So, you disagree with the hypothesis presented but assert that the result of the tech is damaging, yet you also assert that you don't know if it works, what a unique perspective owl!
Just a question, did you plan that communication?:confused2:
That my dear is a wonderful differentiation
You too can be a wog though, and just adopt the Tom Cruise 'Risky Business' mantra:
Sometimes you just have to say 'what the fuck'
Zinj
I suppose we could label the entire continent Type H. That will probably be part of the official eval. No wonder all the Aussies are blowing. They were always allowed to think and discuss.
You guys rock.
I suppose we could label the entire continent Type H. That will probably be part of the official eval. No wonder all the Aussies are blowing. They were always allowed to think and discuss.
You guys rock.
I don't agree FTS. In business (working for another), or at University, in the courts, or wherever, one often has to follow procedure whether one agrees with it or not.
Carmel, I tend to believe that very few played the game as it was intended, unless it was intended as a game of cover your tracks and speak glibly of standard tech. (which it very well might have been)
If you drive an abulance off the road and beat the psych-drug-weilding paramedico into senseless oblivion because you want to give the accident victims an 'assist'...
You may be a Scientologist
Zinj
<snip>
Oh, by the way, I'll have Zinj on the rocks please!
<snip>
Although that may not be such a good idea 
....the zing in Zinj could peter out, then things could get a bit boring around here. 
accept - definition
http://www.yourdictionary.com/accept
transitive verb
1. to take (what is offered or given); receive, esp. willingly
2. to receive favorably; approve to accept a theory
3. to submit to; be resigned to he had to accept defeat
4. to believe in
5. to understand as having a certain meaning
6. to respond to in the affirmative to accept an invitation
7. to admit as a student, member, etc.
8. to agree to take the responsibilities of (a job, office, etc.)
9. to receive (a committee report) as satisfactory according to parliamentary procedure
10. Business to agree, as by a signed promise, to pay
11. Law to receive with intent to retain and adopt
In a Scientology Org, one is always referred back to LRH material. If one questions things, even for the sake of clarity, a reference is quoted and shown. Or a correction is done. Or an ethics handling, if it has gone that far. And it always begins with KSW #1, no matter who says otherwise. To do or say otherwise is to not be a Scientologist. And in that case ,why bother with this discussion?
Whilst I believe Scientology is only a business, the way in which it is legally structured, it is supposed to be a religion. Therefore a comparison to the way other businesses operate is worthless. To be a Scientologist is to follow the line. To do as LRH instructed and to accept what he wote and said. That is not the same as following procedure. It is cult think, and cult do. Businesses operate according to the law, and have ethical standards to uphold. Scientology looks down on wog law and standards. And as a Scientologist you must follow that line, continually.
Scientology doesnt make sense to non Scientologists. It is a belief system that reinforces itself, continually and that requires training. Thus, in my opinion, the original premise ("2) The only people who actually *accept* Scientology are people trained by Scientology to accept it.")
is true.
Will someone please start a thread titled "Zinj on the Rocks"? That would be awesome.
accept - definition
http://www.yourdictionary.com/accept
transitive verb
1. to take (what is offered or given); receive, esp. willingly
2. to receive favorably; approve to accept a theory
3. to submit to; be resigned to he had to accept defeat
4. to believe in
5. to understand as having a certain meaning
6. to respond to in the affirmative to accept an invitation
7. to admit as a student, member, etc.
8. to agree to take the responsibilities of (a job, office, etc.)
9. to receive (a committee report) as satisfactory according to parliamentary procedure
10. Business to agree, as by a signed promise, to pay
11. Law to receive with intent to retain and adopt
In a Scientology Org, one is always referred back to LRH material. If one questions things, even for the sake of clarity, a reference is quoted and shown. Or a correction is done. Or an ethics handling, if it has gone that far. And it always begins with KSW #1, no matter who says otherwise. To do or say otherwise is to not be a Scientologist. And in that case ,why bother with this discussion?
Whilst I believe Scientology is only a business, the way in which it is legally structured, it is supposed to be a religion. Therefore a comparison to the way other businesses operate is worthless. To be a Scientologist is to follow the line. To do as LRH instructed and to accept what he wote and said. That is not the same as following procedure. It is cult think, and cult do. Businesses operate according to the law, and have ethical standards to uphold. Scientology looks down on wog law and standards. And as a Scientologist you must follow that line, continually.
Scientology doesnt make sense to non Scientologists. It is a belief system that reinforces itself, continually and that requires training. Thus, in my opinion, the original premise ("2) The only people who actually *accept* Scientology are people trained by Scientology to accept it.")
is true.
