It's probably a transcriptionist error, but you left out "c".
The pattern in Scientology, since its inception, is:
a) People are helped by Scientology
b) then, the same people are screwed by Scientology and/or screwed up by Scientology.
c) "People" continue to believe that "a" is help, not the BAIT part of Bait & Switch.
I have only just caught up with this thread and have found it interesting, coz I have found myself understanding and agreeing with opposing points of view.
I think that this post above pretty well sums it up for me.
I don't see any benefit in denying the value of the bait. By the same token, the lack of recognition that the good stuff was bait for the trap of Scientology, isn't at all cool from where I sit. I understand the denial though. I think there are some who only ever accepted the bait, and I get how and why they may believe that this is what Scientology is and was intended to be (I know I thought that). I don't see the point in slamming that perspective......I'd rather see it discussed to the point where other perspectives were looked at and accepted.
Promotion of something harmful is hard to swallow. At the same time, denial of truths doesn't open doors for the whole truth.
Scientology has many aspects. It's only after time that ya get to see them all, if ya ever do. IMO, being 'hell bent' on certain aspects of it while denying other aspects of it, clouds one's opinion or view and the truth of it all. I reckon this applies to rabid critics and pro techies alike.
I hold the view that Scn wasn't all bad. However, I believe that the stuff which wasn't bad was the bait which hooked me and *so* many into something that was *incredibly* bad. It irks me when I see Scn being promoted as something which was or is good. However, I think it's better to offer a different perspective, rather than slam the one ya don't agree with.
