Scientology should care for Jani.

[justaguy]

I win? Is that a good thing? Should I be sad? Should you be sad?


If I was ever mean when I got worked up I'm sorry.

Here's some cake.

 

[CornPie]

In response to your post #56.

Resistance is Futile said>
Cornpie, you brought the gaslighting thing up again and it reminded me of something. Your friend AnonOrange has a long history of being gaslighted -- which he has documented on other boards -- yet he has never once responded to your oft repeated pleas for board members to share their gaslighting experiences. I wonder why that is?

My (CornPie) reply>
I would REALLY appreciate some URL's to AO's "documentation on other BOARDS" of him being 'gaslighted' and harassed. AO's in good company, most people don't respond with specific examples of their gaslighting. I'm sure he has other priorities. I have provided numerous examples or my harassment though, right here on ESMB. And I keep mentioning it, in hopes that others will google it for years to come, to help themselves, and know they're not dreaming it up, and hopefully some will contribute if and when they feel like it. I realize, and I understand why that will be a minority of those affected though. On another note, I think of AO as an online friend, because he's a pit bull; consistently anti-scientology, anti-L ron hubbard-Ass. There's no doubt in my mind where he stands.

Resistance is Futile said>
Of late, AnonOrange has been posting favorably toward psychologists and psychiatrists in other threads, yet, as outspoken as he is with his opinions, he remains silent in this thread. I wonder why that is?

My (CornPie) reply>
Are you saying AO posts favorably about psychs on other 'boards' or other 'threads' on this ESMB board? Either way, I have no idea why. I can just tell you that my harassment is relentless, so I can only imagine how bad filthy-scientology must make it for psychs, worldwide, regardless of how they may dismiss it. My theory, is that one day the Psychs woke up, and decided it was pay-back time. And they started giving filthy-scientology a lobotomy up the a**hole, every single day, and funding it. Very healthily funding it, worldwide, every single day. And if so, I hope they're prepared for a long, long, long battle. That's my guess, with absolutely no facts to base it on.

Resistance is Futile said>
Cornpie, you call yourself a human rights activist. Well, I, too, am a human rights activist, and I'm curious. Besides posting on this board, do you participate in any other types of abuse advocate activities? Do you protest much? Work with the media? Contact key political figures? You're not one of those keyboard jockeys AnonOrange is always complaining about, are you?

My (CornPie) reply>
Sorry, I'm not going to answer any of those. But I'd like to read your answers, right out in the open, on ESMB. Because I'm such an open kind of guy. (BTW, AO if you're reading this; 187.6, red, Ecuador, Ranchero. I wouldn't have believed it either, but I was there, you weren't.)

 

[Dulloldfart]

How would one tell the difference between the "genuine spiritual beings" and the "imaginary ones?"

Is that sort of like the distinction between the "genuine" body thetans and the imaginary body thetans?

Do what you like with body thetans. I think the concept of BTs per Hubbard's works and believers is absurd.

With regard to the other kind, here's an example I read about today from Gerald French. One day he was talking to his wife, a well-known psychic, sadly telling her about how much he missed his dead father. "He's here now" she said. Gerald didn't really believe her and basically said, "Prove it." She then told him that his father was telling her to ask him if he remembered an incident years ago when he was a young kid and they had watched a spectacular sunset together. Gerald wrote that he had never told his wife about that incident, or anyone else for that matter.

In other words, about the only way I think you can "prove" the presence of specific spiritual beings is to have another person around who can also see them and would corroborate (or not) the subject's perception. It wouldn't prove it to anyone else, though.

Paul

 

[well_that_sucked]

Do what you like with body thetans. I think the concept of BTs per Hubbard's works and believers is absurd.

With regard to the other kind, here's an example I read about today from Gerald French. One day he was talking to his wife, a well-known psychic, sadly telling her about how much he missed his dead father. "He's here now" she said. Gerald didn't really believe her and basically said, "Prove it." She then told him that his father was telling her to ask him if he remembered an incident years ago when he was a young kid and they had watched a spectacular sunset together. Gerald wrote that he had never told his wife about that incident, or anyone else for that matter.

In other words, about the only way I think you can "prove" the presence of specific spiritual beings is to have another person around who can also see them and would corroborate (or not) the subject's perception. It wouldn't prove it to anyone else, though.

Paul

You are seriously scraping bottom using that as an example.

Why do you think marketers and movie makers constantly use the father/son watching the sunset scene in movies and commercials to portray a special moment?

