Scientology is all bad

[Gib]

Hi Gib, I just wanted to say that there's no need to take any of this stuff too personally or get too caught up in confrontation, we're all (mostly) trying to do what we think of as the right thing here.

Just post as you see fit. Sometimes shit happens but it's mostly good (as in most aspects of life). Mr N's reference to banning was an inappropriate response, IMO.

Welcome to ESMB and enjoy the ride.

Agreed. and thanks, I ain't tak'in it personally, and I hope nobody that's it from me the same.

 

[Gib]

User: Vinaire

Topics: His KHTK stuff


If you ask a question or make a statement, then people are likely to take it up. Posing "thought provoking" statements that seem to be statements of your own opinion are usually going to be taken at face value. That is the nature of discussion here. If someone replies to your post and then you get all hissy about the responses you receive because you were only being rhetorical, well you have perhaps to look at the criticism being offered (or not). Rudeness doesn't get anyone very far here.

ok, thanks.

 

[Gib]

Banned is not a good description. The person who left, Vinaire, specifically requested that his account be deleted. Emma fulfilled his request.


Mark A. Baker

Ok, thanks Mark for the explanation.

 

[Gib]

Why don't you have him read Hubbard's 'History of Man?':

"You can, at you own choice, go on living with and processing this composite known as homo sapiens and create homo novis. But be advised that... you are condemning a preclear to the dwindling spiral - for the theta being as part of the composite decays fast and soon dies forever in the rigid apathy of MEST."

Well, not actually dies, Hubbard's "paradigm" doesn't allow for dying, since it posits INFINITE PLEASURE if one cooperates with the BIG PUSH TO FREEDOM and INFINITE PAIN if one does not:

"...it's a sad thing. It is what really happens to the thetan who is not salvaged or processed and goes on down the chute. Man, when I saw that, I actually felt sorry for these guys who try to hit at us. Poor devils. Some religions talk about hell. It's understatement of what really happens."

Ron's Journal 30'

In that same book, hisself states most people came to earth 200 years ago. Fact or fiction? Not according to OT3. :confused2:

But yet hisself states earth is a prison planet. :confused2: Fact or fiction?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

In that same book, hisself states most people came to earth 200 years ago. Fact or fiction? Not according to OT3. :confused2:

But yet hisself states earth is a prison planet. :confused2: Fact or fiction?

"In that same book...200 years ago."

That's supposed to be a joke, right?

Or what are you talking about? What book? What 200 years?

 

[Gib]

Statistical correlations of subjective data.

Makes it look 'scientific'.


Mark A. Baker

Makes it look 'scientific'= success stories. But remember if you don't write a success story = something is wrong= more money= do over= more money=can't get out w/o causing a ruckus=better write a success story=maybe I can just quit somehow=phone calls why you know show up=arcx free session=back on doing the auditing or course= do more= write success story= better keep happy thoughts= more courses= maybe ethics if I don't toe the line= my family is in= must keep them happy= just get more wins = just do the next level= more money= go to events and be happy= buy books = sell to friends= ona nd on = 30 years later = wtf

 

[MrNobody]

I figured you would answer that way. I was hoping you wouldn't. Based on your previous answers to others, and now to me, I believe that you are probably a troll.

Hmm, I think some people around here are a little too fast with the "troll" allegation. Maybe it's just a scilon trying to make "amends" to get back into "good standing"?

I admit, it isn't always easy to spot the difference.

 

[Gib]

"In that same book...200 years ago."

That's supposed to be a joke, right?

Or what are you talking about? What book? What 200 years?

Do you have the book "History of Man"?

 

[Gib]

Hmm, I think some people around here are a little too fast with the "troll" allegation. Maybe it's just a scilon trying to make "amends" to get back into "good standing"?

I admit, it isn't always easy to spot the difference.

OK, thanks for continuing the conversation.

But I ask, if I am a "troll", why does it matter? I ask that because we are having a conversation, that is all. And if I was a "troll" would it influence our conversation or would it not influence our conversation? And if I was a "troll", then what harm would it do to you if true or not? Does it matter? I ain't putting yah on a emeter to tell all, yah know?

 

[Panda Termint]

Okay, that's called hypnosis... the "feel" (it used to be "see") my finger routine, repeatedly... or any other assist, like the contact assist, nerve assist, etc....anytime you get someone in pain to focus their attention on something other than their pain, the pain lessons and often turns off.

Get entrainment (what we and other animals do in joining up with each other) with the practitioners slow breathing and calm, confident demeanor, and the effect is even quicker. Shamans do it, native healers of all stripes do it, hell, I could do it when I was six years old. We're hard-wired to have this response to pain, to help us survive. Duh!

Okay, I don't mean to sound abrupt, but this is no mystery if you know anything about how our brains and neurological systems work.

Our extreme heat is making mine a wee bit testy. I really do love you guys!

Well, S&L, seeing as how you posted the above in response to my talking about a Dianetic Assist, I'd guess that you don't know what a Dianetic Assist is.

No problem, of course.

A Dianetic Assist is not the Touch Assist you're referencing, (nor the contact assist, nerve assist etc) it's an audited action where the Auditor takes up and runs out an Engramic incident (accident, injury, impact, illness etc) or perhaps a Secondary (a loss, death of a loved one, grief-laden incident etc). There's no touching or mesmerism in the action.

I've never bought into the "it's all hypnosis" viewpoint myself but I may well be hypnotised and unable to tell.

You didn't sound abrupt to me, you just sounded like you were speaking about a different subject than I was.

 

[Gib]

The only shame I feel is in knowing that I inadvertently provided RTC with video taped confessions of numerous individuals that can be used against them at any point in time. Actually, I don't even feel shame about it, I feel indignant rage. It was because of the trust placed in me that some very compromising pieces of data were gathered. I hate that I was party to something so disgusting.

FWIW, I don't know where people claim that hypnosis takes place in Scientology but it was not at the levels to which I was trained or processed. I was never hypnotized as a preclear nor did I ever hypnotize my preclears. I will never agree with the notion that a question like "recall a time when you were happy" might have caused irrepairable damage to anyone's psyche. There is some introspection and introversion that occurs when you're on the receiving end of processing, but I have experienced that same state of mind when engaged in a soul-searching conversation with a friend, or when absorbed in a painting. It's a natural side effect of self-examination to feel extroverted and more at ease in your own skin once you string a thing or two together. Hubbard laid claim to it as HIS result, the result of HIS tech. Since Scientologists have limited if any background in psychology or psychotherapy (because an extensive history makes you unqualified to receive auditing) it was an easy sell. Of course, it was also a big fat lie. But that really did take me a good chunk of time to figure out.

In the end, there's ultimately truth in what you say - it resulted in more "cash please" for the preclears. That never once crossed my mind when I was auditing or CSing though. Ironically, it took being ripped off my post and thrown into an all-hands regging to cover a lawsuit to shove it in my face.

I left shortly after.

And you said "Ironically, it took being ripped off my post and thrown into an all-hands regging to cover a lawsuit to shove it in my face.

I left shortly after."

There you go. that's what it takes to wake somebody up. You said it, not me. And everybody on Marty's blog has said it. That is what took somebody to see, to look.

 

[Panda Termint]

<...snip>

To answer your rhetorical question; Not when those "subjective opinions" are coming from indoctrinated Cult members. Not in my book. They ARE NOT reliable reporters. Their critical thinking skills and other higher thought processes are TOO shut down. I love you Pandy, but I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Maybe self-justification for going so far down the Scientology rabbit hole yourself?
<snip...>
Love you, Big Hugs to everyone who still thinks Dianetics is great.

Again, you may have misunderstood me. I was asking that question in relation to establishing what criteria we might use to reliably judge the effectiveness of a given therapy. I was attempting to instigate a conversation where we got some real insight from Posters here and we did, indeed, get that.

I'm not trying to justify or self-justify, I'm genuinely curious about how such determinations may be arrived at. I said that, for myself, it would need to include measurable (by actual test) mental or physiological change as a direct result of the procedure. I wouldn't think that "brainwashed cult members" would be an appropriate Test Group but they'd probably make a good sub-Group for identifying the possibility of belief/placebo factors.

I don't recommend Dianetics as a therapy but neither do I dismiss it's workability (where it works) out of hand.

It's kind of unfortunate that the actual scientologists who visit here get driven off so quickly. Perhaps, if they'd stick around, I wouldn't have to be the one to mention these things. I like balance.

Thanks for the hug, though.

 

[MrNobody]

Nice "no answer"

Well, Gib, this branch of the discussion (bolding by me)...

Think what you will. Doesn't matter to me. I don't have to prove anything or convince you. Doesn't matter to me. My only purpose here is to get people to look.

... sparked this reply from me:

Do you know how to look? Because we have a recently banned ex-member here who wrote some essays or so about that topic.

To which you replied:

You need to be a little more specific as I do not know what you are talking about?

And if I get banned, so is there something I am going to lose? Like I care? It will not affect my life one bit. Other than hoping people still in might get out.

I'm not sure why you posted that?

You obviously had your focus on the word "banned", which might be understandable, but was not my intention. My focus was on the word "look", and that's all there is to it.

So, to give you all the details: The user "Vinaire" has recently been banned. You can find the reasoning behind this ban in his last thread, which has now been moved to here.

Anyway, I posted what I did because I had my fokus on the word "look" - a topic about which Vinaire had written quite a lot (of lengthy drivel). For example here.

Nice "no answer"

You didn't really expect me to lose any sleep over such an insignificant topic, did you?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Makes it look 'scientific'= success stories. ...

The comment was about psychotherapy not scientology.

A statistical analysis of success stories could be cooked up and massaged for some sort of sociological significance if one cared. I can't imagine why anyone would bother. Either accept anecdotes or don't. Attempting to analyze anecdotes is a waste of time.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... It's kind of unfortunate that the actual scientologists who visit here get driven off so quickly. Perhaps, if they'd stick around, I wouldn't have to be the one to mention these things. I like balance. ...

I strongly suspect that is exactly why so much effort is expended by so few to make just such potential new posters feel unwelcome early on. God forbid there should actually be a fair & open discussion on the board with a goal of increasing rational understanding rather than simply promoting factionalism.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Panda Termint]

Perhaps but I think I said it more diplomatically.

 

[Lone Star]

Hmm, I think some people around here are a little too fast with the "troll" allegation. Maybe it's just a scilon trying to make "amends" to get back into "good standing"?

I admit, it isn't always easy to spot the difference.

For the record, or FWIW, I no longer suspect that Gib is a troll. Last night I was beginning to think that he might be, and so I started to implement my own homegrown Troll Detecting Tech. It is a work in progress and I still have some bugs to work out. When I'm finished I will start a thread and drone on and on about how the Troll Detecting Tech works in painful detail. If no one shows any interest, I will then start another thread in which I accuse ESMB of being no better than a gossip rag.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Perhaps but I think I said it more diplomatically.

No doubt. Much to the chagrin of my intimates, I'm only diplomatic when I choose to be. Not nearly often enough by their regard.

Additionally, I've found that subtlety is often a lost cause on the internet.

What is surprising is that when I choose to I actually do diplomatic rather well.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Gib]

For the record, or FWIW, I no longer suspect that Gib is a troll. Last night I was beginning to think that he might be, and so I started to implement my own homegrown Troll Detecting Tech. It is a work in progress and I still have some bugs to work out. When I'm finished I will start a thread and drone on and on about how the Troll Detecting Tech works in painful detail. If no one shows any interest, I will then start another thread in which I accuse ESMB of being no better than a gossip rag.

ok thank you sir "lone star" for giving me a license to survive here on this blog website called "ex scientology message board". Thank god for your post, may I please continue to post here my views and insight? May all other small amount of regulars who post here heed your words of wisdom.

Of course, any fool can look at my posts, just click on my name, that would be "Gib", see, and read my posts.

I thank you again for declaring me not to be a "troll". Oh, please define "troll" for me.

 

[Lone Star]

ok thank you sir "lone star" for giving me a license to survive here on this blog website called "ex scientology message board". Thank god for your post, may I please continue to post here my views and insight? May all other small amount of regulars who post here heed your words of wisdom.

Of course, any fool can look at my posts, just click on my name, that would be "Gib", see, and read my posts.

I thank you again for declaring me not to be a "troll". Oh, please define "troll" for me.