Scientology is all bad

[Emma]

Actually it is not "excommunicate" - it is refusing to let someone into your house who, every time you let them in, insists on ignoring your rules and pissing on the rugs.

This site is not a religion, it's a message board. No-one has a 'right" to act like a prick or an asshole here any more than they would if we were sitting around [STRIKE]Emma's[/STRIKE] Mick's kitchen table having some beers and talking.

I have worked as a doorman (aka bouncer) for a bar on East Colfax (people who know Denver will understand what that entails) and when I escorted people from the premises for being a prat I wasn't excommunicating them. I was just letting them be a prat somewhere else.

Fixed it for ya

 

[Gottabrain]

"...all those who have "vigorous" interactions with Mark Baker have to start wondering ... and thinking about when they...

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

"...I'm not going to name names, if I did that I'd probably just end up doing the very thing I'm speaking out against..."

Naming names would (have) meant that the person(s)? you object to, regarding lack of politeness is not left vague. Vagueness in this case means that all those who have "vigorous" interactions with Mark Baker have to start wondering if they are included in your objections or not, and thinking about when they themselves feel that Mark Baker has dished out the same sort of behaviour to them, that you object to. But it is difficult to make any defense that way, because you could them claim that they were not the person(s) you were talking about. Or you could do the Panda two-step and infer that what you meant is fully clear in a previous post, when it isn't.

All because you think that being precise will be impolite! I live in Asia, where politeness and "harmony" is valued more than being precise or presenting the real facts. It sucks and wastes a lot of time.

Interesting. For decades I have conducted extensive business with Asians and actually my largest company (by far) is entirely managed and staffed by all Asians. I have a similar take as you do and have plied Panda on more than one occasion to simply answer if he was talking about me. It was not easy to get an answer. Finally on this thread thru repetitive questions (TR 3? lol) he finally did admit that he considers me to be a BakerBaiter.

I personally love the simple and direct Asian way of answering questions and have learned much about business and life from it. I actually teach executives in my other companies to "go Asian" in their approach to certain kinds of complicated, scientific or technical problems.

I never understood that concept of talking generally about rule-breaking behavior but not saying who is doing it.

I am still waiting for moderation or warnings, expecting it. It seems clear that Panda's campaigning is hopeful that I will get moderated and "reformed" lol.

It would be much simpler than he thinks if he (as a moderator) or one of the others would simply just tell me that my style of posting is not welcome here any longer. I already said I would not make a fuss and just thank everyone for the time here and not post further.

I personally don't like Panda's unofficial attempts to moderate the board. I think it is a policing action that is a buzzkiller and creates the perception that one is no longer welcome here.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

All because you think that being precise will be impolite! I live in Asia, where politeness and "harmony" is valued more than being precise or presenting the real facts. It sucks and wastes a lot of time.

Oh yeah, there is that too! LOL

I once was doing a venture with a Japanese firm and their representative did due-diligence from hell on the venture. Our entertainment company was being asked for ever-increasing details ad naseum. This went on for months and months.

At one point I got clued in by a veteran of many Japanese-American co-ventures that "The Japanese will never say no". I started laughing and realized that the deal was already dead and they just couldn't say it.

On the other hand, in problem solving that same "low-key" approach is ingenious. In working in one business venture I have physicists, scientists, engineers and doctors working R&D on some extraordinarily challenging new medical technology and they are all American--and it can get mighty complex. LOL I frequently call them in for a conference and get them onto the "Asian style" and that has been extremely successful.

It has its place, but I would agree with you that not saying what they are thinking directly can be a time waster. If it is interesting, I will note that the flip-side of this is that it is VERY EASY to mistake Asian silence for "polite reticence" when it is actually something quite different. A short story follows for anyone who likes this sort of thing....

One time had a meeting with a Korean CEO that managed one of my enterprises and he was not answering the questions that everyone was chatting about. I finally looked at him and said directly: "What are you thinking?" He said: "I am not thinking anything."

At that point I became stunningly aware that he was NOT actually thinking anything at all. He was not being silent or polite. He simply had "no thoughts" about the subject. My God, that was a refreshing moment and lead to a profound understanding of "simplicity" that has a real value and place in business and life.

 

[degraded being]

Oh yeah, there is that too! LOL

I once was doing a venture with a Japanese firm and their representative did due-diligence from hell on the venture. Our entertainment company was being asked for ever-increasing details ad naseum. This went on for months and months.

At one point I got clued in by a veteran of many Japanese-American co-ventures that "The Japanese will never say no". I started laughing and realized that the deal was already dead and they just couldn't say it.

On the other hand, in problem solving that same "low-key" approach is ingenious. In working in one business venture I have physicists, scientists, engineers and doctors working R&D on some extraordinarily challenging new medical technology and they are all American--and it can get mighty complex. LOL I frequently call them in for a conference and get them onto the "Asian style" and that has been extremely successful.

It has its place, but I would agree with you that not saying what they are thinking directly can be a time waster. If it is interesting, I will note that the flip-side of this is that it is VERY EASY to mistake Asian silence for "polite reticence" when it is actually something quite different. A short story follows for anyone who likes this sort of thing....

One time had a meeting with a Korean CEO that managed one of my enterprises and he was not answering the questions that everyone was chatting about. I finally looked at him and said directly: "What are you thinking?" He said: "I am not thinking anything."

At that point I became stunningly aware that he was NOT actually thinking anything at all. He was not being silent or polite. He simply had "no thoughts" about the subject. My God, that was a refreshing moment and lead to a profound understanding of "simplicity" that has a real value and place in business and life.

Tell me about it! Tell me about trying to teach people (Koreans) who seem convinced that they are not supposed to be thinking anything! Just duplicating!!!
However, I am blessed by being assigned to classes, these days, where teaching critical thinking is actually valued, since the goal is to get them into courses in western universities.

Koreans in a group, in my experience will not give an opinion about anything, even the weather, if they have not sussed what the 'group opinion' is.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

[/B]

Tell me about it! Tell me about trying to teach people (Koreans) who seem convinced that they are not supposed to be thinking anything! Just duplicating!!!
However, I am blessed by being assigned to classes, these days, where teaching critical thinking is actually valued, since the goal is to get them into courses in western universities.

Koreans in a group, in my experience will not give an opinion about anything, even the weather, if they have not sussed what the 'group opinion' is.

I have clicked the kamsahamnida button, at the bottom of your post. LOL

 

[Jquepublic]

I never understood that concept of talking generally about rule-breaking behavior but not saying who is doing it.

I am still waiting for moderation or warnings, expecting it. It seems clear that Panda's campaigning is hopeful that I will get moderated and "reformed" lol.

It would be much simpler than he thinks if he (as a moderator) or one of the others would simply just tell me that my style of posting is not welcome here any longer. I already said I would not make a fuss and just thank everyone for the time here and not post further.

I personally don't like Panda's unofficial attempts to moderate the board. I think it is a policing action that is a buzzkiller and creates the perception that one is no longer welcome here.

I absolutely LOVE that Panda spoke up. For a decade I lived in a world where the most unjust, cruel and abusive things could be leveled at another person in the middle of the crowd and NOBODY said shit. Never mind that sinking feeling in your gut, that general unease that sets over you when you see something that offends your sensibilities. Fear was an overriding factor.

It's a healthy and positive thing to voice your disagreement.

I was raised in the south, and taught from an early age to keep the peace, so from my perspective it's often better to address a topic than a person. It can also be easier to make your points without having to browbeat a specific person. I am a little unsettled when I start seeing demands for specifics, it completely throws me into memories of security checks and interrogations. I suppose it's not only or exclusively a Scientology trait to demand names and time,place, form and event, but that's where I first encountered it and I don't see that I'll get past that association any time soon. It creeps me out.

 

[Gadfly]

I suppose it's not only or exclusively a Scientology trait to demand names and time,place, form and event, but that's where I first encountered it and I don't see that I'll get past that association any time soon. It creeps me out.

Asking for specifics is NOT a "bad thing".

Requesting time, place, form and event is simply a VERSION of asking for specifics.

That idea and practice comes from General Semantics, where Hubbard borrowed greatly from. The idea of observing the details of what is actually there has a long history that precedes General Semantics. Honest observation is always preferable to the other options.

The aim is to bring down ideas from the clouds of over-generalized abstraction, and link statements and claims to actual honest observations of experiencable events, situations and people.

Doing so is always a good thing to do.

