I've explained in it in many ways many timesYou have a million ways to not answer that question. Why won't you answer? What are you trying to accomplish?
I sorta do . . . but with all due respect, no one new is coming in for the meal you're preparing.I've explained in it in many ways many times
Most people understand
This thread s is mainly directed at newbies and those doubting Scientology. They are still typically hung up on one (seeming good) thing.Sometimes in Scientology sessions, I’d have a good auditor who was a good listener and genuinely cared.
Unfortunately, the tech got in the way so that I could never really talk things out.
When I’d bring up a problem or upset, I was encouraged to talk a bit, but there was no feedback from the auditor. Instead, she or he would give a muzzled “thank you” or similar and look at the e-meter. Instead of discussing the problem or upset and real life remedies, Iwas asked for an “earlier similar problem/ARC break/withhold, etc. It diverted my attention which made me feel better for the moment, but I’d end up back in session again days or weeks later with basically the same upset. Then there were lists and list corrections until I thought I’d go crazy with them. After a while, I had enough of auditing on that. But the problem or upset was still there.
Scientology tech got in the way of simple, straightforward counseling.
Only when I’d been out some years and had the chance to see my college psychologist, who listened and actively interacted with me, did I find out what effective counseling can do. Problems got resolved. Not in one slam-bam session, but by discussing and addressing them with effective techniques I learned from my college psychologist. He was great and helped me a lot.
I cannot honestly say that Scientology actually helped me with any personal situations through its counseling (auditing). It always diverted my attention away, instead.
It's not true that no one is coming. New people are always coming.I sorta do . . . but with all due respect, no one new is coming in for the meal you're preparing.
I've never seen any sign . . . or better yet, a passing parade of hungry diners coming around.
That said, carry on. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
No your haven't explained it. You claim you want a "complete description" and you certainly could provide what you think is a "complete description" but you don't.I've explained in it in many ways many times
Most people understand.
Fair enough. You see things I don't. Now I know.It's not true that no one is coming. New people are always coming.
Where did you get the idea that those in Scientology are “typically hung up on one thing”?This thread s is mainly directed at newbies and those doubting Scientology. They are still typically hung up on one (seeming good) thing.
Please, do reveal, in detail, that 0.001% that is "good", and how that possibly validates the subject or its creator in any way...And, no, I am not being sarcastic, I am genuinely curious; so far, I truly do not understand what you are getting at...It only seems that way to you.
Other people have accused me of doing the opposite.
Scientology's greatest protection, besides its religious cloaking, is the inability of many of its most passionate critics to fully describe Scientology. The 0.001% of Scientology that is good is like kryptonite to them.
Even street gangs have 0.001% that is good.
A person cannot be fully warned unless a complete description is provided.
It's typical for a person to have a "win" early on in Scientology, and to the spend years, in Scientology, trying to replicate that "win." Of course there are many variations.Where did you get the idea that those in Scientology are “typically hung up on one thing”?
ONE thing?
I don’t think that’s even vaguely true. Do you have research supporting this idea?
Those that doubt Scientology peel the onion. All of those things they peel away are the intertwined connections and agreements they’ve made with others and themselves regarding Scientology.
There are so many. It takes time.
It seems you’re trying to hit what you think may be a button, or you’re trying to gain agreement on your particular likes and dislikes with these threads you start. Is that the case, Veda?
You're hung up on the notion that I'm trying to "validate Scientology."Please, do reveal, in detail, that 0.001% that is "good", and how that possibly validates the subject or its creator in any way...And, no, I am not being sarcastic, I am genuinely curious; so far, I truly do not understand what you are getting at...
There is no such thing as "wins" apart from the organization; it's loaded language. The majority of people outside of scientology do not use the word "win" to describe a moment of emotional catharsis or a feeling of relief from a chronic problem.Perhaps there was a misunderstanding.
Wins, in and of themselves, apart from the organization, are just "wins" with no negative connotation.
I am examining it. I have read it.You're hung up on the notion that I'm trying to "validate Scientology."
That tells me you're not examining what I've written and presented.
" Very little in life is all bad" Hmmm...It's typical for a person to have a "win" early on in Scientology, and to the spend years, in Scientology, trying to replicate that "win." Of course there are many variations.
These types of threads are not meant for long duration Scientologists, now ex Scientologist, who still have unhealed wounds - who feel that these unhealed wounds are being "picked" by such threads. I'm sorry about that, but I don't think it's that uncomfortable for most people, but, if it is, they should put me on ignore.
As for "one thing," that's all it takes but, of course, it could be more.
This was a response to an "It's ALL bad" person, who was making accusations and arguing with me. It was an attempt to coax him into admitting that, at least, there was one itsy bitsy thing that was "good." It might have been a good idea, a good experience, or a good person.
He interpreted this as an attempt to say that Scientology was good, which is ridiculous.
Understandably, the bad stuff is showcased on ESMBR, and in books, and throughout the Internet, but the "good" is often a key element of what is used to lure.
A person who has found something good - that has impressed him - in Scientology will ignore a mountain of damning evidence.
People lurk on this site. Old ESMB has been archived for over a year and people sometimes even lurk there.
I spend a few minutes - or sometimes a few seconds - typing in some words with these lurkers in mind. Some of them are likely people under the spell of Scientology.
I'd prefer that they don't hit a wall of "It's all bad" and turn and walk away. I want them to hang around and keep looking. If a person wants "all bad," then there are lots of places he or she can visit.
Very little in life is "all bad," but, it seems, some people are hardwired, particularly, when wounded, to think that way.
And it's understandable that they do, and I sympathize.
Veda, we have a new member on this very thread right now (Marko Ex) who has been enjoying ESMBR and contributing to it happily since he joined (just 6 days ago) ... you have seriously upset at least two other newbies in recent months, both left ESMBR and have not returned after becoming infuriated with one of your "positive things about the cult" threads, you know this yet continue to place more value on new people who may turn up here rather than those who already have and are often in the delicate process of decompressing and ridding themselves of cult indoctrination.It's not true that no one is coming. New people are always coming.
Who? Please show the posts where they're "seriously upset."Veda, we have a new member on this very thread right now (Marko Ex) who has been enjoying ESMBR and contributing to it happily since he joined (just 6 days ago) ... you have seriously upset at least two other newbies in recent months,
Please post it so we can all see.both left ESMBR and have not returned after becoming infuriated with one of your "positive things about the cult" threads,
We disagree.you know this yet continue to place more value on new people who may turn up here rather than those who already have and are often in the delicate process of decompressing and ridding themselves of cult indoctrination.
I have no doubt that you are well intentioned but perhaps you should think about the harm you could be doing to people newly out of the cult who just need time and space to work things out for themselves without the added and unnecessary complication of trying to find "some good" in the cult of which there is very little if any.
I haven't got the time or the inclination right now to go back and pull up old posts but you were well aware at the time what was happening ... here is one old post that will have to suffice for now.Who? Please show the posts where they're "seriously upset."
Please post it so we can all see.
We disagree.
Who? Please show the posts where they're "seriously upset."
Please post it so we can all see.
We disagree.
Thanks. The linked post - and the entire thread - is worth reading.I haven't got the time or the inclination right now to go back and pull up old posts but you were well aware at the time what was happening ... here is one old post that will have to suffice for now.
Link
I don't see that that is what Veda tries to do. Discussing what got one hooked is not a bad thing. Understanding the cheese in the mousetrap has its benefits.
Seems to me that Veda just wants a more friendly space for the new ex. Veda has made it clear many times that he does not encourage anyone to become involved with scn. When I first came to ESMB back in 2007 it was the first place I found. I was still a tech believer. The mix of people on ESMB at the time allowed for interesting discussions of the tech. Over time as my understanding of scn broadened I came to see more clearly what was what.