I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
David Mayo is no longer a scientologist Mark.
People change ... and my opinion stands.
iScientology.org - A new home for Independent Scientology?
- Thread starter OperatingSP
- Start date
David Mayo is no longer a scientologist Mark.
People change ... and my opinion stands.
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
David Mayo is no longer a scientologist Mark.
People change ... and my opinion stands.
Yeah, but, when David Mayo was a Scientologist he said that Ron's tech worked. So, let's see you try to use your earth logic to try and wiggle out of that!!!
ps: i used to take baker's posts seriously when i thought he was serious. Now i half think he is just saying crazy stuff to make folks crazy.
AlphOhm
Traveler of time/space
Yeah, but, when David Mayo was a Scientologist he said that Ron's tech worked. So, let's see you try to use your earth logic to try and wiggle out of that!!!
ps: i used to take baker's posts seriously when i thought he was serious. Now i half think he is just saying crazy stuff to make folks crazy.
How many smart pills were ingested before the "rabbit shit" bognition happened?
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
David Mayo is no longer a scientologist Mark.
People change ... and my opinion stands.
Yes, people change and David Mayo is no longer free to discuss publicly how his own thoughts may have changed since he wrote the article. Nonetheless the points covered in the article are quite reasonable ones and well worth time take for consideration. Nor does the consideration of an alternate perspective to your own necessitate that you alter your present opinion. However it well may add to the richness of perspective you bring to your own views.
Mark A. Baker
degraded being
Sponsor
Yes, people change and David Mayo is no longer free to discuss publicly how his own thoughts may have changed since he wrote the article. Nonetheless the points covered in the article are quite reasonable ones and well worth time take for consideration. Nor does the consideration of an alternate perspective to your own necessitate that you alter your present opinion. However it well may add to the richness of perspective you bring to your own views.
Mark A. Baker
That looks a little bit fucked up to me. Using someone's previously held views to forward your own persuasion, while acknowledging that those views may not be held now, while the person who held them is prevented from speaking. He may still hold those views for all I know, but wasn't there a more convincing way to persuade someone to your views? Was it just Dave Mayo's altitude that made it look like a good way to bolster you own views? The bit about "richness of perspective" looks like salvage. Grade = C.
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Recently David Mayo clicked 'Dislike' on a similar post by Mark, but hey - what's he got to say about people wanting to use his past for their own ends?
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Actually as I recall it, the point he disagreed with me on was a separate matter not relating to his previous remarks concerning auditing but rather details of his relationship to the church. Feel free to look it up.
As I said, whether or not David still holds the views he has previously expressed, his expressions of those views is still well worth consideration. Many have profited therefrom, and others continue to do so. As one example, Panda recently made a remark in praise of David's discussion of Clear and its reference to harmonics.
Just because a man has chosen to distance himself from some of the specific decisions he made in his past is no reason to discount everything he's ever had to say about the topic. Good sense remains good sense.
Mark A. Baker
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Actually as I recall it, the point he disagreed with me on was a separate matter not relating to his previous remarks concerning auditing but rather details of his relationship to the church. Feel free to look it up.
As I said, whether or not David still holds the views he has previously expressed, his expressions of those views is still well worth consideration. Many have profited therefrom, and others continue to do so. As one example, Panda recently made a remark in praise of David's discussion of Clear and its reference to harmonics.
Just because a man has chosen to distance himself from some of the specific decisions he made in his past is no reason to discount everything he's ever had to say about the topic. Good sense remains good sense.
Mark A. Baker
There's no need to discount what he's said in days gone by, but I think it would be nice to let him keep his preferred distance from the subject.
I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
Actually as I recall it, the point he disagreed with me on was a separate matter not relating to his previous remarks concerning auditing but rather details of his relationship to the church. Feel free to look it up.
As I said, whether or not David still holds the views he has previously expressed, his expressions of those views is still well worth consideration. Many have profited therefrom, and others continue to do so. As one example, Panda recently made a remark in praise of David's discussion of Clear and its reference to harmonics.
Just because a man has chosen to distance himself from some of the specific decisions he made in his past is no reason to discount everything he's ever had to say about the topic. Good sense remains good sense.
Mark A. Baker
Oh Mark, David made it as clear as he could by 'liking' something within the first few weeks of joining the board where someone had said 'he (David) is no longer a scientologist' ... whatever his thoughts were in the past are best left there as they were probably not good sense at all, due to him being (at that point) a scientologist attempting to make sense out of scientology.
While we are on the subject of sense and scientology and the long distant past ... hubbards thoughts should also be ignored as there are now much better ways to entertain and enrich oneself ie watching paint dry or as in both my own and Davids case ... organic gardening.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
I cited the article, not David. I made it clear it was an article written some time ago, before David had publicly repudiated all relationship with the subject of scientology.
[Nor incidentally does such a general repudiation necessarily imply repudiation of all of his formerly held ideas or published materials. Suggesting that it does is an argument overreach.
] There are ideas within the article I recommended which are useful. This is true whether or not David still fully supports it. His support for the ideas is irrelevant, just as Hubbard's support for ideas expressed within the subject of scientology is also irrelevant.
Making ideas about the people who express them is the argumentum ad hominem, whether it be pro or con.
Frankly, you are making a mountain out of a molehill. It's a good article. I recommed reading it.
Mark A. Baker
HelluvaHoax!
Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Actually as I recall it, the point he disagreed with me on was a separate matter not relating to his previous remarks concerning auditing but rather details of his relationship to the church. Feel free to look it up.
As I said, whether or not David still holds the views he has previously expressed, his expressions of those views is still well worth consideration. Many have profited therefrom, and others continue to do so. As one example, Panda recently made a remark in praise of David's discussion of Clear and its reference to harmonics.
Just because a man has chosen to distance himself from some of the specific decisions he made in his past is no reason to discount everything he's ever had to say about the topic. Good sense remains good sense.
Mark A. Baker
In support of your well-reasoned thesis, I refer to the works of Clear #1 John McMaster. Many of the posters should heed your words and his own about Scientology's workable tech.
I'm with you Mark! "Just because a man has chosen to distance himself from some of the specific decisions he made in his past is no reason to discount everything he's ever had to say about the topic."
Therefore, just because Mr. McMaster drank himself to death after going Clear is no reason to discount his phenomenal wins & case gain.
Why people cannot see the brilliance of your observations is a mystery to me.
Similar threads
