Freezoners, please answer these questions

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Originally Posted by acertainratio
As I said in an earlier post, Scientology is a dark and dangerous thing with the potential to wreck people totally - physically, mentally, and socially.

People who have suffered this kind of damage have a strong desire to prevent other people going through the same trauma.

With the best will in the world, I don't see how people who have been through that hell can accept the idea that Scn outside the Cof$ is all fine and shiny.

I'm a big advocate of free speech, so I'm not suggesting that anyone should be silenced.

I have to be honest and say that my foremost inclination is to support people who have been hurt by the cult.

It would be good if the FZ'ers on this board would give some deep thought to the damage done by the subject that they hold so dearly, and the fact that many of the people here suffered that damage. Most of them I think, are here to work on their recovery, and help others doing the same.

So FZ'ers, please think about what you can do to make your presence here congruent with the fact that this is an ex - scientologists board.

Here's the big question:

If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?

None of these are trick questions, and I'm not asking so that I can duff you up when you answer.

As we know, there are plenty of FZ and independent boards; so why do you like to come here?

Those who are here to help themselves recover, and help others recover deserve a lot of consideration, in my view.

But as I say, I'm not into attacking free speech, and I'm not into expelling people, so I would like to hear something from you about how you can take part in debate on an ex - scientologists forum without undermining the basic purpose of the board or undermining the recovery of people who've been hurt by the subject that you hold dear.


The above is from another thread but I don't want this getting lost. I would like to see these questions answered.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Soul of Ginnungagab]

I suppose that by an FZ'er you mean a person affiliated with a "RONs org" organization, since that is how the term is mostly applied on this board.

Technically speaking a Scientologists is a person associated with and/or in agreement with the official Scientology Church.
A person that was in such an agreement in the past but no longer is in present time is an ex-Scientologist.

Therefore also an FZ'er is in fact an ex-Scientologist. I do know that there are some of those that label themselves a Scientologist anyway. But that means that they have a different definition of the term "Scientologist" than the official definition, which is clearly a person in agreement with the official church.

This board is NOT a black/white board but rather a very nuanced board. That is at least how I see it. That is a reason why the board is powerful and why I like to be here. I am aware that in some situations one does need to take a black/white approach to a subject in order to distance oneself from it, but on a broader scale life is indeed a multi-nuanced phenomenon. It would make sense to take a clearly black/white approach regarding the term "Scientologist" in my opinion as indicated above. Thus it is easy to say who is a Scientologist and who is not.

But once one is an ex-Scientologist there are tons of nuances.

What makes it very delicate is that many persons did find out something for themselves via Scientology. They can't reject everything they learned or realized or got aware of in Scientology without rejecting themselves. But what they found out belongs to themselves NOT to Scientology which is why it is OK. They need to "only" relieve from their mind what belongs to Scientology, NOT what belongs to themselves. I put the word "only" in quotes because it is not as easy as the term "only" might indicate. It is a task that takes years for most people. For some it would mean that they go through an FZ organization for others it would mean something completely different.

EDIT: Corrected some spelling.

[uncle sam]

No disrespect because I really like your last name "Ginnungagab". It is so very cool. But somehow-someway I missed your conclusion-please rephrase the part were you draw "your point". I'm an older person and I need to have things explained to me in a simple-old fashion way. I wish to thank you for helping me to understand your point of view. The Anabaptist is easy to understand even though he uses lots of words. Again-thanks!

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I suppose that by an FZ'er you mean a person affiliated with a "RONs org" organization, since that is how the term is mostly applied on this board.

Technically speaking a Scientologists is a person associated with and/or in agreement with the official Scientology Church.
A person that was in such an agreement in the past but no longer is in present time is an ex-Scientologist.

Therefore also an FZ'er is in fact an ex-Scientologist. I do know that there are some of those that label themselves a Scientologist anyway. But that means that they have a different definition of the term "Scientologist" than the official definition, which is clearly a person in agreement with the official church.

This board is NOT a black/white board but rather a very nuanced board. That is at least how I see it. That is a reason why the board is powerful and why I like to be here. I am aware that in some situations one does need to take a black/white approach to a subject in order to distance oneself from it, but on a broader scale life is indeed a multi-nuanced phenomenon. It would make sense to take a clearly black/white approach regarding the term "Scientologist" in my opinion as indicated above. Thus it is easy to say who is a Scientologist and who is not.

But once one is an ex-Scientologist there are tons of nuances.

What makes it very delicate is that many persons did find out something for themselves via Scientology. They can't reject everything they learned or realized or got aware of in Scientology without rejecting themselves. But what they found out belongs to themselves NOT to Scientology which is why it is OK. They need to "only" relieve from their mind what belongs to Scientology, not what belongs to themselves. I put the word "only" in quotes because it is not as easy as the term "only" might indicate. It it a task that takes years for most people. For some it would mean that they go through an FZ organization for others it would mean something completely different.

Sorry, I don't buy it. If a person believes in the workability of Scientology to the extent that he wishes to be a practitioner of it, he is a Scientologist. You don't have to be a Roman Catholic to be a Christian. You can splinter off from any organized church and still belief in Christianity. This idea that you are not "technically" a Scientologist because you are not in good standing with the Church is a rhetoric trick.
Granted there are people who are at various stages in their departure of Scientology. But if a person is singing the praises of Scientology then why are they here, in a place of sanctuary from Scientology?
That is the question that is being dodged.


The Anabaptist Jacques

[Pierrot]

Originally Posted by acertainratio

(snip)

If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?

None of these are trick questions, and I'm not asking so that I can duff you up when you answer.

As we know, there are plenty of FZ and independent boards; so why do you like to come here?

Those who are here to help themselves recover, and help others recover deserve a lot of consideration, in my view.

(snip)

The above is from another thread but I don't want this getting lost. I would like to see these questions answered.

The Anabaptist Jacques

okay, it seems a genuine question, so ... - I don't consider myself a Freezoner, but since I'm pro-FZ (and pro any practice aimed at developping human abilities, coaching, etc) and as I like to audit (standard tech, to my best ability, whenever possible) I might be labelled by some as such (sigh) so why not answer a bit -

It's no news those recovering from cults need consideration, safe space and care. In the 80s auditors who left the CofS/were kicked out of it were surrounded by friends in a bad shape. Perso - I was fed up at some point then by the noise generated by messed up "cases" and tired of complaints. I offered help (but NEVER in my practice did I ask nor attempt to "handle" someone to come into session - no proselytizing, don't worry) A couple of hours later, or a dozen, I had friends I could talk with about music, food, women, culture, you name it, but NO talk about Scn anymore. A relief! They moved on with life.

As a side note - although I always ended up cycles stating "thanks for coming, you don't need me anymore" or such, some were keeping coming back. And bringing friends in for sessions. People who were professional Doctors, Lawyers, Psychologists, Businessmen, Artists, some Jahovah Witness I remember, some coming from NLP, Bio-energy, ... fields,etc. Always measuring any progress by visible improvements in life, and for those initially interested in Scn and Tech having them on lines as long as they wanted till they had no unanswered questions left. No mystery left.

FInally last century I got through and could create time to play guitar. And go on with my life.

But - I still love auditing, So sometimes someone comes in wanting services. And sometimes someone who was "serviced" by an Org comes in - I found out lately that "tech" got changed and I like to keep myself up to date knowing what kind of a mess the person coming in might be immersed in. This board helps a lot that wise. Actually if someone came to me and asked about Scn I'd answer "go read ESMB, some Freezone sites, some church's and make up your mind (but don't allow anyone else to make up your mind)"

That's one reason - learning and observing about one of the subjects I studied this lifetime, and I love, Scientology.

But you'd notice I'm mainly in a lurking mode here. And that leads us into the next reason for me being here - reading posts for a day on the Ex-Scientologists board I get more Scientology than I had during the last, say, 7 years. I noticed I was missing that, thus I come back ;-)

little note: nothing in my statements and opinions should be read as an urge or invitation to get "audited", "processed" or get more tech. This is no advertisement, no way.

[Pitbull]

There are many paths to "recovery".

But first do realize that many folks had BIG ISSUES that led
them to Scientology in the first place.

Some were attracted to the space drama, potential "out-of-body"
stuff that Scientology is, in truth, really weak at.

And some came into it to improve their lives or even help others.

But those motivations and issues are still there.

So many would still like to continue to learn and grow, even though
they found the church ROYALLY took advantage of them.

The idea of using a type of therapy for greater self-awareness, rather
than just to handle issues, if pretty compelling stuff.

So many people don't want to "give up" just because there are
some major dirt bags behind Scientology.

They found auditing useful and want more of it.

For others, the path of "healing" might just mean getting back to a "normal" life. And that's OK too.

I personally don't get some of the Ron's Org guys who still believe in BTs and such, but the cornucopia of options available now is a good thing.

And in the meantime everyone can protest the church and see that Miscavige and Co. are given the boot sooner than later.

[Terril park]

Originally Posted by acertainratio
As I said in an earlier post, Scientology is a dark and dangerous thing with the potential to wreck people totally - physically, mentally, and socially.

People who have suffered this kind of damage have a strong desire to prevent other people going through the same trauma.

With the best will in the world, I don't see how people who have been through that hell can accept the idea that Scn outside the Cof$ is all fine and shiny.

I'm a big advocate of free speech, so I'm not suggesting that anyone should be silenced.

I have to be honest and say that my foremost inclination is to support people who have been hurt by the cult.

It would be good if the FZ'ers on this board would give some deep thought to the damage done by the subject that they hold so dearly, and the fact that many of the people here suffered that damage. Most of them I think, are here to work on their recovery, and help others doing the same.

So FZ'ers, please think about what you can do to make your presence here congruent with the fact that this is an ex - scientologists board.

Here's the big question:

If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?

None of these are trick questions, and I'm not asking so that I can duff you up when you answer.

As we know, there are plenty of FZ and independent boards; so why do you like to come here?

Those who are here to help themselves recover, and help others recover deserve a lot of consideration, in my view.

But as I say, I'm not into attacking free speech, and I'm not into expelling people, so I would like to hear something from you about how you can take part in debate on an ex - scientologists forum without undermining the basic purpose of the board or undermining the recovery of people who've been hurt by the subject that you hold dear.


The above is from another thread but I don't want this getting lost. I would like to see these questions answered.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Many people in the FZ have also had horrific experiences in the COS. In general this is from EO's, execs, GO/OSA, regs, management.

This can embrace a variety of wrong indications, items apart from anything else.

Problems caused by auditing I believe are not common. Well, failing to deliver what was promised, and given sec checks instead is it appears widespread.

Sitting down and talking to someone is not inherently dangerous.

The problems one gets in COS and its structure are not problems exported
to the FZ.

I too would like to see those still trapped in COS freed from the various difficult situations they are exposed to such as disconnection. Letting it be known that auditing can occur outside COS helps in this.

I have a purpose of letting people know the freezone is available if they want it. My experience, and the vast majority of FZers view is that tech is useful and valuable away from the COS.

I also very much enjoy this message board.

Let me reverse this question.

Is it probable that all the independants and all the various mainstream talk therapies are beneficial, and that only scientology ( outside of the COS)
is dark and dangerous?

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

okay, it seems a genuine question, so ... - I don't consider myself a Freezoner, but since I'm pro-FZ (and pro any practice aimed at developping human abilities, coaching, etc) and as I like to audit (standard tech, to my best ability, whenever possible) I might be labelled by some as such (sigh) so why not answer a bit -

It's no news those recovering from cults need consideration, safe space and care. In the 80s auditors who left the CofS/were kicked out of it were surrounded by friends in a bad shape. Perso - I was fed up at some point then by the noise generated by messed up "cases" and tired of complaints. I offered help (but NEVER in my practice did I ask nor attempt to "handle" someone to come into session - no proselytizing, don't worry) A couple of hours later, or a dozen, I had friends I could talk with about music, food, women, culture, you name it, but NO talk about Scn anymore. A relief! They moved on with life.

As a side note - although I always ended up cycles stating "thanks for coming, you don't need me anymore" or such, some were keeping coming back. And bringing friends in for sessions. People who were professional Doctors, Lawyers, Psychologists, Businessmen, Artists, some Jahovah Witness I remember, some coming from NLP, Bio-energy, ... fields,etc. Always measuring any progress by visible improvements in life, and for those initially interested in Scn and Tech having them on lines as long as they wanted till they had no unanswered questions left. No mystery left.

FInally last century I got through and could create time to play guitar. And go on with my life.

But - I still love auditing, So sometimes someone comes in wanting services. And sometimes someone who was "serviced" by an Org comes in - I found out lately that "tech" got changed and I like to keep myself up to date knowing what kind of a mess the person coming in might be immersed in. This board helps a lot that wise. Actually if someone came to me and asked about Scn I'd answer "go read ESMB, some Freezone sites, some church's and make up your mind (but don't allow anyone else to make up your mind)"

That's one reason - learning and observing about one of the subjects I studied this lifetime, and I love, Scientology.

