Page 10 of 88 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 876

Thread: Ask Kate your questions here...

  1. #91
    -deleted- kate8024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    -deleted-
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dulloldfart View Post
    That sounds to me like a "yes, if you want." If so, thank you. If not, squawk.

    I have a Thetameter. Long ago I looked carefully at the possibility of robot metering and decided that it would never work, but I'm always willing to be convinced otherwise by a better rationale. Or better by practical demonstration of a working prototype!
    That's a yes if you want.

    I think it is possible to have a metering program like I'm imagining but there are some unknowns still like how easy it is to accurately detect different meter reads programmatically. I'm pretty sure its feasible but I won't know for certain until I play around with it. The voice commands and stuff won't be too much of a problem as I'd write it as a desktop program. But yeah its a low priority side project in the contemplation phase but I'll let you know if I make some progress on it :-)
    -deleted-

  2. Thanks Dulloldfart says "thank you" for this post
  3. #92
    Silver Meritorious Patron MissWog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,762

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadfly View Post
    Wow! I never looked at it that way! Great point. THAT CONTEXT shines an entire new light on all of this!



    What Veda just said explains a HUGE array of things - if true. And, as we all know, Scientology has USED "scholars" and "researchers" who have provided the spin and results the Church of Scientology desired in the past. Also, the C of S allows these people a very WIDE amount of leeway because he or she satisfies a LARGER PURPOSE in "helping Scientology".
    I totally see what you and Veda are saying here but scholar/researcher/academic or not, I'm still baffled by the lack of concern for others and how she doesn't see her participation (in an exstention course, attendance of an LRH birthday event, or even allowing them to count her as a stat) as forwarding their agenda with all I have seen her be told here on ESMB.
    If I had people telling me this shit I'd take a step back and reevaluate my stance pretty damn fast!

  4. Thanks aegerprimo says "thank you" for this post
    Likes JustSheila, Sindy liked this post
  5. #93
    Crusader Gadfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    On a small mountain surrounded by many acres of forest.
    Posts
    8,612

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by kate8024 View Post
    Everyone impacts each other to some degree with every interaction. I'm not going in trying to be a revolutionary with guns blasting. I'm saying anyone has completely changed their tune because of me. What I am saying is that I might cause a few people to think 2-3% differently than they did before. That's still change. It's small, but thats often how change happens. I'm not writing Knowledge Reports on alterations of tech and things like that - that's big deal type things that are attempts to directly affect big changes. I'm simply modeling to the people that I interact with in the church what I believe a more reasonable and critical Scientologist should look and act like without going so far outside of their worldview as to create massive friction.
    Yes, I aware of the New Age and semi-mystical notions that "the sneeze of a fly sends ripples of change to the ends of the universe and back".

    This theoretical mumbo-jumbo is just that.

    Where do you come up with this nonsense?

    "I believe a more reasonable and critical Scientologist . . . "


    "Reasonable" is per policy not allowed, it is a non-rewarded behavior, it is actually PUNISHED when spotted and found (per extensive policies).

    A "critical Scientologist"? Again . . .



    These sort of statements are so absurd. They are so off in a la-la land of imaginary conditional unlikely possibilities. One would have to rewrite the majority of Scientology, render it no longer as "Scientology", for such things to become reality.

    If you ever actually got to a point where you made ANY real effect at all, you would be segregated in HCO, and eventually tossed out if you didn't quickly modify your behavior. But dream on.

    That's it for me. This is like talking to a box of hammers . . . . .

    Like I said, talking with Kate is useless. The nonsense and BS just keeps coming. Talking to her just causes the next avalanche of total bullshit.

    A "reasonable and critical Scientologist". How quaint. How ridiculous. What a contradiction of terms. Umm, oxymorons anyone? Or, maybe leave the "oxy" part out completely.
    Last edited by Gadfly; 23rd February 2014 at 02:29 AM.
    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

    "They must know how to kindle and fan an extravagant hope". - Eric Hoffer about the "true believer". "Total Freedom", "your eternity", and "OT" involve a few of the extravagant hopes in Scientology.

    Go HERE to view and/or download the essay, "The Three Basic Scientology Beliefs".

  6. #94
    Crusader Mimsey Borogrove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    92,955,887.6 miles from the sun
    Posts
    5,186

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by kate8024 View Post
    And that's certainly a reasonable question I think. I'm certainly not trying to start a cult lol but I personally believe that many of the negative aspects belong to the Church of Scientology and not the associated belief system, especially when one focuses on the mystical religious aspects of it. To some extent here I've run into this problem both ways - when I first started posting I was pretty much a panentheist who was dabbling in idie Scientology then I moved away from the Scientology label but more and more of my beliefs were aligning with Scientology toward the beliefs I hold now but then I would get tons of messages about me being a secret Scientologist and people could tell based on my posts and so I must be OSA and so on.

    I've felt very damned if I do, damned if I don't on this board at times. If I say I'm a Scientologist I get crap because I don't believe everything LRH says. If I say I'm not a Scientologist I get crap (and accused of being an OSA spy) because I believe that some things in Scientology have value. If I say I'm an idie then I get mega crap for even talking to the church (which I guess I get anyway).

    I can understand to some extent the way some people here feel, I'm a professional software engineer and I work on some pretty hard core things like neural network theory and huge applications in C++ and sometimes I meet someone who makes static HTML pages for local businesses and calls themselves a software engineer. Obviously I'm in a different class than them and there is a tendency to say "well he's not a _real_ software engineer." I feel that to some extent that's happening here - people see someone who only self-audits on the fringes of the CofS without getting very involved in the actual church culture and I must not be a 'real' Scientologist. Unfortunately in both of these cases labels fail and there isn't always a good alternative.

    If you have a solution to the damned if I do damned if I don't problem please let me know.
    How about "calling" yourself a quasi-scientologist?

  7. Thanks kate8024 says "thank you" for this post
    LOL! JustSheila laughed at this post
  8. #95
    -deleted- kate8024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    -deleted-
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadfly View Post
    "willing to ignore the idea of LRH as source".

    Example please? Where was THAT ever stated or admitted? What weird concatenation of logic results in THAT notion?
    I never said they stated or admitted that but what is GAT if not ignoring the idea of LRH as 'source' and making a really bad excuse to make it look otherwise. Regardless of how they presented it, it was an action of ignoring the idea of LRH as source.
    -deleted-

  9. #96
    -deleted- kate8024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    -deleted-
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mimsey Borogrove View Post
    How about "calling" yourself a quasi-scientologist?
    I sometimes use the term semi-Heterodox Scientologist which is kind of similar to that.
    -deleted-

  10. #97
    Summa Cum Laude aegerprimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Within the sterile field
    Posts
    1,069

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Kate, whatever floats your boat.

    If you feel Scientology tech helps you, improves your abilities, and/or gives you new ones, then more power to you. The main thing that attracted me to Dianetics and Scientology when I first got involved was that LRH claimed to have done research and refined the “tech” to be workable for everybody. It is fact that LRH never did any research, and made up/compiled the “tech” as he went along. Many people on ESMB have said this, and there have been books written about it. To me, Scientology “tech” is like a fad diet that claims miracle weight loss, but does not work for most people and sometimes even causes severe health issues.

    One other thing I would like to point out; if you are buying books and correspondence courses from the Co$, and if you are a Co$ member in good standing with a current IAS membership; you are supporting (giving money to) a criminal organization that ruins people’s lives. I hope you are aware of how Co$ critics (such as myself) feel about that.
    "...There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened..." - Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

    Scientology Through The Door - my interview (#316)


  11. Thanks Type4_PTS, NoName says "thank you" for this post
    Likes koki liked this post
  12. #98
    Crusader freethinker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    7,821

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    So what exactly is Scientology to you that you can pick and choose what you want to do in no particular order?

    How is that a religion?

    How is that a Science?

    How is that any kind of methodology to accomplish something?

    It sounds more like the construct of a cook book or an excercise routine to work on various parts of the body.

    Your taking something that is supposed to have form and structure and turning it into a game with your own rules.

    What other philosophies and religions do you stir into the stew?

    Are you creating a new and improved Cult?


    Quote Originally Posted by kate8024 View Post
    I agree that language is a fluid, ever changing thing and should be fun.

    Since I don't believe in the bridge as being a thing with levels that question requires a bit of a non-standard answer. I could potentially list all of the individual processes I've done but that would be rather tedious and I doubt many are interested. I've spent some doing processes all the way from Self Analysis to Solo NOTs. I skip around as the mood strikes me.

    "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla)

    "In the twenty-first century, the robot will take the place which slave labor occupied in ancient civilization."(Nikola Tesla)

  13. Thanks Gadfly says "thank you" for this post
    Likes Type4_PTS liked this post
  14. #99
    -deleted- kate8024's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    -deleted-
    Posts
    1,212

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gadfly View Post
    Yes, I aware of the New Age and semi-mystical notions that "the sneeze of a fly effects ripples of change to the ends of the universe and back".

    ...

    If you ever actually got to a point where you made ANY real effect at all, you would be segregated in HCO, and eventually tossed out if you didn't quickly modify your behavior. But dream on.
    I don't view it as a mystical standpoint - people tend to pick up habits and social cues from people they interact with, this should be pretty self-evident. Again what you are talking about a single person trying to directly affect large-scale change, that's not what I'm trying to do.
    -deleted-

  15. #100
    Silver Meritorious Patron MissWog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,762

    Default Re: Ask Kate your questions here...

    Quote Originally Posted by kate8024 View Post
    The CofS has shown that its willing to change the material to some extent, some indies are violently against this but I believe it to be something that needs to be taken even further. It's not that the CofS views someone else as source, its that they are willing to ignore the idea of LRH as source to make improvements - even if those improvements are only <1% of the ones I think need to be made. Not all indies are this way by any means, but its a common sentiment that I encountered.

    There is at least one website which goes through many (if not all) of the GAT changes but I can't find it offhand. A little googling around should bring it up though. When I went through it though I didn't find one change I wouldn't have made myself.

    Now the topic of making people redo the bridge after the GAT releases is a different story. I think that is dumb and had I paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the bridge I would have laughed at them if they said I needed to do it again.
    Honestly, this just sounds to me like you are trying to convince either Scions on the fence or never-ins that the church isn't so bad and people should give it a try. It is as if you just want to knock that first little doubt out of the way in hopes to keep members or recruit more. I'm sorry but you do sound like you work for the CofS. And if you don't care that this is the way you come across then I question your lack of sympathy for others and I don't understand why that doesn't bother you.

  16. Thanks Sidney18511, aegerprimo says "thank you" for this post
    Likes JustSheila, Type4_PTS, Free to shine liked this post
Page 10 of 88 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Kate Bornstein on Life After Scientology
    By Smilla in forum Miscellaneous Reports from Newspapers, Blogs, and TV
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22nd July 2012, 06:10 PM
  2. CBC Radio, Day 6....Kate Bornstein interview
    By apple in forum Conferences, Speeches, Radio Shows, and Live Public Presentations
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24th June 2012, 05:27 PM
  3. Kate Bornstein's Amazing Voyage
    By Sock Puppy in forum Tony Ortega
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 9th May 2012, 01:18 AM
  4. Sorry Kate. I'm not impressed.
    By GreyWolf in forum General Scientology Discussion
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 29th March 2010, 11:35 AM
  5. Kate in tune with wacky Tom
    By Neo in forum Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 3rd May 2008, 12:16 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •