Ex-member of the CoS- Brian Cox

Andtheyalllived

Patron with Honors
Some of the people here are actually guilty of "seething concern" more than anything else. But in any case, there's nothing as thought stopping as the old "hater" label. I find that intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

Yep.
"Seething hatred?" Check
"Intolerance"? Check
We got called "bitter" pretty early on ... "Apostates" can't be too far behind.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
And so goes a typical conversation with a cultie.

Which "cultie" were you generalizing with your post? I only see two Scientologists on this thread (who are actively posting). Not only are both of them not in CofS, but they both have written entirely different comments, made very dissimilar points, and indicated varying points of view.

Oh these typical types! Oh my!!
 
However, using base 10, that is always the answer. Always. From the earth, it is always the case that you will have to look eastward to see the sun rise. Always. It's not negotiable and not dependent on somebody's "truth". The whole idea is ridiculous and I am ashamed of my own stupidity for ever going along with it. It served nobody's purposes but Hubbard's for me to believe otherwise, and as I have mentioned previously was THE thing about Scientology that MOST wrecked my life. I will never forgive him for that alone - selling me that bullshit and taking advantage of my ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills simply to line his own pockets.

I would NEVER have joined Scientology without swallowing that stupid line.

I can understand that. From my perspective the problem is not with the idea itself but in how it is applied. You are certainly correct that the church routinely uses it to enforce their control of their membership by encouraging a belief system which negates obvious facts and supports church management programs. That is certainly an abusive and unhealthy attitude to take with regard any idea.


Mark A. Baker
 
Quoting Pontius Pilate, "What is truth?" :unsure:

A. No, he didn't. He didn't speak english. :p

B. You're willing to take the word of a rebellious rabble of religious extremists that the man they hated with a passion due only to his ethnic and cultural background said something in a similar vein? :eyeroll:

The new testament is first and foremost a body of religious propaganda assimilated post hoc to justify their own radical revisioning of wider society based on a model of religious domination by their own movement. That's like believing hubbard concerning the role of the church in greater society. Definitely not a reliable source. :no:

Let's see some independent documentation for that assertion. :biggrin:


Mark A. Baker
SPQR
 
Which "cultie" were you generalizing with your post? I only see two Scientologists on this thread (who are actively posting). Not only are both of them not in CofS, but they both have written entirely different comments, made very dissimilar points, and indicated varying points of view.

Oh these typical types! Oh my!!

They're exactly alike in being different?


Mark A. Baker :whistling:
 
The word Reality, by definition, is "the world or state of things as they ACTUALLY EXIST." Not how we all agree they exist, not from each person's individual perspective...

And the problem with that is that it is not a trivial process to determine how things "actually are". In fact, when considered deeply and viewed strictly from the limitations of the human perspective, it may not be possible at all. :questions:

It's why the physical sciences rely on probabilistic mechanisms. At least they offer the comfort of mensurability if not truth. :whistling:


Mark A. Baker
 

Lone Star

Crusader
A. No, he didn't. He didn't speak english. :p

B. You're willing to take the word of a rebellious rabble of religious extremists that the man the hated with a passion due only to his ethnic and cultural background said something in a similar vein? :eyeroll:

The new testament is first and foremost a body of religious propaganda assimilated post hoc to justify their own radical revisioning of wider society based on a model of religious domination by their own movement. That's like believing hubbard concerning the role of the church in greater society. Definitely not a reliable source. :no:

Let's see some independent documentation for that assertion. :biggrin:


Mark A. Baker
SPQR

That's my Mark! (Now before you take me apart outlining how you in reality don't belong to me, it's just a figure of speech). :coolwink:

Wow! What a reply! And I was just having some fun with the word 'Truth'. :giveup:

Your take in the New Testament is spot on. Couldn't agree more.

What is SPQR?
 

2briancox

Patron
Now put aside all of the frustration that I know you're feeling, much of it do to me I'm sure. It's totally okay to find old friends and reconnect. I hope you do just that. But in reality, if you come to the Ex-Scientologist Message Board that is filled with people whose lives have been harmed by Scientology, and then you praise the "Red and White" volumes of LRH, well, what do you expect the reactions to be?

What are you trying to say? That people on this board are disillusioned, jaded and upset with red-on-white? So certain opinions shouldn't be discussed?

Fine. It would have been nice if people could have been understanding enough to recognize, not everyone has been as harmed by the cult as the rest. But if they can't discuss it respectfully, I'll go. I'm not joining the group of those living in protest of their former lives.

The last couple days have been fruitless ranting, disagreements without any understanding and HE&R. So I'll leave this thread for now. I'll be around if anyone wants to talk. Just not in this room. It's not my room any longer.
 
That's my Mark! (Now before you take me apart outlining how you in reality don't belong to me, it's just a figure of speech). :coolwink: ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC5Yf9rmKto

A friend thinks I should advertise myself as "Free to Good Home". :coolwink:


... What is SPQR?

