Need help in exposing Study Tech Academy

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
I would consider any school administrator who could seriously suggest using Scientology Tech in public schools to be unqualified to train a hamster or wax the gym floor.

Naturally, thanks to Scientology's 'Front Organization' system, some particularly stupid School administrators might not *realize* that they were promoting HubbTech and his 'Church', but, hey, that's stupid enough to boot out too.

Zinj

Luckily school administrators dont train hamsters nor wax gym floors.

I think we understand that in your opinion anything in any way connected to scientology is evil incarnate. Even if it makes sense.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Luckily school administrators dont train hamsters nor wax gym floors.

I think we understand that in your opinion anything in any way connected to scientology is evil incarnate. Even if it makes sense.

You should hear my rant on Scientology 'judges' and how that's an *inherent* conflict of interest :)

KSW is *antisocial* on *every* level.

Zinj
 

DiaSciRev

New Member
Jeez, I leave the thread for a night and this is what happens? There's more argument about whether or not Study Tech is valid than there is discussion on the London Congress on Dissemination and Help course, like I intended.

I was going to contribute a little to this "discussion", but I see that neither side has come to any good. I will, however, reply to this particular comment colser to the beginning of the thread, when it had more coherence.

So....you want to protest it because the person who runs it took a scientology course, the lectures of which you have, but have not even listened to, to find out what it is about?

But somehow scientology is connected so it must be bad.

You admit you dont know enough....perhaps you should become better educated before you decide what you are going to do. That would seem the logical progression of things.

If thats tl;dr....

lurk moar?

No; I'm protesting it because the school is being dishonest about the way it operates by trying to disconnect itself (pardon the usage of that word) from Scientology. As written on the covers of the Study Tech books, it is "Based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard" (no other authors are given), but what other works could it possibly be based off of than Scientology? Yet, according to the Academy, there is absolutely no connection and all the tech is secular. Just because you remove the word "Scientology" from something doesn't mean it's secular; it's like using the Bible to teach history, except this is across the entire educational spectrum.

Like I said, I'm already well-oriented with Study Tech. Before this discussion gets derailed any further, is there anyone here who took the course that can help me?
 

alex

Gold Meritorious Patron
Jeez, I leave the thread for a night and this is what happens? There's more argument about whether or not Study Tech is valid than there is discussion on the London Congress on Dissemination and Help course, like I intended.

I was going to contribute a little to this "discussion", but I see that neither side has come to any good. I will, however, reply to this particular comment colser to the beginning of the thread, when it had more coherence.



No; I'm protesting it because the school is being dishonest about the way it operates by trying to disconnect itself (pardon the usage of that word) from Scientology. As written on the covers of the Study Tech books, it is "Based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard" (no other authors are given), but what other works could it possibly be based off of than Scientology? Yet, according to the Academy, there is absolutely no connection and all the tech is secular. Just because you remove the word "Scientology" from something doesn't mean it's secular; it's like using the Bible to teach history, except this is across the entire educational spectrum.

Like I said, I'm already well-oriented with Study Tech. Before this discussion gets derailed any further, is there anyone here who took the course that can help me?

Perhaps you would care to give some examples of the religious nature of study tech from your "well oriented" knowledge of it?

Because the bible is available as an english translations does not make english non secular. That Hubbard is the author of study tech and of scientology does not make study tech incapable of being secular. Sure there is a connection. A scientology entity licenses the study tech.

What part of it do you find religious in nature?

----

You have the lectures, listen to them and you will know what the course is about. It is a course based on them exclusively.
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
A.B.L.E. is a 100% owned subsidiary of the 'Church' of Scientology. All its executives are *Sea Org*

Zinj
 
A.B.L.E. is a 100% owned subsidiary of the 'Church' of Scientology. All its executives are *Sea Org*

Zinj


"A.B.L.E." is NOT "study tech".

My sister recently had a surgical procedure performed in a hospital owned & operated by the roman catholic church. She is neither a catholic nor a christian. Nor is she sympathetic to monotheistic evangelical religions generally. The surgical procedure performed was not dependent for its effectiveness on any religious or spiritual associations of either the originator or the performing surgeons or support staff.

Try getting past "Church of Scientology = BAD" in your argument, Z.

