Corrections and Advances in More Workable Tech

[FoTi]

Hard to say ... the indoctrination started from birth.

No more answers will be forthcoming Foti, your sudden 'interest' is both cold and creepy.

​

Cold and creepy?

 

[FoTi]

My emphasis

I've ridiculed and opposed the overly tekky threads (where heaps and heaps of 'tekky scio like policy and other processing material' were constantly being added) and will continue to if I feel like it, but I've never asked Emma to 'do' anything and I never would.

I did say that I didn't think Emma had envisaged that ESMB would become quite so 'tek oriented' (or similar) because I recalled that she asked us to vote (late 2008 from memory) on whether Freezoners etc should even be allowed here (I voted yes and I still would).

Emma said (a few months ago and as a poster, not as a mod) that I was "going on" too much and I expect I was getting on her nerves ... much as the tekky's were getting on mine, by going on too much.



AFAIK everything is OK, but there are still no sacred cows ...

Claire, there is nothing you can do or say that hasn't already been done and said, and if reams of tekky scio like material keep getting posted I will probably keep yelling "nooooooooo" ... I'm addressing the lurkers not the tekky's.

The FAQ's still state (in part) that this board is not meant to be a vehicle to plead your case, reconvert the fallen or preach your brand. Surely that is clear enough and there was no need to become literal about the use of the word 'preach' and demand to see where anyone was 'proselytizing' ... the board has a few tekky's here now that feel very comfortable posting tek to their public ... (which I can understand, where else will there be around 300 lurkers at any given time?) and I feel equally comfortable.





​

Scientology doesn't allow 'discussion' of their tech or any other tech as long as one is involved in the church.....forget freedom of speech. Now, that we are free of that cult, some don't want any of that to be discussed here either. :confused2:

 

[Claire Swazey]

I really don't give a flying fuck if someone goes "nooooo" when someone writes pro tech posts. I think some of you don't get that. No good excuse for that, either, since I've repeatedly said for years and years that I defend people's rights and interest to criticize Scn, LRH, the tech, the FZ, etc.

I mainly have a problem with people being treated poorly, when and if such occurs.

That's it. That's ALL it is.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Cold and creepy?

I thought it was decent, warm and seemed quite genuine.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I really don't give a flying fuck if someone goes "nooooo" when someone writes pro tech posts. I think some of you don't get that. No good excuse for that, either, since I've repeatedly said for years and years that I defend people's rights and interest to criticize Scn, LRH, the tech, the FZ, etc.

I mainly have a problem with people being treated poorly, when and if such occurs.

That's it. That's ALL it is.

Lol, sadly, I no longer give a flying fuck about your 'problem' or what you have 'repeatedly said' either ... so now we're quits.

Posted by Claire Swazey

I thought it was decent, warm and seemed quite genuine.

Aha, well ... at first I was willing to pretend that I thought that way too ... and responded warmly, but after 4 ICE COLD questions all of which I replied to (yet received zero response) I decided to be honest and admit that it felt like an attempted interrogation instead.

Hey, Claire try to MYOB for once in your life ... and Foti, my children are off limits unless I say otherwise.

​

 

[Claire Swazey]

Lol, sadly, I no longer give a flying fuck about your 'problem' or what you have 'repeatedly said' either ... so now we're quits.​

(sighing wearily and laughing) ​

I was answering some things we said in a discussion. At any rate, you didn't have to answer my post, either, seein' as how you don't give a fuck and all. In fact, you commenced this entire discussion.​

As far as repeating oneself, you do it quite a bit about certain things and have done so here. In fact, I don't think there's one single person here who posts regularly who refrains from doing so.So it would appear that I'm in good company.​

Aha, well ... at first I was willing to pretend that I thought that way too ... and responded warmly, but after 4 ICE COLD questions all of which I replied to (yet received zero response) I decided to be honest and admit that it felt like an attempted interrogation instead.​

Hey, Claire try to MYOB for once in your life ... and Foti, my children are off limits unless I say otherwise.​

I was discussing a public post on a public forum. And I was talking to FoTi. So I think I'm bearing up ok under the disgrace.

 

[FoTi]

Lol, sadly, I no longer give a flying fuck about your 'problem' or what you have 'repeatedly said' either ... so now we're quits.

Aha, well ... at first I was willing to pretend that I thought that way too ... and responded warmly, but after 4 ICE COLD questions all of which I replied to (yet received zero response) I decided to be honest and admit that it felt like an attempted interrogation instead.

Hey, Claire try to MYOB for once in your life ... and Foti, my children are off limits unless I say otherwise.

​

I responded to every one of your answers, Trouble......I just didn't respond with the standard Scientology ack. You answered my question, and I just asked you another question regarding the same subject.....kind of like normal people talk to one another in the real world. I haven't noticed that people outside of Scientology make sure that they have acked the person properly for their answer.....they usually just go on with the conversation, like I did. Sorry if I didn't live up to your Scientological expectations of the correct communication formula, but then you don't like the tech, right?

I don't think it would have made any difference what I said to you or how I handled the communication....you would have found some way to take a swipe at me because that's what you seem like to do. ​

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I responded to every one of your answers, Trouble......I just didn't respond with the standard Scientology ack. You answered my question, and I just asked you another question regarding the same subject.....kind of like normal people talk to one another in the real world. I haven't noticed that people outside of Scientology make sure that they have acked the person properly for their answer.....they usually just go on with the conversation, like I did. Sorry if I didn't live up to your Scientological expectations of the correct communication formula, but then you don't like the tech, right?

I don't think it would have made any difference what I said to you or how I handled the communication....you would have found some way to take a swipe at me because that's what you seem like to do.

Foti, if a 'normal' person fired question's at me with zero response to my reply's ... after a little while, I'd tell them to get lost due to the lack of interest in my answers and if you had 'acked' me, I'd have told you to get lost even faster ... because neither are a "normal" way to communicate.

After your first question it was obvious to me that you were hoping that I would notice your lack of an "ack" and mention it ... presumably so you could then post that tripe above.

Go and find someone else to practice on and try not to be quite so transparent.

​

 

[FoTi]

Foti, if a 'normal' person fired question's at me with zero response to my reply's ... after a little while, I'd tell them to get lost due to the lack of interest in my answers and if you had 'acked' me, I'd have told you to get lost even faster ... because neither are a "normal" way to communicate.

After your first question it was obvious to me that you were hoping that I would notice your lack of an "ack" and mention it ... presumably so you could then post that tripe above.

Go and find someone else to practice on and try not to be quite so transparent.

​

You sure can twist things.

If this is what Scientology did to you, I sure hope you get over it someday.

 

[RogerB]

I was wondering where to put this post, but realized it's as appropriate here as anywhere else.

This is an interview on ABC (the Ozzie ABC, not that America TV twoddle). It's between two Ozzies, as it happens . . . the kicker is that one of them; Professor, Sir Michael Marmot, is Director of the Institute of Health Equity, University College London.

It reveals interesting findings on health, wealth and effects on DNA arising from things like one's "position" in the hierarchy of society etc. That is, people in higher level jobs, positions and education levels have very different outcomes.

Here is the opener. Full transcript and mp3 here:
http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/3505943.htm

Friday, May 18, 2012

RICHARD AEDY: Good morning, welcome to Sunday Profile, I'm Richard Aedy.

Today, to them that have, more shall be given.

Life is isn't fair, especially when it comes to health. For starters, you can't pick your parents and that means your genes aren't something you have any say about.

Then there's your lot in life, so how well off your family is, what kind of diet you have, how much education you get, and of course how much you go on to earn. All of them have an impact.

What's surprising is that status has an impact too. So how you're regarded by other people affects your health. And this turns out to be measurable within the same organisation. The high status people at the top have better health than those in the middle and they have better health than those at the bottom. Power and autonomy make a difference.

All of these factors, from diet and education through to status, are what's called social determinants. And the man who worked out what impact they have on health is Sir Michael Marmot of University College, London.

So how important are they?

MICHAEL MARMOT: Health inequalities and the social determinants of health are not a footnote to the determinants of health. They are the main issue.

 

[Leon]

According to book which I am reading at present - The Bond, by Lynne Taggart - a person's DNA is not fixed and unchangeable. Research done on animals (and she quotes a bunch of scientific papers on this) shows that their DNA does change during the growing years in response to environmental influences. Food supply, stress levels and so on. And this changed DNA then gets passed on to the offspring of said animals.

This turns Darwin and Watson & Crick on their heads and brings Lamarck back into the picture. Blasphemy! As it also happens, Lamarckian evolution is what Hubbard supported in his early books. Somehow though, I doubt that he even understood the difference between Darwin and Lamarck.

 

[RogerB]

According to book which I am reading at present - The Bond, by Lynne Taggart - a person's DNA is not fixed and unchangeable. Research done on animals (and she quotes a bunch of scientific papers on this) shows that their DNA does change during the growing years in response to environmental influences. Food supply, stress levels and so on. And this changed DNA then gets passed on to the offspring of said animals.

This turns Darwin and Watson & Crick on their heads and brings Lamarck back into the picture. Blasphemy! As it also happens, Lamarckian evolution is what Hubbard supported in his early books. Somehow though, I doubt that he even understood the difference between Darwin and Lamarck.

I luv blasphemy! particularly non-KSW blasphemy

In my study of the development of science and things purported as wisdom "du jour"; and of how the overly simple little looks at and acceptance of parts of the whole (probably because the less than bright could only digest the bite sized offering) were taken up as the whole of the truth, as was Darwin (and Marx) . . . and this especially in the context of politics and ECONOMICS, and Keynesian economics in particular (that fraud posing as learned) I am often amazed at the crap that was accepted as great truth and fact.

A good recent example is the fraudulent "science" that fat in the diet cause cardiovascular problems (it was recently exposed in science literature as originating as an opinion of likelihood that got agreed by others to become accepted wisdom) . . . I posted the published exposure of the screw up on ESMB elsewhere.

Virginia is currently reading a book that depicts a debate between Keynes and Hayek. It revealed to her some of the fraudulent statements and propositions made by Keynes She big time cognited on his sleight of hand twists and turns and how he introduced fraud into our government management of our money system.

That's kind of blasphemy I detest: but blasphemy against accepted wisdom and ritual I'm all for

R

 

[Hatshepsut]

I was wondering where to put this post, but realized it's as appropriate here as anywhere else.

This is an interview on ABC (the Ozzie ABC, not that America TV twoddle). It's between two Ozzies, as it happens . . . the kicker is that one of them; Professor, Sir Michael Marmot, is Director of the Institute of Health Equity, University College London.

It reveals interesting findings on health, wealth and effects on DNA arising from things like one's "position" in the hierarchy of society etc. That is, people in higher level jobs, positions and education levels have very different outcomes.

Here is the opener. Full transcript and mp3 here:
http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/3505943.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/3505943.htm


Friday, May 18, 2012


RICHARD AEDY: Good morning, welcome to Sunday Profile, I'm Richard Aedy.


Today, to them that have, more shall be given.

Life is isn't fair, especially when it comes to health. For starters, you can't pick your parents and that means your genes aren't something you have any say about.

Then there's your lot in life, so how well off your family is, what kind of diet you have, how much education you get, and of course how much you go on to earn. All of them have an impact.

What's surprising is that status has an impact too. So how you're regarded by other people affects your health. And this turns out to be measurable within the same organisation. The high status people at the top have better health than those in the middle and they have better health than those at the bottom. Power and autonomy make a difference.

All of these factors, from diet and education through to status, are what's called social determinants. And the man who worked out what impact they have on health is Sir Michael Marmot of University College, London.

So how important are they?

MICHAEL MARMOT: Health inequalities and the social determinants of health are not a footnote to the determinants of health. They are the main issue.


Well, I guess all the royals who had hemophelia, leprosy, syphilis, TB, and epilepsy must've been 'created as' LESS by their subjects.

This week while down at the lake, I thought I'd try my hand at a little clean slate procedure. The first thing I unearthed was my protest about 'wrong' TRUTHS. Wrong reasons WHY.... these agreed upon reasons why. False reasons imprinted for the self-determined changes I had made in life. A Mississippi of lies acting as List errors by reason of unconscious agreement with the 'cohesive think' of others. It's a BIG deal what some others can project on your field of life energy and tacitly create you AS. It becomes reality.

I hit a point where I realized my whole personality had at one time 'shifted'. Like I'd been operating out of drawer #2 instead of drawer #1 and that error in perception was a degrade. And this was not totally subjective. I spotted certain individuals' beams of intention still creating me as 'less' and this seemed to float timeless. Why the vulnerability? I noticed I was NOT creating MYSELF as anything distinct with some
goal or purpose.

How much power or force is used to 'create you AS this or that' needs to be looked at in carefully. I always felt I was the ONLY one capable of defining me.. I hadn't inspected this belief. We get 'contributed to' and the function we often find ourselves fulfilling is often the result of collaborative effort. I think we all do this to one another creating each other into a fixed costume.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people we entered this universe with were still abiding by agreed upon roles respective to one another.

 

[RogerB]

Nice, Hats . . .

You get cleverer and cleverer . . .

In my Pasadena presentation on the other thread I started here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...gative-RogerB%92s-FZ-Presentation-in-Pasadena
I go into how our identities and Beingnesses are co-created within the Games Matrices we operate in.

Part of it is a now out of control agreement to be what we wanted others/another to create us as, along with the simple (now out of control) agreement to be what others want and create us as.

R

 

[Hatshepsut]

Yes, very good. I had heard this Alan Walter idea of 'Created As' ...from David Pennell originally in Fort Pierce, Fla. He used it in processing me back in 1989 or so. The example he gave me at start of session was one about a ball team. He explained how the fans create the game and the team, the coach's role is created by the players, the stadium by ticket buyers etc. It was a hot topic for him at the time as a field auditor who was chiropractor by day.

David was incorporating this use of flows and vectors in the 'create/created as' steps to unlock unwanted and protested beingnesses in conjunction with his NOTS C/Ses. He said you would not 'believe' how powerful it is. Trouble is it doesn't run well on persons still too interiorized. I myself do not get bright on a lot of the stuff I can recall Alan has said....until I've shifted temporarily into a bigger 'state.'.

There were so many crackerjack auditors who took to the field in 1983 in the Miami area. Now they seem to have scattered to the wind. I have always wondered what happened to one John Kramer. He developed extra NOTS techniques where you actually corral up massses and 'make' a new cluster out of them and elect a leader. This was an odd process but in doing it one gets the point that he is playing a mind game and also running that game on others thru assignment of identities. John I believe was in contact with the Mayos then. There was a lot of new insight oozing thru the cracks back then that seemed to put the advanced levels in a different category and light.

Oh, I just recalled again that John Kramer got mad at the IRS for taking hundreds of thousands from his bank account for being self employed. This caused him to expatriate and he started a teakwood plantation in Costa Rica.

 

[RogerB]

Yes, very good. I had heard this Alan Walter idea of 'Created As' ...from David Pennell originally in Fort Pierce, Fla. He used it in processing me back in 1989 or so. The example he gave me at start of session was one about a ball team. He explained how the fans create the game and the team, the coach's role is created by the players, the stadium by ticket buyers etc. It was a hot topic for him at the time as a field auditor who was chiropractor by day.

David was incorporating this use of flows and vectors in the 'create/created as' steps to unlock unwanted and protested beingnesses in conjunction with his NOTS C/Ses. He said you would not 'believe' how powerful it is. Trouble is it doesn't run well on persons still too interiorized. I myself do not get bright on a lot of the stuff I can recall Alan has said....until I've shifted temporarily into a bigger 'state.'.

There were so many crackerjack auditors who took to the field in 1983 in the Miami area. Now they seem to have scattered to the wind. I have always wondered what happened to one John Kramer. He developed extra NOTS techniques where you actually corral up massses and 'make' a new cluster out of them and elect a leader. This was an odd process but in doing it one gets the point that he is playing a mind game and also running that game on others thru assignment of identities. John I believe was in contact with the Mayos then. There was a lot of new insight oozing thru the cracks back then that seemed to put the advanced levels in a different category and light.

Oh, I just recalled again that John Kramer got mad at the IRS for taking hundreds of thousands from his bank account for being self employed. This caused him to expatriate and he started a teakwood plantation in Costa Rica.

Costa Rica, good location but, teakwood . . . . umm, he'll be waiting a bloody long time for harvest, no?

R

 

[Hatshepsut]

Costa Rica, good location but, teakwood . . . . umm, he'll be waiting a bloody long time for harvest, no?

R

Well, that was his story and he was sticking to it. Called him once down there thru the general store cause there was no official town, just farmers. It might be he said he'd be 'growing' team. Obviously there had to be something already planted or he'd go broke. I could put a line into Harvey Haber who worked at AAC, Santa Barbara....he sells real estate in Costa Rica now and probably has a web page. He has prospered and remarried there.

http://surfingto.com/caribbean/

Forest stewardship? Now there's an idea, you could nap like Rip Ban Wrinkle while your crop.grows.

http://www.panamericanwoods.net/about-us

 

[RogerB]

I have been caused by recent events to look at what might in fact be the biggest tragedy and travesty of what is “scientology.”

I will later post on the nature of the “recent events,” but for now will post on what I see the great trap of Scientology to be.

Hubbard made many absolute claims: and in this he was either delusional or a knowing liar. One can later argue which, or whether it was both at once or at different times.

The fact is he claimed absolute, complete and accurate answers.

And the tragedy of this is that those who have accepted this have a false situation and scenario in their existence. They have incomplete and also messed up case situations masked and misrepresented by the falsehood that each part addressed of their particular “case area/scenario” is handled.

And the consequence of this is that the difficulties they continue to have with their “case”: the BPC, life difficulties and upsets are often made unfixable because the truth of what is out is masked and hidden below a false belief that there is nothing there because it has been handled . . . and this results in these folks searching elsewhere in “all the wrong places for the wrong whys” of their difficulties.

And that, indeed, is a catastrophic situation for them.

Had Hubbard been more honest, more real, it would have been a valid endeavor had he presented his work on the basis that it is a work in progress and that there is much to do and that we will be needing to continue to search and work to get it all complete.

But NO! He presented it as complete with all right answers known. And that is a falsehood.

I hope knowing this benefits those with an interest in these things.

RogerB

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I have been caused by recent events to look at what might in fact be the biggest tragedy and travesty of what is “scientology.”

I will later post on the nature of the “recent events,” but for now will post on what I see the great trap of Scientology to be.

Hubbard made many absolute claims: and in this he was either delusional or a knowing liar. One can later argue which, or whether it was both at once or at different times.

The fact is he claimed absolute, complete and accurate answers.

And the tragedy of this is that those who have accepted this have a false situation and scenario in their existence. They have incomplete and also messed up case situations masked and misrepresented by the falsehood that each part addressed of their particular “case area/scenario” is handled.

And the consequence of this is that the difficulties they continue to have with their “case”: the BPC, life difficulties and upsets are often made unfixable because the truth of what is out is masked and hidden below a false belief that there is nothing there because it has been handled . . . and this results in these folks searching elsewhere in “all the wrong places for the wrong whys” of their difficulties.

And that, indeed, is a catastrophic situation for them.

Had Hubbard been more honest, more real, it would have been a valid endeavor had he presented his work on the basis that it is a work in progress and that there is much to do and that we will be needing to continue to search and work to get it all complete.

But NO! He presented it as complete with all right answers known. And that is a falsehood.

I hope knowing this benefits those with an interest in these things.

RogerB

True. Interesting irony is that it was also the problem that scientology & dianetics are meant to address and to a great extent both can and, at least for some and at least in part, do. Raising them to the status of an inerrant religious doctrine however made them a part of the problem and no longer a proposed partial solution.


Mark A. Baker

 

[FoTi]

I have been caused by recent events to look at what might in fact be the biggest tragedy and travesty of what is “scientology.”

I will later post on the nature of the “recent events,” but for now will post on what I see the great trap of Scientology to be.

Hubbard made many absolute claims: and in this he was either delusional or a knowing liar. One can later argue which, or whether it was both at once or at different times.

The fact is he claimed absolute, complete and accurate answers.

And the tragedy of this is that those who have accepted this have a false situation and scenario in their existence. They have incomplete and also messed up case situations masked and misrepresented by the falsehood that each part addressed of their particular “case area/scenario” is handled.

And the consequence of this is that the difficulties they continue to have with their “case”: the BPC, life difficulties and upsets are often made unfixable because the truth of what is out is masked and hidden below a false belief that there is nothing there because it has been handled . . . and this results in these folks searching elsewhere in “all the wrong places for the wrong whys” of their difficulties.

And that, indeed, is a catastrophic situation for them.

Had Hubbard been more honest, more real, it would have been a valid endeavor had he presented his work on the basis that it is a work in progress and that there is much to do and that we will be needing to continue to search and work to get it all complete.

But NO! He presented it as complete with all right answers known. And that is a falsehood.

I hope knowing this benefits those with an interest in these things.

RogerB

Looking forward to this "recent events" post.