Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you guys

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

It's impossible to do a thorough search of all your posts where you discuss OT 3, but I'll accept that your views have changed over time and that you no longer regard it as dangerous to read - or even to "try to solve" - OT 3. <snip....>
OK, you probably won't find it because it isn't there as far as I can recall. My views are my own and change based on available information but I doubt that the've changed that much as regards the "dangers" of the OT3 materials.

Still, if that's how it is for you... that's how it is. Nevermind.

We do apparently agree on one thing though; we each think the other is an idiot. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

Fang you verra mudge! I reworded it slightly, I hope that doesn't change your mind!

Nope. I edited my quote to reflect the change.

Either way it's bloody funny. :biggrin:
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

Blip/Infinite, I have to ask; are you deliberately missing my point?

From memory, The Anderson Report does indeed contain much opinion from, as far as I can recall, unnamed "experts" likening auditing to hypnosis but that opinion is based on what? Anecdotal testimony, actual auditing sessions observed, actual auditing sessions experienced, theoretical speculation... which?

I specifically framed my question about dox in terms of "scientific studies".

As far as I know, just as there are no actual scientific studies of scientology auditing to prove or disprove Hubbard's claims for it, there appear to also be none which prove or disprove your statement that auditing amounts to "hypnotic-like trance sessions designed to reduce their cognitive functioning down to such a state that they will accept the Xenu story as fact." Whilst it may or may not be true, it's pure speculation as far as I can tell and cannot be called factual without something more substantial to back it up.

The whole point I'm trying to get across to you is very simple, stick to the facts about scientology and you can't go wrong. There is no need to exaggerate, alter facts, resort to speculation-as-fact etc. Standard scientology already provides us with all the material we'll ever need to validly criticise its practices, just stick to the proven facts. If you want to opine and speculate that's fine but you should at least have the honesty to recognise and acknowledge it as opinion and/or speculation.

Allow me once again to quote your original statement to illustrate what I mean;

"One of those abuses is the fact that Scientology denies knowledge of Xenu until such time as the Scientologist has handed over hundreds of thousands of dollars (GROSS EXAGGERATION) to pay for endless (HOW MANY?) hours of hypnotic-like trance sessions (SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?) designed to reduce their cognitive functioning down (EVIDENCE?) to such a state that they will accept the Xenu story as fact." (FALSE CONCLUSION, DO ALL SCIENTOLOGISTS ACCEPT XENU AS FACT?)

Disclaimer: None of what I'm saying in response to Infinite/Blip's posts should be construed as a recommendation that anyone pursue Hubbard's Bridge to Nowhere.

You asked for DOX, I gave you the Anderson Report. You dismiss the Anderson Report because, in your opinion, its all opinion. Not much I can do about that except point out its actualy a *finding* based on opinion, including the opinions of the following people:

ANDREW, Richard Roderick: Doctor of Medicine, University of Melbourne; Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians; Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians; Dean of Medicine, Monash University.

CHERRY, Richard Ormond: Master of Science in Physics; Fellow of the Institute of Physics, London; Fellow of the Institute of Physics, Australia; Associate Member of the Institute of Engineers, Australia; Senior Lecturer in Physics, University of Melbourne.

DAX, Eric Cunningham: Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery of the Society of Apothecaries; Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery, University of London; Diploma in Psychological Medicine; Chairman, Mental Health Authority, Victoria.

DEWHURST, David John: Doctor of Philosophy, Master of Science and Bachelor of Arts, University of Melbourne; Reader in Bio-physics, University of Melbourne.

DUNN, Sidney Stephen: Bachelor of Arts and Diploma of Education, University of Adelaide; Bachelor of Education, University of Melbourne; Assistant Director of the Australian Council for Educational Research; Lecturer in Bachelor of Education course, University of Melbourne.

HOWELL, Edwin Ronald: Bachelor of Science in Physics and Electronics, University of Melbourne; research student, Physiology Department, University of Melbourne.

MARTIN, Ian Holland: Doctor of Medicine; Diploma in Psychological Medicine; Associate Member of the British Institute of Psycho-Analysis: Honorary Psychiatrist, Royal Melbourne Hospital; Consulting Psychiatrist, Repatriation General Hospital, Heidelberg.

MEARES, Ainslie Dixon: Doctor of Medicine; Diploma in Psychological Medicine; Member and Past President of the International Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis; Fellow of the American Society for Clinical Hypnosis; Member of the American Psychiatric Association, and Member of the Royal Medico-Psychological Association; Author of "A System of Medical Hypnosis", a work of world authority, and other recognized works on hypnosis.

MOREY, Elwyn Aisne: Master of Arts and Bachelor of Education, University of Melbourne; Doctor of Philosophy in Clinical and Educational Psychology, University of California; Fellow of the British Psychological Society; Senior Lecturer in Psychology in the School of Education, University of Melbourne.

MACMILLAN, Malcolm Bruce: Bachelor of Science in Psychology, University of Western Australia; Psychologist, Mental Hygiene Branch, Department of Health (Victoria); Chairman, Victorian Group, British Psychological Society*.

OESER, Oscar Adolph: Master of Arts; Master of Science; Doctor of Philosophy; Fellow and Past President of the British Psychological Society; Professor of Psychology, University of Melbourne.

PRIESTLEY, Robert Russell: Bachelor of Arts, University of Queensland; Student Counsellor, University of Melbourne.

RAY, Leslie John: Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery: Doctor of Philosophy, University of Melbourne; Professor of Anatomy, University of Melbourne.

SINCLAIR, Alexander John Maum: Doctor of Medicine, University of Melbourne; Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians; Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians; Honorary Psychiatrist, Royal Melbourne Hospital; Consulting Psychiatrist to Army Headquarters and Repatriation Department; Lecturer and Examiner in psychiatry, University of Melbourne; Acting Censor in Chief, Australian-New Zealand College of Psychiatrists.

TOWNSEND, Sidney Lance: Doctor of Medicine, University of Melbourne; Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh; Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons; Fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne.

VAN DEN BRENK, Hendrik Ithos Sydney: Bachelor of Medicine and Master of Surgery, University of Melbourne; Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons; Fellow of the College of Radiologists of Australasia; Diploma in Therapeutic Radiology; Radio-Biological Research Officer, in Charge of the Radio-Biological Research Laboratories, Cancer Institute Board.

WALSH, Kevin William: Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery and Master of Science, University of Melbourne; Senior Lecturer in Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne.

. . . still not enough "science" for you?

It seems to me that our exchange has reached some sort of deductive vs inductive impasse. I'm happy that my comment is justified by the findings of the Anderson Report. I guess the next stage might be some sort of DOX from you which might disprove that position . . .

paxcbrndafn9.gif
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

Infinite/Blip, I'm asking for a SCIENTIFIC STUDY of auditing procedure which validates your assertion that auditing is in fact what you assert it to be.

Experts with opinions about it are a dime-a-dozen.

I wasn't going to mention it but if you care to go back and review your earlier post where you quote Hubbard (oh, the irony) on acceptance of information in an attempt to have me change my stance on this perhaps you'll take a moment to consider that it might be more a case of General Blip thinking the Panda-Messenger is beneath his notice.

You're wasting time and effort on this in a fruitless attempt to "be right about having been wrong". I want you to be a better critic and so in my original response to you, two sentences, I stated an opinion about the misinformation and advised you to check your sources.

You made a mistake, so what? We all do that.

Learn from your mistake and get on with being a better critic.
 
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

... You're wasting time and effort on this in a fruitless attempt to "be right about having been wrong". I want you to be a better critic and so in my original response to you, two sentences, I stated an opinion about the misinformation and advised you to check your sources.

You made a mistake, so what? We all do that.

Learn from your mistake and get on with being a better critic.

Don't hold your breath on it, P. It ain't gonna happen. :no:


Mark A. Baker :melodramatic:
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

Infinite/Blip, I'm asking for a SCIENTIFIC STUDY of auditing procedure which validates your assertion that auditing is in fact what you assert it to be.

Experts with opinions about it are a dime-a-dozen.

I wasn't going to mention it but if you care to go back and review your earlier post where you quote Hubbard (oh, the irony) on acceptance of information in an attempt to have me change my stance on this perhaps you'll take a moment to consider that it might be more a case of General Blip thinking the Panda-Messenger is beneath his notice.

You're wasting time and effort on this in a fruitless attempt to "be right about having been wrong". I want you to be a better critic and so in my original response to you, two sentences, I stated an opinion about the misinformation and advised you to check your sources.

You made a mistake, so what? We all do that.

Learn from your mistake and get on with being a better critic.

We disagree - in part. So far as I'm concerned, the statement:

". . . to pay for endless hours of hypnotic-like trance sessions designed to reduce their cognitive functioning down to such a state that they will accept the Xenu story as fact."

. . . stands. You asked for DOX, I've given you L Ron Hubbard scripture and the Anderson Report - both sources support the statement. While your concern for my ability as a critic is noted (with thanks) in this instance my criticism of Scientology is accurate, if a little rhetorical. The "hypnotic-like trance state" exists, as detailed in the Anderson Report (and elsewhere), the "endless hours" is a reflection of the fact that Scientologists never stop auditing, and the "reduction of cognitive functioning" is an obvious result in that those trapped in the cult can't perceive that fact and the notion they are being prepared for belief in Xenu.

I'm not wrong because you say I'm wrong, I'm right because the DOX presented support my position. If you have anything other than ad hom and repetition to contribute we might be able to move on. Eh, General?
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

OK, I'll leave it there. I don't agree that you've made your point but believe what you will.

At least you've managed to make Mark A Baker right. :thumbsup:
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

My personal opinion, based on hearsay and surmise, is that auditing probably is somewhat related to hypnosis. And I can list scientific credentials as imposing as some on that list of experts from the Anderson Report.

But taking any kind of legal action based on my opinion would be idiotic. Hypnosis isn't my scientific field, and I probably know no more about it than the average wog on the street. I've never even seen an actual auditing session. Collect twelve "scientific opinions" like mine, and you're no better off. There are really a lot of scientists of various stripes in the world. Experienced specialists in the neuropsychology of hypnosis, not so many. The opinion of such would really be worth something. There are in fact some people with relevant expertise, enough to form an imposing panel if they all delivered opinions. But those type of people don't have opinions, unless they've got a good amount of clinical data to base them on. If they don't have opinions to deliver for something like the Anderson Report, it's probably because that data doesn't exist.

Why doesn't it? Well, I'm not even expert enough to answer that. But at a guess, I'd point out that scientific studies are really hard. What makes a scientific study convincing is not that it's the same kind of casual asking around that anyone could do, only conducted by white-coated beings with magical powers. It's that it's careful and thorough far beyond what most people imagine anyone could ever be bothered to be. That takes time, and it takes money, mainly because some very highly trained people have to be paid for their time.

Also, studying auditing wouldn't be easy. The question "Is auditing a form of hypnosis?" may sound clear, but I'm not at all sure it's really meaningful enough to be addressed with a formal study. What exactly is "auditing"? There are quite a lot of different processes under that label. And what exactly is "hypnosis"? I'm not sure this question has been very clearly answered. So what exactly would one have to find, to have found evidence that auditing is hypnosis? It's not like anyone's going to open up a random sample of e-meters and find a little guy with a shiny pocketwatch and a twirly mustache, hiding inside every seventh one.

And given the difficulty of the task of studying auditing, why should scientific resources be spent on this task instead of others? Leading scientists are not sitting around wishing they had something to work on. They are invariably frenetically busy people, working long hours, with their calendars packed wall-to-wall. And Scientology is a very small social phenomenon; whether you consider this fact good or bad, a fact it is. The list of higher priority scientific targets than auditing is long. At the rate Scientology seems to be shrinking, the kind of solid scientific study that Panda Termint quite reasonably wants may well never be done. If so, that'll be too bad. But there's no cure for cancer yet, either, and that's a lot more too bad.
 
Last edited:

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

My personal opinion, based on hearsay and surmise, is that auditing probably is somewhat related to hypnosis. And I can list scientific credentials as imposing as some on that list of experts from the Anderson Report . . . <snip sooth> . . . And given the difficulty of the task of studying auditing, why should scientific resources be spent on this task instead of others? Leading scientists are not sitting around wishing they had something to work on. They are invariably frenetically busy people, working long hours, with their calendars packed wall-to-wall. Whether you consider this good or bad, it's a fact, that Scientology is a very small social phenomenon. The list of higher priority scientific targets than auditing is long. At the rate Scientology seems to be shrinking, the kind of solid scientific study that Panda Termint quite reasonably wants may well never be done. If so, that'll be too bad. But there's no cure for cancer yet, either, and that's a lot more too bad.

There's a real dearth of scientific research into Scientology for the simple reason that science dismissed the subject in the 1950s. And quite rightly too. Panda's request for scientific research to support my statement is as equally futile as a request that he provide scientific research with which to disprove the statement. Instead, we are left with the scripture itself, legal evidence, and the findings of courts and enquiries. In that regard, at least, the preponderance of DOX points to the fact that the cult seeks to diminish its adherent's cognitive functioning and uses hypnotic-like trance states to achieve this end. Simple, really.
 

Veda

Sponsor
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

It's standard Scientology procedure to demand something that does not exist, and then use its absence as "proof" of some kind. If it did exist, then Scientology would discount and discredit it.

Hardly worth taking seriously.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

It's standard Scientology procedure to demand something that does not exist, and then use its absence as "proof" of some kind. If it did exist, then Scientology would discount and discredit it.

Hardly worth taking seriously.

Yep. It was also like the debate was all about Infinite/BLiP and nothing about what was actually said. "DOX or GTFO" was a good call but what DOX were presented were dismissed as bullshit and/or spuriously insufficient. Apparently it was all about making Infinite/BLiP a better critic, like the discussion was for my own good. Very strange encounter.

HORRIBLE THOUGHT: General Panda-dude and Bakes both dressed up in the Commodore's favourite outfit: knee-length white boots, short skirts, halter tops, lip stick, the lot!! Eeeeeeek!!!
 
Last edited:

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

It's standard Scientology procedure to demand something that does not exist, and then use its absence as "proof" of some kind. If it did exist, then Scientology would discount and discredit it.

Hardly worth taking seriously.
Will you remember making this statement the next time Infinite asks for Dox as proof of an assertion from someone else? You continue to alter and misrepresent what I'm saying here, why do you feel the need to do that?
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

I gotta figure out with the control panel how to make a log in only sub forum. With pop ups.

I also recently lost a moderator. This is ok, since people should do what they want to do and have time to do. Also, we did away with the message approval queue months ago so less moderation is needed.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

I gotta figure out with the control panel how to make a log in only sub forum. With pop ups.

I also recently lost a moderator. This is ok, since people should do what they want to do and have time to do. Also, we did away with the message approval queue months ago so less moderation is needed.

Rock on, girl ; )
 
Re: Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you

... Also, we did away with the message approval queue months ago so less moderation is needed.

Well, that certainly explains some of the crappy spammy posts that have been allowed on the board in recent weeks. :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker
 
Top