When a person is enchanted by Scientology, it's sometimes effective to show that one part of Scientology disagrees with another part of Scientology. That, at least, sometimes, creates an interlude of doubt, which, by itself, even if the person doesn't act on it, will reside in the back of the person's mind until such occasion as the person is motivated to revive, and consider again, that doubt.
Another example would be saying, "Hubbard changed in the 1960s and started doing the reverse of what he said in the 1950s." This, of course, is an over simplification. (Hubbard's self aggrandizing basic motivation was unchanged since the 1930s.) Yet, saying that line can create doubt, while allowing the person to hold onto some part of Scientology.
In the meantime, so the idea goes, the person might separate himself/herself from the organization, where he/she can sort out things over time.
Separating the person from the organization, and its influence, is the objective, rather than having the person reject everything that he has come to believe while being involved with Scientology.
I tend to agree with everything you said, with one exception.
In my experience with self and others, it seems rather obvious that it is the QUANTITY not the QUALITY of the exposed Scientology/Hubbard lies and crimes and hypocrisy that allows a person to escape the cult. That's what I meant in an earlier post where I talked about "nuances" not being the driving force.
In Scientology terms, each time a Scientologist "perceives" an "out point" they begin to accumulate micro-doubts. With enough quantity of exposures to the HOAX, fine-lined fissures begin to develop. The cumulative weight of reality begins to gain traction at some point by reason of the sheer volume of contradictions, fraudulent claims and startling lack of proof for any of the audacious guarantees Hubbard made to sell his magical powers.
It begins to dawn on the Scientologist that they themselves and others around them are still ordinary "homo sapiens" with no supernatural powers of any kind. This is the "global warming effect" that breaks up ten-mile deep glaciers, into smaller icebergs.
If I may switch the analogy, if this was a war before nuclear weapons were invented, one of the best ways to break down the enemy was to drop bombs on their chief manufacturing cities, in order to destroy munitions factories, oil processing plants, tank building facilities, and mining transport trains so they couldn't manufacture rifles and bullets any longer. Bomb after bomb, their "resistance" was incrementally weakened. During WW II, it was discovered that even dropping tens of millions of tons of conventional bombs was not enough, so they tried a new tactic which had devastating effects. Incendiary bombs. Now the results of one bomb alone was to create a fire and the fire which could further the destruction. Eventually all the tens of thousands of small fires merged into one horrifying city-wide FIRESTORM which fed itself with 100 mph winds and worse.
I am of a mind that the fierce CLINGING and RESISTANCE a Scientologist has to letting go of a hoax can best be solved with a quietly efficient bombardment of incendiary debunkings. That's why I almost NEVER bother to waste time to discuss the "workable" parts of the hoax. By my estimation, that is almost a function of statistic probability when anyone writes/speaks 10 million words---that there is bound to be some tiny percentage that might be right.
I don't know any subtle way of loosening the death-grip crazy glue that welds Scientologists to their miraculous technology.
It's too absurd, really, all those marks sharing their planet-clearing OT wins from the center of their mile wide blind spots. I say, "
wake 'em up!", even if it kills their precious F/N's. LOL
. 
