Scientology is all bad

[HelluvaHoax!]

Are you saying you don't believe in the boogeyman? LOL

Weeeee!

I do believe in the boogeyman. The part that's really scary about him is that he pretends to be your greatest friend.

He had me going for a little while there. . .

[Dilpickle]

Weeeee!

I do believe in the boogeyman. The part that's really scary about him is that he pretends to be your greatest friend.

He had me going for a little while there. . .

Ah yes.. I forgot who originally said this, but some famous guy said "Once you learn to fake sincerity, the rest is easy

[NoName]

No - it comes from my friend and I suspecting that LRH took out the ONE Postulate Question they used to ask after running the incident when he should not have. We found we could get MANY and suspected he tampered with it so that folks would not get TOO Free.. I think he wanted to keep his status and his money making machine going.. just my opinion, and those decision questions came from my friend/partner, not Ron. Dilpickle

That's a rather astute observation on your part. Google R. Vaughn Young. I don't know if that was the specific change that LRH made, but "too effective" was one of Ron's early gripes. You get people well and you loose your revenue stream. No different than what's done by Eli Lilly and the other drug companies.

[Dilpickle]

That's a rather astute observation on your part. Google R. Vaughn Young. I don't know if that was the specific change that LRH made, but "too effective" was one of Ron's early gripes. You get people well and you loose your revenue stream. No different than what's done by Eli Lilly and the other drug companies.

Thanks Noname... however, now these guys are making me wonder if my wins are all in my head LOL Still.. Dianetics seems MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE using the decision questions. You can even get Fancy, and cycle thru THESE questions:

A. In that incident did you make a decision? (have the PC state the decision
as he would have at the time and have him repeat it two or three times or
until it stops reading on the meter)

Why did you decide (or think) that?

B. Tell me an emotion or feeling you had in that incident. (get answer) If
you could have expressed that emotion/feeling in a sentence how would you
have said it? ditto on repeat

Why did you feel that way?

C. In that incident did you make any negative or limiting decision about
yourself? ditto repeat/why?

D. In that incident did you make any decision about the future or how you
would deal with similar things in the future? ditto repeat/why?

E. In that incident did you have any unanswered question? Did anything seem
weird or mysterious or not understandable?
If yes, then- If you could have asked that as a question how would you have
asked it?

Repeat question two or three times or until it stops reading.

What caused you to have that question?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS: Another interesting thing.. my friend Bev was on the Dianetic book auditor course, and was doing her student auditing session practice with another student.. and when she got to the end of the INCIDENT (no postulates) she was supposed to end the session, but the tone arm, which had started around 6, was only down to about 4. She thought to herself that something wasn't quite right, so she just asked the person, "Is there anything else you want to say about that"? And the person just TALKED about it, what they thought about it, how they felt about it, etc, until the tone arm went down to about 2, and they had a nice blow down VGI's. When she wrote up the session, she got in trouble for going BEYOND the running of the INCIDENT.. after that, she got sneaky.. she realized what she had done had worked, and did it on ALL her PCs, but just didn't write it up in her report. She felt kind of guilty, but the idea that maybe she knew better than Ron never entered her head.. she just thought she was a Squirrel, and really didn't quite get it.

[Demented LRH]

Thanks Noname... however, now these guys are making me wonder if my wins are all in my head LOL Still.. Dianetics seems MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE using the decision questions. You can even get Fancy, and cycle thru THESE questions:

A. In that incident did you make a decision? (have the PC state the decision
as he would have at the time and have him repeat it two or three times or
until it stops reading on the meter)

Why did you decide (or think) that?

B. Tell me an emotion or feeling you had in that incident. (get answer) If
you could have expressed that emotion/feeling in a sentence how would you
have said it? ditto on repeat

Why did you feel that way?

C. In that incident did you make any negative or limiting decision about
yourself? ditto repeat/why?

D. In that incident did you make any decision about the future or how you
would deal with similar things in the future? ditto repeat/why?

E. In that incident did you have any unanswered question? Did anything seem
weird or mysterious or not understandable?
If yes, then- If you could have asked that as a question how would you have
asked it?

Repeat question two or three times or until it stops reading.

What caused you to have that question?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS: Another interesting thing.. my friend Bev was on the Dianetic book auditor course, and was doing her student auditing session practice with another student.. and when she got to the end of the INCIDENT (no postulates) she was supposed to end the session, but the tone arm, which had started around 6, was only down to about 4. She thought to herself that something wasn't quite right, so she just asked the person, "Is there anything else you want to say about that"? And the person just TALKED about it, what they thought about it, how they felt about it, etc, until the tone arm went down to about 2, and they had a nice blow down VGI's. When she wrote up the session, she got in trouble for going BEYOND the running of the INCIDENT.. after that, she got sneaky.. she realized what she had done had worked, and did it on ALL her PCs, but just didn't write it up in her report. She felt kind of guilty, but the idea that maybe she knew better than Ron never entered her head.. she just thought she was a Squirrel, and really didn't quite get it.

Maybe the technique that you described is effective, I cannot judge it because I do not know how it works and what is its purpose. But this is definitely not Dianetics, it has nothing in common with Dianetics. I do not know why you call it "Dianetics", but I can say that the term Dianetics is causing confusion in this case. I suggest that you rename your technique and define its purpose so we could discuss it. I think that we need a separate thread for that.

[Demented LRH]

There are several technique that require recall of the past incidents, both pleasant and unpleasant. Some of them are effective, some are not. For the reason that is beyond me they all were equated to the Dianetics procedures. But their purposes are so different than the ones of Dianetics that they have nothing in common with the twisted Hubbard Tech.

Majority of these techniques enable their recepients to fully understand the logic behind their decisions, which differentiates them from Dianetics whose "purpose" is to cure the illnesses such as heart disease, brain tumors, high blood pressure, ulcer, etc.

[Dilpickle]

Maybe the technique that you described is effective, I cannot judge it because I do not know how it works and what is its purpose. But this is definitely not Dianetics, it has nothing in common with Dianetics. I do not know why you call it "Dianetics", but I can say that the term Dianetics is causing confusion in this case. I suggest that you rename your technique and define its purpose so we could discuss it. I think that we need a separate thread for that.

Originally LRH asked ONE postulate question after running the force out of the incident.. we just expanded on that, and asked LOTS OF Postulate questions. The theory is the same, pretty much, we are just after the MASS AND THE SIGNIFICANCE in equal proportions. When LRH took the ONE postulate question OUT, he made the whole process lop-sided. Instead of getting the entire engram, Mass/Force/Trauma PLUS Ideas/Postulates/Decisions, he left the decisions in place, which later on would cause one to THINK in such a way that they would eventually create more of such conditions/incidents. At least that's our theory.

[Dilpickle]

There are several technique that require recall of the past incidents, both pleasant and unpleasant. Some of them are effective, some are not. For the reason that is beyond me they all were equated to the Dianetics procedures. But their purposes are so different than the ones of Dianetics that they have nothing in common with the twisted Hubbard Tech.

Majority of these techniques enable their recepients to fully understand the logic behind their decisions, which differentiates them from Dianetics whose "purpose" is to cure the illnesses such as heart disease, brain tumors, high blood pressure, ulcer, etc.

I don't claim the decision questions will cure ANY illness.. I don't approach them with that in mind.. Just getting the charge off any kinds of incidents the PC is having that they would prefer NOT having. Whatever side effects, help with any kinds of body problems or illnesses would just be a bonus.. and I can't claim that I have cured anyone of cancer or any such thing.

[Dilpickle]

That's a rather astute observation on your part. Google R. Vaughn Young. I don't know if that was the specific change that LRH made, but "too effective" was one of Ron's early gripes. You get people well and you loose your revenue stream. No different than what's done by Eli Lilly and the other drug companies.

I liked very much where RVY said that Hubbard was either BRILLIANT or a Dramatizing Paranoid, and that his bulletins, techniques, etc, reflected that. That's what we have been trying to do for 30 years - divvy up the BRILLIANCE vs the PARANOID Drama and keep one and discard the other.

Same thing could be said of anyone who wants to disentangle themselves from the CULT.. Look at how you yourself had Wins AND Craziness (BOTH) while in the church. Acknowledge your wins, and take responsibility for your craziness... I think that is how one can finally be FREE of the subject, and not need EXMB anymore.. Just another of my theories..

Maybe another way of saying it is Write up your Wins. Write up your Overts. That might tell you ALOT of what it all meant to you. I had plenty of both while in the church. Dilpickle

[Demented LRH]

Originally LRH asked ONE postulate question after running the force out of the incident.. we just expanded on that, and asked LOTS OF Postulate questions. The theory is the same, pretty much, we are just after the MASS AND THE SIGNIFICANCE in equal proportions. When LRH took the ONE postulate question OUT, he made the whole process lop-sided. Instead of getting the entire engram, Mass/Force/Trauma PLUS Ideas/Postulates/Decisions, he left the decisions in place, which later on would cause one to THINK in such a way that they would eventually create more of such conditions/incidents. At least that's our theory.

Probably Hubbard based his Postulate Theory on some other theories -- he is known for "borrowing" valid scientific theories without mentioning their authors' names. I could give some examples of his plagiarism, but I do not want to bring extraneous data to this thread. But this Postulate Theory, or whatever it is called, has nothing to do with Dianetics.

In his Dianetics Volumes ! and II Hubbard wrote that the PC should be taken through the incidents when he was unconscious + the birth + prenatal period because these are the times when he became chock-full-of engrams. All other incindents are of no value to Dianetics.

For example, if a PC had observed an act of terrorism but remained unharmed by it, there is no need to run Dianetics auditing on him.

It appears to me that you ask your PCs to recall the times when they were not unconscious, which led me to conclusion that the procedures that you use have nothing to do with Dianetics.