Very true. Natter is natter, unless you’re talking about someone who’s declared or just blew staff. Then you can say things like “I always knew he was an SP”. In addition, any and all down statistics and overt products can be blamed on the person who just blew, and “now everything is so much better without him around – stats will soon go up.” This holds true until the next person blows staff, at which point they become the scapegoat of the day.
Cute—but the S.O. ladies there don’t understand that what Mi$cavige writes as a script for others to say in front of camera is what Mi$cavige makes them say or they’re dead meat. End of story. He has no respect for the tech, so he doesn’t care if his orders to people in front of the camera look that ridiculous and stupid to a trained scientologist. He doesn’t give a shit. He doesn’t think to himself “Oh gee, that kinda looks like they are nattering about Leah.” Because he’s nattering at Warp 5 in his little cinder of a mind about her too. Now THERE’S someone who has an overt or two.
Gato , it doesn’t matter at this point. Miscavige is in a little funnel of finality, his name is mud, and nobody gives a shit about him because of the horrible crimes he has inflicted on good nice people.
Many thanks for the link and that article CPO. A lot of great information there. As you stated at the end of the article, this doesn’t even cover the financial problems.
And you asked the perfect question about the former top level folks who are now “suppressive” when you said: “Did they change or did the church”. That goes to the whole craziness of it all. All of these folks who were so “horrible” when they were in….that is only the case now that they’re out. Where were all the knowledge reports warning the “church” about these folks based on these accusations about them when they were in? If they would have been reported, perhaps this “perfect tech” could have been employed and might have “saved” them (according to their definition).
The point is, these things never happened, they were taken out of context, or they were grossly exaggerated…..or just flat-out ridiculous to use as an example of “evil” (Leah was rude one time? Seriously? That’s the best they can come up with? The fact that she’s basically……normal?) Otherwise, if they were true, then it seems like the people making these claims are responsible (according to the LRH “scripture”) for all of you folks losing your way….merely by the fact that they didn’t “report you” when they allegedly saw these claims so they could “fix you”.
And the fact that use your own son (and other family members for others) just highlights the depravity of this organization. I truly hope he gets out soon and reconnects with you guys.
O/T to today’s blog topic, but very on-topic to this blog.
Everyone who reads and posts here on a regular basis is indebted to Mike for the opportunity and grateful to him for all the thought, effort and expense he puts into to it in order to make it such an excellent source of information concerning all things scientological.
It’s so good, in fact, that folks like me often want to continue discussing blog topics that have appeared on previous days, such as the 5/24 “What If” essay, written by Brian. Since these extended discussions mostly follow the blog’s standards of decorum, and serve the purpose of allowing interested participants to continue the discussion until it peters out on its own, they’re not in and of themselves a bad thing.
However, since Mike reads every comment before allowing it to post, the demands put on his time become onerous at some point. Since I know he has many other things to do each day, and I have no desire to appear ungrateful or insensitive to his needs, I’d be fine NOT posting to previous day’s topics, if he wanted to establish that as a blog rule.
Does that sound like a reasonable solutions to others?
I dont favor any rules, dont want to prevent anyone having their say. But I dont like endless back and forths when it is clear neither side is going to change their perspective about something. Moderation in all things is the moderation policy.
Amen…..juggling the filming of Aftermath #2, the blog, his personal life & family….give Mike credit where credit is due. It can be a NO WIN situation when the haggling goes on and on & causes friction between the bloggers/friends……a simple…..Agree to Disagree & LET IT GO will suffice.
Much, if not most, of the endless back-and-forth is created by Scn-is-all-bad commenters who use rhetorical techniqes to invalidate the discussion of the good in Scientology. Their very long comments, containing multiple arguments, are intended to overwhelm, not really have a discussion aimed at coming to any agreement on the truth. Very political.
M2C, I don’t think it’s easy to say that one side or the other is necessarily more faulty in their writing and argumentation; the “good” side typically resorts to the rhetoric of experiential anecdotes (a logical fallacy).
I’ve been thinking about the point about multiple arguments. I don’t think there is a deliberate rhetorical strategy to overwhelm, as such. I know that for my part, I do sometimes want to make a number of points just to try to communicate how I think there is a preponderance of evidence, or at least too many unanswered serious questions. It’s partly a limit of the format, that it doesn’t really work to go through an argument point-by-point in the way that would be ideal. I’m not sure yet if there’s really a better way, though I think some simplification is in order.
I’d like to see the critical side develop better arguments and approaches, if only to be more effective with those interested in information and who have open minds.
OK, here’s a meta-analysis-of-anecdotes argument. Since I’ve been pushing the idea of preserving the good whle throwing out the bad, more and more “it’s bad” commenters have been admiting to getting valuable wins initially in Scientology. This includes such enthusiastic critics as Brian. This lifts the “there’s some good there, too” argument out of the “isolated anecdote” level, and establishes it as being worthy of further consideration.
Our hypothesis would be that there was a lot of workability in the early lower level tech, but not as consistently at higher levels, and that the organization was an unworkable and destructive additive. So if we eliminated the organization, and let auditors do their own research to advance and perfect the tech, we might end up with something very good. And, in actual fact this has been happening in the non-KSW-fanatic independent field.
T.J.says
One side or the other isn’t to blame, both sides keep going way past the time it should have ended. For some reason they cannot seem to let it go. And if you think they will “come to an agreement on the truth” you are in for a disappointment – that’s never going to happen.
If two people can’t look at the same thing, see it for what it is and agree on that, then we must logically conclude that no one has the ability to observe anything accurately. And if that’s the case, then we are in deep, deep trouble.
T.J.says
The people who don’t think Scientology has any worth or redeeming qualities and the people who do believe in the benefits of Scientology are not going to agree on what is “the truth” about Scientology. That’s why there keeps being this back-and-forth arguing between the two sides which never ceases or ends….
I was reading your comment on the two sides of the discussion about Scientology. Your comment made me think that is what makes the truth or un-truths about the church/ cult so polarizing. For me it comes down to after Years of heartache and pain and numbness to the world I at first and for many years blamed on myself for blowing the Sea Org constantly. Now I see the whole expanse that it was never my fault Ron/dm built their religion wink! on Lies and they both knew that. So the see-saw arguments will go on. I will walk my path and continue to speak out against what was done to me and so many more especially those married when in or with children when in. Disconnection is unspeakable. The Church/ Cult is cruel, cold ,calculating,crafty and Crazy. ❤️?❤️?
I Came Back y’all. I finally figured out to get back here I had to slip in the back door on Safari. So here I am. Sounds like many many new posts here and my old friends here I still love you and send you a big Hug. ?Mike and all you posters here.
Hi I Yawnalot, I have been wandering around and hunkering down in The Bunker. But how can I not read and post on Mike’s! All you wonders! I got unsubscribed from WordPress by some error & then I was an invalid poster because my original password and email was not recognized. And then I wandered until weeks later I got in through Safari and suddenly WordPress thank you, put my subscription back. So here I am. Lovely to greet you.❤️
Hi Ann B! 🙂 It’s so very nice to see you here again! Congrats on your relocation to a sunnier location, hope it’s a wonderful, fun move for you. Bookmark Mike Rinder’s site, so you never get lost again! Love, T.J.
T.J., You Found me!! I was lost & thought I could never get back to Mike’s and then I could not find you!! My breadcrumb Tech failed because the OSA sent flying monkeys to keep me in circles. Yet here I am and want to know how you are and what good posts I can read again from you. Love you Sweetheart Always Hugs Hugs and Love. I can’t get lost in Gulf Breeze the Internet will go straight to your heart from me. ???❤️❤️
jimsays
Dear Mike,
Moderation is well and fine, until you have to confront someone using a Service Facsimile. When someone has a Service Facsimile start running it does not know when to stop. IMO Service Facsimiles are only touched on at Grade 4. Any ‘stable datum’ that the individual carries around can become a Service Facsimile on command. Witness the entire cherch using Ron’s every written word as Service Facsimiles.
