To FZ'ers/Indies/ProScientologists

[Sindy]

I realize this is a bit long but, please bear with me.

Being on ESMB has been a godsend in terms of helping me untangle from the cult. I am sure I still have indoctrination to shed but, as of right now, I feel like I've come to a nice, calm, peaceful and educated position about Scientology and my involvement in it over the last 25 years.

I don't want to sound too flowery but, I cannot express how grateful I am to all the contributors on ESMB. ALL of you have helped me and so many others. I don't have the words to say how thankful I am, but, thank you.

The other day I had a great epiphany on my favorite Hoaxie thread, http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=21633 and since then have felt pretty complete, in my world, about the Scientology puzzle.

There is only one thing I cannot reconcile, one thing that I cannot understand and therefore it plagues my mind. It has to do with Pro-Scientologists.

My desire and intention is that this thread would NOT be polarizing but would be illuminating so that understanding can take place.

I am starting this thread to get sincere discussion and not to get a war going. So, after I ask my questions, I would like to suggest some ground rules that I believe would be helpful. Hey, I'm not a Mod and I'm not the free speech police, I just think they might lead to a better thread, that's all. At least give them some consideration, please.

Okay, my questions are these:

Knowing what you know now about LRH, his pathological lying, moments of great cruelty, his intentions and orders re: Paulette Cooper, his "Admissions", his plagiarism, his past psychiatric problems, the manner of his death, his life on the lam, his treatment of his own wife and children, etc., etc., etc.:


1) How do you, in your own mind, get past those things so that you can still read his books and listen to his lectures as if he were an authority on the very subjects that he, himself, failed so miserably at demonstrating?

I am not asking this in a snide or derisive fashion, I am coming from a place of respect, for you, and assuming that you are not stupid but must have some logical way that you can do this that I simply cannot see.

2) Since there are no Scientific studies on the techniques of Scientology and because the voluminous case studies Ron cites in Dianetics are apparently a lie, and because the end goal of Clear and OT has never been demonstrated, then:

......................a) What are your goals with respect to the these uncertain procedures?
......................b) Do you still want to do your OT Levels even though they don't produce OTs? If so, why?

3) Are you still of the belief that mankind's only hope is Scientology or are you just trying to help others feel better with Scientology --- more like some form of therapy?

4) Can you honestly say that you have researched and confronted all of the past information, regarding Hubbard, that you were not allowed to look at while in the church or are there some things you just don't care to look at?

It would be very helpful and enlightening if you could copy the questions and answer below each one. I seriously do not understand and I really want to.

It would also be helpful if those who are not of the same opinion would used logical arguments to make their points instead of using Ad Hominems. (Hey, I guess that's the only ground rule )

 

[Gadfly]

Regarding "To FZ'ers/Indies/ProScientologists"

Geez, Synth, you are one hard-hittin' bitch!

And, I mean that in the BEST of all possible ways. WHAM! Go for the kill! No back-off from this lady.

I am very much "out", but your wonderful questioning essay had me making a double-take on my own current ideas in the area!

Great post!

Sadly Syndy, I suspect that most active Scientology adherents are quite unable to honestly, comfortably and fully LOOK AT, think about and examine the ACTUAL EVENTS and SITUATIONS that legtimately support your points. Instead, far too many will provide pre-packaged responses, justifications and "logic" based on a very DEEP and LASTING Scientology indoctrination process involving KEY Scientology-related "fixed ideas", attitudes, opinions and beliefs.

I suggest that "true believers" need to "run out" their various attitudes, emotions and beliefs, R3R Style, about all things related to Hubbard and Scientology. So that he or she can actually get to a point and place where he or she can finally see clearly, without the distortion caused by "fixed ideas", and make sensible (well-educated) decisions in the area.

If you could actually GET ONE to do the commands, or in other words, actually follow your suggestions, I don't doubt that many might shift his or her viewpoint. The big problem, of course being, that Scientology Church members exist in such a tightly controlled environment that one can almost NEVER follow your commands. And, it seems to me that some-ex-Church members, who still choose to agree with some or extensive amounts of the subject, have INTERIORIZED the Scientology control and indoctrination to a point where he or she self-monitors, self-adjusts and self-corrects self on an automatic basis (again largely due to some unique bundle of fixed ideas about Hubbard and Scientology).

Fixed ideas prevent and disable "looking". Such is also the case for Scientologists of all varieties. Again, Hubbard very well delineated the nature of "fixed ideas". He described the machanics well. And then, seemingly in a contraditory and hypocritical manner, he went right off and carefully planted FIXED IDEAS into the heads of Scientology "believers". In many ways I see that Hubbard described well the nature of entrapment, but also that he APPLIED that data to ENTRAP.

++++++

 

[Jachs]

Hard hitting bitch alright with puss in boots face!!!

Indeed there will be some very interesting answers on this one.

.

 

[Hypnotarian]

Regarding question number one, the only good rebuttal someone could use would be "Those that can't do teach.". It's possible to be a bag of shit with good ideas.

The rest of your questions leave a philosophically guillotined head in a basket.

Winning!! ;0)

 

[Freeminds]

Seconded. (Maybe 'thirded'.) Great post.

I look forward to reading some considered answers. I have none of my own to offer, since I don't think the Hubbard creature brought anything of value to the 20th century.

 

[Panda Termint]

Great thread and poignant questions, Synthia!
You'd probably need to add "and Non-Believers" to the thread title in order to get much traction here but that would, sort of, defeat the purpose before it began. FZers/Indies/Pro-scientologists are pretty thin on the ground here on ESMB. Just sayin'.

 

[Sindy]

Great thread and poignant questions, Synthia!
You'd probably need to add "and Non-Believers" to the thread title in order to get much traction here but that would, sort of, defeat the purpose before it began. FZers/Indies/Pro-scientologists are pretty thin on the ground here on ESMB. Just sayin'.

Yeah, I know. There are some though. I seriously want to know their thoughts on all of this and then maybe, I can fully understand the whole puzzle. God, please.

 

[Gadfly]

Yeah, I know. There are some though. I seriously want to know their thoughts on all of this and then maybe, I can fully understand the whole puzzle. God, please.

In the end the "puzzle" involves ONLY the agreements of the person who remains trapped. Hubbard was entirely right when he said that each person traps himself by his or her own considerations. The strange contradiction being that on the one hand he well-explained the mechanics of "entrapment", and then turned around and intentionally trapped a great many unsuspecting folks.

The same is exactly true for any person still trapped by some aspect of Scientology. There is nothing else to understand. You seem to possibly be looking for it to somehow "make sense". Nuttiness and stupidity NEVER "make sense". They just ARE.

I think all of the pieces of the puzzle are out on the table. You just need to put them together in the correct arrangement.

+++++++++++++++++++

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I hope you don't mind if I take a whack at this one, myself. I no longer refer to myself as any sort of Scn'ist, but as most people here know, I did do so for a long time after leaving CofS. And I'll tell you quite candidly, I still find some use in some of the principles though, these days, I tend to prefer Buddhism where I often can, in fact, find that commonality and many of those concepts. (How's that for a run on sentence?)

Plus I have friends in the FZ/Indie/Independent scene.

I learned about Hubbard's murky- often criminal- past after being a Scn'ist for a while. I did leave CofS but it had nothing to do with what Hubbard did. It had to do with the cult and the way it acts. But I did think that it was important to know what Hubbard did and to stop placing the man on a pedestal.

But I was left with the idea--well, what if I get benefit from, say, getting auditing, doing TRs, using word clearing? What if I still believe in concepts like theta and so on? And, see, the answer was "yes" to both. So the way I looked at it was "do I really care if a composer was a bad guy if I like his music?" and in most cases, the answer was "no" (unless I was being asked to consider subsidizing an artist's criminality, if there was such. Then I might just enjoy his music on the radio but not want to buy his albums.)

Most FZers I know are just rockin' out with the ideas and methods. It was like that for me, I know.

I've seen so many ex members and other people, too, express puzzlement that anyone, knowing Hubbard's history would give any of this any credence.
It seems to be something that has occurred to many many people.

My answer used to be "because I know it works", then, inevitably, someone would say "Ok, so you're saying, it works for me, screw everyone else." which was NOT what I was saying at all. I was only trying to explain why I had the personal ideology I had.

Many FreeZoners and Independents and Indies (still patting myself on the back for coming up with that one) march with Anons and do all they can to get people out of CofS. I think that's important to remember that. There's more commonality than one might think.

