I once thought that. . .

[Lermanet_com]

I once thought that the following people were suppressive assholes

Larry Wollersheim

Michael Flynn

Jon Atack

That girl who sued the Church in Portland Oregon, I forget her name

David Suskind, because he did a show with ex-cult members and one was an ex-Scientologist

Ted Kennedy, because some guy visited our org and explained that Ted killed Mary Joe because she was going to rat out that John and Bob boffed Marilyn then had her killed.

Martin Deuztch, because he was the ex-Scientologist on the David Suskind show and he said "They even have a process called R-45".

Rd00

Interesting... seems the first telephone call that Ted made after driving off that bridge was to a Scientologist. A blonde gal that I met at CCNY, (1976/7) damn, her name escapes me, sounds of straining neurons...she has a jewelry store in Tampa area now or did, used to date or married some big shot from the Sychelle islands. There was a tape of that telephone call taken in the FBI raid which is supposedly still at the Federal repository in DC. - Ah, dang, I can't think of the name....rummaging keywords in google... AH here she is, her name was Helga Wagner.. THAT's the name, and heres an article from People Magazine in 1980 LINK

"Helga Wagner Sells 'She Shells' and
Shushes Talk That She's Teddy's or
Prince Charles' Blond Bombshell"

And yeah she was a blonde bombshell that was for sure...

ah here's a 2009 article with a picture LINK

Yes that's same gal, tough to forget that face.

arnie lerma

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...

Are you a Scientologist?

[STRIKE]I once thought that[/STRIKE] I once had the idea that a Scientologist would answer that question truthfully.

A third of a century of OSA ops, shills, dead agenting, shore stories, acceptable truths, lies, sock puppets, fair gaming and internet agents provocateurs has thoroughly disabused me of that idea.




I once had the idea that a group could evolve truth. A third of a century has thoroughly disabused me of that idea. Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-run value and none were major or basic; and when I did accept major or basic suggestions and used them, we went astray and I repented and eventually had to “eat crow”. On the other hand there have been thousands and thousands of suggestions and writings which, if accepted and acted upon, would have resulted in the complete destruction of all our work as well as the sanity of pcs. So I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable “technology”. By actual record the percentages are about twenty to 100,000 that a group of human beings will dream up bad technology to destroy good technology. As we could have gotten along without suggestions, then, we had better steel ourselves to continue to do so now that we have made it. This point will, of course, be attacked as “unpopular”, “egotistical” and ”undemocratic”. It very well may be. But it is also a survival point. And I don’t see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax.

Keeping Scientology Working (- L. Ron Hubbard)

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Originally Posted by kate8024
I actually think some of the anti-scientology people drive people into Scientology or at least deeper into it. Many people think the way to fight fundamentalism i

s with opposing fundamentalism - but I believe this actually pushes moderate people to be more fundamentalist on whatever side they are already leaning toward. The way to fight fundamentalism, in my opinion, is with moderation, support, understand, and accurate, non-judgmental information.

Originally Posted By HelluvaHoax!
WHO ARE THE ANTI-SCIENTOLOGY PEOPLE?

Feel free to L&N. . .

I said _some_ anti-scientologists. I am certainly not about to start listing those people in a forum like this as I believe that would be quite inappropriate.

..
Right, better to leave it as a generality. That'll fix it.



Je répète la commande de auditing: "Feel free to L&N".

 

[kate8024]

Are you a Scientologist?

I have answered this question here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...lieve-in-Magic&p=821561&viewfull=1#post821561

About a year ago when I filled out my biography my answer was a little different, that can be found here:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/member.php?13372021-kate8024&tab=aboutme&simple=1

also more feelings from my initial about me thread from about a year ago:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...hole-thing-out&p=656873&viewfull=1#post656873

I have also stated in many posts that I to some extent consider myself an independent scientologist, but I dislike the assumptions that often come with that label (as I disagree with 90% of the tech) but I want to make it clear that there is no single religious label that applies wholly to me. I go to a different church in town every weekend, I attend the local pagan rituals on the Sabbats and Esbats, I participate in Discordian groups, I have participated in Thelemic rituals and regularly practice rituals based on those done by John Dee to 'communicate with angels'. I do zazen meditation daily, I spent a year meeting weekly with the missionaries from the LDS church and so on.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I have. And this is why I used the word "some" preceding the word "anti-scientologists". Of course the person who read that and highlighted what I wrote left off highlighting the word "some".

