Thank you very much Wieber for your explanations. You've cleared up a lot for me. I'm starting to understand quite a bit of the $cientologese terms and acronyms by reading all these threads and from other informative websites. I appreciate your help.

Very few rich people have joined Sea Org, I have not met any of them. Rich Scientologists prefer to go OT pronto.

If a Sea Org member who has blown offfers a big donation, the cult will take it; handling such person's ethic conditions becomes pure formality. The Church is in constant search for $$$, all sins are forgiven in such case.

Thank you and wieber for your answers. Yeah, I sort of figured they'd be more forgiving when $$$$ is involved.

Amy Scobee writes in her book about a woman who was on the RPF named Judy. She was a Case Supervisor whose work area was considered not up to code. She was there 13 years.

I know this isn't what the topic is about, but it seems to me that there are no rules. Amy tried to "route out", they made her jump through a million hoops and sec checks only to declare her an SP in the end and offload her.

Unfortunately one possible way to get out is to harm yourself. I saw an interview where a woman swallowed a capful of bleach and they let her go because they don't want another Lisa McPherson. At the same time, if one is declared PTS (Potential Trouble Source) III, i.e psychotic, who knows what they will do to you. You may get routed out, or you may be locked in a room with 24/7 surveillance, or shipped God knows where. Whatever benefits the church.

Chantal, I'm with you. I've never taken a single Scientology course in my life, and yet somehow my brain is filed with Operating Thetan, Int Base, PTS, "Clear", Bridge to Freedom, Out ethics, Blow Drill, Running Program, Truth Rundown, Conditions, GOLD, RTC, E-Meter, OSA, Flag, COB, Freeloaders Bill, RPF, SP and on and on and on. I didn't know most of these terms a year ago.

I can see how the cult works on people, because even as an anti-Scientologist, the language brings you in and makes you feel like you're part of a club or you know something others don't. Still, I've listened to YouTube videos of ex-Scientologists who put together sentences with so much Scientology speech, it's like listening to a foreign language and I still don't know what they are talking about.

Yes, in some extreme cases people harm themselves in order to get away from Sea Org because nothing else works. My guess is that they have datum very damaging to CoS, and the Church officials want to make sure that nothing is released to the press (Non-disclosure agreements do not always work).

Barbiedoll, I'm starting to understand the interviews better now. Sometimes I still have to think hard or look something up but not as much anymore. Everyone here is great at explaning their personal experiences and some of the terms.

Imagine having to harm yourself to leave your "church" and having to sign non-disclosure agreements. When you have nothing to hide, these things aren't necessary. And they wonder why the protests and why no one believes THEM when someone leaves and speaks out.

This is so true. The other thing I can't figure out is all this talk about communications courses in Scientology, learning how to handle people and situations, and yet every member of the active church that I have ever seen in television interviews from Tommy Davis to the ex-wives of Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder and Jeff Hawkins, all have the same strident, defensive attitudes, same aggressive manner, same sense of outrage. Several of them start with the phrase when asked a question they are uncomfortable with, "Now here's the thing....". Often they will stop answering the question and attack the person who is interviewing them ("I feel you're being rude right now..."), or they will attack the person who made the accusation they are addressing: ("Everyone knows that blank is a cheat and a liar....") It's amazing because it is almost like they can't see themselves and how they are coming across. It would make more sense to be accommodating, less combative, friendlier, but whenever I see someone defending the church on TV or radio, even call ins, I can almost predict what the tone is going to be. What's amazing is that this is training you get for all this money. This is how you are taught to communicate - basically bully anyone who disagrees until they agree. Lovely.

Rule #1: Always ATTACK, never DEFEND! And if you rember Barbiedoll, on the AC360, the wives all gave similar(obviously scripted) answers. Just how much do you have to lie and cover up that you need weeks, even months to prepare for an interview? The first time I saw the segment on AC360of the wives, I laughed and thought about how much they must think we are all so stupid and not realising how much they all looked like robots, all repeating the same phrases... "I slept with him for so many years".... "I knew every inch of his body"..."I never saw a scratch on him" etc. But the best part, my personal favorite, is how all 4 ex husbands were bad men and pathological liars. They were good enough to be married to for so long, have families with, and have high up jobs in the org. But once they left the "church", they're "criminals".The men were relaxed while the women were wound so tight,it was easy to see who was lying.

