What's new

Not all the way "out" yet. My views and introduction

Vinaire

Sponsor
Any religion, if closely examined, falls apart.

There is no one "true" religion.

The question is, what does it do for the people who follow it?

Scientology, without the Sea Org, without enforced abortions, enforced disconnections, without an over-arching authoritarian structure, without bankrupting pricing, is very different from the Church of Scientology.

Scientology delivered like that gives a person a place to go to unburden himself, to seek redemption, and to find things he can do to improve his life in his own estimation. It has been proven over the years that Scientology can be delivered this way, because it HAS been delivered this way.

The militant minority on this board who would seek the power to take that away from people simply do not live in the real world. They live in their own version of the Church of Scientology and seek to dictate what people can think and believe.

Their vengeful crusade to destroy the Church of Scientology has turned them into foaming idiots over the years. Instead of learning and growing as exes, they have continued to feed their own fevered retribution. They are now pinheaded fanatics, who have simply come to occupy the other side of the same coin.

They can not stand unchallenged in any group that actually values the freedom of thought, and the right to one's own religion.

I approve of this conversion in Alanzo.

His logic is sound and penetrating.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I think that the militant minority is much more provocative (while being idiotic) than anybody else on this board.

They have no tolerance in their heart, though they talk about fawning love... those beautiful vibrations... big heart and what not...

My foot! :whistling: Double-faced theety-weeties...

.
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
I think that the militant minority is much more provocative (while being idiotic) than anybody else on this board.

They have no tolerance in their heart, though they talk about fawning love... those beautiful vibrations... big heart and what not...

My foot! :whistling: Double-faced theety-weeties...

.

Who are these people? Ad hom is ad hom, even if generalised. Why not be specific and name the individuals instead of this "they"? Why hide your criticism behind a generalised "they"?

Meanwhile. anybody got any evidence that OTII to NOTS came from anyone else than LRH and anywhere else than from his supposed evaluation of his own case?
 

Veda

Sponsor
Urgh! I thought you were going to post more moderately this time. Until the last half of your post Alanzo.

I realise you are being deliberately provocative, but generalised Hubbardesque descriptions of critics, are uncalled for. They are in effect worse than an ad hom because they are non-specific. So I repeat, name these individuals on ESMB that you are categorising in this way.

Meanwhile, we were talking about whether the Upper Levels have Hubbard as the source.

Does anybody have any evidence that anyone else than Hubbard developed Scn's confidentail levels OTII to NOTs? Anybody goty any evidence that they did not come from Hubbard's running of his supposed case?

I'm sure some people do. Hubbard was the guru and planetary savior, and others were pleased to assist him; he'd tell others things, such as "a cold blooded and factual account of [their] last sixty trillion years," and it would percolate for a while, and then he'd have others do research auditing, usually concerning some implant incident that Hubbard had already described, then the persons doing the research, who were - let's face it - very much under Hubbard's influence at the time, (including David Mayo in 1978/79) would come up with this or that, and Hubbard would add it to his "stuff," modify it, shape it, add a few hooks, and sell it.

And it might be actual or it might not, it might be genuine memory or it might be imagination prompted by guru Hubbard, but whatever it was, it was not MINE (or not YOURS) it was someone else's, and it doesn't matter to me if the content that I'm being told IS in my mind, or in my space, is Hubbard's or not. It's not my mind or in my space.

If Hubbard derived the name Xenu/Xemu from a comic book cover, then it doesn't make the silliness not silly if the originator was Dell Comics.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Anyone who would seek to do anything more than eradicating the abuse of the rights of those who call themselves Scientologists would fall into this category.

So does the shoe fit, Lionheart?

Then wear it.
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm sure some people do. Hubbard was the guru and planetary savior, and others were pleased to assist him; he'd tell others things, such as "a cold blooded and factual account of [their] last sixty trillion years," and it would percolate for a while, and then he'd have others do research auditing, usually concerning some implant incident that Hubbard had already described, then the persons doing the research, who were - let's face it - very much under Hubbard's influence at the time, (including David Mayo in 1978/79) would come up with this or that, and Hubbard would add it to his "stuff," modify it, shape it, add a few hooks, and sell it.

