I have an MU on Indies

[Free Being Me]

Hubbard admits Dianetics book is a fraud
[video=youtube;QOFNGQcBH6M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOFNGQcBH6M[/video]

 

[10oriocookies]

There's no misunderstanding.
I went to a Seminar named TIR.
I had "done" every Dianetics course that had come down the pike since 1950.
I know R3R when I see and hear it.
The TIR procedure turned out to be R3RA VERBATIM.
Had I known that, in advance of the Seminar, I would not have gone to it.
If y'all want to "do" Dianetics and call it something else, well, fine. But, at least, don't mislead others. (I don't blame anyone for not labelling himself "a Scientologist". LOL).
The ppl ( Psychologists and Psychiatrists were the "public" for this Seminar) had not read
Sarge's book. They were misled to believe that Sarge Gerbode was *the source* of this "break through".

So TIR is Dianetics? No wonder Unique got his panties all in a bunch when I questioned its validity/effectiveness. It's like how Narconon is not Scientology right? TIR is the same Scn/FZ shit in a different package.

 

[Free Being Me]

So TIR is Dianetics? No wonder Unique got his panties all in a bunch when I questioned its validity/effectiveness. It's like how Narconon is not Scientology right? TIR is the same Scn/FZ shit in a different package.

The absurd lengths the pro-techie will go to justifying relabeling Elcon's mind control into an acceptable moniker other than calling it dianetics & $cientology for marketability is a tired old theme here. Apples and apples.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

There's no misunderstanding.
I went to a Seminar named TIR.
I had "done" every Dianetics course that had come down the pike since 1950.
I know R3R when I see and hear it.
The TIR procedure turned out to be R3RA VERBATIM.
Had I known that, in advance of the Seminar, I would not have gone to it.
If y'all want to "do" Dianetics and call it something else, well, fine. But, at least, don't mislead others. (I don't blame anyone for not labelling himself "a Scientologist". LOL).
The ppl ( Psychologists and Psychiatrists were the "public" for this Seminar) had not read
Sarge's book. They were misled to believe that Sarge Gerbode was *the source* of this "break through".

I wish you'd post here more often Challenge/phenomanon ... your 'old timer' knowledge is so valuable here and you have a way of cutting through the nonsense and getting to the point (when required) that I appreciate.

 

[kate8024]

The absurd lengths the pro-techie will go to justifying relabeling Elcon's mind control into an acceptable moniker other than calling it dianetics & $cientology for marketability is a tired old theme here. Apples and apples.

Well there is kind of an issue here because everytime I talk about the squirrely stuff I do and still call Scientology I get ass-tons of people responding that its no longer Scientology because I did something as simple as give a more realistic definition of clear. With renaming what you are doing you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[uniquemand]

The information I have, which may or may not be completely accurate, is that David Mayo had depended upon Gerbode for funding the legal case, then Gerbode sold the David Mayo IOU to Scientology Inc., thus pulling the rug out from under David Mayo. Mayo settled with Scientology Inc., then Scientology Inc. presented Mayo with the IOU, which Scientology Inc. then owned, and Mayo had to pay Scientology Inc. the amount of the IOU. Part of that Gerbode/Scientology Inc. deal was Gerbode using his re-cycled Dianetic and Scientology tech without reprisal. It had nothing to do with the "Church" realizing they did not own abreaction therapy. It was more like: Let's crush David Mayo, no matter what it takes.

The above is what I have heard from someone I consider a reliable source, however, I'd want to examine the topic further before asserting it as a fact and, for the most part, unless both Gerbode and David Mayo have something to say on the topic, there's not much point in pursuing the topic.

That's an interesting perspective, and one I hadn't heard broached before. I would have a very hard time believing Sarge Gerbode would do anything with an eye towards screwing David Mayo over. That may have been the result, though. There's certainly things I don't know about, there, but if the opportunity to ask Sarge comes up, I will. I know they went separate ways, and probably both of them have different stories about how that went down. I happen to esteem both people, but I'm not afraid of the truth.

 

[uniquemand]

So TIR is Dianetics? No wonder Unique got his panties all in a bunch when I questioned its validity/effectiveness. It's like how Narconon is not Scientology right? TIR is the same Scn/FZ shit in a different package.

Well, the difference, 10oriocookies, is that TIR has opened itself to clinical trials and is listed as an evidence-based therapeutic intervention. If you want to check clinical effectiveness, look at the available research. Just because a conman tells you his sword is magical doesn't mean it's not sharp and effective. Believe what you wish.

 

[anonomog]

...

Today over on Mike Rinder's blog, Dan Koon posted an OPEN LETTER TO COB.

I don't get two things about it.

I read the whole thing and have two (2) crashing MUs. I need help! LOL





CRASHING MU #1: Why are there so many Indies flowing congratulatory comments about how Dan standardly applied Ron's "WHAT IS GREATNESS" tech? The letter basically said, "Thanks for totally fucking me over, Dave, forcing me to leave that shithole." How is that "greatness"? LOL

CRASHING MU #2: I think I have lost my ability to "obnose" because look at the last line of the letter: "With the same wishes for 2014 and beyond that many others around the world wish for you." I actually thought that was saying FOADIAWOF (fuck-off-and-die-in-a-wall-of-fire). But the Indies thought it was super theta and, "greatness". Am I that freaking out of it that I thought Koon was delivering a diabolically clever New Year's Succumb Postulate? LOL


By the way, I challenge anyone to read all those culty-creepy, repetitive-validation comments about "What is Greatness" and not cringe! After all, Hubbard wrote holy scripture about "...continuing to love your fellows despite what they have done to you." The same Hubbard that imprisoned and terrorized a hysterically crying 4 year old in a chain locker (for days) because he chewed on a piece of paper.

It's probably not very nice to post criticism of an Indie who is struggling so mightily to make the tech right. I don't care. LOL.

Stating the obvious. Obvious is not always obvious online. Sarcasm and humour doesn't always get the desired results in a message board or public forum. The importance of smilies should never be underestimated.

Add this to people taking things literally and without question if the person has enough altitude or seen as an opinion leader in the virtual or real life community.

Plus the possibility that people skim content and apply their own anticipated value onto the message.

Equals responses appear to be at right angles to the message.

Observation is that the above could be applied to the Indies. However it could also be applied to 99% of the responses to this thread.

So my conclusion Hoaxie is that your MU is not necessarily limited to the Indies, but with people who are communicating online. The only difference is in the language used to express it.

Is your needle floating now?

 

[CO2]

What shocked me was that Sarge Gerbode was disseminating a subject that he called TIR, while in actual fact, he was delivering R3RA, ( Dianetics), with absolutely no ack that it was LRH's *material*. Part of that 'shock' was the fact that RTC knew it, and did nothing to protect *their* copyrights. I assumed that RTC saw it, most likely at Ron's direction, as "getting Dn/Scn into the 'mainstream'.

LRH did that with Van Vogt as well.
In the 60's, Van Vogt was in Sausalito, California advertising in the San Francisco and Marin County newspapers, a service that he called "e meter clearing".
I reported it to Heber and Heber told me that LRH had ordered 'hands off' Van Vogt. .
I suspect that is why Sarge Gerbode was/is allowed to deliver Dn/Scn under his own banner.

Hope that helps.

^^^^ The above is true. (Dr. G is a relative)

he probably has more people practicing his stuff across the globe than DM's group.

 

[CO2]

The reason why the Church laid off Gerbode (and company) is that they had a negotiated settlement after a protracted legal war.

The Church realized they did not own abreactive therapy. Their main concerns were words being used and public being drawn from them. Those were settled.

Furthermore, in the foreword of Gerbode's book, he does acknowledge that he was involved with Scientology and that many of their methods were humanitarian and useful, while the organization and its founder were... not. There is no deception, here, and the two organizations are connected in NO way, other than some personnel that were once Scientologists now being Metapsychologists.

The misunderstanding, here, apparently, is that Hubbard owned abreaction.

yes^^^^^

 

[Free Being Me]

Well there is kind of an issue here because everytime I talk about the squirrely stuff I do and still call Scientology I get ass-tons of people responding that its no longer Scientology because I did something as simple as give a more realistic definition of clear. With renaming what you are doing you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Well, here's an idea. It's edgy and provocative, daring and fraught with peril, yet achievable. Take a deep breath asking yourself why finding self definitive value in a narcissistic/sociopaths psychological mind control is really who you are. The degree one agrees with mind control is the total sum one is susceptible to mind control and therefor not cognitively ones self.

Hubbard manufactured an Orwellian mental prison crafting his followers in his image. Who wants to be a pale imitation of Elcon, echoing his mind trap internally? That's a lot of useless mental machinery filtering who you are. Who are you? I don't know but I do know you're worth more than Elcon ever wanted you to be. Maybe you're you and that's enough to be happy with, flaws, imperfections, warts and all. Being human is beautiful and perhaps that's the nub of those who still cling to Elcon's shadows, they can't accept themselves because the mind control supersedes their identity.

 

[Panda Termint]

General commentary: Critics who fail to find anything usable or worthwhile in the entire body of scientology technology simply aren't looking hard enough (or refusing to see). They're as blind to the truth as the most blinded of True Believers who can't see anything wrong or harmful in it.
Just an opinion.

 

[CO2]

The information I have, which may or may not be completely accurate, is that David Mayo had depended upon Gerbode for funding the legal case, then Gerbode sold the David Mayo IOU to Scientology Inc., thus pulling the rug out from under David Mayo. Mayo settled with Scientology Inc., then Scientology Inc. presented Mayo with the IOU, which Scientology Inc. then owned, and Mayo had to pay Scientology Inc. the amount of the IOU. Part of that Gerbode/Scientology Inc. deal was Gerbode using his re-cycled Dianetic and Scientology tech without reprisal. It had nothing to do with the "Church" realizing they did not own abreaction therapy. It was more like: Let's crush David Mayo, no matter what it takes.

The above is what I have heard from someone I consider a reliable source, however, I'd want to examine the topic further before asserting it as a fact and, for the most part, unless both Gerbode and David Mayo have something to say on the topic, there's not much point in pursuing the topic.

The last I heard, within five years ago, straight from Sarge's mouth directly to me in a quiet personal conversation in front of the garage of one of the children in Scotts Valley, CA., was that the money David Mayo was loaned by Sarge was not paid back. Sarge is still owed the money, though it is a drop in the bucket for his wallet. There is and was no ill will amongst them. He is not trying to collect it. Most likely, it has, by now, become an uncollectible debt, by California law.

No loan was ever assigned to the Co$.

One might say "The agreement / settlement" that is never talked about would be strikingly similar to the description: "Part of that Gerbode/Scientology Inc. deal was Gerbode using his re-cycled Dianetic and Scientology tech without reprisal." No one will confirm the statement, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.......

 

[lotus]

Well, here's an idea. It's edgy and provocative, daring and fraught with peril, yet achievable. Take a deep breath asking yourself why finding self definitive value in a narcissistic/sociopaths psychological mind control is really who you are. The degree one agrees with mind control is the total sum one is susceptible to mind control and therefor not cognitively ones self.

Hubbard manufactured an Orwellian mental prison crafting his followers in his image. Who wants to be a pale imitation of Elcon, echoing his mind trap internally? That's a lot of useless mental machinery filtering who you are. Who are you? I don't know but I do know you're worth more than Elcon ever wanted you to be. Maybe you're you and that's enough to be happy with, flaws, imperfections, warts and all. Being human is beautiful and perhaps that's the nub of those who still cling to Elcon's shadows, they can't accept themselves because the mind control supersedes their identity.

I couldn't express my mind about $cientology and ElWrong so well as you did!
I agree 100%

I must add, that some who came to this conclusion would find sad that, despite having all the information now available on the internet, many still persue in applying mind control technology to them and with others.
(we still crave to see Oatee Powertz - a tone 40 Thetan - a thetan free of entities - a thetan in total control over mest...a thetan who postulate the end of suffering - a better planet - but unfortunately - the more there is evidence of some EP of Oatee levels on internet the more it is very much sad - for them - and for the society we live in)

But the worse, is that some will read these posts, and find sad that we are so blind (and haters) in not seeing the good with scientology tech as we confuse ''radical corporate $cientology'' wrong behavior with religious technology invented bu El Con

I remember when I refused to listen and to see what was the truth about $cientology because I wannteeeeeeeeeeedddd
so much the tech to work and the Oatees promises to be true!

[STRIKE]Alice[/STRIKE] Cultist in wonderland!
:confused2:

* Many things that could be ''possibly usable'' or claimed to be, are coming form other practices or had been brought by some other people. ( e-meter - auditing - study tech - pufir - tr's - dianetics - ....)

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

General commentary: Critics who fail to find anything usable or worthwhile in the entire body of scientology technology simply aren't looking hard enough (or refusing to see). They're as blind to the truth as the most blinded of True Believers who can't see anything wrong or harmful in it.
Just an opinion.

That is oversimplification extraordinaire.

You assume far too much.

And you ignore or entirely miss other scenarios which quite adequately explain why some critics "fail to find anything usable or worthwhile".

What if the critic chooses to not talk about that aspect of Scientology? Is there some law where people are required to talk about what you want them to talk about?

What if the "usable or worthwhile" parts of Scientology are negated by other parts of Scientology?

What if the wins are eventually followed by losses which not only negate the win, but actually worsen that pc's condition?

As far as your charge that critics who don't say nice things about Scientology are "blind to the truth"--what "truth" are you talking about? The truth contained in a PC's success story? Did you know that Lisa McPherson was writing rave success stories about her auditing shortly before she had a complete mental breakdown that lead directly to her death?

Critics are not obligated to talk about the parts of the tech that seem to produce a good effect any more than the survivors of the Titanic are forced to talk about the ship's lovely accommodations while it was afloat.

 

[Panda Termint]

Perhaps, yet the truth will set you free and I keep reading posts by people who seem so certain of their own evaluations as to what that truth may be.

"I wish I was as certain about ANYTHING as (he/she) seems to be about EVERYTHING."

If you choose to only tell part of the truth, rather than the whole truth, that's fine by me.
I choose otherwise .

 

[programmer_guy]

That is oversimplification extraordinaire.

You assume far too much.

And you ignore or entirely miss other scenarios which quite adequately explain why some critics "fail to find anything usable or worthwhile".

What if the critic chooses to not talk about that aspect of Scientology? Is there some law where people are required to talk about what you want them to talk about?

What if the "usable or worthwhile" parts of Scientology are negated by other parts of Scientology?

What if the wins are eventually followed by losses which not only negate the win, but actually worsen that pc's condition?

As far as your charge that critics who don't say nice things about Scientology are "blind to the truth"--what "truth" are you talking about? The truth contained in PC's success stories? Did you know that Lisa McPherson was writing rave success stories about her auditing short before she had a complete mental breakdown that lead directly to her death?

Critics are not obligated to talk about the parts of the tech that seem to produce a good effect any more than the survivors of the Titanic are forced to talk about the ships lovely accommodations while it was afloat.

Yeah, trying to find the few gems in that huge pile of crap is not worth the effort.
What few gems that could be found would be found with less effort in completely different non-Scientology studies.
That's my opinion, FWIW.

 

[Free Being Me]

General commentary: Critics who fail to find anything usable or worthwhile in the entire body of scientology technology simply aren't looking hard enough (or refusing to see). They're as blind to the truth as the most blinded of True Believers who can't see anything wrong or harmful in it.
Just an opinion.

Let's see ... fair game, bait and switch, destroyed families, murders and suicides, innumerable coverups, government and societal infiltrations, emotional and psychological abuses, ruined reputations from ops, etc., etc., etc. What an insidious criminal organization and you want critics to say nice things about it. LOL.

His wallets gone, the IAS doesn't miss a trick.​

 

[Panda Termint]

Yeah, trying to find the few gems in that huge pile of crap is not worth the effort.
What few gems that could be found would be found with less effort in completely different non-Scientology studies.
That's my opinion, FWIW.

... and a good opinion it is, too.

 

[Panda Termint]

Let's see ... fair game, bait and switch, destroyed families, murders and suicides, innumerable coverups, government and societal infiltrations, emotional and psychological abuses, ruined reputations from ops, etc., etc., etc. What an insidious criminal organization and you want critics to say nice things about it. LOL.
...

​

​

How did you ever arrive at that conclusion from what I actually said?
Your analogies are kinda weak but excitingly controversial so I guess they'll appeal to some.