For me, it came down to: Ok, could I still use concept X and have it seem to help? If not, then screw it, I won't. If so, then yay. Hubbard lying about how many wives he had and abusing people has nothing to do with whether or not he can produce something spiritual.

Now, knowing that he died in very poor physical and spiritual shape- that does affect my view of Scn and Dianetics a bit more, though. Why was he doing so badly if the stuff's that freaking great? I have my theories. I won't burden the thread with them. I'm more a Claire-entologist anyway now.

But, yes, it would be lying to say that I don't support the Free Zone and Indie scene. I think they should pursue their ideological dreams. But I also personally believe that the people who claim that everything was totally great til DM came along are dead wrong and should remove their blinders. And I think that maybe they should step outside the equation a bit and be ok with trying other things besides Scn. But some of them are doing that. Some don't, though, and those are the ones I might feel should reconsider...

 

[AnonyMary]

Yeah, I know. There are some though. I seriously want to know their thoughts on all of this and then maybe, I can fully understand the whole puzzle. God, please.

Hi Synth, great thread and OP. I do, however, think you may want to include in this paragraph or just after it:

[..] Knowing what you know now about LRH, his pathological lying, moments of great cruelty, his intentions and orders re: Paulette Cooper, his "Admissions", his plagiarism, his past psychiatric problems, the manner of his death, his life on the lam, his treatment of his own wife and children, etc., etc., etc.: [..]

some links to dox that exist on the internet for those seeing your post and not knowing in whole or part what you are talking about for lack of having seen them. Not everyone has all the facts and it's always good to back up statements with dox. For example:
Documents Of A Lifetime - the uncensored L. Ron Hubbard papers
For example: http://www.spaink.net/cos/LRH-bio/lrhpaper.htm

Hope this helps. I look forward to pro-scn replies.

 

[Wisened One]

I realize this is a bit long but, please bear with me.

Being on ESMB has been a godsend in terms of helping me untangle from the cult. I am sure I still have indoctrination to shed but, as of right now, I feel like I've come to a nice, calm, peaceful and educated position about Scientology and my involvement in it over the last 25 years.

I don't want to sound too flowery but, I cannot express how grateful I am to all the contributors on ESMB. ALL of you have helped me and so many others. I don't have the words to say how thankful I am, but, thank you.

The other day I had a great epiphany on my favorite Hoaxie thread, http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=21633 and since then have felt pretty complete, in my world, about the Scientology puzzle.

There is only one thing I cannot reconcile, one thing that I cannot understand and therefore it plagues my mind. It has to do with Pro-Scientologists.

My desire and intention is that this thread would NOT be polarizing but would be illuminating so that understanding can take place.

I am starting this thread to get sincere discussion and not to get a war going. So, after I ask my questions, I would like to suggest some ground rules that I believe would be helpful. Hey, I'm not a Mod and I'm not the free speech police, I just think they might lead to a better thread, that's all. At least give them some consideration, please.

Okay, my questions are these:

Knowing what you know now about LRH, his pathological lying, moments of great cruelty, his intentions and orders re: Paulette Cooper, his "Admissions", his plagiarism, his past psychiatric problems, the manner of his death, his life on the lam, his treatment of his own wife and children, etc., etc., etc.:


1) How do you, in your own mind, get past those things so that you can still read his books and listen to his lectures as if he were an authority on the very subjects that he, himself, failed so miserably at demonstrating?

I am not asking this in a snide or derisive fashion, I am coming from a place of respect, for you, and assuming that you are not stupid but must have some logical way that you can do this that I simply cannot see.

2) Since there are no Scientific studies on the techniques of Scientology and because the voluminous case studies Ron cites in Dianetics are apparently a lie, and because the end goal of Clear and OT has never been demonstrated, then:

......................a) What are your goals with respect to the these uncertain procedures?
......................b) Do you still want to do your OT Levels even though they don't produce OTs? If so, why?

3) Are you still of the belief that mankind's only hope is Scientology or are you just trying to help others feel better with Scientology --- more like some form of therapy?

4) Can you honestly say that you have researched and confronted all of the past information, regarding Hubbard, that you were not allowed to look at while in the church or are there some things you just don't care to look at?

It would be very helpful and enlightening if you could copy the questions and answer below each one. I seriously do not understand and I really want to.

It would also be helpful if those who are not of the same opinion would used logical arguments to make their points instead of using Ad Hominems. (Hey, I guess that's the only ground rule )

VERY GOOD questions and Post, Synthia!

