Wrong Whys, Out-Lists and sanity

[Bill]

If you look you will see he defined it several times. If you look in the tech dictionary you will find at least one definition which is consistent with that which I gave.

Go ahead and have a fit of apoplectic fit. Won't bother me a bit.

There is a body of dating relating to mind and spirit known as the subject of scientology which is not the same as the control mechanisms also authored by hubbard and which they use within the cult of the Church of Scientology to administer the institutions and manage their organization.

Hubbard talks about the subject of scientology in the books, although he did everything he could via the Sea Org to confuse the issue to his adherents. If you need a refresher try re-reading Science of Survival.

Mark A. Baker

You are certainly one amazing guy. You actually think your definition of Scientology is Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, who created Scientology and who, despite your denials, did say that removing anything from Scientology was a "technical degrade" -- his statements are to be ignored.

You appear to be defining Scientology as "Scientology is Scientology without all the bad and crazy stuff".

In other words, Scientology is a subset of Scientology. Or is it Scientology is a superset of Scientology. It gets confusing.

And you think that the only place where superset-Scientology is practiced is the Church of Scientology (and that they introduced all the bad and crazy stuff).

And subset-Scientology, is the "real" Scientology as determined by ... I guess you, right? There is no definitive source to determine what part of Scientology belongs to subset-Scientology and what belongs to superset-Scientology. But you know and you'll tell us all, right?

So when people talk about Scientology, and you chime in talking about "Scientology", what you're really talking about subset-Scientology as defined and validated by Mark A. Baker.

And then you wonder why you can't seem to make your points.

Bill

[HelluvaHoax!]

You are certainly one amazing guy. You actually think your definition of Scientology is Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, who created Scientology and who, despite your denials, did say that removing anything from Scientology was a "technical degrade" -- his statements are to be ignored.

You appear to be defining Scientology as "Scientology is Scientology without all the bad and crazy stuff".

In other words, Scientology is a subset of Scientology. Or is it Scientology is a superset of Scientology. It gets confusing.

And you think that the only place where superset-Scientology is practiced is the Church of Scientology (and that they introduced all the bad and crazy stuff).

And subset-Scientology, is the "real" Scientology as determined by ... I guess you, right? There is no definitive source to determine what part of Scientology belongs to subset-Scientology and what belongs to superset-Scientology. But you know and you'll tell us all, right?

So when people talk about Scientology, and you chime in talking about "Scientology", what you're really talking about subset-Scientology as defined and validated by Mark A. Baker.

And then you wonder why you can't seem to make your points.

Bill

The absurdly hypocritical part of Baker & Bakerology is that he does often apply the "bad parts" of Scientology (e.g. acceptable truths and a myriad of assorted PR deceptions, Propaganda Spin, Big Lies and other infamous Hubbard policies) when he is hiding, twisting and torturing the truth about what Scientology actually is.

And then he lectures others that he and he alone (not Hubbard) understands Scientology. I have been watching him over three years try to convince people that he is a the actual Source of defining what Scientology is--not Ron Hubbard. This is either megalomania, narcissism or something else freaky. LOLOL.

Nobody ever buys this frantic sophistry, but he doesn't seem to notice.

All that is missing is a photo of Mark in a Commodore's hat, gazing upward at the heavens.

[Auditor's Toad]

If I had a one-size-fits-all answer I would start myself a religion, but, alas, not only do I not have a one-size-fits-all answer I don't even have the self deceiving deception that I have that only answer for all.

I ain't no guru... or even a wantabe guru ( LOLOL ! )

If that wasn't garbled enough. I only know what I thinks "works" for me. Well, not ALL the time do I think so - or think what I think works really even works.

However, as time changes so does what I need fixed and what I use to fix it changes, too.

A few things I have sort of come to terms with is for one I ain't perfect ( and I pretty damn sure I've consistently proved that one )`and there is no chance in hell I will ever be perfect. That being known, I try to refrain from expecting - much less demanding - perfection from others. I just try to accept people for who they are - you know, unique individuals that are just like all the rest of us ( figure that out, huh? ).

Anyhow, I figured out love is big with me. Not the words " I love you " but having someone really deeply honestly feel I love them - or feeling that myself. To me, that is one of the real beauties of my life.

So, I guess I'd have to steal a line from a very bright mans siggy line ( and bastardize it somewhat, too.

Enjoy life !

Like I came to realize about my kids... I wanted to see them happy but I couldn't define happy for them. They had to go find and figure out what made them happy.
I've watched them change what made them happy and I've tried to make those shifts and be supportive. That is fun and enjoyable, to me.

So I suggest doing what floats your boat without sinking too many others boats