What's new

"We of the Church believe" except...when it is okay to impinge on your human rights

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Re: "We of the Church believe" except...when it is okay to impinge on your human righ

i do

smilia, you like so many others are frequently very right about what's wrong with CoS but you don't have my experience with it. my god, i wish you could have seen what i was able to do for my lifelong best friend while he was dying of cancer. it's center and power were the love of our friendship but without the tools gained from auditing, no, it wouldnot have been possible to do what i did for him*

I'm glad you could help your friend.

*Are you sure of that?

*How can you be sure of that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

PS: What makes you think I have no experience of it?

 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Re: "We of the Church believe" except...when it is okay to impinge on your human righ

yes and long story

My question is that given the fact you did help your friend - which is pretty wonderful, how do you know it was the auditing which benefited him? You may believe that, but you can't know it. You'd be better off saying that you believe it was so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

PS: Again - what makes you think I have no experience?
 
Re: "We of the Church believe" except...when it is okay to impinge on your human righ

My question is that given the fact you did help your friend - which is pretty wonderful, how do you know it was the auditing which benefited him? You may believe that, but you can't know it. You'd be better off saying that you believe it was so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

PS: Again - what makes you think I have no experience?

sorry smil, my last post was abreviated as my computer time at the library was in it's last seconds.

ahh...

semantics

i know you do have experience. "you don't have my experience" is not tendered in the sense that i am expeienced and you are not but rather that you do not have my particular experience. i certainly don't have bragging rights on esmb. i'm a CLIV HGDS, arc straightrazor release who spent a little less than two years on staff and his board is host to CLVIII OTVII's who spent more than a quarter century in the sea org. my - our - old friend mystic did nearly thirty thousand hours of auditing AND is the person who originated the concept of bypassed charge. but he today utterly renounces all things ron. as do many of these others whose experience is far beyond my own. they have far more experience but they do not have mine.

i think the key difference is that i developed a personal integrity before which i would not compromise and mystic and others are in hindsight so appalled at, for instance, accepting the planet helatrobus as certainty and even worse must repent of their part in the various abuses.

now to expand briefly on "yes and long story", it is true that i believe his general condition was enhanced by what i did drawing on my auditor training and there is an intangible aspect to this that allows your challenge that i cannot properly claim to know rather than believe to stand. honest and correct dialogue recognizes the challenge stands but not only am i personally certain of the effect on general condition there were specific acts and results were as tangible to me as fastening two pieces of an erector set together with a nut and a bolt
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Re: "We of the Church believe" except...when it is okay to impinge on your human righ

sorry smil, my last post was abreviated as my computer time at the library was in it's last seconds.

ahh...

semantics

i know you do have experience. "you don't have my experience" is not tendered in the sense that i am expeienced and you are not but rather that you do not have my particular experience. i certainly don't have bragging rights on esmb. i'm a CLIV HGDS, arc straightrazor release who spent a little less than two years on staff and his board is host to CLVIII OTVII's who spent more than a quarter century in the sea org. my - our - old friend mystic did nearly thirty thousand hours of auditing AND is the person who originated the concept of bypassed charge. but he today utterly renounces all things ron. as do many of these others whose experience is far beyond my own. they have far more experience but they do not have mine.

How is Mystic these days? I'm missing his presence. I like him.

i think the key difference is that i developed a personal integrity before which i would not compromise and mystic and others are in hindsight so appalled at, for instance, accepting the planet helatrobus as certainty and even worse must repent of their part in the various abuses.

Maybe that's right, maybe it isn't - it would need to come from them.

now to expand briefly on "yes and long story", it is true that i believe his general condition was enhanced by what i did drawing on my auditor training and there is an intangible aspect to this that allows your challenge that i cannot properly claim to know rather than believe to stand. honest and correct dialogue recognizes the challenge stands but not only am i personally certain of the effect on general condition there were specific acts and results were as tangible to me as fastening two pieces of an erector set together with a nut and a bolt

That's all understandable. But here's the rub: You have a very strong belief that the auditing had a profound positive effect on your friend, but you have not the tiniest bit of proof that it did. OK? There is also not the tiniest bit of proof that it didn't. So what you are left with is a strong belief. There's nothing at all wrong with that. Belief isn't inferior to proof , but it is not proof. We all believe all kinds of things we can't prove. Lets just make sure that we really do know the difference between belief and proof. That's my point in it's entireity. Well done on helping your friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VawhGe79Emw


 
Re: "We of the Church believe" except...when it is okay to impinge on your human righ

That's all understandable. But here's the rub: You have a very strong belief that the auditing had a profound positive effect on your friend, but you have not the tiniest bit of proof that it did. OK? There is also not the tiniest bit of proof that it didn't. So what you are left with is a strong belief. There's nothing at all wrong with that. Belief isn't inferior to proof , but it is not proof. We all believe all kinds of things we can't prove. Lets just make sure that we really do know the difference between belief and proof. That's my point in it's entireity. Well done on helping your friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VawhGe79Emw

boogers!

another wasted yesterday added to the archives
yesterday is many today is one each

the post last seen leaning to a land
of cyberzorch reflected and responded
in a deferential cant with simple, deft
exposition, familiar canonical reference
lucid illustration, sensible pro forma
argumentation, BREVITY blossoming
into a burst of spontaneous passion
salaciously seasoned with undeleted
and better still, undulating expletive so
alive in it's own moment even if this
doddering destinee of decrepitude
could retype it's words they would be
but dried potato skins leftover
of yesterday's vichysoisses

the body of your post is reiteration;
reheated rehash notable only for begging
acknowlegement of the thrice tendered
acclamation of sacred nature of the friend
and the immaculate dignity due a life's
closing chapter. it was well heard the first
time and i do not wish to caricature
you as a child tugging at an elder's cloak
your sweetly batted eyes and wagging
tail awaiting a gentle pat on the head
and a soft warm "aren't you a good
little girl"

i am as you should know well apprised
of the geometric scientific and forensic
conclusive standards pillars of the enduring
human civilzation in this temporal plane
but where from whence i wend the rising
of the songbird's song is proof enough
and if your oblation is heartfelt perhaps
you hail from there as well. still your
point is not your point but your evasion

this interchange began thus...
 
Re: "We of the Church believe" except...when it is okay to impinge on your human righ

yes.

the creed is abused all to hell and gone

but as it is stated it's a very good creed. it expresses sentiments and ideas men and women of good will are willing to accept and abide.

and...

auditing can be a very good thing.

why cannot those who do abide the creed affiliate to train auditors and produce auditing?

????????????????????????????????????????????

...and you made the statement which is the point advanced the latter point evades
 
Re: "We of the Church believe" except...when it is okay to impinge on your human righ

It would need people who want it.

Get ready for the truth - sit down, even.


Ready?

Nobody wants it.

to which i not only repeat

i do

i claim you as a living soul of such good will that you do too
 
Re: "We of the Church believe" except...when it is okay to impinge on your human righ

I must admit I didn't really understand your last 2 or 3 posts. English isn't my first or second language, so I don't always 'get it'. :omg:

ah...

and i did assume the gait poetic

what are your first and second tongues?
 
Top