(For our never-ins) A Service Facsimile is a stable datum an individual compulsively uses to make self right, dominate others, and survive. So if Ron wrote ‘barf barf gargle whoop’ the cherch will use that exact quote to make themselves right, and dominate discussions, and survive better—in their minds.
Well then, with respect, you seem to be sending mixed messages here: On the one hand it’s “Please stop” and “No more, please,” but on the other, it’s “I…don’t want to prevent anyone from having their say”.
If you look back on previous blog topics which have sparked continuing discussion here you’ll notice that they don’t actually go on endlessly; instead, they peter out on their own, when folks have decided on their own that they’ve had enough. The fact that folks are interested enough to continue to discuss this or that topic is, in reality, a very clear sign that they found it valuable enough to continue giving it thought and making the effort to put those thoughts down in writing. In reality, it’s a sign of success that what you believe to be interesting and relevant has been valued in the same way by others!
The “every day is a new blog topic” is great and we enjoy it immensely, but there are plenty of topics of discussion in $cn that completely deserve our continuing attention and focus for longer than just one day. So, the fact that people want to continue the discussion for longer than that is, imo, clear evidence of the value and significance that folks attribute to this blog and the articles which appear here.
But if it’s an onerous burden to you to read all those posts, then just say so clearly, we’ll understand…it’s your blog, have it your way. No need to make some sort of hard and fast rule, just make your needs and wishes known in a clear and direct manner, and I’m certain most everyone will respect them, because we respect you and appreciate your time and effort in creating this on-line forum!
The fact that certain folks who post here are unlikely to change their specific positions on $cn isn’t a bad thing at all. Indeed, there are almost no other places on the internet where exes of all differing orientations can come together to discuss anything. So, disagreement can serve to sharpen folks ability to communicate clearly, state their points cogently and learn to argue civilly, without devolving into ad hominem personal attacks.
Further, the fact that some individuals who have exited the corporate cherch continue to find some aspects of $cn valuable (e.g., the Holy Tech!), while others believe that there’s no baby to be saved when we toss out the dirty bath water of $cn, is a very worthwhile issue to continue to focus on. That’s because cult decompression (or self-deprogramming) can be a long, arduous and confusing process for those who’ve left the cult, or who are beginning to leave it in their own minds even before setting foot out the door. For that reason, I believe that it’s very important to explicitly state and deeply consider the question: Is there anything of lasting worth and essential value in the doctrines and practices of Hubbardism, or was the entire vast enterprise just one ginormous mind fuck which should be completely exorcised from our minds and hearts?
If you’re reluctant to make any hard and fast rules concerning posting to past days’ blog topics, then perhaps you could give us some general guidelines because, at least for me, reading “please stop” at the end of a post that I’ve put a lot of effort and thought into is not exactly encouraging. Much better to save the effort to begin with and show you the respect you deserve by conforming to your needs and wishes before hand, rather than after.
Sorry – cannot make rules. Sometimes I get tired of reading the endless back and forth. It’s arbitrary and whimsical and unfair and inconsistent. To be honest I did not read everything you wrote — I just have time to glance and see generally what you said. These days I usually moderate on my phone between other things. It sucks but it is what it is.
How about telling us to wrap it up when you’ve had enough? That way, it wouldn’t come across as censorship – which isn’t even fair to you, Mike, since you’ve been the opposite up until then. I’m sure everybody would gratefully oblige if you gave us a “last call.”
Giving us a chance to “wrap it up” would be a little different from asking us to immediately stop. It would give us a chance a chance to sum up our views. On the last thread, I was actually trying to do just that.
Mike Rindersays
Do you EVER answer with a simple “I understand?”
Learn some self-restraint. Why do I have to politely request that you “wrap it up” when you go on and on and on?
You will probably have some “response” to this now. But nobody is ever going to see it because this is the end of this particular back and forth. Sorry, you won’t have the last word.
Harpoona Frittatasays
Mike, what to you seems like it’s going on and on, is obviously not perceived in the same way by the folks who are involved in the discussion. If I didn’t feel it was worth discussing further, then I’d just tune out and let whoever did continue on their merry way. What I wouldn’t do there, though, is to assume that because I didn’t find it personally worthwhile that it was without value in some sort of absolute sense.
If you were just anyone who’d chimed in to get me shut up, I’d have politely told you to feel free to ignore, since it’s about the easiest thing in the world to do on any internet discussion board. However, you’re not just anyone and we respect that, which is exactly why we were politely asking for more explicit guidance and offering suggestions to deal with what to you has become a problem.
If the topic of discussion was relevant and worthwhile enough to be selected in the first place, then the fact that it has legs and continues to prompt discussion is just more evidence that you were correct in selecting it.
It’s perverse to want to find topics of interest that folks will resonate with and wish to discuss, then shut folks up when they do just that. Indeed, if I was skillful and talented enough to come up with an essay that prompted weeks of discussion, I’d be nothing but delighted because that kind of interest and participation is exactly what defines success!
However, like I said, if having to moderate all that is too much work, then that is all I need to know because it’s your blog and I’d like to remain respectful of your needs and wishes here. If it’s becoming an onerous burden to keep up on it all, then simply ask folks to, for example, confine their comments to the day it was written or something equally direct and assertive. But if that’s not it, then you seem to be complaining about your own success in sparking interest and discussion.
I won’t belabor the point anymore, but just note that my intent in bringing it up was to be sensitive to your needs here out of respect and appreciation.
marildisays
Well said, HF.
Gravitysuckssays
Harpoona, I’m a never-in that doesn’t even speak or write the lingo, but I have posed the question to Indies posting here, before, *what about Scientology works for you? * I’ve yet to get an answer.
There are possibly several reasons for that, which I respect, so I won’t push, I just keep lurkin and learnin.
Gravity, a good question that deserves an answer so I will try.
The Indies say it works because they have had “peak experiences” using it. Literally from tears and agony to bright smiles and joy. It feels very real and I guess it is. You also get the feeling that you have discovered something new about yourself, like “Now I know why I hate flying”. In my experience these seem quite real but fade over time.
Like the famous Dave Miscavige, who went to a Field Auditor and “cured his asthma”. Only to have it return later in life-threatening major attacks.
But that is what they mean by “I had wins”. They are saying that they experienced major releases of endorphin in their brains and are convinced that it was much more profound and meaningful than the similar experiences you can achieve with mind-altering drugs or bungee jumping. They attribute these wins to the “techniques” developed by L Ron Hubbard but in fact it is just a slightly more authoritarian form of the talk therapies of the 40s.
If you ever get a chance, look at the John Huston film, “Let There Be Light” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiD6bnqpJDE All of Hubbard’s therapies are there and his early “research techniques”.
Scientology “therapy” is just a form of drug-free high, and just as with opioids or meth there are those who simply cannot walk away. Lasting effects are mostly no better than other highs, and there is no “Bridge to total Freedom”. For example, a problems release (Grade 1 on the Bridge) is supposed to be able to spot the source of problems and make them vanish. Ever met a Scientologist who could do this? Sure, you feel like you can, and state that you have that ability when you finish Grade 1, but Scientologists have just as many problems as anybody. Those who take out second mortgages and max out credit cards to “go up the Bridge” arguably have more problems than ordinary mortals.
They can’t vanish problems or make their bodies float in the air or read minds or remember what they had for breakfast on a certain day. Those promises were lies.
They feel like they are working towards those goals and they have peak experiences. Certainly it is better than meth but it is not worth the effort they invest in it. And in no way is it worth separating from your family or the other abuses of corporate Scientology. Indies are better in that way, but eventually they realize that they are chasing phantoms and wake up. For the most part.
