OT VIII Is A Scam

Reyne Mayer said:
www.logicallyfallacious.com

Ad Hominem (Abusive) - Logically Fallacious

Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.
www.logicallyfallacious.com www.logicallyfallacious.com
Click to expand...
How do you figure people got duped by Hubbard? By that I mean to think one could go Clear and then OT? How did Hubbard get one to think one could go Clear and then OT?
 
Last edited:
Riddick said:
I've never insulted anybody's intelligent nor insisted that they were not capable of understanding rhetoric, I merely point out Hubbard's use of rhetoric, it's hidden you might say. Nor have I condescendingly dismissed others. This is all rhetoric by you being a wordsmith, I'm not a skilled user of words, just somebody who points out Hubbard's use of rhetoric, actually I'm trying to use logos.

You know, others will say it's lack of critical thinking that got us hoodwinked by Hubbard, some will say it is hypnosis. I believe it was his rhetoric.

How do you think we got hoodwinked by Hubbard? Real question I am asking you personally.
Click to expand...
I'm waiting for your reply HH?

How do you think we got hoodwinked by Hubbard? Real question I am asking you personally.
 
.

Riddick said:
I'm waiting for your reply HH?

How do you think we got hoodwinked by Hubbard? Real question I am asking you personally.
Click to expand...
.

You already explained (two years ago) how you think you got hoodwinked by the cult with "rhetoric".

However, we're waiting for you to explain how you are still being hoodwinked by the cult into trolling ESMB and attempting to derail every thread with your robotically repetitive chanting about rhetoric. LOL

PRO TIP: Rhetoric is one of the better known tools of persuasion. Your posts are, however, not only NOT persuasive, they actually annoy and repulse others to such a degree that your audience actively migrates to the exact opposite of what you are trying to convince them of. Therefore, rather than your claim of being a rhetoric master--you are in fact a rhetoric disaster.

..
 
.

TheSneakster said:
Your question is completely off topic, which is Mike Rinder's blog post concerning OT VIII being a scam.
Click to expand...

.
True.

EXPLANATION: Because Riddick is trolling this website. His trolling has four (4) simplistic gears:

1. Trying to maintain a pretext that he is on this website to educate others on the subject of "rhetoric"​
​
2. Avoiding direct debate or discussions with Scientology critics, whistleblowers and other assorted debunkers.​
​
3. Doing everything possible to derail all discussions by trying to make them about "rhetoric"​

4. When the outcry against his trolling/derailing becomes too strident by board members, he instantly switches into "handle" mode. He suddenly becomes super theta (LOL) and begins to "get in good two-way com" and then pretends to be personally interested in others feelings and welfare by ASKING OTHERS PERSONAL QUESTIONS.​

The "personal questions angle" is sometimes a slick gimmick because members of the board are generally a very nice and forgiving lot-- who are quite willing to make any effort to enter into normal, rational adult discussions. But Riddick is not trying to have an intelligent discussion about anything. He is only using that gimmick to MISDIRECT attention onto something other than people calling him out for being a troll. Once anyone starts to legitimately answer his "handling" questions, Riddick immediately returns to #3 above, derailing all discussions.

:hattip:


..
 
ILove2Lurk said:
the-blob-1958-jpg.19123
Click to expand...


!!! LOL !!!

That is so hilarious it could even inspire a new hit record!

IT TAKES A LOT TO LAUGH...
IT TAKES A TRAIN MEME TO CRY LINE CHARGE


.
 
Riddick said:
everything you listed Hubbard used. These were specifically the rhetoric:

"feel-good-warm-and-fuzzy-feelings, by logical arguments, by seeing the evidence, by an appeal to authority, by professional credentials"

"By threats, blackmail," this is the darker side of Hubbard and OSA ops ie Paulette Cooper. Most people when involved were never informed of this.
Click to expand...
Well, if "seeing the evidence" and "logical arguments" are both rhetoric to you, then I guess all of science is just rhetoric in your book.

Guess we use the word "rhetoric" differently.

... wow, Hubbard's word-clearing was for once actually useful in a normal conversation ;)
 
Last edited:
TheSneakster said:
You're question is completely off topic, which is Mike Rinder's blog post concerning OT VIII being a scam.



Complex Question Fallacy.
Click to expand...
actually, I don't see how it is off tropic. The post says it is a scam, I agree, the reason why I believe it is a scam is because of Hubbard's rhetoric. Why do you think it is a scam? Maybe you don't? You tell me.
 
HelluvaHoax! said:
.


.

You already explained (two years ago) how you think you got hoodwinked by the cult with "rhetoric".

However, we're waiting for you to explain how you are still being hoodwinked by the cult into trolling ESMB and attempting to derail every thread with your robotically repetitive chanting about rhetoric. LOL

PRO TIP: Rhetoric is one of the better known tools of persuasion. Your posts are, however, not only NOT persuasive, they actually annoy and repulse others to such a degree that your audience actively migrates to the exact opposite of what you are trying to convince them of. Therefore, rather than your claim of being a rhetoric master--you are in fact a rhetoric disaster.

..
Click to expand...
I never claimed to be a rhetoric master, you are implying I claimed such thing. Why don't you explain how Hubbard used rhetoric? You never discuss his logos, pathos or ethos? So if you want to discuss those words, then let's do that instead of bait and badgering me in a general sense.

So I say Hubbard used ethos, a component part of rhetoric. So, can you ask me a question on how I think that Hubbard used ethos? Instead of your usual poo poo'ing me? Rinder was part of Hubbard's ethos, he was a Sea Org member, supposedly of the highest standards ethics or ethos wise.
 
Riddick said:
actually, I don't see how it is off tropic. The post says it is a scam, I agree, the reason why I believe it is a scam is because of Hubbard's rhetoric. Why do you think it is a scam? Maybe you don't? You tell me.
Click to expand...


EVERY con artist that ever walked the face of the earth used rhetoric, whether they ever read a book about it (like Hubbard) or not. Every salesman who ever attempted to sell a product or service used it as well. So F'ing what? It's not that significant nor is it the only means of persuasion. I gave you examples in some of your other threads (which were actually about rhetoric) where people (including myself) were persuaded to get involved with or continue Scientology in ways that had nothing to do with Hubbard's rhetoric, and usually, you would ignore those types of postings, but even when you would respond you never effectively refuted what I wrote.

You posted some things years ago that were interesting and helpful, and I acknowledged you for that, But Hubbard's use of rhetoric isn't as significant as you're making it out to be. Find me a cult leader, just one, who did not use rhetoric. I'll save you some hours of searching because there aren't any. Every single cult leader uses rhetoric. And that makes Hubbard's use of rhetoric a bit less significant, doesn't it?

You can certainly continue to post about rhetoric as much as you'd like and there are many threads already created for that purpose. But I doubt that continuing to turn every thread into a discussion about rhetoric is going to end well for you.
 
Riddick said:
actually, I don't see how it is off tropic. The post says it is a scam, I agree, the reason why I believe it is a scam is because of Hubbard's rhetoric. Why do you think it is a scam? Maybe you don't? You tell me.
Click to expand...

Your question to me was about my personal beliefs and therefore off topic. We're still waiting for you to say something directly relevant to Mike Rinder's blog post that would actually be on topic.
 
..
Riddick said:
I never claimed to be a rhetoric master, you are implying I claimed such thing. Why don't you explain how Hubbard used rhetoric? You never discuss his logos, pathos or ethos? So if you want to discuss those words, then let's do that instead of bait and badgering me in a general sense. So I say Hubbard used ethos, a component part of rhetoric. So, can you ask me a question on how I think that Hubbard used ethos? Instead of your usual poo poo'ing me? Rinder was part of Hubbard's ethos, he was a Sea Org member, supposedly of the highest standards ethics or ethos wise.
Click to expand...

..
You continue to ask me personal questions. You sure you want me to give my personal opinions? Okay, let's go, LOL.

First opinion. I regard your post(s) as nothing more than idiotic derailing from someone who fancies themselves to be the website's resident scholar on all things rhetoric.

You have spent the last two years lecturing everyone about RHETORIC, the art of persuasion. Guess what? You didn't persuade anyone. Ergo you are clueless about the subject you are lecturing everyone on.

That's why nobody wants to listen to you making up sentences using the 4 words rhetoric, logos, pathos and ethos.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. If you understood the subject you would be able to use rhetoric to convince/persuade others of something. Instead, you created an entire website of people HOSTILE to you and your "rhetoric" trolling and derailing.

You needn't continue pretending to be part of a discussion website. Your trolling is annoying, toxic and counter-productive to people having conversations. It's a minor miracle you didn't get suspended or banned already from this website for derailing every single conversation.

PRO TIP: Mature adults are capable of having discussions with other mature adults. Anyone who spends two years derailing others' discussions by endlessly and idiotically chanting the same sentences is not part of any discussion. They are a troll.

Hey, you insisted on asking me personal questions, so there are your answers. Be sure to write up your wins.

..
 
Last edited:
..

Karen#1 said:
1666059523594-png.19137
Click to expand...

..

.
"You are not just auditing one PC at this level, you are churning out
cleared beings in volume, and we will start seeing the
results sooner or later on society in general." —LRH​

LOL, what a crazily deranged bunch of bullshit Hubbard was selling!

However, there is one part of Hubbard's 1980 prediction that did come true!

The part about how "we will start seeing the results sooner or later..." Because only six years later (1986) we started to see an astonishing result and improvement "on society in general" when Hubbard left the planet.

..
 
Riddick said:
How do you figure people got duped by Hubbard? By that I mean to think one could go Clear and then OT? How did Hubbard get one to think one could go Clear and then OT?
Click to expand...

as i and many others have said before, a mix of factors that varied for individuals, including sort of coincidental ones like knowing someone in scn or growing up in it.

i think one often key one is the lure of there being a sort of simple answer or system, or source of answers, that solves everything and which gives followers powerful wisdom. you seem obsessedly focused on the idea of one single answer that explains everything, and from what i'm seeing from your persistence here i suspect that attraction of Hubbard's scn may have been more key for you than even the rhetoric, though apparently you were one of the ones more attracted to that as well.
 
Type4_PTS said:
EVERY con artist that ever walked the face of the earth used rhetoric, whether they ever read a book about it (like Hubbard) or not. Every salesman who ever attempted to sell a product or service used it as well. So F'ing what? It's not that significant nor is it the only means of persuasion. I gave you examples in some of your other threads (which were actually about rhetoric) where people (including myself) were persuaded to get involved with or continue Scientology in ways that had nothing to do with Hubbard's rhetoric, and usually, you would ignore those types of postings, but even when you would respond you never effectively refuted what I wrote.

You posted some things years ago that were interesting and helpful, and I acknowledged you for that, But Hubbard's use of rhetoric isn't as significant as you're making it out to be. Find me a cult leader, just one, who did not use rhetoric. I'll save you some hours of searching because there aren't any. Every single cult leader uses rhetoric. And that makes Hubbard's use of rhetoric a bit less significant, doesn't it?

You can certainly continue to post about rhetoric as much as you'd like and there are many threads already created for that purpose. But I doubt that continuing to turn every thread into a discussion about rhetoric is going to end well for you.
Click to expand...

exactly
Let me add that every and each time we open the mouth it’s 99% rhetoric.
All our narrative is based on rhetoric.

Actually the insistance of Riddick to persuade us that LRH words and writings are rhetoric is, in fact from his part, pure art of persuasion.

Actually, he preaches to people who already know the manipulation of LRH for decades..Thus most of us have moved a few steps further

:)

IMO, it might be a never acknowledged case

Yes LRH used rhetoric
Absoluetly true
Perfect observation
Sure
True
Correct

:winner:
😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Karen#1
TRAGIC: Clearwater OT 8 Scientologist, 40, set fire to herself before shooting herself dead
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
8K
SuperstarNeilC
S
Z
A treatise about the Occult origins of Scientology by George M. White
Replies
11
Views
4K
Zertel
Z
Back
Top