One of Marty's recent posts....
- Thread starter Vittorio
- Start date
Lulu Belle
Moonbat
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
If your second sentence was actually true, then you would not have written the first sentence.
WordClown!
Vittorio
Patron Meritorious
Depends on what those 8 posts per day here are devoted to. But it shows that you spend more time devoted to this subject than I do! But you don't have anything to offer in terms of decent knowledge of what is going on. Yours and Veda's posts are not aimed at Hubbard, they are aimed at me. You could not respond to the post about Marty potentially ordering Bud Fields death, because you don't have anything to respond with, so you attack me!
I'm not here to have a go at you or Veda.
Last edited:
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
All that happened in your head? WOW!
Helpful Tip: I did not even know who you are until today. I have never read your posts before. A few hours ago I posted a parody response about Hubbard/Miscavige that had absolutely nothing to do with you. Nobody attacked you. I don't even know who you are and have no reason to attack you.
Then you spent the next several posts trying to make up a bunch of wacky stuff that you attributed to me.
One of the funny parts is when you said: "Judging by the amount of time you spend on here, racking up an average of 8 posts a day, I don't think your in a position to criticise the people who follow Hubbards words."
This is about the most non-sequitur, illogical, nonsensical post I have seen in a long time. Let's break that one down just for fun.
Because I write an average of 8 posts per day, I am therefore not in a position to "criticize the people who follow Hubbard's words." Right?
So, the fact that I have an enormous amount of knowledge about Hubbard and Scientology and write a few paragraphs a day about it disqualifies me from writing about it.
Yeah, we see your point. Only people who know very little about Scientology and have no original thoughts and nothing to say about it have the "position" to write about it. That is EXACTLY what is wrong with Scientology and Scientologists!
Thank you for bringing that to everyone's attention!
And by the way, I don't know how you arrived at the idea that 8 posts a day was some big deal. For a professional writer, 8 posts might just be a brief warmup exercise before facing a ream of blank paper for the day's work.
Last edited:
Vittorio
Patron Meritorious
I am an ex-Scientologist and ex-Freezoner.
Like I said, read the content of your posts, it's the same repetitive stuff over and over and over and you find my post revealing about me? There's on old saying 'If you've got nothing nice to say about someone, then say nothing'. If you have some evidence that I'm harming people in some way, then bring it on. Although in all fairness, it is Veda really who is on the attack, worried that I might to be trying to insinuate that the Church was taken over by Rathbun and co and not ordered by Hubbard himself. Problem is Veda, is that your trying to take personal responsibility away from people.
And in case there may be some people around who may believe some of Hubbard's writings, it's not your business to tell them what they should and shouldn't believe. Thats the only reason you came into this thread, because you thought that I may be an Indie Scientologist. They can make informed choices about that on their own. You may not be happy with the fact that you spent years and probably a hell of a lot of time and money on Scientology, being a former C/S (which is a fair bit of training) and I believe you went as far as OT or thereabouts. But I didn't and thats one helluvahoax your going to have to sort out yourself. If it's all a load of rubbish you could have walked out after or even during your first course. The majority do.
Veda
Sponsor
Vittorio
Patron Meritorious
And as for the amount of posts each day, it shows a clear long term commitment to your devotion to the subject, as a fanatical critic who repeats the words Hubturd, con, wordclown, hoax and a few others over and over and over more times than Ron could say 'now' or 'can you see?'. Being a full blown critic does not mean that people are psychologically OK after leaving Scientology and that they are somehow on a pedestal above those who have nice things to say about their experiences with the Church, their fellow staff, Ron and the tech. Not everything was bad, not in my experience. I know my own mind and when I was lied to, I walked. I wasn't even going to allow an opportunity where I could be messed around. I've seen some people stand up fiercly in the Church, when they were only on a basic course.
Miscavige got where he is because people willingly helped him. Many people willingly supported him. If there are people who spent a lot of time in Scientology and can't take a shred of responsibility for it when they're out, then I don't believe they are telling the truth. Amy Scobee is now saying that anyone who attacks Marty is OSA. We're starting to see the foundations of a whole new CoS being laid.
