Scientology Review Website

[JustMe]

Well I signed up as "justme" there and posted an honest review of the book "What is Scientology".

Upon making the posting I got the following message:

Thank you for your submission. It will be published once it is verified.

I don't know how anyone there can verify what I cover but we'll see if they are willing to list something less than favorable about scientology and Hubbard.

FWIW, I wrote this:

The original "What is Scientology" book was not published in 1993 as some think. The original one from which later editions evolved was published in 1978.

It was written primarily by staff of the then Guardian's Office ("GO") as can be seen in the below link to the "Acknowledgments" page in that first edition. I was one of those writers.

http://s1262.beta.photobucket.com/user/Born2Shop9/media/What_Is_Scientology.jpg.html

The book was written following and in response to the huge FBI raids on organized scientology's GO offices in the USA in 1977. It was meant as a defensive action that was part of an attempt to handle organized scientology's and Hubbard's severely damaged PR because of the raids.

Additionally, it was hoped to help limit any possible legal action against L Ron Hubbard and organized scientology by trying to create in the public mind the following beliefs:

1) Hubbard was not in fact running organized scientology, especially not running the GO targeted by the FBI in 1977;

2) Organized scientology/scientology was a religion;

3) Organized scientology did a lot of good for society including though its "social betterment" programs including Applied Scholastics, Narconon and other groups that at that time were run by the GO's "Social Coordination" Bureau ("B6").

With the release of this first edition much more was done to try to in effect create a "paper trail" of sorts to show that scientology was a religion. The GO ran all sorts of programs then to put in a false religious image such as Sunday services, Roman ministerial collars being worn, crosses being worn more, many staff being forced to become "ministers" and really pushing a "scholars" program to get "scholars" to write opinions that scientology was a religion.

The programs to push in this image portrayed in the book were in the main disingenuous, had everything to do with image and nothing really to do with reality. Scholars were often duped by being given false information to help them "conclude" scientology was a religion. Later editions of the book would make great usage of such opinions.

An equally false picture intentionally created by that book was that Hubbard was not running things when he in fact was. For example just a year after the publication of the book Hubbard was secretly ordering the corporate reorganization of parts of organized scientology including his 1979 orders to Sue Mithoff in his "Commodore's Messenger Organization" regarding the legal establishment of Scientology Missions International ("SMI"). Hubbard even said to push the tax and personal monetary advantages of starting scientology "missions" by making them "churches". He personally pushed in a religious image just for the tax and other legal advantages.

I personally was run on telexes from Hubbard for setting up the first "WISE" corporation and from 1975 through 1983 had an estimated 250 orders from Hubbard, most of them on legal matters.

Additionally, completely contrary to what was said in the book, Hubbard ordered the GO to keep undated resignations of all corporate officials in the organized scientology legal empire and to run them all secretly.

In fact L Ron Hubbard was so involved in the running of the GO and thus organized scientology that it took over 100 people weeks just to vet and/or remove evidence from GO headquarter files in the United Kingdom that Hubbard was running them.

Again, the book was completely false in this area.

Lastly, while in the original edition organized scientology really played up how groups like Narconon and the "study tech" groups were part of organized scientology, and that such things as "study tech" was scientology tech, they frequently deny it when them deem it legally convenient.

Many more examples of what is false in this book can be given but the above give a bit of an overview.

The bottom line is that book is based on major lies about what is scientology and who runs it/ran it.

Without a doubt there are people of good heart who are scientologists who mean well and are trying to do good. I wish them well.

But this book presents a false image of Hubbard, scientology and organized scientology which does nobody any good.

It creates a false history.

It is time to end the lies.

w/<3
Denise Brennan

 

[JustMe]

To their benefit they did publish the review:

http://www.scientologyreviews.com/scientology-books/discussions/review?id=269

 

[Stat]

I have an idea - how about creating a Scientology Review Website,
with no moderation at all whatsoever?

CofS members, Indies, Freezone, Exes, Anons, Trolls, OSA, you name it
- are all welcome to review anything Scientology or whatnot.

Imagine. I guess it's too human.

 

[Sindy]

I have an idea - how about creating a Scientology Review Website,
with no moderation at all whatsoever?

CofS members, Indies, Freezone, Exes, Anons, Trolls, OSA, you name it
- are all welcome to review anything Scientology or whatnot.

Imagine. I guess it's too human.

Great idea.

Better still, how about people go beyond the walls of Scientology and all the groups above (should they so dare) review all sorts of spiritual paths and self improvement philosophies, etc. and locate where Scientology fits within that wider scope and juxtaposition.

If these people want to "expand" their minds then why would they choose to do it in a much less expansive way than Ron claimed to have, himself, approached the subject of spiritual awareness in the first place? Why allow themselves to eat the spoon fed pablum of an egotistical self proclaimed guru?

They can review Scientology all they want but it will not, by experience, bring them any closer to understanding the rest of the human race. That's not its purpose and never, ever was its purpose -- quite the contrary -- stating such is just lip service as sleight of hand.

 

[Dulloldfart]

So far, I have submitted 44 reviews. One was rejected, for Life Repair, because I had never actually received it or delivered it properly as an auditor. My PaulsRobot versions didn't count! That is fair enough as it supposed to be a collection of consumer reviews from real consumers, not comments from armchair critics.

That leaves 43 submissions, that as far as I can see have been published unchanged, exactly as I wrote them (see them all here: http://www.scientologyreviews.com/component/jreviews/my-reviews?Itemid=&user=119). Which makes me the #1 reviewer (it says), based on quantity of separate reviews published. I also have "Percentage helpful votes: 100% (16 votes)." See screengrab.



This is all contrary to my expectation, I must say, both the honesty of it and the (so far) lack of "unhelpful" votes for my reviews. There may well have been complaints (flagged reviews) to the management from stunned readers, but I haven't heard of any personally. My reviews are honest, and say much the same things as I say on ESMB. My comments about different Scn services are nuanced, in that I praise the bits I like(d) and castigate the bits I didn't/don't. For instance, in my OT2 review I included this paragraph:

Now, I think the theory of OT2 is complete and utter bullshit. That fact notwithstanding, I have observed on maybe a hundred solo auditors that if someone is well set-up casewise, well-trained as a solo auditor and well-drilled on the procedures of OT2, then doing the procedures correctly in session will produce the desired result. The fact that the stated procedure can produce good results does not logically mean that the *theory* is accurate.​

Which is exactly what I have stated on ESMB.

I still think it is brave of Steve Hall to do this. Marty must be going apoplectic, though. And what the average Indie thinks who notices that the "#1 Reviewer" is an ex, well, the mind boggles.

Oh, that "Is the Dwarf a psychopath?" question (not verbatim) occurs in the section for DM programs.

Paul

 

[Krautfag]

Well I signed up as "justme" there and posted an honest review of the book "What is Scientology".

Upon making the posting I got the following message:





I don't know how anyone there can verify what I cover but we'll see if they are willing to list something less than favorable about scientology and Hubbard.

FWIW, I wrote this:

Fuckin' A, Mrs Brennan!!! You rock!

 

[Krautfag]

So far, I have submitted 44 reviews. One was rejected, for Life Repair, because I had never actually received it or delivered it properly as an auditor. My PaulsRobot versions didn't count! That is fair enough as it supposed to be a collection of consumer reviews from real consumers, not comments from armchair critics.

That leaves 43 submissions, that as far as I can see have been published unchanged, exactly as I wrote them (see them all here: http://www.scientologyreviews.com/component/jreviews/my-reviews?Itemid=&user=119). Which makes me the #1 reviewer (it says), based on quantity of separate reviews published. I also have "Percentage helpful votes: 100% (16 votes)." See screengrab.

View attachment 5297

This is all contrary to my expectation, I must say, both the honesty of it and the (so far) lack of "unhelpful" votes for my reviews. There may well have been complaints (flagged reviews) to the management from stunned readers, but I haven't heard of any personally. My reviews are honest, and say much the same things as I say on ESMB. My comments about different Scn services are nuanced, in that I praise the bits I like(d) and castigate the bits I didn't/don't. For instance, in my OT2 review I included this paragraph:

Now, I think the theory of OT2 is complete and utter bullshit. That fact notwithstanding, I have observed on maybe a hundred solo auditors that if someone is well set-up casewise, well-trained as a solo auditor and well-drilled on the procedures of OT2, then doing the procedures correctly in session will produce the desired result. The fact that the stated procedure can produce good results does not logically mean that the *theory* is accurate.​

Which is exactly what I have stated on ESMB.

I still think it is brave of Steve Hall to do this. Marty must be going apoplectic, though. And what the average Indie thinks who notices that the "#1 Reviewer" is an ex, well, the mind boggles.

Oh, that "Is the Dwarf a psychopath?" question (not verbatim) occurs in the section for DM programs.

Paul

Awesome, Paul!
And Kudos to Steve Hall so far.

 

[Veda]

-snip-

My comments about different Scn services are nuanced, in that I praise the bits I like(d) and castigate the bits I didn't/don't. For instance, in my OT2 review I included this paragraph:

Now, I think the theory of OT2 is complete and utter bullshit. That fact notwithstanding, I have observed on maybe a hundred solo auditors that if someone is well set-up casewise, well-trained as a solo auditor and well-drilled on the procedures of OT2, then doing the procedures correctly in session will produce the desired result. The fact that the stated procedure can produce good results does not logically mean that the *theory* is accurate.​

Which is exactly what I have stated on ESMB.

-snip-

I haven't installed google Chrome yet, so I can't see your other reviews at this time, but the above review is just what MartyWorld wants: Discount the embarrassing theory that is bad PR with "wogs" and "raw meat" (I know that's not your intention ), and then praise the end result of the "tech."

We disagree on the idea that "good results" are produced by OT 2 (although I know what you mean, I once thought that way also). I don't consider that OT 2 produces "good results." It produces a smoother ball bearing that can more easily (and with VGIs and FNs and "wins") slide into the next slot awaiting him on the assembly line along the Hubbard Bridge.

OT 2 is done - and it's done with all the hypnotic/suggestive mind f__k in place. You may not - now - be influenced by the mind f__k, but others are very influenced.

Perhaps you could reproduce your other reviews in ESMB, and perhaps push the envelope a little further.

Overall, I think what you're trying to do is good, and hope you succeed in gently encouraging a broader more enlightened outlook amongst the (current) Scientologists.

And, that JustMe's review of the 1978 edition of 'What is Scientology?' (above) was permitted, is a hopeful sign.

So keep submitting reviews! And that goes for you also, JustMe!

 

[Student of Trinity]

I looked at several of Paul's reviews on the site. They're just what you'd expect if you know Paul from here. He finds things to like about some processes, but some he completely pans. On the bottom line, Would you recommend this process to a friend, he has No almost every time.

Some of the reviews by other people are enthusiastic raves. So far, though, the site's promise of unvarnished honesty seems to be being upheld. I confess I'm a bit surprised, but really it's more this. There are two hypotheses about the indie Scn guys: crooks-or-idiots, or sincere-and-not-idiots. My opinion is a sort of Nate Silver-ish probability estimate for both options. It's now tipped a fair bit more in favor of the sincere hypothesis than it was. Hall may still be a monumental jerk, but his latest site is actually looking like the kind of thing somebody would do, in 2012, if they were actually serious about Scientology, and not just role-playing. That's interesting.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I looked at several of Paul's reviews on the site. They're just what you'd expect if you know Paul from here. He finds things to like about some processes, but some he completely pans. On the bottom line, Would you recommend this process to a friend, he has No almost every time.

Some of the reviews by other people are enthusiastic raves. So far, though, the site's promise of unvarnished honesty seems to be being upheld. I confess I'm a bit surprised, but really it's more this. There are two hypotheses about the indie Scn guys: crooks-or-idiots, or sincere-and-not-idiots. My opinion is a sort of Nate Silver-ish probability estimate for both options. It's now tipped a fair bit more in favor of the sincere hypothesis than it was. Hall may still be a monumental jerk, but his latest site is actually looking like the kind of thing somebody would do, in 2012, if they were actually serious about Scientology, and not just role-playing. That's interesting.

Fully agreed.

But give it a little time, this is just the INTRO part.

Scientologists are, if nothing else, masters of the INTRO. They have perfected the calmly cheery, theta-istically omniscient demeanor. They know how to expertly bait the trap with fragrant cheese. They are well-practiced in the art of friendly certitude. Their Manners Policy is in. They are able to confidently deliver the surveyed prospect's "needed and wanted" back to them in a pleasing, hope-inspiring way.

Scientologists know what you want (they asked you on the prayer card you filled out before the Sunday service) and it just so happens that they have exactly what you want.

What's not to like?

Like I said, the cult recipe is not complete until one more ingredient is added. Time.

They particularly shine in early-stage, grass roots movements where they are forced to follow the lofty-sounding codes & creeds that adorn their walls.

Give it a little bit more time. Watch carefully. . .

Boa constrictors, likewise, do not make any sudden movements. They are content to make incremental tightenings each time you relax and exhale.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

You're just chicken.

No, but for a guy who can write some really sane stuff when he's not joking around, that unwarranted (so far) assumption is ridiculous.

Write one or more real reviews, post the review(s) here too, and we'll see what gets published. It could be eye-openers all round.

Paul

Chicken? LOL.

I already (extensively) posted my "Reviews" of Scientology on ESMB.

Why would I want to try to get Indie Scientologists to "approve" and read them on their website when they can simply click on ESMB and read them? I don't play by their rules. I don't even know what their rules are because they keep changing them the same as Hubbard and COB.

The Hubbard Law of Commotion applies to all Scientologists, Indies too. It's a cult and too many of them lie too easily.

I don't post on Marty's blog for the same reason.

By the way, I think it is cool that you posted your Reviews, there were some witty and funny things you wrote!

 

[Sindy]

Fully agreed.

But give it a little time, this is just the INTRO part.

Scientologists are, if nothing else, masters of the INTRO. They have perfected the calmly cheery, theta-istically omniscient demeanor. They know how to expertly bait the trap with fragrant cheese. They are well-practiced in the art of friendly certitude. Their Manners Policy is in. They are able to confidently deliver the surveyed prospect's "needed and wanted" back to them in a pleasing, hope-inspiring way.

Scientologists know what you want (they asked you on the prayer card you filled out before the Sunday service) and it just so happens that they have exactly what you want.

What's not to like?

Like I said, the cult recipe is not complete until one more ingredient is added. Time.

They particularly shine in early-stage, grass roots movements where they are forced to follow the lofty-sounding codes & creeds that adorn their walls.

Give it a little bit more time. Watch carefully. . .

Boa constrictors, likewise, do not make any sudden movements. They are content to make incremental tightenings each time you relax and exhale.

And now...for something completely cynical...

Steve is no dummy and whether it's totally conscious or not, who knows but, one could look at it this way:

The more one lets someone talk and tell one EXACTLY what one thinks, the reactions one had, the people one was dealing with, etc, etc, time, place, form and event, the more one is open to analyzation and "debugging". It is very much "known" that any negative experience equals misapplication.

The experts can know what went wrong and what correction list should have been assessed on you back in the day, when you decided it was all crap (you poor sod).

It makes the mass of critical naysayers more personally accessible and "dissectable" and therefore disarming.

The site is just in gathering mode now. It's just data and SOMETHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT.

Yes, I am cynical but I'll still give credit where credit is due -- for now.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

And now...for something completely cynical...

Steve is no dummy and whether it's totally conscious or not, who knows but, one could look at it this way:

The more one lets someone talk and tell one EXACTLY what one thinks, the reactions one had, the people one was dealing with, etc, etc, time, place, form and event, the more one is open to analyzation and "debugging". It is very much "known" that any negative experience equals misapplication.

The experts can know what went wrong and what correction list should have been assessed on you back in day when you decided it was all crap (you poor sod).

It makes the mass of critical naysayers more personally accessible and "dissectable" and therefore disarming.

The site is just in gathering mode now. It's just data and SOMETHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT.

Yes, I am cynical but I'll still give credit where credit is due -- for now.

I think the same way. Is it cynicism? No. It is wisdom, having dealt with Scientologists' lies for decades.

Here is what I see:

Scientology 1.0: Hubbard's cult from 1947 to 1986.
Scientology 2.0: David Miscavige's cult from 1986 to present.
Scientology 3.0: Marty Rathbun's cult from 2009 to present.
Scientology 3.2: Steve Hall's KSW Indie cult patch, launched in 2012.

Hall's brand of Indie Scientology is an amalgam of emotionally enraged ethics (currently thundering at Freezoners) and clinically sterile and unemotional marketing-tech aimed at flooding the world of abberees into the ranks of Indies.

Hall is a very confused guy but he is manically focused on Clearing the planet, just the way Ron wanted him to be.

What Hall doesn't know-how-to-know is that Ron Hubbard, were he alive, would Fair Game the living shit out of him until he was crushed, insane or dead. Despite that, Hall loves Ron with all his heart. Not long ago, Hall loved Miscavige with all his heart.

It's called masochism.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Hoaxie, please do it.
If they're serious about it, they should get overwhelmed with honest reports of Ex's who have done the crap and can judge from their own experience what a load of bull it is.

Either Steve publishes it, then we'll overtime have a good resource to point to what incredible hogwash Scientology is. Or he doesn't, then we'll have something to proof that Indies = Co$ 2.0.

Thanks, I don't think that is my venue for saying what I have to say. For starters, there are ads all over the place for the Bridge and the tech and how great it is. I don't feel (today anyways) like giving my support to their website when its purpose it 100% the opposite of my own.

I already know that Scientology and Indie Scientology are a fraud and a hoax. I don't have any inclination to boost their readership or to make it an interesting site. If anyone likes posting there I really support that, but it's just a personal decision and the way I feel at this time.

But if you want to post a Review there and want to know what I would say, try this sample and see if it gets posted without any changes:

[First is the advertising they put atop the review]

Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (May 1950): This is Ron's first major statement of the theory and practice of Dianetics, published on May 9, 1950. In it he isolates the dynamic principle of existence (Survive!) and his discovery of the reactive mind and its engrams. He lays out the reactive mind's anatomy and content, the mechanisms by which it can affect the individual negatively and then lays out the practice of how to relieve its effects and, ultimately, rid oneself of it through auditing. The book includes the first version of the Tone Scale, describes the State of Clear and lays out the conduct and disciplines of the auditor. The first part of the book postulates a goal for humankind, Survive! and its four division that he termed the Dynamics. The second part details the mind and its two divisions, the analytical mind and the reactive mind, targeting the latter as the single source of psychosomatic illness and aberration in the form of engrams. In Book Three, he describes therapeutic techniques to rid the reactive mind of engrams and goes into detail about the auditor and his role as the therapist and the auditor's code of conduct.

MY REVIEW:
First, let me say that the advertising banner that you are running over my review is filled with lies and outright fraud. If this was truly an unbiased website looking for OUR reviews, you wouldn't put YOUR review on top of ours. That is downright creepy.

Next, let's talk about the "state of Clear" that you and Hubbard claim is attainable through this book DMSMH. The 4th word of the book (in the title) is a lie. It is not "science". There is no scientific basis or it would have been produced in the 62 years since the book was written.

There is another problem with this book, aside from the rampant charlatanism. Not one Clear has been produced. How do I know that? Because I am Clear and audited and C/Sed at a very high level in the Church of Scientology for many years. Not one person, worldwide, has ever attained the abilities claimed in the book.

Not even the book's author, L. Ron Hubbard, believed that DMSMH produced a Clear. In a 1958 filmed congress, Hubbard apologized for having made this claim and admitted that a Clear could not be produced by DMSMH. This is an admission of fraud. Why is it fraud? Because from 1958 through 2012, not one word of Hubbard's confession has appeared in the books that are being sold--the same book you are promoting above my Review.

I wish to include in my Review link for readers to get more detailed information about the fraud being perpetrated in your promoting the DMSMH book. In order to see the proof of Hubbard's lying and watch him admit that DMSHM is a fraud, readers should go to: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?11152-HUBBARD-ADMITS-DIANETICS-BOOK-IS-A-FRAUD.

In today's Scientology, it takes many tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of dollars to go Clear. The claims in the book that you can go Clear in under 20 hours are another part of the con game. For any interested reader, simply call or walk into any Scientology or Indie Scientology organization in the world and ask them if you can go clear in under 20 hours. Or look at the price lists for auditing which are all over the internet.

The list of abilities in DMSMH are all the front part of a con game. Can any Scientologist in the world (Indie or other denomination) demonstrate the ability of "perfect memory"? No. For readers unfamilar with Scientology, ask any Scientologist what the names of all their classmates were when they were in the 2nd grade. They can't do it. Fraud.

I caution people interested in reading DMSMH that you are being conned into a bait-and-switch where you will be sold very expensive auditing and training that will go on for years and years before you are allowed to attest to the state of Clear. Ask any Scientologist in the world how long it took them to go Clear and how much it cost them.

When I was a teenager (in high school) I read DMSMH and thought it was the most amazing thing I had ever heard of. It took me years and years of diligent study and application (not to mention a fortune) to finally reach the state of Clear. NONE of the promises and guarantees of Hubbard made in that book were true.

I was then told the reason I did not have the abilities of a Clear is because i was in great danger from levels above Clear that were stopping those abilities. I was warned that I was at grave risk (Hubbard's policies required that I be scared at that point) if I did not do a level called OT III, which would cost tens of thousands more.

If anyone reading this wants to risk their mind, their sanity and their financial future, they should not do anything with DMSMH except read it as a text book example of how a spiritual con game works.

WHERE I STAND: Ex Scientologist.

PROS: A primer in how sociopathic liars like L. Ron Hubbard deceive the public for financial gain.

CON: Exactly. It is a complete CON.

RECOMMEND IT TO A FRIEND? No. Not even to an enemy.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Chicken? LOL.

I already (extensively) posted my "Reviews" of Scientology on ESMB.

Why would I want to try to get Indie Scientologists to "approve" and read them on their website when they can simply click on ESMB and read them? I don't play by their rules. I don't even know what their rules are because they keep changing them the same as Hubbard and COB.

The Hubbard Law of Commotion applies to all Scientologists, Indies too. It's a cult and too many of them lie too easily.

I don't post on Marty's blog for the same reason.

I understand all that. I was mainly bugging you because you were asserting strongly that they (Steve) would not publish your honest review, and I wasn't so sure at all that that would be the outcome.

Plus, you know very well that very few Indies are going to come visiting here and actually *read* and digest the various views presented. Whereas over there, you can sort of ambush them. Heh.

Anyway, .

By the way, I think it is cool that you posted your Reviews, there were some witty and funny things you wrote!

Thank you very much.

Paul

 

[Dulloldfart]

I have an idea - how about creating a Scientology Review Website,
with no moderation at all whatsoever?

CofS members, Indies, Freezone, Exes, Anons, Trolls, OSA, you name it
- are all welcome to review anything Scientology or whatnot.

Imagine. I guess it's too human.

Sounds like alt.religion.scientology, which became almost unreadable with the cult's trolling and spamming.

ESMB is pretty much what you ask. It is more self-moderated than anything else, and is the nearest thing to ideal that I could imagine in terms of permitting all views to be civilly aired. (Ideal would be where views I don't like don't appear very much. ).

Paul

 

[Dulloldfart]

Perhaps you could reproduce your other reviews in ESMB, and perhaps push the envelope a little further.

I made a copy of the text of "my" reviews page at http://www.scientologyreviews.com/component/jreviews/my-reviews?Itemid=&user=119 . That page is *much* easier to read than the non-formatted paste below. Veda — dunno why you need Chrome to read that original page. Any modern browser should render it OK.

Push the envelope more? We'll see. Perhaps more people here could add some reviews there.

Paul

-----

Reviews written by Paul Adams


43 results - showing 1 - 43
---------------------
OT II
Auditing Services

Overall rating

3.0
Applicability to my case

2.0
Easy-to-do

3.0
Wow factor

4.0
Results

3.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
The real fun starts at OT2

I sup'd this for a few years at Saint Hill in 1984-5 and at ITO in the early 90s for some execs. I got very familiar with what it took to train someone to do the actions per the instructions. One very important thing I noticed was that people who were both well set-up casewise, and well-trained as solo auditors and on OT2 itself, tended to do well on the level (and on OT3). Conversely, people who weren't well set-up casewise, and/or who weren't confident and competent at solo auditing AND well-drilled on the procedures of auditing OT2, didn't do well at all on OT2 (or OT3). It needs a good sup to train (lots of drilling needed!) someone on OT2, not some out-tech C/S who thinks a sup is superfluous and "delivers the OT Levels".

Now, I think the theory of OT2 is complete and utter bullshit. That fact notwithstanding, I have observed on maybe a hundred solo auditors that if someone is well set-up casewise, well-trained as a solo auditor and well-drilled on the procedures of OT2, then doing the procedures correctly in session will produce the desired result. The fact that the stated procedure can produce good results does not logically mean that the *theory* is accurate.

Someone just reading this stuff online and casually trying it out is highly unlikely to get a result, for the reasons given above. And with the far-fetched theory, they will think that it is *all* bullshit, and consider people who have professed great wins on OT2/3 mentally defective.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Lots of wow factor. Fun to do.
Cons
The theory is far-fetched.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

New OT I
Auditing Services

Overall rating

3.0
Applicability to my case

2.0
Easy-to-do

3.0
Wow factor

3.0
Results

4.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
New OT1, the problems processes one, is pretty hot stuff

I didn't receive this, at least not the version the CofS introduced in 1985, but I sup'd maybe a dozen people through it at Saint Hill and later ITO. When it first came out I read it and went, meh. Then the first person did it, and wowie-zowie, they were blown away! I thought, well OK, must have been a fluke. Then the next person did it and was blown away too. I went hmmm. Pretty much everyone who did it got blown away by it, so by the end I had become a believer. The auditing takes maybe 10-15 hours and can be fairly heavy-duty if done properly. This is not all about flying ruds, as some issues online say.

This isn't really an OT Level, despite its name and location. It looks like something that should have been covered on OT Preps, and maybe nowadays people doing it have already covered the actions earlier on and don't go so wowie-zowie about it. I don't know what the current scene is on that, as my observations are from 1985-1992-ish.

The earlier OT1 was doing 13 objective-type drills. Some people who left the CofS before the new one came out have never seen the new one.

A final sup comment. There is a metered solo assessment step right at the beginning of the auditing after all the theory. I can't remember if there is a drill or not on the theory checksheet. But it is VERY important that the solo auditor gets properly checked out and DRILLED on the meter on doing this action, otherwise it will probably get fucked up. This is from bitter experience. Ignore this warning at your peril.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Hot stuff.
Cons
Make sure you get the right one!
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

New Era Dianetics
Auditing Services

Overall rating

2.0
Applicability to my case

2.0
Easy-to-do

2.0
Wow factor

2.0
Results

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
NED is much, much faster than its predecessor

I did the NED course around 1980, as my first real auditor training course. At the time, NED was delivered before the grades. It sounded quite miraculous in what it could handle. Now, not so much, as there are auditing actions that cover the ground much better. For example, when one is thrust into some charged topic or incident, one's attention will go to some part of that topic or incident. It might be at the beginning, the middle or the end. Trying to running the incident starting at the beginning and going through to the end violates the principle of auditing what the pc's attention is on.

Then, usually while that incident is still charged, one is supposed to go diving out of present time looking for some usually-wispy earlier-similar. If one audits the pc in present time (as one should), one will try and discharge that first incident wholly by itself, and any important earlier-similar (or later-similar) will come to the fore and eventually one has no choice in the matter as the original incident will no longer be visible but the other incident will be very visible. That is the time to audit the second incident.

There's more, but you've probably got the point by now that I am not too impressed with NED auditing. Still, if it is all you believe in and all your auditor delivers, then go for it.

In its defence, NED is vastly better than the 1969 Standard Dianetics it replaced. I received hundreds of hours of that, with at least three drug rundowns, including a "Whole Track Drug Rundown." Ah, the good old days.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
The theory sounds fabulous. A big improvement over 1969 Standard Dianetics.
Cons
Dianetics theory is a bit shaky, so actions based on it aren't the best.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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


Happiness Rundown
Auditing Services

Overall rating

3.0
Applicability to my case

4.0
Easy-to-do

3.0
Wow factor

2.0
Results

3.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Can be useful

I received this shortly after it first came out, while on staff at Saint Hill. It was around Christmas time. Up to this point I was always broke, with very low havingness on money. While on the HRD I decided that I was going to go to the US that coming summer and see my 6-year old daughter, who I had never actually met. So I somehow changed my mind about a few things, managed to work at a Guardian Office audit project that was paying cash (I worked in my spare time, mealtimes, after post etc), managed to get some book commissions too, and ended up 6 months later making enough money without having to borrow any, without any hassle taking a whole month off, flying to California, and having a lovely time. And no trouble when I got back either. I attributed all that to the HRD auditing I received.

The Way to Happiness booklet I think is pretty useful, although it has the huge liability of having the CofS attached to it.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Can be very useful.
Cons
Fairly lengthy.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

Grade V, Power
Auditing Services

Overall rating

1.3
Applicability to my case

1.0
Easy-to-do

1.0
Wow factor

2.0
Results

1.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Huh?

Well, I must say I am mystified by Power. I never received it done "properly," although I have played around it since leaving Scientology. Why should revivification only happen on the Power processes and not on other auditing actions? Why should it be so tricky to audit? And the theory does not make sense when related to the questions actually asked.

I have my opinions as to the answers to the above questions, but here is probably not the right place to voice them

I have heard many others go wow wow wow with regard to these processes, so won't comment further in this review.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Seems to be a big wow process.
Cons
I can't see why.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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


Grade IV
Auditing Services

Overall rating

1.5
Applicability to my case

1.0
Easy-to-do

2.0
Wow factor

2.0
Results

1.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Sounds great too!

I got this at Saint Hill in the mid-70s. The auditor didn't find much to run. I figured there was something wrong with me, especially later when I had gotten more tech training and read all the wow things that were supposed to happen regarding service facsimilies.

Well, to date, I still haven't found much to run in the area, and I don't tend to make others wrong and so forth. Draw your own conclusions.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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


Grade III
Auditing Services

Overall rating

1.5
Applicability to my case

1.0
Easy-to-do

2.0
Wow factor

2.0
Results

1.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Sounds great!

I received Expanded Grade 3 in the mid-70s at Saint Hill. I don't remember much about it beyond not finding much to run. Rightly or wrongly, I figured something was wrong with me. Maybe there just wasn't much to address, as I wasn't particularly upset about change points in my life.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Cons
Ineffective? Maybe it was just me.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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


Grade II
Auditing Services

Overall rating

2.8
Applicability to my case

3.0
Easy-to-do

2.0
Wow factor

2.0
Results

4.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Sec checks can be very good

I received Exp Grade 2 in the mid-70s. It took something like 75 hours. I cleaned up a lot of stuff at the time, all the little seamy things that I had never told anyone about. The one person I audited it on in 2005 took about 40 hours, with maybe 30 hours on the Jo'burg Sec Check. He had good gains on it.

I was the Senior Sec Checker School sup at New World Corps in 1986/7, and later did the course myself, so got to be very familiar with sec-checking theory and practice. Used properly, i.e. for the pc, sec-checking is very powerful stuff, and one can feel extremely clean afterwards. But it is so easy to abuse, as the CofS has demonstrated.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Grade 2 can be very useful if the pc has not unburdened self of those overts and withholds yet.
Cons
Sec-checking or any O/W-pulling tech is very easy to abuse in the wrong or unskilled hands.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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


Grade I
Auditing Services

Overall rating

2.3
Applicability to my case

3.0
Easy-to-do

2.0
Wow factor

2.0
Results

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Problems, problems

I did Exp Grade 1 as a pc in the mid-70s. It took over 100 hours to do. At the time I thought it wasn't bad and felt I had got something out of it, although it was hard to nail down what it was I had got. The stated EP was pretty meaningless with respect to real life, but it was great to be "moving through the grades" and to have "completed another one."

In recent years I have some wins doing stuff with problems processes, so they can be quite useful.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Relatively simple to do and be audited on, i.e., doesn't require a highly-classed auditor.
Cons
Lengthy, but if you gotta do it there's not much choice involved.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

Grade 0
Auditing Services

Overall rating

3.0
Applicability to my case

3.0
Easy-to-do

3.0
Wow factor

2.0
Results

4.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Should help improve comm ability for real

I did Expanded Grade 0 in the mid-70s. It took a hundred hours or so, and I got quite a lot out of it, in that it did become much easier for me to talk to people. In all honesty, the "proper" EP of "can talk to anyone about anything" is an overstatement, but a lesser version of that would be accurate. I did some more on it 30 years later in 2000 (outside the CofS), and found a bunch more stuff to run then, so I don't agree with the idea that once you've run it then that's it, Bud.

Communication processes addressed to people in one's life are harmless enough, and I don't have a problem with those at all. But there is one process in Exp Grade 0, R2-60 from Creation of Human Ability, that is problematic. Part of the process (spotting things like inhibited communication or protected sex) is wonderful, as long as the questions are well grooved-in as to meaning and thoroughly restimulated to stir up stuff to run, but the auditor is supposed to check all the time if the pc is spotting the item in the physical universe or merely spotting it in his mind. Spotting it in his mind is clearly the inferior answer, and the pc is supposed to be able to spot the things in the physical universe, whatever that means in reality.

Exterior perception like this, especially of things that happened years ago and in another place, are hardly abilities a Grade 0 pc is likely to have, and to actively pursue this line of questioning would seem to me to be encouraging delusion.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Will probably help a lot with communication abilities.
Cons
The Grade EP is overstated. Plus, see comment about R2-60.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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


Co-Auditing to Clear
Auditing Services

Overall rating

3.0
Applicability to my case

2.0
Easy-to-do

3.0
Wow factor

4.0
Results

3.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
The best way to do it

Definitely the way to go if you are a Scientologist wanting to get "up the Bridge" and can afford the time.

Personally, I think that the "standard" 20th century model of the students doing virtually all their training in a courseroom with a sup and word-clearer and enforced extra drilling with the slow student in the corner (sorry) should be updated. World-class universities and colleges these days have remote study programs, where the student does most of his study at home, and only comes in very part-time for essential actions that must be done in person. I say this as a pro sup who sup'd successfully at Saint Hill and the International Training Org for 10 years.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
It's fun! Gives a far broader view of what is going on while you get your own auditing. Seeing other people having similar problems to your own devalues their importance to you personally.
Cons
Takes longer, especially if the training is slow for some reason (short of twins, etc).
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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


Clearing Course
Auditing Services

Overall rating

2.5
Applicability to my case

1.0
Easy-to-do

3.0
Wow factor

3.0
Results

3.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
You're doing *what* in session?

I didn't do this originally in the CofS as I attested Dn Clear in 1978. I later supervised it at Saint Hill for a couple of people, and played around with it a bit after 2004.

I assume I shouldn't get into much detail here, but it contains a lot of basic dichotomies that get run. The theory is somewhat far-fetched, but the reality of running it is that stuff tends to discharge and the person tends to feel better as a result. That the procedure tends to work does not mean that the theory is correct — they are not necessarily related at all. Anyway, it can be quite fun to run, and the procedure will be different to anything encountered earlier in the Grades.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Can be fun to run, and can discharge a bunch of "stuff." Good "status value" for those that care about that kind of thing.
Cons
The theory is somewhat far-fetched.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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


Clear Certainty Rundown
Auditing Services

Overall rating

1.8
Applicability to my case

2.0
Easy-to-do

1.0
Wow factor

2.0
Results

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Clear Certainty? Hmmm

Personally, I got a Dianetic Clear Special Intensive in 1978, which was a forerunner to the CCRD. It was quick, to the point, I attested Clear, and never really had any trouble with it afterwards.

But I have heard *awful* things about the problems people have had with their Clear attests, and the CCRD. This doesn't mean the DCSI was better than the CCRD, but I think it is more a question of arbitraries of various kinds concerning the state of Clear. In the CofS I didn't have any trouble with the theory of what was going on, especially after really careful study of OT2 and OT3 materials.

However, now, in 2012, I'm not at all sure what the State of Clear is, or if it even exists. I tend to think that *something* happens when someone "goes Clear," but I wouldn't like to say exactly what. Hubbard's line about the person's own bank having disappeared and it is only the entity case being audited after Clear is obviously false, as people can still find "their own" charge all the way up through OT8.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Cons
Seems to get botched a lot.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 01Report this review

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


Book One Auditing
Auditing Services

Overall rating

2.5
Applicability to my case

1.0
Easy-to-do

4.0
Wow factor

2.0
Results

3.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Great way to get someone started on auditing, both as auditor and pc

When I first got back to the UK in 2006 after 20 years in LA I hooked up with some local freezoners. They were meeting every week but just sitting around chatting. I said right, let's get some auditing going. At the next meeting there were a couple of new faces, including one guy who had been trying for TWO YEARS to get Book 1 auditing at the local CofS org (Sunderland). They had "no auditors," for crying out loud.

The guy whose house we were using had the CofS Book 1 DVD, so we played the 2nd half of that to the newbies. The 1st half is irrelevant to auditing. They then drilled the Book 1 commands from a cheat sheet for ten minutes or so, then went into session! I can't say it was technically the best Book 1 session ever, but so what? With that little bit of theory and drilling, and an "expert" (me) visibly there supervising them and able to take care of any trouble, they had enough confidence to get in there and do it.

At the next meeting they switched around, and continued like this. A few sessions later the group leader kicked me out for being a squirrel (!), so I don't know what they got out of it all, but I do know it is easy to get someone new going at it.

As for the overall effectiveness of Book 1 auditing, and the theory as laid out in DMSMH, well, that's something else. But in terms of the ease of getting someone going and getting *something* done, it is wonderful, especially with something like a video showing the actions of usual Book 1 session and a commands cheat sheet and minimum theory and a bit of drilling and not the whole original book.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Very simple procedure to train people to audit with and give both auditors and pcs some wins.
Cons
The book itself.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

The Basics
David Miscavige Programs

Overall rating

1.5
Needed

1.0
Helpful

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Financial rip-off, no question. But editorially?

At the end of 2007 I did a word-by-word, page-by-page comparison of the 2007 edition of Scn 8-8008 and the 1989/90 edition. People were assuming that DM had screwed up Hubbard's works and the reissue was purely a money grab, but no-one had presented any actual evidence. So I eyeballed a new book for myself and meticulously started to go through it, recording my findings.

The presentation in the 2007 edition is much flashier, although the white paper it too bright for easy studying. Because of the weird spacing and borders, trying to OCR (optical character recognition) that edition is impossible, although one shouldn't be doing that anyway. . The chapter headings and sub-headings are a dog's breakfast in the earlier edition, and look fine in the 2007 edition.

There are a few minor changes, where the newer version makes *less* sense than the older. For example:

(Old edition): (p.34) "The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength is considered to be on the gradient scale of wavelengths. The lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength is considered to be on a gradient scale."

New edition: (p.32) "The larger the number, the lower the wavelength is considered to be on the gradient scale of wavelengths. The smaller the number, the higher the wavelength is considered to be on the gradient scale."

After three chapters of microscopic examination, I wrote: "OK, I think I've compared enough in these three chapters to make some general comments. If you are a serious Scientologist, who uses this book for reference, whether a churchie or not, my opinion is that you should get this new book. Buy it on eBay or something if you don't want to pay the CofS directly. The earlier copy is very different in places, with different meanings, not just different words. The omitted passages may appear later in the book, or they may not, but I am not talking about those passages particularly.

What I find very interesting seems to be exemplified by that quote about wavelengths/frequencies. The prior edition is much more clear than the revised edition, where Hubbard garbles the terms. No way would diehard SO members [actually DM personally, I later heard] revise it like that unless it is genuinely true to the original dictation!

Overall, there are many minute changes with regard to punctuation, but (in my opinion), all for the better in regard to making the text more comprehensible. If DM had wanted to worsen the text throughout, he wouldn't have done all that. So, counter-intuitively, generalizing from the actual hands-on examination I did do, I will assume that the 2007 books are actually closer to what Hubbard dictated than earlier editions.

WHERE I STAND ON KEY ISSUES
I am a
ex-Scientologist
The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is a...
Suppressive person (sociopath)
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Counter-intuitively, the text seems to be closer to what Hubbard dictated than older editions.
Cons
Gigantic money-grab. Obviously DM isn't interested in getting Hubbard's words out to the world.
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 10Report this review

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


Assists
Auditing Services

Overall rating

3.3
Applicability to my case

2.0
Easy-to-do

4.0
Wow factor

4.0
Results

3.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Good bang for the buck

From observation, locationals can help people who are out of it, although the "sober up a drunk" aspect seems to be overstated. Contact assists reportedly help and I have heard of good results, but personally I have observed nothing spectacular with one. That said, even today if I bang my hand or something I always do some kind of contact assist.

Now, nerve assists and touch assists are meridian therapies, in that they both "get the chi flowing," helping to even out blockages etc. If the problem is due to, or is being held in place by some imbalance in the subtle energy bodies of the person, then they can help a lot. If, on the other hand, the chi *is* flowing, and there is no imbalance to speak of, they are a complete waste of time! I think this is why sometimes they have no effect at all.

Small auditing actions that could be called assists I am not really addressing here.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Easy to train people on, and can give excellent results.
Cons
Don't always work, despite the PR.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
Yes
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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


ARC Straightwire
Auditing Services

Overall rating

3.0
Applicability to my case

2.0
Easy-to-do

3.0
Wow factor

4.0
Results

3.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
The first of the "grades"

This was pretty much my first auditing service, way back in 1973 at Saint Hill. There sure was a "wow" factor, in that while running Self Analysis I seemed to go whole track for the first time. Now, whether I actually did or not is another question, but at the time it seemed pretty real and I was pretty excited about it, in terms of getting a personal "confirmation" on being immortal.

As a series of auditing actions it is very basic and relatively easy for a beginning auditor to do.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Relatively easy to run, both for an auditor and as a pc.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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


Disconnection Campaign
David Miscavige Programs

Overall rating

1.0
Needed

1.0
Helpful

1.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Disconnection can be inhuman

I don't get the numbers voting. Should I vote 1 for disconnection being inhuman, or 5 in support of it being cancelled? I'll choose 1.

Personally I only lost a few friends when I got declared in 2004 and they were afraid of the cult if they stayed in touch with me, and gained more and better friends subsequently for a definite net gain. Many people have not seen family members for decades, which is heartbreaking.

Disconnection on one's own determinism, like choosing not to associate with one's axe-murderer brother, is something else entirely.

WHERE I STAND ON KEY ISSUES
I am a
ex-Scientologist
The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is a...
Suppressive person (sociopath)
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Huh?
Cons
Absolutely disgusting how anyone can enforce or support cult-determined disconnection.
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 10Report this review

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

Int Management Org (Flag Bureau)
Mid Management orgs

Overall rating

1.0
Friendly

1.0
Inviting

1.0
Service

1.0
Ethical

1.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
HGB orgs 1989-1995

I worked in the HGB from 1989-1997, mostly as a Staff Courses Supervisor. A few years before that I worked for New World Corps and OSA Int before we moved into the Hollywood Guaranty Building on Hollywood Boulevard. I'll lump it all together into this review, but concentrate on the HGB. I got RPF'd just before GAT came out, so missed out on that horror. I hear things are much worse now than they used to be with regard to the demand for Basics sales and IAS donations, and they weren't too hunkydory before. Being on tech lines, despite the insanities that Sea Org members get pulled into, most of the time I got enough sleep and enough food, and was not abused particularly.

The numbers for the scores are for how I hear things are now, not how they were then. I didn't leave staff requiring auditing repairs to fix up the nightmares and so forth; didn't even need ruds flown actually. I can't say I would recommend anyone join staff there, but while I was there it wasn't totally awful for everybody.

WHERE I STAND ON KEY ISSUES
I am a
ex-Scientologist
The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is a...
Suppressive person (sociopath)
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Interesting experiences. Relatively near the middle of things Scientologically, and not out of the loop out in the boonies somewhere.
Cons
It's the Sea Org, mad, utterly mad realistically.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 10Report this review

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

Advanced Org Saint Hill (AOSH) UK
United Kingdom

Overall rating

1.0
Friendly

1.0
Inviting

1.0
Service

1.0
Ethical

1.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 11, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
AOSHUK 1972-1986

I worked at Saint Hill from 1972-1986. The grounds are gorgeous, they really are. I used to spend lunchtimes down by the lake feeding the swans in the 80s, and after a year of daily visits literally had them eating out of my hands (vice-like beaks!). The tech while I was there wasn't bad, and there were lots of students in the 70s, especially in the summer although not so many in the winter. I last visited in 2003, before I had been declared. The grounds looked even better than before. I think if one is a Scientologist in the UK and relatively nearby it is definitely worthwhile to take a visit and see the places that Hubbard talks about (the chapel, the solarium where he grew the famous tomatoes, the manor, etc). But leave your wallet and any ID behind!

My numerical votes are for how I believe things are today from reports I have read, not according to how things were when I was there.

WHERE I STAND ON KEY ISSUES
I am a
ex-Scientologist
The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is a...
Suppressive person (sociopath)
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Gorgeous, gorgeous environment.
Cons
Don't do services there now!
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

Volunteer Ministers Course
Training Services

Overall rating

2.0
Makes life easier

2.0
Worth the investment

1.0
Easy to do

3.0
Usefulness of information

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
VMH? Really?

In the early 90s I sup'd lots of people on the Scn Handbook version of the VM course. I thought it was wonderful, and a definite improvement over the old VMH. The checksheets were better, more relevant, with better drills, and the text was far clearer and easier to understand. One big problem with studying Hubbard originals is that a newbie without guidance will have no idea what is current tech and what is "old and not used anymore." Rewrites like the Scn Handbook and Clearbird sidestep this problem completely. Old-timers can miss this, because after 30 years they know without thinking what is currently applicable and what is not, but a newbie doesn't know this at all.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Written by Hubbard exclusively.
Cons
Written by Hubbard exclusively.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 20Report this review

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

Upper Indoc TR Course
Training Services

Overall rating

2.3
Makes life easier

3.0
Worth the investment

3.0
Easy to do

1.0
Usefulness of information

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Lots of fun, but . . . .

There's a lot of intention drilled in this course. It's meant to be used in session too, so when you ask a student to look up a word you *intend* him to look up the word at the same time. I never did particularly like to do this as to me it seemed to violate the other person's self-determinism. It might be useful in some solo auditing or as a prison guard, but in interpersonal dealings with friends and family?

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Lots of fun.
Cons
Is that control really wanted in normal life? Still, if it's a required course, whatcha gonna do aboutit?
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 10Report this review

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

Survival Rundown
Training Services

Overall rating

2.8
Makes life easier

3.0
Worth the investment

3.0
Easy to do

3.0
Usefulness of information

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Can be useful, and fun too

I co-audited about 100 hours each way of this back around 1980. Looking back on it now, it was quite fun and good experience at auditing easy stuff to audit.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Easy to audit, and an easy way of getting and giving lots of auditing.
Cons
Guess it depends if you need or want several hundred hours of objectives.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

Success Through Communication Course (STCC)
Training Services

Overall rating

3.3
Makes life easier

3.0
Worth the investment

3.0
Easy to do

4.0
Usefulness of information

3.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Not a bad little course

Some of the basic drills, like being able to face people and talking clearly and giving acks that get across are very useful. But it is a shame that the overall orientation of the drills is in CONTROLLING the communication. It might be useful for an auditor or for someone in an authoritarian position over his minions, but in normal life where one has peers and not minions it is inappropriate.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Not a bad intro to TR basics.
Cons
Oriented around CONTROLLING people.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

Student Hat
Training Services

Overall rating

3.0
Makes life easier

3.0
Worth the investment

3.0
Easy to do

3.0
Usefulness of information

3.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Some bits are hot and some are not

This is tricky stuff. I sup'd for ten years at Saint Hill and ITO. I have written extensively about the subject online in articles and message board posts. I used to think that "Study Tech" was so wonderful, but in reality what is wonderful is what I cherry-picked out of study tech to use while discarding the rest. For example, in the Study Tapes Hubbard talks about the importance of the student's power of choice over data, being able to accept or reject information under study. Very true. But in Method 4 word-clearing, if you have a disagreement with something Hubbard said then you must have a misunderstood word. Most modern CofS supervisors do not make use of the power of choice data, pushing the infallibility of Hubbard instead. As a sup, for preference I used Method 3 word clearing as THE laser-sharp debug tool for fixing up students and I was very good at it too. I've written that up extensively. The other methods of word-clearing aren't so hot, and Method 2 and Method 4 really suck *as written.* A good sup and good word-clearer can work their way around the idiocies (and we did), but what is being done in such a case is NOT study tech. Study Tech is the whole enchilada, the good stuff and the crap too.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Some parts of study tech are wonderfully useful.
Cons
Some parts of study tech are just plain awful.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 30Report this review

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

Scientology Minister Course
Training Services

Overall rating

2.0
Makes life easier

2.0
Worth the investment

2.0
Easy to do

2.0
Usefulness of information

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
How does one get ordained outside the CofS?

I did this course around 1980. It was quite interesting to find out about the world religions, but most useful to be ordained as a proper CofS minister, useful for later getting a green card. When I left the Sea Org my minister's cert was cancelled. I later got ordained in the Universal Life Church, very easy to do. I'm not sure what practical use it is to do a Scn minister's course, as the CofS will not ordain an Indie. Right? Am I missing something?

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Useful if you need to be a CofS minister.
Cons
Meaningless as you can't be ordained as a Scientology minister.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 20Report this review

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

PTS/SP Detection, Routing and Handling Course
Training Services

Overall rating

1.5
Makes life easier

1.0
Worth the investment

1.0
Easy to do

3.0
Usefulness of information

1.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Not all that useful in real life

I did a few of these courses over the years in the CofS. Hubbard's ideas are not all well-researched at all. For example, "All illness stems from PTSness" is a vast over-generalization. And his "12 characteristics of the anti-social personality" don't match at all (apart from the remorse one) the traits found in real-life anti-social personalities. And what evidence is there that an anti-social personality is stuck in an incident from long ago?

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Useful to understand what is being said in a Scientology environment when people use the terms. Plus the datum that "if you can fight back against it, then it is less suppressive" is very useful when applied to the CofS itself.
Cons
Many of the "facts" presented are of dubious value.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 20Report this review

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

Professional TRs Course
Training Services

Overall rating

2.8
Makes life easier

4.0
Worth the investment

2.0
Easy to do

2.0
Usefulness of information

3.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Needful for a professional auditor

I added up recently that I have done over 2000 hours of TRs. My three Pro TRs courses in the CofS took about 8 or 9 weeks full time (very full time) each. The last one with the clay table processing was the most fun. I sup'd a bunch of TRs too.

Realistically, a professional auditor needs to do a Pro TRs course. Someone else? Not so much. It's kinda nice to have the abilities, but it's not so easy for most people to take 2 months out of their life to do it.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
You get your TRs in much better!
Cons
Can take months full time to do it by the book. The EPs on the CofS checksheet (like can handle any social situation however rough by TRs alone) are overstated and guaranteed to give a graduate a loss if he is at all honest.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

Product Debug Course
Training Services

Overall rating

1.5
Makes life easier

2.0
Worth the investment

1.0
Easy to do

1.0
Usefulness of information

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Useful for cramming officers!

In theory Debug Tech looks great. I had a few wins using it, especially the inspection step of the Debug which seemed to yield fruit quite quickly if one dug in and didn't gloss over it "to get at the meaty stuff." I must have done several hundred hours of False Data Stripping, both giving and receiving. I quite liked FDSing, and had some good wins at it. In my courseroom at ITO it was quite normal for the students to star-rate and drill the issue and FDS each other in the courseroom. Sometimes I would need to step in, but it always seemed to resolve by applying the issue exactly afrter the student had skipped something. I didn't have the same wins at all with Crashing Mis-U Finding, and thought the bulletin was overstated as to its usefulness.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Useful for learning all the little bits of Hubbard's Debug Tech. Debug Tech can be useful, especially the first inspection steps. False Data Stripping is pretty neat sometimes, and can even be used to FDS bits of Scientology itself. FDSing can easily be learned outside this course.
Cons
Crashing Mis-U Finding seems to be overstated as to its usefulness.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

Primary Rundown (for super literacy)
Training Services

Overall rating

1.8
Makes life easier

2.0
Worth the investment

2.0
Easy to do

1.0
Usefulness of information

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Using the Oxford 3000 word list might be better

This huge course used to be studied solo, then in the late-80s some idiot in the CofS made it a twinned action. I sup'd a couple of students through it at ITO (solo, not twinned) in 1987, and it took them literally three months full time. I can't imagine how lengthy it would be to do it twinned. I think that if one is going to do such a course, looking up all the definitions of a few thousand words, it would be more practical to take something like the "Oxford 3000" list of words selected by vocabulary experts and teachers for their importance and usefulness rather than the words randomly used by Hubbard in the Study Tapes.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Cons
Very lengthy to do, and arguably the time could be better spent on other things.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 10Report this review

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

New Era Dianetics (NED) Auditor Course
Training Services

Overall rating

1.5
Makes life easier

1.0
Worth the investment

1.0
Easy to do

3.0
Usefulness of information

1.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
You should do the NED Course to audit NED

This was really my first auditor training course, which I did around 1980, when NED was before Grades on the Grade Chart and before Class IV was a pre-requisite. I was very impressed with it at the time, and thought the power of NED auditing sounded wonderful. I didn't have any complaints about the course at the time. Today, well, I don't think too much of NED. But if you want to deliver NED, and you need to do this course to be qualified to deliver it, reviews don't really come into it, do they?

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Good course for the prospective NED auditor.
Cons
NED
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

Method One Co-Audit Course
Training Services

Overall rating

2.3
Makes life easier

3.0
Worth the investment

3.0
Easy to do

1.0
Usefulness of information

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Method 1 is often mistargeted, adding months to the co-audit course

I've sup'd this. The M1 Co-Audit Course can take 100+ hours of auditing. Both ways, that is a huge chunk of time wasted for the people concerned when they could be doing something more productive. The usual errors, once the people have got into the swing of it, is that they overdo it and try to clear up a lifetime's worth of misunderstood words. This error is often compounded by getting into needless word-chains, not from earlier-similar misunderstood words from the principal one found in a subject, but from using the wrong (too complex) dictionary(ies).

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Gives the participants lots of practice at auditing, and word-clearing. In a "standard" courseroom, finishing M1 and the Student Hawt allows the student to skip star-rating many issues, speeding up courses considerably (but see cons).
Cons
Usually horribly overdone, with far more addressed than is required by the materials. The error seems to be the overstatement of "recovery of one's education," a change from the initial purpose of M1 (shortening time taken to clear up words in current study because the words are hung up on unseen and unexpected earlier-similar words, often wholetrack). When sup'ing I used to insist on checking out clay demos personally, even if "fast-flow" students were supposed to not need it, because it was a check for me on what they understood. M1/Student Hat completion alone did NOT guarantee excellent comprehension. I think M1 is highly over-rated.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

Metering Course
Training Services

Overall rating

2.5
Makes life easier

3.0
Worth the investment

3.0
Easy to do

2.0
Usefulness of information

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Meter training is essential for meter use, but the regular meter course could be better

If you must use a meter for auditing then you need to be trained on it. Especially if solo auditing. If you don't have confidence in your ability to solo audit with a meter you will have a horrible, horrible time in session and be convinced that OT2/OT3 "don't work." (I used to sup Solo-OT3 at Saint Hill)

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Useful for a newbie to get familiar with an e-meter. And also for someone using a new meter from outside the CofS that has a different appearance and features. Plus the usual drills impart some useful skills, and the drills like "Consider the events of today" and cleaning and dirtying a needle can be real eye-openers for the uninitiated.
Cons
Many of the drills train the user on procedures that exist nowhere in standard Scientology as practised after the 60s, and should be DUMPED and replaced with drills that are meaningful.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

Life Orientation Course
Training Services

Overall rating

1.3
Makes life easier

2.0
Worth the investment

1.0
Easy to do

1.0
Usefulness of information

1.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
LOC needs a very different checksheet from the CofS one

I did this at ITO around 1992 after the Key To Life Course. It didn't take too long (only months), but was not at all interesting to do and I don't feel I got anything out of it at all beyond the ability to now get on with other auditing/training cycles. The big problem at the time was the "hat in life" bit, as you would get something like the guy who had been Toilet Cleaning I/C for two years "realizing" that he really wanted to be a rock singer and trying to route off staff. So they changed it to be that your "hat in life" was your actual post or some sort of BS like that. Now, outside the CofS, it will probably be very different to that, but I cannot imagine doing it being worthwhile in terms of the effort needed to properly M9 everything with a twin. If the Indie course checksheet just skips all the M9, then studying the issues normally and doing the drills (although skip the overkill O/Ws by Department!) might turn out to be viable.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Contains some admin-type issues that one might not be familiar with and might find useful. Working out one's hat in life after doing a 21-dept analysis of one's own life might well be useful.
Cons
Overlong if M9'd, with too much O/W write-up and a possible real problem over the "hat in life" one comes up with.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

Level 0 Auditor Course
Training Services

Overall rating

4.5
Makes life easier

3.0
Worth the investment

5.0
Easy to do

5.0
Usefulness of information

5.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Useful course that contains a huge amount of auditing basics

I'm writing this from the viewpoint I had when a Scientologist. I both supervised this course and later did it. I was far from green when I sup'd it and was very familiar with everything in it. The checksheet is long, but there is a lot of basic stuff an auditor needs to know, and it is well covered on the checksheet. I don't know what pre-requisites are being considered at this point, but I am assuming something like the Student Hat, a TRs course (NOT a Pro TRs course at this point), maybe a short meter course (not a huge thing that takes a year), and NOT a Method 1 Co-Audit Course which takes forever for a dubious result. An auditor learns to audit by auditing, and the sooner he gets into auditing the better.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Great auditing course that covers the basics needed to audit Scn processes.
Cons
Be careful that the pre-requisites don't get out of hand.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
Yes
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

Key to Life
Training Services

Overall rating

2.8
Makes life easier

5.0
Worth the investment

2.0
Easy to do

1.0
Usefulness of information

3.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
KTL is tricky to review

This is a tricky course to review. I did it while on staff at the International Training Organization around 1992. It took me over a year at 5 hours a day, and I personally have always been able to Method 9 things very easily indeed. Before I started it I thought I was pretty literate. But near the end I suddenly realized that my ability to take information off a page had increased tremendously, and things I didn't get instantly leapt off the page at me instead of the whole area going foggy for some reason. But was that worth the hundreds of hours it took? Hard to say.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Excellent for increasing one's literacy, although some get more out of it than others.
Cons
Can take forever to get though if done by the book, i.e. M9ing* the whole thing and getting a twin through it all too. (M9 = Method 9 word-clearing, where one reads aloud with a twin and at every stumble one must find and clear the misunderstood word causing the stumble)
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 10Report this review

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


Hubbard Qualified Scientologist (HQS) Course
Training Services

Overall rating

3.8
Makes life easier

4.0
Worth the investment

4.0
Easy to do

3.0
Usefulness of information

4.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Excellent basic course for a Scientologist

I supervised dozens of new Sea Org students on this at the International Training Organization, as it was part of the mandatory training line-up for a year or so. For many, it was the *only* tech training and auditing (apart from sec checks) they ever got in the Sea Org. It contains minimal theory and maximum practice. I was very pleased with it when I was sup'ing, until it got taken off the line-up anyway.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Excellent course covering the basics of Scientology with a lot of actual auditing, both giving and receiving, assists and Self Analysis and maybe some CCHs depending on which checksheet is being used.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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


Comm Course
Training Services

Overall rating

5.0
Makes life easier

5.0
Worth the investment

5.0
Easy to do

5.0
Usefulness of information

5.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Hah! The famous HAS Course

I did this course as my introduction to Scientology in London in 1972. It was basically a Div 6 Hard TRs course. After a couple of weeks full time I had just got through TR-4, when I ended up joining the Sea Org and stayed for the next 23 years. Wonderful course.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Fabulous introduction to Scientology.
Cons
Not very profitable to deliver except as a loss leader, at which it excels.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
Yes
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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


Hubbard Personal Ethics and Integrity Course
Training Services

Overall rating

4.8
Makes life easier

5.0
Worth the investment

5.0
Easy to do

5.0
Usefulness of information

4.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Great little course

I'm no longer a Scientologist, so don't recommend much of it these days. But at the time I thought it was a good course.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Great little course containing some basics of ethics, and also the essay on personal integrity. I used to sup this at AOSHUK as one of the little courses we sometimes delivered to local AO public, and people seemed to like it. The O/W write-ups were sometimes the first ones they had ever done, although that might be different now than in the early 80s!
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

Exec Status One
Training Services

Overall rating

4.0
Makes life easier

4.0
Worth the investment

4.0
Easy to do

4.0
Usefulness of information

4.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Short but sweet

Not so useful if you are execing in a non-Scn work environment.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
I did the course in the 80s when I was a CofS exec, and found it included the bare basics of being an exec in a Scientology admin-oriented environment. It is a short course, from memory about 5 days part-time, and much easier to get people through than sometimes-lengthy post hats.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 10Report this review

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

Ethics Specialist Course
Training Services

Overall rating

2.5
Makes life easier

2.0
Worth the investment

2.0
Easy to do

4.0
Usefulness of information

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
Good summary of Ethics/Justice Issues

Not as useful to the general user as the more tech-oriented courses.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
Assuming you want to understand this area of Scientology, the checksheet gives a good grounding in it.
Cons
There is more emphasis on the justice angle than should be needed much outside the CofS.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 10Report this review

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


Data Series Evaluator Course (DSEC)
Training Services

Overall rating

3.3
Makes life easier

3.0
Worth the investment

3.0
Easy to do

4.0
Usefulness of information

3.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
The DSEC definitely helps one get the Data Series

Overall, if you really want a good understanding of the Data Series, the DSEC with its discipline of studying in a properly-supervised courseroom and doing all the drills on the checksheet will definitely help.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
I was very happy to do this course. At the time I did it, I was very pleased with how much the course — with all its drills — enhanced my understanding of the Data Series, which I had studied as individual issues many times before.
Cons
I don't know if this is the course, or just me, but the only complete eval I have ever done since I did the course around 1994 is the one I had to do to complete the course.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review

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

The Solo Auditor Course
Training Services

Overall rating

2.8
Makes life easier

3.0
Worth the investment

3.0
Easy to do

3.0
Usefulness of information

2.0
Reviewed by Paul Adams November 10, 2012
#1 Reviewer -
I used to sup this at Saint Hill, mainly Solo Course Part 2

But if you want to solo audit the usual stuff with a meter, as supervised by a KSW stalwart, then there isn't much choice.

WHERE I STAND
I am a...
ex-Scientologist
PROS AND CONS (OPTIONAL)
Pros
The Solo Part 2 I am talking about takes something like 3 or 4 days to do full time, and includes 12 solo audited sessions. These sessions include flying ruds, word clearing, a couple of L1Cs, and even a session (on Self Analysis) designed to teach the solo auditor to spot a persistent F/N. I used to think this was an excellent course, as students coming from a lower org usually didn't quite know how to solo audit (they missed out on what a solo instant read is) despite having supposedly trained on it already on Solo Part 1. So when that got fixed they did solo sessions on a very easy gradient and usually got a big kick out of successfully auditing themselves on a meter.
Cons
Can't think of any for Solo Part 2. Solo Part 1, on the other hand, was/is hugely bloated, containing lots of stuff that didn't relate to solo auditing at all. For example, all the basic books on there have very little to do with solo auditing. I assumed they were on there in an attempt to get the "professional pc" to at least study *some* basic Scientology. 5x through the meter drills is an overkill, and is only useful if the coaching/supervising sucks. If the person is studying the course at home through some remote study program and comes to a center for checkouts/drilling it isn't so bad, but if he has to be away from home for the weeks it takes to get through Solo Part 1, that can be painful.
BOTTOM LINE...
Recommend it to a friend?
No
Comments (0) Reply to this review Was this review helpful to you? 00Report this review


43 results - showing 1 - 43

 

[Krautfag]

Thanks, I don't think that is my venue for saying what I have to say. For starters, there are ads all over the place for the Bridge and the tech and how great it is. I don't feel (today anyways) like giving my support to their website when its purpose it 100% the opposite of my own.

I already know that Scientology and Indie Scientology are a fraud and a hoax. I don't have any inclination to boost their readership or to make it an interesting site. If anyone likes posting there I really support that, but it's just a personal decision and the way I feel at this time.

But if you want to post a Review there and want to know what I would say, try this sample and see if it gets posted without any changes:

[First is the advertising they put atop the review]

Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (May 1950): This is Ron's first major statement of the theory and practice of Dianetics, published on May 9, 1950. In it he isolates the dynamic principle of existence (Survive!) and his discovery of the reactive mind and its engrams. He lays out the reactive mind's anatomy and content, the mechanisms by which it can affect the individual negatively and then lays out the practice of how to relieve its effects and, ultimately, rid oneself of it through auditing. The book includes the first version of the Tone Scale, describes the State of Clear and lays out the conduct and disciplines of the auditor. The first part of the book postulates a goal for humankind, Survive! and its four division that he termed the Dynamics. The second part details the mind and its two divisions, the analytical mind and the reactive mind, targeting the latter as the single source of psychosomatic illness and aberration in the form of engrams. In Book Three, he describes therapeutic techniques to rid the reactive mind of engrams and goes into detail about the auditor and his role as the therapist and the auditor's code of conduct.

MY REVIEW:
First, let me say that the advertising banner that you are running over my review is filled with lies and outright fraud. If this was truly an unbiased website looking for OUR reviews, you wouldn't put YOUR review on top of ours. That is downright creepy.

Next, let's talk about the "state of Clear" that you and Hubbard claim is attainable through this book DMSMH. The 4th word of the book (in the title) is a lie. It is not "science". There is no scientific basis or it would have been produced in the 62 years since the book was written.

There is another problem with this book, aside from the rampant charlatanism. Not one Clear has been produced. How do I know that? Because I am Clear and audited and C/Sed at a very high level in the Church of Scientology for many years. Not one person, worldwide, has ever attained the abilities claimed in the book.

Not even the book's author, L. Ron Hubbard, believed that DMSMH produced a Clear. In a 1958 filmed congress, Hubbard apologized for having made this claim and admitted that a Clear could not be produced by DMSMH. This is an admission of fraud. Why is it fraud? Because from 1958 through 2012, not one word of Hubbard's confession has appeared in the books that are being sold--the same book you are promoting above my Review.

I wish to include in my Review link for readers to get more detailed information about the fraud being perpetrated in your promoting the DMSMH book. In order to see the proof of Hubbard's lying and watch him admit that DMSHM is a fraud, readers should go to: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?11152-HUBBARD-ADMITS-DIANETICS-BOOK-IS-A-FRAUD.

In today's Scientology, it takes many tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of dollars to go Clear. The claims in the book that you can go Clear in under 20 hours are another part of the con game. For any interested reader, simply call or walk into any Scientology or Indie Scientology organization in the world and ask them if you can go clear in under 20 hours. Or look at the price lists for auditing which are all over the internet.

The list of abilities in DMSMH are all the front part of a con game. Can any Scientologist in the world (Indie or other denomination) demonstrate the ability of "perfect memory"? No. For readers unfamilar with Scientology, ask any Scientologist what the names of all their classmates were when they were in the 2nd grade. They can't do it. Fraud.

I caution people interested in reading DMSMH that you are being conned into a bait-and-switch where you will be sold very expensive auditing and training that will go on for years and years before you are allowed to attest to the state of Clear. Ask any Scientologist in the world how long it took them to go Clear and how much it cost them.

When I was a teenager (in high school) I read DMSMH and thought it was the most amazing thing I had ever heard of. It took me years and years of diligent study and application (not to mention a fortune) to finally reach the state of Clear. NONE of the promises and guarantees of Hubbard made in that book were true.

I was then told the reason I did not have the abilities of a Clear is because i was in great danger from levels above Clear that were stopping those abilities. I was warned that I was at grave risk (Hubbard's policies required that I be scared at that point) if I did not do a level called OT III, which would cost tens of thousands more.

If anyone reading this wants to risk their mind, their sanity and their financial future, they should not do anything with DMSMH except read it as a text book example of how a spiritual con game works.

WHERE I STAND: Ex Scientologist.

PROS: A primer in how sociopathic liars like L. Ron Hubbard deceive the public for financial gain.

CON: Exactly. It is a complete CON.

RECOMMEND IT TO A FRIEND? No. Not even to an enemy.

Now, that's exactly the kind of review I would love to read over there and the exact reason why (and method how *cough*) the rather nifty marketing idea of Steve Hall will footbullet just like everything Scientology IF they are being honest about it.
And I for one would like to see the Indies tested to their honestly till they squeak. Sadly Anon can't do that, as we lack the cultspeak, we could only destruct the thing as a whole.

 

[Dulloldfart]

But if you want to post a Review there and want to know what I would say, try this sample and see if it gets posted without any changes: <snip>

One of my reviews got rejected because it included a link to an ESMB post. I even commented in the post if it was "allowed." It isn't. No links to critical sites. I edited it out and the review was then published.

I made the comment because your honest-looking review contains such a link, and it wouldn't really be any kind of test if it got rejected outright.

Paul

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Now, that's exactly the kind of review I would love to read over there and the exact reason why (and method how *cough*) the rather nifty marketing idea of Steve Hall will footbullet just like everything Scientology IF they are being honest about it.
And I for one would like to see the Indies tested to their honestly till they squeak. Sadly Anon can't do that, as we lack the cultspeak, we could only destruct the thing as a whole.

Thanks. On that part about Hubbard confessing that DMSMH does not produce a Clear the way the book guarantees, there is a fascinating footnote. . .

No Scientologist has been willing or able to give an answer to that. The only lame excuse offered by one Scientologist was "That's old news" as if it was not relevant. LOL

On this point alone, the Indies prove that they are completely full of shit because they are still promoting EXACTLY the same lies contained in the book as the Church of Scientology. What's the difference? So they don't beat people, is that supposed to mean they are not part of the same exact con game?

Any honest organization would readily admit that the book is a gross misrepresentation of even Hubbard's own words a few years later. How fraudulent do the Indies have to be for NOT EVEN ONE PERSON to stand up and say:

"Hey fellow Indies, we shouldn't really be promoting DMSMH without putting the proper disclosures in there that the book DOES NOT result in a Clear and that you CAN NOT go Clear in under 20 hours just using the book."

Not even one Indie has made a peep about it.

Any other questions on why their "most ethical organization" cannot be trusted?