 

[Emma]

Hey Sindy

Over the years I've posed similar questions and gotten varied responses. From memory they go something like this:

- Just because Hitler was a bastard doesn't mean that Germans shouldn't drive on the autobahns.

- Even if Alexander Graham Bell turned out to be a murderer it doesn't mean he didn't invent the telephone or that we shouldn't use telephones

etc.

 

[Sindy]

Hey Sindy

Over the years I've posed similar questions and gotten varied responses. From memory they go something like this:

- Just because Hitler was a bastard doesn't mean that Germans shouldn't drive on the autobahns.

- Even if Alexander Graham Bell turned out to be a murderer it doesn't mean he didn't invent the telephone or that we shouldn't use telephones

etc.

lol! Yeah, I've gotten those arguments too.

But....what if Alexander Graham Bell, while promoting telephone use, was was also writing self improvement books that included a chapter or two on why one shouldn't murder? Would people buy THAT book?

These kinds of arguments are not logical when your "product" IS ethical beings, rational thinking, good communication and interpersonal relationships, etc.

 

[Infinite]

I realize this is a bit long but, please bear with me.

Being on ESMB has been a godsend in terms of helping me untangle from the cult. I am sure I still have indoctrination to shed but, as of right now, I feel like I've come to a nice, calm, peaceful and educated position about Scientology and my involvement in it over the last 25 years . . . <snip for brevity> . . . It would also be helpful if those who are not of the same opinion would used logical arguments to make their points instead of using Ad Hominems. (Hey, I guess that's the only ground rule )

Top post!! talk about 'CONFRONT".

Obviously, having never got past the personality test phase of the indoctrination process, I cannot comment authoritatively. What I can do is point to others who have, particularly Just Bill over at Ask the Scientologist. He posits four main reasons why Scientologists find it so hard to give up Scientology:

* Investment. This can be a factor. Scientologists may invest hundreds of thousands of dollars and many years of their lives to Scientology. They may have sacrificed their family, their job, their property and their friends in support of Scientology. For some, it is extremely difficult to admit that they wasted so much on a scam. This leads us to:

* Reputation. A number of people have made a big deal about how wonderful Scientology was and how very, very superior they are because they are a Scientologist. Think of Tom Cruise as a good example of this. As a result, they cannot confront the massive embarrassment if they had to admit they were wrong. (It does not appear that Cruise has woken up yet, but this factor might deter him from saying anything when he does.)

* OT. Yes, despite the fact that none of Scientology's OT Levels have ever produced a person with any "super powers", some Scientologists still believe that some day, somehow, some Scientology technique will produce a "true OT" and they want to be there when it happens. Sixty years of failure hasn't convinced them that this isn't going to happen.

* Having all the answers. In my mind, this is one of the biggest reasons some Scientologists stick with Scientology despite everything. Those inside of Scientology have all the answers. In their minds, this statement isn't hyperbole, it is the bare truth. According to Scientology they literally have the answers to everything: illness, insanity, war, crime, illiteracy, drug addiction, intelligence, failure, success, life, death, ... any situation, any condition and every problem has been "solved" by L. Ron Hubbard. There are no more mysteries, there are no more problems that can't be fixed. It is a feeling of tremendous power, certainty and superiority. Naturally, Scientologists cannot and must not check these "solutions" to see if they really do what Hubbard claimed, for, of course, they don't.

Its takes a heck of lot courage to let go one's investment, reputation, hopes, and certainty. For a Scientologist to do so, as Just Bill points out in his subsequent post, it means taking responsibility, actually confronting the information available and the implications of it and, finally, ceasing the litany of justifications which flow so easily into their thinking and dialogue. Ironically, it is Scientology which professes to make people more responsible, better able to confront and to cease with justifications yet it is not until Scientologists commence the journey away from the subject that those attributes properly begin to form.

But what is that's holding them back, what is it that's preventing them from looking? Again, another well-respected Ex-Scientologist, I believe, has considered this question:

The devastating [idea of] "certainty".

Certainty, I have found, cuts off looking and learning and experiencing life. Certainty promotes hubris.

As Voltaire said "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."

Certainty is worship of present thinking. Someone who is certain closes down any further perspective of things in an ever changing world.

Certainty creates a disregard for history, callow judgements, and superficial understanding.

Certainty is the naive conviction that one's own thoughts are the only ones worth knowing.

If you are absolutely certain of something, then you have probably overlooked something else.

My own observation is that the situation is further exacerbated by that slice of L Ron Hubbard scripture which reads, something like, "all power comes from the ability to hold a fixed position in space". Out here in wog-word, such a statement is analogous with simply being stuck.

 

[Jachs]

Hey Sindy

Over the years I've posed similar questions and gotten varied responses. From memory they go something like this:

- Just because Hitler was a bastard doesn't mean that Germans shouldn't drive on the autobahns.

- Even if Alexander Graham Bell turned out to be a murderer it doesn't mean he didn't invent the telephone or that we shouldn't use telephones

etc.

With a small amount of stench (even i can use loaded jargon)as a scn you could argue the above point, but when you get a battle ground full of rotting bodies at what point could you deny it.
The only way would be to introduce the tech ,its too entheta.

Its the greatest good for greatest number, thats why hub installed an "intelligence" department called OSA to hide the fact, so it would not be realised that the numbers of brutalised, harmed, attacked were reaching a tipping point of more harm than good from his own policies.
Thats why this board is so important uncovering the coverups and the stench of those without a voice.


.

 

[Sindy]

Top post!! talk about 'CONFRONT".

Obviously, having never got past the personality test phase of the indoctrination process, I cannot comment authoritatively. What I can do is point to others who have, particularly Just Bill over at Ask the Scientologist. He posits four main reasons why Scientologists find it so hard to give up Scientology:



Its takes a heck of lot courage to let go one's investment, reputation, hopes, and certainty. For a Scientologist to do so, as Just Bill points out in his subsequent post, it means taking responsibility, actually confronting the information available and the implications of it and, finally, ceasing the litany of justifications which flow so easily into their thinking and dialogue. Ironically, it is Scientology which professes to make people more responsible, better able to confront and to cease with justifications yet it is not until Scientologists commence the journey away from the subject that those attributes properly begin to form.

But what is that's holding them back, what is it that's preventing them from looking? Again, another well-respected Ex-Scientologist, I believe, has considered this question:



My own observation is that the situation is further exacerbated by that slice of L Ron Hubbard scripture which reads, something like, "all power comes from the ability to hold a fixed position in space". Out here in wog-word, such a statement is analogous with simply being stuck.

Great. These reasons make sense. I hope some Indie/FZer peeps can come and truly answer all of the questions from their own personal perspectives instead of having to have JustBill and others speculate (as accurate as those speculations may be )

 

[Gadfly]

lol! Yeah, I've gotten those arguments too.

But....what if Alexander Graham Bell, while promoting telephone use, was was also writing self improvement books that included a chapter or two on why one shouldn't murder? Would people buy THAT book?

These kinds of arguments are not logical when your "product" IS ethical beings, rational thinking, good communication and interpersonal relationships, etc.

The above sentence in BOLD is so SPOT ON!

How can ANY person expect or want to go "up the Bridge", and attain these supposed states of "OT", when the very person who CREATED the ideas AND "the Bridge" never got there? Davio Mayo once explained this as "because Hubbard never availed himself of the very Bridge he created". I suppose that could be true, but if an "ubermensch" like Hubturd couldn't manage to do it, how the hell can anyone else?

Though, real kool-aid drinking Scn believers actually accepted and wholeheartedly BELIEVED it when they were told that "LRH willingly dropped his body to do further research without the encumberances of a physical meat body". They believe this fairy-tale shit, that is not very much unlike choosing to believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. It IS that "whacky". I think that it is often hard for any of us to face the amazingly DUMB ideas that seemingly "normal", and at times even "decent" people, entertain in their overly-imaginative little minds.

Hubbard was so much NOT any sort of admirable "product" of some great mental and spiritual technology. Sick, a liar, at times paranoid, dead with drugs in his system, etc. Really, as I see it, any person who continues to support Scn "tech" must ignore and refuse to confront many things, or simply, he or she could not continue to support these things. A person cannot look at the data "as it is", about Hubbard and the Church of Scientology, and also stay affiliated. Certain facts MUST be distorted, excused, justified or "made sense of in some strange way" for these people to stay "on-board". I think it is simpler though. For the most part, they just refuse to LOOK. They are "set in their ways", and it would take such people far too much time, trouble and energy to shift from that complacent set of Scientological views that are based upon YEARS of personal involvement and investment (time, energy, money, friendships, etc).

Oh, I think there is one possible larger explanation. Some peope can extract "good" out of ANYTHING, and those who manage to find and continue to get "good" out of Scientology could have and would have probably done so with ANY set of beliefs. In other words, the PERSON is basically a "cool" person and can be positive in varying environments.

Though, to me, this person would still necessarily need to ignore far too many destructive aspects of Hubbard and Scientology to stay on as ANY type of "supporter". I don't say this all as some "ivory tower" type of academic. I was in for over 20 years, did over 500 hours of Dianetics, expanded Grades, up to OT IV, went fully exterior on TRs, joined staff, joined the Sea Org, occupied various posts including senior exec posts, did all sorts of training and hatting, and also then remained a "public" for many years after getting out of the crazy Sea Org. I closely and carefully observed MANY Scientology members, knew many, and had in depth conversations with many. My above comments are based on my own and others' personal experiences with Scientology. It really is not that difficult to understand how people often deceive themselves to continue along with some charade of a belief or behavior. It is common in all sorts of relationships.

See Syn, I HAVE heard "it all" already. I have listened to the endless and strange streams of logic based on "Scio-think" from Scientologists with varying degrees of "conviction" and "dedication" (aka indoctrination). After hearing different versions of the same story, over and over, I stopped hoping to ever hear an explanation that finally "made sense". Hubbard was right - a thetan can entertain ANY significance (or, in other words, "make sense of anything"). Any person can shift his or her viewpoint and suddenly see a "different world". The Scientologist is "stuck" in a complex but shared viewpoint, and thus "sees" the world a certain way.

The responses will always come from a small little box, almost "pre-programmed", as these responses are defined by a very exact set of fixed Scientology notions.

+++++++++++++

 

[LongTimeGone]

Top post!! talk about 'CONFRONT".

<snip>

Its takes a heck of lot courage to let go one's investment, reputation, hopes, and certainty. For a Scientologist to do so, as Just Bill points out in his subsequent post, it means taking responsibility, actually confronting the information available and the implications of it and, finally, ceasing the litany of justifications which flow so easily into their thinking and dialogue. <snip>.

Precisely!! The financial investment, the lost years, the reputational shame, the loss of direction and the vacuum caused by a lack of belief, was not only unbearably hard at the time of departure but also followed me for years after.

I stayed because I believed the man had the answers, I lived in hope and I thought that although it isn't helping me, perhaps it's helping others.

When I attested to Clear, it didn't even occur to me that I was missing all the attributes of the Book 1 Clear. I have no idea why this didn't concern me; I guess I was then just focused on going OT.

Justifications? Of course. You simply have to keep rationalizing things in order to keep the hope alive.

LTG

 

[AnonyMary]

Precisely!! The financial investment, the lost years, the reputational shame, the loss of direction and the vacuum caused by a lack of belief, was not only unbearably hard at the time of departure but also followed me for years after.

I stayed because I believed the man had the answers, I lived in hope and I thought that although it isn't helping me, perhaps it's helping others.

When I attested to Clear, it didn't even occur to me that I was missing all the attributes of the Book 1 Clear. I have no idea why this didn't concern me; I guess I was then just focused on going OT.

Justifications? Of course. You simply have to keep rationalizing things in order to keep the hope alive.

LTG

This is a terrific thread

 

[Free to shine]

Synthia, in the last few days I've had reason to observe deeply ingrained scientology reactions to two emergency medical situations.

The first, by a long time out person, involved using a tek command, in desperation, before calling an ambulance for another.

The second involved a currently in person, being in a life threatening situation, who tried to "de-PTS" themself for an hour, in agony, before calling an ambulance for a heart attack.

I find both situations shocking, and it brought home to me just how deeply ingrained some of the concepts are. There is no logic here, no real decisions taken on available facts, it is instinctive.

That is an extreme example of the super glue that stops scientologists from accepting the truth about Hubs. The first person I mentioned here can have wonderful deep and meaningfuls about different philosophies, ideas and so on, most of the time seems to regard Hubs with distain, and yet for no apparent reason say "Mr Hubbard said that too." re some idea as though that is the final comment and seal of approval! Sigh. :confused2: