"The flip side of the coin"

Veda

Well-known member
Zartel, I've taken the liberty of posting this by you.

The flip side of the coin would be if scn didn't do you any good did it do you any harm? Scn covered a multitude of concepts which were at least worth considering. I thought it was an interesting and worthwhile life experience.
Let's see if there are any responses.







:fencing:
 

freethinker

Controversial
Zartel, I've taken the liberty of posting this by you.



Let's see if there are any responses.







:fencing:
Scientology itself didn't do any harm if you are talking tech only but Scientology isn't tech only, or a wall built between tech and policy or practitioners and admin. it wasn't made that way so if you are talking about Scientology as a tech only, then you should say so, otherwise you create animosity and conflation between the tech, Hubbard, Policy, DM and all that comes with it.

You get the reactions you get because you don't separate things out by defining precisely what you are addressing because Scientology is many faceted and some facets are downright criminal and abusive in no uncertain terms. The jury is still out on the tech but if you want to say it didn't do any harm, then I invite you to reinspect OT's getting cancer, people who got on their OT levels, crashed and burned and comitted suicide, have fantasies of living past lives as some important historical figure without any proof to present to anyone. It has actually caused mental illness, or facilitated it's manifestation, so, if you want to try to make it look harmless, you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell.

Not every session came to a good result. People introspected because the powers weren't manifesting because it cannot produce them. it gave people a false sense of advancement. There is much more but you can never call Scientology harmless, whether tech or admin , it's a booby trap.

I would compare it to taking an experimental vaccine.
 

Zertel

Well-known member
Zartel, I've taken the liberty of posting this by you.



Let's see if there are any responses.







:fencing:
Okay. (I guess - lol) The qualification is that I left scn in 1979 which is years before David Miscavige took over. Another factor I believe occurred after I left is that Hubbard had ramped up the sea org enough that he could send out the sea org police to enforce dictatorial control over the missions and orgs.

Whenever I get the chance I like to repeat a statement made by a long time contributor to scn blogs who went by the handle "ThetaClear". He wrote, "Most of us were intellectual adolescents when we entered Scientology, having little or no background in science, religion or philosophy."

I fit that category. I was 25 years old and a college graduate but I had never considered even the most basic concepts in philosophy or religion like Body - Mind - Spirit. I'll leave it at that. :)
 
Last edited:

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
The flip side of the coin would be if scn didn't do you any good did it do you any harm? Scn covered a multitude of concepts which were at least worth considering. I thought it was an interesting and worthwhile life experience.
The concepts of Scientology were the bait, the honey trap which got people sucked into the cult organization called Scientology.

Involvement in the cult organization has resulted in people spending their youth and most productive years slaving for the organization, giving it their life's production, and resulting in too many winding up in their old age destitute, childless, and alone.

For myself, I got out in fairly good shape, due to deciding to set firm limits on how much I would spend in both time and money.
 

Veda

Well-known member
Scientology itself didn't do any harm if you are talking tech only but Scientology isn't tech only, or a wall built between tech and policy or practitioners and admin. it wasn't made that way so if you are talking about Scientology as a tech only, then you should say so, otherwise you create animosity and conflation between the tech, Hubbard, Policy, DM and all that comes with it.

You get the reactions you get because you don't separate things out by defining precisely what you are addressing because Scientology is many faceted
Your statements are bizarre. You are not reading what I write, and have written for years. Rather than actually read what has been written, you have an idea about it. and that is sufficient for you. Why? Laziness?

and some facets are downright criminal and abusive in no uncertain terms. The jury is still out on the tech but if you want to say it didn't do any harm, then I invite you to reinspect OT's getting cancer, people who got on their OT levels, crashed and burned and comitted suicide, have fantasies of living past lives as some important historical figure without any proof to present to anyone. It has actually caused mental illness, or facilitated it's manifestation, so, if you want to try to make it look harmless,
There you go again. You really have no idea what I've been saying.

you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell
of getting you to actually read and understand what I've been writing. :panic:

Not every session came to a good result. People introspected because the powers weren't manifesting because it cannot produce them. it gave people a false sense of advancement. There is much more but you can never call Scientology harmless, whether tech or admin, it's a booby trap.

I would compare it to taking an experimental vaccine.
You're practically quoting what I've been saying for years while not realizing it, and thinking you're disagreeing with me, and that I'm saying something else.

Very very strange.
 

Veda

Well-known member
Okay. (I guess - lol) The qualification is that I left scn in 1979 which is years before David Miscavige took over.
1979. That was during the Dianetic Clear frenzy - as I call it. Hubbard had decided that there were lots and lots of "Clears," and that they had been produced by Dianetics.

Former Senior Case Supervisor International, who lived with Hubbard during this time, would, after leaving Scientology, write that Hubbard had made changes for PR and marketing reasons, in other words for EGO and MONEY.

Seeing the "Dianetic Clear frenzy," I could no longer deny to myself the extent to which most Scientologists were hypnotically under Hubbard's influence.

As an off lines "public" at that time, I was also reading the works of Aleister Crowley, and recognizing that this was a major antecedent of Scientology.

Finally, after reading the Shannon documents obtained by the Freedom of Information Act (which exposed Hubbard's falsehoods about his past), and then the 1982 Mission Holders transcript (which showed that the people running Scientology were insane adolescents), I resigned my membership in Scientology Inc.

I spent a few years exploring what was then called the "Independent Field."

Then I began examining, in detail, other aspects of Scientology, such as its "cloak and dagger" activities, and undue influence or "brainwashing."

Another factor I believe occurred after I left is that Hubbard had ramped up the sea org enough that he could send out the sea org police to enforce dictatorial control over the missions and orgs.

Whenever I get the chance I like to repeat a statement made by a long time contributor to scn blogs who went by the handle "ThetaClear". He wrote, "Most of us were intellectual adolescents when we entered Scientology, having little or no background in science, religion or philosophy."

I fit that category. I was 24 years old and a college graduate but I had never considered even the most basic concepts in philosophy or religion like Body - Mind - Spirit. I'll leave it at that. :)
Thanks for the input.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

Let's do the math.

Approximately 98% of people who dabble and/or delve into Scientology end up "blowing" and it is not from misunderstood words. It's more likely that it's because they "cleared" words, such as CULT or HOAX.

What was the point of Scientology? In brief, it's purpose was to take your money so that the head guru could have a few billion dollars and slaves.

The 98% that hit the ejector seat and parachuted back down to the MEST world called "reality" quite obviously ran the numbers and determined that Scientology was more than 50% harmful than it was good. Had the bad not overwhelmed and vanquished the good, they would never have blown. It's common sense, people don't try to escape from wins and happiness. LOL.

The only thin and frayed thread holding up any other theory about "Scientology's good" is this myth---that "some people got the wins and gains they wanted from Scn and left early". It's an absurd concept that somewhere on this planet there are people who are so amazing that they did Scientology without being subjected to the inordinate time wasting and victimizing lies that is the very basis of Scientology since 1950 when Hubbard began lying his ass off on the fourth word he wrote on the subject.

DIANETICS THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH
If there was "good" Scientology and "bad" Scientology, it's painfully obvious that the bad part overwhelmed the good---and that is the only reason that 98% decided to escape.

As far as the other 2% who stayed, I refer you to the stories of the few Japanese soldiers who hid in the Philippine jungles for decades after World War II ended and the Emperor unconditionally surrendered. They could not conceive that Japan had lost the war and thus kept on fighting. Scientology has its own band of "loyal officers" who refuse to surrender to the fact that their "religion" is an avaricious cult built on lies. Most of Scientology's 2% are in the COS and the rest are floating somewhere in the credulous cosmic concepts called "Indie" Scientology. Whatever denomination of Hubbard's pseudo-scientific scam they belong to, they are all members in good standing of the OSA (Operating Stragglers Association).

SPECIAL MESSAGE FOR LOYAL STRAGGLERS: Don't listen to the 98% who routed out without a standard routing form and approved CSW. Because, you're right---Scientology really really really really really does work! Fear not, you will eventually make it to Clear and OT, keep going and keep your eyes on the prize! Ron made it and you can too! LOL


.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
.

-snip-

The only thin and frayed thread holding up any other theory about "Scientology's good"
Who is saying "Scientology is good"?

is this myth---that "some people got the wins and gains they wanted from Scn and left early".

-snip
.
Yet there were people who did just that, and checked out Scientology, found it interesting, and little bits of it to be beneficial (that's part of the bait on the hook), and they didn't get hooked. They looked around and saw that it was a cult, and a trap, and they left.

There were wiser than you or I were, and I respect them for it.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
Yet there were people who did just that, and checked out Scientology, found it interesting, and little bits of it to be beneficial (that's part of the bait on the hook), and they didn't get hooked. They looked around and saw that it was a cult, and a trap, and they left. There were wiser than you or I were, and I respect them for it.
.

Those people you describe were no better or no worse than anyone else that was duped by Hubbard. You want to create a special category of honor for people who were slightly less duped. You want to call them "wiser". Sure you can do that if you want, but don't be surprised if you are the only attendee at the awards ceremony where they get medals.

You have some fancy ideas, but they are abstractions. Anyone who tries Scientology got duped. There is no shame in that. Nobody gets any "special status" just because it took them a little less time to blow. Those are manufactured statuses, nothing to be either proud of or ashamed of.

SUMMARY: Anyone who invested either TIME or MONEY (or both) in Scientology was conned. There is neither any heroism nor any shame involved in believing the lies of Scientology. People figure it out eventually. Those who don't are appropriately punished by life. It's no different than forgetting to pull one's hand away when touching a hot stove. Just because someone pulled their hand off the burning coil faster than someone else--they don't deserve a jumbo completion certificate and a parade. If they were a genius, they wouldn't have put their hand on the stove in the first place.

.

.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
.

Those people you describe were no better or no worse than anyone else that was duped by Hubbard.

-snip-
Being curious is not the same as being duped.

There are nuances.

That seems to be a "thing." For some people there are no nuances. For them, it's almost sacrilege to suggest there are nuances.
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
Did Scientology do me any harm? Yes as a matter of fact it did.

:floor:

Scientology taught me all you need to clean windows were old newspaper.

:vacuum:

Scientology taught me the PTS/SP "tech".

:puke:

Scientology gave me one weird ass set of "tools" that didn't actually work. TR's, Auditing and training.

:kickedout:

Scientology destroyed my family and caused a great deal of harm to 4 generations of people.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Your statements are bizarre. You are not reading what I write, and have written for years. Rather than actually read what has been written, you have an idea about it. and that is sufficient for you. Why? Laziness?

There you go again. You really have no idea what I've been saying.

of getting you to actually read and understand what I've been writing. :panic:



You're practically quoting what I've been saying for years while not realizing it, and thinking you're disagreeing with me, and that I'm saying something else.

Very very strange.
Yes, this is exhausting.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
Being curious is not the same as being duped.

There are nuances.

That seems to be a "thing." For some people there are no nuances. For them, it's almost sacrilege to suggest there are nuances.

Thanks for the briefing on ridiculously obvious things that I have known for decades. If it feels good to give others r-factors, knock yourself out. Splurge on it! LOL

.
 

freethinker

Controversial
Your statements are bizarre. You are not reading what I write, and have written for years. Rather than actually read what has been written, you have an idea about it. and that is sufficient for you. Why? Laziness?

There you go again. You really have no idea what I've been saying.

of getting you to actually read and understand what I've been writing. :panic:



You're practically quoting what I've been saying for years while not realizing it, and thinking you're disagreeing with me, and that I'm saying something else.

Very very strange.
Let's get this straight, I have no interest in what you write on Scientology by choice.

You posted a quote of someone else's assuming they wouldn't mind which had nothing more to do with you other than you were fishing for reactions.

My reaction was to the quote, not anything you write. You would have to be a very special writer in the first place for me to want to read your often very lengthy posts on a message board that are often cut and paste of prior posts you have made which indicates you still haven't gotten your point across to not only me, but many other people on the board as you wouldn't repeat yourself so much.

I left Scientology but it's all you want to talk about, what Hubbard did, what Hubbard was all about. He was a con, I really don't need much more than that to know I don't need to read more on on it. Other peoples experiences on it would be different but I really don't give a crap about Scientology or Hubbard to need a constant review of the subject, so yes, I have learned very little from your posts as I mostly don't read them. I occaisionally look to see if you have something new but you don't.

This thread was started on someone elses quote, which isn't really you posting but seeing what kind of effect that quote would have to see if you could turn it into something.

Doesn't look like it's going your way or as you intended.

At the start of this thread it had nothing to do with what you write, but what somone else wrote.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
-snip-

My reaction was to the quote, not anything you write.

-snip-
Then there was a misunderstanding, and I withdraw my comments. :sorry2:

I assumed you were directing your comments at me after the first paragraph.

I should have inquired, "Is any if this directed at me?" before responding.

:carryon:


Back to "the flip side of the coin" theme - and the tendency to see through a lens of "all good" or "all bad."



 

freethinker

Controversial
Then there was a misunderstanding, and I withdraw my comments. :sorry2:

I assumed you were directing your comments at me after the first paragraph.

I should have inquired, "Is any if this directed at me?" before responding.

:carryon:


Back to "the flip side of the coin" theme - and the tendency to see through a lens of "all good" or "all bad."



Thanks, I am perfectly willing to drop the whole thing like it never happened.
 
Top