OMG, the lies!!!!

[Mark A. Baker]

So it is not a whopper?

What is it then?

An acceptable whopper?

Rd00

Any statement for which there is evidence of even one actual instance can not be said to be a lie. In itself, that would be a false characterization. In the case of the statement previously cited though, it was clearly misleading and likely intentionally so so as deliberately to give a false impression of the group.


Mark A. Baker

 

[koki]

people stop using drugs every day.

and storys about a reason ,are always unbelievable and strange (to non users).

I was a heroin addict for 18 years- and a heavy one....but one day SHE come in to my life... I admitted her on a "first date"....
but we were so much into each other,that she just accepted it and promised to me that I will stop...

and after short time I DID!!!!

so, there is no tech, no how to stop... it is always YOU who decide...

 

[tetloj]

people stop using drugs every day.

and storys about a reason ,are always unbelievable and strange (to non users).
.......
so, there is no tech, no how to stop... it is always YOU who decide...

Similar with alcohol. I have seen studies that show most successful abstinence from alcohol follows no specific approach - 12 step or otherwise. Just from the addict making the decision to quit and sticking with it.

 

[Rene Descartes]

Any statement for which there is evidence of even one actual instance can not be said to be a lie. In itself, that would be a false characterization. In the case of the statement previously cited though, it was clearly misleading and likely intentionally so so as deliberately to give a false impression of the group.


Mark A. Baker

So the statement

•You can leave Scientology without any recrimination

is an acceptable whopper.

Or as you put it...

a false characterization.

So in other words it IS a lie.

Rd00

 

[xseaorguk]

I saw the programme on telly and was annoyed at them gettng so much air time on national TV promoting this horrible monster of a cult that I was once part of.
To think that I actually once lived and worked at Saint Hill makes me feel sick to think about.

I think they should have had some anti contributions other than the short plug for the new book, which could have been given a little more air time.

The Jive Aces are obviously making a pretty penny out of the cult, playing here there and everywhere representing the cult, so they are not gonna saw off the branch of the tree they are sitting on, are they...

It's like eveything else in $cientology, it's all about making money, and they have no conscience, like all the other "OT's" and musicians, actors, business people that do it.
It's all about THEM being so much better than US wogs .
And when you are in the cult you really believe it too.

I think ITV television should get some letters and emails expressing our disgust at promoting the cult.

 

[Lurker5]

In point of fact - no they have not.

You didn't present any FACTS - you merely presented an opinion and then, further in the opinion demonstrated the falsity of the claim you were making by proving that scientology did not, n fact , get you off drugs!

There are many people who have gotten off drugs.

Thats a fact.

Now comes the hard part

How did they do it?

For a lot of people they outgrow them - I stopped taking drugs long before I got into Scientology merely because I no longer enjoyed the effect. Most of my peers had the same experience.

But what is Narconon's real rate of success? Well as they do not keep track of it (I suspect because it is stunningly low) that is the ONLY thing that would prove or disprove your stated opinion.

Actually drug/alcohol addiction, any addiction where it becomes a problem, is a brain dysfunction, and the addict cannot stop. Not everyone who uses is an addict. Those who cannot stop are addicts. Brain scans actually show that 'addictive substances(behaviors)' actually overtake the 'choice' area of the brain - that is putting it simply, as I do not know the actual jargon. Addicts have to stop and never indulge again. The rest of us can partake occassionally, no problem. If an addict indulges again, it trips off the brain thing again - and they are again caught in the trap. It is very difficult to stop, and requires HELP from experts and education about the process of addiction . . . .

That said, I don't believe scno/narconon/co$ has ever 'cured' any true addict. Let's take Kirstie Alley for instance. She claims she was a cocaine addict, and scno/co$ - with one auditing session - cured her. That is WHY she is a scno. However all she did was trade one addiction - for others - like - ta da -auditing, which probably does the same thing as drugs/alcohol in the brain, turns off the discrimninating parts and the CONSCIENCE in the frontal lobe, and makes her feel good for awhile. Until the high goes away and she needs another fix. And in her case, she also got into food addiction, which has been very obvious to the rest of the world. Feel bad? Eat. She must feel bad about herself a lot. Thanks so much scno/co$/auditing. That is what addiction is about, changing the brain - and behaving irrationally, like the rat who keeps pushing the dispenser button for the 'drug' instead of for food and water - and starves to death. But does it happy.

That woman needs REAL help, not the scno crap. That pretty much holds true for JT and TC too. Some pretty messed up people.

 

[Bill]

in point of fact, many many people have successfully used scientology to get off drugs and it can be very useful in that regard. of course i'm a crazy old hippie who used leaving scientology to get back to some reefer interludes (along with more serious illicit investigations which are not recommended).

i think narconon may have been a much better thing back when benitez originated it. CoS is obviously using it for a cash cow and screwing the customers now.

Narconon hides its statistics. You can't see them. When Criminon was forced to expose its statistics in New Mexico, it was found that its "results" were exactly the same as no treatment at all. Criminon, of course, uses the same "technology" as Narconon -- with the same results, we can assume.

All that Narconon has for "results" is their "success stories" (read: carefully filtered and edited anecdotes).

Without their raw statistics, it is a bit presumptuous to declare that "many many people have successfully used scientology to get off drugs". There is no evidence to back up that statement. None. At. All.

Bill

 

[Claire Swazey]

people stop using drugs every day.

and storys about a reason ,are always unbelievable and strange (to non users).

I was a heroin addict for 18 years- and a heavy one....but one day SHE come in to my life... I admitted her on a "first date"....
but we were so much into each other,that she just accepted it and promised to me that I will stop...

and after short time I DID!!!!

so, there is no tech, no how to stop... it is always YOU who decide...

Some people probably did come off drugs or resolved other problems due to Scn. I'm not saying Scn is the only way or the best way or that they couldn't have done anything else, but in the end, a method's a method, different things impact various people different ways and the world is not gonna end if someone uses Scn to deal with something or other.

Not that I want to taunt da ESMB Happy Fun Kult, oh noes...

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Some people probably did come off drugs or resolved other problems due to Scn. I'm not saying Scn is the only way or the best way or that they couldn't have done anything else, but in the end, a method's a method, different things impact various people different ways and the world is not gonna end if someone uses Scn to deal with something or other.

Not that I want to taunt da ESMB Happy Fun Kult, oh noes...

Well this is more like a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

"Something happened after this event therefore the event caused the something"

In order for the statement to be factual rather than just some subjective waffle we would need to see evidence that the person actually really was on drugs (how many success stories have the words "literally saved my life..." in them? )was not doing something else which actually was the reason why they got off drugs even though they were doing Scientology and there would have to be a way to show how Scientology would actually succeed - even accidentally - in getting someone off drugs.

Tall orders all seeing as the cofs and Hubbard don't have a clue

 

[Claire Swazey]

Oh, I just think it all depends and that no two situations or individuals are alike.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

So the statement

•You can leave Scientology without any recrimination

is an acceptable whopper.

Or as you put it...

a false characterization.

So in other words it IS a lie.

Rd00

No. You missed it completely.


1. The statement: "you can leave Scientology without any recrimination" is not a lie. I know of at least two instances where it was true.

2. Instances where a person has left scientology without any recrimination are very very rare. As evidence, in my experience I've known of perhaps a handful of individuals who managed it. In contrast I know of thousands of individuals who left and met with major recriminations as a result. Thus, the evidence suggests that "leaving without recrimination" is highly unlikely and made intentionally so by church policy.

3. Because the claim of the statement is extremely unlikely, albeit possible, asserting it as if it represents the normal situation is an obvious attempt to misrepresent the facts of the matter without actually making a false statement. That is misleading and apparently deceitful. It is not a lie as there were no false statements made, either intentionally or otherwise. The statement made was true, yet it was made in such a fashion as to deliberately motivate another to draw a false conclusion.

Deceitful? Yes. False? No.

Such statements are by no means unusual, note the long standing popularity of the phrase "caveat emptor".


Mark A. Baker

 

[SpecialFrog]

Deceitful? Yes. False? No.

Here is a definition of "lie": "To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally."

 

[Commander Birdsong]

In point of fact - no they have not.

You didn't present any FACTS - you merely presented an opinion and then, further in the opinion demonstrated the falsity of the claim you were making by proving that scientology did not, n fact , get you off drugs!

There are many people who have gotten off drugs.

Thats a fact.

Now comes the hard part

How did they do it?

For a lot of people they outgrow them - I stopped taking drugs long before I got into Scientology merely because I no longer enjoyed the effect. Most of my peers had the same experience.

But what is Narconon's real rate of success? Well as they do not keep track of it (I suspect because it is stunningly low) that is the ONLY thing that would prove or disprove your stated opinion.

i didn't want to stay off drugs, i really like marijuana, it enhances my creativity

narconon appears currently to suck massively because CoS is apparently using it as a cash cow

and i also know many of my peers who, like you, outgrew drugs and went on

i also know people who used their time in scientology to get off drugs, that came in for that and having gotten it went on to other things.

many people study the subject for a while and then split without getting their tits caught in a wringer

and other people wind up getting their tits caught in a wringer big time

please don't mistake me for a CoS PR hack mick

luv ya

CB

 

[Loohan]

Actually not. It has been done, although only very very rarely, as I am aware. I definitely know of two cases who made it out in such a fashion, possibly a few more.

Of course the contrary is far more probable. There are literally thousands of others who faced some measure of recrimination as a result of departing.


Mark A. Baker

Maybe it depends a lot on whether you were SO. I was never SO. I was on staff in the '80s at a Class IV org, and not only did I get no recriminations, but last year the Flag Div 6er's seemed to have no clue that I am a blown staff member with a freeloader debt.

Also it may be a factor that I was never a real exec type. More pathetic than anything else.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

--snipped--

No. You missed it completely.


1. The statement: "you can leave Scientology without any recrimination" is not a lie. I know of at least two instances where it was true.
....

Deceitful? Yes. False? No.

No. You missed it completely.

1. The statement: "you can leave Scientology without any recrimination" is not a lie. I know of at least two instances where it was true.

Even a broken cult is right twice a day. Scientology is not always effective in ruining people, despite heroic effort.

Deceitful? Yes. False? No.

Your answer is both deceitful and false. Here on Earth when people deceive they are lying. When they are lying they deceive. Both are false. Both are lies.

On the positive side, you continue to pilot new types of sophistry which is a sound R&D methodology until you hopefully find one that works.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

No. You missed it completely.



Even a broken cult is right twice a day. Scientology is not always effective in ruining people, despite heroic effort.





Your answer is both deceitful and false. Here on Earth when people deceive they are lying. When they are lying they deceive. Both are false. Both are lies.

On the positive side, you continue to pilot new types of sophistry which is a sound R&D methodology until you hopefully find one that works.

truth can also be used to deceive and CoS is quite adept in the form

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

truth can also be used to deceive and CoS is quite adept in the form

Wooo! Deception by Truth.

What a cool concept! Thanks!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Maybe it depends a lot on whether you were SO. ...

Of the two of whom I know for certain, one was SO and the other was public. Frankly, the SO member was definitely something of a "one off". Unusual circumstances which were never likely to be repeated. The public person just went about the matter very shrewdly. That person also had few ties with the church which could be used as constraints. Atypical, yes. But not extraordinarily so.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Here is a definition of "lie": "To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally."

By which definition everything you have ever said is a lie as it is not possible to reveal the whole truth of any matter. Not even in mathematics, and as a communicative discipline it is pretty d@mn precise.

You might want to choose a somewhat less absolutist definition from among those in common use so as not to make yourself and everyone else out to be a liar.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Petey C]

I finally got my Lawrence Wright book from Amazon and stayed up for hours reading it. We all know how Scientology uses "celebrities" (and I use the word advisedly, as most of them are second and third rate in terms of fame and celebration) to advance its cause. It's a cynical ploy that's well described in the Wright book and it occasionally backfires. We can expect the cult to trot out as many reluctant "celebrities" as it can find, to defend itself against the grim truths exposed in the book. (Hell, even though I knew a lot about the content, Wright's analyses and conclusions are sometimes very illuminating.)

There's no way that Scientology is going to be able to counter some of the most alarming and distressing information in the book. Even if they can try and put a positive spin on some things, and the operative word is "try", I imagine even someone only vaguely interested in cults and Scientology is going to find that spin hard to take. In a word, Scientology is stuffed and they know it. What we're seeing is the chicken running around with its head off, blood everywhere.