As I've stated before - if that happens and they declare me then its no skin off my back. In the meantime I'll take my chances and exercise a reasonable amount of care.
I don't do auditing in the church so I'm not subject to sec checks.
Originally Posted by kate8024
Do you mean the possibility of reform? If so it is an interesting subject to me but not one I generally mention here unless I'm asked and even then I tend just to leave it at "I believe its still possible". It's certainly not something I constantly bring up on my own. I certainly don't advocate anyone else doing what I'm doing. If they want to it's their decision but I would never suggest that anyone else do it (unless maybe I'm talking to a currently very-in Scientologist as I'd rather them either start working toward reform (even if only in very small ways) or leave than stay in their current state - but still that's their choice ultimately).
Originally Posted by kate8024
If I can get one or two Scientologists that are in the church to read Going Clear or Scientology: History of a New Religion with an open mind. That's the kind of impact I'm talking about. I'm not trying to reform things myself. I want to give individual people that I interact with that have more skin the game the data that points to either reform or collapse and do it in a way that doesn't lead to instant rejection of the data. That means having to do a certain amount of relationship-building within the church.
Originally Posted by kate8024
The people whose minds I'd like to change are the ones that are very 'in' the church without critically evaluating what goes on around them.
>snip>The people whose minds I'd like to change are the ones that are very 'in' the church without critically evaluating what goes on around them.
If I can get one or two Scientologists that are in the church to read Going Clear or Scientology: History of a New Religion with an open mind. That's the kind of impact I'm talking about. I'm not trying to reform things myself - I want to give individual people that I interact with that have more skin the game the data that points to either reform or collapse and do it in a way that doesn't lead to instant rejection of the data. That means having to do a certain amount of relationship-building within the church.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything other than what I'm saying are my experiences are, in fact, my experiences. Would you prefer that I lie about my experiences or do you prefer that I not talk about them? I don't care if people who are in Scientology leave or stay, I don't care if people who are not in decide to join or decide to protest. Those things are not my battles.
IMO, organizational technology is a bit of a joke. I like an organization board, I like the concept of "hat" training, given that it is really effective methods to get something done that needs to be done for the business to work, etc. I also like the "Admin Scale". That being said, the rest of it seems like a lot of bells and whistles that are unnecessary and Byzantine, mostly to create the culture of Scientology. If the organization has a useful purpose and people want its products or services, all that is needed is a little planning and execution. Most of Scientology policy seems to exist to STOP people from executing and delivering services (never mind their value).
The above quote is one of the funniest comments I've ever read here.
Wait a minute. Au contraire.
The last 40 pages or so of the Ask Kate thread (cringe) revolved around the above quote. Now all of a sudden your a benevolent deprogrammer without critical evaluation.
I think all the Scientologists I talk to know that one of my majors is psychology lol so they already know I'm an evil psych. They still want my money anyway it seems ;-)
No you are misinterpreting. As I repeated many times in that thread, I don't care if people join, stay, or leave. I only care if they have the information that allows them to make an informed decision.
No you are misinterpreting. As I repeated many times in that thread, I don't care if people join, stay, or leave. I only care if they have the information that allows them to make an informed decision.
I don't understand why people here, whether smart or dumb, experienced or inexperienced, need to play "find the troll". Whether Kate is genuine or not, why not just answer her posts (or not) based on their applicability to the topic at hand, rather than engaging in a witch-hunt and attribution of intention?
>snip>The people whose minds I'd like to change are the ones that are very 'in' the church without critically evaluating what goes on around them.
If I can get one or two Scientologists that are in the church to read Going Clear or Scientology: History of a New Religion with an open mind. That's the kind of impact I'm talking about. I'm not trying to reform things myself - I want to give individual people that I interact with that have more skin the game the data that points to either reform or collapse and do it in a way that doesn't lead to instant rejection of the data. That means having to do a certain amount of relationship-building within the church.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything other than what I'm saying are my experiences are, in fact, my experiences. Would you prefer that I lie about my experiences or do you prefer that I not talk about them? I don't care if people who are in Scientology leave or stay, I don't care if people who are not in decide to join or decide to protest. Those things are not my battles.
No you are misinterpreting. As I repeated many times in that thread, I don't care if people join, stay, or leave. I only care if they have the information that allows them to make an informed decision.
No you are misinterpreting. As I repeated many times in that thread, I don't care if people join, stay, or leave. I only care if they have the information that allows them to make an informed decision.
LOLOLOL
Damn!
Must be some kind of MU that would make a troll shatter themselves.
Does anyone happen to know whether he/she/they are able to do cramming cycles via a correspondence course?
You spit out endless oxymoronic statements.
Oxymoron - a figure of speech that juxtaposes apparently contradictory elements.
Placing the phrase "informed decision" in the same sentence as Scientology is a self-evident contradiction (apparently not to you).
It is a suppressive act to read or listen to ANY information critical of Scientology (regardless how accurate or legitimate it might be). How can an "informed decision" ever be possible within such a framework of SEVERE "information suppression"? To be "informed" one requires a large body of honest, fair, balanced and accurate information. The ONLY acceptable information in Scientology is SCIENTOLOGY! All else is considered to be "degraded", "suppressive", "woggy", "out-ethics", "counter-intention" or "other-intention". Just read KSW - fair and balanced are NOT part of ANY version of Scientology.
A few posts earlier you said you wanted to get Scientologists to practice "critical evaluation". Again, placing that phrase or concept in the same context as Scientology exhibits a near self-evident contradiction (again, apparently not to you). Most people with experience, intelligence and honesty know what I say to be true.
Not you. So which do you lack? It doesn't seem to be intelligence, so is it experience or honesty? :confused2: