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

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Come to think of it, C'est la vie.

They have their little world, Davie and friends. I'm not even going to judge it since I can't imagine I will ever see it up close....all I can do is hope they enjoy it.

I'm trying to do some stuff today for a project...so sorry my answers are a bit truncated....but as we all know the forum is not EVERYTHING.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I am certainly not against that FZ folks come up with unique things that work. In fact, so far the only things I do hear about that are unique and work come from FZ or indie. But I have yet to hear of a Hubbard procedure that is not flawed.

Since I have no idea what the Integrity program thing is, I can't evaluate it. Anyway, why would I since the topic was Hubbard and his own reduction of reality to a bunch of trite platitudes, not the topic of FZ, where I know that nice people like Terril are doing stuff.

If anything, my tearing apart of the 'tech' or 'ethics' or whatever is useful for the FZ and others [if they think so or even care] since it suggests other, alternate paths to take which are not messed up in those ways.

Well this post is good news to me, I am really glad to hear you say all these things. Yes your tear downs are very useful for the FZ and others. I have found them extremely helpful. I have this one question for you and it is meant in a positive and friendly way.

If what you say above is true, that only FZ folks come up with unique things that work, isn't it true that most FZ techniques with any workability spring from earlier works created for scientoology and dianetics by Hubbard. For example, may CO2 has some fantastic new rundown that he does by phone all over the world. Weren't the seeds of CO2's work based on original theories by Hubbard. Mike Goldstien's Idenics technology has some very enthusiastic supporters here on ESMB but Idenics was developed by John Galusha, an early Dianeticist who studied with Hubbard. Trey Lotz and other top FZ practitioners have well established practices based on Techniques developed by Hubbard. Ditto for Max Hauri and his large group in Europe and all of Russia.

It is difficult to state that Hubbard is all BS but various Hubbard offshoots in the FZ can be innovative and useful. Those off shoots would not now exist had not Hubbard done his original work so wouldn't he get some brownie points for just doing his initial work? I'm just asking.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Well this post is good news to me, I am really glad to hear you say all these things. Yes your tear downs are very useful for the FZ and others. I have found them extremely helpful. I have this one question for you and it is meant in a positive and friendly way.

If what you say above is true, that only FZ folks come up with unique things that work, isn't it true that most FZ techniques with any workability spring from earlier works created for scientoology and dianetics by Hubbard. For example, may CO2 has some fantastic new rundown that he does by phone all over the world. Weren't the seeds of CO2's work based on original theories by Hubbard. Mike Goldstien's Idenics technology has some very enthusiastic supporters here on ESMB but Idenics was developed by John Galusha, an early Dianeticist who studied with Hubbard. Trey Lotz and other top FZ practitioners have well established practices based on Techniques developed by Hubbard. Ditto for Max Hauri and his large group in Europe and all of Russia.

It is difficult to state that Hubbard is all BS but various Hubbard offshoots in the FZ can be innovative and useful. Those off shoots would not now exist had not Hubbard done his original work so wouldn't he get some brownie points for just doing his initial work? I'm just asking.
Lakey

No I really don't think it is 100% true. For one thing, this idea of regressions and past lives and all these other sorts of processes were going on and Hubbard was but one flavor of this, since as I think I said before, with links and all, it was basically Freud who came up with the entire mental image picture thing, conscious v. subconscious (which he borrowed from the Romantics who really focused on it in the 1700s....), and the entire regression process (which Atack documented) was abandoned by Freud after he devised it. Ron just borrowed it and gave it a few snazzy terms. And there are others who do such things and who were never in Scn or even know who Hubbard is. The FZ shares lingo, that is true. I don't care for the lingo and try not to use it. My only wish for the FZ is that they examine what they do 'accept' in passing from Hubbard and remove the debris. (But even that is not a big deal since it would only matter if I was trying to get involved and I'm not really, so I never hear the lingo anyway except on esmb.) What I find is that what is left after doing so [removing the superfluous blather] was not even Hubbard after all. What he did was only poorly to interpret things already there.

For myself I have zero interest in processing or processes from any source. I don't need or want it I guess. The above comments and all I said before is just based on what I have observed so far, which is only to say that I think everyone should enjoy the FZ and have fun and do that if they want to, which is way better than CoS.

And from my own personal experience, nothing CO2 does is remotely Hubbard. It's unique to CO2 and Hubbard's tech is but the faintest trace. Sorry CO2 if I am wrong but that is how I 'experienced' it. I don't see seeds of LRH there at all! [It's all CO2 and his own secret formula.]

I guess I have always viewed Freud as the source of all this, not Hubbard. And as you know, I'm not convinced by Freud that much either.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Well this post is good news to me, I am really glad to hear you say all these things. Yes your tear downs are very useful for the FZ and others. I have found them extremely helpful. I have this one question for you and it is meant in a positive and friendly way.

If what you say above is true, that only FZ folks come up with unique things that work, isn't it true that most FZ techniques with any workability spring from earlier works created for scientoology and dianetics by Hubbard. For example, may CO2 has some fantastic new rundown that he does by phone all over the world. Weren't the seeds of CO2's work based on original theories by Hubbard. Mike Goldstien's Idenics technology has some very enthusiastic supporters here on ESMB but Idenics was developed by John Galusha, an early Dianeticist who studied with Hubbard. Trey Lotz and other top FZ practitioners have well established practices based on Techniques developed by Hubbard. Ditto for Max Hauri and his large group in Europe and all of Russia.

It is difficult to state that Hubbard is all BS but various Hubbard offshoots in the FZ can be innovative and useful. Those off shoots would not now exist had not Hubbard done his original work so wouldn't he get some brownie points for just doing his initial work? I'm just asking.
Lakey

The tear downs have received very little comment although I think last time I checked they did get viewed quite a bit, a least a couple of months ago when I last checked the blog posts.

I am one who forgets to check the stats of anything I write! I leave that to others! I am the surfer, the videographer is over there!

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I see where you tried to 'fit' the steps into the typical wog training process. The problem is that that is not what the formula says. The formula is used by CoS the way Hubbard intended and that you criticized above. The formula is a hatting formula for a new person. Since it misunderstands the persons true skills, status, and abilities, then the formula is a reductive one which lacks what is needed to succeed. The only way to fit it is to add things to it which are not in the formula or its description. Assumptions must be made.

I saw what you saw too but the formula itself does not account for those things at all and, to the contrary as you said, throws people into positions who are not qualified and throws them away willy nilly.

Your reply is very weak and non sequitor to me, nowhere near up to your usual high standards. The formula is for anyone to use, it does not have to be used within a CoS church or mission. The steps as stated are for a person to use as they see fit not as you see fit! They don't have to be restricted to a certain limited application.

#1. Find a communication line: You used to be able to look in the want ads of a newspaper but that is passe now. You can search trade journals or the internet to see who is hiring.
#2. Make yourself known. That is achieved by sending out a resumel
#3. Find out what is needed and wanted. That is done in an interview with a Personal Director and possibly a later follow up where you meet the staff
#4. Do and present what is needed and wanted. A surgeon will do that when he performs his first operation successfuly.

A surgeon who takes these four steps will have just completed his Non Existence Formula with his new employer.
All your objections above are trite and irrelevant

Every time I sold a remodeling job during the 36 years in which I sold for Lakewood Builders, I applied this formula. I ended up selling about $25,000,000 dollars woth of remodeling with the average job being about $40,000

I had my full time job, running Lakewood Builders but to stay in business, I had to apply for individual jobs with each of my prospects over a 36 year span. All jobs were heavily competed for by other contractors. I was successful and got more than my share against some very tough competition. One of the edges which I had was to apply the Non Existence Formula with each and every potential client. No one else really directly asked them what was needed and wanted. I asked that specifically of every customer and it set me apart from the competition.

I learned the Non Existence Formula in CoS and once I learned it, it was mine to use and apply as I saw fit. Maybe that is why you find all the tech useless, you did not apply it broadly enough but just pigeonholed it into being applicable only inside of a CoS church or mission. Your limited usage was not what Hubbard strove for nor wrote the tech for. He wrote it for broad usage, to be used wherever it could be successfully applied!!! Every time one meets a new person, he or she should apply the non existence formula to them, every time one apples for a job or admission to a university or a club, the non existence formula needs to be applied.

Restricting it only to starting a new post in scientology is totally incorrect application of that piece of tech. No wonder that you find all the tech useless, it appears you never fully understood where and how it was meant to be applied!!
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

This reply is very weak and non sequitor to me, nowhere near up to your usual high standards. The formula is for anyone to use, it does not have to be used within a CoS church or mission.
The steps are layed out. They don't have to be in a specific format.

#1. Find a communication line: You used to be able to look in the want ads of a newspaper but that is passe now. You can search trade journals or the internet to see who is hiring.
#2. Make yourself known. That is achieved by sending out a resumel
#3. Find out what is needed and wanted. That is done in an interview with a Personal Director and possibly a later follow up where you meet the staff
#4. Do and present what is needed and wanted. A surgeon will do that when he performs his first operation successfuly.

A surgeon what takes these four steps will have just completed his Non Existence Formula with his new employer.
All your objections above are trite and irrelevant

Every time I sold a remodeling job during the 36 years in which I sold for Lakewood Builders, I applied this formula. I ended up selling about $25,000,000 dollars woth of remodeling with the average job being about $40,000

I had my full time job, running Lakewood Builders but to stay in business, I had to apply for individual jobs with each of my prospects over a 36 year span. All jobs were heavily competed for by other contractors. I was successful and got more than by share against some very tough competition. One of the edges which I had was to apply the Non Existence Formula with each and every potential client. No one else really directly asked them what was needed and wanted. I asked that specifically of every customer and it set me apart from the competition.

I learned the Non Existence Formula in CoS and once I learned it, it was mine to use and to apply as I saw fit. Maybe that is why you find all the tech useless, you did not apply it broadly enough but just pigeonholed it into being applicable only inside of a CoS church or mission. Your limited usage was not what Hubbard strove for nor wrote the tech for. He wrote it for broad usage, to be used wherever it could be successfully applied!!! Every time one meets a new person, he or she should apply the non existence formula to them, every time one apples for a job or admission to a university or a club, the non existence formula needs to be applied.

Restricting it only to starting a new post in scientology is totally incorrect application of that piece of tech. Now wonder that you find all the tech useless, it appears you never fully understood where it was meant to be applied!!
Lakey

Actually my usage is ZERO.

I don't use any of that sad tech, so I really don't give a rat's ass about the correct or limited usage thereof.

Yawn+LOL.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

No I really don't think it is 100% true. For one thing, this idea of regressions and past lives and all these other sorts of processes were going on and Hubbard was but one flavor of this, since as I think I said before, with links and all, it was basically Freud who came up with the entire mental image picture thing, conscious v. subconscious (which he borrowed from the Romantics who really focused on it in the 1700s....), and the entire regression process (which Atack documented) was abandoned by Freud after he devised it. Ron just borrowed it and gave it a few snazzy terms. And there are others who do such things and who were never in Scn or even know who Hubbard is. The FZ shares lingo, that is true. I don't care for the lingo and try not to use it. My only wish for the FZ is that they examine what they do 'accept' in passing from Hubbard and remove the debris. (But even that is not a big deal since it would only matter if I was trying to get involved and I'm not really, so I never hear the lingo anyway except on esmb.) What I find is that what is left after doing so [removing the superfluous blather] was not even Hubbard after all. What he did was only poorly to interpret things already there.

For myself I have zero interest in processing or processes from any source. I don't need or want it I guess. The above comments and all I said before is just based on what I have observed so far, which is only to say that I think everyone should enjoy the FZ and have fun and do that if they want to, which is way better than CoS.

And from my own personal experience, nothing CO2 does is remotely Hubbard. It's unique to CO2 and Hubbard's tech is but the faintest trace. Sorry CO2 if I am wrong but that is how I 'experienced' it. I don't see seeds of LRH there at all! [It's all CO2 and his own secret formula.]

I guess I have always viewed Freud as the source of all this, not Hubbard. And as you know, I'm not convinced by Freud that much either.

How many people were able to buy a handbook by Freud and co psychoanalize a friend at home for as long as they liked and without paying any fee other than the cost of the book? Also, Hubbard standardized the technology, Freud and other earlier investigators had no set patter and no set procedures it was all hit or miss and relied very heavily on the individual skill or lack thereof of each individual therapist. A bedside manner was requited to be successful. To do therapy one had to take approximately 12 years of university training.

With Hubbard, the training was a couple of months and not 12 years of University studies and each practitioner could be expected to attain similar results. Freud was not a predecessor to Hubbard in the self help field. Hubbard was in the field of popular self help handboods and Freud was a medical doctor. Hubbard obviously borrowed quite a bit from Freud but he did not follow in Freuds footsteps but rather created a whole new self betterment genre made for the layman and not the professional therapist. Hubbard himself spawned many offshoots, EST , Life Spring and its new offshoots, Dianology, Zenith Applied Phiosophy (ZAP) down in New Zealand, etc, etc.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

How many people were able to buy a handbook by Freud and co psychoanalize a friend at home for as long as they liked and without paying any fee other than the cost of the book? Also, Hubbard standardized the technology, Freud and other earlier investigators had no set patter and no set procedures it was all hit or miss and relied very heavily on the individual skill or lack thereof of each individual therapist. A bedside manner was requited to be successful. To do therapy one had to take approximately 12 years of university training.

With Hubbard, the training was a couple of months and not 12 years of University studies and each practitioner could be expected to attain similar results. Freud was not a predecessor to Hubbard in the self help field. Hubbard was in the field of popular self help handboods and Freud was a medical doctor. Hubbard obviously borrowed quite a bit from Freud but he did not follow in Freuds footsteps but rather created a whole new self betterment genre made for the layman and not the professional therapist. Hubbard himself spawned many offshoots, EST , Life Spring and its new offshoots, Dianology, Zenith Applied Phiosophy (ZAP) down in New Zealand, etc, etc.
Lakey

I read this and it feel so devoid of a space I can connect with in any way....actually the co-pyschoanalyze was very common and Hubbard was part of that 'trend'. Like Hula Hoops.

Huibbard didn't create anything. That is my vote based on the 18 years of study.

It really hurts my brain to read these posts but luckily I can go pull weeds while it is still light in the garden in order to recover myself.

WOW I just want to gag right now.

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Actually my usage is ZERO.

I don't use any of that sad tech, so I really don't give a rat's ass about the correct or limited usage thereof.

Yawn+LOL.

Who cares! That is not relevant to our discussion and only supports my case. You believe it is all crap because you don't use it. Only if one uses it is there any chance for it to work for them. You don't use it but are claiming no workability How can you claim that if you don't even use it? Others do use it and claim workability and you are trying your best to dissuade them and convince them that it is not at all workable. . Any serious reviewer must take the claims of people who use it over the claims of someone who never uses it.

Your whole premise is a sham. Go use it, apply it in many situations and then if it does not work for you, report back your findings with their specifics. If you did that, people would take you more seriously. Instead you don't use it yourself but tell everyone in the strongest terms possible that it does not work. Meanwhile, many others who do use it say that it works. Why should your claims be taken more seriously than their claims. If anything, it should be the other way around because they are using it and you are not!!!
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I read this and it feel so devoid of a space I can connect with in any way....actually the co-pyschoanalyze was very common and Hubbard was part of that 'trend'. Like Hula Hoops.

Huibbard didn't create anything. That is my vote based on the 18 years of study.

It really hurts my brain to read these posts but luckily I can go pull weeds while it is still light in the garden in order to recover myself.

WOW I just want to gag right now.

When you can't find fault with a dissenting post, attack the author with a slur about the quality of his work. It's a common tactic but I don't mind.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Who cares! That is not relevant to our discussion and only supports my case. You believe it is all crap because you don't use it. Only if one uses it is there any chance for it to work for them. You don't use it but are claiming no workability How can you claim that if you don't even use it? Others do use it and claim workability and you are trying your best to dissuade them and convince them that it is not at all workable. . Any serious reviewer must take the claims of people who use it over the claims of someone who never uses it.

Your whole premise is a sham. Go use it, apply it in many situations and then if it does not work for you, report back your findings with their specifics. If you did that, people would take you more seriously. Instead you don't use it yourself but tell everyone in the strongest terms possible that it does not work. Meanwhile, many others who do use it say that it works. Why should your claims be taken more seriously than their claims. If anything, it should be the other way around because they are using it and you are not!!!
Lakey

I used it full time for 5 years at 12 hours a day + at home. So I think I can decide for myself what is what and whether to continue to include that in my life. I was a SR C/S and a case cracker for the East Coast. I doubt that means I am an idiot as far as understanding the tech. Although, sure, I have forgotten some things. Phew and thank you!! I don't try to dissuade anyone of a thing. I have zero influence to persuade and if I could persuade I would always tell a person who asked for advice to do what they feel they should.

I have no claims. I have and I express opinions. But that is something else.....

I happen to like Terril and CO2 and others, so if they want to do things to better the world I am certainly never going to dissuade them or think that I should! If anything I'll give them a hug and move out of their way.



Did I ever state: these opinions of mine are right for others and others need to obey them? NO.

A whole lot of reality exists in what is not said.

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

When you can't find fault with a dissenting post, attack the author with a slur about the quality of his work. It's a common tactic but I don't mind.
Lakey

I did not attack you.

What I felt a problem with were the ideas.


You are not the ideas right?

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Silence is so nice, especially in a thunderstorm.....

 

[strativarius]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Silence is so nice, especially in a thunderstorm.....

Today was the hottest July day in England since records began. We're expecting a few of those shortly...

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

I used it full time for 5 years at 12 hours a day + at home. So I think I can decide for myself what is what and whether to continue to include that in my life. I was a SR C/S and a case cracker for the East Coast. I doubt that means I am an idiot as far as understanding the tech. Although, sure, I have forgotten some things. Phew and thank you!! I don't try to dissuade anyone of a thing. I have zero influence to persuade and if I could persuade I would always tell a person who asked for advice to do what they feel they should.

I have no claims. I have and I express opinions. But that is something else.....

I happen to like Terril and CO2 and others, so if they want to do things to better the world I am certainly never going to dissuade them or think that I should! If anything I'll give them a hug and move out of their way.



Did I ever state: these opinions of mine are right for others and others need to obey them? NO.

A whole lot of reality exists in what is not said.

Yes, you used it for 5 years but that ended 35 years ago and you continually stress that you are doing everything you can to forget about CoS, forget the jargon, forget the tech and forget the specifics. Usually, when someone brings up a rundown or a process or a management term you ask for a clarification citing that you don't remember any more what that was about. Today, you just insisted that you don't use any of it.

Maria, you can't have it both ways. You can't be an expert when it suits your argument and then cite that you never use it when that benefits your argument!

As to what you have said, I am not sure if you have stated specifically that your opinions are right for others though you certainly have inferred that over and over. Since I am not certain, I will grant you that you have never said that. Also, your blogs are designed and dedicated towards debunking all of Scientology. It is true that you never said that others need to obey your opinions. Only two people have ever said that that I know of, Hubbard and DM so the fact that you never said it does not count for very much.

This one sentence above of your: "I don't try to dissuade anyone of a thing. I have zero influence to persuade and if I could persuade I would always tell a person who asked for advice to do what they feel they should."

I don't believe that sentence is fully true. The first part of it doesn't seem honest to me. A lot of what you do here and with your blogs is to dissuade people from pursuing scientology tech or anything to do with Hubbard. You have made a large and concerted effort to do that in the last 4 months. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with doing that. I have spent 6 1/2 years on this thread doing that myself. Most people on ESMB also do that. Also you claim that you have zero influence to persuade and that is also not true. You are an opinion leader here and have a following. I'm one of your followers and you have been successful in dissuading me from using various parts of scientology (but not all parts of it). Therefore I know for sure firsthand that you do have influence on people, myself being one of them, and that you do dissuade people from using scientology, again myself being such a person. I do agree with your last point that you do advise people to do what they feel they should. That clause is totally true.
Lakey

 

[Maria Cuervo]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

i AM DONE on your thread.

I won't be back now.

Have fun.

Yes, you used it for 5 years but that ended 35 years ago and you continually stress that you are doing everything you can to forget about CoS, forget the jargon, forget the tech and forget the specifics. Usually, when someone brings up a rundown or a process or a management term you ask for a clarification citing that you don't remember any more what that was about. Today, you just insisted that you don't use any of it.

Maria, you can't have it both ways. You can't be an expert when it suits your argument and then cite that you never use it when that benefits your argument!

As to what you have said, I am not sure if you have stated specifically that your opinions are right for others though you certainly have inferred that over and over. Since I am not certain, I will grant you that you have never said that. Also, your blogs are designed and dedicated towards debunking all of Scientology. It is true that you never said that others need to obey your opinions. Only two people have ever said that that I know of, Hubbard and DM so the fact that you never said it does not count for very much.

This one sentence above of your: "I don't try to dissuade anyone of a thing. I have zero influence to persuade and if I could persuade I would always tell a person who asked for advice to do what they feel they should."

I don't believe that sentence is true. The first part of it doesn't seem honest o me. A lot of what you do here and with your blogs is to dissuade people from pursuing scientology tech or anything to do with Hubbard. You have made a large and concerted effort to do that in the last 4 months. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with doing that. I have spent 6 1/2 years on this thread doing that myself. Most people on ESMB also do that. Also you claim that you have zero influence to persuade and that is also not true. You are an opinion leader here and have a following. I'm one of your followers and you have been successful in dissuading me from using various parts of scientology (but not all parts of it). Therefore I know for sure firsthand that you do have influence on people, myself being one of them, and that you do dissuade people from using scientology, again myself being such a person. I do agree with your last point that you do advise people to do what they feel they should. That line is totally true.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Today was the hottest July day in England since records began. We're expecting a few of those shortly...

How hot did it get, I'm just curious?
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

i AM DONE on your thread.

I won't be back now.

Have fun.

Sorry about that, it was nice having you! Remember, it is not my thread, I am just the OP.

 

[Kauboi Junkie]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

i AM DONE on your thread.

I won't be back now.

Have fun.

 

[Anonycat]

Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Yes, you used it for 5 years but that ended 35 years ago and you continually stress that you are doing everything you can to forget about CoS, forget the jargon, forget the tech and forget the specifics. Usually, when someone brings up a rundown or a process or a management term you ask for a clarification citing that you don't remember any more what that was about. Today, you just insisted that you don't use any of it.

Maria, you can't have it both ways. You can't be an expert when it suits your argument and then cite that you never use it when that benefits your argument!

As to what you have said, I am not sure if you have stated specifically that your opinions are right for others though you certainly have inferred that over and over. Since I am not certain, I will grant you that you have never said that. Also, your blogs are designed and dedicated towards debunking all of Scientology. It is true that you never said that others need to obey your opinions. Only two people have ever said that that I know of, Hubbard and DM so the fact that you never said it does not count for very much.

This one sentence above of your: "I don't try to dissuade anyone of a thing. I have zero influence to persuade and if I could persuade I would always tell a person who asked for advice to do what they feel they should."

I don't believe that sentence is fully true. The first part of it doesn't seem honest to me. A lot of what you do here and with your blogs is to dissuade people from pursuing scientology tech or anything to do with Hubbard. You have made a large and concerted effort to do that in the last 4 months. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with doing that. I have spent 6 1/2 years on this thread doing that myself. Most people on ESMB also do that. Also you claim that you have zero influence to persuade and that is also not true. You are an opinion leader here and have a following. I'm one of your followers and you have been successful in dissuading me from using various parts of scientology (but not all parts of it). Therefore I know for sure firsthand that you do have influence on people, myself being one of them, and that you do dissuade people from using scientology, again myself being such a person. I do agree with your last point that you do advise people to do what they feel they should. That clause is totally true.
Lakey

I don't drop in to this thread often at all, but I thought I would, just to see for myself what a dick you are!