Veda
Sponsor
Not so. It came from one of his links, and everything posted is from groups he promotes.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=88306&postcount=331
Not so. It came from one of his links, and everything posted is from groups he promotes.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=88306&postcount=331
gomorrhan
Gold Meritorious Patron
I clicked the link you presented, it took me to a post at the top of the previous page to this one, and not to one of his links. Perhaps in the past he linked to that site, I don't know. There are so many sites, now, calling themselves "freezone", that it's hard to keep up. Guess I picked the wrong week to quit drinking tequila.
Pixie
Crusader
Whoa...first time reading this thread. Whoa. Here it is, more scientology insanity. Never mind the 'bad' about CofS because of what goes inside to destroy staff and then the public, there are actually people calling themselves 'freezoners' on an 'ex scn' message board just carrying on the kool aid beliefs.
There just is no excuse , it is disgusting. So obviously you all fz's don't believe all the data about LRH the sociopath, you dont believe any data published about the black magic, communistic views, the real source of DN and SCN...wow....blind as bats-the whole lot of you FZ's.
I am in awe that you all fz's buy into the fantasy and not the facts. You are messing with fire, you are messing with people, you are messing up.
Go get a real job, stop trying to play god, wake frreakin up. You are a cult outside the bigger cult...no difference--none at all. Can you say insane?
I need a beer--I cannot believe you people are for real.
From a REAL Ex Scn still trying to recover from people like you.
My thoughts exactly
I couldn't agree more Big balls Boldgirl, Big balls 
The cult outside the bigger cult, what's more to be said. 
Veda
Sponsor
It doesnt look like a site... huh?
You mean this is supposed to be confidential information - why not just say so?
You promote Ron's Orgs, which includes the Admin and Tech Briefings and other Briefings.
http://www.arovast.co.uk
http://www.arovast.co.uk/CBR_Tech_Briefing1.pdf
http://www.arovast.co.uk/CBR_Admin_Briefing1.pdf
A more extensive list of Ron's Orgs Briefings, etc.:
http://www.galac-patra.org/english.html
The www.freezoneorg. site needs to get its PR Tech IN.
http://www.freezone.org
http://www.freezone.org/cbr/sector9/e_sob19.htm
http://www.freezone.org/cbr/sector9/e_sob20.htm
This is so tedious. And yet here you are, a PR man for a devious cult operation. It just keeps going, doesn't it?
Pixie
Crusader
I feel the point she is making is that at the end of the day, Hubbard was an evil madman, and anyone who worked with Hubbard on the ship will attest to this, therefore, why would anyone want to read or indeed believe anything he has written. The 'freezone' as it's called, appears to me to be some kind of splinter group, same stuff, different label. Ok Emma may have invited them to post, but I do see quite a bit of 'advertising' which I think is taking advantage and to me smack of a hard neck. For sure Fluff, we are all entitled to an opinion, and so is Boldgirl, you have not had her experience, however she is entitled to feel the way she feels, she has, from her story, indeed 'earned' that right to her anger and frustration. To say you are not in a cult seems a bit weird to me, I thought we had already established that the CofS is a cult, therefore, if you in the 'freezerzone' are infact applying Hubbard's 'tech', then what is that? :confused2: As many of us know, it can take years to dissolve the 'cultic personality', so my own personal take on that is, if one is still studying the words of a madman, how can one know they too are not wearing this cultic coat? I mean you can't really call it thinking for yourself when you are to an extent being told what to do and how to think by the very words you are studying. These discussions are very healthy indeed..
Neo
Silver Meritorious Patron
My thoughts exactly
yes, Boldgirl is bold
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
I assume you are talking about moral rights rather than legal ones.
I see it as a matter between consenting adults. You are talking about authorities granting a license, as if such authorities could be trusted. Let's look at a few:
The FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, which is an extension of Big Pharma.
The AMA, the American Medical Association, again mostly interested in protecting vested interests, and squashing any alternative/complementary therapies that don't involve the "standard tech" of brutal surgery or toxic drugs.
I could go on, but the point is that on this planet right now the "authorities" are usually corrupt at the top. The lower down you go, the less corrupt, rather like the CofS.
So who, Boldgirl, would you trust to license those people of good will (mostly) who are trying to help their fellow man with mental/spiritual technology that may or may not have something to do with Scientology?
Paul
gomorrhan
Gold Meritorious Patron
Here we go: if you are studying the words of a madman, then you must be part of a cult. Okay: Jesus was a madman. He thought he was the son of God Almighty (not that such a figure exists), he thought the devil was talking to him, he thought that angels sat on his freaking shoulders. If that isn't a classic paranoid, with manic tendencies, then I don't know what is! And yet, large numbers of people take the words of this nutter as the word of GOD. And then they kill people who disagree that those words were anything but the fantasy of a lunatic, who was rightly nailed to a tree for disturbing the peace.
Cult. Following a madman.
Frankly, Mr. Shankly, it's not the messenger, it's the message. I agree that parts of the message are beyond suspect. I agree that Hubbard wasn't entirely balanced, and sometimes was a domineering prick. Does this mean that he didn't promote things that were of great value, when it suited him to do so? If Hubbard makes a statement concerned with morality, or gives advice about how to live my life, I ignore it. If he's talking about how the mind works, I tend to listen. Even if he's nuts, he seems to have been able to control the minds of a very large group of people. He also seems to have understood a great deal about how to free those people from any bonds he didn't want them to have (mentally). Do I trust the bugger? NO! But I am interested in what he had to say. Would I do something just because he said so? NO! But if it made sense to me, I would do it, based on it's coherence with prior things I had done that he'd suggested that had helped me. It's a minefield, but for a while I thought it was the only thing going. Luckily that's not the case now, and perhaps never was.
The internet has freed me to read and follow up leads on subjects that otherwise would likely never have entered my sphere. The internet has made it possible to get esoteric knowledge as easily as one gets any other kind of knowledge. It has made the Church of Scientology obsolete as a filtering system it claims to be of valuable information and methods.
My point is that we live in different times, now. It's easy to say that we should all have known better, but HOW? Really! Boards like this one didn't exist!
While I wish I had stumbled upon a less toxic purveyor of the truths I found in scientology, I'm glad I was at least exposed to them. If people are determined to follow Hubbard and only Hubbard, well, I think that's a mistake! But would I STOP them? Never. I would just tell them that Hubbard's sources are now freely available online, and many modern thinkers have put things together better than he did, and come up with (gods forbid) better ideas, as well. Those who STILL insist on going through a Church of Scientology experience, well; via con dios! Most people who are searchers and philosophers will simply read his sources, or the modern stuff, and come to their own conclusions, I'd think.
Cult. Following a madman.
Frankly, Mr. Shankly, it's not the messenger, it's the message. I agree that parts of the message are beyond suspect. I agree that Hubbard wasn't entirely balanced, and sometimes was a domineering prick. Does this mean that he didn't promote things that were of great value, when it suited him to do so? If Hubbard makes a statement concerned with morality, or gives advice about how to live my life, I ignore it. If he's talking about how the mind works, I tend to listen. Even if he's nuts, he seems to have been able to control the minds of a very large group of people. He also seems to have understood a great deal about how to free those people from any bonds he didn't want them to have (mentally). Do I trust the bugger? NO! But I am interested in what he had to say. Would I do something just because he said so? NO! But if it made sense to me, I would do it, based on it's coherence with prior things I had done that he'd suggested that had helped me. It's a minefield, but for a while I thought it was the only thing going. Luckily that's not the case now, and perhaps never was.
The internet has freed me to read and follow up leads on subjects that otherwise would likely never have entered my sphere. The internet has made it possible to get esoteric knowledge as easily as one gets any other kind of knowledge. It has made the Church of Scientology obsolete as a filtering system it claims to be of valuable information and methods.
My point is that we live in different times, now. It's easy to say that we should all have known better, but HOW? Really! Boards like this one didn't exist!
While I wish I had stumbled upon a less toxic purveyor of the truths I found in scientology, I'm glad I was at least exposed to them. If people are determined to follow Hubbard and only Hubbard, well, I think that's a mistake! But would I STOP them? Never. I would just tell them that Hubbard's sources are now freely available online, and many modern thinkers have put things together better than he did, and come up with (gods forbid) better ideas, as well. Those who STILL insist on going through a Church of Scientology experience, well; via con dios! Most people who are searchers and philosophers will simply read his sources, or the modern stuff, and come to their own conclusions, I'd think.
Vinaire
Sponsor
Whoa...first time reading this thread. Whoa. Here it is, more scientology insanity. Never mind the 'bad' about CofS because of what goes inside to destroy staff and then the public, there are actually people calling themselves 'freezoners' on an 'ex scn' message board just carrying on the kool aid beliefs.
There just is no excuse , it is disgusting. So obviously you all fz's don't believe all the data about LRH the sociopath, you dont believe any data published about the black magic, communistic views, the real source of DN and SCN...wow....blind as bats-the whole lot of you FZ's.
I am in awe that you all fz's buy into the fantasy and not the facts. You are messing with fire, you are messing with people, you are messing up.
Go get a real job, stop trying to play god, wake frreakin up. You are a cult outside the bigger cult...no difference--none at all. Can you say insane?
I need a beer--I cannot believe you people are for real.
From a REAL Ex Scn still trying to recover from people like you.
Have a look from FZ viewpoint. There may be something new to learn, or some fixed ideas to shed.
.
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
I think boldgirl is making a very strong point, different from the one I was making. I was saying, "hey, like everyone has the right to practice their religion, as long as you aren't abusing people."
But her point was much more important - messing with peoples' minds takes ACCOUNTABILITY.
Double-blind studies, peer reviewed journals, legal licenses which can be pulled... these are all mechanisms in our society for responsible and sincere practitioners. And something that any Scientology-like practitioner has always avoided like the plague.
You're right, boldgirl.
I knew a guy who was very depressed. He made the fatal mistake of going to a Scientologist for help, rather than a real mental health pro with the training and resources to help someone suffering from severe depression. He's dead now because of that.
Scientology and its offshoots offer fake and untested help for real problems people have.
This is one of its biggest dangers.
Your point is very well made.
Thanks for making it.
But her point was much more important - messing with peoples' minds takes ACCOUNTABILITY.
Double-blind studies, peer reviewed journals, legal licenses which can be pulled... these are all mechanisms in our society for responsible and sincere practitioners. And something that any Scientology-like practitioner has always avoided like the plague.
You're right, boldgirl.
I knew a guy who was very depressed. He made the fatal mistake of going to a Scientologist for help, rather than a real mental health pro with the training and resources to help someone suffering from severe depression. He's dead now because of that.
Scientology and its offshoots offer fake and untested help for real problems people have.
This is one of its biggest dangers.
Your point is very well made.
Thanks for making it.
Free to shine
Shiny & Free
Yes, well said Boldgirl!
There is plenty of room on an ex-scientologist message board for such bold assertions.Alanzo, I knew a guy who stopped taking his Diabetes treatments because of what Hubbard promised him. He died in his early twenties, because he stopped his medication.
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
So who gets to make the decisions, Alanzo? In theory, all the mechanisms you mention are great. But do some research on how they work in practice and you should find they are not so great after all. And I am talking about all three of the mechanisms you mention. They are mostly used to protect the status quo, not to protect "the public" from dangerous practices.
Take the subject of mercury amalgams, used for almost a century in dentistry to replace bits of decayed teeth. Today, somehow, the mercury that is so toxic that by law it requires special handling by the dentist before or after use, magically becomes perfectly safe when it is placed in your mouth for decades! But the national dental associations, who license dentists, say mercury is completely safe. Realistically, if they said they have known how toxic mercury is for decades, the legal liability would be immense, so they can't. Ethics? Pfffft.
But back to the mind. Even assuming some genuine ethics level, who even knows enough to license a practitioner in general terms? The experts in any one field would know enough to examine and certify practitioners in that field, i.e. it is not so hard for them to state that some intern in their own field is competent to deliver Scientology Listing and Nulling; or Reiki; or Barbara Brennan-style energy-field manipulation; or some style of Hypnosis; or Past-Life Regression; or whatever.
But what qualifies someone to be a meta-examiner over ALL of these?
Paul
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
Basically, they should know when NOT to treat someone and to what specialist to refer them.
For instance, they should be trained to spot signs of severe depression and be compelled to refer them to those who have the resources to handle that.
The Baker Act, which so many Scientologists see as such a threat, has saved many lives.
This solution would probably have saved the life of the person I knew who received fake help from Scientology for his severe depression.
What if someone came to you, Paul, with symptoms of severe depression?
1. Do you know what those symptoms are?
2. If so, what would you do with them?
3. Do you think that you and others who offer mental help to people have a responsibility to spot symptoms of potentially dangerous afflictions, and to see to it that those with the training and resources to handle such are contacted?
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
That is fair enough, Alanzo. I agree with that point. I do very little one-to-one work these days. My entry-level application at www.yawnmachine.com carries this (and a bit more) on the front page in red:
My applications are intended for average people, not those with severe mental problems, and I do not pretend to have professional qualifications in the mental health field. If someone came to me with severe depression, I would not want to get involved professionally. I would simply say that I was not qualified to personally help them on an individual basis. I would also say that it was possible they might get some help from one or more of my online applications, but it would be at their own risk. I did have someone contact me a year ago like this wanting to get some sessions from me, in response to an ad I had up at the time, and that was exactly what I told him.
I should probably upgrade the disclaimers and warnings on my sites.
To answer your questions specifically, by the numbers:
1. Yes
2. As detailed above.
3. That's a tricky one. Yes to spotting the symptoms--that's obvious. "See to it that those with the training and resources to handle such are contacted." "Handle such" is open to much debate. "Address such" is easy, starting with one's local doctor, who will refer to specialists as needed who will prescribe drugs or whatever. "See to it" implies ensuring it will happen, like doing it oneself or having one's assistant (hah!) do it. If some stranger contacts me and says they are feeling very depressed and have been for a while and can I help them, after declining to be involved on an individual basis professionally I am not going to take on some kind of civic duty to care for this person more than a short conversation and maybe a phone call or two. Would I call a local "Mental Health Hotline" and say that Joe Smith at such-and-such a phone number or address, that I wouldn't necessarily even know without digging for it, could use their help, without the individual concerned even knowing about it? Probably not, unless it was so dangerous-sounding that I would consider calling the police about it.
Would I do so with their permission? I had never thought about it before. Looking at it now....crap, I don't know. The uncertainty comes from not knowing how the person would be treated, if they would be better off or not. It is not black and white.
Paul
Alanzo
Bardo Tulpa
You are an excellent example of how Doubt equals honesty, responsibility, and good intentions.
Thanks Paul.
You clearly can be trusted to do your best for people.
Pixie
Crusader
The thing here is, a lot of the time, auditing as such is not done on a self determined basis, particularly if you were on staff. Almost every single day of my key to life course, I was 'ordered' in for a type of 'sec check'. Staff are frequently called in for full 'sec checks' just to intimidate them! I remember being in London seeing these huge ads on the back of buses, 'Think for Yourself', but you are not 'allowed' to think for yourself because as soon as you try to do that, you are accused of 'frying other fish', sent to ethics for 'handlings' or ordered to write up your overts and witholds! The internet did not exist when all this abuse took place and is still taking place, therefore people had no way of looking from the other side. They only had what they were told it would do for them and what they read, and what they read, oftentimes contradicted itself to a massive degree. I don't feel it's a 'trip', I feel that as a human, no one would want anyone else to go through that hell either. A free society? I haven't seen any of that yet, then again, perhaps I'm on the wrong planet. :confused2:
Veda
Sponsor
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=66353&postcount=19
They're just words, but there are two categories: 'Freezone', and then 'Independent Field', and there's a reason for that.
Ask Xenu, he'll explain it to you.
gomorrhan
Gold Meritorious Patron
Exactly what virus or bacteria caused the depression? What gene sequence established the trait? What brain injury was present? What, none of the above? Once we know that, we'll know what medication to prescribe. Until then, I, personally, will help people focus and work on things that they perceive to be their problems. And no, I don't tend to work with people who are severely impaired - such people aren't referred to me, they are referred to established caretakers. My function isn't to "heal the sick", so much as to help the well get more out of their lives. It is no more my job to spot a sick person than it is yours!
Similar threads
- Locked
