Bashing (not criticizing) Scientology

me myself & i

Patron Meritorious
As I said elsewhere:

Bashing is a skill that requires practice to be good at. Anybody can criticize another; but that is not bashing. That is criticism.

I would like to reserve this thread for a skilled bashing of Scientology as a subject, which includes such bashisms as:

1. Scientology Sucks (period).
2. Hubbard Sucked. (long before he died as a drug addicted, BT infested (rich, but poor) excuse for a human being.
3. The tone scale Sucks (based on the overall/underall tone of it).
4. Axioms that are not really axioms Suck (big time).
5. Clears Suck (cause they're not really clear but believe they are).
6. OT's Suck (cause they're delusional clears).
7. Hubbard was physically ugly (unlike Jesus and Krishna whom were pretty).
8. The Factors Suck (cause they only Factor in money).
9. KSW Sucks (cause it, well, just sucks).
10. The Ideal Orgs Suck (cause they're not really Ideal).
11. The members of the IAS Suck (cause they're a bunch of rich idiots).
12. Marty & Mike both Suck (cause they're still sucking at the tit of Ron).


Ok...you get the idea....no criticizing...just pure unadulterated bashing (where the word sucks works in quite nicely).

If you are a weak-kneed mamsy-pamsy true-science type individual with a tendency to be open minded regarding any critical analysis of scientology discussions on an internet forum such as this one, you suck too.

mm&i

P.S. This post is no joke. It is a deadly serious activity. The entire future of every man woman and child on the ESMB for the next two weeks will be decided by your ability to Bash today (at tone 40 command intention).
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I think good logical criticism is important.

But I also think a little humor (or a lot) and some J & Ding can be a damn good thing on occasion.
 

themadhair

Patron Meritorious
Unfortunately we cannot have this discussion until we first establish some starting fundamentals:

1) Was Hubbard a fraud, a con-artist or a thief? This is a vital question, and without answer any potential bashing would be devoid of focus.

2) Was Hubbard gay or does magick really count as an exception?

3) How much dope did Hubbard consume? Without this vital knowledge we cannot possibly hope to commence bashing since we run the risk of our comments falling foul of being legitimate.

4) Does the camera add forty pounds or was Hubbard really that much of a fat-arse?
 

AngeloV

Gold Meritorious Patron
Answers:

1) Yes
2) Don't know but probably yes
3) As much as he could
4) He really was that fat

Also: Most of everything in scio is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
 

GreyWolf

Gold Meritorious Patron
How's this? Scientology was the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind and it needs to be totally destroyed!
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
piece of bashing

Hubbard F*#@ed up.
He failed to consider the fact that human beings at his hands are variable.
The thought that they are "all the same" and "follow the same principles" he described was WRONG!
 

me myself & i

Patron Meritorious
Hubbard F*#@ed up.
He failed to consider the fact that human beings at his hands are variable.
The thought that they are "all the same" and "follow the same principles" he described was WRONG!

With all due respect Vad I beg to differ here.

Hubbard didn't fuck up relative to his 'chosen people' which chosen people are not variable. They are the same. One fixed dedicated glare in the eye of a scientologist is indistinguisable from another fixed dedicated glare in the eye of another scientologist. A=A=A.

The point you may have inadvertently missed is that 99.9 % of the human population is/was immune to the Hubbardology Theory of Everything.

Ok, perhaps I overstated the math part of it. Sufficient to say participation in Scientology Doctrine requires a Pre-Existent-Condition wherein a lack-of-life-experience coupled with an enormous appetitie for EGOIC self-gratification is fundamentally mandated. So to speak.

Is that clear? LOL!

mm&i

P.S. In terms of bashing that would fall under category #1. To wit: Scientology Sucks.

P.P.S.S. From what I can tell you are a reasonably good basher but you need some serious work if you ever aspire to be a true pro-basher, like me Vad. Do not fret my friend, just keep bashing working (KBW) and one day you too will be a B-8, as am I.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
now, as to cockroaches; bash or criticize?

How to start?

Cockroaches have too many legs
criticism or bashing?

Zinj
 

me myself & i

Patron Meritorious
now, as to cockroaches; bash or criticize?

How to start?

Cockroaches have too many legs
criticism or bashing?

Zinj

Given my literary familiarity with the author of the above post I am certain: it's an indisputable criticism, and not a bash.. Indisputable I say. (high-fives around the Pub with lot's of laughter and 'here-here's' being heard throughout the local region). So to speak. I own the pub of course.

'Thing is' (to borrow a 2-word phrase from Voltaires Child) cockroaches serve a purpose in much the same way Scientology does. (and that's a Bash of a very high order).

What it comes down to is this: assholes and elbows are mutually exclusive in terms of form, but not mutually excusive in terms of function. To wit: Scientology is the philosophical asshole of the psychology of being human, whilst elbows are akin to toilet paper. Ok, Ok, ok, so that sucked as an analogy. Let's try it this way: Without Cockroaches the world would be in deep trouble.... Ok, so that one sucked too.

Damn it. Just when I thougt I was on a roll, I lost it. Lol.

mojo
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
With all due respect Vad I beg to differ here.

Hubbard didn't fuck up relative to his 'chosen people' which chosen people are not variable. They are the same. One fixed dedicated glare in the eye of a scientologist is indistinguisable from another fixed dedicated glare in the eye of another scientologist. A=A=A.

The point you may have inadvertently missed is that 99.9 % of the human population is/was immune to the Hubbardology Theory of Everything.

Ok, perhaps I overstated the math part of it. Sufficient to say participation in Scientology Doctrine requires a Pre-Existent-Condition wherein a lack-of-life-experience coupled with an enormous appetitie for EGOIC self-gratification is fundamentally mandated. So to speak.

Is that clear? LOL!

mm&i

P.S. In terms of bashing that would fall under category #1. To wit: Scientology Sucks.

P.P.S.S. From what I can tell you are a reasonably good basher but you need some serious work if you ever aspire to be a true pro-basher, like me Vad. Do not fret my friend, just keep bashing working (KBW) and one day you too will be a B-8, as am I.

Ok!
I will be more careful at bashing (considering the fact that there are better bashers than me).
In fact, I will try not to be bashing - since there are Professional bashers like you.
Being an amateur in this field, I'll tend to give it up.

"me myself & i"
It's a right thing to do. Don't you think?
 

GoNuclear

Gold Meritorious Patron
bash to the music

I feel that I have done my best bashing via joking and degrading Scientological put down lyrics to existing tunes. I'll rehash one here, a fun sing along bash the hubturd to the music kinda thing. Feel free to add your own verses, we can continue the saga about DM!

Pete


Rock Slammin’ Down, tune of Blow The Man Down

I’ll sing you a song, ‘bout the org of the sea,
E-meter reads, a-rock slammin’ down.
Searchin’ in vain just to spot the espee,
E-meter reads, a-rock slammin’ down.

There was an old fat slob, We all know his name.
E-meter reads, a-rock slammin’ down.
We all got caught up in his confidence game,
E-meter reads a-rock slammin’ down.

Paulette was attacked by the rule of fair game,
E-meter reads, a-rock slammin’ down.
An evil espee that they thought they could frame,
E-meter reads a-rock slammin’ down.

The Sea Org was moved to dry land from the sea,
E meter reads, a-rock slammin’ down.
They decided that Gabe was the leading espee,
E-meter reads a-rock slammin’ down.

The fat slob believed that he was always right,
E-meter reads a-rock slammin’ down.
He brazenly ordered an op called “Snow White”,
E-meter reads a-rock slammin’ down.

The fat slob hid out to direct a movie,
E-meter reads a-rock slammin’ down.
Each out-take was blamed on the hidden espee,
E-meter reads a-rock slammin’ down.

The fat slob became a demented old coot,
E-meter reads a-rock slammin’ down.
Obsessed with locating an espee to shoot,
E-meter reads a-rock slammin’ down.

The fat slob eventually dropped his body,
E-meter reads a-rock slammin’ down.
They church says that he did it causatively,
E-meter reads a-rock slammin’ down.

His service was hosted by number 1 shill,
E-meter reads a-rock slammin’ down.
No mention was made of L. Ron’s vistaril,
E-meter reads a-rock slammin’ down.
 

Mystic

Crusader
To bash? Or to critize? Well ok. Sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both.

But hold on here. There is a most valuable something left out by limiting to bash or crit.

Never forget there is also: The Flush!

 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
To bash? Or to critize? Well ok. Sometimes one, sometimes the other, sometimes both.

But hold on here. There is a most valuable something left out by limiting to bash or crit.

Never forget there is also: The Flush!


Yes! :yes:

Flushing is what terminatedly handles it. :)
 

GoNuclear

Gold Meritorious Patron
Low Flow Toilet Math

Yes! :yes:

Flushing is what terminatedly handles it. :)


Off topic, but ... on the topic of a flush terminatedly handling something ... low flow toilets have their own rules of math. The old fashioned toilet required 3 gallons per flush, the new low flow environmentally friendly water saving toilets use only 1.5 gallons per flush, thereby saving 1.5 gallons per flush. And now, since you have to flush 10 times to get a turd down instead of once, at 1.5 gallons saved per flush, you therefore save 15 gallons of water everytime you take a dump in a low flow toilet. It's a good thing, its for the environment.

Pete
 
Top