Senatus Populusque Romanus

The motto of the Roman State: Senate and the People of Rome.

I leave it to you to guess where my sympathies lay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE


Mark A. Baker
 

Lone Star

Crusader
What are you trying to say? That people on this board are disillusioned, jaded and upset with red-on-white? So certain opinions shouldn't be discussed?

Fine. It would have been nice if people could have been understanding enough to recognize, not everyone has been as harmed by the cult as the rest. But if they can't discuss it respectfully, I'll go. I'm not joining the group of those living in protest of their former lives.

The last couple days have been fruitless ranting, disagreements without any understanding and HE&R. So I'll leave this thread for now. I'll be around if anyone wants to talk. Just not in this room. It's not my room any longer.

You really need to calm down and quit being so thin skinned. As Claire said earlier you've had it pretty easy here. Maybe you need to go up the Bridge further to quit acting like a little child who gets his feelings hurt easily and then wants to take his ball home.

Fine, take your ball and go home. I've been very respectful towards you, until you yourself became disrespectful, and even then I was very measured in my responses.

Whatever....
 

OhMG

Patron Meritorious
The last couple days have been fruitless ranting, disagreements without any understanding and HE&R. So I'll leave this thread for now. I'll be around if anyone wants to talk. Just not in this room. It's not my room any longer.

ACTUALLY, you were asked a very polite & pertinent question that you wouldn't answer. So... what's up with that if you wanted a "fruitful" discussion?
 
What are you trying to say? That people on this board are disillusioned, jaded and upset with red-on-white? So certain opinions shouldn't be discussed?

Fine. It would have been nice if people could have been understanding enough to recognize, not everyone has been as harmed by the cult as the rest. But if they can't discuss it respectfully, I'll go. I'm not joining the group of those living in protest of their former lives.

The last couple days have been fruitless ranting, disagreements without any understanding and HE&R. So I'll leave this thread for now. I'll be around if anyone wants to talk. Just not in this room. It's not my room any longer.

Personally, I've been enjoying your contributions. I would like to see more like them.

Here's a better suggestion. Just don't rise to the constant baiting. No need for their aggravation to cause angst for you. You can easily ignore the biting flies or occasionally bat them when they get too obstreperous.

Some on the board just seem to have a "compulsion to resist". You don't have to play.



Mark A. Baker
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Is not exclusive to my view of how you treat Scientologist. It also applies to a consistent anti-religious neurosis prevalent in society at large.

There is a general intolerant attitude that says "My opinion or belief is so important and true that I should make sure anyone who disagrees with it must have my opinion put in their face forcefully."

It's one of the major sources of disagreement and strife in the world. It causes wars and upsets everywhere.

I've never copped that attitude with you. But for some reason seeing value in Scientology is so intolerable to you, that you DEMAND that I immediately hand over my reality for your evaluation.

It's very ugly.

If you are not a troll you sure act like one.

It is a common and often used OSA-tactic to take whatever Scientology is accused of (often quite rightly so), and toss it back at whoever said the criticism. Hubbard designed a subject and practice that very much plays out what you said above, " "My opinion or belief is so important and true that I should make sure anyone who disagrees with it must have my opinion put in their face forcefully."

Scientology Study Tech, Qual Correction and Ethics have institutionalized that view. In Scientology there is only ONE VIEW - Hubbard's view. And that big fatass blowhard repeatedly shoved it anybody's face who would listen - just how important it was to accept and agree with anything that he said. Scientology is a textbook example of "having an opinion put in their faces forcefully" - everyday 24/7.

So, to have someone come here and toss that accusation at critics is . . . . stupidly funny. :hysterica:

You mentioned the pot calling the kettle black in a recent post. Look in the mirror.

This button of "anti-religious neurosis" is another typical and often used standard Scientology PR handling. The Chirch of Scientology has that half-assed website about "religious intolerance' and "anti-religious zealots" - it is a joke of the Internet, how disingenuous and contrived that entire web site is.

The truth is that many religions have in some regards been a bane upon the planet Earth. Some of the absolute craziest fantacism, hate and destruction has come from RELIGIONS! Granted, it hasn't been only them. Scientology itself has institutionalized intolerance into its very "scriptures". How?

There is no acceptance of any viewpoint besides Hubbard's and management's. It is entirely "our way or the highway". All Hubbard's ideas are to studied, duplicated, agreed with and promoted, to the exclusion of ANY other idea of any type. If you don't quite get some idea and agree with it, there is first word clearing. Then there is False Data Stripping, and then Crashing MU finding. All "correction" ceases once any person happily and enthusiastically agrees with Hubbard and Scientology management. Hubbard designed it that way - this is not some "additive" by DM. And, if those don't bring about avid agreement, then there is a disagreement remedy. If a person continues to refuse to agree completely, then there is ethics handlings, Sec Checks, O/W write-ups, mest work, and maybe the RPF or SP Declare. So, for you to come here toss about the word "intolerance" is hilarious! :hysterical:

I never saw a more strictly intolerant environment than that which exists within the Church of Scientology.

You are free to believe whatever you want, and express it. I grant anyone that. But, I am free to do the same, and I will express it.

You are correct when you say, "It's one of the major sources of disagreement and strife in the world. It causes wars and upsets everywhere."

Intolerance is institutionalized into the subject and practices of Scientology
. Ask Paulette Cooper how tolerant Scientology and Hubbard were to her when she wrote and published what was basically a very accurate book about Scientology. They tried to destroy her life, livelihood and mind! Nobody here does ANYTHING to any other poster that even approaches such a sick degree of intolerance with such a gross unwillingness to allow other opinions and views to exist.

Scientology involves severe mind control, along with a willingness to do almost anything to shut up anybody with a contrary opinion.

If you want to see REAL INTOLERANCE, look at Hubbard and Scientology, not ESMB.

The use of terms like "religious intolerance", and the more recent "apostate" is simply an application of manipulative Scientology PR tech. They conduct surveys, discoverer that "religious intolerance" is a button for many people, and then attempt to IDENTITY and ASSOCIATE Scientology critics and detractors with this concept of "religious intolerance". This is the behavioral engineering tech of modern advertizing taken to far greater limits.

So when I see any person tossing around such terms on this board I think: troll, plant (cover op), or truly stupid. :confused2:
 

Lone Star

Crusader
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC5Yf9rmKto

A friend thinks I should advertise myself as "Free to Good Home". :coolwink:




Senatus Populusque Romanus

The motto of the Roman State: Senate and the People of Rome.

I leave it to you to guess where my sympathies lay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE


Mark A. Baker



Oh yes....I know where your sympathies lay....you p-p-p-p-p-p-p-PAGAN!!! Why the damn Romans with their fancy system of civilization and technology took away our reason to rely only on Yahweh and his power. Okay, okay, granted the cult of Yahweh was a mishmash of Canaanite, Egyptian, Cushite, Midianite, Hittite, and various other ite myths and superstitions. But at least they weren't PAGAN!! Errrrrr......or...... :nervous:

Okay maybe it was all pagan but Jesus came and de-paganized it! :wink2: Then your beloved Romans killed him! Bunch a heartless pagan bastards!

:lol:
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Personally, I've been enjoying your contributions. I would like to see more like them.

Here's a better suggestion. Just don't rise to the constant baiting. No need for their aggravation to cause angst for you. You can easily ignore the biting flies or occasionally bat them when they get too obstreperous.

Some on the board just seem to have a "compulsion to resist". You don't have to play.



Mark A. Baker

I'm sure some he and maybe even you think that I baited him. I really didn't, or I certainly didn't with malice aforethought. I think I became the focus of his upset after several others "tangoed" with him for days. I came along on the thread quite late and asked a question after the discussions were getting hot. Yes, I should've just let it go when he didn't answer it. After all he didn't and doesn't owe me an answer to any question. But I really wasn't trying to set him up, or bait him. I admit that my part on this thread didn't play out well. I lurked on it for several days before I finally joined in. I probably never should have.


Or am I just employing overt-motivator-sequence to justify my behavior? Can anyone give me a sec check? :wink2:
 
Last edited:
I'm sure some, maybe even you, think that I baited him. ...

No, I didn't have you in mind particularly. However, from my own experience, I well understand how overwhelmingly hostile the entire board can seem when a few prize @holes make a point of constantly badgering one's posts.

When critics are playing "piledriver" it can be difficult to distinguish between "respectful questioning" and "bull baiting" (in the original sense, not the scientology derivative :coolwink:).

I know for a fact from private discussions elsewhere, many have been driven away from esmb simply because they found the frequent antagonism offensive. And I don't mean just freezoners or independents. Not everyone is content to use their leisure time navigating their way through other people's imaginary conflicts.


Mark A. Baker
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
What are you trying to say? That people on this board are disillusioned, jaded and upset with red-on-white? So certain opinions shouldn't be discussed?

Fine. It would have been nice if people could have been understanding enough to recognize, not everyone has been as harmed by the cult as the rest. But if they can't discuss it respectfully, I'll go. I'm not joining the group of those living in protest of their former lives.

The last couple days have been fruitless ranting, disagreements without any understanding and HE&R. So I'll leave this thread for now. I'll be around if anyone wants to talk. Just not in this room. It's not my room any longer.




It never was your room ... it's just a thread that you started and we are all allowed to post on it as we see fit.

Welcome to ESMB though, I love your spirit and attitude and hope you hang around and play.

:welcome2::welcome2::welcome2:
 

Andtheyalllived

Patron with Honors
The last couple days have been fruitless ranting, disagreements without any understanding and HE&R. So I'll leave this thread for now. I'll be around if anyone wants to talk. Just not in this room. It's not my room any longer.

That wasn't my reality. I've seen a lot of well-reasoned warnings to you, and discussion-starters, most of which you would call arguments, to which lots of us have been genuinely interested in your response. Instead your answer has been mostly just that you disagree, with no reasoned counter-explanation, plus accusations of hostility from you.

Case in point - here's the "I disagree" part:
If you had an understanding of Scientology that disagreed with everything about it and you were truly knowing that... I think you'd be at peace with it and be able to let others have their own understanding.

Snip, then the "you guys are mean" thing.
"Earlier someone mentioned that there used to be more FreeZone people on here. I suspect they've all found less hostile terrain and moved on, based on what I've seen."

By all means, take your toys and go home. I understand why people have tried to keep being encouraging to you - we know exactly what you're doing and where you're at. You'll find that condescending, sorry. Doesn't change reality.

And that "Hey, believe what you wanna believe... Your truth/reality/perspective is yours... I'm here to hook up with old friends". I think it's disingenuous, and that's being generous.
 

Andtheyalllived

Patron with Honors
If you are not a troll you sure act like one.

It is a common and often used OSA-tactic to take whatever Scientology is accused of (often quite rightly so), and toss it back at whoever said the criticism. Hubbard designed a subject and practice that very much plays out what you said above, " "My opinion or belief is so important and true that I should make sure anyone who disagrees with it must have my opinion put in their face forcefully."

Scientology Study Tech, Qual Correction and Ethics have institutionalized that view. In Scientology there is only ONE VIEW - Hubbard's view. And that big fatass blowhard repeatedly shoved it anybody's face who would listen - just how important it was to accept and agree with anything that he said. Scientology is a textbook example of "having an opinion put in their faces forcefully" - everyday 24/7.

So, to have someone come here and toss that accusation at critics is . . . . stupidly funny. :hysterica:

You mentioned the pot calling the kettle black in a recent post. Look in the mirror.

This button of "anti-religious neurosis" is another typical and often used standard Scientology PR handling. The Chirch of Scientology has that half-assed website about "religious intolerance' and "anti-religious zealots" - it is a joke of the Internet, how disingenuous and contrived that entire web site is.

The truth is that many religions have in some regards been a bane upon the planet Earth. Some of the absolute craziest fantacism, hate and destruction has come from RELIGIONS! Granted, it hasn't been only them. Scientology itself has institutionalized intolerance into its very "scriptures". How?

There is no acceptance of any viewpoint besides Hubbard's and management's. It is entirely "our way or the highway". All Hubbard's ideas are to studied, duplicated, agreed with and promoted, to the exclusion of ANY other idea of any type. If you don't quite get some idea and agree with it, there is first word clearing. Then there is False Data Stripping, and then Crashing MU finding. All "correction" ceases once any person happily and enthusiastically agrees with Hubbard and Scientology management. Hubbard designed it that way - this is not some "additive" by DM. And, if those don't bring about avid agreement, then there is a disagreement remedy. If a person continues to refuse to agree completely, then there is ethics handlings, Sec Checks, O/W write-ups, mest work, and maybe the RPF or SP Declare. So, for you to come here toss about the word "intolerance" is hilarious! :hysterical:

I never saw a more strictly intolerant environment than that which exists within the Church of Scientology.

You are free to believe whatever you want, and express it. I grant anyone that. But, I am free to do the same, and I will express it.

You are correct when you say, "It's one of the major sources of disagreement and strife in the world. It causes wars and upsets everywhere."

Intolerance is institutionalized into the subject and practices of Scientology
. Ask Paulette Cooper how tolerant Scientology and Hubbard were to her when she wrote and published what was basically a very accurate book about Scientology. They tried to destroy her life, livelihood and mind! Nobody here does ANYTHING to any other poster that even approaches such a sick degree of intolerance with such a gross unwillingness to allow other opinions and views to exist.

Scientology involves severe mind control, along with a willingness to do almost anything to shut up anybody with a contrary opinion.

If you want to see REAL INTOLERANCE, look at Hubbard and Scientology, not ESMB.

The use of terms like "religious intolerance", and the more recent "apostate" is simply an application of manipulative Scientology PR tech. They conduct surveys, discoverer that "religious intolerance" is a button for many people, and then attempt to IDENTITY and ASSOCIATE Scientology critics and detractors with this concept of "religious intolerance". This is the behavioral engineering tech of modern advertizing taken to far greater limits.

So when I see any person tossing around such terms on this board I think: troll, plant (cover op), or truly stupid. :confused2:

On the other hand, ignore me and read this post.
Cuz it's awesome.
 
Top