What's new

The Mayo Challenge

I'm willing to take up the challange a bit here.

You DID "help create the cult" David. There are lots of examples.

Here's one:

Remember the Survival Rundown? - a rehash of TRs, CCHs, Objective processes. YOU promoted this - remember? at the Hollywood Paladium - you were the Senior C/S Int and YOU gave the release event address wearing a Safari outfit! HaHa.

EXCEPT!!!!!!!!!!! I was BRAND NEW. My first ever event. And YES:duh: I went and DID that piece of shit, cult-indoctrination program.

Since leaving the Church, have you studied any critical reviews of these processes? Do you still believe in these things?

Can you challange this conclusion here?

Quote: "The TRs (Training Routines) are part of the most basic Scientology training, and are repeated to increasingly stringent standards at higher levels. They are billed as a way to improve communication skills, but their real purpose is to plant the seeds for thought control."

More here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/TR/index.html

Let's start with that.

More to come.

P.S. I helped create the cult too. I was a registrar for 17 years.:omg:

I think Survival Rd was a very good processing. Applied out of the suppressive context of the CofS could change the life of people for the better!
 
I may have been way out of line by asking The RealNoUser to come forward and reveal himself. I apologize. I'm trying to sort out how to deal with the situation of people with hidden agendas. This time it appears likely that his agenda was exactly as stated.

I'm going to try to clarify why I'm posting on this forum. I left Scientology well and truly many years ago. But those reading the internet might, (and some do) get a different idea. I want to clarify my position and connect with old friends.

Here I am! An old friend. ciao Julie! (I aslo joined only few days ago when I heard from a friend that David was writing here!)
 
When I joined ESMB I took the name literally. It is apparent that it is a misnomer. I did not realise at first but it seems that most, if not all, of you are still Scientologists. I am not.

When I originally left I was of the belief that it was just the current management that were altering the subject. But there are many different levels of "out", just as there are different levels of being "in" (ie The Bridge). I get the impression that most of the people here are still on the step where you believe the subject is salvageable, and that once Miscavige is gone all will be rosy once again, and you can go skipping down the lane holding hands.

I am all the way out. I completely and utterly despise Scientology, and I will do everything that I can do to cause its destruction.

I am not looking to repackage it, or reform it. In my opinion there are no redeemable factors in the subject. It is rotten to the core. Anything "good" about it was simply a means to an end for the creators of Scientology, and was used as a piece of bait at the end of the fishing line to reel in the big fish. It's all about money. Scientology does not care about people, and it breeds that mentality in its senior members. Once financially used up people are cast aside like a vampire does with its victim. Next.

The theetie-weetie message from Julie Mayo has no impact on me. It is just a thinly-veiled attempt to get me to reveal my identity. Read it again. Why would she want me to do that? That factor alone is the biggest red flag about her intentions. Scientologists are masterful manipulators of people's emotions, and she has got you all swooning over her (probably made-up) little story about the friend who betrayed her. So what.

The big question is: Why is her husband and herself coming forward right now with their names exposed? What is their agenda?
I know there has to be one, and I suspect that it is because the official CoS is finally cracking at the seams. All of the senior execs who have bailed like Rinder and Rathbun and are setting up shop for the Game Of The Century... "Mmm Hmm, we need to be in on this action".

Money.

As for all of you gathering around Mayo to protect him, that is pathetic. He has probably done more of "The Bridge" than any of you, including all the OT Levels. He is supposed to be a powerhouse of a being. And you are all upset because of my words? I mean c'mon ! The way you are all acting - it is as if I have attacked little 5-year old Suzie Cottonbritches in the playground and I'm punching her senseless. You are all gathering around in defense.

This is a grown man who helped create the most destructive cult on the planet, and my words are hurting him? Give me a break.

I guess time will show what his agenda is.

P.S. Yes, Voltaire. I have had this moniker for over a decade.

The way you put is that whatever David or Julie may say or someone else for that matter may say is wrong because you think already very bad about them. So no need to convince you. you have your ideas and nobody can change them
 

TheRealNoUser

Patron with Honors
The way you put is that whatever David or Julie may say or someone else for that matter may say is wrong because you think already very bad about them. So no need to convince you. you have your ideas and nobody can change them
So you think that Mayo did not help to create the most destructive cult on the planet? He played no part in it?

The fact is Mayo was no ordinary member of Scientology. Even the current people such as Miscavige, Rinder, Rathbun etc were not in LRH's close circle to the point where they were actually writing the tech (whether it was later changed to LRH authorship or not). Nobody was in this position except Mayo. He was a co-creator of the "tech". So yes, I do think negatively of him.

He subsequently became a victim of the organization that he helped create, so that immunizes him from criticism? I don't think so.

I accept now that the Mayos are never going to say anything useful. It is apparent that they are under legal obligation to keep quiet. All we will hear will be wishy-washy good-roads good-weather type of stuff.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Mark, I agree with YOU completely:

-snip-

Your approach regarding Scientology passes my criteria with flying colors

-snip-

++++++++

You were expected to agree. You were just handled by a Scientology PR presenting you with "acceptable truths" (things with which you could agree).
 

Jachs

Gold Meritorious Patron
So you think that Mayo did not help to create the most destructive cult on the planet? He played no part in it?

The fact is Mayo was no ordinary member of Scientology. Even the current people such as Miscavige, Rinder, Rathbun etc were not in LRH's close circle to the point where they were actually writing the tech (whether it was later changed to LRH authorship or not). Nobody was in this position except Mayo. He was a co-creator of the "tech". So yes, I do think negatively of him.

He subsequently became a victim of the organization that he helped create, so that immunizes him from criticism? I don't think so.

I accept now that the Mayos are never going to say anything useful. It is apparent that they are under legal obligation to keep quiet. All we will hear will be wishy-washy good-roads good-weather type of stuff.

Your fight appears less about the organised intentional criminal activities and policies of CoS and more about who to blame for NOTs.

A loss of friends or family?
.
 
So you think that Mayo did not help to create the most destructive cult on the planet? He played no part in it?

The fact is Mayo was no ordinary member of Scientology. Even the current people such as Miscavige, Rinder, Rathbun etc were not in LRH's close circle to the point where they were actually writing the tech (whether it was later changed to LRH authorship or not). Nobody was in this position except Mayo. He was a co-creator of the "tech". So yes, I do think negatively of him.

He subsequently became a victim of the organization that he helped create, so that immunizes him from criticism? I don't think so.

I accept now that the Mayos are never going to say anything useful. It is apparent that they are under legal obligation to keep quiet. All we will hear will be wishy-washy good-roads good-weather type of stuff.

We (on staff) have been all part of the game: we have been both actors and victims (personally i never felt victim even if I had some loss and problem when I left the Church). I have also been Executive and C/S in Italy, and I went out from the Church in early 83, when I considered that it was time to go out, because with my V/P of that time the bad I was involved with override the good. You should try to go out from the rationale: CofS is a cult so everything was bad, and everybody was (is) a liar or worst a criminal or a victim. We have learned in Scn that mind health is ability to find differences. :) and also we should try to get the best from the experiences we lived in the past if only for the lessons we have learned (ohhh! I feel very wise today!)
 

TheRealNoUser

Patron with Honors
So, getting back to part of my original post . . .

Does anyone here think that LRH will "return in his next lifetime to reassume his tech hats"?
a. It's impossible. We live once and die, that's it.
b. He's already back, but is waiting to announce himself.
c. He tried but Miscavige put him in the RPF.
d. He is face-down in a bowl of custard.
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
So you think that Mayo did not help to create the most destructive cult on the planet? He played no part in it?

The fact is Mayo was no ordinary member of Scientology. Even the current people such as Miscavige, Rinder, Rathbun etc were not in LRH's close circle to the point where they were actually writing the tech (whether it was later changed to LRH authorship or not). Nobody was in this position except Mayo. He was a co-creator of the "tech". So yes, I do think negatively of him.

He subsequently became a victim of the organization that he helped create, so that immunizes him from criticism? I don't think so.

1. Word "cult" is very charged (for those who have found themselves that they were in a cult)

How about we first look up all the definitions and decide what "cult" are we talking about?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cult
From French culte, from Latin cultus (“care, adoration; cult”), from colō (“cultivate; protect”).
cult (plural cults)
1. A group or doctrine with religious, philosophical or cultural identity sometimes viewed as a sect, often existing on the margins of society or exploitative towards its members.
2. Devotion to a saint.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sect
From Middle English secte < Old French secte (“a sect in philosophy or religion”) < Late Latin secta (“a sect in philosophy or religion, a school, party, faction, class, gild, band, particularly a heretical doctrince or sect, etc.”), possibly < Latin sequi (“to follow”).
1. A cult or religious movement, a group sharing particular (often unorthodox) political and/or religious beliefs.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=cult
cult [ kult ] (plural cults)
noun
Definition:

1. religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader

2. religious group: a group of people who share religious or spiritual beliefs, especially beliefs regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false

3. idolization of somebody or something: an extreme or excessive admiration for a person, philosophy of life, or activity ( often used before a noun )
the cult of youth
a cult hero


4. object of idolization: a person, philosophy, or activity regarded with extreme or excessive admiration

5. fad: something popular or fashionable among a devoted group of enthusiasts ( often used before a noun )
has taken on cult status

6. cultural anthropology system of supernatural beliefs: a body of organized practices and beliefs supposed to involve interaction with and control over supernatural powers

7. sociology elite group: a self-identified group of people who share a narrowly defined interest or perspective

[Early 17th century. Directly or via French< Latin cultus "worship" < colere "cultivate"]

2. No doubt Scn has been a cult for a long time (perhaps, from its very beginning. - No argument there).
Yet, I don't think that Scn is "the most destructive cult on the planet"... There have been more destructive ones.

3. How does creating a tech constitute a cult?
Inquiring minds want to know.
(Look through definitions above before answering, please)
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
We (on staff) have been all part of the game: we have been both actors and victims (personally i never felt victim even if I had some loss and problem when I left the Church). I have also been Executive and C/S in Italy, and I went out from the Church in early 83, when I considered that it was time to go out, because with my V/P of that time the bad I was involved with override the good. You should try to go out from the rationale: CofS is a cult so everything was bad, and everybody was (is) a liar or worst a criminal or a victim. We have learned in Scn that mind health is ability to find differences. :) and also we should try to get the best from the experiences we lived in the past if only for the lessons we have learned (ohhh! I feel very wise today!)

Answer to what's in red above.

It's called "Reductio ad Hitlerum".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum,
(Latin for "reduction to" and "argument to" and dog Latin for "Hitler" respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy. It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. The suggested logic is one of guilt by association, a classic confusion of correlation and causality, as if to say that anything that Adolf Hitler did, no one else should do, for it will obviously or eventually lead to genocide.
Its name is a pun on reductio ad absurdum, and was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card,[1] by analogy to playing the race card.
The tactic is often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.[1]

Fallacious nature of the argument

Reductio ad Hitlerum is no more than guilt by association, a form of association fallacy.[1][2] The fallacy claims that a policy leads to—or is the same as—one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich, and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable. For example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong [because the things Hitler did were wrong, or because it could lead to results ideologically or morally aligned with Hitler]." Instances of reductio ad Hitlerum are also likely to suffer from the fallacy of begging the question or take the form of slippery slope arguments, which are often false as well.[1] Used broadly enough, ad Hitlerum can encompass more than one questionable cause fallacy type, by both inverting cause and effect and by linking an alleged cause to wholly unrelated consequences. Hitler was fond of dogs and children, but to argue that affection for dogs and children is wrong on this basis is not logically sound.
Various criminals, controversial religious and political figures, regimes, and atrocities other than those caused by Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust can be used for the same purposes. For example, a reductio ad Stalinum could assert that atheism is a dangerous philosophy because Stalin was an atheist for most of his life.[3]
The fallacious nature of reductio ad Hitlerum is easily illustrated by identifying X as something that Adolf Hitler or his supporters did promote but which is not considered unethical, such as painting, enjoying classical music, owning dogs, anti-smoking campaigns or opposition to fox hunting.

History of the term
<snip> ...
The phrase was derived from the better known logical argument called reductio ad absurdum. The argumentum variant takes its form from the names of many classic fallacies, such as argumentum ad hominem. The ad Nazium variant may be further derived, humorously, from argumentum ad nauseam.

In 2000 traditionalist Catholic Thomas Fleming described its use against traditional values:
Leo Strauss called it the reductio ad Hitlerum. If Hitler liked neoclassical art, that means that classicism in every form is Nazi; if Hitler wanted to strengthen the German family, that makes the traditional family (and its defenders) Nazi; if Hitler spoke of the "nation" or the "folk," then any invocation of nationality, ethnicity, or even folkishness is Nazi ...[5]
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
OK. Probably a pm

images


The last post to this forum was to me.

I was bored and saw 'Who's Online'. Julie and David's box both said 'replying to thread'. I waited around reading posts over different threads. Nothing....replied to some threads and checked back. Nothing....hrrrmmmmph. I made a prompting announcement of double post to come....Nothing. That's when I got his reply. It was funny, but sad because other posters' jeers were the response to my announced anticipation. So, from now on I mind my own business. As far as anyone knows... :yes:


I certainly wasn't jeering him but I will PM him now to make sure he knows that, though I would think that is already very clear as only an hour before I had posted in full support of him on this same thread.
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
I don't think anyone posting here should have to run the gauntlet of people jumping up and down to be noticed with their versions of the tech etc and getting demands and nasty comments, no matter who they are.
Just my 2c.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
I dunno. It's been 2 days. Possibly the good will that was extended to us__ to answer on ESMB any questions, got abused after 2 weeks here. His apologies and his grace and his sincere efforts to understand don't ever seem to be enough for some. The kindness and willingness to engage in our conversations has been met with jibes. It has been hard for me to watch. I don't speak for David. These are my feelings. I don't care if he told Emma he isn't that thin skinned. It's been awfully painful to see him crucified again by some while those of us who were there saw such good intentions to help.

Being the snoop that I am, I've noticed that private messages are graciously acknowledged.

My mum used to say: "I've told you 50 million times not to exaggerate" ; )

There was initial doubt that it was actually David Mayo but comprehensive confirmation quickly dispelled that amongst the observant. David was then warmly greeted - neigh, fawned over and described as "royalty - friendly banter quickly sprang up and David has been thoroughly welcomed. Some here are clearly "on his side" and take pains to point out his positive contribution to Scientology and, over and over again, that he is bound by some sort of legal stricture on what he can and cannot say. David has also been challenged with some flat-out blunt questions and pointed observations. This is the internet, after all, not some tea'n bikkies tête-à-tête. In a peculiar male sort of way, someone challenging you is a display of respect and toughness. Unless you've had a brew in the shearing shed or a smoko at the plant, its kinda hard to explain. David hasn't backed down. He has contributed significantly himself in pointing out who he is, what he's up to, what he's thinking about, and what he's doing posting here. I don't think he's has failed to address a direct question that he can answer, but he has kept himself away from the few, mainly light hearted squabbles that have flared up. Very wise.

The idea that David Mayo has been badly treated or even "crucified" is, IMHO, based on emotion and not the rational observation of the goings on at ESMB. Either that, or there's more than one PR programme going on in this thread.
 
Last edited:

justsayin'

Patron with Honors
So, getting back to part of my original post . . .

Does anyone here think that LRH will "return in his next lifetime to reassume his tech hats"?
a. It's impossible. We live once and die, that's it.
b. He's already back, but is waiting to announce himself.
c. He tried but Miscavige put him in the RPF.
d. He is face-down in a bowl of custard.

who cares WHERE he is? time to move on!

I certainly wasn't jeering him but I will PM him now to make sure he knows that, though I would think that is already very clear as only an hour before I had posted in full support of him on this same thread.

i think it was very clear who you were jeering. does that make it right? (rhetorical question, no need to answer)
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
who cares WHERE he is? time to move on!



i think it was very clear who you were jeering. does that make it right? (rhetorical question, no need to answer)


But I will answer ... I didn't like watching someone being fawned over and being pushed into guru mode, it makes me sick but I also felt it was potentially harmful to David Mayo as it puts him under pressure to perform.

If you object to that, tough.
 

justsayin'

Patron with Honors
But I will answer ... I didn't like watching someone being fawned over and being pushed into guru mode, it makes me sick but I also felt it was potentially harmful to David Mayo as it puts him under pressure to perform.

If you object to that, tough.

all i saw was that she was waiting for her friend to speak. no big deal about that.
 
Top