where you go when you are leaving and finally leave the CofS. It is a stopping off place to rest and imbibe one's newfound freedom to think for oneself. To finish or start or correct some poorly done CofS auditing and training. To ask questions about the tech, to squirrel the tech to the heart's content, to explore and come up with improved tech. To say nasty things about Ron, to rant and rave. To have a backboard for sorting out the data to complete an ongoing Doubt Formula.

Whether Pierre likes it or not he is part of the Freezone. His communication resounds in the Freezone.

ARC breaks can also be caused by too quickly taking away someone's long held stable datums. The Yahoo Groups that demand that members adhere to certain stable datums about Ron and/or Bridge have fewer ARC breaks. I don't want to rip out someone's stable datums so I don't post about progressive tech in certain Yahoo Freezone Groups.

Ralph, please give more details about your plans, thank you.

 

[Dulloldfart]

There's a problem with changing nomenclature that is deeply ingrained, even more so with the advent of Googlable archives going back to the dawn of Internet time. If you could do a literal global search-and-replace, including people's memories, then it would work, but that isn't going to happen. Remember LRH's comment somewhere (Study Tapes?) re the name "service facsimile" should really be "service computation" but it was now too late to go back and change the bulletins etc. where it had appeared?

Existing domain names isn't a huge problem as these can just forward to the new domains. Or you can simply use new words, like "Fun Zone".

I remember the problem I had when I was trying to introduce the terms "Progressive Standard Tech" and "Conservative Standard Tech" to differentiate between people trying to take the tech forward and those wishing to keep it unchanged, warts and all. The CST guys (at least, those who posted on the matter) didn't even wish the names to be used as the tech was already perfect (sorry, "workable") and using the names implied that it wasn't. The PST guys didn't seem to mind.

Who is this proposed change for, Ralph? I don't see that it will make any difference to the "us and them" mentality: if anything, using a different name might make it worse. I would suggest a discussion on your Yahoo group and with your EU tech principals if those are the people going to be most affected by any change.

OK, that's about all of my thoughts in the area.

Paul

 

[Voltaire's Child]

People have a lot of reservations and upset feelings (to the Scn'ists and some others here, I'd sayn "they have a lot of charge") about words, names, titles, verbiage, nomenclature.

It's a huge huge upset (aka "ARCX") with non or ex Scn'ists that LRH had this nomenclature. There's a discussion on that going on right now elsewhere on ESMB.

It really upsets (some) people. Makes 'em think of 1984. Or Brave New World.

I think words are symbols.

Some of the things people have said to me was along the lines that they did not like, for instance, my referring to myself (still) as a Scn'ist.

The term carries emotional freight.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not, Terril isn't, Ralph isn't, Paul isn't...all that similar to CofS Scn'ists in most respects.

Some of us (like maybe Alan W- I'm not sure ,though, and if I'm wrong I mean no offense to Alan W) no longer use Scientologist as a name for what we are even with a qualifying adjective in front.

Some of us do.

I really and truly think it's like the Protestant Reformation. Lots of factions, squabbling, disagreements, interpretations.

A Methodist is not a Baptist but they both call themselves Christian.

I think that people should ditch these upset feelings they have and associations they have and the connotations and just ask people what they are or how they really feel if they are not sure what kind of Scn'ist to whom they are speaking. I think they should take more responsibility than some of them have been.

And I think that the FZ, Indies, Independents, Heretics (my personal favorite) should qualify their stances from the git-go.

After that, if anyone complains and says that an FZer or other heretic is inadvertently furthering the aims of CofS after having asked and been told otherwise, then those people are idiots.

So saith I.

 

[Bea Kiddo]

I admit sometimes its easier to use the Scn word.


(Which means, yes, in my life, I talk to people who are X's. Some of them are not known as X's to the church. Ha ha).

Its just easier to use. Like the word Dev-T is a great example. Short. To the point. Fits context. Use it.

---

I feel like I just kinda got off a WH to my ESMB friends. Phew.

Time for some Havingness.

A beer maybe.

Or vodka.

Or wine...

Hmm.....

 

[Div6]

I admit sometimes its easier to use the Scn word.


(Which means, yes, in my life, I talk to people who are X's. Some of them are not known as X's to the church. Ha ha).

Its just easier to use. Like the word Dev-T is a great example. Short. To the point. Fits context. Use it.

---

I feel like I just kinda got off a WH to my ESMB friends. Phew.

Time for some Havingness.

A beer maybe.

Or vodka.

Or wine...

Hmm.....

Absinthe! PM me a delivery address and I will have a bottle delivered from England....gotta get the holiday cheer going! And TI highly recommends it.

 

[Alanzo]

Absinthe! PM me a delivery address and I will have a bottle delivered from England....gotta get the holiday cheer going! And TI highly recommends it.

I had some absinthe last Sunday.

It was very relaxing. Made me feel like everything was in perfect harmony. Not a drunken state at all, just like TI said.

The world seemed calm and beautiful.

 

[Bea Kiddo]

I had some absinthe last Sunday.

It was very relaxing. Made me feel like everything was in perfect harmony. Not a drunken state at all, just like TI said.

The world seemed calm and beautiful.

Does it cause hallucinations at all?

Maybe for a wimp like me it would....

I'm thinking Alanzo's been around a few more blocks than I...

 

[olska]

People have a lot of reservations and upset feelings (to the Scn'ists and some others here, I'd sayn "they have a lot of charge") about words, names, titles, verbiage, nomenclature.

It's a huge huge upset (aka "ARCX") with non or ex Scn'ists that LRH had this nomenclature. There's a discussion on that going on right now elsewhere on ESMB.

It really upsets (some) people. Makes 'em think of 1984. Or Brave New World.

<snip>

I think that people should ditch these upset feelings they have and associations they have and the connotations and just ask people what they are or how they really feel if they are not sure what kind of Scn'ist to whom they are speaking. I think they should take more responsibility than some of them have been.

And I think that the FZ, Indies, Independents, Heretics (my personal favorite) should qualify their stances from the git-go.

After that, if anyone complains and says that an FZer or other heretic is inadvertently furthering the aims of CofS after having asked and been told otherwise, then those people are idiots.

Notice how this writer describes people who hold and dare to express their alternative viewpoint or an opinion different than that of the writer (a self-professed "scientologist") as "upset", having a "huge upset," or "ARCX,"

... and then implores those who don't agree with her to "ditch these upset feelings" and "take more responsibility"

... and if they do not do as the writer suggests (i.e, come around to her way of looking at things) but continue to hold to and dare to express their alternative view, their different opinion, the writer then says of them

"...then those people are idiots."

Dontcha just love how the world looks from inside scientology!

 

[Tanstaafl]

Notice how this writer describes people who hold and dare to express their alternative viewpoint or an opinion different than that of the writer (a self-professed "scientologist") as "upset", having a "huge upset," or "ARCX,"

... and then implores those who don't agree with her to "ditch these upset feelings" and "take more responsibility"

... and if they do not do as the writer suggests (i.e, come around to her way of looking at things) but continue to hold to and dare to express their alternative view, their different opinion, the writer then says of them

"...then those people are idiots."

Dontcha just love how the world looks from inside scientology!

That's not my interpretation of what "this writer" is saying at all.

 

[Alanzo]

Does it cause hallucinations at all?

Maybe for a wimp like me it would....

I'm thinking Alanzo's been around a few more blocks than I...

No hallucinations at all. The Canadian Mountie in my living room was supposed to be there. And so was the little clown midget who kept playing the music box and laughing maniacally.

 

[Tanstaafl]

No hallucinations at all. The Canadian Mountie in my living room was supposed to be there. And so was the little clown midget who kept playing the music box and laughing maniacally.

Ooh! Were there any red curtains? Sounds like a Lynch movie - where do I get a bottle?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

That's not my interpretation of what "this writer" is saying at all.

Right. Because it wasn't.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Notice how this writer describes people who hold and dare to express their alternative viewpoint or an opinion different than that of the writer (a self-professed "scientologist") as "upset", having a "huge upset," or "ARCX,"

Actually, what I wrote was People have a lot of reservations and upset feelings (to the Scn'ists and some others here, I'd sayn "they have a lot of charge") about words, names, titles, verbiage, nomenclature.It's a huge huge upset (aka "ARCX") with non or ex Scn'ists that LRH had this nomenclature. There's a discussion on that going on right now elsewhere on ESMB.

Which is plain English. The scientologese is in quotes, ordinary verbiage is given right there in those sentences.

and

The term carries emotional freight.

Also plain English.

... and then implores those who don't agree with her to "ditch these upset feelings" and "take more responsibility"

No, I didn't implore at all.

I said: I think that people should ditch these upset feelings they have and associations they have and the connotations and just ask people what they are or how they really feel if they are not sure what kind of Scn'ist to whom they are speaking. I think they should take more responsibility than some of them have been.

What would be the point of being pissed off about someone being in the church when the person isn't in the church but the pissed off person didn't even bother to ask or to listen when the (heretic, squirrel, FZer, you take your pick) tried to tell the person they weren't even in CofS.

that's like putting one's fingers in one's ears, shrieking "la la la I'm not listening" then making accusations that, had one talked TO instead of AT the otehr person, one would have not needed to make.

... and if they do not do as the writer suggests (i.e, come around to her way of looking at things) but continue to hold to and dare to express their alternative view, their different opinion, the writer then says of them

"...then those people are idiots."

Nooo...

What I said was

After that, if anyone complains and says that an FZer or other heretic is inadvertently furthering the aims of CofS after having asked and been told otherwise, then those people are idiots.

Dontcha just love how the world looks from inside scientology!

I didn't write that because I am a Scn'ist. I wrote it because if someone thinks a non CofS Scientologist is inadvertentely furthering the aims of CofS after the person's already been asked and has indicated they aren't in CofS, and yet the person still accuses the Scn'ist of furthering the aims of CofS, then, yes, they are idiots.

