ESMB and The Freezone - let's have it out!

[Dulloldfart]

How disappointing.

But note he did drop the subject, Ems.

Paul

 

[Vinaire]

That is probably the most covert & disgusting posts I've ever read.

Yet some people actually bought it.

I didn't. I actually read it properly.

How disappointing.

Well, Alanzo has his moments... He tends to be a bit black and white, and we have had many exchanges about it... But his good sense of humor more than makes up for it... I am sure he would be able to resolve it ultimately.

.

 

[Vinaire]

They can be starting points for discussion. And have been on other forums.

They are perhaps more than opinions.

They are personal revelations. Very roughly half of these " Success stories"
were not asked for by anyone. None are created in some PR dept anywhere.

I'm suprised at your comments. You have pushed points of view on many threads where you are almost the sole participant. You have promoted Idenics. I have no problems with any of this.

Here is a question. Its popular with some to bash scientology even when practiced in the FZ.

Few bash the offshoots.

I know I'm a target. Makes life interesting.

So here I'll put Alan and Mike Goldstein in the target area.

" Standard tech- is not a process or a series of processes. It is following
the rules of processing."

Those who consider these two non standard speak up now or forever hold their peace.

PS. Please don't report me to FZ forums as I'll be hung drawn and quartered.

I know I have promoted Idenics but that has been different in that it was not planned as some concerted effort. It has been more of a spontaneous thing for me out of enthusiasm.

I can easily let go of any further promotional activity to do with Idenics. Nobody is pushing me. There is no Idenics organization there.

I hope that eases your mind, Terril.

.

 

[Ladybird]

Sorry Ladybird, however in my view, if one is applying $cientology 'tech', no matter what one cares to call it, it's $cientology.

Pixie, you were replying to a poster called "Reasonable Lady". That is not me...I (Ladybird) am not "reasonable" about criminal cults hiding behind front groups, and I totally agree with you..."if one is applying $cientology 'tech', no matter what one cares to call it, it's $cientology."

 

[Reasonable Lady]

That is probably the most covert & disgusting posts I've ever read.

Yet some people actually bought it.

I didn't. I actually read it properly.

How disappointing.

I totally got it and agree that it was nasty and covert.

RL

 

[Mick Wenlock]

I have to admit that, while I despise the pseudo-science/religion that is scientology I am loathe to have rules that shut anyone up. Bear with me

In Scientology (and I guess I should emphasize I am referring to the Davy Navy here) members cannot talk freely, think freely, listen freely to anything that may expose them to something other than the approved rubbish.

Part of getting oneself OUT of that mindset and that programming is being willing to argue and listen to points of view one disagrees with.

There are, believe it or not, people who are out, out, out of Scientology who still think that the "ARC" triangle actually has some merit or that looking a word up in a dictionary is applying study dreck. Only by argumentation and examination does this crap get exposed.

So I guess, in the end, I think that an "ex" board needs to be the opposite of the cult. It needs to be open and disputatious - which it pretty much has been up to now.

While I disagree with Cat's Squirrel I would not wish to see her stop posting or arguing and defending her position.

 

[nexus100]

I have to admit that, while I despise the pseudo-science/religion that is scientology I am loathe to have rules that shut anyone up. Bear with me

In Scientology (and I guess I should emphasize I am referring to the Davy Navy here) members cannot talk freely, think freely, listen freely to anything that may expose them to something other than the approved rubbish.

Part of getting oneself OUT of that mindset and that programming is being willing to argue and listen to points of view one disagrees with.

There are, believe it or not, people who are out, out, out of Scientology who still think that the "ARC" triangle actually has some merit or that looking a word up in a dictionary is applying study dreck. Only by argumentation and examination does this crap get exposed.

So I guess, in the end, I think that an "ex" board needs to be the opposite of the cult. It needs to be open and disputatious - which it pretty much has been up to now.

While I disagree with Cat's Squirrel I would not wish to see her stop posting or arguing and defending her position.

First off, Cat's Squirrel has stated that he is a fella-although no doubt a really really cute one with stunning eyelashes.

I agree with the non censorship of opposing views, for the reasons Mike stated above. We all have censorship within us. Fighting off the urge (which believe me I have not conquered) is a pretty big step out of the COS and onto the road of real growth, in my opinion. Not making others wrong (except as pure choice as part of the game, therefore to a degree with the other's permission) and being willing to be wrong oneself (which is simply willing to be the other viewpoint) are easy to say, not so easy to accomplish. But to do that it helps to have a bunch of viewpoints, intelligent ones, of people who have thought out their position and are living it. The initial lesson is that one can be a viewpoint without becoming it, I guess. Maybe when one is there one leaves the board because it has served its purpose. But that is a pretty big purpose.

 

[Reasonable Lady]

I have to admit that, while I despise the pseudo-science/religion that is scientology I am loathe to have rules that shut anyone up. Bear with me

In Scientology (and I guess I should emphasize I am referring to the Davy Navy here) members cannot talk freely, think freely, listen freely to anything that may expose them to something other than the approved rubbish.

Part of getting oneself OUT of that mindset and that programming is being willing to argue and listen to points of view one disagrees with.

There are, believe it or not, people who are out, out, out of Scientology who still think that the "ARC" triangle actually has some merit or that looking a word up in a dictionary is applying study dreck. Only by argumentation and examination does this crap get exposed.

So I guess, in the end, I think that an "ex" board needs to be the opposite of the cult. It needs to be open and disputatious - which it pretty much has been up to now.

While I disagree with Cat's Squirrel I would not wish to see her stop posting or arguing and defending her position.

Excellent point. One of the main reasons that I left the church was its total lack of tolerance. If a friend or family member did not like or believe the Scn dogma, one HAD to get that person to change his or her mind or disconnect from that person. No live and let live. The church also instilled the belief in its members that it was their DUTY to destroy percieved enemies. Civil discourse? No way!

RL

 

[nexus100]

One of the definitions of "madness" is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

When I left in 1977 - it was because since 1968 and oft times earlier I was being made to do the same things over and over again.

Since that time I have pursued what is above the narrow view of the world that LRH and Scio had.

Just recently I completed the Games Matrix Procedure - guess what - there is no need for most of the unusual solutions of Scio.

I'm still coming to grips with the changes......

Scio helped run out some darkside aspects........but at the price of minimizing the lightside of a being.

To properly run a Games Matrix Package requires all levels of Tech.......most are not part of Scio.

Every major item contains the equivalent of a 53R (Positive/Negative) Correction list - thus the client has to be fairly subject literate. As well as life literate.

A Games Matrix Package is connected to and spans all levels of existence Spirit, Mind, Body and Environment.

Yet its purpose is to inhibit the Beings power.

It will not run unless run from present time - but all Games contain oppositions and thus float in PT.

It will not run if there is any form of Cultism.

Scio is in actuality modelled on an operating Games Matrix format. As are most Cults.

The mechanics of a creation are almost all the same........it is the sequence, content and intentions that are different.

Paradox, BH and others have observed some of the top parts of the Games Matrices.

BTW it has taken me 52 years to complete this.......

My take is if the intent is to go all the way - then it does not matter what you study and run........it will turn out okay.

The only thing is to Be - Do - and Have what you love to be - do - and have - stay true to your own wants, own interests, and own goals - as you erase the charge and wrong answers and items you will connect to more and more beings with the same or similar wants, interests and goals.

Two of my best clients did RonsOrg stuff 20 years ago........they got a lot out of it........it missed a lot......but it was very easy to correct.

Alan

Congratulations Alan! And thanks for the information.

 

[Vinaire]

I have to admit that, while I despise the pseudo-science/religion that is scientology I am loathe to have rules that shut anyone up. Bear with me

In Scientology (and I guess I should emphasize I am referring to the Davy Navy here) members cannot talk freely, think freely, listen freely to anything that may expose them to something other than the approved rubbish.

Part of getting oneself OUT of that mindset and that programming is being willing to argue and listen to points of view one disagrees with.

There are, believe it or not, people who are out, out, out of Scientology who still think that the "ARC" triangle actually has some merit or that looking a word up in a dictionary is applying study dreck. Only by argumentation and examination does this crap get exposed.

So I guess, in the end, I think that an "ex" board needs to be the opposite of the cult. It needs to be open and disputatious - which it pretty much has been up to now.

While I disagree with Cat's Squirrel I would not wish to see her stop posting or arguing and defending her position.

I looked up words in a dictionary while studying before I knew about Scientology. Aren't you being a bit extreme here Mick because of some experience you've had?

.

 

[nexus100]

I looked up words in a dictionary while studying before I knew about Scientology. Aren't you being a bit extreme here Mick because of some experience you've had?

.

Mention word-clearing and Vinaire is there. Like a genie in a bottle, rub a little Method One on it, and poof!

 

[Zander]

I looked up words in a dictionary while studying before I knew about Scientology. Aren't you being a bit extreme here Mick because of some experience you've had?

.

I think that's what he said Vinaire, that looking up words in a dictionary does not make it study dreck.

About your 'some experience' comment that sounds like some other kind of dreck but I'd better let Mick answer that one

Zander

 

[Mick Wenlock]

I looked up words in a dictionary while studying before I knew about Scientology. Aren't you being a bit extreme here Mick because of some experience you've had?

.

No. Of course that is a comfort explanation for yourself Vinaire.

Extreme in what way? The ARC Triangle is, of course, a bunch of rubbish. Study dreck is just another attempt to control people by continuous invalidation.

Hubbard could not study, he could not conduct studies and he could not evaluate data. I doubt, seriously, he could have found his arse with two hands and a hunting dog.

 

[Alanzo]

I looked up words in a dictionary while studying before I knew about Scientology. Aren't you being a bit extreme here Mick because of some experience you've had?

.

Are you saying that Mick's statement or argument is false?

Or not?

I can't tell, because you brought his "case" into it again. That's an ad hominem fallacy. Haven't you learned that one yet?

A person's statements are not false because of the experiences they have had, they are false because they are false.

Show why Mick's statement is false.

Bet you can't.

Again.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

The post quoted below imo states succinctly the core and most important argument against the promotion and proselytizing of "tech" outside COS by Freezoners and other non-COS scientologists, whatever they happen to be calling themselves today. I've made some minor changes in red.



I too am an advocate of free speech -- let everyone have their say, pass over or ignore the parts you don't like in the same way you can change the TV channel from a program you dislike. Generally I favor uncensored/ unmoderated forums, though I recognize that irl this is often not practical as a few trolls and unsympathetic idiots can destroy a useful and needed forum.



Or, here's a thought for the scientologists: just READ and LEARN instead of jumping in to defend scientology or further upset or try to "fix" (by applying MORE scientology) someone who has found their way out and needs to vent.

I know that's a lot to ask since to a scientologist, scientology is the answer to eeevvveryyyything! even upsets with or about scientology... but try it, you might learn something.

For the scientologists on the board:



An EXCELLENT question, that the scientologists here SHOULD ASK THEMSELVES!

(Oh, excuse me, I guess that might be a LISTING question, or it might INTROVERT someone...golly gee whiz!)



I'd also like to hear from the scientologists just how that works.

I've said before that pushing scientology on a forum for EX-scientologists who are helping each other through the process of recovering from their encounter/ experience with scientology is akin to offering fruity alcoholic drinks to people attending an AA meeting, all the while telling them it will make them feel better.

It's sleazy. It's nasty. It's cruel. It reeks of a total disregard for the welfare and well being of the people who come here seeking understanding and healing. The proselytizing predators creeping around here looking for prey undermine the safety of this meeting place.

I wish they'd go away.

Arguing with them about the validity of scientology or the bits and pieces of scientology won't shut them up or make them go away (they're the scientologists, the enlightened ones, you're not -- get it?).

Ignoring them might make them go away, except that without any resistance they may flock here to this safe space and take over (the manifest destiny of scientology, don't you know?) by starting innumberable threads all about the wonderfulness of scientology in all its official and unofficial forms, thus making this space UNsafe for true EX-scientologists.

So when you've had enough, just tell them to STFU about "the tech" and/or to bug off and find their own forum. No need to be "nice" to people who intend to do you harm.

I don't intend to do anyone harm. I don't think that other non CofS Scn'ists here do, either. Also, yes, one does have to be, if not nice, at least civil to others because this board has ROCs. As do other forums on which you participate.

Even the proselytizers don't intend harm- they just are proselytizing. I hasten to add that I don't think they should do that on critical forums. However, I don't think that the difference between people who are just being candid about their interests and affiliations without telling others to try those things and people who ARE telling people to try those things is understood by a number of people. To those people, I'd say grow up. This is a global village. People of different beliefs, etc, living side by side.

A lot of non CofS Scn'ists come here to find out what the cult is doing, to criticize the cult and even to find out what happened to friends they used to know in the cult- same as with ex Scn'ists.

However, maybe you're right. We should wear armbands with yellow Fs, drink out of separate fountains, be curtailed in where we can visit on the internet (didn't CofS try that??) and have our every action, thought, word and deed ratified by a super committee. I mean, this society has freedom of speech, worship, etc, but really, it shouldn't- right?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I can't speak for others, but I've had messages of support from people here who enjoy my posts on ESMB.

Maybe those who feel otherwise should pm me as well, so I could get a better idea of where I stand here.

So've I. On this forum and on other ones, too. And not just by Scn'ists, either.

I go to a critic's party every year where I'm just about always the only non CofS Scn'ist. And you know what? Not one of those people, even though they know exactly what I think, feels threatened or angered by my presence. Of course, that's partly cuz I'm not into convert making...

But then again, some people are able to live side by side with others of differing beliefs and some can't.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I was responding to Alanzo.

You PM fluffy.

Goodnight and good luck.

If he pms me, I'll never see it, though.

 

[Vinaire]

Are you saying that Mick's statement or argument is false?

Or not?

I can't tell, because you brought his "case" into it again. That's an ad hominem fallacy. Haven't you learned that one yet?

A person's statements are not false because of the experiences they have had, they are false because they are false.

Show why Mick's statement is false.

Bet you can't.

Again.

Here comes the logician... Logic can be taken to extreme to look absurd.

All I am saying is that a truth that existed outside of Scientology still remains the same truth when used inside Scientology. An intelligent person will look at the truth and not be distracted by the wrapping.

In my view, Scientology is more than just wrapping. It may contain a house of mirrors, but it also has a useful organization of data.

.

 

[Terril park]

I know I have promoted Idenics but that has been different in that it was not planned as some concerted effort. It has been more of a spontaneous thing for me out of enthusiasm.

I can easily let go of any further promotional activity to do with Idenics. Nobody is pushing me. There is no Idenics organization there.

I hope that eases your mind, Terril.

.

Well done on your studies. I have no problem with you or others promoting idenics. I was impressed with Mike's original posts on his experiences from
years ago. I'd be interested in seeing success stories if they are given or asked for.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Here comes the logician... Logic can be taken to extreme to look absurd.

All I am saying is that a truth that existed outside of Scientology still remains the same truth when used inside Scientology. An intelligent person will look at the truth and not be distracted by the wrapping.

Jeez Vin - we agree. Hold the phones! Stop the presses!

Yes, indeed, looking a word up in a dictionary is a good thing - but it ain't "study tech" And, indeed, in Study Dreck one does not merely "look up the word" there is a whole bunch of other crap that goes along with it.

Separating out the truth that existed before Hubbard's "codifications" and the toxic stew of his "research" is a path on the way out of the cult mindset.

In my view, Scientology is more than just wrapping. It may contain a house of mirrors, but it also has a useful organization of data.

.

well I guess we just have to agree to disagree, seems to me that this is going to come down to preferences.