Pieces of tech you liked

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
@Riddick ... Why are you aiming the contempt you have towards the cult and hubbard at your fellow ex scientologists these days?

I imagine most of us agree with many of your points with regard to rhetoric but don't necessarily want to keep talking about it forever as you apparently do.

:confused:
 

marra

Well-known member
@Riddick ... Why are you aiming the contempt you have towards the cult and hubbard at your fellow ex scientologists these days?

I imagine most of us agree with many of your points with regard to rhetoric but don't necessarily want to keep talking about it forever as you apparently do.

:confused:
I seem to recall that on the original ESMB, where Riddick went by the moniker "Gib", he went on about "no Clears or OTs" so much that Emma, who was normally very tolerant of posters, told him to knock it off and I think she may have even banned him.

Now he has 3 pet subjects: Rhetoric, Heinlein letters and, yes, no Clears or OTs.

I agree that it is irritating to keep reading this stuff but I don't think anyone is going to persuade him to stop.
 

Bill

Well-known member
I guess you didn't click on the link or read it. I thought we could a discussion, my bad..
You don't come here to discuss anything. You only lecture, pontificate and (you think) teach.

When I pointed out that your "facts" were, in reality, opinions, did you attempt to discuss that? Or did you simply attack me?

No, if you wanted to discuss things, you would go ahead and do that. What you want to do is lecture. I don't think many here signed up for your class.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
I seem to recall that on the original ESMB, where Riddick went by the moniker "Gib", he went on about "no Clears or OTs" so much that Emma, who was normally very tolerant of posters, told him to knock it off and I think she may have even banned him.

Now he has 3 pet subjects: Rhetoric, Heinlein letters and, yes, no Clears or OTs.

I agree that it is irritating to keep reading this stuff but I don't think anyone is going to persuade him to stop.
yes, I was Gib. I choose that name because he is my best friend who never got involved in dianetics or scientology. Gib always had a laugh it off attitude. When I told him I left scientology he said good, and that was it. It's sort of a similar situation when Jason Beghe left and his friend David Duchovny supported him.

Marra, lots of posters said no clears or OT's on the original ESMB board. HH does it all the time in his "stupid tread" here on ESMB Redux and the original ESMB.

Emma never said that and Emma never banned me. I decided to take a break and change my name to Riddick, I liked the avatar of a Furyan.

What I'm trying to explain is Hubbard's rhetoric and how he entrapped people into believing they are part of a religion, can go clear and OT, all of which is complete rhetoric. It doesn't matter to me if you understand what I am saying. This is the only venue I'm wishing to explain. Like it or not.

Good.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
You don't come here to discuss anything. You only lecture, pontificate and (you think) teach.

When I pointed out that your "facts" were, in reality, opinions, did you attempt to discuss that? Or did you simply attack me?

No, if you wanted to discuss things, you would go ahead and do that. What you want to do is lecture. I don't think many here signed up for your class.
I asked if you clicked on the link about English Rhetoric, Did you?

I'd like to discuss it with you?

 

Riddick

I clap to no man
@Riddick ... Why are you aiming the contempt you have towards the cult and hubbard at your fellow ex scientologists these days?

I imagine most of us agree with many of your points with regard to rhetoric but don't necessarily want to keep talking about it forever as you apparently do.

:confused:
Well thank you, but doesn't everybody here who posts points out it was rhetoric? HH does it all the time. I'm just stating the core of it all.

You will be happy to know I'm done and will no longer post. I stopped reading Mike Rinder blog and Tony O blog about a year ago as well as Alanzo and anything else. I'm done.

Good.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
Well thank you, but doesn't everybody here who posts points out it was rhetoric? HH does it all the time. I'm just stating the core of it all.

You will be happy to know I'm done and will no longer post. I stopped reading Mike Rinder blog and Tony O blog about a year ago as well as Alanzo and anything else. I'm done.

Good.

I don't think anyone would be happy that you are not contributing to the discussion. The only point I think others were trying to make is that there is an entire SPECTRUM of reasons that Hubbard's Hoax sunk its deep controlling roots into people's minds.

I can't recall ANYONE who disagreed with you that "Rhetoric" plays a major role! As such, I'll re-post a graphic that depicts some of the other persuasive or controlling gimmicks that the cult uses to gain billion-year slaves and billions of dollars.




In my experience, those other control mechanisms very often have just as much power as rhetoric. You've never witnessed that?

.
 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
Well thank you, but doesn't everybody here who posts points out it was rhetoric? HH does it all the time. I'm just stating the core of it all.

You will be happy to know I'm done and will no longer post. I stopped reading Mike Rinder blog and Tony O blog about a year ago as well as Alanzo and anything else. I'm done.

Good.
For example, some people claim that SCN auditing is about hypnosis.
I don't agree but I don't feel offended.
This should just be peaceful conversation.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.
For example, some people claim that SCN auditing is about hypnosis.
I don't agree but I don't feel offended.
This should just be peaceful conversation.

