“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology pages index  |  Contact

A word about Criticism:
     Critique from churchgoing Scientologists overturned  & Some common one-liners used by Scientologists clarified 
(Critique received (1) from churchgoing Scientologists)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

“One often wonders why people are so ‘reasonable’ about intolerable and illogical situations.
The answer is very simple: they cannot recognize outpoints when they see them and so try to make everything seem logical. ...
The human reaction is to REACT! to an outpoint. And then get ‘reasonable’ and adopt some explanation for it, usually untrue.
You can safely say that ‘being reasonable’ is a symptom of being unable to recognize outpoints for what they are and use them to discover actual situations.”
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from HCO PL 30 Sept 73 II “Situation Finding”)  

Here I have assembled critique that I have encountered and have received. They are threefold: from churchgoing Scientologists, from out-of-church Scientologists and from anti-Scientologists. Each have their own specifics.


Criticism outline
  A word about criticism ... , what it means, what it doesn't mean, and its actual ramifications
  ‘Communicate or not communicate’ (‘To be or not to be’)
  A consideration about policy and policy letters
Critical responses received from churchgoing Scientologists overturned
  Overview of commonly (mis)used citations from L. Ron Hubbard exercised within the Church of Scientology
             - “attacks on or criticisms of orgs and staffs”  (HCO PL “Good Service”)
- “refuses to speak ill of Scientology or criticize it”  (HCO PL “Non-Scientology Staff”)
- “attainment of one's standards”  (HCO PL “Environmental Control”)
- “Don't criticize or give or receive criticism”  (in regards to “fellow auditors”)
- “The Enemy Line”  (regarding running a “campaign”)
- ‘CRITICISM’ and ‘NATTER’  (‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’)
  Critique received from churchgoing Scientologists about my Scientology pages
      - Advocating mixing of practices?
- Incorrect use of the word ‘Scientologist’ in regards to Free Zone?
- Not the right gradient?
- Copyright violation?
Additional critique received
  Critique received (2) from out-of-church Scientologists  (on separate page)
  Critique received (3) from anti-Scientologists  (on separate page)

Back to Main Index Foreword

The subject matter of Scientology essentially is about to arrive at a correct evaluation and a proper use of the data as contained in the materials that are found in Scientology. Through these it offers a variety of techniques, data and also guidelines. And as with any other information it can be misduplicated, misunderstood and misapplied. This page tells little about these things. The hope is that it clarifies some common misconceptions and misuses.

This page came about as a direct result of an interference adjudicated by OSA International (headquarters of the Office of Special Affairs of the Church of Scientology located in USA), that my Scientology pages were found improper and therefore required handling. For this reason I was called in to come and see the Director of Special Affairs (DSA) of the local organization in my place of residence. This was in mid-2004.

      “Now listen, my boy...”

I was given a detailed list, 8 pages long, of this critique. Various of the arguments forwarded I found were agreeable to me, and so these were attended to. This involved various rewrites, rephrasings, better explanations given, and similar such things. Some other arguments forwarded however I found were violating my rights. The matter was that in no possible way I would let some outer entity dictate in detail what I can and can not discuss on my pages. And I thus forwarded my queries to the local DSA, I formulated these in a report I wrote at the time. The DSA then accepted these queries. He then send up a report up to OSA Int about what had been achieved, and I never heard about it again. For some time afterwards I kept the local DSA informed about various more sensitive additions to my pages. This was entirely my own origination, I thought it would have been smarter to let him know at forehand, instead of getting complaints afterwards. Receiving critique is beneficial as it does let you see things you had missed or could be better phrased and more clearly presented. But I did not hear from OSA or the DSA about this ever again.

A result of that interference was a realization that I had been complaining about some things but failed to offer a solution in regards to some matters. Here my pages started to change focus. It introduced the factor of efectively educating the readers.

