The Phoenix Lectures

[Terril park]

I don't happen to believe him either.

Because when pressed into an answer, he quite frequently starts spewing non-sequiturs.

To wit, he was called on bullshit for claiming that he had done "training". Then through numerous torturous cross-examining, he finally says he did a 3 week course in 40 years. Then when further pressed he offers of OEC/FEBC as proof that he did the TRAINING SIDE of the grade chart that goes up to Class XII.

His logic goes haywire when asked for specifics on more than half the explanations he gives on ESMB.

u only did one 3 week auditor training course (NED) in 40 years. Thus, you did not do the "AUDITOR TRAINING" side of the grade chart, which goes up to Class XII.

You answered it with Scientology gimmicks.

example 1:
You explain that you really did do the auditor training side of the Bridge by responding that you did OEC/FEBC.

​

gimmick(s): Not-Is, Misdirection​

​

​

[SNIP]

You know as well as I that OEC/FEBC is admin not tech
and I stated I was doing admin. Not=ising and misdirection
not to mention a classic straw man argument!

 

[Terril park]

What I don't understand about the FZ is how they can say they use "standard LRH tech" yet they don't seem to use half the stuff Hubbard said is necessary such as Sea Org, disconnection, heavy ethics etc etc. Do they think he got it wrong with these things? If so, why do they not think he got it wrong with the rest of the stuff?

Do the FZ still think the OT levels actually produce any special abilities? Surely they can't believe that scientology can produce OTs if they've read anything about Hubbard's private life?

I mean I can just about understand someone saying that something they did in scientology made them feel better or cured a minor problem they had because many things can have this effect, not just scientology. But I don't see how someone can escape from the mind control of the CofS yet still believe that Hubbard had found a way to produce Clears and OTs.

CO$ has been demonstrating standard tech doesn't always work.

Science sometimes gets things wrong. Why expect Scn
do do better?

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php

POSTED BY EVAN ANDREWS ON MARCH 12, 2010 IN EDUCATION, SCIENCE | 158,892 VIEWS | 195 RESPONSES


"One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated. The following are ten of the most groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable."

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

Originally Posted by Terril Park
You know as well as I that OEC/FEBC is admin not tech
and I stated I was doing admin. Not-ising and misdirection
not to mention a classic straw man argument!

Terill,

Seems you are not understanding at all what is happening on this thread.

You responded to my comment that in 40 years you only did a 3-week auditor training course (NED), failing to do all the auditor training levels on that half of the Grade Chart. You stated that you had also done OEC/FEBC. But, that's not the auditor training side of the Grade Chart.

Now you want to believe that I don't know that the auditor training side of the Grade Chart has auditor training? LOL. [bcolor=#ff0000] I am the one that pointed that out to you! LOL [/bcolor]


If I didn't know you from years of reading your miracle-mongering on ESMB, I would think that you are just trolling or sophistically WordClowning with all the dumb non-response responses you posted on this thread. So, if it isn't trolling, it must be something else. I dare say (in Scientology terms) "inability to duplicate". Or as wogs call it, "learning disability".

Tom Cruise claimed to have handled his learning disability (dyslexia) with Scientology. Yet, he has one of the worst learning disabilities I have ever witnessed. Decades and avalanches of information flooded into his Scn brain, yet he cannot "learn" that his "best friend" David Miscavige is a roaring, violent sociopath, liar, con man and criminal. However, Mr. Cruise continues to give grinning wins on how Scientology works and handled his learning disability. Shocking isn't it, when someone claims wins on something they can't do, right? Kind of like Hubbard sharing his wins and tech on "How To Save Your Marriage", LOL.

Terrell, perhaps when you are reading ESMB in the future, you might want to keep a healthy inventory of clay nearby.

.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

[SNIP]

You know as well as I that OEC/FEBC is admin not tech
and I stated I was doing admin. Not=ising and misdirection
not to mention a classic straw man argument!

The FEBC is a tek course, it's the briefing course ... I suppose you mean the FSEC (eval course) ... ?

Are you really trying to say that you did the OEC/FSEC and the internships in a year?

 

[I told you I was trouble]

The FEBC is a tek course, it's the briefing course ... I suppose you mean the FSEC (eval course) ... ?

Are you really trying to say that you did the OEC/FSEC and the internships in a year?

Or was it called the OEC/DSEC (data series evaluators course)?

Who knows? (Who cares).

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Originally posted by Terril Park
Science sometimes gets things wrong. Why expect Scn do do better?

ANSWER:

1. Because science is only wrong appx. 0.000001 percent of the time and Scientology is wrong 99.99999 percent of the time.​

​

2. Because when science is wrong 1 out of million times, it corrects itself. Because when Scientology is wrong, it attacks, stalks, terrorizes and destroys anyone who mentioned it.​

​

3. Because scientists don't charge you over a half-million dollars for debunked lies.​

​

.​

 

[Bill]

ANSWER:

1. Because science is only wrong appx. 0.000001 percent of the time and Scientology is wrong 99.99999 percent of the time.
​

2. Because when science is wrong 1 out of million times, it corrects itself. Because when Scientology is wrong, it attacks, stalks, terrorizes and destroys anyone who mentioned it.​

​

3. Because scientists don't charge you over a half-million dollars for debunked lies.​

​

.​

4. Science actually accomplishes something.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Am I going (or have I gone) completely mad?



