OTII

[RolandRB]

I am looking at the contents of OT II on this page.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/D...2-summary.html

...and I see the same in Margery Wakefield's book "Understanding Scientology".

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/S...eld/us-07.html

...and to me it is a mystery that a sane and rational human being could sit down and spend the time and actually inflict this upon themselves.

[RolandRB]

I am looking at the contents of OT II on this page.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/D...2-summary.html

...and I see the same in Margery Wakefield's book "Understanding Scientology".

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/S...eld/us-07.html

...and to me it is a mystery that a sane and rational human being could sit down and spend the time and actually inflict this upon themselves.

It has been said "Stupid is as stupid does" (Forrest Gump's mother). So where does that put people who did OT II to completion?

[OHTEEATE]

Roland, there are many people in here who did OT 2 and 3. You don't understand it, fine. I did it in the process of going up the Bridge, and found it interesting, and a lot of charge, that I could actually feel, blew off duing the experience. I think you should be a gentleman, and be polite, and discuss your disbelief in a more civilized way. I resent being invalidated for describing wins with tech, at any level. I have my reality, and you are not at liberty to invalidate it. If you continue to act in a way that is rude, I will ask the moderator to excuse you until you can comport yourself without being abusive.

[Zinjifar]

Roland, there are many people in here who did OT 2 and 3. You don't understand it, fine. I did it in the process of going up the Bridge, and found it interesting, and a lot of charge, that I could actually feel, blew off duing the experience. I think you should be a gentleman, and be polite, and discuss your disbelief in a more civilized way. I resent being invalidated for describing wins with tech, at any level. I have my reality, and you are not at liberty to invalidate it. If you continue to act in a way that is rude, I will ask the moderator to excuse you until you can comport yourself without being abusive.

I'm not in the business of making excuses for Roland; it's not even a hobby, but, 'invalidation' isn't a crime, or even particularly rude in any *public* forum except within Scientology.

And, it seems to me that if a 'win' is 'valid' at all, it should be immune to dispute or even 'mocking'.

Yes, 'invalidation' can be done rudely, and, there are times and places where it would be rude, such as a private home or gathering, but, this *is* a public forum, however 'moderated' it might be.

Zinj

[Dulloldfart]

I'm not in the business of making excuses for Roland; it's not even a hobby, but, 'invalidation' isn't a crime, or even particularly rude in any *public* forum except within Scientology.

And, it seems to me that if a 'win' is 'valid' at all, it should be immune to dispute or even 'mocking'.

Yes, 'invalidation' can be done rudely, and, there are times and places where it would be rude, such as a private home or gathering, but, this *is* a public forum, however 'moderated' it might be.

Zinj

I consider invalidating someone's untenable argument to be fair game, but invalidating the author, a petty ad hominem attack, reflects badly on the attacker.

One can be civil even while disagreeing violently with the other person. You usually are, Zinj. As many have expressed, I too share a fondness for this board. The general air of friendliness is a big part of that.

Paul

[svonhatten]

It has been said "Stupid is as stupid does" (Forrest Gump's mother). So where does that put people who did OT II to completion?

You obviously aren't a Sociologist. If you are, you aren't a very smart one.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Xenu/scs.html

SUPRISE!

-Steve

[OHTEEATE]

Svonhatten, Thanks for the reference. I will enjoy reading it. Mike

[RolandRB]

Roland, there are many people in here who did OT 2 and 3. You don't understand it, fine. I did it in the process of going up the Bridge, and found it interesting, and a lot of charge, that I could actually feel, blew off duing the experience. I think you should be a gentleman, and be polite, and discuss your disbelief in a more civilized way. I resent being invalidated for describing wins with tech, at any level. I have my reality, and you are not at liberty to invalidate it. If you continue to act in a way that is rude, I will ask the moderator to excuse you until you can comport yourself without being abusive.

"you are not at liberty to invalidate it". What a defining quote. That is sig material. What happened to free thought?

Doing this OT II nonsense is as smart as a Christian getting themselves nailed to a Cross for Easter. I am sure both get huge wins and "blow a lot of charge" but both are plain silly and dangerous. On OT II the damage done is to your integrity and ability to think critically. Getting crucified, the obvious damage is to the body. Both are on a par, with maybe doing OT II worse as having displayed a lack of critical thought you are open for further exploitation by those watching you and taking notes. That is in my opinion (if I am allowed to have one).

[RolandRB]

You obviously aren't a Sociologist. If you are, you aren't a very smart one.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Xenu/scs.html

SUPRISE!

-Steve

No, not a surprise and not a good example at all. This comes from the book "Social Control in Scientology". It is an attempt to make sense of the Scientology experience. It is not a work on sociology that is independent and has been peer-reviewed and through it received broad majority acceptance.

Try another one. I might even read it.

[svonhatten]

No, not a surprise and not a good example at all. This comes from the book "Social Control in Scientology". It is an attempt to make sense of the Scientology experience. It is not a work on sociology that is independent and has been peer-reviewed and through it received broad majority acceptance.

Try another one. I might even read it.

Ok... I've come to a couple of conclusions:

1. You either already read it and don't want to read it again.
2. You don't know what the CoS is (in a social control sense).
3. You are a Scientologist and "filtering" information.
4. You aren't interested in reading "biased" works.
5. You are troll.

Have I missed one?

1. You are entitled. The "social control" makes sense to me, though. It goes on a praise mentality. Perhaps you could make better sense of this one:

2. You obviously read the paper if you don't understand still.

3. That is your liberty. Ignorance is bliss, but refunds pay for vacations. :D

4. If this is true, you aren't living in the real world, and you probably need to define "biased." I say this because you specified "independent."

5. Nice try. Too bad, so sad. :cool:

-Steve