Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you guys

[Terril park]

You forgot to tell the Earth people that you're a Natural Clear. That cost no $, just Hubbard saying there were some people who were Natural Clears. And presto! There were Natural Clears. It was later revealed that Hubbard said there were only four Natural Clears, so you're one of the elite four. Congratulations.

How thoughtfull of you to remember.

As I recall LRHs last HCOB on the subject said it was " very, very, rare."

I do vaguely recall someone posting that he made such a comment as 4 in some area. Dunno the validity of that. You will post it of
course.

I was designated such twice at St Hill. The second time in 1991.
After much conflict with the C/S. Maybe the last such ack in CO$?

Also designated as such in the FZ. Did up to OT 3 twice with absolutely no problems and esxcellent wins.

Yes I know some who attested natural clear were later found not to be so.

Its been a difficult area for auditors to handle and specially in CO$.

I've met several who were OT5 who had to do multiple CCRDs in CO$

[Ted]

I'm wondering why different people are having varying experiences with it. This is really weird.

Lots of differing experiences with results, too. Just look at the people's comments on all threads, on all different subjects, on all boards. Some wins, some losses, some gains, some good experiences, some crap experiences, some deserved criticism, some over-the-top criticism, and so on.

Hubbard tried to make the tech and himself what mattered most in scio-world. Closer to the truth is the tech was always changing, Hubbard was THE third party in Scientology, and the people who applied the tech in the field were human beings, some good, some caring and diligent, some were just creeps pretending to be otherwise.

Regarding discussion of OT-3 on your board, I understand the purpose now after reading one of Panda's posts here. With "safe space" in mind, I would have to say discussion of Hubbard's dark side would be right up there with the OT-3 thing. So talk of Hubbard would need a red flag, too.

If I said I had some great gains on OT-3, would that be permissible? I honestly did. But if saying so is going to get a person to reach for it then that gives me a problem. I say that because I do not believe it is right for everyone.

I spent years in Scientology telling people what a great person Hubbard was. Now I feel like an ass for doing so. To withhold the complete picture can become an overt on some people. What do you think on that?

[Terril park]

Pretty interesting post, Terril.

I recently satirized Scientology on the "100 Stupidest Moments in Scn" thread with scales and stuff from 0-8 book of basics.

When doing that I reviewed the abilities gained section that gave all 4 flows EPs for the grades and such. Pretty interesting to contrast that with the way Scn would obsessively want to "change" a person to fit their preconceived ideal, the utter inability to discuss topics openly on any flow, etc. In short, Scientology has its own Grades "out".

Further more, as in the "classic" way it attempts to deal with Anonymous, the internet and cyber critics, it's way out of PT and anything but "Clear" in its problem solving skills.

What you're describing here is kind of a situation of Scientology with its Grades "in".

Interesting...

...but I've got to tell you and I mean this without slamming you or trying to piss you off or as an attack or such...there's some goofy BS I've read while perusing the FZ sites and such.

I apologize for the eval but it appeared loony "type 3" "out-r" for lack of better terminology.

Know what I mean?

I think it was Theodor Sturgeon [ famous SF writer] who on seeing criticism of SF commented that 90% of anything is rubbish.

I'm sure that applies to those commenting re the FZ.

However the area addressed, religion, spirituality, philosophy, therapy is a complex difficult area, and many, specially those new to such areas do imbibe and re gurgitate rubbish.

And deciding what is rubbish in this general area is not so easy.

Catholics indulge in ritual cannibalism. As has been said.

You've probably read Pilots scathing comments on CO$ having out grades.

[Mark A. Baker]

... Regarding discussion of OT-3 on your board, I understand the purpose now after reading one of Panda's posts here. With "safe space" in mind, I would have to say discussion of Hubbard's dark side would be right up there with the OT-3 thing. So talk of Hubbard would need a red flag, too. ...

Not needed. Simple resort to calling Hubbard names is not permitted as a violation of 'insulting language', however factual discussion of Hubbard's life has always been permitted. As it is factual discussions of Hubbard obviate any perceived need for simple verbal abuse as that becomes redundant in light of his life.


The 'confidential materials' policy was put in place as a preventative for those still spooked by their mystique yet willing to look at factual information about the church, the subject, and the history. Many posts have made indirect references to 'confidential' stuff that individuals can choose to follow up on if they wish. It's only the direct references that have always been barred.


Mark A. Baker

[Free to shine]

OK. I guess you're determined to continue with the lie. Good luck with that.

If Infinite changed his wording to "many thousands of dollars" instead of "hundreds of thousands" would that still be a lie?

[guanoloco]

I wonder how many churchies think they'd drop dead from hearing about it, though. The whole idea, from what I remember, is that a person could be restimulated and that he or she might get sick. Pneumonia being an example. That's a bit different.

But I also do not discount the extrapolations and paranoia of/by church members.

Also, if someone is in the church, still, and they aren't really sure they're gonna leave, they may have a concern about their eligibility getting fucked up if they read confidential stuff. I hasten to add that to me, it's a non issue, but thing is, I guess if a person's still on the fence whether or not to stay in CofS and one day do OT levels there- then, for them, eligibility could be a concern.

My personal thought on this is that if a cult is that snarky (which CofS is) as to deny access to the OT levels on that basis, then fuck the cult.

From a purely tech standpoint (and those here with training can either correct me if I'm wrong or maybe corroborate if I got it right) I would say that the theory would be this:

If they are a certain stage, "case" wise, then they could be restimulated. To which I would say, ehhh, so what. Restimulation can be dealt with.

If they are not at a certain stage, "case" wise, then it would not impinge upon them. Again, so what.

This is so true on many points.

For me there never was concern over state of case or physical ramifications.

The duress was all about the bottom line.

Eligibility was always and forever held over our heads as the ultimate hammer that smoteth..."my senior is involved with eligibility certification" or what ever it was...this was a covert implication that the senior, the very SO terminal involved on giving final clearance onto the OT levels was going to find out who's on the naughty and nice list...

I was always afraid of the tech estimates and sec checks and eligibility costs and conditions as in liability, etc., and for my eternity and being able to even be allowed onto the levels anyway.

Finally it dawned on me how stupid the whole premise is/was...let's see, I need to go up the bridge to become more ethical but I can't go up the bridge because I'm not ethical...so in order to be allowed, because you're "invited", to do the bridge and become higher toned and more ethical, then you have to be ultra ethical...what was that about "have before be or do" or some such nonsense?

I mean why pay for somebody to make me more ethical when I have to do it myself first as in "I'll sell you this super secret tech on how to never miss a free throw, ever and it works 100% of the time...but I will only sell it once you demonstrate to me clearly that you never miss a free throw 100% of the time."

Now, if this does not make sense then it naturally follows to the next card to fall.

The whole premise/conclusion made absolutely zero sense and this from a place that was supposedly THE benchmark of sensibility and rational thought.

The place is supposed to sell logical, rational sanity yet it ensnares itself with these crazy dumb ass things that are constantly being run on itself and its own members.

[guanoloco]

Hey, Guan,

Which stuff in the FZ do you consider looney? I'm not trying to bait or anything, cuz god knows, there's stuff I think makes absolutely zero sense- I'm just curious.

I don't say this in an attempt to bash- Guan's post was quite diplomatic and I hope to keep the discussion as nice as it's been- but it could be a kind of interesting exchange.

But I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or anything. One man's meat is another man's poison.

OK, this is all my point of view and, as such, maybe the only pole to fly this flag but here goes:

Well, the parts I personally had difficulty with were the whole Elron Elray, "this sector declared a Free Zone" and the loyal officers and all holding at bay some imminent Marcab invasion. I honestly didn't get beyond that.

I know that I'm equating Cap't Bill with the FZ but that seemed to be a core portion of the whole movement.

There always seems to be some liability associated with Scientology. If it's not something like what I have difficulty with - the stuff I call looney - then it's the hardcore, haughty, smug, righteous arrogance that is exhibited by Rathbun.

It was these two very things I had trouble with in Scn and my solution was to "not-is" it then...turn the cheek...figure it would all work out "someday". When on staff it was these elements that I had to run damage control on, spent much resources "handling" their flaps and putting out fires and "guarding" the public from their exposure - all very exhausting and embarrassing.

That didn't work. Sadly, that seems to be the "norm" and majority of Scn.

However, hands down, the best people I've met and the best conversations and some of the best times spent were with others, an admitted handful, that seemed to "get it" and were moderate and diverse. I don't say this from an elitist attitude but one of genuine gratitude. I like to consider myself in that company.

I think this is the draw to ESMB for me, to share in and experience conversations like that again.

[guanoloco]

I think it was Theodor Sturgeon [ famous SF writer] who on seeing criticism of SF commented that 90% of anything is rubbish.

I'm sure that applies to those commenting re the FZ.

However the area addressed, religion, spirituality, philosophy, therapy is a complex difficult area, and many, specially those new to such areas do imbibe and re gurgitate rubbish.

And deciding what is rubbish in this general area is not so easy.

Catholics indulge in ritual cannibalism. As has been said.

You've probably read Pilots scathing comments on CO$ having out grades.

Sturgeon is one my favorites...and I did read a commentary of Co$ having out grades and that jived perfectly with my own analysis, however I thought it was possibly just my local org or Class V orgs in general at that time.

However, the "rubbish", if you will, was the Cap't Bill stuff as already mentioned.

In the long run I'm fairing better with out all that ego "threat of loss, promise of gain" stuff.

Thanks for the tidbit regarding Jung and galvanometers from that other thread.

Awesome stuff.

[Panda Termint]

If Infinite changed his wording to "many thousands of dollars" instead of "hundreds of thousands" would that still be a lie?

If he did that, the he would be much closer to the truth as far as the cost goes.

That wouldn't, of course, automatically make the rest of the original sentence true. To me, that still amounts to speculation-presented-as-fact and is contrary to my personal experience. Until I see a valid scientific study from reputable sources proving said speculation, I still echo Blip's oft-repeated; "Dox or GTFO!"

[Emma]

Cutting through the BS here.

I doubt whether the actual cost of OTIII is important in this "battle".

What is really being fought over is the importance or lack of imprtance in critics being loose with facts. Some consider it important - others don't.

I do.

The reason for this is that when I was on the fence, if I read anything I knew to be untrue regarding Scientology, and it was being passed off as fact, it immediately discredited that person, website etc in my own mind. As a result I found it hard to believe anything that was being said about that particular subject/topic from that person (or even other critics).

The example in this thread is that Infinite says it "costs hundreds of thousands of dollars before you get the Xenu story". That might be true in some circumstances and would not be true in others. I know lots of people who that actually isn't true for. And I know some who it is true for. It would depend enormously on each individuals situation, their case "shape", how close they lived to an AO, how educated in Scientology they were, how fast they ran in session, whether they had been on staff or not, whether they had done any co-auditing etc etc.

So to make a statement and then poo poo anyone who disagreed with it, when the statement is provably not accurate, is one of those things that gets up the nose of those who think accuracy is important when criticising Scientology.