Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
It has not been derailed. Threads segue. If people want to talk about cult characteristics, then that's fine.
Marty Rathbun
- Thread starter Terril park
- Start date
Gadfly
Crusader
What!!!!!???? You don't agree that Marty Rathbun is a valid and extremely worthwhile topic of discussion?
giggle, hee-hee-hee, sarcasm ad infinitum
programmer_guy
True Ex-Scientologist
Exactly! Very true.
OperatingDonkeyIV
Patron with Honors
I think we shall get Marty to come here in person and explain himself and his plans, and whom he has chosen to become Voltaire's child, the highest level in the Freezone!
Shall we? Actually, Marty's already been here, made 2 posts and left. I doubt what he had to say there would answer anyone's questions, but, he is still a 'member', even if silent.
But then, I guess you were probably more interested in taking a jab at Fluffy than anything to do with Marty anyway...
Zinj
grinder
Patron
"taking a jab at Fluffy"? That sounds sexual zinjifar!
Fuffy and the (operating) Donkey (IV)!!!
But then she does say that threads take a turn.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
2000 years of western history disagree with you.
Afterall it was christianity that "wrote the book" on brainwashing & cult indoctrination. Fortunately for those of us who are alive in the west at present, secular humanism has greatly diminished the role that christian churches have historically played, especially in the political sphere. The more "ardent" faith-believers however have been mounting something of a "counter-counter-reformation" for the last 30 years and are once more becoming a troublesome political faction in the west.
Mark A. Baker
Veda
Sponsor
2000 years of western history disagree with you.
"The Presbyterian Church down the street is not a destructive cult, Scientology is," is an accurate statement. "2000 years of western history" does not change the fact that, "the Presbyterian Church down the street is not a destructive cult."
Please exert some control over your Scientology PR man dancing feet. You're embarrassing yourself.
I think this proves my point! You need Xenu and/or his implantology levels to justify your version of the FZ.
Without Xenu there would be no R6, no OT2, no OT3, no BT's, no "case gain", no fraud, no abuses, no RPF, no enforced abortions, no confidential FZ, no "upper levels".
The fact that you can do some of these things while "not-ising" Xenu is dancing on the head of a pin, something that Ron taught all scientologists to do well.
Ron was an out-ruds PC (admitted by key FZers on here) who was paranoid and psychotic. He figure-figured and intuited the GPM's, implants and BT's to justify and explain his poor case state and to feed his paranoia. Even in scn terms this is gross out-tech Q&A with the PC. For you, Terril, to follow Ron's case squirrelling while not-ising his sci-fi explanation is simply a Q&A from standard Grade 0 to 4 tech.
Of course you think you get case gain, otherwise you wouldn't do or promote the squirrel version of Ron's own squirrelling.
Hence not-ised or not, you need Xenu and all the implantology hall of mirrors.
Exactly. Also, if there is no Xenu, there is nothing to "handle" on the implantology levels (R6 to NOTs) that is in our road to having Ron's promised godlike powers. Take away Xenu and the galactic implantology plot and it follows the godlike powers that Ron's left hand path magic promised must also be false.
Scientologists need either a) both Ron and Xenu or b) Scientology minus Ron and implantology levels minus Xenu. The latter is Terril's version of the scientology FZ the former versions of scientology are the CofS, Ron's Ogres and some versions of the FZ.
Terril, in your meeting with Marty, did you ask him or get a feeling for whether or not he believed the Xenu and implant sci-fi story?
Terril, while I don't doubt your intentions - they are clearly pro some squirrel version of scientology and implantology, well intentioned, because you believe in the efficacy of implantology - I do think you need to re-evaluate your observation and your judgement. This may come as a surprise to you, based upon your opinion of your own judgement.
I suggest you take a humilty and judgement rundown if your squirrel-scientology provides one.
Never made a wrong judgement about a person or can't remember one. Come on, give me a break!
In personal meetings with you, I have seen you completely fail to observe the reactions of about 20 ex-scns and anons, completely fail to judge their opinion of you. I have seen you completely mis-judge two exes with whom you were in conversation. Completely confuse and fail to notice the confusion you caused in a raw-meat non-protestor, to whom you promoted the so-called free-zone.
From my observation of you, you have a habit of assuming things about people, rather than observing them.
Based upon my in real life observation of you, I'm afraid I cannot trust your judgement of Mr Rathburn.
I also note your symbiotic relationship with him. Do you think this could influence your opinion of him in any way at all?
degraded being
Sponsor
Terill quote:
"I can't actually remember any time I made a very wrong judgement about a person."
It is again time for me to say (sarcastically):
Now why doesn't that surprise me???
"I can't actually remember any time I made a very wrong judgement about a person."
It is again time for me to say (sarcastically):
Now why doesn't that surprise me???
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Quite frankly V, you are incapable of interpreting the post of any person who is remotely "pro-tech" in light of ANYTHING which is not "scientology". You are obsessive about this and routinely twist the meanings of other people's posts in your responses in order to fit your own warped outlook.
It's unhealthy. Consider getting treated for this.
Mark A. Baker
OperatingDonkeyIV
Patron with Honors
T
TheSneakster
Guest
"All that is seen through lenses of Hate, is distorted beyond recognition." - Me
Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous. I *do* forgive.
Veda
Sponsor
L. Ron Hubbard explains Scientology's "Human Rights" angle in Ron's Journal 68:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=349810&postcount=12
L. Ron Hubbard explains how to use propaganda in the HCOPL 'Battle Tactics' of 16 February 1969:
"The only safe public opinion to head for is they love us and are in a frenzy of hate against the enemy, that means standard wartime propaganda is what one is doing... Know the mores of your public opinion, what they hate. [In this case, 'public opinion' 'hates' hate, as in 'hate crime', etc.] That's the enemy. What they love. That's you."
And another piece of Scientology tech, from Hubbard's 'Black Propaganda' of 12 January 1972:
"The objective is to be identified as attackers of popularly considered evils. This declassifies us from former labels. It reclassifies our attackers as evil people."
The 'PR tech' thread:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1911
The concern, and it's not an unreasonable one, is that, if outside the 'Church' Scientologists use Hubbard's slippery manipulation techniques, what other unwholesome Hubbard Scientology practices might be used?
Additionally troublesome is that some people, with prior indoctrination in Scientology, appear to use these practices unconsciously.
Do you know what you are doing, and what you are using, when you - here - accuse another of "Hate" ?
I've noticed over and over again on ESMB, since it started, that critics are accused of "hate" by apologists for Hubbard and/or scientology.
This tactic of accusation of "hate" is pure Hubbard PR tech, just as Veda has pointed out.
One should recognise the use of Hubbardology for what it is, no matter the source.
Unfortunately, like Veda has said, this hate accusation tactic often seems automatic by the tech apologists. Scientology and Hubbard's words in particular, seems to install an A=A of criticism="hate". This stems from Hubbard's own paranoia where he believed he was opposed and hated. Boy he should have got his Grades in!
Instead of messing with the invention of GPMs and implants.
Scientology forbids criticism and equates it with O/W's and suppressive characteristics. It seems some FZers and Indies haven't learned the error of this piece of "tech"!
Hubbard's view of criticism stemming from "hate" is immature and unsophisticated.
This tactic of accusation of "hate" is pure Hubbard PR tech, just as Veda has pointed out.
One should recognise the use of Hubbardology for what it is, no matter the source.
Unfortunately, like Veda has said, this hate accusation tactic often seems automatic by the tech apologists. Scientology and Hubbard's words in particular, seems to install an A=A of criticism="hate". This stems from Hubbard's own paranoia where he believed he was opposed and hated. Boy he should have got his Grades in!
Instead of messing with the invention of GPMs and implants.Scientology forbids criticism and equates it with O/W's and suppressive characteristics. It seems some FZers and Indies haven't learned the error of this piece of "tech"!
Hubbard's view of criticism stemming from "hate" is immature and unsophisticated.
Last edited:
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
I've noticed over and over again on ESMB, since it started, that critics are accused of "hate" by apologists for Hubbard and/or scientology.
This tactic of accusation of "hate" is pure Hubbard PR tech, just as Veda has pointed out.
One should recognise the use of Hubbardology for what it is, no matter the source.
Unfortunately, like Veda has said, this hate accusation tactic often seems automatic by the tech apologists. Scientology and Hubbard's words in particular, seems to install an A=A of criticism="hate". This stems from Hubbard's own paranoia where he believed he was opposed and hated. Boy he should have got his Grades in!
Scientology forbids criticism and equates it with O/W's and suppressive characteristics. It seems some FZers and Indies haven't learned the error of this piece of "tech"!
Hubbard's view of criticism stemming from "hate" is immature and unsophisticated.
Before posting this apologetic did you bother to examine my post? The one which had prompted V's latest excursion into one of his customary off-subject delusional attacks? Or are you simply issuing a "knee jerk" defense of a "fellow traveler"? Be careful of that you seek to justify.
Critics are justly accused of "hate" when a lack of reason fails to justify their "arguments". There is much within scientology that can be reasonably critiqued. However, personal calumny or vitriol do not qualify as reason.
The routine resort to personal attacks, as is V's custom, is either deliberately malicious behavior or evidence of compulsive irrationality on his part. All the more so in that his comments are logically disjoint from the posts to which he responds.
Mark A. Baker
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
People are generally only accused of hate when they indicate or strongly manifest such an emotion. When they don't, they aren't.
It reminds me of my early days on a.r.s. One thing I did not do was accuse people of being bigots, but there were Ronbot OSA types who routinely did so on that forum. So periodically, some critic would tell me that I did it all the time. Why? Because that's what they expected to see, and that's what they saw.
When it comes to FZers, Independents and indie Scn'ists, there are those who see them through a glass darkly.
It reminds me of my early days on a.r.s. One thing I did not do was accuse people of being bigots, but there were Ronbot OSA types who routinely did so on that forum. So periodically, some critic would tell me that I did it all the time. Why? Because that's what they expected to see, and that's what they saw.
When it comes to FZers, Independents and indie Scn'ists, there are those who see them through a glass darkly.
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Nope. (But I should put in the disclaimer: Excluding CofS)
Similar threads
