My talk at the 2010 Freezone Convention

[MrNobody]

Set 'em up and knock 'em down, eh, Mr Nobody? I think you started with a false premise, as well as a false conclusion, and are only interested in arguments that support it.

Well, I perform real work for my money, and help people for free. My only conditions for my "personal attention": If it's more than 2 hours, I want coffee or beer (depending on the time of day). If it's more that 10 hours, I want a piece of pizza or something like that. If I need to travel more than a few miles, I also expect compensation for my costs. That's it. Oh, and the time-spans I just gave, are very rough estimates. I don't have my eyes on the clock when I'm helping people.

Everyone who demands more for some "friendly personal attention", is a scammer. For me, it's about the people, not about the money.

So no, I didn't start with a false premise, and I didn't end up with a false conclusion, IMO. :coolwink:

[uniquemand]

Would you consider social workers scammers? Psychiatrists? Psychologists? Teachers? Greenpeace workers? Journalists? Most of them charge for their services, although they'll make exceptions for some pro bono work on occasion.

Most people doing FreeZone work, particularly once they've hung out a shingle, aren't just working with friends, though they may become friendly with their clientele (a dangerous line to walk).

I agree with you that if your sole intention is to help, then money has no place in the equation. People who pretend that is their sole reason (help) for professional services that they charge for are lying. However, this doesn't mean everyone who charges for a service has no helpful intent, or that they are a scammer.

[Voltaire's Child]

Well, I perform real work for my money, and help people for free. My only conditions for my "personal attention": If it's more than 2 hours, I want coffee or beer (depending on the time of day). If it's more that 10 hours, I want a piece of pizza or something like that. If I need to travel more than a few miles, I also expect compensation for my costs. That's it. Oh, and the time-spans I just gave, are very rough estimates. I don't have my eyes on the clock when I'm helping people.

Everyone who demands more for some "friendly personal attention", is a scammer. For me, it's about the people, not about the money.

So no, I didn't start with a false premise, and I didn't end up with a false conclusion, IMO. :coolwink:

What about people who charge for meditation workshops? For non psychological counselling that's also non Scn? I mean, come on.

[MrNobody]

Would you consider social workers scammers? Psychiatrists? Psychologists? Teachers?

These people have a professional training under their belt, bases on peer-reviewed, scientific studies.


Greenpeace workers? Journalists? Most of them charge for their services, although they'll make exceptions for some pro bono work on occasion.

Greenpeace workers and journalists do it to support their own personal agenda.


Most people doing FreeZone work, particularly once they've hung out a shingle, aren't just working with friends, though they may become friendly with their clientele (a dangerous line to walk).

No, they do it to support their on personal agenda, and make some money while they're at it.


I agree with you that if your sole intention is to help, then money has no place in the equation. People who pretend that is their sole reason (help) for professional services that they charge for are lying. However, this doesn't mean everyone who charges for a service has no helpful intent, or that they are a scammer.

They are scammers, IMO. :yes:

[MrNobody]

What about people who charge for meditation workshops? For non psychological counselling that's also non Scn? I mean, come on.

Well, I've dabbled in quite a few "off-stream" practices myself, and although "some" people considered me their Guru, or wanted to make me their "own personal Jesus", I NEVER took any money for that, because that would have been unethical, in my book.

[uniquemand]

I think this rests on your contention that what they do is not real work, or has less benefit to their client than the cost that they assess to the client. As such, I don't think you've proved that case, and I don't think there's any need to cast aspersions on Dex. There ARE scammers in the FZ, but I don't think Dex is one.

[MrNobody]

I think this rests on your contention that what they do is not real work, or has less benefit to their client than the cost that they assess to the client. As such, I don't think you've proved that case, and I don't think there's any need to cast aspersions on Dex. There ARE scammers in the FZ, but I don't think Dex is one.

Well, then let's just agree to disagree. :)

[uniquemand]

The scammers, IMO, are the ones who won't come to public forums and face their accusers, explain their positions, etc.

[MrNobody]

The scammers, IMO, are the ones who won't come to public forums and face their accusers, explain their positions, etc.

I know some scammers, who did exactly that: Faced their accusers, behaved as if they had nothing to hide, and promoted their scam while they were at it. Nothing new here, for me, and "explaining their position" doesn't meant they have a valid position, either.

[dexter gelfand]

I think this rests on your contention that what they do is not real work, or has less benefit to their client than the cost that they assess to the client. As such, I don't think you've proved that case, and I don't think there's any need to cast aspersions on Dex. There ARE scammers in the FZ, but I don't think Dex is one.
Thanks Unique. I think the truth is simpler- Mr N has a knee-jerk reaction to any implication that anything related to the subject of Scientology is ok, and compulsively protests with cheap shots like this.
It's so simple, its absurd to even take it up as an issue. What's better- to conduct some sort of business merely for profit, or to fulfill one's purpose to help others in making a living? That's up for debate? We need not allow ourselves to be sucked in to such nonsense.
Does anyone really need to put a whole lot of thought into whether its better to operate, say, a donut shop than to make your money helping someone to recover from the damaging experiences of existence?

Mr N, to carry on your negative crusade, that's the best you can come up with? That all you got, cheap shots, thinly disguised as matter for debate?

This reminds me of the episode of Seinfeld (pretty much everything reminds me of episodes from Seinfeld:)) when Jerry calls his dry cleaner on wearing the items he's given to clean, and the dry cleaner defends himself, saying that this would be "a breach of the dry cleaner's code"; to which Jerry responds, "You need a code to tell you not to wear other people's clothes?:D

That's how transparent your argument is here, Mr N- you need to debate whether or not charging money for helping others is any better than selling donuts? :duh:

Love, Dex

PS- Just in case Mr N is trying to make a personal argument against me, I served as a volunteer Emergency Medical Technician, and as Director of the New Jersey Council for Childrens' Rights, among other unpaid services I have rendered in my communities.

[uniquemand]

I certainly invite anyone who believes that people are running a scam to point it out. Having seen the basis of your claim about Dex, I respectfully disagree.

[MrNobody]

[COLOR="Blue"]Thanks Unique. I think the truth is simpler- Mr N has a knee-jerk reaction to any implication that anything related to the subject of Scientology is ok, and compulsively protests with cheap shots like this.

:lol: , You don't even have the balls to address me directly while I'm right here, out in the open? How poor is that?

[dexter gelfand]

:lol: , You don't even have the balls to address me directly while I'm right here, out in the open? How poor is that?
OK, how's this? Having been called out on having no legitimate point to make whatsoever, being a cheap shot artist, you have stooped even lower to your juvenile rant about "having balls".
Happy now?

Take a hike, pal. Evidently, when it comes to having an intelligent conversation, you got nothing.

Love, Dex

[MrNobody]

OK, how's this? Having been called out on having no legitimate point to make whatsoever, being a cheap shot artist, you have stooped even lower to your juvenile rant about "having balls".
Happy now?

Yes, I am indeed quite happy these days, thank you for asking. :)


Take a hike, pal. Evidently, when it comes to having an intelligent conversation, you got nothing.

Love, Dex

Did I ever say I wanted to have an intelligent conversation? Facts, baby, you got them?

[uniquemand]

I'm interested, then, MrNobody, in what FACTS you have to offer about Dexter being a scam artist. My bet is: None.

[MrNobody]

I'm interested, then, MrNobody, in what FACTS you have to offer about Dexter being a scam artist. My bet is: None.

Add:
You're right. I don't have facts. That's why I'm here.

Add: So far I haven't seen any. I also haven't seen any facts stating the contrary, so let's find out.

Editing posts is shit, when Error 500 keeps bothering you

[uniquemand]

Add:
You're right. I don't have facts. That's why I'm here.

Add: So far I haven't seen any. I also haven't seen any facts stating the contrary, so let's find out.

Editing posts is shit, when Error 500 keeps bothering you

So, you're claiming he's a scam artist without any facts that this is the case?

[MrNobody]

So, you're claiming he's a scam artist without any facts that this is the case?

Yes, because I have "strong indicators".

[uniquemand]

I rest my case.

[Zinjifar]

I like Dexter; not so sure he likes me :)

But, anyone professionally offering auditing *here* is going to be up for charges of 'scam' just out of the box.

'Proof' is going to be iffy and a waste of time.

Luckily, people who actually *believe* in their own scams get over the carpings of unbelievers. Usually.

Zinj

[MrNobody]

I rest my case.

Good. Because if Dex had any conviction in that what he is doing was right, he would have commented some of my vary obvious points in this thread. He didn't.

[MrNobody]

duplicate

[Mark A. Baker]

I used to have this running joke with a friend I worked with in a printing company in New Jersey: "Don't take this the wrong way, but go fuck yourself":D

Love, Dex



From what I understand of the New Jersey sub-dialect of american english (admittedly limited), the commonly heard phrase "go f@ck yourself" performs something of the same linguistic function as a term of endearment or casual pleasantry such as "yes, dear" or "hey, how's it going?".


Mark A. Baker :)

[AlphOhm]

I used to have this running joke with a friend I worked with in a printing company in New Jersey: "Don't take this the wrong way, but go fuck yourself":D

Love, Dex



From what I understand of the New Jersey sub-dialect of american english (admittedly limited), the commonly heard phrase "go f@ck yourself" performs something of the same linguistic function as a term of endearment or casual pleasantry such as "yes, dear" or "hey, how's it going?".


Mark A. Baker :)


Pacific NW--couple buddies and I in high school used shoulder punching and calling each other the "c" word as terms of endearment.

[Mark A. Baker]

Yes, I am indeed quite happy these days, thank you for asking. :)



Did I ever say I wanted to have an intelligent conversation? Facts, baby, you got them?

You're the one casting unsupported aspersions on another. All we've seen from you is unsubstantiated smear. A fair case can be made that your actions can be construed as an anonymously conducted campaign of public libel. Burden of proof lies with the accuser.


Mark A. Baker

[Terril park]

I think this rests on your contention that what they do is not real work, or has less benefit to their client than the cost that they assess to the client. As such, I don't think you've proved that case, and I don't think there's any need to cast aspersions on Dex. There ARE scammers in the FZ, but I don't think Dex is one.

You want to name and shame the scammers?

[uniquemand]

Not really, no. I am aware of some, but until the person's making the accusations go public, which is unlikely, I'm satisfied with just raising people's awareness that they should be careful when approaching any unregulated and unsupervised group based on the work of an acknowledged con-man and self-confessed manipulator of all mankind. (Admissions)

[Mark A. Baker]

I like Dexter; not so sure he likes me :)

But, anyone professionally offering auditing *here* is going to be up for charges of 'scam' just out of the box.

'Proof' is going to be iffy and a waste of time.

Luckily, people who actually *believe* in their own scams get over the carpings of unbelievers. Usually.

Zinj

Dexter likes everyone! :eyeroll:

Even the unlikeable, such as DM. He just doesn't like the unlikeable as much as he likes the likeable. :no:

It's a result of his high arc for people generally. :eyeroll:

Fortunately, it's not a personal characteristic I happen to share with him. :whistling:


Mark A. Baker

[Mark A. Baker]

Good. Because if Dex had any conviction in that what he is doing was right, he would have commented some of my vary obvious points in this thread. He didn't.

More accurately, you haven't posted any comments worthy of his response. :trash:


Mark A. Baker :yawn:

[MrNobody]

More accurately, you haven't posted any comments worthy of his response. :trash:


Mark A. Baker :yawn:

:lol:, maybe you can post a better response when you're fully awake.

MrN.

[MrNobody]

You want to name and shame the scammers?

Are you scared?

[Terril park]

Are you scared?

Would I ask if I were?

[MrNobody]

Would I ask if I were?

How would I know?

[uniquemand]

I can tell you the name of one of the guys that I don't trust, and who I've had reports was a scammer and a ripoff artist, and who I got a personal impression of "used car salesman" and "self-important ass" from.

Rey Robles.

[dexter gelfand]

Good. Because if Dex had any conviction in that what he is doing was right, he would have commented some of my vary obvious points in this thread. He didn't.

How shallow. "Obvious points?" Hardly. You've been trying to steer this conversation into a debate about my honesty and nature, in effect exposing yourself. Posing as "looking for facts". Prove you aren't a mass murderer. That's your strategy, isn't it- make accusations that nobody can disprove of themselves. A transparent attempt to smear me.

You operate like OSA. Interesting!

How's that working out for you, Mr Nobody?

Love, Dex

[MrNobody]

How shallow. "Obvious points?" Hardly. You've been trying to steer this conversation into a debate about my honesty and nature, in effect exposing yourself. Posing as "looking for facts". Prove you aren't a mass murderer. That's your strategy, isn't it- make accusations that nobody can disprove of themselves. A transparent attempt to smear me.

You operate like OSA. Interesting!

How's that working out for you, Mr Nobody?

Love, Dex

You didn't (want to) see my point(s)? How surprising... :lol:
That would have taken some sort of self-reflection, wouldn't it?

And you're thinking I'm exposing myself here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1FKJ3kHOD8

[AlphOhm]

You didn't (want to) see my point(s)? How surprising... :lol:
That would have taken some sort of self-reflection, wouldn't it?

And you're thinking I'm exposing myself here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1FKJ3kHOD8

Needs moar 50 Hitler poasts.

Oh wait, wrong board...



nvm



Smells like teen spirit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTWKbfoikeg)

[degraded being]

DB, how can it escape you that you have chosen to enter into a thread entitled "My talk at the 2010 Freezone Convention" and thus made yourself an audience for me, and then complained that you are not my audience? Sounds to me more like sour grapes over the fact that ESMB includes Freezoners, and you aren't one. You need to find a way to stop whining, and deal with it. Emma created this board, and she made the rules, not you. If you don't like it, why don't you show the courage and initiative she has, and start your own forum?

Love, Dex

Yeah I know Emma made the rules. It is a usual gambit from the FZers to tell critics this. She didn't make any rules that I cannot post on any particular threads here AFAIK. You have given me advice (about whining) and I will give you advice. Peddle your cult stuff somewhere else and forget about the scientology version of love bombing which is the manipulative ARC bombing. Except it is not working, is it?

[uniquemand]

It's quite fine to discuss the issues you may find in any topic, but there is no reason to cast aspersions, or to get personal.

This has descended into a grudge-match. That's where I think it should go, at this point.

Discussion of ARC as being manipulative is interesting, and certainly it can be used as "love-bombing" (this would be strictly affinity), but that is really artificial.

It's not disingenuous to discuss something with someone that they are interested in, show whatever interest you have in it, and build common understanding. Doing this in service to an agenda to dominate them or herd them is abhorrent, to me, and always felt like a fast one to me when I was being coached on the dissem drill. But using ARC to build a relationship is not, by itself, a problem or an evil act. I don't use the term anymore, I prefer a word like "engagement" or "rapport".

[Infinite]

But using ARC to build a relationship is not, by itself, a problem or an evil act. I don't use the term anymore, I prefer a word like "engagement" or "rapport".

When a Scientologist uses ARC with a wog, they are doing so to generate agreement about Scientology being positive - true or false?

I can understand the use of ARC in an auditing session. Strip away the Scientologese and you're right, it is basically engagement and rapport. Nothing wrong with that - PROVIDED the PC knows BEFORE HAND that they are participating in a religious activity. Out in the "wild", though, I find the application of the ARC model to be manipulative in that the user has a pre-determined end-goal in mind.

Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps Dexter and I can have ARC on any number of subjects other than Scientology. His advertising in a food co-op newsletter is an interesting avenue we could probably explore. I'm involved with a food co-op myself. But, given the application of ARC, can I expect our possible shared reality in the need for alternative means of food production and distribution going forward will mean the discussion will, eventually, become coloured with references to Scientology beliefs as part of a gradual selling process?

Do you get what I'm saying? Its a bit like dealing with staunch Christians: sure, I can maintain friendly relations but there will always be a "hands off" distance in their dialogue with me. There won't be any genuine "affinity" as such, just the exercising of the common manners required for everyone to get along sufficiently well that we can all exercise our rights without impinging on the other. Perhaps that's all Dexter is talking about.

[AlphOhm]

It's quite fine to discuss the issues you may find in any topic, but there is no reason to cast aspersions, or to get personal.

This has descended into a grudge-match. That's where I think it should go, at this point.

Discussion of ARC as being manipulative is interesting, and certainly it can be used as "love-bombing" (this would be strictly affinity), but that is really artificial.

It's not disingenuous to discuss something with someone that they are interested in, show whatever interest you have in it, and build common understanding. Doing this in service to an agenda to dominate them or herd them is abhorrent, to me, and always felt like a fast one to me when I was being coached on the dissem drill. But using ARC to build a relationship is not, by itself, a problem or an evil act. I don't use the term anymore, I prefer a word like "engagement" or "rapport".

Your Scientology joke for the day:

What is the difference between rape and consensual sex?











good regging

[degraded being]

It's quite fine to discuss the issues you may find in any topic, but there is no reason to cast aspersions, or to get personal.

This has descended into a grudge-match. That's where I think it should go, at this point.

Discussion of ARC as being manipulative is interesting, and certainly it can be used as "love-bombing" (this would be strictly affinity), but that is really artificial.

It's not disingenuous to discuss something with someone that they are interested in, show whatever interest you have in it, and build common understanding. Doing this in service to an agenda to dominate them or herd them is abhorrent, to me, and always felt like a fast one to me when I was being coached on the dissem drill. But using ARC to build a relationship is not, by itself, a problem or an evil act. I don't use the term anymore, I prefer a word like "engagement" or "rapport".


Good points, I think.
The grudge match thing? Well, I'm happy that you can see beyond and through the grudge match as well. I think the grudge match thing in this thread is interesting and is not *just* a grduge match which should be halted. This thread is not the same as the FZ venue where the ARC speech took place. Guess what? A very well-intentioned person (which I have no doubts about) *gets up* on ESMB and talks about a topic which is very positive - understanding between people etc etc, it all should be good........but the wheels fall off rons ARC-mobile and the drive shaft break and it not go no more. Hint. It works best on those who are being doctrinated and those already indoctrinated. On wogs and exes it doesn't. Not surprising since its part of the cool aid mixture.

I am interested in the difficulties in dealing with very nice well intentioned people, who I *think* are trying to get me to fall in line to their way of thinking. Sometimes the niceness itself can be a barrier to drawing the lines when an agenda is in the background. That has been a big stumbling block to get around for exes. The fact that many nice people were tangled up in getting the cool aid delivered.
And really why do any FZers want to be here.? It is not relevant whether or not Emma does not exclude them.

[uniquemand]

When I was a freezoner, I liked to talk with people who had been in the Church of Scientology because we shared a common background. The people who were interested in Scientology often shared the same reasons for entering Scientology as I did, and therefore, despite our different conclusions regarding the subject, I could respect their principles.

[degraded being]

When I was a freezoner, I liked to talk with people who had been in the Church of Scientology because we shared a common background. The people who were interested in Scientology often shared the same reasons for entering Scientology as I did, and therefore, despite our different conclusions regarding the subject, I could respect their principles.

Yeah. Fair enough. I think their are enough active FZers here that have a sort of refrigerator full of alcohol over in the corner of the AA meeting room. And I think that if they come here they will not get polite smiles every time they open a thread peddling cool aid. Let them suk it up.

[Moderator 2]

Because I lack the will to cull this thread and grudge match the appropriate posts I'm going to ask that the detractors and critics be satisfied now that they've made their points and leave this FZ thread to the FZers.

Otherwise I'm going to have to actually read this and sort it out.

M2

[Hatshepsut]

From what I understand of the New Jersey sub-dialect of american english (admittedly limited), the commonly heard phrase "go f@ck yourself" performs something of the same linguistic function as a term of endearment or casual pleasantry such as "yes, dear" or "hey, how's it going?".


Mark A. Baker :)

That's true in Boston too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTaVxTmB5k4

*
o New York Times Interview, 2010 :p

* Some guy hit my car fender the other day, and I said unto him, "Be fruitful and multiply." But not in those words.
o The Woody Allen Companion

[dexter gelfand]

When a Scientologist uses ARC with a wog, they are doing so to generate agreement about Scientology being positive - true or false?

I can understand the use of ARC in an auditing session. Strip away the Scientologese and you're right, it is basically engagement and rapport. Nothing wrong with that - PROVIDED the PC knows BEFORE HAND that they are participating in a religious activity. Out in the "wild", though, I find the application of the ARC model to be manipulative in that the user has a pre-determined end-goal in mind.

Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps Dexter and I can have ARC on any number of subjects other than Scientology. His advertising in a food co-op newsletter is an interesting avenue we could probably explore. I'm involved with a food co-op myself. But, given the application of ARC, can I expect our possible shared reality in the need for alternative means of food production and distribution going forward will mean the discussion will, eventually, become coloured with references to Scientology beliefs as part of a gradual selling process?

Do you get what I'm saying? Its a bit like dealing with staunch Christians: sure, I can maintain friendly relations but there will always be a "hands off" distance in their dialogue with me. There won't be any genuine "affinity" as such, just the exercising of the common manners required for everyone to get along sufficiently well that we can all exercise our rights without impinging on the other. Perhaps that's all Dexter is talking about.

Hi Blip, some thoughtful and well-expressed points, thanks. I didn't realize you pulled that ad from the food co-op newsletter, or that it was even on the internet! I'm a native New Jerseyan who grew up thinking that Burger King and White Castle food was OK as long as I also ate salads and took vitamins, but since moving to California, Marina has shown me the error of my ways (But I still sometimes miss the junk food and my Dunkin Donuts Coffee Coolattas:)). I did grow my own organic garden in the back yard as a teenager. I've learned about the evils of national brands from Marina and Dr Mercola's reports.

I would like you and others to understand that I have no compulsion to persuade everyone else to be a Scientologist, but I'm happy to help those who are interested. I don't believe it is the source of all wisdom, or the only valid therapy or method of spiritual growth, I don't think that people involved in Scientology are better than everyone else, I don't know that it is the best way, only that for me it has proven to be a great thing when practiced well. I eagerly learn from non-Scientologists, and I don't close myself off to other ideas, not at all. And I know I'm not the only independent Scientologist who feels this way. That might mean that I don't fit the description of what many ESMB'ers consider a Scientologist is. I consider myself a real Scientologist, capable of seeing and evaluating things for myself, not robotically accepting things that I can't think with.

I think, regarding my freezone talk, that anyone who either accepts or rejects what I am saying because they consider it Scientology, rather than considering my words at face value, does themselves a disservice in their way of thinking.

Love, Dex

[Infinite]

Hi Blip, some thoughtful and well-expressed points, thanks. I didn't realize you pulled that ad from the food co-op newsletter, or that it was even on the internet! I'm a native New Jerseyan who grew up thinking that Burger King and White Castle food was OK as long as I also ate salads and took vitamins, but since moving to California, Marina has shown me the error of my ways (But I still sometimes miss the junk food and my Dunkin Donuts Coffee Coolattas:)). I did grow my own organic garden in the back yard as a teenager. I've learned about the evils of national brands from Marina and Dr Mercola's reports.[/colour]

I too have had more than my fair share of vitamin-enhanced, soy-supplemented, mass-produced pap. I have always been kinda interested in food after growing up on an organic / bio-dynamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodynamic_agriculture)farm. Those were the days when such initiatives were considered the realm of beat-nik barefoot hippies. I guess not much has changed. My 63-year-old mum still has a couple of "special" plants secreted in the tomato hothouse. Like most teenagers, I guess, I eventually railed against my parents before, after exploring many by-ways, returning to my "roots". These days, I am a bit of a food activist, spurred into action after our government rammed through legislation permitting unlabeled genetically engineered food on the market. These days, a group of us keep an eye on empty sections ( "lots" I think they're called in the States) and, if there's been no development in, say, six months, we organise a night time raid. We dig out a nice big piece of the section and put down a veggie garden. Surprisingly, about half of them are left alone and the veggies grow to maturation, at which stage we distribute them free-of-charge and with leaflets explain how easy it is to grow veggies to the nearest houses, and/or sell them through the co-op.


[COLOR="Blue"]I would like you and others to understand that I have no compulsion to persuade everyone else to be a Scientologist, but I'm happy to help those who are interested. I don't believe it is the source of all wisdom, or the only valid therapy or method of spiritual growth, I don't think that people involved in Scientology are better than everyone else, I don't know that it is the best way, only that for me it has proven to be a great thing when practiced well. I eagerly learn from non-Scientologists, and I don't close myself off to other ideas, not at all. And I know I'm not the only independent Scientologist who feels this way. That might mean that I don't fit the description of what many ESMB'ers consider a Scientologist is. I consider myself a real Scientologist, capable of seeing and evaluating things for myself, not robotically accepting things that I can't think with.

I think, regarding my freezone talk, that anyone who either accepts or rejects what I am saying because they consider it Scientology, rather than considering my words at face value, does themselves a disservice in their way of thinking.

Love, Dex

The mod has spoken so this shall be my last statement in regard to Scientology itself on this thread. In short, I have three main objections, specifically: applying the tech to children, the religion/therapy divide, and the efficacy issue.

In regard to the second, I don't doubt for a moment that you are being honest to yourselves but I would far rather that you were honest to everyone. Especially when it comes to children. As to the latter, there is nothing unique in the Auditing aspect of Scientology. The original sources have all either been vastly improved upon over the past 60 years, or have been discarded. I genuinely feel that whatever benefits you are able to bring to your PCs can be significantly improved upon and many of the real dangers can be negated.

TL/DR: You seem like a good chap. We have at least something in common. I wish you would explore other avenues for your therapy work. Please don't apply Hubbard tech to children.

[Infinite]

Something out of left field and, talking about food supply and the need for new models, here's the first of nine parts to an amazing documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-WOThJsBCM

[Mark A. Baker]

In regard to the second, I don't doubt for a moment that you are being honest to yourselves but I would far rather that you were honest to everyone. Especially when it comes to children. As to the latter, there is nothing unique in the Auditing aspect of Scientology. The original sources have all either been vastly improved upon over the past 60 years, or have been discarded. I genuinely feel that whatever benefits you are able to bring to your PCs can be significantly improved upon and many of the real dangers can be negated.

TL/DR: You seem like a good chap. We have at least something in common. I wish you would explore other avenues for your therapy work. Please don't apply Hubbard tech to children.

All of which goes to say that you don't actually know what Dex does or thinks. :eyeroll:

Careful about leaping to assumptions about freezoners simply because they continue to advocate aspects of scientology tech. Not only is the freezone not the church, many freezoners were among the original protesters as to abuses of both LRH & the church. :yes:


Mark A. Baker

[Veda]

-snip-

Careful about leaping to assumptions about freezoners simply because they continue to advocate aspects of scientology tech. Not only is the freezone not the church, many freezoners were among the original protesters as to abuses of both LRH & the church. :yes:

-snip-



For the sake of accuracy...

"Aspects of Scientology tech"? No. "Scientology tech." Period. Advocated by the vast majority of "freezoners" is Scientology tech, and in the form of the Grade Chart. Why is this so difficult to admit? Is it because you're posting on ESMB, and the ESMB "public" is more agreeable to "aspects of Scientology tech" than to "Scientology tech"?

It's not true that "freezoners" were amongst the original protesters to the Church, and certainly not to LRH, whom they revered.

In 1984, I was associated with a break-away mission - where I audited - and only one person there identified herself with the term, "Free Zone," and that was a Captain Bill person. This is the same person who showed me a loose leaf notebook containing Free Zone SP Declares, amongst them an SP Declare for L. Ron Hubbard Jr., who was, according the the Free Zone, being "monitored by Xenu."

Other than this one person, the term Free Zone/FreeZone/Freezone was never heard or used, except in reference to Captain Bill and his group, who were pretty much regarded as being kooky.

Still, many people, then, were naive. Many had only recently left Scientology, and much information was still becoming known.

An important pre-Internet publication, which began in 1983, was the magazine, 'The Free Spirit'. It didn't use the term, Freezone, in any of its variations.

And by 1990, most of those originally involved had moved beyond even vaguely thinking of themselves as Scientologists. Too much information had been circulated and examined. People were evolving.

In the early/mid 1980s, who was a "freezoner"? Was David Mayo a "Freezoner"? No. Was Martin Samuels a Freezoner? No. Was Gerry Armstrong a "Freezoner"? No. Who was a Freezoner? Captain Bill was a Free Zoner, and he was the only prominent person using the term "Free Zone" - until the late 1990s, when someone began using "Freezone" to include others not in Captain Bill's group.

[Mark A. Baker]

"Aspects" of Scientology tech? No. Scientology tech.

Aspects. There's a whole lot of pickin' 'n choosin' going on. Not that you are willing to admit it, as that would spoil your "sales pitch". :eyeroll:



It's not true that "freezoners" were amongst the original protesters to the Church, and certainly not to LRH, whom they revered.[

Yes, it is true. Nor do all freezoners revere LRH. Frankly, most of those I know don't. :yes:



In 1984, I was associated with a break-away mission - where I audited - and only one person there identified herself with the term, "Free Zone," and that was a Captain Bill person.

That was 1984, This is 2010. Come up to present time, Veda. You seem to be a bit "stuck on the track". :whistling:


Mark A. Baker

[Veda]

-snip-

many freezoners were among the original protesters as to abuses of both LRH & the church. :yes:


Mark A. Baker

I am in present time, thank you very much.

Your comment was in reference to the "original protesters," and the original protesters were from 1983 and 1984.

[Mark A. Baker]

I am in present time, thank you very much.

Your comment was in reference to the "original protesters," and the original protesters were from 1983 and 1984.

That's right. I was among them. :D


Mark A. Baker

[Veda]

That's right. I was among them. :D


Mark A. Baker

And, unlike so many others who evolved, you're still a Scientologist.

Congratulations. :happydance:

[I told you I was trouble]

Ok, ITYIWT gets an extra hug. Sorry, guys, but that's just how we roll. :happydance:


Lol, it is.

:happydance:

[dexter gelfand]

I would love to hear your stories of those days in the 80's, I'm very curious about what was going on while I was an oblivious staff member in New York, merely scratching my head about those odd group SP declares around 1982 and 1983.

As to the term "Freezone", I've seen LRH, "Captain" Bill Robertson and a 3rd person whose name escapes me, each credited with coining the term. I think we can all agree that Robertson popularized it.

There have always been defectors from the CoS, individually, but as far as I know, it only began to occur in waves of people when the mission holder conferences occurred in 1982, and that was approximately the time of Bill Robertson's "Freezone" group.

Now, in 2010, "Freezone" has become a generic term for independent Scientologists. The "freezone" has come to mean any practice of any version, from any era of Scientology techniques, and those involved. I've been to the last 3 freezone conventions, and other gatherings, and have many friends who consider themselves "freezoners", and do not accept or practice Bill Robertson's tech, and many who do.

I've noticed that when an independent Scientologist is upset or angry about others, they often claim to disassociate themselves by stating that they are not or no longer a freezoner, and speak in derogatory tones about "the freezone", but in either case it is not used widely in present time to identify someone as being associated with Bill Robertson's group or their particular practices. "Independent Scientologist" has come to have 2 different meanings, the first being the broad spectrum of Scientology practicioners outside the CoS, and those don't want to be associated with others who are known as "freezoners".

Love, Dex

[Voltaire's Child]

Well, I've dabbled in quite a few "off-stream" practices myself, and although "some" people considered me their Guru, or wanted to make me their "own personal Jesus", I NEVER took any money for that, because that would have been unethical, in my book.

Well, I think it depends on what's being done. If someone counsels someone- which is what auditing is- they spend their time. So why not charge a fee? If they give a course, there's overhead. And, again, as Dex points out, I've seen quite a few people get a LOT of "freebies" in the FZ.

It's just like when there was a thread about the 2009 FZ convention, someone actually wanted to know why there was a charge to get in. That was so ridiculous. The convention was being given at a hotel. It costs money to hold it. There were cookies, coffee, soft drinks- that costs money.

So I personally think some people take the "you shouldn't charge money" thing too far. I think it depends on what's going on. I would think there are things that should be gratis and that there are things where it's ok to charge. In any event, I'm free to withhold my money AND my business from anyone.

[Auditor's Toad]

Well, I think it depends on what's being done. If someone counsels someone- which is what auditing is- they spend their time. So why not charge a fee? If they give a course, there's overhead. And, again, as Dex points out, I've seen quite a few people get a LOT of "freebies" in the FZ.

It's just like when there was a thread about the 2009 FZ convention, someone actually wanted to know why there was a charge to get in. That was so ridiculous. The convention was being given at a hotel. It costs money to hold it. There were cookies, coffee, soft drinks- that costs money.

So I personally think some people take the "you shouldn't charge money" thing too far. I think it depends on what's going on. I would think there are things that should be gratis and that there are things where it's ok to charge. In any event, I'm free to withhold my money AND my business from anyone.

I have always thought this "nobody should pay for anything" ( lack of ) mentality is most prevelant in those who have spent a TON of money in scientology. Ain't that funny?

Seems to me it costs to produce a product and people are entitled to be compensated IF one wants to buy what is being sold.

Somebody might listen to the whines of " I was very willing to spend $10,000 per intensive for NOTS but how dare anyone ask me to pay to get in an event being held in a NICE hotel. Or, yeah I spent LOTS of $$ to do training at ( org of your choice) but how dare anyone ask me to PAY a fraction of that for their training! "

Pay or pass, but, geez, to whine about these pittance prices after hundreds of thousands of dollars to scientology? Really?

[freet43]

Somehow the simplicity of ARC appears to be being missed. ARC is NOT some kind of Scientology technique or something that one "applies to someone" to get some kind of result....

Affinity cannot be faked... Most can sense when someone is being phoney with them, right? On the other hand, one can look at just about anyone and find something likeable, correct?

Reality - that which is agreed to be real. Have you noticed that people generally hang out with others that they have things in common? people that view things as they do, or that they think the same way as, or that have the same interests? Don't people choose their friends usually because they have things in common? And, can't one say that they like their friends...that is where affinity comes in....

Communication. Have you noticed that if you start taking with people, you then find things that you share - ideas that you have in common - ie: things that you share reality on....

And, that brings understanding. If you like someone, and share some reality with that person, and communicate with them, don't you then feel you have some understanding of that person, or whatever it is being discussed?

Long ago, I found that this made so much sense - it was something I observed in life. I did not have to buy into it somehow...

By seeing this, one can also see how the parts interplay - for example, if one stays communicating with someone, and then starts to understand them better and where they are coming from, then oftentimes one will find they like the person better....

Many people that have never heard of Scientology may still be aware of parts of this and how the components interplay.

for example, in mediation, one gets the parties to communicate - bring up their individual sides and realities and try to come to some agreement...

Ever heard the saying "communication is the universal solvent"?

Marina


When a Scientologist uses ARC with a wog, they are doing so to generate agreement about Scientology being positive - true or false?

I can understand the use of ARC in an auditing session. Strip away the Scientologese and you're right, it is basically engagement and rapport. Nothing wrong with that - PROVIDED the PC knows BEFORE HAND that they are participating in a religious activity. Out in the "wild", though, I find the application of the ARC model to be manipulative in that the user has a pre-determined end-goal in mind.

Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps Dexter and I can have ARC on any number of subjects other than Scientology. His advertising in a food co-op newsletter is an interesting avenue we could probably explore. I'm involved with a food co-op myself. But, given the application of ARC, can I expect our possible shared reality in the need for alternative means of food production and distribution going forward will mean the discussion will, eventually, become coloured with references to Scientology beliefs as part of a gradual selling process?

Do you get what I'm saying? Its a bit like dealing with staunch Christians: sure, I can maintain friendly relations but there will always be a "hands off" distance in their dialogue with me. There won't be any genuine "affinity" as such, just the exercising of the common manners required for everyone to get along sufficiently well that we can all exercise our rights without impinging on the other. Perhaps that's all Dexter is talking about.

[uniquemand]

I've heard "communication is the universal solvent"... but only from Scientologists.

[dexter gelfand]

I've heard "communication is the universal solvent"... but only from Scientologists.

Well obviously, Kev. Its an LRH quote, what would you expect? But the idea of "talking things out" is another way of expressing the same idea, and it is quite common.

Love, Dex

[freet43]

I've heard "communication is the universal solvent"... but only from Scientologists.

I didn't recall that was an LRH quote.

But, I've heard that exact wording from others that were never in Scientology.

Just this week, I heard that from a psychologist/mediator where I work.

In doing a google search - one sees many quotes of LRH and that saying,

however one can also find this was an HINDU phrase, it is quoted on a Toastmasters site, and included along with the very standard psychological "steps of grieving"on a memorial website.... there's a guy who wrote an ezine article titled" Paradigms, Reality And The Interference Pattern" and on, and on....

Did LRH coin the phrase? who knows - he certainly popularized it. However, if he did, does that then make it untrue?

Marina

[uniquemand]

I don't think that it is true. I do think it's a nice jingoistic idea, though. If people don't want to communicate, and you communicate with them, that will lead to conflict, not resolution. I do think that there is a magic to communication, though, I just don't think it's quite that simple. It's a good idea to try to communicate to solve problems, and the ARC triangle is a good, simple way to understand relations.

[Mark A. Baker]

I don't think that it is true. I do think it's a nice jingoistic idea, though. If people don't want to communicate, and you communicate with them, that will lead to conflict, not resolution.

No, U. That would be communication on an "out-gradient". It would be like telling your wife her sister is a better lay. :eyeroll:

The point of R in arc is to communicate with another person on a reality level they can HAVE. Not just go off blathering at people because YOU believe you have something to say. If someone "doesn't want to communicate with you" then find a communication they may be willing to have. That may involve sitting down, shutting up, and paying attention to them. That can also be a "communication".


Mark A. Baker

[Mark A. Baker]

I've heard "communication is the universal solvent"... but only from Scientologists.

Chemists & physicists often claim that water has that property. :p


Mark A. Baker

[Veda]

Note: I hadn't read Moderator 2's instructions until after my last postings but, now having read them, I'm not sure if this added content will be acceptable or not. This consists, mostly, of background information which may provide some insight and balance, and - in any event - will be brief.


Somehow the simplicity of ARC appears to be being missed. ARC is NOT some kind of Scientology technique or something that one "applies to someone" to get some kind of result....

Affinity cannot be faked... Most can sense when someone is being phoney with them, right? On the other hand, one can look at just about anyone and find something likeable, correct?

Reality - that which is agreed to be real. Have you noticed that people generally hang out with others that they have things in common? people that view things as they do, or that they think the same way as, or that have the same interests? Don't people choose their friends usually because they have things in common? And, can't one say that they like their friends...that is where affinity comes in....

Communication. Have you noticed that if you start taking with people, you then find things that you share - ideas that you have in common - ie: things that you share reality on....

And, that brings understanding. If you like someone, and share some reality with that person, and communicate with them, don't you then feel you have some understanding of that person, or whatever it is being discussed?

Long ago, I found that this made so much sense - it was something I observed in life. I did not have to buy into it somehow...

By seeing this, one can also see how the parts interplay - for example, if one stays communicating with someone, and then starts to understand them better and where they are coming from, then oftentimes one will find they like the person better....

Many people that have never heard of Scientology may still be aware of parts of this and how the components interplay.

for example, in mediation, one gets the parties to communicate - bring up their individual sides and realities and try to come to some agreement...

Ever heard the saying "communication is the universal solvent"?

Marina

On affinity being faked -

From the John McMaster interview (1986) in the book, 'Messiah or Madman?':

"I never spoke with him [Hubbard] until I graduated from the Briefing Course in the first week in January 1964. And he sent for me and that's how it all started.

"I said to him, 'There's something I'd better tell you before someone else does, that I'm not a Scientologist. All I'm interested in is this function of auditing'.

"And he said, 'That's exactly why I want you. You are not like the rest out there'.

"And in all the years of working for him I found that he absolutely despised people for being Scientologists...

"Hubbard used affinity to manipulate people.

"But it was always an apparent affinity really. He would say to people, 'You are the only one'. I have heard about a hundred people say that to me: 'Oh well, he told me I was the only one'...

"And people would never destroy their allegiance to Ron because he had told them they were 'the only one'.

"Hubbard had brought me a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica and put it next to me. And pointed out a thing he wanted me to read, and that was where Buddha predicts that a red headed man will appear in the West - Maitreya and so on. And his first disciple would be a 'disciple of love' - namely myself."

Some additional LRH data on realty, truth, and facts, plus some commentary:

L. Ron Hubbard, on "inventing facts," from an April 1955 'HCOB':

"A datum is an invention which has become agreed upon and solidified... When it is thoroughly agreed upon it becomes, then, a truth.

"The word 'lie' is simply 'an invention with a bad connotation'... Thus society frowns upon the invention of facts."

Another notable quote, this from the loose-lipped 'PDC' lectures, "It's a trap not being able to prevaricate."

And then there's 'TR-L', the Training Routine for Lying.

And, of course, there's the first half of the Fair Game Law, "Trick and lie to."

And then there's Scientology's multi-layered PR Tech, which dishonestly announces its own honesty while, further in, instructs on how to manipulate, and further in still, instructs on how to mislead and lie.

These things are as much a part of subject as the "auditing comm cycle," and discharging tension by finding "earlier similars" (wording is Korzybski's), and these ingredients, along with others, combine - per the founder's design - making Scientology.

In Scientology, lying is only supposed to flow downward, with Hubbard and the hierarchy free to lie to Scientologists, but Scientologists expected to obey, and to open their minds completely to inspection by the organization.

It shouldn't be surprising that a 'Good Scientologist' is willing to lie to those he sees as below him: the "DBs," "SPs," and the "Wogs."

It's quite a system: an 'applied philosophy' that make liars out of good people, who - themselves - have been lied to.

The first step to unraveling this situation is to describe it.

A little background on "ARC" and related items:

As I recall, there is a chapter on "Love" in a book titled 'Little Essays Towards Truth' (by one of Hubbard's main sources) Aleister Crowley, that describes something akin to what became Hubbard's "Affinity." Suffice it to say that, in both Crowley's system and Hubbard's system, "love," or "affinity," has a "mechanical" quality, almost like a chemical reaction which can, sometimes, be deliberately brought about - if one has the know-how. In both systems, "love, affinity, and ARC" are subordinate to "will, control, and KRC." (See the Scientology symbol, the "S with the double triangle.")

Hubbard's 'The Factors' (which Scientologists tend to regard with appreciative awe) appeared during the time that he was deeply into Aleister Crowley as inspiration, and appears to be a re-expression of Crowley's 'Naples Arrangement', and other statements by Crowley, and of certain Kabbalistic ideas.

It's interesting that Crowley added "Bliss, Knowledge, Being" (from Yoga) to his (Kabbalistic) 'Naples Arrangement', in the same place that Hubbard added "Affinity (Bliss), Reality (Knowledge), Communication (Being)" to his 'The Factors', indicating that Hubbard was drawing directly from Crowley's writings.

[uniquemand]

Love, under will.

A truly heinous and left-handed path.

Will under love: fixed.

[I told you I was trouble]

snipped

Somehow the simplicity of ARC appears to be being missed. ARC is NOT some kind of Scientology technique or something that one "applies to someone" to get some kind of result....



Yes, it is.

ARC, the tone scale and KRC etc are all 'tools' used by scientologists to achieve whatever they are attempting to make happen (cause).

Let's call a spade a shovel.

:yes:

[Infinite]

Somehow the simplicity of ARC appears to be being missed. ARC is NOT some kind of Scientology technique or something that one "applies to someone" to get some kind of result....

Affinity cannot be faked... Most can sense when someone is being phoney with them, right? On the other hand, one can look at just about anyone and find something likeable, correct?

Reality - that which is agreed to be real. Have you noticed that people generally hang out with others that they have things in common? people that view things as they do, or that they think the same way as, or that have the same interests? Don't people choose their friends usually because they have things in common? And, can't one say that they like their friends...that is where affinity comes in....

Communication. Have you noticed that if you start taking with people, you then find things that you share - ideas that you have in common - ie: things that you share reality on....

And, that brings understanding. If you like someone, and share some reality with that person, and communicate with them, don't you then feel you have some understanding of that person, or whatever it is being discussed?

Long ago, I found that this made so much sense - it was something I observed in life. I did not have to buy into it somehow...

By seeing this, one can also see how the parts interplay - for example, if one stays communicating with someone, and then starts to understand them better and where they are coming from, then oftentimes one will find they like the person better....

Many people that have never heard of Scientology may still be aware of parts of this and how the components interplay.

for example, in mediation, one gets the parties to communicate - bring up their individual sides and realities and try to come to some agreement...

Ever heard the saying "communication is the universal solvent"?

Marina

All just seems a bit "Amway" to me.

[degraded being]

No, U. That would be communication on an "out-gradient". It would be like telling your wife her sister is a better lay. :eyeroll:

The point of R in arc is to communicate with another person on a reality level they can HAVE. Not just go off blathering at people because YOU believe you have something to say. If someone "doesn't want to communicate with you" then find a communication they may be willing to have. That may involve sitting down, shutting up, and paying attention to them. That can also be a "communication".


Mark A. Baker

And ignoring someone, is actually a "communication". And so is thinking about someone. You see, the jargon category-boxing of anything and everything into the cult leaders formulae is actually, "reality". That is a self evident truth. An Axiom. I suspect this is too difficult for you exes to grasp, because you are full of hate. But those of us who get it are waaaaay cool. :whistling:

[Terril park]

I don't think that it is true. I do think it's a nice jingoistic idea, though. If people don't want to communicate, and you communicate with them, that will lead to conflict, not resolution. I do think that there is a magic to communication, though, I just don't think it's quite that simple. It's a good idea to try to communicate to solve problems, and the ARC triangle is a good, simple way to understand relations.

Enforced communication is reverse scientology.

[freet43]

Really - ALL exes are full of hate? Not my Freezone friends.

Marina



And ignoring someone, is actually a "communication". And so is thinking about someone. You see, the jargon category-boxing of anything and everything into the cult leaders formulae is actually, "reality". That is a self evident truth. An Axiom. I suspect this is too difficult for you exes to grasp, because you are full of hate. But those of us who get it are waaaaay cool. :whistling:

[freet43]

I, for one, have no problem with your communications - you do bring up interesting points.

Perhaps I should clarify on the affinity being faked - people can try to fake affinity, but someone with a high awareness level would be able to observe the fakeness.

Most people, I bet, would have noticed that at some point in their lives, so I was trying to give an example that might be real to people - not speak in absolutes.

As far as some of the rest pf your post - yes you do mention the dark side....when I became aware of such I left the organization. That was decades ago....

What do those things have to do with my post that A R C and U can be observed in life?

Yes, a lot of people lie - not just Scientologists. Personally, I don't agree with that....never did. I found it a huge outpoint that justifications for lying were being promoted by the church ....so I left.

And, finally, A R C and U were around way before Crowley... none of these are new concepts....

Marina


Note: I hadn't read Moderator 2's instructions until after my last postings but, now having read them, I'm not sure if this added content will be acceptable or not. This consists, mostly, of background information which may provide some insight and balance, and - in any event - will be brief.



On affinity being faked -

From the John McMaster interview (1986) in the book, 'Messiah or Madman?':

"I never spoke with him [Hubbard] until I graduated from the Briefing Course in the first week in January 1964. And he sent for me and that's how it all started.

"I said to him, 'There's something I'd better tell you before someone else does, that I'm not a Scientologist. All I'm interested in is this function of auditing'.

"And he said, 'That's exactly why I want you. You are not like the rest out there'.

"And in all the years of working for him I found that he absolutely despised people for being Scientologists...

"Hubbard used affinity to manipulate people.

"But it was always an apparent affinity really. He would say to people, 'You are the only one'. I have heard about a hundred people say that to me: 'Oh well, he told me I was the only one'...

"And people would never destroy their allegiance to Ron because he had told them they were 'the only one'.

"Hubbard had brought me a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica and put it next to me. And pointed out a thing he wanted me to read, and that was where Buddha predicts that a red headed man will appear in the West - Maitreya and so on. And his first disciple would be a 'disciple of love' - namely myself."

Some additional LRH data on realty, truth, and facts, plus some commentary:

L. Ron Hubbard, on "inventing facts," from an April 1955 'HCOB':

"A datum is an invention which has become agreed upon and solidified... When it is thoroughly agreed upon it becomes, then, a truth.

"The word 'lie' is simply 'an invention with a bad connotation'... Thus society frowns upon the invention of facts."

Another notable quote, this from the loose-lipped 'PDC' lectures, "It's a trap not being able to prevaricate."

And then there's 'TR-L', the Training Routine for Lying.

And, of course, there's the first half of the Fair Game Law, "Trick and lie to."

And then there's Scientology's multi-layered PR Tech, which dishonestly announces its own honesty while, further in, instructs on how to manipulate, and further in still, instructs on how to mislead and lie.

These things are as much a part of subject as the "auditing comm cycle," and discharging tension by finding "earlier similars" (wording is Korzybski's), and these ingredients, along with others, combine - per the founder's design - making Scientology.

In Scientology, lying is only supposed to flow downward, with Hubbard and the hierarchy free to lie to Scientologists, but Scientologists expected to obey, and to open their minds completely to inspection by the organization.

It shouldn't be surprising that a 'Good Scientologist' is willing to lie to those he sees as below him: the "DBs," "SPs," and the "Wogs."

It's quite a system: an 'applied philosophy' that make liars out of good people, who - themselves - have been lied to.

The first step to unraveling this situation is to describe it.

A little background on "ARC" and related items:

As I recall, there is a chapter on "Love" in a book titled 'Little Essays Towards Truth' (by one of Hubbard's main sources) Aleister Crowley, that describes something akin to what became Hubbard's "Affinity." Suffice it to say that, in both Crowley's system and Hubbard's system, "love," or "affinity," has a "mechanical" quality, almost like a chemical reaction which can, sometimes, be deliberately brought about - if one has the know-how. In both systems, "love, affinity, and ARC" are subordinate to "will, control, and KRC." (See the Scientology symbol, the "S with the double triangle.")

Hubbard's 'The Factors' (which Scientologists tend to regard with appreciative awe) appeared during the time that he was deeply into Aleister Crowley as inspiration, and appears to be a re-expression of Crowley's 'Naples Arrangement', and other statements by Crowley, and of certain Kabbalistic ideas.

It's interesting that Crowley added "Bliss, Knowledge, Being" (from Yoga) to his (Kabbalistic) 'Naples Arrangement', in the same place that Hubbard added "Affinity (Bliss), Reality (Knowledge), Communication (Being)" to his 'The Factors', indicating that Hubbard was drawing directly from Crowley's writings.

[freet43]

I was just trying to go more basic and get the concepts themselves understood.

People can obfuscate as much as they want, but A R C and U are observable to those that look and really are simple concepts.

Marina



Yes, it is.

ARC, the tone scale and KRC etc are all 'tools' used by scientologists to achieve whatever they are attempting to make happen (cause).

Let's call a spade a shovel.

:yes:

[I told you I was trouble]

I was just trying to go more basic and get the concepts themselves understood.

People can obfuscate as much as they want, but A R C and U are observable to those that look and really are simple concepts.

Marina

I believe the concepts are understood (we are Exes after all) and yes, they are indeed very simple tools (ARC and U) and to a degree they do 'work' ... but my point was that they are tools along with all the other hubbard tools (including TR's of course) that are arrogantly used by scientologists to "handle" people and I find that amazing.

[Voltaire's Child]

Well, D,

Ignoring or refraining from communication is not communication. But it is the act of someone deciding who he wants to talk to (or write to).

[freet43]

who I believe is NOT an ex....

(and anyone else that did not understand what was being talked about.



I believe the concepts are understood (we are Exes after all) and yes, they are indeed very simple tools (ARC and U) and to a degree they do 'work' ... but my point was that they are tools along with all the other hubbard tools (including TR's of course) that are arrogantly used by scientologists to "handle" people and I find that amazing.

[nexus100]

One can create affinity as an emotional wave, with no meaning to it. If affinity existed it would be understanding. One knows the other viewpoint well enough to occupy that space. But that isn't affinity, it doesn't exist unless you decide it does, my opinion.
Never ever use any of that stuff if you want to understand. Any tech is simply creation that puts a wall between you and what you are looking at. Just look.

[VaD]

Whether one "used" ARC or KRC on you, does it matter?

If a person has good feelings towards you, he may call it ARC, love, sympathy...
If one has bad feelings, he might call it lack of ARC, love or sympathy..

Everyone takes feelings of other person as feelings (not as its verbal description).

If one *manipultes* another person with ARC and KRC it's one thing. If he/she does it naturally, it' another one.

If we fight Hubbard's ARC and KRC we only fight linguistic.
His Info is just his info.
It's not THE Truth.

[programmer_guy]

I've heard "communication is the universal solvent"... but only from Scientologists.



I didn't recall that was an LRH quote.

But, I've heard that exact wording from others that were never in Scientology.

Just this week, I heard that from a psychologist/mediator where I work.

In doing a google search - one sees many quotes of LRH and that saying,

however one can also find this was an HINDU phrase, it is quoted on a Toastmasters site, and included along with the very standard psychological "steps of grieving"on a memorial website.... there's a guy who wrote an ezine article titled" Paradigms, Reality And The Interference Pattern" and on, and on....

Did LRH coin the phrase? who knows - he certainly popularized it. However, if he did, does that then make it untrue?

Marina

bold emphasis mine

P.A.B. No. 54
PROFESSIONAL AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
10 June 1955



Find the reality of the preclear. This is the watchword of processing. Although communication, as completely outlined in Dianetics, 1955! is a universal solvent, remember that there are also two other corners to the triangle, and that one of these corners is Reality. That R corner of the triangle is very important to you as an auditor because you, having very great certainties on this and on that, are very prone to forget that your Realities are greater than those of your preclear.

[Zinjifar]

Not to forget affinity :)

After all, even if you communicate and people have 'reality' on your shit, if they don't like you...

the ARC, comes tumbling down...

Zinj

[degraded being]

Really - ALL exes are full of hate? Not my Freezone friends.

Marina

I was being sarcastic at Mark bending reality to force it into ron's claptrap.

[degraded being]

I was being sarcastic at Mark bending reality to force it into ron's claptrap.

Ps. Marina, were you being sarcastic? Or were you really wanting to limit *not being full with hate* to FZers only? I have seem some of them going through horrible contortions not to have to show normal emotions when only *high-toned* emotions are allowed by the internal censor.
This thread is an example.

[dexter gelfand]

Ps. Marina, were you being sarcastic? Or were you really wanting to limit *not being full with hate* to FZers only? I have seem some of them going through horrible contortions not to have to show normal emotions when only *high-toned* emotions are allowed by the internal censor.
This thread is an example.
Hey DB,

Don't take this the wrong way, but go fuck yourself:)

Love, Dex

[uniquemand]

LMAO. I fucking love that line.

[degraded being]

That's not nice.

[I told you I was trouble]

T, the message was titled "clarification for Blip" who I believe is NOT an ex....

(and anyone else that did not understand what was being talked about.

Fair enough.

I still disagree with how you explained/clarified it though.

I see all of these tools as ways for scientologists to "handle people" and it is normally the young, the naïve and the desperate/lonely that can be sucked into the vortex of scientology at a low moment and then be spat out later, usually when they wake up and start saying 'no', and that is and always has been my concern especially as I do not agree that the tek 'works' any better than some genuine caring would, and it gets especially ridiculous after OT2.

:)

[programmer_guy]

Hey DB,

Don't take this the wrong way, but go fuck yourself:)

Love, Dex

Wait a minute... did you do level zero and get the full EP of that level?
<snicker>

[degraded being]

Hey, I just reread that advice to go F---- myself (I will not write such a nasty word), and obnosed that it had a smiley on it. ("obnosed" comes up as an error on the spell/grammar check.
So it is not a *not nice* comm. It's kinda nice.
But the advice I really need is F---K Off. So I can get out of the house.
What am I doing here? really.
Dex, I think you are learning some valuable lessons here in how to deal with people who don't have enforced uptoneness restricting them.
I could now even say "I love you" but that makes me feel a bit gooey.

[Voltaire's Child]

Maybe he's worried that you're not getting laid enough?

(ducking and laughing)

[programmer_guy]

degraded being,

Obviously you understand, by now, that freezoners are very intolerant of those that argue against "the tech" in its various forms. :)

And some that claim to be ex-Scientologists are not really ex-Scientologists.
Some just like to do this in order to keep their feet in both camps.

[uniquemand]

And some that claim to be critics are actually just looking to try to inflame arguments, rather than present their case.

[programmer_guy]

And some that claim to be critics are actually just looking to try to inflame arguments, rather than present their case.

And then there is the "loaded language"... "postulates", "exterior", "in-comm", etc.

The Loaded Language of cults (some people never get out)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhmQtAkA7bo

What do you think?

[uniquemand]

It's a good idea for people to learn to speak the language of the society in which they live and work. While I understand the terms of scientology, it has been enormously instructive for me to learn the words and concepts within occult literature and psychology that are comparable or even identical.

Often, I've found that the historical antecedent to the scientology term was more accurate, and bound to more realistic phenomena. Part of the draw of dianetics and scientology to a lot of people was probably the "science fiction" sound of the terms used and the illustrations on posters. People wanted to live in a world where advanced civilizations, space-faring cultures, were a reality. People were bored with the idea of a 9-5, two cats in the yard, 2.5 cars, 2.5 kids, etc.

That's my view. The terminology doesn't hurt me, I don't really care about whatever theoretical load it carries. Just get out and learn to speak English.

Hubbard claimed he had to invent jargon to cover new concepts of the mind/spirit. It's not true. There is nothing new under the sun, when it comes to human nature.

[programmer_guy]

While I understand the terms of scientology, it has been enormously instructive for me to learn the words and concepts within occult literature and psychology that are comparable or even identical.


I would like for you to elaborate on this point. (address the "Loaded Language" video.)
And put it into very simple language that anyone would understand.

[uniquemand]

engram: trauma
postulate: visualized outcome
reactive mind: group of conditioned associations
OT: wizard

I could go on. There's no need. People who are unwilling or unable to see the connections in other subjects aren't going to suddenly see them because I list them.

As for the video, yes, I get the idea that changing maps can make people think they are in a new territory.

[degraded being]

engram: trauma
postulate: visualized outcome
reactive mind: group of conditioned associations
OT: wizard

I could go on. There's no need. People who are unwilling or unable to see the connections in other subjects aren't going to suddenly see them because I list them.

As for the video, yes, I get the idea that changing maps can make people think they are in a new territory.

Anyone can see the connection. Anyone can call an engram a trauma
or a postulate a visualized outcome. That is close enough for some discussions. For some other discussions close enough is not good enough to discuss things properly. An "engram" has certain characteristics and ways it can be addressed, "run out" etc, in the pseudo science of the cult.
I don't know how much accuracy is needed on this particular thread.

[Infinite]

In wog world, engrams are a postulated (ie, theoretical) biochemical change (presumably in neural tissue) that represents a memory.

In Scientology, an "engram" is the effect of aberrated alien spiritual residue implanted with false data using massive movie screens then blown up in volcanoes 75 billion years ago by evil inter-galactic overlord Xenu. Only, you don't get told this until you have been sucked into the mind warp (http://www.scribd.com/doc/5100290/scientologydisseminationtechnology) via "fully loaded" ARC and have already parted with hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Beware of Scientologists offering "affinity" . . .

[Voltaire's Child]

degraded being,

Obviously you understand, by now, that freezoners are very intolerant of those that argue against "the tech" in its various forms. :)

And some that claim to be ex-Scientologists are not really ex-Scientologists.
Some just like to do this in order to keep their feet in both camps.

Actually, that's not true and is a screaming generality. I know Free Zoners who've picketed with the anons and also on their own. I've had many conversations with Free Zoners where they expressed interest in other ologies and also in which they expressed a great deal of understanding for others who are fully ex (meaning, out of CofS AND out of Scn.).

Dexter and Freet have been patient and gracious all throughout this thread. Terril Park has met many critics and hung out with them. Not one of those people with whom he met and hung out got a lecture about how they shouldn't do or think what they're doing and thinking. Not one. Same with me, when I was an indie.

I have a good friend who's very FZ and who's done much to help critics and exes, obtaining some very key information and so on. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail but I know who it is and a lot of critics are friends with this person.

I know a lot of FZers and Indies and used to be one. Some of them do have a problem with criticism of Scn. Many don't. It's probably the same ratio as with folks on the other side of the coin's thoughts about the practice of Scn outside CofS.

[Mark A. Baker]

Well, D,

Ignoring or refraining from communication is not communication. But it is the act of someone deciding who he wants to talk to (or write to).

Actually, Fluff, it IS a communcation. Not only have they decided, they are communicating the unwillingness to communicate. It's an analog of what artists call "negative space".


Mark A. Baker

[dexter gelfand]

Actually, Fluff, it IS a communcation. Not only have they decided, they are communicating the unwillingness to communicate. It's an analog of what artists call "negative space".


Mark A. Baker
I would say that ignoring someone is not necessarily a communication in itself. You can ignore someone as quietly as possible, when you prefer not to have communication with them, but you don't want to upset them by making it obvious, or you can make it obvious to the person that you are ignoring them, in which case that would be a communication "To me, you are nothing, you don't exist".

Love, Dex

[Mark A. Baker]

I would say that ignoring someone is not necessarily a communication in itself. You can ignore someone as quietly as possible, when you prefer not to have communication with them, but you don't want to upset them by making it obvious, or you can make it obvious to the person that you are ignoring them, in which case that would be a communication "To me, you are nothing, you don't exist".

Love, Dex

I understand your perspective. Dex. I hold a different view. As I said before, a useful analogue is that of "negative space". In that sense our lives constitute a "canvas of communication".


Mark A. Baker

[degraded being]

Actually, Fluff, it IS a communcation. Not only have they decided, they are communicating the unwillingness to communicate. It's an analog of what artists call "negative space".


Mark A. Baker

O god! I'm back on whining duties again. Is this ESMB's RPF OF THE RPF?

The quoted post once again shows the relentless efforts of cool aid suckers to squash reality into the mad pseudo nuclear scientist's *Categories of Reality for the Feeble Minded*

[uniquemand]

That's entheta.

[dexter gelfand]

Because I lack the will to cull this thread and grudge match the appropriate posts I'm going to ask that the detractors and critics be satisfied now that they've made their points and leave this FZ thread to the FZers.

Otherwise I'm going to have to actually read this and sort it out.

M2
This was meant for your kind of reactive detritus, DB. Buzz off. You contribute nothing of value here.

Love, Dex

[nexus100]

So, Moderator, not to make your initial foray into the meld too unpleasant, but are we now going to have FZ threads that we stay out of? You run the show and if that's the way you want it, so be it. But that is a change from the previous administration and I'd like to know.

[uniquemand]

I didn't read it that way. I read it as "stop being assholes to each other". I believe any of us are allowed to post anywhere on the forum, but none of us are allowed to be assholes to each other anywhere on the forum.

[AnonyMary]

This was meant for your kind of reactive detritus, DB. Buzz off. You contribute nothing of value here.

Love, Dex

Not nice to talk to the moderator of the forum that way, Dex.

[nexus100]

[QUOTE=uniquemand;496186]I didn't read it that way. I read it as "stop being assholes to each other". I believe any of us are allowed to post anywhere on the forum, but none of us are allowed to be assholes to each other anywhere on the forum.[/QUOTE

That's nice.

[uniquemand]

Not nice to talk to the moderator of the forum that way, Dex.

Degraded Being is a moderator here?

I thought that was Human Again.

[dexter gelfand]

Not nice to talk to the moderator of the forum that way, Dex.

Hi Mary, that would definitely be disingenuous of me! I was addressing Degraded Being however, not the Moderator.

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

So, Moderator, not to make your initial foray into the meld too unpleasant, but are we now going to have FZ threads that we stay out of? You run the show and if that's the way you want it, so be it. But that is a change from the previous administration and I'd like to know.
Hey Nexus, it would be pretty bad if that became necessary just to allow discussions to progress without rude rock-throwing at those with an actual interest in the subject of the thread. You might recall, you and I talked about this once before, rock-throwing.
I honestly think its good that there are threads started by folks like Helluva Hoax, Mystic, Mr Nobody, Degraded Being, etc, so those who have a need can let off steam or vent their "Scientology is nothing but an evil scam, and only drooling idiots swallow any part of the drivel" attitudes where like-thinking people can recognize and acknowledge them. After all, there really have been many awful things done in the name of the CoS, and this is a place where those who have experienced this sort of thing can find some needed support. But I don't pop up on their threads to childishly rant at them and and their ideas, insult and belittle them and/or their convictions. Its called maintaining a minimal level of decency, and I think we all have a right to expect that from each other.
Not everything posted on this thread by a non-freezoner has been offensive or inapropriate, but if some are going to go so far in their unwillingness to maintain a minimal level of decency, then they put an undue strain on moderators to have to act as cops or babysitters, and it comes as no surprise that a moderator would choose to exclude an entire class of participants because it becomes too much work to have to constantly monitor everything in order to maintain decency on the site. I'm speaking as a moderator on a couple of lists myself.

Love, Dex

PS- Trade you Johan Santana, k-Rod and 2 Mets convicts-to be named later for the Mariners' King Felix:)

[nexus100]

Hey Nexus, it would be pretty bad if that became necessary just to allow discussions to progress without rude rock-throwing at those with an actual interest in the subject of the thread. You might recall, you and I talked about this once before, rock-throwing.
I honestly think its good that there are threads started by folks like Helluva Hoax, Mystic, Mr Nobody, Degraded Being, etc, so those who have a need can let off steam or vent their "Scientology is nothing but an evil scam, and only drooling idiots swallow any part of the drivel" attitudes where like-thinking people can recognize and acknowledge them. After all, there really have been many awful things done in the name of the CoS, and this is a place where those who have experienced this sort of thing can find some needed support. But I don't pop up on their threads to childishly rant at them and and their ideas, insult and belittle them and/or their convictions. Its called maintaining a minimal level of decency, and I think we all have a right to expect that from each other.
Not everything posted on this thread by a non-freezoner has been offensive or inapropriate, but if some are going to go so far in their unwillingness to maintain a minimal level of decency, then they put an undue strain on moderators to have to act as cops or babysitters, and it comes as no surprise that a moderator would choose to exclude an entire class of participants because it becomes too much work to have to constantly monitor everything in order to maintain decency on the site. I'm speaking as a moderator on a couple of lists myself.

Love, Dex

PS- Trade you Johan Santana, k-Rod and 2 Mets convicts-to be named later for the Mariners' King Felix:)

One person's rock is another's softball as you no doubt realize. I expect the FZ crowd would like more freedom to post without commentary from the peanut gallery and no doubt many on the other side would like no pro-tech information anywhere on the site. The FZ "wins" thread is untouched by opposing opinions, at least so far as I know. But Emma allowed quite a bit of freedom and regardless we all survived unscathed. I don't see this thread as being particularly rough, anyway. However I'm just asking a question and it will be answered or it won't.

As for the trade, in your dreams, maybe.

[uniquemand]

Just remember, Dex, that the name of the CofS has been destroyed not because of David the Dwarf, but because of Ron and his desire to grow rich at the expense of everyone who supported him and his organizations. It was Ron's policies that lead to criminal convictions of his wife, and his own hermitage to avoid being served for his crimes. It was Ron's plagiarism that resulted in the academic's disdain, and his hyperbole that resulted in the special attention of the APA, AMA, FDA, FBI, and a variety of other organizations, that he decided to play intelligence games with.

While I respect your right to post your views and converse however you wish, I think it would be ridiculous to expect "decency" from the people who are aware of Ron's trickery, manipulation, destruction of families, targeting of his critics, abuse of the legal system, all institutionalized in policy, a policy I haven't seen you decry.

This is why I stopped calling myself a scientologist, and why I cannot understand people who continue to hold that label.

Ron is the Why.

[Big Farmer]

Haven't been around this board all that long but I think there may be some mix ups here. AFAIK Moderator 2 is neither DB or Human Again. HG is the new Admin taking over from Emma but Mod2 has been registered as a Moderator(not Admin)for quite some time although seldom seen in action. I believe it's someone other that Human Again. Post counts for the seperate id's are different.

I could be wrong about all of this. If so sorry to have misled.

[Terril park]

One person's rock is another's softball as you no doubt realize. I expect the FZ crowd would like more freedom to post without commentary from the peanut gallery and no doubt many on the other side would like no pro-tech information anywhere on the site. The FZ "wins" thread is untouched by opposing opinions, at least so far as I know. But Emma allowed quite a bit of freedom and regardless we all survived unscathed. I don't see this thread as being particularly rough, anyway. However I'm just asking a question and it will be answered or it won't.

On a personal level I have no problem posting anywhere no
matter the opposition. Note that the FZ wins thread is touched by opposing
opinions. Reasonably frequently.

If we are going to have a moderated forum, as we have here, I prefer the moderation to be merely regarding manners and deportment, and limitation of personal insult. Not opinions.

ESMB does really well here. Probably as near perfect as one might
reasonably expect.

[Veda]

Just remember, Dex, that the name of the CofS has been destroyed not because of David the Dwarf, but because of Ron and his desire to grow rich at the expense of everyone who supported him and his organizations. It was Ron's policies that lead to criminal convictions of his wife, and his own hermitage to avoid being served for his crimes. It was Ron's plagiarism that resulted in the academic's disdain, and his hyperbole that resulted in the special attention of the APA, AMA, FDA, FBI, and a variety of other organizations, that he decided to play intelligence games with.

While I respect your right to post your views and converse however you wish, I think it would be ridiculous to expect "decency" from the people who are aware of Ron's trickery, manipulation, destruction of families, targeting of his critics, abuse of the legal system, all institutionalized in policy, a policy I haven't seen you decry.

This is why I stopped calling myself a scientologist, and why I cannot understand people who continue to hold that label.
August 2007

Ron is the Why.

The trickery and manipulation and destruction (sometimes of people's sanity) continues into the counseling tech, particularly in its "confidential" levels. This is something that Scientology Zoners and Scientology Independents cannot see. If they could, they'd recognize that the problem is greater than just the "organization," and recognize the folly of labelling themselves as Scientologists.

The following is an excerpt from an August 2007 post by Alan Walter, who, although he provided counseling, no longer was a Scientologist. It addresses the issue of Scientology's Grade Chart, its "Standard Tech," and the "OT levels":

"Ever heard of the Ethics Conditions, the Grade Chart, R6EW, CC, OT 1 to wherever?

"These are all evaluated and oft times invalidative "box" placements for people.

"Once upon a time you followed the pc's self or pan determined wants, interests and goals line, then in 1965 the Grade Chart came into being - screw the pcs self or pan determined wants, interests and goals line.

"Then in Oct 1968 it became screw the pcs self or pan determined wants, interests and goals line - now you follow a C/S who's purpose it is to make the incredibly incomplete, deliberately trivialized LRH Tech work.

"Now a destructive Cult comes into being as a team of hatted staff go into enforcement that LRH Tech works - and if it doesn't it is the C/S, Auditor and the pcs fault.:bigcry:"

And that destructive cult was no accident, or mistake, but a well thought out plan: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=465570&postcount=103

One need only witness the cheers at the latest FreeZone convention, upon the announcement that such and such completed "OT 3," to recognize how far these folks need to go before they wake up.

The positive aspects of what is called "auditing," IMO, are worthy of being salvaged, but it won't be done by the Scientology Zoners and Scientology Independents.

[nexus100]

On a personal level I have no problem posting anywhere no
matter the opposition. Note that the FZ wins thread is touched by opposing
opinions. Reasonably frequently.

If we are going to have a moderated forum, as we have here, I prefer the moderation to be merely regarding manners and deportment, and limitation of personal insult. Not opinions.

ESMB does really well here. Probably as near perfect as one might
reasonably expect.

Okay I hadn't noticed the touches on the wins thread. A degree of emotion must be allowed for obvious reasons, and always has been and that may include personal approaches or even interpretations of same that weren't personal. We all realize we have to put up with that and it even livens things up a bit. We also all note that no one is required to be here. We want to be here. I agree on the perfection! :)

[Voltaire's Child]

Not nice to talk to the moderator of the forum that way, Dex.

Degraded Being's a Moderator? I didn't see the word "Moderator" in his post as the name of the posting entity.

[Voltaire's Child]

Haven't been around this board all that long but I think there may be some mix ups here. AFAIK Moderator 2 is neither DB or Human Again. HG is the new Admin taking over from Emma but Mod2 has been registered as a Moderator(not Admin)for quite some time although seldom seen in action. I believe it's someone other that Human Again. Post counts for the seperate id's are different.

I could be wrong about all of this. If so sorry to have misled.

As far as I can tell, you've got it nailed. Dexter did say "DB". He didn't say "moderator".

[Terril park]

Okay I hadn't noticed the touches on the wins thread. A degree of emotion must be allowed for obvious reasons, and always has been and that may include personal approaches or even interpretations of same that weren't personal. We all realize we have to put up with that and it even livens things up a bit. We also all note that no one is required to be here. We want to be here. I agree on the perfection! :)

:)

[dexter gelfand]

One person's rock is another's softball as you no doubt realize. I expect the FZ crowd would like more freedom to post without commentary from the peanut gallery and no doubt many on the other side would like no pro-tech information anywhere on the site. The FZ "wins" thread is untouched by opposing opinions, at least so far as I know. But Emma allowed quite a bit of freedom and regardless we all survived unscathed. I don't see this thread as being particularly rough, anyway. However I'm just asking a question and it will be answered or it won't.

As for the trade, in your dreams, maybe.

Hey Nexus, I like that phrasing-"the peanut gallery" :). Good points, all.

OK, I'll throw in Oliver Perez and Luis Castillo if you'll throw in a clubhouse manager (Charlie Samuels just got canned by the team for gambling):no:

Love, Dex

[nexus100]

Hey Nexus, I like that phrasing-"the peanut gallery" :). Good points, all.

OK, I'll throw in Oliver Perez and Luis Castillo if you'll throw in a clubhouse manager (Charlie Samuels just got canned by the team for gambling):no:

Love, Dex

The last time the M's let a top flight pitcher go he won FOUR straight Cy Young Awards and a WS, for someone else. I wouldn't trade Felix for the entire team and the ball girls.

[dexter gelfand]

Just remember, Dex, that the name of the CofS has been destroyed not because of David the Dwarf, but because of Ron and his desire to grow rich at the expense of everyone who supported him and his organizations. It was Ron's policies that lead to criminal convictions of his wife, and his own hermitage to avoid being served for his crimes. It was Ron's plagiarism that resulted in the academic's disdain, and his hyperbole that resulted in the special attention of the APA, AMA, FDA, FBI, and a variety of other organizations, that he decided to play intelligence games with.

While I respect your right to post your views and converse however you wish, I think it would be ridiculous to expect "decency" from the people who are aware of Ron's trickery, manipulation, destruction of families, targeting of his critics, abuse of the legal system, all institutionalized in policy, a policy I haven't seen you decry.

This is why I stopped calling myself a scientologist, and why I cannot understand people who continue to hold that label.

Ron is the Why.

Hey Kev, I understand all that, however I would add a few things. Ron also configured the both the good and the bad, and there is much that is good there, especially, in my observation, the material from 1950 through 1965. I have had much success with many applications. Therefor, for me, it is important not to lump it all together as all good, or all bad. And while Ron did all the bad that he indeed did, I'm not giving a pass to DM and everyone else who abused other people because they could, and/or because it was the way things were done, and/or because they were pressured or intimidated to act as they did.
20 years ago, I had a high-pressure job in printing production, and management demanded that we browbeat our vendors to get what we needed when we needed it, no matter the situation, and how unreasonable it might be. One on occasion, I was actually very nasty over the phone to a vendor who was doing his damndest to meet our schedule despite time and manpower limitations. An hour later, feeling a bit sick over having been such a bully to him, I phoned him back and told him I apologized for being an asshole to him, and that he didn't deserve to be treated that way. He graciously explained that he was used to my company's way of doing business, and that he understood that I was under pressure to act that way, and it wasn't my fault. I said "Thanks, but I'm still responsible for what I say or do, and I acted badly, and for that I apologize. It was simply the decent thing to do. The next time I was in a similar situation, wherein a vendor was failing to meet our unreasonable demands. My boss, the owner of the company, demanded "well did you yell at him?" I replied "No, I didn't yell at him, he's doing his best for me, I'm not going to yell at him for that". I was fired a week or so later, but I left with my head held high and no regrets.
Some people in the CoS made a different decision, and it was their decision to make. Sure, that environment precipitated those situations, but its still a choice. I'm not out to hang anyone, but those who made other's lives miserable, they need to own up to it, however they do that, and also, however they do it, change they way they think of and treat others. Calling Ron "the why" doesn't work, if its meant to put all the responsibility on one person, or grant blanket absolution to everyone else.
Essentially, its all something to learn from, and by that I don't mean lazily condemning everything and/or everyone related to Scientology, as some have a tendency to do. (In my view).
As to decency, I can't agree that it is ever too much to ask for.

Love, Dex

[uniquemand]

The brand is irreparably compromised by Hubbard, IMO. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, continuing to support the Scientology brand, even if YOU are a prince, is like calling yourself a Nazi, but saying you're a kinder, wiser Nazi.

[Voltaire's Child]

Oh, I dunno. I used to say when I was an indie Scn'ist, that it's a protestant reformation type thang. There used to be one (sanctioned) type of Christian, then there were many different types. Why not have that with Scn'ists?

I mean, I don't really want to think of myself as a Scn'ist any more but I still believe in the Protestant Reformation idea.

[uniquemand]

Protestant Nazi?

[AlphOhm]

Oh, I dunno. I used to say when I was an indie Scn'ist, that it's a protestant reformation type thang. There used to be one (sanctioned) type of Christian, then there were many different types. Why not have that with Scn'ists?

I mean, I don't really want to think of myself as a Scn'ist any more but I still believe in the Protestant Reformation idea.

I was self proclaimed ProtestantScientologist about '96 or so. Never did nail any GoldenRod on an Org front door.

Wanna join me in Seattle sometime for some lulz?

(Guaranteed to make Ann's blood pressure rise.)


:hysterical:

[Veda]

-snip-

The word "Scientology" has largely negative connotations, due not to any inherent evil, deceit or lack of workability, but to the actions of the CoS, and Miscaviage's corruption of the techniques to repackage/resell/dramatize his need to be "source".

-snip-





-snip-

Therefore, for me, it is important not to lump it all together as all good, or all bad.

Again with the "all good or all bad." Uniquemand is not saying, and I, and most others, are not saying, "it's" (meaning the layered and compartmentalized publicized/secretive doctrine of Scientology) "all bad." http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=496268&postcount=618



-snip-

Calling Ron "the why" doesn't work

-snip-



It works pretty well.

You and the other Scientology Zoners and Scientology Independents just can't face it.


"Living is a pretty grim joke, but a joke just the same. The entire function of man is to survive. Not for 'what' [any ideal] but just to survive... I turned the thing up [the 'dynamic principle of existence: Survive!'], so it's up to me to survive in a big way.

"Personal immortality is only to be gained through the printed word, barred note, or painted canvas or hard granite [or stainless steel]. Foolishly perhaps, but determined none the less, I have high hopes of smashing my name into history so violently that it will take a legendary form even if all the books are destroyed. That goal is the real goal [hidden agenda] as far as I am concerned. Things which stand too consistently in my way make me nervous.

"It's a pretty big job. In a hundred years Roosevelt will have been forgotten - which gives some idea of the magnitude of my attempt."

L. Ron Hubbard, 'Excalibur' letter, from 1938


"Your writing has a deep hypnotic effect on people and they are always pleased with what you write.

"Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler.

"Men are your slaves."

L. Ron Hubbard, from his 'Affirmations', 1946

[uniquemand]

I don't "give a pass" to David Miscavige, either, Dex. That's a red herring.

The why IS Ron. Miscavige leaves, someone else takes over. They get all the confidential policy and advices Ron left for his successors. They will recapitulate the abusive environment of the Sea Org, which would be abusive even if nobody was hitting anyone. The organization is criminal, and it is so by LRH's design.

Whoever follows Miscavige may not, themselves, be a complete psychopath, but they will be acting on the advices and policies given them. It cannot be otherwise and be Scientology. Thus, the why is, was, and will be Ron.

[degraded being]

I promise not to throw any rocks in this post.


1.Yes very strange that I have been placed as a
moderator. :confused2: Get Anonmary to clarify. :)


2. BTW, This thread keeps surprising me. It really is interesting.

[AnonyMary]

As far as I can tell, you've got it nailed. Dexter did say "DB". He didn't say "moderator".

Yes, but he quoted Moderator's post reply. I just thought he called the mod DB. Didn't think he was addressing a another poster.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=496180&postcount=606

[Enthetan]

And apart from Scientology apparently attracting a small percentage of 'brighter' people in the world, my actual experience was that I had never met such a bunch of uneducated, easily led twats.

The ones who were not "easily led" got filtered out early in the game. One fairly common trait i noticed were people whose egos were stroked by being let in on "superior knowledge", with me being one of those.

[Enthetan]

I think he's matching your tone, BLiP. Seriously, there's no reason to antagonize him, he's an honest broker. You might not like what he does, but that doesn't mean you have to be rude. (This from me, who is highly rude whenever the impulse strikes)

But we still love you anyway.:love2:
(or at least some of us)

[Enthetan]

Often, I've found that the historical antecedent to the scientology term was more accurate, and bound to more realistic phenomena. Part of the draw of dianetics and scientology to a lot of people was probably the "science fiction" sound of the terms used and the illustrations on posters. People wanted to live in a world where advanced civilizations, space-faring cultures, were a reality. People were bored with the idea of a 9-5, two cats in the yard, 2.5 cars, 2.5 kids, etc.


That's what got me in -- the desire for adventure, something more interesting than the career I was in at the time.

[Enthetan]

Just remember, Dex, that the name of the CofS has been destroyed not because of David the Dwarf, but because of Ron and his desire to grow rich at the expense of everyone who supported him and his organizations. It was Ron's policies that lead to criminal convictions of his wife, and his own hermitage to avoid being served for his crimes. It was Ron's plagiarism that resulted in the academic's disdain, and his hyperbole that resulted in the special attention of the APA, AMA, FDA, FBI, and a variety of other organizations, that he decided to play intelligence games with.

While I respect your right to post your views and converse however you wish, I think it would be ridiculous to expect "decency" from the people who are aware of Ron's trickery, manipulation, destruction of families, targeting of his critics, abuse of the legal system, all institutionalized in policy, a policy I haven't seen you decry.

This is why I stopped calling myself a scientologist, and why I cannot understand people who continue to hold that label.

Ron is the Why.

What seems to be happening is that there are people who, despite the crap that LRH and his minions pulled, believe that there is some workable tech in Scn that can be salvaged and used to help people.

There can be disagreement with that viewpoint without necessarily assuming bad intent on the part of those who try to find something good and workable in the tech.

[uniquemand]

Trying to find something workable in the tech, and calling what you find scientology, or yourself a scientologist, are two different things.

Nazi scientists discovered many things. Does this mean that we should call ourselves Nazis if we value the things they discovered or if we drive a Volkswagen?

[Voltaire's Child]

Yes, but he quoted Moderator's post reply. I just thought he called the mod DB. Didn't think he was addressing a another poster.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=496180&postcount=606

Generally, if I see a contributor posting to a thread and someone specifically replying to something that contributor said, referencing that contributor's nick or initials of nick, I assume that this is the person who is being answered.

But, hey, that's just me. :coolwink:

[Voltaire's Child]

I was self proclaimed ProtestantScientologist about '96 or so. Never did nail any GoldenRod on an Org front door.

Wanna join me in Seattle sometime for some lulz?

(Guaranteed to make Ann's blood pressure rise.)


:hysterical:

Sure! Shoot me a pm anytime or an email at (my real first and last name @yahoo.com)

[Veda]

What seems to be happening is that there are people who, despite the crap that LRH and his minions pulled, believe that there is some workable tech in Scn that can be salvaged and used to help people.

-snip-



I believe that there is some workable tech in the enlightenment-coating part of the mind f__k of Scientology that can be salvaged and used to help people. Does that make me a Scientologist?

Handy link - and links within another link - that explains everything. :) http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=496556&postcount=630 Out of consideration for Moderator 2's request that this thread be left to Scientology FZoners, I'm saying bye bye to this thread.

[dexter gelfand]

I've sometimes explained it this way: "I use some counseling techniques that were developed or used by people in the Church of Scientology". I think its a situation of walking the line of sidestepping all the bad connotations of the word, and at the same time "rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" in terms of being truthful about where I got my material from. We all have to do what we feel is right, and I would tend not to criticize others for exercising their own judgement, whether they are seen as "hiding or disguising using Scientology" by some, or else "dragging along all the CoS baggage" by others.

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

I could now even say "I love you" but that makes me feel a bit gooey.
Better not DB, people will talk :whistling:

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

I can tell you the name of one of the guys that I don't trust, and who I've had reports was a scammer and a ripoff artist, and who I got a personal impression of "used car salesman" and "self-important ass" from.

Rey Robles.

Years ago, I heard similar things from 3 people about Rey, but then each one of them turned out to have drifted through several different auditors I knew, without ever having completed what they initiated at every stop, to repeating the same thing over and over again, and with auditors who have a long history of pleasing the majority of their PC's.

Later I met Rey and got to know him. I find him to be genuine, friendly and credible. He and his family are some of the nicest, most creative and friendly people I've met. They're a fun bunch of people and have become good friends. The love between them is a pleasure to see.

In his practice he does have a businessman approach, but then auditing is his business, and he's been at it as an independent longer and more successfully than almost anyone else. That is not to say that he doesn't care deeply for his clients, or that he doesn't do great things for them.

Love, Dex

[degraded being]

I believe that there is some workable tech in the enlightenment-coating part of the mind f__k of Scientology that can be salvaged and used to help people. Does that make me a Scientologist?

Handy link - and links within another link - that explains everything. :) http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=496556&postcount=630 Out of consideration for Moderator 2's request that this thread be left to Scientology FZoners, I'm saying bye bye to this thread.

Veda, shhhhh! They haven't noticed that yet. Much more simple and more fun to have you in the *hater -or whatever*box. :)

[Mark A. Baker]

Better not DB, people will talk :whistling:

Love, Dex

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS0NPYH_pGw


Mark A. Baker :p

[degraded being]

Better not DB, people will talk :whistling:

Love, Dex

I don't mind, they all know I'm Gay anyway.
Just *handle me with ARC* and I'm yours baby.
I'm happy for you to occupy my space.

[Hatshepsut]

:p Which one is Dex? ^^^Oh never mind.

[Mark A. Baker]

:p Which one is Dex? ^^^Oh never mind.

Check his hairdo and then listen for the character names. See if you can figure it out. :)


Mark A. Baker

[dexter gelfand]

Veda, shhhhh! They haven't noticed that yet. Much more simple and more fun to have you in the *hater -or whatever*box. :)

Another shot gets by the goalie!:) Where's Wayne Gretzky when you need him?

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

I don't mind, they all know I'm Gay anyway.
Just *handle me with ARC* and I'm yours baby.
I'm happy for you to occupy my space.

Outed on my own thread! There goes the neighborhood:ohmy:

Love, Dex

[freet43]

that it is not All bad

AND glad to hear you say


The positive aspects of what is called "auditing," IMO, are worthy of being salvaged....


although we disagree that
it won't be done by the Scientology Zoners and Scientology Independents.....

who do you think would do the salvaging?

Marina

[draetti]

It's a good question. I have several different identities/roles in my life. I choose my activities based on what would suit those roles best. Some of those roles were inherited, some were chosen. In general, I have opted OUT of the systems that I was born into, and out of many that I chose. The question of why I would leave those systems, and decide that I couldn't support them, is a valid one. I guess, on a fundamental level, I've always considered my own feelings to be more valid than whatever system I was being taught, and my own judgment senior to anyone else's. I've been wrong a lot, and learned a lot, so I don't want to sound TOO arrogant, but ultimately, it's me that has to live with my choices, so I make them for myself.

So, I'd say my value system has been learned through interactions. I learned I don't like to hurt people, not because the Bible says it's wrong, but because I feel bad when I hurt people. I also learned the value of honest, direct and genuine communication, which has informed a lot of my decisions, as well.

Thanks for the answer, uniquemand. I see. If I add up what you write, I get the picture of you as an intelligent particle which is reacting to the environment, and the way it is reacting is determined by feelings and judgement which both have been formed by actions of the environment. Except perhaps "the value of honest, direct and genuine communication" - however you also tell you learned it, I'd not believe / accept that. I'd say there's something like spirit or static in that, something that is NOT learned by interactions in an environment, but brought into it from outside. At least my observation is that environment and reactions alone don't validate by expansion of good feelings these values - it takes an outside validation / evaluation system or origin to come to this estimation. I tend to judge that opportunism pays better in the short and only environmental defined optimalization of good feelings view and hence wouldn't bring you there. I would like to ask, if you don't mind the long comm lags, where or what "you" is in your above description - if not only the result of kind of evolutionary intelligence? (I'm somewhat cross with Hubbards oversimplifying Theta(n) tales, but still hold static for a very valid concept.)

[Veda]

that it is not All bad

AND glad to hear you say

The positive aspects of what is called "auditing," IMO, are worthy of being salvaged



although we disagree that It won't be done by the Scientology Zoners and Scientology Independents.....


who do you think would do the salvaging?

Marina

The salvaging will be done by those who have graduated from Scientology.

I have always said that, "it's not all bad," and that "the positive aspects of auditing are worth salvaging."

You might ask yourself why it took you so long to notice. :)

[nexus100]

My experience is those who believe that Scientology in any form is a useful tool for understanding haven't looked far afield. When that is done, the "tech" becomes a tough sale.

[Voltaire's Child]

My experience is those who believe that Scientology in any form is a useful tool for understanding haven't looked far afield. When that is done, the "tech" becomes a tough sale.

Not true, though. I know lots of indies and FZers who've read quite a bit about other disciplines, philosophies and ideologies. IMO, your comment is something people who aren't pleased with and don't or can't deal with the choices of others to continue Scn on their own say just to make themselves feel better. It's in blatant contradiction of the facts.

[nexus100]

Not true, though. I know lots of indies and FZers who've read quite a bit about other disciplines, philosophies and ideologies. IMO, your comment is something people who aren't pleased with and don't or can't deal with the choices of others to continue Scn on their own say just to make themselves feel better. It's in blatant contradiction of the facts.

Have you looked?

When you have, let me know.

The rest of your post is the usual PR nonsense about people having the right to think what they want and faulting "who can't handle it".

Your little coterie is welcome to think what they want, but they can be challenged on what they DO. Scientologists ignore a thousand failures for one "success" that isnt a success but a person's continued involvement in the same little brass wicket the rest are playing with. Step outside into the real world of understanding and all the failures of the thousand are crystal clear.

The reasons you don't understand how the system works, that you don't want to really exchange ideas with others, that you don't investigate other "tech" become apparent. You do not want to see. You're here to sell your stuff, the FZ crowd. If you were here to really learn you'd be doing it.

That is what I'm pointing out. You don't like it, you are welcome to step up and look at what you can't deal with.

[Voltaire's Child]

Have you looked?

When you have, let me know.

I have, indeed, and have said as much here a number of times.


The rest of your post is the usual PR nonsense about people having the right to think what they want and faulting "who can't handle it".

No, it's my observation. I've seen a number of posts- and even been on the receiving end of some- where people were not asking but TELLING the person "you must not have looked at anything else." A number of the people to whom that was said -including myself- had indeed studied other things and in many cases (again including mine) had given props to those other things. I personally consider that not only is Scn not the only thing out there, but it's not the best thing out there and, again, I've said as much here.



Your little coterie

It might interest you (then again, maybe not) to know that the majority of my "coterie" are people who hate Scn as an ology. So not sure who you have in mind when you're saying the above and some other things here, but it ain't me.


is welcome to think what they want, but they can be challenged on what they DO.

Sure. And that's how it should be.


Scientologists ignore a thousand failures for one "success" that isnt a success but a person's continued involvement in the same little brass wicket the rest are playing with.

I've made the same observation, actually. Publicly and repeatedly.


Step outside into the real world of understanding

Have done so. See above.


and all the failures of the thousand are crystal clear.

I've said several times that Scn auditing is a so many steps forward so many steps back proposition.


The reasons you don't understand how the system works,

Since I understand it just fine, I can only conclude that you meant this post for someone else and quoted - and referred to - my commentary in error.


that you don't want to really exchange ideas with others,

Except that I have done many times. On fora such as (but not limited to) ESMB and back channel. My story is well known and has been posted here many places. The details thereof belie what you state here.



that you don't investigate other "tech" become apparent.

Oh, that's obviously not the case. Else, I'd not have said the things I've said many times here.


You do not want to see.

See above.


You're here to sell your stuff, the FZ crowd.

I'm not a FreeZoner.


If you were here to really learn you'd be doing it.

I've done so and have been doing so, as witness a number of threads I've created, such as the one about prayer.

Again, it appears that you meant this reply for someone else.


That is what I'm pointing out.

I hope the person for whom this is intended benefits.


You don't like it, you are welcome to step up and look at what you can't deal with.

I've evinced no displeasure in our conversation. Again, I'm wondering who the intended recipient of your commentary is. I do hope you can reach out to her forthwith.

[nexus100]

Why did you respond to my post in first place?

[Voltaire's Child]

Why did you respond to my post in first place?

Why not?

[nexus100]

Why not?

I see why you woud not want to answer.

[Zinjifar]

The positive aspects of what is called "auditing," IMO, are worthy of being salvaged



The 'positive aspects' of 'auditing' will *never* be 'safe'. That's not to say that they don't exist or that they should be forbidden, but, even *benign* application of autohypnosis (which Scientology is *not*; benign that is) is inherently dangerous.

I don't believe in forbidding dangerous practices, but, I do believe in informed consent and the right to point out the dangers.

Having a bunch of self-proclaimed 'auditors' meddling with people's minds would be no different than the current state of 'therapy', which is dangerous, without meaning that 'therapy' itself should be forbidden. Still, any taint of Scientology is enough to make 'auditing' as therapy problematical.

Zinj

[nexus100]

The 'positive aspects' of 'auditing' will *never* be 'safe'. That's not to say that they don't exist or that they should be forbidden, but, even *benign* application of autohypnosis (which Scientology is *not*; benign that is) is inherently dangerous.

I don't believe in forbidding dangerous practices, but, I do believe in informed consent and the right to point out the dangers.

Having a bunch of self-proclaimed 'auditors' meddling with people's minds would be no different than the current state of 'therapy', which is dangerous, without meaning that 'therapy' itself should be forbidden. Still, any taint of Scientology is enough to make 'auditing' as therapy problematical.

Zinj

Scientology has a huge faulty premise, which is that something is wrong with you that needs "repair". Add to that they know better than you do how to find it, and look out below.
Both premises are frankly wrong and tend to lead to megalomania (sorry, meg) on the part of the auditor. Why wouldn't they? Playing God with ONE person makes it tough to keep one's feet on the ground. A horde of followers would turn any saint's head clear round.

[dexter gelfand]

Hey Nexus, first of all, thanks for giving me a new word ("Coterie", apparently rhymes with "pottery", right? We should be able to work that into a limerick:D).
Secondly, many freezoners I know have quite varying opinions about what is and isn't valid and workable under the umbrella term "Scientology". I have gotten to know and become friends with quite a few "freezoners", and you would be surprised at the divergence of views.
Thirdly, I have observed and experienced myself and others having real life changes for the better, abilities to manage things that had been unmanageable, greatly increased abilities to experience specific circumstances and life in general, with techniques I learned from Scientology books and courses. I have had success in helping people from time to time with one application or another without a formal session, with people who didn't know what Scientology was, without mentioning the term "Scientology", in various circumstances in casual situations. I think that if we were to discuss ideas and experiences that occur in Scientology without the idea that they are connected to Scientology, there would be much that would become interesting and acceptable to you and others who are so polarized by the connotation.
Also, and I think it should be obvious that it is every bit as ridiculous to say "nothing in Scientology has any workability" as it is to say "everything that is called Scientology is the one perfect answer to all of life".

Love, Dex

[nexus100]

Hey Nexus, first of all, thanks for giving me a new word ("Coterie", apparently rhymes with "pottery", right? We should be able to work that into a limerick:D).
Secondly, many freezoners I know have quite varying opinions about what is and isn't valid and workable under the umbrella term "Scientology". I have gotten to know and become friends with quite a few "freezoners", and you would be surprised at the divergence of views.
Thirdly, I have observed and experienced myself and others having real life changes for the better, abilities to manage things that had been unmanageable, greatly increased abilities to experience specific circumstances and life in general, with techniques I learned from Scientology books and courses. I have had success in helping people from time to time with one application or another without a formal session, with people who didn't know what Scientology was, without mentioning the term "Scientology", in various circumstances in casual situations. I think that if we were to discuss ideas and experiences that occur in Scientology without the idea that they are connected to Scientology, there would be much that would become interesting and acceptable to you and others who are so polarized by the connotation.
Also, and I think it should be obvious that it is every bit as ridiculous to say "nothing in Scientology has any workability" as it is to say "everything that is called Scientology is the one perfect answer to all of life".

Love, Dex

Okay Dex.
My current concern is the idea you guys know what you are doing well enough to use auditing on somebody, a process that has huge liabilities toward understanding. My observation is you don't know, based on what I see.

I believe there sure are better options available. A lot better. But it seems the FZ folk don't want to look at other options.

Regardless no one is stopping you from doing your thing. You realize that your operation is open to question. Not nasty, unreasonable questions. Real ones that even you might find useful to look over with more persective, at your convenience.
Have fun!

[Mark A. Baker]

Hey Nexus, first of all, thanks for giving me a new word ("Coterie", apparently rhymes with "pottery", right? We should be able to work that into a limerick:D).

Actually no.
Sounds like: koh-ter-ay.
Rhymes with: beau her play.


Mark A. Baker

[dexter gelfand]

Actually no.
Sounds like: koh-ter-ay.
Rhymes with: beau her play.


Mark A. Baker
OK smart guy, let's see you write the limerick then:p

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

Okay Dex.
My current concern is the idea you guys know what you are doing well enough to use auditing on somebody, a process that has huge liabilities toward understanding. My observation is you don't know, based on what I see.

I believe there sure are better options available. A lot better. But it seems the FZ folk don't want to look at other options.

Regardless no one is stopping you from doing your thing. You realize that your operation is open to question. Not nasty, unreasonable questions. Real ones that even you might find useful to look over with more persective, at your convenience.
Have fun!
Hey Nex (you call me Dex, I'll call you Nex; not to be confused with Tex-Mex:)) I agree completely with you in that to express one's ideas publicly is to invite other ideas, including conflicting ideas, and done respectfully to allow for each other's rights to their views, as you are doing here, can be an enlightening and constructive process. :thumbsup:

Love, Dex

[freet43]

I noticed a LONG time ago :)

However, since you tend to focus so much on the negative, I get a real kick out of highlighting when you say something positive....

Just so the others don't miss those little gems hidden in paragraphs of negativity...

Perhaps YOU've noticed me doing that as well?

Marina


The positive aspects of what is called "auditing," IMO, are worthy of being salvaged


It won't be done by the Scientology Zoners and Scientology Independents.....



The salvaging will be done by those who have graduated from Scientology.

I have always said that, "it's not all bad," and that "the positive aspects of auditing are worth salvaging."

You might ask yourself why it took you so long to notice. :)

[Mark A. Baker]

OK smart guy, let's see you write the limerick then:p

Love, Dex


Careful that for which you ask ...


a musician named sir elton
wore hats on which he had felt on.
imagined himself as a faux poor gay
in his travels about with his coterie,
tho' he often had expensive fur pelts on

:D


Mark A. Baker

[Alanzo]

There once was a man named Mark
Whose head was as large as a park
His butt was a bum
And his mom was a mum
So he must not have looked like a shark

[Cat's Squirrel]

Nexus,

An old friend of mine who finished his NOTs in the freezone (probably deceased now, he was in his 70's when I knew him in 1987) once said there is never only one way of doing something, especially in the spiritual world.

I'm not as wise as he was but I think he could have been right. So let a thousand flowers bloom; Idenics, Avatar, Freezone Scn.... Whichever you feel drawn to, there's room for all of us.

I must admit this "ignore a thousand failures for one success" bothers me though. On what information or statistics is this based, and does it apply to the freezone as well as to the CofS?

Ralph Hilton runs a Standard Tech delivery centre in Semmerling. Does he have a thousand failures for every one success? If so I haven't heard of it. I'd like to see Ralph come here and debate the point but he presumably thinks he has better things to do. Maybe Dexter could take this up.

[nexus100]

Nexus,

An old friend of mine who finished his NOTs in the freezone (probably deceased now, he was in his 70's when I knew him in 1987) once said there is never only one way of doing something, especially in the spiritual world.

I'm not as wise as he was but I think he could have been right. So let a thousand flowers bloom; Idenics, Avatar, Freezone Scn.... Whichever you feel drawn to, there's room for all of us.

I must admit this "ignore a thousand failures for one success" bothers me though. On what information or statistics is this based, and does it apply to the freezone as well as to the CofS?

Ralph Hilton runs a Standard Tech delivery centre in Semmerling. Does he have a thousand failures for every one success? If so I haven't heard of it. I'd like to see Ralph come here and debate the point but he presumably thinks he has better things to do. Maybe Dexter could take this up.

We're playing a game. It is semantics because everyone is free to do exactly as he or she chooses. My semantical point is that the guys inside the Hubbard tech box don't tend to look outside. You included, FYI. Why should someone not in the box step inside without seeing other options? Well, they might think the Hubbard box is the only or best way. I did once and see the incompleteness of that position. I suspect the idea of the FZ'rs is still that they have "the way". Or, at least, the best way. Otherwise, why not look elsewhere as well?

I'm not stopping anyone from delivering anything they want to. I'm pointing out there's more to it. Anyone who wants to debate is welcome to do so.
No one wins or loses this game, we just play. So, why worry about it?

[Voltaire's Child]

We're playing a game. It is semantics because everyone is free to do exactly as he or she chooses. My semantical point is that the guys inside the Hubbard tech box don't tend to look outside. You included, FYI. Why should someone not in the box step inside without seeing other options? Well, they might think the Hubbard box is the only or best way. I did once and see the incompleteness of that position. I suspect the idea of the FZ'rs is still that they have "the way". Or, at least, the best way. Otherwise, why not look elsewhere as well?

I'm not stopping anyone from delivering anything they want to. I'm pointing out there's more to it. Anyone who wants to debate is welcome to do so.
No one wins or loses this game, we just play. So, why worry about it?

Except that you're saying something that is not only false and a generalization, but is demonstrably so.

[Voltaire's Child]

Except that you're saying something that is not only false and a generalization, but is demonstrably so.


I see why you woud not want to answer.

I did answer. Whaddaya want? Blood? I had no reason NOT to answer. It's a discussion forum. You said something. I discussed it. Period.

[Voltaire's Child]

Actually no.
Sounds like: koh-ter-ay.
Rhymes with: beau her play.


Mark A. Baker

Now, see, I was thinking it was like Kotex.

[nexus100]

Except that you're saying something that is not only false and a generalization, but is demonstrably so.

Sophistry. Sorry but my name is Regnan Kcin.

[Voltaire's Child]

You posted that non CofS Scientologists were interested in Scn because they'd not checked out other things. I indicated that this is a generalization- which it is. And I indicated that it's false, which it is. It wasn't true of me when I was a non CofS Scn'ist and it isn't true of the many non CofS Scn'ists I know, some of whom have posted to this thread.

[nexus100]

You posted that non CofS Scientologists were interested in Scn because they'd not checked out other things. I indicated that this is a generalization- which it is. And I indicated that it's false, which it is. It wasn't true of me when I was a non CofS Scn'ist and it isn't true of the many non CofS Scn'ists I know, some of whom have posted to this thread.

Have you or anyone in the FZ had an Idenics session?

[dexter gelfand]

Have you or anyone in the FZ had an Idenics session?

Yes, Nex. I know of freezoners who have had Idenics sessions. Your assumption about FZ'rs being like-thinking is only relatively correct, to a point, that is. In my observation, FZ'rs are generally focused on finding or having the "correct tech", or the "best tech", but the similarity pretty much ends there. You seem to believe that all freezoners are "KSW Scientologists", and that is very far from correct. In fact, one main point of my delivering the talk that I gave at the Freezone convention this year was to get Freezoners to understand why they should be more accepting of all the other Freezoners around them that practice different varieties of "tech". Most of the freezoners I know will laugh at the idea that we all think the same, and tell you that I'm understating the differences.

I know that Idenics was founded by John Galusha and Mike Goldstein, 2 very bright minds who both were researchers working with L Ron Hubbard and thus contributed to the development of some Scientology techniques, as did Alan Walters (of Knowledgism) and John McMasters. From what I do know about Idenics, I have no doubt that there is some value in it, more for some than others, I suspect. It touches on some of the same phenomena as Scientology's "L's" processes, which is not to say that they are the same thing.

It would be illogical to assume that all Scientology techniques are relatively worthless while other techniques developed by some of the same people who developed Scientology techniques are necessarily all much better, wouldn't you agree? I don't feel the need to speak badly of those techniques I haven't experienced, or to insist that what I'm familiar with is the best. Only that with my experience, I can make better evaluations of what I've experienced than those who have not done what I've done.

I'm very interested in learning and forwarding the best techniques I can find, and so I gratefully learn from Dart, Mate, Roger B and others. Why anyone would think that to do that it is necessary to dismiss all that I can accomplish and have accomplished with Scientology techniques, to me, is simply a case of acting out one's own drama. (A lot of that going around:))

Love, Dex

[nexus100]

Yes, Nex. I know of freezoners who have had Idenics sessions. Your assumption about FZ'rs being like-thinking is only relatively correct, to a point, that is. In my observation, FZ'rs are generally focused on finding or having the "correct tech", or the "best tech", but the similarity pretty much ends there. You seem to believe that all freezoners are "KSW Scientologists", and that is very far from correct. In fact, one main point of my delivering the talk that I gave at the Freezone convention this year was to get Freezoners to understand why they should be more accepting of all the other Freezoners around them that practice different varieties of "tech". Most of the freezoners I know will laugh at the idea that we all think the same, and tell you that I'm understating the differences.

I know that Idenics was founded by John Galusha and Mike Goldstein, 2 very bright minds who both were researchers working with L Ron Hubbard and thus contributed to the development of some Scientology techniques, as did Alan Walters (of Knowledgism) and John McMasters. From what I do know about Idenics, I have no doubt that there is some value in it, more for some than others, I suspect. It touches on some of the same phenomena as Scientology's "L's" processes, which is not to say that they are the same thing.

It would be illogical to assume that all Scientology techniques are relatively worthless while other techniques developed by some of the same people who developed Scientology techniques are necessarily all much better, wouldn't you agree? I don't feel the need to speak badly of those techniques I haven't experienced, or to insist that what I'm familiar with is the best. Only that with my experience, I can make better evaluations of what I've experienced than those who have not done what I've done.

I'm very interested in learning and forwarding the best techniques I can find, and so I gratefully learn from Dart, Mate, Roger B and others. Why anyone would think that to do that it is necessary to dismiss all that I can accomplish and have accomplished with Scientology techniques, to me, is simply a case of acting out one's own drama. (A lot of that going around:))

Love, Dex

I'd say that any individual genuinely interested in understanding would be looking outside Hubbard philosophy. The reasons are manyfold, not just because of Hubbard's ideas, but the entirety of the understanding game. If the FZ guys on this site got the game that would be evident. It is evident to me that you don't.

I just can't make it plainer. The fact that you even object, that you'd form your own website, that you'd have your own conventions, merciful heavens. You're entitled to think what you want and say what you want. I 100 percent agree with that. I also agree 100 percent that so is everyone else.

The reason is we learn that way. We learn that way, if we are willing to look.

[Veda]

I noticed a LONG time ago :)

However, since you tend to focus so much on the negative, I get a real kick out of highlighting when you say something positive....

Just so the others don't miss those little gems hidden in paragraphs of negativity...

Perhaps YOU've noticed me doing that as well?

Marina

I'm glad you're doing that, but I hope you'll resist the impulse, prevalent amongst FZ/Indie Scientologists to go:lalala: regarding the negatives in Scientology doctrine.

Some background:

Initially, my involvement with Scientology was through books, and without any use of an e-meter, and mostly away from the "Org."

However, I did, eventually, become involved - as a student and auditor - in the "Org."

Years later, to gain an additional perspective, I spent a year reviewing the auditing portion of the subject (from ARC S/W to NOTs), as an auditor OUTSIDE Scientology, so as to see the counseling "tech" in application, outside the Totalist (Totalitarian) environment of Scientology Inc.

And after re-examining the more benign aspects of the subject, I commenced a study (and unearthing) of its "dark side," or more exactly, IMO, "dark core."

This involved, amongst other things, a study (pre-Internet) of previously unavailable non-advertised confidential documents, mostly written by Hubbard. (This, in addition to the "Grade Chart" materials, which are advertised confidential.)

IMO, those who perceive Scientology's negative core often can't see the positives that - amongst the hype and soft manipulation - speckle the outer display layer of the subject. Their explanations are often incomplete, as they can't see those parts of the display coating that are truly positive.

Those who perceive the positives - in the outer display layer - often are unable to see the negatives at its core. Their explanations tend to be extremely naive.

Conveying the idea that there is both a positive outer display coating which is ultimately subordinate, and also a negative hidden core which is ultimately dominant, can be difficult. It seems that the laws of nature, the laws of the human mind, and perhaps the laws of the human nervous system make recognizing both aspects difficult.

Scientology is a secretive and manipulative doctrine with a truth-coating. The truth-coating is displayed while the negatives are often hidden or disguised; or, when they no longer can be denied, are rationalized or "spun."

The "Scientology package" is both positive and negative. Scientology is a carefully crafted (by its founder) mix of "Black Scientology" and "White Scientology," resulting in Scientology.

Since the negatives are hidden, disguised, or denied, it becomes necessary to focus on the negatives. However, as you've noticed, I've also acknowledged and spent time describing the positives.

[Voltaire's Child]

Have you or anyone in the FZ had an Idenics session?

Yes, several have. And many have studied lots of other things.

But why are you including me? I'm not in the FZ.

[MrNobody]

Yes, several have. And many have studied lots of other things.

But why are you including me? I'm not in the FZ.


Have you or anyone in the FZ had an Idenics session?

Well, he said "you or..." so yeah, that includes you into the group of people to whom this question is directed to. It does not necessarily put you into the group of FZers. :)

Logics 101...

[Voltaire's Child]

Well, he said "you or..." so yeah, that includes you into the group of people to whom this question is directed to. It does not necessarily put you into the group of FZers. :)

Logics 101...

Yes, Mr. Nobody, I know what the phrasing means and I know logic. I also directly answered his question. But I wrote what I wrote to make a point. And that point stands.

[nexus100]

Yes, Mr. Nobody, I know what the phrasing means and I know logic. I also directly answered his question. But I wrote what I wrote to make a point. And that point stands.

Sophistry is the art of responding to a question without really answering it.

[EP - Ethics Particle]

There is verity in the post quoted below. Take heed, and disbelive...at your own peril. EP


I'm glad you're doing that, but I hope you'll resist the impulse, prevalent amongst FZ/Indie Scientologists to go:lalala: regarding the negatives in Scientology doctrine.

Some background:

Initially, my involvement with Scientology was through books, and without any use of an e-meter, and mostly away from the "Org."

However, I did, eventually, become involved - as a student and auditor - in the "Org."

Years later, to gain an additional perspective, I spent a year reviewing the auditing portion of the subject (from ARC S/W to NOTs), as an auditor OUTSIDE Scientology, so as to see the counseling "tech" in application, outside the Totalist (Totalitarian) environment of Scientology Inc.

And after re-examining the more benign aspects of the subject, I commenced a study (and unearthing) of its "dark side," or more exactly, IMO, "dark core."

This involved, amongst other things, a study (pre-Internet) of previously unavailable non-advertised confidential documents, mostly written by Hubbard. (This, in addition to the "Grade Chart" materials, which are advertised confidential.)

IMO, those who perceive Scientology's negative core often can't see the positives that - amongst the hype and soft manipulation - speckle the outer display layer of the subject. Their explanations are often incomplete, as they can't see those parts of the display coating that are truly positive.

Those who perceive the positives - in the outer display layer - often are unable to see the negatives at its core. Their explanations tend to be extremely naive.

Conveying the idea that there is both a positive outer display coating which is ultimately subordinate, and also a negative hidden core which is ultimately dominant, can be difficult. It seems that the laws of nature, the laws of the human mind, and perhaps the laws of the human nervous system make recognizing both aspects difficult.

Scientology is a secretive and manipulative doctrine with a truth-coating. The truth-coating is displayed while the negatives are often hidden or disguised; or, when they no longer can be denied, are rationalized or "spun."

The "Scientology package" is both positive and negative. Scientology is a carefully crafted (by its founder) mix of "Black Scientology" and "White Scientology," resulting in Scientology.

Since the negatives are hidden, disguised, or denied, it becomes necessary to focus on the negatives. However, as you've noticed, I've also acknowledged and spent time describing the positives.

[programmer_guy]

Sophistry is the art of responding to a question without really answering it.

And don't forget "equivocation": the art of changing word definitions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

[Voltaire's Child]

Sophistry is the art of responding to a question without really answering it.

I answered all of your questions and everyone else's directly and in great detail.

[Voltaire's Child]

And don't forget "equivocation": the art of changing word definitions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

I answered every single question put to me. Every single one. In detail. If you think something didn't get answered, then feel free to quote the post and say which things you believe did not get answered or not answered thoroughly enough. That works better for discussion than accusations backed up by zero examples. I would then come to the conclusion that the interest was actually in having a discussion rather than...

[Voltaire's Child]

So if I don't hear any requests for clarification or specific examples of where I may've dropped the ball (unintentional, I assure you), I will assume that I've done just fine in answering all questions. Because, if I haven't, I'm very sure that those who've expressed concern will be good enough to tell me what questions I didn't answer or which ones I didn't answer well enough. And if that does take place, I'd be more than happy to take another whack at 'em.

[Voltaire's Child]

Ok, I'm glad to know I didn't miss any questions asked of me. Seriously and not being sarcastic here, I have been known to miss questions. So if anyone feels I didn't answer any, then let me know. If you don't tell me WHICH ONES I MISSED, it's gonna go right over my head, I assure you.

[Dulloldfart]

Actually no.
Sounds like: koh-ter-ay.
Rhymes with: beau her play.


Mark A. Baker

No. :)

http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=coterie&submit=coterie

Paul

[Dulloldfart]

Hey Nexus, first of all, thanks for giving me a new word ("Coterie", apparently rhymes with "pottery", right? We should be able to work that into a limerick:D).

There once was a freezone coterie <spit>
Got summarily banned with no votary <spit>
Some quietly said no
But Alanzo said "WHOA!"
And got himself skewered on a rotary spit

Paul

[Mark A. Baker]

No. :)

http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?word=coterie&submit=coterie

Paul

Naw, that's limey speak.


Mark A. Baker

[Cat's Squirrel]

Yes, Nex. I know of freezoners who have had Idenics sessions. Your assumption about FZ'rs being like-thinking is only relatively correct, to a point, that is. In my observation, FZ'rs are generally focused on finding or having the "correct tech", or the "best tech", but the similarity pretty much ends there. You seem to believe that all freezoners are "KSW Scientologists", and that is very far from correct. In fact, one main point of my delivering the talk that I gave at the Freezone convention this year was to get Freezoners to understand why they should be more accepting of all the other Freezoners around them that practice different varieties of "tech". Most of the freezoners I know will laugh at the idea that we all think the same, and tell you that I'm understating the differences.

I know that Idenics was founded by John Galusha and Mike Goldstein, 2 very bright minds who both were researchers working with L Ron Hubbard and thus contributed to the development of some Scientology techniques, as did Alan Walters (of Knowledgism) and John McMasters. From what I do know about Idenics, I have no doubt that there is some value in it, more for some than others, I suspect. It touches on some of the same phenomena as Scientology's "L's" processes, which is not to say that they are the same thing.

It would be illogical to assume that all Scientology techniques are relatively worthless while other techniques developed by some of the same people who developed Scientology techniques are necessarily all much better, wouldn't you agree? I don't feel the need to speak badly of those techniques I haven't experienced, or to insist that what I'm familiar with is the best. Only that with my experience, I can make better evaluations of what I've experienced than those who have not done what I've done.

I'm very interested in learning and forwarding the best techniques I can find, and so I gratefully learn from Dart, Mate, Roger B and others. Why anyone would think that to do that it is necessary to dismiss all that I can accomplish and have accomplished with Scientology techniques, to me, is simply a case of acting out one's own drama. (A lot of that going around:))

Love, Dex

:goodposting:

[Ralph Hilton]

"Fileclerk" was a name used by Ralph Hilton on occasion.
I've never used that name. Iknow the person who used it and he wishes to remain anon.

[Hatshepsut]

Well Hello Stranger! :D

Merry Christmas Ralph!

http://i986.photobucket.com/albums/ae345/loutupper/Bad_Gastein_Salzburg_Austria.jpg