Auditing effectiveness...Does it really work?

[Dex G]

In other words you have no verifiable qualifications to practice mental health services (you avoided answering that question altogether) and have no moral qualms referring a person to scientology. That tells me all I need to know about you.

What a load of horseshit. That's not even a misinterpretation of what I said; it is pure self-serving fiction. And that tells me all I need to know about you.

 

[He-man]

What a load of horseshit. That's not even a misinterpretation of what I said; it is pure self-serving fiction. And that tells me all I need to know about you.

Not really though. You did not answer the question of your own qualifications, nor do you see the point that however evolved your teachings are from Scientology, it still is Scientology.

Thanks for the compliment, but in my view I'm correcting the misleading teachings of Scientology; from what I've observed, Hubbard would often take good information from others, and twist it for his own purposes. As in the one practice-related video that I did post in this forum, "PTS Tech" and Truth, a bit of the Trickery of "Standard" Scientology.

The way I see it, Coke is Coke. You can buy it from Pepsi, the Coca Cola company or from the local variety brands, still gonna get your teeth in a bad shape for those dental appointments. Even if you remove the sugar you're still not going to sell it as a medicin, no matter how much caffeine you have in it.

Also, back the pushing part. It's not OK to push it on someone that asks...

...regarding dianetics & its effectiveness in treating mental problems like anxiety, OCD, insomnia, trauma etc.

Scientology, processes evolved from it, and any other mumbo "cure all", should never be pushed or promoted when it comes to mental health issues. No matter how nice a person you seem to be. Especially not on an Ex forum.

 

[stratty]

What a load of horseshit. That's not even a misinterpretation of what I said; it is pure self-serving fiction. And that tells me all I need to know about you.

Horseshit or not, some of us are still waiting for you to answer the question, although based on your response it's a pretty fair bet most of us already know what the answer is.

 

[Pseudonym]

If you have evolved beyond scientology why are you recommending the free zone to a total stranger on the internet? In case the OP isn't aware the free zone is ksw scientologist hubbardites still caught up in hubbard's cult. Do you think pointing a stranger you know nothing about in that direction is a morally responsible decision?

Do you have any verifiable qualifications in the mental health field so people can do their due diligence?

Sometimes people want what they want, and as at least a few others in this forum also feel, not everything in Scientology is without value. So if someone wants to explore Scientology, I recommend what I consider to be the safest path. I personally don't regret the time I spent in Scientology; everything we've experienced is part of what brought us to where we are now, and it was part of my (and most others' here) path. I do have some people close to me who experienced full on the horrors of abuse in the Sea Org, disconnection, etc, and so if someone is inclined to experience Scientology, at least they'll be a damn sight better off finding it outside of the "Church".

In other words you have no verifiable qualifications to practice mental health services (you avoided answering that question altogether) and have no moral qualms referring a person to scientology. That tells me all I need to know about you.

What a load of horseshit. That's not even a misinterpretation of what I said; it is pure self-serving fiction. And that tells me all I need to know about you.

You can't answer a simple question as to your qualifications and fail to see the moral implications of referring a person to scientology (free zone) and throw a hyperbolic tizzy when you're disagreed with. I'm sure people will be lining up around the corner to give you their money.

 

[Dex G]

I thought I made it clear enough that I don't have such degrees; the only reason you guys are harping on it is that you can't come up with any legitimate objections to my good work. Keep equating me with Scientology all you want, it only demonstrates your whiney, pathetic attitude. At least I'm genuine; you haven't even got the balls to go by your actual names, while I've directly stood up to the C of S on several occasions. 2 or 3 wanna-bes, posing as warriors. Step into the light, go by your own name and talk about whatever it is you're doing in your life, then maybe you won't be out of your depth in trying to slur me.

 

[Dex G]

I will be the featured guest on a live TV program tomorrow, criticizing Scientology, in person, in my own name, stating specifics and showing my face. What will you be doing-sniping at me anonymously on the internet? How impressive.

