DoneDeal
Patron Meritorious
I think Hoaxie had a different definition for "all hands". LOL
Yeah...I blew that one huh. I didn't notice the spelling despite his saying we should.
I think Hoaxie had a different definition for "all hands". LOL
...
Okay, here's an example of one of Kate's hilarious posts. . .
And some other fun, clever, witty stuff. . .
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...in-Scientology&p=821550&viewfull=1#post821550
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...-Scientologist&p=821366&viewfull=1#post821366
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...in-Scientology&p=821663&viewfull=1#post821663
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...in-Scientology&p=821582&viewfull=1#post821582
Could she be other than she appears to be . . . . . ?
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 . . . . . ?
But, for now, I will accept what I see.
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):
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 agree, unfortunately there is not a good label that I have found :-/ I'm open to suggestions there.
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.
I have noticed ;-)
That is reasonable.
Reading JB Writer's and HH's posts were more what prompted me to write that, really.
Kinda over the top there. Surprised to see that from JB Writer.
--snipped--
..
And it is just kinda odd when someone picks Ex-Scientologists as the people they want to talk to about the "good part" of Hubbard's tech. LOL.
..
Nobody said anything "over the top", they just said what they were thinking. And it is just kinda odd when someone picks Ex-Scientologists as the people they want to talk to about the "good part" of Hubbard's tech. LOL.
Scientology is a frightfully bad planet. For anyone clever or fortunate enough to get a safe distance from its dark gravitational forces, who then wants to go back to planet Scientology and pick some flowers---all I can say is: "Is that a theta boner in your pocket or are you just VGIs to see the Mankind's Greatest Friend?"
Yeah, I know, people leave in stages. But, this is 2013 and there is something called the Internet. Anyone who can get online should be able to figure out what Scientology and Hubbard are trying to do to them after a few days of reading.
And no one like or none of that goofy "clicking" thing on this post.
I can certainly understand this sentiment, however it seems to me that site also tries to cater to independent scienologists and I am not personally aware of any other site which, in general, caters well to that group. The only good things I remember having actually said about the tech in these forums is that I find doing ruds using paulsrobot3 helpful for getting stuff off my mind prior to doing zazen meditation and that some of the creation of human ability exercises are useful for inducing trance states via mindless repetition.
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.
I just wanted to make sure verybody and anybody including herself are aware of that.
Now we just have to all work on the concept that all criticism is not a verbal attack.
Not saying you are saying that. Just saying....
So that everybody and anybody including herself are aware of that.
Rd00
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.
...threads that were getting TA could never get disrailed.
This thread has thoroughly disabused me of this idea.