That’s really good! Make it into a public service message!
(And, no, I’m not being a smartass. This should be done as a psa and put on television. It would send a very strong message.)

Ah, yes Aqua. I see what you mean and agree 100%

He’s not my leader. But ok.

As to discussions etc. Scientologists aren’t renowned for explaining their actions, which however I tend to agree with.

“That is as much KSW and what you mentioned about the auditing side.”

Yes, unfortunately, this blind, vehement, “never defend, always attack” IS KSW, too, very much so, and I deplore it, I loathe it. its toxic, Wynski.

That’s why I’m here on this blog. Anyone on this damaged by this insane policy could have been me.

This policy is so toxic that the actions caused by its administration have poisoned the entire subject. Just like, the Crusades and Inquisition poisoned the Roman Catholic religion and made many people hate and revile and leave it back in the day. But the RCs wised up and eliminated those unspeakably cruel policies. Live and learn!

Co$ is doomed unless it violates KSW by jettisoning KSW! All, the toxic parts of KSW.

Wynski, I hear you and don’t disagree. I think my communication was not as precise as it needed to be to make the intended point. You rightly point out that there are indeed highly tech trained, auditor trained people in Scientology who will attack with ad homs and accusations anyone they perceive to be criticizing or attacking Scientology

What I meant was that someone who is “wearing” the Scientology auditor’s “hat” while attempting, in an ordinary conversation, to persuade someone else that Scientology tech is beneficial, that it would be helpful, etc., – someone communicating in a conversation while “wearing the hat of an auditor” would never employ ad homs or sarcasm or ridicule (as we all do here, btw) of the other person to persuade him or her that Scientology is a something good,.

It wouldn’t be a debate, with points scored, nor would such a conversation ever be a defense or an attack-as-defense.

Rather, it would be a friendly, light interaction, with mostly listening and actual understanding and acknowledging on the part of the persuadER than talking, and with likely most of the talking being done by the persuadEE.

So, you’re right, it matters not that someone is auditor trained, necessariy. Its the intention behind the communication which is key.

No motive other than being happy to see a scientologist is reading alternate points of view and actually having discussions rather than hiding. Are scientologists embarrassed to admit they are scientologists? It’s about time your “leader” David Miscavige actually came out of hiding and had another Ted Koppel style interview with the press. He really comes across as a frightened and threatened child.

Thanks for your candid response, Foolproof. I appreciate it. Understood on all, and 🙂 as re your 2nd paragraph.

Okey doke – Gary, thanks.

Don’t quite know what your motive is but thank you.

Aqua, I am very well trained in most Tech courses that a lower level Org can offer and a few from higher level ones. You ask me why I throw my hat into the ring here? Mostly because I see a lot of nonsense being commented and sometimes outright lies and twisting of the truth to push some agenda. As I have often stated I have nothing against people commenting on those aspects of the current Church that I also find unappealing. And yes I also get a bit of fun from doing so – it’s a bit like playing word “chess” as well. And Mike needs someone to keep him on his toes as well!

Anyway, I am off now to run OTIII from my back porch without a meter and then to spontaneously combust whilst doing OTVIII at the same time!