post 3-I write Kr on Bill

From: "Virginia McClaughry" <[email protected]>
Subject: post 3-I write Kr on Bill
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:40:34 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]>



Virginia McClaughry June 4, 1999

cc: Bill Rhodes

Knowledge Report
Bill Rhodes

I had a conversation with Bill Rhodes on the night of June 2nd. During this conversation, Bill asked me various questions about what is happening with my cycle. I told him that April is being a bad hat, and is suppressively spreading Black PR and enemy line, about myself, my husband, and Greg and Debra Barnes. I also told him about the fact that April has called several of Greg and Debra’s friends, employees, etc in, and had them read an “issue” on us. The “issue” is the Bill of Particulars for our commev, which is not a completed cycle, as well as a Bill of Prticulars is not supposed to be used as a statement of guilt, let alone disseminated that way. I told Bill the other document being used to black pr us was April’s writeup of an interview with Bill, where April entertains her own ideas and opinions at the end of this writeup, which were not Bill’ s, and allows this to be interpreted as if Bill said them. I also told him that I have no intention of receiving any more squirrel sec-checking (see report on Therese Blum), and that I have no intention of going back onto an OT level that has out-tech on it. This would be a violation of KSW. I told him that I intend to see this through, get it corrected, and when those things are done, make sure that all Solo Nots auditors are fully hatted on KSW, and The How to Defeat Verbal Tech Checklist, so that this sort of out-tech cannot occur again in the future.

I gave Bill one example of out-tech in Therese's sessions on Greg and I, in response to his question of "what do you mean squirrel sec-checking?". Bill said he did not want to hear anymore at which point I told him that he was not being a friend by listening to false accusations about me refusing an HCO sec check, and agreeing with such false accusations, and not allowing me the opportunity to defend myself. I told him that if he had had the kind of squirrel sessions I did, he would refuse to do it too, and that it was not anywhere resembling the types of sec checks I have always had before. Bill still would not allow me to to defend this accusation.

Bill stated that he knows that the HCOB C/S Series 73Rb is “maybe not being applied totally correctly”, but that it should be handled with a query, and that he supports what RTC is doing, and that it is their hat to work out the best way to keep the line going, which he feels they have done. I told Bill that what he said was justification, and a HIGH CRIME, as it is violation of points 1-10 of KSW to not insist that an LRH bulletin be fully applied, and justify it’s non-application for any reason.

Bill also suggested that what would have “made him happy” is if instead of confronting this head on, and refusing to follow a non-LRH line, as I have done, he wished that I had said that I can’t continue on with the level as I don’t have any money, and I also have this disagreement with a tech point, and ethics could call my dad who would then agree that I don’t have any money personally, and that I could have just gone off quietly and done some training, made money, until someday this got sorted out. I told Bill this would be lying, out-KSW, and that it would be out-ethics of me to even consider doing something like that.

In response to all this, I pointed out that he should go read the Data series as per the Data Series, a thetan when confronted with illogic, finds it very uncomfortable, and lacking the tools with which to handle it, he accepts an “explanation” for it, which is the source of reasonableness. I was pointing him to some LRH he could apply, as he had said this all upsets him and makes him uncomfortable.

Bill also is not taking any responsibility for the fact that his interview with April, which was twisted around by April, is being used as a primary tool to Black PR the Interested Parties of the Comm ev (excluding Ed Gonsoulin). He also stated that because he is going in for his 6 month check, and he has charge on the fact that I might get declared over this, that he will have to write a KR on our conversation.

I pointed out to him that this is like feeding fuel to a fire to give it to April, who has already proven that she will twist data to suit her own purposes, as well as manufacture lies. I told him that at the very least if he felt he had to write a KR so he could get through his six month check faster, he should be very careful to include no opinions on what was said, and stick to the facts, which I have no problem with him reporting, as I would say it myself to anyone anyway. Bill agreed that it should be fact only.

Bill stated that he has done a lot of study on withholds, missed withholds, sec-checking etc. to help him get through his earlier sec check cycle re all this, and that he is seeing manifestations of missed withhold in my actions and communication. I asked him what manifestation? He said that I was critical, and I then pointed out to him that per HCOB Justification not all criticism is justified thought, ie: backed by a withhold. I told him that I totally disagree with him on that my refusing to finish a squirrel sec check, and my refusing to not back down off of a KSW point, is not a withhold manifestation,it's KSW.

Bill said that he felt what I was doing was wrong; specifically, that I are making the power (rtc) wrong which violates Simon bolivar, and now disagreeing with earlier agreements I had made, and how my actions in his viewpoint are creating a disaffected field and that this dramatization is in his opinion something that is the result of my being on the level and the correct way to handle is to figure out how to get back on the level. He also said he had handled his doubt and despite any outnesses the rightnesses of what RTC is doing far outweigh anything that is bad or not right and that I should just return and finish my sec check and get back on the level.

I told Bill that was an incorrect evaluation, and in particular the idea that “RTC has done more right than wrong”, is a justification for not correcting a wrongness. I also told Bill that he was in fear of losing the bridge and being off the level, and that he was weak in holding a position on KSW, and that was out-ethics.

I also told him that KSW is about the Tech itself, as well as policy, not a person, and that I follow LRH, and his tech, as it should be. I told him that I don't care how high someone's post is, if that person does not follow standard tech, I do not support that person, period. And if that person happens to be in RTC, it is no different, as KSW does not make exceptions. I also told Bill that of course I know that RTC has done a lot of good things, but that that isn’t the point, and that I never said that “RTC was all bad” as a generality or anything like that. That is more Black PR of me. This is simply about a KSW point of getting a bulletin applied, and that’s all.

I then told him that he was also not behaving as a friend, listening to and believing third party and Black PR, and that he will need to handle that.

He responded with that he felt that a friend would do what I was doing; viz, pointing up that I am violating many more policies/bulletins than I am trying "to get back in" and so on.

Again I told him this was a totally inaccurate evaluation of the scene, and was more Black Pr similar to what April continues to put out. Needless to say, we totally disagreed at this point and Bill hung up, which I then called him back, and we agreed to both write this up.

This is true,

Virginia McClaughry