Another result of the interference was that these particular pages here, about critique received, came about. It had forced me to look particular close at various information and observations. Some 6 months later in March 2005 I released this page, intending to educate people about the various common misconceptions and agreements that exist regarding these matters among Scientologiy parishoners overall. Added to that was my defence in case I disagreed with critique I had received. This was page “Critical responses received from churchgoing Scientologists overturned”.
It was at a much later date (February 2013) that I addressed “Critique from out-of-church Scientologists overturned” and “Attacks and critique from anti-Scientologists overturned”.

Criticism outline

Back to Main Index A word about criticism ... , what it means, what it doesn't mean, and its actual ramifications

“Examine all your beliefs, all your theories, all your knowledge by inviting doubt, not by letting doubt creep into your heart. I hold that doubt is essential for the discovering and the understanding of the Truth. If you merely accept, without the invitation of doubt and its cruelty of examination, then what you have is not real.”          J. Krishnamurti
(from ‘Life the Goal’, published 1928)

So what is criticism? What is it good for? Does it actually have some purpose?

“Now, to be able to criticize, to be able to question, is the first essential requirement for any thinking man, so that he will begin to discover what is false and what is true in the existing system, and therefore out of that thought there is action, and not mere acceptance. So during this talk, if you would understand what I am going to say, there must be criticism. Criticism is essential. Questioning is right, but we have been trained not to question, not to criticize, we have been carefully trained to oppose. For instance, if I am going to say anything which you are going to dislike — as I shall, I hope — you will naturally begin to oppose it, because opposition is easier than to find out if what I am saying has any value. If you discover what I am saying has value, then there is action, and hence you will have to alter your whole attitude towards life. Therefore, as we are not prepared to do that, we have made a clever technique of opposition. That is, if anything I am saying you do not like, you bring up all your deep-rooted prejudices and obstruct, and if I say anything which may hurt you, or which may emotionally upset you, you take shelter behind these prejudices, these traditions, this background; and from that background you react, and that reaction you call criticism. To me it is not criticism. It is merely clever opposition, which has no value.”         J. Krishnamurti
(from ‘Verbatim reports of talks and answers to questions by Krishnamurti in Auckland, N.Z.’: “1st public talk 28th March ’34”)

It could be said to be the ability to discriminate or the ability to make or see a difference between or to distinguish. It is necessary to discriminate, to criticize or to analyze an actual situation or problem. If you do not do this, you will be unable to do an evaluation and therefore you will be unable to accurately reverse a bad situation or to handle a particular problem, or to handle in such a way that the same unwanted situation or problem will not come to bother you again.

It seems hard for some people to analyze things in a critical manner. Not ALL criticism is deriving from a bad conscience as some people seem to have taken as their paradigm. To those persons I would ask to reflect on the following:
“A lot of people are on a stuck flow of being sensible and sane—and that winds up in stupidity. So they get reasonable. Their confront of evil isn't up to it—basically, their confront of outpoints.”          LRH   
(from HCO PL 18 Mar 77R, Data Series 43 “Evaluation and Programs”)

One often wonders why people are so ‘reasonable’ about intolerable and illogical situations.
The answer is very simple: they cannot recognize outpoints when they see them and so try to make everything seem logical.
The ability to actually see an outpoint for what it is, in itself is an ability to attain some peace of mind. For one can realize it is what it is, an outpoint. It is not a matter of human emotion and reaction. It is a pointer toward a situation.
The moment you can see this you will be able to handle life a lot better.
The human reaction is to REACT! to an outpoint. And then get ‘reasonable’ and adopt some explanation for it, usually untrue.
You can safely say that ‘being reasonable’ is a symptom of being unable to recognize outpoints for what they are and use them to discover actual situations.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 30 Sept 73 II, Data Series 30 “Situation Finding”)

A gentle advice from L. Ron Hubbard about this matter:
“I don't expect auditors or Scientologists to instantly agree with or seize upon whatever I say. I would be offended if they did and would feel they weren't a Free People. Since they are intelligent I expect them to think over what's said, try it, and if it's good for them, use it.
I sorrow when I see somebody accomplishing less than he should because he thinks I wouldn't approve of it. In organizations and out I count upon initiative and good judgment.”          LRH
(from ‘PAB 79’, 10 Apr 56 “The Open Channel: What Do I Think of Auditors?”)

Back to Main Index ‘Communicate or not communicate’  (‘To be or not to be’)

“The only crimes that you can commit in this universe, as you know, is being there and communicating. Those are the two crimes of the universe. Did you realize that? There are only two crimes: being there and communicating.
Look it over for a moment, you'll find out that the only thing the police want to know is, ‘Were you there?’ If you weren't there, you weren't guilty. And the other one is communicating. If you think of all the numbers of people that are guilty of crimes of omission – the tremendous numbers of people that are guilty of crimes of omission who get by with it, you know? They just go right on along the line, you know, guilty as can be, and nobody ever says a word. But if they actually said something or fired something or threw something or something like that, why, then they were guilty. So that is the crime of communicating.
So being there and communicating was probably all you were ever punished for when you were a little kid. Didn't much matter what you communicated. You probably found out that if you didn't communicate anything, people overlooked it. Haven't you noticed that? That's practically the total training of a US general. He's not supposed to be there and he's not supposed to communicate, and if he does nothing, why, he'll make it. That isn't said bitterly; it's just said as a comment on a passé, decadent civilization that has fallen away from us.”          LRH
(from State of Man Congress “Opening Lecture”, given on 1 Jan 60)
sound  Sound snippet (1:34) 

I think it is obvious that I have chosen to communicate ...

Go to index

Back to Main Index A consideration about policy and policy letters

The bulk of the policy letters were written at such a time that the organizational structure of how to run things were actually occurring. Its purpose was to offer an exact solution to handling any kind of diversities, a solution that could reverse the bad or counter-survival situation. Now, what would you do if this policy letter apparatus did not work, what could you do if you have reported matters and things did not change or some situations did not get handled as they should have been? When people did not use that which was written in these policy letters? The matter of Keeping Scientology Working would also mean that you would make your fellow Scientologists aware of prolonged non-survival situations. Of course you first would attempt to handle things while using the channels that presently exist in the organization, but if this does not get the desired result one has to find other means to get corrections implemented.

There is a practicality about policy. It needs to be able to reverse unwanted, undesirable and non-survival tendencies or situations. Any of these policy letters were written at a certain time and developed in accordance to some problem or situation that at that exact time existed. But as ever the times they are a-changin', policy that once worked and was sufficient in some past distant era may not necessarily work equally well in present time. Therefore:

“Following policy is a matter of grasping situations and knowing policy well enough to apply the right policy to the right situation – where no policy covers, an experienced, quick person can easily extend the idea of general policy to cover it, knowing it isn't covered.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 13 Mar 65 “The Structure of Organization, What Is Policy?”)

It would appear that so around 1970 sufficient with policy was about for “how to run orgs”, which in essence was what policy was developed for. “It took 20 years to find out how to run orgs.”  LRH  (from HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”). 

Go to index

Critical responses received from churchgoing Scientologists overturned

Back to Main Index Overview of commonly (mis)used citations from L. Ron Hubbard exercised within the Church of Scientology

If you are involved with Scientology and you are being critical about some matters, you may get referred to any of the below listed quotations. There is the tendency to use these quotations arbitrarily for any given situation. We will look at some of these that are frequently referred to and will attempt to establish what they are about. You have to study the references in full to fully understand where these references actually talk about and enable you to relate the data to the proper target. It is very easy to take quotations out of contexts, and then they start to be used for something they were not aimed to be used for.

Go back “attacks on or criticisms of orgs and staffs”  (HCO PL “Good Service”)

“I regard attacks on or criticisms of orgs and staffs as a personal affront actually, and when somebody complains too hard about an org, I usually ask him why he or she isn't on staff straightening it up and making it go right. I recommend that approach to the critic.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 28 Apr 73 I “Good Service”)
(originally released as ‘LRH ED 74 Int’, 23 Dec 68, turned into an HCO PL on 28 Apr ’73, presently referred to as HCO PL 23 Dec 68 “Good Service”

Above quotation all by itself may be interpreted as if you have no right to exercise or express your criticism, that is if you “complain too hard”. However this quotation by itself does not explain to us what the criticism referred to is about, is this about any criticism? To establish that we need to consult what else is written in that reference. The writing is entitled: “Good Service” which gives us a hint for direction right there. Then we find that it discusses ARC breaks arising from “inaccurate billing, receiving duplicate mailings, Letter Registrar offering services which the public already has taken, failing to answer a person's question in letters, ethics injustice etc…”, all of these were basically because of routine administrative actions not being applied. It appears that this reference has been written with a purpose, it has been issued carrying a particular title, it is addressing specific issues, meaning that one can not extend this to anything else, only to similar issues of similar magnitude!
“Following policy is a matter of grasping situations and knowing policy well enough to apply the right policy to the right situation.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 13 Mar 65 “The Structure of Organization, What Is Policy?”)

Go back “refuses to speak ill of Scientology or criticize it”  (HCO PL “Non-Scientology Staff”)

“This group refuses to speak ill of Scientology or criticize it to outsiders.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 20 Oct 1961 “Non-Scientology Staff”)

Its title is “Non-Scientology Staff”, in this reference we find that L. Ron Hubbard was addressing new staff being hired that were not actual Scientologists. It was about: “You are yet a member of this group by the simple fact of working in it.” and “You are only expected to uphold certain standards as a member of this group.”   LRH  
While being employed within this organization the non-Scientology staff is basically asked that if you would encounter any problems or have disagreements about matters to direct these to and clear this up with people within the organization and not complain about it to outsiders. Any organization has a set of rules of how you are to behave enabling you to get on well with that which you were hired to do.
They are also asked:
“Do not alter-is or not-is the policies and programmes of the organization.
If policy needs changing, use the proper communication channels to communicate your views.”
(from Non-LRH HCO PL 3 Dec 59 “Scientology Staff Member Code”)

This all was directing itself to these non-Scientology employees. The Scientology employee would already have come to an understanding about this. Mind that these were all actual employees, not a word is said about the practicing Scientologists that is not even an employee. These fall into different categories for which there are different sets of rules to answer for. Commonly howerer this reference may simply be brought to your attention (employee or not) if you utter some criticism, which would be an improper use of the reference.

Go back “attainment of one's standards”  (HCO PL “Environmental Control”)

“One's ‘standards’ (the degree of rightness one is trying to establish and maintain) are directly related to one's desire to have a controlled environment.
The attainment of one's standards is not done by criticism (a human system). It is done by exerting control of one's environment and moving things effectively toward a more ideal scene.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 30 Dec 70 “Environmental Control”)

This has to do with the “attainment of one's standards, and how these are realized. This could be said to be a specific target. Attainment also has to do with accomplishing something in the physical universe, meaning that there is action involved. Criticizing or complaining in this instance is referred to as something verbal as opposed to steps taken (in the physical universe) to have something improve.