Of course, while Hubbard talks of it as a good thing in some places, spotting actual time, place, form and events about his own bad behavior or the Church of Scientology's own bad behavior is NOT wanted or even tolerated. When it comes to the subject of the Church of Scientology and/or Hubbard, the aim of Scientology is for you to remain mired in abstractions and floating in vague generalizations. Spotting time, place, form and event about such things will get you found guilty of a Suppressive Act and expelled/declared! In Scientology, honesty is ONLY wanted as long as such honestly has NOTHNG to do with Hubbard or Scientology itself.

That is just another of the many contradictions inherent to the subject and practices of Scientology.

 

[Bill]

Who is it that violates board rules on politeness when posting to/about Mark Baker to an extent that astounds you in how it is tolerated?

My opinion is that, if someone feels another has posted a comment that violates the rules, they should speak up, right then or perhaps shortly (when things have cooled a bit).

We all can get hot under the collar and say things that we later regret. Comments can be easily misunderstood and offense taken where none was intended. If there is a problem and specifics are provided, it can give a person the chance to possibly correct or amend their earlier thoughts.

These vague accusations do no good at all. Who can respond? Who can clarify, amend, correct or defend against vague accusations? Specifics are important or things won't improve.

If it isn't important enough to provide specific information about specific violations, then it isn't important enough to mention at all.

Just my opinion.

Bill

 

[ethercat]

Let me introduce a concept that some may have heard of, others may not have:

Postel's Law, named after Jon Postel, who created the TCP protocol that the internet operates on, also known as the Robustness principle:

Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.

It was meant as a programming practice, that programs shouldn't send code that is far out of the norm, but they should allow for code they might receive that doesn't meet the same standards.

Although this principle was intended for computers and code, I find that this is a helpful principle to follow with regard to communications with other people. We all have different viewpoints, different ways of saying things, and perspectives that change our opinions of what is being said to something different than what was intended by the speaker.

Another useful concept is "slack". (Yes, it is meant to be humorous, but sometimes there is truth in jest.)

Realize that people may have different things going on in their personal lives that may color the things they say, that no one reading knows about - it may have nothing to do with anything specific to a thread or post, but it comes out nonetheless. We're all human. Cut your fellow humans some slack.

 

[Ogsonofgroo]

Topic~ I found it!

:dancer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxExUqdGa0Y&list=PL4A3231D4CD2761FF&index=5&feature=plpp_video

 

[Gadfly]

Let me introduce a concept that some may have heard of, others may not have:

Postel's Law, named after Jon Postel, who created the TCP protocol that the internet operates on, also known as the Robustness principle:

Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.

It was meant as a programming practice, that programs shouldn't send code that is far out of the norm, but they should allow for code they might receive that doesn't meet the same standards.

Although this principle was intended for computers and code, I find that this is a helpful principle to follow with regard to communications with other people. We all have different viewpoints, different ways of saying things, and perspectives that change our opinions of what is being said to something different than what was intended by the speaker.

Another useful concept is "slack". (Yes, it is meant to be humorous, but sometimes there is truth in jest.)

Realize that people may have different things going on in their personal lives that may color the things they say, that no one reading knows about - it may have nothing to do with anything specific to a thread or post, but it comes out nonetheless. We're all human. Cut your fellow humans some slack.

Isn't this sort of a re-phrasing of Hubbard's Two Rules For Happy Living?

1. Be willing to experience anything.

2. Only cause things that others can easily "have".

Personally, I always found it a pretty good code of conduct (or beingness). It is too bad that Hubbard and the Church of Scietology never bothered to adhere to it!

 

[Dulloldfart]

It is too bad that Hubbard and the Church of Scietology never bothered to adhere to it!

When I was a course sup, some students asked me similar things, although not so overtly. My stock response was, "It says two rules for happy living, not two rules for effective living," which tended to shut them up well.

Paul

 

[Pooks]

Well, I asked him why on the open Board and never got a straight answer. He made his Posts openly, I answered why openly and questioned him openly.

He want's me "Out" in the "Open". Well, what's good for the Goose is Good for the Gander.

I'm sure he's a good guy like you and Carmelo say but, unfortunately, due to his messin' with my bees knees after repeatedly and politely being asked not to and told, in general terms, why I don't wish to interact with him personally.

I'm not saying I'm gonna run to the Mod's and cry 'cause someone said something I don't like. I'm a big boy, I've been around here a couple of years and can take care of my myself. But, if someone is gonna directly or by innuendo openly "stalk" my, or another Members, IRL identity after being asked, openly, not to do so...and, by the way, this last time another Member chimed in and said (and I paraphrase) "Yeah, Face, what's up with that? What are you Chicken or something?"...then, in my view at that point I've got two choices: 1. Break camp and ride off into the sunset or 2. Report my displeasure and state my position to the Mods and see what shakes out.

Like I said...Nuff said.

Face

Couple of things.

Re: Terril. Yes he's a real sweetheart, but he's also a Scientologist and in my world Scientologists are delusional on many different levels. Nice guy, but a moonbat that gives bad advice and loves to gossip.

Re: being anonymous.

One of the problems with exes is that many of them just love to gossip. I know it's a generality but shit, in my experience is pretty much true.

For years I trusted my real name to only Scientology critics that were never in the cult and I was able to stay anonymous for almost 5 years, while leaking all sorts of inside data anonymously. It wasn't until I hooked up with exes that I got outed because both exes and Scios are fucking wicked gossips and tattletales.

If you want to stay anonymous don't fucking "chat" with exes as you will get outed.

I've seen Terril do his little number trying to out people. He's FUCKING WRONG! Exes should come out when they are good and ready and when OSA or "Indies" or FZ or exes try to out someone it's FUCKING WRONG.

People that have been fucked over by the cult and are not yet ready to reveal their identity should not be threatened to be outed. Those who out other exes or people who are posting are just mean insane assholes.

That's my opinion on the matter.

 

[Claire Swazey]

My opinion is that, if someone feels another has posted a comment that violates the rules, they should speak up, right then or perhaps shortly (when things have cooled a bit).

We all can get hot under the collar and say things that we later regret. Comments can be easily misunderstood and offense taken where none was intended. If there is a problem and specifics are provided, it can give a person the chance to possibly correct or amend their earlier thoughts.

These vague accusations do no good at all. Who can respond? Who can clarify, amend, correct or defend against vague accusations? Specifics are important or things won't improve.

If it isn't important enough to provide specific information about specific violations, then it isn't important enough to mention at all.

Just my opinion.

Bill

I used to do that. I used to report posts up until late December when I saw it said that if the reports were about certain people in a certain context then they were automatically ignored. I then decided that no matter what I saw here- could be someone threatening everyone here- I would never again report a post as being ad hom or spam or anything else. Nothing other than, say, oh will you fix my thread for me/eeek I accidentally did a duplicate whatever- have I ever reported in the last .666 years nor will I.

 

[MrNobody]

<snip>
I was raised in the south, and taught from an early age to keep the peace, so from my perspective it's often better to address a topic than a person. It can also be easier to make your points without having to browbeat a specific person.

Yeah, sometimes it indeed is better to address a topic than a person, but sometimes it just isn't.

Example: On our last band rehearsal, our keyboarder was off beat. So instead of saying "Hey, this didn't sound right, something or someone must have been off beat.", I just said. "Hey, YOU have been off beat, so let's try that again."

Well, I could have waited until he had realized it himself, but it was much faster this way. So addressing the person isn't always bad.

Also: Shutting up just to keep the peace leaves at least one unhappy person, IMHO.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Not only bullshit but it expresses an (almost) unbelievably arrogant and self-righteous sentiment also. Sounds very much like an evangelical missionary.


Mark A. Baker

Yep. Sentiments like that are nasty and also seem to imply that the person expressing them knows better and can show the way.

I've said it before- I distrust and mislike pundits. I cannot fucking stand Doprah Winfrey, The View, Dr Phil, Dr Oz, Dr Drew-- I know that sometimes they say things that are correct or whatever- but there's this legion of pundits with the simple minded trailing them going baaa baaa. Just hate that.

And I don't like it when I see it in the critic's scene, and after leaving a cult that was chockful of that, I sure don't want to see it among people who should know better.

Some of my ex member pals who I see IRL are into the FZ. Most are not. The ones who are into the FZ are decent, discreet, pleasant and levelheaded individuals. My husband's an Indie and I gotta tell you- he stands head and shoulders above a number of people I know and I definitely include some people from the critic's scene there.

People are people. Scn doesn't confer superiority. I think that's where the disconnect is. I think critics who know damn well Scn doesn't make a being superior are still buying into that. On some level, some of these people are still buying into Hubbard's fucking bullshit, expecting Scn'ists to be better than everyone else and when the Indies and FZers they meet (or didn't bother to meet but spent a lot of time bitching and moaning about and slandering and libelling) are obviously fallible human beings, not homo novises or anything else, they get mad and start saying how fucked up those people are.

Scn does not deliver what it's promised. Not even close. CofS members are deluded culties and they constantly morally compromise themselves to varying degrees and extents- some greatly. Non CofS Scn'ists are just regular people and aren't superior.

That is no reason to say that non CofS Scn'ists are more fucked up than the rest of us. They aren't superior specimens of spiritual being(s)- they're just people and that means that some are shitheads, some are crazy, some are mean, some are wise, insightful and altruistic and most fall smack dab in the middle.

Just like everyone else on this thread.

Personally, I'd take my husband's advice before I'd take advice from an ESMB pundit with an axe to grind.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Thanks, Mick. I appreciate your post. Were you to revisit the thread, starting with my stmt from Hub re imaginary incidents, you would see that Claire Swayze quoted that message and said something like psychologists do it too and asked me a direct question about what did I think about Psychology. I answered her q truthfully that I didn't know what they do, and asked her if she knew and had she consulted them. I don't think I could find the answer to that in any book about Psychology., unless Claire Swayze has written one.

That's why I thought that your recommendation to me that I should read a couple Psychology books was uncalled for.

Actually, I had a course in Univ re Psychology, and another re Abnormal Psychology, and that doesn't mean that I know what they DO. I know a couple lady Psychologists over on Whidbey Island and they have said something about 'sand box' training. Maybe they all do that. Maybe not. I don't give a rat's ass what Psychologists do.

What I do know is that you can't read a couple books by LRH and know what a Scn'ist actually DOES.

Anyways, I reckon I was butthurt about your perceived unfair remark to me. I will thicken up my skin in Future.

Thanks again for clarifying. I will STFU about it.

phenomanon

And I answered you. Not Claire Swayze, though. Cuz I have no idea who that is.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I absolutely LOVE that Panda spoke up. For a decade I lived in a world where the most unjust, cruel and abusive things could be leveled at another person in the middle of the crowd and NOBODY said shit. Never mind that sinking feeling in your gut, that general unease that sets over you when you see something that offends your sensibilities. Fear was an overriding factor.

It's a healthy and positive thing to voice your disagreement.

I was raised in the south, and taught from an early age to keep the peace, so from my perspective it's often better to address a topic than a person. It can also be easier to make your points without having to browbeat a specific person. I am a little unsettled when I start seeing demands for specifics, it completely throws me into memories of security checks and interrogations. I suppose it's not only or exclusively a Scientology trait to demand names and time,place, form and event, but that's where I first encountered it and I don't see that I'll get past that association any time soon. It creeps me out.

I trust that at some level you are engaged in business or active employment or the use of money.

Without specifics you would not get any.

Specifics is how life works when you get in the trenches in any area of life where results matter. Medicine. Science. Mathematics. Humanities. Arts. Finance. Justice. Communication itself.

HUSBAND: What specifically did you mean when you said you were going on a trip to Las Vegas with "someone" this weekend?

WIFE: "I am a little unsettled when I start seeing demands for specifics, it completely throws me into memories of security checks and interrogations."


Ummm, I don't think that would end well.

Do we really need more examples? LOL

 

[PirateAndBum]

I trust that at some level you are engaged in business or active employment or the use of money.

Without specifics you would not get any.

Specifics is how life works when you get in the trenches in any area of life where results matter. Medicine. Science. Mathematics. Humanities. Arts. Finance. Justice. Communication itself.

HUSBAND: What specifically did you mean when you said you were going on a trip to Las Vegas with "someone" this weekend?

WIFE: "I am a little unsettled when I start seeing demands for specifics, it completely throws me into memories of security checks and interrogations."


Ummm, I don't think that would end well.

Do we really need more examples? LOL

LOL

HUSBAND: I'm not auditing you dear. Just curious who this someone is.

WIFE: Oh, just a friend.

HUSBAND: Do I know her?

WIFE: No

HUSBAND: I think I'll tag along, I've been wanting to get even with Vegas since my last trip.

WIFE: Last trip? When did you go to Vegas?!!!

HUSBAND: Oh, a while back. Just went with a friend...