What's new

I once thought that. . .

kate8024

-deleted-
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?

I read those posts about her leaving though especially at the time I had no opinion of it as the subject of Scientology was still fairly new to me. At this point I think its always a smart move for someone that involved in the Church of Scientology to either leave or do what needs to be done to get the power needed to actually fix things. From what I read about her, Debbie Cook is more of a tech purist than I am as a big reason for her leaving seemed to be alteration of the tech but as I personally think 80% of the tech needs to be gotten rid of entirely and 90% of the remaining 20% is total crap I still do not have a strong emotion regarding this issue.
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.

Sure this event reminded me of this board and I was curious what people were saying about it and in the process I found some interesting posts and that turned into posting regularly since then.

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?

I'm sure there was a lot going on but I had not thought about this board in that time, I was largely spending my time on other things and studying other religions. You can find information about some of this research here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...Bts-by-erasure&p=822449&viewfull=1#post822449

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?

I have no direct interest in those issues, however I did comment about Ethercat's new Narcanon site here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...iews-is-OPEN!!&p=824694&viewfull=1#post824694

Lawrence Wright's Going Clear book/media explosion?

I mentioned two other books about Scientology from an outside perspective here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...d-the-Internet&p=824021&viewfull=1#post824021

and mentioned them again here along with Robert Kaufman's book: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...-Hubbard-false&p=823462&viewfull=1#post823462

it has been pruned from the ChatBox log since then but I mentioned a couple days ago that my copy of Going Clear had just arrived in the mail and that I was excited to read it.

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?

You mean the time that I wasn't posting here? You expect me to go back though all the old posts and comment on them?

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.)

What do you get when you mix my replies in with that?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, these sort of accusations do nothing but derail threads and I wish it would stop.
 
Last edited:

Purple Rain

Crusader
Re: 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.

And also if one claims to disagree with 90% of the tech then one would expect that person's posts to reflect that level of disagreement, which they don't. People here are not stupid and they don't like being lied to. I always try and judge a post on its own merits and leave personality or affiliation out of it. I have nearly died (figuratively) defending people here considered to be Indies - to the extent that I have been accused of being a "Ron lover" myself.

I distrust and dislike the evasiveness and the fact that what is claimed is not what I observe. I'm really over that kind of cognitive dissonance, and trying to explain how it can fit and make sense. From now on I'm just calling it like I'm seeing it and if I'm wrong then I'm calling it wrong and as I have said I am quite willing to be convinced. If she behaves consistently with her stated position then I will believe her.

The reason I defended karen#1 on this board is that no matter her personal beliefs or relationship to Hubbard she NEVER came here and tried to sell it to a group that had been hurt by it to the point that they mostly rejected it. I respected her so much for that - and still do - for having that sensitivity and knowing her audience - that they were upset by Scientology for a very good reason.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Re: 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.

I agree, unfortunately there is not a good label that I have found :-/ I'm open to suggestions there.

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.

The majority of my criticism of things actually comes from the things the church itself has said rather than other people or exposes. In many way it seems to me that the church is its own worst enemy.

People here tend to ask for (or demand) explanations from anyone they have questions about.

I have noticed ;-)

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....

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.

That is reasonable.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Re: Use of the Independent Scn'ist moniker

And also if one claims to disagree with 90% of the tech then one would expect that person's posts to reflect that level of disagreement, which they don't. People here are not stupid and they don't like being lied to. I always try and judge a post on its own merits and leave personality or affiliation out of it. I have nearly died (figuratively) defending people here considered to be Indies - to the extent that I have been accused of being a "Ron lover" myself.

I distrust and dislike the evasiveness and the fact that what is claimed is not what I observe. I'm really over that kind of cognitive dissonance, and trying to explain how it can fit and make sense. From now on I'm just calling it like I'm seeing it and if I'm wrong then I'm calling it wrong and as I have said I am quite willing to be convinced. If she behaves consistently with her stated position then I will believe her.

The reason I defended karen#1 on this board is that no matter her personal beliefs or relationship to Hubbard she NEVER came here and tried to sell it to a group that had been hurt by it to the point that they mostly rejected it. I respected her so much for that - and still do - for having that sensitivity and knowing her audience - that they were upset by Scientology for a very good reason.

I am not aware of any post where I am promoting the tech - there are some where I am critical of certain parts of the tech or where I compare parts to practices is various other religions, and there are posts where I defend the rights of those who _do_ believe in the tech to keep believing in it if it is working for them but that is only secondary to an overall defense of anyone of any religion.

I don't understand how you can imply that you would agree with my right to be a total tech-loving indie but then when I say something that supports that group you accuse me of being an OSA spy or a shill. You support someone who believes everything LRH wrote but you don't support someone who believes that overall LRH was wrong but that there is some value in there if one wants to go through the trouble of extracting it? Is it because I don't fit into the square hole or the round hole so I must be a rouge peg?
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Let's whip out the calendar, shall we?

---snipped for brevity---

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

Hey! The thread is just an idea, we're all intruding, lol.

Wouldn't it be a fascinating book if one of the chief OSA internet handlers or trolls blew and told all about their entirely bizarre ritualistic incantations on "enemy" sites that are supposed to fix the reason they are collapsing? LOL.

I have written a bit about this before, but wouldn't it be a freakin' blast if someone copied the troll hat pack (like the purloined OT III and NOTs packs) and we could actually READ their "Successful Actions".

I once wrote down a couple of what were (obviously) considered to be Successful Actions and suggested a better strategy to them using the "buttons" that create the most discord on ESMB. I don't feel like giving them any more tips today. LOL

I liked your provocative post. Thanks!


 

kate8024

-deleted-
A: I get additional information that supports the conclusion drawn earlier.

Thanks for taking the time to respond exactly as you have,

JB.

How does talking about the book you said I didn't mention support your conclusion?
How does me spending months working on a wiki page about unrelated religious practice support this conclusion?
 

DoneDeal

Patron Meritorious
I once thought I knew it all. And then I joined the church and knew more. As that knowing grew I found that fewer people agreed with me. Till I was just snickering with a couple people about how smart we were. I know less now and things are getting better.

Now I'm trying to figure out why I even need to say that out loud. Scn isn't something that should be encouraged, I definitely agree with that Purple. I guess that's the reason for saying stuff out loud.

I have no idea what I'm talking about.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
How does talking about the book you said I didn't mention support your conclusion?
How does me spending months working on a wiki page about unrelated religious practice support this conclusion?

A: Please see my last post.

Whatever additional information you care to add need not be addressed to me - thanks!

JB
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Re: Use of the Independent Scn'ist moniker

I am not aware of any post where I am promoting the tech - there are some where I am critical of certain parts of the tech or where I compare parts to practices is various other religions, and there are posts where I defend the rights of those who _do_ believe in the tech to keep believing in it if it is working for them but that is only secondary to an overall defense of anyone of any religion.

I don't understand how you can imply that you would agree with my right to be a total tech-loving indie but then when I say something that supports that group you accuse me of being an OSA spy or a shill. You support someone who believes everything LRH wrote but you don't support someone who believes that overall LRH was wrong but that there is some value in there if one wants to go through the trouble of extracting it? Is it because I don't fit into the square hole or the round hole so I must be a rouge peg?

Well I am going out now to pack my stuff for America but when I get back tonight YES I WILL waste hours of my life pointing out EVERY glowing thing you have said about the tech and Hubbard and even Miscavige. As Hoaxie said, at least I will get a laugh while I do it.

Edit: I have not DENIED that you make criticisms AS WELL and have even pointed out how you go about it. Negative statement followed by the positive. It really irks me that you assume everyone is too stupid to see it. Hoaxie roared with laughter the second he noticed. We're not stupid people either - probably LESS stupid because we're not going on about how people should read Self Analysis and Scientology orgs should be designated as places of worship.

Edit to the edit: And I will also post some documents I have found from when I was leaving Scientology which are chock full of theta!
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
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.

We could just cut to the chase and call him "The Beast"...as in 666.

Here's a little quote from L. Ron Hubbard, Jr (aka Nibs):

Also, you've got to realize that my father did not worship Satan. He thought he was Satan.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Yes, it's so important to humanise Ron. We have all been making a terrible mistake by deifying him as we do with terms like Hubbard, or Hubtard, or Fatty.

Edit: I once thought that it was important to let people know that Hubbard locked little deaf mute children in chain lockers and perpetrated many other human rights abuses, but now I realise that we should just humanise LRH in case people might start to think that Ron is some kind of a god.
 

Anonycat

Crusader
Yes, it's so important to humanise Ron. We have all been making a terrible mistake by deifying him as we do with terms like Hubbard, or Hubtard, or Fatty.

Edit: I once thought that it was important to let people know that Hubbard locked little deaf mute children in chain lockers and perpetrated many other human rights abuses, but now I realise that we should just humanise LRH in case people might start to think that Ron is some kind of a god.

[video=youtube;GGF7rJPQAmo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGF7rJPQAmo[/video]
 

DoneDeal

Patron Meritorious
Yes, it's so important to humanise Ron. We have all been making a terrible mistake by deifying him as we do with terms like Hubbard, or Hubtard, or Fatty.

Edit: I once thought that it was important to let people know that Hubbard locked little deaf mute children in chain lockers and perpetrated many other human rights abuses, but now I realise that we should just humanise LRH in case people might start to think that Ron is some kind of a god.

I once thought calling him little h is a good thing. Oh, that thought happened yesterday. Cool, gettin my clock back.

lol. could even try out some font things...little h
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Re: Use of the Independent Scn'ist moniker

Hoaxie roared with laughter the second he noticed.


I musta not been very clear. I roared with laughter because it was hilarious. I will have to dig out those couple posts she made and see what was so funny. I should probably see if I can dig up those posts she made, they were really edgy-funny-cool. That's why I wondered how (after that) there were so many posts that didn't seem to show a trace of humor---and that's why I took a 2 second tinfoil break and wondered if it was the same person. I ain't accusin' ! LOL

Sorry if i wasn't clear about the fact that i genuinely laughed on those couple posts.

Hmm, let me go digging...
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
...

Okay, here's an example of one of Kate's hilarious posts. . .

Originally Posted by Rene Descartes
the machine is going to do some whirlies around and round and...
a homo novis is going to climb out of it.
We'll see who is laughing then.

Originally Posted Kate8024
I went clear while on a tilt-a-whirl so it might work. Nothing clears your engrams like getting really dizzy and barfing.


And some other fun, clever, witty stuff. . .

 

Gadfly

Crusader
I haven't really been keeping up, but so far, I LIKE Kate!

She has a different viewpoint, and it is okay with me.

She pisses on Scientology enough for me to remain content. :confused2:

Could she be other than she appears to be . . . . . ? :unsure:

But, for now, I will accept what I see.
 
Top