Go back “Don't criticize or give or receive criticism”  (in regards to “ fellow auditors”)

“... don't talk about Scientologists to people who are not Scientologists. Don't criticize or give or receive criticism about other Scientologists. In other words, be completely unwilling to listen to entheta* about your fellow auditors. And be completely unwilling to give out entheta about them.”          LRH
(from 7th American Advanced Clinical Course held in Phoenix on 23 Jul 54 “Auditor's Code in Practice”)

The quotation itself specifically refers to “fellow auditors” which is just not everyone. It also be noted that the Auditor's Code is for auditors to be applied when in fact wearing the auditor's hat. For example for the Ethics Officer it is his job to actually establish what an occurrence it about. The line “don't talk about Scientologists to people who are not Scientologists”, when applied on everyone at any time would mean that if you are disseminating you can not refer to for example a Scientologist who had various successes while practicing Scientology. So, how are you going to disseminate if you can not do this? That doesn't make sense now does it!
One should also keep in mind HCO PL 29 Apr 65 III “Ethics Review” and its “LEVELS OF ETHICS ACTIONS” that are listed in there. An evaluation should be done about what kind of situation one is in, and which action or no action one should resort to.

Go back “The Enemy Line”  (regarding running a “campaign”)

“The Enemy Line.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Jun 75, PR Series 27 “The Enemy Line”)
If you utter some criticique or express some sort of doubt concerning some actions or inactions by seniors within the Church of Scientology, then you may get awarded with an angry look and receive the commentary that you are using an enemy line. Next you are expected to immediately stop doing that. One seems to overlook here that the expression “enemy line” is used in just one policy letter that I know of. It appears having to do with Public Relation, to that effect it is noted as PR Series # 27. The HCO PL of that title is basically directing its attention to campaigning. We find the word campaign used all over the place in this reference. The ‘World Book Dictionary’ (1974 edition) defines “campaign” as “a series of connected activities to do or get something; planned course for action for some special purpose”. This fits in nicely in what this reference talk about.
Now, in regards to the use of the expression enemy line, we do not find it anywhere separately defined as having its own special meaning. And so we have to establish how and in regards to what it is used in that very policy letter. Each example given in the reference is referring to someone having forwarded a lie in order to discredit a concurrent. In that way the company that forwarded the lie could take advantage over that concurrent. Today however whenever one says something that is actually true although derogatorily in regards to the management, the organization or any such, a staff member may routinely say that you are not supposed to spread an enemy line. Just a phrase that is giving the message that you are to stop talking about these imperfections observed. Obviously this is not what enemy line was about.
This policy letter is basically about how one is to handle this sort of black propaganda correctly. It is not about a forbiddance that one may not share imperfections observed but that are actually true.

“Following policy is a matter of grasping situations and knowing policy well enough to apply the right policy to the right situation.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 13 Mar 65 “The Structure of Organization, What Is Policy?”)

Go back ‘CRITICISM’ and ‘NATTER’  (‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’)

Referrals to ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (first released 1975):

“CRITICISM, 1. most criticism is justification of having done an overt*. There are rightnesses and wrongnesses in conduct and society and life at large, but random, carping 1.1* criticism when not borne out in fact is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt. (HCOB 21 Jan 60, Justification) 2. a criticism is a hope that they can damage, and that’s what a criticism is, with an inability to do so. (SH Spec 119, 6202C22)”
“NATTER, sometimes pcs who have big overts become highly critical of the auditor and get in a lot of snide comments about the auditor. Such natter always indicates a real overt. (HCOB 7 Sept 64 II)”

Both of the above related definitions are frequently and very quickly used. It can be questioned however if they are always being referred to for the right reason. The first one says very clearly that most criticism is justification of having done an overt”. It does not say all criticism, no, it says most criticism. Then what type of criticism would this then be? It says: “random, carping 1.1 criticism when not borne out in fact”. What does that stand for? First part: “random, carping 1.1”, this would be aimless, ridiculing, covert hostility. Second part: “not borne out in fact”, meaning that one can not offer any valid agreeable argument for doing so. It seems clear enough, however in my experience a regular Scientologist may be quick to relate that if one is critical, borne out of fact or not, one is assumed to justifying having done an overt, without any further evaluation done.
Natter could be said to complain in a bad-tempered way. Well, this does not sound that promising either. If you really have a valid argument, then why express this in a grumbling way? Well, something else must be going on then. Seems also clear enough. This word as well can be used far too quickly, usually without foregoing evaluation.

Back to Main Index Critique received from churchgoing Scientologists about my Scientology pages

Since I started publishing my Scientology pages on the Internet I did receive various responses to them. Some of these were Scientologists from a local Church of Scientology that figured that I should refrain from any critcism about anything when discussing Scientology. Quoted was from some references from L. Ron Hubbard which they thought supported their position. Some of the very usual ones have already been addressed in previous chapter. I have chosen 4 additional kind of criticisms that I received and are offering them here together with my defence. The criticisms are exactly as I received them, my responses to them at the time have been rephrased/corrected flr clarity reasons at a few places only.

Go back Advocating mixing of practices?

From “Scientology & related Question & Answer session”
“Krishnamurti's way of getting to the bottom of things is not the same as L. Ron Hubbard does....anyhow they are both valuable. We are all different as beings, we may find ourselves easier within a certain concept of thinking than another. Even if one of these concepts/system is more far reaching and better organized than the other it may not be equally attractive to all. Krishnamurti makes that one questions oneself. If I regard some Scientologists, then I may think that it will do them well to read some Krishnamurti.”

Criticism received:
“Open mind attitude, and advocating mixing of practices(?).
If there is anything on this planet that can handle any aberrations, it's Scientology and Dianetics.”

My defence:
I compare Scientology with the Krishnamurti approach as to get a deeper understanding of the both of them, this is hardly ‘mixing practices’! Which practice is being mixed? Please define practice!
“That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”          LRH

Krishnamurti still is of great value! Does this person actually know who Krishnamurti actually was and what he did? LRH makes mention of him on approximately 15 tape lectures during the ’50s & ’60s.
“To actively decry the suppression of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy or data which would help mankind.”          LRH

“Open mind attitude?” What do we want? A book burn for anything that is not Scientology or Dianetics, or may be a forbidden book list as the Catholics had? Has nothing else any value? Besides that is it not so that any person from any religion, group etc… is welcome into Scientology. Iit does not say anywhere that one has to abandon all one was doing before. (ref: ‘The Aims of Scientology’ , from ‘The Auditor 10’, [Sept 65]). All that is asked is that one does not alter Scientology counseling procedures or mix it with other practices.
“That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments.”          LRH

Go back Incorrect use of the word ‘Scientologist’ in regards to Free Zone?

Please mind that I do not advocate this Free Zone here. I merely point out some inconsistencies concerning how churchgoing Scientologists in general respond to this.
(more info about Free Zone here, separate window).

From “Scientology & related Question & Answer session”
“Free Zone has no relation with the official Church of Scientology. It is basically a group of Scientologists who chose to leave the official organization or were not welcome there anymore.”

Criticism received:
“Incorrect use of “Scientologists”.
From Church copyright notes: “Scientologist is a collective membership mark designating members of the affiliated churches and missions of Scientology.”.
From WISE-book glossary: “Scientologist: one who knows he has found the way to a better life through Scientology and who, through Scientology books, tapes, training and processing, is actively attaining it.”.
Freezone is squirrel practices, not Scientology.”

My defence:
This criticism received is mostly just opinion.

“Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology)”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)

“Thus it should be obvious that contraction leads to death and expansion to life providing that one maintains a demand for itself and the will and skill to produce and deliver a product.
If as ours is, the product is very beneficial and if we continue to produce and deliver the demand is assured. In this we are fortunate. And we are also fortunate that, try as they will, no squirrel is ever able to duplicate our product since one variation (that of changed brand) leads to others and they promptly have neither product nor demand–that observation is itself empirical. No squirrel has lasted more than 2 or 3 years in the past sixteen years. And there have been many. That they squirrel shows enough bad faith to drive away the public the moment the public hears of the original.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 4 Dec 66 “Expansion - Theory of Policy”)

If you give non standard tech then public will disappear, and then the squirrel group will disappear because of no income. Free Zone has been there since 1984 or so, and is still there. Then these groups revert back to the material released prior to 1980, for reason (so Free Zone claims) that church management since 1980 (LRH went off the lines), has made various changes in basically all source and even introduced new procedures since. In that respect Free Zone tells us they did not alter. Per the above who can confidently say that Free Zone is not “one who knows he has found the way to a better life through Scientology and who, through Scientology books, tapes, training and processing, is actively attaining it.”?
One should not rely on rumour and hearsay. Isn't that why Scientology has these ‘Evaluation series’.

Also the following has to have been verified without leaving a reasonable doubt concerning:
“Suppressive Groups are defined as those which seek to destroy Scientology or which specialize in injuring or killing persons or damaging their cases or which advocate suppression of Mankind.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 29 Jun 68 “Enrollment in Suppressive Groups” (Reissue of HCO PL 28 Dec 1965 “same title” that contains an amendment))

In addition L. Ron Hubbard writes:
“I consider all auditors my friends. I consider them that even when they squirrel. I believe they have a right to express themselves and their own opinions. I would not for a moment hamper their right to think. I think of auditors and Scientologists as the Free People.
Just as they consider one another their people, so I consider them my people.
I think their errors of the past, when they existed, came about because we are new and we are finding out and I don't think any of their errors were intentional any more than mine were.”          LRH
(from ‘PAB 79’, 10 Apr 56 “The Open Channel: What Do I Think of Auditors?”)

And he says:
“Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from non-comprehension.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)

Apparently some evaluation needs to be exercised here.

Go back Not the right gradient?

From “Quotations from L. Ron Hubbard on the matter of evolution”

Criticism received:
“The selection of LRH-quotes (from ‘History of Man’, and an SHSBC-lecture “Errors in Time”) re Darwinism and whole-track implants, on this page is questionable from a dissemination viewpoint. Wrong gradient for a general public reached on an Internet-site. For what purpose were those quotes chosen and published here?
From ‘The Code of a Scientologist’:
“As Scientologist I pledge myself to the Code of a Scientologist for the good of all: ...
14.  To teach Scientology at a level it can be understood and used by the recipients.”

My defence:
I am not disseminating on my homepage, so it being ‘questionable from a dissemination viewpoint’ is entirely irrelevant. I do explain on that page why I quote these. I am directing towards misunderstanding about these matters which generally Scientologists do have about this. Besides this I focus on the evolution-like incidents. I have forwarded these same quotations to evolutionists on webgroups on the Internet. The information was understood by them, meaning it would be a correct gradient for these familiar with evolution theories. Also I am directing my attention towards those Scientologists being familiar with the book ‘The History of Man’, which is then also the correct gradient for that group. On this particular page I am not approaching newcomers into Scientology.
Something will always turn to be not the right gradient for some person. This can not be avoided on the Internet. One can however provide for explanations. It is my aim on that page to unriddle a blind assumption, not to present a new one.

Go back Copyright violation?

From “Quotations from L. Ron Hubbard on the matter of evolution”

Criticism received (1):
“This page looks like a possible copyright violation, since more than 80% of the page is LRH-quotes.”

From “L. Ron Hubbard vs Alterations (introduction)”

Criticism received (2):
“This page consists of more than 50% LRH-quotes, and looks like a possible copyright infringement. Readers are getting selected LRH-excerpts inter-mixed with Snoeck's personal comments, interpretations, and complaints, which is not the proper way to study source-materials. Incorrect comm-line for these kinds of complaints—a public internet site that reaches people who knows nothing or very little about Scientology.”

From “Scientology: The History of a Policy Letter - A detailed study or
    The transformation of HCO PL 23 Dec 65”


Criticism received (3):
“Again, looks like a copyright infringement with lots of LRH-quotes, inter-mixed with Snoeck's personal comments, interpretations, and complaints. Incorrect comm-line for these kinds of complaints.”

My defence (1, 2 & 3):
Fair use is made of any copyrighted work:
     “The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”
US Code Collection: Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use & Notes (external links) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013)

The US copyright law does not say anything about some percentage of some page on some website. It talks about percentage in relation to the original copyrighted work.

“That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”          LRH
(from ‘The Creed of the Church of Scientology’ (1954))

I also have the legal right to express my ‘personal comments, interpretations’ etc.. In addition people are not stupid, they in fact are very well able to come to their own conclusion and separate correct from incorrect, truth from untruth. Don't underestimate people! The fact remains that those persons who are antagonistic towards Scientology do not approve of my website.

Quotation from criticism received: “Readers are getting selected LRH-excerpts inter-mixed with Snoeck's personal comments, interpretations, and complaints, which is not the proper way to study source-materials.”
But do we find ourselves in a course room? This is the Internet, a public meeting place and this is my website. Is it not my privilege to decide upon how to go about this?



     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     1.1:  (covert hostility)
Tone Scale: 1. We have a gradient scale from space to matter which starts at the arbitrary number of 40.0 for our purposes and goes down to –8.0 (from book Scientology 8-8008)  2. The main gradient scale of Scientology. One of the most important observations which led to the formulation of this scale was the change in emotional manifestation exhibited by a person who was being processed. The progress from painful emotions to pleasant emotions was so reliable and evident on indication of success, that it became the main measuring stick of the progress of a case. (from Ability magazine 114)  3. ... we have the various emotional tones ranged from the highest to the lowest and these are, in part, serenity (the highest level), enthusiasm (as we proceeded downward towards the baser affinities), conservatism, boredom, antagonism, anger, covert hostility, fear, grief, apathy. This in Scientology is called the tone scale. (from book Fundamentals of Thought)
1. A composite word meaning the action of altering or changing the reality of something. Is-ness means the way it is. When something sees it differently he is doing an alter-is; in other words, is altering the way it is. (LRH Def. Notes)  2. To introduce a change and therefore time and persistence in an as-is-ness to obtain persistency. An introduction of an alter-is is therefore the addition of a lie to the real which causes it to persist and not to blow or as-is. (HCOB 11 May 65)
Affinity, Reality, Communication’. A word from the initial letters of Affinity, Reality, Communication which together equate to Understanding. It is pronounced by stating its letters, A-R-C. To Scientologists it has come to mean good feeling, love or friendliness, such as “He was in ARC with his friend.” (LRH Def. Notes)
     ARC break:
1. An incomplete cycle of some kind or another. It's a lowering of Affinity, Reality and Communication, so we call it an ARC break. (SH Spec 65, 6507C27)  2. A sudden drop or cutting of one's affinity, reality, or communication with someone or something. Upsets with people or things come about because of a lessening or sundering of affinity, reality, or communication or understanding. It's called an ARC break instead of an upset, because, if one discovers which of the three points of understanding have been cut, one can bring about a rapid recovery in the person's state of mind. (LRH Def. Notes)  Abbr. ARCX
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
Means enturbulated theta (thought or life); especially refers to communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)
     Free Zone:
Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window). 
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
New Era Dianetics’. Officially released to the public on 30 July 1978 (ref.: ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78). It replaced and abolished the previous in use Standard Dianetics (St Dn).
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (What Is Scientology? (1992), p. 649)
     overt, overt act:
A harmful act or a transgression against the moral code of a group. When a person does something that is contrary to the moral code he has agreed to, or when he omits to do something that he should have done per that moral code, he has committed an overt. An overt violates what was agreed upon. An overt can be intentional or unintentional.
Professional Auditors Bulletin’. Scientology periodical (monthly) send to all members to keep auditors informed about the latest discoveries concerning processing procedures and other.
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)

Go to top of this page