Topic: Religion
Scientology: What is Fair Game? "Fair Game" is one of the key attack points for scientology critics. What they usually mean is that they feel inconvenient if someone checks out what they are actually doing and how this violates other people's rights. I understand that especially those who have something to hide so not like this approach, but it has nothing to do with "Fair Game". Here is what "Fair Game" was when L. Ron Hubbard used the term forty years ago.by Louanne Lee
(centrist libertarian)
Monday, September 22, 2008
"Fair Game" is one of the key attack points for scientology critics. What they usually mean is that they feel inconvenient if someone checks out what they are actually doing and how this violates other people's rights. I understand that especially those who have something to hide so not like this approach, but it has nothing to do with "Fair Game". I wrote an article about this on some other occasion. Here is what "Fair Game" was when Scientology-founder L. Ron Hubbard used the term forty years ago:
What is "Fair Game"? (by Louanne Lee, also on scientologymyths.info)
There is a rumor around that a former member of Scientology could be declared "Fair Game", meaning that illegal actions could be taken against this person with Church officials closing both eyes. This is nonsense and has no evidence at all.
A policy of "Fair Game" does not exist within the Church. There was an early policy called "Fair Game" that was cancelled in 1968. The purpose of that policy was to make it known that a person who has left the Church was no longer entitled to the privileges of membership. L. Ron Hubbard himself testified on this in 1976 (link below), making clear that nothing of this meant to violate the law. And that did not happen either.
Scientology critics sometime interpret any lawful action the Church takes to defend itself against their claims or treatment as "harassment" and "Fair Game". The Church does use the same legal tools that anybody else can use, such as lawful information gathering and evidence collection, to defend themselves from unfounded suits, to enforce a legal right or to guard against infiltration and sabotage. This is so common amongst religious organizations as to be routine.
The Church is also within its rights to question the motives of people who would seek to destroy it and to defend itself with lawful means. Other religions also question the motives of those who would seek to destroy them, as well as taking lawful measures to protect themselves, as these examples illustrate.
Basically, Scientology defends itself from attack, by legal means. Just like any other religion would do.
And the misinterpreted policy of "Fair Game"? It is used as an attack method by apostates and hatemongers. It is not a policy used by the Church, it was cancelled 40 years ago. And when it was used, it was not used as is alleged.
Event adamant critics of the Church of Scientology have testified to that. For example, in a most interesting set of declarations an ex-Scientologist said:
"...it has become a routine practice of litigants to make accusations against the Church, including even false allegations of threats of murder, which would be summarily thrown out of court as unsupported and scandalous in other litigation. They do it because it works, and they do it by deliberately mischaracterizing the term "Fair Came". They do it as an intentional means to destroy the reputation of the Church in the context of litigation so that they can win money or force the Church to settle."
and
"The term "fair game" has become a catch phrase for those who attack the Church. When I was in the Church I never heard it referred to as a policy to be used, the only time it was discussed was in reference to litigation in which it was being alleged by Church adversaries. When I was in the Church, I knew that litigants opposing the Church were constantly making fair game allegations against us and that those allegations were nonsense. I also know the frustration those allegations caused because of the willingness of courts and juries to embrace them. From my experience in litigating against the Church, I can see that nothing has changed in this regard. I also know from my experiences in suing the Church and from my association with other litigation adversaries of the Church that they know that "Fair Game" as they portray it is not Church policy. "Fair Game" exists only as a litigation tactic employed against the Church."
The views expressed in this
article are those of Louanne Lee only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Louanne Lee is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Hubbard wrote it. You do not tell the truth and are careless as to your credibility. See link and quote below. Look up "Pauline Cooper" and "Operation Snow White". Case closed.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV [...] ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed. [...] LRH:jp L. RON HUBBARD Copyright (c) 1967 Founder by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Posted By: Person WithABrain
Date: 2008-09-22 16:54:43
If you believe a word of this article, please get your head checked.
The fact that this was even written should raise over 9000 red flags.
Fair game happens EVERY DAY. It isn't a rumor - it is somply in the public record. THIS HAS BEEN TESTIFIED IN COUNTLESS RECENT COURT CASES. Scientology harasses critics *every day*. Simply go to forums.enturbulation.org and click on 'fair game' for daily examples.
The nerve of these people! Seriously... It is unbelievable what a dangerous cult can do to someone's mind.
Fredrickz Mcgillacutty, to the contrary. Anonymous is using stalking tactics and blame it on scientology (your video proves that, actually). One of the reasons they insist on being anonymous is that they don't have to have consequences for their illegal activities.
Linda, the guy you are talking about has a court order not to spread lies about Scientology. He did so numerous times (the court confirmed to that) and now he whines about the fact that he has to pay the fine. He could simply choose to stick to the truth, couldn't he.
I read your tired little spiel, Louanne. I've read the same spin about a dozen times. Are you calling Hubbard a liar? Am I a liar for quoting him? You are not winning this little game your are playing.
Posted By: Martin Welbourne
Date: 2008-09-22 20:42:13
I don't care what scientology, the mafia-like cult of greed and power, *thinks* was cancelled by its psychotic founder but something fitting the description of Fair Game continues to this day. Semantics and nomenclature is unimportant. Your cult is abusing people and it is doing all under a pseudo-religious cloak in the hope that it will somehow protect you.
Here you are, on the internet, with a vast resource of critical material on your cult at your fingertips right now and yet you choose to remain willfully ignorant of it.
There are more ex-scientologists than there are scientologists. Ever wondered why? One reason is because your cult cannot stand the test of open critique. Unfortunately it takes some of your members the best part of their lives to discover all this. When will you?
The endgame is near. Popcorn anyone? I just hope it isn't another Waco.
Yeah, that's the azanaran affidavit that bernie.cncfamily, the Scientology apology site run by a former(?) member of OSA, uses. I'd take anything form that place with a truckload of salt. Lucky Scientology payed off Larry Wollersheim the day before his
case was going to trial, we'd have a ton of fresh affidavits to contradict this one.
Scientology was fair-gaming the BBC a year ago, now it's Anonymous, so I think this article is at best an obfuscation.
Y'know, it amuses me to see people with no direct interest making so large of a brief policy letter that was created and cancelled 40 years ago.
Even more amusing is how critics misunderstand the cancellation policy letter that clearly states "Fair Game is Cancelled". That policy letter too was later cancelled. No hint of Fair Game exists as policy today. No mention of it in current Church published policy letters at all. But, to make the situation completely clear, about 1998 (or thereabouts) the Church included "no Scientologist should ever do anything against the laws of the land". The situation is amusing because Critics so clearly stick, get stuck in, are infatuated with, certain phrases. And no matter that the world marches on, critics focus on what they think is a threatening phrase from long ago. Almost as if Hubbard had designed it that way, don't you think? Heh!
If things that were written 40 years ago by L Ron Hubbard, the man you think to be the greatest man ever born, are of no consequence to you, I am glad to hear it. You ignore what you like. Allow me to assist your comprehension before you do your word-clearing. The so-called cancellation letter stated that the term "fair game" was not to be used but the policy of treating so-called "suppressive persons" as sub-humans deserving of destruction was specifically stated to remain unaltered. You should read some of L Ron's works. It will help you understand.
Dear Louanne,
For your benefit, the fair game policy was never cancelled in 1968. Mr Hubbard directed that the term "fair game" was no longer to be used. You have to go to Source. You can't write off the words of Mr Hubbard like you are Source.
The more you play at this game the more you lose and the more scientology is discredited. If that's what you want, excellent.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2008-09-23 00:53:11
It's blindingly obvious to anyone who reads the so called 'cancellation' letter that it clearly states that only the NAME 'fair game' is to stop - the POLICY carried on.
Anyway, regardless of letters or policies or Hubbard's ravings, FG still exists and is happening now, and is well documented.
Keep burying your head in the sand. Meanwhile, the criminal and dangerous practices of the cult continue to be exposed.
I would say something about your credibility, but... I think it's already been said, by everyone.
Even the Church of Scientology admitted to the Fair Game policy, they also claim that it has been canceled or at least, renamed. HCO Policy Letter dated 18 October 1967... Also Tommy Davins mentioned it on nightline, but I'll double check.
So, if I may ask, what are the lower condition penalties? and who decides the punishment?
Factually neither "Fair Game", nor this penalty for being in a condition of enemy of the Church have been part of any Church policy for 40 years or so. They form no part of any course or training done in the Church to day. So can we please at least talk about the policy which is taught today.
What this meant 40 years ago is certainly of historical interest. It must be noted that "fair game" and the penalty for the lower condition were different things. "Fair game" meant its ordinary dictionary meaning: "a thing or person one may legitimately pursue". The lower conditions referred to staff only. At that time the Church was subject to huge efforts to infiltrate and destroy it. I suspect the strong language was a reaction to that and to deter infiltrators.
A sensible debate now could certainly look at illegal or anti-social activities being done by anyone - and trying to redress that. The most notable features of the debate to date are the use of false or misleading references, inflammatory language and a complete refusal (on all sides) to consider matters from different viewpoints.
"The official policy of the "anonymous" cult is that Scientologists are fair game."
O RLY?
Please quote the official policy of Anonymous and provide links to any policies of Anonymous that Scientologists may be "tricked, sued or destroyed."
Sorry, Louanne. The party line on the suppression of fair game is fail as pointed out above: name suppressed for PR purposes; policy intact and fully operational now.
Since all critics of Scientology have been declared suppressive persons and may be lied to, logically no statement in response to criticism of Scientology can be trusted and all must be suspected of mendacity.
The fact is that Scientology does attack its critics, as do Republicans, Democrats, private corporations, public corporations, other religions, and individuals who are themselves attacked. It is not illegal or immoral to counter-protest. There is nothing wrong with investigating a critic to see if he has other motives. It is completely appropriate to reveal a critic's true intentions and motivations if discovered. Overstepping the bounds into illegal actvities would be wrong, but that is not what is being given as examples of supposedly "current" fair game actions.
If you attack someone, anyone, you should expect to be attacked in return. The attempts to discredit the Church for doing what anyone would do is silly. The mis-labeling of these attacks with the phrase "Fair Game" is a reach at sensationalism.
"The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.
"FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
"This P/L [policy letter] does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP." = (May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.)
The only thing they canceled was the use if the words "Fair Game", not the actual treatment. Scientology claims to help you live in total freedom but if you can't have Freedom of speech, then one should know something is not quite right.
The fact is that Scientology does attack its critics, as do Republicans, Democrats, private corporations, public corporations, other religions, and individuals who are themselves attacked. It is not illegal or immoral to counter-protest.
And this comes from the Most Ethical group in the planet?? To trick, lie and destroy falls in the realm of what many people would call... "Evil". Can you really blame them? or Do you see people counter-protesting abused children who speak out against catholic priests? Only fanatics and extremists do, because they belief that their organization is NEVER wrong.
"If you attack someone, anyone, you should expect to be attacked in return. The attempts to discredit the Church for doing what anyone would do is silly. The mis-labeling of these attacks with the phrase "Fair Game" is a reach at sensationalism."
The RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force) is not what anyone would do and is not silly. We cannot blame others for caring for the Human Rights of these people (I mean both Critics and people in RPF). Critics are trying to save as many as they can and if someone wishes to silence these critics they are violating even more Human Rights. It's a full circle...
The Church's policies concerning the handling and treatment of SPs have undergone considerable change and development by Hubbard since 1968. What is relevant is what the policy is which is applied today.
"May be tricked, sued or lied to" is not part of any policy concerning SPs. This comes from the short-lived lower conditions policy for staff - about which see my earlier posting.
Hmm, my previous message seems to have gotten deleted, so I'll try to rewrite it in a way that it no longer offends.
I think that we can all agree that Hubbard said that SP's make up approx 2.5% of the population. This is referenced in his public writings.
This would mean that there are currently 168,137,014 active SP's at this time. (2.5% of 6,725,480,558). At the time that hubbard spoke that, there would have been only 97,805,776 active SP's.
Given the growth in population, does that mean that the number of SP's will continue to rise every year?
It's been claimed that only a scientologist can be declared an SP. I would have to say that this is either untrue, or there have been some terrible Scientologists in history. The CoS website ([link edited for length]) claims that Hitler was an SP, as well as Napoleon.
Posted By: Linda Weiland
Date: 2008-09-23 07:48:37
The order for Armstrong not to speak of Scientology did not come until December 1986, when Scientology paid him $800,000. The fair-gaming events decribed in Stacy Young's letter and shown in Armstrong's videos transpired several years prior to this.
Linda, the guy you are talking about has a court order not to spread lies about Scientology. He did so numerous times (the court confirmed to that) and now he whines about the fact that he has to pay the fine. He could simply choose to stick to the truth, couldn't he.
Perhaps semantics are at cause for this debate. If the term "fair game" is no longer in place, what would be a better term for distributing fliers in individuals neighborhoods, showing up to protest their private residences at 5:45AM, sending letters to the parents of people that were in the vicinity of a protest, etc?
And please don't say that this is all part of some sort of "family togetherness" service that the church provides- I've heard that claimed before :)
I can only hope that the general population (us) can see what's going on here.
$cientologist have there own one way approach which is not up for discussion. As they grow with the church (?) they begin to see how ludicris the behaviors and statistics are supporting their cause.
It is entirely legitimate for people to complain about "distributing fliers in individuals neighborhoods, showing up to protest their private residences at 5:45AM, sending letters to the parents of people that were in the vicinity of a protest, etc", and to debate the rightness or wrongness of any such actions, and also whether this is an acceptable response to whatever was done in the opposite direction. It is also legitimate to debate any current Church policy which led to this action if it occurred. That is a sensible debate.
With regard to your earlier posting a believe that Hubbard said that he had found that 2.5 per cent of people had a majority of 12 anti-social characteristics which he identified and included such things as speaking only in broad generalities, dealing mainly in bad news, critical or hostile remarks, not taking responsibility for crimes, supporting destructive groups and so on. The 2.5 per cent is not stuck in stone - it may be more or less people today. Although these people can be said to be suppressive people in the sense that their anti-social behaviour has a supressive effect on offers, the action of declaring a person a Supressive Person is a specific justice action in the Church for people who have violated specific ethical codes. It is the equivalent of ex-communication in the Catholic Church.
SORRY MY PREVIOUS POSTING WENT OUT WITHOUT MY CORRECTIONS - PLEASE IGNORE
mark tomles,
It is entirely legitimate for people to complain about "distributing fliers in individuals neighborhoods, showing up to protest their private residences at 5:45AM, sending letters to the parents of people that were in the vicinity of a protest, etc", and to debate the rightness or wrongness of any such actions, and also whether this is an acceptable response to whatever was done in the opposite direction. It is also legitimate to debate any current Church policy which led to this action if it occurred. That is a sensible debate.
With regard to your earlier posting Hubbard said that he had found that 2.5 per cent of people had 12 anti-social tendencies which he identified and included such things as speaking only in broad generalities, dealing mainly in bad news, critical or hostile remarks, not taking responsibility for crimes, supporting destructive groups and so on. The 2.5 per cent is not stuck in stone - it may be more or less people today. Although these people can be said to be suppressive people in the sense that their anti-social behaviour has a supressive effect on others, the action of declaring a person a Supressive Person is a specific justice action in the Church for people who have violated specific ethical codes. It is the equivalent of ex-communication in the Catholic Church.
Hey, maybe LouAnne is just a bit confused about the definition of "canceled" in her cult. You see, L. Ron invented many new words, or changed their existing meanings to fit his invented "science". "Having-ness", "beingness", "MEST", "Thetan", "ARC-Break", "Half-ack", are all words that existed previously, but have been altered to fit his pedantic worlview and lend scientific credence to his ramblings. Maybe in Scientology's Technical Dictonary "canceled" means "to cease referring to" or "rabidly disavow knowledge of in light of documented evidence". Hubbard's enmity for the actual English language ran so deep as to attempt to deliver a coup de grace to its proper usage, via his own made-up definitions. As for Hubbard "discovering" that 2.5% of the world consists of "SP's", well, just show us the demographic studies he uses to make this claim. Fifty years later and we STILL can't see his homework? Laughable, really laughable, LouAnne.
There was no court order in the Armstrong case prohibiting the "spread of lies." Rather, he agreed not to speak of scientology *at all* as a condition of settlement. Therefore, your statement below that "he could simply choose to stick to the truth" is inaccurate. *Anything* he utters or writes concerning his experience in Scientology arguably violates the order at issue.
Posted By: Louanne Date: 2008-09-22 17:53:22
Linda, the guy you are talking about has a court order not to spread lies about Scientology. He did so numerous times (the court confirmed to that) and now he whines about the fact that he has to pay the fine. He could simply choose to stick to the truth, couldn't he.
I appreciate your statement that the complaints (5:45AM, letters, etc) are worthy of debate. Did you have an opinion on these matters?
Regarding the number of SP's, hubbard was very clear about that point, while modern literature has watered it down a bit. Even still, the most conservative estimates would find more SP's (by the original definition) than any of the CoS membership estimates.
If I understand you correctly, you're agreeing that one has to be a Scientologist in order to be declared an SP, just as one has to be a Catholic to be ex-communicated?
fair game is for real, i seen it an action and is happening with me. not only that but it has been well documented in the past the actions of fair game, and you just sit there and say we made it up as a way to attack scientology? you disgust me
How many homes did the Catholic Church picket because someone dared to speak out about sexual abuse?
You're really terrible at this, you know. You're not convincing anyone. It's obvious to any free-thinking individual that you're simply towing the line of the cult that holds you captive, and for what? So you don't get routed out and stuck with a freeloader debt, or even worse, sent to the RPF.
It's pathetic, really. This is a major flunk on your part. You may as well just give up.
Everyone knows Fair Game is still in effect. We have video documentation of your ilk spreading misinformation, assaulting peaceful protesters, destroying private property, and preventing little girls from entering a sandwich shop. You can deny it all you want, but the truth is out there.
What other religion protests the homes of critics? What other religion sends intimidating C&D orders to peaceful protesters? What other religion has attempted to have someone incarcerated or committed, simply for writing about it?
The other Scilon who posts here (under a dozen names) will always come to your defence and insist that this is normal behavior for any religion. It's not. Every time you post your pathetic pieces of propaganda, anyone who's capable of thinking clearly can see right through it.
What effect is publicly identifying Anons going to have? It doesn't intimidate them. Bystanders who see it don't care, and it makes you look even more creepy. You're seriously shooting yourself in the foot here. All in the hopes of being upstat on Thursday. It's not working.
As an ex-scientologist i can honestly say mrs .Louanne Lee article if full of lies.
While in the church if we knew the identities of people criticising us, we would call their employees and try to get them fired with false information. We would poster their neighborhoods with fliers defaming their character and usually spreading lies abou them.
If the "Fair Game" policy was cancelled in the 1960s, why did the Church of Scientology try to claim in court in 1989 that it was a constitutionally protected "core religious practice"? The court document linked here is long and dense, but you can do a search for the relevant passage, which begins, "Appellants argue these 'fair game' practices are protected religious expression."
For more information about the case in question, in which former scientologist Lawrence Wollersheim was awarded $2.5 million, you can read this excellent article by Tony Ortega of the Village Voice. The Church of Scientology eventually paid the full $2.5 million—plus interest, bringing the full payment to $8.6 million—in 2002.
I am honestly curious about how you reconcile these two claims—that the “fair game” policy was cancelled in the 1960s and that it was, in 1989, a protected religious practice of the Church of Scientology—made by your church.
Posted By: Linda Weiland
Date: 2008-09-23 13:03:40
Also, during the cult's 1984 vendetta against Gerry Armstrong, Scientology paid "Catholic religious scholar" Frank K. Flynn many thousands of dollars to write a report arguing that Fair Game was a "core practice" of Scientology and thus should be considered a constitutionally protected activity.
I'd say that this other article by Luana1980 is a good example of fair-game currently in effect,
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4802.html
It's interesting how it references a site called anonymous-exposed. Last year when BBC Panorama was running a story on Scientology, there was a BBC-exposed or a Panorama-exposed, or maybe both. Those sites contained footage of John Sweeney with some extra audio dubbed in to make him look more boisterous than he might have been in the real video.
I feel sorry for you, Lou/Gloria/whatever you want people to call you.
Look at what's going on here. You keep writing articles here so you're upstat by Thursday. They aren't convincing anyone, but you do it anyway, because the point is, as I said, to be upstat. This is what you do. This is your life. You live week to week trying to keep your stats up, but you're not making any long-term difference. Not that long-term stats really matter to you. Why should they?
Every week is exactly the same. Post an article that makes no difference to anyone and report it as a win. Your goals end with Thursday at 2:00, and you start over on Friday. Doing the exact same thing and making no difference.
Is that really how you want to live? Is that really what you want your life to be for the next 6 billion years? Is that what you got involved with Scientology for?
But you're saving the world, clearing the planet. You are the elite, the courageous.
But do you have the courage to do the Data Series on Scientology itself? Do you have the fortitude to look at all the data? My guess is no.
roger gonnet is in no way anon. I'm an ex-regional leader and founder of a cult's profit center and working since 25 years to dismantle the fraudulous scam. And whatever I'm saying is based not only on my experience, but on precise orders given by Hubbard and followed by his adepts. "Kolman", you're going nowhere by trying to detract anons or non-anonymous people when they criticize your cult. Because your issue here leads people to try to obtain that people do not read anything about scientology crimes. Gift for you: http://www.xs4all.nl/
by: roger gonnet 08/14/2008 07:47 AM
Re: Roger acts anonymously? No Roger, you're not very anonymous. In fact you seem proud of your work against religions. "I've been sentenced to-day (civil, not penal)" http://www.holysmoke.org/ and http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/
by: terryeo
Here's another example of "something", Religiousfreedomwatch is a nasty site that many people say is run by Scientology to fair-game people. I think Scientology has publicly disowned that site but when the dos'ing was going on a few months back , I believe the DNS servers got messed up and it became apparent that Scientology owns the religiousfreedomwatchsite, Android Cat mentioned this on alt.religion.scientology, I could find the exact details if need be.
modemac - pardon - bob dobbs, roger gonnet has been booted from scientology in about 1982 when he was holding a Scientology Mission (a group of about 5-15 members) somewhere in France. True, he is not Anonymous, but I bet you that it is more likely that Anonymous members have seen a Church of Scientology from the inside and in operation than that Roger has anything valid to say about what scientology is in 2008.
You (and Dave and Terry) seem to be saying that no one should pay any attention to anything that happened before 2008, because scientology in 2008 is different.
Are you saying that scientology run in 2008 is better than scientology in the time when Mr Hubbard was around and running the show?
(Note to other anonymous - I'm not insulting you, that's the name he chose for himself.)
I'm glad you picked up on my reference to fourth generation warfare, wherein a highly centralized top-down structured force is facing a decentralized leaderless force, and how the benefit is always to the decentralized force. I didn't come of with it however.
The originator of the concept of the fourth generation of modern warfare is a William Lind. I tried to solicit a comment from him on the conflict between anonymous and scientology, but I'm not important enough for him to notice me unfortunately.
I brought it up as a contemplative point. I think it's interesting. Top-down structured forces, such as a second generation military or scientology, cannot adapt quickly. Every new tactic is a surprise. They also want to try to force the opposing leader to surrender, and that cannot be done against a fourth generation force such as geurilla fighers or anonymous.
Every time I read a comment by Louanne about the "organization of anonymous" I realize that Scientology really does not understand this conflict. This isn't CAN again. CAN was an organization that could be fought using traditional methods. Anonymous isn't an organization.
As long as scientology keeps trying to find the leaders and attack the organization then scientology will keep hitting nothing. That's why you can't beat a 4th generation force by traditional methods.
