I don't know if I am one of these "some individuals" and "some people". I assume you were referring to me. If I am one of these "some people", you are entirely wrong in your characterisation of me.
"Some individuals" is plural. You are one person. Had I meant one person, I'd have typed one person. And, yes, I do think you don't approve of anyone studying Scn outside CofS and that you don't think it's of any value. You've made that abundantly clear in your posts and in some of your (less than courteous) responses to me and to others. You've hammered the living shit out of me for it. I figure there must be a reason.
All we ever see of each other on ESMB is our own vision of what we think the other person is. Rather than publically summing them up and possibly making mis-evalaution of their character, why not ask them about it instead?
Right. Like you've always done re my postings...
For the record - I have already said this many times. I had FANTASTIC gains from my own auditing - I never did the implantology (dealing with implants) levels and I am glad about that as they are a code break.
Perhaps you should define "implantology" as I've never heard of it outside your posts.
My PCs had fantastic wins. I
never had a failed PC in 10 years! I was a very good auditor, people used to ask for me by name to audit them. I also saw many many more people not benefit from Scn. Me and my PC's seemed to be an oasis of success in a battlefield of failure!
But, but, but, despite those successes, now I am no longer a scientologist, I look
more critically at what happened to me and my PCs. This is what I do on ESMB. To extrapolate from that what you did above, is just your own figuring on what you
think I am. It does not represent me.
Given the way you've treated me and others about doing Scn outside CofS, it's now wonder that I would come to such a conclusion. Unless you just want to say that it is your general habit resort to vendettas against cyberstrangers as a personality issue type thing. I surely hope not!
This is an ex-scientologist message board. What is wrong with questioning scientologists about those things which many of us never inspected while in the cult? That questioning does not imply any of the characteristics that you have read into them.
Phrases like "implantology" and various accusations you've made to Mark and to myself such as the one that goes "oh, it's just your personal philosophy that does that, not Scn...you're referring to that and aren't saying so and I'm so amazed that you would say that when it's not in Scn."
Lionheart, you sometimes treat people like they're abstract concepts - for lack of a better phrase. You get hung up on the personal ideology of the person to whom you're talking to that you bring it up when the person isn't even bringing it up, and attribute their comments and general frame of reference to their ideology. (This is for you, too, FreeToShine) This is discourteous, it's not proper debate and it shows personal bias.
Frankly, you've been a bit nasty to me and to others in many of your posted responses. And now it's a problem when I draw a conclusion based on that. I've seen you vilify Freezoners in general, I've seen you slam people for being Scn'ists or having any continuing interest in Scn outside CofS, and as stated in the previous paragraph you drag in the person's ideological views when you are having a discussion with them when such weren't mentioned at all. That's projection and it shows bias. You can't yell at people and snot off to them and then have them come to any warm and fuzzy conclusion about that.
At one point in this thread the point was made that the meter was not given any credence by scientologists.
Well, I didn't say "any" and I don't think that Mark did, either. As far as "credence" goes, the above sentence is incomplete- you don't say "credence" about WHAT. I give the emeter credence in that I think it does what it's supposed to. I think it works as a tool, a guide, to something already there. I think it's only a tool and that the pc and auditor do the real work. And the pc's data is senior, if there's a conflict. If what he said didn't matter, all processes would be done without soliciting or writing down any itsa, responses, or cogs from the pc. So yeah, I give the meter credence. It exists, it has a dial, it has a needle, it has a tone arm, it measures things, it reads. But it's just a tool. The pc is what truly has credence with me and with every single auditor I ever met and heard of.
I was an experienced and successful auditor and frankly that point is just not correct as regards scientologists and scn tech.
Then perhaps you did not understand my point. Either that, or you weren't practicing standard Scn when you were in.
So I spoke up in disagreement with that point. After some fairly intensive questioning this extreme point of view was modified and largely agreement was achieved. But it was hard work, with repeated questioning. It is all on this thread, anyone can see that the course of postings is as above.
I didn't modify anything. I explained things since you asked me and we were discussing it plus you were bitching me out a bit, too.
If anyone doesn't like the questioning process, they can just ignore the thread or put the questioner on "ignore".
When have I ever said I don't like the questioning process? I don't see that Mark has said that, either, in this or in any other thread. I wish that a number of people here would question people more instead of posting declarative statements about them. Let me tell you, it makes a refreshing change of fucking pace.
I believe it can sometimes be a useful process for some people in their de-programming from the cult, to ponder some of these questions and I think this thread topic is a very interesting and vital topic. If anyone doesn't like this questioning process, just ignore it!
I have no problem with being asked for elucidation. I just find some of the scolding from folks like you and FreeToShine to not fit the bill-scolding, finding fault with, dragging the person's ideology in and then saying that he or she is posting from that standpoint and isn't speaking the truth about Scn, does not qualify as "questioning process", unless one happens to be a member of the Spanish Inquisition.
I have never said people shouldn't do scientology! Never never never! If you were referring to me you were mis-characterising me, completely.
Oh, then, there must be some other reason you inveigh against Freezoners, indie Scn'ists and the Freezone in general.
Anyone who wants to do Scn is quite welcome to do it. Just as I am free to question scn activity and tech on an ex-scn message board. If a scientologist feels a reaction to me doing that, well isn't that reaction food for thought? (Ignore that if you want, it is just a suggestion).
Like I said, if you or anyone else jumps down people's throats, they aren't going to have warm and fuzzy feelings about it. I've seen you post a number of comments about how people should or should not think this or that.
So in future, if you feel moved to sum up my character, please pause and instead ask me something to clarify points. OK?
I didn't sum up your character. I said nothing about it.
But as to what I did write...
You reap what you sow.
Several of my "successes" are now senior people running the abusive cult, so were they really "successes" or successfully deluded slaves?
