SweetnessandLight
Crusader
Oh Good Lord! Fluffy, I apologize, I goofed!
OH GREAT GOOGLIE MOOGLIES!!!
(Sorry, I don't know how to quote your above post showing both my post and your response to it, so only your response shows...that's not intentional on my part, I just don't know how to do it yet...I really am a very low-tech being! )
I'm on a break now and am going to write very fast...
Oh Fluffy, I'm so sorry! I have fostered a misunderstanding between us and I must apologize for it, and I want to do it publicly here!!! Please forgive me...let me explain and try to make amends with you...I made a mistake in the formating of my long post that you are very thoughtfully responding to here. (Good responses, by the way!)
I absolutely did not mean to direct this whole thing to you, personally, holy moley! I'm so very sorry!
I have no excuse, I really goofed by not making two clearly distinct posts here, I was rushing and was careless. I should have made the first post answering your question to me and clarifying what I meant in an earlier post, and then made another separate, second post later on, continuing on with my thoughts (which have been called a diatribe ) on the Exeyness of Exes!
I'm sorry for misleading and upsetting you and mis-communicating to you due to my carelessness.
My only explanation is that I am not currently on my computer and had someone else breathing down my neck and pressuring me to "hurry up and post" so that something else could take place. I am multi-tasking several things at once, managing several simultaneous events today and was just careless and rushed when posting. I just kept writing when I should have made myself more clear...answered you first and then gone on to create another distinct post. My mistake, and I apologize for making it!
Please believe me that none of my long post was directed at you personally, even though I inadvertently surely gave that impression.
You're right, I've read your posts and gotten to know you over time here, and I know that you are not one of the still indoctrinated people I was directing my thoughts to. In fact, I think you are a shining beacon of sanity as an former Scientologist, and among the more lucid and intelligent posters here. I have seen you change your views and your attitudes over time and I can see that you personally are not stuck in some cult indoctrinated mindset.
Maybe it is upsetting that I write directly to the collective "you" out there, instead of using a less direct and more passive voice. But I mean what I say to be a wake up call and a reality check for those who are out of COS but are still pretty indoctrinated. I have them interacting with me IRL as well as I see them on various boards and other places on the Internet. I mean to be direct. I don't mean it personally for any one single poster here, from the OP on down! Can I please make that clear?
In fact I'm not trying to tar anybody with any brush. Of course, Indys and Free Zoners have the right to hold their own beliefs and call themselves Scientologists. I do think it's a slippery slope...I do think it's a lot better and less harmful if they squirrel the tech, call what they are practicing something else, mix it with other practices that work for them, etc. Maybe that is what many of them intend to do, maybe what I am arguing against is standard tech, which I understand to be inherently harmful to one's mental/emotional health? (Based not just on reading and research about Scientology but on my life experience with former Scientologists and their struggles.)
I do have some concerns for the well-being of Indys who want to re-create Rons early church, however they group themselves together. I find the tech to be intentionally and irretrievably flawed and hazardous, a mind trap.
That may not be a popular view, but it's the one I am currently holding.
I also do think that the very word "Scientology" is really tainted, maybe will be for all of our lifetimes. Maybe a miracle will occur and COS will get ethics in, there will be massive reform, they abolish RPF, RTC, CMO and SO and go back to the franchise Mission system, they will start making all services free, sell all their ideal orgs and other big real estate, get rid of all the flash and start feeding the poor and housing the homeless. Wouldn't it be nice!
I was directing my remarks mostly to those lurkers and posters here who are still raving fans of Scientology without looking (because they have been taught to avoid entheta like the plague) at the reality of the history of it's dark side and the misapplications and vast potential for abuse, which I know that you, Claire have already read and researched and taken a hard look at.
I really didn't mean you personally, but I sure can see why you thought I was talking right to you Fluff! I'm very embarressed to have made this mistake, and I apologize to you.
I'll have to read over everything again when I have more time and can respond better, as I feel that I'm leaving some details and other stuff out that I should address here, in apologizing to you, but I'm currently outta time, and gotta go! Once again, I'm so sorry!
Very nice detailed and thoughtful post. I only hope that I can do justice to it.
I thought you might mean that but I wasn't 100% sure.
I guess it would depend on what one may mean by "out". I was using "out" in the more literal sense. Out of CofS. Out of the mindset? Maybe not.
Thing is, FZers and Indies come in all shapes and sizes, metaphorically speaking, re their practice of Scn. There's a far greater range there than one would see in CofS. So some are more hidebound and what I call "tech purist" than others are. So one cannot generalize quite as much as one could when speaking about churchies, IMO.
I've seen some hidebound thought modalities in the non CofS Scn scene. And I've seen some people get very loosey goosey, into experimentation, adding other things. I know of a couple non CofS Scn'ists who take psychiatric meds, for example. I know of others who never would. I know of non CofS Scn'ists who write KRs. I know of others who wouldn't dream of bothering and who'd just come up and talk to the person or put him on ignore or whatever.
So are some people out of CofS but not out of the indoctrinated mindset? AbsoFRIGGINGlutely. Is it all of them? No!
It's not dissimilar to Christians. What a broad spectrum of fascinating people we get there! My Mom, for example, a staunch Catholic, believed in a God of LOVE. She figured hardly anyone was in hell and anyway, it wasn't up to us to assess or guess that. She said "you don't know what's in someone's heart or what they said to God on their deathbed." But when someone I knew was in the hospital with slashed wrists, who already felt terrible about what they'd done and who'd already talked to clergy about it, they received a visitor. A fundie Protestant I know quite well. The fundie said if they were REALLY saved, they wouldn't have done that. Way to go, Fundie!!
My point being there's a spectrum with practitioners of any religion or ology and, thus, it's not fair to tar them all with the same brush.
Not if they say they aren't with CofS. Not if they say they are Indies or FreeZoners. Else, all Protestants (particularly in Elizabeth I's day, but even now) would be tarred with the Catholic brush....
"You"??? I'm not a Scn'ist.
Again, I must take exception to the second person pronoun here.
Many non CofS Scn'ists picket. Many send money to critics. Many are targetted by CofS.
Someone sitting down with someone else on his or her own time away from CofS to discuss whether or not he had an engram isn't doing anything to hurt anyone or anything.
Please see my reply to Synthia that I wrote yesterday re the death of my parents. It was a heartfelt, specific and detailed reply. I was an Indie Scn'ist at that time and had received auditing, which I described in the post. Please tell me exactly how the hell that's supposed to have harmed:
- Someone other than myself
- Myself
I think you must have missed quite a few of my posts. I understand the viewpoint far more than you think and I mislike being told what I do and don't understand. I mean, my gosh, you thought I was a Scn'ist!
You must have missed hundreds of posts. A non CofS Scn'ist doesn't HAVE a history of his or her group. (and, again, please don't include me. The proper pronoun would have been "they"/"them". Not "you") Did you know that many of them HAVE read every critical thing they could find about Hubbard and that many of them discuss these things with others? I know I did when I was an indie.
I know he was into control. I knew it before. I read the affirmations. I read at least as much critical material as you've done. Terril Park and Mark Baker also have. So have some other non CofS Scn'ist friends of mine. I know this because I've discussed this with many of them.
When I was in the process of deciding what to do about my CofS membership 12 years ago, someone reached out to me. This person was scathing about L Ron Hubbard. Scathing about CofS. Did not want to do FZ. And you know what? This person was a Scientologist. One size does not fit all.
But if someone who's read all this stuff about Hubbard- as I've done, as Mark's done, as Terril's done, as my other friends who I won't name (some of whom post and lurk here, some don't) have done- finds that he or she can still apply the Data Series or the ARC triangle, then it's not a matter of not facing up to whatever. Some of my friends who are doing so have a rather low regard for Hubbard and are, as I said, quite scathing about him. They're only looking at ideas.
Ok, again, you missed my sig line and many posts. I'm not a Scn'ist.
But when I was a non CofS Scn'ist, I had read and researched and learned the truth. I've been openly mocking Hubbard and Xenu for years, long before I decided I was more a Buddhist than anything else. But I'd already learned certain techniques and spiritual theories. I already knew them before I'd done the research. An attorney I used to know used to say "Can't unring THAT bell." I already knew that I could do something with the "tech". These days, as I say, I'm less into that and more into other things. This is something my husband doesn't fully believe--he's still a staunch Indie- but it's true. Somehow, though, we muddle through together without discord.
Again, I refer you to my posted reply to Synthia about the auditing I got when my folks died. I got the auditing and it did something. If, conversely, it had been created by a warm fluffy benevolent guru and did not work whatsoever, I'd say that too. It would be the same scenario, only reversed.
You're assuming that I support and promote systems. I'm more into individual ideas. And I don't promote or sell anything. I developed an allergy to proselytization when I was in my 20s.
Yes. I've noticed that people who tell others what to believe are a lot like CofS members.
You'd be surprised how few. I wish you'd stop stereotyping.
You might want to ask people how they feel instead of assuming. You've made several mistakes here.
Well, I'm not an Indie, but when I was, I wasn't supporting a cult. See above.
Ah, but one can.
It's a connotation. That's all. Christianity has historically had the same problem...Islam does, nowadays. I was just talking to someone about that last week, in fact.
You've just written several paragraphs and other posts indicating that it's anything but ok with you.
So if someone goes into a little closet, reads Handbook for preclears, does a process on his or her own, how is that hitting the other guys' nose?
The auditing I got when my folks died, how would that have hit any other guys' noses?
Please stop making assumptions about me. You don't know me and you've clearly missed hundreds of posts I wrote, threads I've created and my sig line.
Yep. I'm with ya there.
So are a lot of FZers and Indies. Or so I've been told, talking to them on PICKET LINES.
And how is a woman who got some auditing for her grief outside of CofS from an expelled (and fair gamed) free Zoner responsible for that?
Yep. Sure isn't. It's not viable. It can't be reformed. (you're uh...preaching to the converted. See my warning about stereotyping.)
You are telling people what they believe, and that they haven't done certain research and you're wrong. It's both ignorant and condescending. And unobservant.
Someday she'll stop saying "you" when she replies to me and references Indies...o some glorious day.
I already did and so do the people I mentioned along with many others. Please stop making assumptions.
You've told people that they didn't do the research when, in fact, many people who still practice Scn outside of CofS have done so and have said so again and again. You've told them to listen to a critic who's just a person and is about as above reproach as anyone else. You've also not noticed all the things I and so many of us have said about ourselves and our stances. You've accused people here of not facing the truth, not doing the research and of HARMING OTHERS by privately practicing their religion. You've accused Free Zoners, many of whom picket and have been fair gamed by CofS- of enabling CofS.
That is really really not good, S&L.
Ask the Freezoners and Indies here what they've read and haven't read before you make this assumption. I used to be both of those things and you were wrong about me and my past research. I know you're wrong about a number of others. And ask them what they think instead of TELLING THEM what they think.
I am not being sarcastic. I really suggest that you create a thread asking. You could make it a poll. I think it would be a really good thread and could clarify some things. (no pun intended)
I have done.
I already did. I've mentioned those facts (abt Hubbard) for years in posts. I've also been mocking him for years. I'm far from the only one.
I think this is good advice and I'd like to offer it to you. I think you're laboring under some grave misapprehensions. I truly think creating a thread maybe with a poll would help. But one would truly have to read it and not make assumptions.
OH GREAT GOOGLIE MOOGLIES!!!
(Sorry, I don't know how to quote your above post showing both my post and your response to it, so only your response shows...that's not intentional on my part, I just don't know how to do it yet...I really am a very low-tech being! )
I'm on a break now and am going to write very fast...
Oh Fluffy, I'm so sorry! I have fostered a misunderstanding between us and I must apologize for it, and I want to do it publicly here!!! Please forgive me...let me explain and try to make amends with you...I made a mistake in the formating of my long post that you are very thoughtfully responding to here. (Good responses, by the way!)
I absolutely did not mean to direct this whole thing to you, personally, holy moley! I'm so very sorry!
I have no excuse, I really goofed by not making two clearly distinct posts here, I was rushing and was careless. I should have made the first post answering your question to me and clarifying what I meant in an earlier post, and then made another separate, second post later on, continuing on with my thoughts (which have been called a diatribe ) on the Exeyness of Exes!
I'm sorry for misleading and upsetting you and mis-communicating to you due to my carelessness.
My only explanation is that I am not currently on my computer and had someone else breathing down my neck and pressuring me to "hurry up and post" so that something else could take place. I am multi-tasking several things at once, managing several simultaneous events today and was just careless and rushed when posting. I just kept writing when I should have made myself more clear...answered you first and then gone on to create another distinct post. My mistake, and I apologize for making it!
Please believe me that none of my long post was directed at you personally, even though I inadvertently surely gave that impression.
You're right, I've read your posts and gotten to know you over time here, and I know that you are not one of the still indoctrinated people I was directing my thoughts to. In fact, I think you are a shining beacon of sanity as an former Scientologist, and among the more lucid and intelligent posters here. I have seen you change your views and your attitudes over time and I can see that you personally are not stuck in some cult indoctrinated mindset.
Maybe it is upsetting that I write directly to the collective "you" out there, instead of using a less direct and more passive voice. But I mean what I say to be a wake up call and a reality check for those who are out of COS but are still pretty indoctrinated. I have them interacting with me IRL as well as I see them on various boards and other places on the Internet. I mean to be direct. I don't mean it personally for any one single poster here, from the OP on down! Can I please make that clear?
In fact I'm not trying to tar anybody with any brush. Of course, Indys and Free Zoners have the right to hold their own beliefs and call themselves Scientologists. I do think it's a slippery slope...I do think it's a lot better and less harmful if they squirrel the tech, call what they are practicing something else, mix it with other practices that work for them, etc. Maybe that is what many of them intend to do, maybe what I am arguing against is standard tech, which I understand to be inherently harmful to one's mental/emotional health? (Based not just on reading and research about Scientology but on my life experience with former Scientologists and their struggles.)
I do have some concerns for the well-being of Indys who want to re-create Rons early church, however they group themselves together. I find the tech to be intentionally and irretrievably flawed and hazardous, a mind trap.
That may not be a popular view, but it's the one I am currently holding.
I also do think that the very word "Scientology" is really tainted, maybe will be for all of our lifetimes. Maybe a miracle will occur and COS will get ethics in, there will be massive reform, they abolish RPF, RTC, CMO and SO and go back to the franchise Mission system, they will start making all services free, sell all their ideal orgs and other big real estate, get rid of all the flash and start feeding the poor and housing the homeless. Wouldn't it be nice!
I was directing my remarks mostly to those lurkers and posters here who are still raving fans of Scientology without looking (because they have been taught to avoid entheta like the plague) at the reality of the history of it's dark side and the misapplications and vast potential for abuse, which I know that you, Claire have already read and researched and taken a hard look at.
I really didn't mean you personally, but I sure can see why you thought I was talking right to you Fluff! I'm very embarressed to have made this mistake, and I apologize to you.
I'll have to read over everything again when I have more time and can respond better, as I feel that I'm leaving some details and other stuff out that I should address here, in apologizing to you, but I'm currently outta time, and gotta go! Once again, I'm so sorry!
Last edited: