https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16npx8czgUI

Dio

That was very kind of you to say Ann and the same to you! XO 🙂

Hi Cindy,I was thinking I do not worry about condescending posts from any one.I had it all in SO,so I let the waves crash & the wind blow where it will.I stay my course and love you all no matter the post,unless it’s an attack Troll.Then I bite back.Always Ann.

Got it Cindy. Specifics are always welcome.

Mike I knew you never said that. I was replying to John Lock’s condescending post to you. I see he makes fun of and condescends to me too in his answer. Yet still no docs and still all he has to say are anecdotal things that he says he saw while on staff. All I asked for was the docs of names and dates of WHO LRH declared immediately following the issue of that reference so that John could give us the specifics rather than just generalities.

Cindy wrote. “Just saying that after LRH wrote that reference, “he went on a big SP Declare rampage” doesn’t necessarily make it so. ”

LMAO! I read EVERY SP declare on file when I worked in Dept. 3 Snr. HCOI and then later when on Perimeter Council at Int. What you do or do not believe has no bearing on reality. El Con was an SP declare machine. He was a total psycho.

Cindy, I never said that. It was John Locke.

Well thank you to you and John Locke for replying.

And i think you both did and excellent job describing. Very much appreciated 🙂

Just saying that after LRH wrote that reference, “he went on a big SP Declare rampage” doesn’t necessarily make it so. Where are the docs on this? What you said is a generality with no specifics to back it up and it was done to make it look like LRH wrote the reference and then immediately violated it ,which may or may not be true. It’s hard to tell since you didn’t provide any people’s names and dates of declare relative to the date of that LRH reference. But there is one thing we can all agree on: DM is not following his own church policies as set forth by his predecessor.