Mark A. Baker
 

LEAPFROG

Patron with Honors
Jeez, I leave the thread for a night and this is what happens? There's more argument about whether or not Study Tech is valid than there is discussion on the London Congress on Dissemination and Help course, like I intended.

I was going to contribute a little to this "discussion", but I see that neither side has come to any good. I will, however, reply to this particular comment colser to the beginning of the thread, when it had more coherence.



No; I'm protesting it because the school is being dishonest about the way it operates by trying to disconnect itself (pardon the usage of that word) from Scientology. As written on the covers of the Study Tech books, it is "Based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard" (no other authors are given), but what other works could it possibly be based off of than Scientology? Yet, according to the Academy, there is absolutely no connection and all the tech is secular. Just because you remove the word "Scientology" from something doesn't mean it's secular; it's like using the Bible to teach history, except this is across the entire educational spectrum.

Like I said, I'm already well-oriented with Study Tech. Before this discussion gets derailed any further, is there anyone here who took the course that can help me?


Well, I went to Applied Scholastics a long time ago (1974). It was fairly new then (a few years). I have no idea to what degree it may have changed. It was Scientology Technology and you can verify it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_Scholastics

Yes, they'll tell you they are separate and perhaps on a "legal" basis they are. But when I went, I did the mini student hat and also the basic TR's. and they even had an "ethics officer" at that time.

Also, that was my "first" time I learned what a "static" was. The idea was so unreal to me, I didn't get it for as long as I was there - :confused2: I get it now though :wink2:

When in doubt - look it up on Wikipedia or Wikileaks :coolwink:

:) Lyn
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
"A.B.L.E." is NOT "study tech".

My sister recently had a surgical procedure performed in a hospital owned & operated by the roman catholic church. She is neither a catholic nor a christian. Nor is she sympathetic to monotheistic evangelical religions generally. The surgical procedure performed was not dependent for its effectiveness on any religious or spiritual associations of either the originator or the performing surgeons or support staff.

Try getting past "Church of Scientology = BAD" in your argument, Z.

Mark A. Baker

Are you saying that 'Applied Scholastics' operates independently from ABLE? Hmm?

Zinj
 

DCAnon

Silver Meritorious Patron

The founding Delphian School in Oregon is registered with the Oregon Department of Education and is listed as "privately accredited".[5] It is a candidate member of the Pacific Northwest Association of Independent Schools (PNAIS). According to PNAIS, "Candidate Members are schools the PNAIS Board of Governors have approved as being able to meet the PNAIS Major Standards within a five-year period."[6] The Delphi Academy of Los Angeles is listed with the California State Department of Education as offering a high school diploma. It has not received accreditation by either recognized regional accreditation body, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) or the California Association of Independent Schools (CAIS). [7][8]

All of the remaining Delphi schools are listed with their respective state education departments but none carry accreditation from their respective regional or national accreditation bodies.

Steve Keller is the father of a daughter who attended one of the Californian branches of the Delphi Academy, which uses Hubbard's Study Tech. In 1997, he became concerned about the claims being made about Delphi and decided to try to corroborate them. Delphi claimed that 96% of its students applied for admission to college and provided him with a "Partial List of Colleges and Universities that have Accepted Delphi Graduates." He contacted each of the 35 schools named. Of the 27 that replied, only three acknowledged having received applications from Delphi students in recent years. Another sixteen said either they had not received such applications or they could not consider them. For example, U.C. Santa Barbara said it "...does not accept students applying from Delphi Academy...because Delphi is not an accredited institution." Keller cross-checked with California's Accrediting Commission for Schools, which replied that it had not accredited Delphi. American College Testing told him, "Few if any Delphi students have taken the ACT test." It was not surprising that he concluded, in a letter to the Los Angeles Times, that "Whether or not they have success in these endeavors, we need to ask: do Hubbard's methods work? If Delphi is a good example, they obviously do not."

To name a few sources that echo my concerns. Where do you get the notion that it's a success?
 

FinallyFree

Gold Meritorious Patron
Has anyone noticed DiaSciRev's question is not getting answered? :
"Like I said, I'm already well-oriented with Study Tech. Before this discussion gets derailed any further, is there anyone here who took the course that can help me?"
Will someone please help him? I cannot.
 

DiaSciRev

New Member
megalomaniac is a delphian Ask him

Zinj

I was going to say that I'm looking for info on the London Congress on Dissemination and Help Course (again, emphasis on Course), but you might have a point. Is it a course that people in Delphi Academy/Applied Scholastics are supposed to take?

Also, another question, which might explain the lack of an answer. The statistic appeared in the Freewinds magazine; does this mean the LCDH course is available only on the Freewinds, or an I just arriving at conclusions due to glib rationalism?
 

clamicide

Gold Meritorious Patron
I was going to say that I'm looking for info on the London Congress on Dissemination and Help Course (again, emphasis on Course), but you might have a point. Is it a course that people in Delphi Academy/Applied Scholastics are supposed to take?

Also, another question, which might explain the lack of an answer. The statistic appeared in the Freewinds magazine; does this mean the LCDH course is available only on the Freewinds, or an I just arriving at conclusions due to glib rationalism?


Yes, this is a Freewinds Course. I haven't, personally, taken it. I know someone still in who did, and wasn't particularly thrilled with having to do it because it wasn't like the other OT Hatting Courses and pretty much dealt just with Dissemination. It was part of a push where all Div 6es had to send a team of staff and FSMs to do it.

Can't help you with the exact contents, but around this same time, there was some sort of campaign where 'wogs' were supposedly taking courses on the ship that were considered 'secular', but utilized LRH materials. Mostly Div 6 intro courses, but there were also 'meatier courses'. I don't remember if the tapes were edited, or if they used ones that were much more public-friendly (not much 'Scio' per se, Ron did tapes like that). I cannot tell you for sure if this course fell under that category. I also don't know how many non-Scienos (if any) actually did courses. I just recall staff briefings that showed 'important people' that were boarding the Freewinds, that we were told were becoming huge fans of LRH. Wish I had more specifics, and my details might be a bit off.

Actually, now that I think about it, there are actually a lot of things that are based in Scientology that are considered as secular. The whole business consultant thing is promoted as non-religious, and I remember there were individual tapes that were put out that were considered secular, such as one on the conditions, that had the 'religious' part of Scio edited out. These were promoted as great to give to non-members to get them seeing the brilliance of LRH, and the hope that they'd reach for more (ie. reach for the tech).
 
Are you saying that 'Applied Scholastics' operates independently from ABLE? Hmm?

Zinj

No, I said "study tech" is NOT "A.B.L.E.". I will extend my remarks to indicating that "study tech" is also NOT "Applied Scholastics".

Personally, I'm not terribly interested in the specific organizational agreements and relationships among private commercial concerns, secular organizations with Co$ affiliations, and those sectarian institutions which constitute the Co$ in all its "glory". I don't tend to adhere to "scorched earth" policies, and thus see no point to the effort to identify & target all known associates. :no:

In so far as "study tech" exists it is a fairly simple yet useful series of techniques adopted for the study of academic material with the intent of achieving a rapid yet thorough conceptual understanding of the targeted subject. I often recommend the basic aspects of "study tech" to individuals I meet who have had troublesome histories in their education.

ALL of those who have adopted these techniques on my recommendation have subsequently been AMAZED to discover the facility with which they can master academic material. Several of these individuals had previously experienced a HUGE personal sense of loss and drop in self-esteem due to problems in school. One such has achieved some status on returning to college as a scholarship & honors student. :thumbsup:

Generally speaking "study tech" is a good thing. I'd personally like to see it adopted by more schools, including u.s. public schools. It is not clear to me that "study tech" is "lrh tech". The likeliest claimant as originator of the topic I've seen suggested was Charles Berner, a former scientologist.

Additionally aspects of the "tech" were taught to me many years ago in my youth and before any involvement on my part with the Co$. This was at a time even before the "tech" had been adopted by the Co$ as a recommended practice. Still, it is a part of "scientology tech" and the LRH materials are the one's most commonly used in teaching the basics of "study tech". :)


Mark A. Baker
 
Just because you remove the word "Scientology" from something doesn't mean it's secular; it's like using the Bible to teach history, except this is across the entire educational spectrum.