GS, “Indies” are individual who continue to believe in and practice $cn outside of the corporate cherch. I’m not an Indie, I’m ex-member who’s very critical of corporate cherch’s actions in carrying out its most destructive policies, such as disconnection and fair game.
I made some lasting gains in my early auditing experiences that I would never disavow or seek to invalidate the gains others have made either. However, instead of attributing those gains to something unique to $cn which Elron created, I attribute them to the workable counseling techniques and methods that others devised (such as Freud, Jung and Rogers) and Elron stole, then couched in his own technical jargon.
I see those early bridge gains that I and many others made as being the bait which drew us further into this horrible mind control cult and made us susceptible to belief in the utter space opera nonsense that comprise the formerly secret Oatee levels, where you meet Xenu and are set to exorcising the imaginary space alien spirits that purportedly infest each of us by the thousands.
Harpoona, first, I’d like to second your appreciation for our host Mike.
I agree with you that it could be good to come up with some guidelines for how to handle discussions, though I understand that Mike would rather curate than set down rules. I’d suggest that those of us who want to engage with the problem, try to come to some consensus about a few general principles, sort of a sub-set of “netiquette” (internet etiquette). Mike’s point about “moderation in all things” is perhaps a general starting point.
Something said in the past left me with the impression that one of the problems with the run-on discussions, is that when the nesting gets too deep that makes the comments for a topic hard to follow for anyone trying to go through them later. I think that’s important to keep in mind; it’s always an essential function of a site like this, that it be accessible to new visitors, particularly those seeking information.
I don’t think that trying to limit responses to one day, is quite the solution, because some people don’t necessarily have time to check in and respond every day. But perhaps trying to keep one’s own responses to one or two days’ worth, would be a useful rule of thumb.
As you may have noted, I’ve been trying recently to suggest that we end discussions for the time being, and take up certain topics again, the next time that they are relevant, not to just re-hash them, but preferably to bring to the table new thoughts and arguments – and especially, points of information and evidence. I want to note that marildi in particular has recently asked for evidence about a couple of items, and I think that the next time we have a go-round, it would be good to try to address those, rather than leaving it seeming as if there are no good answers. It’s unfortunate that there don’t seem to be good websites summarizing things like the evidence for Hubbard’s sources and plagiarism, that is spread around and in some books offline, which we could just easily reference. And this site isn’t threaded in a way that lends itself to developing a topic. But perhaps we could develop at least one good example of something like Hubbard’s plagiarization of a technique, to make the point, and then refer to it as necessary. I’m also looking into the possibility of finding an existing website where well-developed points of information could be posted – and if they were extensive enough (or just thorough write-up of one point), they could be submitted as articles here as well.
You’re right, the blog format here isn’t the best for keeping track of extended discussions because there’s only enough room for 5 or 6 responses to a particular comment. That nesting format makes it very difficult to follow longer discussions, so part of the problem here is just a function of the organizational structure of this particular blog format.
Since I really do appreciate Mike’s efforts here, I really am fine on doing whatever he wants, I’m just not always sure what that is which is why I was asking for some guidance.
Obviously, some topics, such as coerced/enforced disconnection, are so deep and important that we could spend weeks on them, or even devote an entire website to them. I happen to believe that anything truly worthwhile needs to be delved into deeply and at length, with plenty of time allowed to process others remarks and organize my own thoughts into a coherent form. So, to me, discussions which have legs are a sign of success and should be encouraged, unless there’s some other good reasons not to.
” I want to note that marildi in particular has recently asked for evidence about a couple of items, and I think that the next time we have a go-round, it would be good to try to address those, rather than leaving it seeming as if there are no good answers.”
That’s an excellent point! Marildi is absolutely correct in asking that supporting evidence and sources to be provided for arguments like the one that I was trying to make, especially on fundamental issues that affect how you view the entirety of $cn and Elron’s intentions/purposes in creating it. I was attempting to do just that on that “What If” thread and felt like quite a few others also understood the pivotal importance of that topic, which is exactly why I was carrying on at length concerning it.
Interestingly, what I realized there was how ingeniously Elron disguised his wholesale rip-offs of others very respected work. He didn’t do much in the way of direct, line-by-line plagiarism and was careful to come up with brand new coined terms for concepts that others had developed. So, if you weren’t familiar with their source, and there was no opportunity for discussion of the materials he’d developed using the stolen work of others, then it’s just not that easy to spot the intellectual property thievery, and thus, to be able to spot the con.
I’m not sure what the solution is here, which is why I brought the topic up in the first place. I’m amenable to whatever Mike prefers, but in the absence of some more definitive statement there, I’d just prefer to be told to shut up BEFORE, not after, I’ve gone on at length 😉
As a ‘never in’, I marvel at all you ‘once ins’ and how you are able to maintain your sense of humor…….IDK…I think I would be bitter. Looking forward to season 2….got my DVR all set 🙂 Love to you all!!!!
For exes, getting over $cn begins with being able to laugh at the deadly, steely-eyed seriousness of the cult and its fanatical adherents. If you can’t do that, then, imo, you’re still “deep in the Kool-aid” 😉
I am a lot like Jeremy, I think. Even though I am, I think, “super hot”, I am still a big enough being to prefer theta over boobs.
But, boobs and theta is the best.
(Some people have an “Inner Child” they go to for counsel. I think I have an “Inner Teenager”, who I try not to pay attention to. But sometimes the kid just seems to take over.)
I hope no one takes offense at this post, and I hope even one person gets a laugh from my comment.
If even one person laughs, all the years I was in the Sea Org were not spent in vain.
Theta or boobs? Theta or boobs? Gee… I don’t know about the limited choices you’ve cornered yourself with there Dan?? If theta has even a fraction of the ability that Scientology professes, it should be a no brainer – take both (plus the theta).
Scientology takes “cause,” makes it as serious as it can, gives it lots of rules and tops it all off with a hefty price tag, both with money and your life/time. But shit… some of the hottest times I’ve ever had were free, well, maybe it cost a dinner and a few drinks.
This may appear sexist but those with the “boobs” have aspirations too you know? Being cause with and blessed with a good set of boobs must be one of nature’s most admirable gifts for the female gender. Never met a female who didn’t want improvement in that area one way or another.
To laugh about one’s Scientology experience would have to rate as one the greatest abilities gained from it.
Dan, laughter lightens the heart and expands the day. That is not a “minor” desire you stated. And just look at what happened? Laughter is another form of a hug. My own goal – daily – is to do or say something to at least one person I meet which brings a smile, a chuckle or an outright laugh from another being. That’s my version of spreading theta. So keep up the good work here! You’ve touched the funnybone of more than a few.
~ They don’t change anything written… Yes… yes… they do!
— e.g. simple one – they took out “pervert(ed)” on the Tone Scale Chart under 1.1 sexuality traits
~ Nattering is complaining. The Ethics Gradients includes complaining to another about someone and it comes on the list before any write-ups – at least it USED to say this 😉
~ 2 1/2% are SPs per elron. That’s 1 in 50 folks – and I’m bad at percentages and fractions! ALL of the leaders have been declared not 1 in 50.
— This is a nod to the referenced blog post today by clearlypissed off which mentions the 2 1/2% and I had not seen it yet anywhere else.
~ It’s highly likely that these video reports of wrongdoings were required… or else, you know, lose your eternity just like the declared SPs did.They are so milquetoast! It is pathetic and embarrassing.
~ I’ve worked for many a scilon and anytime anything went sideways, I was fired or laid off. Ethics gradients/applications were NEVER used. Oh, except the one KR where my employer wrote me up for collecting unemployment insurance as “being on the dole” was unethical – after I was laid me off by him!
Which oddly came up googled nattering vs complaining. I looked up natter in an old Tech Dictionary. Weak sauce definition really more of a citation. The fact that LRH couldn’t be bothered to give exact definition to his own words tells us a lot about how much he cared for us. Especially after repetitively saying never to go by a miss understood word. Anyway in the church accusing people of natter when they have legitimate complaints is Standard Policy.
Thanks RB,
As my Baptist friend says:We are witnessing the end days.
The smart ones left a long time ago.
But year by year the evidence against the cherch is getting so overwhelming that even some people whose’s Iq is around room temperature are starting to leave.
I think age is a factor even more than intelligence. The older they get, the more habituated they get to the cult lifestyle, I think, and the more difficult they have conceiving of life outside of it.
Sounds kind of like becoming ‘institutionalized’ in a way… how sad to think of these elderly folk having given up everything (family, school, career, money) to live out their last days impoverished, sick and alone. From everything I’ve read, even LRH wasn’t clever enough to come up with the tech to make his own mind/life go right towards the end.
Hilarious! The only thing needed to make it complete would be the ethics officer on the other side of the wall overhearing their convo, then sending them both off to the RPF for regrooving. Fast forward six months and picture them with empty thought bubbles as they go about cleaning stuff with tiny toothbrushes!
You just can’t talk (or think) like that without getting kicked out of the cult or sent off for regrooving!
The error in all our thinking re scio is to try and make sense of any part of it. It constantly devolves back into its own craziness and trying to figure *that* out is guaranteed to have one’s head wildly spinning. 🙂
If Ron said it, it is true, to these zombified pathetic scientologists. To those still in, try to think for yourself, as LRH was more flawed than you could ever fathom..
Good one once again RB.
In reading this one all I could relate it to was pet hamsters. I mean no offence against the furry little critters but round and round they go inside their little wheels running real hard to get nowhere, totally oblivious to the outside world. What two hamsters would relate to each other about while sharing the same wheel is best exampled in human form by observing Scientology members staff going about their busy little lives.
“I can’t believe all those people saw Leah doing all these evil things and none of them ever decided to put Ethics-in on her”.
That’s what I can’t wrap my head around in any logical manner. Did the folks who make these smear videos, talking about how “criminal” someone was while they were in, truly witness this stuff and never put in a Knowledge Report on these people in order to…..you know…..”help them” get back on track? Isn’t that grounds for Ethics actions against the very people making these claims of how “bad and evil” someone was…..because they never reported these “overts” that were supposedly committed by the Scientologists (while they were in) at the time?
Around the time I first started posting here, I remember just seeing the Aaron Smith-Levin episode of Aftermath and how CofS put up a hate site on him after he appeared on the show. I also remember reading about how someone named Juliana made a smear video about him saying that she witnessed Aaron looking at “bad stuff” online, which makes no sense. First of all, the Sea Org computers don’t allow anyone to get online. Secondly, if I recall correctly, Aaron’s response indicated that even after this supposed incident (which didn’t happen) he was actually promoted in the organization.
I remember thinking that either Juliana witnessed this but never put in a KR on Aaron regarding this very “criminal” activity she was accusing him of, which means she was derelict in her “duties” as a good Scientologist (shouldn’t she have gotten in trouble for failure to report known “overts” at the time?)……or she actually did turn him in to Ethics and the church still promoted someone who was obviously a really bad “criminal”. None of it made sense.
So all I could logically conclude……is that the whole thing was pure horse-shit (which leaves me no choice but to completely disregard any of these lame, recycled smear videos/hate sites that are put out by this church and its adherents). What else can anyone, whether in or out of this so-called “church”, logically conclude?
You are so right Mick. Here are some of these horrible SPs out there that were once top management and valued leaders by LRH and DM.
I wrote an article for Mike’s site in Jan of 2016, which covered this. Specifically point #7. But since you are new to Mike’s blog, you will no doubt enjoy the entire post.
Mike Rinder, Marty Rathbun, Hanna Eltringham, David Mayo, Debbie Cook etc…. there are hundreds of “evil SPs” that were loved when in the church and top management and now are criminal people and hate websites no doubt exist for all of them.
I will be reading that as well CPO, thank you! Each time the “organization statement” appears on screen it irks me to the point of wanting to scream at my TV Screen…BRING ON A LIVE PERSON to make a statement like Ms. “Muffins” did….good or not good she.at least appeared) & a current member in “good standing” perhaps the “head of the “cherch” hmself, now that would seem most logical.
I know! They’re such wimps deep down inside and use this lazy cheapo white text to cover their asses. Especially with Mike not there anymore! No one can even sit in front of a camera for them under a little heat anymore and pull it off. That’s ’cause there’s nothing to pull off except covering lies, and some people crumble (fortunately) when forced to support lies over and over again. Good for them–I hope they can figure out how to run away too!
After reading this you just know that the organization is not going to take the “hit” for these disconnections. They will blame the person who made the disconnection as THEIR CHOICE to do so….some things in life are too horrific to think about, let alone talk about, yet this is so damn important it should be continually featured on Aftermath II
Love to Leah and Mike & everyone who has the courage to keep this going!
You persist in trying to understand the cherch by employing logic, honesty, and fairness.
Can you stop doing that, please? 🙂
Here’s the scoop:
A Still In can, over the years have demonstrated to the cult the unselfishness and dedication of Mother Theresa and the honesty of Abe Lincoln: he could have defended their their honor like Oliver Wendall Holmes, and thrown money at them like Rockefeller, BUT
Let him leave the cult publicly, and that’s ALL out the window.
Let him leave, and TALK PUBLICLY about it, AND
he is garbage,
was ALWAYS garbage
and will always BE garbage.
Mick, this is the supreme flaw in the logic of the ad hominem attacks that are ordered by of the likes of LRH and little Miscavige. They are so transparent in their idiocy.
An upper level executive spends twenty or thirty plus years in scientology, yet only when that person “blows” does all the evil filth and terrible actions appear in the ridiculous scientology attack propaganda.
This crap doesn’t work anymore, Miscavige, and in fact only serves to make you and your collapsing organization appear even more pathetic to the world.
Staff member #2 sez:
“I’ve never seen any Tech that teaches us to use Natter to handle others”.
Of course you have! Any scientologist or ex-scientologhist has. Hubbard nattered in almost every taped lecture I’ve ever heard. Prime example; RJ67. The ‘ebile pschys’ were a favorite target. I guess that if you’re a Big Being the O/W tek doesn’t apply.
I love these I’m starting to understand alot more but these are pretty obvious thanks Mike for taking time to do this?
Minor correction by an old OCD engineer: 2.5% is 1/40, not 1/50 It SURE ain’t the 99/100 or 100/100 that the micro Füehrer finds everywhere he looks
Jere, you’re right and I definitely am no mathematician 😉
Very true. Natter is natter, unless you’re talking about someone who’s declared or just blew staff. Then you can say things like “I always knew he was an SP”. In addition, any and all down statistics and overt products can be blamed on the person who just blew, and “now everything is so much better without him around – stats will soon go up.” This holds true until the next person blows staff, at which point they become the scapegoat of the day.
Cute—but the S.O. ladies there don’t understand that what Mi$cavige writes as a script for others to say in front of camera is what Mi$cavige makes them say or they’re dead meat. End of story. He has no respect for the tech, so he doesn’t care if his orders to people in front of the camera look that ridiculous and stupid to a trained scientologist. He doesn’t give a shit. He doesn’t think to himself “Oh gee, that kinda looks like they are nattering about Leah.” Because he’s nattering at Warp 5 in his little cinder of a mind about her too. Now THERE’S someone who has an overt or two.
Gato , it doesn’t matter at this point. Miscavige is in a little funnel of finality, his name is mud, and nobody gives a shit about him because of the horrible crimes he has inflicted on good nice people.
🙂
Gads that gross man LRH was a repugnant speciman, wasn’t he?
Are the gonna KR each other?
Many thanks for the link and that article CPO. A lot of great information there. As you stated at the end of the article, this doesn’t even cover the financial problems.
And you asked the perfect question about the former top level folks who are now “suppressive” when you said: “Did they change or did the church”. That goes to the whole craziness of it all. All of these folks who were so “horrible” when they were in….that is only the case now that they’re out. Where were all the knowledge reports warning the “church” about these folks based on these accusations about them when they were in? If they would have been reported, perhaps this “perfect tech” could have been employed and might have “saved” them (according to their definition).
The point is, these things never happened, they were taken out of context, or they were grossly exaggerated…..or just flat-out ridiculous to use as an example of “evil” (Leah was rude one time? Seriously? That’s the best they can come up with? The fact that she’s basically……normal?) Otherwise, if they were true, then it seems like the people making these claims are responsible (according to the LRH “scripture”) for all of you folks losing your way….merely by the fact that they didn’t “report you” when they allegedly saw these claims so they could “fix you”.
And the fact that use your own son (and other family members for others) just highlights the depravity of this organization. I truly hope he gets out soon and reconnects with you guys.
Sorry, thought I was replying to CPO below. Screwed it up somehow.
O/T to today’s blog topic, but very on-topic to this blog.
Everyone who reads and posts here on a regular basis is indebted to Mike for the opportunity and grateful to him for all the thought, effort and expense he puts into to it in order to make it such an excellent source of information concerning all things scientological.
It’s so good, in fact, that folks like me often want to continue discussing blog topics that have appeared on previous days, such as the 5/24 “What If” essay, written by Brian. Since these extended discussions mostly follow the blog’s standards of decorum, and serve the purpose of allowing interested participants to continue the discussion until it peters out on its own, they’re not in and of themselves a bad thing.
However, since Mike reads every comment before allowing it to post, the demands put on his time become onerous at some point. Since I know he has many other things to do each day, and I have no desire to appear ungrateful or insensitive to his needs, I’d be fine NOT posting to previous day’s topics, if he wanted to establish that as a blog rule.
Does that sound like a reasonable solutions to others?
Mike, what solution do you favor?
I dont favor any rules, dont want to prevent anyone having their say. But I dont like endless back and forths when it is clear neither side is going to change their perspective about something. Moderation in all things is the moderation policy.
I love ya’ Mike!
You are doing such good work, it is hard to express my admiration!
Amen…..juggling the filming of Aftermath #2, the blog, his personal life & family….give Mike credit where credit is due. It can be a NO WIN situation when the haggling goes on and on & causes friction between the bloggers/friends……a simple…..Agree to Disagree & LET IT GO will suffice.
Much, if not most, of the endless back-and-forth is created by Scn-is-all-bad commenters who use rhetorical techniqes to invalidate the discussion of the good in Scientology. Their very long comments, containing multiple arguments, are intended to overwhelm, not really have a discussion aimed at coming to any agreement on the truth. Very political.
M2C, I don’t think it’s easy to say that one side or the other is necessarily more faulty in their writing and argumentation; the “good” side typically resorts to the rhetoric of experiential anecdotes (a logical fallacy).
I’ve been thinking about the point about multiple arguments. I don’t think there is a deliberate rhetorical strategy to overwhelm, as such. I know that for my part, I do sometimes want to make a number of points just to try to communicate how I think there is a preponderance of evidence, or at least too many unanswered serious questions. It’s partly a limit of the format, that it doesn’t really work to go through an argument point-by-point in the way that would be ideal. I’m not sure yet if there’s really a better way, though I think some simplification is in order.
I’d like to see the critical side develop better arguments and approaches, if only to be more effective with those interested in information and who have open minds.
OK, here’s a meta-analysis-of-anecdotes argument. Since I’ve been pushing the idea of preserving the good whle throwing out the bad, more and more “it’s bad” commenters have been admiting to getting valuable wins initially in Scientology. This includes such enthusiastic critics as Brian. This lifts the “there’s some good there, too” argument out of the “isolated anecdote” level, and establishes it as being worthy of further consideration.
Our hypothesis would be that there was a lot of workability in the early lower level tech, but not as consistently at higher levels, and that the organization was an unworkable and destructive additive. So if we eliminated the organization, and let auditors do their own research to advance and perfect the tech, we might end up with something very good. And, in actual fact this has been happening in the non-KSW-fanatic independent field.
One side or the other isn’t to blame, both sides keep going way past the time it should have ended. For some reason they cannot seem to let it go. And if you think they will “come to an agreement on the truth” you are in for a disappointment – that’s never going to happen.
If two people can’t look at the same thing, see it for what it is and agree on that, then we must logically conclude that no one has the ability to observe anything accurately. And if that’s the case, then we are in deep, deep trouble.
The people who don’t think Scientology has any worth or redeeming qualities and the people who do believe in the benefits of Scientology are not going to agree on what is “the truth” about Scientology. That’s why there keeps being this back-and-forth arguing between the two sides which never ceases or ends….
I was reading your comment on the two sides of the discussion about Scientology. Your comment made me think that is what makes the truth or un-truths about the church/ cult so polarizing. For me it comes down to after Years of heartache and pain and numbness to the world I at first and for many years blamed on myself for blowing the Sea Org constantly. Now I see the whole expanse that it was never my fault Ron/dm built their religion wink! on Lies and they both knew that. So the see-saw arguments will go on. I will walk my path and continue to speak out against what was done to me and so many more especially those married when in or with children when in. Disconnection is unspeakable. The Church/ Cult is cruel, cold ,calculating,crafty and Crazy. ❤️?❤️?
As I noted earlier….a NO WIN SITUATION………
As In:
“Why do YOU answer a Question with another Question????”
“”Do I really DO THAT???”
I Came Back y’all. I finally figured out to get back here I had to slip in the back door on Safari. So here I am. Sounds like many many new posts here and my old friends here I still love you and send you a big Hug. ?Mike and all you posters here.
Wondered where you got to,,, hi-ya Ann!
Hi I Yawnalot, I have been wandering around and hunkering down in The Bunker. But how can I not read and post on Mike’s! All you wonders! I got unsubscribed from WordPress by some error & then I was an invalid poster because my original password and email was not recognized. And then I wandered until weeks later I got in through Safari and suddenly WordPress thank you, put my subscription back. So here I am. Lovely to greet you.❤️
Hi Ann B! 🙂 It’s so very nice to see you here again! Congrats on your relocation to a sunnier location, hope it’s a wonderful, fun move for you. Bookmark Mike Rinder’s site, so you never get lost again! Love, T.J.
T.J., You Found me!! I was lost & thought I could never get back to Mike’s and then I could not find you!! My breadcrumb Tech failed because the OSA sent flying monkeys to keep me in circles. Yet here I am and want to know how you are and what good posts I can read again from you. Love you Sweetheart Always Hugs Hugs and Love. I can’t get lost in Gulf Breeze the Internet will go straight to your heart from me. ???❤️❤️
Dear Mike,
Moderation is well and fine, until you have to confront someone using a Service Facsimile. When someone has a Service Facsimile start running it does not know when to stop. IMO Service Facsimiles are only touched on at Grade 4. Any ‘stable datum’ that the individual carries around can become a Service Facsimile on command. Witness the entire cherch using Ron’s every written word as Service Facsimiles.
(For our never-ins) A Service Facsimile is a stable datum an individual compulsively uses to make self right, dominate others, and survive. So if Ron wrote ‘barf barf gargle whoop’ the cherch will use that exact quote to make themselves right, and dominate discussions, and survive better—in their minds.
(For our never-ins) a “service facsimile” is a made up bullshit like engrams in Dianetics & Body thetans in the OT levels.
Well then, with respect, you seem to be sending mixed messages here: On the one hand it’s “Please stop” and “No more, please,” but on the other, it’s “I…don’t want to prevent anyone from having their say”.
If you look back on previous blog topics which have sparked continuing discussion here you’ll notice that they don’t actually go on endlessly; instead, they peter out on their own, when folks have decided on their own that they’ve had enough. The fact that folks are interested enough to continue to discuss this or that topic is, in reality, a very clear sign that they found it valuable enough to continue giving it thought and making the effort to put those thoughts down in writing. In reality, it’s a sign of success that what you believe to be interesting and relevant has been valued in the same way by others!
