The Intentions of L Ron Hubbard

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Has Alex done so, specifically? Has he justified them?

Yes. Read this particular thread. That's what is under discussion regarding Alex. Nothing else.

And, no, you didn't make that accusation of him screwing up the people on this board. That was said by someone else.

It is not happening here.

So why bring it up here?

To derail the specific discussion taking place, or what?
 
Oh contraire, Monsieur, what would you call item "B" in this post?

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/962586-post118/

A simple acknowledgement of the facts of his life. Something with which you likely have a very hard time personally. :whistling:

Like it or lump it, a great number of people over the years have experienced immense personal benefit as a result of the variety of actions undertaken by LRH in promoting scientology. Not a few were former close associates of LRH. Many of them are willing to openly acknowledge those positive contributions while at the same time fully acknowledging the less wholesome aspects of his life, character, and actions.

The fact is not every single action of LRH's life can be interpreted as part of an evil master plan to conquer & enslave humanity howsoever much you may wish it. You are free to hate him for all that you are worth. But you only disfigure your own "soul" by doing so.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. I find it characteristic of the sort of behavior to be expected from WWP regulars that a post I made on ESMB was picked up and placed on WWP without first obtaining permission. But then what else should one expect from the Home of Thunderdome? C'est la vie.
 
A simple acknowledgement of the facts of his life. Something with which you likely have a very hard time personally. :whistling:

Like it or lump it, a great number of people over the years have experienced immense personal benefit as a result of the variety of actions undertaken by LRH in promoting scientology. Not a few were former close associates of LRH. Many of them are willing to openly acknowledge those positive contributions while at the same time fully acknowledging the less wholesome aspects of his life, character, and actions.

The fact is not every single action of LRH's life can be interpreted as part of an evil master plan to conquer & enslave humanity howsoever much you may wish it. You are free to hate him for all that you are worth. But you only disfigure your own "soul" by doing so.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. I find it characteristic of the sort of behavior to be expected from WWP regulars that a post I made on ESMB was picked up and placed on WWP without first obtaining permission. But then what else should one expect from the Home of Thunderdome? C'est la vie.

Thank you for indulging us with some flimflam, I knew you wouldn't disappoint, it always makes for good comedy
 

Mystic

Crusader
BTW

By the way, there is a whole world of consciousness quite the other side of "intention" and it's not even unintentional.
 

bluewiggirl

Patron Meritorious
Mark A. Baker
p.s. I find it characteristic of the sort of behavior to be expected from WWP regulars that a post I made on ESMB was picked up and placed on WWP without first obtaining permission. But then what else should one expect from the Home of Thunderdome? C'est la vie.

you posted it on the internet, in a public forum. If you're gonna baw that it was reposted I think you may need to get off of our series of tubes already.
 

FinallyFree

Gold Meritorious Patron
[/QUOTE]I agree. His Affrimations are our best evidence as to both his intentions and his problems pre-scientology.

One could dismiss them as old, no longer relevant when he created Scn, the rambling aspirations of a young man who later matured. etc.

Except that so much of Scn was still concerned with the topics addressed in his affirmations, such as control of men, control of entities, making money, being admired, controlling and predicting people's psychology, etc. etc.

And of course we also have the evidence of those who worked closely with him in the early development of Scn, who saw first-hand his intentions. (Sara Northrup, Nibs, Helen O'Brien, etc). Some of whom Hubbard apologists work hard to discredit. I can feel the fingers twitching even as my words are read. Twitching to post derisive reports about Nibs or Sara.[/QUOTE]

I have read about Nibs and Sara. I also read Sara's letter regarding hubbards abuse and insanity, his kidnapping of his daughter, etc.

I truly just do not understand anyone who stays in scientology after reading the affirmations.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
More to the point; the person about whom you made your lengthy & self-justificatory "response" was not in any way referred to in my post.

Mark A. Baker

Right. And so it was just a little trick.

You took a person you knew named Dave out of thin air and said he worked at Int and that he was a great guy.

And we'd been talking all along about another guy named Dave who worked at Int.

So you inserted your little Dave in there to make no point whatsoever.

Is this all you've got now?

Has Scientology been so thoroughly debunked now that this is all you can do to stick up for it?
 

Björkist

Silver Meritorious Patron
simmerdown.jpg


It's been said that to know something fully, one has to be it...

Alanzo = L. Ron Hubbard?
 

Mystic

Crusader
One could intentionally intend an intentional intention, in a rather intentional manner of course.
 
Right. And so it was just a little trick.

Oh well spotted!

Each and everyone of my posts is made solely for the express purpose of "tricking" you or some other intemperate "critic" into some rash & foolish action! How nefarious of me! :clap: :lol:

You are being "full of yourself", Alanzo. A not uncommon occurrence, I fear. No doubt it comes from viewing yourself as a "great champion of the people". It gets to be habit forming and impairs one's judgement. Reminds me of someone else, whose name unfortunately slips my mind at the moment, but whose actual intentions are often subject to discussion .... :)


BTW: Nor, for the record, did I ever say Dave was at Int. You really need to improve your reading skills, or at least refer to the prior posts to which you respond. The last I heard Dave was head of CC. Where that actually places him on the Co$ org board I neither know nor care.


Mark A. Baker
 

Blue Spirit

Silver Meritorious Patron
Two Condradictory Intentions

I have read a lot of tech and see fundamentally in his native personality

(in valence) Hubbard was very well intended and his tech as-ises the charge

of case which lightens a being's load and therefore moves him higher in tone.

Just last night I was reading PAB #2, for instance, and found some workable

processes. Of course this dates from 1953.


The problem is he never had the humility or confront for his own case

which threw automatic "monkey wrenches" into the tech leaving much of it

workable, but casting doubt on all of it for some, none of it for others, and

for the most intelligent a tough job of sorting the wheat from the chaff of

resolving the workable from the unworkable.


His ethics of not getting his case handled diminished his mental and physical

health to the point of substantially shortening his research time track and

apparently leaving the reasearch incomplete, as well as needing some

revision or streamlining. He seemed to lose his way as the case brought him

down in the end.


Some have been able to sort out this minefield to achieve good case results.

These processors seem quite rare.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
To derail the specific discussion taking place, or what?

That's the whole problem with you and me. You post too many accusations and personalized commentary. I'm just a contributor who posts according to her own viewpoint, how things seem to me. I post because I have things I want to say in response to other things that are said on the forum. Sometimes I do everything right, sometimes not. But there is no plot to derail anything. Posting accusations and speculations about other contributors won't help you or anyone else Keep The Trains Running on Time- which is something many critics (usually the ones who post personalized commentary) appear to be quite concerned about. I didn't come here to be bitched out. (Neither did Alex or anyone else.) I wonder why, after all this time, you haven't figured out that I'm not going to put up with it. I've certainly discussed that with you a-plenty-both publicly and back channel. There's not a good reason for you to do that.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Oh well spotted!

Each and everyone of my posts is made solely for the express purpose of "tricking" you or some other intemperate "critic" into some rash & foolish action! How nefarious of me! :clap: :lol:

You are being "full of yourself", Alanzo. A not uncommon occurrence, I fear. No doubt it comes from viewing yourself as a "great champion of the people". ...

Of course I'm full of myself.

Wouldn't you be if you were me?
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
That's the whole problem with you and me. You post too many accusations and personalized commentary. I'm just a contributor who posts according to her own viewpoint, how things seem to me. I post because I have things I want to say in response to other things that are said on the forum. Sometimes I do everything right, sometimes not. But there is no plot to derail anything. Posting accusations and speculations about other contributors won't help you or anyone else Keep The Trains Running on Time- which is something many critics (usually the ones who post personalized commentary) appear to be quite concerned about. I didn't come here to be bitched out. (Neither did Alex or anyone else.) I wonder why, after all this time, you haven't figured out that I'm not going to put up with it. I've certainly discussed that with you a-plenty-both publicly and back channel. There's not a good reason for you to do that.

You posted this in this thread:

I just read a post today that accused Alex of fucking up everyone on this board because of his posts. So yeah, clearly some people don't think he has a right to his opinion and/or to express it.

And you implied that this was me. If you did not imply that this was me, it's appearance here in this thread looked like an attempt at shifting the point of the discussion from justifying the overts of Scientology to denying the right of Scientologists to speak their mind.

So I asked you outright if that is what you were doing.

Because otherwise it does not make any sense.

Fluffy: I need to tell you something:

Put me back on Ignore now.

Just do it right now.

It will be much better for both of us.
 
Top