I've had a number of people say they thought I and other non CofS Scn'ists were furthering the aims of CofS by our activities. Now, since CofS hates squirrels, hates the competition, since most of us who are vocal about not being in CofS are such, then, no, obviously it doesn't help CofS that we're out there saying we study Scn outside CofS, that we aren't members of Cofs,etc. CofS gets no increased stats from that.

And for someone to ask (or, often,yell at, scold, harangue...) a non CofS Scn'ist about his or her stance re CofS, and to be told what it is, then it's obviously not something that's going to further the aims of an organization that detests and fair games such heretics.

And to keep insisting that the person does further the aims of CofS when we can all see that they get no stats from it, then, yeah, that's ridiculous.

I say that as someone who does a lot of legal work and has been in numerous depositions and trials. If someone is asked what their position is, then they disclose it, saying that the person's position is actually something else is risible.

That's like accusing someone of being from another political party than they're from or of furthering the aims of Democrats/Republicans/Libertarians, etc when they are a different party and have publicly said so many many times.

 

[olska]

What I said was

After that, if anyone complains and says that an FZer or other heretic is inadvertently furthering the aims of CofS after having asked and been told otherwise, then those people are idiots.

That statement (of yours, quoted above) is what I commented on in previous post.

I've had a number of people say they thought I and other non CofS Scn'ists were furthering the aims of CofS by our activities.

That is a view some people hold -- that is how they see it.As they see it, someone outside the CoS can be inadvertently furthering the aims of CoS. It's an alternative view, a view different from yours.

And as you say in your own words (quoted above, quoted below), if they can't be convinced to change that view, to come around and change their minds, you say "then, yes, they are idiots."

That (your statement, your words regarding others' views and the fact that those others didn't change their views despite your attempts to convince them) was what I commented on in my previous post.

... someone thinks a non CofS Scientologist is inadvertentely furthering the aims of CofS after the person's already been asked and has indicated they aren't in CofS, and yet the person still accuses the Scn'ist of furthering the aims of CofS, then, yes, they are idiots

They continue to hold to and dare to express their alternative view, their different opinion, and you then say of them, "then, yes, they are idiots."

I don't get why you found it necessary to repeat all that and with all the bright red and large writing -- one might think you had a "huge huge upset (aka "ARCX")" [words borrowed from your post] just because someone dared disagree with you and dared to express that disagreement with comments on one of your posts.

 

[Alan]

I have been pondering a while on why the so called "Freezone" has lots of conflicts.

It seems that there are lots of ARC breaks in the "Freezone". LRH said that generalizations cause ARC breaks.

The biggest generalization I see is the term "Freezone" being used by lots of very divergent groups.

There is no homogeneous "Freezone". The term was originally used by Bill Robertson for his offshoot. It was taken up by critics of Scientology generally as a term for anyone doing anything remotely similar to Scientology.

Terril wants to promote a homogeneous "Freezone".

Pierre recently stated that he wanted no connection to the "Freezone".

So my suggestion for resolving the conflicts is:

1. I discontinue the use of the term "Freezone" and create new websites using a different term which I have yet to discuss with those who are in alignment with me. The term "Freezone" can go back to its creator, Bill Robertson, and be used to refer to groups using his offshoot.

2. Terril can continue to advertise his homogeneous "Freezone" as he wishes. If I use a quite different term to describe our group then there shouldn't be problems in differentiation.

3. Pierre has already stated that he doesn't want to be associated with the "Freezone" so it seems a good idea that he uses his own term for his version of the tech.

4. My friends and I have put a lot of work into the creation of our websites and will continue to use the domains we established to feed into our new sites. That will include appropriate keywords.

I understand that quite a few people here consider Scientology unworkable garbage but am nevertheless interested in feedback about my suggestions.

The fact is Bill Robertson did not originate the "Freezone" concept - that came into being almost instantly in Jan 1982, when the Great Schism began -

Bill had a goal to take over the free centers and independent field that sprung into existence after the Great Schism.

He and a couple of others Gordon Bell and Ernie Martin pretended they had direct orders from LRH - to reconnect the ex-SO people and give them new orders.

I went to the first of these - with Sibersky, Travolta, etc., there were 1000's of us ex'es in comm in those days we met with Bill, Gordon and Ernie.

Bill and Ernie were long time "conspiracy theory" (Psychs, Marcabians, IRS, CIA, etc., gonna get you or have infiltrated you) nut cases - Gordon was an old friend and is still a friend........

Bill told a fairly believable story about being in comm with LRH.........omitting that it was "telepathic" comm from beyond the grave - Bill thought LRH was dead.........this was around early to mid '83.

For a while there was considerable support for Bill - but once it was found that Bill had channeled his "stuff" from the non-dead LRH.......in the US he pretty much lost all power, but he had managed to claim the "freezone" as part of Ron's Org.

The were a lot of power plays going on during this period.

The correct thing would be to name each area as its own name.

Alan