 

[stratty]

I thought I made it clear enough that I don't have such degrees; the only reason you guys are harping on it is that you can't come up with any legitimate objections to my good work. Keep equating me with Scientology all you want, it only demonstrates your whiney, pathetic attitude. At least I'm genuine; you haven't even got the balls to go by your actual names, while I've directly stood up to the C of S on several occasions. 2 or 3 wanna-bes, posing as warriors. Step into the light, go by your own name and talk about whatever it is you're doing in your life, then maybe you won't be out of your depth in trying to slur me.

Spoken like a true scientologist. I want a simple question answered and for that I'm 'harping on', I'm 'whiney' and 'pathetic' and 'have no balls' and I'm 'out of my depth'. That's called ad hominem I believe.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Dex is welcome here. I didn't see him trying to sell his services. He's entitled to his views as is everyone else.

My 2 cents - I believe that Dex can make positive contributions here to the forum, and I hope he stays.

And from looking at a small sample of his writings at his website, while he might be utilizing some bits he learned while in Scientology, IMO, he clearly is not a Scientologist, nor is he practicing Scientology.

That said, some of what he posted here does seem promotional in nature. And even if he does get very good results, that type of thing makes me more than a bit uncomfortable, just from the precedent it sets if nothing else.

In the past there were one or more individuals who successfully used forums like ESMB as a place from which to recruit for Scientology services (independent of the Co$). While Scientology away from the CoS may be an upgrade, I do know of individuals who were defrauded and/or ripped off for big money by non-CoS Scientologists as well.

<snip>
And there are millions of counselors, life coaches, etc, who, like me, have no university accreditations, and some of us, me included, are doing very good work. And of course, there are many university accredited therapists who are incompetent, so your criteria, while satisfactory for you, is far from fair in generically evaluating every practitioner.
<snip>

I generally do agree with what you wrote here. Having a university degree doesn't automatically make someone competent, and the lack of one isn't necessarily a deal breaker for me.

If I was looking to address a particular mental (or physical) issue I would look for someone who has an excellent track record at dealing with that particular issue, and is someone I'm comfortable working with, plus they've got a great reputation amongst previous clients.

In the case of EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique, or other types of tapping) which several of us who have posted in this thread have successfully used, it's a largely unregulated therapy where some practitioners do possess relevant degrees, but many or most do not. And while much research is starting to emerge in recent years to validate its efficacy, it is not mainstream, and won't be until insurance companies begin paying for it. For me, if I were to seek out an EFT practitioner to help with an issue, having a relevant university degree would be low on my list of criteria when I choose one. (although there are some outstanding EFT practitioner's who are licensed psychologists or psychiatrists.)

 

[He-man]

I thought I made it clear enough that I don't have such degrees; the only reason you guys are harping on it is that you can't come up with any legitimate objections to my good work. Keep equating me with Scientology all you want, it only demonstrates your whiney, pathetic attitude. At least I'm genuine; you haven't even got the balls to go by your actual names, while I've directly stood up to the C of S on several occasions. 2 or 3 wanna-bes, posing as warriors. Step into the light, go by your own name and talk about whatever it is you're doing in your life, then maybe you won't be out of your depth in trying to slur me.

I will be the featured guest on a live TV program tomorrow, criticizing Scientology, in person, in my own name, stating specifics and showing my face. What will you be doing-sniping at me anonymously on the internet? How impressive.

I don't know man, Princeton Community TV.

You are grandizing yourself and belittling, well, "us". Ok. Well, the reason I am harping about your credentials is that it is the only legitimate objection there is to what you do. You call it good work, I call it pretending to be a mental health expert.

You're not.

You shouldn't do that.

Leave it to the professionals.

 

[Veda]

-snip-

At least I'm genuine; you haven't even got the balls to go by your actual names, while I've directly stood up to the C of S on several occasions. 2 or 3 wanna-bes, posing as warriors. Step into the light, go by your own name and talk about whatever it is you're doing in your life, then maybe you won't be out of your depth in trying to slur me.

Everyone who posts here is genuine.

People use monikers for a variety of reasons, and the understanding has always been that their desire for anonymity will be respected.

Calm down.

