Kris Jenner “Terrified” Kylie Will Get “Sucked Into” Scientology By Jaden Smith

[CommunicatorIC]

Sadly, I honestly thought people would want to know the truth about the school (from 2009 to present) from an actual insider, but I was very mistaken. It appears the internet is a way more reliable source than someone with firsthand knowledge. Accepted.

This assumes that, in fact: (1) you are "an actual insider"; (2) you are telling he truth; and (3) you aren't attempting to "handle" us -- as countless others have tried to do previously.

I am not calling you a liar. I just saying you are asking us to take your word for it, to trust you, and the simple responsive question is, "Why should we?" You are a pseudonymous person on a message board who claims to have a child who goes to the school and to be telling us "actual inisder" information. Why should anyone believe you? Perhaps more importantly, why is it unreasonable or paranoid for us to be skeptical?

I know there are some here that complained about a page on the website 2 links down and 3 pages in that was written in a VERY VERY scientological way. I assumed it was an old page, or the original website was reworked and someone decided the concepts made sense, but having no SCN experience didn't see the correlation to study tech....or maybe it's a big sinister ploy to scare away the simpletons. I really have no clue.

Thank you for effectively conceding that, given the limited objective and verifiable information available to us, our concerns are valid. Clearly, given your agreement that the web page is "written in a VERY VERY scientological way," we have a reasonable basis for our concerns.

To counter that, you have asked us to trust you and accept your word that the school does not use Study Tech -- after telling us we are paranoid.

.

 

[FlunkYou]

This assumes that, in fact: (1) you are "an actual insider"; (2) you are telling he truth; and (3) you aren't attempting to "handle" us -- as countless others have tried to do previously.

I am not calling you a liar. I just saying you are asking us to take your word for it, to trust you, and the simple responsive question is, "Why should we?" You are a pseudonymous person on a message board who claims to have a child who goes to the school and to be telling us "actual inisder" information. Why should anyone believe you? Perhaps more importantly, why is it unreasonable or paranoid for us to be skeptical?

Thank you for effectively conceding that, given the limited objective and verifiable information available to us, our concerns are valid. Clearly, given your agreement that the web page is "written in a VERY VERY scientological way," we have a reasonable basis for our concerns.

To counter that, you have asked us to trust you and accept your word that the school does not use Study Tech -- after telling us we are paranoid.

.

Fair enough...You tell me what I could have possibly said (in this environment) that would have substantiated the validity of my communication.

As I've said on this thread before, if you don't buy it, then that's cool with me. I don't really care, nor do I need to "handle" anyone on it. Now, if you have serious questions that I might be able to answer, then I will do so...to the best of my ability. But, if you're just going to argue with me with 4+ year old stories from the internet to prove me wrong, I'm gonna push it right back in your face in what ever manner it was delivered.

In all honesty, I wouldn't care if the Smiths came out in 20 years and said they were scientologists. That has no bearing on me and my life. Just like I wouldn't care if John Travolta came out and said he was gay. Who cares? I don't.

Now, if the school changed from what it is now to suddenly having check sheets, course rooms, study tech, e-meters and all that other stuff, I would pull my child immediately.

And, for the record, I believe I said "the paranoia factor is high here with SOME". I'm sorry that you feel you fall into that group.

 

[FlunkYou]

Thank you for effectively conceding that, given the limited objective and verifiable information available to us, our concerns are valid. Clearly, given your agreement that the web page is "written in a VERY VERY scientological way," we have a reasonable basis for our concerns.
.

I also believe I did it two times prior as well....

 

[CommunicatorIC]

Fair enough...You tell me what I could have possibly said (in this environment) that would have substantiated the validity of my communication.

I was about to say, "Nothing" for two reasons. First, the difficulty of proving a negative -- the old problem that absence of evidence does is not the same as evidence of absence. Secondly, that any question you might answer would depend on your credibility which is not really subject to self-authentication.

Then I thought of something.

This is a high level, academic, private school. As such, I would expect it to have a course in psychology. If so, please produce evidence the school offers a course in psychology. The name of the textbook would be a nice start.

Obviously, if the school does not, unlike many high-caliber private high schools, offer a course in psychology, that would not alone be sufficient to prove that it was a Scientology affiliated school. But if it does offer a course in psychology, that would go a long way toward proving that it wasn't.

Or, does the school have a school psychologist? A school social worker?

Just some ideas.

.

 

[FlunkYou]

I was about to say, "Nothing" for two reasons. First, the difficulty of proving a negative -- the old problem that absence of evidence does is not the same as evidence of absence. Secondly, that any question you might answer would depend on your credibility which is not really subject to self-authentication.

Then I thought of something.

This is a high level, academic, private school. As such, I would expect it to have a course in psychology. If so, please produce evidence the school offers a course in psychology. The name of the textbook would be a nice start.

Obviously, if the school does not, unlike many high-caliber private high schools, offer a course in psychology, that would not alone be sufficient to prove that it was a Scientology affiliated school. But if it does offer a course in psychology, that would go a long way toward proving that it wasn't.

Or, does the school have a school psychologist? A school social worker?

Just some ideas.

.

The school only goes through grade 6. I can't see ANY 6th grader studying psychology. Any of the other older kids would be in program called ISP (independent study program). These are usually tailored studies to the individual and their interests. Most of the kids in the ISP program are celebrities or kids of celebrities and/or athletes and their teachers travel with them a lot of the year.

There is no psychologist or social workers there. The student body is (I believe) only around 70, so the Dean of Students serves as what I had in school (public school) as a "counselor". I have no idea if her background consists of any psychology or not.

Again, since my child is still in grade school, that's all that I can honestly answer for.

On a side note, I noticed your profile states 2013. Is there a reason for that? From the way that you've been speaking, I thought you had history here.

 

[CommunicatorIC]

The school only goes through grade 6. I can't see ANY 6th grader studying psychology.

I certainly agree. I also agree that given the size of the school (70) students it is unlikely it would have a school psychologist, social worker, etc.

.

 

[TG1]

FlunkYou.

Yes, you're right that most who post here are not friendly to Scientology.

Several times you've used the term "paranoid" to describe the attitudes of some posters here.

I hold strong opinions about the Church of Scientology and have strong feelings about it. But my opposition to the Church of Scientology does not contain an iota of "extreme and irrational fear or distrust." My response to the Church is rational, since it is based on my own observations and the preponderance of evidence and testimony offered others whom I find trustworthy.

At some point, people of good will who work hard to educate themselves about this cult -- and it is a cult -- decide not to support it. For exes who have family and business associates still inside the cult, that withdrawal of support can be a slow unwinding.

Aside from the Church, there's much debate on this board and elsewhere about which, if any, aspects of Scientology are worthwhile. The process of inspecting and evaluating Scientology "truths" takes a lot longer. It also takes honesty and guts. It's hard to discard habits and social mores that "work" if one isn't willing to look closer at those behaviors' other aspects and impacts.

Although I left any personal involvement in Scientology in the late 1980s, I felt mostly "agnostic" about Scientology until 2008 when I began to learn about the human trafficking, physical abuses and financial extortion happening inside the Church. I was less bothered by Hubbard's failures as a human, whom I'd never idolized. For me, the hardest things to confront have been the core beliefs I assumed during my cult years about spiritual issues, humanity, society, and ways of categorizing and controlling others.

I hope you keep reading.

Again, welcome to ESMB.

TG1

 

[MissWog]

.

On a side note, I noticed your profile states 2013. Is there a reason for that? From the way that you've been speaking, I thought you had history here.

Oh, IC has a history here.. 400+ posts of truth, references and resources. What is it to you? Again, this seems to be another attack on your part.. Passive aggressive at that!

***is this an example of dead agenting?

 

[Free to shine]

Oh, IC has a history here.. 400+ posts of truth, references and resources. What is it to you? Again, this seems to be another attack on your part.. Passive aggressive at that!

***is this an example of dead agenting?

It's a valid question from FU, it would be easy to miss the change of name.

 

[MissWog]

It's a valid question from FU, it would be easy to miss the change of name.

Change of name? I've only ever thought it was one name and 400 posts..good posts at that IMHO.

 

[FlunkYou]

FlunkYou.

Yes, you're right that most who post here are not friendly to Scientology.

Several times you've used the term "paranoid" to describe the attitudes of some posters here.

I hold strong opinions about the Church of Scientology and have strong feelings about it. But my opposition to the Church of Scientology does not contain an iota of "extreme and irrational fear or distrust." My response to the Church is rational, since it is based on my own observations and the preponderance of evidence and testimony offered others whom I find trustworthy.

At some point, people of good will who work hard to educate themselves about this cult -- and it is a cult -- decide not to support it. For exes who have family and business associates still inside the cult, that withdrawal of support can be a slow unwinding.

Aside from the Church, there's much debate on this board and elsewhere about which, if any, aspects of Scientology are worthwhile. The process of inspecting and evaluating Scientology "truths" takes a lot longer. It also takes honesty and guts. It's hard to discard habits and social mores that "work" if one isn't willing to look closer at those behaviors' other aspects and impacts.

Although I left any personal involvement in Scientology in the late 1980s, I felt mostly "agnostic" about Scientology until 2008 when I began to learn about the human trafficking, physical abuses and financial extortion happening inside the Church. I was less bothered by Hubbard's failures as a human, whom I'd never idolized. For me, the hardest things to confront have been the core beliefs I assumed during my cult years about spiritual issues, humanity, society, and ways of categorizing and controlling others.

I hope you keep reading.

Again, welcome to ESMB.

TG1

TG1, I get that you have a strong opposition to the cult, as do many here. I have no problem with that. I have my own issues with them as well.

You've also never questioned me in a demeaning way...or said that what I've stated is BS because of a 5 year old internet post...or insinuated I wasn't who I claim to be etc. You've been very straight forward with me and haven't attacked me in any way that I can tell. (btw, thank you for that)

My analogy on the situation: Your favorite restaurant - you eat there weekly - you happen to read online people are claiming it has rats...it's a shithole. You decide to say something. "Hey, that's not true. There are no rats, I eat there weekly." You're then hit with a bunch claims that since the location served as a pet store 4 years ago IT MUST HAVE RATS! Again, you say, "NO, they have an "A" rating on the window. I myself have never seen a rat there, nor have I heard of anyone who actually eats there say anything about a rat." But still, no one buys it and you might just be someone sent here to "handle" people on the rat issue.

All I can do at this point is shake my head at this.

Look at my profile, it says 2011. Did I really sign up here 2/3 years ago in the hopes of someone saying something negative about NVLA so that I would be in a position to "handle" them?

The atrocities perpetrated by the cult are horrific. I've read "Piece Of The Blue Sky", "Blown For Good", and I am now reading Jenna's book. WOW! It's all sickening. I've also being reading the internet for years (7 + now I think) and so I've seen all the other stuff too. I'm well aware of the shit they've done. Hell, I myself have been a millisecond away from punching a guy named Ron Miracle (he's from ASHO or AO) in the face and taking his car while he was driving me (or you could say body routing me) to the org one Thursday before 2. We all have our stories. I get it.

 

[FlunkYou]

Oh, IC has a history here.. 400+ posts of truth, references and resources. What is it to you? Again, this seems to be another attack on your part.. Passive aggressive at that!

***is this an example of dead agenting?

"What's it to me?" Well, it was insinuated that I was put here to "handle" people...or, as you so eloquently put it, "dead agent" something.

Use your head. Do you really think I opened an account here 2/3 years ago in the high hopes of "handling" or "dead agenting" information on a school someone MIGHT talk about?

 

[MissWog]

"What's it to me?" Well, it was insinuated that I was put here to "handle" people...or, as you so eloquently put it, "dead agent" something.

Use your head. Do you really think I opened an account here 2/3 years ago in the high hopes of "handling" or "dead agenting" information on a school someone MIGHT talk about?

Sure I can believe that.. I see it happen..people registered here as far back as 2010 and come here trolling. I don't know who you are but ya gotta see it seems weird that after all this time you are so defensive of this school and have never shared your story :confused2:

And your posts are very aggressive..so I can also see why people don't care for your attitude.

 

[AnonyMary]

I think that being aggressive and being defensive are 2 different things. Especially when it's like 1 against 10 on this thread. I say give the guy a break. First, there is not one ounce of proof that any of the Smith/Puckett family are scientologists. I think this article and the way it's written is full of rumor and stage to cause conflicts because of the misinformation.

Let him have his say and let it be. I can certainly see how difficult it is to be a former scientologist, with connections in the church that one does not want to lose, while remaining on the fringe and believing that by sending my kid to a nearby private school reported to be using some study tech, and acceptable to my friends in the cult, that as long as my kid gets a good education, is not indoctrinated into scientology like would happen if I'd sent him or her to Delphi or Delphian, Imagine a 'scientologist' whois really no longer a 'scientologist' with friends in scientology and what he will be put through if he didn't send his kid to one of the acceptable schools. I see this new village place as the less of all evils out of all the schools. I just don't see a problem.

The study tech is the least of my concerns with Scientology. Only how it's used to infiltrate society. The teachers there are state licensed teachers, to my knowledge most of who are not scientologists. If the guy is happy with his kid being there and it allows him to not have to disconnect from friends and family, it's no big deal to me. And I can see why he's be on the defensive, with people presuming the the Smith's are scientologists when there is no proof of that anywhere. I say dox on that or STFU

 

[FlunkYou]

Sure I can believe that.. I see it happen..people registered here as far back as 2010 and come here trolling. I don't know who you are but ya gotta see it seems weird that after all this time you are so defensive of this school and have never shared your story :confused2:

And your posts are very aggressive..so I can also see why people don't care for your attitude.

I respond in the same manner it's delivered....so if you have something of sincerity to say or ask of me, you will get my sincere response. If you're going to communicate to me in a demeaning fashion because I insulted one of your friends that I felt was attacking me, then, you're going to get it back the same way. C apish?

Btw, I don't know who you are either. Does that mean I should treat you as an untrustworthy POS like some here have treated me?

 

[FlunkYou]

I think that being aggressive and being defensive are 2 different things. Especially when it's like 1 against 10 on this thread. I say give the guy a break. First, there is not one ounce of proof that any of the Smith/Puckett family are scientologists. I think this article and the way it's written is full of rumor and stage to cause conflicts because of the misinformation.

Let him have his say and let it be. I can certainly see how difficult it is to be a former scientologist, with connections in the church that one does not want to lose, while remaining on the fringe and believing that by sending my kid to a nearby private school reported to be using some study tech, and acceptable to my friends in the cult, that as long as my kid gets a good education, is not indoctrinated into scientology like would happen if I'd sent him or her to Delphi or Delphian, Imagine a 'scientologist' whois really no longer a 'scientologist' with friends in scientology and what he will be put through if he didn't send his kid to one of the acceptable schools. I see this new village place as the less of all evils out of all the schools. I just don't see a problem.

The study tech is the least of my concerns with Scientology. Only how it's used to infiltrate society. The teachers there are state licensed teachers, to my knowledge most of who are not scientologists. If the guy is happy with his kid being there and it allows him to not have to disconnect from friends and family, it's no big deal to me. And I can see why he's be on the defensive, with people presuming the the Smith's are scientologists when there is no proof of that anywhere. I say dox on that or STFU

Thank you for this!

Although, I'm not too afraid (granted it would suck, but not be the end of the world) of losing friends that are in the "church" as much as I'm more about not boohooing someone's belief. As long as it's not affecting me and mine, they're all adults and capable of making their own decisions. But, that's just me...

Again, your rationality here is appreciated.

 

[MissWog]

I respond in the same manner it's delivered....so if you have something of sincerity to say or ask of me, you will get my sincere response. If you're going to communicate to me in a demeaning fashion because I insulted one of your friends that I felt was attacking me, then, you're going to get it back the same way. C apish?

Btw, I don't know who you are either. Does that mean I should treat you as an untrustworthy POS like some here have treated me?

Well, I'll "use my head" as you so rudely said to me and follow Mary's advise.. You are not very nice and I don't like rude people and I find you mean spirited so I will just ignore your attitude...MEH

 

[FlunkYou]

All the trolls are out this week ehhh?

^^ This was your fist comment (I can only assume) about me.

From then on, you have like and/or laughed at every comment DIRECTED AT me. You've accused me of trying to "dead agent" incorrect information here with nothing but a snarky attitude. So I'm not exactly sure why you'd expect rainbows and unicorns in return. That logic escapes me. Sorry.

 

[TG1]

OK, this is getting boring.

TG1

 

[Dulloldfart]

So I'm not exactly sure why you'd expect rainbows and unicorns in return. That logic escapes me. Sorry.

Rainbows and unicorns works quite well, actually. It takes two to tango, as they say. Just ignore it and it ends right there, most of the time anyway.

Now, let's see . . . .

Paul