Itsa time...

[Lurker]

I appreciate all the input from folks here. I'm compiling quite a study list for myself. It seems I have a bit of a road ahead of me.

 

[Div6]

seriously - you seem to have a problem with the concept of doing something, studying it and arriving at a conclusion about it.

Are you having a problem with the concept of sequence or are you just showing your inabilities? What would be "outpointy" (ludicrous word) would be if you can find anywhere where I said I did not believe in Scientology when I was in the Sea Org - or do you normally just argue by making stuff up as you go along?

Oh I don't know - maybe the cultural ethos that has anonymous trolls posting made up crap?

You came, you saw, you opined.
Big whoop.
The whole point of studying scn is to APPLY it. Not "opine" about it.
Either it was of assistance in DOING something, or it wasn't.
To put it in a different perspective, it would be like a music student studying scales, and saying "its bullshit". well, OK...lets hear YOUR creation.
You are the one that said it was rubbish. You also were in the Sea Org.
Yes, there is time in there. My initial questions (which you ignored) were along the lines of "what changed"? When. Which you blew off completely.

So ok, then that leaves me to the opinion that you simply dismiss that which you care not to confront. Thus the reference to cognitive dissonance. Which you further pretended to not understand at all.
If you ever read and understood the Justifications HCOB you would be able to think with the information, and see how it applies.

But let me guess, you were a "failed student" as well. Coudn't 'make it go right' to study. No?

And yes, you can avoid confronting the questions with 'ad hominen" about anonymous trolls. If it makes you feel any better, I will PM you with my name....but that really has nothing to do with your willingness to confront or not.
<rant>
You know Cl V org staff made what...50 dollars a week - maybe 100 -150 on a really good week, And we had to get the students through the courses, audit the pcs, get good results and be trained to do it. While living way below the poverty line. Meanwhile the SO was demanding 40% OFF THE TOP for sitting on their asses and doing NOTHING other than calling on the phone 3 times a day to ask how the stats were. Were they going to study? No. Were they actually producing anything of value. No. Just living off the backs of those that were. And being arrogant assholes the rest of the time. Further, any HCO qualled staff we did recruit were invariably crush sold to join the SO...leaving us with undermanned HCO's chronically.

So I have no compassion for ex-sea org wankers. Just a big bunch of criminal non-producers....expecting something from nothing. How many people did you personally get on the Bridge that stayed? Not as "an exec" but you personally? 10's? 100's 1000's? None?

Ex-SO is better than current SO, that I will grant. But from what I have seen, they have mostly been failed students, failed cases and failed execs. Who wants to "flow power" to that? ugh.


Ruvein Marcus used to prance around with an SOED that was "the LRH reference" that stated all ex-so were DB's.
He made sure to ram that down everybodys throat in "IAS briefings".
Where is he today? Ex-SO.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
</rant>

Mick, you were saying?

 

[everfree]

Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" is a great book about critical thinking vs magical thinking, science vs pseudo-science, and the kind of social effects each kind of thinking produces.

The Demon Haunted World was indeed great, a real favorite of mine.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

You came, you saw, you opined.
Big whoop.
The whole point of studying scn is to APPLY it. Not "opine" about it.
Either it was of assistance in DOING something, or it wasn't.
To put it in a different perspective, it would be like a music student studying scales, and saying "its bullshit". well, OK...lets hear YOUR creation.
You are the one that said it was rubbish. You also were in the Sea Org.
Yes, there is time in there. My initial questions (which you ignored) were along the lines of "what changed"? When. Which you blew off completely.

So ok, then that leaves me to the opinion that you simply dismiss that which you care not to confront. Thus the reference to cognitive dissonance. Which you further pretended to not understand at all.
If you ever read and understood the Justifications HCOB you would be able to think with the information, and see how it applies.

But let me guess, you were a "failed student" as well. Coudn't 'make it go right' to study. No?

And yes, you can avoid confronting the questions with 'ad hominen" about anonymous trolls. If it makes you feel any better, I will PM you with my name....but that really has nothing to do with your willingness to confront or not.
<rant>
You know Cl V org staff made what...50 dollars a week - maybe 100 -150 on a really good week, And we had to get the students through the courses, audit the pcs, get good results and be trained to do it. While living way below the poverty line. Meanwhile the SO was demanding 40% OFF THE TOP for sitting on their asses and doing NOTHING other than calling on the phone 3 times a day to ask how the stats were. Were they going to study? No. Were they actually producing anything of value. No. Just living off the backs of those that were. And being arrogant assholes the rest of the time. Further, any HCO qualled staff we did recruit were invariably crush sold to join the SO...leaving us with undermanned HCO's chronically.

So I have no compassion for ex-sea org wankers. Just a big bunch of criminal non-producers....expecting something from nothing. How many people did you personally get on the Bridge that stayed? Not as "an exec" but you personally? 10's? 100's 1000's? None?

Ex-SO is better than current SO, that I will grant. But from what I have seen, they have mostly been failed students, failed cases and failed execs. Who wants to "flow power" to that? ugh.


Ruvein Marcus used to prance around with an SOED that was "the LRH reference" that stated all ex-so were DB's.
He made sure to ram that down everybodys throat in "IAS briefings".
Where is he today? Ex-SO.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
</rant>

Mick, you were saying?

I was saying that the ARC Triangle, Auditing and Study Tech are complete dreck.

As soon as you have something to discuss on that subject be sure to let me know.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

You came, you saw, you opined.
Big whoop.
The whole point of studying scn is to APPLY it. Not "opine" about it.
Either it was of assistance in DOING something, or it wasn't.
To put it in a different perspective, it would be like a music student studying scales, and saying "its bullshit". well, OK...lets hear YOUR creation.
You are the one that said it was rubbish. You also were in the Sea Org.
Yes, there is time in there. My initial questions (which you ignored) were along the lines of "what changed"? When. Which you blew off completely.

Yep because it has nothing at all to do with what I posted.

It may be what gets you excited.

So ok, then that leaves me to the opinion that you simply dismiss that which you care not to confront. Thus the reference to cognitive dissonance. Which you further pretended to not understand at all.
If you ever read and understood the Justifications HCOB you would be able to think with the information, and see how it applies.

You can search for scientological explanations for whatever you wish and if that makes you happy, so be it. Your fantasies about what I care to do are neither here nor there and only appear to be important to enable you to ignore the original point. If you just wanted an excuse to whine and drivel about SO members you should have just started your own thread.

But let me guess, you were a "failed student" as well. Coudn't 'make it go right' to study. No?

Stroke yourself with Scientology concepts as much as you wish.

And yes, you can avoid confronting the questions with 'ad hominen" about anonymous trolls. If it makes you feel any better, I will PM you with my name....but that really has nothing to do with your willingness to confront or not.

I do not care about your name - only about the fact that it is supremely ironic that an anonymous little driveller would accuse someone of lying. It does show that you really don't have much in the way of "confront".

Do not PM me with your name - either post it in public or do not. I will not indulge in "private" conversations with you.

<rant>
You know Cl V org staff made what...50 dollars a week - maybe 100 -150 on a really good week, And we had to get the students through the courses, audit the pcs, get good results and be trained to do it. While living way below the poverty line. Meanwhile the SO was demanding 40% OFF THE TOP for sitting on their asses and doing NOTHING other than calling on the phone 3 times a day to ask how the stats were. Were they going to study? No. Were they actually producing anything of value. No. Just living off the backs of those that were. And being arrogant assholes the rest of the time. Further, any HCO qualled staff we did recruit were invariably crush sold to join the SO...leaving us with undermanned HCO's chronically.

Your rant has some good points to it.

