I guess it depends on how overtly and acerbically vocal they are.How about those who acknowledge that some of the tech is good, but looking at the overall picture, it most certainly IS a con.
I guess it depends on how overtly and acerbically vocal they are.How about those who acknowledge that some of the tech is good, but looking at the overall picture, it most certainly IS a con.
Since Gordon was banned you are The Grand Old Man of ESMB.Nope . . . Hubbard went to sea to escape the catastrophe he had created as a result of his long term nuttiness and fraudulent behavior. Alan posted here on ESMB of a monster visible change that occurred when a press interview he thought would be positive turned out to be truthful and exposed his con and madness . . . this, from memory, around 1964.
This part of ours above: "Hubbard for the most part seems to display fairly decent conduct from around 1953 up to 1968;" is also, while apparently factual, is erroneous . . . Hubbard was a con man and con men ALWAYS present themselves as "nice" and sincere, and all the things folks would want them to be . . . . but get the facts of his insanity by referring to the record of of his life and behavior before your cited "1953."
All key people (wives and business associates) were betrayed and or damaged by him.
I am sorry your org was so off purpose. Mine was a mix and after some years it got worse. An off purpose org is not doing Scientology, IMHO. How many Scientologists does it take to change a light bulb?------------------- 2------One to hold it still and one to rotate the universe around it.One thing that really helped me was to answer these truthfully.
Is the Church of Scientology concerned about:
- my case
- my salvation
- me as a thetan, an immortal, eternal spiritual being
- money
Is L. Ron Hubbard concerned about:
- my case
- my salvation
- me as a thetan, an immortal, eternal spiritual being
- money
Having been on staff when I answered this for real and truthfully all the rest was Hubbard squid ink to muddy up my thinking...which is 180 degrees opposite of clear or clear thinking.
Birdy Birdy...I keep saying to HH "yer da best" but truth is Roger is da best!!!
He didn't go to sea to"run from catastrophe"; he went to execute his looooong considered long term plan
But...
The Sea Org still sucks.
Type4_PTS said: ↑
How about those who acknowledge that some of the tech is good, but looking at the overall picture, it most certainly IS a con.
Koot replied.
I guess it depends on how overtly and acerbically vocal they are.
I am sorry your org was so off purpose. Mine was a mix and after some years it got worse. An off purpose org is not doing Scientology, IMHO. How many Scientologists does it take to change a light bulb?------------------- 2------One to hold it still and one to rotate the universe around it.
I guess it depends on how overtly and acerbically vocal they are.
This does bring to mind one thing that Hubbard did apparently did originate. The truth that he spoke in his admission and his letter IIRC to the social services or his pension issuer wherein he admitted his decrepit state of mind and asked for financial help to afford mental health treatment.Nope . . . Hubbard went to sea to escape the catastrophe he had created as a result of his long term nuttiness and fraudulent behavior. Alan posted here on ESMB of a monster visible change that occurred when a press interview he thought would be positive turned out to be truthful and exposed his con and madness . . . this, from memory, around 1964.
This part of ours above: "Hubbard for the most part seems to display fairly decent conduct from around 1953 up to 1968;" is also, while apparently factual, is erroneous . . . Hubbard was a con man and con men ALWAYS present themselves as "nice" and sincere, and all the things folks would want them to be . . . . but get the facts of his insanity by referring to the record of of his life and behavior before your cited "1953."
All key people (wives and business associates) were betrayed and or damaged by him.
I am sorry your org was so off purpose. Mine was a mix and after some years it got worse. An off purpose org is not doing Scientology, IMHO. How many Scientologists does it take to change a light bulb?------------------- 2------One to hold it still and one to rotate the universe around it.
Yes, the method for that has apparently changed and I too didn't get it correct in my last post which was to quote Veda and Rog then make my reply regarding those quotes and the original topic OPI'm not sure how to do multi-quote responses so screwed up some of the formatting here. But the top quote belongs to me, not Churchill.
By Scientologists I mean all those people who studied materials authored by L. Ron Hubbard, and consider themselves Scientologists.
There are many instances of such specified here on the forum, when I get a few mins will either list some or link to threads that contain them. (Or you can just ask Veda)
Birdy BirdyLotus, my friend, Elron is a most enigmatic fellow, one of the oddest to ever come down the pipe. He isn't my beloved guru, he's a randy old goat who tried to do silly things like go exterior with perception so he could read the pasteboards in the other feller's hand at the poker table...
But he was also a fukkin' genius and the best of his work is of towering value
Posted by ITYIWT and snipped.
Bla bla bla ...
Posted by Lotus and snipped.
Sorry Koot
It takes 3 $cientologists..
you forgot the OT who postulated the light bulb changing
Rich Text Editor (RTE) is what we are already using when we get trapped in a quote (while replying) ... to escape the quote box when trapped, just hit the button (top right corner, second icon to the left) that says ''Use BB Code Editor'' (BBCE). Everything you have written will immediately become tiny but you can then exit the quote using your cursor really easily.
Then, if you wish to go back to RTE ... which I expect you will because it's much easier to use ... (apart from being really annoying when it traps us in the quote!) you hit the bottom left of the reply box where it will say "RTE".
I expect you think you're going mad about now because I know you can't see what I'm talking about (RTE) but you're not going mad (well, you might be but not because of this) ... because it's all a cunning trick!
The RTE thingy only appears when you are in BBCE!
Try it once and you'll see what I mean ... (hit BBCE, get out of the quote, then hit RTE and continue).
The whole things takes about a second.
Since Gordon was banned you are The Grand Old Man of ESMB.
I have the deepest respect and affection for you but...
The Sea Project develops slowly, that is NOT "running from prosecution" behaviour nor running from catastrophe behaviour. The project itself; the creation of an elite and disciplined cadre to guard the tech is a highly logical plan and rightly timed.
No.
I keep saying to HH "yer da best" but truth is Roger is da best!!!
He didn't go to sea to"run from catastrophe"; he went to execute his looooong considered long term plan
But...
The Sea Org still sucks.
I'm 90% sure I'm connected to him via Facebook. Sending you PM...And that plan was most definitely the WRONG plan. The paramilitary angle was deluded, wrong-headed and doomed to failure. All to satisfy Hubbard's massive black-hole-star ego.
If anyone knows how to get in touch with Gordon please let me know.
Thank-you, will use that from now as a last resort if I can't figure out how we're supposed to do it using the forum software.@Type4_PTS @dchoiceisalwaysrs and @guanoloco
If all else fails when trying to quote or multiquote people ... you can always do this ...
1. Cut and paste the post you are wanting to quote into the reply box (and snip it if you want the relevant part to show without hitting the arrow that extends it).
2.Type the name of the person who made the original post at the top.
3.Wrap the whole thing in a quote box by highlighting what you want quoted and hitting the icon (called 'Quote') above the reply box (bottom row, 2nd from the right, looks like a horseshoe with a ball attached).
You can quote individual posts by doing them separately ... Like this.
The trick seems to be to wrap what you want quoted in the quote thingy just before posting it .. so there's no chance of getting trapped inside the quote box. Bill discovered a solution to that though and I mentioned it elsewhere the other day (and saved it).
You need to flick between RTE and BBCE ... here you go.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/threads/quoting-part-of-a-post.46773/
Wrong. It only takes one, but it has to be ron.I am sorry your org was so off purpose. Mine was a mix and after some years it got worse. An off purpose org is not doing Scientology, IMHO. How many Scientologists does it take to change a light bulb?------------------- 2------One to hold it still and one to rotate the universe around it.
Wrong. It only takes one, but it has to be ron.