Celeb Ctr uses Toastmasters' out-tech, not approved by Ron!

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
Post Reply
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:38 pm

Celeb Ctr uses Toastmasters' out-tech, not approved by Ron!

Post by don_carlo » Tue Apr 24, 2001 3:13 am

The Celebrity Center Toastmaster's Club is not a Ron-approved technology!


Now I belonged to Toastmasters and they have a very detailed program of required speeches, a definite weekly ritual and dues: Typical events:

“Introduction by the Master of Ceremonies”
"Thought for the Day"
"Word for the Day"
"Joke of the Day"
An off-the-cuff speech, timed, and judged by the members present
A formal speech, timed and judged by the members present
A person who distributed and collected the ballots.
Distribution of the trophies (which the winner keeps for a week)
Collection of dues, election of officers. Distributing pins as member reach “ten speeches - in the Toastmaster ten categories of speech: humorous, technical,using visual aids, highly organized, autobiographical, etc.

I know that every Toastmaster has slightly different adherence to these rules, but in order to advance to regional and State Toastmaster competitions you have to be comfortable with these basics.

Doesn’t this look like “out-tech” to you ex-Scientologists? It’s not from Ron, it has a hierarchy, it requires MONEY (under $50/year/person) to be sent to the national Toastmaster’s organization, and is ruled nationally by NON-SCIENTOLOGISTS. Even worse for Scientology, it is fun, effective at training speakers, and a great confidence-builder.
This website lavishes praise on it at the Celebrity Center. It’s probably the only useful thing that goes on there.

So, you Scientology Toastmasters, send in any late dues to Toastmasters ;), dissolve the club, and report to Ethics!

I’d like to thank the Laughworks website featuring NarCONon President Clark Carr and wanna-be comedian and Toastmaster Richard Stewart,
which led me to this Toastmasters’ site. That Laughworks site is a gold mine of footbullets.

Posts: 1592
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:38 pm

Post by don_carlo » Tue May 01, 2001 2:02 am

I smell a forgery, this letter endorsing Toastmasters, supposedly from Elron.
Here is the Celebrity Center website, with Richard Stewart (of Laughworks)


Richard Stewart said:

QUOTE: "I had been a Toastmaster for 10 years, and a Scientologist for 13 years, before co-founding the Renaissance Speakers in 1989 with Roberta Perry…
… I wrote to L. Ron Hubbard in 1981 and told him the wins we were having with the Scientology Toastmasters club. He replied to acknowledge me and the Toastmasters group. END QUOTE


Problem # 1: Ron was in deep hiding, losing his health and possibly his sanity.
Take a quick look at Ron’s timeline, by David Bird, from the website of “Bare Faced Messiah “

1980: Ron flees again with Pat & Annie Broeker, and never emerges from hiding.
1981: Broeker & Miscavige re-organize CoS
1981 May: Mary Sue Ousted
1981 Sep: Ouster of Mary Sue announced
1982 Apr: Ron appoints Mayo to safeguard Tech.

So 1981 was the mysterious year, right when Miscavige was taking over. IF Richard Stewart claimed to write the letter in early 1980, Ron would have been with his followers and his letter writers (who may now be ex-Scientologists) might be able to deny sending the letter. BUT, if Richard Stewart wrote the letter in mid 1982, Ron would have been a long-term fugitive, possibly in conflict with Miscavige, and perhaps no longer in charge of his own correspondence. 1981 becomes the magic year when Ron COULD have still had authority, AND things were so chaotic nobody could prove he DIDN’T write the letter.

Problem # 2: The letter, emotionally flat and courteous, is very unlike Ron’s style. Another letter from this time was manic and paranoid. AND this one had no exhortations to redouble Stewart’s efforts and create new stats for starting Toastmasters. No claims that Toastmasters copied Ron’s own ideas, even!

Problem #3: The letter is unsigned.

So this letter strongly resembles what old religious scholars called a “pious fraud:” An attempt to rewrite the past to make the present situation legitimate.

Now I personally don’t care whether Scientologists learn to make an icebreaker speech, or a technical speech, or win trophies and ribbons. What is pathetic here is that Ron has to be called up from the dead to say it’s okay for Scientologists to join a non-religious, non-political, non-threatening organization.

User avatar
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2000 10:13 am
Location: Sweden

Post by catarina » Tue May 01, 2001 8:05 am

I must say that letter looks and sounds exactly like the SO #1 (Standing Order Number One was something about that people should always be able to write directly to Ron) letters did in early 1980s, except that it should have a Ron signature (I don't remember if it was still "handwritten" at that time or if they had started to use the stamp). But there is the possibility that the sig was for some reason edited out of the webbed letter.

This SO #1 letters was one of the statistics of the org, BTW, so it was heavily pushed for people to write. Letters were screened by the LRH Communicator of the org before forwarded to the SO#1 unit (a bunch of mainly female secretaries, I know of one girl from Sweden who worked there for a while) in LA. The idea was to detect any complaints or negative thoughts voiced by members. When "Ron's" replies were sent back to the org, they could be accompanied by an order to the LRH Comm to deal with some problem that had turned up in the letters.

The SO #1 line is used by the Executive Director as an alerting bell, not as a subject to be responding to directly.
SO #1 answers are severely regulated by policy-the maxim is "Give them what they want and keep them happy."

It would not at all surprise me if Richard Stewart did get that letter, and like all good scientologists is telling himself that it was really Ron writing him and endorsing his plan. Since scientologists can be afraid of joining anything that could even vaguely be interpreted as "other practices" (meaning competing with Scn), such a letter would be very useful indeed. But it doesn't have to be a forgery by Stewart.

Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 8:13 am
Location: LA, California, USA

Post by hans » Tue May 01, 2001 8:15 am

Don Carlo,

Ron's letters are often flat. I have two, and they both bespeak the lameness of a ten year old forced to write a thank you to his aunt for the spiffy Xmas present. I think the letters read as they do because Ron didn't write the letters, his robots did. Another stat, don't you know.

And the absence of a signature is no more a clue than the presence of a signature, since Ron didn't sign the letters, the robots had a stamp or a machine for that.

I agree with your conclusion, it's pathetic, the dead Ron stamping his approval on anything.
-Hans Hansen lives-

Posts: 1592
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:38 pm

Post by don_carlo » Tue May 01, 2001 4:36 pm

Thanks, Hans and Catarina. I'm happy not to accuse Richard Stewart of forging such a trivial letter. I suppose the robot letter-writing went on even as Ron was slowly removed from power.

How ironic that one mechanically written letter, so similar to thousands of others, became a treasured sacred blessing on Toastmasters. If you do a search on Toastmasters & Scientology, you will find many personal Scientology pages where people list Toastmasters as a hobby. Well, at least they're learning something from Toastmasters! ;)

Mike de Wolf

Post by Mike de Wolf » Tue May 01, 2001 7:10 pm


I have a letter from Ron too. They are nothing special. Scientologists used to be encouraged to "Write to Ron," and we all got polite one paragraph responses from the S.O.#1 (Standing Order #1) staff.


Paul Wilkens

Post by Paul Wilkens » Tue May 01, 2001 7:28 pm

I think the Lurch of Scientology should bring back Standing Order #1. After all, what is Ron In The Sky doing that is so important that he can't "phone in" his replies telepathically to all those OT Sea Org members? You can't say he doesn't have time. We all know time is "just a consideration".

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests