What's new

Steve Hall's post on closed Indy Facebook group

Andtheyalllived

Patron with Honors
Can I give a newb perspective? I've been reading pretty much every major site for about a year, and read every word of this thread, and I've been shocked at the patience of the people I've grown to respect.

I see the passive aggression (a little), but I also see people hold back, which I respect as well. Is it because you know the person in question, and they were sciontologists at one time?

Everytime I think "Why am I reading this 5th grade bullshit (the infighting, derailing, etc)" the grownups weigh in. Thank you, grownups.
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Can I give a newb perspective? I've been reading pretty much every major site for about a year, and read every word of this thread, and I've been shocked at the patience of the people I've grown to respect.

I see the passive aggression (a little), but I also see people hold back, which I respect as well. Is it because you know the person in question, and they were sciontologists at one time?

Everytime I think "Why am I reading this 5th grade bullshit (the infighting, derailing, etc)" the grownups weigh in. Thank you, grownups.

Welcome and thanks for posting.

I think perhaps you need to be a bit more specific on who and what you consider 5th grade bullshit. Keep in mind that some of what is posted here relates to a history most likely findable on the forum. Some are discussing things with that in mind. Some people aren't. What might look like a derail comment may not be one at all and what may look like patience and restraint may well be knowing when to quit based upon experience. Yes, derails are real easy to find on scientology related forums! ESMB is no exception :biggrin:

Thanks for reminding me of the opening post :)


It's OK to say what's on your mind here, as long as it's in line with the rules.
 

shanic89

Patron Meritorious
I'm not backing down on this. Let me know if you want to discuss Scn lingo without this other stuff.

Actually I was going to reply again regarding today’s posts, but I do not think the interaction would be a healthy one . After reading your reply to this quote I realise there is no reason to.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?29217-Marty-plays-the-quot-HATERS-quot-CARD.&p=745027&viewfull=1#post745027

“Religious apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you didn’t argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. Now what we’re doing is, we’re presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain.” — A.C. Grayling

Oh, so that's why militant atheists act like douches. It's one of those Scientological justification thingies.

True. I thought the quoted thingamob was militant atheism, though, as it justifies douchery.
Oh, wait, could that be another of my "circular argumements"? Is someone coming to sodomize me with a cactus for this ooh so evil crime?

I believe anyone that classes, people that present arguments and challenging questions as douches and practicing douchery is beyond reasoning with. How on earth could we have an even half productive conversation when you believe challenging questions and arguments to back them up are inappropriate?

Please do not imagine that I am calling you a monster or placing you in some conspiracy, I have not, ever, that is your attack strategy.
 

shanic89

Patron Meritorious
Can I give a newb perspective? I've been reading pretty much every major site for about a year, and read every word of this thread, and I've been shocked at the patience of the people I've grown to respect.

I see the passive aggression (a little), but I also see people hold back, which I respect as well. Is it because you know the person in question, and they were sciontologists at one time?

Everytime I think "Why am I reading this 5th grade bullshit (the infighting, derailing, etc)" the grownups weigh in. Thank you, grownups.

Well said, I shall get back on topic.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Actually I was going to reply again regarding today’s posts, but I do not think the interaction would be a healthy one . After reading your reply to this quote I realise there is no reason to.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ERS-quot-CARD.&p=745027&viewfull=1#post745027

“Religious apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you didn’t argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. Now what we’re doing is, we’re presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain.” — A.C. Grayling





I believe anyone that classes, people that present arguments and challenging questions as douches and practicing douchery is beyond reasoning with. How on earth could we have an even half productive conversation when you believe challenging questions and arguments to back them up are inappropriate?

Please do not imagine that I am calling you a monster or placing you in some conspiracy, I have not, ever, that is your attack strategy.


Our interactions were never all that pleasant, other than you liking a post I wrote once or twice. There were thing I said and did which dismayed you.

So the best thing we could possibly do since we are both good people who oppose the cult is to move forward out of that. And re my posts that dismayed you, I want to say sorry about that- it wasn't intentional. I mean, it's just me, my own thought processes and things I'm good at and things where I totally miss the mark.

I dunno if I'm a religious apologist. I sometimes make fun of the whole thing. But I am an apologist about people having choices and not stereotyping each other. And you wanna know why? Because I saw choices taken away in the cult from me and especially from other people who experienced more crap than I. And I saw Hubbard (not in person. Just in books and tapes, etc) stereotyping people whom he didn't like, and I saw other Scn'ists doing it and it killed ideas and it stifled people and I hated it then and I hate it now.

That's the apologism I have.

I hope you might look at my post a couple posts up from here about the short fall or problem I do see re Scn'ists and Scn lingo.

And please know that though I don't know you, what little I've seen paints a picture of you as a concerned person who would like to stop cultic pain. Other than anything else, that's really the first thing that comes to mind when I think of you.
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
EXACTLY!! The word would not exist without the RCC Jeeboids. Noooo....

Yes, it is a real word. After centuries. And there was a time when it did not exist.

It seems similar to what Hubbard did in some respects with his stuff.

I think that the problem is that people think that the comparison is validating Scn as a religion. I don't think that was the original purpose of the comparison at all. This conversation needs to come back to earth in that respect. No one way trying to give the cult that dignity. Just trying to say that not 100% of the Scientologese on here is due to laziness or unwillingness to lay off the koolaid.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I think that the problem is that people think that the comparison is validating Scn as a religion. I don't think that was the original purpose of the comparison at all. This conversation needs to come back to earth in that respect. No one way trying to give the cult that dignity. Just trying to say that not 100% of the Scientologese on here is due to laziness or unwillingness to lay off the koolaid.

I think you're right. I was trying to examine the points individually.

In any event, as I said a while back, I do notice pitfalls with Scn lingo but what I felt I noticed was a dependence and lack of adaptability.

I don't think the lingo thing is intrinsically problematic. I think it's the whole package deal cultic thing that makes them act that way. But that is only how it seems to me.
 
... As long as Terril is gossiping or 'nattering' about auditors in the FZ and revealing info about PCs on the internet, I will know there is no FZ effort being made to keep private information private.

Good post except for this last paragraph. Many freezoners do manage to keep pc's data private. The secret? ...

Don't tell Terril!

TP doesn't know when to shut up. In those instances where TP has inappropriately broadcast private information he has first succeeded in convincing someone to rely on him some sort of mediation role. Fortunately there are many other individuals far better at helping individuals to resolve their conflicts. After many kerfluffles involving TP, freezoners have grown far more wary of trusting what passes for his "discretion". :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Good post except for this last paragraph. Many freezoners do manage to keep pc's data private. The secret? ...

Don't tell Terril!

TP doesn't know when to shut up. In those instances where TP has inappropriately broadcast private information he has first succeeded in convincing someone to rely on him some sort of mediation role. Fortunately there are many other individuals far better at helping individuals to resolve their conflicts. After many kerfluffles involving TP, freezoners have grown far more wary of trusting what passes for his "discretion". :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker

I meant the FZ as a group, putting ethics in on and for the the group. But now that you mention the above, why haven't they done something about this with him? Maybe even a cram or something? From what you say, it seems like this problem of his is like the elephant in the room that no one tries to confront and handle. That doesn't speak well of the FZ. The FZ needs to be policing itself for these very such problems!
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Good post except for this last paragraph. Many freezoners do manage to keep pc's data private. The secret? ...

Don't tell Terril!

TP doesn't know when to shut up. In those instances where TP has inappropriately broadcast private information he has first succeeded in convincing someone to rely on him some sort of mediation role. Fortunately there are many other individuals far better at helping individuals to resolve their conflicts. After many kerfluffles involving TP, freezoners have grown far more wary of trusting what passes for his "discretion". :eyeroll:


Mark A. Baker

The FreeZone should contract a mission from the Indie Dependents to get Terril's ethics in. Oh, hang on . . . using PC Folder information and/or releasing it into the public domain is KSW Standard L Ron Hubbard Scientology Tech. That means Terril has got his Ethics in. Bugger: no ComEv for him and six months i-RPF mowing Marty's lawns.
 
I meant the FZ as a group, putting ethics in on and for the the group. But now that you mention the above, why haven't they done something about this with him? Maybe even a cram or something? From what you say, it seems like this problem of his is like the elephant in the room that no one tries to confront and handle. That doesn't speak well of the FZ. The FZ needs to be policing itself for these very such problems!

Principally because there is no single organization which is the freezone and which has the influence to do so. Several respected techie individuals have offered assistance at various times in this matter.

FZ ethics, just like FZ auditing though is had strictly on a voluntary basis.

Reasonable people don't attempt to force their assistance on the unwilling. When a person does attempt to force help it's a pretty d@mn good indicator they are not a reasonable person. :)

In this matter, TP believes he is in the right and has not done anything wrong. Ergo he doesn't see a need for personal help. The only help he wishes is help in getting others to see how they are wrong. :duh:

No doubt you have seen for your self how successful that approach is.


Mark A. Baker
 

Goodbye

Patron with Honors
I meant the FZ as a group, putting ethics in on and for the the group. But now that you mention the above, why haven't they done something about this with him?
If they did, not very likely you'd get any feedback on it.

It's probably only viewed as a minor PR disaster for the Indies, but many of them never hear anything from this blog. And if they did, wouldn't care much.

Steve's been getting his finger everywhere where it don't belong for quite some time now, and all this was so overdue. But then many fully support him in whatever he does no different than Marty's Koolaiders.

Like any Scientology Exec council, it's damage control and battleplanning their next move. I don't think handling Steve is on the table at all beside telling him to watch his mouth and plug any leaks on private channels. And then it'll be back to business as usual.

Mostly communications will be better controlled. What would CO$ 2.0 do? If Ethics were utilized, DM wouldn't be around any longer, and it seems Steve is echoing the very same conduct, ie. "Takedown" and referring to FZers as "skunks".
 
Last edited:
... It's probably only viewed as a minor PR disaster for the Indies, but many of them never hear anything from this blog. And if they did, wouldn't care much. ...

Actually the original discussions relating to the issues in question were on freezone boards. PR aspects were not a major concern of participants at the time. Rectifying the situation was the initial consideration. Over time behavior of certain partisans (guess who) in the matter deteriorated to a point of viciousness and routine violation of board rules relating to the fair treatment of individual members.

The mess was only brought to esmb after more than a year had elapsed and then by one solitary individual (guess who) as an attempt to use this board as a means of public vilification of one of the parties whom he wished personally to continue to persecute. By the time he did this he had already alienated several of his freezone friends through his reckless and vituperative behavior in the matter.

All of this is actually very old news which has only been kept alive by occasional outbreaks of personal spleen and vindictiveness. :eyeroll:

Tiresome.


Mark A. Baker
 

Goodbye

Patron with Honors
All of this is actually very old news which has only been kept alive by occasional outbreaks of personal spleen and vindictiveness. :eyeroll:
I failed to get the full just of the entire post I quoted. Just noticed that now it was in response to Terrill. I know nothing about him. Thought we were still on the topic of the thread.
 

Vittorio

Patron Meritorious
I think where Scn'ists do go wrong is that they seem to tend to get dependent on the terminology, to the point where they have to make a concerted effort to not use it in everyday conversation --or sometimes they don't try at all.

Where they go wrong is there dependency on Hubbard and ignoring anyone or anything else.
 

loose cannon

Patron with Honors
Principally because there is no single organization which is the freezone and which has the influence to do so. Several respected techie individuals have offered assistance at various times in this matter.

FZ ethics, just like FZ auditing though is had strictly on a voluntary basis.

Reasonable people don't attempt to force their assistance on the unwilling. When a person does attempt to force help it's a pretty d@mn good indicator they are not a reasonable person. :)

In this matter, TP believes he is in the right and has not done anything wrong. Ergo he doesn't see a need for personal help. The only help he wishes is help in getting others to see how they are wrong. :duh:

No doubt you have seen for your self how successful that approach is.


Mark A. Baker

You certainly have got a point, but there's more to say.

If someone takes part in something voluntarily, it cannot be an excuse for others, who are highly advanced in that field, not to say a word if that person behaves as crazily as Terril does.

In this regard practically all the highly trained FZ auditors, who knew about the cycle, failed, with the exception of Max Hauri (and if there's any other, I apologize, I don't know about him / her).

It doesn't mean they should've called a comm-ev on Terril or something. But they could've voiced their disagreement in that prominent FZers' forum, they could've written the disagreement to Terril - which of course we wouldn't know, but based on what I've read from some of those highly trained, it seems unlikely they did.

I think that also the servile attitude amongst scientologists towards LRH and those trained by him and to others highly trained in scientology plays a role here. So when Ken Urquhart was involved in bashing Aida, they didn't dare to have a different opinion.

I find their logic highly flawed. Most of them know what evil and criminal actions LRH was capable of. And he tried to impart his state of mind to his pupils, so if they give up thinking for themselves and adding humanity to what they know from scientology, it's likely that they will be able of equally evil and criminal actions.

I remember a case on Terril's forum of a Freezoner with low intelligence, who would however tell everybody around what they should think, freaking out about a possibility being considered to unsubscribe a probably hijacked account of a Class IX (I think it was IX). Until that, I was not sure about his lacking intelligence, but this instance and some others (like his opinion on the Oracle trying you, Mark, get scientology auditing to mend your "unsatisfactory" opinions, or his stance on the Aida's cycle) gave me certainty that he's as thick as two short planks.

It actually gives one the impression that the more trained a scientologist is, the weaker his integrity is. (Except RO training, apparently.)
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
<snip>I dunno if I'm a religious apologist. I sometimes make fun of the whole thing. But I am an apologist about people having choices and not stereotyping each other. And you wanna know why? Because I saw choices taken away in the cult from me and especially from other people who experienced more crap than I. And I saw Hubbard (not in person. Just in books and tapes, etc) stereotyping people whom he didn't like, and I saw other Scn'ists doing it and it killed ideas and it stifled people and I hated it then and I hate it now.

That's the apologism I have.

Have you considered that during the progress of your mission, you're permutations are causing the very failings you speak out against? Even if such a suggestion is quickly dismissed, then why the attentive resistance to your efforts? It's not as though you haven't made your anti-Hub/Scio stance clear. It's a phobia that doesn't give credit to the many very intelligent people here that really are on the side of no more abuses, lies, misdirections and over the top control. I have nothing against you personally, I would prefer enjoying the J&D humorous wit on this board than pointing this out in various thread content as a pseudo devils advocate. I'm not stating your wrong so much as you have an insecurity that only you can solve. I'm asking you seriously reflect on this matter.

*Sorry, back to the topic.
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
EXACTLY!! The word would not exist without the RCC Jeeboids. Noooo....

Yes, it is a real word. After centuries. And there was a time when it did not exist.

It seems similar to what Hubbard did in some respects with his stuff.

What Mark said was quite true but entirely beside the point. There is nothing wrong with coining words, when you need a new word for a new idea. That was what Catholic theologians did in the 13th century. They weren't trying to spin anything, either, by dressing up something familiar in a fancy new name. Cicero might have turned up his nose at their Latin, but it was the common language of their time, and the word they coined for their new concept was just calling a spade a spade. The meaning of transubstantiation is and always was very technical: it's not just the notion that wine becomes blood, but a very specific (and rather squint-inducing) statement about exactly how the wine changes — and how it does not. In the well established philosophical lexicon of the 13th century, this was to say that the 'substance' of the wine is changed, but not its 'accidents'. 'Substance' meant something in that lexicon quite different from what it does now; the material properties that we would normally say are very much aspects of wine as a substance were precisely those that the medievals classed as accidents. So 'transubstantiation' is a novel and technical concept, straightforwardly expressed in the language of its day. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Nobody complains much about cases where Hubbard coined a new word for something really new, either. Terms like 'auditing,' or 'Scientology' itself, are arguably very much analogous to 'transubstantiation'. What's problematic is where Hubbard coins exotic new fancy-sounding terms for banal concepts, like 'withhold' or 'valence', or insinuates new idiosyncratic meanings into existing terms, like 'postulate'. 'Transubstantiation' is a very clear example of the first, legitimate kind of linguistic novelty, and not at all an example of how a religion other than Scientology also practices the pernicious second and third kinds of neologism.

No doubt there do exist examples of language abuse outside Scientology. There are not as many that are widely accepted in other religions, however, as apologists for Scientology would like to believe. At least in its classic form as composed by Hubbard, Scientology is significantly less honest than genuine religions.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
What Mark said was quite true but entirely beside the point. There is nothing wrong with coining words, when you need a new word for a new idea. That was what Catholic theologians did in the 13th century. They weren't trying to spin anything, either, by dressing up something familiar in a fancy new name. Cicero might have turned up his nose at their Latin, but it was the common language of their time, and the word they coined for their new concept was just calling a spade a spade. The meaning of transubstantiation is and always was very technical: it's not just the notion that wine becomes blood, but a very specific (and rather squint-inducing) statement about exactly how the wine changes — and how it does not. In the well established philosophical lexicon of the 13th century, this was to say that the 'substance' of the wine is changed, but not its 'accidents'. 'Substance' meant something in that lexicon quite different from what it does now; the material properties that we would normally say are very much aspects of wine as a substance were precisely those that the medievals classed as accidents. So 'transubstantiation' is a novel and technical concept, straightforwardly expressed in the language of its day. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Nobody complains much about cases where Hubbard coined a new word for something really new, either. Terms like 'auditing,' or 'Scientology' itself, are arguably very much analogous to 'transubstantiation'. What's problematic is where Hubbard coins exotic new fancy-sounding terms for banal concepts, like 'withhold' or 'valence', or insinuates new idiosyncratic meanings into existing terms, like 'postulate'. 'Transubstantiation' is a very clear example of the first, legitimate kind of linguistic novelty, and not at all an example of how a religion other than Scientology also practices the pernicious second and third kinds of neologism.

No doubt there do exist examples of language abuse outside Scientology. There are not as many that are widely accepted in other religions, however, as apologists for Scientology would like to believe. At least in its classic form as composed by Hubbard, Scientology is significantly less honest than genuine religions.

Good post!

At the core of Scientology is words; and the marketing and sale thereof.

That is all Scientology has. That's all it sells. The rest is done by the Scientologist to themselves. It is spiritual pornography, painstakingly designed and calculated to titilate.

Scientologists do awful things in public with words. They don't even need raincoats.
 

Jquepublic

Silver Meritorious Patron
The FreeZone should contract a mission from the Indie Dependents to get Terril's ethics in. Oh, hang on . . . using PC Folder information and/or releasing it into the public domain is KSW Standard L Ron Hubbard Scientology Tech. That means Terril has got his Ethics in. Bugger: no ComEv for him and six months i-RPF mowing Marty's lawns.

I hate when you make me defend Marty, but the one point on which I find no fault with him is his determination to maintain the confidentiality of session data. He could no doubt have gotten rich by now on Cruise alone, had he divulged his pc folder data.

I respect his decision to keep session matters private.
 
Top