So I have no compassion for ex-sea org wankers. Just a big bunch of criminal non-producers....expecting something from nothing. How many people did you personally get on the Bridge that stayed? Not as "an exec" but you personally? 10's? 100's 1000's? None?

Don't expect you to have any "compassion" - first of all that's not a quality that Scientologists actually manage to do very well and secondly, to be frank, SO (ex and present) have a lot to answer for and thirdly - why would I give a rat's ass?

Ex-SO is better than current SO, that I will grant. But from what I have seen, they have mostly been failed students, failed cases and failed execs. Who wants to "flow power" to that? ugh.

You can "flow power" to whomever you wish. I do not care.

Ruvein Marcus used to prance around with an SOED that was "the LRH reference" that stated all ex-so were DB's.
He made sure to ram that down everybodys throat in "IAS briefings".
Where is he today? Ex-SO.

Pot. Kettle. Black.
</rant>

It was, IIRC an HCOPL. But yep, Reuvein is, today, exactly what he said he despised when he was in.

If the point you were wanting to make is that SO people treated class V org staff badly - you have my complete agreement. We did.

Mick, you were saying?

Study Tech? Complete rubbish. Auditing? Dreck. ARC Triangle? Twaddle.

 

[Div6]

Yep because it has nothing at all to do with what I posted.

It may be what gets you excited.

Hey, over here in the states we got hypocritical arrogant wankers trying to rule us 24-7. They have no souls either.

You can search for scientological explanations for whatever you wish and if that makes you happy, so be it. Your fantasies about what I care to do are neither here nor there and only appear to be important to enable you to ignore the original point. If you just wanted an excuse to whine and drivel about SO members you should have just started your own thread.

Which is the answer I would expect from an NCG arrogant individual. Hey, its my fantasy....you're just playing your part according to the script.

Stroke yourself with Scientology concepts as much as you wish.

I do not care about your name - only about the fact that it is supremely ironic that an anonymous little driveller would accuse someone of lying. It does show that you really don't have much in the way of "confront".

Do not PM me with your name - either post it in public or do not. I will not indulge in "private" conversations with you.

No problem. "Anonymous troll" is just a ser fac on your part anyway.

Your rant has some good points to it

Wow - thanks.

Don't expect you to have any "compassion" - first of all that's not a quality that Scientologists actually manage to do very well and secondly, to be frank, SO (ex and present) have a lot to answer for and thirdly - why would I give a rat's ass?



You can "flow power" to whomever you wish. I do not care.

Perhaps now I can...maybe. But there is no choice about that in Scn. You either send the money or die..

It was, IIRC an HCOPL. But yep, Reuvein is, today, exactly what he said he despised when he was in.

If the point you were wanting to make is that SO people treated class V org staff badly - you have my complete agreement. We did.

And you laughed about it!
Bragged it up. Gave each other medals for it.
Justified it because "it was war",
What a bunch of sickos.

Study Tech? Complete rubbish. Auditing? Dreck. ARC Triangle? Twaddle.

Ok. Why do you say that?

 

[Free to shine]

Which is the answer I would expect from an NCG arrogant individual. Hey, its my fantasy....you're just playing your part according to the script.

Pretty crappy script for your fantasy. :confused2:

 

[Div6]

Pretty crappy script for your fantasy. :confused2:

He's not obliged to read it that way.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I did not get along with most (a few, yeah, but most- I didn't) SO personnel when I was mission staff and when I was org public.

They seemed elitist and ignorant at the same time and more indoctrinated than I.

But I think also that I lacked information about what it was like for them.

If I'd had that info then I'd have cut them more slack, in my mind.

John The WonderHusband used to tell me that LRH says right in policy to build people up as being terrific even if they're total newbies or whatnot and that this was part of the deal with SO'ers.

I got annoyed because sometimes visiting ones would try to interfere in my marriage, etc.

I did not grant them much quarter.

