Ship of fools

I'm happy for Marty and Mike to weave their web around DM.

I'll work side by side with them despite my disagreements with their assignment of cause and their goals for the tech.

The problem is that while they are trying to surgically remove the cancer from the body of the church, a malignant growth they call DM, they are all going to have their pet surgery project get hit by a freight train from Australia.

See, our work will survive them but they might find their patient dies from what's coming straight into their operating theater from Downunder.

They still can res-erect a new CofS with a friendlier service policy at a later date. As long as it ditches the abusive aspects of the CofS I'll defend their right to practice their "religion".

Good post.

Many religions have (or have had in the past) questionable practices -- for example Mormonism (a really good book is "Under the Banner of Heaven"), the Catholic church (present and past, the worst of which was probably the Spanish Inquisition), extremist Muslims, Christian Scientists (prayers are the best medicine...), Druidism (human sacrifice) etc., etc.

But, most mainstream religions became acceptable by the simple act of discarding the elements of their religion that were socially destructive.

I myself do not believe many of the tenets of Scn, but I am not going to condemn someone for believing in "native state" any more than I am going to condemn someone for believing in Heaven, Nirvana or being "one with nature."

There are a LOT of practices that need to be ripped out of Scientology. Some were instigated by LRH. Some were instigated by Miscavage. All the bad practices need to go.

Historically, this happens with most religions.

Sadly, it hasn't happened with two of the larger religions: (1) Catholicism, which covers up for pedophiles and condemns people to HIV infection and death by forbidding birth control and sex education, and (2) Fundamentalist Nation of Islam (Jihadism and dehumanization of women).

Whether by chance or by luck, Scientology hasn't killed nearly as many people in fifty years as are killed on a daily basis by the two religions I just named.

Not to mitigate Scientology's crimes.

But their beliefs and their crimes are two different things. Ditto for Catholicism and ditto for Islam.
 
Good post.

Many religions have (or have had in the past) questionable practices -- for example Mormonism (a really good book is "Under the Banner of Heaven"), the Catholic church (present and past, the worst of which was probably the Spanish Inquisition), extremist Muslims, Christian Scientists (prayers are the best medicine...), Druidism (human sacrifice) etc., etc.

But, most mainstream religions became acceptable by the simple act of discarding the elements of their religion that were socially destructive.

I myself do not believe many of the tenets of Scn, but I am not going to condemn someone for believing in "native state" any more than I am going to condemn someone for believing in Heaven, Nirvana or being "one with nature."

There are a LOT of practices that need to be ripped out of Scientology. Some were instigated by LRH. Some were instigated by Miscavage. All the bad practices need to go.

Historically, this happens with most religions.

Sadly, it hasn't happened with two of the larger religions: (1) Catholicism, which covers up for pedophiles and condemns people to HIV infection and death by forbidding birth control and sex education, and (2) Fundamentalist Nation of Islam (Jihadism and dehumanization of women).

Whether by chance or by luck, Scientology hasn't killed nearly as many people in fifty years as are killed on a daily basis by the two religions I just named.

Not to mitigate Scientology's crimes.

But their beliefs and their crimes are two different things. Ditto for Catholicism and ditto for Islam.

nice articulate look at priorities and history
 

Veda

Sponsor
Anonymous // May 20, 2010...

I wonder how was life on the Apollo? Not much different I'm afraid.

*

mjrinder // May 20...

Oh, very different. It wasn't luxurious, but there was tremendous esprit de corps. Worked hard and played hard. If it could have gone on forever, I would still be there.

I don't mind the guys as they are more tools in the dismantling of the Co$ but these comments always leave a bad taste in my mouth sadly.

Looking forward to meeting Sharone if you have not read all her story.

Thanks for the reminder of how LRH-creepy-culty Mike and Marty really are.

Or is it an act, and Mike and Marty just don't want 50 years cult brainwashing to go to waste?

Nonetheless, thanks for the reminder.
 
You do realize that when Marty and Rinder "save" Scientology, they will be knocking on all of our doors and calling us all in for briefings on the "New" Scientology.


This is not altogether a wholly bad thing.

Consider: communication is a TWO WAY PROCESS.

Consider: the "New" Scientology will be eager to demonstrate their renewed respect for the rights of others & their willingness to give & receive communication with others.

Consider: a lot needs to be openly discussed inside the organizations of scientology which is currently not discussed at all.


The fundamental problem with encouraging open dialogue lies in what a free people might choose to say. A coterie of freezoners & independents could enliven the discussions which would take place within a "Renewed Scientology".:whistling:


Mark A. Baker
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
Good Post

Good post.

Many religions have (or have had in the past) questionable practices -- for example Mormonism (a really good book is "Under the Banner of Heaven"), the Catholic church (present and past, the worst of which was probably the Spanish Inquisition), extremist Muslims, Christian Scientists (prayers are the best medicine...), Druidism (human sacrifice) etc., etc.

But, most mainstream religions became acceptable by the simple act of discarding the elements of their religion that were socially destructive.

I myself do not believe many of the tenets of Scn, but I am not going to condemn someone for believing in "native state" any more than I am going to condemn someone for believing in Heaven, Nirvana or being "one with nature."

There are a LOT of practices that need to be ripped out of Scientology. Some were instigated by LRH. Some were instigated by Miscavage. All the bad practices need to go.

Historically, this happens with most religions.

Sadly, it hasn't happened with two of the larger religions: (1) Catholicism, which covers up for pedophiles and condemns people to HIV infection and death by forbidding birth control and sex education, and (2) Fundamentalist Nation of Islam (Jihadism and dehumanization of women).

Whether by chance or by luck, Scientology hasn't killed nearly as many people in fifty years as are killed on a daily basis by the two religions I just named.

Not to mitigate Scientology's crimes.

But their beliefs and their crimes are two different things. Ditto for Catholicism and ditto for Islam.

There's probably no way to get the Stats but I wonder, if you took all the deaths from Scns goofy practices (like M.D. obfiscation), just what the weighted percentile deaths are amongst Scientologists as opposed to Catholicism's and Islam's goofy practices?

Face:)
 
Last edited:
There's probably no way to get the Stats but I wonder, if you took all the deaths from Scns goofy practices (like M.D. obfiscation), just what the weighted percentile deaths are amongst Scientologists as opposed to Catholicism's and Islam's goofy practices?

Face:)

Use of percentile data is an obvious attempt to lessen the impact of longstanding existing practices. Given the long term effect of past abuses their is relatively little need for current excesses, yet the "small percentage" over large numbers still accounts for far too many present day victims.

To no small degree their abusive tendencies have led to their expansion & growth over extended periods leading to their present "respectability" arising from the overwhelming numbers of "adherents" most of whom have little genuine knowledge of their faith's history.


Mark A. Baker
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
I think you misunderstood me

Use of percentile data is an obvious attempt to lessen the impact of longstanding existing practices. Given the long term effect of past abuses their is relatively little need for current excesses, yet the "small percentage" over large numbers still accounts for far too many present day victims.

To no small degree their abusive tendencies have led to their expansion & growth over extended periods leading to their present "respectability" arising from the overwhelming numbers of "adherents" most of whom have little genuine knowledge of their faith's history.


Mark A. Baker

Weighted percentile was apparently not specific enough...I apologize.

“Weighted”, as in “within a group or section”, such as within a “cohort group”.

So, what I was saying was, “I wonder, if you took Scns as a group, what would be the percentile deaths from goofy practices amongst Scientologists as an individual group as opposed to the percentile deaths from goofy practices amongst Catholicism as an individual group or Islam as an individual group. This, of course, would have to be “weighted” as to socio/economic, geographic, cultural and other “factors" (such as time-line and ratio progression as compared to other chohort groups and cross-indexed stratification) for the exercise to have statistical accuracy and relevance.

I'm not trying to lessen, or increase, anything. I asked a statistical question that I thought relevant to RecativeMime's Post. My opinion is, if the Data were accessible, the "Church of Sientology" as a “Religious Cohort Group” would probably prove to be not very good for your long-term health. However, sans the Data, my opinion is conjecture only and I personaly would be interested in knowing the truth.

Face:)
 
Last edited:
Weighted percentile was apparently not specific enough...I apologize.

“Weighted”, as in “within a group or section”, such as within a “cohort group”.

So, what I was saying was, “I wonder, if you took Scns as a group, what would be the percentile deaths from goofy practices amongst Scientologists as an individual group as opposed to the percentile deaths from goofy practices amongst Catholicism as an individual group or Islam as an individual group. This, of course, would have to be “weighted” as to other socio/economic, geographic, cultural and other “factors" (such as time-line and ratio progression as compared to other chohort groups) for the exercise to have statistical accuracy and relevance.

I'm not trying to lessen, or increase, anything. I asked a statistical question that I thought relevant to RecativeMime's Post. My opinion is, if the Data were accessible, the "Church of Sientology" as a “Religious Cohort Group” would probably prove to be not very good for your long-term health. However, sans the Data, my opinion is conjecture only and I personaly would be interested in knowing the truth.

Face:)

Needs a "control" such as: what would be the percentile deaths from goofy practices among americans.

Evidence of insanity within a group is not proof of the insanity of the group. It could easily be insanity within the overall population showing up within members of the group.


Mark A. Baker :coolwink:
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
We are not on the same page

Needs a "control" such as: what would be the percentile deaths from goofy practices among americans.

Evidence of insanity within a group is not proof of the insanity of the group. It could easily be insanity within the overall population showing up within members of the group.


Mark A. Baker :coolwink:

A "control" group is for an original work of an "new or outside" stimulas study. Proper Statistical Analysis of an already existing condition has, inherent within it, the comparitive Data that you are asking for or the work is faulty and inaccurate.

Face:)
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Needs a "control" such as: what would be the percentile deaths from goofy practices among americans.

Evidence of insanity within a group is not proof of the insanity of the group. It could easily be insanity within the overall population showing up within members of the group.


Mark A. Baker :coolwink:

By almost any given 'definition' of 'sanity', a *successful* Scientologist is insane. You don't have to be a Scientologist to be insane, but, if you are a *successful* Scientologist as defined by Ron, with KSW, 'OT Powerz', 'Knowing How to Know', 'Ethics In', Full Bridge and all requisite EPs and Cogs; Gung Ho and On Source; you are insane.

Zinj
 
A "control" group is for an original work of an "new or outside" stimulas study. Proper Statistical Analysis of an already existing condition has, inherent within it, the comparitive Data that you are asking for or the work is faulty and inaccurate.

Face:)

You are arguing that "Proper Statistical Analysis" has previously occurred? :whistling:

Mark A. Baker :dieslaughing:
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
By almost any given 'definition' of 'sanity', a *successful* Scientologist is insane. You don't have to be a Scientologist to be insane, but, if you are a *successful* Scientologist as defined by Ron, with KSW, 'OT Powerz', 'Knowing How to Know', 'Ethics In', Full Bridge and all requisite EPs and Cogs; Gung Ho and On Source; you are insane.

Zinj
Great point

add in "totally practiced in locking oneself away in a room and talking to oneself and NOTING the answers while keeping it secret"

Yep. Mentally defective doesn't even begin to cover it
 

afaceinthecrowd

Gold Meritorious Patron
We are not even in the same book

You are arguing that "Proper Statistical Analysis" has previously occurred? :whistling:

Mark A. Baker :dieslaughing:

I'm not "arguing" anything. I made statements that, per the accepted and validated subject of Statistical Analysis, are correct.

I merely said that if there was access to the raw data, a proper statistical analysis would, in my opinion, be interesting and potentially revelatory. Of course no proper statistical analysis has ever been done re: my posited question and, the “statistical management system” that Scn operates off of is very simplistic, at best, and quite misleading. Proper Statistical Analysis does not use old or others analysis other than as Secondary Information. Primary Analysis is the compiling of extant data and, via the numerous proven tools of Statistical Analysis, generating as accurate a ‘picture” as possible for problem understanding, interpretive insight and guidance for future actions.

If you wish to argue that no proper statistical analysis exists, is possible or has ever existed then I'm not your "pigeon".:fly: If you're just messin' with me...uncle, you got me.:happydance:

Face:)
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Originally Posted by Good twin
You do realize that when Marty and Rinder "save" Scientology, they will be knocking on all of our doors and calling us all in for briefings on the "New" Scientology.


This is not altogether a wholly bad thing. Consider: communication is a TWO WAY PROCESS. Consider: the "New" Scientology will be eager to demonstrate their renewed respect for the rights of others & their willingness to give & receive communication with others.

1. The "new & improved" Scientology knocking on all of our doors is altogether a wholly bad thing. Any kinder-and-gentler knocking by Scientology is simply a Div VI introductory knock before they get down to KSW's "knocking out incorrect applications" and "The bank seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad."

2. I already answered the door when Hubbard knocked and demonstrated his clearing machine by spilling BTs all over my carpeting and cleaning them up with a Hubbard approved cosmic vacuum cleaner. I bought one but a minor problem arose. The outrageously expensive machine thoroughly sucked--but not the invisible BT's he pretended to both dump and clean up. Nice trick Ron, I enjoy being fooled just like the next guy, but I don't want to see this year's model of your ridiculous hoax.

3. Hey, now about that "new & improved" pitch about how the "new & improved Scientologists" will "...be eager to demonstrate their renewed respect for the rights of others"--That is a really cool new box for that toxic cereal. Maybe you can sell it to small children if you use a picture of Tom Cruise in a clown outfit.

SCIENTOLOGY CLOWN DEMONSTRATING
"EXHILARATION" TONE LEVEL FROM GOING FREE!!!

2007_08_07clown.jpg
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
By almost any given 'definition' of 'sanity', a *successful* Scientologist is insane. You don't have to be a Scientologist to be insane, but, if you are a *successful* Scientologist as defined by Ron, with KSW, 'OT Powerz', 'Knowing How to Know', 'Ethics In', Full Bridge and all requisite EPs and Cogs; Gung Ho and On Source; you are insane.

Zinj

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

Exactly!

That is why Ron made Scientology's goal: "A World Without Insanity".

By ridding the world of the concept of insane and insanity, nobody can accuse Scientologists of that.
 
Top