The failure of Study Tech and its apologists.

Dilettante

Patron Meritorious
The primary failure of Hubbard's "Study Tech" is that people, especially children, do not end up thinking for themselves. The analysis of Study Tech shows that the "source material" is assumed to be 100% correct, 100% understandable and 100% applicable -- no matter what the student finds.

There is no mechanism for finding the source material to be incorrect or just plain false. This is not a minor flaw, this is absolutely key. However, the flaw was quite intentional.

Therefore, while the Study Tech is a perfect tool for indoctrination and control, it is fatally flawed for teaching people how to evaluate for truth, analyze for logic or think for themselves. The product of Hubbard's Study Tech is obedient slaves. Scientologists do not think, they "think like Ron".

The fact that Study Tech also uses common study aids such as looking up words does not mitigate its fundamental intention as a way to indoctrinate and control.

I agree! I have no argument with respect to the study tech itself or how its used, my problem is where it falls short. The natural tendency is to say prove it or show evidence. The brilliance of the indoctrination is when it is turned around to the student to "give an example when you observed this to be true". Now those little neurons are firing!!! If the student finds an example the agreement with the datum is in place. When the student gives such an example they can "prove" the datum with no examination of the facts or reality. So now that the students trusts their own observations it must be true. So not only did the student glide past any scientific method of examining, testing or proving workability they built up a pseudo-intelligence whereupon their own observations confirm. The student feels super bright and shiny because they can define all the words and model the concept in clay to a rigorous PASS!!! Hip-hip fuck. Not only are we applying flawed concepts but manipulaing the past to support flawed logic.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
For your information, the term "figures of rhetoric" is the old term for figures of speech.

Metaphors and similies were also once called figures of rhetoric.

I also never learn the ones I mentioned even though L Ron Hubbard uses them (not the words, but the actual figues of rhetoric) in his writings.

So how come both of us, and I suspect many others, never heard and did not know the meaning of something that Hubbard uses abundantly if we used Study Tech?

It is because Study Tech does not allow for the paradigm of language, only the so called "full conceptual understand" of words--which in paractice is word association.

If Hubbard's idea is correct--that one clears a word from the dictionary "to full conceptual understand,"--then why would he need to write a book on communication (Dianetics 55)?

If someone cleared a word to "full conceptual understanding" they wouldn't need an additional book to explain it to them.

There are no words that stand alone as concepts.

Each and every word has a diachronic (through time) and synchronic (at the same time) meaning.

Context is everything. No word exists outside of a context.

No word can be define without the use of other words.

So the idea of a full conceptual understanding is absurd.

Yet it is considered a vital necessity to learning by Hubbard per the Study Tech.

Study Tech is bogus.

Its intent may have been to indoctrinate people into Hubbard's thinking, but it couldn't effectively do that.

This board is evidence of that.

The Anabaptist Jacques

You can choose to misconstrue what study tech is if you want. It is not what you represent it to be.

Of course one can have a concept from a stand alone word. In fact one can have a number of them if there is not a narrowing context, e.g. APPLE, SHOE, FUCKED, HOT, TASERED, BABE - get any concepts? Study tech does not deny context. Nor does it omit the concepts of diachronic and synchronic (those terms are not used.)

Hubbard never said a word can be defined without context nor without other words, you are making statements that imply that study tech asserts are false when in fact it does not. I'm just trying to be fair to the subject - you seem to be deficient in your grasp of what is covered by "study tech".

I certainly will grant that the way it is put to use in the "church" is bullshit.

Defining words is bogus? Some of it is bogus, not all of it. (As is typical of Hubbos spew.)

Stop making me defend this shit!!! LOL :duh:
 
You can choose to misconstrue what study tech is if you want. It is not what you represent it to be.

Of course one can have a concept from a stand alone word. In fact one can have a number of them if there is not a narrowing context, e.g. APPLE, SHOE, FUCKED, HOT, TASERED, BABE - get any concepts? Study tech does not deny context. Nor does it omit the concepts of diachronic and synchronic.

Hubbard never said a word can be defined without context nor without other words, you are making statements that imply that study tech asserts are false when in fact it does not. I'm just trying to be fair to the subject - you seem to be deficient in your grasp of what is covered by "study tech".

I certainly will grant that the way it is put to use in the "church" is bullshit.

Defining words is bogus? Some of it is bogus, not all of it. (As is typical of Hubbos spew.)

Stop making me defend this shit!!! LOL :duh:

You are purposely distorning my point to make yourself look right.

So, you can say, without any doubt or hesitation, that what I thought of when I say the words you printed--"I have seen many, many people get fucked up on Study Tech"--that I had the exact same concept that you did.

If not, then my point is correct.

And you are perpetuating a lie when you imply that I implied defining words is bogus.

That means you did not read or clearly did not understand (maybe it is your use of Study Tech) what I wrote.

People who defend the tech are so blind.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

themadhair

Patron Meritorious
I sense a huge gaping contradiction here.

Compare the two quotes:
You can choose to misconstrue what study tech is if you want. It is not what you represent it to be.
I certainly will grant that the way it is put to use in the "church" is bullshit.
With all due respect, but a clear reading of Hubbard’s words and listening to his lectures on the matter show very clearly that the implementation of study tech is perfectly in line with how Hubbard intended it. Not sure TAJ is the one doing the misconstruing on this, and if anything this looks to be one hell of a mental contortion to try defending something that, per your second comment, you know on some level is bullshit.

I quoted this earlier, but this really is the type of bullshit that is inherent in study tech, as Hubbard himself wrote and approved:
c9EWb.jpg


Not sure what it is you think you are defending, but it isn’t any version of study tech as reflected in the Hubbard texts. Why is that?
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
You are purposely distorning my point to make yourself look right.

So, you can say, without any doubt or hesitation, that what I thought of when I say the words you printed--"I have seen many, many people get fucked up on Study Tech"--that I had the exact same concept that you did.

If not, then my point is correct.

And you are perpetuating a lie when you imply that I implied defining words is bogus.

That means you did not read or clearly did not understand (maybe it is your use of Study Tech) what I wrote.

People who defend the tech are so blind.

The Anabaptist Jacques

"I have seen many, many people get fucked up on Study Tech"

How exactly did you plan on bringing about "the exact same concept" in me that you had if I may be so bold as to ask? With more words, a vulcan mind meld perhaps? Now your'e diving into some deep philosophical shit TAJ. And yeah, I understand your sentence - do I know exactly in what fashion they were fucked up, no, you didn't say. But if I said "my wife fucked the pool-boy on my pool table", I think it would suffice. The point is that a word standing alone can bring numerous concepts to mind. Who is saying context is irrelevant? study-tech? um, no. If that were the case then why make up sentences using the word in a correct context for each definition?

You stated "There are no words that stand alone as concept". I say you are wrong. There is no requirement that my concept and your concept exactly match, in fact if that were to happen it would only be because we shared some experience together and even then witnessed from differing viewpoints so that exactness would not be perfectly exact. THAT has nothing to do with your statement.

themadhair, your example of M9 proves what? That one can read aloud what is actually written on a piece of paper, that all. It doesn't say that what is written is 100% correct. It just means that you could read what was written without fucking up. The assumption that if you can't that there is some MU is probably not 100% correct either. I had my exasperated moments doing M9, for sure.

I'm not trying to be the defender of study-tech, just discussing what I perceive as inaccurate statements.

That they can't even apply their own tech correctly is SOP. LRon's Law of Confusion applies fully.
 

themadhair

Patron Meritorious
You stated "There are no words that stand alone as concept". I say you are wrong.
Can you cite a single word that isn’t defined in terms of other words? When you realise that such doesn’t exist you may want to revisit the post you quoted from because you completely missed the point within it.
themadhair, your example of M9 proves what?
Just citing an example of the absurdity of study tech. I note that you have declined to defend the examples as given. Is that an acknowledgement that you know they are batshit absurd?
The assumption that if you can't that there is some MU is probably not 100% correct either.
Not 100%??? Fess up, it is totally flat out wrong. Go on, say it – “this example is flat out wrong”. Btw, this is another example of you not representing what is written in black&white in the study tech materials…
I'm not trying to be the defender of study-tech, just discussing what I perceive as inaccurate statements.
Do you want a copy of the student hat? It might help since you seem to be inaccurately conveying its contents so far.
 
"I have seen many, many people get fucked up on Study Tech"

How exactly did you plan on bringing about "the exact same concept" in me that you had if I may be so bold as to ask? With more words, a vulcan mind meld perhaps? Now your'e diving into some deep philosophical shit TAJ. And yeah, I understand your sentence - do I know exactly in what fashion they were fucked up, no, you didn't say. But if I said "my wife fucked the pool-boy on my pool table", I think it would suffice. The point is that a word standing alone can bring numerous concepts to mind. Who is saying context is irrelevant? study-tech? um, no. If that were the case then why make up sentences using the word in a correct context for each definition?

You stated "There are no words that stand alone as concept". I say you are wrong. There is no requirement that my concept and your concept exactly match, in fact if that were to happen it would only be because we shared some experience together and even then witnessed from differing viewpoints so that exactness would not be perfectly exact. THAT has nothing to do with your statement.

themadhair, your example of M9 proves what? That one can read aloud what is actually written on a piece of paper, that all. It doesn't say that what is written is 100% correct. It just means that you could read what was written without fucking up. The assumption that if you can't that there is some MU is probably not 100% correct either. I had my exasperated moments doing M9, for sure.

I'm not trying to be the defender of study-tech, just discussing what I perceive as inaccurate statements.

That they can't even apply their own tech correctly is SOP. LRon's Law of Confusion applies fully.

With more words to build a context.

If the point of Study Tech is understanding, then when you said those single words I should have had the same concept as I have certainly cleared some of those words per Study Tech when I was in Scientology.

"Babe," for instance.

Being the sports fan that I am I thought of Babe Ruth, even though I cleared the word conceptually in the past.

So are saying that with Hubbard's word clearing that when you said Babe I would have the same stand-alone concept that you did.

No, it needed context.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Can you cite a single word that isn’t defined in terms of other words? When you realise that such doesn’t exist you may want to revisit the post you quoted from because you completely missed the point within it.

Just citing an example of the absurdity of study tech. I note that you have declined to defend the examples as given. Is that an acknowledgement that you know they are batshit absurd?

Not 100%??? Fess up, it is totally flat out wrong. Go on, say it – “this example is flat out wrong”. Btw, this is another example of you not representing what is written in black&white in the study tech materials…

Do you want a copy of the student hat? It might help since you seem to be inaccurately conveying its contents so far.

I already stated my case on the stand alone word and provided examples.

No, I won't say that M9 theory is flat out wrong. I'd say there are other additional reasons why a person would glitch in their reading. I know I've had to just pick a fucking word to clear to get on with it, but that was not always the case by any means.

Hell no, I do not want a copy of the student hat. I have one deep in the bowels of storage 100 miles from me. Most of the issues I've been contesting here are covered in the study tapes, not in the written materials of the course.

OK, I give up. You win. I've been irreparably damaged by the stuff. Study tech is a total crock. LOL

Carry on! :carryon:
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
With more words to build a context.

If the point of Study Tech is understanding, then when you said those single words I should have had the same concept as I have certainly cleared some of those words per Study Tech when I was in Scientology.

"Babe," for instance.

Being the sports fan that I am I thought of Babe Ruth, even though I cleared the word conceptually in the past.

So are saying that with Hubbard's word clearing that when you said Babe I would have the same stand-alone concept that you did.

No, it needed context.

The Anabaptist Jacques

We are not in disagreement. Must have been the context of your initial statement that I misinterpreted :)

The word babe could have brought up: Babe Ruth, pretty human female, your niece's little baby, a movie star pig, etc.

That was my point - single words have concepts associated with them - do you need context to choose a concept, yes. Is context required? no. I could just ask you to tell me all the concepts that come to mind when I say the word babe.

I guess my point is that study tech per the study tapes was not intended to create the phenomena you bemoan. That's all. Certainly if you strip certain correct bits out of it then it's a nasty piece of work.
 

themadhair

Patron Meritorious
I already stated my case on the stand alone word and provided examples.
I missed a single example of a word that was not defined in terms of other words. Re-reading your post I cannot find them.

I don’t think you are grasping what the issue here really is. EVERY word is defined in terms of OTHER words. When you open a dictionary each word is listed and the definition provided is, rather unsurprisingly, composed of other words.

Not sure how I can express this anymore simply. If you still believe that words can be standalone with reference to other words then I don’t know what so say.
No, I won't say that M9 theory is flat out wrong.I'd say there are other additional reasons why a person would glitch in their reading.
The two sentences are somewhat contradictory. Can you not see how you second sentence is flying in the face of the M9 theory?????
Hell no, I do not want a copy of the student hat.
Might I suggest that if you had a copy to review you would not be misrepresenting what is in those materials?
Most of the issues I've been contesting here are covered in the study tapes, not in the written materials of the course.
It is more of a pain in the neck for me to have to do transcription from audio rather than simply typing it out of a book. The tapes don’t contradicted the written material iirc.
Study tech is a total crock. LOL
As written, yes it is.
 
We are not in disagreement. Must have been the context of your initial statement that I misinterpreted :)

The word babe could have brought up: Babe Ruth, pretty human female, your niece's little baby, a movie star pig, etc.

That was my point - single words have concepts associated with them - do you need context to choose a concept, yes. Is context required? no. I could just ask you to tell me all the concepts that come to mind when I say the word babe.

I guess my point is that study tech per the study tapes was not intended to create the phenomena you bemoan. That's all. Certainly if you strip certain correct bits out of it then it's a nasty piece of work.

I understand what youare syaing.

I think though that Study Tech clearly states that one clears his word to full conceptual understanding.

And that is something that simply doesn't exist.

Again, if it did exist, then why would Hubbard write a book on communication when all anyone had to do is clear the word to full conceptual understanding?

Clearing a word to full conceptual understanding is impossible because of all the synchronic and diachronic ways a word has and could be used.

There is also the fact that with good writers, the meaning of their sentences are sometimes greater than the sum of the words in it.

The examples I gave are the synecdoches, metonymys, and litoties. Looking up the words and clearing them to full conceptual understanding will not give you the meaning.

It takes more to understand them.

And because Study Tech doesn't address language but only words it has a tendency to make the person literal.

You can see this on this board sometimes with some individuals who were raised in a Scientology environment.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Last edited:

Idle Morgue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks for the post! I totally agree - eveything in Scientology breaks down to an analytical mind fuck. I got so tired of analyzing everything and then analyzing why I did that! For God's sake - I thought it was suppose to help improve conditions and it just gets crazy and insane.

Hubbard tried to put his beingness under a microscope and this is what he found:

070517132235.jpg


Apparantly, those are all of the body theeetans and clusters attached to that old wind bag!

lrh.jpg


Ron the NUT! Any way you slice him - he is 100% NUT!
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I don't how people get so worked up about Study Tech. It is NOT a "technology". If you apply it exactly as stated you will end up a moronic, brain-washed imbecile who has lost all critical-thinking skills.

Having said that a person should be familiar with both the current definitions of words, along with common and unique usages. It is good to grasp how OTHER people unerstand the same words. Words ONLY have meaning based on what is true for people. The definitions don't exist out there" separate from the minds that agree with the various definitions. Dictionaries exist because some folks have studied and surveyed many people to ascertain what the agreed-upon meanings are. And, meanings change over time. They are not etched in stone.

It IS good to balance "mass" with "significance". But, I don't think Hubbard ever explained it properly. For example, when I was in college I studied basic electronics in my sophomore year. In addition to learning all the theory, I also attended a "lab" each week where we did "practical drills and applications" of what we learned for theory. We would set up resistors, with voltages and measure "current". It helped make the theory more "real". It connected the IDEAS about some aspect of reality WITH ACTUAL BEHAVIORS of reality.

But, THAT idea is common, and is not unique to Hubbard. While I learned how to "demo", I quickly became "fast flow" so I wouldn't have to waste all of that time doing such crap. I could quickly envision a "demo" in my head - no need to take the time to go through the motions "out there". The idea of doing demos was entirely useless to me. :confused2:

The notion of a skipped gradient is common sense. Of course, if you don't learn a basic or prerequisite, you will have trouble with the later aspects of the subject that depend on the earlier.

The "physical manifestations" of the "barriers to study" are STUPID! That a person would be concerned with and pay attention to "bodily reactions" to determine whether or not he or she "understands" something is absurd. There were MANY times when I was on some course, and I "suppressed yawns". I knew full well that the yawn had NOTHING to do with what I was studying. But if the supervisor saw you, "what is your MU"? Or, "do need to demo more"?

Notions such as "the only reason a person gives up the study of a subject is because of MUs" is NUTS.

Hubbard grazes on an idea that is VERY important, but which he never sufficiently expanded upon. He got the idea from General Semantics (where the idea is much better explored).

An aim of ANY student should be to connect 1) IDEAS and THEORY with the 2) actual situations and events out in the real world of observable behavior.

In General Semantics this is known as coming down the ladder of abstraction and dealing with SPECIFIC examples and cases of ACTUAL behaviors.

Hubbard suggested this on a study tape (which few remember, and few do).

If you have trouble making sense of some IDEA ask these two questions:

1. How can it be or how is it that way? Give EXAMPLES.

2. How is it NOT that way? Give examples.

This encourages a person to CONNECT the realm of thought (which is always to some degree abstract and vague) to the DETAILS of observable events, situations and scenarios. But of course, Hubbard could NOT allow or encourage people to REALLY do that in Scientology, because if they did, they would "see through" many of Hubbard's ideas. because, MANY of the IDEAS in Scientology cannot and do not connect up well with honest observations of details, specifics and actual realities.

If you honestly try to connect SPECIFICS with these sort of ideas, you will come up BLANK:

1. Scientology is a workable spiritual technology.

2. Scientology makes OTs.

3. A Clear has perfect recall.

4. You future depends entirely with what YOU do with Sceintology NOW.

5. If Scientology doesn't make it, our civilization has no chance of making it.

6. Any person who dislikes or attacks Scientology must be a suppressive person.

7. It is a Suppressive Act to talk critically of Scientology or Scientologists to the press.

These are just STUPID ideas, that for the most part, CANNOT ever connect up well to OBSERVABLE REAL BEHAVIORS of REAL THINGS. These are largely imaginary, and what Study Tech does is gets suckers to ACCEPT such nonsense as true.

I think the idea of a "checksheet" IS a good idea. Setting out the study of any suibject in some proper sequence is sensible. The idea of twinning to help another with theory in any subject can be helpful.

Some have mentioned context. This is vital, and a person should be familiar with this idea and how it relates to concepts. While science in the past has operated with a tendency to examine the "small parts", what is being seen now is that the PATTERNS and RELATIONSHIPS are what really matter. How the parts are all organized together is what is key. How the parts are arranged is what gives any thing its actual identity and "personality".

For example, that is true for molecules. All elements are made up of the same "building blocks" (electrons, protons, etc.), yet depending on HOW these building blocks are ARRANGED, the properties vary wildly. It is ALL in the organization - or context - how the parts are put together and how they are arranged together.

For example, the word "answer" might mean 1) what a person responds in reply to a question, or 2) the solution to a problem on a test. The ONLY way you can know what the words "means" is IN an exact context. It has "all meanings" if there is no context. Any single word has a potential for meaning, and this exact meaning will "fall out of the many possibilities" (like a quantum state) when a specific context is defined by using the word in some sentence. See? Until a specific case is provided, which creates the context, the word has all or no meaning. :ohmy: :yes:

Billy gave the wrong answer to the math equation on the test.

His mother yelled, "answer me now, or you are grounded".

THIS understanding is FAR more important than a great deal of the crap Hubbard yaps about. And getting this understanding has very little to do with nutty notions like ARC.

See, Hubbard USED Study Tech as part of a strict system of indoctrination (brain-washing). And, while it may have decent uses outside of the context of the Church of Scientology, to be useful and valid it would have to be 1) stripped of all the STUPID ideas, and 2) integrated with OTHER valid and useful information on study.

But, really, the notion of "technology" is a scam perpetrated by Hubbard. Anybody who actually thinks that "study tech" involves a "technology" like the technologies of electronics or intergrated circuit design, is a total fucking doofus. I have found that people who buy into and think with such ideas are LOST in an intricate web of strange significances (ideas, concepts, meanings, etc.). Such people refuse to balance mass and significance, and remain largely isolated on an island of thinkingness that remains forever disconnected from detailed observations of REAL people, events and situations.
 
I don't how people get so worked up about Study Tech. ...

You just published ONE post (among several others) on a public board consisting of ....

lines 65
words 1245
characters (with spaces) 7088
characters (no spaces) 5812
bytes 7088

... on the topic. Maybe you should ask yourself?


Mark A. Baker
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
..

Posting in EPIC thread.

My take-away from the discussion, thus far, is wonderment at how anyone can honestly state that the Xenu story is supposed to be taken metaphorically when the study of the tech leading up to it has to be understood. Word. By. Word. Is there a clearer definition of "literal"?
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
..

Posting in EPIC thread.

My take-away from the discussion, thus far, is wonderment at how anyone can honestly state that the Xenu story is supposed to be taken metaphorically when the study of the tech leading up to it has to be understood. Word. By. Word. Is there a clearer definition of "literal"?



Exactly!

But, Scientology has its own dictionary. And its own special words, many of which are made up and have no real-world correspondent, like the Hubbard word SuperLiteracy.

REFERENCE: SuperLiteracy

The cult also has the HUBBARD LAW OF COMMOTION, a corollary of which is the:

HUBBARD LAW OF WORD CLEARING: 1. That study technology that utilizes dictionaries to define each meaning of a word and use it in sentences until the point of full conceptual understanding and with enough practice the attainment of Super Literacy (and Super Literal-acy). 2. That study technology that addresses a SuperLiterate who yet still has disagreements with Hubbard's technology, advancing them to an even higher state of Super Allegor-acy, wherein they transcend the MEST-bound meanings of words and perceive their true, ARC-ful and ethical essence in the theta universe, in proper alignment with the Founder's (and/or a bigger being in Scientology management's) wishes. [Example: A Superliterate student on OT III must be able to recite and demonstrate the exact & literal, word-for-word sequence of events 75M years ago where Xenu implanted trillions of body thetans and transported them to Teegeack. After the Scientologist has completed the auditing and removal of all Body Thetans, they achieve Allegor-acy, a skill very useful during radio interviews when asked what their beliefs are about Xenu.]
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
HOW TO COMPLETE THE BRIDGE IN 3 MINUTES

...


Here is HOW and WHY the "study tech" doesn't work.

And it is a very useful demonstration, because it shortens the time to do the Bridge to Total Freedom from decades to approximately 3 minutes.

A "wog" gets body-routed in from the street.

(elapsed time thirty-nine seconds)

They are 8C-ed to buy a book. Book 1, of course.

DIANETICS

(elapsed time: One minute and forty-five seconds)

They read the heading under the title.

The Modern Science
of Mental Health.



DMSMH_1st_ed.jpg


(elapsed time: Two minutes and seventeen seconds)

They spot the 4th word on the cover and look it up in a dictionary, clearing it to full conceptual understanding.

DIANETICS
The Modern Science
of Mental Health.

They remark to the bookstore officer:

"Hey, I didn't know this was a science! Cool!
Can I see the scientific research and studies?"

(elapsed time: Two minutes and forty-two seconds)

The bookstore officer answers:

"No."

(elapsed time: Two minutes and forty-five seconds)

The new Scientologist takes his charge card back and says:

"Thanks anyways. Buh-Bye."

(elapsed time: three minutes and zero seconds)
 

onthepes

Patron with Honors
...


The idea that Scientologists know the "tech" of how to study or even are able to "clear" words is very easily disprovable.

A Scientologist CANNOT clear many words. It is impossible for them to do so without blowing Scientology. If you doubt this, try to get a Scientologist to use their "study tech" to clear the word cult. Or the word clear itself.

There is a natural law regarding this phenomenon:


HUBBARD LAW OF 10: Even if a Scientologist had 10 dictionaries, 10 word clearers and 10 pounds of clay, they could not possibly understand it. Because of the 10 points of KSW.


Have a Scientologist clear the word SP and then ask them if lifelong Sea Org members like Jefferson Hawkins or Mark Headley were SPs because they left the Sea Org and told the truth? Have them "clear" the definitions found in their two (2) respective books which memorialize how they were terrorized, imprisoned and beaten. A Scientologist cannot clear the word SP. They can only parrot what they are told to say an SP is and then parrot who they are told is an SP.

That actually makes Scientologists amongst the worst or "glibbest" students on the face of the earth.


After looking up a few words (I only went through all the ones beginning with R through to Z because I am lazy today) , I must say the only word to describe your post that seems apt is "shithot".

You are so right about SPs. When I did the PTS/SP - yes i was the only one out of 12 on the board in the courseroom to make it - I thoroughly got what an SP was. It happened to be a one of the staff I worked with and I could not really identify the definition with wogs in my life. This person was a real piece of work, of which I could write up a 5 page post but may get a headache doing so. I suffered 4 years of personal pain and anguish at the hands of this person and it was only just before I left staff that 2 senior terminals validated my cognition on this person.

You see NOTHING ever really gets handled in a little Org. If you are unhappy it is just "no case on post". The most ridiculous concept I could imagine. Well Ron did have a lively imagination I guess.

But if I had expressed this revelation about this staff member, I would have had to do a retread.

The likes of the Headleys, Scobees, Magoos etc are not SPs. They are just decent people with a good deal of life experience in Scientology. They are those whose opinion I respect because they have been there, as have many others who have posted here.
 

Winston Smith

Flunked Scientology
Surprisingly, there actually is technology associated with many endeavors. Take an automobile engine. You need fuel, spark and combustion to start the process. That combustion must be in a confined chamber, and the resulting force created must turn a camshaft. That rotating camshaft energy must be efficiently transferred to the drive shaft which must in turn efficiently turn the wheels. All those little things are the technology. I fail to see where looking up a word constitutes any sort of technology.

Especially when I look at the total uselessness of what is produced by "studying" scienoweenie words. Imagine what we all could have accomplished by going into useful endeavors.
 
Top