Good point.

It is a "mostly peaceful" conversation. LOL


 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
Well thank you, but doesn't everybody here who posts points out it was rhetoric? HH does it all the time. I'm just stating the core of it all.

You will be happy to know I'm done and will no longer post. I stopped reading Mike Rinder blog and Tony O blog about a year ago as well as Alanzo and anything else. I'm done.

Good.

Fair enough.

:)
 

Veda

Well-known member
I don't think anyone would be happy that you are not contributing to the discussion. The only point I think others were trying to make is that there is an entire SPECTRUM of reasons that Hubbard's Hoax sunk its deep controlling roots into people's minds.

I can't recall ANYONE who disagreed with you that "Rhetoric" plays a major role! As such, I'll re-post a graphic that depicts some of the other persuasive or controlling gimmicks that the cult uses to gain billion-year slaves and billions of dollars.




In my experience, those other control mechanisms very often have just as much power as rhetoric. You've never witnessed that?

.
During the 1960s, when L. Ron Hubbard's oldest son, L. Ron Hubbard Jr., was speaking out about his father, he was Fair Gamed. Per Fair Game tech, a person is subjected to multiple channels of attack, usually covertly, but sometimes overtly. This is to overwhelm the person.

Scientology Inc. had spread rumors ("noisy investigation," etc.) about Ron Jr., resulting in him losing his job, and had messed with his credit lines, so he couldn't borrow money. Ron Jr. had a wife and children to support and was desperate at that point. He was made aware of a job offer and was told he had to go to a certain location - a motel room or some such - where he'd have a job interview.

Ron Jr. feeling hopeful that he might be finding employment, appeared for the job interview, and was greeted and shown in. Sitting at a table, a man in a business suit began what appeared to be a job interview. The man took out a large envelope and began showing Ron Jr. large photographs of his children going to and from school.

This was applying the Scientology Intelligence tech of finding "What the terminal considers valuable and is protecting" and attacking or threatening it.

All of these applications of Scientology - the rumor-spreading resulting in being fired, the sabotaging of credit lines, the photographing of Ron Jr.'s children - were done covertly. Scientology's involvement was hidden. (Years later, as a result of the issuing of search warrants, documents were revealed that showed these events were carefully secretly orchestrated by Scientology.)

Only at the the very end, as he sat at the table with photographs of his children spread out before him by (what he later discovered had been) Deputy Guardian Bob Thomas, did it become obvious, to Ron Jr., that this was Scientology.

Very few words were spoken. The message was simple: His children are being threatened and are in danger unless he goes quiet.

Was this rhetoric?

Hardly.

Manipulative language is part of the Scientology operation, but only one of many parts.
 

Bill

Well-known member
I asked if you clicked on the link about English Rhetoric, Did you?

I'd like to discuss it with you?
Read a book on rhetoric? Not right now. What I always like discussing is Logic. Especially logical errors, the illogics. Like assuming that your unproven opinion is a proven fact. Interested in a discussion?
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
Read a book on rhetoric? Not right now. What I always like discussing is Logic. Especially logical errors, the illogics. Like assuming that your unproven opinion is a proven fact. Interested in a discussion?
You ought to realize is that Logic is derived from Rhetoric. You can read about it here, if you like. Aristotle called it logos, or logic, and as one of the 3 means of persuasion.


"
Aristotle[edit]

Aristotle
The logic of Aristotle, and particularly his theory of the syllogism, has had an enormous influence in Western thought.[45] Aristotle was the first logician to attempt a systematic analysis of logical syntax, of noun (or term), and of verb. He was the first formal logician, in that he demonstrated the principles of reasoning by employing variables to show the underlying logical form of an argument.[46] He sought relations of dependence which characterize necessary inference, and distinguished the validity of these relations, from the truth of the premises. He was the first to deal with the principles of contradiction and excluded middle in a systematic way.[47]"

I guess I'm being a lecturer or teacher, and that might annoy you?
 

Bill

Well-known member
You ought to realize is that Logic is derived from Rhetoric. You can read about it here, if you like. Aristotle called it logos, or logic, and as one of the 3 means of persuasion.


"
Aristotle[edit]

Aristotle
The logic of Aristotle, and particularly his theory of the syllogism, has had an enormous influence in Western thought.[45] Aristotle was the first logician to attempt a systematic analysis of logical syntax, of noun (or term), and of verb. He was the first formal logician, in that he demonstrated the principles of reasoning by employing variables to show the underlying logical form of an argument.[46] He sought relations of dependence which characterize necessary inference, and distinguished the validity of these relations, from the truth of the premises. He was the first to deal with the principles of contradiction and excluded middle in a systematic way.[47]"

I guess I'm being a lecturer or teacher, and that might annoy you?
Oh, you can lecture me all you want, if that floats your boat, but that doesn't invite discussion. Lecturing just requires an attentive audience. (Or, I guess, one could simply lecture even when no one was listening).

What annoyed me was when you stated your assumptions as facts. That's bad logic. That's what Hubbard did all the time. You might say that describes all his books, writings and lectures. He had no proof of his grandiose claims. From my current view of his "tech", he just made stuff up and declared "This is so!" His skill was in making people believe his bs.

If you want to lecture, well, you've got that down. If you want discussion, you're going to have to work on that, I think. This is a start.
 

Veda

Well-known member
It's understandable that Riddick would think that Scientology is entirely about words. During early 1950, Hubbard stated that the reactive mind primarily consisted of words (from pre natals). During the mid 1960s, abandoning actual GPM running, he presented Scientologists with long lists of words from "implants."

And, for Riddick, years of enduring word clearing probability solidified the idea that it's all words.

Plus there's Hubbard's early 1947 Affirmations: "Your writing has a deep hypnotic effect on people and they are always pleased with what you write... Your psychology is advanced and true and wonderful. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler."

Hubbard even implanted himself while sleeping, or drugged, by listening to a sound recording of his Affirmations.

And he actually thought he could hypnotize people simply with the sound of his voice.

Then there are the millions of words, extensive in their own right, but puffed up, with extra wide margins and big type size to make the books bigger, and heavier, so as to impress.

Words, words, words, but not only words.
 

freethinker

Controversial
I seem to recall that on the original ESMB, where Riddick went by the moniker "Gib", he went on about "no Clears or OTs" so much that Emma, who was normally very tolerant of posters, told him to knock it off and I think she may have even banned him.

Now he has 3 pet subjects: Rhetoric, Heinlein letters and, yes, no Clears or OTs.

I agree that it is irritating to keep reading this stuff but I don't think anyone is going to persuade him to stop.
I really like your postings but the volume he posted on Rhetoric is worth the time. I don't know about the other stuff but I know Riddick/Gib is passionate about his subjects.

maybe a little over passionate but no one is going to like everything someone does. Rhetoric is an important subject, it is why the world is fucked up today.

You don't discover truth by agreeing but by seeing the truth as you saw it, not as someone else did. When someone else says it you are only agreeing to what you always thought was true, not with the one who said it. it's basically a relief that someone else saw it as well. That's what truth does, it inspires self confidence.
 
Last edited:

freethinker

Controversial
During the 1960s, when L. Ron Hubbard's oldest son, L. Ron Hubbard Jr., was speaking out about his father, he was Fair Gamed. Per Fair Game tech, a person is subjected to multiple channels of attack, usually covertly, but sometimes overtly. This is to overwhelm the person.

Scientology Inc. had spread rumors ("noisy investigation," etc.) about Ron Jr., resulting in him losing his job, and had messed with his credit lines, so he couldn't borrow money. Ron Jr. had a wife and children to support and was desperate at that point. He was made aware of a job offer and was told he had to go to a certain location - a motel room or some such - where he'd have a job interview.

Ron Jr. feeling hopeful that he might be finding employment, appeared for the job interview, and was greeted and shown in. Sitting at a table, a man in a business suit began what appeared to be a job interview. The man took out a large envelope and began showing Ron Jr. large photographs of his children going to and from school.

This was applying the Scientology Intelligence tech of finding "What the terminal considers valuable and is protecting" and attacking or threatening it.

All of these applications of Scientology - the rumor-spreading resulting in being fired, the sabotaging of credit lines, the photographing of Ron Jr.'s children - were done covertly. Scientology's involvement was hidden. (Years later, as a result of the issuing of search warrants, documents were revealed that showed these events were carefully secretly orchestrated by Scientology.)

Only at the the very end, as he sat at the table with photographs of his children spread out before him by (what he later discovered had been) Deputy Guardian Bob Thomas, did it become obvious, to Ron Jr., that this was Scientology.

Very few words were spoken. The message was simple: His children are being threatened and are in danger unless he goes quiet.

Was this rhetoric?

Hardly.

Manipulative language is part of the Scientology operation, but only one of many parts.
Where does this come from?
 

Xenu Xenu Xenu

Well-known member
I remember getting roped into becoming an FSM by the local Division Six head. I was told to come to a meeting of FSMs. There was only me, the Div 6 head, and a young woman who claimed to be an FSM. I never saw this woman before. She told all of us that she was now too busy to be an FSM but that she would "always be a Scientologist".

It was a set up. In retrospect, I believe she was hardly a Scientologist or an FSM. There were no FSMs at our crappy org. It was just a show to convince me that there were others who were gung-ho about Scientology and recruiting new clams. It was a con job and an act. No rhetorical words were used. It did work on me and helped to convince me to go out and recruit others into the cult. I mean, this woman was an FSM or so I thought, so it couldn't all bad.

I never ever saw this women ever again in our org although I did see her on the street a week later and she had a rather sly looking smile on her face when she saw me.

I am not saying that this was official Scientology tech or policy but I am sure that Elron would have secretly approved. That particular Div 6 head was known for lying quite a bit, I later found out.
 
Top