My talk at the 2010 Freezone Convention [Archive] - Ex Scientologist Message Board

dexter gelfand

31st October 2010, 06:26 PM

Mark A. Baker

31st October 2010, 11:28 PM

Thanks to each of you who have taken the time and shown the interest to view and listen to my talk, and thanks for your response!:thumbsup:

All I'm saying here is that each of us can benefit from stretching out further to see things from the other person's viewpoint, its a very simple, and yet important and powerful idea, and it certainly isn't limited in application, or as a known concept, to Scientologists. I'm just making the point that we all could and should benefit from exercising and increasing our willingness to receive the views of others, and in fact to embrace them rather than resisting, which is the basis of the persistence of all things undesirable.

It is a stretch to characterize this idea as controversial in any sense-in fact, to take the trouble to publicly condemn this, as a few have here, thus condemning the idea that people should be willing to experience and see the other person's point of view, are thereby advocating against anyone's accepting or being willing to consider what they themselves are saying, in which case, by that logic, they have no point in ever posting their views in the first place. Quite a conundrum!:duh:

I'll reference my own earlier post on another thread, regarding some people's tendency to thoughtlessly attack anything that gets associated with Scientology:

"We have to keep some perspective here- as many, if not most, are participating or viewing ESMB to deal with the damage they experienced through their participation with the CoS, there will likely always be those who, in an attempt at self-preservation/recovery, have constructed in their own universe a world in which they are a faultless victim of a system that is absolutely bad. In order to prop up the walls when something positive about the subject threatens that faulty construct, such a person must work quickly to spin it all black. I hope for them that they won't forever hold onto that fixed solution with clenched teeth and white knuckles, as that is no way to go through life, and they deserve better. Its ok."

Love, Dex

I'm inclined towards a similar view of things as yours in re personal responsibility for one's own involvement with the church, Dex, as you well know. I am in full agreement with you particularly with regard to those, who like ourselves, became involved with scientology as a conscious decision made as an adult.

One key complication for that general rule though lies where children have been raised deep within the cult. Often such children have been subjected to mental & physical abuse from early on as an effect of parental irresponsibility and the preeminence of the dictates of the cult's management. In such instances it is hardly surprising that their later judgement has been adversely impacted through having spent their formative years subject to such an insane environment and a great personal cost to themselves. Nor do I doubt that you share a similar concern for those who have been so adversely impacted as children.

Mark A. Baker

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 01:16 AM

Thanks to each of you who have taken the time and shown the interest to view and listen to my talk, and thanks for your response!:thumbsup:

All I'm saying here is that each of us can benefit from stretching out further to see things from the other person's viewpoint, its a very simple, and yet important and powerful idea, and it certainly isn't limited in application, or as a known concept, to Scientologists. I'm just making the point that we all could and should benefit from exercising and increasing our willingness to receive the views of others, and in fact to embrace them rather than resisting, which is the basis of the persistence of all things undesirable.

It is a stretch to characterize this idea as controversial in any sense-in fact, to take the trouble to publicly condemn this, as a few have here, thus condemning the idea that people should be willing to experience and see the other person's point of view, are thereby advocating against anyone's accepting or being willing to consider what they themselves are saying, in which case, by that logic, they have no point in ever posting their views in the first place. Quite a conundrum!:duh:

I'll reference my own earlier post on another thread, regarding some people's tendency to thoughtlessly attack anything that gets associated with Scientology:

"We have to keep some perspective here- as many, if not most, are participating or viewing ESMB to deal with the damage they experienced through their participation with the CoS, there will likely always be those who, in an attempt at self-preservation/recovery, have constructed in their own universe a world in which they are a faultless victim of a system that is absolutely bad. In order to prop up the walls when something positive about the subject threatens that faulty construct, such a person must work quickly to spin it all black. I hope for them that they won't forever hold onto that fixed solution with clenched teeth and white knuckles, as that is no way to go through life, and they deserve better. Its ok."

Love, Dex

Dex, what you and many scientologists actually say is not the main issue (for me) ... it is the overly complicated, oh so serious, messiah like and waffling way that it is said that makes me cringe (did I mention condescending?) and there is often a hubbardlike assumption that we all need to be taught something.

:melodramatic:

If a scientologist cannot find a better place to post this type of thing than an EX scientology message board (despite the fact that there is a freezone section) then there is something very wrong, but I assume that they are asking for honest comment from the great unwashed by doing so.

:whistling:

Posted by Mark Barker

snipped

One key complication for that general rule though lies where children have been raised deep within the cult. Often such children have been subjected to mental & physical abuse from early on as an effect of parental irresponsibility and the preeminence of the dictates of the cult's management. In such instances it is hardly surprising that their later judgement has been adversely impacted through having spent their formative years subject to such an insane environment and a great personal cost to themselves. Nor do I doubt that you share a similar concern for those who have been so adversely impacted as children.

Mark A. Baker

Well said.

Mark A. Baker

1st November 2010, 01:33 AM

Dex, what you and many scientologists actually say is not the main issue (for me) ... it is the overly complicated, oh so serious, messiah like and waffling way that it is said that makes me cringe (did I mention condescending?) and there is often a hubbardlike assumption that we all need to be taught something.

:melodramatic:

Yes. I'd agree with you about many, including some I know who are freezoners/independents. But DEX doesn't think, speak, or write in such a fashion. He is very much a 'straightshooter'.

Mark A. Baker

nozeno

1st November 2010, 02:00 AM

I thought it might be too long and it might remind me of the tail chasing I did when I didn't like myself when I was in scientology. A time when I dreamed that if I did such and such I would "improve" my being, so I didn't watch it.

I think I'll wait until it is released to the general public after it is found to have some value.

I think I may be waiting a LONG time. :omg:

nozeno

1st November 2010, 02:01 AM

Yes. I'd agree with you about many, including some I know who are freezoners/independents. But DEX doesn't think, speak, or write in such a fashion. He is very much a 'straightshooter'.

Mark A. Baker

Now here is an endorsement that I can believe in.

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 02:09 AM

Hiya Trouble (I love your name, by the way, always makes me smile:) )

Dex, what you and many scientologists actually say is not the main issue (for me) ... it is the overly complicated, oh so serious, messiah like and waffling way that it is said that makes me cringe (did I mention condescending?) and there is often a hubbardlike assumption that we all need to be taught something.

Gotcha Trouble, I'm sorry if that's how I came off to you. Not the effect I'd want to create.

If a scientologist cannot find a better place to post this type of thing than an EX scientology message board (despite the fact that there is a freezone section) then there is something very wrong, but I assume that they are asking for honest comment from the great unwashed by doing so.

Agreed. If I can't stand the heat, I don't belong in the kitchen. Likewise, my right to respond. Likewise, my right to post my thread in the Freezone section (or wherever). As Emma will corroborate, I'm well within the scope of her boundaries and intentions for this forum. I believe 100% in respecting the venue, and I adhere to that myself.

If you're going to blast everything merely for having any connection to Scientology indiscriminately- the organization, everyone involved in any way with any form of practice, every piece of information connected to the practice, than I'm going to call you on your myopia, that too is part of the agreed-upon rights here. There is virtually nothing in the rules of this forum that grants any presumption of predominance or superiority to any particular attitude toward or about Scientology, so while you may protest to your heart's content what you don't like about my (or anyone's) expressing a favorable view or acceptance of something connected to Scientology, your right to be here is no greater than mine or anyone else's.

My view is that you could be a little more discriminating, than to attack any statement merely on the basis that it is related to Scientology, although given the tragedies and abuses that have been committed in its name, I can understand your feelings.

Love, Dex

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 02:20 AM

Mark A. Baker

1st November 2010, 02:31 AM

Dexter,

How can you expect to post this stuff on an ex-scientologist MB without having some disagreement on what you say? Get over it.

What are you trying to do here? Recruit exe's into the freezone?

Dex is fine with those who may disagree. I know. We've had several disagreements between us. We also have much on which we agree. Dex is pretty damn good at holding up his side of a debate. However, emotional reactions made out of personal pique or bias does not constitute rational disagreement. Hating scientology is not the same thing as critiquing it.

A person can accept the emotion from which such statements arise as completely valid and understandable in context without accepting as legitimate the arguments which such expressions promote. Emotion is not equivalent to reason.

Mark A. Baker

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 02:40 AM

Dexter,

How can you expect to post this stuff on an ex-scientologist MB without having some disagreement on what you say? Get over it.

Hi PG, I don't expect to encounter no disagreement, and I'm over, around and through it. :)

What are you trying to do here? Recruit exe's into the freezone?

That is my plan. Don't tell anybody. I need those FSM commissions! :D

Seriously though, I think that possibly you posted before reading my post #20 on this thread.

Love, Dex

Terril park

1st November 2010, 02:44 AM

Dex, what you and many scientologists actually say is not the main issue (for me) ... it is the overly complicated, oh so serious, messiah like and waffling way that it is said that makes me cringe (did I mention condescending?) and there is often a hubbardlike assumption that we all need to be taught something.

Hey sweetie,
Note that a very high percentage of people want to
address issues with a counselor. 12% approx.

They are probably DYING to be taught something.

There are a multitude of TV shows relating to this subject.

Not met Dex, but have had several Skype conversations.

Discussing tech may well get complicated. So go attend a psychology
convention. :)

I'm sure that Dex as a counselor would be very friendly!

Sharone Stainforth

1st November 2010, 03:26 AM

You are Sick!

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 03:35 AM

You are Sick!

Please explain. I'm not sure what you have in mind.

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 03:35 AM

Smarmy sales techniques ... that is what most of scientology is about.

Selling the cult to the (often) young and insecure, getting lot's of agreement and then protecting it all.

Thanks for your responses Dex and Terril ... you used just the right amount of "ARC" and I can feel myself wanting to return it in spades!

Instead though, I shall race off quickly to the natter board section and laugh myself silly at the things I used to do and think in the past.

:blowkiss:

nozeno

1st November 2010, 03:36 AM

Dex is fine with those who may disagree. I know. We've had several disagreements between us. We also have much on which we agree. Dex is pretty damn good at holding up his side of a debate. However, emotional reactions made out of personal pique or bias does not constitute rational disagreement. Hating scientology is not the same thing as critiquing it.

A person can accept the emotion from which such statements arise as completely valid and understandable in context without accepting as legitimate the arguments which such expressions promote. Emotion is not equivalent to reason.

Mark A. Baker

Well, now that you've explained it that way. :bigcry:

Critiquing scientology is as useful as trying to explain why my dog smells like cow shit right after he just rolled in a fresh flop.

Sorry, sometimes I let my emotions get the better of me.

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 03:37 AM

You are Sick!

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQCwQcU84U8VT2iRC7hTy248lKR8RapT 9v0-5sO1yLYQ4cYixI&t=1&usg=__jnRDfFFJXQ7-xQOc17ard5smlHs=

Sikh? I thought he was indie Scn.

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 03:49 AM

Dex is fine with those who may disagree. I know. We've had several disagreements between us. We also have much on which we agree. Dex is pretty damn good at holding up his side of a debate. However, emotional reactions made out of personal pique or bias does not constitute rational disagreement. Hating scientology is not the same thing as critiquing it.

A person can accept the emotion from which such statements arise as completely valid and understandable in context without accepting as legitimate the arguments which such expressions promote. Emotion is not equivalent to reason.

Mark A. Baker

It's not about any irrational "hate" (which is a term that you are using deliberately to evoke reactions... not me).

For example, the notion of the Dianetic "Engram" was debunked decades ago.
Do we need to go over this territory again and again?

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 03:55 AM

the notion of the Dianetic "Engram" was debunked decades ago.

Right. Also gravity, the Holocaust, and evolution. :duh:

Love, Dex

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 04:00 AM

Right. Also gravity, the Holocaust, and evolution. :duh:

Love, Dex

Don't change the subject. This has nothing to do with gravity, the Holocaust, nor evolution.

The Scientology notion of "engram" was debunked long ago.

Mark A. Baker

1st November 2010, 04:01 AM

It's not about "hate" (which is a term that you are using deliberately to evoke reactions... not me).

You would prefer: abhor, detest, abominate, loath, gross antipathy, extreme emotional aversion, perhaps tremendous animus or some other term?

The point is an emotionally based response, however valid in itself, is NOT itself indicative of a rational response.

For example, the notion of the Dianetic "Engram" was debunked decades ago.
Do we need to go over this territory again and again?

I have no need for it. However you do seem to be a bit "fixated" on the matter.

Mark A. Baker

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 04:10 AM

Don't change the subject. This has nothing to do with gravity, the Holocaust, nor evolution.

The Scientology notion of "engram" was debunked long ago.

Sez you.

Love, Dex

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 04:11 AM

You would prefer: abhor, detest, abominate, loath, gross antipathy, extreme emotional aversion, perhaps tremendous animus or some other term?

The point is an emotionally based response, however valid in itself, is NOT itself indicative of a rational response.

I have no need for it. However you do seem to be a bit "fixated" on the matter.

Mark A. Baker

Of course you would have no need for it. People fixated on SCN never want to read that stuff.

Mark A. Baker

1st November 2010, 04:23 AM

Of course you would have no need for it. People fixated on SCN never want to read that stuff.

YOU make too many ASSumptions.

Mark A. Baker :)

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 04:39 AM

Don't change the subject. This has nothing to do with gravity, the Holocaust, nor evolution.

The Scientology notion of "engram" was debunked long ago.

Actually Book 1 Dianetics uses the term "engram".

"Incident" is typical nomenclature in New Era Dianetics or in Scientology.

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 04:45 AM

Actually Book 1 Dianetics uses the term "engram".

"Incident" is typical nomenclature in New Era Dianetics or in Scientology.

There was a basic test done for this decades ago.
Have you read the report?

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 04:54 AM

There was a basic test done for this decades ago.
Have you read the report?

Probably came across it at some point.

Not that important to me--some things are quite subjective.

Most research can be "bought" one way or the other anyway.

Lots of practitioners in many fields tend to be pragmatic--"does it work to get a desired result?"

There is also that matter of "belief".

No doubt you can go to other religious boards and tell how hideous their tale is of risen zombie messiahs that promise to save followers if the flesh and blood are consumed in a cannibalistic rite...

Infinite

1st November 2010, 05:15 AM

"We have to keep some perspective here- as many, if not most, are participating or viewing ESMB to deal with the damage they experienced through their participation with the CoS, there will likely always be those who, in an attempt at self-preservation/recovery, have constructed in their own universe a world in which they are a faultless victim of a system that is absolutely bad. In order to prop up the walls when something positive about the subject threatens that faulty construct, such a person must work quickly to spin it all black. I hope for them that they won't forever hold onto that fixed solution with clenched teeth and white knuckles, as that is no way to go through life, and they deserve better. Its ok."

Love, Dex

Got that, everyone? Those of you who have suffered at the hands of Scientology and now speak out against it have turned yourselves into deluded and broken victims.

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 05:15 AM

Probably came across it at some point.

Not that important to me--some things are quite subjective.

Most research can be "bought" one way or the other anyway.

Lots of practitioners in many fields tend to be pragmatic--"does it work to get a desired result?"

There is also that matter of "belief".

No doubt you can go to other religious boards and tell how hideous their tale is of risen zombie messiahs that promise to save followers if the flesh and blood are consumed in a cannibalistic rite...

Here it is.
Dianetic Therapy:
An Experimental Evaluation
Harvey Jay Fischer - 1953
http://www.xenu.net/archive/fischer/

IMO, failing this initial basic test means that very few, if any, research psychs would be interested in doing anything further after that.

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 05:21 AM

Got that, everyone? Those of you who have suffered at the hands of Scientology and now speak out against it have turned yourselves into deluded and broken victims.

Are you being sarcastic? I hope so.:D

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 05:26 AM

Here it is.
Dianetic Therapy:
An Experimental Evaluation
Harvey Jay Fischer - 1953
http://www.xenu.net/archive/fischer/

IMO, failing this initial basic test means that very few, if any, research psychs would be interested in doing anything further after that.

Thank you for the link--I did not download the zip as I came across this:

David Cecere (ishmael569@yahoo.com)

I have previous experience with this person. I consider his ethics to be out the bottom. He has yet to come clean with me on a previous scammy transaction. In Scn terms, he is at Treason or below with me. I would fully expect the zip to contain malware.

Please, try again?

ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn

1st November 2010, 05:31 AM

Thank you for the link--I did not download the zip as I came across this:

David Cecere (ishmael569@yahoo.com)

I have previous experience with this person. I consider his ethics to be out the bottom. He has yet to come clean with me on a previous scammy transaction. In Scn terms, he is at Treason or below with me. I would fully expect the zip to contain malware.

Please, try again?

You don't need to download the link, the entire article is right there on-line, all you have to do is click on the links on the right of that page to the various sections and tables or just go page by page from here

http://www.xenu.net/archive/fischer/Fischer_Title.html

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by dexter gelfand
"We have to keep some perspective here- as many, if not most, are participating or viewing ESMB to deal with the damage they experienced through their participation with the CoS, there will likely always be those who, in an attempt at self-preservation/recovery, have constructed in their own universe a world in which they are a faultless victim of a system that is absolutely bad. In order to prop up the walls when something positive about the subject threatens that faulty construct, such a person must work quickly to spin it all black. I hope for them that they won't forever hold onto that fixed solution with clenched teeth and white knuckles, as that is no way to go through life, and they deserve better. Its ok."

Love, Dex

Posted by Blip

Got that, everyone? Those of you who have suffered at the hands of Scientology and now speak out against it have turned yourselves into deluded and broken victims.

I got it Blip ... (Ooooh, all this clenching of teeth and white knuckles is giving me a headache ... I wonder if anyone here can assist me with that?).

Not.

It is just more condescending wank.

:happydance:

Infinite

1st November 2010, 05:35 AM

Are you being sarcastic? I hope so.:D

Just paraphrasing Dex's last paragraph. As far as I am concerned, those who have been wounded by Scientology and have escaped are survivors, not victims, while those who have been wounded, escaped AND speak out are now teachers. I am reminded of a sage comment made by Veda in relation to Scientologists calling people victims:

The Scientology Dictionary defines "Victim" as "1. a destroyed or threatened with destruction receipt point. 2. a victim is an unwilling and unknowing effect of life, matter, energy, space and time."

Also, in Scientology, the word "victim" is sometimes associated with the "dramatizing of a service facsimile," where someone becomes a "victim" to get sympathy and to gain other perceived advantages.

"Victims" in Scientology are frowned upon if they are being victims of Scientology.

BUT THERE'S A TWIST, a SWITCH, a FAST ONE, A TURN AROUND, a GIMMICK, A PLOY, A TRICK - after all this IS Scientology.

Per its founders confidential instructions one is to USE ENEMY TACTICS, and these include "ABERRATIVE" TACTICS.

Scientologists, when interacting with "Wogs" (humanoids who, of course, are aberrated) and "SPs" and "DBs," if it is regarded as forwarding Scientology, will USE ENEMY TACTICS.

One of the traits of lower (non Scientology) beings is that they "become victims," and use "being a victim" to their advantage.

So, following L. Ron Hubbard's instructions in his "Scientology Philosophy," when dealing with the ENEMY (including the "Wogs" who are "PTS" - or they'd have become Scientologists - to the "SPs"), one plays at being a VICTIM.

Scientologists are continually being victimized by the SPs, ANTI-SCIENTOLOGISTS, BIGOTS, the HATERS, the BASHERS, the NATTERERS, the ANTI-RELIGIOUS HATERS AND BIGOTS who "attack their "Scientology religion."

The details of this sort of thing can be found in Scientology's (mostly, but not entirely, non-confidential) PR Tech (and beware, the PR Tech is deceptively multi-layered, as is Scientology over-all), its (mostly confidential) Propaganda Tech (works along with PR Tech), and its (almost entirely confidential) covert "Intelligence Tech."

Bits of these usually confidential instructions by Scientology's founder can be found in Scientology's founder's writings and lectures, and these filter (or flow) down to the Scientologists, and shape their thinking.

Scientologists love to play at being the victim if it's seen as being an advantageous ploy or trick or gimmick or angle (all terms used by the spiritual leader of the Scientologists, L. Ron Hubbard).

Scientology is a secretive subject, and one of the traits of a Scientologist is to be influenced by Scientology in ways he/she does not fully understand. So, a Scientologist will sometimes "play the victim card" against a "wog" or "basher" or "SP" without being fully aware of the LRH source material upon which these actions are based.

One of the reasons why it's so awkward to talk about Scientology with a Scientologist is that Scientologists don't fully know what Scientology is. The Scientologist doesn't know the full contents of the secretive subject to which he/she has given his/her allegiance, and has opened wide his/her mind for "Hubbard Guidance."