In the case of "study tech" arguably removing scientology references DOES make it secular. There is nothing at all sectarian about the subject of effective techniques of study. :)


In the case of the bible:

A. It is not a "good" history in the sense of being an accurate reflection of actual events.

B. It is wholly sectarian in substance & intent. Removal of sectarian material would completely eradicate the bible as you know it.

C. It's principle secular usage is as a reference in understanding the degree of its influence on the general development of western culture, thought & literature.

D. Historically the primary reason for its use in academic settings has been for the express purpose of sectarian indoctrination.

Your analogy is a poor one.:coolwink:


Mark A. Baker
 

KnightVision

Gold Meritorious Patron
Oh Yeah? From the get go these statements are but a belief: that lrh study tech is effective. IT IS NOT. A 'demo kit' is a tool used to make one 'think' they are representing a truth while actually supplanting a placebo. Using a dictionary is as old and common as the hills; it is not 'study tech'... that's lrh for you... fat retard idiot who couldn't make it as a straight shooter and thus plagerized and twisted anything decent into cocoons of stupid idiocy that have only one intent- to remove one's current allegiences and remap them to his intents. LRH is a liar, a thief and a criminal. End of story.



In the case of "study tech" arguably removing scientology references DOES make it secular. There is nothing at all sectarian about the subject of effective techniques of study. :)


In the case of the bible:

A. It is not a "good" history in the sense of being an accurate reflection of actual events.

B. It is wholly sectarian in substance & intent. Removal of sectarian material would completely eradicate the bible as you know it.

C. It's principle secular usage is as a reference in understanding the degree of its influence on the general development of western culture, thought & literature.

D. Historically the primary reason for its use in academic settings has been for the express purpose of sectarian indoctrination.

Your analogy is a poor one.:coolwink:


Mark A. Baker
 

DiaSciRev

New Member
Thanks, clamicide!

Yes, this is a Freewinds Course. I haven't, personally, taken it. I know someone still in who did, and wasn't particularly thrilled with having to do it because it wasn't like the other OT Hatting Courses and pretty much dealt just with Dissemination. It was part of a push where all Div 6es had to send a team of staff and FSMs to do it.

Well, that is interesting. So I guess it is simply the lectures after all, no supplemental material. Very well, that's mainly what I needed to know.

Can't help you with the exact contents, but around this same time, there was some sort of campaign where 'wogs' were supposedly taking courses on the ship that were considered 'secular', but utilized LRH materials. Mostly Div 6 intro courses, but there were also 'meatier courses'. I don't remember if the tapes were edited, or if they used ones that were much more public-friendly (not much 'Scio' per se, Ron did tapes like that). I cannot tell you for sure if this course fell under that category. I also don't know how many non-Scienos (if any) actually did courses. I just recall staff briefings that showed 'important people' that were boarding the Freewinds, that we were told were becoming huge fans of LRH. Wish I had more specifics, and my details might be a bit off.

Having looked at the course myself, it's highly unlikely. The first lecture alone covers solely the difference between Scientology and other philosophies or religions. If they had to edit out the Sci-speak from that one, it would be blank.

When did this campaign of wog Freewinds courses take place?
 

clamicide

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks, clamicide!



Well, that is interesting. So I guess it is simply the lectures after all, no supplemental material. Very well, that's mainly what I needed to know.



Having looked at the course myself, it's highly unlikely. The first lecture alone covers solely the difference between Scientology and other philosophies or religions. If they had to edit out the Sci-speak from that one, it would be blank.

When did this campaign of wog Freewinds courses take place?

I am chronically horrible at dates....I think it might have been late nineties or the early of the 2 thousands, but, I'm just unreliable on that sort of thing. Sorry. Vividly remember a lot of it, just not the "when"
 

Terril park

Sponsor
B. It is wholly sectarian in substance & intent. Removal of sectarian material would completely eradicate the bible as you know it.

The Westar institute considered 91 sayings of the bible as pretty genuine from Jesus's mouth. Included is the parable of the good Samaritan.

You know, the one where the Freezoner befriends the OSA op who got insulted by the anons and takes him to the local pub and buys him a beer and introduces him to his anon friends. :)

I'm really up for that. :)
 
Top