I'm going off topic here. When they send people out to deal with media they do preparation for it. They study any policies or bulletins that have to do with the media. They word clear terms that have to do with what they'll be going to do -- microphone, interviewer, host, camera, lens, etc. They do training routines (TRs) specific to what they will be dealing with. This includes bull baiting where the coach will play the part of the interviewer or debate opponent. Bull baiting is a type of drill where things that make someone flinch or feel uncomfortable are thrown at them until they don't flinch or feel uncomfortable. They role play what they'll be doing. There will be office of special affairs (OSA) staff who brief them before they go.

The women on that show still have a belief in "the tech" and the promises on $cientology's grade chart. They have hopes and expectations to achieve those promises. Most of those who have left have come to the conclusion that the promises are empty and there's nothing there of any value. Once a person who was formerly involved reaches that point there's nothing the $cientology organization can say and very little they can do that will have any effect.

When I was in it I would get promotional material, which I would read and check out and I would look at the ads and think, "I'd like to have that. I want that." Now I get promotional material and when I look it over I find it laughable and think, "Isn't it ridiculous that one time I wanted that?"

When I first left I used to worry about getting into a conversation with someone from $cientology because I knew they would handle me and get me back. Now I know they can't possibly do that so I don't worry about it any more. The most likely result of any such conversation would be someone else leaving $cientology.

I knew it was rehearsed and scripted in advance--it's so obvious--but I didn't know it was to this extent. It's hard to keep the lies straight and continuous without tripping up.

Preparation is one thing, and I also didn't know it was that extensive, but I think what gets me the most is how "off" they are on tone. If I were coaching them, I would have them say things like, "I miss Marty, he's a good man at times, but I think what's he's saying is misguided. I just can't agree with him..." Something to soften things, make them seem like every day America, something people relate to. But I remember watching the same interview Chantal, and I was appalled at how angry and defensive they were from the beginning. A smart interviewer like Anderson Cooper just sits back and lets them bark like a dog on a chain, unfortunately John Sweeney let Tommy Davis get to him (although that was amazing t.v. journalism, and may have helped more people understand how Scientology drives people crazy.) Anyway, perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but I think as long as their spokespeople are so rabid, they are going to keep turning people off. John Travolta is the only person I've ever heard speak, that has made me sympathetic or curious about Scientology, because he keeps his warmth, he refuses to get aggressive, at least in front of a camera.

The Church use TRs (training routines) to teach its representatives how to lie convinsingly, Wieber is right about that. These TRs were designed by Hubbard.

In my opinion, however, these TRs are no good because, frankly, Hubbard was an idiot who knew nothing about psychology. The Church use the selection procedure to choose people who can lie better than an average person, these people become official spokespersons for the Church.

I had an offer to become the cult’s official spokesman. I was told that my “extremely good looks” made me a good candidate for the job. Before handing me the job my handlers wanted to know how good I am as a liar. I said I’m pretty good at it, but they wanted to test me anyway. But we did not get to the testing part because I jokingly asked, “Will you teach me how to lie on the e-meter?” (I already knew how to fool the damn machine). I was deemed unreliable because, in their estimate, it was quite possible that I knew how to manipulate the e-meter, so I was uncontrollable.

This is fascinating to me...I love these stories and first hand accounts. Another thing I feel they are told to say, when they can't come up with anything to respond to in an interview or forgot what lie to tell, "I wouldn't know how to answer that. I really wouldn't know how to answer that...."

I've heard Tommy Davis say this over and over in several interviews, and I know he's applying some tech he learned, but it's so Jello in box - add water, stir. I can see right through it. I always wish some aggressive interviewer would get his #&$ and say, "What do you mean, you wouldn't know how to answer. Do you mean, you won't answer?" I think, with the right people, this tech can be yanked undone like a loose shoelace. The problem is I think here are still journalists that are afraid of Scientology or don't want to be perceived as attacking a "church".