How people get "cemented in" to Scientology

[HelluvaHoax!]

.

I see. You're here as an "indy" $cio to defend a dead sociopath's mind control cult and "handle" Ex's. People here are wise to Elcon's manipulative $cio "tehk" so all you're accomplishing is turning yourself into a chew toy becoming the butt of impending J&D-ing.

"Scientologists are the punchline
of a bad joke they continue to insist on telling."
-Don Hubbard-




​

Don Hubbard is the estranged and disaffected twin brother of Ron Hubbard. Having attained the state of OH (Operating Hobo; see avatar), Don blew from Scientology and went on to become the Founder of the Church of Hoaxology, whose advanced technology Don states: "...transcends merely clearing or erasing the reactive mind. It also erases the implant called Scientology, from which came the fictional belief in the idea of "clearing" or "erasing" the mind in the first place."

​

 

[Goodbye]

I see. You're here as an "indy" $cio to defend a dead sociopath's mind control cult and "handle" Ex's.

Ex's/antis are the worst possible public to target if one were to "handle" or "disseminate" to. So that theory doesn't hold much water, since they've already made up their mind SCN is not for them.

People here are wise to Elcon's manipulative $cio "tehk" so all you're accomplishing is turning yourself into a chew toy becoming the butt of impending J&D-ing.

Perhaps the Admin will re-edit any newbie welcome note except for those still practicing SCN in the Independent Zone -- not welcome here.

J & D all you like, I'm not here to curb your conduct.

 

[Veda]

???

(Bolding, in quotes, added.)

Why not give the poster Goodbye the benefit of the doubt and assume that he - in the course of this thead, between post #2 and post #44 - has changed his mind somewhat?

Goodbye wrote that he "benefitted tremendously from training."

Scientology training may have impressed Goodbye more than Goodbye suspected, and, perhaps, not always in a beneficial way. Perhaps Goodbye is beginning to realize this, ever so slightly.

_______​

From Hubbard Communication Office Bulletin of 31 December 1959:

People leave because of their overts and withholds. That's the factual fact and hardbound rule. A man with a clean heart can't be hurt. A man or woman who must must must [sic] be a victim and depart is departing because of his or her own overts and withholds. ​

_______​

Is there no one here who didn't once believe this, as a "factual fact" ?

You changed, so why can't some one else?

_______​

Hey, Goodbye, did you change your mind by post #54 of this thread or were you just being diplomatic?

Can you recall the time when you accepted the above - in red - as "factual fact"?

 

[WildKat]

Ex's/antis are the worst possible public to target if one were to "handle" or "disseminate" to. So that theory doesn't hold much water, since they've already made up their mind SCN is not for them.

Perhaps the Admin will re-edit any newbie welcome note except for those still practicing SCN in the Independent Zone -- not welcome here.

I think there's something about not feeding the trolls. But we're all kinda guilty of that lately.

Seriously though, there are some Indies who freely post here, but as long as they don't act like dicks (or trolls) we do put up with them. Some are quite nice. Don't ask me to identify them. I just believe they exist.

 

[Hypatia]

No one is denying the abusive nature of the CO$ and the untold hurt it has caused.

I merely stated I don't buy into EVERY CO$-victim story out there. And for rather obvious reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Ok. But that can be a bit inflammatory because eventually someone may ask which ones and why/why not. And people will be hurt.

 

[Goodbye]

I think there's something about not feeding the trolls. But we're all kinda guilty of that lately.

Yes, the hypocracy runs deep.

Based on that line of reasoning I guess I could safely assume your CO$-exit story consists of accusing the CO$ of those things you have done yourself. So much for victimhood.

Ok. But that can be a bit inflammatory because eventually someone may ask which ones and why/why not. And people will be hurt.

Whatever you consider "Inflamatory" also happens to be true.

Yet someone who practices SCN is freely denigrated and attacked around here? That's not something that would come to your attention would it? Would ruin the one-way street narrative.

A post above even stated J & D'd for practicing SCN in Independent Scientology.

Not insensitive? But you don't see that?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

From Hubbard Communication Office Bulletin of 31 December 1959:

"People leave because of their overts and withholds. That's the factual fact and hardbound rule. "​

_______​

Is there no one here who didn't once believe this, as a "factual fact" ?

Can you recall the time when you accepted the above - in red - as "factual fact"?

I still, to this very day, firmly believe that "...people leave because of overts and withholds."

Ron's overts and withholds. lol

 

[Hypatia]

Ex's/antis are the worst possible public to target if one were to "handle" or "disseminate" to. So that theory doesn't hold much water, since they've already made up their mind SCN is not for them.


Perhaps the Admin will re-edit any newbie welcome note except for those still practicing SCN in the Independent Zone -- not welcome here.

J & D all you like, I'm not here to curb your conduct.

At this point, I kinda want to do a check one box type thing...

indy?
ex harboring sympathies toward the cherch?
Currently in?

Or, more simply, what's your point?

 

[WildKat]

Yes, the hypocracy runs deep.

Based on that line of reasoning I guess I could safely assume your CO$-exit story consists of accusing the CO$ of those things you have done yourself. So much for victimhood.

Well you assumed wrong, we are not bound by Hubbard's BS laws here.

 

[Gib]

I still, to this very day, firmly believe that "...people leave because of overts and withholds."

