Well I can say 90% of my training up to Class VIII, FEBC, was directly under LRH.
Roughly 85% of my processing was directly C/Sed by LRH.
Even as an FCCI at flag in the early days my case was C/Sed by LRH.
I can tell you that nothing I've seen since then even remotely compares to that standard.
Even including all of that there were huge gaps in the Tech and Management.
Simply put the Tech and Policy was slanted to keep LRH in control and to dominate.
Alan
Excuse me, Veda. He's not playing any "mind games".
A Scientology process produces or does not produce movement on the tone scale, meter phenomena and/or Tone arm Action (TA) regardless of whether Ron Hubbard, Sigmund Freud, B.F. Skinner or anyone else authored it.
I have given Locational Processing (command "Look at that <object>" with finger pointing to the object named) to infants in daycare that were crying hysterically due to mother not being there (not wet nappies or no bottle) and uniformly brought every one of them upon which I used this bit of Scientology tech out of it up to baby smiling and making happy noises.
These infants could not possibly know who authored the Locational Process or any of Hubbard's theory as to why it is supposed to work, and yet it did work when I applied it.
Of course, you may always call me a liar or something; but that's how it was.
Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous
"Ron" is interwoven into "Scientology," per design.
Berating a former Sea Org member, essentially, for having been a Sea Org member, is not the way to go. .
Suggesting that Scientology has nothing to do with Hubbard is dishonest, and in this case - yes - a "mind game."
And Scientology divorced from Hubbard, and from the dark side that he placed there, would no longer be Scientology, but another subject.
I have given Locational Processing (command "Look at that <object>" with finger pointing to the object named) to infants in daycare that were crying hysterically due to mother not being there (not wet nappies or no bottle) and uniformly brought every one of them upon which I used this bit of Scientology tech out of it up to baby smiling and making happy noises.
These infants could not possibly know who authored the Locational Process or any of Hubbard's theory as to why it is supposed to work, and yet it did work when I applied it.
Of course, you may always call me a liar or something; but that's how it was.
Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous
Excuse me, Veda. He's not playing any "mind games".
A Scientology process produces or does not produce movement on the tone scale, meter phenomena and/or Tone arm Action (TA) regardless of whether Ron Hubbard, Sigmund Freud, B.F. Skinner or anyone else authored it.
I have given Locational Processing (command "Look at that <object>" with finger pointing to the object named) to infants in daycare that were crying hysterically due to mother not being there (not wet nappies or no bottle) and uniformly brought every one of them upon which I used this bit of Scientology tech out of it up to baby smiling and making happy noises.
These infants could not possibly know who authored the Locational Process or any of Hubbard's theory as to why it is supposed to work, and yet it did work when I applied it.
Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson
I am *not* anonymous
-snip-
The subject of scientology is NOT about Hubbard. The Co$ & the S. O. may well be. I left the Co$ because of their failure to live up to their agreements. I never joined the latter because I thought the S.O. itself was a bad idea.
Any "mind games" present aren't mine.
Mark A. Baker
No mind games to me.
I would just say honestly, that I knew no other life. Read my whole story to understand that.
I did not know any other way. Any other difference. Born and raised in it, I was a true follower, with no mind of my own to think for myself, until I broke free.
The Truman Show is only 1/2 of the idea of the true story. If you get my drift.
You're in love with the word Scientology, but its doctrinal content, and its founder, present a problem to you. You solve that problem, and preserve the word, for which you have such fondness, by insisting that Scientology is not Scientology as crafted by L. Ron Hubbard, or as it existed in its history, or exists now - as a subject.
http://www.freewebs.com/slyandtalledgy/Scientology Sly and Tall Edgy - Brian Ambry.pdf
-snip-
As to "doctrinal foundations" [doctrinal content] or the "founder" presenting a problem to me, quite simply "nope".
I consider them completely irrelevant.
-snip-
No kidding. That's one way of dealing with the problem of doctrinal content, and Scientology's history, and its founder - ignore them, or at least say you do.
Unfortunately, these are not irrelevant, and if you realized that, then you might continue to call yourself an auditor, but you'd have a problem with calling yourself a Scientologist, that is, without feeling a bit silly.
I can understand that. Please don't think of this as "patronizing" but under the circumstances I am especially impressed by your having made the "break".
Adults getting involved with the Co$ have some sense of the "outside". For you, leaving must have been as if entering a wholly alien environment.
Mark A. Baker
Correct. I had a little cash. I had no credit history. I didnt even know what that was. I knew nothing about the internet. I hadnt watched TV since 1982. I didnt know how to drive, until I left at 32. I had no idea how to apply for a job. I didnt know where to look for one either. When tax time came, I was utterly clueless and ended up messing it all up and got fined up the kazoo. The list goes on.
But its all good now. Yay.
Bea, it's not just that your SO-life story is so harrowing/rivetting, but that you're a great example of how someone can leave after so many years, seemingly "institutionalised" (you know what I mean) and still "make it go right" (sorry)!
You are the ex-SO success story!