And it might be actual or it might not, it might be genuine memory or it might be imagination prompted by guru Hubbard, but whatever it was, it was MINE (or YOURS) it was someone else's, and it doesn't matter to me if the content that I'm being told IS in my mind, or in my space, is Hubbard's or not. It's not my mind or in my space.

If Hubbard derived the name Xenu/Xemu from a comic book cover, then it doesn't make the silliness not silly if the originator was Dell Comics.

I agree with you, but even more specifically, apart form the guru "suggestions" about past lives, space opera, etc. Is is not correct that specifically the OTII implants, OTIII BT's Inc1 & Inc2 came directly from LRH (his solo "research" and publication) before anybody else ran them as part of any so-called research?

Then we know NOTs came from Mayo's Q&A with an ill and poor case-shape LRH, although there may have been some subsequent research sessions on others. But the NOT's entity thing cam from Hubbard.

Earlier before Alanzo's ad hom diversion, Mark was asserting that LRH wasn't the source of the tech, therefore even if LRH was nuts, the tech has validity because it came from other people's research.

I am trying to find any concrete evidence to counter my assertion that OTII to NOTs came directly from LRH's so-called research.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Anyone who would seek to do anything more than eradicating the abuse of the rights of those who call themselves Scientologists would fall into this category.

So does the shoe fit, Lionheart?

Then wear it.

I would want to see the prosecution of the organization; the seizure of its assets; the opening of all its records and the punishment of all crimes committed in the name or by the leadership of the 'Church'.

Zinj
 

Veda

Sponsor
I agree with you, but even more specifically, apart form the guru "suggestions" about past lives, space opera, etc. Is is not correct that specifically the OTII implants, OTIII BT's Inc1 & Inc2 came directly from LRH (his solo "research" and publication) before anybody else ran them as part of any so-called research?

Then we know NOTs came from Mayo's Q&A with an ill and poor case-shape LRH, although there may have been some subsequent research sessions on others. But the NOT's entity thing cam from Hubbard.

Earlier before Alanzo's ad hom diversion, Mark was asserting that LRH wasn't the source of the tech, therefore even if LRH was nuts, the tech has validity because it came from other people's research.

I am trying to find any concrete evidence to counter my assertion that OTII to NOTs came directly from LRH's so-called research.

Both the "Clearing Course" and "OT 2" contain dichotomies, as a kind of skeleton upon which the rest of the significance is attached. Sometimes these dichotomies make sense. There has to be some sense in it for it to stick or have an effect on the person. Even some of the phenomena of "OT 3" have to have some "other than Hubbard" existence, in some way or other, to some extent. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an effective trap.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=77478&postcount=14
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I would want to see the prosecution of the organization; the seizure of its assets; the opening of all its records and the punishment of all crimes committed in the name or by the leadership of the 'Church'.

Zinj

Me, too.

Since you say that Scientology is "inherently destructive", what about the future regulation of the practice of Scientology after that?
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
Anyone who would seek to do anything more than eradicating the abuse of the rights of those who call themselves Scientologists would fall into this category.

So does the shoe fit, Lionheart?

Then wear it.

No it doesn't. Thanks for asking.

Why did you interject your generalised ad hom into this fairly polite, well-tempered discussion about the source of Scn tech. Who were you directing your nasty abusive language to? Or what post were you responding to?

It is possible to discuss the tech in and outside the CofS in quite strong terms without militancy, coming into the equation. Your interjection and accusations were out of place in this discussion.

Your own opinion of the tech as regards its abusive hypnotic aspects has been fairly stridant in the past, but it is your right to hold such views. But that doesn't make you guilty any of those abusive comments you directed to who knows who a few posts ago.

I think you were responding to somebody's posts, and generalising your abusive langauage to nobody in particular is disengenuous and makes it no less an ad hom. It is more a cowardly way of criticising without naming. Replying to a message without quoting it and in generalised terms so as not to be appearing to be directing it to the person in particular, makes it no less an ad hom attack. Hopefully the moderators will see through your little game.

An ad hom attack is still an ad hom even if you generalise it to try and hide the attack.

It's no better than Ron's dirty little games that he played against his critics and is not worthy of you. Were you bored today and thought you would try to stir up a row, for entertainment?

So anybody got any evidence that LRH was not the source for the confidential upper levels of Scn?
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I think that the militant minority is much more provocative (while being idiotic) than anybody else on this board.

They have no tolerance in their heart, though they talk about fawning love... those beautiful vibrations... big heart and what not...

My foot! :whistling: Double-faced theety-weeties...

.

The most important part of love is seeing things as they are.

If something is bad then call it "bad". If something is good call it "good."

To be biased is not only being irrational, it also goes against love.

It is idiotic as well as rude.

Not everything is bad about Scientology. Abuse is bad as Alanzo has correctly pointed out and nobody disagrees with that. Scientology technology also has its bad spots, especially where it is put together from a controlling viewpoint. But don't tell me there are no good spots in Scientology and that some of it cannot be used beneficially by good intentioned people.

Those who repeatedly and endlessly talk how bad Scientology is or that it should be totally eliminated from the face of the earth are simply biased. They are idiotic and rude... not only cowardly militant.

.
 
Last edited:

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
The most important part of love is seeing things as they are.

If something is bad then call it "bad". If something is good call it "good."

To be biased is not only being irrational, it also goes against love.

It is idiotic as well as rude.

Not everything is bad about Scientology. Abuse is bad as Alanzo has correctly pointed out and nobody disagrees with that. Scientology technology also has its bad spots, especially where it is put together from a controlling viewpoint. But don't tell me there are no good spots in Scientology and that some of it cannot be used beneficially by good intentioned people.

Those who repeatedly and endlessly talk how bad Scientology is and that it should be totally eliminated from the face of the earth are simply biased. They are idiotic and rude... not only cowardly militant.

.

Please define 'totally eliminated from the face of the Earth'

I haven't seen anyone suggesting that Scientology books, tapes etc. should be destroyed. I haven't seen anyone suggesting that people should be prevented from 'practicing' Scientology, except for the obviously illegal and abusive elements.

Yes, the organization should be dismantled. Yes; any organization that operates on the full set of Scientology principles should be prosecuted.

Smallpox isn't *all* bad.

Zinj
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
... Yes; any organization that operates on the full set of Scientology principles should be prosecuted.

Zinj

Since the other militants have slunk back into their cesspools, it looks like you're the only one left to defend outlawing the practice of Scientology for people who have the right to the freedom of religion.

So...I think we agree that crimes should not be committed.

Like Amway was prosecuted for misrepresentation, and made to disclose factual statistical numbers whenever they signed up a new distributor, I can see that Scientology should be given similar disclosures and other safeguards on which to operate when they sell their services in the future.

And those religious beliefs that are clearly against the law, like Fair Game and using lawsuits to harass, not to win, are clearly against the law and should be prohibited from being taught.

Would you allow sec-checking, Zinj?

Or the Purif?
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
So then, the continued practice of Scientology, after all the legal actions have been completed, without the present abuses, is fine with you.

Is that right?

Many elements of the Scientology Practice are inherently abusive. 'Complete' Scientology; that is, Scientology as created, designed and insisted upon by L. Ron Hubbard is inherently abusive. Some of the abuse rises to the level of criminality; the entirety is criminal because some elements are criminal.

Some abuse is allowed in our culture/society. Some is not.

A Scientology organization as designed by Hubbard would be inherently abusive.

Zinj
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Many elements of the Scientology Practice are inherently abusive. 'Complete' Scientology; that is, Scientology as created, designed and insisted upon by L. Ron Hubbard is inherently abusive. Some of the abuse rises to the level of criminality; the entirety is criminal because some elements are criminal.

Some abuse is allowed in our culture/society. Some is not.

A Scientology organization as designed by Hubbard would be inherently abusive.

Zinj

So I'm reading that as a "yes" - the continued non-abusive practice of Scientology would be fine with you.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Please define 'totally eliminated from the face of the Earth'

I haven't seen anyone suggesting that Scientology books, tapes etc. should be destroyed. I haven't seen anyone suggesting that people should be prevented from 'practicing' Scientology, except for the obviously illegal and abusive elements.

Yes, the organization should be dismantled. Yes; any organization that operates on the full set of Scientology principles should be prosecuted.

Smallpox isn't *all* bad.

Zinj

Tell me one good thing about Scientology.

.
 
Top