Gadfly
Crusader
I gotta admit that I liked some this post.
It adds . . . . . . how shall I say it . . . . "balance". :confused2:
I would only add on two points.
Hoaxie NEVER gets repetitious to me. He comes up with new and interesting flaws of Hubbard and Scientology, and novel ways to display these with humor. Now maybe some tire of that, but I haven't yet!
Hoaxie is obviously a very quick thinker, and it is most likely that he spends less time than most to read ESMB, put together, and post his often wonderful little "dramatic exhibits". I wouldn't necessarily ASSUME that he "spends a great deal of time here" based on the volume alone.
While it may be true that Miscavige or some others did "take over" the Church, with or without Hubbard's planning, DM did so to ENSURE that HUBBARD'S exact policies and directions were heavily implemented. The Church of Scientology sucks to the degree that managament is "correctly applying the correct LRH tech". It doesn't matter "who" ordered what. As long as ANY person, Hubbard himself, Miscavige, or some other dictatorial asshole, is carefully "applying Ron's directives on expanding Scientology", so will the insanity, abuses and harm continue.
It does not matter WHO is running the show. As long as ANY version of Scientology includes all extant LRH directives on "how to make Scientology win", with management aiming to get "all these directives implemented", with total pure KSW-fanantical fervor intact, it won't be much different than now.
Last edited:
Vittorio
Patron Meritorious
Huh?
Why do I feel as though I'm waiting for a bus in a strange part of town?
Veda, you were one of the few people who stood by me when I criticised Terril, Pierre, Marty and the abuses in the Freezone. Abuses I and others experienced first hand. I am grateful for that. But I feel you are always trying to prove a point about Hubbard and that the idea that the Church was taken over 81-84/5 by Miscavige and crew is a lie and that it was all Hubbard. The All About Radiation post was completely out of context. I asked for statistics about the Church from the periods before and after Marty was in management. This question was asked because of all the talk I'd heard from ex's who state the Church was booming before the takeover and because a poll here had shown that that was the time period when the majority of ex's got into Scientology.
If Marty needed armed guards in order to steal information from Pat Broeker, this may suggest otherwise. Broeker would have acted on orders from Hubbard even if someone falsified them.
I think if there is anyone out there who knew somoene who was in Scientology and who they haven't seen in a while, that it is worth checking that they are OK and still around. It pains me to think that someone could have been done away with on the side or is staying in the Church because they feel they have nowhere to go.
Vittorio
Patron Meritorious
I gotta admit that I liked some this post.
I adds . . . . . . how shall I say it . . . . "balance". :confused2:
I would only add on two points.
Hoaxie NEVER gets repetitious to me. He comes up with new and interesting flaws of Hubbard and Scientology, and novel ways to display these with humor. Now maybe some tire of that, but I haven't yet!
Hoaxie is obviously a very quick thinker, and it is most likely that he spends less time than most to read ESMB, put together, and post his often wonderful little "dramatic exhibits". I wouldn't necessarily ASSUME that he "spends a great deal of time here" based on the volume alone.
While it may be true that Miscavige or some others did "take over" the Church, with or without Hubbard's planning, DM did so to ENSURE that HUBBARD'S exact policies and directions were heavily implemented. The Church of Scientology sucks to the degree that managament is "correctly applying the correct LRH tech". It doesn't matter "who" ordered what. As long as ANY person, Hubbard himself, Miscavige, or some other dictatorial asshole, is carefully "applying Ron's directives on expanding Scientology", so will the insanity, abuses and harm continue.
It does not matter WHO is running the show. As long as ANY version of Scientology includes all extant LRH directives on "how to make Scientology win", with management aiming to get "all these directives implemented", with total pure KSW-fanantical fervor intact, it won't be much different than now.
Excellent post Gadfly! And yes, you see a side to Helluvahoax that I haven't.
Any philosophy that asks a person to harm others in order to ensure it's survival and which cannot take fair, balanced and deserved criticism when due is not worth it's salt as far as I'm concerned. Several years back, a couple of ex's called me to their house, knowing that I was no longer doing any Scientology. Both remember me being a good Auditor and that I was being stitched up (as were they). We all had some interest in starting a group then and talked about it. Our concerns were that when certain people came knocking on the door, we'd want to slam it shut! Our ethics officer, DSA, treas sec, qual sec. Hell no! Because we knew that they would start the horror show all over again. A good portion of the guys in Scientology were great people, but there were some, er, 'black hats'. What happens when they leave and want to join the FZ? I must admit when I seen Terril asked 'what about the abuses Marty committed?' and Terril responded with 'What abuses?, DOX please' or something along those lines, I nearly put my fist through the wall! Thats really what got me back on here posting.
Having spent the last few years making new friends, learning new stuff, I seem to have forgotten just how messed up so many Scientology ex's are and how much insanity there is here on the net. I can't do anything about the hurt that others feel, and I don't wish to become a target for that because I have some good experiences I would also like to share.
Sindy
Crusader
Lurk moar
You've been registered since 2007. There is not a single poster who has helped me undo the mindfuck more than Hoaxie.
Veda
Sponsor
What were those orders? "Burn the upper OT levels before Miscavige and Rathbun get ahold of them!"
Hubbard was long dead when the raid on Broeker occurred.
Beyond that, I leave you to your thread.
Sindy
Crusader
IMO, Hubbard needs to be deconstructed on an hourly basis in the Ex C of S community. One needs to step back and view these threads from the perspective of someone who may only read this thread or any other single thread.
The Hubbard trance is thick. Some people never strip it off.
The Hubbard trance is thick. Some people never strip it off.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Gadfly
Crusader
The amount of posts of some here on ESMB, to me, shows a committment to helping others see through the scam. I don't at all see that Hoaxter is "devoted to the subject". He obviously has some interest in the area. I do too, having had great EXPERIENCE in the area. I enjoy applying my "intelligence" to analyzing some of THAT experience with Scientology, as I am sure many others also do, and as I suspect as Hoaxter does. He has a very keen familiarity with the subject and practices of Scientology, and he uses his own intelligence and humor to rip apart various aspects of what IS A HOAX. Call it whatever you want, but Hubbard was primarily a creator of FICTION, a LIAR, one who puts out "mock-ups", and that also manifested in his own biographical content AND the subject of Scientology itself (to no small degree).
I do NOT consider Hoaxter a "fanatical" critic. I think that is PUSHING it way too far. He is a critic. And , he is good at it. Being one who myself got into Scientology quite deeply, at both the subject and Sea Org levels, his humor often touches on aspects of the subject that surely passes over the heads of many. The details and flavor often cracks me up. I am sure it also does so for more than a few others here.
I would also add that for some or many people still heavily overburdened with left-over Scientology indoctrination, which many ex-Church Scios ARE, the repeated use of terms like "Hubturd", "wordclown", "hoax", and "con" are NECESSARY because one is trying to blow through a very thick and well-built wall of Scientology-based delusion. That wall often does NOT immediately fall down with cursory inspection. It needs to be unbuilt, brick by brick. As Syn correctly pointed out, the deconstruction of the Scientology mindfuck can take a LONG time, and can be done from a large variety of "attack angles". To me, MORE is better. The more angles from which one can view some aspect of the BULLSHIT known as Hubbard and Scientology, well, all the better. I do not see that the repeated use of such derogatory terms here is analagous to Hubbard's attempts to HYPNOTIZE his followers.
Yes, I do understand that some people do get some benefit. I also did myself. I freely talk about that. But THAT is FAR LESS in magnitude than the intensity of the MIND FUCK involved that goes along with "any of the good" (where the "good" is mainly a form of "bait" to sucker any person in for the rest of the GREAT AMOUNT of IDIOCY). You may disagree on that balance. But, many others do not.
The attendant or accidental "good" from Scientology, to me, can NEVER justify ANY support of Hubbard, his subject or the C of S. The ONLY value in Scientology is in a very intensive removal of all the EXTENSIVE CRAP from the far rarer decent aspects. But, always realize that the "good stuff" was often placed there to act as grease for the TRAP to better slide in upon.
As some have previously correctly pointed out, if one REMOVES the great deal of nonsense, lunacies and craziness, what is left is NOT really "Scientology".
And, too many people confuse the positive feel-good personal experiences with the REALITY of the mindfuck where one accepts and adopts a HUGE framework known as the Hubbard Scientology paradigm. Said another way, some or too many make an IDENTIFICATION (A=A=A) of the "positive feel-good experience" with the large amount of pure horseshit that IS Scientology. And, said one final way, I don't doubt that WHY any person GAINED had MUCH more to do with HIM or HER than with ANY exact aspect of the "tech of Scientology".
Last edited:
Vittorio
Patron Meritorious
Lurk moar
I appreciate that Synthia. Lurk moar is probably the WRONG thing to do. Coming on here was a mistake. I've replaced my '3rd dynamic Scientology' with something completely different. I don't believe that that transition has been an easy process for everyone and hence these message boards serve that purpose.
For a window of time I seem to have forgotten that transition and thought that by coming here I could make some difference.
Larry Anderson posted a question asking for forgiveness on the youtube video of a father in the UK who wanted to get his daughter out of Scientology. Thats taking personal responsibility. Larry's closing scene in that very video probably drove more people away than he can imagine, but he's risking no chances. He isn't blaming anyone else and he is obviously concerned that people may have suffered as a result of getting into Scientology on the back of his promotion.
Gadfly
Crusader
I can't believe how often I have to say this.
IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO.
Yes, a person must accept and believe and participate and contribute to Scientology for it to have ANY "negative effects" as a result.
But also, Hubbard designed it as a system to intentionally CATCH people and to heavily CONTROL them and to USE THEM with great manipulation for his own nefarious ends.
There are TWO SIDES to that coin, and each side is WHOLLY RESPONSIBLE.
I truly HAVE forgiven everything about Scientology. I get very little in terms of ANY "emotional response" about any of it. I know that I caused it for me. But, also, I can calmly and cooly look at the subject and practices and comment on it. In truth I post here mostly to help others untangle themselves from the MINDFUCK, because I feel that I have an ability to look deeply into the whole realm, and that I can at times well explain some aspect of the whole charade. I have long since passed using ESMB as a place for myself to "deconstruct". Once in awhile I see some new angle, but for the most pasrt, I did the majority of my "Internet reading" about Scientology MANY years ago (and I read EVERYTHING I could find, pro and con, for many months - even while still "in" the Church).
I look at it like Jesus might have viewed those hitting him with stones and jabbing him with a spear - forgive them for they know not what they do. I look at the Church of Scientology and most Scientologists the same way. It gets a bit more difficult with Hubbard, but even with him, as I see it, he was MISLED (if only by himself) and REALLY, he did NOT "know what he was doing". No matter how arrogant and pretentious he might have been. I am at a strange point in my own "evolution" where I can't really "blame anyone" for anything. Anything that happens is just "natural". Hurricanes are "natural". Floods are "natural". People and groups who lie and decieve others for personal advantage and gain are "natural". The best recommendation is to stay away from "dangerous natural phenomena". I simply don't look at "people", and infer that this imaginary component called "individual conscious responsibility" makes them anything OTHER than just like ANY OTHER "natural occurence". I deal with ALL, people included, on the level of "behavior".
Granted there is no shortage of such things here on Earth, and it DOES take time and experience to figure that out.
Last edited:
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
No. The reporting of fact and the appeal to reason works far better. It may take longer with some individuals but the effect is more certain and the result far less damaging.
Such tactics as you have deemed here as 'necessary' merely seek to justify & inflame anger and to create violent attitudes. Thus they ensure the continuance of ignorance and hatred. They have as their intent the deliberate goal of making others wrong for their beliefs rather than an intent of helping another to achieve a fuller understanding.
And you needn't take my word for it; just pull out a copy of the Dhammapada.
Mark A. Baker
Similar threads