OEC ... Org exec course? (admin)

FEBC ... Flag exec briefing course? (tehhhhhhk)

FSEC ... Flag series evaluator course? (admin ... but I may have made that one up while half asleep, lol)

DSEC ... Data series evaluator course? (admin)

SHSBC ... Saint Hill special briefing course? (tehhhk)

Is it me, Terril (or both of us) who are totally confused?

I'm hoping it's me because that would suggest that I've forgotten all the stupid names for all the pointless culty courses ... but if 'Terril the teehkkkk trader and freezone peddler extraordinaire' is getting them wrong they need to boot him out and get someone else ... or maybe not (evil laugh).

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

There can be lots of comparisons of Scientology to Science but you might as well say knowledge can have mistakes and so can Scientology. Science can be used for good or evil and so can Scientology - now that is getting a little closer to a workable analogy. However, Science is not inherently evil but if LRH's personal intentions behind the creation of Scientology were evil then you can say Scientology is inherently evil and I think it is fair to say that a lot of things LRH did in and with Scientology were pretty darned evil.

So an analogy of Scientology with evil Science can work.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Am I going (or have I gone) completely mad?



FSEC ... Flag series evaluator course? (admin ... but I may have made that one up while half asleep, lol)

DSEC ... Data series evaluator course? (admin)

No, you haven't gone completely mad. You are simply recovering from a very bad hangover from partying too hard in the theta universe.

FSEC (Flag Series Evaluator's Course) appears to be a real course. LRH states in "RON'S JOURNAL 87" that:

"The FSEC is our biggest breakthrough in the history of management technology! Research revealed that all of the orgs in the world were still having severe financial and delivery problems, despite firing back missions to each org that posted full time, Flag trained/interned DSEC graduates. They knew and understood the data series like nobody's business, and they came up with the right WHY and HANDLING 100% of the time. Nonetheless, the stats did not recover. The FSEC course handles the wholetrack reason a being cannot raise their stats, despite knowing the precise WHY the stats were down and the precise HANDLING to make them soar. It is now a HIGH CRIME to allow anyone on an executive post who has not done both the DSEC and the FSEC. Our FSEC pilot has already produced a 600% increase in stats within one week--it is the living lightning of prosperity itself! With only a dozen FSEC graduates on each continent, planetary clearing will become a reality!" -L. Ron Hubbard; RJ 87[sup]©[/sup]​

​

[sup].[/sup]​

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

4. Science actually accomplishes something.

!!! LOL !!!

.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

No, you haven't gone completely mad. You are simply recovering from a very bad hangover from partying too hard in the theta universe.

FSEC (Flag Series Evaluator's Course) appears to be a real course. LRH states in "RON'S JOURNAL 87" that:

"The FSEC is our biggest breakthrough in the history of management technology! Research revealed that all of the orgs in the world were still having severe financial and delivery problems, despite firing back missions to each org that posted full time, Flag trained/interned DSEC graduates. They knew and understood the data series like nobody's business, and they came up with the right WHY and HANDLING 100% of the time. Nonetheless, the stats did not recover. The FSEC course handles the wholetrack reason a being cannot raise their stats, despite knowing the precise WHY the stats were down and the precise HANDLING to make them soar. It is now a HIGH CRIME to allow anyone on an executive post who has not done both the DSEC and the FSEC. Our FSEC pilot has already produced a 600% increase in stats within one week--it is the living lightning of prosperity itself! With only a dozen FSEC graduates on each continent, planetary clearing will become a reality!" -L. Ron Hubbard; RJ 87[sup]©[/sup]​

​

[sup].[/sup]​

I'm never quite sure if you are making stuff up ... but either way it's very funny!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I'm never quite sure if you are making stuff up ... but either way it's very funny!

Well, that's by design. LOL.

I was also not quite sure if I was making it up or not, until I happened to notice the date of Ron's Journal.

,

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

Postscript to my previous post and the lingering mystery of whether I made it up or not.

There is a reason why it's sometimes hard to tell if it's REAL RON or FAKE RON. One thing that makes it seem so REAL is that every legit Scientology policy, bulletin, journal and directive by Dr. Hubbard always contained four basic elements:

1) THE TECH ALWAYS WORKS​

​

2) THOSE WHO DID NOT GET RESULTS ALTERED THE WORKABLE TECH​

​

3) THOSE WHO DELIBERATELY SABOTAGED WORKABLE TECH MUST NOW BE PUNISHED & EXTENSIVELY RE-TRAINED/RE-AUDITED AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE.​

​

4) ONLY RON CAN FIND THE WHY THAT SOMEONE DID NOT GET RESULTS. IF ANYONE ELSE MENTIONS THAT TECH DIDN'T WORK--THEY ARE AN EVIL SQUIRREL/SP. IF RON MENTIONED THAT TECH DIDN'T WORK, IT'S CELEBRATED AS A "DISCOVERY" AND "BREAKTHROUGH"​

There are many subtle clues in that stupid RJ87, but my favorite is that someone trained in "finding the why" and "handling the why" would ALWAYS GET RESULTS. Because if they didn't get results (e.g. stats soaring) they would be able to "find and handle the why". It's just a stupid kind of joke about Scientology that every new miraculous breakthrough fails but Scientologists have even bigger wins upon learning that the reason for the previous failures is now known and easily handled!

So, so, so, so, so easily! LOL

 

[lotus]

Theoriginalbigblue


No, Scientology is like a sociopath being disheartened that they haven't perfected sociopathy yet. They still worry about what other people think about them, they still feel remorse about things, even if it's remorse that they got caught. So they set out to fix themselves and decide that they can make money and mess with people at the same time. The ultimate joy comes from getting people to mess with themselves and other people - now your sociopathy is self sustaining and has it's own inertia, it has become exponential.

Some people think the sociopath made great discoveries incident to this whole process. They are still a bit squeamish with the other bits but decide it's still valuable enough to keep around. The FZ is like Hannibal Lecter followers who love chianti but can't stand liver.

^^^^^^^^^
This




to Big Blue

 

[lotus]

Exaclty,
Either one or the other
It's another bullshit culty course having no value neither any application in the real world..on this planet.

ItoldyouIwasTrouble

Or was it called the OEC/DSEC (data series evaluators course)?

Who knows? (Who cares).

 

[lotus]

I am so sorry to hear this and there may come a day when you will feel bad about it too. Just an FYI. Please use caution.

Right!
But Terril is one of the few ex-CO$ member who still wanna win and help other to win...

Thus Terril, (like many dedicated $cientologists, either very deeply indoctrinated and fooled, or very wise and knowing the knowingness on how to abuse people and their mental integrity with $cientology), has a small ($cientology peddling) program still running in his brain..so he likes to think (and win) that each time someone leaves the cult and he gets them into the FZ..he is saving them...
See??? it's very subtil..he gets them into the Freakzone..thus he saves them from CO$
Terril keeps on going with saving people! He takes responsibility for his 3rd , 4th Dynamics.

In a sense I was successful here
in that I got hundreds of people into the FZ and out of CO$.

 

[Free Being Me]

No, Scientology is like a sociopath being disheartened that they haven't perfected sociopathy yet. They still worry about what other people think about them, they still feel remorse about things, even if it's remorse that they got caught. So they set out to fix themselves and decide that they can make money and mess with people at the same time. The ultimate joy comes from getting people to mess with themselves and other people - now your sociopathy is self sustaining and has it's own inertia, it has become exponential.

Some people think the sociopath made great discoveries incident to this whole process. They are still a bit squeamish with the other bits but decide it's still valuable enough to keep around. The FZ is like Hannibal Lecter followers who love chianti but can't stand liver.

I agree with your post. Perhaps you missed the point of my analogy, which is when someone (in this case Terril) manipulatively tries rebranding a harmful cult ($cientology) with misleading labels to desperately give said cult a false air of academic credibility, or in other words ...

 

[TheOriginalBigBlue]

I agree with your post. Perhaps you missed the point of my analogy, which is when someone (in this case Terril) manipulatively tries rebranding a harmful cult ($cientology) with misleading labels to desperately give said cult a false air of academic credibility, or in other words ...

I got your analogy and I liked it. So, I'm writing more like we are having a casual conversation and my "No" is in reference to Terril's failed positioning attempt and then kind of riding on your post - if that makes any sense.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

There can be lots of comparisons of Scientology to Science but you might as well say knowledge can have mistakes and so can Scientology. Science can be used for good or evil and so can Scientology - now that is getting a little closer to a workable analogy. However, Science is not inherently evil but if LRH's personal intentions behind the creation of Scientology were evil then you can say Scientology is inherently evil and I think it is fair to say that a lot of things LRH did in and with Scientology were pretty darned evil.

So an analogy of Scientology with evil Science can work.

Hmmmmm...

Yes, TOBB, good questions...

L. Ron Hubbard is a most enigmatic fellow.

Is the good in Scientology much like the rainwater covering the tar of LaBrea to quench the thirst of those it kills?

Maybe so but I've found properties to it's rainwater I've not found elsewhere.

Also interesting you say much Elron did was pretty darned evil. That might be just so and most distinctly differentiated from pretty Damned Evil. Time after time charges against him are as full of hot air as DMSMH. e.g. Derek Greene; not a very nice thing to put a four tear old child in a chain locker for two days. But the kid comes out unharmed and if it were a case at law the charge is a misdemeanor; reckless endangerment.

The subject never was for everyone but it can be for anyone. Terril and I have very different relationships with the tech but we both have found much of value in it. He and I both respect serious differences of opinion but each of us shall maintain our own personal integrity