Isn’t it a good thing that as a general rule you do feel bad about lying?

I’d rather praise you than keep your head underwater.

Why DID you watch it so many times? As if you can ever be an actual filmmaker. The reason why we’re here is not to be victims in life, in court, in happiness, in fatness.

What, where and who makes it?

My initial scan for weasel-wording turns up the obvious omission, that the nominal “Auditor’s Code” only prohibits “a minister” from using “the secrets divulged” – not others. And even for a “minister” – and perhaps specifically only the “minister” who conducted the session – it depends on how Scientology (re-)defines “use” and “confidential.” What I actually find on Scientology’s website is:

“22. I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain.”

That doesn’t even say anything about “confidential” – and certainly doesn’t preclude the secrets being used by others. Typical for Hubbard’s supposed codes, it craftily and cynically leaves enough ambiguity to drive a truck through, while giving the superficial appearance of being rigorous.

And then, of course, you’re right, no holds are barred in sec checks. There are many reports that Scientology now specifically tries to get people to repeat in sec checks, particular salacious or damning confessions identified in culling the records of auditing sessions, so that they can use that information but maintain the legal or PR pretense that it wasn’t from an auditing session.

As far as the rest of the quote you cite, the next point of likely scientological weaseling that occurs to me, is that the DSA – the OSA operative on site – could be claimed only to be assigned to the local “Church” and not actually part of it, and not to be a “minister,” and so not subject to the confidentiality provisions they’re claiming. Scientology seems to use that sort of hair-splitting and equivocation to justify what they do to themselves, and internally; and they definitely make such seemingly disingenuous and pedantic arguments when it comes to legal matters.

The CofS really is a church created by lawyers. Someone would need to have a fairly sharp attorney along with them, to figure out what Scientology actually claiming – or not – and what the implications of all their documents actually are. That’s probably also one of the reasons that lawyers are one of the many rigorously trained professions now rarely found represented in Scientology’s ranks – someone familiar with legalistic word tricks would recognize right off what is actually going on.

Kat: “Super-Davian” won’t make it in the dictionary until it gets wide usage, which requires a pithy definition. Though I’ve been reading the thread carefully, I have a basic MU on who/what “super Dave” is, so I’m missing the connection to anything.

Mick:”Looks like some folks aren’t following the publicly stated tenets of scientology by allowing this information to be leaked.”

IMO, scientology sometimes goes out of its way to violate the publicly stated ‘tenets’, prime of which is their claim to be a religion. It isn’t. Never was, never will be.dianetics claimed to be the SCIENCE of mental health. scientology claimed to be a religion only for legal and tax purposes, IOW so Tubby could accumulate OBSENE amounts of money despite spending like a drunken sailor most of the time. Also allowed many abuses under the umbrella of ‘religious observance’ when the mood struck him. NOT that it seems he really thought about those things much unless public clamor against obvious abuses and outright oddities were smacking him ‘longside his head.It wasn’t until the ‘Rock Festival’ that he realized that his outré habits had gotten him kicked out of the few ports he could frequent in the Med and Europe and he moved his theatre of operations to the Americas and the Caribbean — which soon became hostile in reaction to his ways of doing business.

Didnt realize this — asked admin to see what changed…