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 05:41 AM

Thank you for the link--I did not download the zip as I came across this:

David Cecere (ishmael569@yahoo.com)

I have previous experience with this person. I consider his ethics to be out the bottom. He has yet to come clean with me on a previous scammy transaction. In Scn terms, he is at Treason or below with me. I would fully expect the zip to contain malware.

Please, try again?

There is no zip file on that link. I don't know what you are referring to.
It's an HTML web page on Operation Clambake.

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 05:41 AM

You don't need to download the link, the entire article is right there on-line, all you have to do is click on the links on the right of that page to the various sections and tables or just go page by page from here

http://www.xenu.net/archive/fischer/Fischer_Title.html

Oh I know that Chuck, but thanks--was hoping to push David Cecere's buttons should he happen to google across the post. Should have some entertainment for money spent. :roflmao: I'm fairly sure that he will have no recollection, or no remorse--certainly no responsibility.

I read that paper long ago--pretty much tl:dr.

I could take many psych talk techniques--run them half-assed and point/laugh say: it doesn't work!

So?

ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn

1st November 2010, 05:42 AM

There is no zip file on that link. I don't know what you are referring to.
It's an HTML web page on Operation Clambake.

The link to the zip file is at the bottom of the page

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 05:47 AM

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 05:52 AM

The link to the zip file is at the bottom of the page

I don't see any link to a zip file at the bottom of this page.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/fischer/Fischer_Title.html
Not that it matters to me.

Anyway, that study/test debunks the notion of "engrams".
And I can't imagine any psych researcher wanting to go further after that big initial failure.

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 05:54 AM

Dex, Ah ... that was empathy?

That's OK then.

:whistling:

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 06:02 AM

The link to the zip file is at the bottom of the page

Thanks. I see it from my 1st link.
I don't know why anyone would be afraid of it.
My 2nd link doesn't have it.

People should read this study.

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 06:08 AM

I have expressed my empathy for those who have been harmed by the Church of Scientology, many of whom have not lost their perspective and differentiation of Scientology philosophy and technique, and the entity that is the Church of Scientology.

And this is exactly what a freezoner always says to debunkers.

Please go back and read the Harvey Fischer study. Okay?

Atalantan

1st November 2010, 06:09 AM

It's not about any irrational "hate" (which is a term that you are using deliberately to evoke reactions... not me).

For example, the notion of the Dianetic "Engram" was debunked decades ago.
Do we need to go over this territory again and again?

How else do you expect to erase it? :duh: :lol:

And did he actually use the word "hate"? I missed that.

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by programmer_guy
It's not about any irrational "hate" (which is a term that you are using deliberately to evoke reactions... not me).

For example, the notion of the Dianetic "Engram" was debunked decades ago.
Do we need to go over this territory again and again?

How else do you expect to erase it? :duh: :lol:

And did he actually use the word "hate"? I missed that.

:roflmao:

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 06:18 AM

How else do you expect to erase it? :duh: :lol:

And did he actually use the word "hate"? I missed that.

Erase what? Engrams?
Go back and read the info on the Harvey Fischer link.

Auditor's Toad

1st November 2010, 06:22 AM

Got that, everyone? Those of you who have suffered at the hands of Scientology and now speak out against it have turned yourselves into deluded and broken victims.

Yeah well, most of us got in.

Who foresaw on the Apollo children in the chain locker?

Who foresaw uneducated children ?

Who foresaw people pushing a peanut around the deck with their nose?

Who forsaw beans and rice ( not to mention low pay while LRH got suitcases of $$$ ) while LRH and family lived well?

What did SO members do for medical and dental care?

What about disconnection which was a POLITICAL measure to contain thos ewho knew the truth from telling those still in the truth?

What about putting family above below devotion to Ron and his money making schemes?

What about Ron getting rid of people ho he thought their light shined bright?

How doe sanyone justify that ALL the major people in scn have been declared SP. If the "tech" even remotely " works " how the fuck do stone SP's avoid detection for 20 YEARS or more ? How did LRH miss all the SP's on the Apollo when he was CSing them ALL ? How did the SH staff become 95% SP ? How did most of the early clears become SP's?

How come not one person can demonstrate clear or OT ?

Yeah, well, some people were gullible and buy, the BS, but, goddamn it, who the fuck wasn't lied to and had the truth hidden from them every step of the way ?

All I can ask Dex is if he is so damn proud of the group why isn't he still standing in the middle of it instead of trying to make less of those who have left that group?

Dex, you need not reply to me, you are on ignore forever.
Frankly, a conversation with Tommy Davis would be a lot more desirable.

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 06:24 AM

Please take a moment to notice that "victim" can mean many things across quite a spectrum.

Certainly there are many people who have suffered at the effect of the "church" of Scientology. Death. Disconnection. Promises not kept. Families torn asunder. Kidnap. Incarceration. Human rights abuses that could probably keep courts busy for years...

There are also those who wear "victim" as a mechanism to be noticed, get attention, gain favor, get sympathy, avoid attack etc.

Some even become professional at it...

I think Dex has pointed out something about the "victims" that really should drop the "victim" thing as it is not productive or survival.

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 06:29 AM

Please take a moment to notice that "victim" can mean many things across quite a spectrum.

Certainly there are many people who have suffered at the effect of the "church" of Scientology. Death. Disconnection. Promises not kept. Families torn asunder. Kidnap. Incarceration. Human rights abuses that could probably keep courts busy for years...

There are slso those who wear "victim" as a mechanism to be noticed, get attention, gain favor, get sympathy, avoid attack etc.

Some even become professional at it...

I think Dex has pointed out something about the "victims" that really should drop the "victim" thing as it is not productive or survival.

Spoken like a true believer/victim.

:yes:

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 06:34 AM

Spoken like a true believer/victim.

:yes:

I don't suppose that you would believe that I am not...

:whistling:

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 06:36 AM

I don't suppose that you would believe that I am not...

:whistling:

Lol ... I don't suppose you would believe that I am not ...

:p

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 06:37 AM

Spoken like a true believer/victim.

:yes:

Exactly! :thumbsup:

I am not a victim. I am a survivor.
Freezoners never understand this difference.

Freezoners will twist anything in order to promote "the tech".

ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn

1st November 2010, 06:44 AM

Yeah well, most of us got in.

Who foresaw on the Apollo children in the chain locker?

Who foresaw uneducated children ?

Who foresaw people pushing a peanut around the deck with their nose?

Who forsaw beans and rice ( not to mention low pay while LRH got suitcases of $$$ ) while LRH and family lived well?

What did SO members do for medical and dental care?

What about disconnection which was a POLITICAL measure to contain thos ewho knew the truth from telling those still in the truth?

What about putting family above below devotion to Ron and his money making schemes?

What about Ron getting rid of people ho he thought their light shined bright?

How doe sanyone justify that ALL the major people in scn have been declared SP. If the "tech" even remotely " works " how the fuck do stone SP's avoid detection for 20 YEARS or more ? How did LRH miss all the SP's on the Apollo when he was CSing them ALL ? How did the SH staff become 95% SP ? How did most of the early clears become SP's?

How come not one person can demonstrate clear or OT ?

Yeah, well, some people were gullible and buy, the BS, but, goddamn it, who the fuck wasn't lied to and had the truth hidden from them every step of the way ?

All I can ask Dex is if he is so damn proud of the group why isn't he still standing in the middle of it instead of trying to make less of those who have left that group?

Dex, you need not reply to me, you are on ignore forever.
Frankly, a conversation with Tommy Davis would be a lot more desirable.

What I do not understand about the Freezone is everything Hubbard claimed ownership of, has turned out to be the work of someone else. the only portions Hubbard can legitimately lay claim to are the evil destructive implants and goal swapping mind control portions of it he used to enslave people.

why not just credit the individuals actually responsible for the portions of the material you believe have value and stop crediting the con man who used it to enslave people in his self-servicing destructive cult?

It's intellectuality dishonest to keep pretending Hubbard was anything but a evil intentioned fraud and a con man, not to mention how insulting it is to those who suffered in the wake of the carnage created by his self servicing cult.

To pretend Miscavige is the cause of the evil and not just another product of Hubbard's evil intentions, is also insulting and dishonest. Sure Miscavige is evil, but no more evil than Hubbard and Scientology are themselves.

Yes Scientology is worse than you think, so let's stop pretending it's not.

Infinite

1st November 2010, 06:50 AM

Those are Blip's words. Blip is spinning my words, thinking that in doing this, he may manipulate some people into supporting his drama.

My words are clear enough. I have expressed my empathy for those who have been harmed by the Church of Scientology, many of whom have not lost their perspective and differentiation of Scientology philosophy and technique, and the entity that is the Church of Scientology. My words aren't in need of disingenuous, manipulative re-interpretation, and I stand by them:

"We have to keep some perspective here- as many, if not most, are participating or viewing ESMB to deal with the damage they experienced through their participation with the CoS, there will likely always be those who, in an attempt at self-preservation/recovery, have constructed in their own universe a world in which they are a faultless victim of a system that is absolutely bad. In order to prop up the walls when something positive about the subject threatens that faulty construct, such a person must work quickly to spin it all black. I hope for them that they won't forever hold onto that fixed solution with clenched teeth and white knuckles, as that is no way to go through life, and they deserve better. Its ok."

Love, Dex

Your use of Scilon language in the video is so adept there were moments there I thought you were speaking Klingon. I can only assume from that your understanding of the principles and meanings of the language of Hubbard are such that you mean exactly what Hubbard says its means. Thus, your use of the word "victim" to describe those who have escaped and speak out against the philosophy that nearly crushed their souls means you see them as:

"1. a destroyed or threatened with destruction receipt point. 2. a victim is an unwilling and unknowing effect of life, matter, energy, space and time." . . . and/or . . . the word "victim" is sometimes associated with the "dramatizing of a service facsimile," where someone becomes a "victim" to get sympathy and to gain other perceived advantages.

Given the use of words like " . . . constructed in their own (faulty) universe . . . " it is quite clear that you are using the latter definition. So much for empathy.

Then, when your own words are "duplicated" out comes:

Scientology 101: when confronted with undeniable facts and/or irrefutable logic, bring out the ad homs.

I guess that puts me "at cause".

By all means, attempt to paint me as a "manipulator" disingenuously dragging people into my own drama. However, if you were to practise what you preach and merge into my viewpoint you would see that I am a concerned individual warning people away from a subject for which the only evidence to date shows it to be dangerous.

Voltaire's Child

1st November 2010, 07:03 AM

Exactly! :thumbsup:

I am not a victim. I am a survivor.
Freezoners never understand this difference.

Freezoners will twist anything in order to promote "the tech".

That's a generalization.

By the way, quite a few FreeZoners are ex culties who've suffered disconnection, loss of assets and other things when in the cult. Same as many other exes.

Voltaire's Child

1st November 2010, 07:06 AM

One doesn't need to be still trapped in the official CofS in order to be still trapped in Scientology.

It's not a trap if it's a person's chosen path and they are happy. Not everyone has the same ideology or belief system. I met Dexter and liked him very much. He's anything but trapped. He just has different beliefs than you do.

programmer_guy

1st November 2010, 07:11 AM

It's not a trap if it's a person's chosen path and they are happy. Not everyone has the same ideology or belief system. I met Dexter and liked him very much. He's anything but trapped. He just has different beliefs than you do.

Fluffy, go and read Harvey Fischer's test of the "Engram" and then get back to me on that.

Freezoners are always the same in defending "the tech" and you are no exception.
You are not an ex-Scientologist. You are a freezoner Scientologist.

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 07:24 AM

:faceslap:

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 07:44 AM

:faceslap:

ya know...Scientology could help you with that...

:hysterical:

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 07:49 AM

ya know...Scientology could help you with that...

:hysterical:

Sod off.

:p

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 08:01 AM

so lesse...it is OK for you to poke fun

but not OK for me

hmmm that seems fair...

:whistling:

(sorry about somebody peeing in your Wheaties--it wasn't me)

Infinite

1st November 2010, 08:14 AM

And did he actually use the word "hate"? I missed that.

Hating scientology is not the same thing as critiquing it.

Yep. Someone critiquing Scientology is usually a "hater", or a "bigot", and also, it now seems, a "victim". Although, in my case, its a "disingenuous manipulator". At least the vocabulary, if not the sentiment, is improving.

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 08:18 AM

Yep. Someone critiquing Scientology is usually a "hater", or a "bigot", and also, it now seems, a "victim". Although, in my case, its a "disingenuous manipulator". At least the vocabulary, if not the sentiment, is improving.

I just think that you have ADHD, reading comprehension problems or intentionally leave out things. Maybe there is some other cause--I can only guess.

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 08:22 AM

so lesse...it is OK for you to poke fun

but not OK for me

hmmm that seems fair...

:whistling:

(sorry about somebody peeing in your Wheaties--it wasn't me)

Look again.

:p normally denotes smiling.

I don't eat Wheaties either (piddled in or otherwise).

:unsure:

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 08:24 AM

Look again.

:p normally denotes smiling.

I don't eat Wheaties either (piddled in or otherwise).

:unsure:

ahh I am sorry--smiley looked like a raspberry :shrug:

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 08:34 AM

ahh I am sorry--smiley looked like a raspberry :shrug:

I do eat those ... (preferably not piddled on though).

:p

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 08:42 AM

I do eat those ... (preferably not piddled on though).

:p

om nom nom

good choice--here have some from 4 ft above ground...

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6300000/Raspberry-Wallpaper-fruit-6334056-1024-768.jpg

Infinite

1st November 2010, 08:47 AM

I just think that you have ADHD, reading comprehension problems or intentionally leave out things. Maybe there is some other cause--I can only guess.

Ahh . . more terms. I wonder if we could compile a list. So far we have:

bigot

hater

victim

disingenuous manipulator

attention deficient

hyperactive

semi-literate (does that indicate an MU, I wonder)

. . . feel free to add more.

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 08:47 AM

Posted by AlphOhm

om nom nom

good choice--here have some from 4 ft above ground...

LOL ... oooooh, thanks very much (some people can piddle upwards though you know).

:ohmy:

Sorry about your thread Dex (blame AlphOhm ... I'm a no responsibility case).

:)

Mark A. Baker

1st November 2010, 09:25 AM

Exactly! :thumbsup:

I am not a victim. I am a survivor.
Freezoners never understand this difference.

Freezoners will twist anything in order to promote "the tech".

What you are is clearly ignorant on the subject of the freezone. :eyeroll:

Mark A. Baker

Infinite

1st November 2010, 09:42 AM

What you are is clearly ignorant on the subject of the freezone.

There's another one, thanks Mark.

bigot

hater

victim

disingenuous

manipulating

attention deficient

hyperactive

semi-literate (does that indicate an MU, I wonder)

ignorant

Veda

1st November 2010, 10:18 AM

First comes:

Hey sweetie,

-snip-

:)

Which is...

Smarmy sales techniques ... that is what most of scientology is about.

Selling the cult to the (often) young and insecure, getting lot's of agreement and then protecting it all.

Thanks for your responses Dex and Terril ... you used just the right amount of "ARC" and I can feel myself wanting to return it in spades!

Instead though, I shall race off quickly to the natter board section and laugh myself silly at the things I used to do and think in the past.

:blowkiss:

"Smarmy": Obsequious (attempt to win favor by) flattery; buttery praise.

Then, if that doesn't "work," get ready because here comes...

There's another one, thanks Mark.

bigot

hater

victim

disingenuous

manipulating

attention deficient

hyperactive

semi-literate (does that indicate an MU, I wonder)

ignorant

So much for "granting beingness," etc.

SchwimmelPuckel

1st November 2010, 11:57 AM

Got that, everyone? Those of you who have suffered at the hands of Scientology and now speak out against it have turned yourselves into deluded and broken victims.

Those are Blip's words. Blip is spinning my words, thinking that in doing this, he may manipulate some people into supporting his drama.

My words are clear enough. I have expressed my empathy for those who have been harmed by the Church of Scientology, many of whom have not lost their perspective and differentiation of Scientology philosophy and technique, and the entity that is the Church of Scientology. My words aren't in need of disingenuous, manipulative re-interpretation, and I stand by them:

"We have to keep some perspective here- as many, if not most, are participating or viewing ESMB to deal with the damage they experienced through their participation with the CoS, there will likely always be those who, in an attempt at self-preservation/recovery, have constructed in their own universe a world in which they are a faultless victim of a system that is absolutely bad. In order to prop up the walls when something positive about the subject threatens that faulty construct, such a person must work quickly to spin it all black. I hope for them that they won't forever hold onto that fixed solution with clenched teeth and white knuckles, as that is no way to go through life, and they deserve better. Its ok."

Love, Dex Well, yes.. You did say this:

<snip>"We have to keep some perspective here- as many, if not most, are participating or viewing ESMB to deal with the damage they experienced through their participation with the CoS, there will likely always be those who, in an attempt at self-preservation/recovery, have constructed in their own universe a world in which they are a faultless victim of a system that is absolutely bad. In order to prop up the walls when something positive about the subject threatens that faulty construct, such a person must work quickly to spin it all black. I hope for them that they won't forever hold onto that fixed solution with clenched teeth and white knuckles, as that is no way to go through life, and they deserve better. Its ok."

Love, DexDoes sound to me like you have us all scientologically diagnosed, with due reference to Hubbard's 'Games Theories'.

But I can tell you this: I'm a victim of Hubbard & Scientology.. Albeit not Hubbard's definition.. Victim, as in having been fooled and harmed, even spiritually. I am aware that this was done intentionally too!

My analysis of the situation is that there was NEVER any intent, by Hubbard, to do anything 'spiritually' beneficial for me or humankind. It was a pure and rather brilliant hoax!

Hubbard is a 'better' hoaxer than the man who sold the Eiffel Tower!

So I'm not a 'victim' per Hubbard's new slant on definitions.

I do not think I'm faultless and deluding myself in that regard.

But I do think that Scientology must be fought in every which way! - I do NOT think that any truth or workability of scientology should ever be admitted. The whole subject needs to be shot down in this PR war! - The tech, Hubbard, the organization and the 'Trademark' Scientology.

Yeah.. I'm 'spinning it all black'.. It actually official CoS PR tech. Hubbard stole that from some WOG's btw.. And if it takes clenched teeth and white knuckles to deprive Scientology PR of any 'safe ground', so be it!

:yes:

RogerB

1st November 2010, 01:31 PM

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 01:42 PM

SchwimmelPuckel

1st November 2010, 02:05 PM

Ok. let's examine just what a 'reactive mind' is.. I'm not talking trash.. I mean tech.

A 'reactive mind' is an area of your mind that is inaccesible to your awareness. Yet 'commands' in there guides and control your thoughts, feelings and behavior.

So far so good..

So what if somebody told you a pack of lies. And you absolutely believed in the lies. Considered them actual truth. Rules for living and explanations for spirit, mind and mentality. A whole baffeling load of it. Like a 'science of the human mind'..

Now this 'knowledge' wouldn't be like a 'reactive mind'.. You'd be able to remember it all. In fact you might work hard, and study, to remember it all very well!

It would only be a part of it that is hidden from your awareness. The fact that it is lies! - That fact is hidden in your mind.

Another fact is the true purpose of it all. That too is hidden from you.. That the purpose is to confuse.. That the purpose is to make you pay money.. To make you never critizise the tech.. To make your own doubt a crime.. To make you suspect that you are an SP.. To make you NEED the tech for your survival.. To make your protests illegal and make you agree that they are.. To make you blame yourself when tech fails..

Well, does it start to look like a farkin' reactive mind yet?

:hattip:

ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn

1st November 2010, 02:42 PM

Hmm . . .

Reading all the yip, yap against Dex and what he presented in rather interesting, rather illuminating.

Pardon me for noticing, but he is actually expressing the values of some truths that are inherent in and core principles of other philosophical systems and beliefs that some who are shouting at Dex actually believe and defend . . . you know, practices like Buddhism etc., the Golden Rule as expressed in all major religions :duh:

And further, what Dex is actually speaking on is what went out and was sabotaged by the practice of the CofS as it is . . . in other words, he is actually telling anyone who is willing to actually listen (though the Scn lingo would automatically piss some off . . . he was presenting to a Scn educated group!) how to undo and fix the upsets that exist in much of the ex-Scn community.

It is interesting to note that those attacking Dex are actually practicing the exact negative he is revealing as the source of the upset ex-Scn have been subjected to :duh:

In my view, it would be interesting to contemplate just how much better all would be if they were to attempt the harmony and love for one's fellows . . . the willingness to be at one with and to honor each other's viewpoints . . . that Dex so elegantly spoke on.

RogerB

Reading all the yip, yap against anyone who choses to speak their mind and present what their experience with Hubbard's con game in rather interesting, rather illuminating.
....

In my view, it would be interesting to contemplate just how much better all would be if they were to attempt the harmony and love for one's fellows . . . the willingness to be at one with and to honor each other's viewpoints . . . that those have spoke about rather than dismissing it as "yip yap" or "natter" .

....

I do not think anyone is under the illusion that Hubbard actually created any of the philosophical systems and beliefs that Dex has incorporated in his discussion and still pawning off as Scientology,

but the fact that any of it is still being credited to a con man like Hubbard and Hubbard's cult-ease is still used to explain it makes it difficult if not impossible to take seriously.

If you, Dex, or anyone else, would like to discuss practices like Buddhism etc. then why don't you do so, rather than just using them as a smoke screen to propagate Hubbard's con game?

Furthermore if you can't handle an open discussion on the topic of Scientology, I hear Marty Rathbun is opening a place which can shelter you from these lowly "yip-yaper" and "natterer", since you can't seem to handle an open discussion of Hubbard's "Tech" as well as Dex can.

Voltaire's Child

1st November 2010, 03:03 PM

Fluffy, go and read Harvey Fischer's test of the "Engram" and then get back to me on that.

Freezoners are always the same in defending "the tech" and you are no exception.
You are not an ex-Scientologist. You are a freezoner Scientologist.

I already read it. I can think of lots of ideologies that cannot be verified and/or aren't true. I don't consider the adherents trapped.

I do consider people who are coerced into continuing any membership to be trapped, though. Dexter obviously does not fit the bill there.

Voltaire's Child

1st November 2010, 03:04 PM

There's another one, thanks Mark.

bigot

hater

victim

disingenuous

manipulating

attention deficient

hyperactive

semi-literate (does that indicate an MU, I wonder)

ignorant

Well, if a person doesn't know about something, then they don't. Or, more commonly, has gaps in his information.

A number of people have built the FZ up into a type of bogeyman because those people (like just about any ex and critic) have seen the damage CofS does and the way Hubbard lived and died. So it's understandable. But there have been personal attacks against some people who left CofS, who weren't treated any better than any other ex member, and who've elected to pursue their chosen ideology. It's not so good when one considers that one of the things for which CofS has been oft criticized is its desire to go after anyone who speaks out, criticizes or doesn't do its brand of Scientology. So why emulate that?

I've seen a lot of threads where someone or a number of people post negative commentary not just about the issue but about individual contributors Then, when those individuals defend themselves or even get royally pissed off (the same as anyone on this thread would act if they were being written about or spoken to that way) then they're accused of all sorts of things.

Voltaire's Child

1st November 2010, 03:12 PM

Yep. Someone critiquing Scientology is usually a "hater", or a "bigot", and also, it now seems, a "victim". Although, in my case, its a "disingenuous manipulator". At least the vocabulary, if not the sentiment, is improving.

No, they aren't. They really really aren't.

But slamming individuals is pretty crappy. There is a difference.

Infinite

1st November 2010, 03:52 PM

Hmm . . .

Reading all the yip, yap against Dex and what he presented in rather interesting, rather illuminating.

I'm not sure that describing criticism of Dex's video and/or his message as "yip, yap" is altogether a movement towards the viewpoints expressed. That the criticism of what he *said* is described as an attack on the person is, however, illuminating. For me, I have yet to find a good friend with whom I do not have disagreements.

Pardon me for noticing, but he is actually expressing the values of some truths that are inherent in and core principles of other philosophical systems and beliefs that some who are shouting at Dex actually believe and defend . . . you know, practices like Buddhism etc., the Golden Rule as expressed in all major religions :duh:

Absolutely. Tolerance of others and even evangelising is a part of all religions. I have yet to see any philosophy, however, which claims that doing so results in mind-reading capabilities allowing the practitioner to know what the other person says before they even say it. There is many a philosophy which describes non-adherents as "heathens or "sick" (as per Hubbard's Lecture 26 1954 The General Handling of the PC, as quoted by Dex) simply because they are unable to agree with the viewpoints of the practitioner. But, this "me right, you wrong" approach is part of what makes Scientology, and the other philosophies, intolerable.

And further, what Dex is actually speaking on is what went out and was sabotaged by the practice of the CofS as it is . . . in other words, he is actually telling anyone who is willing to actually listen (though the Scn lingo would automatically piss some off . . . he was presenting to a Scn educated group!) how to undo and fix the upsets that exist in much of the ex-Scn community.

To agree with this statement I must first accept that the CoS as a construct is soley responsible for the hurt that it has caused. Sorry, can't do that. I believe it is the teachings and policies of Hubbard which has caused the hurt. Sure, the CoS has done nothing to improve the situation and lots to make it worse but, at its core, what drives its actions are the words of its founder. Using Scientology to fix Scientology is like putting out a fire with gasoline, or speaking Japanese to a former Japanese POW. It's rubbing salt into the wounds of those who have abandoned Scientology and are happy with that decision. Sure, preach to the converted and use your own lingo, but don't expect warm embraces and hearty validation if you post it on an Ex-Scientologist's Message Board. These people have moved on and understand, as Alanzo said: "a person will never free himself from Scientology if he uses Scientology to explain Scientology . . . he will always be left with huge unexplained gaps that can never be answered because the answers Scientology gives him are inadequate and false."

It is interesting to note that those attacking Dex are actually practicing the exact negative he is revealing as the source of the upset ex-Scn have been subjected to :duh:

As mentioned above, no one is attacking Dex for who he is, only what he said and the way he said it. I think you will find it is the Scientologists, in their defence of Dex, who are practising the exact negative he is revealing as the source of the upsets. You will see that so far as they are concerned, those who do not share the same viewpoint as them are, variously, "hateful, ignorant, attention deficient, hyper-active, disingenuous, manipulating, uncomprehending, victims". Charming, eh?

In my view, it would be interesting to contemplate just how much better all would be if they were to attempt the harmony and love for one's fellows . . . the willingness to be at one with and to honor each other's viewpoints . . . that Dex so elegantly spoke on.

For all Dex's elegance, lets consider his words:

When you assign a being a label that serves as an answer to the problem of confronting and knowing that which challenges what you have adopted as stable datums you are making a decision to hold onto fixed ideas and you are dramatising individuation, a lessening and suppression of knowingness. Call another "crazy", a "squirrel", a "suppressive person", what are you saying? "I don't have to look or consider or experience a viewpoint of that individual" - because you have reduced them to being a symbol.

Isn't "victim" equally a label and/or a symbol?

Seeing as it you asking, I will make an effort to move into Dex's viewpoint. I can see his empathy for those who have been hurt, and his intention to work towards a healing solution is tangible. I believe this makes him a good person. I honour him in taking time to consider my comments and present them with honesty. I do have a bad habit of calling a spade a "bloody shovel", and I can make more of an effort to be less confrontational in this regard.

So far as his actual words and his offerings are concerned, thanks but no thanks.

Veda

1st November 2010, 04:26 PM

Jeez, Ok. One more time with feeling!:happydance:

-snip-

I'm just making the point that we all could and should benefit from exercising and increasing our willingness to receive the views of others, and in fact to embrace them rather than resisting, which is the basis of the persistence of all things undesirable.

The comes, from the (supposed) advocate(s) of EMBRACING RATHER THAN RESISTING, in reponse to the views of others (and this is only a small sampling from this and another thread):

But you guys (have):

"fixed solution(s) with clenched teeth and white knuckles"

"Knee jerk reaction(s)"

(are) "natterers"

(are) "bashers"

(are) "bigots"

(are) "haters"

(are) "attention deficient"

(are) "hyperactive"

(are) "semi-literate"

And even,

(are) yip, yap(ping) (!)

Huh?

What happened to "embracing rather than resisting"?

Why say it if you don't mean it?

Infinite

1st November 2010, 04:31 PM

No, they aren't. They really really aren't.

But slamming individuals is pretty crappy. There is a difference.

And, another one, thanks VC.

bigot

hater

victim

disingenuous

manipulating

attention deficient

hyperactive

semi-literate

ignorant

slammers (not sure how this is different from "bashers")

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 05:02 PM

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 05:14 PM

Jeez, Ok. One more time with feeling!:happydance:

What happened to "embracing rather than resisting"?

Why say it if you don't mean it?

Veda, I have yet to see a post from you on any thread I post on that is anything other than resisting what is there.

Love, Dex

Auditor's Toad

1st November 2010, 05:15 PM

"bigot

hater

victim

disingenuous

manipulating

attention deficient

hyperactive

semi-literate

ignorant

slammers (not sure how this is different from "bashers") "

Pompous?

Arrogant ( for sure! )

specious ( fav of a dear friend )

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 05:18 PM

I think we may have forgotten the (albeit unspoken) golden rule of the cult.

"A scientologist is always right"

Many feel that they have achieved an all knowing state and now feel that it is their duty to teach the rest of us how we must think and act.

ESMB may not be quite the right place to honour this er, duty but I shall now endeavour to see these posts/videos/lectures etc as a kind of public service whereby we all get a regular reminder of cultic thinking and condescension at it's worst.

Lovely.

That's not it at all, Trouble. Its just that, well, I'm better than you! :p

PS-You are trouble!

Love, Dex

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 05:21 PM

That's not it at all, Trouble. Its just that, well, I'm better than you! :p

PS-You are trouble!

Love, Dex

:bigcry:

Now look what you've gone and done ...

:p

Infinite

1st November 2010, 05:23 PM

Love, Dex

You rebel, you, using a word that doesn't exist in Scientology. Shouldn't it be:

ARC, Dex

or

Affinity, Dex

. . . I did see "Love" once described by a FreeZoner as "outward flow", but I don't think that would be the best sign off given how we banky types like to play with words.

Voltaire's Child

1st November 2010, 05:24 PM

And, another one, thanks VC.

bigot

hater

victim

disingenuous

manipulating

attention deficient

hyperactive

semi-literate

ignorant

slammers (not sure how this is different from "bashers")

Please do not thank me. I did not call anyone a slammer. I'm saying that some slamming of some individuals has occurred. And that when it does occur, that's pretty crappy. And I also pointed out that posting about individuals (who are forum contributors) is not the same thing as critiquing an issue or organization. The latter does not break the rules of conduct whereas the former does.

Veda

1st November 2010, 05:25 PM

Veda, I have yet to see a post from you on any thread I post on that is anything other than resisting what is there.

Love, Dex

You're the one with the message of universal tolerance and acceptance of others, and others' views.

Voltaire's Child

1st November 2010, 05:26 PM

I think we may have forgotten the (albeit unspoken) golden rule of the cult.

"A scientologist is always right"

Many feel that they have achieved an all knowing state and now feel that it is their duty to teach the rest of us how we must think and act.

ESMB may not be quite the right place to honour this er, duty but I shall now endeavour to see these posts/videos/lectures etc as a kind of public service whereby we all get a regular reminder of cultic thinking and condescension at it's worst.

Lovely.

:gathering:

From what I'm seeing, it's more that people who are criticized tend to defend themselves. They often also defend their affiliations and interests, too. That's just point/counterpoint and it's in no way unique to those who profess an interest in Scn.

I told you I was trouble

1st November 2010, 05:31 PM

From what I'm seeing, it's more that people who are criticized tend to defend themselves. They often also defend their affiliations and interests, too. That's just point/counterpoint and it's in no way unique to those who profess an interest in Scn.

Nah Fluffy, it's definitely a public service (I have made my mind up and you know what I get like).

:coolwink:

Veda

1st November 2010, 05:33 PM

You rebel, you, using a word that doesn't exist in Scientology.

-snip-

On some taped messages to Scientologists, Hubbard would say (to ooohs! and aahs!) "I love you too." Plus some typed messages were ended with "Love = Ron"; and "Love" is the message of Hubbard's PR piece 'What is Greatness?' (where, incidentally, he gloats over the assassination of JFK).

So love is used in Scientology.

Infinite

1st November 2010, 05:45 PM

So love is used in Scientology.

That's odd seeing as how it doesn't appear on the Tone Scale and especially when you consider the 1975 Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary (Reprinted 1987) ISBN ISBN 0-88404-037-2 - says:

LOVE, 1. love, as a word, has too many meanings, and so we use an old, old word, affinity, as meaning the love or brotherhood from one dynamic to another. (HFP, p. 41)

It seems when it comes to communicating with homo saps, different rules apply; anything goes so long as it moves us towards agreement to part with cash, I suppose.

Voltaire's Child

1st November 2010, 05:46 PM

Nah Fluffy, it's definitely a public service (I have made my mind up and you know what I get like).

:coolwink:

It's a public service for people to defend themselves? Great. Then we agree.

olska

1st November 2010, 07:42 PM

From what I'm seeing, it's more that people who are criticized tend to defend themselves. They often also defend their affiliations and interests, too. That's just point/counterpoint and it's in no way unique to those who profess an interest in Scn.

Yeah, and most of this thread is comments by people defending themselves and their position against this judgmental statement made by Dex early in the thread:

"... many, if not most, are participating or viewing ESMB to deal with the damage they experienced through their participation with the CoS, there will likely always be those who, in an attempt at self-preservation/recovery, have constructed in their own universe a world in which they are a faultless victim of a system that is absolutely bad. In order to prop up the walls when something positive about the subject threatens that faulty construct, such a person must work quickly to spin it all black. I hope for them that they won't forever hold onto that fixed solution with clenched teeth and white knuckles, as that is no way to go through life, and they deserve better. Its ok."

In his statement quoted above, the author has labelled and made derogatory and degrading statements about people who have criticized the subject of scientology on a forum which supposedly celebrates "freedom to speak" for EX scientologists.

I agree that people have a "right" to defend themselves against derogatory (and I would add: mostly false, or at best unsubstantiated) comments, criticisms and accusations such as this.

Voltaire's Child

1st November 2010, 07:47 PM

Dex does take a rather negative position toward criticism in that post. But he's not targetting any individuals in that comment. I also would point out here that there has been similar sorts of negative commentary made about the FZ, Independent scene by various contributors, too.

In fact, the first negative posts on this thread weren't even written by Dex. They were written by others.

SchwimmelPuckel

1st November 2010, 07:57 PM

I might add that I like Dexter.. Not very obvious in the middle of this pillow fight of opinions..

Well, scientologists find it highly offensive when someone, like me, talk shit about their religion and tech..

I find it equally offensive when scientologists, or synchofants, talk well of it and promotes the mindbending shit.

But I still like Dexter! - He's ok.. Good guy.. Just needs to smell the coffee.. (Hmm.. You could say I'm as arrogant as he is.)

:yes:

Voltaire's Child

1st November 2010, 08:00 PM

AlphOhm

1st November 2010, 08:05 PM

<snip>

"... many, if not most, are participating or viewing ESMB to deal with the damage they experienced through their participation with the CoS, there will likely always be those who, in an attempt at self-preservation/recovery, have constructed in their own universe a world in which they are a faultless victim of a system that is absolutely bad. In order to prop up the walls when something positive about the subject threatens that faulty construct, such a person must work quickly to spin it all black. I hope for them that they won't forever hold onto that fixed solution with clenched teeth and white knuckles, as that is no way to go through life, and they deserve better. Its ok." --Dex

In his statement quoted above, the author has labelled and made derogatory and degrading statements about people who have criticized the subject of scientology on a forum which supposedly celebrates "freedom to speak" for EX scientologists.

I agree that people have a "right" to defend themselves against derogatory (and I would add: mostly false, or at best unsubstantiated) comments, criticisms and accusations such as this.

I don't see that in the quote at all, olska. In the area I have bolded above, it looks like he is describing a possible situation for some not all.

But of course, feel free to wear the shoe if it fits.

Voltaire's Child

1st November 2010, 08:13 PM

Veda

1st November 2010, 08:46 PM

I don't see that in the quote at all, olska. In the area I have bolded above, it looks like he is describing a possible situation for some not all.

But of course, feel free to wear the shoe if it fits.

How does "many, if not most" become "some" ?

Oh, nevermind.

The proper follow up post by someone posting an opening post which, essentially, says: "I'm for embracing others' views, rather than resisting them. I'm a Scientologist" - no matter the disagreements expressed - is to calmly acknowledge.

How about letting Dex do a "do over" - Post the same opening post again, receive the same or similar critical comments, and then actually practice what he preached in the opening post?

1) Opening post.

2) Critical response: (example) "That's stupid." :angry:

3) Response by Scientologist: (Example) "Thank you for telling me that". :)

See?

Easy.

EP - Ethics Particle

1st November 2010, 09:02 PM

William Faulkner said essentially the following re one of his editors: "We never saw eye-to-eye; but we were always looking at the same thing." :wink2:

Like brothers in love with the same temple dancer. :melodramatic:

Even after the fat guys sing, it prolly ain't over yet. :duh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmIf2irVFHw

Dex is my bro for keeps :yes: and so are most of the rest of you lot my bros and sistahs as well - whether ya like it or not! :p So there! :whistling:

EP

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 09:16 PM

I might add that I like Dexter.. Not very obvious in the middle of this pillow fight of opinions..
Why thank you Schwimmel, and truthfully, you beat me to the punch in saying that! Last night I realized the same about you. And others here as well. But it did occur to me, perhaps because I'm learning more about you, the more you communicate.

I'm noticing that some on this thread are beginning to communicate not only their own views on what I had to say in the video (and I really am ok with that, for the most part), but are contributing something about theirselves, which I really like. Unpleasant as it apparently is for "Trouble", the exchange of viewpoints that is happening here is bringing about increased understanding, and with it, appreciation of each other, and that's cool! (Betcha thought I was going to use the term "ARC", didn't ya?-doh!):duh:

Well, scientologists find it highly offensive when someone, like me, talk shit about their religion and tech..

I find it equally offensive when scientologists, or synchofants, talk well of it and promotes the mindbending shit.

But I still like Dexter! - He's ok.. Good guy.. Just needs to smell the coffee.. (Hmm.. You could say I'm as arrogant as he is.)-Jury's still out on that, Schwimmel!

:yes:
Love, Dex

olska

1st November 2010, 09:16 PM

You know, this thread started out with an opening post that didn't contain any negative comments about anyone. It was followed by some positive responses. Then some negative responses came in. Then when Dex responded to those negative responses, this seemed to cause consternation.

Jeez, for you, maybe, but for most I think "consternation" is a gross exaggeration. People are speaking up and giving their opinions in answer to some derogatory remarks about people (plural -- no one said "all" people) that were posted by the original poster.

Can't see how that adds up to "consternation."

But, ya know, if YOU feel "consternated" then of course you're entitled... :confused2:

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 09:28 PM

You're the one with the message of universal tolerance and acceptance of others, and others' views.
Yes Veda, that is true, and I think its a perfectly good message. I wouldn't pretend to be so godlike that I practice that ability perfectly all the time, but it is something I strive toward, and the essence of my message is to do the best one can in that direction, and that with practice and determination one gets better at it, and it is quite beneficial to live that way.

I see you, on threads I'm part of, attacking, speaking against, discrediting, in other words, resisting. I'd like to see you expressing you, yourself, your ideals and beliefs, I would be interested in that. What I do see is all your output of energy being spent on opposing. Where is the tolerance and acceptance in that? Where does that get you?

Obviously there is more to you than the reactionary, fighting against something. How about giving us a little more of what you are interested in and enthused about? I'd like to know more about that Veda.

Love, Dex

SchwimmelPuckel

1st November 2010, 09:41 PM

Well, I guess you could ask Natascha to remove the section of the board in which you're posting that comment. :whistling:I will not! - It would carry the risk that the FeeZoners asks her to remove the sections that are not feezone sections.. And what will that leave us?

I dare say the only thing left would be the serious thread!

<edit> WTF!? - I wanted to make a hyperlink out of the word 'Serious Thread', so that we could all have a laff at The Serious Thread.. However, the board's search will not cough it up.. Neither will Google.. Unless I'm totally crosseyed..

This is serious I'm afraid.. The Serious Thread has been LOST!!!!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/185/376204528_5f1e15d57e.jpg
</edit>

:omg:

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 10:00 PM

Your use of Scilon language in the video is so adept there were moments there I thought you were speaking Klingon.
Newsflash, Blippo, I was speaking at a Freezone convention to a Freezone audience! Had this been the Klingon homeworld, I would have spoken in Klingon!

I can only assume from that your understanding of the principles and meanings of the language of Hubbard are such that you mean exactly what Hubbard says its means.
Let's think this through-I'm speaking to an audience of Scientologists. It is therefore, sensible to speak in Scientological terms. OK? Spreckenzie common sense? (And I don't mean to deny that I am a practicing Scientologist-I make no apologies for that. I find the principles of the factors and axioms, upon which many of the processes are based, ring true for me. You can have your viewpoint, I can have mine. Deal with it.)

Thus, your use of the word "victim" to describe those who have escaped and speak out against the philosophy that nearly crushed their souls means you see them as:
Given the use of words like " . . . constructed in their own (faulty) universe . . . " it is quite clear that you are using the latter definition. So much for empathy.

I am not blind to the wrongnesses of the official Scientology organization, David Miscaviage, or Ron Hubbard. I'm not in denial about these things. I can readily acknowledge them, and I often do. I have expressed my disgust at certain activities and incidents here on this board. I'm no apologist for the CoS, and I've been aggravated, irritated and offended more than you know.

I will publicly reveal here and now, for the first time, that just a few months ago, when my son called me to tell me how an org staff member acted in concert with his (my son's) CoS staff member mother to try to persuade him to disinvolve himself from me, I picked up my phone and directly called the NY org, got the "ethics officer" on the phone, and promised her that if there was one more such incident, I would file a lawsuit against the org.
I'd been keeping this private (I discussed it privately with Emma awhile back), because I have better things to do than get wrapped up in such a game with a group of people, most of whom, think they are doing the right thing, or are too in fear of punishment to behave better than they do. But apparently I need to make the point here that while I'm far more aware than you think about what is unacceptable about the CoS, for me it is more important to contribute something I know to be positive and helpful to this world than to expend my energies whining about and wrestling with the sort of people who commit such obscenities.

Then, when your own words are "duplicated" out comes:
I guess that puts me "at cause".

By all means, attempt to paint me as a "manipulator" disingenuously dragging people into my own drama. However, if you were to practise what you preach and merge into my viewpoint you would see that I am a concerned individual warning people away from a subject for which the only evidence to date shows it to be dangerous.

This may be a meaningless distinction for you Blip, but I am commenting on your actions, not on you- "manipulating", not "a manipulator". I truly believe name-calling is always wrong, because it is assigning a label to a person that dismisses them entirely, and that is wrong. I speak about that sort of thing in my video on the first post of this thread.
I am criticizing what you are doing (in my view), not who or what you are. I think that what you are doing here is thoughtless and inappropriate, that's all.(I am routinely helping people to have a better life through auditing sessions, so pardon me for asserting that you're being reckless and irresponsible in painting the whole of Scientology as "dangerous".)That may or may not make any difference to you. Its not meant to convey that you are "evil" or anything else derogatory. I don't know you, maybe we will both learn a little bit about each other as this thread progresses.

Love, Dex

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 10:05 PM

LOL ... oooooh, thanks very much (some people can piddle upwards though you know).

:ohmy:

Sorry about your thread Dex (blame AlphOhm ... I'm a no responsibility case).

:)
LOL! You're forgiven, after all, you did tell us you were trouble!:D

Love, Dex

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 10:09 PM

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 10:13 PM

no one is attacking Dex for who he is, only what he said and the way he said it.

Blip, it appears our principles are not altogether different.:)

Love, Dex

Veda

1st November 2010, 10:19 PM

Yes Veda, that is true, and I think its a perfectly good message. I wouldn't pretend to be so godlike that I practice that ability perfectly all the time, but it is something I strive toward, and the essence of my message is to do the best one can in that direction, and that with practice and determination one gets better at it, and it is quite beneficial to live that way.

I see you, on threads I'm part of, attacking, speaking against, discrediting, in other words, resisting. I'd like to see you expressing you, yourself, your ideals and beliefs, I would be interested in that. What I do see is all your output of energy being spent on opposing. Where is the tolerance and acceptance in that? Where does that get you?

Obviously there is more to you than the reactionary, fighting against something. How about giving us a little more of what you are interested in and enthused about? I'd like to know more about that Veda.

Love, Dex

You needn't be "godlike" to follow your own advice on a thread you started which features that advice.

Don't concern yourself with handling me.

Handle yourself.

P.S. Now respond with something like, "I appreciate your taking the time to express your views. I'll try to do better."

Arthur Dent

1st November 2010, 10:26 PM

......

"We have to keep some perspective here- as many, if not most, are participating or viewing ESMB to deal with the damage they experienced through their participation with the CoS, there will likely always be those who, in an attempt at self-preservation/recovery, have constructed in their own universe a world in which they are a faultless victim of a system that is absolutely bad. In order to prop up the walls when something positive about the subject threatens that faulty construct, such a person must work quickly to spin it all black. I hope for them that they won't forever hold onto that fixed solution with clenched teeth and white knuckles, as that is no way to go through life, and they deserve better. Its ok."

Love, Dex

I take exception to the parts I put in bold.the way it is written is denegrating. It IS self-preservation. And it IS recovery.
And it has nothing to do with "being a faultless victim."

It has to do with reorganizing one's life.. thought processes... values...experiences... learning about the abuses perpetrated on others that are worse than any "one" of us has experienced. (We all have bad stores but there just always seems to be worse one to read about!)

It is written in the style of scientol-o-geez.

The goal of everyone being scientologists and playing nice with each other couldn't happen inside the church and it won't happen out of it.

The scientology personality is all about the evaluation and compartmentalization of people. And analyzing them to near bloody death. It's what a scientologist does. Well. And they can't help it. They are trained.

To not think scinetol-o-geez, you have to study non-scientol-o-geez.
Or the idea of such a thing. That's not necessarily easy for trained people to do.

Setting aside whether scn techniques are viable or not , I admire Dex wanting a better world and wanting to help people and speaking out about it.

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 10:39 PM

You needn't be "godlike" to follow your own advice on a thread you started which features that advice.

Don't concern yourself with handling me.
Handle yourself.
P.S. Now respond with something like, "I appreciate your taking the time to express your views. I'll try to do better."

How does it feel to carry on like that, Veda? Getting any satisfaction?

Love, Dex

Mark A. Baker

1st November 2010, 10:43 PM

Well, scientologists find it highly offensive when someone, like me, talk shit about their religion and tech..

Speaking for myself only, I don't much care as long as what is said is SENSIBLE. As I said before, continual rants which have there basis in hatred may well be "understandable", but they are not rational. Emotional catharsis is not a substitute for reasoned debate. And "talking shit" for the sake of having "shit" to say is pointless.

Mark A. Baker

dexter gelfand

1st November 2010, 10:51 PM

I take exception to the parts I put in bold.the way it is written is denegrating. It IS self-preservation. And it IS recovery.
And it has nothing to do with "being a faultless victim."

It has to do with reorganizing one's life.. thought processes... values...experiences... learning about the abuses perpetrated on others that are worse than any "one" of us has experienced. (We all have bad stores but there just always seems to be worse one to read about!)

It is written in the style of scientol-o-geez.

The goal of everyone being scientologists and playing nice with each other couldn't happen inside the church and it won't happen out of it.

The scientology personality is all about the evaluation and compartmentalization of people. And analyzing them to near bloody death. It's what a scientologist does. Well. And they can't help it. They are trained.

To not think scinetol-o-geez, you have to study non-scientol-o-geez.
Or the idea of such a thing. That's not necessarily easy for trained people to do.

Setting aside whether scn techniques are viable or not , I admire Dex wanting a better world and wanting to help people and speaking out about it.

Thanks, Arthur. I understand, and I don't entirely disagree with you.

Let me explain something I may not have made clear: I do not suffer from the fixation that everyone must do, or needs to do, Scientology, or that Scientology is perfect and solves everything, or that all other ideas or spiritual and/or therapeutic practices must be invalid, or dangerous, or inferior to Scientology.

I think that "What is Greatness" is a perfect statement, and its too bad its author didn't observably practice that principle. I think the actions of the leaders of the CoS have discredited what is good about Scientology for many.

I know well that the principles I espouse in the video predate Scientology by millennia, and I would be gratified to see these principles practiced, whether or not they are associated with Scientology.

I do find great value in Scientology, and in how these principles are defined and used, and I find Scientologese provides an excellent medium for conveying these ideas.

Love, Dex

Veda

1st November 2010, 10:53 PM

-snip-

continual rants which have there basis in hatred

-snip-

I feel your pain. :smoochy:

Mark A. Baker

1st November 2010, 10:54 PM

The scientology personality is all about the evaluation and compartmentalization of people.

Umm, without implying that I agree with your premiss, exactly how in your mind is this radical notion different from a "non-scientological personality"? :D

Mark A. Baker
p.s. You might want to spend a little time chatting with your workmates about "people & groups they may not like", or watching faux or other media outlets, before attempting to answer this one. :whistling:

Mark A. Baker

1st November 2010, 10:56 PM

I feel your pain. :smoochy:

I'm happy to see that the concept of compassion is not one that is WHOLLY foreign to you.

Mark A. Baker

Veda

1st November 2010, 10:57 PM

How does it feel to carry on like that, Veda? Getting any satisfaction?

Love, Dex

I appreciate your taking the time to express your views. You're doing much better.

Voltaire's Child

1st November 2010, 10:58 PM

Jeez, for you, maybe, but for most I think "consternation" is a gross exaggeration. People are speaking up and giving their opinions in answer to some derogatory remarks about people (plural -- no one said "all" people) that were posted by the original poster.

Can't see how that adds up to "consternation."

But, ya know, if YOU feel "consternated" then of course you're entitled... :confused2:

Some of the commentary here indicated some dismay that took the form of personalized commentary. Thread got pretty lively and some of the posts were strongly worded.

BTW, FWIW, I said nothing about having any particular emotional response from my end. Nor did my grammatical syntax in the post to which you are replying suggest such.

HTH.

Veda

1st November 2010, 11:03 PM

I'm happy to see that the concept of compassion is not one that is WHOLLY foreign to you.

Mark A. Baker

Thank you for responding to my response. Best wishes on your recovery.

Arthur Dent

1st November 2010, 11:09 PM

Umm, without implying that I agree with your premiss, exactly how in your mind is this radical notion different from a "non-scientological personality"? :D

Mark A. Baker
p.s. You might want to spend a little time chatting with your workmates about "people & groups they may not like", or watching faux or other media outlets, before attempting to answer this one. :whistling:

Hello Mark,
Well, actually I do chat with a lot of people who do or don't like various groups or activities. I meet a lot of people.

What I do find in the world outside of scn. (where I was for 30+++ years) is that people are friendlier, you are not just a stat to them, they don't necessarily have an agenda or want something from you, they are willing to listen and the amount of judgment passed is far less than what I have experienced in scn, as a rule.

All groups have their own way of thinking or things they believe which I may or may not agree with but in scientology one is trained to size someone up in a heartbeat...tone scale, where they are on the bridge, level of training or auditing, time in, staff experience, comm lag, you name it. Is is a severely judgmental system and not particularly to my liking. Never really was. Which is why I also kept many friends who were not scientologists. I love me wogs!

Not sure what you meant by "faux"...or other media outlets...the faux part. ?

Voltaire's Child

1st November 2010, 11:22 PM

Hello Mark,
Well, actually I do chat with a lot of people who do or don't like various groups or activities. I meet a lot of people.

What I do find in the world outside of scn. (where I was for 30+++ years) is that people are friendlier, you are not just a stat to them, they don't necessarily have an agenda or want something from you, they are willing to listen and the amount of judgment passed is far less than what I have experienced in scn, as a rule.

All groups have their own way of thinking or things they believe which I may or may not agree with but in scientology one is trained to size someone up in a heartbeat...tone scale, where they are on the bridge, level of training or auditing, time in, staff experience, comm lag, you name it. Is is a severely judgmental system and not particularly to my liking. Never really was. Which is why I also kept many friends who were not scientologists. I love me wogs!

Not sure what you meant by "faux"...or other media outlets...the faux part. ?

I think he means Fox News. It's sometimes alluded to as Faux News.

olska

1st November 2010, 11:46 PM

Speaking for myself only, I don't much care as long as what is said is SENSIBLE. As I said before, continual rants which have there basis in hatred may well be "understandable", but they are not rational. Emotional catharsis is not a substitute for reasoned debate. And "talking shit" for the sake of having "shit" to say is pointless.

Nor is "reasoned debate" a substitute for emotional catharsis, when emotional catharsis is what a person needs.

Good luck with finding that world where everything people say is SENSIBLE. Is that really what you would prefer? Sounds like a bleak and horribly boring existence, unless you prefer the company of machines (programmable and reliably predictable) to humans and other LIVING creatures.

Emotion is just as much a part of the human experience as rationality, and just as valid -- perhaps MORE valid. Emotion is the driver for creativity, spontanaity, LIFE with all its colorful and amazing variations.

Terril park

1st November 2010, 11:49 PM

dexter gelfand

2nd November 2010, 12:10 AM

AnonyMary

2nd November 2010, 01:34 AM

I believe this link hasn't yet been posted, so here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49kD_8WMb0k&feature=sub

Love, Dex

Hi Dexter,

Given that I have not been a scientologist for many, many years now and that I do not subscribe to much if any of the tech and policy as I once did, I thought I would find it difficult to get through this video for the meer fact of it being based upon a Hubbard lecture. But, being one to try and look at all sides of the story and listen to multiple points of view ( which I was discouraged from doing as a scientologist for 18 years), I gave it a try. It didn't hurt that it came from you.

If you remove all the stuff about the tone scale and scientological time track stuff about the origin of people, and if you look at in the perspective of the many theories and truisms that existed before and after Hubbard, anyone who has worked with people, cared about people and is always looking for solutions to the problems people have with each other and their opposing viewpoints would know what you are talking about.

When I was a scientlologist, I sort of went bout things from this point of view that once could fix things between people, groups etc because I did alot of fixing of things, believing that it was my duty as a scientologist then for the sake of KSW. I believed and still believe that communication can resilve problems and conflicts but I also know that LRH did not hold a patent to that discovery by any stretch of the imagination.

Still, I enjoyed listening to you because I know you care and I know you see things from a perspective of helping people, helping bridge gaps and resolving issues. You've only been out and public about it for a relatively short time and you did not use scientology for many years before you made the jump to leave. That you have recovered a purpose, to audit others like you once did, was not surprising because that was what you did best for many years when you were active. Meeting the love of your life probably helped :)

That said, I appreciate your attempts to communicate this message spoken at the conference because there is a certain someone who has a real problem seeing other's viewpoints and actually squashes any that challange his own POV whenever they pop up on his blog. So, if you could get Marty Rathbun to look at this and get the point that cutting people off, being rude and condesending, arrogant and trashing people in front of his peers is not a solution and that what Hubbard is talking about in that tape, in helping a PC see that communication and willingness to occupy the same space as another and have real freedom to communicate is an ability that requires clean hands, humility, practice, patience and purpose. If you could do that with Marty, you will have really helped the independent field.

I hope this makes sense. I'm trying to cook dinner and post at the same time, lol. I do mean to challange you with Marty because no one seems to have the guts, influence or ability to straighten the man out. Thanks.

dexter gelfand

2nd November 2010, 02:11 AM

Hi Dexter,

Given that I have not been a scientologist for many, many years now and that I do not subscribe to much if any of the tech and policy as I once did, I thought I would find it difficult to get through this video for the meer fact of it being based upon a Hubbard lecture. But, being one to try and look at all sides of the story and listen to multiple points of view ( which I was discouraged from doing as a scientologist for 18 years), I gave it a try. It didn't hurt that it came from you.

If you remove all the stuff about the tone scale and scientological time track stuff about the origin of people, and if you look at in the perspective of the many theories and truisms that existed before and after Hubbard, anyone who has worked with people, cared about people and is always looking for solutions to the problems people have with each other and their opposing viewpoints would know what you are talking about.

When I was a scientlologist, I sort of went bout things from this point of view that once could fix things between people, groups etc because I did alot of fixing of things, believing that it was my duty as a scientologist then for the sake of KSW. I believed and still believe that communication can resilve problems and conflicts but I also know that LRH did not hold a patent to that discovery by any stretch of the imagination.

Still, I enjoyed listening to you because I know you care and I know you see things from a perspective of helping people, helping bridge gaps and resolving issues. You've only been out and public about it for a relatively short time and you did not use scientology for many years before you made the jump to leave. That you have recovered a purpose, to audit others like you once did, was not surprising because that was what you did best for many years when you were active. Meeting the love of your life probably helped :)

That said, I appreciate your attempts to communicate this message spoken at the conference because there is a certain someone who has a real problem seeing other's viewpoints and actually squashes any that challange his own POV whenever they pop up on his blog. So, if you could get Marty Rathbun to look at this and get the point that cutting people off, being rude and condesending, arrogant and trashing people in front of his peers is not a solution and that what Hubbard is talking about in that tape, in helping a PC see that communication and willingness to occupy the same space as another and have real freedom to communicate is an ability that requires clean hands, humility, practice, patience and purpose. If you could do that with Marty, you will have really helped the independent field.

I hope this makes sense. I'm trying to cook dinner and post at the same time, lol. I do mean to challange you with Marty because no one seems to have the guts, influence or ability to straighten the man out. Thanks.

Hey, Mary!

Thanks for all the kind words, my friend:)

Funny, this is not the first time I've been asked to bridge the gap between conflicting non-CoS Scientologists. (use your imagination here). I get all the easy jobs:D

In this situation, the following points must be considered:

(1) I expect Marty keeps track of things posted about him here and elsewhere. Old habits die hard. You have to assume he will read this mention of him, if he hasn't already. Bearing that in mind, I think he's probably not feeling very amenable to the idea of being "handled" by another, especially when the idea is public knowledge. Marty appears to be the kind of person who needs to be (and be thought of as) the cause point with others (unwilling to be effect).

(2) While Marty and I are bound to have a few mutual acquaintances, we don't know each other at all, although he's likely to have come across my name. As far as I am aware, Marty hasn't been very accepting of people who aren't known by him as friends contacting him to suggest that he's not acting as he should.

(3) As far as I know, Marty has characterized Freezoners critical of his ways as "out-ethics", and/or "squirrels".

(4) Hello Marty, I expect these words will be read by you. As I said, we don't know each other, so maybe my thoughts above are inaccurate. I invite you to see my freezone talk video on this thread, and I'm open to a dialog on the subject, publicly or privately.

Love, Dex

AnonyMary

2nd November 2010, 02:18 AM

Hey, Mary!

Thanks for all the kind words, my friend:)

Funny, this is not the first time I've been asked to bridge the gap between conflicting non-CoS Scientologists. (use your imagination here). I get all the easy jobs:D

In this situation, the following points must be considered:

(1) I expect Marty keeps track of things posted about him here and elsewhere. Old habits die hard. You have to assume he will read this mention of him, if he hasn't already. Bearing that in mind, I think he's probably not feeling very amenable to the idea of being "handled" by another, especially when the idea is public knowledge. Marty appears to be the kind of person who needs to be (and be thought of as) the cause point with others (unwilling to be effect).

(2) While Marty and I are bound to have a few mutual acquaintances, we don't know each other at all, although he's likely to have come across my name. As far as I am aware, Marty hasn't been very accepting of people who aren't known by him as friends contacting him to suggest that he's not acting as he should.

(3) As far as I know, Marty has characterized Freezoners critical of his ways as "out-ethics", and/or "squirrels".

(4) Hello Marty, I expect these words will be read by you. As I said, we don't know each other, so maybe my thoughts above are inaccurate. I invite you to see my freezone talk video on this thread, and I'm open to a dialog on the subject, publicly or privately.

Love, Dex

:thumbsup:

olska

2nd November 2010, 02:28 AM

Here's another's take on individuation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc60CMOFlkY&feature=related

Infinite

2nd November 2010, 02:29 AM

Speaking for myself only, I don't much care as long as what is said is SENSIBLE. As I said before, continual rants which have there basis in hatred may well be "understandable", but they are not rational. Emotional catharsis is not a substitute for reasoned debate. And "talking shit" for the sake of having "shit" to say is pointless.

I'm happy to see that the concept of compassion is not one that is WHOLLY foreign to you.

More . . . thanks Mark.

bigot

hater

victim

disingenuous

manipulating

attention deficient

hyperactive

semi-literate

ignorant

slammers

irrational

emotional

shit-talking

uncompassionate

When you assign a being a label that serves as an answer to the problem of confronting and knowing that which challenges what you have adopted as stable datums you are making a decision to hold onto fixed ideas and you are dramatising individuation, a lessening and suppression of knowingness. Call another "crazy", a "squirrel", a "suppressive person", what are you saying? "I don't have to look or consider or experience a viewpoint of that individual" - because you have reduced them to being a symbol.

Dex Gelfand

Voltaire's Child

2nd November 2010, 02:41 AM

I don't see the benefit in alleging name calling when none has taken place.

olska

2nd November 2010, 02:47 AM

In his talk at the 2010 Freezone Convention video in the OP, Dexter talks of "occupying the same space as" another as desirable -- something to strive to achieve, and implies that it is such a good thing to do that the world would be a better place if everyone did it.

However, in real life, some people find it uncomfortable and/or undesirable to have another permeate their space. It is a violation of their personal boundaries. It can lead to a loss of one's autonomy, it can lead to one being manipulated by another, to co-dependency. Or it can feel just plain creepy.

Self-help support groups exist to help people whose boundaries have been violated in various ways to learn to reestablish and maintain those boundaries. They help people work toward betterment of their mental and emotional health and well-being.

In the interests of offering for rational discussion another POV on the subject, I offer a link to this article on "personal boundaries" from Wikipedia:

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

I recommend you read the entire article, but in particular note this section on narcissm:

... narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist will be treated as if they are part of the narcissist and be expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.

Infinite

2nd November 2010, 02:52 AM

I don't see the benefit in alleging name calling when none has taken place.

In all cases, the items on the list are personal attributes and/or actions ascribed to commentators here who have offered criticism of pro-Scientology statements. The benefit, in this instance, is to highlight the apparent dichotomy in what the OP says and how contrary viewpoints are being labeled.

Voltaire's Child

2nd November 2010, 02:54 AM

In all cases, the items on the list are personal attributes and/or actions ascribed to commentators here who have offered criticism of pro-Scientology statements. The benefit, in this instance, is to highlight the apparent dichotomy in what the OP says and how contrary viewpoints are being labeled.

Except they're not. You have, on a couple occasions, taken things people said that occurred SOME OF THE TIME in SOME situations, then phrased it as if it were

A) an epithet that had been levelled (two Ls, one? Who knows?)

and

B) done always or frequently.

It would be good if we could discuss the issues more.

degraded being

2nd November 2010, 02:57 AM

In his talk at the 2010 Freezone Convention video in the OP, Dexter talks of "occupying the same space as" another as desirable -- something to strive to achieve, and implies that it is such a good thing to do that the world would be a better place if everyone did it.

However, in real life, some people find it uncomfortable and/or undesirable to have another permeate their space. It is a violation of their personal boundaries. It can lead to a loss of one's autonomy, it can lead to one being manipulated by another, to co-dependency. Or it can feel just plain creepy.

Self-help support groups exist to help people whose boundaries have been violated in various ways to learn to reestablish and maintain those boundaries. They help people work toward betterment of their mental and emotional health and well-being.

In the interests of offering for rational discussion another POV on the subject, I offer a link to this article on "personal boundaries" from Wikipedia:

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

I recommend you read the entire article, but in particular note this section on narcissm:

I thought similar when I heard the "occupying the same space" bit of Dex's talk too. Thanks for the extra info on it.
Addition: I think that some cultures and some families can have *open* boundaries and it causes a bit of culture shock when dealing with others. But that might be a bit off topic. I think the way it was expressed by Dex (if I remember correctly), went beyond people being willing to be fairly close physically and onto an idea where there was some sort of psychological/spiritual merging. OK for sex maybe (and maybe not) but it seems particularly strange to endorse it for a counselling situation. And did I hear something about knowing what the person is going to say next? Yeah, Ok, it can happen, but to get too fond of that idea does sound like some type of narcissism or at least being too interested in special abilities or knowledge, rather than what the other person is or might be.

olska

2nd November 2010, 03:00 AM

<snip>

It would be good if we could discuss the issues more.

Yeah, it would.

So this thread started with a video of one person' lecture on INDIVIDUATION which included his opinions on what it is/what it ain't, and on occupying the same space as another, etc. etc.

Have you anything to say on that particular issue?

Infinite

2nd November 2010, 03:10 AM

Dex, you need not reply to me, you are on ignore forever.

This has been bugging me and I urge you to reconsider.

Putting people on Ignore is pretty much the ESMB equivalent of Disconnection. Personally, I would rather know what is being said by those with whom I disagree. Sure, it means sometimes getting angry, offended, and even, from time to time, hurt feelings. However, from the point of view of "know thy enemy", reading their posts, observing their thinking and their dialogues is ultimately of more value than avoiding that which one finds offensive. I need to remind myself that, basically, I am reacting to differentiating pixels on a plasma screen which reflect only a tiny part of the whole person responsible for putting them there. Over time, I have found that such observation has often resulted in a softening of my view of the other person and, while we may never agree 100% on anything, we are usually able to rub-along together and even enjoy a few laughs.

A politician I know has this maxim when dealing with opponents: there are some conversations we can't have, so lets get on with the ones we can.

AlphOhm

2nd November 2010, 03:12 AM

Here's another's take on individuation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc60CMOFlkY&feature=related

The definition of individuation Jung is using is essentially "becoming whole" or "integrated self". A "betterment".

LRH definition from an older Tech Dictionary:
INDIVIDUATION, a separation from knowingness. (5203CMlOB) (a tape from '52)
A "worsening".

Talking about two very different things.

uniquemand

2nd November 2010, 03:13 AM

I do. I think that individuation begins with a being's perception of time. At each instant, it keeps re-establishing what is going on in its environment, creating new rules, and creating new identities to achieve what it wants to do. Each of these new creations represents further individuation. The trick is to individuate without getting stuck in any one identity, or becoming incapable of entering any given identity.

I can remember when I was a different person. I have changed identities knowingly several times as an adult. A few times, knowingly as a child/teen. However, the most interesting times were when I was really little, and did so without really thinking about it, and then didn't like who I was being, or what I was doing. Those were real learning experiences, and defined rules that were very hard to reestablish later in my life.

olska

2nd November 2010, 03:20 AM

The definition of individuation Jung is using is essentially "becoming whole" or "integrated self". A "betterment".

LRH definition from an older Tech Dictionary:
INDIVIDUATION, a separation from knowingness. (5203CMlOB) (a tape from '52)
A "worsening".

Talking about two very different things.

So ... let me guess: you're pointing out that "individuation" means different things to different people? And that to some it's a "bad" thing, while to others, it's a "good" thing?

Awesome.

AlphOhm

2nd November 2010, 03:32 AM

In his talk at the 2010 Freezone Convention video in the OP, Dexter talks of "occupying the same space as" another as desirable -- something to strive to achieve, and implies that it is such a good thing to do that the world would be a better place if everyone did it.

However, in real life, some people find it uncomfortable and/or undesirable to have another permeate their space. It is a violation of their personal boundaries. It can lead to a loss of one's autonomy, it can lead to one being manipulated by another, to co-dependency. Or it can feel just plain creepy.

Self-help support groups exist to help people whose boundaries have been violated in various ways to learn to reestablish and maintain those boundaries. They help people work toward betterment of their mental and emotional health and well-being.

In the interests of offering for rational discussion another POV on the subject, I offer a link to this article on "personal boundaries" from Wikipedia:

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

I recommend you read the entire article, but in particular note this section on narcissm:

"Occupy the same space" doesn't have to mean anything like you are describing--impinging/permeating/overwhelming, etc. It can simply be a "nearness". Or a perceived "nearness".

Sounds like some of the people affected in your description may have trouble "creating space". Their "space" may be collapsed.

re: the WikiQuote:
... narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist will be treated as if they are part of the narcissist and be expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.
It can go a bit further: the narcissist may actually view "others" as "objects" or "animated things" there for use/abuse/own benefit.

There is a higher range of this though, wherein disctinction of "i" and "you" can fade quite a bit, to the point of blendedness. Some paths describe this as "no self" "no ego" etc.

Infinite

2nd November 2010, 04:00 AM

Except they're not. You have, on a couple occasions, taken things people said that occurred SOME OF THE TIME in SOME situations, then phrased it as if it were

A) an epithet that had been levelled (two Ls, one? Who knows?)

and

B) done always or frequently.

It would be good if we could discuss the issues more.

And, another one, thanks VC

bigot

hater

victim

disingenuous

manipulating

attention deficient

hyperactive

semi-literate

ignorant

slammers

irrational

emotional

shit-talking

uncompassionate

liar

When you assign a being a label that serves as an answer to the problem of confronting and knowing that which challenges what you have adopted as stable datums you are making a decision to hold onto fixed ideas and you are dramatising individuation, a lessening and suppression of knowingness. Call another "crazy", a "squirrel", a "suppressive person", what are you saying? "I don't have to look or consider or experience a viewpoint of that individual" - because you have reduced them to being a symbol.

Dex Gelfand

Maybe I am taking offence were none was intended. I am certainly stretching the point to make it but, in each instance, I have quoted the use of the various terms. By all means, click back and check, point out where I am wrong and I will happily make corrections. You'll see that there are even some that I have left out. Your use of "negative", for example, was omitted from the list because you applied it evenly to Dex and others, although you did see some sort of value is pointing out "yeah, but we didn't start it". Also, "yip yap" was left out; it seemed to me the person using it was was seeking to defuse some tension rather than label. In the meantime, "always" and "frequently" are your interpretation but, really, its just a list of terms applied in this thread to those who disagree with what Dex (and other pro-Scientology commentators) have said thus far. The fact that the OP talks about labelling people makes it very much a part of the issue under discussion.

But, yeah, perhaps the list has served its purpose so far as this thread is concerned. I can see how people might perceive it as dwelling on past grievances and is now hindering progress. I shall put it to rest, for now.

uniquemand

2nd November 2010, 04:04 AM

So ... let me guess: you're pointing out that "individuation" means different things to different people? And that to some it's a "bad" thing, while to others, it's a "good" thing?

Awesome.

I think you'll find that most colleges don't teach Hubbard's view. So, while there are many interpretations (just as there are many interpretations of how life originated), only a few are taught as science or knowledge at our institutions. Jung's, while considered archaic, are still taught.

olska

2nd November 2010, 04:14 AM

<>
Sounds like some of the people affected in your description may have trouble "creating space". Their "space" may be collapsed.

Or maybe the people in my description don't have a problem creating space, and maybe their space is not "collapsed" at all -- maybe they just don't like smarmy, or creepy, or people who think they "know best" insinuating themselves into their personal space.

There is a higher range of this though, wherein disctinction of "i" and "you" can fade quite a bit, to the point of blendedness. Some paths describe this as "no self" "no ego" etc.

You lost me there...

"Higher" range of what? higher than what? and how do you know it's "higher" and not "lower"?

Voltaire's Child

2nd November 2010, 04:15 AM

Olska and AlphOhm,

It may be a tad bit too cerebral for me...lemme sleep on it and see if I can post anything worth reading. I might not have anything to contribute but I can at least try to think about it.

Voltaire's Child

2nd November 2010, 04:16 AM

And, another one, thanks VC

bigot

hater

victim

disingenuous

manipulating

attention deficient

hyperactive

semi-literate

ignorant

slammers

irrational

emotional

shit-talking

uncompassionate

liar

Maybe I am taking offence were none was intended. I am certainly stretching the point to make it but, in each instance, I have quoted the use of the various terms. By all means, click back and check, point out where I am wrong and I will happily make corrections. You'll see that there are even some that I have left out. Your use of "negative", for example, was omitted from the list because you applied it evenly to Dex and others, although you did see some sort of value is pointing out "yeah, but we didn't start it". Also, "yip yap" was left out; it seemed to me the person using it was was seeking to defuse some tension rather than label. In the meantime, "always" and "frequently" are your interpretation but, really, its just a list of terms applied in this thread to those who disagree with what Dex (and other pro-Scientology commentators) have said thus far. The fact that the OP talks about labelling people makes it very much a part of the issue under discussion.

But, yeah, perhaps the list has served its purpose so far as this thread is concerned. I can see how people might perceive it as dwelling on past grievances and is now hindering progress. I shall put it to rest, for now.

I didn't give you "another one" for your list. I didn't write anything of the kind.

ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn

2nd November 2010, 04:19 AM

I told you I was trouble

2nd November 2010, 04:20 AM

dexter gelfand

2nd November 2010, 04:25 AM

All I can ask Dex is if he is so damn proud of the group why isn't he still standing in the middle of it instead of trying to make less of those who have left that group?

Dex, you need not reply to me, you are on ignore forever.
Frankly, a conversation with Tommy Davis would be a lot more desirable.

I guess I hadn't read this post carefully enough earlier, I don't recall seeing these lines. Somebody is really upset here.

I wasn't aware there was some mechanism for putting people "on ignore", it seems like Auditor's Toad is saying he or she has done that regarding me. I guess if they have such feelings they would be better served by not reading threads by freezoners-that's a pretty bad reaction they have had. I don't know what triggered that.

Auditor's Toad is making an association or comparison with Tommy Davis (David Miscaviage's spokesperson) and myself. I guess that's just Toad's way of expressing their upset. Unlike Tommy Davis I'm not a defender of the CoS, a liar, or in any way controlled or manipulated in what I say by DM or anyone else.

Nor am I "so damn proud of the group", i.e., the CoS, and I have made that clear.

I'm sorry that Auditor's Toad is so worked up, there must be quite a story behind that.

Love, Dex

AlphOhm

2nd November 2010, 04:30 AM

Or maybe the people in my description don't have a problem creating space, and maybe their space is not "collapsed" at all -- maybe they just don't like smarmy, or creepy, or people who think they "know best" insinuating themselves into their personal space.

That is entirely possible. In that case they are "unwilling to occupy the same space"--and affinity is lowered.

There is a higher range of this though, wherein disctinction of "i" and "you" can fade quite a bit, to the point of blendedness. Some paths describe this as "no self" "no ego" etc.

You lost me there...

"Higher" range of what? higher than what? and how do you know it's "higher" and not "lower"?

Higher consciousnes/spiritual awareness--not sure I can give you a good summary of Buddhist thought in just a few sentences. You might want to look at it a bit via google. Scientology theory overlaps a bit here--tone 20 and above "I/they series".

Auditor's Toad

2nd November 2010, 04:45 AM

This has been bugging me and I urge you to reconsider.

Putting people on Ignore is pretty much the ESMB equivalent of Disconnection. Personally, I would rather know what is being said by those with whom I disagree. Sure, it means sometimes getting angry, offended, and even, from time to time, hurt feelings. However, from the point of view of "know thy enemy", reading their posts, observing their thinking and their dialogues is ultimately of more value than avoiding that which one finds offensive. I need to remind myself that, basically, I am reacting to differentiating pixels on a plasma screen which reflect only a tiny part of the whole person responsible for putting them there. Over time, I have found that such observation has often resulted in a softening of my view of the other person and, while we may never agree 100% on anything, we are usually able to rub-along together and even enjoy a few laughs.

A politician I know has this maxim when dealing with opponents: there are some conversations we can't have, so lets get on with the ones we can.

Blip I respect what you have to say. Perhaps "ignore" is the wrong expression on an MB. To me, it is NOT the same as disconnection. Why I can change my mind at any time - plus I am reading what that person writes and just chose not to repond.

Perhaps a hang over from the old days but I do strongly feel I can listen to or not listen to any person and they like wise can listen to me or not.

I bear Dex no ill will, I just don't happen to agree with what he says. I do not question that Dex is a good guy that 'means' well.

The fact that I do not care to listen to what someone spews and will not respond to it has nothing to do with the cult - it is just my preference to not play with everyone.

Jeez, I had friends in the early 90's who thought the OT levels were absolute hogwash and delivered NOTS in the field. I asked why and was told hey if they are going to spend money on that stuff why shouldn't I take it?

I don't care who audits what or who believes what or who feels how or what they feel about the "church" of scientology and how it has behaved all along the way.

I have done my 38 years in that group and have my own opinion of it and do feel feel I have NO obligation to agree with those who have a different opinion than what I watched happen.

I wasted enough time listening to BS to have reached a point apoint to where when others spew it I am comfortable saying I have no compulsion to engage in that. If it restims " disconnection " for some.... should I listen to what is pure shit and just smile to make them happy?

I think I've chosen to post on a board where some posters are perhaps a shade thin skinned.

Or should I just go away quietly and be a lurker on a more modest board?

dexter gelfand

2nd November 2010, 04:47 AM

Well!

This has ended up being a really interesting thread ... due entirely to us shameless reprobates joining in, of course.

:eyeroll:

In all seriousness Dex, it was never an attack upon you personally (and I think you know that) but many are viewing this board and lurking and I want them to know that we truly are an EX scientologist board, with some scientologists among us ... and I want them to see that we are open and honest and emotional when we wish to be, to hell with being 'sensible' all the time ... that is cultic nonsense and not realistic in the real world, it is akin to no case on post and no-one will ever be able to impose that on us at ESMB.

:thankyou:

Hiya Trouble:)

I do understand. Thanks to the discourse on this thread, I've gotten acquainted with some interesting people who were merely names before, such as Schwimmel, Blip and yourself ("Schwimmel, Blip and Yourself", sounds like a law firm):D

Anyway, as to your other point, ESMB, per Emma's guidelines, is a board for anyone with anything to say about Scn and/or the CoS. if you look over the rules of the Board, there is nothing to suggest that any particular viewpoint is at all discouraged. Thus a freezoner has every bit as much right to be here as someone who is opposed to any and all forms of Scientology.
I personally think its good to have a forum where people who have experienced terrible things through involvement with a Scn organization can speak out for their own good and that of others, but I also think there is enough room and enough different threads here to allow for that without having people verbally assault others' beliefs directly and/or convictions directly.
I can accept and understand every feeling that I've ever seen posted on ESMB, I just think there are ways and venues for this within this forum so that its never necessary to be inconsiderate in the process.
I really like the exchange of viewpoints I've seen on this thread, even if there have been a few dustups along the way. I think that thanks to this, where previously some of us may have written each other off as adversaries, we've gotten to appreciate each other as people:)

Love, Dex

dexter gelfand

2nd November 2010, 04:53 AM

Dex,

When you created this thread, did you think it would get this much traffic, and this many responses?

If you didn't present you position well, it would have been ignored.

You have to be happy with the interest in your presentation, no?

I'd call this a high quality thread

Hi Chuck, nice to meet you:) You're another person I've gotten to know a little bit here on this thread, which is cool!

Thanks for your kind words, and yes, absolutely, I'm pleasantly surprised, not primarily by the volume of responses, but by their quality. It has served as a demonstration of the point I was making. Who'd a thunk?!:thumbsup:

Love, Dex

Infinite

2nd November 2010, 04:55 AM

Can someone state defintively that, so far as Scientology tech is concerned, there is a vivid distinction between "seeing" other viewpoints and "agreeing" with other viewpoints?

My limited knowledge in this regard is that if I do not agree with the Scientology viewpoint I am somehow difficient in that I am incapable of understanding it. Time and time again we hear of the MUs and the PC has to go over and over pieces of Scientology, looking up each and every word in a dictionary if necessary, then agreeing with the point being made before being allowed to move on.

Personally, I am more than happy to consider other viewpoints, the stranger the better in some cases. But I am extremely wary of those who would want to enter my space not so much to mutually share views but, rather, use my openess as a device to manufacture agreement. This strikes me as being more about attacking the psyche than strengthening it and explains how Scientology is able to reduce cognitive functioning to such a state that OTII can be taken as gospel.

So tell me, do I have to agree with Scientology to understand it and, if I don't agree, am I "sick"?

I told you I was trouble

2nd November 2010, 04:58 AM

Hiya Trouble:)

I do understand. Thanks to the discourse on this thread, I've gotten acquainted with some interesting people who were merely names before, such as Schwimmel, Blip and yourself ("Schwimmel, Blip and Yourself", sounds like a law firm):D

Anyway, as to your other point, ESMB, per Emma's guidelines, is a board for anyone with anything to say about Scn and/or the CoS. if you look over the rules of the Board, there is nothing to suggest that any particular viewpoint is at all discouraged. Thus a freezoner has every bit as much right to be here as someone who is opposed to any and all forms of Scientology.
I personally think its good to have a forum where people who have experienced terrible things through involvement with a Scn organization can speak out for their own good and that of others, but I also think there is enough room and enough different threads here to allow for that without having people verbally assault others' beliefs directly and/or convictions directly.
I can accept and understand every feeling that I've ever seen posted on ESMB, I just think there are ways and venues for this within this forum so that its never necessary to be inconsiderate in the process.
I really like the exchange of viewpoints I've seen on this thread, even if there have been a few dustups along the way. I think that thanks to this, where previously some of us may have written each other off as adversaries, we've gotten to appreciate each other as people:)

Love, Dex

Believe it or not when we were asked to vote on whether Freezone were to be allowed to post here or not, I voted yes.

I still would (vote yes) as the occasional dust-ups are invaluable IMO and a lot of cleansing can occur.

:catfight:

dexter gelfand

2nd November 2010, 05:01 AM

Blip I respect what you have to say. Perhaps "ignore" is the wrong expression on an MB. To me, it is NOT the same as disconnection. WHy I can change my mind at any time - plus I am reading what that person writes and just chose not to repond.

Perhaps a hang over from the old days but I do strongly feel I can listen to or not listen to any person and they likewisw can listen to me or not.

I bear Dex no ill will, I just don't happen to agree with what he says. I do not question that Dex is a good guy that 'means' well.

The facy that I do not care to listen to what someone spews and will not respond to it has nothing to do with the cult - it is just my preference to not play with everyone.

Jeez, I had friends in the early 90's who thought the OY levels were absolute hogwash and delivered NOTS in the field. I asked why and was told hey if they are going to spend money on this tuff why shouldn't I take it?

I don't care who audits what or who believes what or who feels how or what about the "church" of scientology and how it has behaved all along the way.

I have done my 38 years in that group and have my own opinion of it and do feel feel I have any obligation to agree with those who have a dofferent op;inion than what I watched happen.

I wasted enough time listening to BS to have reached a point apoint to where when others spew it I am comfortable saying I have no compulsion to engage in that. If it restims " disconnection " for some.... should I listen to what is pure shit and just smile to make them happy?

I think I've chosen to post on a board where some posters are perhaps a shade thin skinned.

Or should I just go away quietly and be a lurker on a more modest board?
Hi Toad (if by chance you're not ignoring this), thanks for the clarification. It's perfectly ok to decline to read or participate in threads or posts wherever you're not inclined. What stood out was your announcing the choice. I'd wager most, if not all of us don't bother with every single thread or post, according to our individual interests. We just don't generally make a point of making specific public declarations about it. I'm not out to offend or condemn you. So maybe you can see how your "I'm ignoring you" post got the attention it did.

Love, Dex

I told you I was trouble

2nd November 2010, 05:03 AM

dexter gelfand

2nd November 2010, 05:04 AM

Believe it or not when we were asked to vote on whether Freezone were to be allowed to post here or not, I voted yes.

I still would (vote yes) as the occasional dust-ups are invaluable IMO and a lot of cleansing can occur.

:catfight:
You've been proven right again, T:)

Love, Dex

ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn

2nd November 2010, 05:05 AM

Hi Chuck, nice to meet you:) You're another person I've gotten to know a little bit here on this thread, which is cool!

Thanks for your kind words, and yes, absolutely, I'm pleasantly surprised, not primarily by the volume of responses, but by their quality. It has served as a demonstration of the point I was making. Who'd a thunk?!:thumbsup:

Love, Dex

In this particular case the quantity and quality go hand in hand, primarily because you are making an investment in communicating rather than just making a non-negotiable statement and wasting your time trying to defending it.

We probably do not agree on a lot of things, but I do admire your willingness to understand the emotional response your thread has generated and the willingness to address it, rather than just blindly defend it.

Infinite

2nd November 2010, 05:06 AM

Or should I just go away quietly and be a lurker on a more modest board?

Hell no!!

Wise words and, yes, you're right, Ignore is different from Disconnection as per your statements. I don't have anyone on my Ignore list but, like you, there are a few posters here I don't "play" with - I've always preferred the rough'n'tumble of the playground to hanging out with the spotty-swots ; )

dexter gelfand

2nd November 2010, 05:16 AM

Can someone state defintively that, so far as Scientology tech is concerned, there is a vivid distinction between "seeing" other viewpoints and "agreeing" with other viewpoints?

My limited knowledge in this regard is that if I do not agree with the Scientology viewpoint I am somehow difficient in that I am incapable of understanding it. Time and time again we hear of the MUs and the PC has to go over and over pieces of Scientology, looking up each and every word in a dictionary if necessary, then agreeing with the point being made before being allowed to move on.

Personally, I am more than happy to consider other viewpoints, the stranger the better in some cases. But I am extremely wary of those who would want to enter my space not so much to mutually share views but, rather, use my openess as a device to manufacture agreement. This strikes me as being more about attacking the psyche than strengthening it and explains how Scientology is able to reduce cognitive functioning to such a state that OTII can be taken as gospel.

So tell me, do I have to agree with Scientology to understand it and, if I don't agree, am I "sick"?
Hi Blip, your mention of misuse of word clearing reminds me of the time I sent a report that there appeared to be a typo in an HCOB regarding the Int Rundown. I was sent to word clearing for repetitive cycles, because the sentence simply did not make sense grammatically to me. I showed it to the "Keeper of Tech", and demanded that she tell me how in the hell it made any sense to her. She just sidestepped my argument, saying that she wasn't tech trained to my level, so she couldn't comment (how bush league is that?:duh:) I got a 'bright idea" and headed back to the qual library, and checked for, and found, a revised edition of that HCOB, the revision being the correction of that typo!:p

Anyway, of course you are right. It isn't necessary to agree with someone's viewpoint in order to see or understand it. You can see how a small child could believe that everything stated on TV is true, and not agree.

Love, Dex

olska

2nd November 2010, 05:18 AM

That is entirely possible. In that case they are "unwilling to occupy the same space"--and affinity is lowered.

sigh.

Yes, people are sometimes unwilling to allow another to "occupy" their personal space because it is a violation of their personal boundaries, their personal privacy, and their very beingness.

It seems that you are advocating that in your ideal world, anyone who wants to should be free to permeate another's personal boundaries at any time they please, and that somehow that's going to lead to "betterment," and if a person doesn't like having their boundaries indiscriminately crossed or violated, then there's something wrong with them that needs fixing.

I disagree. I'm advocating for recognition of and respect for others' personal boundaries. In my opinion that respect is a vital key to achieving civility in our human interactions.

Higher consciousnes/spiritual awareness--not sure I can give you a good summary of Buddhist thought in just a few sentences. You might want to look at it a bit via google. Scientology theory overlaps a bit here--tone 20 and above "I/they series".

I'm not asking for a summary of Buddhist thought in a few sentences, or a lecture on scientology theory. I'm asking how YOU got from a description of the narcisst's attitude toward others' personal boundaries (from one of my previous posts), to this.

You might want to look at "narcissm" a bit via google -- I doubt you'll find anything about it in scientology theory, but if you do, let's see it!

Auditor's Toad

2nd November 2010, 05:27 AM

"Hi Toad (if by chance you're not ignoring this), thanks for the clarification. It's perfectly ok to decline to read or participate in threads or posts wherever you're not inclined. What stood out was your announcing the choice. I'd wager most, if not all of us don't bother with every single thread or post, according to our individual interests. We just don't generally make a point of making specific public declarations about it. I'm not out to offend or condemn you. So maybe you can see how your "I'm ignoring you" post got the attention it did."

"]We[/B] just don't generally make a point of making specific public declarations about it"

I have no clue who the "we" is you speak of. Is there some "we" here that I must have the approval of or agree with to be "acceptable" by the OL's of this group?

However, any decision I make I have no problem making known among the people it is happening among. You feel it'd be better to keep it to myself? Is that a subtle - or not so subtle - way of saying I am not among friends here?

Clue : It has most often proven problematic when people fail to define and articulate their own boundaries.

Does this put me in line for you to get me "banned"?

So, I made an exception and replied to a post you made directly to me.
You have your views on things in general and I feel no obligation to "agree" with you or in general or on anything in particular.

Sheesh, I saw people on OTVIII who got together a little 'group' that felt it handled their need for sex so from there on out their husbands could jack off and another group ( of ladies ) who felt OT VIII invigorated and intensified their sex drive. Hey, exact same program.. different results.

Yeah, yeah, some believe we are all the same, etc etc etc etc.

But, has it really worked that way?

Oh, well, as I said before, I'll look for somewhere else to post.

AlphOhm

2nd November 2010, 05:38 AM

Can someone state defintively that, so far as Scientology tech is concerned, there is a vivid distinction between "seeing" other viewpoints and "agreeing" with other viewpoints?

"Seeing"/perceiving is considered in Scn thought to be one of the 2 inherent "native abilities". The other is to "postulate".

"Agreeing" is in Scn thought a close cousin of "Reality".

It is possible to perceive other viewpoints and have varying degrees of agreement. (Reality)

If you have studied data on the ARC triangle it might be noted that relative level of agreement/R--will tend to modify A and C.

If you disagree with someone, you might get pissed off and not want to talk with them--or even not want to see them anymore.

Or if you reach a point of agreement(R), you might want to hear more from them (C) or invite them over for a beer (increased A).

Part of Dex's talk describes going another route--increasing Affinity and letting R and C rise as a result. "Willing to occupy same space" is a description of affinity.

My limited knowledge in this regard is that if I do not agree with the Scientology viewpoint I am somehow difficient in that I am incapable of understanding it. Time and time again we hear of the MUs and the PC has to go over and over pieces of Scientology, looking up each and every word in a dictionary if necessary, then agreeing with the point being made before being allowed to move on.

Understanding is per Scn thought ARC described above.

Key things to consider are:"who is this for"? or "own determinism"

Otherwise it gets into "enforced Reality" or even black Scientology/implantation.

Personally, I am more than happy to consider other viewpoints, the stranger the better in some cases. But I am extremely wary of those who would want to enter my space not so much to mutually share views but, rather, use my openess as a device to manufacture agreement. This strikes me as being more about attacking the psyche than strengthening it and explains how Scientology is able to reduce cognitive functioning to such a state that OTII can be taken as gospel.

So tell me, do I have to agree with Scientology to understand it and, if I don't agree, am I "sick"?

Nothing wrong with being a skeptic--prolly will keep you out of some traps. One may understand something with little or no agreement involved. Level of understanding might be another matter.

Btw, I am actually an ex, so I am not trying to sell you anything here. Data is data--if you can use it, great. If not toss it.

Namaste

I told you I was trouble

2nd November 2010, 05:46 AM

Smarmy sales techniques ... increasing "A" .... and letting "R" and "C" rise as a result ... for what purpose?

Answer ... Selling scientology.

Sales people using 70's style sales techniques ... (Big League Sales with some added hubbard) ... please, most people are not as gullible as they were decades ago.

:eyeroll:

AlphOhm

2nd November 2010, 06:02 AM

sigh.

Yes, people are sometimes unwilling to allow another to "occupy" their personal space because it is a violation of their personal boundaries, their personal privacy, and their very beingness.

It seems that you are advocating that in your ideal world, anyone who wants to should be free to permeate another's personal boundaries at any time they please, and that somehow that's going to lead to "betterment," and if a person doesn't like having their boundaries indiscriminately crossed or violated, then there's something wrong with them that needs fixing.

I disagree. I'm advocating for recognition of and respect for others' personal boundaries. In my opinion that respect is a vital key to achieving civility in our human interactions.

<snip>

Interesting conclusion with minimal or no data. You seem to be trying to put words in my mouth here. Not sure what you are disagreeing with--I think if you go back and look at the last post I pretty much agreed with what you said.

I told you I was trouble

2nd November 2010, 06:15 AM

AlphOhm

2nd November 2010, 06:31 AM

I told you I was trouble

2nd November 2010, 06:38 AM

Is this a bad thing?

Well, not really if you look at it from a simplistic viewpoint ... but we know that scientology is overall not a good thing and therefore flogging it is (to me) very hard to justify.

olska

2nd November 2010, 06:43 AM

Here are the statements you made in previous posts that brought me to the conclusions that I made.

"Occupy the same space" doesn't have to mean anything like you are describing--impinging/permeating/overwhelming, etc. It can simply be a "nearness". Or a perceived "nearness".

Seems to me there is a big difference between two or more people being "near" to one another, and "occupying the same space." Not sure what you're getting at here; I include it only because it's part of the following:

Sounds like some of the people affected in your description may have trouble "creating space". Their "space" may be collapsed.

That is entirely possible. In that case they are "unwilling to occupy the same space"--and affinity is lowered.

It was from these two statements that I drew the conclusion that you seem to think that, in people who don't like having their personal boundaries crossed there is something that needs fixing. That is, in order to be "better," they need their ability to "create space" fixed, or their "collapsed" space fixed, or their affinity raised, or their willingness to occupy the same space as another fixed.

I maintain that it is mentally and emotionally healthy to have strong personal boundaries -- that it's better than having "soft" boundaries that others can easily permeate, that attempts to "occupy the same space" as another undermines that person's personal boundaries, to their detriment.

re: the WikiQuote:

... narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist will be treated as if they are part of the narcissist and be expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist there is no boundary between self and other.

It can go a bit further: the narcissist may actually view "others" as "objects" or "animated things" there for use/abuse/own benefit.

True -- and I would add: in my opinion, neither being a narcissist nor being the "object" that the narcissist treats as a plaything are examples of good mental or emotional health. Both lack personal boundaries.

There is a [B]higher range of this though, wherein disctinction of "i" and "you" can fade quite a bit, to the point of blendedness. Some paths describe this as "no self" "no ego" etc.

Since you describe this as a "higher range," it would seem you are saying that shedding one's personal boundaries and "blending" with others is a desirable improvement or betterment.

I disagree.

If I misinterpreted what you wrote, then feel free to correct me -- or not, your choice ... but it's late here, so I'm done for tonight. :hattip:

dexter gelfand

2nd November 2010, 06:47 AM

Well, not really if you look at it from a simplistic viewpoint ... but we know that scientology is overall not a good thing and therefore flogging it is (to me) very hard to justify.
("We" being the person posting, and,....who else in particular?)

Love, "Us"

I told you I was trouble

2nd November 2010, 06:50 AM

("We" being the person posting, and,....who else in particular?)

Love, "Us"

Er "we" being just about everyone that posts here apart from the Freezoners and Indies (does this generalisation mean I am an SP ... I do so hope so).

:yes:

AlphOhm

2nd November 2010, 06:59 AM

Here are the statements you made in previous posts that brought me to the conclusions that I made.

Seems to me there is a big difference between two or more people being "near" to one another, and "occupying the same space." Not sure what you're getting at here; I include it only because it's part of the following:

It was from these two statements that I drew the conclusion that you seem to think that, in people who don't like having their personal boundaries crossed there is something that needs fixing. That is, in order to be "better," they need their ability to "create space" fixed, or their "collapsed" space fixed, or their affinity raised, or their willingness to occupy the same space as another fixed.

I maintain that it is mentally and emotionally healthy to have strong personal boundaries -- that it's better than having "soft" boundaries that others can easily permeate, that attempts to "occupy the same space" as another undermines that person's personal boundaries, to their detriment.

[Bolded] True -- and I would add: in my opinion, neither being a narcissist nor being the "object" that the narcissist treats as a plaything are examples of good mental or emotional health. Both lack personal boundaries.

Since you describe this as a "higher range," it would seem you are saying that shedding one's personal boundaries and "blending" with others is a desirable improvement or betterment.

I disagree.

If I misinterpreted what you wrote, then feel free to correct me -- or not, your choice ... but it's late here, so I'm done for tonight. :hattip:

All right.

I think I see where the understanding left the rails.

Part of what we are talking about pertains to "bodies" and the "rules" of body based society.

The "higher range" I was describing is spiritual, bodies may or may not be involved.

There is also a possible variance in what we are calling "same space". Sounds like you are thinking "sitting on my lap"--it can also just be "in the same room."

Infinite

2nd November 2010, 07:34 AM

Does the FreeZone issue SP Declares and, if so, how do I get one?

Atalantan

2nd November 2010, 09:56 AM

How does "many, if not most" become "some" ?

Oh, nevermind.

The proper follow up post by someone posting an opening post which, essentially, says: "I'm for embracing others' views, rather than resisting them. I'm a Scientologist" - no matter the disagreements expressed - is to calmly acknowledge.

How about letting Dex do a "do over" - Post the same opening post again, receive the same or similar critical comments, and then actually practice what he preached in the opening post?

1) Opening post.

2) Critical response: (example) "That's stupid." :angry:

3) Response by Scientologist: (Example) "Thank you for telling me that". :)

See?

Easy.

What would these discussions be like, if all "comments" were ignored, and only "originations" were acknowledged and responded to?

Or vice-versa?

uniquemand

2nd November 2010, 10:29 AM

Sane? Civilized?

SchwimmelPuckel

2nd November 2010, 12:15 PM

Well, it's a can of worms, that word! - Here's some definitions I Googled.

YourDictionary,com / in·di·vid·u·a·tion (http://www.yourdictionary.com/individuation) (in?d?-vij?o?o-a'sh?n)
noun

1.The act or process of individuating, especially the process by which social individuals become differentiated one from the other.
2.The condition of being individuated; individuality.
3.Philosophy
a. The development of the individual from the general or universal.
b. The distinction or determination of the individual within the general or universal.
4.In Jungian psychology, the gradual integration and unification of the self through the resolution of successive layers of psychological conflict.

And these:

individuation (discriminating the individual from the generic group or species)

Individuation, the division of the world into separate persons or things. < My play on that: Syn, Divide.. To Individuate & Conquer.. >

And Hubbard:
LRH definition from an older Tech Dictionary:
INDIVIDUATION, a separation from knowingness. (5203CMlOB) (a tape from '52) A "worsening".I'm not surprized that Hubbard alters the def. of a word. He's rather known for doing that.. In this case he seemingly introduces a new definition that has nothing at all to do with the usual usage of the word.. To me this looks like Hubbard's 'conclusion' (presented as some PR hype, or a little sublininal command?) that to 'individuate' from scientology is: 'separating from knowingness', since he asserts that scientology is 'knowingness'.

It is not what the word means!

However, Hubbard's choice of this word is interesting. It is bad, in his view, to be an individual. You should not be an individual. You should be a part of the 'group', scientology, and not be an individual!

Hmm.. I recall some Policy or Lecture by Hubbard where he used the word 'individuation' as the result of 'scientologists' committing overts and harbouring withholds that went unhandled by ethics... Or in plain language.. They'd leave Scientology with a bad opinion of it.

In short Hubbard used the word synonymously with 'blow'.

I wouldn't consider that a bad thing to do.. To 'individuate' when one discovers that he is in a bad opressive group with witch he cannot agree. The right thing to do is 'individuate' the hell outta there.

Does this have anything to with Dexter's speech? - Heh.. I might need to listen to it again...

:yes:

Terril park

2nd November 2010, 01:55 PM

I hope this makes sense. I'm trying to cook dinner and post at the same time, lol. I do mean to challange you with Marty because no one seems to have the guts, influence or ability to straighten the man out. Thanks.

Having met Marty I'd have to say he's a lot better than he seems on his blog. Was with Ax142, a critic, and Marty considers me a squirrel so he was
meeting those potentially hostile, and he was very charming and friendly
and we all got on extremely well.

His persona as it comes across on his blog is something like a product officers, in contrast to say Karen who shows a lovely granting of beingness.

I think part of the problem is that he is on the one hand getting a lot of flak from many directions, and is also very short of time, just running his blog and associated activity must be quite time consuming. So he tends to shoot from the hip and dosn't give himself the time to carefully consider his words
that I certainly have and others have.

I have taken him to task a few times, the latest on the last posts on the LRH comes to Creston thread. Marty calls me a squirrel, which I'm not bothered about, but also infers the people I'm connected with are as well.
Its good he let my posts through.

Terril park

2nd November 2010, 02:00 PM

I thought similar when I heard the "occupying the same space" bit of Dex's talk too. Thanks for the extra info on it.
Addition: I think that some cultures and some families can have *open* boundaries and it causes a bit of culture shock when dealing with others. But that might be a bit off topic. I think the way it was expressed by Dex (if I remember correctly), went beyond people being willing to be fairly close physically and onto an idea where there was some sort of psychological/spiritual merging. OK for sex maybe (and maybe not) but it seems particularly strange to endorse it for a counselling situation. And did I hear something about knowing what the person is going to say next? Yeah, Ok, it can happen, but to get too fond of that idea does sound like some type of narcissism or at least being too interested in special abilities or knowledge, rather than what the other person is or might be.

I think its a jargon thing. " occupying the same space as" is the definition
of affinity in scientologese.

Terril park

2nd November 2010, 02:42 PM

Can someone state defintively that, so far as Scientology tech is concerned, there is a vivid distinction between "seeing" other viewpoints and "agreeing" with other viewpoints?

Thats not an area that belongs exclusively to scientology. Its a part of life in general and how its lived by all. For example politics, one can see an opposing viewpoint without having to agree to it.

My limited knowledge in this regard is that if I do not agree with the Scientology viewpoint I am somehow difficient in that I am incapable of understanding it. Time and time again we hear of the MUs and the PC has to go over and over pieces of Scientology, looking up each and every word in a dictionary if necessary, then agreeing with the point being made before being allowed to move on.

The most important principle in scn, at least for me, is granting of beingness. What you describe above is sort of the opposite. It is the case that those new to the subject, and/or with a robotic viewpoint have behaved that way but thats certainly not ideal. Paul is the most expert at word clearing here and he has written that he does not do what you describe. I'm pretty OK at word clearing and neither do I.

Personally, I am more than happy to consider other viewpoints, the stranger the better in some cases. But I am extremely wary of those who would want to enter my space not so much to mutually share views but, rather, use my openess as a device to manufacture agreement. This strikes me as being more about attacking the psyche than strengthening it

This is not the way to use scientology. It of course has been heavily used that way and is really reverse scn. In scn one is looking to restore greater freedom of choice to individuals.

Of course such tactics are not confined to scientology but are generally used in the wider world, two areas for example, advertising and political debate.

and explains how Scientology is able to reduce cognitive functioning to such a state that OTII can be taken as gospel.

I think OT II is far stranger than OT III, truly weird, yet it has been my favorite bridge level, even did it twice. There isn't really anything to take as gospel, its just a set of instructions on a can. Follow them and something works. Not sure if I understand why. below my first OT II success story.

So tell me, do I have to agree with Scientology to understand it and, if I don't agree, am I "sick"?

If you don't agree with it you are not sick. Plenty of people here don't and aren't sick. Plenty here have spent years and decades involved with it
now have abandoned it and aren't sick. Come to that plenty in COS sort
of understand it and are sick. I submit that FZers who are able to reject any part of scn they don't like or agree with are not sick.

To understand scientology it helps if one has at least some area of
agreement. I think the ARC triangle is a way of looking at that. Affinity,
reality and communication are the component parts of understanding.
Whatever it is you are trying to understand. In scn terms reality gets aquainted with agreement. Well its one way to look at it.

----------------------------
Success on OT 2

Here in beautiful Semmering I've just Started to dip my toes into OT 2. Instructed by Ralph Hilton.Getting there is a big win in itself and another story.

This is auditing unlike any I've ever done, over and above being my own auditor. I've had the strangest sensations, somatics and all sorts turn on and then turn off. Its been fascinating. went a litle exterior a couple of times which is always nice. Still not sure of what wins exactly I've got, as is often the case for me. At least not until some time after.

One of the wins is the almost, magical, ( I can't think of a more appropriate word) way this tech is working. I was running some wholetrack concepts, and things went quite well. Went out to lunch and found that after a few minutes of walking I felt as though I was on drugs. This is very odd because the only drug experience I've had worth talking about is on one occasion smoking pot some decades ago. Then on the Purif, Some remnants of general anaesthetics were dredged up and affected me and then ran out. That was also a long time ago. I've never had any drug type feelings since. Or had anything since but aspirin and alcohol. So I carried on with the next related concepts on OT 2. The drugged feeling vanished. I felt very good. I was astonished that these sensations could be turned on and off by such simple concepts. Well I've just been doing this for a few days, and have lots to look forward to.

This level has turned things on stronger, faster and more often than anything else I've ever done. Have only done a few hours so far. It looks as though I've got a few hundred to go. I'm looking forward to this. Looks like some trip.

bb

Terril park

2nd November 2010, 02:51 PM

Er "we" being just about everyone that posts here apart from the Freezoners and Indies (does this generalisation mean I am an SP ... I do so hope so).

:yes:

We are all "SPs" here. see the long Pl " Suppression of Scientology..."

Terril park

2nd November 2010, 02:52 PM

Does the FreeZone issue SP Declares and, if so, how do I get one?

What would you be willing to pay me for one?

I told you I was trouble

2nd November 2010, 03:02 PM

We are all "SPs" here. see the long Pl " Suppression of Scientology..."

But I wasn't asking what the cofs policy stated (I already know that) ... it seemed as if I was being informed by Dex that I had committed a generality (Oh Nooooooo) so I presume he felt that that was significant.

:whistling:

Do Freezoners utilise the bits (of scientology) that they like ... ignore or even condemn the rest but for some reason still call it scientology?

Or wot.

olska

2nd November 2010, 03:13 PM

All right.

I think I see where the understanding left the rails.

Part of what we are talking about pertains to "bodies" and the "rules" of body based society.

The "higher range" I was describing is spiritual, bodies may or may not be involved.

There is also a possible variance in what we are calling "same space". Sounds like you are thinking "sitting on my lap"--it can also just be "in the same room."

OK -- apparently you were, but actually I was NOT, thinking of or talking about the nearness of BODIES, as in being in the same house, or the same room with someone, or having someone right next to you on a train or an airplane seat or being squashed in a crowd of people pushing to get into or out of a theatre.

Now that you mention it, some such situations of course are uncomfortable, and some not so much; but if "physical space" is what you are referring to as occupying THE SAME SPACE, then one could extend that to include all of humankind's known homeland: planet earth!

I don't think that kind of physical space what is meant in the literature about "personal boundaries" -- it's certainly NOT what I meant.

When I speak of "personal boundaries" I mean something much more ethereal -- it's the psyche -- the mental, emotional, spiritual or whatever combination of those it is that makes up someone's PERSONALITY.

Violations of "personal boundaries" can manifest in the physical, but the greater damage wrought by such violations is to the psyche.

As an example, consider physical rape: definitely an act of one body on another body, and yes a violation of one's personal PHYSICAL boundaries. But in (not all) most cases, the physical damage heals rather quickly with simple first aid. Not so the violation of what I mean by "personal boundaries" -- the damage to the psyche is not so easily healed.

And back to the example of the narcissist -- being physically "in the same room" as a narcissist could be slightly uncomfortable, but is not even close in comparison to having a narcissist violate the personal boundaries of one's psyche, as was described in the example I brought from Wikipedia.

And in Dexter's opening video, I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to "occupying the same PHYSICAL space" -- though of course, if I'm wrong about that he can correct me, or not, as he chooses.

olska

2nd November 2010, 03:27 PM

I think its a jargon thing. "occupying the same space as" is the definition of affinity in scientologese.

Hubbard borrowed the word affinity from science and technology, where it refers to the tendency of certain substances to mix together, or bond -- as in 2 hydrogens 1 oxygen bonding (and thus occupying the same space) to make water.

I have no idea why he did that but I'm guessing it gave the word some "altitude," in the same way that the word "scientology" sounds sort of like "science." Oh well.

So ... you could say that, according to Hubbard's definition and use of the word, a cluster of body thetans is an example of very, very high affinity -- right?

Here's the word as explained in Wikipedia:

Affinity, in etymology affinity is the opposite of infinity . These two words have the same root coming from the Latin: finis = end. “Affinity” meaning is near to the “finis” e.g. close to the “zero point” in a before assumed space.

On the other hand, from the Latin, affinis = connected with, having things in common, and it is utilized to interpret the effective possibility that some substances can or cannot mix together, in terms of sympathies and antipathies.

Also, it can mean a natural attraction of feeling or kinship. A relationship by marriage or common bond.

I told you I was trouble

2nd November 2010, 03:28 PM

TR'SIN

2nd November 2010, 03:32 PM

Okay and now everybody come to present time ----- thank you. . . . .

:happydance: feel better?

My Goodness Dex I think some sort of social engram has been reduced.

Amazing reading this thread.

olska

2nd November 2010, 03:36 PM

If I were in need of "Counselling" the very last thing I would want is for the "Counsellor" to be intent of sharing the same space (in any way) ... it sounds manipulative and unprofessional and knowing the real reason for it (to get the "R" and the "C" up) confirms that it is just that.

False affinity can be felt and it is creepy and has no place in Counselling, I would suggest that be kept for the sales side of the business where it is traditionally used whether selling used cars, insurance or anything else that needs to be hard sold.

Thank you -- you got exactly what I was talking about.

(At last! somebody out there somewhere who "gets" me... maybe we should move in together and share the same space... :coolwink: )

I told you I was trouble

2nd November 2010, 03:38 PM

Thank you -- you got exactly what I was talking about.

(At last! somebody out there somewhere who "gets" me... maybe we should move in together and share the same space... :coolwink: )

:lol:

AnonyMary

2nd November 2010, 06:08 PM

Having met Marty I'd have to say he's a lot better than he seems on his blog. Was with Ax142, a critic, and Marty considers me a squirrel so he was
meeting those potentially hostile, and he was very charming and friendly
and we all got on extremely well.

His persona as it comes across on his blog is something like a product officers, in contrast to say Karen who shows a lovely granting of beingness.

I think part of the problem is that he is on the one hand getting a lot of flak from many directions, and is also very short of time, just running his blog and associated activity must be quite time consuming. So he tends to shoot from the hip and dosn't give himself the time to carefully consider his words
that I certainly have and others have.

I have taken him to task a few times, the latest on the last posts on the LRH comes to Creston thread. Marty calls me a squirrel, which I'm not bothered about, but also infers the people I'm connected with are as well.
Its good he let my posts through.

Well, I don't like the way he treated you there, nor how he let that poster attack Alanzo. Although I still get posts in, I myself have been cut off on posts that do not agree with his party lines, so I know what you mean.

What I see ( from a scientological POV since that's all he can think with) is an A=A=A approach to handling any posts that rattle his cage or introduce a viewpoint not in line with his alone. He's reactive, rude and like a 10 year old sometimes.

As far as the scientology definition of squirreling goes, per KSW and policies, Marty is technically a squirrel. If we are going to be literal about the defination. Thus, in reality, he has no legal sanctioning to audit. According to scientology PL and HCObs , his certs and awards were cancelled when he was declared an SP ( which he's obviously been) and he is not following LRH policy on field auditors. So it obvious that he only sees those who oppose him as squirrels, rather than what his beloved LRH's policies and HCOB state.

That's what I call a hypocrite and when he gets righteous like that and attacks those who don't agree, well, it makes him look out-of -control and not-quite-bright. It's actually embarrassing to read his comments when he does this. He's nattery. Critical. What does Hubbard have to say about being those things? ha!

Here's a new comment of mine that he let pass by (http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/worse-than-fair-game/#comment-72825). If he read the links, he'll see that Fair Game was a Hubbardian tool, before LRH wrote HCOPL Responsibilities of Leaders - his weak excuse for all the terrible (http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/worse-than-fair-game/#comments)things he did in the name of being in an operative for the cult against it's enemies all those years. Thing is, he didn't look. He just posted what I wrote. I hope others see it. Gotta educate these people somehow, lol

I give you a lot of credit. You have ben given and have taken criticism for many years and you still stay upbeat and persist. You are a good man. Marty attacking you like that makes himself look so small. And people who know you GET that!

uniquemand

2nd November 2010, 06:21 PM

Voltaire's Child

2nd November 2010, 07:24 PM

The thing is, people who are "squirrelling" don't think of themselves as doing that. They think they're right. I personally speculate that there's an alpha male type thing happening. So then sometimes people get aggressive.

100% of the people never are going to be pleased all of the time, so yes, if his blog pisses you off, avoid it. It's not like you're going to remake him in your image. And even if anyone did that, then the next guy to come along wouldn't approve of him because THAT PERSON would have a different take on things.

That's just how it is.

AlphOhm

2nd November 2010, 07:26 PM

If I were in need of "Counselling" the very last thing I would want is for the "Counsellor" to be intent of sharing the same space (in any way) ... it sounds manipulative and unprofessional and knowing the real reason for it (to get the "R" and the "C" up) confirms that it is just that.

False affinity can be felt and it is creepy and has no place in Counselling, I would suggest that be kept for the sales side of the business where it is traditionally used whether selling used cars, insurance or anything else that needs to be hard sold.

Indeed.

I can't imagine any PC getting any gain via an auditor who is covertly hostile.
Ideally the session is "for the PC" and no one else.

This is one area where that "no case on post" thing you were protesting earlier is vital. The training routines (TRs) address this of course.

Zinjifar

2nd November 2010, 08:10 PM

Let it go, people. I say, treat Marty's blog the same way you would treat any freezoner site: skip it. Don't take what happens there seriously. Marty is a liar, the attempt to reform the Church is a flawed premise, and the people contributing on his blog are the people who will eventually be here or elsewhere explaining how sad they are that they were such fools for so long.

If Marty's blog were just another 'FreeZone' or 'Indie' site your suggestion might have value. While it's worthwhile to be aware of what's going on in the Scientology 'field', it's probably not worth a lot of nail biting.

However, Marty's Blog is something very different; it's *political* and the basis of his claim as a 'spokesman' for Scientology opposition, and, that's both dangerous and counter productive. *Because* he lies. And, because many people who should know better, such as media and government people, also tend to be busy and/or lazy to the point where actual comprehension of 'what's going on' is more effort than they're willing to invest.

And, Marty takes advantage of that by posturing and positioning himself as 'the go to guy' for all things Scientology.

So; ignore him at your peril and only if you're willing to ignore the 'Church' of Scientology, which is Marty's message.

Zinj

dexter gelfand

2nd November 2010, 08:10 PM

Er "we" being just about everyone that posts here apart from the Freezoners and Indies (does this generalisation mean I am an SP ... I do so hope so).
:yes:

Hi there Trouble, what I meant was that your use of "we" seems to be an assertion that there is broad agreement the Scientology is bad, and that just isn't so. there is controversy, differing viewpoints. Looked to me like you were essentially asserting "everybody agrees with me, so I'm right and Scientology is bad". That's what I was addressing, nothing more.

The CoS, no doubt, misuses the 'generality" argument as convenient "evidence" of an "SP". I've never heard a freezoner use it that way. Everybody uses generalities sometimes (as I'm doing in making that statement:))

Hoping and waiting for your SP declare? Get in line:D

Love, Dex

dexter gelfand

2nd November 2010, 08:28 PM

Okay and now everybody come to present time ----- thank you. . . . .

:happydance: feel better?

My Goodness Dex I think some sort of social engram has been reduced.

Amazing reading this thread.
Hi there TR'S, that's a great thought, I think a better rapport has been and is being established, based on feedback like yours, and I'm enjoying that:)

Love, Dex

AnonyMary

2nd November 2010, 08:34 PM

... and the people contributing on his blog are the people who will eventually be here or elsewhere explaining how sad they are that they were such fools for so long.

You can't be serious, right? There are quite a few non independents like myself who post there to give other points to view. Exs need that.

BTW, didn't you once post this oxymoron?:
"And so, although I have been in the Free Zone now for years, I can finally say that I am truely FREE of the Church of Scientology. "
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/wrong.htm

dexter gelfand

2nd November 2010, 08:47 PM

When all is said and done the main difference between a cofs and a freezone "sales person/counsellor" is, one gets to control the income produced and create a good life for themselves and the other doesn't.
:ohmy:

That's an outsider's viewpoint, Trouble, compared to, say my viewpoint as an independent auditor, which is that I'm free to focus on what I know to be best for the person I'm auditing, free of the threat of getting smashed for addressing what they have their attention on, instead of grinding them through brutal unjustified confessionals, or denying them auditing until they donate thou$ands for buildings or corrupted "basic book" packages, free to acknowledge their completion of an auditing process rather than ignoring their floating needle because it doesn't reflect DM's "Golden Age of Tech" misinterpretation, free to respond appropriately to what they say in session instead of being constrained by the enforcement of the GAT robotic auditor drills; and in general, safe from being punished and degraded by virtue of have having been found guilty of practicing Scientology by the "Church of Scientology"

I'm sure you have experienced the fulfillment of having helped another person in some way that was meaningful to them. For me, I enjoy that satisfaction by doing what I'm doing, the way I know to do it well. It is quite gratifying. A long time ago, I reached an impasse with my local branch of the CoS whereby this fulfillment of purpose was being denied me. The happy ending for me was getting back to what I feel I was meant to do, outside of the CoS, often referred to as "the freezone".

I've made more money as Operations Manager of a large printing company, and took pride in my knowledge and skills, but I was without the sense of fulfillment of what I have a passion for.

That's my viewpoint.

Love, Dex

dexter gelfand

2nd November 2010, 08:50 PM

Does the FreeZone issue SP Declares and, if so, how do I get one?
Hmmm... I smell one hell of a business opportunity for an enterprising freezoner with a printer!:D

Love, Dex

uniquemand

2nd November 2010, 08:56 PM

You can't be serious, right? There are quite a few non independents like myself who post there to give other points to view. Exs need that.

BTW, didn't you once post this oxymoron?:
"And so, although I have been in the Free Zone now for years, I can finally say that I am truely FREE of the Church of Scientology. "
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/wrong.htm

I am rarely serious, anymore, but I do think it's futile to scream truths at people while they have their fingers in their ears and are yelling la la la la back at you.

What did you feel was oxymoronic about the quote you rightly attribute to me (from 1999)?

Terril park

2nd November 2010, 08:56 PM

But I wasn't asking what the cofs policy stated (I already know that) ... it seemed as if I was being informed by Dex that I had committed a generality (Oh Nooooooo) so I presume he felt that that was significant.

:whistling:

Do Freezoners utilise the bits (of scientology) that they like ... ignore or even condemn the rest but for some reason still call it scientology?

Or wot.

Marty's latest blog post is very interesting here and proked quite a bit of heat. I've just posted this response below which tells you how I see it.

-------------------------
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Guess Marty knew his viewpoint would take some bashing on
this thread. Kudos.

MARTY
” I am not at this stage passing judgment on the wisdom of the inclusion of point Six of the seven points of power in the original policy letter. That may or may not be a debate at some time in the future. ”

I’ll have to re read this PL before such a debate. Been a long time,
and its fascinating to know how this was used and the whole “pink legs” thing which is completely new to me.

ERWIN CROUGHS
” If I were King in war with my neighboring country, I’d want strong and loyal officers too. I’d apply the PL exactly as written and promote the officers that really kick my enemy…..”

Trouble is, scientology is a religion, or at least a philosophy with core ideas of helping people and granting beingness, and empowering others. Not a military training text.

Then their are the quotes SID brought up.

Its interesting to be discussing this here, after years of existing on
“natterboards” where critics describe the likes of me as squirrels
for not wishing to apply all the PLs and picking and choosing what we wish to use.

But really its a matter of intellectual and moral integrity, and
of study tech. We study something and make it our own. Of course
we have the power of choice of rejecting it also, not so often mentioned but fundamental.

” A thetan has things beyond matter, energy, space and time
which can deteriorate. His power of choice, his ability to keep two locations separate, his belief in self and ethical standards are independent of material things. But these can be recorded in the time track as well and one sees them recover when no longer influenced by the time track.” HCOB 15 may 1963

The OP was very descriptive of a third dynamic engram repressing
the power of choice.

AlphOhm

2nd November 2010, 08:57 PM

<snip>

Hoping and waiting for your SP declare? Get in line:D

Love, Dex

I have been waiting prolly 14 years now. I was hoping to publish it on the web at some point.

Besides the obvious legal ramifications, I think they avoid sending it intentionally to cause case upset.

Certs never arrived?

:hysterical:

AlphOhm

2nd November 2010, 10:02 PM

OK -- apparently you were, but actually I was NOT, thinking of or talking about the nearness of BODIES, as in being in the same house, or the same room with someone, or having someone right next to you on a train or an airplane seat or being squashed in a crowd of people pushing to get into or out of a theatre.

Now that you mention it, some such situations of course are uncomfortable, and some not so much; but if "physical space" is what you are referring to as occupying THE SAME SPACE, then one could extend that to include all of humankind's known homeland: planet earth!

:happydance: :thumbsup:

I don't think that kind of physical space what is meant in the literature about "personal boundaries" -- it's certainly NOT what I meant.

When I speak of "personal boundaries" I mean something much more ethereal -- it's the psyche -- the mental, emotional, spiritual or whatever combination of those it is that makes up someone's PERSONALITY.

Violations of "personal boundaries" can manifest in the physical, but the greater damage wrought by such violations is to the psyche.

Per Scientology data, "space" and "beingness" are closely related. There are of course additional considerations described such as "viewpoint" and "anchor points". Interesting study. Maybe google all 4 terms and read a bit about it if you wish.

Yes, has a lot to do with "psyche".

As an example, consider physical rape: definitely an act of one body on another body, and yes a violation of one's personal PHYSICAL boundaries. But in (not all) most cases, the physical damage heals rather quickly with simple first aid. Not so the violation of what I mean by "personal boundaries" -- the damage to the psyche is not so easily healed.

Can be viewed as an attack on or invalidation of one's "beingness". Incidents of this type usually have *lots* of "negative emotions" and "charge" associated with them.

And back to the example of the narcissist -- being physically "in the same room" as a narcissist could be slightly uncomfortable, but is not even close in comparison to having a narcissist violate the personal boundaries of one's psyche, as was described in the example I brought from Wikipedia.

Understood.

And in Dexter's opening video, I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to "occupying the same PHYSICAL space" -- though of course, if I'm wrong about that he can correct me, or not, as he chooses.

*willingness* to occupy same space--it is possible to have high affinity, yet great separation.

namaste

AnonyMary

3rd November 2010, 12:16 AM

Let it go, people. I say, treat Marty's blog the same way you would treat any freezoner site: skip it. Don't take what happens there seriously. Marty is a liar, the attempt to reform the Church is a flawed premise, and the people contributing on his blog are the people who will eventually be here or elsewhere explaining how sad they are that they were such fools for so long.

You can't be serious, right? There are quite a few non independents like myself who post there to give other points to view. Exs need that.

BTW, didn't you once post this oxymoron?:
"And so, although I have been in the Free Zone now for years, I can finally say that I am truely FREE of the Church of Scientology. "
http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/wrong.htm

I am rarely serious, anymore, but I do think it's futile to scream truths at people while they have their fingers in their ears and are yelling la la la la back at you.

What did you feel was oxymoronic about the quote you rightly attribute to me (from 1999)?

Oh, so the Free Zone is not using Scientology? Your kids were not members then?

Freedom is a relative word. Free Zone and the Church of Scientology have only one thing in common. Scientology. Because of that, IMHO. I don't see a Free Zoner being free of the Church of Scientology.

nozeno

3rd November 2010, 12:31 AM

Hmmm... I smell one hell of a business opportunity for an enterprising freezoner with a printer!:D

Love, Dex

I've been meaning to ask this. What is a "Grad V" field auditor?

Is that a free zone thing?

dexter gelfand

3rd November 2010, 01:16 AM

I've been meaning to ask this. What is a "Grad V" field auditor?

Is that a free zone thing?

Hi Noz,

"Grad V" is a an auditor classification that came about in the early 1980's, which was when I trained. Prerequisites include training on NED (New Era Dianetics, the most updated Dianetics technique), and through Class IV (trained in auditing the lower grades, which are ARC Straightwire and then Grade 0 through Grade IV). Grad V encompasses training in all the "rundowns" (specialized auditing actions for particular circumstances) such as Int Rundown, PTS Rundown, Suppressed Person Rundown, and repair lists such as C/S 53 and Green Form.

Its not a freezone-created designation.

Love, Dex

Terril park

3rd November 2010, 01:25 AM

Terril park

3rd November 2010, 01:50 AM

Well, I don't like the way he treated you there,

Its got worse. Hope Marty posts my last comments for his sake. He asked me to supply more data re operation Freakout.

---------------
Terril Park | November 2, 2010 at 11:51 pm | Reply

martyrathbun09 | November 2, 2010 at 11:06 pm | Reply

“I didn’t ask for “a few of many URLs”. I asked a specific question and would like for you to answer it if you might.”

Oy vey!!

So GO files are not enough? Legal quotes not enough?

Like who was in charge?

I’ll search further, ask around.

Note that Paullette is alive and well. I’ll ask her to come and post here.
martyrathbun09 | November 2, 2010 at 11:58 pm | Reply

-----------------
Dude, ONE single citation to fact. You haven’t provided it. Have Paulette post here? Can you get any more non sequitor? Report to Ron’s Org for objectives brother.
Terril Park | November 3, 2010 at 12:42 am | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

--------------------
Why did you delete the URLs I provided?

Its an insult to ask me to do objectives. I very possibly did more than you. 3 times drilling, being drilled, running, being run. All before I was OT.

Its the church of miscavology putting OTs back on there.

Why you supporting this?

Why are you being rude?

Why are you invalidating me and my case?

You are making yourself look bad here.

Take a leaf out of Karen’s book, she always grants beingness no matter how hostile the person she responds too.

You are making the subject look bad.

Please take my response as constructive criticism.

I am a friend, but not sure if you can understand that.

AlphOhm

3rd November 2010, 02:10 AM

I've been meaning to ask this. What is a "Grad V" field auditor?

Is that a free zone thing?

It means that Dex is more highly trained than David Miscavige, Chairman of the Board ("COB" aka "poodleboy" aka "asthmatic dwarf") and Ecclesiastical Leader Of the Church of Scientology.

David Miscavige was reportedly removed from his Class IV internship after a criminal break of the Auditor's Code--he reportedly assaulted one who was in his care. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=9218&page=8

dexter gelfand

3rd November 2010, 03:22 AM

It means that Dex is more highly trained than David Miscavige, Chairman of the Board ("COB" aka "poodleboy" aka "asthmatic dwarf") and Ecclesiastical Leader Of the Church of Scientology.

David Miscavige was reportedly removed from his Class IV internship after a criminal break of the Auditor's Code--he reportedly assaulted one who was in his care. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=9218&page=8

Hey Alph, thanks (although "more highly trained than David Miscavige" might not be setting the bar very high....):roflmao:

Love, Dex

Mark A. Baker

3rd November 2010, 03:25 AM

Do Freezoners utilise the bits (of scientology) that they like ... ignore or even condemn the rest but for some reason still call it scientology?

Or wot.

Freezoners are individuals, Trouble. They pretty much do what ever they, as individuals, feel like. They study the subject of scientology and use what makes sense to them. Most are pretty rational about what they do & how they conduct themselves.

I've known a few, fortunately a VERY FEW, I personally felt still belonged in the SO. :eyeroll:

On the otherhand, I KNOW you have seen this explained before about the freezone. Why is it seemingly such a difficult concept for you & others to grasp? :confused2:

Mark A. Baker

uniquemand

3rd November 2010, 03:28 AM

I'm rusty, but there are classifications of training for auditors, that go from Class 0 - Class XII, with some stops in between. After Class V comes Grad V, and then Class VI. Seems like Class VII doesn't exist, if it ever did, any more. Then we have Class VIII, highest auditor classification available to people outside the Sea Org. Then Class IX, which I believe is specialized training prior to delivery of the Ls, and then Class X, XI, and XII, which map to delivering L's 10, 11, and 12.

So, a Grad V is a Class V, meaning they can deliver everything on the Bridge through NED, plus Grad stuff, which are typically specialized rundowns. The next step is the biggy, to Class VI, which is also known as "The Wall of Tapes". You listen to all of Hubbard's gobbledygook in chronological order, and are taught most of what is in the Tech Vols. The main difference between a VI and an VIII is that the VIII learns their materials AGAIN, for certainty. Like, three times through, or something.

Mark A. Baker

3rd November 2010, 03:28 AM

If I were in need of "Counselling" the very last thing I would want is for the "Counsellor" to be intent of sharing the same space (in any way) ... it sounds manipulative and unprofessional and knowing the real reason for it (to get the "R" and the "C" up) confirms that it is just that.

Well they are THERE aren't they? "Sharing space" MEANS to be present, and not just in a physical sense but actually PAYING ATTENTION to the other person and what transpires in the environment during the course of the session. How is that "manipulative" or "unprofessional"? :eyeroll:

Mark A. Baker

Mark A. Baker

3rd November 2010, 03:35 AM

The CoS, no doubt, misuses the 'generality" argument as convenient "evidence" of an "SP". I've never heard a freezoner use it that way. Everybody uses generalities sometimes (as I'm doing in making that statement:))

Well, I'd say that LR filled the bill until her demise. Although, I'd be hard-pressed to name a second. You might ask BB about Virgina McClaureghy (sp?), though. I never ran across her myself, but from what I've heard from others she's something of a "nutter" and fond of issuing "sp declares" on other freezoners. :)

Mark A. Baker

freet43

3rd November 2010, 03:41 AM

Actually, this concept can be used all the time when working with people.

I've had a lot of successes as a manager as a result.

Try it sometime and see for yourself:)

Marina

Smarmy sales techniques ... increasing "A" .... and letting "R" and "C" rise as a result ... for what purpose?

Answer ... Selling scientology.

Sales people using 70's style sales techniques ... (Big League Sales with some added hubbard) ... please, most people are not as gullible as they were decades ago.

:eyeroll:

uniquemand

3rd November 2010, 03:50 AM

Well, I'd say that LR filled the bill until her demise. Although, I'd be hard-pressed to name a second. You might ask BB about Virgina McClaureghy (sp?), though. I never ran across her myself, but from what I've heard from others she's something of a "nutter" and fond of issuing "sp declares" on other freezoners. :)

Mark A. Baker

LR met a demise? :( I did not know this. I enjoyed her character "The File Clerk" on early freezone sites.

dexter gelfand

3rd November 2010, 03:52 AM

I'm rusty, but there are classifications of training for auditors, that go from Class 0 - Class XII, with some stops in between. After Class V comes Grad V, and then Class VI. Seems like Class VII doesn't exist, if it ever did, any more. Then we have Class VIII, highest auditor classification available to people outside the Sea Org. Then Class IX, which I believe is specialized training prior to delivery of the Ls, and then Class X, XI, and XII, which map to delivering L's 10, 11, and 12.

So, a Grad V is a Class V, meaning they can deliver everything on the Bridge through NED, plus Grad stuff, which are typically specialized rundowns. The next step is the biggy, to Class VI, which is also known as "The Wall of Tapes". You listen to all of Hubbard's gobbledygook (Spoken by a guy who practices reworked Dianetics under a different term, reworded so as not to infringe on CoS copyrights:eyeroll:)in chronological order, and are taught most of what is in the Tech Vols. The main difference between a VI and an VIII is that the VIII learns their materials AGAIN, for certainty. Like, three times through, or something.
Class VII is the CoS designation for Power Processing trained, and Class IX is NOT'S (New Era Dianetics for OT's), for which the prerequisite is class IV, skipping over Class V, VI, VII and VIII.

Love, Dex

AlphOhm

3rd November 2010, 03:58 AM

I'm rusty, but there are classifications of training for auditors, that go from Class 0 - Class XII, with some stops in between. After Class V comes Grad V, and then Class VI. Seems like Class VII doesn't exist, if it ever did, any more. [Was delivery of Power Processing IIRC] Then we have Class VIII, highest auditor classification available to people outside the Sea Org. Then Class IX [audited NOTs/OTV auditor], which I believe is specialized training prior to delivery of the Ls, and then Class X, XI, and XII, which map to delivering L's 10, 11, and 12.

So, a Grad V is a Class V, meaning they can deliver everything on the Bridge through NED, plus Grad stuff, which are typically specialized rundowns. The next step is the biggy, to Class VI, which is also known as "The Wall of Tapes". You listen to all of Hubbard's gobbledygook in chronological order, and are taught most of what is in the Tech Vols. The main difference between a VI and an VIII is that the VIII learns their materials AGAIN, for certainty. Like, three times through, or something.

namaste

uniquemand

3rd November 2010, 04:01 AM

Oh, so the Free Zone is not using Scientology? Your kids were not members then?

Freedom is a relative word. Free Zone and the Church of Scientology have only one thing in common. Scientology. Because of that, IMHO. I don't see a Free Zoner being free of the Church of Scientology.

To my knowledge, the Free Zone is using Scientology. My kids were members of the Church, or at least raised in it, yes.

Your considerations about who is and is not free of the Church of Scientology are really irrelevant to whether or not I felt free of them at that time.

I ceased considering myself a freezone scientologist in about 2000.

I like a lot of FreeZoners that I know. There are some that I don't. I consider their auditors brothers in arms against mechanisms that people keep in place against themselves, whatever names we call them, though I disagree with most FreeZoners with regard to upper level stuff and I don't recognize Hubbard as having any particular authority.

Regardless, there is no dissonance for me, when I state that I am free of the Church. My ex-wife, not so much. I'd say my son is free of them, excepting his necessary interactions with his mother. To her credit, she hasn't made her love or communication conditional upon his acceptance of her religion, and is aware that he communicates with me. My daughter has personal issues with me, which I think stem from Scientology problems, but which she thinks have strictly to do with child support/deadbeat issues, and keeping her life simple.

In other words, while a lot of the problems in my family have roots from my time in Scientology, I feel free of Scientology, and have for a long time. I don't make decisions based on scientology.

uniquemand

3rd November 2010, 04:04 AM

Class VII is the CoS designation for Power Processing trained, and Class IX is NOT'S (New Era Dianetics for OT's), for which the prerequisite is class IV, skipping over Class V, VI, VII and VIII.

Love, Dex

I thought Power was no longer delivered, and therefore VII was abandoned? While this may not be the case in FZ, I'm pretty sure Power is no longer done in the Church?

AlphOhm

3rd November 2010, 04:06 AM

I thought Power was no longer delivered, and therefore VII was abandoned? While this may not be the case in FZ, I'm pretty sure Power is no longer done in the Church?

"alternate route to Clear"--prior to clearing course auditing

uniquemand

3rd November 2010, 04:08 AM

Class VII is the CoS designation for Power Processing trained, and Class IX is NOT'S (New Era Dianetics for OT's), for which the prerequisite is class IV, skipping over Class V, VI, VII and VIII.

Love, Dex

Oh, and Dex, if you like, we can discuss the origins of abreactive therapy, which LRH decided should be copyrighted under his name as Dianetics, but which existed as early as 1890. The question of who reworked what is kind of a dead horse. There's a reason the Church decided not to go down that particular litigative track. They would lose, and lose very badly. It's pretty hard to pretend that Dianetics is not simply reworked Freudian therapy.

uniquemand

3rd November 2010, 04:08 AM

"alternate route to Clear"--prior to clearing course auditing

I thought that the alternate route to clear was R6EW and the Clearing Course? Power is still in that lineup?

uniquemand

3rd November 2010, 04:11 AM

nozeno

3rd November 2010, 04:11 AM

Boy the bridge to total freedom sure seems confusing.

http://evilcowtowninc.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/confused.jpg

freet43

3rd November 2010, 04:14 AM

You know, the mean and rude "unreasonable" Sea Org valence that some in power in the SO assumed...

Just wondering. I've never met the guy.

Marina

Having met Marty I'd have to say he's a lot better than he seems on his blog. Was with Ax142, a critic, and Marty considers me a squirrel so he was
meeting those potentially hostile, and he was very charming and friendly
and we all got on extremely well.

His persona as it comes across on his blog is something like a product officers, in contrast to say Karen who shows a lovely granting of beingness.

I think part of the problem is that he is on the one hand getting a lot of flak from many directions, and is also very short of time, just running his blog and associated activity must be quite time consuming. So he tends to shoot from the hip and dosn't give himself the time to carefully consider his words
that I certainly have and others have.

I have taken him to task a few times, the latest on the last posts on the LRH comes to Creston thread. Marty calls me a squirrel, which I'm not bothered about, but also infers the people I'm connected with are as well.
Its good he let my posts through.

AlphOhm

3rd November 2010, 04:18 AM

Hey Alph, thanks (although "more highly trained than David Miscavige" might not be setting the bar very high....):roflmao:

Love, Dex

My apologies for putting you in the same context with David Miscavige--I just couldn't resist the opportunity for a cheap shot at teh little bastard.
:hysterical:

freet43

3rd November 2010, 04:21 AM

Hey trouble,

In the "freezone" people are free to do whatever they wish.

There is a wide spectrum from those that adhere totally to everything written by LRH - to those that use most of the tech but don't agree with it all - or use some parts but not all (for example, some don't agree with OT III -
some do not use anything that came out after 1978 - others practiced what they knew in the 60s - then there are those that used what they learned to create their own belief system and processes ..

From one extreme to the other and everything in between.

Marina

But I wasn't asking what the cofs policy stated (I already know that) ... it seemed as if I was being informed by Dex that I had committed a generality (Oh Nooooooo) so I presume he felt that that was significant.

:whistling:

Do Freezoners utilise the bits (of scientology) that they like ... ignore or even condemn the rest but for some reason still call it scientology?

Or wot.

dexter gelfand

3rd November 2010, 04:29 AM

Oh, you're right. http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part02/Chp06/pg0181_1.html

But then again, someone's wrong. If a grad v and grad va auditor deliver power and power plus, what does a VII deliver?

There is no such thing as a grad VA auditor, on the training side. There is a grade VA (power plus) release on the processing side.

In the CoS, on the training side, a power (and power plus) auditor is a class VII. In the CoS, a Grad V auditor is not trained to deliver power processing. In the CoS, I wouldn't be allowed to train on power processing and power plus without having done the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (Class VI).

Being that I'm not in the CoS, I have elected to train on Power Processing materials, including much of substantial importance that the CoS omits, such as Dart's valuable and enlightening data, and the lectures of John McMasters, both of whom were involved in the development and piloting of Power Processing. The CoS materials are quite limited and incomplete by comparison.

(Don't blame me, you asked about it):D

Love, Dex

dexter gelfand

3rd November 2010, 04:34 AM

Oh, and Dex, if you like, we can discuss the origins of abreactive therapy, which LRH decided should be copyrighted under his name as Dianetics, but which existed as early as 1890. The question of who reworked what is kind of a dead horse. There's a reason the Church decided not to go down that particular litigative track. They would lose, and lose very badly. It's pretty hard to pretend that Dianetics is not simply reworked Freudian therapy.

Hey Kev,

I have heard a bit about that, although you're probably better informed. I wouldn't mind at all knowing more about that, if you'd care to post a link.:) Nevertheless, and correct me if I'm wrong, but TIR is patterned after Dianetics, and more closely resembles this than abreactive therapy.

Love, Dex

uniquemand

3rd November 2010, 04:35 AM

I have no problem with you talking about that stuff, Dex. I find it interesting. Are McMasters lectures online?

dexter gelfand

3rd November 2010, 04:41 AM

I have no problem with you talking about that stuff, Dex. I find it interesting. Are McMasters lectures online?

Hey Kev,

I have transcript files of some stuff that I can send you, and another ESMB friend recently sent me a disc with audio lectures. PM me me if you'd like me to burn and send you a copy.

Love, Dex

I told you I was trouble

3rd November 2010, 04:45 AM

Indeed.

I can't imagine any PC getting any gain via an auditor who is covertly hostile.
Ideally the session is "for the PC" and no one else.

This is one area where that "no case on post" thing you were protesting earlier is vital. The training routines (TRs) address this of course.

Mmmmm, well I would prefer to just call it professionalism (instead of TR's, which just teach one to be a natural looking and sounding robot IMO).

:p

Posted by freet43

no sales involved
Actually, this concept can be used all the time when working with people.

I've had a lot of successes as a manager as a result.

Try it sometime and see for yourself

I know how it works but that's my point ... it is all so clinical and false and it is a sales technique (I did the cofs sales courses too).

:ohmy:

Posted by Mark A. Barker

Well they are THERE aren't they? "Sharing space" MEANS to be present, and not just in a physical sense but actually PAYING ATTENTION to the other person and what transpires in the environment during the course of the session. How is that "manipulative" or "unprofessional"?

Mark A. Baker

Lol .. in this instance it (sharing the same space) was being used as a tool to create affinity and it was that that I was referring to.

Posted by Mark A. Barker

Freezoners are individuals, Trouble. They pretty much do what ever they, as individuals, feel like. They study the subject of scientology and use what makes sense to them. Most are pretty rational about what they do & how they conduct themselves.

I've known a few, fortunately a VERY FEW, I personally felt still belonged in the SO.

On the otherhand, I KNOW you have seen this explained before about the freezone. Why is it seemingly such a difficult concept for you & others to grasp?

Mark A. Baker

Dunno ... perhaps I am a bit thick.

But, why not cease to call it scientology if they only use the bits they like?

Posted by Dex

That's an outsider's viewpoint, Trouble, compared to, say my viewpoint as an independent auditor, which is that I'm free to focus on what I know to be best for the person I'm auditing, free of the threat of getting smashed for addressing what they have their attention on, instead of grinding them through brutal unjustified confessionals, or denying them auditing until they donate thou$ands for buildings or corrupted "basic book" packages, free to acknowledge their completion of an auditing process rather than ignoring their floating needle because it doesn't reflect DM's "Golden Age of Tech" misinterpretation, free to respond appropriately to what they say in session instead of being constrained by the enforcement of the GAT robotic auditor drills; and in general, safe from being punished and degraded by virtue of have having been found guilty of practicing Scientology by the "Church of Scientology"

I'm sure you have experienced the fulfillment of having helped another person in some way that was meaningful to them. For me, I enjoy that satisfaction by doing what I'm doing, the way I know to do it well. It is quite gratifying. A long time ago, I reached an impasse with my local branch of the CoS whereby this fulfillment of purpose was being denied me. The happy ending for me was getting back to what I feel I was meant to do, outside of the CoS, often referred to as "the freezone".

I've made more money as Operations Manager of a large printing company, and took pride in my knowledge and skills, but I was without the sense of fulfillment of what I have a passion for.

That's my viewpoint.

Love, Dex

Fair enough Dex, perhaps you should rename it though because what you are doing isn't scientology.

:happydance:

Posted by Dex

Hi there Trouble, what I meant was that your use of "we" seems to be an assertion that there is broad agreement the Scientology is bad, and that just isn't so. there is controversy, differing viewpoints. Looked to me like you were essentially asserting "everybody agrees with me, so I'm right and Scientology is bad". That's what I was addressing, nothing more.

The CoS, no doubt, misuses the 'generality" argument as convenient "evidence" of an "SP". I've never heard a freezoner use it that way. Everybody uses generalities sometimes (as I'm doing in making that statement)

Hoping and waiting for your SP declare? Get in line

Love, Dex

Old habits die hard eh? I think you meant what I thought you meant!

Sorry if I am being repetitive here but there IS broad agreement that scientolgy is bad ...

:yes:

Terril ... I didn't answer your responses because I could not make sense of your replies in the time I have available tonight ... you didn't answer my question though.

:coolwink:

Posted by Freet43

people do their own thing
Hey trouble,

In the "freezone" people are free to do whatever they wish.

There is a wide spectrum from those that adhere totally to everything written by LRH - to those that use most of the tech but don't agree with it all - or use some parts but not all (for example, some don't agree with OT III -
some do not use anything that came out after 1978 - others practiced what they knew in the 60s - then there are those that used what they learned to create their own belief system and processes ..

From one extreme to the other and everything in between.

Marina

Thanks Marina ... I do get that, but I don't understand why they are still calling it (and themselves) scientology/scientologists when they are clearly not.

What is that all about?

:confused2: