This started with Panda Termint's statement that he:
"...
was obviously involved in a very different version of scientology, amongst very different people..."
Since Panda Termint has been to a St.Hill, to an AO, and to Flag, and to the Freewinds, it seemed implausible that he was involved in a different Scientology, and an attempt was made to compare versions of Scientology. Now I realize that this was a terrible mistake.
Well that's a small snippet of what I actually said and, as you know, CONTEXT is everything and you certainly avoided the context part (particularly the phrase "as those you describe above"). It actually began with Dagwood describing his time in scientology as being full of shit-like experiences and surrounded by turds.
Here:
Well I guess, but I was looking at that after each layer of shit you clean off in your auditing your nose is pushed deeper into more layers of shit, even crazy shit that isn't even real. All for the $cilon profiteers. And when one looked around in the grand theater of $SCN, one did see that we were in a toilet with a bunch of polished turds strutting amongst one another as proud peacocks, arrogantly boasting their deslusions of superiority and authority within the $cilon scam structure that begins with Elron himself and runs through the various layers of Rondroid asswipes as they are hemorrhoidaly arranged in $cilon administrative hierarchy, just waiting to be flushed...
I responded directly to that post by saying the following;
I'm sorry to hear that you experienced things in that way. It sounds like you had a rather shitty time of it.
I didn't. I was obviously involved in a very different version of scientology, amongst very different people than those you describe above. Go figure, eh?
You chose to interpret that to mean something quite other than what was said, as is your way. A couple of others picked up your theme and contributed to its motion (lol). It doesn't particularly bother me that you do this, I understand that you have a purpose here (and one I quite appreciate, btw) but I will continue to call you on these things when I feel you're resorting to Strawman arguments or misrepresenting what I said.
Rog as much as I respect you, I see the denigration of this thread differently than you seem to.
There is one poster who needs to put his training and processing achievements along with his "time in " as part of his siggy - and that sort of looks like that bid for " assumed altitude " so many SO tried for with public and some X SO try for here.
I don't feel any personal need to have those things in my sig line, Toad, and it has absolutely nothing to do with "assumed altitude". Those notes are simply there for the benefit of still-in scientologists lurking here. I think it would be quite helpful to lurkers if more people did this. We have many highly trained and processed Exes here, we have former C/S's and Senior C/S's, we have long serving Staff and SO Members and former Int Management Staff, I think we even have the former ED International, if memory serves. Scientologists lurking might benefit from knowing these people are here and willing to talk to them about their concerns.
But, when someone posts that they are posting for the readers and are posting in favor of "the State of Clear " as per Hubtard that strikes me as rather pro-scientology.
You have a very one-dimensional view of things, your understanding of what I do here is as flawed as your understanding of what I said about Clear.
Allow me to explain some of the dimensions to my posting here. Still-in Lurkers (and, yes, some Members) have particular reactions to particular statements made here on ESMB. I sometimes give voice to certain thoughts in the hope of provoking reasoned discussion about them on ESMB. We have posters here who
do provide excellent reasoned discussion and this is very helpful to those wrestling with the scientology mindset. We have others here who simply spray spiteful graffiti on the walls of ESMB but this is not really anywhere near as helpful to those still-in and lurking here, IMO.
And I sincerely believe any person in entitled to the believe in the religion of their choice.
As long as they don't say anything positive about it here?
I also so sincerely believe that "selling" or "trying to sell" that religion is a not a right one is entitled to without comment.
Do you think I'm "trying to sell that religion" here?
And it may be as simple as that one hasn't been away from the cult long enough to drop the ways of the cult.
Anyway, until there is proof positive that the " State of Clear " exists as per what Hubtard wrote it was ( in any of his 57 variations ) I'll respond to posters who insist on posting for others ( particularly the fence sitters that read here ) that it exists as stated and is worth pursuing.
This is where our views differ quite markedly. You may well keep telling scientologists that there are "no results" "no Clears" "no OTs" and, in terms of the promised results and touted attributes of Clear and OT, you are undoubtedly correct in saying that scientology fails to deliver those things as described by Hubbard. There is, however, a slight problem with it for the still-in scientologist; in many/most cases, he/she knows that something definitely happened in scientology and he/she knows that there was some value to that thing (to them). If you read my posts you'll see that I acknowledge that fact.
Final Comment: We each have our own ways of dealing with things. Part of my purpose here is to help unbuild the thing I helped build, the CofS.
I do that in the manner that I find most rewarding.
