(I'm grateful to peter/Soderqvist1 for drawing this point to my attention)

COMPARE ...



... AND CONTRAST



QUESTIONS FOR KAREN

Why conceal the truth about (David Mayo's belief concerning) Hubbard's involvement in David Mayo's cult abuse?

I know you want to address abuses occurring in 'present time' by current cult leadership. But does this make is desirable to conceal information relating to LRH's abuse?

I also know that you believe the tech works. But again, does this make it desirable to conceal information relating to LRH's abuse?

Can't you seek justice for victims of the current cult leadership without concealing information relating to LRH?

Can't you believe in and practise the tech without concealing this information?

I believe you take the view that your religious beliefs are nobody else's business; but I take it that concealing information is not a religious practise, and is not mandated by your religious beliefs, so I'm hoping you will feel free to address these questions.

I have read some of Karen’s posts, although not all of them. In the ones that I saw she never says that the truth about Hubbard’s crimes should be concealed. If you level accusation like this one at someone, a simple rule of human decency requires that you back up your accusations with pertinent data.
Omission of data for whatever reason is not an equivalent of intended concealment, as all people familiar with the law know.

DLRH:

I don't think I have violated the rule of human decency you refer to. The data is supplied in the post. If you compare and contrast the two versions of a part of David Mayo's affadavit you will see that Karen's version is redacted to remove the reference to LRH's orders. I have construed this as an act of concealment. I don't think that is particularly debatable, but if Karen were to point to an alternative plausible explanation for the redaction I would of course apologise to her for my misinterpretation and would recognise that she is not trying to conceal the truth concerning Hubbard's involvement in cult abuse.

Obviously I do not assert that Karen has said that the truth of Hubbard's crimes should be concealed (as you perhaps suggest I have done). I'm sure you're right that she has never said this. It would be a very odd thing to say. Typically, and for obvious reasons, when people want to conceal something they don't say: "I think x should be concealed."

You might also want to note that I haven't framed my post as an accusation. (You take it to be such.) I have simply asked Karen why she has sought to conceal the truth. I can't imagine a good reason for her to do this, but if she were to explain effectively why it is a desirable course of action then she would have provided an answer to my questions. There would be nothing unworthy to accuse her of. (I do not think that concealing the truth is always wrong. Karen may be able to explain why it is not wrong in the current circumstances.)

EDIT. I think you changed your post while I was writing mine. (I think the bit about omission of data and the law has been added.) I haven't changed my post in response. You may be right about the law: I understand you have trained as a paralegal. I'm not clear, though, how that would be relevant. As I've just said, I don't think my interpretation of Karen's redaction is at all questionable; but if Karen were to show me that I have misinterpreted her I would of course accept this and apologise for my error.

OW, I'm glad you started a new thread for this.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see someone answer in detail about how they reconcile the abuses that occurred during Hubbard's time. I have a feeling for each person it is different (ranging from "He wasn't perfect" to "He wasn't as bad as DM" to "He never was abusive"). I even saw Mike Rinder post on Marty's blog something to the effect that Hubbard wasn't perfect. However, I think people also have their own reasons for not wanting to debate the nuances of what they believe.

I am impressed that Karen posts here, because there are virtually no other indies that post here or on ESMB or WWP. So I would say that says a lot.

Maybe an indie will post here who is willing to reveal their inner thinking, and to debate it. I think Karen already said she isn't interested.

^^^ There are many ways indies can respond to David Mayo's statement that "On August 29, 1982, David Miscavage, and others, acting on the orders of L. Ron Hubbard, kidnapped me and subsequently kept me captive and physically and mentally abused me for six months." One of these is to deny the truth of the statement.

But what I'm interested in is why Karen would seek to conceal this part of Mayo's affadavit. That isn't a question about her religious beliefs (unless concealing information is a religious practise). It isn't a question about her inner thinking. It's a question about the motivation/justification of an overt act in a public forum. (Overt in the wog sense of the word.)

What purpose does concealing this statement serve?

I think lrh's own words speak for themselves with regard to "truth"

When we talk about truth, then, we are talking about something which is just relative to a problem or relative to another truth or relative to another fact within the limits of workability. How workable is it? Well, it has to be as true as it's workable. And that works the other way around. You say, "How true do you want a datum?"

You want it true enough to be workable. Now, you can say, "I want this real true, good and true, very true..."

You see, "true" is exact; you're not supposed to be able to do that in the English language. When you say "true," you mean an absolute. Absolutes are unobtainable.

All right, we'll say a real truth. Well, that would be a truth which would fit into the reference of your problem, somewhat on the order of "This truth is workable to the degree that every time I work it, it works the same way. I use this truth to solve this problem, and every time I use this truth it works the same way. The result is within the reasonable limit of
its application to this problem."

Emphasis Added

^^^ To me those words don't "speak for themselves". They badly need someone to speak for them. Someone who can speak intelligible English.

Could you translate?

"Truth" is whatever need be to fit your own reality(which are by doctrine the pre-determinations of hubbard)

^^ Thanks.

(That account of truth doesn't fit my reality. So I guess if it's true it's false. And if it's false it's false. Either way, then, it's false.)

Well then, you see the rub with "truth" and scientology being used in the same sentence, and the rub with "reality".

Wog 'reality' is in direct opposition of a scientologist's 'reality' and vice versa. In WogDom, it's acceptable that opinions differ and 'reality' (as subjective as it can be) is not under consideration as a threat The complete opposite is the consideration as a scientologist applying the 'correct technology'. The Axioms themselves outline how scientology will itself disappear without complete 'agreement'. It doesn't say that, but when the Axioms are applied, one failure to 'agree' puts another's 'reality' under stress at best, and 'vanishment' at worst.


scientology is far beyond any "stress" and is easily closer to "vanishment" these days.

No wonder $cientology hates the Internet

I cannot speak for Karen (hopefully, she will respond to the OP soon), but I can say that I would have done the same thing because I am not interested in Hubbard’s crimes -- the motherfucker is dead, no one can bring him to justice. I am more interested in harmful psychological effects that Scientology has on its followers than in Hubbard’s criminal behavior. I am also interested in Miscavige’s crimes that happened before the expiration of statute of limitations because he, potentially, could be sued for them in a criminal court. Regretfully, I have nothing to say on this topic because neither I nor my ex-scientology friends were subjected to physical abuse (we were neither the abusers nor the abused).
Karen has first-hand data about physical abuse that Miscavige inflicted on his staff, which makes her posts/testimonies extremely valuable. How she presents that data is her choice; it is quite possible she and I share the same point of view that Hubbard’s crimes are unimportant and talking about them leads us to nowhere.

^^^ Karen was not presenting first hand data in this instance. She was presenting someone else's words, and she presented those words in a way that was apparently intended to mislead the reader.

Even accepting that Karen is only concerned with Miscavige's abuses (for whatever reason), the redaction of David Mayo's affadavit was very misleading -- it eliminated David Mayo's statement that Miscavige (and others) were acting on Hubbard's orders. The fact (if it is) that Miscavige was acting on Hubbard's orders affects the extent to which his actions can be attributed exclusively to him, and the extent to which he can be held responsible and culpable for those actions. So even from a viewpoint strictly concerned with DM, it is important that the reported actions of LRH are not concealed.

(Obviously LRH's reported actions are also relevant to the more general question, which Karen has touched on in the same thread [ viewtopic.php?f=9&t=41348 ], of whether Miscavige is a single 'rogue SP', or whether he was inducted into or influenced towards cult abuse by the abusive environment of scientology.)

On the face of it it is not appropriate to deliberately conceal the truth about an episode of scientology abuse on a message board which exists for the opposite purpose of exposing the truth about scientology. (I accept, though, that there may be particular circumstances in which concealing the truth is justified; and Karen may believe that such particular circumstances obtain in this case.)

One would think that both scientologists and non-scientologists would be able to agree that it is important to be truthful about scientology. Scientologists, I believe, consider themselves especially ethical people. And wogs also, generally speaking, like to think of themselves as ethical. The value of the truth and of truthfulness should be something we can agree on.

Given that Karen apparently chose to depart from truthfulness about scientology in this instance, my question is why she did so -- what her motivation was, and how she would justify her action.

Ow,

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

^^ I'm not.

But sometimes the lack of an answer communicates as much as an answer would -- so if I don't get an answer I'll still get an answer.

DLRH, that's not quite the point though is it?

However, I have to say though, being accusatory at the outset probably isn't such a good way to get an answer out of anyone, especially when there could be other explanations. Frankly, I can't see anyone being so stupid as to purposefully alter something that is already out there in its original unedited form all over the internets, then go on to post it on a board where the readers are the type to be highly likely to google up the original straight away (especially since the only reference link was a freezone.org source which itself doesn't even seem to have the edited quote or the original). Could there be a revisionist version of Mayo's affidavit that is being passed around and kept close in certain quarters, until now, and just hasn't been questioned by the people forwarding it? i.e. more of a naive error? So, I would ask, not so much "did you alter it" but more usefully "state your source". If the search for truth is paramount then there should be absolutely no shame in admitting that one mistakenly accepted something at face value.