What's new

Is any ex truly out?

Outethicsofficer

Silver Meritorious Patron
I am out of scientology I no longer study it, I don't go to the org, I got rid of all my materials dumping and/or burning them. So to all intents and purposes I am truly out...but I don't say that I'll ever be rid of it as it is like a stain that refuses to be removed, how do you get rid of 25 years. Am I happier? You betcha!

That's my 2cs worth.

James
 

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Why care about the truths he might have said?
And by the way, anyone can have acccurate remarks: communication solves things!! Allelujah I'm a prophet!
This is OSA, and you owe us $300,000 for using our trademark - COMMUNICATION solves problems!

You are a freeloader! Please go to your nearest Morgue and see the EO :nazi:ML

Just kidding! :wink:

What are the similarities between Psychiatry and Scientology?

Scientology and psych's puts labels on people and evaluates. 1.1, PTS, SP, low toned, verses Bi-polar, schizophrenic, depressed etc. Scientology is covert in that they say they do not evaluate but they do, just look!

Scientology over charges for their services and does not get lasting results. It will cost you $500,000 to go up their Bridge to Total Freedom. They won't tell you this up front, they will not tell you the side effects: they are vast and many (just look at the internet). The staff and Sea Org are not allowed to look at the internet. ???

Psychiatrists will give you drugs but at least you have a chance and can read the side effects on the label or go to the internet.

 

DoneDeal

Patron Meritorious
No.

You are confused. One can certainly be totally and completely "out of Scientology" and also work to expose the lies, crimes, abuse and fraud of Scientology. That, by the way, is not "fixation", that's just the desire for justice and the desire to help others.

Bill


Nice. No talking in circles there.

Remember how that's how them nazi's wanted us to feel after reading ksw, for the thousandth time?
But it was unobtainable due to the continuous outpoints and justifications for craziness we had to continually talk ourselves out of seeing?

It's good feeling firm about it now huh?
 

GreyLensman

Silver Meritorious Patron
Something I've been seeing some people say is "but is he/she truly out?". Every now and again someone says it and it got me to thinking. Now, we've already discussed what does and does not maketh a Scientologist and, by extension, an ex Scientologist. Emma created a very good very long running thread on it. It's a good topic, IMO.

I wanted to look at this issue from the vantage point of is any given person (who says they're out) truly out?

I think it's one thing to be out of CofS and another to be done with the whole entire thing.

Perhaps it's best to make it simple. If they are out of CofS, they're out of CofS. If they have no interest in doing any FZ or Indie or self study of Scn, then they're out of Scn as well.

How do we know? Because they've said so. They'll tell you so.

Yes, people are still coming to terms with this stuff and that's why they come and lurk and post. The way they work it out for themselves varies greatly. It can make it difficult to see where they're coming from, so my proposed solution is to just take their word for it, should they answer that question.

I think as soon as you take that first step on the internet and read confirmation of the dissonance you've been living with, you are on your way out.

The moment you do that you have just set yourself up for extensive sec checks.

Out being outside of the Church of Scientology, outside of that initial trap.

Out of the organization.

After that I'm not sure it matters. The subject separate from the Church without enforcement has some risk, but without the rest of the game there to cave you into an interior world and shut you away from the rest of us, it's just not that big a deal. With care, no one is going to cave themselves in trying to continue on a similar spiritual path. And no one is saying you can't take a different road when the path forks.

Out is pretty much out, as soon as the Church is not your reality and your surroundings, as soon as you are communicating with people, rather than wogs, as soon as the fog lifts a bit.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
No.

You are confused. One can certainly be totally and completely "out of Scientology" and also work to expose the lies, crimes, abuse and fraud of Scientology. That, by the way, is not "fixation", that's just the desire for justice and the desire to help others.

Bill


Thanks for that post. Very true.

Mark has been on a terror the past couple months running his new campaign where he keeps typing the words, "obsessed" and "angry", "fixated" to describe people who don't agree with him.

I already told him that his campaign is not working but he seems determined to win the hearts and minds of people on ESMB by insulting them.

By the way, those words Mark uses are a variation on Marty Rathbun's use of "hater".

And "hater" is a variation on Ron Hubbard's "low toned" or "sp". (see Science of Survival on how to dispose of low-toned people quietly without sorrow)

I guess it's a Scientology thing to attack people who don't agree with them.
 

Freeminds

Bitter defrocked apostate
When the subject being discussed is Scientology, the interpretation of "out" is complicated by the fact that many people didn't feel safe to express an opinion right away.

Saying your piece, twelve or twenty years after you gave up on CofS doesn't indicate obsession, just decompression.

The time is coming when the Indies will need to re-brand: independent of whom? Other than that, call yourself what you like, when it feels right. It takes a long time to peel Hubbard's onion of lies, and each layer came with thought control, via alterations to the definition of even simple words, so we can expect people to call themselves all kinds of things.

CofS wants you to think of yourself as failure, drop-out, traitor, debtor. Marty and the rest of the cheapzone want you to think of yourself as a loyal officer, ready to uphold the 'true faith'. Neither ask what you want.

Which is a long way of saying: I like Claire's proposition, that a former Scientology victim should be able to call herself anything she wants - and we shouldn't read too much into it.
 
Being out of Scientology and being rid of Scientology are two different things.

People who use bits and pieces may be out of the web of the Scientology network, but they have not rid themselves of Scientology.

And there is no reason they have to.

Staying in touch with people you knew or reminiscing is not the same thing as being obsessed about it.

I know some guys who had shared experiences in the military. They discuss old times but are not still in the military nor are they obsessed about it.

This board is a social site, not an org.

Nor is using bits and pieces of Scientology the same as being obsessed about it.

A person can be out of Scientology but still obsessed about it. In this case they are out of Scientology but not rid of Scientology.

But the real obsessed are few and far between, I think.

As far as Hubbard and truths, yes, Hubbard said some things that are accurate, but so do used car salesmen when they are selling you a lemon.

But "truths" imply something that is more than just accurate information.

Truths, to me, implies something aligned with an ultimate unchanging reality.

And Scientology contains nothing like that.

So that's how I look at the things that Hubbard said.

What he said may have some incidental accuracy, he is still selling a lemon.

And the whole product is a lemon.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Being out of Scientology and being rid of Scientology are two different things.

People who use bits and pieces may be out of the web of the Scientology network, but they have not rid themselves of Scientology.

And there is no reason they have to.

Staying in touch with people you knew or reminiscing is not the same thing as being obsessed about it.

I know some guys who had shared experiences in the military. They discuss old times but are not still in the military nor are they obsessed about it.

This board is a social site, not an org.

Nor is using bits and pieces of Scientology the same as being obsessed about it.

A person can be out of Scientology but still obsessed about it. In this case they are out of Scientology but not rid of Scientology.

But the real obsessed are few and far between, I think.

As far as Hubbard and truths, yes, Hubbard said some things that are accurate, but so do used car salesmen when they are selling you a lemon.

But "truths" imply something that is more than just accurate information.

Truths, to me, implies something aligned with an ultimate unchanging reality.

And Scientology contains nothing like that.

So that's how I look at the things that Hubbard said.

What he said may have some incidental accuracy, he is still selling a lemon.

And the whole product is a lemon.

The Anabaptist Jacques


Wait a damn minute!

If the CoS manufactures lemons......wouldn't that be us, here on ESMB? :hysterical:


WE ARE THE IAL
lemons.jpg

INTERNATIONAL ASSN OF LEMONOLOGISTS

 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
IF you are going to make that argument (and no, I don't recommend it :) ) THEN you also need to account for the fact that many of those who lay claim to being 'done with scientology' or 'having no interest in scientology' nonetheless still demonstrate at every opportunity how utterly fixated upon the subject they remain.

Just as liking a thing doesn't equate with an obsession, neither is not liking evidence that one is not in fact obsessed.


Mark A. Baker

So, at the risk of putting words into your mouth (again) are you effectively saying that unless an Ex is fully "FN VGI's" on the subject of scientology and any associated upset, hurt, anger or loss is 'erased' ... (and a success story written) that the Ex is obsessed with scientology? And if so, so what?

Scientologists are (in general and on a good day) robotic, emotionless, condescending, thoughtless and narcissistic ... (I omitted imbecilic and sycophantic because I don't want to appear rude). They are also obsessed with being right, they have to be to justify the choices they have made and continue to make.

Why not spend your time in an 'uptone' environment, spreading 'theta, knowledge and wisdom' wherever you go to those that truly deserve your attention? ESMB is full of losers, why do you choose to associate with us, even for a few moments?

We clearly do not deserve you, Mark.

:coolwink:

As I clumsily trot through this period of my life as an Ex scientologist, I am fully aware that by scientology standards I am getting worse and not better, partly because I'm feeling things and responding to them as a human being minus the 'tekky, silly self talk' for the first time in decades.

I like getting worse, it feels real and it feels honest even though it hurts and makes me achingly sad at times due to not being in a position to fix (you would say 'be at cause over') the result of scientology disconnection by two people that I just happen to still love, very much, despite all that has happened.

You see, I no longer measure myself against some dead nutter's standards and I no longer introvert when I see those same insane standards (and tek) being applied to others here on ESMB ... sometimes I do get annoyed though and have 'banky' urges (I enjoy those too).

Hey, Mark ... please take this the wrong way ... shove you tek up your bottom, this really isn't the place to be practicing it unless you are trying to be nasty, and I don't believe for a moment that you really are.

:thankyou:


 
No.

You are confused. One can certainly be totally and completely "out of Scientology" and also work to expose the lies, crimes, abuse and fraud of Scientology. That, by the way, is not "fixation", that's just the desire for justice and the desire to help others.

Bill

And I am totally in agreement with this. But whereas reasoned criticism is mentally healthy, obsessive criticism most certainly is not. And there are those who clearly fall into the latter category.


Mark A. Baker
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
And I am totally in agreement with this. But whereas reasoned criticism is mentally healthy, obsessive criticism most certainly is not. And there are those who clearly fall into the latter category.


Mark A. Baker



And of course since you are a 'reasoned critic that is mentally healthy', you are therefore one of the able people who is able to tell us who the 'obsessive critics' are, right?

:hysterical:

Special recognition given for attempting a super-slippery WordClown trick.
 
Last edited:
And I am totally in agreement with this. But whereas reasoned criticism is mentally healthy, obsessive criticism most certainly is not. And there are those who clearly fall into the latter category.


Mark A. Baker

You're slipping Mark. If anyone else made this kind of statement you would point out that obsessive criticism in this case is a subjective determination by the author of the statement and not an observation by a professional.

And it does seem to indicate, by the stance you are taking, that you are the judge of what is a reasoned criticism and what is obsessive criticism.

And actually, you can have obssessive but reasoned criticism.

While I do know what you mean, I think you are trying to give the impression that a characteristic of a few individuals is a characteristic that permeates the board.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
You're slipping Mark. If anyone else made this kind of statement you would point out that obsessive criticism in this case is a subjective determination by the author of the statement and not an observation by a professional. ...

Actually not. I think a reasonably objective measure of obsession could be devised based on patterns of frequency, topic, & attitudes represented in individual posters posts. At least as objective as conception which represents essentially a social consideration can be.


... And it does seem to indicate, by the stance you are taking, that you are the judge of what is a reasoned criticism and what is obsessive criticism.

And actually, you can have obssessive but reasoned criticism. ...

I disagree. Obsession is innately unreasonable. To the degree a person can reason, they are also able to differentiate. Obsessives clearly demonstrate an impairment in their ability to differentiate or appreciate distinctions.


... While I do know what you mean, I think you are trying to give the impression that a characteristic of a few individuals is a characteristic that permeates the board.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Actually not. Whereas I do see signs of obsession on the board, I consider that far from permeating the board it truly represents only a very few, if unfortunately rather obsessive, posters. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
I think a reasonably objective measure of obsession could be devised based on patterns of frequency, topic, & attitudes represented in individual posters posts. At least as objective as conception which represents essentially a social consideration can be.
Mark A. Baker


Was that in English?

Or what language, give me a clue so I can use Google translator.
 
Actually not. I think a reasonably objective measure of obsession could be devised based on patterns of frequency, topic, & attitudes represented in individual posters posts. At least as objective as conception which represents essentially a social consideration can be.

If this is the case, could not someone see such a pattern of frequency, topic, and attitudes in your posts?



I disagree. Obsession is innately unreasonable. To the degree a person can reason, they are also able to differentiate. Obsessives clearly demonstrate an impairment in their ability to differentiate or appreciate distinctions.

No it doesn't. This is just an assumption by you.


Actually not. Whereas I do see signs of obsession on the board, I consider that far from permeating the board it truly represents only a very few, if unfortunately rather obsessive, posters. :coolwink:

Fair enough. Just don't obssessively point it out. :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker

So says Taj boldly (in bold)

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
Actually not. I think a reasonably objective measure of obsession could be devised based on patterns of frequency, topic, & attitudes represented in individual posters posts. At least as objective as conception which represents essentially a social consideration can be.

Mark A. Baker

You're teasing. :naughty:

This is why we can't all play together nicely.

:why:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
You're teasing.

This is why we can't all play together nicely.


In professional sports they don't call it teasing.

They call it taunting.

Players get penalized and ejected for such behavior.

Funny, isn't it, that Mark is chronically lecturing others on on proper behavior.
 
Top