What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pooks

MERCHANT OF CHAOS
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.

[snip]

Why do they act this way?

BECAUSE THEY ARE IN A FUCKING CULT!

Once, I was, too.

TG1


It's evil shit. Like "Sophie's Choice".

Scientologists have been through some really horrid events. Ex Scientologists, who haven't moved up the Bridge to Total Criticdom to others satisfaction are the WRONG target.

Enlighten people leaving Scientology don't bash them. It takes time to recover from this kind of mindfucking.
 

Veda

Sponsor
reluctant clarification

Maybe so but that wasn't the argument I was having with Knight Vision, as far as I recall.

-snip-

I just glanced at the old thread. It's interesting in that it shows old timer Alan Walter's views circa 2008. Alan's views changed dramatically over the next few years. He learned, grew, and evolved even though he was towards the end of his long life. An extraordinary man.

Many, then (outside of Scn Inc.) Scientologists, also learned, grew, and evolved, over the years, and some have not.

Anyway, apparently, someone had a confusion about what KnightVision wrote and made a post, and you followed that post with your post where you attempted to discredit Jamie De Wolfe.

There was some confusion during the thread, but I don't think you were confused. You felt insulted by Jamie De Wolfe, and you have a right to your feelings.

Why not just be forthright about it?

I don't get it. :confused2:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
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.


I see what I see. I know what comments Panda has made to/about me on quite a lot of threads.

I am not stupid or blind.

I don't really care if anyone else is aware of Panda's many nasty comments and campaigns towards me just because he is deft at pretending otherwise.

I don't dig manipulation. And, I'm going to say whatever I want to say until moderators tell me to put my mouse away.

Sure, I don't know what I am talking about, right? I'm just paranoid, right? I'm just mean, right? LOL
 
Last edited:

Pooks

MERCHANT OF CHAOS
I see what I see. I know what comments Panda has made to me on quite a lot of threads.

I am not stupid or blind.

I don't really care if anyone else is aware of Panda's many nasty comments and campaigns towards me just because he is deft at pretending otherwise.

I don't dig manipulation. And, I'm going to say whatever I want to say until moderators tell me to put my mouse away.

Sure, I don't know what I am talking about, right? I'm just mean, right? LOL

Ok, if that's how you see it, fine. <shrugs> But it's not how I see it.



Tolerance: the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.


Intolerance: unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.


It's difficult to be tolerant of someone's intolerance.
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Panda,

We never received last week's stats and report on this month's Hoaxie Campaign. Please get them in ASAP. Be sure to get this week's stats in by 2 PM Thursday as per policy. You are assigned a condition of Danger.

ML,

Elron Elray


cc: Astar Parmegian
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Re: reluctant clarification

I just glanced at the old thread. It's interesting in that it shows old timer Alan Walter's views circa 2008. Alan's views changed dramatically over the next few years. He learned, grew, and evolved even though he was towards the end of his long life. An extraordinary man.

Many, then (outside of Scn Inc.) Scientologists, also learned, grew, and evolved, over the years, and some have not.

Anyway, apparently, someone had a confusion about what KnightVision wrote and made a post, and you followed that post with your post where you attempted to discredit Jamie De Wolfe.

There was some confusion during the thread, but I don't think you were confused. You felt insulted by Jamie De Wolfe, and you have a right to your feelings.

Why not just be forthright about it?

I don't get it. :confused2:
I am being forthright. I just remember my actual feelings somewhat differently and I hope you'll allow that I know much more about my own feelings than you ever will. :)

I still haven't reread that thread but I'll get around to it, maybe. It's all water under the Bridge to me.

Did you see my question about whether or not Jamie qualified his statement about which Exes he was talking about? (It's in my previous post to you.)

Would he have been talking about an Ex like Alan?
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Panda,

We never received last week's stats and report on this month's Hoaxie Campaign. Please get them in ASAP. Be sure to get this week's stats in by 2 PM Thursday as per policy. You are assigned a condition of Danger.

ML,

Elron Elray


cc: Astar Parmegian

The Stat's in the mail. I believe the correct Condition Assignment is Effluence. :biggrin:
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
I looked at Mike Rinder's sister's facebook page. She seems really nice. I can't believe that deep down she enjoys being estranged from her brother. It's nice that they're on Facebook. That means internet access - and that's always a good start.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Here's page one of the thread in question. It's pretty clear:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...JUST-AS-FU*CKING-WACKED-OUT-AS-SCIENTOLOGISTS

Post number 10 at the bottom of page one sums it up.

OK?

smile.png

I just reread the whole thing, what a hoot! KV was quite a character, eh? I also noted that whereas Jaime said "a lot of ex-scientologists etc" KV sort of extrapolated (or misrepresented ) it as all Exes of a certain stripe.

It was a whacky thread, not unlike some others we have here. :biggrin:
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation


I went and looked at that thread (thanks Veda) ... and almost passed out with boredom.

We've come a long way ... thank goodness for the constant humour here and the lack of unnecessary seriousness and tedious over thinking.

I don't disagree with the OP but it just doesn't seem that important anymore because so much has happened since those days and the cult is well and truly on it's knees now. The few people that are still fiddling around with the 'tek' matter not (now they have pretty much stopped trying to use ESMB as their personal recruitment/farming area) and whether they are as mad as meat-axes or not really isn't an issue, if they are happy and not hurting anyone, it's cool.


:happydance:
 

Veda

Sponsor
I just reread the whole thing, what a hoot! KV was quite a character, eh? I also noted that whereas Jaime said "a lot of ex-scientologists etc" KV sort of extrapolated (or misrepresented ) it as all Exes of a certain stripe.

It was a whacky thread, not unlike some others we have here. :biggrin:

He never used the word "all." The message is clear.

Read the first page, and then post number 10 at the bottom of the first page:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...SCIENTOLOGISTS&p=166398&viewfull=1#post166398

Now get over it :melodramatic:, PLEASE! :)
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
He never used the word "all." The message is clear.

Read the first page, and then post number 10:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...SCIENTOLOGISTS&p=166398&viewfull=1#post166398

Now get over it :melodramatic:, PLEASE! :)

In the thread title is that not implied? He doesn't say "some" although he does say "a lot" in the opening post. In the title KV says "Ex scientologists just as fu*cking whacked out as scientologists".

You keep referring me to Post#10 but that is simply KV quoting Smitty and giving it a :thumbsup:.

What are you alluding to in referencing Post#10? Just say it.

Get over what? Just say it.
 

FoTi

Crusader
... and to add to that; as I said, many of us Aussies know and have dealt with Andrew and, of course, know for a fact that he's not really a "Suppressive Person" or evil by any stretch of the imagination. He's simply a True Believer doing what the Faithful do. I pity him his ignorance but, at the same time, don't condemn him out of hand for doing what he thinks of as "the right thing to do." Almost every scientologist I ever met, Ex or Still-in, is a good-hearted, well-intentioned person in my estimation despite the fact that their good hearts and well intentions are somewhat corrupted by their scientological belief system.

Godwin will undoubtedly rear his tiresome head yet again so I'll add that I imagine that the same holds true for the majority of Germans swept up in the National Socialist maelstrom.

Happy Easter, ESMBers! :)

Scientology trains good people into becoming SPs to one degree or another, just by having to follow the tech, plans and image of LRH......under the guise of making a better, safer, more sane world, clearing the planet, and the hope of achieving the state of Full OT and Total Freedom. Once those people wake up and get out of the trap, it appears to me that most of them seem to start realizing the mistakes they made and the things they did that were wrong and gradually go back to being the good people they once were.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
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.

Your opinion. I don't see that. What I see is humour can sometimes be quite cutting when it hits home. All humour is exaggerating and making fun of something - someone is going to get offended at any joke.

Most of the time, HH lightens things up and allows us to see things in a more objective, less serious way.

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.


I agree with this part. :yes:

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.

What a generality. I couldn't disagree more. Everyone here was an asshole to some degree in their time as a Scientologist - the self-righteous arrogance, the stating opinions as facts, considering self and one's exclusive club of Scientologists as having "special knowledge" of "the real truth" and others as unenlightened, stupid wogs were real asshole views and characteristics to those outside scn. Just about everyone changed for the better after they left scn.

The nicest people in scn as a group were the auditors. The meanest people as a group were senior execs and OSA/GO personnel. They were trained to be that way. Both HH and Panda were auditors and both HH and Panda were loved and popular when on staff. Your statement doesn't work in this scenario, and probably not in a lot of others, either.
 

Leland

Crusader
Your opinion. I don't see that. What I see is humour can sometimes be quite cutting when it hits home. All humour is exaggerating and making fun of something - someone is going to get offended at any joke.

Most of the time, HH lightens things up and allows us to see things in a more objective, less serious way.




I agree with this part. :yes:



What a generality. I couldn't disagree more. Everyone here was an asshole to some degree in their time as a Scientologist - the self-righteous arrogance, the stating opinions as facts, considering self and one's exclusive club of Scientologists as having "special knowledge" of "the real truth" and others as unenlightened, stupid wogs were real asshole views and characteristics to those outside scn. Just about everyone changed for the better after they left scn.

The nicest people in scn as a group were the auditors. The meanest people as a group were senior execs and OSA/GO personnel. They were trained to be that way. Both HH and Panda were auditors and both HH and Panda were loved and popular when on staff. Your statement doesn't work in this scenario, and probably not in a lot of others, either.

Just a curious thought. This is in regards to the OCA test, I believe it was called......the graph. Besides taking this test when one got in, it was also administered as a test after auditing to see change.

I've been wondering IF it was ever used by the C of S to place certain types of personalities on certain posts or in certain orgs? Anyone have info about this? If one tested, LOL ,as an asshole on the OCA...could the C of S....let's say then post that person in the GO or OSA?

OCA also tested IQ.....and perhaps leadership qualities.....were these then used in determining posts or let me say career paths in the SO?
 
Last edited:

Gadfly

Crusader
Scientology trains good people into becoming SPs to one degree or another, just by having to follow the tech, plans and image of LRH......under the guise of making a better, safer, more sane world, clearing the planet, and the hope of achieving the state of Full OT and Total Freedom. Once those people wake up and get out of the trap, it appears to me that most of them seem to start realizing the mistakes they made and the things they did that were wrong and gradually go back to being the good people they once were.

Great post! :clap:

The only thing I would correct is the term "SP" in the first sentence. There is no such thing. An "SP" is a made-up IDEA that correlates very little with actual people. It is a fantasy, like so many of Hubbard's ideas that you list later in your post.

I would rephrase it:

Scientology trains good people into becoming egotistical, self-righteous, know-best, elitist, arrogant, pompous, pushy, close-minded and pretentious asses.

Some are better and some are worse, primarily to the degree that the person buys into the delusion (or to the degree that he or she is/was a "natural asshole" in the first place).

I largely agree with what JustSheila said above:

Everyone here was an asshole to some degree in their time as a Scientologist - the self-righteous arrogance, the stating opinions as facts, considering self and one's exclusive club of Scientologists as having "special knowledge" of "the real truth" and others as unenlightened, stupid wogs were real asshole views and characteristics to those outside scn. Just about everyone changed for the better after they left scn.

The nicest people in scn as a group were the auditors. The meanest people as a group were senior execs and OSA/GO personnel. They were trained to be that way. Both HH and Panda were auditors and both HH and Panda were loved and popular when on staff. Your statement doesn't work in this scenario, and probably not in a lot of others, either.

My only quibble is that there is/was a HUGE difference in HOW MUCH of an asshole any one person became when enveloped within the Scientology delusion. As you say, yes, the higher up, in the Sea Org, management, and the GO/OSA, the MORE of a jerk he or she usually became.

I knew regges who were BRUTAL Sea Org officers, such as Fred Scwartz, and some of the IAS and SP Project regges. They were 100% convinced they were RIGHT, and that taking every last penny from every prospect was the "greatest good". Now, compare that to someone like me who failed horribly as a reg, because I couldn't manage to even pretend that we were truly saving the planet, or that it was okay to bankrupt someone in the name of "salvaging this sector". I suppose, because I was always a bit too "open-minded", and not quite 100% with the fanatical Scn viewpoint, that I managed to remain "nicer" than many others. Sure, for awhile, in the Sea Org, I WAS contributing to the motion, but the MAGNITUDE of the JERKINESS of any person varies immensely.

I do see though that some folks in Scientology, especially in the Sea Org, RESONATED deeply with the Hubbard nuttiness, possibly because of WHO he or she was deep inside, and found it very easy to become the typical over-enthusiastic, yelling, angry, high-pressured, Tone 40, severe, obsessed and fanatical true believer.
 
Last edited:

Free Being Me

Crusader
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.

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.

There's a huge difference between expressing yourself honestly and playing a role with ulterior motives and after watching Panda fill this premeditated sec check role for a few years the results don't look promising. It's a very culty and juvenile thing to do, all your artless sarcasms aside to look cute while excusing such behavior. Contrary to your empty assertion this role-playing promotes diversity what it really does is cause grudges and bandwagon bullshit diversion away from what's really important, people and the cult.

Veda and HH are good folk and if this role-playing what are your crimes crap towards them is what you (and others) consider open discussion then it's a sad day here at ESMB.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Your opinion. I don't see that. What I see is humour can sometimes be quite cutting when it hits home. All humour is exaggerating and making fun of something - someone is going to get offended at any joke.

Most of the time, HH lightens things up and allows us to see things in a more objective, less serious way.




I agree with this part. :yes:



What a generality. I couldn't disagree more. Everyone here was an asshole to some degree in their time as a Scientologist - the self-righteous arrogance, the stating opinions as facts, considering self and one's exclusive club of Scientologists as having "special knowledge" of "the real truth" and others as unenlightened, stupid wogs were real asshole views and characteristics to those outside scn. Just about everyone changed for the better after they left scn.

The nicest people in scn as a group were the auditors. The meanest people as a group were senior execs and OSA/GO personnel. They were trained to be that way. Both HH and Panda were auditors and both HH and Panda were loved and popular when on staff. Your statement doesn't work in this scenario, and probably not in a lot of others, either.

Thanks for your observations.

Perhaps it is appropriate that I make an additional comment on the use of parody in a written medium like this forum.

It is impossible to please everyone with every comment or spoof. What I find really fascinating is that:

* When the TARGET (post) of the satire is someone that a member of the board doesn't agree with (e.g. Hubbard, Miscavige, a troll, Rathbun in the early stages of his blog, etc...) then the member laughs, likes or enjoys the send-up.

* When the TARGET (post) of the satire is someone that a member does agree with (-fill in whomever's name-) the "joking & degrading" is viewed as a "streak of meanness" or worse.​

There is absolutely no difference in the mean index (lol) of those two kinds of post.

In fact, what I have observed countless times is that the supporters who rush to the aid of a spoof "victim" (someone they agree with) often jump right to self-righteous accusations of "mean", "ad hom", "against the rules" and other such propaganda to get the outlaw poster to STFU. LOL.

And the "defenders" and "offended" seldom notice that the target of the spoof is famously guilty of the identical kinds of "antisocial behavior" (e.g. posts that to some degree mock another posters ideas or opinions) that they now so loudly decry. I won't go so far to label it blatant hypocrisy in every case, but let's just say that everyone has a blind spot now and again.

In further support of the above, let me just mention in passing that as an equal opportunity spoofer, I am often the target of my own "ad homs" calling myself out for being incredibly gullible or stupid. And, the righteous sermonizers never seem to object to that or report me to the moderators. LOL.
 

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
I'm closing this thread even though it started out with good information.

For fucks sake you guys, one day hopefully you'll find something better to do with your time than argue with each other for fun. It might be fun for you but I can assure you its not fun for anyone else.

You should try this. Take a break from esmb for a week. A complete break. Two weeks would be better. Then come back and try and read this thread and others like it. Its awful but I'm not sure you can see that while you are in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top