Martyworld Tech

[Claire Swazey]

Anyone who thinks that the (alleged) (Purported) state of Clear or of OT are permanent or are even considered to be permanent by Hubbard or Scn never really understood Scn.

Of course states of being would be mutable according to Scn theory. How else would beings have fallen from "native state"? Native State is supposed to be better than clear, OT, post orgasm, you name it.

[HelluvaHoax!]

--snip--

The problem is that Scientology when viewed as a 'talk therapy' is so laced with falsehoods and dishonesty that it is a poisoned chalice with the potential to do great harm.

Anyone who disagrees with that has not read many HCOBs, including ones such as HCOB "PAST LIVES REMEDY, used to "fix" a pc when they are unable to obey the auditor's "command" to find wholetrack incidents to run.

Now move along (the track) people, no evaluation here to see.

[HelluvaHoax!]

Anyone who thinks that the (alleged) (Purported) state of Clear or of OT are permanent or are even considered to be permanent by Hubbard or Scn never really understood Scn.

Of course states of being would be mutable according to Scn theory. How else would beings have fallen from "native state"? Native State is supposed to be better than clear, OT, post orgasm, you name it.

Yeah, I took my car back the the OT mechanic who fixed it after it broke down a block away from the repair shop. He showed me policy that repairs are not permanent. When I told him I wasn't so sure that was a good policy, he assigned me Doubt.

[Caroline]

A couple more references showing Hubbard's use of the term "Standard Tech."

When people can’t get results from what they think is standard practice, they can be counted upon to squirrel to some degree.

Hubbard, L. R. (1965, 7 February). Keeping Scientology Working Series 1. OEC Vol 0 (1991 ed., p. 7-13). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

At the present writing I am organizing the Class VIII Course to make Class VIII Auditors. These are essentially Case Supervisors and crack standard tech people who can straighten out folders and pcs and pre-OTs. Looking over old Qual case folders, I see they are desperately needed.

Hubbard, L. R. (1968, 26 August). Rehab and Correction. OEC Vol 5 (1991 ed., p. 674). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

In Class VIII we bring the basics back in and reinforce them until the auditor will do them and nothing else.

From this we get a "magical" high-velocity case gain curve upwards on all cases.

The beginning Class VIII Auditor often has the idea that the result of the session is what he will be gauged by. This is NOT true. We know what the result of standard tech will be when flawlessly administered. We are not "waiting to see." We are not experimenting. There are no different or difficult pcs.

The student on VIII is gauged by the flawless handling of the session and his admin. If the pc does not arrive at the Examiner in good shape, then we know:

a. The auditor goofed
b. The TRs stank
c. The Auditor's Code was probably not followed
d. The auditing report is probably false
e. The CIS was probably botched up in being given
f. The session control was bad.

You see, we know what standard tech does. It's up to the auditor to learn to be UNCOMPROMISINGLY STANDARD.

When we have brought about this frame of mind and standard rendition in the auditor, we have made a Class VIII. Until we do, we have not.

The purpose of the course, then, is to produce an uncompromising zealot for standard tech whose reality is such that he will not do or tolerate sloppy rendition.

Hubbard, L. R. (1968, 20 October). The Purpose of Class VIII. OEC Vol 4 (1991 ed., p. 823-4). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc.

[HelluvaHoax!]

Anyway, I'm bored with Marty's shellgame...

[HelluvaHoax!]

..

Originally Posted by I told you I was trouble
I couldn't care less about others (good) opinions of the tek ... but I doubt I will ever understand the need to constantly keep re enforcing their beliefs on an Ex scio board

And for the Nth time time, ITYIWT, EX-scientology is NOT the same thing as ANTI-scientology, however much you may wish it were. Nor will constant repetition change that to align with your wishes.

Scientologists are trained rigorously on TR-3 to repeat their commands until obeyed.

Mark, you are doing great. Keep repeating the command and you will eventually flatten ITYIWT's com lag and we will all win.

[Mark A. Baker]

But, but but Mark ... you have repeated that (to me) at least a million times ... knowing it will change nothing.



I'm an EX and I'm anti, that works for me just as being a scientologist works for you.

Everybody happy? ...

I'm fine with you being both, just stop confusing the two.


Mark A. Baker

[I told you I was trouble]

I'm fine with you being both, just stop confusing the two.


Mark A. Baker

Lol, I hate to have to break this to you, but it's the non cofs 'scientologists' (like yourself) that are confusing the two ... whether you agree or not you are anti scientology just as almost every person on ESMB is.

Many of us here are just not buying all this endless blathering about what is and what isn't the real/pure/original scientology (partly due to lack of interest to be fair) and you Mark, are anti scientology just by your very presence on ESMB.

The cofs is where you'll find scientology in all it's ghastly glory and if you've ever said a single bad word publicly about it, you are officially anti whether you recant or not.



What you and others like you call scientology (non cofs) is something else entirely and is yours to have and to hold for as long as you feel the need and as long as you don't start posting great long screeds blatantly advertising it on ESMB (as others do on occasion) I think you'll find that nobody gives a toss, I know I don't.

I wish you would just enjoy whatever it is you use, you don't have to defend or explain yourself and neither do I.

[Mark A. Baker]

... The cofs is where you'll find scientology in all it's ghastly glory ...

Nah. The 'mother church' stopped practicing scientology completely in the '80s. Of course it had been gradually dying out in the church prior to that.


Mark A. Baker

[HelluvaHoax!]

Nah. The 'mother church' stopped practicing scientology completely in the '80s. Of course it had been gradually dying out in the church prior to that.
Mark A. Baker

Practicing Scientology? LOL.

Scientology has been a free-for-all, chaotic mess of ever-changing "tech" since day two.

Day one was when DMSMH first published. It took at least 24 hours for people to find that it did not work the way the author marketed it. Day two was when Hubbard started scrambling for the next best thing that fixed the last thing that didn't work.

Roll the film forward to any decade, thereafter, and the bait-and-switch continued to mutate and run one step ahead of customers who did not get what they paid for.

Sure, some people had "wins" along the way. That would be equally true of a nearly infinite spectrum of human endeavors, camping, knitting, doing crossword puzzles, hobbies, sports, recreation and entertainment. Adults sometimes have huge "wins" collecting stamps, playing with toy trains or losing enough weight so they can tuck their shirt in. They don't go Clear or OT on any of those things either.

There was no period where the tech delivered Clear or OT.

There was no period where the tech was standard.

There was no period, starting in the 1950's, where crimes were not committed by Scientology, Scientologists and Hubbard in order to cover up the fraud, escape litigation and/or prosecution.

There was no period where customers were not leaving upset, unhanded and defrauded.

Why you want to keep talking about your "wins" to people who have left the fraud of Scientology behind is a mystery that only you can solve.

If you need therapy and you feel better with Scientology, cool. But why do you insist on telling others about it who have made it clear they don't want to be regged? Just enjoy yourself. You don't need to convince anyone about the tech working, if anyone believes that they know how to find it.

You don't need to continue to lecture people who don't give a shit about the tech you like. If you like it, have it, dude. Why are you "disseminating" to people who are disgusted by Hubbard's lies and a technology that doesn't do what it is supposed to to?

Why do you need to lord over people with assertions about "tech" that they aren't buying for a second? Don't you hear what people are saying? Do you even care? Is it pleasurable for you?

Why don't you post on wog message boards where people (who don't know what Scientology actually is) might be more open to hearing about your claims and "wins" on Ron Hubbard's tech? Why do you need to push it on people who don't want to have anything to do with it?

It's just.....weird.

There was no period where people "practiced Scientology". It is impossible to practice because there are contradictions, counter-policies and counter-tech to anything that someone thinks is "Scientology". There is no "Scientology practice". That's a myth. It's a daydream that can become a delusion. Haven't you figured that out by now?

End of rant.