lkwdblds
Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973
Interesting post, I have a couple of comments about your article on Doubt:
On having doubts, I think that you nailed that subject! What you wrote is spot on, right on the money and written well to boot.
On Hitler's stats, of course, for about 8 years, 1933 to 1941 his stats were up but what were some of his stats? Number of Synagogues set on fire. Number of Jews placed in concentration camps, number of art treasures stolen, number of valuable citizens (such as Einstein) who were forced to leave Germany, number of citizens in countries annexed, etc. These statistics were up but it isn't enough for a statistic to be up, the statistic must stand for something of value and worth!
On your being an esmb failure, there you go again selling your self short! IMHO, you've done a very good job on ESMB, especially here on this thread and with your blogs. You know, the ESMB public is a mixed bag, some very irrational people, some rational people and a few people who are good writers, write with conviction and know what they are writing about. I put you in the third category. I hope that ITYIWT doesn't criticize me too harshly for saying that but that's my honest opinion. The truth is that the smartest and best informed people do not automatically generate a big following on ESMB. Often they attract a modest sized group of followers who follow them around and respond to their posts. I think that is why your popularity on esmb is at the level it is - higher than average but not out the roof. Just my opinion.
Absolutely a great example on Scientology not giving any stat credit having to do with parenting and raising a family. If anything, those stats are looked at in a negative light. Good parenting is an extremely important sector of life, a fact which CoS just sweeps totally under the carpet. In CoS's eyes, the highest stat recognition is reserved for those who give the most to the IAS and/or the Ideal Org fund raisers. The man who gives $100,000 towards the IAS is considered "upstat" where had he spent $100,000 on his child' education, he would be considered downstat. It's really that simple and that one example alone is sufficient to expose the whole fallacy of the managing by stat sytem!!
My last comment is that Van Gogh had he been in CoS would have been placed on the RPF for chronically low stats. Beethoven would have been RPFed and then off loaded for developing a hearing problem because having such a problem proved that he was PTS and PTS people produce overt products. In Beethoven's case I guess his 9 symphonies are all overt products! Go figure!
Lakey
Interesting post, I have a couple of comments about your article on Doubt:
On having doubts, I think that you nailed that subject! What you wrote is spot on, right on the money and written well to boot.
On Hitler's stats, of course, for about 8 years, 1933 to 1941 his stats were up but what were some of his stats? Number of Synagogues set on fire. Number of Jews placed in concentration camps, number of art treasures stolen, number of valuable citizens (such as Einstein) who were forced to leave Germany, number of citizens in countries annexed, etc. These statistics were up but it isn't enough for a statistic to be up, the statistic must stand for something of value and worth!
On your being an esmb failure, there you go again selling your self short! IMHO, you've done a very good job on ESMB, especially here on this thread and with your blogs. You know, the ESMB public is a mixed bag, some very irrational people, some rational people and a few people who are good writers, write with conviction and know what they are writing about. I put you in the third category. I hope that ITYIWT doesn't criticize me too harshly for saying that but that's my honest opinion. The truth is that the smartest and best informed people do not automatically generate a big following on ESMB. Often they attract a modest sized group of followers who follow them around and respond to their posts. I think that is why your popularity on esmb is at the level it is - higher than average but not out the roof. Just my opinion.
Absolutely a great example on Scientology not giving any stat credit having to do with parenting and raising a family. If anything, those stats are looked at in a negative light. Good parenting is an extremely important sector of life, a fact which CoS just sweeps totally under the carpet. In CoS's eyes, the highest stat recognition is reserved for those who give the most to the IAS and/or the Ideal Org fund raisers. The man who gives $100,000 towards the IAS is considered "upstat" where had he spent $100,000 on his child' education, he would be considered downstat. It's really that simple and that one example alone is sufficient to expose the whole fallacy of the managing by stat sytem!!
My last comment is that Van Gogh had he been in CoS would have been placed on the RPF for chronically low stats. Beethoven would have been RPFed and then off loaded for developing a hearing problem because having such a problem proved that he was PTS and PTS people produce overt products. In Beethoven's case I guess his 9 symphonies are all overt products! Go figure!
Lakey
