ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Justice Committee, Constitution & Membership of IS Not-For-Profit Membership Org

Discussion in 'Freezone, Independents, and Other Flavors of Scien' started by CommunicatorIC, Jun 17, 2013.

  1. Re: New IS Not-For-Profit Membership Community REJECTS use of the word "wog"

    oh no...

    don't tell me this new IS group is going to be politically correct?

    i'll say it again straight on up, that usage of "wog" is just fine with me...
  2. Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.


    i misspelled WOGGILY...



    no i didn't. funny, i went to bed thinking i'd only put one G in WOGGILY
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2013
  3. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    Re: New IS Not-For-Profit Membership Community REJECTS use of the word "wog"

    Actually, assuming he was being sincere, Steve Hall explained his reasons for rejecting the use of the term "wog":
    Either that, or he decided that the best way to get his new group off the ground was not for them to sound like a bunch of condescending piece of shit assholes who were suffering from pathetic and possibly clinical delusions of grandeur.

    Good to know.
  4. Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.

    o yeah, you were in the "elite" sea org, "le creme de la creme" as it was first introduced to me...

    there is an esprit de corps in the SO that is not thoroughly ignoble but, yes, it can come off like a flea floating downstream lying on it's back on a leaf with a hard un yelling "raise the drawbridge!"

    it's been a long time GF, but thinking back i was put off by most of the common complaints about CoS from the first and the thing about "wogs" was one them. i was n san francisco and here was this fantstically gorgeous city spilling over with the best of what homo sapiens can be and do nd it was all done by fukkin' wogs f'crissakes so if you ain't built something better whuffo you wanna piss on wogs?
  5. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.

    Good point, but to be fair one must also consider the list of Scientologists who have won the Nobel Prize.
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2013
  6. uncover

    uncover Gold Meritorious Patron


    Important note to self:

    Never waste your time by joining a group which is led by dumped long-time Sea-Org members.
  7. Queenmab321

    Queenmab321 Patron Meritorious

    Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.

    Or, for that matter, the number of non-wogs who've actually managed to reach outer space (key word, "actually"), stand on the moon, map neighboring planets or land rovers on Mars.
  8. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    Re: "the usual forms of bigotry"

    Clearly there are new and unique ones. Any donkey can see that. To quote
    Brahms on someone saying he stole a theme from Beethoven.
  9. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    One of scientology's specialties is labeling. Every scientologist trains at it almost from Day One. It's a required skill. You're supposed to be able to remove the label and accurately see what is actually there but many scientologists lose this ability over time.

    Non-judgement is not part of the scientology indoctrination.
  10. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.

    Perhaps you may wish to research this more fully. There are more followers of Jedi than scientologists.

    How many of them have won a nobel prize?
  11. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    Re: New IS Not-For-Profit Membership Community REJECTS use of the word "wog"

    Never trust a Scientologist. NEVER! Why?

    Because he or she will happily apply LRH's PR Series and manipulative ARC tech, happily LIE, and make reality appear to be just about anything, all to achieve some goal or purpose.

    Of course, maybe, and this is BIG "maybe", maybe these folks have tossed out all standard usage of the PR Series to "mold opinions & beliefs".

    Will ANY sort of hard-core Scientologist actually ever communicate sincerely to you? Instead of trying to "handle you" with the appropriate "tech"?

    Not if their idea of standard includes using and applying Hubbard's PR "tech".
  12. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    for awhile there, I wished people in the orgs worn nametags like "grade 0" comp, "OT5", "OEC/FEBC Trained". LOL

    As a public too.

    I got tired of asking what grade or level of training they were. Of course, the EO's didn't need to wear badges, it was like when the lights were turned on and all the cockroaches fled the room, or everybody got real busy with do nothing work, asses & elbows yah know what I mean..
  13. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    Re: New IS Not-For-Profit Membership Community REJECTS use of the word "wog"

    It's funny you mention what you wrote.

    I was reading this tread today:

    And within it, this

    And this applies, the subject of "confront", which is what scientologists do, when you think about it.

    "Now I’ll better (possibly) explain that. It’s a technical thing. Literally to confront means to “front with” [See appendix 1]. Now Ron in all his life only fronted with things. In fact your training drill [is] called confronting. He called it confronting. And I think Ron only ever knew how to confront people. He always fronted with a subject, he never experienced it.
    I can confront people. I can front with things and I can experience. When you’re experiencing you’re not fronting with anything. You’re knowing them, you’re experiencing them and its quite different from confronting. Ron evidently didn’t do that. Ron, in all his personal dealings with people, he always confronted them.

    He used to confront them when he was talking to them and he was listening to them. Whatever was happening Ron always was confronting. And that was the fren---s [?], it was a mock-up. A glowing mock-up you might say he used to put there to confront people with. That’s what you used to sense when he walked into a room. It was the confront, the thing he fronting with.
    When I first spoke to Ann about this she almost had a line charge, she had a tremendous cognition. She’d spotted it but she didn’t quite understand it. She said: “Yes, right, its exactly right isn’t it. That’s exactly what he does.”

  14. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.

    Perhaps you may wish to differentiate.

    The Jedi "religion" started out as a bit of fan fun and, to the extent it has substantive content it (unlike Scientology) has only moral and ethical content.

    Unlike Scientology, the Jedi "religion" does not promise to substantially raise IQ, provide people with OT superpowers, or create Homo Novis. Indeed, unlike Scientology, the Founder of the "religion" did not claim to have already substantially raised IQ, provided people with OT superpowers, or created Homo Novis.

    In other words, the creator of the Jedi "religion" was not a lying sack of shit who led people to believe, and indeed promised, that he would create Nobel Laureates. You know, by now, more than 50 years after the creation of his IQ raising, OT superpower endowing, Homo Novis "religion."


    The first Church of Scientology was incorporated in 1953. Scientology has produced no Nobel Laureates.

    Jeiism was apparently recognized around 2001, and the International Church of Jediism was founded in 2008.

    What, you expect to see Jedi Nobel Laureates who are five years old? Jedi Nobel Laureates who are twelve years old?

    The Force may be strong, but I doubt it is that strong.

    Last edited: Jun 22, 2013
  15. Queenmab321

    Queenmab321 Patron Meritorious

    Re: New IS Not-For-Profit Membership Community REJECTS use of the word "wog"

    It's interesting. I've been thinking about this idea of confront lately. I'm in law school, and the style of teaching is the Socratic method. One prepares for class, briefs the assigned cases, reads the relevant statutes, legal principle, etc., and then, once in class, the professor may call on you. You're expected/taught not only to be able to articulate the issues involved in the case, but also to confront the professor. It's ultimately all preparation for litigation. You're being taught to confront an adversary on the spot with a coherent and compelling argument. The professor may intentionally essay a specious argument or assertion. This is a test. You have to be able to identify the error and call him on it. So, this idea of confront lies at the very heart of the curriculum.
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2013
  16. Infinite

    Infinite Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller


    Wog? Hell, own it . . .

  17. Mick Wenlock

    Mick Wenlock Admin Emeritus (retired)

    well the Thugs practice ritual murder and the Assassins drug induced murder - should scientology adopt those as well?
  18. Re: CommunicatorIC addresses the new IS group on the "wog" issue.

    the complete list of italian war heroes from WWII is longer

    but speaking of alfred nobel...

    nitroglycerine was too touchy to be practical until he mixed it with fuller's earth and made a fortune off of dynamite

    the way in which i combine scientology and christianity is much the same as this formula
  19. yes pandy...


    in the master game de ropp points out a common human flaw is our tendency to attempt to think with a part of the mind not designed for thinking but for labeling

    it's a ubiquitous phenomenon and in truth it is more glaring in CoS precisely because the philosophy is directed at pulling us out of A=A=A thought
  20. Helena Handbasket

    Helena Handbasket Gold Meritorious Patron

    There are words I use myself which I consider I can get away with because I am one of those.

    Having said that, I believe it's fundamentally wrong to discriminate or prejudge anyone because of the type of body they have. This is a non-negotiable for me.