For the record

[Veda]

I'm not sure on what basis you would want me to be disappointed. I have not listed all my gains in Scientology or from the Bridge. But since you are asking; No, I am actually very satisfied with what I got from it. I have said in many interviews that if I had the chance to do it again, I would - even at double the price.

Even at double the price. Now that's a satisfied customer!

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I'm not sure on what basis you would want me to be disappointed. I have not listed all my gains in Scientology or from the Bridge. But since you are asking; No, I am actually very satisfied with what I got from it. I have said in many interviews that if I had the chance to do it again, I would - even at double the price.

You're a braver man than I, Gunga Din.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[themadhair]

And based on a Dublin conference video I watched (the "We Stand Tall" cover),

Link? I’m not sure I’m in that video.

Do you think that anyone who was once a Scientologist is less able to think logically or to process information…

If the thought processes of the person in question still revolves around Hubbard definitions and concepts then YES. To take an example, science is a pretty good methodology to when it comes to empiricism and testing claims – compare actual science with the caricature of it discussed many times in Scientology. A person who holds a caricature like this is denied the ability to use the constructs and methods of scientific reasoning to a large extent because of this.

What do you really think of ex-Scientologists?

Ye seem to fall into a few different categories.

Those that really bought into the dream and, for whatever reason, cannot let that dream go to the point where their very ability to perceive is warped. Most FZ seems to fall into this category. This sounds harsh, but I don’t know how to express thi sentiment diplomatically without compromising what it is I want to express.

Those that are on a gradual process of unlearning the concepts holding them back mentally This would seem to comprise the majority of ex-members I have met.

Those that that were never ‘in’ deeply enough for any of this to be a problem. This is the second most common category of ex-members I have met.

Those that have shed most of their previously held Scientology concepts and are pretty much recovered bar a few small issues. John Duignan I think is a good example of this and I think he would agree with this assessment.

Those that were batshit insane before they joined and were either not helped or made even more batshit insane by their time in.

As for do I like a given ex-Scientologist, surely that depends on the person no? Since 2008 I have met ex-Scientologists that I consider to be friends today.

 

[Isene]

Even at double the price. Now that's a satisfied customer!

I'd say!

Aren't you just a tiny bit happy for me?

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Where Scientologists come unstuck is when they expect other people to give their beliefs the same validity that is given to well conducted scientific research. ... [/SIZE][/SIZE]

Neither Geir, nor myself (nor indeed many freezoners of my personal acquaitaince), have ever suggested the need for this. In light of what is being discussed are Geir's statements, I fail to see how your remark is applicable.


Mark A. Baker

 

[degraded being]

As I said, at the time I preferred running to walking. If you offered me a faster way to go from dork to radio show host than Scientology did at the time, I would be all ears.

The argument that "you would have gotten those gains anyhow" is fallacious. Because you and I don't know how it would have been otherwise. I only know what actually happened. I understand that you may wish I had gotten the gain through other means, but that is a side track.

Some are not dorks when they start with scientology cult beliefs and practices, but that's where they end up.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I dispute the underlined, particularly after you have tried to justify the opposite a few posts back….

Dispute what you want. The facts are Geir is as entitled to express his views as anyone and nonetheless he is among the most conscientious posters on the web in consistently relying on reason & fact in his posts and in differentiating between opinion, belief, and established fact.

Nor does he simply tear off on some hyperbolic emotionally fueled rant, as do far so many others in their posts. In short, Geir gives good value.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

... Most FZ seems to fall into this category. ...

Which begs the question: how many freezoners have you actually met?

I myself have known fz'ers who fit your description, but they do not constitute a majority among those I've met.


Mark A. Baker

 

[TG1]

Madhair,

Thanks for your answer.

Re the link, it might've been in the Hare Krishna vid - here at http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...erviews-videos&p=700228&viewfull=1#post700228. I was just guessing, based on a photo I saw of you talking to Tory.

TG1

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Somehow, I think we all have made an itsy bitsy teenie weenie bit of progress here in understanding each other.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[degraded being]

It matters not a whit what either the Co$ or you consider to be a gain. What matters is what the individual considers to have gained from his efforts.

What you describe is an attempt to apply an external arbitrary consideration, either yours or hubbard's, to what is at heart a fully subjective process.


Mark A. Baker

Until they look at their balance sheets...both the financial ones and the other ways in which they are paying for something which seems like it works.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Until they look at their balance sheets...both the financial ones and the other ways in which they are paying for something which seems like it works.

That is one standard and by that standard a very great many scientologists are far worse off for their experiences with the church. However, it is not the only standard and among those who enjoyed their periods of involvement with the church it is often not foremost in their consideration.


Mark A. Baker

 

[TG1]

Somehow, I think we all have made an itsy bitsy teenie weenie bit of progress here in understanding each other.

The Anabaptist Jacques

It was good for me. :smoking:

TG1

 

[Smilla]

Scientologists insist on objectivity, docs, proof, about everything other than their claims for Scientology.

 

[themadhair]

....consistently relying on reason & fact in his posts .....

You did it again....

I myself have known fz'ers who fit your description, but they do not constitute a majority among those I've met.

Could be down to a selection bias since the only context within which I have interactions is in anti-CoS activities.

Re the link, it might've been in the Hare Krishna vid

I just stand in the background doing SFA in that video tbh. Not sure you have the right guy.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Scientologists insist on objectivity, docs, proof, about everything other than their claims for Scientology.

So? Same can be said of many different factionalists of their own peculiar prejudices. I've heard the same attitudes expressed by critics.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

-snip-

I am actually very satisfied with what I got from it. I have said in many interviews that if I had the chance to do it again, I would - even at double the price.

I'd say!

Aren't you just a tiny bit happy for me?

Frankly, I'm somewhat concerned for you.

However, it's only been three years, and you're still on your Bridge off the Bridge.

You may now return to your thread and chatting tolerantly with beings at lower awareness levels.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

So? Same can be said of many different factionalists of their own peculiar prejudices. I've heard the same attitudes expressed by critics.


Mark A. Baker

It doesn't matter who else does it.

It simply points out that Scientologists cannot logically defend their tenents or are at least willing to defend them as they demand others defend their own,.

And before we go on a tangent, other religions do not say their tenents are based on workable science.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Purple Rain]

Except we are not talking about apples. We are talking about gains.

And I question his and Scientology's paradigm of what is a gain.

A gain, while it happens to the person who is the subject, would have to be an objective thing in order to be a gain.

If something is not added, then it is not a gain, it is a rearrange.

It may sound like I am playing word games, but I'm not.

I dispute the idea and validity of what Scientology calls a gain.

The Anabaptist Jacques

In any case, in Scientology the stat was always "Abilities Re-gained". Even Hubbard knew that any "abilities" came from what the individual already brought to the table.

 

[Isene]

Frankly, I'm somewhat concerned for you.

However, it's only been three years...

Perhaps the only condescending remark in the whole thread.

You may now return to your thread and chatting tolerantly with beings at lower awareness levels.

Tolerance I like. Arrogance or condescending views toward other... nope. I tend to believe that each individual is of infinate value and deserves the same respect as any other.