 

[Pseudonym]

I thought I made it clear enough that I don't have such degrees; the only reason you guys are harping on it is that you can't come up with any legitimate objections to my good work. Keep equating me with Scientology all you want, it only demonstrates your whiney, pathetic attitude. At least I'm genuine; you haven't even got the balls to go by your actual names, while I've directly stood up to the C of S on several occasions. 2 or 3 wanna-bes, posing as warriors. Step into the light, go by your own name and talk about whatever it is you're doing in your life, then maybe you won't be out of your depth in trying to slur me.

I will be the featured guest on a live TV program tomorrow, criticizing Scientology, in person, in my own name, stating specifics and showing my face. What will you be doing-sniping at me anonymously on the internet? How impressive.

I have quoted your posts in full context without alteration asking you some questions and your replies are becoming increasingly hostile with some needless insults too.

You don't have a college or university degree in the mental health field and obviously no license to practice. Getting down to brass tacks the due diligence bottom line is your qualifications are scientology and scientology knockoffs. No thanks, I'll take a hard pass on that.

 

[Dex G]

Everyone who posts here is genuine.

People use monikers for a variety of reasons, and the understanding has always been that their desire for anonymity will be respected.

Calm down.

I'm quite at peace, albeit somewhat disappointed with the juvenile attempts to discredit me. And "being genuine" while not disclosing your identity are mutually exclusive. Be real.

 

[Dex G]

My 2 cents - I believe that Dex can make positive contributions here to the forum, and I hope he stays.

And from looking at a small sample of his writings at his website, while he might be utilizing some bits he learned while in Scientology, IMO, he clearly is not a Scientologist, nor is he practicing Scientology.

That said, some of what he posted here does seem promotional in nature. And even if he does get very good results, that type of thing makes me more than a bit uncomfortable, just from the precedent it sets if nothing else.

In the past there were one or more individuals who successfully used forums like ESMB as a place from which to recruit for Scientology services (independent of the Co$). While Scientology away from the CoS may be an upgrade, I do know of individuals who were defrauded and/or ripped off for big money by non-CoS Scientologists as well.




I generally do agree with what you wrote here. Having a university degree doesn't automatically make someone competent, and the lack of one isn't necessarily a deal breaker for me.

If I was looking to address a particular mental (or physical) issue I would look for someone who has an excellent track record at dealing with that particular issue, and is someone I'm comfortable working with, plus they've got a great reputation amongst previous clients.

In the case of EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique, or other types of tapping) which several of us who have posted in this thread have successfully used, it's a largely unregulated therapy where some practitioners do possess relevant degrees, but many or most do not. And while much research is starting to emerge in recent years to validate its efficacy, it is not mainstream, and won't be until insurance companies begin paying for it. For me, if I were to seek out an EFT practitioner to help with an issue, having a relevant university degree would be low on my list of criteria when I choose one. (although there are some outstanding EFT practitioner's who are licensed psychologists or psychiatrists.)

Anything stated as personal opinion, as opposed to asserting as a fact, is fair enough for me. And I am familiar with EFT, heard only positive things about it. There have been a few of my participants who make use of it with success. (I have no issue with "mixing practices", as long as it seems to be working out)
Some people have been very happy with their accredited therapists, I've heard some good stories. I think it's like finding a good doctor, or auto mechanic, etc, when you've got somebody who does good by you, you stick with them, and when you don't, you move on.

 

[Veda]

I'm quite at peace, albeit somewhat disappointed with the juvenile attempts to discredit me. And "being genuine" while not disclosing your identity are mutually exclusive. Be real.

Easily 90% of the posters here use a moniker.

Common sense should tell you that badgering them for that is a mistake.

 

[Dex G]

Easily 90% of the posters here use a moniker.

Common sense should tell you that badgering them for that is a mistake.

Common sense would dictate that when attacking another's credibility, one would be transparent about his own credibility. Sorry to see you stooping to asserting that I'm referring to the majority of people in this forum to turn others against me, when clearly I'm addressing the few who would discredit me behind their pseudonyms. Think it through before you speak.

 

[freethinker]

Very true. I remember being "gung ho" but having to come up with something to say on a success story. I did a Flag only rundown, Profession Intensive. At the end, I was asked to write a success and I was "meh". Made to go back in and get off O/W's. Then changed up the questions a little and revisited the RD. In the end, had to make up a win in order to NOT go back in and do ruds again.

Funny thing about those "wins", I knew people that bragged about their wins, like "look at me and what I got out of this" sort of stuff. Was a bit strained back then, now I SEE THE LIGHT!!!

I agree, I hated success stories and stalled on them every time because, even if I liked the session, or whatever, it never met the level of success. I remember the first time I refused to write one, it was 3 days in qual and they wanted me to do an OW writeup. Because I was new, they didn't send me to ethics but I wasn't going to write the damn success story because I had not achieved something I wanted to, or achieved something I hadn't expected, it was just OK. It drove them nuts.

I was also one who didn't talk about wins because they hadn't come yet. If I wanted a date with some girl and she accepted, that would be a win. Wins on that level were far and few between.

So really, I had this as a withhold the whole time I was in Scientology. I used to make shit up too because I wasn't into being "handled" if I didn't. I thought, someday I will have one but haven't yet. I was a real pain in the ass for them, even at Flag. I had to pretend I was elated so I could leave. My win was I was able to get out of Flag and on a plane home. Flag is a fucking loony bin. My time in Scientology went downhill rapidly after going to Flag.

 

[freethinker]

Common sense would dictate that when attacking another's credibility, one would be transparent about his own credibility. Sorry to see you stooping to asserting that I'm referring to the majority of people in this forum to turn others against me, when clearly I'm addressing the few who would discredit me behind their pseudonyms. Think it through before you speak.

Are you saying if you don't use a true name that you can't be credible? That's a stretch, many great writers used a pen name. I'm not including Hubbard in that.

What did you think of my question on rudiments?

 

[Veda]

Common sense would dictate that when attacking another's credibility, one would be transparent about his own credibility. Sorry to see you stooping to asserting that I'm referring to the majority of people in this forum to turn others against me, when clearly I'm addressing the few who would discredit me behind their pseudonyms. Think it through before you speak.

Discredit you?

Only to the extent that some believe that only academically accredited persons should be in the counseling business.

Personally, I don't have a problem with you not being academically accredited, but I do have a problem with your temperament which is unprofessional and ill suited for a therapist.

 

[Type4_PTS]

I'm quite at peace, albeit somewhat disappointed with the juvenile attempts to discredit me. And "being genuine" while not disclosing your identity are mutually exclusive. Be real.

This part of yours I made bold I disagree with.

There's some great people here who have good reasons for retaining their anonymity. After interacting with a number of them over many years I'm confident about who is or isn't genuine.

And I've known others in the past who have revealed their real identity, but their actions, contradictory statements, etc., reveal they're not genuine.

So just revealing one's real identity doesn't establish ones credibility (or lack thereof) in my view.

Anything stated as personal opinion, as opposed to asserting as a fact, is fair enough for me. And I am familiar with EFT, heard only positive things about it. There have been a few of my participants who make use of it with success. (I have no issue with "mixing practices", as long as it seems to be working out)
Some people have been very happy with their accredited therapists, I've heard some good stories. I think it's like finding a good doctor, or auto mechanic, etc, when you've got somebody who does good by you, you stick with them, and when you don't, you move on.

I just brought up EFT to illustrate my attitude towards various practitioners who may or may not have a university degree. (after rereading what I wrote, it may not be clear as to why I included that bit).

I've used EFT on myself as a beginner and got some amazing results. I might of gotten a bit lucky in that way. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't go to just a beginning EFT practitioner for a serious issue.

For myself though the certificate on a wall isn't a deal breaker. For some others, if you don't have a university degree and/or are licensed to be a therapist it IS a deal breaker, and that's their prerogative, and I can certainly understand why some feel that way.

 

[Dex G]

Discredit you?

Only to the extent that some believe that only academically accredited persons should be in the counseling business.

Personally, I don't have a problem with you not being academically accredited, but I do have a problem with your temperament which is unprofessional and ill suited for a therapist.

Hogwash. You're in no position to judge my temperament, obviously. As opposed to all my participants, who would beg to differ with you in the strongest terms. One would think that after all these years of playing the same game, you would outgrow seizing on the opportunity to pronounce someone guilty of responding appropriately to being run through the gauntlet by the peanut gallery. But then, "Veda", and the end of the day, while you assume an air of "being above it all", unfortunately, you are what you are.