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

[Voltaire's Child]

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

I think you're mistaken there, Fluffy. Right up until I left in 2008, Co-Audit students were doing the full battery of processes from the Process Sheet for each Grade to full EP for the Grade. There was an era when just doing the Quad Processes for the Grade was in vogue but that changed pretty quickly, AFAIK. Miss Pert could probably tell us for sure as she was auditing even more recently.

Ok, when I left, it was being done the other way in Seattle.

Wonder if different orgs are doing it different ways? They aren't supposed to, though.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

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

Well now, that's quite a change. When I came up the line co-auditing was encouraged. We co-audited ALL the Grades processes on each other--no exceptions. We didn't even check a process for a read. We just ran the damn stuff.

I'm wondering why different people are having varying experiences with it. This is really weird.

 

[Atalantan]

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

I think you''ll find its you struggling with the concept of "as-is"

AS-IS-NESS, 1. the condition of immediate creation without
persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the
moment of creation and the moment of destruction and is
different from other considerations in that it does not contain
survival. (PXL, p. 154) 2. as-is-ness would be the condition
created again in the same time, in the same space, with the
same energy and the same mass, the same motion and the same
time continuum. (PXL, p. 68) 3. something that is just postulated
or just being duplicated-no alteration taking place.
As-is-ness contains no life continuum, no time continuum. (PXL,
p.91)

Although, given the scripture definition, I can see how your confusion may have come about.

You're obviously good at copying and pasting.

Now tell us in your own words, from your own understanding, what the definitions you high-lighted actually mean, PLOX.

Since you said I am the one who is confused, without pointing out exactly how I am confused about it, then DOX PLOX. Time place form and event of my supposed confusion about the meaning of the definition, PLOX.

Help me see the light by telling me what you 'see' about how my confusion may have come about.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

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

He isn't that far off the mark, Mark ...



It would cost around $160,000 to get to OT3 (and get the Xenu fairytale) in the cofs, the other figure (to get to 8) is probably wrong as it would be much more these days.



It most certainly IS necessary to believe the Xenu story in order to continue in the cofs (or pretend to believe it as I assume Panda's friend must have done and as I did).



I wouldn't have worded it this way but really it's pretty close to the reality.

I agree with the idea of having a separate area on Fluffy's forum though for those that still believe they will drop dead if they view the confidential material even though I almost die laughing myself as I type due to the ridiculousness of it all.

I wonder how many churchies think they'd drop dead from hearing about it, though. The whole idea, from what I remember, is that a person could be restimulated and that he or she might get sick. Pneumonia being an example. That's a bit different.

But I also do not discount the extrapolations and paranoia of/by church members.

Also, if someone is in the church, still, and they aren't really sure they're gonna leave, they may have a concern about their eligibility getting fucked up if they read confidential stuff. I hasten to add that to me, it's a non issue, but thing is, I guess if a person's still on the fence whether or not to stay in CofS and one day do OT levels there- then, for them, eligibility could be a concern.

My personal thought on this is that if a cult is that snarky (which CofS is) as to deny access to the OT levels on that basis, then fuck the cult.

From a purely tech standpoint (and those here with training can either correct me if I'm wrong or maybe corroborate if I got it right) I would say that the theory would be this:

If they are a certain stage, "case" wise, then they could be restimulated. To which I would say, ehhh, so what. Restimulation can be dealt with.

If they are not at a certain stage, "case" wise, then it would not impinge upon them. Again, so what.

 

[guanoloco]

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

I co audited objectives on the old but good HQS course. I believe it cost£50. I had student auditing on grades, trained on NED and did the interneship and some co-auding and attested to clear. Total cost maybe £1500 which probably includes odd bits of review. Oh and perhaps £1000 for purif. I was one of the first public to do pro TRs
when it was exported from Flag. As I was on my NED course got to do that for free. Note I always seem to have a charmed life.

I did a self elected FPRD at a cost of best I recall £3000. One of
my favorite actions.


I did OT2 and 3 and solo in the FZ for around £1000.
The auditing of course I charged myself an enormous amount for tax rebates. [ joke].

I followed a CBR advice to if not clear on the clearing course to look at CC platens on OT2. Did that and then another run of both OT 2 & 3.
Cost £0.00. I lie, I had to by some paper for my folders.

Oh, also bought a mark 5 meter, cost £50.

So I got to OT III twice for a bit over £6000.

I'd read OT 3 and some of OT 2 before I did them. Didn't believe the xenu story and was given no problems about that. Wonderful wins.
Note that around half the people who've done OT 3 who are in the FZ don't believe the Xenu story. Whether they did it in the COS or not.
I never surveyed what they thought while doing it in COS.

It was estimated by Ralph Hilton that assuming objectives co-audited
getting to OT 8 in the FZ would cost around £10,000, or $10,000,
forgotten which.

One dosn't get regged at all. Well I didn't. No pushes to donate to anything, no ethics handling recieved in the FZ. Unless one asks. I
know some who have, and they did excellently. Client centred actions.

Moral is forget the CO$, do it in the FZ.

Pretty interesting post, Terril.

I recently satirized Scientology on the "100 Stupidest Moments in Scn" thread with scales and stuff from 0-8 book of basics.

When doing that I reviewed the abilities gained section that gave all 4 flows EPs for the grades and such. Pretty interesting to contrast that with the way Scn would obsessively want to "change" a person to fit their preconceived ideal, the utter inability to discuss topics openly on any flow, etc. In short, Scientology has its own Grades "out".

Further more, as in the "classic" way it attempts to deal with Anonymous, the internet and cyber critics, it's way out of PT and anything but "Clear" in its problem solving skills.

What you're describing here is kind of a situation of Scientology with its Grades "in".

Interesting...

...but I've got to tell you and I mean this without slamming you or trying to piss you off or as an attack or such...there's some goofy BS I've read while perusing the FZ sites and such.

I apologize for the eval but it appeared loony "type 3" "out-r" for lack of better terminology.

Know what I mean?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

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

Hey, Guan,

Which stuff in the FZ do you consider looney? I'm not trying to bait or anything, cuz god knows, there's stuff I think makes absolutely zero sense- I'm just curious.

I don't say this in an attempt to bash- Guan's post was quite diplomatic and I hope to keep the discussion as nice as it's been- but it could be a kind of interesting exchange.

But I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or anything. One man's meat is another man's poison.

 

[Atalantan]

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

Atalantan,

Don't attack someone that wasn't daft enough to get involved in the cult con (as you were) and for now telling it like it is, usually with docs to support his posts ... every single little nuance of the con may not be 'duplicated' but he is damned close and is contributing here because he cares!

Aaaaaw, Atawantan is being so mean to poow bWiPPy!

Sorry, I guess I am not measuring up to ESMB standards of political correctness in how I address someone who posts his own opinions as the gospel truth?

If he had the humility to say he was posting his opinions, OK, but he doesn't. He lays it down as though he is the authoritative last word on it all.

If he doesn't want to be attacked, perhaps he ought o be more scrupulous about the accuracy of his 'facts'.

As far as I'm concerned, he is hurting his own cause when he is sloppy with facts or pretends to know more than he really knows, or uses illogic.

People who are still 'in' may well read him and say "Well, I have my doubts about the CoS, but this guy sounds off the wall......"

I actually would like him to be more convincing. As is, I think he is likely to do more to keep people in than to get them out,or at least keep them away from ESMB As are you, when you refer to everyone who ever got in as being 'daft'. There must be a lot of 'daft' people here on ESMB, just judging by the name of the site.....

As for me being involved in the 'cult con', I've posted about that already. I was never 'in' except peripherally as a public in the 1970s and it was a process of continuously backing away from involvement with the group ever since, for obvious reasons. But the courses I did take back then, I liked and still find them beneficial now, years later.

 

[clamicide]

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

I wonder how many churchies think they'd drop dead from hearing about it, though. The whole idea, from what I remember, is that a person could be restimulated and that he or she might get sick. Pneumonia being an example. That's a bit different.

But I also do not discount the extrapolations and paranoia of/by church members.

Also, if someone is in the church, still, and they aren't really sure they're gonna leave, they may have a concern about their eligibility getting fucked up if they read confidential stuff. I hasten to add that to me, it's a non issue, but thing is, I guess if a person's still on the fence whether or not to stay in CofS and one day do OT levels there- then, for them, eligibility could be a concern.

My personal thought on this is that if a cult is that snarky (which CofS is) as to deny access to the OT levels on that basis, then fuck the cult.

From a purely tech standpoint (and those here with training can either correct me if I'm wrong or maybe corroborate if I got it right) I would say that the theory would be this:

If they are a certain stage, "case" wise, then they could be restimulated. To which I would say, ehhh, so what. Restimulation can be dealt with.

If they are not at a certain stage, "case" wise, then it would not impinge upon them. Again, so what.

I have no idea if it's the culture of the local org softens this, but hell--but where I was, we were pretty indoctrinated that it could kill us. The dang quote from the RJ was used, and I remember when a local paper had printed the Xenu story, we were heavily warned to stay away from all media and were drilled by the DSA on how to answer the phone and cut off anyone who would bring up such a thing. Stories were brought back from Flag about folks who had been exposed to the data. Often it was mentioned that it was squirreled info, so that's why they were probably still alive--but anyone who was "exposed" had to get a lot of special auditing at an AO in order that they didn't completely crack or otherwise come to their doom. Heard similar things when I was at ASHO.

 

[paradox]

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

Yep ... and then there are the 'hidden' costs, airfares for most people to get to an AO, and expensive accommodation (if you want to be somewhere decent and with privacy) usually for months and often while maintaining a non income producing mortgage ... time away from work or business and the loss of income that that involves, meters and various books and often interest on bank loans for the services.

If you go the co-audit route you are kidding yourself that it's cheaper and you are even more under the thumb while you are doing it and it takes forever ... (If you live close to the AO it would be beneficial financially ... lol, sorta).

And then there are the people who, having spent their life savings, including the savings that would have gone towards their children's college education, encourage their children to join staff or the Sea Org, to make a career out of Scientology.

Of course, in the FreeZone it's less expensive...

Posted http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=396941&postcount=851

Excerpted text below:

"On the 19th of February, 2010 I attested to OTVII. When Pierre asked if I would like to attest, I felt the burden of millions of years of enslavement finally lift from my shoulders...

"I retired from my job in 2001 and I reevaluated my position in Scientology. I had about $150,000. in my savings. I could either leave that money for my kids to spend when I died or I could spend it on myself in Scientology... I chose the latter...

"It is now my intention to go to OT XV with Pierre. I look forward to what I know will be an exciting and very rewarding journey. My thanks to Ken Urquhart, and a very special thanks to Pierre Ethier. It is dedicated people like these two that keep Scientology working and there for the rest of us. It is comforting to know that there are Scientologists who still practice Standard Tech."

Then, of course, there is always the mostest cheap route; one could always ... ... join staff ... and get their HGC auditing discounted 50%, or train and co-audit for free. Either 5 year contracts at the appropriate classed orgs ... or ... or ... join the S.O. and not have to fool with all that moving around and stuff! Wa-hoo!

Staff enhancement time? What staff enhancement time?

Freeloader's debt? What freeloader's debt?

 

[paradox]

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

Hi,

An unregistered guest can see the announcement but he has to actually go into the sub forums to see it. (I just double checked)

Oh-h-h! You mean that big, bright yellow thing running the width of the page.

Sorry, for whatever reason I'd been completely ignoring the yellow banner. Duh. Tku.

 

[Terril park]

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

You forgot to tell the Earth people that you're a Natural Clear. That cost no $, just Hubbard saying there were some people who were Natural Clears. And presto! There were Natural Clears. It was later revealed that Hubbard said there were only four Natural Clears, so you're one of the elite four. Congratulations.

How thoughtfull of you to remember.

As I recall LRHs last HCOB on the subject said it was " very, very, rare."

I do vaguely recall someone posting that he made such a comment as 4 in some area. Dunno the validity of that. You will post it of
course.

I was designated such twice at St Hill. The second time in 1991.
After much conflict with the C/S. Maybe the last such ack in CO$?

Also designated as such in the FZ. Did up to OT 3 twice with absolutely no problems and esxcellent wins.

Yes I know some who attested natural clear were later found not to be so.

Its been a difficult area for auditors to handle and specially in CO$.

I've met several who were OT5 who had to do multiple CCRDs in CO$

 

[Ted]

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

I'm wondering why different people are having varying experiences with it. This is really weird.

Lots of differing experiences with results, too. Just look at the people's comments on all threads, on all different subjects, on all boards. Some wins, some losses, some gains, some good experiences, some crap experiences, some deserved criticism, some over-the-top criticism, and so on.

Hubbard tried to make the tech and himself what mattered most in scio-world. Closer to the truth is the tech was always changing, Hubbard was THE third party in Scientology, and the people who applied the tech in the field were human beings, some good, some caring and diligent, some were just creeps pretending to be otherwise.

Regarding discussion of OT-3 on your board, I understand the purpose now after reading one of Panda's posts here. With "safe space" in mind, I would have to say discussion of Hubbard's dark side would be right up there with the OT-3 thing. So talk of Hubbard would need a red flag, too.

If I said I had some great gains on OT-3, would that be permissible? I honestly did. But if saying so is going to get a person to reach for it then that gives me a problem. I say that because I do not believe it is right for everyone.

I spent years in Scientology telling people what a great person Hubbard was. Now I feel like an ass for doing so. To withhold the complete picture can become an overt on some people. What do you think on that?

:confused2:

 

[Terril park]

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

Pretty interesting post, Terril.

I recently satirized Scientology on the "100 Stupidest Moments in Scn" thread with scales and stuff from 0-8 book of basics.

When doing that I reviewed the abilities gained section that gave all 4 flows EPs for the grades and such. Pretty interesting to contrast that with the way Scn would obsessively want to "change" a person to fit their preconceived ideal, the utter inability to discuss topics openly on any flow, etc. In short, Scientology has its own Grades "out".

Further more, as in the "classic" way it attempts to deal with Anonymous, the internet and cyber critics, it's way out of PT and anything but "Clear" in its problem solving skills.

What you're describing here is kind of a situation of Scientology with its Grades "in".

Interesting...

...but I've got to tell you and I mean this without slamming you or trying to piss you off or as an attack or such...there's some goofy BS I've read while perusing the FZ sites and such.

I apologize for the eval but it appeared loony "type 3" "out-r" for lack of better terminology.

Know what I mean?

I think it was Theodor Sturgeon [ famous SF writer] who on seeing criticism of SF commented that 90% of anything is rubbish.

I'm sure that applies to those commenting re the FZ.

However the area addressed, religion, spirituality, philosophy, therapy is a complex difficult area, and many, specially those new to such areas do imbibe and re gurgitate rubbish.

And deciding what is rubbish in this general area is not so easy.

Catholics indulge in ritual cannibalism. As has been said.

You've probably read Pilots scathing comments on CO$ having out grades.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

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

... Regarding discussion of OT-3 on your board, I understand the purpose now after reading one of Panda's posts here. With "safe space" in mind, I would have to say discussion of Hubbard's dark side would be right up there with the OT-3 thing. So talk of Hubbard would need a red flag, too. ...

Not needed. Simple resort to calling Hubbard names is not permitted as a violation of 'insulting language', however factual discussion of Hubbard's life has always been permitted. As it is factual discussions of Hubbard obviate any perceived need for simple verbal abuse as that becomes redundant in light of his life.


The 'confidential materials' policy was put in place as a preventative for those still spooked by their mystique yet willing to look at factual information about the church, the subject, and the history. Many posts have made indirect references to 'confidential' stuff that individuals can choose to follow up on if they wish. It's only the direct references that have always been barred.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Free to shine]

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

OK. I guess you're determined to continue with the lie. Good luck with that.

If Infinite changed his wording to "many thousands of dollars" instead of "hundreds of thousands" would that still be a lie?

 

[guanoloco]

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

I wonder how many churchies think they'd drop dead from hearing about it, though. The whole idea, from what I remember, is that a person could be restimulated and that he or she might get sick. Pneumonia being an example. That's a bit different.

But I also do not discount the extrapolations and paranoia of/by church members.

Also, if someone is in the church, still, and they aren't really sure they're gonna leave, they may have a concern about their eligibility getting fucked up if they read confidential stuff. I hasten to add that to me, it's a non issue, but thing is, I guess if a person's still on the fence whether or not to stay in CofS and one day do OT levels there- then, for them, eligibility could be a concern.

My personal thought on this is that if a cult is that snarky (which CofS is) as to deny access to the OT levels on that basis, then fuck the cult.

From a purely tech standpoint (and those here with training can either correct me if I'm wrong or maybe corroborate if I got it right) I would say that the theory would be this:

If they are a certain stage, "case" wise, then they could be restimulated. To which I would say, ehhh, so what. Restimulation can be dealt with.

If they are not at a certain stage, "case" wise, then it would not impinge upon them. Again, so what.

This is so true on many points.

For me there never was concern over state of case or physical ramifications.

The duress was all about the bottom line.

Eligibility was always and forever held over our heads as the ultimate hammer that smoteth..."my senior is involved with eligibility certification" or what ever it was...this was a covert implication that the senior, the very SO terminal involved on giving final clearance onto the OT levels was going to find out who's on the naughty and nice list...

I was always afraid of the tech estimates and sec checks and eligibility costs and conditions as in liability, etc., and for my eternity and being able to even be allowed onto the levels anyway.

Finally it dawned on me how stupid the whole premise is/was...let's see, I need to go up the bridge to become more ethical but I can't go up the bridge because I'm not ethical...so in order to be allowed, because you're "invited", to do the bridge and become higher toned and more ethical, then you have to be ultra ethical...what was that about "have before be or do" or some such nonsense?

I mean why pay for somebody to make me more ethical when I have to do it myself first as in "I'll sell you this super secret tech on how to never miss a free throw, ever and it works 100% of the time...but I will only sell it once you demonstrate to me clearly that you never miss a free throw 100% of the time."

Now, if this does not make sense then it naturally follows to the next card to fall.

The whole premise/conclusion made absolutely zero sense and this from a place that was supposedly THE benchmark of sensibility and rational thought.

The place is supposed to sell logical, rational sanity yet it ensnares itself with these crazy dumb ass things that are constantly being run on itself and its own members.

 

[guanoloco]

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

Hey, Guan,

Which stuff in the FZ do you consider looney? I'm not trying to bait or anything, cuz god knows, there's stuff I think makes absolutely zero sense- I'm just curious.

I don't say this in an attempt to bash- Guan's post was quite diplomatic and I hope to keep the discussion as nice as it's been- but it could be a kind of interesting exchange.

But I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or anything. One man's meat is another man's poison.

OK, this is all my point of view and, as such, maybe the only pole to fly this flag but here goes:

Well, the parts I personally had difficulty with were the whole Elron Elray, "this sector declared a Free Zone" and the loyal officers and all holding at bay some imminent Marcab invasion. I honestly didn't get beyond that.

I know that I'm equating Cap't Bill with the FZ but that seemed to be a core portion of the whole movement.

There always seems to be some liability associated with Scientology. If it's not something like what I have difficulty with - the stuff I call looney - then it's the hardcore, haughty, smug, righteous arrogance that is exhibited by Rathbun.

It was these two very things I had trouble with in Scn and my solution was to "not-is" it then...turn the cheek...figure it would all work out "someday". When on staff it was these elements that I had to run damage control on, spent much resources "handling" their flaps and putting out fires and "guarding" the public from their exposure - all very exhausting and embarrassing.

That didn't work. Sadly, that seems to be the "norm" and majority of Scn.

However, hands down, the best people I've met and the best conversations and some of the best times spent were with others, an admitted handful, that seemed to "get it" and were moderate and diverse. I don't say this from an elitist attitude but one of genuine gratitude. I like to consider myself in that company.

I think this is the draw to ESMB for me, to share in and experience conversations like that again.

 

[guanoloco]

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

I think it was Theodor Sturgeon [ famous SF writer] who on seeing criticism of SF commented that 90% of anything is rubbish.

I'm sure that applies to those commenting re the FZ.

However the area addressed, religion, spirituality, philosophy, therapy is a complex difficult area, and many, specially those new to such areas do imbibe and re gurgitate rubbish.

And deciding what is rubbish in this general area is not so easy.

Catholics indulge in ritual cannibalism. As has been said.

You've probably read Pilots scathing comments on CO$ having out grades.

Sturgeon is one my favorites...and I did read a commentary of Co$ having out grades and that jived perfectly with my own analysis, however I thought it was possibly just my local org or Class V orgs in general at that time.

However, the "rubbish", if you will, was the Cap't Bill stuff as already mentioned.

In the long run I'm fairing better with out all that ego "threat of loss, promise of gain" stuff.

Thanks for the tidbit regarding Jung and galvanometers from that other thread.

Awesome stuff.

 

[Panda Termint]

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

If Infinite changed his wording to "many thousands of dollars" instead of "hundreds of thousands" would that still be a lie?

If he did that, the he would be much closer to the truth as far as the cost goes.

That wouldn't, of course, automatically make the rest of the original sentence true. To me, that still amounts to speculation-presented-as-fact and is contrary to my personal experience. Until I see a valid scientific study from reputable sources proving said speculation, I still echo Blip's oft-repeated; "Dox or GTFO!"

 

[Emma]

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

Cutting through the BS here.

I doubt whether the actual cost of OTIII is important in this "battle".

What is really being fought over is the importance or lack of imprtance in critics being loose with facts. Some consider it important - others don't.

I do.

The reason for this is that when I was on the fence, if I read anything I knew to be untrue regarding Scientology, and it was being passed off as fact, it immediately discredited that person, website etc in my own mind. As a result I found it hard to believe anything that was being said about that particular subject/topic from that person (or even other critics).

The example in this thread is that Infinite says it "costs hundreds of thousands of dollars before you get the Xenu story". That might be true in some circumstances and would not be true in others. I know lots of people who that actually isn't true for. And I know some who it is true for. It would depend enormously on each individuals situation, their case "shape", how close they lived to an AO, how educated in Scientology they were, how fast they ran in session, whether they had been on staff or not, whether they had done any co-auditing etc etc.

So to make a statement and then poo poo anyone who disagreed with it, when the statement is provably not accurate, is one of those things that gets up the nose of those who think accuracy is important when criticising Scientology.