The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It was actually me who came up with the term 'late cogniters' and I make no apology for it. I used it to describe some of the people who have turned up at Marty's Cult, who took years and years to notice the glaringly obvious criminal nature of the Cof$, and decide to withdraw their support from it. The sad thing is that in many cases, they continue to be Fanatic Fundamentalist Scientologists.

I define a Fanatic Fundamentalist Scientologist as being someone who believes in the Scientology Trinity:

1. The infallability or near-infallability of LRH.
2. KSW.
3. The existence of a Scientology Standard Tech.

Whether they are in the Cof$ or out makes little difference - they are still Fanatic Fundamentalists. Those still in the Cof$ would be 'the uncognited' maybe.

As regards the people who post on this thread, I don't feel that the term late cogniters or Fanatic Fundamentalist Scientologist applies. I would say that you are:

The Partially Decompressed,

because you mostly reject 1, 2, and 3, but still think that auditing is good stuff and like to ruminate upon it. I think there's no great harm in that. No more than the flogging of any other dead horse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e92vSua8XJY

Nice summary! I personally now reject 1, 2, and 3. I like to ruminate about it because the topic is so damn interesting. Look at the Apollo thread and all the fantastic beings who have exchanged ideas here. 435,000 views and nearly 13,000 posts in less than 2 years, just ruminating about this topic.

We have given a safe forum to many brilliant people who were previously reluctant to express themselves.

On point #3, I feel that while it is not standard tech, there is quite a bit in the tech that will help people if it is delivered in a friendly and helpful manner in a safe environmnet. I would not call it "standard tech". Whatever is done could be called just counseling.

As you say, those of us who do some counseling are not hurting anyone. To the contrary, a lot of people are getting a lot of help by receiving this type of counseling.
Lakey

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

<snip> ..... but still think that auditing is good stuff and like to ruminate upon it. I think there's no great harm in that. No more than the flogging of any other dead horse.
<snip>

I'd agree there is no great harm in one flogging a dead horse, but, feeding select pieces of that dead horse to others......ain't that some weird doings ?

 

[Leon]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes, I reckon you've got it right here. Especially this part:

For me the primary distinction between those who 'bought the bullsh!t' and those who did not has far more to do with the individual's native critical thinking abilities. Those who possessed an independent ability to examine data critically from BEFORE their involvement with the church tended to continue to do so DURING their involvement. They were accordingly less inclined to be swept away by enthrusiasm with the group irrationality. Similarly, those for whom hubbard's work formed the primary foundation of their own abilty to reason critically tended to buy the standard line lock, stock, & barrel.

Mark A. Baker

What I meant by "trained" though was not how many courses or to what level on the Grade Chart a person was pressured through producing stats, but rather to what degree did he/she self-determinedly study and strive to understand what the underlying human condition was that the tech was attempting to deal with, and how would the tech do that. And to what extent were they able to go further with Hubbard's written works and delve into the underlying common factors and simplicities etc of it all. That sort of thing.

But you siad it more simply than I do. thanks.

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

That's got to be the funniest post of the day

responding to my quote " never tell lies with PR."


Please expand on this.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

responding to my quote " never tell lies with PR."


Please expand on this.

More expansion?

 

[Veda]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

One more time, with gusto :

Hubbard begins his 'PR Series' by stating that Scientologists should never tell lies in PR. As one studies his 'PR Series', and other related writings, one discoverers that that is a lie. Which may seem odd at first, until one realizes that one is, after all, studying Scientology.

Excerpts from a discussion:

#1: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=392325&postcount=38

#2: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=392327&postcount=39

#3: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=392331&postcount=40


"Statements one makes can be curved. 'She had a birthday party', becomes 'The delinquents inner circle gathered yesterday for a sex orgy and pretended to the police that it was a birthday party. No one was jailed'."

L. Ron Hubbard, 'PR Series 18'.


The 'PR Tech' thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?1911-PR-Tech&p=31474&viewfull=1

 

[Terril park]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

More expansion?

Thats Smillas que.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I'd agree there is no great harm in one flogging a dead horse, but, feeding select pieces of that dead horse to others......ain't that some weird doings ?

Are you joining the ranks of the vegetarians, Toad, or have you simply given up on your own exercise of freewill and power of choice in life?

What would truly be weird, even to the point of being wholly nonsensical & irresponsible, would be to fail to be selective in what one passes on to others.


Mark A. Baker

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Are you joining the ranks of the vegetarians, Toad, or have you simply given up on your own exercise of freewill and power of choice in life?

What would truly be weird, even to the point of being wholly nonsensical & irresponsible, would be to fail to be selective in what one passes on to others.


Mark A. Baker

Excellent point, MAB! Failing to be selective is one questionable feature of people who look at things the way Toady and Smila do.

The second point they share is their insistence on the "My way or the Highway" world view. The last time I looked, that is one of the major policies of C of S. The anti anything Scio crowd is enforcing one key platform of Hubbard's program without even realizing it, even when it is pointed out to them.

If they really want TOTAL and complete divergence from anything which is contained in Hubbard's policies, they must allow people with views slightly divergent from their own to hold their own beliefs without criticising them. Until they do that, they are not 100% ex scios as they claim to be. Instead, they fit neatly into the category which SMILA introduced a couple posts back, "The Partially Decompressed" i.e., they still continue to practice and enforce some of Hubbard's key policies.

Hopefully, they will be late cogniters and someday recongnize the folly of their ways.
Lakey

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Are you joining the ranks of the vegetarians, Toad, or have you simply given up on your own exercise of freewill and power of choice in life?

What would truly be weird, even to the point of being wholly nonsensical & irresponsible, would be to fail to be selective in what one passes on to others.


Mark A. Baker

Thank you for getting my point !

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Excellent point, MAB! Failing to be selective is one questionable feature of people who look at things the way Toady and Smila do.

The second point they share is their insistence on the "My way or the Highway" world view. The last time I looked, that is one of the major policies of C of S. The anti anything Scio crowd is enforcing one key platform of Hubbard's program without even realizing it, even when it is pointed out to them.

If they really want TOTAL and complete divergence from anything which is contained in Hubbard's policies, they must allow people with views slightly divergent from their own to hold their own beliefs without criticising them. Until they do that, they are not 100% ex scios as they claim to be. Instead, they fit neatly into the category which SMILA introduced a couple posts back, "The Partially Decompressed" i.e., they still continue to practice and enforce some of Hubbard's key policies.

Hopefully, they will be late cogniters and someday recongnize the folly of their ways.
Lakey

Yes, but, meanwhile, I'm not selling that shit called scn or any other flavored version of it.

I think you really are bright enough to know a lot better than my beleifs are " my way or the highway " but if you want to play that way, I'm game - really game to play it that way if you so insist.

Your call....

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes, but, meanwhile, I'm not selling that shit called scn or any other flavored version of it.

Show me a quote of mine where I am selling Scn so I can see what you are talking about.

I think you really are bright enough to know a lot better than my beleifs are " my way or the highway " but if you want to play that way, I'm game - really game to play it that way if you so insist.

Your call....

Toady, "au contraire mon frer". I maintain that you are selling Hubbard to some degree by practicing one of his key policies. Even stronger than that, you are ENFORCING one of his key policies. You allow no one room for any divergence from the opinion of you and your group without criticising them or making fun of them. That is right on point with what the C of $ does!

You can deny it all day long but it is your ACTIONS which show over and over that you do exactly that. Your words say you do not do it but your actions show otherwise. That is a fact. You and your buddies seem certain that you guys are infallible and those who don't agree 100% in lock step with you are wrong, late cogniters, partially deflated or whatever you want to call them.

Once you start allowing other people to express a view different from what you believe, then that will prove that you no longer enforce one of Hubbard's major tenet's. Anything short of that is just "smoke".

Contrary to what you claim above, that I want to play that way, I don't play that way at all. I allow all serious beliefs held with conviction to be expressed without calling the other party names or poking fun at them or giving them nicknames indicating that they are slow or stupid.
Lakey

 

[RogerB]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

My reply was most certainly not aimed and FoTi in particular. It was a general disagreement with what has apparently become the main overall driving aim of this board - which is to slag LRH. The value of any healing process for anyone anywhere lies in moving past the bad condition, learning from it - and in doing this, taking from it what is good while rejecting what is bad - and then creating a new and better life with the good.

Eternally dwelling on how bad LRH was, as many here seem so intent on, simply gets people into a mind-frame of victimhood and fixes them there. As I said earlier LRH was a bad dog, but the dog is now dead, so move on.

The Tech team where I was was we all knew and recognised that LRH was a bullshit-artist. A "typical American loud-mouth" if you will. We often laughed about it and the way he liked to trumpet his own horn and celebrate his "breakthroughs". We laughed, and then took what was worthwhile and used it. Unfortunately it seems that the less tech training a person has the deeper and more easily they fell into the trap of adulation and cultishness. We never did that. We never applauded his picture and we never wrote bullshit success stories. And I reckon none of the exes from our neck of the woods look back on the experience of the Org years with anything much different than gratefulness and amusement, no matter how hard those years were.

Yes, that's better . . . . . it has some specificity to it and it communicates fulsomely.

The original being a one-liner, and following FoTi's post getting her feelings and findings off, was easy to misapply as to who you referred to and easy to misunderstand as to intent.

Notwithstanding, however, there will always be folks on ESMB continuing to sort things out as to why things went out for them in $cn; and they will continue to be getting to grips with the fact that at its root was Hubbard's hidden and deceitful agenda and mad personal behavior . . . . this being the big hidden secret/MWH in the Cof$ that fooled so many of us.

So I say, let folks get it off their chest.

We folks who've long ago come to grips with things shouldn't inval those still coming to grips with it and expressing themselves. It is a wiser course of action to positively process them by helping them re-direct their attention to workable and use-able truths. This instead of knocking their expressing their realizations.

Rog

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes, that's better . . . . . it has some specificity to it and it communicates fulsomely.

The original being a one-liner, and following FoTi's post getting her feelings and findings off, was easy to misapply as to who you referred to and easy to misunderstand as to intent.

Notwithstanding, however, there will always be folks on ESMB continuing to sort things out as to why things went out for them in $cn; and they will continue to be getting to grips with the fact that at its root was Hubbard's hidden and deceitful agenda and mad personal behavior . . . . this being the big hidden secret/MWH in the Cof$ that fooled so many of us.

So I say, let folks get it off their chest.

We folks who've long ago come to grips with things shouldn't inval those still coming to grips with it and expressing themselves. It is a wiser course of action to positively process them by helping them re-direct their attention to workable and use-able truths. This instead of knocking their expressing their realizations.

Rog

This website isn't here to 'positively process people' as you put it, and your idea of what is 'positive' is just that - your idea. This site is here so that people can express their views about Scientology - both positive and negative. A lot of people don't want to be 'processed' or 'redirected', by you or anybody else. Let them go where they will. Ridicule is one of the most effective tools for dismantling the Scientology implant, so get used to it - it isn't going to go away.

What you consider useable and workable might look like sheer idiocy to someone else.

As regards your sugestion let folks get it off their chest, I just did.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Give it a break!

Yes, that's better . . . . . it has some specificity to it and it communicates fulsomely.

The original being a one-liner, and following FoTi's post getting her feelings and findings off, was easy to misapply as to who you referred to and easy to misunderstand as to intent.

Notwithstanding, however, there will always be folks on ESMB continuing to sort things out as to why things went out for them in $cn; and they will continue to be getting to grips with the fact that at its root was Hubbard's hidden and deceitful agenda and mad personal behavior . . . . this being the big hidden secret/MWH in the Cof$ that fooled so many of us.

So I say, let folks get it off their chest.

We folks who've long ago come to grips with things shouldn't inval those still coming to grips with it and expressing themselves. It is a wiser course of action to positively process them by helping them re-direct their attention to workable and use-able truths. This instead of knocking their expressing their realizations.

Rog

Do you really see ESMB as a place where people should get 'positively processed' by the likes of you Roger, and was the condescension meant as a joke?

Thought not.

Last time I checked you still hadn't achieved your cunning plan to become an opinion leader here (though you do have your very own smilie so I suppose I must grudgingly admit that you are gaining ground).






​

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Excellent point, MAB! Failing to be selective is one questionable feature of people who look at things the way Toady and Smila do.

You have the freedom to believe whatever you want and to express it here. I also have the right to express mine, and ridicule yours if I feel like it.

The second point they share is their insistence on the "My way or the Highway" world view. The last time I looked, that is one of the major policies of C of S. The anti anything Scio crowd is enforcing one key platform of Hubbard's program without even realizing it, even when it is pointed out to them.

Nonsense. Again, you can believe whatever you like, and express it as much and as often as you like.

If they really want TOTAL and complete divergence from anything which is contained in Hubbard's policies, they must allow people with views slightly divergent from their own to hold their own beliefs without criticising them. Until they do that, they are not 100% ex scios as they claim to be. Instead, they fit neatly into the category which SMILA introduced a couple posts back, "The Partially Decompressed" i.e., they still continue to practice and enforce some of Hubbard's key policies.

I never claimed to be 100% ex scio. In fact, I've never claimed to be anything.

Hopefully, they will be late cogniters and someday recongnize the folly of their ways.
Lakey

By realising that you have the shiny pieces sifted from the wreckage of Hubbard's bogus therapy?

As I said, you can believe whatever you like and post it in this forum. I can reply if I want to, and can enjoy heaping ridicule on it if I feel that it is silly. When it comes to people sifting through the wreckage of Hubbard's bogus therapy to find something 'shiny and clean' I often do feel like it.

So keep sifting, if that's what you enjoy doing

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Toady, "au contraire mon frer". I maintain that you are selling Hubbard to some degree by practicing one of his key policies. Even stronger than that, you are ENFORCING one of his key policies. Which one ? LOL ! You allow no one room for any divergence from the opinion of you and your group My "group" ? What "group" am I in? without criticising them or making fun of them. That is right on point with what the C of $ does!



You can deny it all day long but it is your ACTIONS which show over and over that you do exactly that. Your words say you do not do it but your actions show otherwise. That is a fact. I know you consider your opinion as fact, but, that is a real LOL ! You and your buddies Who are my buddies here on ESMB? seem certain that you guys are infallible and those who don't agree 100% in lock step with you are wrong Looking in the mirror are you ?, late cogniters, partially deflated or whatever you want to call them.

Once you start allowing This is a joke right? How do I not "allow" people to post? other people to express a view different from what you believe, then that will prove that you no longer enforce one of Hubbard's major tenet's. Anything short of that is just "smoke".

Contrary to what you claim above, that I want to play that way, I don't play that way at all. I allow all serious beliefs held with conviction to be expressed without calling the other party names or poking fun at them or giving them nicknames indicating that they are slow or stupid. Again, check the mirrpr, you are talking about yourself.
Lakey

I have read many of your posts and long ago come to the conclusion you and I will never get along.

Why? I sincerely believe you are still very much into thinking as a scientologist.

Exchanges with you remind me so much of standing dead in the middle of the FH and listening to the drone. It is a mindset most others posting here have long since shed.

I've read with amusement why you need to use scientologese to express yourself... it is what you think with.

You are, well relatively anyway, free to post whatever you want to post and continue your support of "the good parts" ( whatever you think they are ) of scientology without comment from me. I'm done trading posts with you. Fair enough?

I am out of this thread.

 

[Smilla]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Toady, "au contraire mon frer". I maintain that you are selling Hubbard to some degree by practicing one of his key policies. Even stronger than that, you are ENFORCING one of his key policies. You allow no one room for any divergence from the opinion of you and your group without criticising them or making fun of them. That is right on point with what the C of $ does!

You can deny it all day long but it is your ACTIONS which show over and over that you do exactly that. Your words say you do not do it but your actions show otherwise. That is a fact. You and your buddies seem certain that you guys are infallible and those who don't agree 100% in lock step with you are wrong, late cogniters, partially deflated or whatever you want to call them.

Once you start allowing other people to express a view different from what you believe, then that will prove that you no longer enforce one of Hubbard's major tenet's. Anything short of that is just "smoke".

Contrary to what you claim above, that I want to play that way, I don't play that way at all. I allow all serious beliefs held with conviction to be expressed without calling the other party names or poking fun at them or giving them nicknames indicating that they are slow or stupid.
Lakey

Keep sifting if it's what you enjoy, but be aware that if you're feeling tough, and itching for a fight, you will get one.

I'd prefer to live and let live, myself.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I am out of this thread.

Elvis has left the building.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Keep sifting if it's what you enjoy, but be aware that if you're feeling tough, and itching for a fight, you will get one.

I'd prefer to live and let live, myself.

amen