Be careful with that. I once wrote that some critics - and that those were in the MINORITY were toxic (then I used a naughty word) and I got in trouble like I'd boiled and eaten someone's baby. Evidently, I'd touched a nerve or people are unfamiliar with words like some, minority, etc.

Panda Termit pointed out here that people here sometimes have issues with anyone criticizing critics or exes.

That being said, it may be that people think it's a criterion for ascertaining who's OSA and is here on false pretenses. I personally think it's maybe not the best benchmark or criterion, unless there are other ones that go with it and there's a whole bunch of red flags.

Your posts sound to me like those of someone who may have some sort of interest in the ology aspect (which is something I can understand). I've not seen you defend the actual Church of Scientology. So with that in mind, how do you feel about those things- both the ology/ism and the actual cult? That is, if you'd like to discuss it.

By the way, Purple is a really nice person. I think that you guys can iron things out. Maybe a bit of elucidation will help.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I don't dictate anything. I observe. Scientologists call him "LRH" - either corporate or indie. But thanks for the accusation.

I usually say "Hubbard" cuz we do that at home (and even did when we were in the cult) and because I think it may sound more...expected on fora like this.

But sometimes writing LRH is just plain quicker. Less letters. And occasionally, I do it, too.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I have never met anybody nor have I ever heard of anybody who actually attacked an individual Scientologist.

Have you?

Rd00

You must be joking. Unless you meant physical attacks. Now, there I'd agree. Never heard of any happening.

But attacking verbally? Yeah. Has happened a number of times. There's no way that could be missed.

 

[kate8024]

I usually say "Hubbard" cuz we do that at home (and even did when we were in the cult) and because I think it may sound more...expected on fora like this.

But sometimes writing LRH is just plain quicker. Less letters. And occasionally, I do it, too.

To me, saying 'Hubbard' is too official and shows him more respect than I would typically like to show. Using someone's last name when talking about them is what you do when you are discussing their work in an academic context or when you an in the military or a similar institution in which people are called their last name because that is the respectful thing to do. Also to me using 'Ron' or 'LRH' humanizes him much more than referring to him as 'Hubbard' and I think that this humanization is important because he is often deified.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

From what I can tell it seems to have started here:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...eens-criminals&p=822948&viewfull=1#post822948

which led to:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...eens-criminals&p=822958&viewfull=1#post822958

which I obliged with here:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?32358-Is-every-statement-made-by-L-Ron-Hubbard-false

Which was quickly derailed into accusations being thrown at me and me having to constantly repeat things like:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...-Hubbard-false&p=823453&viewfull=1#post823453

After that mess, this post:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ng-of-religion&p=824581&viewfull=1#post824581

led to 12 more pages of me having to explain and defend that simple statement.

which included me defending the rights of _every_ religion, even the when I view them as potentially harmful:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ng-of-religion&p=824643&viewfull=1#post824643

and restating why this particular court case is important beyond Scientology:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ng-of-religion&p=824654&viewfull=1#post824654

Someone brought up that that the church of Scientology makes people sign an NDA as an example of a bad practice and I stated that the local Episcopal church requires church staff to also sign an NDA

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ng-of-religion&p=824653&viewfull=1#post824653

I linked to an Episcopal NDA here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ng-of-religion&p=824667&viewfull=1#post824667

which was dismissed as not living up to Anonycat's standards here:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ng-of-religion&p=824670&viewfull=1#post824670

Accusations bu Purple Rain I believe started here:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ng-of-religion&p=824672&viewfull=1#post824672

Anonycat asked me to support Wiccan's (even though I had earlier stated that I support every religion including Wiccan's earlier):

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ng-of-religion&p=824675&viewfull=1#post824675

So I referred Anonycat to my posts here:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ng-of-religion&p=824687&viewfull=1#post824687

which includes a brief description of my personal religious beliefs: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...lieve-in-Magic&p=821561&viewfull=1#post821561

Which was dismissed with basically "I don't want to read that right now I'm having fun here"

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ng-of-religion&p=824690&viewfull=1#post824690

Even me complimenting another user on a good post has been met with hostility:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...Up-In-The-Cult&p=824759&viewfull=1#post824759

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...Up-In-The-Cult&p=824761&viewfull=1#post824761

If you need any further clarification on any of this please let me know.

Whoa!

Simpler to just say who you are talking about.

People are reacting to what YOU are posting. The internet is funny that way. When you level vague generalized accusations against "some" anti-Scientologists on this website, people expect you to say who you mean exactly.

You still are using innuendos.

Get the idea?

 

[kate8024]

Whoa!

Simpler to just say who you are talking about.

That was an answer to a question about where I said things that could be considered examples of me being a 'moderate shill' that is all.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

That was an answer to a question about where I said things that could be considered examples of me being a 'moderate shill' that is all.

Ummm….You're heading the wrong direction.

This thread is about "I ONCE THOUGHT….."

Care to play?

 

[Purple Rain]

That was an answer to a question about where I said things that could be considered examples of me being a 'moderate shill' that is all.

Either you don't know what a shill is or you don't realise that you are doing it or you're being deceitful. In any case, if you stop doing it I will stop objecting to it. And IMHO, your position was MUCH more honest when you first came, whether you fully realise it or not.

 

[kate8024]

Either you don't know what a shill is or you don't realise that you are doing it or you're being deceitful. In any case, if you stop doing it I will stop objecting to it. And IMHO, your position was MUCH more honest when you first came, whether you fully realise it or not.

My position has evolved a lot over the last year, I am currently much more critical of the church of scientology than I was then.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...


I once thought there were a few engrams that could be erased (in about 20 hours, per DMSMH) upon which one attained the EP called "Clear".

I once thought there was an EP where you attained "Exterior With Full Perception".

I once thought there was an attainable EP called "OT".

I once thought that there was an EP for Scientology itself, where you attained permission to leave and live your own life.

Well, you actually can attain the last EP--but only if you don't apply Scientology.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Either you don't know what a shill is or you don't realise that you are doing it or you're being deceitful. In any case, if you stop doing it I will stop objecting to it. And IMHO, your position was MUCH more honest when you first came, whether you fully realise it or not.

A couple of her first posts were absolutely hilarious!

WTF happened? I actually wondered if it was the same person. LOL

 

[JBWriter]

I have answered this question here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...lieve-in-Magic&p=821561&viewfull=1#post821561

About a year ago when I filled out my biography my answer was a little different, that can be found here:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/member.php?13372021-kate8024&tab=aboutme&simple=1

also more feelings from my initial about me thread from about a year ago:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...hole-thing-out&p=656873&viewfull=1#post656873

I have also stated in many posts that I to some extent consider myself an independent scientologist, but I dislike the assumptions that often come with that label (as I disagree with 90% of the tech) but I want to make it clear that there is no single religious label that applies wholly to me. I go to a different church in town every weekend, I attend the local pagan rituals on the Sabbats and Esbats, I participate in Discordian groups, I have participated in Thelemic rituals and regularly practice rituals based on those done by John Dee to 'communicate with angels'. I do zazen meditation daily, I spent a year meeting weekly with the missionaries from the LDS church and so on.

Let's whip out the calendar, shall we?

Debbie Cook's email is sent 1 January 2012 -- the #1 most popular topic on ESMB in January-February-March 2012.
Co$ sues Debbie Cook, the interwebz/MSM/ESMB/etc. GOES WILD.....until 24 April 2012 - when Debbie Cook settles with Plaintiff Co$.

PosterK begins to post on 7 February 2012 and stops on 25 April 2012. <----Not one post about Debbie Cook. PosterK's all about learning 'tech'; no time for the news, eh?

PosterK does not post from 26 April 2012 until July 2013.

Leah Remini news breaks July 2013. <----PosterK posts 'out of the blue' looking to see if anyone's got a Concordia-like method of searching Hubbard's writing. PosterK posts on a few threads, cracks a few jokes, defends what she defends, and somehow ends up on a thread that's simultaneously humorous and heartbreaking - which, somehow, evolves into a disagreement.

From 26 April 2012 to the first week of July 2013 - no posts?
O-kay, guess nothing was happening in Ex-Scio-/Scio-News. Wait, what?

First week of July 2013...until now, this minute: PosterK posts nothing about the Garcia Lawsuit? Jenna Miscavige-Hill's book/media response? Narconon Georgia - the raid and the class-action suit? Lawrence Wright's Going Clear book/media explosion?
No posts NOW about what's been in the media and on the internet from April 2012 until July 2013 -- and how it was received/interpreted HERE?

Oh. Well, maybe it's because PosterK only wants to read/post about 'tech', right? And Hubbard? And religious beliefs? Okay.

Except.

That calendar's pretty stubborn. So is common sense. Mix 'em together and get...whatever you get.

tl;dr - see below.

Certain big news hits - enter PosterK.
Certain big news muzzled - exit PosterK.

Certain bigger news hits - enter PosterK.
Certain bigger news remains news until _____ - PosterK remains until _____.

JB (My apologies HelluvaHoax, for intruding TWICE onto your thread.)

 

[Claire Swazey]

Wow. Witch hunt, anyone? Y'all havin' fun?

 

[Purple Rain]

Wow. Witch hunt, anyone? Y'all havin' fun?

No.

I have already said, right from the start of all this, that I respected Kate's intelligence and quite liked her sense of humour. It's her honesty and evasiveness that I have issues with - but as I said then - if she's going to promote Scientology then the gloves are off because people who know nothing about Scientology also come here to learn about it and I will not let praise for it go unchallenged or presumed to be agreed with in case a journalist reads it and gets the wrong idea, or a person who is considering getting involved reads it and gets the wrong idea etc.

The truth is that life is nearly always better without Scientology. For instance, if my child was a drug addict and I was desperate I would STILL NOT send them off to Narconon. I would STILL look for a way that did not involve substituting one life-destroying practice for another. I would never knowingly sign anyone I care for up for anything they do, nor would I send them off to an independent Scientologist to do the Purif and TRs and Objectives. If I was burying them, I would not regret NOT trying "the tech" because there is such a thing as out of the frying pan and into the fire. And Scientology should come with a warning label NOT a recommendation. There is nothing useful in there that cannot be found elsewhere without all the harm.

I liked how Student of Trinity put it in that thread where Kate wanted us to agree that some of the things Hubbard said were actually true (emphasis mine):

This has been a really bizarre thread. Hubbard said lots of true and important things. He also contributed some original ideas of his own, that we would never have known apart from him. The man wrote and said an awful lot. The existence of both kinds of statements in his oeuvre is beyond dispute. I don't understand why anyone needed to argue about this.

The problem is that those two sets of statements by Hubbard do not seem to overlap. The true and important things he said were parroted from others. His original contributions appear to have been crap.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Use of the Independent Scn'ist moniker

Hey, Kate,

I kinda think that if one disagrees with 90% or so of the tech, that the Independent Scn'ist label would not ever have been all that suitable. Most Indies, I think, agree with at least a majority of the tech. 90% is a rather large amount with which to disagree, I think.

That being said, I know that one's point of view can change a lot over time, particularly when one is reading exposes, critical materials and talking to other people. And when that happens, the sorts of posts the person writes will probably change a lot, too.

People here tend to ask for (or demand) explanations from anyone they have questions about. Although I see nothing wrong with providing links to other posts, per se, I think it doesn't work as well as saying, well, I used to think there was a Xenu, now I don't, or I used to think Dianetics raised IQ but then I changed my mind last April because....

That sort of thing.

A bit of elucidation, as I said earlier, may be good. It probably won't (ever) help you with some, but it would probably help with a lot of others. And included in the elucidation add a bit of your bio -spelled out. If you put links in your posts to earlier discussions, have that not be instead of discussing it, but in addition to doing so.

 

[DoneDeal]

HellYeah! I have also been waiting for that Hubbard/Hendrix connection!

I think it is going to be amazing and reveal some little known facts and rare, never-before-seen archive photos from Woodstock.

I once thought I knew the Experience cold. I didn't know little h took Noels place. Or am I incorret and it's Mitch he took over...I honestly am having a hard time with their faces. I'm pretty sure it looks like Noel, thus the reason for his removal from the band. If they had different haircuts it would be easier.

That is historical data HH, Thank you very much.

No thanks to you Dave B.