Failure to describe SCN

Riddick

I clap to no man
The failure to thoroughly describe Scientology - bad, good, and crazy - guarantees Scientology Inc.'s survival.
I don't think that's true anymore. If you google research, which everybody does,

what is the best self help book, or best religion, why dianetics and scientology do not show up.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
There are individual pieces of the facade that are - IN AND OF THEMSELVES - not fake.

Well, go and study them then!

Go and bloody well clay demo them!

Go and try to use them to 'gently' manipulate people out of their chosen cult if you feel that is your purpose in life!

Do what you like Veda but stop trying to dominate the rest of us because you haven't got a chance in hell of succeeding.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
 

Bill

Well-known member
There are individual pieces of the facade that are - IN AND OF THEMSELVES - not fake.
Yeah. So? Also not secret. That's exactly why the actual good in the facade is not good. It's bait and available elsewhere without the hook.
 

Veda

Well-known member

Well, go and study them then!

Go and bloody well clay demo them!

Go and try to use them to 'gently' manipulate people out of their chosen cult if you feel that is your purpose in life!

Do what you like Veda but stop trying to dominate the rest of us because you haven't got a chance in hell of succeeding.

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
These types of posts are not really directed at you, or other like-minded folks.

They're meant for lurkers and new members such as "Voodoo."

Link to poster "Voodoo's" statement.
 

Bill

Well-known member
IN AND OF ITSELF.
Things that are part of Scientology are part of Scientology. Hubbard built it that way.

Find the original pre-Hubbard source, and only refer to it that way - and it could remain actual good.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
These types of posts are not really directed at you, or other like-minded folks.

They're meant for lurkers and new members such as "Voodoo."

Link to poster "Voodoo's" statement.


Well, perhaps you should have made that clear when you first started posting them.

I see that Voodoo's statement suits your agenda. Voodoo was wonderful, he was an ex when he joined and was calm and lacking in anger at the cult when he began posting ... he had more important things to deal with as it turned out (his health). He also admitted that when he first lurked ESMB he wasn't ready, later on when he was ready he joined us and fitted in really well.

How about @NotsoNutsoNow? He apparently had a need to rant and was still very angry at the cult, but he left recently, not long after you interfered with that process and I tried to keep the peace (I never learn).

:modest:

If you still want to refer to old posts go and read the last few @Dotey OT made too ... he has also gone quiet since dealing with you. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, I'm trying to explain that your way is not always the 'right' way.

There is no 'right' way Veda, we are all individuals and perhaps you need to accept that.

Over and out.
 

Veda

Well-known member
Things that are part of Scientology are part of Scientology. Hubbard built it that way.
He built it that way. But not everyone obeys his command.

Parts of Scientology can be separated from Scientology. As early as 1955, Hubbard had instructed that those separating a piece of Scientology from the rest of Scientology, without authorization, should be attacked and, if possible, ruined utterly.

Find the original pre-Hubbard source, and only refer to it that way - and it could remain actual good.
Showing actual sources or antecedents is important but, in the moment, not always possible.
 

Bill

Well-known member
He built it that way. But not everyone obeys his command.

Parts of Scientology can be separated from Scientology. As early as 1955, Hubbard had instructed that those separating a piece of Scientology from the rest of Scientology, without authorization, should be attacked and, if possible, ruined utterly.



Showing actual sources or antecedents is important but, in the moment, not always possible.
You are persistent in promoting the good parts of Scientology ("good" being your opinion). Without completely separating out those parts from Scientology -- and disassociating such "good" parts completely, what you are saying (in my opinion) "Look at these nice, shiny Scientology baits! They are good! They won't harm you! Look at these nice baits! Won't you bite? Nice stuff here!"
 

Veda

Well-known member
You are persistent in promoting the good parts of Scientology ("good" being your opinion). Without completely separating out those parts from Scientology -- and disassociating such "good" parts completely, what you are saying (in my opinion) "Look at these nice, shiny Scientology baits! They are good! They won't harm you! Look at these nice baits! Won't you bite? Nice stuff here!"
This is becoming exhausting.

Sigh
 

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
No one cares.

Currently 8 members are logged in and 70 web crawlers and google bots are visiting.

They just don't care. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Make that 7 members.

ILove2Lurk
is actually a highly advanced algorithm.

robot2.jpg
 
Last edited:

PirateAndBum

Administrator
Staff member
You are persistent in promoting the good parts of Scientology ("good" being your opinion). Without completely separating out those parts from Scientology -- and disassociating such "good" parts completely, what you are saying (in my opinion) "Look at these nice, shiny Scientology baits! They are good! They won't harm you! Look at these nice baits! Won't you bite? Nice stuff here!"
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.
 