But you'd notice I'm mainly in a lurking mode here. And that leads us into the next reason for me being here - reading posts for a day on the Ex-Scientologists board I get more Scientology than I had during the last, say, 7 years. I noticed I was missing that, thus I come back ;-)

little note: nothing in my statements and opinions should be read as an urge or invitation to get "audited", "processed" or get more tech. This is no advertisement, no way.

Ok, that's cool. But I gather you do not sing the praises of Scientology while you are here. I do have a question. When you say you get Scientology here, is that from what is written here by Freezoners? And if it is, that proves my point. Nobbody should come here for the Scientology. there are other places to go for that. Somebody then, is putting Scientology into a place of sanctuary from Scientolgoy. That is like buying a round of drinks at an Alchohol Annonymous group meeting. What would be someone's intention in doing that?

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

There are many paths to "recovery".

But first do realize that many folks had BIG ISSUES that led
them to Scientology in the first place.

Some were attracted to the space drama, potential "out-of-body"
stuff that Scientology is, in truth, really weak at.

And some came into it to improve their lives or even help others.

But those motivations and issues are still there.

So many would still like to continue to learn and grow, even though
they found the church ROYALLY took advantage of them.

The idea of using a type of therapy for greater self-awareness, rather
than just to handle issues, if pretty compelling stuff.

So many people don't want to "give up" just because there are
some major dirt bags behind Scientology.

They found auditing useful and want more of it.

For others, the path of "healing" might just mean getting back to a "normal" life. And that's OK too.

I personally don't get some of the Ron's Org guys who still believe in BTs and such, but the cornucopia of options available now is a good thing.

And in the meantime everyone can protest the church and see that Miscavige and Co. are given the boot sooner than later.

Sorry Pitbull, this is more Hubbard evaluation-babble. If they want more auditing then go directly to the Freezone. One shouldn't go to a place of sanctuary from Scientology and promote Scientology Lite.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[acertainratio]

Sorry, I don't buy it. If a person believes in the workability of Scientology to the extent that he wishes to be a practitioner of it, he is a Scientologist. You don't have to be a Roman Catholic to be a Christian. You can splinter off from any organized church and still belief in Christianity. This idea that you are not "technically" a Scientologist because you are not in good standing with the Church is a rhetoric trick.
Granted there are people who are at various stages in their departure of Scientology. But if a person is singing the praises of Scientology then why are they here, in a place of sanctuary from Scientology?
That is the question that is being dodged.


The Anabaptist Jacques

I am an ex - FZ scientologist and I can tell you for sure that if you're in the FZ you are very much a Scientologist - especially if you are Rons Org.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Many people in the FZ have also had horrific experiences in the COS. In general this is from EO's, execs, GO/OSA, regs, management.

This can embrace a variety of wrong indications, items apart from anything else.

Problems caused by auditing I believe are not common. Well, failing to deliver what was promised, and given sec checks instead is it appears widespread.

Sitting down and talking to someone is not inherently dangerous.

The problems one gets in COS and its structure are not problems exported
to the FZ.

I too would like to see those still trapped in COS freed from the various difficult situations they are exposed to such as disconnection. Letting it be known that auditing can occur outside COS helps in this.

I have a purpose of letting people know the freezone is available if they want it. My experience, and the vast majority of FZers view is that tech is useful and valuable away from the COS.

I also very much enjoy this message board.

Let me reverse this question.

Is it probable that all the independants and all the various mainstream talk therapies are beneficial, and that only scientology ( outside of the COS)
is dark and dangerous?

I've got to tell you Terril, I do appreciate you direct communication. I don't think that Scientology is the only dark and dangerous therapy, but I do know from experience and observation and reasoning that Scientology itself is a dark and dangerous therapy.
There are lots of drugs a person could become addicted to; but what we have here are people recovering from a particular drug, and people come here to promote and defend the very drug thesee people are trying to get off of. It seems contemptuous to me that someone would want people back on the drug that they has negatively affect them. You can promote the Freezone on your Freezone site. If you want to argue that the drug is good for some people and that the ones here have just gotten a bad dose, do it at your place, not in a recovery center. This is our sanctuary from Scientology. despite what you may think are the sources of our discontent, this is our sanctuary from Scientology. Promote your cures at your site.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[acertainratio]

Many people in the FZ have also had horrific experiences in the COS. In general this is from EO's, execs, GO/OSA, regs, management.

This can embrace a variety of wrong indications, items apart from anything else.

Problems caused by auditing I believe are not common. Well, failing to deliver what was promised, and given sec checks instead is it appears widespread.

Sitting down and talking to someone is not inherently dangerous.

The problems one gets in COS and its structure are not problems exported
to the FZ.

I too would like to see those still trapped in COS freed from the various difficult situations they are exposed to such as disconnection. Letting it be known that auditing can occur outside COS helps in this.

I have a purpose of letting people know the freezone is available if they want it. My experience, and the vast majority of FZers view is that tech is useful and valuable away from the COS.

I also very much enjoy this message board.

Let me reverse this question.

Is it probable that all the independants and all the various mainstream talk therapies are beneficial, and that only scientology ( outside of the COS)
is dark and dangerous?

All that is fine my friend but you didn't answer my question:

"If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?

None of these are trick questions, and I'm not asking so that I can duff you up when you answer.

As we know, there are plenty of FZ and independent boards; so why do you like to come here?

Those who are here to help themselves recover, and help others recover deserve a lot of consideration, in my view.

But as I say, I'm not into attacking free speech, and I'm not into expelling people, so I would like to hear something from you about how you can take part in debate on an ex - scientologists forum without undermining the basic purpose of the board or undermining the recovery of people who've been hurt by the subject that you hold dear."

As far as talk therapies go: some of the accepted ones can have negative results when poorly applied, and the many pseudotherapies such as EST, and NLP, have damaged people.

When I was in the FZ I was a Scientologist, and so was everyone I dealt with in there. Now I am an ex-scientologist.

You are still a Scientologist, and you know it.

You don't have to answer my question and I won't ask you to again, but I'd be grateful if you did.

[Pitbull]

Sorry to hear that Jacques.

In not professing "auditing for all" just pointing out that some want it.

And to reach those inside, we need to have compassion for the
wants and needs of those still trapped in the church.

We can't talk to anyone inside if every other word out of our mouths
is that everything, ABOLUTELY, everything they believe in is total crap.

And its likely that many other things that "ex-scientologists" propose
are questionable too.

People get involved in cults and relationships because the need something.

I'm not quite sure what some "ex-members" are offering.

[acertainratio]

Sorry to hear that Jacques.

In not professing "auditing for all" just pointing out that some want it.

And to reach those inside, we need to have compassion for the
wants and needs of those still trapped in the church.

We can't talk to anyone inside if every other word out of our mouths
is that everything, ABOLUTELY, everything they believe in is total crap.

And its likely that many other things that "ex-scientologists" propose
are questionable too.

People get involved in cults and relationships because the need something.

I'm not quite sure what some "ex-members" are offering.

They're not offering you anything - they are here for each other.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Sorry to hear that Jacques.

In not professing "auditing for all" just pointing out that some want it.

And to reach those inside, we need to have compassion for the
wants and needs of those still trapped in the church.

We can't talk to anyone inside if every other word out of our mouths
is that everything, ABOLUTELY, everything they believe in is total crap.

And its likely that many other things that "ex-scientologists" propose
are questionable too.

People get involved in cults and relationships because the need something.

I'm not quite sure what some "ex-members" are offering.

Pitbull,
Again, this is a Sanctuary from Scientology. If people are here they want out from Scientology. There are other places for them to go on the internet if they have their doubts about Scientology and want to learn more. What I am exclusively talking about, and do not alter this, is that there is not reason to promote Scientology Lite here on this board. This is a sanctuary form Scientology, it is not a debating society nor is it the sideline bench for a person to sit on until he gets back into the game of Scientology. The question remains: "If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?"
The question is not "What people might think when they see this board?"

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Terril park]

Sorry, I don't buy it. If a person believes in the workability of Scientology to the extent that he wishes to be a practitioner of it, he is a Scientologist. You don't have to be a Roman Catholic to be a Christian. You can splinter off from any organized church and still belief in Christianity. This idea that you are not "technically" a Scientologist because you are not in good standing with the Church is a rhetoric trick.
Granted there are people who are at various stages in their departure of Scientology. But if a person is singing the praises of Scientology then why are they here, in a place of sanctuary from Scientology?
That is the question that is being dodged.


The Anabaptist Jacques

The term " Ex-scientology" has a nice ring. However Emma
has posted and referred to this again on the long thread thus:-

----------------------------

What this board is:

A place where ex scientologists and interested general public can get together to discuss various experiences in Scientology.

A place where where ex's and non ex's can mingle and chat and get to know how the other half think and live.
-----------------------------

Thus to say as this is an EX scientology board, scientologists shouldn't come here is in violation of Emma's wishes on the matter as expressed up to now.

There is a commonality though. We all agree the COS is a horrific monster.
We, some of us, do various things about that. The website for those
wishing to exit the SO has my phone no on it as a place to find sanctuary. Those in OSA who can read can also see it. For that matter they too are welcome to santuary if they want it.

[acertainratio]

Pitbull,
Again, this is a Sanctuary from Scientology. If people are here they want out from Scientology. There are other places for them to go on the internet if they have their doubts about Scientology and want to learn more. What I am exclusively talking about, and do not alter this, is that there is not reason to promote Scientology Lite here on this board. This is a sanctuary form Scientology, it is not a debating society nor is it the sideline bench for a person to sit on until he gets back into the game of Scientology. The question remains: "If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?"
The question is not "What people might think when they see this board?"

The Anabaptist Jacques

There are reasons, but they are the wrong reasons when looked at in the light of the stated purpose of this board.

One of them is to recruit vulnerable people to Scientology Lite, as Jaques so accurately puts it.

Another is to sing the praises of your low - cal Scientology and get free advertising.

Another is to give the FZ a false aura of respectability because it has been tolerated here.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

The term " Ex-scientology" has a nice ring. However Emma
has posted and referred to this again on the long thread thus:-

----------------------------

What this board is:

A place where ex scientologists and interested general public can get together to discuss various experiences in Scientology.

A place where where ex's and non ex's can mingle and chat and get to know how the other half think and live.
-----------------------------

Thus to say as this is an EX scientology board, scientologists shouldn't come here is in violation of Emma's wishes on the matter as expressed up to now.

There is a commonality though. We all agree the COS is a horrific monster.
We, some of us, do various things about that. The website for those
wishing to exit the SO has my phone no on it as a place to find sanctuary. Those in OSA who can read can also see it. For that matter they too are welcome to santuary if they want it.

You twisted what I have said. I didn't say who could come here or who couldn't come here. I am exclusively talking about promoting Scientology Lite here. The question is this: "If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?"

You can dissect each word and look for loopholes. But that is not answering the question.

The question is this: "If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?"

Why would you offer to buy around of drinks to everyone at an Alcoholics Annonymous group? Anyone is welcome to come to the AA meeting and discuss things. But Why would you offer to buy around of drinks to everyone at an Alcoholics Annonymous group? What does that say about what one things who would do that?

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Terril park]

All that is fine my friend but you didn't answer my question:

"If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?



The only thing I didn't answer was " What can I contribute."

First I believe it of value that people know they can do " TECH outside COS"

Some have commented it helps them exit COS. This is good. Whether they then go on to do tech outside COS is their affair. I don't go chasing or reging anyone.

Some 30-40 people per month contact me directly or join the various forums whose existence I promote. maybe 10% roughly ask for a tech terminal.
I try to oblige if I can and its not always possible as this is a global area.
The rest I do not follow up less they mail me directly. If they leave forums I don't chase them up.

Its clear that some want the service I provide. In some ways its really only myself providing this service.

Its very hard to track where people come from, but years ago I tried to
track this down. ARS was the best route to the FZ followed by OCMB. I always asked people how they found us. Most just said the internet.
Coming from such places it was of course no problem implanting them. :)

Havn't considered this for some time, but to use a domain name in a website with trademarked words left one open to legal threat. Happened to me.

This leaves promotion on critical channels as the only only path to
let people know they can get the tech outside COS.

IMO this is helping people.

I'm actually interested in what stats this board has re attracting new members. I've promoted this board a few times on my FZ forum. I think some can benefit from coming here. :) I've posted a summary of someones story
including being locked in a ships hold on my forum. I met that person. :)

I also contribute myself. Its hard to say what value that has. I recently
travelled for 3 months in the US meeting fellow FZers I'd only known on the net, and some independants and critics. In the FZ I'm generally well regarded,
although scolded when I go " Loose cannon". I was almost overwhelmed by the love and admiration I recieved from some of the wonderful old
timers I met. I have always tried to resolve quarrels in the FZ regardless of who I was dealing with. Looking for harmony.

