Freezoners, please answer these questions

[Terril park]

Whoa Nelly!!! Is THAT the "M/U"?

By "non exes" I mean't "those who had never been in". It wasn't referring to the FZone.

Anyway, all individuals are welcome here, so I spose it doesn't matter, but Terril please don't quote that part of what I wrote as my "invitation the freezone".

I also said this:

This board is not meant to be a vehicle to plead your case, reconvert the fallen or preach your brand. (emphasis mine)

Well done on spotting the MU.

Its ambiguous. I took that "interested general public" were those who had
never been in, which leaves non exes to mean those still scientologists.

 

[Oneflewover]

Why aren't you in the Freezone any longer?

I kind of misspoke. I'm no longer in the LRH-centric Freezone. I'm in a part of the Freezone that loosely bases it's existence on expansion of any theories LRH got right, without accepting any tag along baggage, and without limiting itself to LRH in any way.

Taking some of the more lucid LRH bits, and discovering areas where he missed, or messed up, and then going off in search of who has made inroads in those areas, has produced some interesting synergies.

Of course LRH would have declared all of that sort of work illegal, and the perpetrators to be scum.

 

[Oneflewover]

Whoa Nelly!!! Is THAT the "M/U"?

By "non exes" I mean't "those who had never been in". It wasn't referring to the FZone.

Anyway, all individuals are welcome here, so I spose it doesn't matter, but Terril please don't quote that part of what I wrote as my "invitation the freezone".

I also said this:

This board is not meant to be a vehicle to plead your case, reconvert the fallen or preach your brand. (emphasis mine)

That same line is also where I got the notion that Ex-church Scientologists would be welcome.

I think you have a "no problem" here. Everybody seems to be sorting out the differences and similarities just fine.

It looks like a good thing to me to have people here in every stage of progress out of the nightmare Scientology became, if just to have experience from every possible viewpoint to share with those sorting out what their shifting position and reality is at the moment.

 

[Veda]

"Independent Field," moved beyond Scientology:

http://forum.exscn.net/forumdisplay.php?f=34

"Freezone," outside the C of $ Scientology:

http://forum.exscn.net/forumdisplay.php?f=11

Lots of interesting info in both sections.

 

[nexus100]

I kind of misspoke. I'm no longer in the LRH-centric Freezone. I'm in a part of the Freezone that loosely bases it's existence on expansion of any theories LRH got right, without accepting any tag along baggage, and without limiting itself to LRH in any way.

Taking some of the more lucid LRH bits, and discovering areas where he missed, or messed up, and then going off in search of who has made inroads in those areas, has produced some interesting synergies.

Of course LRH would have declared all of that sort of work illegal, and the perpetrators to be scum.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't care what Hubbard would have thought of your doings. If you're going to comment from a Hubbard oriented base, though, I think the board should know. Now they do.

 

[Oneflewover]

Thanks for the clarification. I don't care what Hubbard would have thought of your doings. If you're going to comment from a Hubbard oriented base, though, I think the board should know. Now they do.

In the interest of further clarification, I wouldn't even say I'm coming from a Hubbard oriented base. His work has taken on more of a fringe quality. Almost everything else I've been looking into has more significance for me at this point.

The primary value of his work is in the ability to go in and address a specific condition directly.

Many other types of work address much broader areas, and specifics often "fall away" at some point.

But if a specific needs to be addressed, you can often pinpoint it and address it using hubbards techniques.

Just don't buy into the whole bridge to total freedom thing, or become eaten by the parasitic culture within the group. These areas were failed in by him utterly, and perhaps deliberately, depending on how you look at it.

 

[nexus100]

In the interest of further clarification, I wouldn't even say I'm coming from a Hubbard oriented base. His work has taken on more of a fringe quality. Almost everything else I've been looking into has more significance for me at this point.

The primary value of his work is in the ability to go in and address a specific condition directly.

Many other types of work address much broader areas, and specifics often "fall away" at some point.

But if a specific needs to be addressed, you can often pinpoint it and address it using hubbards techniques.

Just don't buy into the whole bridge to total freedom thing, or become eaten by the parasitic culture within the group. These areas were failed in by him utterly, and perhaps deliberately, depending on how you look at it.

I don't need to be told Hubbard's techniques. Your attitude so far tells me where you are. And that isn't a criticism, it is fact. You are trying to be a CS instead of saying what is in your heart. That is a very Hubbard and COS mentality. Generally after a time on the board, when one feels one can be accepted for oneself, that drops away.

You read 1000 posts and then elected to enter the field with a volley instead of honestly saying where you were at. That means, to me, you intend to teach. If you could enter with that post you have nothing to teach me. If your attitude reflects you and your group's gathered viewpoint I wouldn't let you within a thousand miles. Been there, done that.

A suggestion is to see what the board can teach you. It has taught me a good deal. Each to his own, however.

 

[Oneflewover]

I don't need to be told Hubbard's techniques. Your attitude so far tells me where you are. And that isn't a criticism, it is fact. You are trying to be a CS instead of saying what is in your heart. That is a very Hubbard and COS mentality. Generally after a time on the board, when one feels one can be accepted for oneself, that drops away.

You read 1000 posts and then elected to enter the field with a volley instead of honestly saying where you were at. That means, to me, you intend to teach. If you could enter with that post you have nothing to teach me. If your attitude reflects you and your group's gathered viewpoint I wouldn't let you within a thousand miles. Been there, done that.

A suggestion is to see what the board can teach you. It has taught me a good deal. Each to his own, however.

Is this where it starts to get interesting?

Sorry if I sound preachy. It's not my intent.

I'm just sharing my viewpoints as they are right now. take them or leave them, or rip them up, or having them push your buttons. You're free to view as you choose.

I don't intend to get into a debate about it, but your speculations about me are wrong. You're seeing what you expect to see, not what's there.

Again, that's your choice as well.

Over to you....

 

[Veda]

Are you a Scientologist?

 

[nexus100]

Is this where it starts to get interesting?

Sorry if I sound preachy. It's not my intent.

I'm just sharing my viewpoints as they are right now. take them or leave them, or rip them up, or having them push your buttons. You're free to view as you choose.

I don't intend to get into a debate about it, but your speculations about me are wrong. You're seeing what you expect to see, not what's there.

Again, that's your choice as well.

Over to you....

Have you noticed you don't really respond to the points in posts, you sidestep them? Every post you've made is an attempt at manipulation of one sort or other.

Well I've done my job. You are outed. I guess I should operate with "There but for the grace of God" at this point and not crow. I don't feel much like crowing, believe me. The jetsam of the COS ain't fun to play with.

 

[Oneflewover]

Are you a Scientologist?

Me?

No. Not anymore. I don't study, or practice LRH tech, specifically.

although he copyrighted everything on earth, so it could be argued that communicating is practicing LRH tech. (Joke. Not attempted manipulation)

short answer? no.

 

[Veda]

Me?

No. Not anymore. I don't study, or practice LRH tech, specifically.

although he copyrighted everything on earth, so it could be argued that communicating is practicing LRH tech. (Joke. Not attempted manipulation)

short answer? no.

Thanks for the answer. Yes would have been OK too.

In case you're curious, here are a few links - Notably, to excerpts from L. Ron Hubbard's 1938 ('Excalibur letter') 'Mission Statement', his 1946 'Affirmations', and his 1955 'Russian Brainwashing Manual'. (Bottom two links.)

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=84382&postcount=33

 

[gomorrhan]

Are you a Scientologist?

Here's one for you, Veda.

Are you a primate? Yes or no.

Is that the full answer? Don't bother to add anything. See how that leaves you feeling.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Here's one for you, Veda.

Are you a primate? Yes or no.

Is that the full answer? Don't bother to add anything. See how that leaves you feeling.

I think he meant the opposite answer would have been acceptable, rather than being critical of the extra words.

Paul

 

[Veda]

I think he meant the opposite answer would have been acceptable, rather than being critical of the extra words.

Paul

Yes, that's what I meant.

Here, just for Scientologists, I'll even use a smiley:

 

[gomorrhan]

So, are answers other than yes and no options? Because I would say I am most certainly not a scientologist, but I would qualify that by saying that many of my views and opinions are consonant with what is held by many scientologists. Such would probably view me as a scientologist, either as a squirrel, or true to the subject they agreed with, rather than the cult which was foisted upon them over their protests.

 

[Zinjifar]

I'm a primate. Am I *only* a primate? No.
Am 'I' all 'I' am? The question becomes meaningless.

Zinj

 

[Soul of Ginnungagab]

I suppose that by an FZ'er you mean a person affiliated with a "RONs org" organization, since that is how the term is mostly applied on this board.

Technically speaking a Scientologists is a person associated with and/or in agreement with the official Scientology Church.
A person that was in such an agreement in the past but no longer is in present time is an ex-Scientologist.

Therefore also an FZ'er is in fact an ex-Scientologist. I do know that there are some of those that label themselves a Scientologist anyway. But that means that they have a different definition of the term "Scientologist" than the official definition, which is clearly a person in agreement with the official church.

This board is NOT a black/white board but rather a very nuanced board. That is at least how I see it. That is a reason why the board is powerful and why I like to be here. I am aware that in some situations one does need to take a black/white approach to a subject in order to distance oneself from it, but on a broader scale life is indeed a multi-nuanced phenomenon. It would make sense to take a clearly black/white approach regarding the term "Scientologist" in my opinion as indicated above. Thus it is easy to say who is a Scientologist and who is not.

But once one is an ex-Scientologist there are tons of nuances.

What makes it very delicate is that many persons did find out something for themselves via Scientology. They can't reject everything they learned or realized or got aware of in Scientology without rejecting themselves. But what they found out belongs to themselves NOT to Scientology which is why it is OK. They need to "only" relieve from their mind what belongs to Scientology, NOT what belongs to themselves. I put the word "only" in quotes because it is not as easy as the term "only" might indicate. It is a task that takes years for most people. For some it would mean that they go through an FZ organization for others it would mean something completely different.

EDIT: Corrected some spelling.

No disrespect because I really like your last name "Ginnungagab". It is so very cool. But somehow-someway I missed your conclusion-please rephrase the part were you draw "your point". I'm an older person and I need to have things explained to me in a simple-old fashion way. I wish to thank you for helping me to understand your point of view. The Anabaptist is easy to understand even though he uses lots of words. Again-thanks!

Hi uncle sam,

It is a while ago you asked for a clarification, I didn't get around to make a reply until now. I will PM to you in order to let you know that I made this reply:

I said three things:

1) One thing was about taking the viewpoint that a scientologist is a person in agreement with the official church and thus a Free Zoner is an ex-scientologist. But, that would of course only hold water if you define a scientologist as someone who is associated or an agreement with the church. Although I like to take that viewpoint I must admit that I looked differently on the matter earlier on. When we (me and some friends) splintered off from scientology in the time around 1983 we did actually regard ourselves as scientologists. But we found it had become very difficult to actually do scientology in a scientology organization, which is another way of saying that our understanding and application of the subject was something else but what was happening in the church.

2) The second thing was about taking a nuanced view at things.

3) The third thing I said was basically that what you have learned and found out yourself is yours.

As a matter of fact I don't know which parts of my post you did not understand, if nothing at all made sense to you, or if it is certain parts of it you are concerned about. I will be glad to elaborate further if you would want.

***

And then a note regarding the name "Ginnungagab". It is from the Norse Mythology. The correct spelling in English is actually "Ginnungagap" and in Danish it is "Ginnungagab". I chose to call myself "Soul of Ginnungagab" with that spelling, as I find it kind of authentic with a "b" at the end, but it is really just a nickname and thus can have its own spelling as a nickname.

In my signature I have put the correct English spelling. The signature is a slight change of the story of the creation from the Norse Mythology. The change is that I have told the story as a present time story "In the beginning is Ginnungagap" instead of "In the beginning was Ginnungagap" and similar in the next lines. The point is to put the the idea that the creation is something happening right now. The last line "From this pool of unlimited creative power great ideas are born." I made as an addition to this interpretation of the creation, a kind of conclusion you could say.

I will quote the entire signature here, so that it appears in this post in case I change the signature later on, which I have no plans of doing at the moment, but you never know, so it is just to make sure that the post includes what I am talking about:

In the beginning is Ginnungagap, the mighty gap with magical potential.
In the north there is Niflheim, the land of snow and ice.
In the south there is Muspelheim, the land of fire and heat.

From this pool of unlimited creative power great ideas are born.

 

[Soul of Ginnungagab]

Sorry, I don't buy it. If a person believes in the workability of Scientology to the extent that he wishes to be a practitioner of it, he is a Scientologist. You don't have to be a Roman Catholic to be a Christian. You can splinter off from any organized church and still belief in Christianity. This idea that you are not "technically" a Scientologist because you are not in good standing with the Church is a rhetoric trick.
Granted there are people who are at various stages in their departure of Scientology. But if a person is singing the praises of Scientology then why are they here, in a place of sanctuary from Scientology?
That is the question that is being dodged.


The Anabaptist Jacques

Yeah, I understand what you mean. See my reply to uncle sam, post number 78, the post above this one.

 

[Zinjifar]

My view would be that the comparisons/analogies from 'christianity' to Scientology are fallacious; often deliberately so. A 'christian' would be a follower (to whatever extent) of Christ. There is little question, except from some fundamentalist asshats )) that Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Henry VII'ers, pentacostals yadda yadda are 'christians'. The Roman Catholic Church may make a claim to having been 'founded' by Jesus, but, even by Roman Catholic theory, there are any number of legitimate offshoots, which *maintain* apostolic succession, if that's important to you; which it is to them. And, even the Roman Catholics wouldn't dispute the 'christianity' of various *other* offshoots. (There is some quibble about the Mormons, which is actually a less than negligable quibble.)

However, Scientology was *founded* by one man, L. Ron Hubbard, and *Ron* defined the term 'Scientologist' and *Ron* left little to no quibble about what *He* would consider a 'Scientologist'. Admittedly, Ron also threw in lots of weasily bullshit about the issue and definition, but, His *intent* is clear to even most of the most theety weetie self-proclaimed 'Scientologist'.

Would there be something wrong with a non-'Churchie' calling himself a 'Hubbardite'? Hardly; the implication is merely that they're a follower of Hubbard, to *whatever* extent.

Now, to be honest, the whole issue is a bit of a red herring, especially considering how many 'Scientologists' do not want to be 'professing' Scientologists or 'known' as Scientologists. People can call themselves a lot of things. Some whacked out skinhead can call himself a 'nazi' if he wants and, nobody will care, even though the *real* nazis would liquidate him at first opportunity. Likewise, people can call themselves 'Scientologists' all they want. And, people can call themselves Roman Catholics all they want too, even if they don't accept the infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals or deny the transubstantiation or the Virgin Birth. They're not, but hey, nobody cares.

The problems with the self-proclaimed 'Scientologists' only arrise when they get into discussions with other people who don't know much about Scientology (almost everybody on the planet) and begin redefining things to suit themselves.

Don't like 'Keeping Scientology Working'? 'Fair Game'? 'Scientology Ethics'? Disconnection'?

Don't agree with 'acceptable truth'? Bolivar? Taking over the world? Xenu and the Body Thetans? Green slime? Water-soluble radiation?

'Oh no! That's *Church* of Scientology! I use a dictionary and try to stay 'in exchange'! The rest of that stuff isn't Scientology! That's *Church* of Scientology!!!'

Scientology is just a word; a word coined or stolen by L. Ron Hubbard. When I discuss Scientology, I'm talking about the full and complete output of the Founder of Scientology; L. Ron Hubbard, who probably would appreciate being able to variously pull his magic rabbits out of the various hats depending on *His* audience, but, it isn't just the 'Church' of Scientology.

For the sake of honesty and clarity, it'd be really nice if the people who don't swallow *all* of Scientology as Ron Intended would just call themselves Hubbardites. Which they won't, but, it'd be nice if they'd drop the 'That's Not Scientology, that's 'Church' of Scientology' codswallop.

By one definition of Scientology; 'uses Scientology Tech in his life', *I'm* a Scientologist because I sometimes use a dictionary.

Zinj