Ron's overts and withholds. lol

laughing

I guess Sarge forgot to pull out the emeter and/or leaving staff routing form when Ron told Sarge he was leaving and wasn't coming back.

 

[Goodbye]

ex harboring sympathies toward the cherch?

I've yet to come across one ...

 

[Veda]

Looks like poster Goodbye is having a "comm lag" on answering the question, "Can you recall the time when you accepted the below as factual?"

That's OK. Whenever you're ready...

From Hubbard Communication Office Bulletin of 31 December 1959:

People leave because of their overts and withholds. That's the factual fact and hardbound rule. A man with a clean heart can't be hurt. A man or woman who must must must [sic] be a victim and depart is departing because of his or her own overts and withholds. ​

 

[Goodbye]

"Can you recall the time when you accepted the below as factual?"

... and the reason you are seeking to make a colossal idiot of yourself is?

HCOB 25 Jun 72 Recovering Students And PCs.

(You weren't lazy digging up and posting your reference, so I'm sure you'll take the time to look up this one too.)

 

[Moderator 3375]

A reminder and information for new members.

Please respect every other user on the board despite any personal, religious and political differences. The following will not be tolerated:

• Personal insults
• Ad hominems
• Threats or promotion of violence

Spirited debate is great. Personal attacks are unnecessary and don't help your argument.

 

[Veda]

... and the reason you are seeking to make a colossal idiot of yourself is?

HCOB 25 Jun 72 Recovering Students And PCs.

(You weren't lazy digging up and posting your reference, so I'm sure you'll take the time to look up this one too.)

It's a simple question, and one based on your own responses in post #2 on this thread.

As for 25 June 1972, that's a PL, not an HCOB, and was not released as an HCOB until 21 July 1973.

Hubbard did a good cop/bad cop routine for years - back and forth - on "overts/withholds" or "ARC breaks/misunderstood words/tight shoes," etc., but always landing back squarely on "overts."

How about answering the question?

 

[Goodbye]

As for 25 June 1972, that's a PL, not an HCOB, and was not released as an HCOB until 21 July 1973.

HCOB 25 Jun 72 Recovering Students And PCs

1991 Tech Vols dates HCOB 25 Jun 72. Perhaps it was released at another date some 40 years ago.

I'm not interested in your question, or whatever you want to lead off to, or want to get at? Whatever it is, it's always the same tune ... establishing somehow how Hubbard or SCN is bogus. Find someone else to take the bait and waste their time.

Your game is to tie up people with their previous responses by somehow carefully cataloging and bookmarking and then feed back at whatever opportune time to make some case. All this does is tie me up, can't be bothered to waste my time on this nonsense.

 

[Veda]

HCOB 25 Jun 72 Recovering Students And PCs

1991 Tech Vols dates HCOB 25 Jun 72. Perhaps it was released at another date some 40 years ago.

1991? Unreliable. My first edition, 1976, Tech Volumes say otherwise.

I'm not interested in your question, or whatever you want to lead off to, or want to get at? Whatever it is, it's always the same tune ... establishing somehow how Hubbard or SCN is bogus. Find someone else to take the bait and waste their time.

Your game is to tie up people with their previous responses by somehow carefully cataloging and bookmarking and then feed back at whatever opportune time to make some case. All this does is tie me up, can't be bothered to waste my time on this nonsense.

I didn't think you'd be brave enough to answer the question. It might have blown your Scientological mind to do so.

As for my "game," and my "establishing somehow" how Scientology is "bogus," if you were able to tolerate being "bothered" and were able to tolerate "wasting time" - just a little bit - you'd realize my view of this subject is more nuanced that that.

 

[Goodbye]

1991? Unreliable. My first edition, 1976, Tech Volumes say otherwise.

Tech Correction Round-up a year later makes the '76s unreliable. Nonetheless ... opinions differ.

I didn't think you'd be brave enough to answer the question. It might have blown your Scientological mind to do so.

Nonsense like this invalidating baiting challenge I wouldn't respond back to. Not interested.

... you'd realize my view of this subject is more nuanced than that.

Then post it. Don't play games. What I "accept" or "don't accept" is not relevant to any discussion, it goes off on a tangent not germane to anything.

 

[Veda]

Flakey Foont after attesting to Clear.​

Tech Correction Round-up a year later makes the '76s unreliable.

-snip-

I have the 1977 Tech Correction Round Up also. It appears that Hubbard was not the author.

As you must know, 1991 is a Miscavige era product, yet you prefer it.

Then post it.

-snip-

I have posted my views and data many times. You're incapable to seeing them.

 

[Goodbye]

I have the 1977 Tech Correction Round Up also. It appears that Hubbard was not the author.

Until I see some clear substantiation of that fact, I will assume otherwise. (It's assumed we are referring to the HCOB by that name in question.)

As you must know, 1991 is a Miscavige era product, yet you prefer it.

Dan Koon and Russ Williams were in the RTRC unit at that time. According to them DM never altered any particular backlog materials Hubbard left behind for them to complete. DM did have his hands on other facets to some extent, but not in any alterations of any HCOBs.

Show me even one single HCOB except for the 5-HCOB "Co-Auditing Series" after the Survival Rundown was cancelled that is any different than the same in the '76 Vols that clearly indicate the '91 set is in error?