Ditto's for me!
Permit me to clarify this point: At no time did I have hostility or rancor towards you. The hostility and rancor was yours.
As for "theta," that's a Hubbardism and I usually don't use Hubbardisms. Like many Hubbardisms, it has dual or multiple meanings and is part of Scientology's collection of manipulative language.
I am not a Scientologist of any stripe. One nice aspect of not being a Scientologist is that I'm not easily "invalidated," and so don't have a need to lash out in response to a perceived "attack."
What I see here is different responses by two beings who hold no anymosity for one another. You held a certain view and ascribed to me a diffent view from what you held.
I only recommended to JB that he keep his own code of honor even though it was no longer possible to praictice it in C of S.
You took some sort of offence at my above statement. The way I took your critique was that you felt that is was not right for me to infer that any Code or Creed of Scientology could ever be practiced at any time during the existence of the Church. I never really said that it could or it couldn't be practiced but my phrase
'no longer possible" does imply there was a time when it was possible. It seems to me you took exception to my inference that there was a time when it was possible to practice the Code of Honor in the C of S. Am I right so far or in your mind, am I already off the rails? Please clarify because I really would like to know why you objected so strongly to my sentence in bold print above.
MY MAIN POINT TO JB WAS TO JUST PRACTICE HIS OWN CODE OF HONOR. i JUST ADDED THE LAST CLAUSE ONLY TO MAKE THE SENTENCE MORE INTERESTING OR EMBELLISH MY ADVICE A LITTLE.
When you challenged me that there was never a time when the Code could actually be practiced, I answered your challenge and named you a specific time and place where I practiced it. When you started evaluating for me and likened my experience to similar experiances you had, I rightfully took exception to your invalidating my conclusions and your suggestion that your own conclusions were superior or proper for me to follow. I grant that they were better for you to follow but took exception to your insisting that your conclusions were also proper and better for me to follow. In the sense that I will never tolerate being invalidated by someone else imposing their conclusions onto me, I reacted in a hostile manner to your invalidations and evaluations. I think this was the proper thing for me to do.
Where we differ is that I still use things which I feel are workable in Scientology and discard and speak strongly against the things I perceive to be untrue and harmful to people. Your position is that the entire subject has no merit at all and most if not all of it is harmful. No problem with me on that one. You and many others strongly hold those beliefs! I only take offense when you insist on imposing your point of view on me as if yours is "right" and my position is "wrong". HAVE I GONE OFF THE RAILS HERE? I WOULD LIKE TO GET YOUR TAKE AGAIN TO MAKE SURE I AM TRACKING CORRECTLY.
You continue that you are not a Scientologist and that one part of not being a Scientologist is that you are not easily invalidated. I had the exact opposite experience as you. Before joining Scientology, I was easily invalidated by many things. Scientology actually proofed me up and made mE stronger and more resistant to being invalidated. You are saying it worked the opposite for you. Okay, I have no problem with that. There is one thing though, I would never take a direct conclusion which you made about yourself or you life and inform you point blank that you are wrong and that my conclusion for that area of life should be substitued for your conclusion. Now that is direct invalidation. I never have done that to anyone including you since I learned how harmful that could be to a being through studying Scientology. IF I DID THAT TO YOU AND YOU DIDN'T FEEL INVALIDATION THEN I THINK THAT IT WOULD NOT SHOW STRENGTH OF CHARACTER IN YOU BUT IT WOULD REVEAL A WEAKNESS OF CHARACTER, AN INABLILITY TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST A DIRECT ATTACK ON YOUR BEINGNESS AND YOUR INTEGRITY.
You made such a direct attack on my integrity and my beingness when I told you I practiced the Code of Honor at CCLA from 1970 to 1973. You stated that it only seemed like I was practicing it but I really was just brainwashed and I was not actually practicing the code. NOW YOU CALL THIS ABOVE A "PERCEIVED" INVALIDATION BUT IT IS NOT A "PERCEIVED" INVALIDATION BUT IT IS AN ACTUAL INVALIDATION. You just stated outright that I was brainwashed and came to the wrong conclusion. My friend, that is a direct invalidation of my beingness and I will always fight back when it is done to me. I would never do such a thing to you so that fact that you did not lash back at me isn't really relevant to our discusion. If I ever did invalidate you directly, as you did me, and you did not react against me, I would not consider that a strenth in you but a weakness of character.
FINALLY - THE JARGON OF SCIENTOLOGY. You try and avoid the jargon of Scientology. Here agiain is another difference. You siad something upbeat and informative about Omar Garison on my thread. I answered thanking you for your informative remarks. Later on I refered to your remarks as theta. Here agian you unexpectidly took offence at that term. Actually, you and I were posting on this message board. We were not doing private messaging or private emails so if I say to the board that you wrote a theta post, it means an upbeat post or something high toned (another Scn term). I had no way of knowing that you found the use of this offensive until just now. Even so, if I make a broad posting, I beleive it is okay to use a Scientology slang term in it. For a private communication between us, I would honor your request and eliminate Scientology references.
I think your offence at Scn jargon is very thin skinned but I would honor it in private conversations now that I have been properly briefed. However, I would say this, with such a person who refuses to use colorful expressive jargon, I probably will never exchange private communications with them. I gind it too restrictng.
I do not like Nazism but a lot of their jargon is very descriptive and useful. Words such a a blitzkrieg attack or panzers for tanks or SS for an elite military corps, these all are expressive and colorful as is fuhrer for one's leader. I don't like Soviet Communism but they had interesting terms as did many evil movements. I will use jargon from the KKK or Islamic Terrorists, "jihad" is an example, if is descriptive language. In closing, I feel you are at you best in posting historical documents regarding Scientology. You have access to a lot of good information and serve a valuable purpose when you do that function. In a one on one debate, I do not enjoy debating you. I have never heard you concede any point and never even preface your remarks with a, "you have an interesting point there but,..." Your style is pretty much "Here is the truth, what you were saying is wrong, I know because I once was brainwashed too but I rose above my brainwashing but you haven't been able to do that yet. Here is another reference to read, maybe this one is the one that will snap you out of it so that you can hate every single word and sentence in Scientology as I do." You keep feeding references until hopefully the person thinks exactly like you do . That is not a debate style I wish to particpate in.
I believe you will show no reaction to this long post of mine and continue unchanging along you rigid path. If that is the case, I wish you the best of luck.
Lakey