I get less love and admiration here. :)

But here I am. Read my posts or not. Hope they help some.

[Pierrot]

Ok, that's cool. But I gather you do not sing the praises of Scientology while you are here. I do have a question. When you say you get Scientology here, is that from what is written here by Freezoners? And if it is, that proves my point. Nobbody should come here for the Scientology. there are other places to go for that. Somebody then, is putting Scientology into a place of sanctuary from Scientolgoy. That is like buying a round of drinks at an Alchohol Annonymous group meeting. What would be someone's intention in doing that?

No, I'm not writing this to dis-prove your point ;-) but "this is not from what is written here by the FZers". If I wish to read about FZ Scn I go and look for the appropriate forum, the internet offers free shopping. I was talking about the collective writing about Scientology on this board from all the participants.

Your AA comparison has its limits. Of course one shouldn't push drinks. But I'd be interested to know what pushed the person to loose control about alcohol in the first place. Not that I'm asking - but freedom to drink or not to drink, and not looking for substitutes, would be my concern.

[uncle sam]

This has gone on long enough-people are regurgitating their thoughts. Everybody is right-everybody is wrong. Take that!
Freezone-endzone-give them their own space-one thread and that's all. One thread-just one, not two, not three-just one. Take the argument out of here-no more please!

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

No, I'm not writing this to dis-prove your point ;-) but "this is not from what is written here by the FZers". If I wish to read about FZ Scn I go and look for the appropriate forum, the internet offers free shopping. I was talking about the collective writing about Scientology on this board from all the participants.

Your AA comparison has its limits. Of course one shouldn't push drinks. But I'd be interested to know what pushed the person to loose control about alcohol in the first place. Not that I'm asking - but freedom to drink or not to drink, and not looking for substitutes, would be my concern.

That's a good point about why people lost control with regards to alcohol. I find a lot of the discussions here are about how people fell into Scientology in the first place. The AA analogy does have its limits. It was meant to show the emotion impact. When I saw a picture and a post earlier today from Ladybird (its on the FSC INT thread) I finally had have enough. The post she wrote with the picture is a great one. I advise you check it out. But it just reminded me of the human tragedy that permeates Scientology. And I have lost patients with people who feel they can reason away the pain, injustice, and humiliation that is inherent in Scientology. As for the Freezone, I view them as people who could not tolerate the injustice, or were victims of it, but who believe in the Tech. but I think the Tech itself is inherently damaging.
So I don't like the idea that they would promote or try to recruit people who have already felt the devestation of Scientology and may be a bit vulnerable.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Pierrot]

This has gone on long enough-people are regurgitating their thoughts. Everybody is right-everybody is wrong. Take that!
Freezone-endzone-give them their own space-one thread and that's all. One thread-just one, not two, not three-just one. Take the argument out of here-no more please!

well - this is a Freezone section. It's on topic here, questions asked. Talking about freezone (unless actually and specifically on topic, especially if subject brought up by no Fzers) in other threads would be bad manners, no?

[spray]

Anabaptist, YOU say that Scientology is dangerous etc, it is YOUR opinion. Other people may have different point of views.


Originally Posted by acertainratio
As I said in an earlier post, Scientology is a dark and dangerous thing with the potential to wreck people totally - physically, mentally, and socially.
........
It would be good if the FZ'ers on this board would give some deep thought to the damage done by the subject that they hold so dearly, and the fact that many of the people here suffered that damage. Most of them I think, are here to work on their recovery, and help others doing the same.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Aren't you mixing the damages of the official Church ORGANISATION with the subject of Scientology ? Is it so evident that Scientology is a damaging practice when it is done outside of the Co$ ?

Then, about the "ex-scientologist". I am an ex-scientologist and I do not feel damaged at all. I still enjoy scientology but I do not want to spend any more money in the Co$. I am currently being audited and having very nice WINS in the freezone.

Maybe a good thing for you would be to re-read the FAQ of this board:


What is the purpose of the board?
The board is for Ex Scientologists of all "denominations" to get together and talk things over.

Some leave the church because they are forced out by some insane ethics order yet remain true believers; some left of their own accord because it stopped making sense; some find the tech truly workable but management corrupt; some find the earlier tech workable but call the Golden Age of Tech the "work of squirrels"; some don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and some feel that there is no baby at all.

Some practice Scientology alternatives, some practice Freezone Scientology, some use bits and pieces in their daily lives and some want nothing more to do with it.

It is likely that most people are happy where they sit in regards to Scientology. They have their minds made up about it and no amount of discussion will change that. This board is not meant to be a vehicle to plead your case, reconvert the fallen or preach your brand. It is designed to allow people to connect up, gain some understanding of our differences, learn to respect each others opinions and find some peace with it and hopefully within ourselves.


Who is considered an "Ex Scientologist"?
Anyone who has broken free of the restraints of the Official Church of Scientology and is "allowed" to read & post to the internet.


Who can post here?
Anyone is free to post here whether you have been in scientology or not. It was first thought that the board should be limited to only those with a history in Scientology. But when considered more closely, it was realised that if you limit membership to only exes, you are shutting yourself off from a wealth if information from other areas.

Many people who were never scientologists run excellent web sites, have been involved in litigation against the church, are experts in mind control or were members of different religious groups that treat it members similarly. The list goes on and on. Sometimes only a person who was never involved can see things with a clarity that an ex member cannot.



Experiences of various people are interesting. Not just experiences of "damaged" people.

If you want to limit this board to Ex-Scn-against-Scn it will just become an anti-scientology board like many others. No interest any more then.

[acertainratio]

The only thing I didn't answer was " What can I contribute."

First I believe it of value that people know they can do " TECH outside COS"

Some have commented it helps them exit COS. This is good. Whether they then go on to do tech outside COS is their affair. I don't go chasing or reging anyone.

Some 30-40 people per month contact me directly or join the various forums whose existence I promote. maybe 10% roughly ask for a tech terminal.
I try to oblige if I can and its not always possible as this is a global area.
The rest I do not follow up less they mail me directly. If they leave forums I don't chase them up.

Its clear that some want the service I provide. In some ways its really only myself providing this service.

Its very hard to track where people come from, but years ago I tried to
track this down. ARS was the best route to the FZ followed by OCMB. I always asked people how they found us. Most just said the internet.
Coming from such places it was of course no problem implanting them. :)

Havn't considered this for some time, but to use a domain name in a website with trademarked words left one open to legal threat. Happened to me.

This leaves promotion on critical channels as the only only path to
let people know they can get the tech outside COS.

IMO this is helping people.

I'm actually interested in what stats this board has re attracting new members. I've promoted this board a few times on my FZ forum. I think some can benefit from coming here. :) I've posted a summary of someones story
including being locked in a ships hold on my forum. I met that person. :)

I also contribute myself. Its hard to say what value that has. I recently
travelled for 3 months in the US meeting fellow FZers I'd only known on the net, and some independants and critics. In the FZ I'm generally well regarded,
although scolded when I go " Loose cannon". I was almost overwhelmed by the love and admiration I recieved from some of the wonderful old
timers I met. I have always tried to resolve quarrels in the FZ regardless of who I was dealing with. Looking for harmony.

I get less love and admiration here. :)

But here I am. Read my posts or not. Hope they help some.

Well I like you and have no problem with your posts.

But please have a think about what the stated purpose of the board is, and try to support it.

I think that that is a reasonable request.

Here - have a beer: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Beer.jpg

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Anabaptist, YOU say that Scientology is dangerous etc, it is YOUR opinion. Other people may have different point of views.



Aren't you mixing the damages of the official Church ORGANISATION with the subject of Scientology ? Is it so evident that Scientology is a damaging practice when it is done outside of the Co$ ?

Then, about the "ex-scientologist". I am an ex-scientologist and I do not feel damaged at all. I still enjoy scientology but I do not want to spend any more money in the Co$. I am currently being audited and having very nice WINS in the freezone.

Maybe a good thing for you would be to re-read the FAQ of this board:



Experiences of various people are interesting. Not just experiences of "damaged" people.

If you want to limit this board to Ex-Scn-against-Scn it will just become an anti-scientology board like many others. No interest any more then.

You are twisting what I said. I am not calling for limiting anybody from this board. I am just saying that no one should promote Scientology on this board. And by promote, I mean actively seek to encourage someone to see a Scientology practitioner. You will have to explain to me why Scientology should be promoted on this board. It doesn't make sense to me. I am not talking about discussion. I am talking about promotion and marketing or advertising.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Pierrot]

So I don't like the idea that they would promote or try to recruit people who have already felt the devestation of Scientology and may be a bit vulnerable.

The Anabaptist Jacques

We agree - I wouldn't accept people for any coaching without adressing that vulnerability first. And I don't like vulnerable people being taken advantage of.

This is not PR - I was a Reg, I was told a good one, but I know I never took advantage of a vulnerablity of another when on post. It go me into trouble at the end, but I didn't loose friends.

Signing off now - too much Scientology for today and there is "Goodbye Lenin" movie which I didn't see yet on TV now. See you ;-)

[acertainratio]

Anabaptist, YOU say that Scientology is dangerous etc, it is YOUR opinion. Other people may have different point of views.



Aren't you mixing the damages of the official Church ORGANISATION with the subject of Scientology ? Is it so evident that Scientology is a damaging practice when it is done outside of the Co$ ?

Then, about the "ex-scientologist". I am an ex-scientologist and I do not feel damaged at all. I still enjoy scientology but I do not want to spend any more money in the Co$. I am currently being audited and having very nice WINS in the freezone.

Maybe a good thing for you would be to re-read the FAQ of this board:



Experiences of various people are interesting. Not just experiences of "damaged" people.

If you want to limit this board to Ex-Scn-against-Scn it will just become an anti-scientology board like many others. No interest any more then.
What you are saying has nothing to do with what jaques is saying. You are either:

A. Totally stupid.

B. Not listening.

Wanna tick a box?

[Voltaire's Child]

Originally Posted by acertainratio
As I said in an earlier post, Scientology is a dark and dangerous thing with the potential to wreck people totally - physically, mentally, and socially.

People who have suffered this kind of damage have a strong desire to prevent other people going through the same trauma.

With the best will in the world, I don't see how people who have been through that hell can accept the idea that Scn outside the Cof$ is all fine and shiny.

I'm a big advocate of free speech, so I'm not suggesting that anyone should be silenced.

I have to be honest and say that my foremost inclination is to support people who have been hurt by the cult.

It would be good if the FZ'ers on this board would give some deep thought to the damage done by the subject that they hold so dearly, and the fact that many of the people here suffered that damage. Most of them I think, are here to work on their recovery, and help others doing the same.

So FZ'ers, please think about what you can do to make your presence here congruent with the fact that this is an ex - scientologists board.

Here's the big question:

If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?

None of these are trick questions, and I'm not asking so that I can duff you up when you answer.

As we know, there are plenty of FZ and independent boards; so why do you like to come here?

Those who are here to help themselves recover, and help others recover deserve a lot of consideration, in my view.

But as I say, I'm not into attacking free speech, and I'm not into expelling people, so I would like to hear something from you about how you can take part in debate on an ex - scientologists forum without undermining the basic purpose of the board or undermining the recovery of people who've been hurt by the subject that you hold dear.


The above is from another thread but I don't want this getting lost. I would like to see these questions answered.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I have given thought to all those things. That is why I am a critic of CofS and of Scn and Hubbard, as well.

Why shouldn't freezoners or other non CofS Scn'ists come to a debate forum? I mean, I've seen critics come onto FZ forums and try to chat with people. Sometimes it's fun to debate. Also: consider this: most non CofS Scn'ists are ex CofS and are truly pissed at the organization. Some of us also are more than a little pissed at Hubbard. So, depending on the person, some of us/many of us want to discuss and criticize those things. One doesn't have to detest every piece of Scn ideology to want to critique it.
In my own case, I came to a.r.s. as a church member, totally unprepared for what I found there. Nobody sent me, I just found the forum. I was amazed and intrigued. People were discussing Scn. You ever see any church members freely discussing Scn without someone screaming about verbal data and stuff being standard and KR'ing everybody for dissing Hubbard? It's rare!! Anyway, it led to my leaving CofS. I have many friends in the critic's scene and I like discussing things with them. It's scintillating, plus I like those people.
As far as the recruitment thing is going, no, I'm not here to recruit anybody, neither are a lot of other non CofS Scn'ists. It's a discussion group. The idea is discussion. It's nice to talk to people with differing points of view. I mean, I like certain political stances, too and may like to discuss them, but I'm not doing it to convert people.

I don't view discussion and debate as mutual agreement societies. I think that this would be so boring, it would be like living in Brave New World, or CofS.

Lastly, I remind you that a lot of non CofS Scn'ists have been hurt by the cult, as well.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I have given thought to all those things. That is why I am a critic of CofS and of Scn and Hubbard, as well.

Why shouldn't freezoners or other non CofS Scn'ists come to a debate forum? I mean, I've seen critics come onto FZ forums and try to chat with people. Sometimes it's fun to debate. Also: consider this: most non CofS Scn'ists are ex CofS and are truly pissed at the organization. Some of us also are more than a little pissed at Hubbard. So, depending on the person, some of us/many of us want to discuss and criticize those things. One doesn't have to detest every piece of Scn ideology to want to critique it.
In my own case, I came to a.r.s. as a church member, totally unprepared for what I found there. Nobody sent me, I just found the forum. I was amazed and intrigued. People were discussing Scn. You ever see any church members freely discussing Scn without someone screaming about verbal data and stuff being standard and KR'ing everybody for dissing Hubbard? It's rare!! Anyway, it led to my leaving CofS. I have many friends in the critic's scene and I like discussing things with them. It's scintillating, plus I like those people.
As far as the recruitment thing is going, no, I'm not here to recruit anybody, neither are a lot of other non CofS Scn'ists. It's a discussion group. The idea is discussion. It's nice to talk to people with differing points of view. I mean, I like certain political stances, too and may like to discuss them, but I'm not doing it to convert people.

I don't view discussion and debate as mutual agreement societies. I think that this would be so boring, it would be like living in Brave New World, or CofS.

Lastly, I remind you that a lot of non CofS Scn'ists have been hurt by the cult, as well.

I am not saying that people should not come here and discuss things. I am saying over and over again that I think it is wrong to promote Scientology here. By the way, I think you are actually the first person to answer the question. And I agree with it. But my point is that no one should, out of common decency, promote Scientology on an ex-Scientologist board. It is funny how people have equated not promoting Scientology with not being allowed to come here.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Terril park]

Well I like you and have no problem with your posts.

But please have a think about what the stated purpose of the board is, and try to support it.

I think that that is a reasonable request.

Here - have a beer: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Beer.jpg

I like you too. :)

Purpose of the board re Emma's very prescient comments were forwarded by Spray.

Here is the only area where Emma may not be happy with. However she provided a place for Freezone success stories to be posted.

"This board is not meant to be a vehicle to plead your case, reconvert the fallen or preach your brand. "

IMO I, by and large, with other posts follow this. I do not often respond when people attack the FZ. Others who think I'm wrong please respond.

However, many who do not like the tech have pleaded their case
quite strongly. It could be considered that much effort has been invested in telling FZers they are wrong, and that has been preached. I'm not objecting, but mention this so as to give a broader frame of reference.

Alan on the long thread made a point that I have for some years have obliquly commented on. " Everyone here is selling."

They are " selling" their point of view. Its what us [fill in the blank]
do.

I have also commented from time to time over the years that the
critics and tech lovers of whatever category, or mainstream therapists, have this in common.

They are trying to make a better world.

Apart from the one fundamentalist Axxxxxx who criticized this board
its unanimous that this board is very valuable here.

Well! Ex RO, its likely you live in Europe. I'd be happy to have a few beers with you. :)

I'm in London UK. 0208-864-4940

[Voltaire's Child]

Pitbull,
Again, this is a Sanctuary from Scientology. If people are here they want out from Scientology. There are other places for them to go on the internet if they have their doubts about Scientology and want to learn more. What I am exclusively talking about, and do not alter this, is that there is not reason to promote Scientology Lite here on this board. This is a sanctuary form Scientology, it is not a debating society nor is it the sideline bench for a person to sit on until he gets back into the game of Scientology. The question remains: "If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?"
The question is not "What people might think when they see this board?"

The Anabaptist Jacques

AJ,

Welllll....this board does have a Freezone section. Emma has personally invited some non CofS Scn'ists here.

Another thing I want to comment upon is that I've seen (and experienced) many people asking non CofS Scn'ists why they are there on various debate forums. I've seen people get really vehement about it.

I just don't get it. Why shouldn't there be a mix of viewpoints? People come to forums like this for info about the cult, people they used to know in the church or whatever and to vent. These are ALL things that would be applicable to many non CofS Scn'ists, as well. A lot of us were in the cult. A lot of us would like to know what's going on. A lot of us are angry.

Also, I think it's good to have people who can explain things (if asked, that is) like Why Do They Do That Crazy Thing With The Ashtray.

I see people on debate forums frequently asking procedural type questions. That is another thing that a non CofS Scn'ist might enjoy discussing.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

AJ,

Welllll....this board does have a Freezone section. Emma has personally invited some non CofS Scn'ists here.

Another thing I want to comment upon is that I've seen (and experienced) many people asking non CofS Scn'ists why they are there on various debate forums. I've seen people get really vehement about it.

I just don't get it. Why shouldn't there be a mix of viewpoints? People come to forums like this for info about the cult, people they used to know in the church or whatever and to vent. These are ALL things that would be applicable to many non CofS Scn'ists, as well. A lot of us were in the cult. A lot of us would like to know what's going on. A lot of us are angry.

Also, I think it's good to have people who can explain things (if asked, that is) like Why Do They Do That Crazy Thing With The Ashtray.

I see people on debate forums frequently asking procedural type questions. That is another thing that a non CofS Scn'ist might enjoy discussing.

That's cool. All the ideas thrown into the mix is the best way to go. I am just talking about actually promoting and selling people on getting services. I've asked alot of people this question: "If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here?"
So here is why I would answer the question. I came to this board because i was looking to find out what happened to old friends. After reading some posts, I rekindled the feeling that I had when I was on staff. I held people, especially my fellow staff members, in high regard. It was uplifting. Then I looked at other posts about people's losses and the injustice and humiliation they suffered. And then I remembered.
Then I saw post were the Freezones were defending the Tech and using the S.O.P that Scientologists use when they attempted to make less of a person's self-determinism. I think you know what I mean, because I have seen you battle this effectively when people use it on you. I think sometimes "She must have had my ethics officer too." I see some of the Freezoners use the same methods of subtle invalid and mind control and verbal manipulation that is done by and within the Church, and all the time they argue that it is different in the Freezone. Who do they think they're kidding? I think maybe they're kidding themselves.
The only difference between the Church of Scientology and the Freezone is that the Freezone isn't as big and powerful yet. But it is the same manipulative mindset. Just try and get a straight answer from them. The interesting thing here was that the Freezoners didn't answer the question. I think some thought I was being obnoxious. I was being amused! They couldn't answer a straight question on substance. The replies were mostly evasive strawman fallacies or just slicing and dicing and twisting my words out of context. It was amazing!
I think Scientology isi nherently destructive; that the sum of the parts are destructive. So I don't like to see them promote Scientology Lite here. I didn't call for banning anyone, I just asked a simple question. And I got the same reaction that one would get in a Scientology org: evasive mincing of words, and straw man fallacies, etc.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Pixie]

AJ,

Welllll....this board does have a Freezone section. Emma has personally invited some non CofS Scn'ists here.

Another thing I want to comment upon is that I've seen (and experienced) many people asking non CofS Scn'ists why they are there on various debate forums. I've seen people get really vehement about it.

I just don't get it. Why shouldn't there be a mix of viewpoints? People come to forums like this for info about the cult, people they used to know in the church or whatever and to vent. These are ALL things that would be applicable to many non CofS Scn'ists, as well. A lot of us were in the cult. A lot of us would like to know what's going on. A lot of us are angry.

Also, I think it's good to have people who can explain things (if asked, that is) like Why Do They Do That Crazy Thing With The Ashtray.

I see people on debate forums frequently asking procedural type questions. That is another thing that a non CofS Scn'ist might enjoy discussing.

You cannot have a 'discussion' with a $cientologist about anything and that includes a freezoner when they're minds are so fully immersed into a cultic mindset, they cannot think by themselves, they can only thing with a $camology viewpoint, where is the discussion in that?

[Terril park]

So I don't like to see them promote Scientology Lite here. I didn't call for banning anyone, I just asked a simple question. And I got the same reaction that one would get in a Scientology org: evasive mincing of words, and straw man fallacies, etc.

The Anabaptist Jacques

The term " Scientology lite" seems somewhat pejoritive and dismissive,
even antagonistic.

So ask me some straight questions.

[Voltaire's Child]

:p
You cannot have a 'discussion' with a $cientologist about anything and that includes a freezoner when they're minds are so fully immersed into a cultic mindset, they cannot think by themselves, they can only thing with a $camology viewpoint, where is the discussion in that?

We can certainly tell you about The Thing With The Ashtray!:p

[Pixie]

:p

We can certainly tell you about The Thing With The Ashtray!:p

:laugh: Good one Fluff!! That's the first laugh I've had all night!! Good one!! :yes:

[Voltaire's Child]

AJ,

I know what you mean about the proselytization. I understand why they do it- but I also understand why it would offend others. I really do.

Scn'ists come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, so to speak. It's a matter of degree, and many are willing and able to discuss all sorts of things, like Hubbard raving in his last days, other stuff he did, stuff CofS does, etc. I have met Freezoners who I thought had little capacity to do any of that and I've met some who had enormous capacity to do that. I also have observed the same amongst non Scn'ists posting here- some can look at more than one side of the picture and can look at others as individuals and some can't. So I think it's great that you are asking these things.

Just as I find I have to take critics (who are non Scn'ists- since, I, of course, consider myself to be critic AND Scn'ist) as individuals, some being able to discuss things without freaking out and flinging invective and some not- well, I think one has to do that with Scn'ists, too.

I'd hardly class, say, Tansy or Mark Baker or Cat's Squirrel with some of the hidebound intolerant type Scn'ists I've met who don't discuss anything with anybody.

I think that keeping the proselytization out of the mix would go a long way toward promoting and maintaining harmony. We're all just people trying to figure life out and, hopefully, having fun doing so.

[Voltaire's Child]

But I can only explain about the green ashtrays. I don't understand the other ones yet.

STAND UP!SIT DOWN ON THAT CHAIR!

[Pixie]

AJ,

I know what you mean about the proselytization. I understand why they do it- but I also understand why it would offend others. I really do.

Scn'ists come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, so to speak. It's a matter of degree, and many are willing and able to discuss all sorts of things, like Hubbard raving in his last days, other stuff he did, stuff CofS does, etc. I have met Freezoners who I thought had little capacity to do any of that and I've met some who had enormous capacity to do that. I also have observed the same amongst non Scn'ists posting here- some can look at more than one side of the picture and can look at others as individuals and some can't. So I think it's great that you are asking these things.

Just as I find I have to take critics (who are non Scn'ists- since, I, of course, consider myself to be critic AND Scn'ist) as individuals, some being able to discuss things without freaking out and flinging invective and some not- well, I think one has to do that with Scn'ists, too.

I'd hardly class, say, Tansy or Mark Baker or Cat's Squirrel with some of the hidebound intolerant type Scn'ists I've met who don't discuss anything with anybody.

I think that keeping the proselytization out of the mix would go a long way toward promoting and maintaining harmony. We're all just people trying to figure life out and, hopefully, having fun doing so.

Wow Fluff!! You've really changed your tune lately haven't you?!! :yes:

[Voltaire's Child]

Well, maybe I'm just expressing it more distinctly. (note: I didn't say "clearly").

You may've seen me talk about this before, if so, forgive the rerun, but when I first got on the 'net on other discussion groups years ago, I was appalled at how evil (I thought) critics were. So then I decided that just because (I thought) they were SPs, didn't mean I should be mean to them and hurt their feelings. So I ended up listening to them and talking to them (on a.r.s.). And, of course, found that they were just individuals. Some I could converse with, some, well, didn't go so well. But still, individuals, not 20% (I was accused by the HCO guy at my old org for "helping the 20% and not the 80%" which I thought was sooo stupid.) whatevers or 2.5%ers. Just people.

So it's a matter of degree with anybody anywhere.

Then going over to some FZ forums was also enlightening. Awesome wonderful people who didn't care if I criticized Hubbard cheek by jowl with people who screamed and howled at my not typing "LRH" instead of "Hubbard" and didn't like my "Ron bashing" and endorsement of "mixing methods".

So life's a matter of degree. Every nice person is sometimes a jerk and just about every jerk can be very nice on occasion. My husband says people are a mixed bag. (mixed bags? plural?)

And of course I can't reply to anything in less than a gazillion words when a few dozen or so would have done just as well...

:) :D

[Leon]

Scientology is a dark and dangerous thing

That is an opinion based on your own experience of what you were told is "Scientology". So far as that goes your opinion is entirely reasonable and unsurprising.

I have audited some hundreds of people over my 38 year history in the subject and I have not yet had one who complained or even suggested or hinted that they found the subject to be "dark and dangerous".



with the potential to wreck people totally - physically, mentally, and socially.

Indeed it does have that potential. Along with flying in aircraft, sailing across the ocean and hospital surgery and a million other things.

It also has the potential to change lives for the better in ways unattainable to the common Joe ever before. It has that potential.


People who have suffered this kind of damage have a strong desire to prevent other people going through the same trauma.

This is true. Furthermore, people who have experienced the potential benefits of Scientology in a big way and seen others have the same benefits ALSO have a strong desire to see people who have suffered because of psychotic misapplications of Scientology recover and get a better deal, as we ourselves have had.


With the best will in the world, I don't see how people who have been through that hell can accept the idea that Scn outside the Cof$ is all fine and shiny.

All Scn outside the Cof$ is certainly NOT all fine and shiny. There have been many prize idiots who set up practices delivering their own bullshit versions of auditing etc and tried to create cults of their own. I can name a few of these.

Anyone seeking auditing in the "Freezone" has a personal responsibility to check the practitioners out thoroughly beforehand. Only go where you believe you will get good service, where you can see what other people have experienced with that person, and so on. And if there is ANY indication that the guy is trying to set up a cult of his own then STAY TF AWAY.


I'm a big advocate of free speech, so I'm not suggesting that anyone should be silenced.

I have to be honest and say that my foremost inclination is to support people who have been hurt by the cult.

As my inclinatios are too, and I daresay everyone else's on this board.


It would be good if the FZ'ers on this board would give some deep thought to the damage done by the subject that they hold so dearly, and the fact that many of the people here suffered that damage. Most of them I think, are here to work on their recovery, and help others doing the same.

Please accept that this is a given, for most of us - if not all. On your side, and others in your position, please recognise that healing will not come merely by adopting an an "it's all bad and evil and the are all criminals" attitude and then commiserating with others and hoping for the bad feelings to go away.

For many of you in need of healing Scientology is a pretty unconfrontable subject right now. Understandable so as a result of the pain you went through. Healing does require that you face that pain and the subject itself dispassionately, calmly. Throwing it all in a bucket and hoping it will go away will not bring healing - it will lurk there as a bogeyman for all time. You do need to unravel what was done to you, understand what was done, understand why you got sucked into it. The same with Hubbard himself - he was a complex man, part genius, part psycho. After his motor bike accident...well, a man is as insane as he is in pain, and that was certainly true of him. You need to analuse, unravel, understand. And then, when you are ready, forgive.

And with that will come full healing.


So FZ'ers, please think about what you can do to make your presence here congruent with the fact that this is an ex - scientologists board.

Here's the big question:

If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?

From what I have seen, nearly everyone on this board has something to contribute. I am not here to recruit anyone, certainly. I sing the praises of correctly applied Scientology that benefits people - I condemn the other variety. I respect Hubbard for the good he did and I rebuke him for the bad.

In short, I have more of a balanced view of things than many others do. And I think that in a subject as polarised as Scientology where people seem to be either rabidly for or rabidly against a viewpoint of balance is valuable to all and can contribute far more than either extreme can offer.

You OK with that, Jacques?

[Free to shine]

I am not saying that people should not come here and discuss things. I am saying over and over again that I think it is wrong to promote Scientology here. By the way, I think you are actually the first person to answer the question. And I agree with it. But my point is that no one should, out of common decency, promote Scientology on an ex-Scientologist board. It is funny how people have equated not promoting Scientology with not being allowed to come here.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Thankyou for your insightful posts and asking the questions! :)

[nexus100]

That is an opinion based on your own experience of what you were told is "Scientology". So far as that goes your opinion is entirely reasonable and unsurprising.

I have audited some hundreds of people over my 38 year history in the subject and I have not yet had one who complained or even suggested or hinted that they found the subject to be "dark and dangerous".




Indeed it does have that potential. Along with flying in aircraft, sailing across the ocean and hospital surgery and a million other things.

It also has the potential to change lives for the better in ways unattainable to the common Joe ever before. It has that potential.



This is true. Furthermore, people who have experienced the potential benefits of Scientology in a big way and seen others have the same benefits ALSO have a strong desire to see people who have suffered because of psychotic misapplications of Scientology recover and get a better deal, as we ourselves have had.



All Scn outside the Cof$ is certainly NOT all fine and shiny. There have been many prize idiots who set up practices delivering their own bullshit versions of auditing etc and tried to create cults of their own. I can name a few of these.

Anyone seeking auditing in the "Freezone" has a personal responsibility to check the practitioners out thoroughly beforehand. Only go where you believe you will get good service, where you can see what other people have experienced with that person, and so on. And if there is ANY indication that the guy is trying to set up a cult of his own then STAY TF AWAY.



As my inclinatios are too, and I daresay everyone else's on this board.



Please accept that this is a given, for most of us - if not all. On your side, and others in your position, please recognise that healing will not come merely by adopting an an "it's all bad and evil and the are all criminals" attitude and then commiserating with others and hoping for the bad feelings to go away.

For many of you in need of healing Scientology is a pretty unconfrontable subject right now. Understandable so as a result of the pain you went through. Healing does require that you face that pain and the subject itself dispassionately, calmly. Throwing it all in a bucket and hoping it will go away will not bring healing - it will lurk there as a bogeyman for all time. You do need to unravel what was done to you, understand what was done, understand why you got sucked into it. The same with Hubbard himself - he was a complex man, part genius, part psycho. After his motor bike accident...well, a man is as insane as he is in pain, and that was certainly true of him. You need to analuse, unravel, understand. And then, when you are ready, forgive.

And with that will come full healing.



From what I have seen, nearly everyone on this board has something to contribute. I am not here to recruit anyone, vertainly. I sing the praises of correctly applied Scientology that benefits people - I condemn the other variety. I respect Hubbard for the good he did and I rebuke him for the bad.

In short, I have more of a balanced view of things than many others do. And I think that in a subject as polarised as Scientology where people seem to be either rabidly for or rabidly against a viewpoint of balance is valuable to all and can contribute far more than either extreme can offer.

You OK with that, Jacques?

Based on the above I guess Fox News is right, they are "fair and balanced."

[Mark A. Baker]

If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?

To communicate with others who have interesting viewpoints. Some of the posters here have remarkable insights into the nature of spirituality. As to what can I contribute, same as anyone else, my own comments.




As we know, there are plenty of FZ and independent boards; so why do you like to come here?

Why would you ask this question? Are YOU ONLY interested in communicating with others who hold similar views to your own? Nothing personal but I think this question is a nonsense.


Mark A. Baker

[Boldgirl]

[QUOTE=Leon;105284]That is an opinion based on your own experience of what you were told is "Scientology". So far as that goes your opinion is entirely reasonable and unsurprising.

I have audited some hundreds of people over my 38 year history in the subject and I have not yet had one who complained or even suggested or hinted that they found the subject to be "dark and dangerous".

Indeed it does have that potential. Along with flying in aircraft, sailing across the ocean and hospital surgery and a million other things.

It also has the potential to change lives for the better in ways unattainable to the common Joe ever before. It has that potential[QUOTE=Leon;105284]



Cmon, hello...? You think that if people knew it was dark and dangerous WHILE they were in it they would stay? NO!

So saying "I have not yet had one who complained or even suggested or hinted that they found the subject to be "dark and dangerous" is ridiculous.

It's the slow unravelling of a person's true character and it happens so slowly that most dont notice it at all until it gets worse and worse the further up the bridge they go.

Also I would like to know how many of you that audit in or outside the C of S have followed your pcs for years and years and have rechecked to see if they still in fact have maintained the EP of a grade or process.....I think not.
Go check with the people who have been off auditing lines for some time and ask them if they still have the EP's.
Do some type of scientific study to follow real true outcomes and then maybe you have some credibility. I am so sick of hearing folks on this board claim results with auditing when no one has any long term studies to really show the true picture of the person's well being or life years later.

I suggest from my own experience and observaion of hundreds of others who have audited that the results are very VERY temporary and that most OT's I have met are a bloody emotional mess.

Loosely, saying auditng helps people is like a doctor giving a patient a pill for the pain that they keep taking for years ----all the while developing a life threatening ulcer unbenownst to them because the only thing the pill did was change their behaviour towards his problem as he got worse and worse on the inside.

[Mark A. Baker]

[QUOTE=Leon;105284]That is an opinion based on your own experience of what you were told is "Scientology". So far as that goes your opinion is entirely reasonable and unsurprising.

I have audited some hundreds of people over my 38 year history in the subject and I have not yet had one who complained or even suggested or hinted that they found the subject to be "dark and dangerous".

Indeed it does have that potential. Along with flying in aircraft, sailing across the ocean and hospital surgery and a million other things.

It also has the potential to change lives for the better in ways unattainable to the common Joe ever before. It has that potential[QUOTE=Leon;105284]



Cmon, hello...? You think that if people knew it was dark and dangerous WHILE they were in it they would stay? NO!


Leon's comments are clearly with regard to the SUBJECT of scientology not the Co$. Being a MEMBER of the Co$ is quite a different thing from experiencing the SUBJECT through study or application.

Your objection is based on a misinterpretation of his remarks.


Mark A. Baker

[nw2394]

It would be good if the FZ'ers on this board would give some deep thought to the damage done by the subject that they hold so dearly, and the fact that many of the people here suffered that damage. Most of them I think, are here to work on their recovery, and help others doing the same.

So FZ'ers, please think about what you can do to make your presence here congruent with the fact that this is an ex - scientologists board.

Here's the big question:

If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?

None of these are trick questions, and I'm not asking so that I can duff you up when you answer.

As we know, there are plenty of FZ and independent boards; so why do you like to come here?


OK. First off, I am an FZer - but I haven't come here much of late as I've been busier on other things.

I am not here to recruit per se. However, I do think that many "ex Scios" were what they were because they were searching for enlightenment of some sort. For some, it seems, that "recovery" basically means turning one's back on all that stuff. To me that is not recovery, but an apathetic admission of failure. If anyone, as a result of coming here and listening to FZers and others of the independent field who have similar motives, is "recruited" into continuing their interest in some way, then that is a good thing in my view.

Too many people confuse Scio as applied by the CoS with the actual subject itself. Unfortunately you yourself are in this boat as shown by, "give some deep thought to the damage done by the subject." A subject never did any damage - people do. Similarly a gun never shot anyone - people pull triggers.

Too many people think that being/not being a Scio means some sort of black and white thing wherein one either believes everything Hubbard said and therefore is a Scio or that one turns one's back on all that as if it were 100% crap and is therefore not a Scio. Life isn't that black and white.

Nick

[nw2394]

You are twisting what I said. I am not calling for limiting anybody from this board. I am just saying that no one should promote Scientology on this board. And by promote, I mean actively seek to encourage someone to see a Scientology practitioner. You will have to explain to me why Scientology should be promoted on this board. It doesn't make sense to me. I am not talking about discussion. I am talking about promotion and marketing or advertising.

The Anabaptist Jacques

If you truly believe in free speech that is frankly naive. I cannot be here at all without being allowed to say who I am or what I think etc. Someone else, who may be interested in some way in the subject still, even though they may be ex CoS, may well think it perfectly appropriate to be told that there is a freezoner or whatever in their city that they could chose to go see and talk to if they wish.

I kind of agree that blatant advertising isn't inappropriate - or, if it occurs, it should be confined to places like the success stories section where people that don't want to read it don't have to. However, that is pretty much the status quo anyway.

Chill out. The FZers aren't here to eat you.

Nick

[Mark A. Baker]

Chill out. The FZers aren't here to eat you.

YEAH!

I'm vegetarian! :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker

[Escalus]

For some, it seems, that "recovery" basically means turning one's back on all that stuff. To me that is not recovery, but an apathetic admission of failure.


This is an extrapolated version of "the tech is never wrong."

Sometimes the demonstration of free will is success.

[nw2394]

This is an extrapolated version of "the tech is never wrong."

I think you take a leap too far with your logic (and some). Hubbard himself cancelled bulletins because they proved to be unworkable. And, at the other extreme, to think that there is nothing whatsoever of use in any of his books, albeit perhaps borrowed truths from other thinkers etc etc, is - well - if you think that you had better take a pill or something.

Nick

[Escalus]

I think you take a leap too far with your logic (and some). Hubbard himself cancelled bulletins because they proved to be unworkable. And, at the other extreme, to think that there is nothing whatsoever of use in any of his books, albeit perhaps borrowed truths from other thinkers etc etc, is - well - if you think that you had better take a pill or something.

Nick

No, I was talking about your quote... "For some, it seems, that 'recovery' basically means turning one's back on all that stuff. To me that is not recovery, but an apathetic admission of failure" and explaining to you that exhibiting free will is sometimes success. Just because a person turns their back on something doesn't mean they're a failure, as you imply. Sometimes exhibiting their free will is actually a success.

I'm not talking about Hubbard. I'm saying your point here is specious.

[Cat's Squirrel]

You cannot have a 'discussion' with a $cientologist about anything and that includes a freezoner when they're minds are so fully immersed into a cultic mindset, they cannot think by themselves, they can only thing with a $camology viewpoint, where is the discussion in that?

Agreed, and this is pretty much the exact reason I left the CofS (apart from the high prices). You simply weren't allowed to have your own viewpoint if it conflicted with LRH's.

[Oneflewover]

I'm know longer a Freezoner, but I can think of lots of reasons one would be here.

Some enjoy the group dynamic.

Chat with others with similar background.

Listen to other peoples stories, of all kinds.

Offer some support to those newly out, by reason of having gone through some of what they are going through.

some who feel the Freezone has something to offer people that is absent in the church might want to promote that fact.

Different people have different definitions of Scientologist. It used to mean someone who practices the techniques and follows the philosophy. But that's since been redefined by the church to mean someone who is obedient to and recognized by the church.

A Freezoner can be a Scientologist by the first definition, and an Ex Scientologist by the second, which is why some of you trying to push a certain ex Scientologist definition might not be getting the answers you're looking for.

[nexus100]

I'm know longer a Freezoner, but I can think of lots of reasons one would be here.

Some enjoy the group dynamic.

Chat with others with similar background.

Listen to other peoples stories, of all kinds.

Offer some support to those newly out, by reason of having gone through some of what they are going through.

some who feel the Freezone has something to offer people that is absent in the church might want to promote that fact.

Different people have different definitions of Scientologist. It used to mean someone who practices the techniques and follows the philosophy. But that's since been redefined by the church to mean someone who is obedient to and recognized by the church.

A Freezoner can be a Scientologist by the first definition, and an Ex Scientologist by the second, which is why some of you trying to push a certain ex Scientologist definition might not be getting the answers you're looking for.

Why aren't you in the Freezone any longer?

[Pixie]

I'm know longer a Freezoner, but I can think of lots of reasons one would be here.

Some enjoy the group dynamic.

Chat with others with similar background.

Listen to other peoples stories, of all kinds.

Offer some support to those newly out, by reason of having gone through some of what they are going through.

some who feel the Freezone has something to offer people that is absent in the church might want to promote that fact.

Different people have different definitions of Scientologist. It used to mean someone who practices the techniques and follows the philosophy. But that's since been redefined by the church to mean someone who is obedient to and recognized by the church.

A Freezoner can be a Scientologist by the first definition, and an Ex Scientologist by the second, which is why some of you trying to push a certain ex Scientologist definition might not be getting the answers you're looking for.

I agree, and I do believe it ought to be there to help people out on a gradient for sure, however in my view, when someone is thinking 'with' scientology 'tech', they are still to that degree 'brainwashed'. The 'tech' is set up that one doesn't have to 'think for oneself' because the 'thinking' has all been done for you! It was one madmans' opinion, 'his' viewpoints on life, and he was a liar, a con artist, a cruel heartless criminal, his intention was to have men his utter slaves and a druggie, to name but a few. I rest my case.

[Emma]

The term " Ex-scientology" has a nice ring. However Emma
has posted and referred to this again on the long thread thus:-

----------------------------

What this board is:

A place where ex scientologists and interested general public can get together to discuss various experiences in Scientology.

A place where where ex's and non ex's can mingle and chat and get to know how the other half think and live.
-----------------------------

Thus to say as this is an EX scientology board, scientologists shouldn't come here is in violation of Emma's wishes on the matter as expressed up to now.


Whoa Nelly!!! Is THAT the "M/U"?

By "non exes" I mean't "those who had never been in". It wasn't referring to the FZone.

Anyway, all individuals are welcome here, so I spose it doesn't matter, but Terril please don't quote that part of what I wrote as my "invitation the freezone".

I also said this:

This board is not meant to be a vehicle to plead your case, reconvert the fallen or preach your brand. (emphasis mine)

[Veda]

-snip-

Different people have different definitions of Scientologist. It used to mean someone who practices the techniques and follows the philosophy. But that's since been redefined by the church to mean someone who is obedient to and recognized by the church.

-snip-



Which techniques?

Which philosophy?

Please specify which piece or pieces of the secretive subject of Scientology you're referencing.

[Dulloldfart]

Which techniques?

Which philosophy?

Please specify which piece or pieces of the secretive subject of Scientology you're referencing.

From El Dicko Tecko:


SCIENTOLOGIST, 1. one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others by using Scn technology. (Aud 73 UK) 2. one who controls persons, environments and situations. A Scientologist operates within the boundaries of the Auditor’s Code and the Code of a Scientologist. (PAB 137) 3. one who understands life. His technical skill is devoted to the resolution of the problems of life. (COHA, p. 12) 4. a specialist in spiritual and human affairs. (Abil Ma 1)

Let's see....

1. PR and BS.
2. PR and BS.
3. PR and BS.
4. PR and BS.

Hmmm. I thought there was a definition that said something like "Someone who uses bits of Scientology". Guess not. Oh well, you win, Veda. :)

Although the first definition isn't too bad.

Paul

[Terril park]

Whoa Nelly!!! Is THAT the "M/U"?

By "non exes" I mean't "those who had never been in". It wasn't referring to the FZone.

Anyway, all individuals are welcome here, so I spose it doesn't matter, but Terril please don't quote that part of what I wrote as my "invitation the freezone".

I also said this:

This board is not meant to be a vehicle to plead your case, reconvert the fallen or preach your brand. (emphasis mine)

Well done on spotting the MU.:)

Its ambiguous. I took that "interested general public" were those who had
never been in, which leaves non exes to mean those still scientologists.

[Oneflewover]

Why aren't you in the Freezone any longer?

I kind of misspoke. I'm no longer in the LRH-centric Freezone. I'm in a part of the Freezone that loosely bases it's existence on expansion of any theories LRH got right, without accepting any tag along baggage, and without limiting itself to LRH in any way.

Taking some of the more lucid LRH bits, and discovering areas where he missed, or messed up, and then going off in search of who has made inroads in those areas, has produced some interesting synergies.

Of course LRH would have declared all of that sort of work illegal, and the perpetrators to be scum.:grouch:

[Oneflewover]

Whoa Nelly!!! Is THAT the "M/U"?

By "non exes" I mean't "those who had never been in". It wasn't referring to the FZone.

Anyway, all individuals are welcome here, so I spose it doesn't matter, but Terril please don't quote that part of what I wrote as my "invitation the freezone".

I also said this:

This board is not meant to be a vehicle to plead your case, reconvert the fallen or preach your brand. (emphasis mine)

That same line is also where I got the notion that Ex-church Scientologists would be welcome.

I think you have a "no problem" here. Everybody seems to be sorting out the differences and similarities just fine.

It looks like a good thing to me to have people here in every stage of progress out of the nightmare Scientology became, if just to have experience from every possible viewpoint to share with those sorting out what their shifting position and reality is at the moment.

[Veda]

"Independent Field," moved beyond Scientology:

http://forum.exscn.net/forumdisplay.php?f=34

"Freezone," outside the C of $ Scientology:

http://forum.exscn.net/forumdisplay.php?f=11

Lots of interesting info in both sections.

[nexus100]

I kind of misspoke. I'm no longer in the LRH-centric Freezone. I'm in a part of the Freezone that loosely bases it's existence on expansion of any theories LRH got right, without accepting any tag along baggage, and without limiting itself to LRH in any way.

Taking some of the more lucid LRH bits, and discovering areas where he missed, or messed up, and then going off in search of who has made inroads in those areas, has produced some interesting synergies.

Of course LRH would have declared all of that sort of work illegal, and the perpetrators to be scum.:grouch:

Thanks for the clarification. I don't care what Hubbard would have thought of your doings. If you're going to comment from a Hubbard oriented base, though, I think the board should know. Now they do.

[Oneflewover]

Thanks for the clarification. I don't care what Hubbard would have thought of your doings. If you're going to comment from a Hubbard oriented base, though, I think the board should know. Now they do.

In the interest of further clarification, I wouldn't even say I'm coming from a Hubbard oriented base. His work has taken on more of a fringe quality. Almost everything else I've been looking into has more significance for me at this point.

The primary value of his work is in the ability to go in and address a specific condition directly.

Many other types of work address much broader areas, and specifics often "fall away" at some point.

But if a specific needs to be addressed, you can often pinpoint it and address it using hubbards techniques.

Just don't buy into the whole bridge to total freedom thing, or become eaten by the parasitic culture within the group. These areas were failed in by him utterly, and perhaps deliberately, depending on how you look at it.

[nexus100]

In the interest of further clarification, I wouldn't even say I'm coming from a Hubbard oriented base. His work has taken on more of a fringe quality. Almost everything else I've been looking into has more significance for me at this point.

The primary value of his work is in the ability to go in and address a specific condition directly.

Many other types of work address much broader areas, and specifics often "fall away" at some point.

But if a specific needs to be addressed, you can often pinpoint it and address it using hubbards techniques.

Just don't buy into the whole bridge to total freedom thing, or become eaten by the parasitic culture within the group. These areas were failed in by him utterly, and perhaps deliberately, depending on how you look at it.

I don't need to be told Hubbard's techniques. Your attitude so far tells me where you are. And that isn't a criticism, it is fact. You are trying to be a CS instead of saying what is in your heart. That is a very Hubbard and COS mentality. Generally after a time on the board, when one feels one can be accepted for oneself, that drops away.

You read 1000 posts and then elected to enter the field with a volley instead of honestly saying where you were at. That means, to me, you intend to teach. If you could enter with that post you have nothing to teach me. If your attitude reflects you and your group's gathered viewpoint I wouldn't let you within a thousand miles. Been there, done that.

A suggestion is to see what the board can teach you. It has taught me a good deal. Each to his own, however.

[Oneflewover]

I don't need to be told Hubbard's techniques. Your attitude so far tells me where you are. And that isn't a criticism, it is fact. You are trying to be a CS instead of saying what is in your heart. That is a very Hubbard and COS mentality. Generally after a time on the board, when one feels one can be accepted for oneself, that drops away.

You read 1000 posts and then elected to enter the field with a volley instead of honestly saying where you were at. That means, to me, you intend to teach. If you could enter with that post you have nothing to teach me. If your attitude reflects you and your group's gathered viewpoint I wouldn't let you within a thousand miles. Been there, done that.

A suggestion is to see what the board can teach you. It has taught me a good deal. Each to his own, however.

Is this where it starts to get interesting?

Sorry if I sound preachy. It's not my intent.

I'm just sharing my viewpoints as they are right now. take them or leave them, or rip them up, or having them push your buttons. You're free to view as you choose.

I don't intend to get into a debate about it, but your speculations about me are wrong. You're seeing what you expect to see, not what's there.

Again, that's your choice as well.

Over to you....

[Veda]

Are you a Scientologist?

[nexus100]

Is this where it starts to get interesting?

Sorry if I sound preachy. It's not my intent.

I'm just sharing my viewpoints as they are right now. take them or leave them, or rip them up, or having them push your buttons. You're free to view as you choose.

I don't intend to get into a debate about it, but your speculations about me are wrong. You're seeing what you expect to see, not what's there.

Again, that's your choice as well.

Over to you....

Have you noticed you don't really respond to the points in posts, you sidestep them? Every post you've made is an attempt at manipulation of one sort or other.

Well I've done my job. You are outed. I guess I should operate with "There but for the grace of God" at this point and not crow. I don't feel much like crowing, believe me. The jetsam of the COS ain't fun to play with.

[Oneflewover]

Are you a Scientologist?

Me?

No. Not anymore. I don't study, or practice LRH tech, specifically.

although he copyrighted everything on earth, so it could be argued that communicating is practicing LRH tech. (Joke. Not attempted manipulation)

short answer? no.

[Veda]

Me?

No. Not anymore. I don't study, or practice LRH tech, specifically.

although he copyrighted everything on earth, so it could be argued that communicating is practicing LRH tech. (Joke. Not attempted manipulation)

short answer? no.

Thanks for the answer. Yes would have been OK too.

In case you're curious, here are a few links - Notably, to excerpts from L. Ron Hubbard's 1938 ('Excalibur letter') 'Mission Statement', his 1946 'Affirmations', and his 1955 'Russian Brainwashing Manual'. (Bottom two links.)

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=84382&postcount=33

[gomorrhan]

Are you a Scientologist?

Here's one for you, Veda.

Are you a primate? Yes or no.

Is that the full answer? Don't bother to add anything. See how that leaves you feeling.

[Dulloldfart]

Here's one for you, Veda.

Are you a primate? Yes or no.

Is that the full answer? Don't bother to add anything. See how that leaves you feeling.

I think he meant the opposite answer would have been acceptable, rather than being critical of the extra words.

Paul

[Veda]

I think he meant the opposite answer would have been acceptable, rather than being critical of the extra words.

Paul

Yes, that's what I meant.

Here, just for Scientologists, I'll even use a smiley: :)

[gomorrhan]

So, are answers other than yes and no options? Because I would say I am most certainly not a scientologist, but I would qualify that by saying that many of my views and opinions are consonant with what is held by many scientologists. Such would probably view me as a scientologist, either as a squirrel, or true to the subject they agreed with, rather than the cult which was foisted upon them over their protests.

[Zinjifar]

I'm a primate. Am I *only* a primate? No.
Am 'I' all 'I' am? The question becomes meaningless.

Zinj

[Soul of Ginnungagab]

I suppose that by an FZ'er you mean a person affiliated with a "RONs org" organization, since that is how the term is mostly applied on this board.

Technically speaking a Scientologists is a person associated with and/or in agreement with the official Scientology Church.
A person that was in such an agreement in the past but no longer is in present time is an ex-Scientologist.

Therefore also an FZ'er is in fact an ex-Scientologist. I do know that there are some of those that label themselves a Scientologist anyway. But that means that they have a different definition of the term "Scientologist" than the official definition, which is clearly a person in agreement with the official church.

This board is NOT a black/white board but rather a very nuanced board. That is at least how I see it. That is a reason why the board is powerful and why I like to be here. I am aware that in some situations one does need to take a black/white approach to a subject in order to distance oneself from it, but on a broader scale life is indeed a multi-nuanced phenomenon. It would make sense to take a clearly black/white approach regarding the term "Scientologist" in my opinion as indicated above. Thus it is easy to say who is a Scientologist and who is not.

But once one is an ex-Scientologist there are tons of nuances.

What makes it very delicate is that many persons did find out something for themselves via Scientology. They can't reject everything they learned or realized or got aware of in Scientology without rejecting themselves. But what they found out belongs to themselves NOT to Scientology which is why it is OK. They need to "only" relieve from their mind what belongs to Scientology, NOT what belongs to themselves. I put the word "only" in quotes because it is not as easy as the term "only" might indicate. It is a task that takes years for most people. For some it would mean that they go through an FZ organization for others it would mean something completely different.

EDIT: Corrected some spelling.

No disrespect because I really like your last name "Ginnungagab". It is so very cool. But somehow-someway I missed your conclusion-please rephrase the part were you draw "your point". I'm an older person and I need to have things explained to me in a simple-old fashion way. I wish to thank you for helping me to understand your point of view. The Anabaptist is easy to understand even though he uses lots of words. Again-thanks!
Hi uncle sam,

It is a while ago you asked for a clarification, I didn't get around to make a reply until now. I will PM to you in order to let you know that I made this reply:

I said three things:

1) One thing was about taking the viewpoint that a scientologist is a person in agreement with the official church and thus a Free Zoner is an ex-scientologist. But, that would of course only hold water if you define a scientologist as someone who is associated or an agreement with the church. Although I like to take that viewpoint I must admit that I looked differently on the matter earlier on. When we (me and some friends) splintered off from scientology in the time around 1983 we did actually regard ourselves as scientologists. But we found it had become very difficult to actually do scientology in a scientology organization, which is another way of saying that our understanding and application of the subject was something else but what was happening in the church.

2) The second thing was about taking a nuanced view at things.

3) The third thing I said was basically that what you have learned and found out yourself is yours.

As a matter of fact I don't know which parts of my post you did not understand, if nothing at all made sense to you, or if it is certain parts of it you are concerned about. I will be glad to elaborate further if you would want.

***

And then a note regarding the name "Ginnungagab". It is from the Norse Mythology. The correct spelling in English is actually "Ginnungagap" and in Danish it is "Ginnungagab". I chose to call myself "Soul of Ginnungagab" with that spelling, as I find it kind of authentic with a "b" at the end, but it is really just a nickname and thus can have its own spelling as a nickname.

In my signature I have put the correct English spelling. The signature is a slight change of the story of the creation from the Norse Mythology. The change is that I have told the story as a present time story "In the beginning is Ginnungagap" instead of "In the beginning was Ginnungagap" and similar in the next lines. The point is to put the the idea that the creation is something happening right now. The last line "From this pool of unlimited creative power great ideas are born." I made as an addition to this interpretation of the creation, a kind of conclusion you could say.

I will quote the entire signature here, so that it appears in this post in case I change the signature later on, which I have no plans of doing at the moment, but you never know, so it is just to make sure that the post includes what I am talking about:

In the beginning is Ginnungagap, the mighty gap with magical potential.
In the north there is Niflheim, the land of snow and ice.
In the south there is Muspelheim, the land of fire and heat.

From this pool of unlimited creative power great ideas are born.

[Soul of Ginnungagab]

Sorry, I don't buy it. If a person believes in the workability of Scientology to the extent that he wishes to be a practitioner of it, he is a Scientologist. You don't have to be a Roman Catholic to be a Christian. You can splinter off from any organized church and still belief in Christianity. This idea that you are not "technically" a Scientologist because you are not in good standing with the Church is a rhetoric trick.
Granted there are people who are at various stages in their departure of Scientology. But if a person is singing the praises of Scientology then why are they here, in a place of sanctuary from Scientology?
That is the question that is being dodged.


The Anabaptist Jacques
Yeah, I understand what you mean. See my reply to uncle sam, post number 78, the post above this one.

[Zinjifar]

My view would be that the comparisons/analogies from 'christianity' to Scientology are fallacious; often deliberately so. A 'christian' would be a follower (to whatever extent) of Christ. There is little question, except from some fundamentalist asshats (:)) that Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Henry VII'ers, pentacostals yadda yadda are 'christians'. The Roman Catholic Church may make a claim to having been 'founded' by Jesus, but, even by Roman Catholic theory, there are any number of legitimate offshoots, which *maintain* apostolic succession, if that's important to you; which it is to them. And, even the Roman Catholics wouldn't dispute the 'christianity' of various *other* offshoots. (There is some quibble about the Mormons, which is actually a less than negligable quibble.)

However, Scientology was *founded* by one man, L. Ron Hubbard, and *Ron* defined the term 'Scientologist' and *Ron* left little to no quibble about what *He* would consider a 'Scientologist'. Admittedly, Ron also threw in lots of weasily bullshit about the issue and definition, but, His *intent* is clear to even most of the most theety weetie self-proclaimed 'Scientologist'.

Would there be something wrong with a non-'Churchie' calling himself a 'Hubbardite'? Hardly; the implication is merely that they're a follower of Hubbard, to *whatever* extent.

Now, to be honest, the whole issue is a bit of a red herring, especially considering how many 'Scientologists' do not want to be 'professing' Scientologists or 'known' as Scientologists. People can call themselves a lot of things. Some whacked out skinhead can call himself a 'nazi' if he wants and, nobody will care, even though the *real* nazis would liquidate him at first opportunity. Likewise, people can call themselves 'Scientologists' all they want. And, people can call themselves Roman Catholics all they want too, even if they don't accept the infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals or deny the transubstantiation or the Virgin Birth. They're not, but hey, nobody cares.

The problems with the self-proclaimed 'Scientologists' only arrise when they get into discussions with other people who don't know much about Scientology (almost everybody on the planet) and begin redefining things to suit themselves.

Don't like 'Keeping Scientology Working'? 'Fair Game'? 'Scientology Ethics'? Disconnection'?

Don't agree with 'acceptable truth'? Bolivar? Taking over the world? Xenu and the Body Thetans? Green slime? Water-soluble radiation?

'Oh no! That's *Church* of Scientology! I use a dictionary and try to stay 'in exchange'! The rest of that stuff isn't Scientology! That's *Church* of Scientology!!!'

Scientology is just a word; a word coined or stolen by L. Ron Hubbard. When I discuss Scientology, I'm talking about the full and complete output of the Founder of Scientology; L. Ron Hubbard, who probably would appreciate being able to variously pull his magic rabbits out of the various hats depending on *His* audience, but, it isn't just the 'Church' of Scientology.

For the sake of honesty and clarity, it'd be really nice if the people who don't swallow *all* of Scientology as Ron Intended would just call themselves Hubbardites. Which they won't, but, it'd be nice if they'd drop the 'That's Not Scientology, that's 'Church' of Scientology' codswallop.

By one definition of Scientology; 'uses Scientology Tech in his life', *I'm* a Scientologist because I sometimes use a dictionary.

Zinj

[Pascal]

I'm here cuz this forum rocks! Lots of interesting news and people. I've been around many forums and groups and this one is where I feel at home, thanks Emma!

About this churchie vs scientologists thing well. It's the same as Catholic vs Christian. In PT you cannot truely be a Scientologist and remain in good standign with CoS. You have to accept getting fucked and breaking your integrity to stay in CoS, unless you are too stupid to see outpoints and too weak to act on them anyways (the state of most CoS members IMO).

I don't say that is "CoS". I say that's current CoS management and culture as started by LRH and cristallized by DM. These things will change IMO and I don't lose any sleep over it. CoS today is at the same crossroad the Catholic Church was when Luther and Loyola appeared on the scene. Corrupt financing (Regges that lie, give money or lose eternity) monuments (Super Power building, Ideal Orgs) and fancied wars with "enemies" (Psychs).

In any case, remember what the old man said, it will all come out alright in the end. :coolwink:

[Terril park]

Hi uncle sam,

It is a while ago you asked for a clarification, I didn't get around to make a reply until now. I will PM to you in order to let you know that I made this reply:

I said three things:

1) One thing was about taking the viewpoint that a scientologist is a person in agreement with the official church and thus a Free Zoner is an ex-scientologist. But, that would of course only hold water if you define a scientologist as someone who is associated or an agreement with the church. Although I like to take that viewpoint I must admit that I looked differently on the matter earlier on. When we (me and some friends) splintered off from scientology in the time around 1983 we did actually regard ourselves as scientologists. But we found it had become very difficult to actually do scientology in a scientology organization, which is another way of saying that our understanding and application of the subject was something else but what was happening in the church.

2) The second thing was about taking a nuanced view at things.

3) The third thing I said was basically that what you have learned and found out yourself is yours.

As a matter of fact I don't know which parts of my post you did not understand, if nothing at all made sense to you, or if it is certain parts of it you are concerned about. I will be glad to elaborate further if you would want.

***

And then a note regarding the name "Ginnungagab". It is from the Norse Mythology. The correct spelling in English is actually "Ginnungagap" and in Danish it is "Ginnungagab". I chose to call myself "Soul of Ginnungagab" with that spelling, as I find it kind of authentic with a "b" at the end, but it is really just a nickname and thus can have its own spelling as a nickname.

In my signature I have put the correct English spelling. The signature is a slight change of the story of the creation from the Norse Mythology. The change is that I have told the story as a present time story "In the beginning is Ginnungagap" instead of "In the beginning was Ginnungagap" and similar in the next lines. The point is to put the the idea that the creation is something happening right now. The last line "From this pool of unlimited creative power great ideas are born." I made as an addition to this interpretation of the creation, a kind of conclusion you could say.

I will quote the entire signature here, so that it appears in this post in case I change the signature later on, which I have no plans of doing at the moment, but you never know, so it is just to make sure that the post includes what I am talking about:

In the beginning is Ginnungagap, the mighty gap with magical potential.
In the north there is Niflheim, the land of snow and ice.
In the south there is Muspelheim, the land of fire and heat.

From this pool of unlimited creative power great ideas are born.

The Freezone is free and does tech. Hope this answers questiions.

[Carmel]

<snip>

For the sake of honesty and clarity, it'd be really nice if the people who don't swallow *all* of Scientology as Ron Intended would just call themselves Hubbardites. Which they won't, but, it'd be nice if they'd drop the 'That's Not Scientology, that's 'Church' of Scientology' codswallop.

By one definition of Scientology; 'uses Scientology Tech in his life', *I'm* a Scientologist because I sometimes use a dictionary.

Zinj

In reference to what I have bolded above, it'd be nice if some would drop the 'black or white' codswallop - 'cause it just isn't so. :whistling:

Scn did become a 'religion' for many. They adopted the culture, they forwarded the BS - their souls were sold. Others didn't buy the culture or what was being practised within the 'church', 'cause it was unpalatable and in direct conflict with what they believed in and not in alignment with the basic tenets of scn that were presented as such.

As has been revealed, much of what we learnt that we took on board, wasn't even Hubbards. The label "Hubbardite"? - no thanks. The label "Scientologist"? - nup, doesn't fit the bill either because that represents a certain mindset and culture prevalent in and forwarded by the CofS.

Despite intent and the full package of scientology, to some of us the 'carrots' that were presented as scientology and there for the taking, were what scientology WAS. Misguided, deceived, naive or whatever, it was the stuff we learnt and mostly chalk and cheese with what was prevalent and forwarded by the 'church'. If it wasn't scientology, then wtf was it? If this aspect of scientology had no credibility or presence within orgs, then most of us would have been out of there in a flash. The crap observable within the ranks of the CofS, is nothing like the 'red on white' that comes under the label of 'Scientology'. It's not a wonder that many who have studied the stuff will say "That's Not Scientology, that's 'Church' of Scientology" when referring to that which is practised in the Church.

How can we be expected to negate it and/or not differentiate between what were fresh juicy carrots and the other rotten poisonous slimey stuff? From my perspective, it's just BS that we are expected to group or lump the two together - they are more than slightly different. :grouch: :)

[dexter gelfand]

Originally Posted by acertainratio
As I said in an earlier post, Scientology is a dark and dangerous thing with the potential to wreck people totally - physically, mentally, and socially.

People who have suffered this kind of damage have a strong desire to prevent other people going through the same trauma.

With the best will in the world, I don't see how people who have been through that hell can accept the idea that Scn outside the Cof$ is all fine and shiny.

I'm a big advocate of free speech, so I'm not suggesting that anyone should be silenced.

I have to be honest and say that my foremost inclination is to support people who have been hurt by the cult.

It would be good if the FZ'ers on this board would give some deep thought to the damage done by the subject that they hold so dearly, and the fact that many of the people here suffered that damage. Most of them I think, are here to work on their recovery, and help others doing the same.

So FZ'ers, please think about what you can do to make your presence here congruent with the fact that this is an ex - scientologists board.

Here's the big question:

If you are not here to recruit people and sing the praises of Scientology, why are you here, and what can you contribute?

None of these are trick questions, and I'm not asking so that I can duff you up when you answer.

As we know, there are plenty of FZ and independent boards; so why do you like to come here?

Those who are here to help themselves recover, and help others recover deserve a lot of consideration, in my view.

But as I say, I'm not into attacking free speech, and I'm not into expelling people, so I would like to hear something from you about how you can take part in debate on an ex - scientologists forum without undermining the basic purpose of the board or undermining the recovery of people who've been hurt by the subject that you hold dear.


The above is from another thread but I don't want this getting lost. I would like to see these questions answered.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Well Jacques, I believe I have as much right to reconnect with old friends as you or anyone else, and of course, my experience refutes your negative claims about Scientology. Other people's postings demonstrate that I'm not alone in my viewpoint here, any more than you are.

Although the forum is called "Ex-Scn", it is really an ex-CoS forum, allowing for free discourse from all viewpoints. Emma is not promoting a negative attitude toward Scientology, it is a "place" wherein anyone formerly associated with the CoS can find people who can understand and appreciate their experience and their views.

It is not merely an opportunity to "preach to the choir" of people who would disparage Scientology itself and insult those who disagree.

I am no friend or supporter of current CoS management, I don't consider LRH "God" or "perfect" or "infallible" or "the one and only source of all useful information", but my personal experience over thousands of hours of auditing people has given me certainty of the reliability of the tech.

I personally came into this forum after I googled my own name and saw a post from an old friend (EP) who stated in a post that he would like to shake my hand again, that he really liked me, going back to the days when I audited him in New York, and it went very well for him. I was curious to find out who he was, and to reconnect with an old friend.

Since then, I have found much interesting information through this forum, reconnected with a few other old acquaintances, made some friends and filled in some historical gaps for a few people.

I like it here, and I have come to like and admire some on this forum regardless of their not seeing eye to eye with me.

Love, Dex

[GreyLensman]

In reference to what I have bolded above, it'd be nice if some would drop the 'black or white' codswallop - 'cause it just isn't so. :whistling:

Scn did become a 'religion' for many. They adopted the culture, they forwarded the BS - their souls were sold. Others didn't buy the culture or what was being practised within the 'church', 'cause it was unpalatable and in direct conflict with what they believed in and not in alignment with the basic tenets of scn that were presented as such.

As has been revealed, much of what we learnt that we took on board, wasn't even Hubbards. The label "Hubbardite"? - no thanks. The label "Scientologist"? - nup, doesn't fit the bill either because that represents a certain mindset and culture prevalent in and forwarded by the CofS.

Despite intent and the full package of scientology, to some of us the 'carrots' that were presented as scientology and there for the taking, were what scientology WAS. Misguided, deceived, naive or whatever, it was the stuff we learnt and mostly chalk and cheese with what was prevalent and forwarded by the 'church'. If it wasn't scientology, then wtf was it? If this aspect of scientology had no credibility or presence within orgs, then most of us would have been out of there in a flash. The crap observable within the ranks of the CofS, is nothing like the 'red on white' that comes under the label of 'Scientology'. It's not a wonder that many who have studied the stuff will say "That's Not Scientology, that's 'Church' of Scientology" when referring to that which is practised in the Church.

How can we be expected to negate it and/or not differentiate between what were fresh juicy carrots and the other rotten poisonous slimey stuff? From my perspective, it's just BS that we are expected to group or lump the two together - they are more than slightly different. :grouch: :)

I think Ex-Scientologist fits. I certainly wouldn't accept Scientologist and Hubbardite is disgusting and insulting.

A Scientologist considers that the tech is wholly workable and sources it to LRH and adheres to the official bridge in the COS, doing services entirely within that framework, whatever it happens to be today.

I don't see the technology as inherently destructive. I do see the Church of Scientology as very destructive. I see that L. Ron Hubbard pieced together stuff, stole stuff from all over the place including from his own practitioners, claiming authorship and "Source" as his, a lie. I think LRH was batshit crazy toward the end and that he showed paranoid tendency from the beginning in 1949. I think you have to separate the tech from the church and then do a further separation into workable and unworkable - some of that last will be subjective as hell. I would throw almost all of the admin policy tech out as unworkable right off the bat.

One of the premises I use as an evaluation is does it work or not. If it works, then it has value as a technique. I don't think it is valid to blanketly discard all of Scientoogy practice as destructive.

It was taken from too many sources, and there are things that work, that's the trap - the processing DOES improve things and that justifies the culture and eventually blatant falsehood. Without those initial steps that work very very well, none of the rest would be possible.

[uniquemand]

Exploitation of idealistic people, mindfucking them, and then "justifying it" in any way is abhorrent.

[Voltaire's Child]

Not everyone who still likes Scn says "that's not Scn, that's the church of Scn". That's a favorite accusation by some critics and it sticks because there are people who say that. I never have been one of them. I cheerfully admit that much of what's wrong with CofS was put there by LRH and that DM was taught by LRH to be the monster that he is. And I know lots of people who also have no problem admitting that and have done so on this and on other forums. So let's not generalize Freezoners and indie Scn'ists.

[Voltaire's Child]

My view would be that the comparisons/analogies from 'christianity' to Scientology are fallacious; often deliberately so. A 'christian' would be a follower (to whatever extent) of Christ. There is little question, except from some fundamentalist asshats (:)) that Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Henry VII'ers, pentacostals yadda yadda are 'christians'. The Roman Catholic Church may make a claim to having been 'founded' by Jesus, but, even by Roman Catholic theory, there are any number of legitimate offshoots, which *maintain* apostolic succession, if that's important to you; which it is to them. And, even the Roman Catholics wouldn't dispute the 'christianity' of various *other* offshoots. (There is some quibble about the Mormons, which is actually a less than negligable quibble.)

However, Scientology was *founded* by one man, L. Ron Hubbard, and *Ron* defined the term 'Scientologist' and *Ron* left little to no quibble about what *He* would consider a 'Scientologist'. Admittedly, Ron also threw in lots of weasily bullshit about the issue and definition, but, His *intent* is clear to even most of the most theety weetie self-proclaimed 'Scientologist'.

Would there be something wrong with a non-'Churchie' calling himself a 'Hubbardite'? Hardly; the implication is merely that they're a follower of Hubbard, to *whatever* extent.

Now, to be honest, the whole issue is a bit of a red herring, especially considering how many 'Scientologists' do not want to be 'professing' Scientologists or 'known' as Scientologists. People can call themselves a lot of things. Some whacked out skinhead can call himself a 'nazi' if he wants and, nobody will care, even though the *real* nazis would liquidate him at first opportunity. Likewise, people can call themselves 'Scientologists' all they want. And, people can call themselves Roman Catholics all they want too, even if they don't accept the infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals or deny the transubstantiation or the Virgin Birth. They're not, but hey, nobody cares.

The problems with the self-proclaimed 'Scientologists' only arrise when they get into discussions with other people who don't know much about Scientology (almost everybody on the planet) and begin redefining things to suit themselves.

Don't like 'Keeping Scientology Working'? 'Fair Game'? 'Scientology Ethics'? Disconnection'?

Don't agree with 'acceptable truth'? Bolivar? Taking over the world? Xenu and the Body Thetans? Green slime? Water-soluble radiation?

'Oh no! That's *Church* of Scientology! I use a dictionary and try to stay 'in exchange'! The rest of that stuff isn't Scientology! That's *Church* of Scientology!!!'

Scientology is just a word; a word coined or stolen by L. Ron Hubbard. When I discuss Scientology, I'm talking about the full and complete output of the Founder of Scientology; L. Ron Hubbard, who probably would appreciate being able to variously pull his magic rabbits out of the various hats depending on *His* audience, but, it isn't just the 'Church' of Scientology.

For the sake of honesty and clarity, it'd be really nice if the people who don't swallow *all* of Scientology as Ron Intended would just call themselves Hubbardites. Which they won't, but, it'd be nice if they'd drop the 'That's Not Scientology, that's 'Church' of Scientology' codswallop.

By one definition of Scientology; 'uses Scientology Tech in his life', *I'm* a Scientologist because I sometimes use a dictionary.

Zinj


No, because Scn doesn't have a corner on the dictionary market and because you don't consider yourself to be a Scn'is.

[Pascal]

Not everyone who still likes Scn says "that's not Scn, that's the church of Scn". That's a favorite accusation by some critics and it sticks because there are people who say that. I never have been one of them. I cheerfully admit that much of what's wrong with CofS was put there by LRH and that DM was taught by LRH to be the monster that he is. And I know lots of people who also have no problem admitting that and have done so on this and on other forums. So let's not generalize Freezoners and indie Scn'ists.

DM has always been an asshole. There is no evidence he was "Trained" by LRH. Only a photo where he was his camera bitch.

DM is an idiot, I doubt LRH would have lost much time with him.

All this talk about DM or anyone being a "product" of CoS invalidates the native beingness and individualities of people in general. Typical psych think that we are animals and molded by our environment. Every being has a basic personality and that is molded with his time track of experiences. DM is an asshole and has been forever probably. He's made CoS what it is, not the other way around. You could focus CoS on any bit of policy if you wanted. DM made is abusive and stupid, as he is.

[Voltaire's Child]

Weeeellll...there are some policies and HCOBs written by LRH that are just plain wrong headed. If you read Dianetics in Limbo you can see that LRH was pretty venal from the beginning. I do believe in free will and all that, but I do also think that LRH set the stage by doing and writing some things that weren't good. It was at LRH's behest that the RPF and the RPF's RPF was created. Freeloader debts, fair game, overboarding- those are not good things. So he'd created a messed up environment.

I do like a lot of Scn tech. I find it fascinating that someone doing things of the sort LRH was doing could come up with them. Yes, he borrowed some, but he came up with many formulae, processes, procedures, drills and many other methods that hadn't previously existed and which really do work. I know he indicated a few times that he'd been working on this stuff for many lifetimes- maybe that's how he did it. Scn has fantastic great stuff in it- I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But I don't believe LRH was blameless or that he was without influence on DM.

[Dulloldfart]

But I don't believe LRH was blameless or that he was without influence on DM.

Whatever apologies may be made for Hubbard, he was alive until January 1986, and at least somewhat in his right mind for much of it. If he wanted to find out what was going on he could have found out. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But any excuses that he was "kept out of the loop" are silly. Maybe people did lie to him, but he still had the choice of believing them or not. Whatever admin lines he chose to use he chose to use. If DM "conned him" then it was with his connivance - he sure was no victim.

Paul

[Voltaire's Child]

Right. I meant that LRH influenced DM. Not the other way around. At least early on, anyway.

[TheSneakster]

not important

[TheSneakster]

not important

[Pascal]

You cannot have a 'discussion' with an Anti-Cult cult member about anything and that includes an ESMBer when their minds are so fully immersed into an anti-cultic mindset, they cannot think for themselves, they can only think with that anti-cult viewpoint, where is the discussion in that?

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson

This from Epic YMCA dude ^^^^^^^^^^^^^:coolwink:

[uniquemand]

This from Epic YMCA dude ^^^^^^^^^^^^^:coolwink:

What a douchebag thing to say.

[Pascal]

What a douchebag thing to say.

LOL... I just had to say it!!!

Sneak is my pal, he'll forgive me and see the humor. If not, see you all in 2 weeks. :p

[Voltaire's Child]

You cannot have a 'discussion' with an Anti-Cult cult member about anything and that includes an ESMBer when their minds are so fully immersed into an anti-cultic mindset, they cannot think for themselves, they can only think with that anti-cult viewpoint, where is the discussion in that?

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson

Right-o. The thing is, everyone's an individual. Not all Freezoners are like all others. Some are tech purists, some are far from that. Not all critics are fully immersed into an anti cultic mindset, but some are.