Soooo was there anything you guys actually liked about Scientology?

Don't forget, he also "never had" a third child with the second wife he "never had":

hubbard%20sara%20baby.png

L. Ron Hubbard holding his third child with his second wife, Sara. They named their baby Alexis.

Sara wrote that Alexis had also been approached by Hubbard’s agents, and they had delivered her a note at college that said Sara had been a prostitute, that she’d worked during the war as a Nazi spy, and that Alexis was an illegitimate child. The men who read it to her told her the note was written by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover.

But Alexis didn’t buy it. She knew they weren’t FBI agents. She understood who had written the note. “She was both angry and shocked that Ron could do such a thing,” Sara wrote to Paulette.



Mankind's greatest friend at work. Makes one just tear up when one thinks of all the things this selfless compassionate man has accomplished. I just know Rodger Clark tears up daily thinking about it.
UivYEj9.png
 
In my opinion, the bolded part is in question. Do people have good things happen while in Scientology? Yes. It is provably BECAUSE of Scientology? No, not provably. Possible? Sure. I think the Placebo Effect is the more likely answer for most Scientology "wins".

Are Scientologists better people than non-Scientologists? No. Scientology does not, demonstrably, make better people. In addition to all the normal troubles people have, Scientologists are burdened by poor thinking skills (ruined by Hubbard's "thinking") and bad "solutions" that they must use to remain "on Source".

Thanks for the answer.
 
The talking to new members thread.

Having a person out of the organization, or at least away from it, is usually the first step, rather than convincing him or her that everything that has the label "Scientology" attached to it is bad.
 
Last edited:
So...I found the pdf for The Original Thesis. In this book Hubbard has a quote dated January, 1948.


TABLE OF CONTENTS​
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1​
PRIMARY AXIOMS....................................................................................2​
AN ANALOGY OF THE MIND.......................................................................6​
THE DYNAMICS........................................................................................8​
THE BASIC INDIVIDUAL ............................................................................10​
ABERRATIONS.........................................................................................17​
THE TONE SCALE .....................................................................................19​
THE CHARACTER OF ENGRAMS..................................................................20​
DRAMATIZATION......................................................................................24​
THE AUDITOR’S CODE...............................................................................26​
AUDITING...............................................................................................27​
DIAGNOSIS..............................................................................................29​
EXHAUSTION OF ENGRAMS.......................................................................32​
ENGRAM CHAINS.....................................................................................35​
PRENATAL, BIRTH AND INFANT ENGRAMS..................................................37​
THE “LAWS” OF RETURNING......................................................................40​
CASE HISTORIES......................................................................................45​
GLOSSARY..............................................................................................48​
​
​
.c.THE TONE SCALE​
The tone scale denotes numerically, first the status of an engram in the reactive mind,​
next its erasure or reduction, and provides a measure for sanity in an individual.​
​
The derivation of this scale is clinical and is based upon observation of engrams being​
worked. When an engram is located and developed, the extreme range it can follow begins with​
apathy, develops into anger (or the various facets of antagonism), proceeds into boredom, and​
arrives at last in cheerfulness or vanishes utterly.​
​
The tone scale is essentially an assignation of numerical value by which individuals can​
be numerically classified. It is not arbitrary but will be found to approximate some actual​
governing law in nature.​
​
Zero is equivalent to death. An individual with a zero tone would be dead.​
​
Ranging upwards from zero to one then is that emotional bracket which may be denoted​
as apathy along its graduated scale from death to the beginnings of apathetic resentment.​
From one to two is the range of antagonism, including suspicion, resentment, and anger.​
Boredom and its equivalents, by which is denoted minor annoyance, begin at two and​
end at three.​
​
From three to four are the emotions which range from carelessness to cheerfulness.​
​
The term tone four denotes a person who has achieved rationality and cheerfulness.​
​
Each engram residual in the reactive mind has its own independent tonal value. Serious​
engrams will be found in the apathy range. Dangerous engrams will be found in the anger range.​
Above two point five an engram could not be considered to have any great power to affect the​
analytical mind. Each engram in the reactive mind then can be said to possess a tone value. The​
composite sum of these engrams will give, if added, a numerical value to the reactive mind.​
​
Engrams can be computed as they lie along the dynamics, and to each dynamic may be​
assigned a tone. The sum of the tones of the dynamics, divided by the number of the dynamics,​
will give a potential numerical value for an individual. This, of course, is variable depending on​
the existence of restimulators in his environment to reactivate the engrams.​
​
The probable average of mankind at this writing may be in the vicinity of 3.0. Complete​
rationality depends upon exhaustion of the reactive mind and complete rationality is invariably the​
result of reaching tone four.​
​
The initial diagnosis is done by the assignation of a general tone to denote the condition​
of an individual’s reactlve mind. His methods of meeting life, his emotional reaction to the​
problems in his environment, can be evaluated by the use of the tone scale.​
​
In auditing, as will be covered later, an engram normally can be expected to run from its​
initial value in the apathy or anger range to tone four. Very shortly after it reaches tone four it​
should vanish. If it vanishes without attaining the laughter of tone four it can be assumed that the​
individual’s basic engram has not been erased.​
​
The tone scale has value in auditing and should be thoroughly understood.​
​
​
From there the book covers how the Tone Scale shows up in Engrams and Dramatizations.

It's peppered throughout the chapters of
DIAGNOSIS..............................................................................................29
EXHAUSTION OF ENGRAMS.......................................................................32
ENGRAM CHAINS.....................................................................................35
PRENATAL, BIRTH AND INFANT ENGRAMS.


The Tone Scale, likewise, plays a major role throughout Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. It also plays a part through the Theta/MEST theory and if one were to read the Research and Discovery series you'll see the development of the Tone 40 to minus 40 scale and it has zero and nothing to do with Mathison.

Hubbard didn't develop that to compete or from inspiration of Mathison.

The expanded Tone Scale is Scientology and is about the Thetan.



Here's the scoop...when criticizing Scientology and Hubbard people have a tendency to reduce and eliminate anything from Scientology. I've seen people claim that it does nothing and there's nothing there...yadda...yadda...yadda. In this vein people tend to make nothing of anything "Hubbard".

Here's the problem with that. It's not true. With Scientologists sitting on the fence they need to have an accurate description and criticism of Scientology and Hubbard. Veda is a master of this.

This doesn't give credence to the viability of Scientology or anything but it does allow Scientologists to maintain engagement. When I was on the fence I would read things about Scientology and Hubbard that I knew was not true and all this would do would reinforce the crap Hubbard told us about Chaos Merchants, etc. It would reinforce my dedication to Scientology. It did just the opposite of what the presumed goal was from the storyteller.

There's many, many, many things that Hubbard plagiarized, lied about and did that display the dishonesty so there's never a reason to inflate the badness or to make things look worse than they are.

Just tell it as it is.
 
<snip>
Here's the scoop...when criticizing Scientology and Hubbard people have a tendency to reduce and eliminate anything from Scientology. I've seen people claim that it does nothing and there's nothing there...yadda...yadda...yadda. In this vein people tend to make nothing of anything "Hubbard".

Here's the problem with that. It's not true. With Scientologists sitting on the fence they need to have an accurate description and criticism of Scientology and Hubbard. Veda is a master of this.

This doesn't give credence to the viability of Scientology or anything but it does allow Scientologists to maintain engagement. When I was on the fence I would read things about Scientology and Hubbard that I knew was not true and all this would do would reinforce the crap Hubbard told us about Chaos Merchants, etc. It would reinforce my dedication to Scientology. It did just the opposite of what the presumed goal was from the storyteller.

There's many, many, many things that Hubbard plagiarized, lied about and did that display the dishonesty so there's never a reason to inflate the badness or to make things look worse than they are.

Just tell it as it is.
This is somewhat true. There is a lot to Scientology. It wouldn't trap people if there weren't. The problem is -- there is no there there. There are no promised results. No Releases. No Clears. No Operating Thetans. And you just can't pussyfoot around that. I believe that most Scientologists know this, deep down inside.

What about the rest? "Study Tech"? Some good ideas ruined by Hubbard. "Purification Rundown"? Doesn't work.

OK, how about smaller stuff? "Assists"? Sure, maybe some of that's worth looking into. Same with other minor stuff -- but it's MINOR STUFF.

Do we "let them down gently" by pretending, like the Freezone, that all is still there, still valid? Not me.
 
Last edited:
So...I found the pdf for The Original Thesis. In this book Hubbard has a quote dated January, 1948.
In one of his videos Jon Atack questions, in passing, the 1948 publication date of The Original Thesis, which made me curious. (I think the video is "Possible Origins of Dns And Scn.")

When I was in scn we were always told The Original Thesis was published in 1948, but it apparently didn't appear as a book until 1951.

"According to the Church of Scientology, Hubbard issued his early research in the form of a manuscript entitled Dianetics: The Original Thesis in 1948; Hubbard gives the year as 1949.[22][23] It received a wider public release in 1951 and is now published as the book The Dynamics of Life. The original text is not available for comparison with the 1951 publication, but it may have comprised the 'operator's manual' written by Hubbard for Winter, which is the first independently attested codification of Dianetics."

In HCOB 22 May 1969, Hubbard says,

"Dianetics: The Original Thesis was published in 1949 in manuscript form. It was copied in various ways, hand to hand across the world. Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science was published in late 1949. Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was published May 9, 1950 and has since sold millions of copies."

In his book "A Doctor's Report on Dianetics," J. A. Winter mentions writing to John W. Campbell at Astounding Science Fiction in 1949, asking for more information about Dianetics, and Campbell sending him an "operator's manual" written by Hubbard. This was probably what we referred to in my day as The Original Thesis and is apparently now sold as The Dynamics of Life. (I haven't been in an org or mission since 1981 and don't know anybody even recently in.)

Probably Campbell and J. A. Winter were the first to see it, in manuscript, in 1949.
 
Last edited:
Here's the scoop...when criticizing Scientology and Hubbard people have a tendency to reduce and eliminate anything from Scientology. I've seen people claim that it does nothing and there's nothing there...yadda...yadda...yadda. In this vein people tend to make nothing of anything "Hubbard".

Here's the problem with that. It's not true. With Scientologists sitting on the fence they need to have an accurate description and criticism of Scientology and Hubbard. Veda is a master of this.

This doesn't give credence to the viability of Scientology or anything but it does allow Scientologists to maintain engagement. When I was on the fence I would read things about Scientology and Hubbard that I knew was not true and all this would do would reinforce the crap Hubbard told us about Chaos Merchants, etc. It would reinforce my dedication to Scientology. It did just the opposite of what the presumed goal was from the storyteller.

There's many, many, many things that Hubbard plagiarized, lied about and did that display the dishonesty so there's never a reason to inflate the badness or to make things look worse than they are.

Just tell it as it is.

That is a great post.

There is enough bad abusive stuff in Scientology as it is. We don't need to make stuff up, incredible nonsense will just scare away potential dissenters and will simply play into Dave's fear-mongering.

What I'm going to say will be unpopular, but here it goes:
If we want to be able to enact any changes in scn and prevent abuses, we need to work with dissenters inside the church, with various groups of exers as well as with independent scientologists. We need to be open to people who may have some radically different opinions. If we spread false propaganda like the church does, it will never happen.
 
I wonder if Hubbard really believed he didn't have that 2nd wife. That's some high level denial either way. Holly @#$%.
From a post I made in another thread:

NO ONE knows to what extent Hubbard really believed what he was saying, and how much was "consciously fucking with people." Certainly he must have known he was lying about his dianetic "research" (no evidence of those 270 cases he mentions), so you'd think he must've been consciously conning people. Yet there's the Shrine Auditorium debacle in 1950 where he introduced a girl as clear, though the audience could see she didn't match the glowing description in DMSMH. If he was trying to fool the audience he'd have set something up beforehand, but he apparently didn't and the demonstration was a fiasco.

So why'd he do it? Did he believe she really WAS clear?

My think is that besides being a very capable con artist, Hubbard was also capable of MASSIVE self-delusion. In the occult the two important faculties are Will and Imagination. You train these so that you can WILL your imagination into reality. I think Hubbard may have believed that he could actually change reality by willing it, i.e. if he said there were clears -- and believed it strongly enough with his superior Will -- then clears existed.

Check out LRH's Affirmations. He seems to be trying to convince himself (in 1946) of the reality of Jack Parsons' OTO program. I think he probably did the same thing with dianetics and scn. He believed he could WILL them into reality (while knowing at some level that it was all BS, at least in the beginning).

If you haven't seen the Affirmations:
Who was L Ron Hubbard
 
From a post I made in another thread:

NO ONE knows to what extent Hubbard really believed what he was saying, and how much was "consciously fucking with people." Certainly he must have known he was lying about his dianetic "research" (no evidence of those 270 cases he mentions), so you'd think he must've been consciously conning people. Yet there's the Shrine Auditorium debacle in 1950 where he introduced a girl as clear, though the audience could see she didn't match the glowing description in DMSMH. If he was trying to fool the audience he'd have set something up beforehand, but he apparently didn't and the demonstration was a fiasco.

So why'd he do it? Did he believe she really WAS clear?

My think is that besides being a very capable con artist, Hubbard was also capable of MASSIVE self-delusion. In the occult the two important faculties are Will and Imagination. You train these so that you can WILL your imagination into reality. I think Hubbard may have believed that he could actually change reality by willing it, i.e. if he said there were clears -- and believed it strongly enough with his superior Will -- then clears existed.

Check out LRH's Affirmations. He seems to be trying to convince himself (in 1946) of the reality of Jack Parsons' OTO program. I think he probably did the same thing with dianetics and scn. He believed he could WILL them into reality (while knowing at some level that it was all BS, at least in the beginning).

If you haven't seen the Affirmations:
Who was L Ron Hubbard

This is an awesome post.

I knew someone once with similar mental attitudes as Hubbard, except this person, fortunately, had low IQ. It was fascinating. He'd lie about anything on a whim, told all sorts of fabricated stories about his life experience, was deceptive and sneaky in a hugely destructive way and was also a thief. Yet his outward persona was an innocent, sweet guy. He was completely convincing. He threw away all societal moral codes without thinking twice about it, just doing whatever pleased him, but he was aware enough of rules and laws that he would be real sneaky about it. No personal moral compass at all, just not wanting to be caught and suffer any consequences. So he knew about consequences.

He could talk himself into believing anything about his past and would re-invent it and enjoyed doing so, telling whatever lie popped into his head at the moment. He had violent, uncontrolled outbursts as well. He admired criminals and murderers. Yet he had a good side to him, too, that wasn't entirely selfish. It was fascinating but horrifying. Until then, I didn't know people existed that actually had no personal conscience and used imagination to re-invent their reality. Sociopath? Not exactly. This one didn't seem to be particularly evil, just particularly unbound by personal integrity with very little ability to relate or care about others. If you were a spiritual person, he'd be someone who didn't have a soul or had a partial or damaged soul. Mystic used to call such a person a "tulpa." There are some really weird, messed up people out there.
 
From a post I made in another thread:

NO ONE knows to what extent Hubbard really believed what he was saying, and how much was "consciously fucking with people." Certainly he must have known he was lying about his dianetic "research" (no evidence of those 270 cases he mentions), so you'd think he must've been consciously conning people. Yet there's the Shrine Auditorium debacle in 1950 where he introduced a girl as clear, though the audience could see she didn't match the glowing description in DMSMH. If he was trying to fool the audience he'd have set something up beforehand, but he apparently didn't and the demonstration was a fiasco.

So why'd he do it? Did he believe she really WAS clear?

My think is that besides being a very capable con artist, Hubbard was also capable of MASSIVE self-delusion. In the occult the two important faculties are Will and Imagination. You train these so that you can WILL your imagination into reality. I think Hubbard may have believed that he could actually change reality by willing it, i.e. if he said there were clears -- and believed it strongly enough with his superior Will -- then clears existed.

Check out LRH's Affirmations. He seems to be trying to convince himself (in 1946) of the reality of Jack Parsons' OTO program. I think he probably did the same thing with dianetics and scn. He believed he could WILL them into reality (while knowing at some level that it was all BS, at least in the beginning).

If you haven't seen the Affirmations:
Who was L Ron Hubbard
Yes, I would agree with all you said. Especially Hubbard's affirmations where he really does seem to believe in the OTO cult stuff. I'd say that is my theory on Hubbard in one sentence: "An OTO cult survivor who went on to start his own cult".

I would also add that by all witness evidence, Hubbard still received auditing till the very end of his life. Perhaps he did it just for show, but I don't think so - especially since at the end there were just a few people around him. He no longer had a clear reason to impress people, he was still working on his own case.
 
Hubbard is a weird dude. This I am finding out. I don't want top crawl into his head, unfortunately he has crawled into mine. There is evidence around that he did believe in certain things.

It is entirely real that he believed in those things that popped into his mind while being audited, by others or by himself.

One thing that separates me from him is that I no longer believe in those things that popped into my mind while auditing.

I liked that it was promoted that things could be understood, and should be understood. I apply that when needed. It is not a new idea on this planet.
 
Yes, I would agree with all you said. Especially Hubbard's affirmations where he really does seem to believe in the OTO cult stuff. I'd say that is my theory on Hubbard in one sentence: "An OTO cult survivor who went on to start his own cult".

I would also add that by all witness evidence, Hubbard still received auditing till the very end of his life. Perhaps he did it just for show, but I don't think so - especially since at the end there were just a few people around him. He no longer had a clear reason to impress people, he was still working on his own case.
We've discussed this before. I object to characterizing Hubbard as a "cult survivor" or "ex-cult member" as I think it casts him in the role of victim, someone we should feel sympathy for. I disagree.

Cut-and-pasted from other posts I've made about this (and lightly edited):

I don't see any evidence that he [Hubbard] was roped into anything. Nor do I see him as an "ex-cult member."

He lived with Parsons for a few months and took part in magical rituals. There's no evidence he was "roped into" anything here. He did it willingly, in fact Parsons felt he showed a great talent for Magick and described him to Crowley in glowing terms.

He talked Parsons into a business deal and absconded with Parsons' life savings and his former mistress. Far from being victimized as a "cult member" -- an inaccurate characterization -- LRH was the victimizer.

Thelema appealed to LRH because it bolstered his view of himself as a superman who could do whatever he wanted without moral restraint, "an adept who cannot accumulate any more karma" as he said in the Affirmations.

"21. We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world."
The Book of the Law

After Hubbard broke away from Parsons (and stole Parsons' life savings), did he still believe in Thelema, or at least his own interpretation of it? Yes, I think so.

"Hubbard: Yes. The Antichrist. Alestair Crowley thought of himself as such. And when Crowley died in 1947, my father then decided that he should wear the cloak of the beast and become the most powerful being in the universe."

Penthouse interview with L. Ron Hubbard Jr. (Nibs), 1983:
Penthouse, Inside the Church of Scientology An Exclusive Interview with L Ron Hubbard Jr (AKA Ron DeWolfe)
Inside the Church of Scientology An Exclusive Interview with L Ron Hubbard Jr AKA Ron DeWolfe, the son of scientology

Nibs says his father read Crowley's The Book of the Law when he was 16. (That doesn't necessarily mean it was true. As we know, LRH Snr. was a chronic liar.)

Hubbard later described Crowley as "my very good friend" in a lecture. They never met or even corresponded. Hubbard was acknowledging Crowley's great influence. I think Crowley more than anyone else is responsible for who Hubbard became. In many ways he was the man Hubbard only pretended to be.
 
Last edited:
We've discussed this before. I object to characterizing Hubbard as a "cult survivor" or "ex-cult member" as I think it casts him in the role of victim, someone we should feel sympathy for. I disagree.
Yeah we've been through this. I am convinced that the roles of victim and perpetrator are not mutually exclusive, especially in a cult setting. In some instances you can be both at the same time, OSA int execs case in point.

Heck, myself case in point.
 
Yeah we've been through this. I am convinced that the roles of victim and perpetrator are not mutually exclusive, especially in a cult setting. In some instances you can be both at the same time, OSA int execs case in point.

Heck, myself case in point.
True, the roles are not mutually exclusive. But it isn't necessary to be a victim to be a perpetrator.

I don't see LRH as an ex-cult member or cult survivor. I see LRH as a perp, not a victim.
 
So today my friend in Scientology wanted to know why I didn't agree with Scientology. For hours we spoke at length of our own life experiences, philosophy, and beliefs. Both being rather respectful and ended well. At the end of the discussion I told her it wasn't actually my beliefs that were preventing me from believing Scientology has it all 'right'. and that next time (tomorrow morning) we could go over that.

So I'm about to move away from belief and start discussing some truths with her about LRH. I feel photo evidence (like the photo of his 2nd wife and child) speaks louder than written words because it's harder to deny.

Is there anything you guys would recommend I share with her?
 
So today my friend in Scientology wanted to know why I didn't agree with Scientology. For hours we spoke at length of our own life experiences, philosophy, and beliefs. Both being rather respectful and ended well. At the end of the discussion I told her it wasn't actually my beliefs that were preventing me from believing Scientology has it all 'right'. and that next time (tomorrow morning) we could go over that.

So I'm about to move away from belief and start discussing some truths with her about LRH. I feel photo evidence (like the photo of his 2nd wife and child) speaks louder than written words because it's harder to deny.

Is there anything you guys would recommend I share with her?
I haven't had much time talking with Scientologists since leaving. However, from what I recall from being in the bubble, I wasn't much affected by accusations that Hubbard lied (i.e. "I never had a second wife"). What was real to me, but suppressed, was that I was not getting the promised results. I was a "Grade 0 release" but still felt awkward in many situations. I was "Clear" but didn't feel any different. I was doing my "OT Levels" but still didn't feel different. Scientologists around me were not being successful, they were struggling, just as I was. I saw "OT Committee" members being unethical. I didn't see what I expected to see. I didn't get what I expected to get. Like a true Scientologist, I had been blaming myself but that didn't explain all the other Scientologists' problems.

Ugly stories about Hubbard could always be explained away by blaming "SPs", but lack of results and many Scientologists in trouble and struggling can't be so easily brushed off.

Why not ask her what she expected to gain from Scientology. What she expected from "Release", "Clear", "OT". And what has she experienced? Has she seen unethical Scientologists? Has she seen super-powers?
 
I haven't had much time talking with Scientologists since leaving. However, from what I recall from being in the bubble, I wasn't much affected by accusations that Hubbard lied (i.e. "I never had a second wife"). What was real to me, but suppressed, was that I was not getting the promised results. I was a "Grade 0 release" but still felt awkward in many situations. I was "Clear" but didn't feel any different. I was doing my "OT Levels" but still didn't feel different. Scientologists around me were not being successful, they were struggling, just as I was. I saw "OT Committee" members being unethical. I didn't see what I expected to see. I didn't get what I expected to get. Like a true Scientologist, I had been blaming myself but that didn't explain all the other Scientologists' problems.

Ugly stories about Hubbard could always be explained away by blaming "SPs", but lack of results and many Scientologists in trouble and struggling can't be so easily brushed off.

Why not ask her what she expected to gain from Scientology. What she expected from "Release", "Clear", "OT". And what has she experienced? Has she seen unethical Scientologists? Has she seen super-powers?

I will share your story with her and ask her exactly that.

I'll share mine too.
 
So today my friend in Scientology wanted to know why I didn't agree with Scientology. For hours we spoke at length of our own life experiences, philosophy, and beliefs. Both being rather respectful and ended well. At the end of the discussion I told her it wasn't actually my beliefs that were preventing me from believing Scientology has it all 'right'. and that next time (tomorrow morning) we could go over that.

So I'm about to move away from belief and start discussing some truths with her about LRH. I feel photo evidence (like the photo of his 2nd wife and child) speaks louder than written words because it's harder to deny.

Is there anything you guys would recommend I share with her?
I have been out just over three years, and have gotten several people out. I have people that I have not gotten out as well. I am UTR, and it is in my best interest to stay that way, but I have put my neck on the line once or twice, and I am still living!

It really depends on the kind of scientologist that you are trying to spring out. I know some that are (I will start using the terminology) nattery, or critical of the organization, but still keep both feet in. They try to recover me, so those guys I have given up on. I used to think I could get anyone out, but I have come to find that is not the case.

My idea is exactly my avatar photo, they see something that can't be unseen. They hear something that can't be unheard (A little harder), or they have seen some action that they know wasn't right.
 
I have been out just over three years, and have gotten several people out. I have people that I have not gotten out as well. I am UTR, and it is in my best interest to stay that way, but I have put my neck on the line once or twice, and I am still living!

It really depends on the kind of scientologist that you are trying to spring out. I know some that are (I will start using the terminology) nattery, or critical of the organization, but still keep both feet in. They try to recover me, so those guys I have given up on. I used to think I could get anyone out, but I have come to find that is not the case.

My idea is exactly my avatar photo, they see something that can't be unseen. They hear something that can't be unheard (A little harder), or they have seen some action that they know wasn't right.

Could you tell me who that is with Ron in your Avatar? The Scientologist I'm trying to spring out, might not be a good target... She seems absolutely in love with Scientology and I get the feeling she doesn't spend much time around other Scientologists. She travels to other countries (Japan, Taiwan, etc) and shares it with them.
 
Back
Top