Bill Frank's story about blackmail

[Atalantan]

Mmmmm, I think the closer one gets to Flag, the closer one is to source and the people there are probably more understanding of what scientology is really all about than you think they are (it's just a business flogging services in the guise of a religion and not to be taken too seriously). They are mainly salespeople and the only thing that continues to surprise me is why they tolerate the conditions they work under when they could be in the real world doing the same job with way less stress and earning a good income!

I truly do not understand why you say that a person that was clearly a nutter with the morals of a sewer rat could have also created a good and decent thing in the tek ... have you read any of Veda's posts and references? Do you know of how Tubs treated those that he cared for (ie his own family)? Why would such a person be taken seriously as a saviour of planets?

Tubs was very much alive in the 70's when you say you saw the (so called) decline starting, so why are you letting him off the hook?

Do you think that Tubs (or his disciples) would have accepted any other response to his OT3 materials for instance, other than pure dittohead? I would like to have seen the result of someone in an OT3 course-room (in the 70's or earlier) having just been introduced to Xenu and who had the audacity to stand up and say "sorry, I am a free thinker and this really isn't quite working for me because I don't believe it " ... we both know that he would have been handled or booted whichever came first (and that applies to any of the courses and at any time since the inception of scientology).

The term dittoheads is not mine but it certainly describes anyone that has bought into the lies of scientology pre or post Tubs, it is and always was a con job and any gain was incidental and could probably be achieved in many other ways and with little or no money changing hands.

IMO.

I haven't read all of ESMB by any means, but I have been reading here for about a year and a half, so I've read some of Veda's posts as well as others.

From what I have gathered about other "historical" figures, I guess I don't see Hubbard as being particularly better or worse than others in character. Unsavoriness seems widespread.

Is Bill Gates a nice moral guy who developed his software for altruistic reasons? I doubt it. And it was never that good a product, yet he has had a virtual monopoly that has made him many many millions.

Maybe I am biased by my background in psychiatry, but I am skeptical and leery of those who decry the morals of others. At best, SNL's "Church Lady" comes to mind; at worst, there have a been a lot of witchhunts started by those who claimed some kind of moral high ground over others.

I'm not much of a fan of those who fly the flag of "I'm OK, you're(he,she,they) not OK."

[Atalantan]

Mmmmm, I think the closer one gets to Flag, the closer one is to source and the people there are probably more understanding of what scientology is really all about than you think they are (it's just a business flogging services in the guise of a religion and not to be taken too seriously). They are mainly salespeople and the only thing that continues to surprise me is why they tolerate the conditions they work under when they could be in the real world doing the same job with way less stress and earning a good income!

I truly do not understand why you say that a person that was clearly a nutter with the morals of a sewer rat could have also created a good and decent thing in the tek ... have you read any of Veda's posts and references? Do you know of how Tubs treated those that he cared for (ie his own family)? Why would such a person be taken seriously as a saviour of planets?

Tubs was very much alive in the 70's when you say you saw the (so called) decline starting, so why are you letting him off the hook?

Do you think that Tubs (or his disciples) would have accepted any other response to his OT3 materials for instance, other than pure dittohead? I would like to have seen the result of someone in an OT3 course-room (in the 70's or earlier) having just been introduced to Xenu and who had the audacity to stand up and say "sorry, I am a free thinker and this really isn't quite working for me because I don't believe it " ... we both know that he would have been handled or booted whichever came first (and that applies to any of the courses and at any time since the inception of scientology).

The term dittoheads is not mine but it certainly describes anyone that has bought into the lies of scientology pre or post Tubs, it is and always was a con job and any gain was incidental and could probably be achieved in many other ways and with little or no money changing hands.

IMO.

Also, I am not interested in letting anyone "off the hook", anymore than I am interested in putting anyone "on the hook". That said, I do not give obvious injustices and lawbreaking, cruelty,avarice, and exploitation etc a free pass.

I have seen enough people in my time who liked what the auditing tech and some of the other materials did for them, that I view anyone who is completely negative about it as having their own blinders on. Bill Franks recent disclosure of what Hubbard said about why people really "blow" indicates to me.....

In that context, of the Bill Franks revelation, the only withhold that matters is one about having an ARCx. This puts the onus of living up to a higher standard of acceptance and tolerance on the Church, so as not to make-wrong the Church members, or for that matter, non-members, so-called "wogs".

I see those who are totally negative as being as much off-center as those true believers who are still clinging to the CoS.

[LongTimeGone]

<snip>
I have seen enough people in my time who liked what the auditing tech and some of the other materials did for them, that I view anyone who is completely negative about it as having their own blinders on. Bill Franks recent disclosure of what Hubbard said about why people really "blow" indicates to me.....

In that context, of the Bill Franks revelation, the only withhold that matters is one about having an ARCx. This puts the onus of living up to a higher standard of acceptance and tolerance on the Church, so as not to make-wrong the Church members, or for that matter, non-members, so-called "wogs".

I see those who are totally negative as being as much off-center as those true believers who are still clinging to the CoS.

You stated in an earlier post:

<snip>
I have never worked in a scientology organization, nor have I done much in scientology, except as I was interested in "human potentials" as many of us were back in the 60s and 70s, I did some TRs and got a couple of intensives of basic auditing.

<snip>

I applaud Anonymous for their protests of the rampant abuses that have corrupted the churches of scientology. And I stand behind all the ex-scientologists who are trying to get the word out.I would like to see Anonymous members actually investigate what ECT does to the human brains of the unfortunate folk who undergo this destructive treatment, which actually does bring a lot of money to psychiatrists because any anti-depressant effect of ECT is short-lived, so the procedure is repeated "ad infinitum", effectively providing psychiatrists with a "residual income".
Psychiatry is every bit as bad as the CoS, or worse. They deserve to be exposed and protested also.

I don't have blinders on, I have successfully removed them.

I suggest you join the staff of your nearest org (or SO) and after a little experience of the real cult, come back and remind us how wrong our off centre, anti-scientology views are.

I also completely disagree with your assertion that medicine does not help with depression. It is a miracle and certainly not a placebo .

LTG

[I told you I was trouble]

Posted by Atalantan

My emphasis.



I haven't read all of ESMB by any means, but I have been reading here for about a year and a half, so I've read some of Veda's posts as well as others.

From what I have gathered about other "historical" figures, I guess I don't see Hubbard as being particularly better or worse than others in character. Unsavoriness seems widespread.

Is Bill Gates a nice moral guy who developed his software for altruistic reasons? I doubt it. And it was never that good a product, yet he has had a virtual monopoly that has made him many many millions.

Maybe I am biased by my background in psychiatry, but I am skeptical and leery of those who decry the morals of others. At best, SNL's "Church Lady" comes to mind; at worst, there have a been a lot of witchhunts started by those who claimed some kind of moral high ground over others.

I'm not much of a fan of those who fly the flag of "I'm OK, you're (he,she,they) not OK."

Well, I'm not sure who you mean by that, I'm certainly not trying to tell anyone that I'm perfect because I'm far from it, but I didn't start a shonky cult and call it a religion and proceed to create utter havoc with anyone's life, so I suppose that's good.

Posted by Atalantan

my emphasis

Also, I am not interested in letting anyone "off the hook", anymore than I am interested in putting anyone "on the hook". That said, I do not give obvious injustices and lawbreaking, cruelty,avarice, and exploitation etc a free pass.

I have seen enough people in my time who liked what the auditing tech and some of the other materials did for them, that I view anyone who is completely negative about it as having their own blinders on. Bill Franks recent disclosure of what Hubbard said about why people really "blow" indicates to me.....

In that context, of the Bill Franks revelation, the only withhold that matters is one about having an ARCx. This puts the onus of living up to a higher standard of acceptance and tolerance on the Church, so as not to make-wrong the Church members, or for that matter, non-members, so-called "wogs".

I see those who are totally negative as being as much off-center as those true believers who are still clinging to the CoS.

I too was interested in Bill Franks disclosure but I give zero credence to what Tubs said about why people blow or anything else ... after being here for a while and reading Bill Franks posts about how Tubs was deliberately blackmailing and attempting to brainwash people (or at the very least ripping them off) with his tek ... how on earth could anyone then continue to believe that his thoughts on the subject are still relevant?

I think that is completely irrational and a bit sad but perhaps some people were so deeply into scientology and have promoted it themselves to others that they feel they will lose respect if they now admit that it was all just a silly hoax and that they were simply sucked in and conned like everybody else. I could even understand that, but only to a point.





If by off-center you mean absolutely totally done and finished with something (in this case scientology) I think you are probably right and I have no problem at all being called off-centre on this subject on an Ex scientology board, I don't want to be in the comfortable centre because wishy-washy is not an attractive state of mind (to me) and that is how that would feel.

[Veda]

Well, I'm not sure who you mean by that.

-snip-

Don't mind Atalantan, he was only recently awakened after a thirty year sleep, similar to this fellow:



Of course, the subject in the video, Miles Monroe, was asleep for hundreds of years, and appears to have woken up in what resembles a Scientology planet.

[I told you I was trouble]

It really does resemble a scientology planet, there is even part of an oatee sign on the door at 2.16!


Love that ragtime though.

[Jachs]

Its SUPER POWER RUNDOWN!!!

[HelluvaHoax!]

I see those who are totally negative as being as much off-center as those true believers who are still clinging to the CoS.

Really?

Try getting in com with Lisa McPherson and see if she is still "totally negative" or if you can get her to cognite that she is "off-center".

Let us know how that goes.

[Atalantan]

You stated in an earlier post:


I don't have blinders on, I have successfully removed them.

I suggest you join the staff of your nearest org (or SO) and after a little experience of the real cult, come back and remind us how wrong our off centre, anti-scientology views are.

I also completely disagree with your assertion that medicine does not help with depression. It is a miracle and certainly not a placebo .

LTG

I decided long ago not to join staff for reasons I have posted on this board. It was precisely because I did not want to be a member of a cult. However I still have a couple of friends who are on staff at an org. They are good people who have helped many people. I hope they will wake up and leave.

I have no problem with your anti Co$ views; I don't agree with some of the blanket anti Hubbard/anti auditing tech views here; and I have noted that I am not the only one here who finds some positive usefulness in those. By people who are also "ex-scientologists".

So I don't need to remind "us"(you) of anything. "You" do not represent the whole opinion of this board, but you do represent part of it.

I have no problem if medication helped you, either. That is a good thing if it did, and that's entirely your call.

However I have a couple of people in my extended family medication did not help, and one of them killed himself because he was given two different kinds of sample antidepressants he should not have been mixing, especially at home without supervision.
The other person survived; antidepressant medication was inappropriate for him because depression was not his basic problem, but he was casually prescribed it by a psychiatrist in a "leading" hospital without any differential diagnosis being done. This resulted in about 2 years of frustrated, wasted living for him until we found appropriate therapy for him.

A cousin was prescribed antidepressants for awhile with no result that he could see, except to leave him sexually dysfunctional. He's lonely, drinks too much, and is not too grateful to the doctor for that.

In fact studies have not shown that for most people medications are any better than placebo or many other types of therapy. "Different strokes for different folks". Some people feel medications have helped them, it's not for me to say medicine didn't help.

By the same token, some people say auditing or some scientology ideas,(but not the established cult) helped them, and it's not for me to say they didn't.

But if you feel some sense of elevation, of righteousness, by looking down on those people, have at it.

In any case I am glad you are not associated with the cult anymore.

[Atalantan]

Well, I'm not sure who you mean by that, I'm certainly not trying to tell anyone that I'm perfect because I'm far from it, but I didn't start a shonky cult and call it a religion and proceed to create utter havoc with anyone's life, so I suppose that's good.





I too was interested in Bill Franks disclosure but I give zero credence to what Tubs said about why people blow or anything else ... after being here for a while and reading Bill Franks posts about how Tubs was deliberately blackmailing and attempting to brainwash people (or at the very least ripping them off) with his tek ... how on earth could anyone then continue to believe that his thoughts on the subject are still relevant?

I think that is completely irrational and a bit sad but perhaps some people were so deeply into scientology and have promoted it themselves to others that they feel they will lose respect if they now admit that it was all just a silly hoax and that they were simply sucked in and conned like everybody else. I could even understand that, but only to a point.





If by off-center you mean absolutely totally done and finished with something (in this case scientology) I think you are probably right and I have no problem at all being called off-centre on this subject on an Ex scientology board, I don't want to be in the comfortable centre because wishy-washy is not an attractive state of mind (to me) and that is how that would feel.

That's OK with me; I am 100% willing to disagree with you 100% about this stuff. Is that wishy-washy? (The world won't crash.)

However I will point out that I am aware that not all of the Ex scientologists on this board condemn and disdain all of the tech and philosophy Hubbard produced, as you and some others do.

Ain't life a bitch when you can't get 100% agreement?

By off-center I mean that I see some ex-scientologists behaving similarly to ex-wives, when speaking of their ex-husbands.....

Love/hate. It's the two sides of the church of scientology coin, and interestingly enough, the negative feelings are often most strongly expressed by those who had the strongest positive feelings and gave the strongest commitment,initially.

People like me who never joined and never got much in the way of services, often see the materials differently, without the overwhelming emotion and sense of betrayal. This is not a make-wrong of you. You experienced what you experienced.