I'll tell you, Its a universal moment between human beings that spend time together. The sun sets everywhere, and people watch them, often together. Sometimes they even clap.

Your "psychic" made an educated guess, and to you that's proof of a miracle?

You know that's how cons work right?

 

[Dark Phoenix]

I see that you began posting at ESMB 2 days ago.

Since you so openly discussed your brother's 'paranoid schizophrenia' -- I have 2 short questions, perhaps you could ask him:

1) Was your brother ever involved in scientology, as your posts indicate you were?

2) And if he was involved, do you know if he was ever declared an SP by the cult, or if he was particularly troublesome to scientology?

The reason I ask this is, your post stated, "he had thoughts of being controlled and manipulated by an outside source". So if he was in scientology, and if he was declared SP, and if he was 'gaslighted', and since scientology's stated objective of 'gaslighting' is to drive people crazy. Perhaps he was mis-diagnosed as per the 'Martha Mitchell Effect'. See the quote below.

Gaslighting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
Martha Mitchell Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Mitchell_effect

Martha Mitchell Effect (extracts from WikiPedia):

Sometimes, improbable reports are erroneously assumed to be symptoms of mental illness," due to a "failure or inability to verify whether the events have actually taken place, no matter how improbable intuitively they might appear to the busy clinician." They note that typical examples of such situations, may include:

a) Pursuit by practitioners of organized crime
b) Surveillance by law enforcement officers
c) Infidelity by a spouse
d) Harassment or gaslighting by scientology [ESMB's CornPie added this line]

Quoting psychotherapist Joseph Berke, the authors note that "even paranoids have enemies." Any patient, they explain, can be misdiagnosed by clinicians, especially ones with a history of paranoid delusions.

CornPie, I simply have to ask ->

What is it that specifically bothers you about the fact that I've only been a member here for 2 days? I'm quite baffled as to why this would offend you.

And no, my brother was never involved in Scientology. He had a mental illness which was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Dark Phoenix

 

[Dulloldfart]

You are seriously scraping bottom using that as an example.

Why do you think marketers and movie makers constantly use the father/son watching the sunset scene in movies and commercials to portray a special moment?

I'll tell you, Its a universal moment between human beings that spend time together. The sun sets everywhere, and people watch them, often together. Sometimes they even clap.

Your "psychic" made an educated guess, and to you that's proof of a miracle?

You know that's how cons work right?

I omitted the part in the story about the convertible they were in and the fact that the guy's foreign wife relaying the story had never said the word "convertible" before, had never heard it from her husband, and had difficulty with saying it.

Paul

 

[Dark Phoenix]

Just a couple of disjointed thoughts on mental health and care generally.

It appears that there are a couple of broad continuums of conditions that manifest themselves to varying degrees. Such as Tourette's being related to obsessive compulsive disorder and numerous expressions and degrees and possibly schizophrenia being related. Depression and the various forms of bipolar and ADHD etc. I would expect that there would be some major categories of variation in human 'mind' that we term 'disease' when it becomes a problem in life. But, I also expect that we can find elements of these traits in everyone, that are what the psychology community calls 'well adjusted'.

The car may 'pull to the right', but, we don't go and replace the whole steering rack for something we can just adjust for in our driving habits.

There's a lot of confusion about the dizzying array of 'new' mental illnesses that seem to pop up every day for what seem like nonsensical 'aberrations'. This has little to do with the psychiatric community attempting to define normal human conditions as 'disease' that must be treated (except for a miniscule cadre of wacked out fanatics) but everything to do with how insurance companies manage their payments to health care workers. If there's not a 'name' for a condition, the bean counters can't figure out how to fit it into their forms so the health care worker can be paid.

So, 'Social Anxiety Disorder' may just be 'shyness' *until* it becomes something that causes a person serious handicaps in their life and becomes something needing treatment. At that point the therapist needs a name for it to tell the insurance company.

It's not a 'new' disease; just a label for something somebody wants help with.

Zinj

Have I understood you correctly in saying that a payment procedure within the bureaucracy of the insurance companies, has resulted in a bastardizing of the reality of personal responsibility?

Also, when labelling occurs for a certain trait or behavior only when it becomes an impediment to functioning in a certain way, is the person being labeled told what the label is, or, since the label is created primarily to satisfy a specific payment protocol used by the insurance company, is the label given exclusively to the relevant company contact?

Thanks!

 

[CornPie]

CornPie, I simply have to ask ->

What is it that specifically bothers you about the fact that I've only been a member here for 2 days? I'm quite baffled as to why this would offend you.

And no, my brother was never involved in Scientology. He had a mental illness which was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Dark Phoenix

1. Thank you for addressing the issue, that your brother had never been involved in scientology, as you were.

2. If he had been involved with scientology, and if he had subsequently been causing trouble for them, and if he was gaslighted, and 'driven' crazy by the cult, as they admit they attempt to do to some of their 'enemies', and in particular because you stated he felt he was, "manipulated by an outside source" -- under these conditions, however (un)likely, you might have been thanking me for asking the 2 short questions. Others visitors here might be grateful too, who may read this thread on the Internet for years to come, for being made aware of the concept of gaslighting, and the potential for an inaccurate Psych diagnosis of 'paranoid schizophrenia', per the 'Martha Mitchel Effect', and thus the potential for an inaccurate Psych 'perscription' of non-reverse-able shock treatment.

3. I am not "offended" that you only recently began posting here, so eloquently, authoritatively and nearly perfectly; about Psych issues, as a family member impressed with psychs, juuust at the time the issue of shock treatment was being debated. I felt it was fair to note your timely arrival though, as strange coincidences do occur all the time on the Internet, and especially at ESMB, or whenever scientology is in the equation.

 

[Dark Phoenix]

1. Thank you for addressing the issue, that your brother had never been involved in scientology, as you were.

2. If he had been involved with scientology, and if he had subsequently been causing trouble for them, and if he was gaslighted, and 'driven' crazy by the cult, as they admit they attempt to do to some of their 'enemies', and in particular because you stated he felt he was, "manipulated by an outside source" -- under these conditions, however (un)likely, you might have been thanking me for asking the 2 short questions. Others visitors here might be grateful too, who may read this thread on the Internet for years to come, for being made made aware of the concept of gaslighting, and the potential for an inaccurate Psych diagnosis of 'paranoid schizophrenia', per the 'Martha Mitchel Effect', and thus the potential for an inaccurate Psych 'perscription' of non-reverse-able shock treatment.

3. I am not "offended" that you only recently began posting here, so eloquently, authoritatively and nearly perfectly; about Psych issues, as a family member impressed with psychs, juuust at the time the issue of shock treatment was being debated. I felt it was fair to note your timely arrival though, as strange coincidences do occur all the time on the Internet, and especially at ESMB, or whenever scientology is in the equation.

you're welcome on the question you asked; Glad that clears up any uncertainties.

The gaslighting you mention sounds like a very sinister affair indeed. To find oneself the victim of such malice must be a truly frightening affair. So I'm not surprised you'd want people to know of it's existance. Such a ruthless act of terror against a fellow human being is truly despicable in any circumstance; The fact that it's practiced by a church makes it downright diabolical. Thankfully my post prompted you to discuss it. I agree that people who come to the site will find it useful to know that CofS has engaged in such a disturbing practice

You're final paragraph is especially revealing in your opinion of me. Your attempt to hide behind some sort of natural suspicion of my 'timely arrival' is so utterly transparent, I don't know why you even bothered. You say you're not offended; 'offended' is simply the wrong word.
The diatribe that follows is nothing more than a display of your utter contempt for my very presence here. And an ill-founded contempt at that. Is the near pathological intolerance of my gratitude to the nurses and psychiatrists who restored my brother back to health the driving force of such overt disdain?

In the miraculous event of you deciding to lighten up, not feel so threatened and pick up a free pair of decent manners, maybe we could start off on the more preferable right foot.

Until then, I have no interest indulging your whims as your current chosen enemy.

 

[nexus100]

There, fixed that for you.

I can't believe you don't mean well.... But reality, shmeality! Too much of the Hubbardian "if it's true for you, then it's true" spiel echoes thru it. Seriously, there is such a thing as first person observation of factual matters being superior to the armchair spiritual hypotheses that people love to bandy about in regards to reality around here.

Herr Doktor, what treatment do you prescribe? Have you cured others suffering similarly in the past? Where are your patients, I should like to ask of them questions.

I wouldn't argue that some things can indeed be affected and improved via a spiritual approach, but, in my own first hand observations, it just isn't the cure all answer for all things. Nexus, do you have Hubbard stuck in your head somehow? (That's not derision you sense, it's concern, tho I am certain there will be no thank you involved.)

If I were an evil person I might wish a little dose of schizophrenia on people to let them see it firsthand..... but wait, there are already enough people around here with very fixed and completely immutable concepts that cannot be affected with fact. Hmmm... maybe some suffer it already. Certainly they suffer that particular symptom. Pity....

@ Dark Phoenix: My heart goes out to you and your family and I hope your brother progresses well! One of my cousins was diagnosed recently... almost too late. They are a goodly distance from me and I had no idea until they mentioned he was having problems..... They had just been sweeping it under the rug. He's doing better now, not out of the woods but better.

Goodness, a writer struggles to get something on paper that seems credible, then well meaning help as above futzes and alters till the result is a derelict no one would lay claim to. Better to see what I meant than what you believe I meant, if possible.

There is an easily understandable base to what is going on. Most don't see it because of the nature of the beast. Anyone can, though.

 

[nexus100]

Duplicate

 

[JustanotherEX]

Goodness, a writer struggles to get something on paper that seems credible, then well meaning help as above futzes and alters till the result is a derelict no one would lay claim to. Better to see what I meant than what you believe I meant, if possible.

There is an easily understandable base to what is going on. Most don't see it because of the nature of the beast. Anyone can, though.

Nexus, if I misunderstood you, then I offer you my abject apologies.

However, having seen schizophrenia firsthand, and as a former auditor (zero significance in my book), I don't see spiritual healing being much use.... call me blind, if you will.

Now if YOU or ANYONE here can repeatably and verifiably cure the condition? I shall gladly sit at your feet, prostrate myself, and humbly beg to learn the mysteries of your wisdom!

But that would be concrete proof of spiritual theory, which I note has ever been in short supply. Call me a skeptic..... but, by all means, show me the floating ashtrays. I don't buy bridges without inspecting them first.

That's less a dig at you than you might suppose. I wish someone, anyone COULD demonstrate such!

 

[nexus100]

Nexus, if I misunderstood you, then I offer you my abject apologies.

However, having seen schizophrenia firsthand, and as a former auditor (zero significance in my book), I don't see spiritual healing being much use.... call me blind, if you will.

Now if YOU or ANYONE here can repeatably and verifiably cure the condition? I shall gladly sit at your feet, prostrate myself, and humbly beg to learn the mysteries of your wisdom!

But that would be concrete proof of spiritual theory, which I note has ever been in short supply. Call me a skeptic..... but, by all means, show me the floating ashtrays. I don't buy bridges without inspecting them first.

That's less a dig at you than you might suppose. I wish someone, anyone COULD demonstrate such!

Proof is subjective. One knows for oneself. In growth, one gains broader reality, then a broader reality than that. That means one has access to more viewpoints. It becomes easier to understand. One knows more, one sees more, one understands more.

This process can be broken down quite subjectively, as an engineering operation.

As one increases the number of viewpoints one sees, the size of the area one is seeing grows. This allows one to more easily "shift" viewpoint inside the area one is observing. As one grows and shifts inside that growth area, knowledge of the physical universe grows. The process is little different than google earth, with the addition that one understands a viewpoint as one is observing it.

Understanding means putting a viewpoint fullly in context. It becomes a part of your reality. That does not mean every viewpoint is accurate. It means you can take any viewpoint that you understand, as you wish.

A couple things to know along the way: one can place direct focus on only one thing at a time. A person who will not focus for whatever reason is called mentally ill. The only vay to help that I am aware of is to allow them to focus as they can and work from there. Making them look at a viewpoint they don't want to see isn't likely to help in the long run.

One must have enough faith in one's own viewpoint to see other viewpoints without threat to oneself. Go at one's own pace.

One is never ultimately wrong. Any accurate solution to anything never involves anyone doing anything wrong. If you are looking into something and feel wrong then you haven't arrived at the accurate solution yet. No matter how one is challenged by another viewpoint the best operation is take that viewpoint, then measure it against one's own. Or completely ignore it.

There really isn't anything more to spiritual growth except one's personal understandings, which are subjective but very real. The process is just looking and understanding. All of the other stuff is invention which may help move one along the way, but only as the individual sees fit. And one can let anything go at any time. Letting go of belief in any Scientology was really useful to me, for example.

This is very simple stuff. It is hard to see because of where we choose to look, not because it isn't there. And growth is more process than event. My opinion.

 

[JustanotherEX]

Proof is subjective. One knows for oneself. In growth, one gains broader reality, then a broader reality than that. That means one has access to more viewpoints. It becomes easier to understand. One knows more, one sees more, one understands more.

This process can be broken down quite subjectively, as an engineering operation.

As one increases the number of viewpoints one sees, the size of the area one is seeing grows. This allows one to more easily "shift" viewpoint inside the area one is observing. As one grows and shifts inside that growth area, knowledge of the physical universe grows. The process is little different than google earth, with the addition that one understands a viewpoint as one is observing it.

Understanding means putting a viewpoint fullly in context. It becomes a part of your reality. That does not mean every viewpoint is accurate. It means you can take any viewpoint that you understand, as you wish.

A couple things to know along the way: one can place direct focus on only one thing at a time. A person who will not focus for whatever reason is called mentally ill. The only vay to help that I am aware of is to allow them to focus as they can and work from there. Making them look at a viewpoint they don't want to see isn't likely to help in the long run.

One must have enough faith in one's own viewpoint to see other viewpoints without threat to oneself. Go at one's own pace.

One is never ultimately wrong. Any accurate solution to anything never involves anyone doing anything wrong. If you are looking into something and feel wrong then you haven't arrived at the accurate solution yet. No matter how one is challenged by another viewpoint the best operation is take that viewpoint, then measure it against one's own. Or completely ignore it.

There really isn't anything more to spiritual growth except one's personal understandings, which are subjective but very real. The process is just looking and understanding. All of the other stuff is invention which may help move one along the way, but only as the individual sees fit. And one can let anything go at any time. Letting go of belief in any Scientology was really useful to me, for example.

This is very simple stuff. It is hard to see because of where we choose to look, not because it isn't there. And growth is more process than event. My opinion.

Nexus, you and I agree almost to perfection except on one matter... Proof.

It seems that if proof is, as a rule, ONLY subjective, then it validates "If it is true for you, then it is true.". All sorts of delusions can be grown from that fertile medium. Having done my best to apply that already, I've found it non-functional for me.

Best available HARD DATA + thought = best current conclusion. Data and thought being aknowledged as variables and even innacurate much, if not most, of the time. Ergo, a constant quest for more data and the application of continuing thought. Emphasis on HARD DATA in place of wishful thinking. Wishful thinking can be quite hard to be rid of, I tell you! But otherwise, we seem to look at it almost exactly the same. I find that even dispensing with whatever wishful thinking I can see I have, there are almost unlimited possibilities. Perhaps it was Alanzo that expressed the view that the universe consists mainly of probabilities? Not an exact quote and maybe not Alanzo. Still, an apt description in my book.

So, spiritual healing vs. schizophrenia.... hard data? I'm quite open to the possibility. Someone need only demonstrate. Countless people could be saved their suffering. Ahhh, that's the rub.... practical applications. I wonder if simply coming to terms with the hallucinations and deciding via subjective proof that it is all "ok" would have any effect on the long term degradation and damage to the cerebral tissues? I so tend to doubt that.

 

[nexus100]

Nexus, you and I agree almost to perfection except on one matter... Proof.

It seems that if proof is, as a rule, ONLY subjective, then it validates "If it is true for you, then it is true.". All sorts of delusions can be grown from that fertile medium. Having done my best to apply that already, I've found it non-functional for me.

Best available HARD DATA + thought = best current conclusion. Data and thought being aknowledged as variables and even innacurate much, if not most, of the time. Ergo, a constant quest for more data and the application of continuing thought. Emphasis on HARD DATA in place of wishful thinking. Wishful thinking can be quite hard to be rid of, I tell you! But otherwise, we seem to look at it almost exactly the same. I find that even dispensing with whatever wishful thinking I can see I have, there are almost unlimited possibilities. Perhaps it was Alanzo that expressed the view that the universe consists mainly of probabilities? Not an exact quote and maybe not Alanzo. Still, an apt description in my book.

So, spiritual healing vs. schizophrenia.... hard data? I'm quite open to the possibility. Someone need only demonstrate. Countless people could be saved their suffering. Ahhh, that's the rub.... practical applications. I wonder if simply coming to terms with the hallucinations and deciding via subjective proof that it is all "ok" would have any effect on the long term degradation and damage to the cerebral tissues? I so tend to doubt that.

I am quite sure that you do not see what I'm saying. But, I've said it and I'll leave it at that.

 

[JustanotherEX]

I am quite sure that you do not see what I'm saying. But, I've said it and I'll leave it at that.

Perhaps... perhaps not. I'm well aware that it is something of a sucker punch to demand that the spiritual produce anything concrete. For that, I apologise. If I ever got the chance, I would happily buy you a beer for the privledge of examining the matter.

Now THAT would be interesting! Hahahahahahaha!