I can grok that. I went in with the goal of becoming an expert Dianetic auditor so that I could help my friends and family be free of "engrams", "secondaries", "locks" and so on. When I heard there was more, I was willing to look. When I found out that at no point did I feel like the goods were delivered, I left.
It wasn't black and white, with me, though, obviously. I was still interested in the theory of Dianetics, because while it didn't deliver what was promised, it DID deliver valuable things to my friends and family. Of course, the Church destroyed what they could of me and my family, and stripped whatever assets they could find, but this didn't invalidate the actual benefits that were obtained, in my view. Obviously, that's a kettle of fish that there will be lots of disagreement and upset over, but I will stand by what I observed with application amongst my friends and family. No, they did not go "Clear", or achieve "OT". Nobody had eidetic memory or cured illnesses. However, they did have better understanding of themselves, and it actually revolutionized the way we related to each other in a positive way (not the Church, but the results of having had some sessions). So, while I became disgusted by the Church, the theory of Dianetics became MORE interesting to me, rather than less so. Studying it from outside the Church allowed me to find out the origins and sources used by Hubbard, and then perverted for his own financial and domination-ego games. So, yes, you were correct in saying that my understanding of Dn and Scn (and GPMs) is not what Hubbard said. It is my own understanding. And while you may consider it a waste of time, or a delusion, I obviously do not. Many others will probably find a lot of truth and value in what I have written about it. If not, well, I gave it the old college try.
Hubbard is, to me, largely irrelevant, except that I ran into his philosophy and Church before I ran into something more intellectually sound and free of the cultic trappings he created. I wish I had studied Korzybski and Freud more thoroughly in college, instead of so much Kafka and Dostoevsky. Would have saved me the trip down Dianetics lane. I'm certainly not recommending that people sit around saluting Hubbard, or selling Dianetics books. When I explain my understanding of something Hubbard talked about, it's not because I love the man, it's because this was an idea that I found interesting and central to the subject I'd studied, and a concept that I was able to export to normal living. That's the thing I don't understand: I get being angry at the Church, and Hubbard, but I don't understand rejecting ideas that you found to be true and valuable, even if the context they were put in was dangerous and yucky. Perhaps you simply didn't find any concepts that were true and valuable. I did. C'est la vie.