The “every day is a new blog topic” is great and we enjoy it immensely, but there are plenty of topics of discussion in $cn that completely deserve our continuing attention and focus for longer than just one day. So, the fact that people want to continue the discussion for longer than that is, imo, clear evidence of the value and significance that folks attribute to this blog and the articles which appear here.
But if it’s an onerous burden to you to read all those posts, then just say so clearly, we’ll understand…it’s your blog, have it your way. No need to make some sort of hard and fast rule, just make your needs and wishes known in a clear and direct manner, and I’m certain most everyone will respect them, because we respect you and appreciate your time and effort in creating this on-line forum!
The fact that certain folks who post here are unlikely to change their specific positions on $cn isn’t a bad thing at all. Indeed, there are almost no other places on the internet where exes of all differing orientations can come together to discuss anything. So, disagreement can serve to sharpen folks ability to communicate clearly, state their points cogently and learn to argue civilly, without devolving into ad hominem personal attacks.
Further, the fact that some individuals who have exited the corporate cherch continue to find some aspects of $cn valuable (e.g., the Holy Tech!), while others believe that there’s no baby to be saved when we toss out the dirty bath water of $cn, is a very worthwhile issue to continue to focus on. That’s because cult decompression (or self-deprogramming) can be a long, arduous and confusing process for those who’ve left the cult, or who are beginning to leave it in their own minds even before setting foot out the door. For that reason, I believe that it’s very important to explicitly state and deeply consider the question: Is there anything of lasting worth and essential value in the doctrines and practices of Hubbardism, or was the entire vast enterprise just one ginormous mind fuck which should be completely exorcised from our minds and hearts?
If you’re reluctant to make any hard and fast rules concerning posting to past days’ blog topics, then perhaps you could give us some general guidelines because, at least for me, reading “please stop” at the end of a post that I’ve put a lot of effort and thought into is not exactly encouraging. Much better to save the effort to begin with and show you the respect you deserve by conforming to your needs and wishes before hand, rather than after.
Does that make sense to you?
Sorry – cannot make rules. Sometimes I get tired of reading the endless back and forth. It’s arbitrary and whimsical and unfair and inconsistent. To be honest I did not read everything you wrote — I just have time to glance and see generally what you said. These days I usually moderate on my phone between other things. It sucks but it is what it is.
How about telling us to wrap it up when you’ve had enough? That way, it wouldn’t come across as censorship – which isn’t even fair to you, Mike, since you’ve been the opposite up until then. I’m sure everybody would gratefully oblige if you gave us a “last call.”
You are joking right?
I have to do that all the time and that is what all this discussion is about…
Why can’t you commenters wrap it up on your own? Some of you just cannot let something go. It’s a bit sad to watch.
Giving us a chance to “wrap it up” would be a little different from asking us to immediately stop. It would give us a chance a chance to sum up our views. On the last thread, I was actually trying to do just that.
Do you EVER answer with a simple “I understand?”
Learn some self-restraint. Why do I have to politely request that you “wrap it up” when you go on and on and on?
You will probably have some “response” to this now. But nobody is ever going to see it because this is the end of this particular back and forth. Sorry, you won’t have the last word.
Mike, what to you seems like it’s going on and on, is obviously not perceived in the same way by the folks who are involved in the discussion. If I didn’t feel it was worth discussing further, then I’d just tune out and let whoever did continue on their merry way. What I wouldn’t do there, though, is to assume that because I didn’t find it personally worthwhile that it was without value in some sort of absolute sense.
If you were just anyone who’d chimed in to get me shut up, I’d have politely told you to feel free to ignore, since it’s about the easiest thing in the world to do on any internet discussion board. However, you’re not just anyone and we respect that, which is exactly why we were politely asking for more explicit guidance and offering suggestions to deal with what to you has become a problem.
If the topic of discussion was relevant and worthwhile enough to be selected in the first place, then the fact that it has legs and continues to prompt discussion is just more evidence that you were correct in selecting it.
It’s perverse to want to find topics of interest that folks will resonate with and wish to discuss, then shut folks up when they do just that. Indeed, if I was skillful and talented enough to come up with an essay that prompted weeks of discussion, I’d be nothing but delighted because that kind of interest and participation is exactly what defines success!
However, like I said, if having to moderate all that is too much work, then that is all I need to know because it’s your blog and I’d like to remain respectful of your needs and wishes here. If it’s becoming an onerous burden to keep up on it all, then simply ask folks to, for example, confine their comments to the day it was written or something equally direct and assertive. But if that’s not it, then you seem to be complaining about your own success in sparking interest and discussion.
I won’t belabor the point anymore, but just note that my intent in bringing it up was to be sensitive to your needs here out of respect and appreciation.
Well said, HF.
Harpoona, I’m a never-in that doesn’t even speak or write the lingo, but I have posed the question to Indies posting here, before, *what about Scientology works for you? * I’ve yet to get an answer.
There are possibly several reasons for that, which I respect, so I won’t push, I just keep lurkin and learnin.
Gravity, a good question that deserves an answer so I will try.
The Indies say it works because they have had “peak experiences” using it. Literally from tears and agony to bright smiles and joy. It feels very real and I guess it is. You also get the feeling that you have discovered something new about yourself, like “Now I know why I hate flying”. In my experience these seem quite real but fade over time.
Like the famous Dave Miscavige, who went to a Field Auditor and “cured his asthma”. Only to have it return later in life-threatening major attacks.
But that is what they mean by “I had wins”. They are saying that they experienced major releases of endorphin in their brains and are convinced that it was much more profound and meaningful than the similar experiences you can achieve with mind-altering drugs or bungee jumping. They attribute these wins to the “techniques” developed by L Ron Hubbard but in fact it is just a slightly more authoritarian form of the talk therapies of the 40s.
If you ever get a chance, look at the John Huston film, “Let There Be Light” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiD6bnqpJDE All of Hubbard’s therapies are there and his early “research techniques”.
Scientology “therapy” is just a form of drug-free high, and just as with opioids or meth there are those who simply cannot walk away. Lasting effects are mostly no better than other highs, and there is no “Bridge to total Freedom”. For example, a problems release (Grade 1 on the Bridge) is supposed to be able to spot the source of problems and make them vanish. Ever met a Scientologist who could do this? Sure, you feel like you can, and state that you have that ability when you finish Grade 1, but Scientologists have just as many problems as anybody. Those who take out second mortgages and max out credit cards to “go up the Bridge” arguably have more problems than ordinary mortals.
They can’t vanish problems or make their bodies float in the air or read minds or remember what they had for breakfast on a certain day. Those promises were lies.
They feel like they are working towards those goals and they have peak experiences. Certainly it is better than meth but it is not worth the effort they invest in it. And in no way is it worth separating from your family or the other abuses of corporate Scientology. Indies are better in that way, but eventually they realize that they are chasing phantoms and wake up. For the most part.
GS, “Indies” are individual who continue to believe in and practice $cn outside of the corporate cherch. I’m not an Indie, I’m ex-member who’s very critical of corporate cherch’s actions in carrying out its most destructive policies, such as disconnection and fair game.
I made some lasting gains in my early auditing experiences that I would never disavow or seek to invalidate the gains others have made either. However, instead of attributing those gains to something unique to $cn which Elron created, I attribute them to the workable counseling techniques and methods that others devised (such as Freud, Jung and Rogers) and Elron stole, then couched in his own technical jargon.
I see those early bridge gains that I and many others made as being the bait which drew us further into this horrible mind control cult and made us susceptible to belief in the utter space opera nonsense that comprise the formerly secret Oatee levels, where you meet Xenu and are set to exorcising the imaginary space alien spirits that purportedly infest each of us by the thousands.
I’m guilty of posting belated comments. I need to be in present time. Sorry
Harpoona, first, I’d like to second your appreciation for our host Mike.
I agree with you that it could be good to come up with some guidelines for how to handle discussions, though I understand that Mike would rather curate than set down rules. I’d suggest that those of us who want to engage with the problem, try to come to some consensus about a few general principles, sort of a sub-set of “netiquette” (internet etiquette). Mike’s point about “moderation in all things” is perhaps a general starting point.
Something said in the past left me with the impression that one of the problems with the run-on discussions, is that when the nesting gets too deep that makes the comments for a topic hard to follow for anyone trying to go through them later. I think that’s important to keep in mind; it’s always an essential function of a site like this, that it be accessible to new visitors, particularly those seeking information.
I don’t think that trying to limit responses to one day, is quite the solution, because some people don’t necessarily have time to check in and respond every day. But perhaps trying to keep one’s own responses to one or two days’ worth, would be a useful rule of thumb.
As you may have noted, I’ve been trying recently to suggest that we end discussions for the time being, and take up certain topics again, the next time that they are relevant, not to just re-hash them, but preferably to bring to the table new thoughts and arguments – and especially, points of information and evidence. I want to note that marildi in particular has recently asked for evidence about a couple of items, and I think that the next time we have a go-round, it would be good to try to address those, rather than leaving it seeming as if there are no good answers. It’s unfortunate that there don’t seem to be good websites summarizing things like the evidence for Hubbard’s sources and plagiarism, that is spread around and in some books offline, which we could just easily reference. And this site isn’t threaded in a way that lends itself to developing a topic. But perhaps we could develop at least one good example of something like Hubbard’s plagiarization of a technique, to make the point, and then refer to it as necessary. I’m also looking into the possibility of finding an existing website where well-developed points of information could be posted – and if they were extensive enough (or just thorough write-up of one point), they could be submitted as articles here as well.
PM, these are excellent suggestions!
You’re right, the blog format here isn’t the best for keeping track of extended discussions because there’s only enough room for 5 or 6 responses to a particular comment. That nesting format makes it very difficult to follow longer discussions, so part of the problem here is just a function of the organizational structure of this particular blog format.
Since I really do appreciate Mike’s efforts here, I really am fine on doing whatever he wants, I’m just not always sure what that is which is why I was asking for some guidance.
Obviously, some topics, such as coerced/enforced disconnection, are so deep and important that we could spend weeks on them, or even devote an entire website to them. I happen to believe that anything truly worthwhile needs to be delved into deeply and at length, with plenty of time allowed to process others remarks and organize my own thoughts into a coherent form. So, to me, discussions which have legs are a sign of success and should be encouraged, unless there’s some other good reasons not to.
” I want to note that marildi in particular has recently asked for evidence about a couple of items, and I think that the next time we have a go-round, it would be good to try to address those, rather than leaving it seeming as if there are no good answers.”
That’s an excellent point! Marildi is absolutely correct in asking that supporting evidence and sources to be provided for arguments like the one that I was trying to make, especially on fundamental issues that affect how you view the entirety of $cn and Elron’s intentions/purposes in creating it. I was attempting to do just that on that “What If” thread and felt like quite a few others also understood the pivotal importance of that topic, which is exactly why I was carrying on at length concerning it.
Interestingly, what I realized there was how ingeniously Elron disguised his wholesale rip-offs of others very respected work. He didn’t do much in the way of direct, line-by-line plagiarism and was careful to come up with brand new coined terms for concepts that others had developed. So, if you weren’t familiar with their source, and there was no opportunity for discussion of the materials he’d developed using the stolen work of others, then it’s just not that easy to spot the intellectual property thievery, and thus, to be able to spot the con.
I’m not sure what the solution is here, which is why I brought the topic up in the first place. I’m amenable to whatever Mike prefers, but in the absence of some more definitive statement there, I’d just prefer to be told to shut up BEFORE, not after, I’ve gone on at length 😉
As a ‘never in’, I marvel at all you ‘once ins’ and how you are able to maintain your sense of humor…….IDK…I think I would be bitter. Looking forward to season 2….got my DVR all set 🙂 Love to you all!!!!
Bitterness is a poison and humor its antidote.
For exes, getting over $cn begins with being able to laugh at the deadly, steely-eyed seriousness of the cult and its fanatical adherents. If you can’t do that, then, imo, you’re still “deep in the Kool-aid” 😉
???
I am a lot like Jeremy, I think. Even though I am, I think, “super hot”, I am still a big enough being to prefer theta over boobs.
But, boobs and theta is the best.
(Some people have an “Inner Child” they go to for counsel. I think I have an “Inner Teenager”, who I try not to pay attention to. But sometimes the kid just seems to take over.)
I hope no one takes offense at this post, and I hope even one person gets a laugh from my comment.
If even one person laughs, all the years I was in the Sea Org were not spent in vain.
(Hopefully that gets a second laugh.)
Little chuckle at the first part, big laugh for “If even one person laughs, all the years I was in the Sea Org were not spent in vain.”
Dan, rest assured that there is absolutely nothing wrong with boobs and theta. Boobs being far more tangible are my preference.
I laughed my ass off! Truly did. Thanks for that
You made me laugh ! Anyway, what I lack in theta I make up for in boobs.
Theta or boobs? Theta or boobs? Gee… I don’t know about the limited choices you’ve cornered yourself with there Dan?? If theta has even a fraction of the ability that Scientology professes, it should be a no brainer – take both (plus the theta).
Scientology takes “cause,” makes it as serious as it can, gives it lots of rules and tops it all off with a hefty price tag, both with money and your life/time. But shit… some of the hottest times I’ve ever had were free, well, maybe it cost a dinner and a few drinks.
This may appear sexist but those with the “boobs” have aspirations too you know? Being cause with and blessed with a good set of boobs must be one of nature’s most admirable gifts for the female gender. Never met a female who didn’t want improvement in that area one way or another.
To laugh about one’s Scientology experience would have to rate as one the greatest abilities gained from it.
Dan, laughter lightens the heart and expands the day. That is not a “minor” desire you stated. And just look at what happened? Laughter is another form of a hug. My own goal – daily – is to do or say something to at least one person I meet which brings a smile, a chuckle or an outright laugh from another being. That’s my version of spreading theta. So keep up the good work here! You’ve touched the funnybone of more than a few.
thegman77, It has been awhile since I heard your laughter. Very good to see you again & I am smiling just thinking that. Love to you & yours. ?
~ They don’t change anything written… Yes… yes… they do!
— e.g. simple one – they took out “pervert(ed)” on the Tone Scale Chart under 1.1 sexuality traits
~ Nattering is complaining. The Ethics Gradients includes complaining to another about someone and it comes on the list before any write-ups – at least it USED to say this 😉
~ 2 1/2% are SPs per elron. That’s 1 in 50 folks – and I’m bad at percentages and fractions! ALL of the leaders have been declared not 1 in 50.
— This is a nod to the referenced blog post today by clearlypissed off which mentions the 2 1/2% and I had not seen it yet anywhere else.
~ It’s highly likely that these video reports of wrongdoings were required… or else, you know, lose your eternity just like the declared SPs did.They are so milquetoast! It is pathetic and embarrassing.
~ I’ve worked for many a scilon and anytime anything went sideways, I was fired or laid off. Ethics gradients/applications were NEVER used. Oh, except the one KR where my employer wrote me up for collecting unemployment insurance as “being on the dole” was unethical – after I was laid me off by him!
Thought people might get a kick out of reading this article from Psychology Today on the Difference between whining and complaining. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201210/the-difference-between-complaining-and-whining
Which oddly came up googled nattering vs complaining. I looked up natter in an old Tech Dictionary. Weak sauce definition really more of a citation. The fact that LRH couldn’t be bothered to give exact definition to his own words tells us a lot about how much he cared for us. Especially after repetitively saying never to go by a miss understood word. Anyway in the church accusing people of natter when they have legitimate complaints is Standard Policy.
“Theta over boobs”……….. that’s a keeper. Great piece Regraded Being!
“Spellbound over tits”… that’s another keeper.
❤️
Thanks RB,
As my Baptist friend says:We are witnessing the end days.
The smart ones left a long time ago.
But year by year the evidence against the cherch is getting so overwhelming that even some people whose’s Iq is around room temperature are starting to leave.
I think age is a factor even more than intelligence. The older they get, the more habituated they get to the cult lifestyle, I think, and the more difficult they have conceiving of life outside of it.
Sounds kind of like becoming ‘institutionalized’ in a way… how sad to think of these elderly folk having given up everything (family, school, career, money) to live out their last days impoverished, sick and alone. From everything I’ve read, even LRH wasn’t clever enough to come up with the tech to make his own mind/life go right towards the end.
Hilarious! The only thing needed to make it complete would be the ethics officer on the other side of the wall overhearing their convo, then sending them both off to the RPF for regrooving. Fast forward six months and picture them with empty thought bubbles as they go about cleaning stuff with tiny toothbrushes!
You just can’t talk (or think) like that without getting kicked out of the cult or sent off for regrooving!
regrooving, I think that is hysterical! Those tiny tooth brushes I still have nightmares about those suckers! Thank you Harpoona.?
The error in all our thinking re scio is to try and make sense of any part of it. It constantly devolves back into its own craziness and trying to figure *that* out is guaranteed to have one’s head wildly spinning. 🙂
If Ron said it, it is true, to these zombified pathetic scientologists. To those still in, try to think for yourself, as LRH was more flawed than you could ever fathom..
Someone should write a KR on those people nattering about Leah for not filing KRs back when all the Leah “abuse” was happening.
Heh heh, this is the PERFECT comment, N Graham!
“…he prefers Theta over boobs.” LOL
Is theta code for boobs? Cuz that would make sense.
And He who will not be named apparently chooses dildos over both of the above!
No, He Who Must Not Be Named chooses to SCOHB over dildos.
I seriously, SERIOUSLY, doubt that.
“…he prefers Theta over boobs.” LOL
LOL indeed
You made by day RB.
Good one once again RB.
In reading this one all I could relate it to was pet hamsters. I mean no offence against the furry little critters but round and round they go inside their little wheels running real hard to get nowhere, totally oblivious to the outside world. What two hamsters would relate to each other about while sharing the same wheel is best exampled in human form by observing Scientology members staff going about their busy little lives.
RB, on the nose again. Welcome to “The mad world of dichotomies(Scientology)”.
Scamology, your “outpoints” are showing.
It’s so embarrassing when my outpoints show. I can never keep them covered up.
WC Fields is one of my hero’s, he said, “wine… it keeps you continually happy.” To hell with outpoints, drink more wine, it covers everything up!
“I can’t believe all those people saw Leah doing all these evil things and none of them ever decided to put Ethics-in on her”.
That’s what I can’t wrap my head around in any logical manner. Did the folks who make these smear videos, talking about how “criminal” someone was while they were in, truly witness this stuff and never put in a Knowledge Report on these people in order to…..you know…..”help them” get back on track? Isn’t that grounds for Ethics actions against the very people making these claims of how “bad and evil” someone was…..because they never reported these “overts” that were supposedly committed by the Scientologists (while they were in) at the time?
Around the time I first started posting here, I remember just seeing the Aaron Smith-Levin episode of Aftermath and how CofS put up a hate site on him after he appeared on the show. I also remember reading about how someone named Juliana made a smear video about him saying that she witnessed Aaron looking at “bad stuff” online, which makes no sense. First of all, the Sea Org computers don’t allow anyone to get online. Secondly, if I recall correctly, Aaron’s response indicated that even after this supposed incident (which didn’t happen) he was actually promoted in the organization.
I remember thinking that either Juliana witnessed this but never put in a KR on Aaron regarding this very “criminal” activity she was accusing him of, which means she was derelict in her “duties” as a good Scientologist (shouldn’t she have gotten in trouble for failure to report known “overts” at the time?)……or she actually did turn him in to Ethics and the church still promoted someone who was obviously a really bad “criminal”. None of it made sense.
So all I could logically conclude……is that the whole thing was pure horse-shit (which leaves me no choice but to completely disregard any of these lame, recycled smear videos/hate sites that are put out by this church and its adherents). What else can anyone, whether in or out of this so-called “church”, logically conclude?
You are so right Mick. Here are some of these horrible SPs out there that were once top management and valued leaders by LRH and DM.
I wrote an article for Mike’s site in Jan of 2016, which covered this. Specifically point #7. But since you are new to Mike’s blog, you will no doubt enjoy the entire post.
https://www.mikerindersblog.org/rundown-of-problems/
Mike Rinder, Marty Rathbun, Hanna Eltringham, David Mayo, Debbie Cook etc…. there are hundreds of “evil SPs” that were loved when in the church and top management and now are criminal people and hate websites no doubt exist for all of them.
I will be reading that as well CPO, thank you! Each time the “organization statement” appears on screen it irks me to the point of wanting to scream at my TV Screen…BRING ON A LIVE PERSON to make a statement like Ms. “Muffins” did….good or not good she.at least appeared) & a current member in “good standing” perhaps the “head of the “cherch” hmself, now that would seem most logical.
I know! They’re such wimps deep down inside and use this lazy cheapo white text to cover their asses. Especially with Mike not there anymore! No one can even sit in front of a camera for them under a little heat anymore and pull it off. That’s ’cause there’s nothing to pull off except covering lies, and some people crumble (fortunately) when forced to support lies over and over again. Good for them–I hope they can figure out how to run away too!
After reading this you just know that the organization is not going to take the “hit” for these disconnections. They will blame the person who made the disconnection as THEIR CHOICE to do so….some things in life are too horrific to think about, let alone talk about, yet this is so damn important it should be continually featured on Aftermath II
Love to Leah and Mike & everyone who has the courage to keep this going!
CPO, Scientology is a growth industry of sorts. It grows along set lines of hate.
Sorry CPO. I screwed up and didn’t reply directly to your comment here. Please see above.
???
Mick,
You persist in trying to understand the cherch by employing logic, honesty, and fairness.
Can you stop doing that, please? 🙂
Here’s the scoop:
A Still In can, over the years have demonstrated to the cult the unselfishness and dedication of Mother Theresa and the honesty of Abe Lincoln: he could have defended their their honor like Oliver Wendall Holmes, and thrown money at them like Rockefeller, BUT
Let him leave the cult publicly, and that’s ALL out the window.
Let him leave, and TALK PUBLICLY about it, AND
he is garbage,
was ALWAYS garbage
and will always BE garbage.
Its that simple.
Yeah, I need to quit trying to apply logic to all of this stuff. 😉 You simply can’t rationalize with an irrational group of people.
Well, to totally contradict myself, please don’t stop commenting, Mick. As a never in, your interest is interesting 🙂
Mick, this is the supreme flaw in the logic of the ad hominem attacks that are ordered by of the likes of LRH and little Miscavige. They are so transparent in their idiocy.
An upper level executive spends twenty or thirty plus years in scientology, yet only when that person “blows” does all the evil filth and terrible actions appear in the ridiculous scientology attack propaganda.
This crap doesn’t work anymore, Miscavige, and in fact only serves to make you and your collapsing organization appear even more pathetic to the world.
Staff member #2 sez:
“I’ve never seen any Tech that teaches us to use Natter to handle others”.
Of course you have! Any scientologist or ex-scientologhist has. Hubbard nattered in almost every taped lecture I’ve ever heard. Prime example; RJ67. The ‘ebile pschys’ were a favorite target. I guess that if you’re a Big Being the O/W tek doesn’t apply.