Miracles though AuditingShe had one more miscar

[Sindy]

Or; I see a rogue cult bus, get on it (after taking some persuading) and find that it takes me some places that I want to go, but not others. I then spend some time trying to figure out how to create a bus service that only takes people places they need or want to go to, and as many of them as possible, all the while respecting their wish to decide whether or not to ride on the bus in the first place.

Another excuse for a great track;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl9bvuAV-Ao

Is this still Scientology? How does this work exactly? I am not being challenging, I really want to know.

Is the argument by you or others (if there is a somewhat collective view) that you have seen certain things in Scientology that when applied to others, helped them and that those things, in your reality and observation cannot be denied -- you saw it. Right? And that you and anyone else should be able to choose what those things are and use them freely while discarding everything else that you have deemed harmful?

If Clear and OT do not exist than I am assuming it's more about bringing some relief and giving someone some tools to improve? Is that right?

I'm trying to understand where this goes. What's the goal?

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Is this still Scientology? How does this work exactly? I am not being challenging, I really want to know.

Is the argument by you or others (if there is a somewhat collective view) that you have seen certain things in Scientology that when applied to others, helped them and that those things, in your reality and observation cannot be denied -- you saw it. Right? And that you and anyone else should be able to choose what those things are and use them freely while discarding everything else that you have deemed harmful?

If Clear and OT do not exist than I am assuming it's more about bringing some relief and giving someone some tools to improve? Is that right?

I'm trying to understand where this goes. What's the goal?

Good question Sindy, but first of all, on this business of a pro-tech "collective view", apologies in advance for some pseudo-lawyerly prattle; as far as I'm concerned, there isn't one. I joined this board as an individual and, when and if I leave it, I'll leave it as an individual. I speak only for myself and am not responsible for anyone else's point of view, on ESMB or anywhere else, and nor can it be assumed I agree with or condone anything anyone on here says or wishes to do. Let alone people who don't post here such as Rey Robles and other advocates for Ron's Orgs.

The goal for me (I can't speak for others) is twofold;

1 / To have some kind of understanding of why it is, when it is, that something goes right in a session - whether in Scientology (the CofS or the FZ) or in any counselling discipline not related to Scientology - so that we can make at least some stab, however imperfect, at expanding and refining the psychological models we already have of how counselling works, and;

2 / To develop a set of "low tech," i.e. easily learnt, simple to apply and fairly fault tolerant, tools which people can apply to themselves or close friends and family to relieve normal cases of emotional distress. More severe cases, and of course mental disorders, would be handled by a professional as they are now.

Clear and OT; I know I've said differently here in the past but for now (and this isn't my settled view; I'm still working on this), I'd define Clear the way Ken Keyes defined it, i.e. as "having no addictive demands triggered, completely accepting, having no separating emotions." In other words, a state in which one is calm, relaxed, alert and completely willing to experience whatever one is experiencing now and has no resistance to it.

As for OT; the Yogis describe special powers called siddhis, which they say should not be indulged should they occur, and I tend to agree. So did St Paul in Corinthians 1: 13, which is one of my favourite chapters in the Bible (if not my favourite).

 

[Sindy]

Good question Sindy, but first of all, on this business of a pro-tech "collective view", apologies in advance for some pseudo-lawyerly prattle; as far as I'm concerned, there isn't one. I joined this board as an individual and, when and if I leave it, I'll leave it as an individual. I speak only for myself and am not responsible for anyone else's point of view, on ESMB or anywhere else, and nor can it be assumed I agree with or condone anything anyone on here says or wishes to do.

The goal for me (I can't speak for others) is twofold;

1 / To have some kind of understanding of why it is, when it is, that something goes right in a session whether in Scientology (the CofS or the FZ) or in any counselling discipline not related to Scientology, so that we can make at least some stab, however imperfect, at expanding and refining the psychological models we already have, and;

2 / To develop a set of "low tech" (easily learnt, simple to apply and fairly fault tolerant) tools which people can apply to themselves or close friends and family to relieve normal cases of emotional distress.

Thank you. So it really doesn't matter if it's Scientology right? Would you also be interested in following it back to determine where Hubbard or the others not credited actually got the information, practice, etc.?

Do you want to hang on to Scientology, per se?

 

[Balthasar]

Far be it for me to rush to defend Balthy (lol) but I think he meant it as a joke. I've no idea what "benefit" I am supposedly "on" ... so I presumed it was just an expression he used that was lost in translation due to English being his second language.

I hope I'm right to believe that.

"Benefit" in UK is a colloquial term for governement help to support citizens while they are out of work. In ITYIWT case, I was concluding she would be too honest about herself to claim her due place in a corporate environment.

Honestly is a good thing but when it comes to CVs, the biggest bluffer often wins

Yes, my first language is German

 

[I told you I was trouble]

"Benefit" in UK is a colloquial term for governement help to support citizens while they are out of work. In ITYIWT case, I was concluding she would be too honest about herself to claim her due place in a corporate environment.

Honestly is a good thing but when it comes to CVs, the biggest bluffer often wins

I don't need to tell lies or bluff about any part of my life (including my business life). I find the truth works very well.

So you can stop worrying now.

 

[SPsince83]

Does a bear ask rhetorical questions in the woods?

Right before he shits

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Thank you. So it really doesn't matter if it's Scientology right? Would you also be interested in following it back to determine where Hubbard or the others not credited actually got the information, practice, etc.?

Do you want to hang on to Scientology, per se?

No it doesn't, and in fact, long before I joined ESMB I was told that LRH cobbled a lot of ideas together from other sources (and in fact, Pilot says the same thing). So by all means "follow it back."

Having said that, if it does turn out that Scientology had ideas that work and can't be found anywhere else (the CDEINR scale may be one of those, for instance), then we'd have a problem. I think it would be both fair and right to accredit it with those ideas, but if you do that, the CofS would want to sue you.

 

[Cat's Squirrel]

Right before he shits

Some of them even eat fermented fruit, as maybe this one did;

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/large-black-bear-forces-lockdown-at-port-coquitlam-school-1.2024759

 

[Claire Swazey]

You mean.....I am mocking up my own posts?

OMG! I must be Clear!!!

Whoa! I want to write a success story about my miracle!!!

Well, I personally try to avoid using Scnese when plain English will do.

I said nothing about going Clear.

 

[Claire Swazey]

These things are not sold in 12 1/2 hr units. Under threat of loss of eternity.

I was alluding to someone saying they saw miracles and the subsequent requests for proof.

Btw, Leon isn't in CofS. So I don't think threats of loss of eternity enter the equation there.

 

[George Layton]

It's like discussing having attained benefit from meditation, prayer, shamanism, and other things. That's not like producing a term paper. Might as well try to quantify love.

No it's not, those you do yourself. You don't open your will to be dominated by another. Apples and oranges.

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

Does a bear ask rhetorical questions in the woods?

Only if you're listening to the sound of one paw clapping! Closely!

 

[Claire Swazey]

Anecdotes are not verifiable data. That is why they are not data. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I never said they were data. My point (and I do have one, as Ellen Degeneres said) is that if someone wants to recount anecdotes about miracles then they can.

 

[Claire Swazey]

No it's not, those you do yourself. You don't open your will to be dominated by another. Apples and oranges.

I have no idea what "you don't open your will to be dominated by another" means.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I thought Terrill's account about the family took place in 73, when he was still in CofS. Didn't we ALL interfere in people's lives when we were in CofS?

 

[Claire Swazey]

...




Considering that both you and Claire are representing Scientology miracles, I am quite sure that we have satisfied the requirements for a double blind study. LOL.

Hey, don't think of my comment as an evil joking & degrading act of suppression. Just think of it as my Grade 0 realllllly being in!

I am? Really? Huh. I looked back and couldn't find any post here where I "represented Scientology miracles."

Will wonders never cease.

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

Yeah, you're right Balthy ... I certainly haven't formed a cultic following, I haven't conned or ripped anyone off or pretended to be something I never was by lying about my qualifications and past, I've not invented a single scary Uncle Xenu style freak to scare the "kiddies" with ... in fact I've destroyed no families at all (not even one).

I'm no kind of guru.

... and you are on benefit, correct? Don't kid me now Trouble!

Hey, her father even might be a CIA agent! ... or something. (<-- too tired to remember what they're smearing the filmmaker about.)
And such an outrageous thing pretty much would invalidate all she tells, right?
Yawn.

"Murder" is such a hard word, but I wonder, ever since, what's the amount of years of people's lifes on Hub's account, stolen or utterly ruined, - taken away by early deaths, unnecessary deaths, suspicious deaths, unsuspicious suicides, suspicious suicides, "R2-45", purification toxification, curable diseases that went uncured because people were waiting for scientological miracles, people that have lost how many years off their life expectance due to stress and scientological and financial burnout and in case of Sea Org even malnourishment, and generally a total lack of medical care (you know, by MDs, doctors, bone patchers, people with REAL diploma) paid for by Co$...?
Yawn.

SERIOUSLY, AREYOUFUCKINGSERIOUS?
Uh, yes. Yawn again.

 

[MrNobody]

Right before he shits

Man, you suck!

Right when I was beginning to feel some happiness with the 1st draft of my "Bear" routine, you have to throw another mandatory sub-routine into the mix?

Woah, this is beginning to feel like some of the jobs I've had. This is not fun anymore!

Anyway, here's what I have so far:

INT Happiness main (STRING Item, STRING MyMood()) {

IF (MyMood("I'mHungry") && IsEdible(Item) && ! MyMood("I'mTired")
EatIt();
Happiness ++;
ELSE
IF (IsFuckable(Item) && MyMood("Fuckit"))
IF (FuckIt(Item)==Yay)
Happiness++;
ELSE
Happiness--;
ELSE
IF (IsPlayable(Item) && MyMood("Playful"))
IF (PlayWith(Item) >= Fun)
Happiness++;
ELSE
Happiness--;
ELSE
GoFindSomethingElse();
;

GoindSomethingElseToDoAnyway();

IF (Happiness < Infinity)
Happiness --;
Sleep();
Happiness -10;

RETURN Happiness;
};

Jus' kiddin'

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

I am? Really? Huh. I looked back and couldn't find any post here where I "represented Scientology miracles."

Will wonders never cease.

Representing as in defending, standing up for, advocating...

e.g. "The lawyer represented Scientology in court."

Claire, surprisingly you seem to have reverted to your old posting days of incomprehensibly arguing about everything in defense of Scientologists. You used to do that chronically and with horrible results. Now on this thread you are back to your old tricks. What happened? Is the imminent release of HBO's devastating documentary agitating your mind that much?

 

[SPsince83]

Man, you suck!

Right when I was beginning to feel some happiness with the 1st draft of my "Bear" routine, you have to throw another mandatory sub-routine into the mix?

Woah, this is beginning to feel like some of the jobs I've had. This is not fun anymore!

Anyway, here's what I have so far:



Jus' kiddin'

The American colloquialism is "does a bear shit in the woods?". The initial question was a variation on that theme. I merely returned it to its roots. This has been another edition of "American idioms translated for Eurotrash"