My Dinner With Terril

[Terril park]

Imagine 2 fisherman going out to fly-fish at a local stream. The first one is very experienced at not only tying the fly's on the line, but is extremely well versed on 'making the flies' also. The second one is reasonably efficient at both acts, but is primarily the fishing-enthusiast par-excellence between the two. He can round up 10 people to join em on a fishing trip in 20 minutes.

When it's time to make-the-fly and tie-it-to-the-line, the second one sits down and watchs the first one do his work. So to speak.

I'm not Veda mind you....I'm just sayin...

Mojo

This sounds very Zen.

Also Christ commented on ... " A fisher of men."

What though is a " Veda"?

 

[Vinaire]

If I didn't think the definitions were important I wouldn't have posted one. Some if not most of the best scientologists I've known were declared by the CofS and are no longer members; it doesn't mean they stop using the tech. In fact, it was often precisely because they believed in the tech and refused to compromise their belief that it should be known and used as widely as possible, and applied whenever the need arose even in the CofS, that they were declared in the first place.

CofS management is suppressive to the spread and use of the tech and has been for a long time, therefore it's perfectly consistent to be a scientologist and not a member of the CofS.

Here is a definition of a self-determined Scientologist:

A self-determined Scientologist is a person who thinks he is a Scientologist.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

Here is a definition of a self-determined Scientologist:

A self-determined Scientologist is a person who thinks he is a Scientologist.

.

Is that like a 'self-determined mathematician'?

Zinj

 

[Vinaire]

Is that like a 'self-determined mathematician'?

Zinj

That's correct.

.

 

[Terril park]

not so - really tansy Terrill dropped by the wenlock ranch on his US trip and despite us holding polar opposite opinions on scientology it was great. Well part from his fascination for American Microbrews - one blueberry ale springs to mind ...

You didn't like the conversation on Microbrews? I hope Nancy saved the bottle for you as I can't remember the brewery.

So many microbrews, so little time. Am I being dissed for prosylitising American Microbrews?

Thank heavens we didn't get into discusion of the def of a scientologist.

 

[Axiom142]

From one perspective, anyone whose attention is stuck on Scientology (expert on Scientology) can be called a Scientologist.

Veda is one heck of a Scientologist.

.

Vinaire,

I have to take exception to your statement.

According to my dictionary (Concise OED):

-ist = 1.denoting an adherent of a system of beliefs expressed by nouns ending in –ism.

adherent = someone who supports a particular party, person or set of ideas.

I cannot see how simply having your attention stuck on Scientology falls within the scope of these definitions.

Actually looking at the first definition, if there are Scientologists, shouldn’t there be ‘Scientologism’? :confused2:

Axiom142

 

[Mick Wenlock]

You didn't like the conversation on Microbrews? I hope Nancy saved the bottle for you as I can't remember the brewery.

So many microbrews, so little time. Am I being dissed for prosylitising American Microbrews?

Thank heavens we didn't get into discusion of the def of a scientologist.

I was referring to one particular microbrew mon vieux - a blueberry one, no you are not being dissed for your enthusiasm for the essence of the blessed hops.

Far from it!

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Vinaire,

I have to take exception to your statement.

According to my dictionary (Concise OED):

-ist = 1.denoting an adherent of a system of beliefs expressed by nouns ending in –ism.

adherent = someone who supports a particular party, person or set of ideas.

I cannot see how simply having your attention stuck on Scientology falls within the scope of these definitions.

Actually looking at the first definition, if there are Scientologists, shouldn’t there be ‘Scientologism’? :confused2:

Axiom142

well yeah there would be but the word fascism already exists so it was redundant...

 

[Terril park]

Hey Terill is right - when you have din dins with terrill its beer all round.

The man puts in some plucky work with the elbows!!

This is a limited description. I'm a pan determined drinker. In
Chinatown was at a table with a cute danish chick who professed to
drink only whiskey and water. I hatted her on Saki, to her great
edification. [study tech you know] Whiskey and water don't sit well with chinese food.

Saki is in little tiny cups that need pinky's not elbows.

 

[Vinaire]

Vinaire,

I have to take exception to your statement.

According to my dictionary (Concise OED):

-ist = 1.denoting an adherent of a system of beliefs expressed by nouns ending in –ism.

adherent = someone who supports a particular party, person or set of ideas.

I cannot see how simply having your attention stuck on Scientology falls within the scope of these definitions.

Actually looking at the first definition, if there are Scientologists, shouldn’t there be ‘Scientologism’? :confused2:

Axiom142

Let me streamline my thought here:

From one perspective, an expert on Scientology can be called a Scientologist.

Veda is one heck of a Scientologist.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

Let me streamline my thought here:

From one perspective, an expert on Scientology can be called a Scientologist.

Veda is one heck of a Scientologist.

.

From that perspective, someone who had never been subjected to the Scientology Tech would be a more likely 'Scientologist', since such a great part of the Scientology Tech involves blinding the trainee to the nature of what's being done to him (and, the nature of Scientology).

Zinj

 

[Voltaire's Child]

roflmao - you got it wrong, it was pointed out and you still can't admit it. Oh well, Fluffs adly I guess that is par for the course.

And you still have it wrong now - the first split was the schism between east and west which took place 500 years, near enough, before Luther.

Boy fluffs you are not batting very well on this. In 1100 there were TWO - count em - two major forms of Christianity - three if you count the Chaldean Church.



well not really - you seem to miss the basic point I made. When the protestants came to split off from the Catholics they called themselves Protestants. Not Catholics.

So if you wish to compare this time in the CofS with that time then you should call yourself Freezoner or Ronsorger and we would lump you all together as Hubbardites. So there would be Freezoners, Ronsorgers and Scientologists.



