Why I post

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
The one bit of research I know was from those three psychologists who went into London Org in the early 70's to do the OCA, and gave widely differing and pre-agreed sets of answers to the questions, despite which they ended up with very similar graphs and recommendations.

IMO that blew a hole in the OCA as a serious instrument of psychometric assessment, but the CofS carried on as though nothing had happened, uttering dark words about "psychs" etc..
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Yes, and the first clear. When exhibited, she did not have perfect recall.

Hubbard conveniently told himself that what he was doing was research. He had to know what the public and scientific community consider to be research and he ignored that. IMO, he did the same thing with Scn as religion, Scn as pan denomination(al), etc.

It's too bad, too. He didn't have to do any of that. He had a neat neat product. Dianetics- and later Scn- auditing and other techniques do produce effects. He didn't have to make up a bunch of stuff about why or where or his background (see Ron The War Hero by Chris Owens). I guess he wanted accreditation and recognition. You know what that is, right? Ego.
 

Axiom142

Gold Meritorious Patron
Yes, and the first clear. When exhibited, she did not have perfect recall.

Hubbard conveniently told himself that what he was doing was research. He had to know what the public and scientific community consider to be research and he ignored that. IMO, he did the same thing with Scn as religion, Scn as pan denomination(al), etc.

It's too bad, too. He didn't have to do any of that. He had a neat neat product. Dianetics- and later Scn- auditing and other techniques do produce effects. He didn't have to make up a bunch of stuff about why or where or his background (see Ron The War Hero by Chris Owens). I guess he wanted accreditation and recognition. You know what that is, right? Ego.

Fluffy,

I believe that Sonia Bianca was that person.

Actually I think he did have to make up a colourful and impressive life history. He was a storyteller, it was a fundamental part of his character. I wouldn’t be surprised if he even started believing his own stories about himself.

Dianetics may have been a neat product but it wasn’t profitable enough. Create a religion and you can start selling religious mumbo-jumbo, and people want to believe. The only trouble with that, is that followers expect religious founders to be godlike. Perhaps he was only giving them what they wanted?

Axiom142
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Yep. Everything you say is true, IMO. (and yes, that was Sonia Bianca) I'd forgotten her name but I remember reading about her.

I think that Hubbard was too into the money and power and that what you're saying is correct. That's why a lot of people leave CofS and don't want to do any Scn. If I hadn't seen some of the effects auditing, wordclearing, various other methods, etc, sometimes produce, I'd never have thought someone with feet of clay could produce them. But then again, don't people often point out that much of Scn was taken from here and there- which is true? Well, can't have it both ways. If a person with feet of clay repackages some things that are true and even extrapolates additional theories based on those other ones, then why shouldn't some of it have effects?
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
If someone bakes a cake using Betty Crocker mix, but, for whatever reasons, adds PCB waste to the mix, is it still a good cake?

Do we blame Betty Crocker?

Zinj
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Corollary: Do we disassemble the cake and try to get the PCBs out? Or, do we just dump it and go buy a new box of Betty Crocker?

Zinj
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Corollary: Do we disassemble the cake and try to get the PCBs out? Or, do we just dump it and go buy a new box of Betty Crocker?

Zinj

I have a house that was a fixer upper when we bought it. It was structurally sound. Replacing the windows and roof and wiring were easy. We didn't have the house demolished and the land abandoned and sent to lie fallow (presumably with salt sown) just because of the stuff that wasn't up to snuff.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
The claims made re the states of Clear and OT are certainly exaggerated. Scn has failed a lot of people in that regard. Had it not made such promises even after it became obvious that Clear, OT, the Grades, etc, weren't delivering what was promised, then it wouldn't be such a failure and betrayal.

But I figure since all ideologies are built on the backs of previous ones, then there's already been cherry picking and cafeteria-ing. I think doing more of that is still an option.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I just wanted to post something about my stance. Sometimes people ask or comment about that, so figured maybe I should create something. If discussion of an individual contributor (or this individual contributor) isn't your bag, you may want to skip this one.

As some people already know, I came to criticism and posting about 10 years ago, just blundered into it. I was in CofS at the time and found alt.religion.scientology by accident and the rest, as they say, is history. At the time, I just wanted to (in the words of one lady there) "Witness for (my) religion". I just wanted to talk. Ultimately? I ended up learning a lot and leaving CofS. Since then, I've been on the radio (once) criticizing CofS, have talked with other media on other occasions, including doing a tv interview that, unfortunately, ended up on the cutting room floor, so it didn't get used. Too bad, too, 'cuz it was pretty critical. I never ever did any dissemination courses or "handling" drills or TR-Lie or anything like that. I don't consider myself to be a typical Scn'ist. Everything I learned about debate on forums was forged in the furnaces of a.r.s.- not the Scn Adademy.

Originally, I'd felt upset about the Scn thing because I knew I liked most of the ideas and methods in it and the only people who were offering it was CofS and they were such assclowns. I remember being upset about that years before I left. At the time, I stayed. I'd been pretty well indoctrinated about squirrels, etc, so figured that wasn't an option. Eventually, those clowns pushed me so hard on the "you better not post and you can't even read the forum" issue, I got mad and left, particularly since they showed me contempt at the same time while asking for MY money and MY time. I figured, "WTF am I even doing here?" And I left and stopped self censoring-which I was doing in my posts up til then. They didn't like that and expelled both myself and my husband as they were evidently having a two for one special on Swazeys.

But I still had a lot of interest in Scn itself and I still did. I could see plenty of flaws in it but there were plenty of things that struck me as just fine. So I decided that this was still my personal creed and that I could implement anything that was positive and discard anything that wasn't.

I've never been interested in proselytizing. My thing is about choice. I want to see people feel free to speak out, to picket, to leaflet, or to do Scn outside CofS or to do Scn inside CofS. It's that person's choice. This is a red hot "button" with me. I really did not like CofS telling me who to talk to and who not. I'm happy to see people studying Scn- I'm not going to lie to you. But I'm also pleased to see them ditch the whole thing. My question to anyone who ever asked me has always been: "What do you want to do?" It's not about what the cult wants them to do or what some other person thinks they should do or what the media or their Mommy or their drycleaner thinks they should do. It's up to the person.

I do not believe that freedom of speech should be limited to one point of view- that way or the highway. I left the cult over that issue.

So what am I "selling"? It isn't Scn. I'm "selling" freedom of speech and of choice. And to qualify that last, I do not condone any choices that include RPFing people, ripping families apart or any illegal and/or predatory actions. Part of my freedom of choice is to decry these actions whenever they occur in CofS and I've written much on the subject. But my underlying stance and reason for posting is to let people know they have a right to choose. They have a right to leave CofS. They have a right to study Scn elsewhere. They have a right to say "Are you kidding? I don't want any part of that." They have a right to picket and to pass out leaflets, if that's what they want to do.

I take a dim view of people who get mad if others don't want to picket or who don't want others to exercise their rights to pursue their ideological interests and freedom of choice. That's it. That's my thing. I'm proselytizing freedom of speech and of (legal actions only) choice.


*bump* (due to recent accusation about my alleged and mythical secret agenda)
 

Pixie

Crusader
Fluffy, in my opinion, you have nothing to defend. You can say what you like, you can swing naked from the nearest shandeleer, people are going to think whatever they want to think, you have no control over that, and trying to convince people otherwise is a complete waste of energy.

I understand that you may want to put your own truth out there as we all do to clear up any misconceptions other board members may have about you, but if that's going nowhere and people think you're a witch or OSA or whatever, let them! I see no point in getting upset to this degree and trying to defend yourself. I just feel that if you can try to allow people to be and think what they want. That's all, just felt the need to air my opinion. :yes:
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Sure. :) Makes sense. :yes:

What I was doing here- I was just countering the lies with truth and reminding the culprits that these issues have already been addressed.

But yeah, the people who say those sorts of things can think what they want...and I'm very sure that they understand that people do have the right to respond and set the record straight. (sarcasm-but not directed at you, Pixie.)
 

Pixie

Crusader
Sure. :) Makes sense. :yes:

What I was doing here- I was just countering the lies with truth and reminding the culprits that these issues have already been addressed.

But yeah, the people who say those sorts of things can think what they want...and I'm very sure that they understand that people do have the right to respond and set the record straight. (sarcasm-but not directed at you, Pixie.)

You are welcome to be as sarcastic as you feel you need to be with me any time you like, honest, it wouldn't bother me. But sure, you say what you need to, if I didn't give a shit about you I'd not even bother to comment, know what I mean, I just don't want you to waste energy or get upset trying to defend yourself, but what I want may not be what you want, I just felt like throwing in my tuppenceworth seeing that you felt the need to bring this thread back, to try to proove something.

I don't give a shit what anyone thinks of me quite frankly and it's a very refreshing change from when I was in the cult where I was always quite concenred about what others thought.

Anyway, 'nuff said Fluff... now, get thee down to the Pub and get stoned and pissed and dance with us on the bar... :coolwink:
 

Neo

Silver Meritorious Patron
fluffy, what I will say, and I brought it here so as not to derail the thread where this occurred is - you have an uncanny ability to make everything about you. I just thought I would validate you on that "ability".

John makes the comment "even the freezone" in his thread about his new book, and you take offense. What is with that?

I think FTS said it best
:pfft:

Neo
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Well, Neo, I am the op on this particular thread. I created it. Did you miss that? I did not bump it because of the comment you mention. That had nothing to do with it. The comment that caused me to want to bump this thread named me specifically and was about my alleged secret agenda. So I figured I'd set the record straight. I realize that you and FreeToShine would never do such a thing if someone said something about you and I think that's so wonderful and if I were half as smart as you, why, then, I'd be half as smart as you. I mean, it only LOOKS like you're posting feedback about things people said to and about others. I'm sure I imagined the posts I just read since there's no way you would ever answer anyone back about anything where you had some input since it's clearly immoral and unethical to do that. And I'm also sure I imagined it that you would go in on a thread someone created, take the trouble to read and respond to it, then state that it's all about the ummm...person who created that thread.

Again regarding the post (about JA's book) you mention, I won't say I was exactly offended- I really don't think that's the right word- but I did feel the way I already described for reasons I already described. I have sent money directly to a number of critics and have often gone out of my way to purchase critical literature. But I have a number of criteria as to who gets my money- just as I do with IRL shops and stores.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
You are welcome to be as sarcastic as you feel you need to be with me any time you like, honest, it wouldn't bother me. But sure, you say what you need to, if I didn't give a shit about you I'd not even bother to comment, know what I mean, I just don't want you to waste energy or get upset trying to defend yourself, but what I want may not be what you want, I just felt like throwing in my tuppenceworth seeing that you felt the need to bring this thread back, to try to proove something.

I don't give a shit what anyone thinks of me quite frankly and it's a very refreshing change from when I was in the cult where I was always quite concenred about what others thought.

Anyway, 'nuff said Fluff... now, get thee down to the Pub and get stoned and pissed and dance with us on the bar... :coolwink:

I will be there forthwith. Whee! :happydance:
 
Top