Bill

Well-known member
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.
Interesting guess - but who knows what Veda is trying to do. When I suggested we be nice to True Believers but still be free to criticize the "tech" as appropriate, Veda said that's NOT what he wanted. So ... who knows?

I give up trying to figure out what Veda is trying to do. It's exhausting and never gets anywhere.
 

Dotey OT

Dis-Membered
Well, perhaps you should have made that clear when you first started posting them.

I see that Voodoo's statement suits your agenda. Voodoo was wonderful, he was an ex when he joined and was calm and lacking in anger at the cult when he began posting ... he had more important things to deal with as it turned out (his health). He also admitted that when he first lurked ESMB he wasn't ready, later on when he was ready he joined us and fitted in really well.

How about @NotsoNutsoNow? He apparently had a need to rant and was still very angry at the cult, but he left recently, not long after you interfered with that process and I tried to keep the peace (I never learn).

:modest:

If you still want to refer to old posts go and read the last few @Dotey OT made too ... he has also gone quiet since dealing with you. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, I'm trying to explain that your way is not always the 'right' way.

There is no 'right' way Veda, we are all individuals and perhaps you need to accept that.

Over and out.
I decided to visit today.

I had gone quiet. I decided that I was going to take a break from ESMBR, so I did over the past several weeks. Not to go into detail, but I decided that I was getting upset at what could be called "stupid stuff". Everyone here has their experience. Mine lasted from 1989 through, well actually it's still going. I have been out four years now after being in for almost thirty. I think the more recently out people have a differing story than some of you here who were out before I even got in. It feel like old news to some of you here, and in fact it is old new to some of you here. Just not for me.

Factually, I have been taking a break from many things internet. A rather nice break.

I don't have anything more to add to a conversation here. Know that I am always rooting for the end of the cult. I am wrapped up in being UTR, in many ways. I like to hear good news about it failures, and I do love to get some of the truth of what it was that we went through for the years that we did. I will be more of a lurker.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
I give up trying to figure out what Veda is trying to do. It's exhausting and never gets anywhere.
.
I don't know the answer. But if this was a game show and I had to guess in order to win a brand new washing machine, here's what I would say. . .

It seems that he has a certain STYLE when talking to people interested in Scientology or already involved at some level. He seems to prefer the style of not being confrontational or directly and unceremoniously debunking the "Big Lies" that Scientology incessantly promotes.

Different people have different styles. Once an acquaintance of mine in the entertainment industry happened to mention over coffee that he had received a jumbo box of Scientology books for free. He did not know that I had ever been a Scientologist, not that I hid it, but he never asked. That made me very curious indeed because nothing is free in Scientology. Well, some hotshot Scn execs apparently were doing PR Area Control and targeted this individual as an "Opinion Leader" that was one of the boxes they had to check off on their "Safepointing" of Scientology inside of a new realm the cult was trying to move into.

I asked my friend why he would receive a huge box of new Scn books for free. I quickly "obnosed" that he was talking about "THE BASICS" books. I never bought those books but from what i remember hearing the COS was selling them for several thousand dollars! So the conversation at that point became very interesting. I casually mentioned to my friend that I happened to know more than he might imagine about Scientology. That perked my friend's interest up considerably and he eagerly asked many questions. After receiving his jumbo box o' books, they gave my friend a VIP tour of some of the cult facilities---even though my friend was utterly CLUELESS about what Scientology was. They had the "hard pressure with grinning and lovebombing" going full tilt.

I asked them: "Do you know what Scientology is?" They didn't, other than some vague idea that it was "supposed to help people be more successful and happier".

I asked (with a slight grin) if they wanted me to tell them what Scn is. Their curiosity now peaked, "YES!" came the answer.

Rather than get into any of the discussions my friend had been having with Scn VIPs and trying to discuss the "GOOD" and "BAD" parts of Scientology, I just cut to the chase. I asked them if they know how much Scn costs and made them guess.
$10,000?
Nope, more
20,000?
Nope more.
$50,000?
Nope way more.
(they started laughing here)
$100,000?!!!
Nope, keep going.
(them): OMG! $200,000?!!!!
(more astonished laughter)
(me): Nope, more. Do you give up?
(them): Yes I give up, How much?
(me): $600,000
(them): (laughing hard) NO WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!
(me): Way!


Okay now that they were cringing and laughing at the same time, I moved on to Part II of the rundown.

(me): So now you know. Do you want me to tell you the secret of what Scientologists believe?
(them): Yes, tell me!
(me): (in 30 seconds explains the xenu, dead alien ghosts story)
(them): ( laughing with disbelief) Really?
(me): Yes, really.
(them): No, seriously?
(me): Yes, seriously.
TOTAL TIME INVESTED: Approximately 4 minutes.

RESULTS: They swore they would never ever ever ever get involved with Scientology. And they thanked me for all the time saved at having to read the box o' books or attending any more "VIP tours" or "lovebombing" sessions.

There is nothing good or bad about my style compared to Veda's style. Maybe my style is more harsh and risky. But on the other hand, we wrapped up the entire "exploration" of Scientology in under 5 minutes and before the waitress came around for our first coffee refill. Not bad, right?

I know Veda is much more concerned about those "ALREADY IN" the cult. He seems to prefer a much lighter touch that sort of encourages the person to "get in com" much like the "PROMPTERS" on Grade 0. (e.g. Have you thought of something that you think would make me think less of you? OR: Have you said something you think i didn't understand, if so tell me again.). Sorry if those are not verbatim, I haven't had any star-rate checkouts recently, LOL.

Veda appears (to me at least) to want to prompt, engage and encourage a COS or INDIE Scientologist to talk about the "good" parts. That's his style. Cool. Nothing wrong with that.

My style is to entirely ignore the good parts and go in for the kill while the first cup of coffee is still hot.

I think where Veda goes off track is that he needs (for some odd reason) for others to follow HIS style.

But, to my own recollection, I don't remember anyone ever asking for Veda to be their Docent, Sherpa or Professor on "How to talk to Scientologists". His advice is fine but he never gives up the idea that people need to be handled by him so that they communicate in HIS style.

Well that's my take anyways.

Please let me know when my new washing machine will arrive so I can be at home to sign for it.

.

.
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
There is nothing good or bad about my style compared to Veda's style. Maybe my style is more harsh and risky. But on the other hand, we wrapped up the entire "exploration" of Scientology in under 5 minutes and before the waitress came around for our first coffee refill. Not bad, right?
I like both styles and given that people who land here are all different, some may respond better to one while others would respond better to the other.

Both IMO can help deprogram others. When I landed on the board in 2009 I still believed some pretty stupid shit about Hubbard. Even though I had already been out for 20 years I hadn't up until that point read much about Scientology or Hubbard. Veda's approach was very helpful for me back at that time.
 

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
My style is to entirely ignore the good parts and go in for the kill while the first cup of coffee is still hot.
Wow, hilarious story. :LOL:

I wish someone would have told me that LRH had had a couple heart attacks in the seventies and a couple
strokes in the eighties and simply died like other older people. I would have been offended and never
spoken to the person again -- being a stone-cold true believer -- but I would have definitely taken steps to
positively confirm or deny what I'd heard. And I would have found out one way or another.

It would have blown up my hidden standards (fantasies) about Hubbard. Would have saved me $100K,
ten years of my life and a marriage. Worth it.

But that's me. YMMV.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
I decided to visit today.

I had gone quiet. I decided that I was going to take a break from ESMBR, so I did over the past several weeks. Not to go into detail, but I decided that I was getting upset at what could be called "stupid stuff". Everyone here has their experience. Mine lasted from 1989 through, well actually it's still going. I have been out four years now after being in for almost thirty. I think the more recently out people have a differing story than some of you here who were out before I even got in. It feel like old news to some of you here, and in fact it is old new to some of you here. Just not for me.

Factually, I have been taking a break from many things internet. A rather nice break.

I don't have anything more to add to a conversation here. Know that I am always rooting for the end of the cult. I am wrapped up in being UTR, in many ways. I like to hear good news about it failures, and I do love to get some of the truth of what it was that we went through for the years that we did. I will be more of a lurker.
That sounds like a sensible move. I suspect that many of us are well and truly 'talked out' but still here partly from habit and because we enjoy the banter, the laughter, the familiarity and friendships built over many years and because it's still good to watch the cult being slowly but surely exposed for what it is. Perhaps many here are not taking it too seriously these days (I'm certainly in that category and have been for a long time) but were once in your position and do understand ... it's tricky and constricting and the last thing you need is more upsets over stupid stuff.

I wish you had arrived (here) 10 or so years ago when things were very different but wishing won't change the reality. Anyway, you know where we are and you are part of our crazy club ... your posts often made me smile and laugh but I understand there are still some issues for you that must be hard to deal with and only you know how and when to deal with them in the best way for your family.

:)
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
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.
"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."

What did you see? And "what was what"?
 
Top