What I should have done, though, is sat down and talked to them. On the occasions that I did so (Usually, I didn't. I'd just whine about how mean they were. But a couple times I actually DID talk to the person) things went much much better.

If varying people with varying hats (public, mission staff, org staff, SO, recruiter, exec, non exec) in CofS really frankly talked more with each other they'd get along better.

Thing is, CofS is not a conducive environment for that. One would be liable to get KRd for wasting time on chat.

More's the pity.

 

[Alanzo]

You may be better able to help your friends if you avoid disconnection.

Mark

I think you might have a point, there MarkWI.

 

[Alanzo]

The Demon Haunted World was indeed great, a real favorite of mine.

Mine as well.

Welcome, Shader!!

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

are you quoting the AP style book?

alex

www.answers.com

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

No offense tanstaafl, but I see statements like this as a holdover from the constant indoc you must have received in Scn about how Hubbard was the amazing source of a completely new and original body of knowledge.

Education is something that has been studied extensively over the years and there is a great deal of literature on the topic. Is it likely that there is any part of the "Study Tech" that hasn't already been investigated as part of the long history of education theory?

Obviously patently silly parts of the study tech, like M/Us making you sleepy, haven't been investigated at length because they are provably false. But I'm sure there are plenty of studies on reading comprehension (especially on deriving a words meaning from context rather than dictionaries), practical demonstration and experience ("mass"), and pacing of new concepts and skills ("gradient").

Did Hubbard reference any of these studies in his Study Tech "research" or materials?

You just helped me to peel off a layer of the scientological onion. I have an extensive vocabulary and, you know what?, I almost never looked a word up in the dictionary beyond my normal school hours. I did take Latin courses. I soaked up the concepts of the word in how it was used in the context. Right or wrong, I was always the best speller and writer in school. I graduated in the top 10% of my class. Yes, I did come to find out that I had assigned incorrect meaning to some words, so it is a good idea to have a good dictionary and use it.

It is just that CofS Scientology dramatizes everything that Hubbard dramatizes.

What I hated about the courseroom was that I found that I learn best by being able to passionately discuss the material back and forth with someone. Reading aloud to each other and making sure we duplicated, and then two-way comming until we either could or could not make it our own and/or come up with applications.

 

[Zinjifar]

You just helped me to peel off a layer of the scientological onion. I have an extensive vocabulary and, you know what?, I almost never looked a word up in the dictionary beyond my normal school hours. I did take Latin courses. I soaked up the concepts of the word in how it was used in the context. Right or wrong, I was always the best speller and writer in school. I graduated in the top 10% of my class. Yes, I did come to find out that I had assigned incorrect meaning to some words, so it is a good idea to have a good dictionary and use it.

It is just that CofS Scientology dramatizes everything that Hubbard dramatizes.

What I hated about the courseroom was that I found that I learn best by being able to passionately discuss the material back and forth with someone. Reading aloud to each other and making sure we duplicated, and then two-way comming until we either could or could not make it our own and/or come up with applications.

I'm glad you said all that. It's hard to criticize Scientology or 'Study Tech' for its obsession with dictionaries, even though using dictionaries is very valuable. While writing, I often flip over to another window and check definitions or spelling, and, sometimes I don't, which sometimes comes back to bite me

But, Scientologists will almost always sneer at anyone suggesting that the 'Study Tech' itself is part of the Mind Fuck, since reading a dictionary is so harmless....

But, the *theory* behind the Study Tech is deliberately suppressive. Because the 'theory' says that, failure to 'agree' can only be due to failure to comprehend. If you don't agree with Ron, you're sent back to the dictionary, on paid time, your paid time, until you *do* agree.

Scientology hates the concept of comprehension in context. And, in reading, there is nothing so disruptive of comprehension as 'automatically' going 'out of session
at every slightest bump in the train of thought.

You and I and most people can *infer* meaning to unfamiliar words; and, that itself is a worthy and valuable talent that's worth training.

Zinj

 

[johnAnchovie]

Are we actually helping lurker here?

I have very strong feelings on Hubbards 'tech', I find myself doing quite brilliantly in collage studying modules on law, politics, journalism et al with no clay demos, paperclips, rubberbands and plastic lego blocks. I have not found any blank spaces, today I was soaking up information on five hours sleep, alert and interested.

The arrogance of Hubbard is astounding, I have studied with PhDs in course rooms, and they had to do all that kindergarten stuff, how the f*** did they get a PhD then?

I get wound up seeing any validation of Hubbard and use of his very twisted 'newspeak' I get mad because I feel that people should have found the facts by now. That is however my own impatience. I have found - and am still finding - real knowledge an wisdom, way beyond the Hubbard hookum. But each must make his own journey out, and the length of that journey will depend on the courage, resiliance and past experience of the person him/herself. The fact that we are thinking critically is the first and most important step, the fact that we are thinking, actually.

But aside from all that, dear people, are we actually helping lurker with our various disagreements? Practicing restraint, and directing contentions on 'valid tech' 'rubbish tech' to a thread designed for that may well be a more constructive plan.

Herewith ends the sermon. Go in peace to love and serve thy partner.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

John Anchovie writes: I get wound up seeing any validation of Hubbard and use of his very twisted 'newspeak' I get mad because I feel that people should have found the facts by now. That is however my own impatience. I have found - and am still finding - real knowledge an wisdom, way beyond the Hubbard hookum.

My comment: No offense, John. I like your posts and all. I do. And yes, one can do very well in school without study tech.

But there's more to Hubbard than newspeak. He had a lot of concepts about spirituality that are interesting. Some quite original, many are new takes on older ideas and which contain quite a few of those elements.

That's one of the things some people like.

Another is that some people feel that when they receive auditing or, yes, do study tech, or apply Hubbard's formulae, charts, etc- that they get somewhere with those things.

So they like that, too.

There are other ologies and isms that are terrific and help people. There are non Scn study techniques that are really brilliant. Yes, all of that.

But that does not mean that one cannot do well with Scn auditing or study tech as well if one elects to do those things.

So why be impatient with someone who's digging it? I mean, I don't feel impatient with friends who like the psychotherapy they received. (I have a couple friends who have benefited from such). I wouldn't feel impatient with someone who was greatly helped through prayer or meditation. On the contrary- I would believe them.

Anything that's therapy (whether licensed not not. ) or something like it- is subjective in many ways as to its effects. IOW, if you think you feel better- you do. If something helps, it helps.

Some people love to employ mnemonic devices to help them remember. Others do brain teaser puzzles.

Neither invalidates the other.

And if there was something that was helpful but the person did not believe it or like it, then it probably would not help him. It really is subjective to a great extent but Hubbard did indicate as much- when he talked about agreement.

I'm not being sarcastic or negative when I tell you I think it's great that you are doing things and they are going well for you without your using or thinking of any Scn stuff. Great. But you know what? Different strokes...

 

[Dulloldfart]

But, the *theory* behind the Study Tech is deliberately suppressive. Because the 'theory' says that, failure to 'agree' can only be due to failure to comprehend. If you don't agree with Ron, you're sent back to the dictionary, on paid time, your paid time, until you *do* agree.

It doesn't say that in the Study Tapes, Zinji, quite the opposite. I don't have a Study Tapes transcript or I could easily find a quote for you. Maybe someone else could dig one up--look under "power of choice".

I agree that Method 4 Word Clearing, if applied rotely per that single HCOB and not in concert with other bits of Study Tech, would do that. I agree that untrained Scn org staff will insist on that.

Paul

 

[Mick Wenlock]

And you laughed about it!
Bragged it up. Gave each other medals for it.
Justified it because "it was war",
What a bunch of sickos.
?

wow you must have been a fly on the wall at all those meetings. Those meetings where we used to throw darts at pictures of class V staff to decide which one to laugh about this week. Damn we thought it was all so secret an you would never find out.

