Mike Rinder's brother Andrew on Opening of Scientology Sydney Continental Org

[Panda Termint]

Where do you draw the line for the guy who is a bastard because if he isn't he could lose family, job or in some regimes be shot? Or forthe guy who is a bastard because the culture allows him to be one and rewards him for being one.

One of my big questions re scientology, unlikely to be resolved, is where does the brainwashing start and end. To wipe the slate clean because of the brainwashing excuse is as daft as to condemn someone completely because brainwashing isn't an excuse to act inhumanely.

I see Panda's and HH's points as equally valid.

It would be nice to have a fixed line that delineate what would be considee wrong behaviour and what would be given a pass because of brainwashing. At one point I felt that if a person could legally make contracts, raise a family, live in an apparent normal fashion then brainwashing could not be an excuse because it hasn't overwritten the ability to function within society's norms. But many people with OCD do exactly that even though their thinking on certain matters are quite twisted.

^^^ Good points. ^^^

 

[Free Being Me]

I doubt that he had much choice in that matter, Karen. What a terrible thing it is when scientology sets family members against each other.

I'd have thought it was obvious that anyone who stuck at scientology for any length of time must have, at least, thought that were getting something of value in exchange for their time and money.

Whilst it's probably comforting for some to think of it all as imagined, delusion, hypnosis or some kind of sleight of hand, the simple fact is that most (not all) probably got something out of it. Historical revisionism goes both ways, IMO.

ESMB, these days, seems to be mostly peopled by posters who've written the whole thing off as a bad experience, those who got little or nothing from scientology and/or those reluctant to even answer up to questions about any benefits they think they may have received through their participation in scientology.

Just my opinion.

HH and FreeBeingMe

I was thinking about this discussion and I was wondering if the point of disagreement is, perhaps, a thought that making excuses (or seeming to do so) for CofS members would be tolerating and condoning evil. And that Panda's posts might seem to be coming from that perspective.

I mention this because there've other discussions over time about moderate critics vs those who are not.

This is just something that occurred to me, and I was wondering if that's the sticking point here.

I was pointing out a contradiction, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[JustSheila]

Oh right and everyone else would be above doing anything like that, right?

Panda, think about it for a minute. Isn't there something so deeply wrong about tricking others to do your bidding that your very nature rebels against it?

That's how it is for most people, unless they're egotists or psychopaths or otherwise deranged in such a way that others are only pawns to help them personally.

Veda repeats FACTS over and over. He occasionally states an opinion, but those aren't repetitive. Have a look for yourself.

I've had a gutty of people stating their opinions as facts, whether cult leaders, New Agers, or prejudiced creeps. I don't see anything wrong with others learning facts that are actual facts by repetition - we've all certainly learned enough opinions and believed them as facts that the sincerity of someone doing their best to just present facts is truly refreshing to me.

 

[Free Being Me]

Panda, think about it for a minute. Isn't there something so deeply wrong about tricking others to do your bidding that your very nature rebels against it?

That's how it is for most people, unless they're egotists or psychopaths or otherwise deranged in such a way that others are only pawns to help them personally.

Veda repeats FACTS over and over. He occasionally states an opinion, but those aren't repetitive. Have a look for yourself.

I've had a gutty of people stating their opinions as facts, whether cult leaders, New Agers, or prejudiced creeps. I don't see anything wrong with others learning facts that are actual facts by repetition - we've all certainly learned enough opinions and believed them as facts that the sincerity of someone doing their best to just present facts is truly refreshing to me.

Precisely.

 

[JustSheila]

My position on this matter is simple and straightforward; some people obviously got something which they value out of their time in scientology and any suggestion that they didn't is not only disingenuous, it's downright silly.

To me, doing my part in exposing scientology for what it is requires that I tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as I see it. I don't insist that my truth be your truth but do reserve the right to comment as I see fit in this matter. I extend the same courtesy to you.

Panda, I've given a great deal of thought to this. Years of it, in fact.

I've certainly lost far more than I gained in my time in Scn, but I also have so many basic good, solid concepts that I learned in scn terms (even though those concepts are covered earlier and elsewhere by others), that to say all of scn was bad would just about wipe out my basic education.

Some concepts are too basic to be re-learned in other terms. Things like, "man is basically good" (as a Christian, I also was raised to believe that we are basically good as children of God, but with "original sin", i.e., the desires to do irrational, selfish or stupid things), or to "grant Beingness" (think the best of others) or that children are a society's future.

I decided that I'm okay with having those concepts, whether they are in scn terms or not, because it's just too much work to re-learn exactly the same things in non-scn terms. Do you get what I'm saying?

In other words, I've put heaps of time into evaluating and distilling everything I learned in scn, and the things with which I still agree are still in my head in scn terms.

But I don't give L Ron or scn credit for them, because it seems to me that the things I kept from scn are things I would have learned on my own anyway - they are part of what the rest of society already knows. Nothing special or secret about it. If I discuss these things with "never been ins", we can get in really deep discussions, and I don't use the scn terms, but in my head, they are still in scn terms.

I hope that made sense.

I wouldn't go so far as to call these gains, but in a way, I'm glad you hold the position you do, because it makes it okay for me to keep the concepts I have - a question I've wrestled with for years and I think I have finally resolved.

Just wish you'd quit fighting with Veda.

 

[programmer_guy]

<snip>
I've certainly lost far more than I gained in my time in Scn, ...
<snip>

That's a good point... gains compared to losses.

 

[Reasonable]

Mike Rinder's brother Andrew on Opening of Scientology Sydney Continental Org.


FWIW, I find Mike's post poignant. It can't easy to confront the fact that your brother is "the poster child for KoolAid drunks."

Mike Rinder seems to forget that he used to mix serve and drink the cool aid. Why doesn't he ever give a nice long explanation of what was going through his head when he was a believer. Rqathburn too. I would love to hear that.

If they have all ready done that could anyone show me the link.

Thank you

 

[Jump]

Most of the Aussies know Andrew.
He's not a bad dude at all, just misguided in his Beliefs.

I've heard many people found Lafayette Hubbard to be a charming witty gentleman.
He's not a bad dude at all, just misguided in his Beliefs.



Sorry, just seeing how that sounded . . .


If people do things to cause harm to others without discussion, are they bad?

 

[Pooks]

Oh you are going back to that lame campaign again? LOL

Report me, dude. Please report me. Let's get ethics in on ESMB, right? LOL

You have been running that campaign on me for years (and other moralizing campaigns as well). Your stuff gets boring fast when you resort to that. Try to be more creative, will ya?

Why don't I get moderated if what you are saying is true? Or are you just trying to make it seem that way to others when I disagree with your holy opinions? (I noticed you already started talking about how you are being "bashed" on this thread and it isn't even 40 posts long. LOLOLOLOLOL)



Keep on with your sermons, moralizing and lectures, I am sure at least Claire will support you. LOL

You are funny and entertaining most of the time, but your lack of empathy comes off as a streak of meanness, at least to me.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions and Panda is entitled to counter them with his. It's important that newbies see both sides and decide for themselves.

Panda plays an important role. He keeps ESMB from being a hard core, only one point of view allowed, kind of place.

One thing I have observed since leaving Scientology 14 years ago: If you were an asshole Scientolgist, you're an asshole ex Scientologist. If you were a "nice" Scientologist, you're a nice Ex Scientologist.

 

[Panda Termint]

....

Just wish you'd quit fighting with Veda.

You really should review some of those "fights" and figure out where the fighting starts.

PS: Make sure you read the original Threads, not the latter day revised and sanitised versions.

 

[TG1]

The last thing anyone could ever convict me of is consistency. I don't have a single feeling about Scientology or Scientologists. Some days I'm angry at those who are still in the cult. Some days I have sympathy for them. Some days I don't care about them at all. Most of the time I just cringe that I was ever stupid enough to be in that situation myself. And that cringing makes it hard for me to relate to them at all -- even the few old friends who are still in the bubble.

It is a very interesting question (actually, a whole bundle of questions) as to why Scientologists who (when they leave) can see that they acted completely against their own self interests. Yet while they were inside, they convince themselves to behave so destructively to themselves and those they love the most.

Recently, Tony Ortega reported on yet another disconnection story that made life in the cult vivid for me again. This story was about Gayle Smith and her twin sons, Colin and Aaron. If you haven't read it yet, you should. But it is truly brutal -- a mother disconnects from one of her sons who had left the church. While they are disconnected, the son dies in a car accident. Eventually, the mother leaves the church, too. And now her other son must decide whether to disconnect from his mother. If he doesn't disconnect from her, his wife (and mother of their new son) may disconnect from him. It's a freaking nightmare.

Gayle Smith struggles to explain why she went along with the disconnection crap:

http://tonyortega.org/2014/04/18/th...r-and-scientologys-attempt-to-rip-them-apart/

The words Gayle Smith told me in 2012 continue to ring with as much resonance as they did then.

Through tears, she told me that one of the hardest things about never seeing Colin again after disconnecting from him was that at the time, Scientology had convinced her that she was actually doing him a favor

“I didn’t disconnect from my son because he was a bad SP who I needed to get away from,” she told me. “Disconnecting from them is supposed to snap them back into your life. I thought I was being good to my son.”
​

It's insane. It's crazy. It's evil. It's delusional.

Why do they act this way?

BECAUSE THEY ARE IN A FUCKING CULT!

Once, I was, too.

TG1

 

[Free Being Me]

You are funny and entertaining most of the time, but your lack of empathy comes off as a streak of meanness, at least to me.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions and Panda is entitled to counter them with his. It's important that newbies see both sides and decide for themselves.

Panda plays an important role. He keeps ESMB from being a hard core, only one point of view allowed, kind of place.

One thing I have observed since leaving Scientology 14 years ago: If you were an asshole Scientolgist, you're an asshole ex Scientologist. If you were a "nice" Scientologist, you're a nice Ex Scientologist.

Since people are entitled to their own opinions why does anyone need to fill a role, whatever this role may be. A slippery slope to say the least, sounds like some kind of role-playing ethics opinion officer.

 

[TG1]

P.S. There's a good thread already going here about Gayle Smith's continuing disconnection nightmare at http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?35635-Another-devastating-disconnection-case

 

[Panda Termint]

You are funny and entertaining most of the time, but your lack of empathy comes off as a streak of meanness, at least to me.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions and Panda is entitled to counter them with his. It's important that newbies see both sides and decide for themselves.

Panda plays an important role. He keeps ESMB from being a hard core, only one point of view allowed, kind of place.

One thing I have observed since leaving Scientology 14 years ago: If you were an asshole Scientolgist, you're an asshole ex Scientologist. If you were a "nice" Scientologist, you're a nice Ex Scientologist.

Thanks, Patty.

You know, years ago, I used to argue vociferously with a Poster here, Knight Vision I think it was, about Jamie De Wolfe's video "Ex-scientologists Are Just As Fucked Up As Scientologists". That would have been back around 2008 when I was first out. At that time the only actual Exes I knew were the Aussie Crew and none of them seemed fucked up to me.

Six years of interacting with Exes on ESMB and other Message Boards and Blogs has thoroughly disabused me of that position I once held and if Knight Vision or Jamie De Wolfe were here I'd readily concede to having been wrong to argue the point, at least, in some cases. I haven't bought Jamie's generalisation completely but the last six years have taught me that "Some Ex-scientologists Are, INDEED, Just As Fucked Up As Scientologists".

 

[Free Being Me]

Thanks, Patty.

You know, years ago, I used to argue vociferously with a Poster here, Knight Vision I think it was, about Jamie De Wolfe's video "Ex-scientologists Are Just As Fucked Up As Scientologists". That would have been back around 2008 when I was first out. At that time the only actual Exes I knew were the Aussie Crew and none of them seemed fucked up to me.

Six years of interacting with Exes on ESMB and other Message Boards and Blogs has thoroughly disabused me of that position I once held and if Knight Vision or Jamie De Wolfe were here I'd readily concede to having been wrong to argue the point, at least, in some cases. I haven't bought Jamie's generalisation completely but the last six years have taught me that "[STRIKE]Some Ex-scientologists Are, INDEED,[/STRIKE] I'm Just As Fucked Up As Scientologists".

FIFY

 

[Panda Termint]

I was pointing out a contradiction, nothing more, nothing less.

What contradiction? :confused2:

 

[Panda Termint]

FIFY

Weak as piss.

 

[Veda]

Jamie De Wolfe was referring to ex members of the Scientology organization who remained Independent or Freezone Scientologists.

The video is not there anymore, but KnightVision made it clear what was meant when he stated:

"Meaning that those who have left the church but who still believe in the 'tech', that Scientology is a religion and or that Hubbard really wanted to help Mankind."

That was Jamie's opinion in a video made six years ago, and KnightVision's opinion also.

 

[Pooks]

Since people are entitled to their own opinions why does anyone need to fill a role, whatever this role may be. A slippery slope to say the least, sounds like some kind of role-playing ethics opinion officer.

Everyone fills a role when they voice an opinion that has a righteous "I'm right-you're wrong" voice to it.

If no one here questioned other people's opinions, we'd end up all belonging to a cult again.

Open discussion, dissension, disagreement are all good things. It's what separates us from the cult.

Of course, getting butthurt and snarky usually comes with it, but <shrugs> it's better than being a cultist that's not allowed to snark or whine. LOL.

 

[Panda Termint]

Jamie De Wolfe was referring to ex members of the Scientology organization who remained Independent or Freezone Scientologists.

The video is not there anymore, but KnightVision made it clear what was meant when he stated:

"Meaning that those who have left the church but who still believe in the 'tech', that Scientology is a religion and or that Hubbard really wanted to help Mankind."

Maybe so but that wasn't the argument I was having with Knight Vision, as far as I recall. We were arguing about the premise that "all Exes are fucked up", maybe it was clarified by KV later, I don't really recall but that's just what came to mind on reading Patty's "asshole scientologist -> asshole Ex-scientologist" comment. In any event, even within the parameters you outlined above, I'd still argue that it probably only holds true for some not all.

PS: Did Jamie actually say that those were the Droids he was talking about? I don't remember him qualifying it like that.