You gotta be kidding me! Louanne, do you really expect people to believe that load of nonsense?!
everyone knows you're lying, and the really funny part is everyone here knows that none of you have a choice, you have to follow the tech. you've been programed to harrass critics. if you don't stop them from speaking out, by tricking them, lying to them, injuring them, or depriving them of their property, than you're just not being a good scientologist are you?
oh but that's fine, because it's a religious practice right? well not in the free world it's not. just because it's in your scripture, does not make it acceptable behavior. other cults use polygamy, human sacrifice, kidnapping, extortion, none of which are legal and all for a very good reason.
This has actually been a very productive conversation, and an enjoyable one at that.
I think that we've established, and we could all agree, that "fair game" was called "fair game", and used to bar and punish certain types of Scientologists. Also, the term was cancelled, but H. specifically stated that the treatment was to continue.
I think we can also agree that cartain practices have been identified that occured to non-s's under the fair game time period, and that certain things that could be considered harassment still occur today, although it's debatable as to the direct source of the events.
Are we all in agreement on those points? Have we achieved some common ground here?
The irony here is that ANONYMOUS and it's cohorts ARE FAIR GAMING SCIENTOLOGY. Anonymous, who hack and harrass people routinely on the internet for fun (lulz) are attempting to "destroy" Scientology, "harrass" Scientologists, encourage "suits", wear masks and thus are being "deceptive", have used "violence" (and been arrested for it). These are facts. but ANONS and their friends don't like turning the spotlight back onto them. They go nutz! Pot calling the kettle black indeed! More irony is that most ANONS aren't even the real Anonymous, but just kids trying to have fun, or disgruntled ex-members. We don't mind the pranksters really. We've posed in pictures with them and talked. In the end, we're both just people. It's the ones with a chip on their shoulder that never seem to be satisfied that need to get a life. And I don't care which side of the fence they're on. That statement applies to anybody.
@Mark Tomles, you say "I think that we've established, and we could all agree ... the term was cancelled, but H. specifically stated that the treatment was to continue"
Nope, no one who understands the written word on the page will agree with you. He established Fair Game via policy letter and he cancelled Fair game by cancelling that policy letter, with a policy letter. Period. End of Fair Game.
Of course I do understand that certain persons (not meaning you, personally) are unable or unwilling to separate these two concepts from each other.
1. Fair Game and 2. Suppressive Person information (SP)
Suppressive Person technology is a small portion of the larger study of emotion that Scientology calls the Tone Scale. The SP who happily stabs you in the back while smiling in your face has a feeling. He lives with a feeling, there is an emotion that he feels when he does that. Commonly that is described as "cold as ice", or "showing no emotion", but there is a feeling the guy has and it isn't especially pleasent. However, it is just how he feels and he's stuck in it and rarely feels anything else. Hubbard makes quite a point of the small percent of people (2.5%, he estimated) who feel and behave in that way.
And the Church has a specific method, a specific pathway to spiritual enlightenment for people who find themselves stuck in that feeling. But my point here is why a Scientologist won't agree with you and I don't mean to create an education about SP technology. I merely point out that there is a difference. And it isn't secret, high level information, either.
I won't even address your first few ridiculous if not completely bonkers assertions, but you are particularly incorrect about Anonymous having "used violence and been arrested for it." This is false. I defy you to point us to even one news source that could corroborate these assertions -- and I mean a real news source, not a Scientology-related spin machine. You can't do it, because it isn't true. Go on, try. You CANNOT find such a thing because it is false, and your "tech" is lousy.
The irony here is that ANONYMOUS and it's cohorts ARE FAIR GAMING SCIENTOLOGY. Anonymous, who hack and harrass people routinely on the internet for fun (lulz) are attempting to "destroy" Scientology, "harrass" Scientologists, encourage "suits", wear masks and thus are being "deceptive", have used "violence" (and been arrested for it).
where to start; there's a lot to address in your well-worded argument.
Please reference the policy letter where it was specified that the "fair game" TREATMENT was cancelled? I am not, in this case, referring to the term.
Your description on an SP is quite vivid. Would you say that all of the individuals that have been "declared" by the CoS could be described that way?
Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, 2.5% of the world population is an insanely large number. If accurate, that's a very large number of emotionless sociopaths!
Mr Hubbard dictated that people he deemed fair game "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
I have two questions for you that I would be glad if you could answer.
Q1. Do you think that a person who would
(a) try to injure or destroy you by any means, while
(b) tricking and lying to you,
sounds like this "ice cold" Suppressive Person you have described?
Q2. Have you ever suspected, or considered the possibility, that Mr Hubbard, the person who wrote that order, is the Suppressive Person?
And Terry, in your answers, I would be grateful if you didn't solely rely on the argument that the dithering Hubbard was only a suppressive person between issuing the order and, as you claim, 'cancelling' it.
"Have you ever suspected, or considered the possibility, that Mr Hubbard, the person who wrote that order, is the Suppressive Person? "
good question! Scientologists strive to emulate LRH on as many levels as they can, unfortunately they are only allowed to look at one side of the story. they are taught that LRH tech is all encompassing and no other source of info is valid. if they knew what he was before they even took that first free stress test they never would have set foot in an org to begin with. it's been shown time after time that his resume was highly embellished, and that a majority of his so called accomplishments were simply tall tales.
What kind of a person views anyone with opposing views to his own to simply be evil? I'm no expert but that sounds paranoid and schitzophrenic to me.
a repectable authority can accept outside challenges and scrutiny and adapt accordingly, that's what legitimate scientists do everyday in their research. and yet here we have a man who simply writes off any competing ideas as evil and leaves it at that.
Scientology on the whole is its own PTSness, and it is rife with true SP's. LRH pulled anonymous in the day he wrote the Fair Game Policy, the day he created the RPF, and the day he came up with the idea of disconection.
guys like LRH are their own worst enemy, and this whole situation has been a long time coming. and the harder they apply "fair game" (or however they wish to call it now) the worse their situation will get and the more enemies they will create. their conduct is deciding their own fate.
Responding to Mark: The Policy letter cancelled the practice of fair game. In order for anyone to be treated as fair game, someone would have to be practicing fair game at or on them. You can not have a victim of fair game treatment, unless someone is practicing fair game on the victim.
I'm glad my brief description of what "Suppressive Person" means, communicated. But it was brief and not meant to be comprehensive. The people the Church has declared were declared because they were behaving suppressively at the time of declare. However, declares are not permanent. Included as part of a declare is a list of corrective actions to perform. (I think this is always true, but don't know everything). When performed, the person once again becomes in good standing with the Church.
Let me illustrate this difficult concept. Saddam Hussain became president of Iraq - and immediately had about 100 rivals shot dead. What do you think he felt as he suppressed opposition? Do you think he felt nothing? Felt cold, removed? Myself, I use that example in order to consider how a suppressive person feels, when he has successfully suppressed. Saddam, of course, was an extreme example of a man who suppressed, and not just his opposition, but the Iraqi people, too. Probably not every SP, given the powers he held, would be so extreme. - And yes, only 97.5 % of the population of Earth would rather help you, than suppress you, according to Hubbard. Of course the same applies to me, hey?
Responding to Lex, Q1 - yes. Q2 - yes, I entertained the idea, examined the idea and dismissed the idea. As for "dithering", I would say there are few people in history that "dithering" applies less to, than Hubbard. I do understand the point you are attempting to make, that he first created a policy, "Fair Game" and then several years later cancelled the same policy. I suspect it had served its purpose, myself.
Responding to Rocky. It is entirely true that a Suppressive Person will do evil things, harmful things and think he is right to do them. That is, after all, just about the definition of "suppress". But you see, we all have an opinion, many times we have contrary opinions based on different information. Having an opinion is one thing. Opposing an opposite opinion is one thing. But opposing people having any opinion but your own is a different (and smelly) kettle of fish. It is attacks that the Church replies to. It is not opinion that the Church replies to. Were you, or I, or anyone, to spend every waking moment opposing all contrary opinions, hey, we would never get any sleep. It is attacks that one must deal with. An opinion is not an attack, not necessarily an attack. I do hope you notice no one has counter-attacked you for expressing an opinion? After all, what attack have you made, you've but stated your opinion. But I disagree with your opinion (shrug).
You agreed that the very conduct described by Mr Hubbard in the Fair Game order - trying to injure or destroy people by any means, while tricking and lying to them - described the conduct of an ice-cold Suppressive Person.
Considering that Mr Hubbard ordered this conduct that you deem suppressive, by what process did you, as you said, entertain and dismiss the idea that Mr Hubbard was a Suppressive Person?
Terryeo - the use of the term was cancelled; no policy was cancelled. Hubbard is quite clear on that. You refer to a policy created in the late nineties making it clear to Scientologists that they should operate within the law of the land. Don't you find it strange that the Church can't take that as a given?
Sadly CoS continue to break laws - make fraudulent medical claims, flout employment laws such as submitting their employees to lie detector tests, seek to mislead people by lying about critics of the church or the church's own belief systems, or make outlandish claims about its own activities. Some illegal activity is perpetrated by members and staff of the church who are then summarily dropped by the organisation, others are more systemic.
"Responding to Rocky. It is entirely true that a Suppressive Person will do evil things, harmful things and think he is right to do them. That is, after all, just about the definition of "suppress". But you see, we all have an opinion, many times we have contrary opinions based on different information. Having an opinion is one thing. Opposing an opposite opinion is one thing. But opposing people having any opinion but your own is a different (and smelly) kettle of fish. It is attacks that the Church replies to. It is not opinion that the Church replies to. Were you, or I, or anyone, to spend every waking moment opposing all contrary opinions, hey, we would never get any sleep. It is attacks that one must deal with. An opinion is not an attack, not necessarily an attack. I do hope you notice no one has counter-attacked you for expressing an opinion? After all, what attack have you made, you've but stated your opinion. But I disagree with your opinion (shrug)."
I'm not sure Paullette Cooper would agree. nor would Russell Miller, or most recently Andrew Morton.
No, I do not think they would agree with that at all.
they gave their oppinions on the church, and there is alot of evidence that they were subjected to fair game.
they created conditions of doubt. there are a great many scientologists who have no wish to apply a doubt formula to their own organization, instead they sought to silence them. have you noticed that? have you noticed that many scientologists will not address a single allegation made against the organization unless it's a prefabricated response straight from the top execs? when a protester asks a question or makes an allegation about David Miscavige, have you noticed they say little or nothing in response to that? show me one protest video or line in a forum where they say "COB is a good guy".
Instead, they only want protesters to go away. they only dismiss anything critical as a lie. if what's true for you is the truth, than why can't someone publish a book saying "LRH was a pathological liar, and a conman" without facing a tremendous amount of harrassment?
I realize I'm only a mere homo sapien, a far inferior being to homo novis. but don't you think it's time that homo novis started being a little more honest and transparent about things? I think our tiny homo sapien minds can handle it. we might be a little more accepting to scientology if homo novis's owned up to their shenanigans, turned in their criminals (granted, it would be to inferior wog justice system), and actually started genuinely talking with us. if homo novis is as advanced as they say, then they might be capable of spotting flaws in their system, asking questions, and addressing their doubts instead of quashing them. or attacking critics.
If "Fair Game" does not exist, then why is it my employer knows about my protesting od Scientology? I didn't tell them. How is it I get phone calls and voice mails asking about my "crimes"? How is it my personal info, including my address, phone number, and ALL my personal email accounts on anti-anon/pro-Scientology websites? Learn to read the context of Hubbard's Policy Letters and to not accept what Scientology says is 100% true.
@terry: Just because they say do no illegal action doesn't mean they still don't manipulate the law to destroy a surpressive person mentally and finacially.
It is clear you are a Scientologist Terry. I suggest you pay for the PTS/SP course. It will tell you how to "deal" with SPs
It's interesting that Louanne writes an "article" about Fair Game and never actually uses the original language of Fair Game.
If a person can be "destroyed" under Fair Game, how is that compatible with the law?
L. Ron's "cancellation" of Fair Game referred to use of term only. He was very clear that Fair Game was to continue, something that every Scientologist knows full well.
If Fair Game ended after it's cancellation, why did COS attempt to defend it as a religious practice in a court case in 1989?
Fair Game is alive and well, as just about every Anonymous protestor can tell you. COS continues to harrass it's critics to this day.
To put the issue in context, let's look at some hypothetical examples:
1. Anon protestors show up to the private residence of an active Scientologist at 6:00 in the morning in order to protest their home and distribute fliers.
2. An Anon mails letters to the family of a Scientologist claiming that their son or daughter is in a cult that has commited crimes
3. Anons put fliers on the mailboxes of neighbors of a CoS facility naming individual Scientologists and claiming that they are involved in crimes
What would you call it when Anon does those things?
I would call that distateful. At 6 AM such actions might fall under disturbing the peace, maybe. Mailing letter that allege crimes, I don't know, but distateful. It is my impression that mailboxes can not be used for anything but U.S.Mail, and it is a crime to do otherwise, but I'm not a laywer.
I've got an older Modern Management Technology Defined. It says:Fair Game, by fair game is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scn or the rights of a Scientologist. It is a definition dealing with Scn's internal justice Fair Game offered him protection if he was performing Fair Game actions (within the Church, protecting him Scn discipline actions). Louanne said the same, earlier, without this direct quote from years ago.
So I asked around, I asked some staff members if they had heard of fair game (heard of it being declared or practiced) They uniformly said that had not, but older, long time staff members said they had heard rumor of it. None responded with any instance from personal action or personal knowledge, of fair game in use.
So I am left with the possibility that somewhere, sometime, someone used fair game. But even if some instance of that happened 40 + years ago, attributing that individual(s) action to all Scientologists today (most of whom never heard of Fair Game, except from protesters) seems silly and counter-productive.
Posted By: Linda Weiland
Date: 2008-09-24 09:12:49
Terryeo:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Right, you don't CALL it "fair game" anymore. We get that.
The "hypothetical examples" posed by Mark Tomles, which you deem merely "distasteful," are REAL LIFE examples of actions taken by Scientologists against anons as recently as three days ago.
Those are real life, modern-day examples of what Scientologists formerly CALLED "fair game." And those are VERY mild examples. There are many that are much worse, and yes, these many are even from our current year of 2008.