Hang on - have to go count my medals now.

 

[johnAnchovie]

Fair comment

John Anchovie writes: I get wound up seeing any validation of Hubbard and use of his very twisted 'newspeak' I get mad because I feel that people should have found the facts by now. That is however my own impatience. I have found - and am still finding - real knowledge an wisdom, way beyond the Hubbard hookum.

My comment: No offense, John. I like your posts and all. I do. And yes, one can do very well in school without study tech.

But there's more to Hubbard than newspeak. He had a lot of concepts about spirituality that are interesting. Some quite original, many are new takes on older ideas and which contain quite a few of those elements.

That's one of the things some people like.

Another is that some people feel that when they receive auditing or, yes, do study tech, or apply Hubbard's formulae, charts, etc- that they get somewhere with those things.

So they like that, too.

There are other ologies and isms that are terrific and help people. There are non Scn study techniques that are really brilliant. Yes, all of that.

But that does not mean that one cannot do well with Scn auditing or study tech as well if one elects to do those things.

So why be impatient with someone who's digging it? I mean, I don't feel impatient with friends who like the psychotherapy they received. (I have a couple friends who have benefited from such). I wouldn't feel impatient with someone who was greatly helped through prayer or meditation. On the contrary- I would believe them.

Anything that's therapy (whether licensed not not. ) or something like it- is subjective in many ways as to its effects. IOW, if you think you feel better- you do. If something helps, it helps.

Some people love to employ mnemonic devices to help them remember. Others do brain teaser puzzles.

Neither invalidates the other.

And if there was something that was helpful but the person did not believe it or like it, then it probably would not help him. It really is subjective to a great extent but Hubbard did indicate as much- when he talked about agreement.

I'm not being sarcastic or negative when I tell you I think it's great that you are doing things and they are going well for you without your using or thinking of any Scn stuff. Great. But you know what? Different strokes...

Fair comment Fluffy; I suppose it is entierly subjective, and it is wrong for me to be judgemental. I do feel that all of the Hubbard tech was slanted though, but then there is the aspect of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', Maybe I would find it more palatable if the nomencalture was removed from the non-cos scientology.

My stomach turns every time I see one of Tansi's postings with Hubbardisms and quotes from, what to me, is a repressive regime and the tech being the 'tool' used to obfuscate and indoctrinate the naeive. - I don't have a problem with Tansi, seems like a jolly decent bloke, just don't like to feel like I am still being force fed Hubbard's tech. Is it merely an issue of terminology? language? 'Moving up The Bridge' that is just a few words strung together, but to any of us this phrase carries so much baggage; depanding on our experience that is either extremely negative or possibly quite the opposite. Ever read anything on General Semantics or Naom Chomsky's linguistics?

 

[Tanstaafl]

My stomach turns every time I see one of Tansi's postings with Hubbardisms and quotes from, what to me, is a repressive regime and the tech being the 'tool' used to obfuscate and indoctrinate the naeive. - I don't have a problem with Tansi, seems like a jolly decent bloke, just don't like to feel like I am still being force fed Hubbard's tech. Is it merely an issue of terminology? language? 'Moving up The Bridge' that is just a few words strung together, but to any of us this phrase carries so much baggage; depanding on our experience that is either extremely negative or possibly quite the opposite. Ever read anything on General Semantics or Naom Chomsky's linguistics?

I'm sorry to have been instrumental in the turning of your stomach.

However, I feel your post is painting me in a certain light to others, so I am asking you to back it up with some specific examples of Hubbardisms and quotes from a suppressive regime that I have employed.

No-one is being force-fed anything here. This is a liberal and tolerant forum.
Put me on your Ignore list if you don't like what I post. I've never had a complaint before but I'm willing to listen to any and reinspect my viewpoint/policy.

Best wishes,

tanstaafl