TG1
Angelic Poster
LOL! A little bit. Yes.
And, come on, admit it -- you walked in with your dukes up!
TG1
Kris Jenner “Terrified” Kylie Will Get “Sucked Into” Scientology By Jaden Smith
- Thread starter Anonycat
- Start date
LOL! A little bit. Yes.
And, come on, admit it -- you walked in with your dukes up!
TG1
FlunkYou
Patron with Honors
@Anonycat (so tempted to make up my own name for you, but we'll save that)
I hate to break it to you, but your "research" only consists of other like-minded people telling you what your opinion is over the internet. That is sad, my friend.
But you keep shaking the credibility stick, someone's bound to believe you.
(I can't even be bothered with copying and pasting your crap anymore.)
I hate to break it to you, but your "research" only consists of other like-minded people telling you what your opinion is over the internet. That is sad, my friend.
But you keep shaking the credibility stick, someone's bound to believe you.
(I can't even be bothered with copying and pasting your crap anymore.)
Anonycat
Crusader
Dear Mister Sorehead,
You have no idea of my research of the past five years, or of my associations. Maybe I have written the research myself! Or maybe it is official tax documents, or - you don't know what. Because you have, for some reason, avoided the heart of it: what it is you oppose. I gather that it is *something* on the internet, which you keep referring to as having bad information. Wikipedia is one example you specified.
For a scientologist, you are a crap communicator. Not to worry, ex-scientology has a workable system, and it's called honesty. That humble, from the heart kind, that is understood with empathy by people of all ages, and every stripe. I know you'll see many examples of it on this forum. It can be tear-jerking. And judging from your appearance of anger, there is an underlying subject that is not getting presented, and in turn, not discussed well.
Please tell people what pisses you off, but it helps to be specific and best to provide links to what incorrect information you've found, or to present in debate. This is very typical here. Post URLs, screenshots, documents, or whatever you wish. As we know, a picture tells a thousand words, and a document can make or break a case. And when we illuminate things for each other, we all learn. Pretty cool. In a way, this forum is a massive research machine.
I invite you to join in as a peer - God knows we don't all have the same beliefs, or are on the same place in our journeys. As critic forums go, this one has the greatest diversity and the greatest capacity to foster it, and not crap itself. This is a very good bunch of people. Blend in at will.
Anonycat
Crusader
Lone Star
Crusader
MissWog
Silver Meritorious Patron
FlunkYou,
i for one, as well as many others here, very much appreciate ACat and IC and all the others that are great resources for posting news items and historical dox to give the whole picture. You sound frustrated so I kindly suggest you lurk more and learn before attacking creditable contributers..you are really not making your point being so aggressive.
i for one, as well as many others here, very much appreciate ACat and IC and all the others that are great resources for posting news items and historical dox to give the whole picture. You sound frustrated so I kindly suggest you lurk more and learn before attacking creditable contributers..you are really not making your point being so aggressive.
M
Moderator 2
Guest
Can we please avoid the 'dogpile'?
Welcome to the board Flunk you.
One of the things you may not know is that the CofS has sent many before you to deny certain things which clearly are true. If nothing else they have mastered subterfuge and covertness.
They have also managed to pretend publicly that Narconon is not Scientology, at least until recently, so you might understand why some here won't believe you when you say that there is no study tech at the school.
Could you possibly accept that it could be a reasonable thing for the Exes here, with their wealth of understanding about Scientology to doubt? Even if you totally accept it as fact yourself, it still could be untrue.
M2
Welcome to the board Flunk you.
One of the things you may not know is that the CofS has sent many before you to deny certain things which clearly are true. If nothing else they have mastered subterfuge and covertness.
They have also managed to pretend publicly that Narconon is not Scientology, at least until recently, so you might understand why some here won't believe you when you say that there is no study tech at the school.
Could you possibly accept that it could be a reasonable thing for the Exes here, with their wealth of understanding about Scientology to doubt? Even if you totally accept it as fact yourself, it still could be untrue.
M2
CommunicatorIC
@IndieScieNews on Twitter
I am somewhat curious about this.
You were raised in the Church of Scientology.
You found out "auditing doesn't work."
You think the Church of Scientology is "grossly out exchange" and "doesn't deliver what's promised."
I would therefore conclude -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you are in fact an ex-Scientologist.
But you have friends who are Scientologists.
And your friends who are Scientologists are ok with this? Nobody has disconnected? Nobody has pressured them to disconnect? Nobody has asked them to disconnect?
Your friends who are in the Church of Scientology are perfectly fine being friends with somebody who was raised in the Church of Scientology, and who later concluded auditing "doesn't work" and the COS is "grossly out exchange?"
And the Church of Scientology is perfectly happy with all of you remaining friends?
The Church of Scientology is perfectly happy with your friends, Scientologists in good standing, being friends with someone, i.e., you, who who was raised in the Church of Scientology, but later concluded auditing "doesn't work" and the COS is "grossly out exchange?"
Then we add:
So you, a person who was raised in the Church of Scientology but is now an ex-Scientologist (which would conveniently explain your ability to argue about Study Tech, Word Clearing techniques, and assignment to the RPF), who has concluded that auditing "doesn't work" and the Church of Scientology is "grossly out exchange," just happened to place his child in a school reputed or thought to use Study Tech?
And then you just happened to come on ESMB to assure everyone that the school in fact does not use Study Tech, and has nothing to do with either Applied Scholastics or the Church of Scientology?
Do I understand this correctly?
.
FlunkYou
Patron with Honors
Yes, I can imagine the "church" doing what you claim. However, I thought I made it painfully obvious the way I spoke of SCN (belittling/condescendingly) as well as my public admission of NOT being a SCN'er, my stance was pretty clear.
Having NOT seen to what lengths real scientologist have gone to to convince people here they weren't affiliated with the church might have me at a disadvantage. But, regardless, I'm still going to state my position, and I'm not going to be told by someone else who has no foot on the ground or firsthand knowledge on a subject something else. That, to me, is crazy...and if that's not allowed here, then PERMABAN me.
I guess I don't understand the purpose of ESMB if you're not allowed to colorfully talk about the issues. I mean this is a whole website dedicated to the boohoo's of Scientology. God forbid someone upsets the cool kids and their knowingness, right?
Last edited:
FlunkYou
Patron with Honors
My position on the "church" is MY position (yes, ex-scientologist). I don't feel the need to voice that to people who are still in. Those that are close to me know that I'm done. Those that I see on a social basis need not know because it's none of their business and I'm not trying to talk them out of it.
Perhaps you'd chose to do it differently, and that's YOUR right.
Knowing FOR MYSELF the school is not a SCN front group, and it was the school that I felt my child would get the best all-around education from was all I needed to send him there.
I think if you look at my profile you'll notice I didn't JUST come to ESMB.
Maybe some of you had it different being on staff or whatever, but if you just decide never to return as a public, it's not that hard of a break-up.
M
Moderator 2
Guest
I can see that we seem to off to a rocky start.
Have you read the board rules?
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?2-Board-Rules
M2
Student of Trinity
Silver Meritorious Patron
I really don't know anything about this particular school, but I'm interested in the issues raised by Study Tech and in discussions about it. This one seems to me to be derailing a bit, into people talking past each other.
The problem with Study Tech isn't that its basic concepts and methods are bad, exactly. It's that it's very bad to oversell them as great breakthroughs. Study Tech IS the over-selling; the basic concepts themselves have been widely known for ages.
One reason that it's bad to oversell Study Tech that way is just that it gives Hubbard way too much credit. He wrote out some obvious platitudes that tons of other people have always known. In no way does he deserve any credit at all for that. In fact the only idea that was original to Hubbard was precisely the overselling part. He inflated a few of the basic starting points into the be-all and end-all of learning. It's as if he made an infomercial aimed at Boy Scouts, proudly proclaiming the new discovery that Fire Only Needs Air, when every Scout already knows that fire needs fuel, air, and heat.
The main problem with Study Tech as be-all and end-all is simply that it is nothing of the kind. There's a lot more to real education than just overcoming Hubbard's three obstacles. If you emphasize only those three obstacles, and focus too much on techniques for overcoming them in particular, then what you actually do is to optimize your teaching for making students believe simple notions with confidence. For some trivial things, that works great, but overselling Study Tech is like welding training wheels onto the kid's bike. They'll think that it's great because it makes riding so easy, but they'll only ever ride on the sidewalk. They learn that learning is supposed to be easy, with every little step being small; they learn not to struggle for insight. They learn that learning is about clearly visualizing concrete things; they learn not to grapple with abstraction. They learn that what the book says literally is right; they learn not to have to balance shades of meaning in context.
So the question is not whether a school ever does anything to address Hubbard's three obstacles. Any school will. The question is whether a school overemphasizes them, as the only important issues involved in learning. If it does, this is very bad, even though the badness may not really become apparent for years. There may be an exciting initial phase of riding easily along the sidewalk with the training wheels.
How do you tell whether a school is using the Study Tech over-selling? The school might not admit it openly. But if a school transparently advertises its great emphasis on Hubbard's three obstacles, when any really proper school knows that that's not enough, then that's a serious warning sign. I mean, what are the chances that a good fire-making school for Boy Scouts is going to go on and on about air alone, and never mention fuel or heat? Even if there were a school that really felt air needed extra emphasis, it would surely begin by mentioning that fuel and heat are relevant, and then explain that air needs extra attention because it's too much overlooked.
The problem with Study Tech isn't that its basic concepts and methods are bad, exactly. It's that it's very bad to oversell them as great breakthroughs. Study Tech IS the over-selling; the basic concepts themselves have been widely known for ages.
One reason that it's bad to oversell Study Tech that way is just that it gives Hubbard way too much credit. He wrote out some obvious platitudes that tons of other people have always known. In no way does he deserve any credit at all for that. In fact the only idea that was original to Hubbard was precisely the overselling part. He inflated a few of the basic starting points into the be-all and end-all of learning. It's as if he made an infomercial aimed at Boy Scouts, proudly proclaiming the new discovery that Fire Only Needs Air, when every Scout already knows that fire needs fuel, air, and heat.
The main problem with Study Tech as be-all and end-all is simply that it is nothing of the kind. There's a lot more to real education than just overcoming Hubbard's three obstacles. If you emphasize only those three obstacles, and focus too much on techniques for overcoming them in particular, then what you actually do is to optimize your teaching for making students believe simple notions with confidence. For some trivial things, that works great, but overselling Study Tech is like welding training wheels onto the kid's bike. They'll think that it's great because it makes riding so easy, but they'll only ever ride on the sidewalk. They learn that learning is supposed to be easy, with every little step being small; they learn not to struggle for insight. They learn that learning is about clearly visualizing concrete things; they learn not to grapple with abstraction. They learn that what the book says literally is right; they learn not to have to balance shades of meaning in context.
So the question is not whether a school ever does anything to address Hubbard's three obstacles. Any school will. The question is whether a school overemphasizes them, as the only important issues involved in learning. If it does, this is very bad, even though the badness may not really become apparent for years. There may be an exciting initial phase of riding easily along the sidewalk with the training wheels.
How do you tell whether a school is using the Study Tech over-selling? The school might not admit it openly. But if a school transparently advertises its great emphasis on Hubbard's three obstacles, when any really proper school knows that that's not enough, then that's a serious warning sign. I mean, what are the chances that a good fire-making school for Boy Scouts is going to go on and on about air alone, and never mention fuel or heat? Even if there were a school that really felt air needed extra emphasis, it would surely begin by mentioning that fuel and heat are relevant, and then explain that air needs extra attention because it's too much overlooked.
ethercat
Cat in flight
FlunkYou, so that you don't think I am just being conversational, I am speaking to you as an admin here.
"Colorfully talking" is one thing, being abusive toward people is another thing entirely. People have experienced enough abuse in the "church" and the type of abusive comments you've made in this thread are just not acceptable here. Stay or go as you wish, but if your future comments continue in the same vein, we will take you up on your request above in bold.
Please read and understand this post: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...es-a-Truce-and-Moratorium-on-Personal-Attacks
TrevAnon
Big List researcher
It may be that - as a Dutchman - I miss some of the finer details of the English language here, but I have a question.
I have no experience with people using drugs like heroine or something, and I don't use them myself. [Only a beer every now and then
] So I have no foot on the ground, and no firsthand knowledge about that subject.However I DO think that using drugs is bad, and I know from what I've seen on tv, the net etcetera.
I would like to know if you think that I have a valid opinion on that subject, I mean: do you think I can reasonably state the position that drugs are bad.
[Likewise, I have never been a scientologist and I don't know any scientologists IRL. I tend to be holding back on the scientology subject, especially around here, where so many have been there, done that. But I DO think that - generally speaking - scientology is bad. I guess the same goes for that Will Smith school, or whatever it is called.]
FinallyMe
Silver Meritorious Patron
Actually, what I am reading is that that Flunk You says there is no WORD CLEARING happening at the school. If he understands that word clearing is not all there is to "study tech," I'm not picking that up from him.
FlunkYou
Patron with Honors
I have no experience with people using drugs like heroine or something, and I don't use them myself. [Only a beer every now and then
Very valid point....however, we're not talking about harmful drugs.
Sadly, I honestly thought people would want to know the truth about the school (from 2009 to present) from an actual insider, but I was very mistaken. It appears the internet is a way more reliable source than someone with firsthand knowledge. Accepted.
Let's try it this: Why don't you ask me VERY specific questions about "study tech" and the school, and I'll try to answer them as accurately as possible. Please give examples too so there is confusion or room to interpret on my part. What do you say?
Please tell me this goes for ALL of the users here as I was called a "dick" and a "greased pig" by anonycat? I'm sure you sent him a notice too, right?
Again, why don't you give me a specific example of what it is exactly you'd like to know. For example, "If Johnny yawns, does a teach come over and ask him to look back over what he's been reading to find an MU?" That sort of thing, because no matter how many times I've explained it here, people are still trying to determine if study tech is being used at that school. I guess I want to know from YOUR viewpoint what exactly constitutes "using study tech" in a school.
I know there are some here that complained about a page on the website 2 links down and 3 pages in that was written in a VERY VERY scientological way. I assumed it was an old page, or the original website was reworked and someone decided the concepts made sense, but having no SCN experience didn't see the correlation to study tech....or maybe it's a big sinister ploy to scare away the simpletons. I really have no clue.
Last edited:
Similar threads
