“Why are you here?”
“What is your crime?”

They’re both the same question. And as a firefighter, I recognize them. It took me a few minutes to do so, however. It clicked the instant the 2nd guy’s passions were evoked. He honestly meant it, “What is your crime?”

In the videos, their primary tactic seems to be distraction - and the easiest distraction is to make you the target. But now I don’t think that’s it. “What’s your crime” actually means “What’s your calling”. “Crime” doesn’t make sense in normal parlance - and these aren’t stupid people, so that cannot be it. But as a firefighter, I understand what a “calling” is. Their tactic seems to assume you are following one (subconsciously induced by guilt or trauma or whatever). I later wondered if they were hammering on a wall… if, from their POV, they were trying to save Mark’s “life”, not chase him away. After all, “crimes” are what all the audits and sec-checks are about, yes? Fessing up to them is the first step towards progress!

So, use it. Own up with the truth. “What’s your crime?” “I failed to stop an atrocity.” And, make sure you mean it - because quite frankly, that IS the crime you’ve committed, and it IS the reason you are there. Something the church did was a complete outrage. All of their hammering, thereafter - creates a paradox. “What does xxx have to do with YOUR crimes?” “xxx offends me, and I have tolerated such abuse of people for far too long. That’s my crime, and it is traumatic. ” And that’s the paradox. For them to continue the game, they must either deny that its a crime (breaking the game), or accept what you’ve said (invalidating the church). I’m curious how the game would handle such a case.

They certainly have a well-conditioned game that they follow, and it seems that any 3rd person narrative just tells them that a “church slam” is coming. Anyone know how the game plays out if you play it 1st person, actually have a “crime”, and honestly expose yourself to them as above?

Hubbard’s Tech just doesn’t take in the internet, does it? From Mary’s page not displaying correctly in my browser, to her bizarre antics on YouTube convincing me that she is quite mad.

Screwing with people that way is undoubtedly unpleasant for the critic, but when it gets posted on the ‘net it generates more critics: it’s rude, unpleasant, lacks any sort of common courtesy to a fellow human being, insane, spiteful, despicable and entirely counter-productive in that it only generates contempt for scientology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocw90W44Boc

(Star Trek was nice enough to provide the security guard)