I guess this makes some kind of sense to you...



You seem to be laboring under some vast misapprehension Fluffs. I do not care what you call yourself, what I object to is you calling yourself a scientologist and then trying to argue that because you hold views opposed to the Church that this somehow proves a 'scientologist" can criticize the Church.

No it doesn't and I think you are being disingenuous in trying to argue it that way.

If your position was correct you would still be a member - is that not the case? Didn't you get on ARS in the first place to show that a 'scientologist" could, indeed publicly argue debate and even criticize? And didn't you get the boot for doing it? I admired you for your stance and your willingness to go through with it all. You were honest then - why the dissimulation now?

I got on a.r.s. because, at the time, I thought you guys were mean SPs and that someone should discuss Scn intelligently with you. Then, I thought, ok, they're NOT SPs and I still want to discuss this stuff. Someone then (Barbara Ramon) said in a way I was "witnessing" and although I didn't think so at the time, she was actually quite right. I was witnessing, though not actually proselytizing.Yeah, I did get the boot for doing that...and by then I'd already walked away as those idiots were getting on my very last nerve.

(I remember a very scary man named DeoMorto on a.r.s. who seemed to have a very tough exterior covering a heart of solid gold...I was alternately scared and admiring of him.

Actually, I went to utterly ridiculous lengths to not publicly excoriate CofS until I'd decided to walk away. Discuss? Yes. Debate? Yes. Criticize? NO!

The one and only critical post I wrote before I walked away was when Peter Alexander posted that someone came out from Flag when he was picketing and shouted stuff out from his pc folder. I said it was wrong and disgusting cuz I just COULD NOT let that one slide even though I'd already been told OSA was watching my posts on that forum. But other than that, I kept quiet about being a CRITIC - even though I was having OODLES of back channel discussions about the negatives of CofS- until I walked away which was over 2 years after I started posting.

My idea is that there are all sorts of Scn'ists in the world. Some are critics, most are not. One doesn't have to have ditched the ideology to be a critic. A critic is one who criticizes.

 

[Axiom142]

Let me streamline my thought here:

From one perspective, an expert on Scientology can be called a Scientologist.

Veda is one heck of a Scientologist.

.

Vinaire,

Thanks for making that clear.

Er, which perspective would that be?

Axiom142

 

[Escalus]

I'll offer a comment or two, speaking for myself. The link referenced talked about a test in 1950 where a volunteer was rendered unconscious with a drug, and had 35 words from a physics text read to him, the last 18 when pain was additionally being administered. Subsequent auditing showed the person was unable to recover the word content.

We know Hubbard lied about the extent of his research, and his statements re the abilities of a "Clear" (no colds, perfect recall etc.) are patently false. One experiment showed no recall of word content, in conflict with a statement Hubbard made. I'm not going to make a big deal about there only being one experiment and no details of the methodology etc., as from experience pc recall of word content is not very reliable at all.

Since Terril is off wearing a pink hat and drinking blueberry beer I will attempt to press on...

Thank you Mr Fart, for helping.

I think we need to stop right here for a moment though, because in asking what someone thought about the experiments I was interested in seeing at what point the defense of the original idea came into play. In your response we get a quick refutation of Hubbard's methods followed by a similarly quick suggested injunction against the staged test itself - by a round about way. So let's be clear. The testing was done under the direct approval of the Dianetics Foundation, per the conditions the Foundation laid out, and the effort to "find" the engram went through more than one auditing session. In fact the report suggests auditing was done repeatedly.

Before we go any further with this we need to review some things here, and I'll harken back to what we've discovred so far in this thread - minus the "what is a scientologist" debate.

1. There are such things as SPs, but not as many as Hubbard said there were.
2. In the Freezone, though disconnection can happen in very extreme cases, it is unequivocally not done when families or family members are involved.
3. LRH lied about his research.
4. He said falsehoods about the state of "Clear."

So far this is what we've got. It's on posts so far made and - so far as I can tell - unedited at this writing.

So knowing that Hubbard had the idea of Clear wrong, and that his methods were deeply flawed from the start, are there such things as engrams and Clears?

 

[Zinjifar]

So knowing that Hubbard had the idea of Clear wrong, and that his methods were deeply flawed from the start, are there such things as engrams and Clears?

When building a house of cards, I always try to start with the 2nd story, since it obviates the necessity for such embarassments as a 'foundation'.

Zinj

 

[Escalus]

When building a house of cards, I always try to start with the 2nd story, since it obviates the necessity for such embarassments as a 'foundation'.

Zinj

shhhoooosh! I am building an empire of cards. Wait for the damn punch line already yeah!?

 

[asagai]

I'm with you Esc! Of course the diversion into "what is a scientologist" may not have been co-incidental!

Let's keep on the Esc trail folks and see where the merry Friend takes us.....

 

[Vinaire]

From that perspective, someone who had never been subjected to the Scientology Tech would be a more likely 'Scientologist', since such a great part of the Scientology Tech involves blinding the trainee to the nature of what's being done to him (and, the nature of Scientology).

Zinj

There can be exceptions to the above.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Vinaire,

Thanks for making that clear.

Er, which perspective would that be?

Axiom142

An expert on sex may be called a sexologist.

An expert in Science may be called a scientist.

An expert on Physics may be called a physicist.

An expert on ecology may be called an ecologist.

Is that enough?

.

 

[Escalus]

An expert on sex may be called a sexologist.

An expert in Science may be called a scientist.

An expert on Physics may be called a physicist.

An expert on ecology may be called an ecologist.

Is that enough?

.

And an expert in music is called stoned.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=A0mZR1kltOU