ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

Good things in Scientology

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Veda, Feb 28, 2013.

View Users: View Users
  1. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

    Nah you didn't miss anything. :biggrin:

    Oh and you can change your personal settings so you get 40 posts per page - makes for a lot less pages.
  2. MissWog

    MissWog Silver Meritorious Patron

    Oh that will work nicely for browsing offline too! Thank you!
  3. BardoThodol

    BardoThodol Silver Meritorious Patron

    OMG! We're becoming like BFFs. Before long we're going to be strolling hand in hand down the Champs-Elyees, munching pommes frites, discussing Sartre. What could be a better bromance than one lingering over discussions about what is really important in life?

    You're even finishing my thoughts for me. I was too lazy to research that Sanborn info. You are sooooo sweet to dignify such an undignified and undeserving sot such as myself with a response. :thankyou:

    Had I only handled my misunderstood I would have realized you meant "widely acknowledged," rather than widely believed or accepted. Heck, had I applied your onion tech I would have seen that Sanborn and Ron Jr, were at the inner core, knowing Hubbard wrote it(but not widely acknowledging), then Jeff Hawkins was in the middle core knowing it (but not widely acknowledging) while insignificant raw meat me and my friends in the Chinese restaurant were out on the outer edges of the onion knowing but not widely acknowledging.

    But, please don't give up on me. Number of times over material equals certainty and results.

    And I thank you for having the correct information and hammering out of existence any wrong information.

    And how you've put a particle into that ethical channel and are resolute in removing all counter and other intentions, removing all distractions.

    You are my hero.
  4. BardoThodol

    BardoThodol Silver Meritorious Patron

    I'm trying to grasp the definition of "trolling." Does that include posting threads to get a reaction, or merely comments on threads?

    I wish I had had the time to read where this area has been well covered with posts and links, but I have been remiss.

    Must be the secondaries and engrams of reading boring academic writing during my six years of college that makes me avoid narrow-minded, boring academics.

    I will just have to take the time to read all those posts and links.

    Oh, wait, I've got the Big Twelve basketball tournament we've been going to, then we've been going to various restaurants in the area we haven't tried. plus, plus, plus, having so much to do in life that I can only spend a few minutes a day here.

    But, keep up the good work attacking rather than defending. You never know when self examination might make you change your mind. And then where would you be?

    ps. got my stitches out yesterday.
  5. BardoThodol

    BardoThodol Silver Meritorious Patron

    Thanks for defending me, but that will just get you into hot water with all the Veda apologists. They already despise me or avoid me because he cautioned that nothing I said was true and that he wouldn't waste time reading my posts.

    Looks like he couldn't resist. I'm just too cute.

    He's posted all this valuable information which leaves other posters feeling gratitude about the light he's shone on church abuse and Hubbard lies. Valuable stuff. So, he's defended as a champion in the cause against Scientology. Posters see him as having high value.

    One of the reasons I left the CofS was all the thin-skinned bitterness. All that us against them mentality. The lack of fun and compassion. There were all these people who had a sacred mission that sucked the life right out of them. They became dedicated and serious and hostile.

    Too many critics are just like that. Too many critics do exactly the same things they rail about, but lack the power to enforce their ill will. Heaven help us if these individuals were given the power to do the things Hubbard assumed power to do.

    Then there are critics such as Magoo, who are full of love and compassion, who have a thriving sense of life and humor, who get the job done without bitterness and hatred.

    There's a budding science about how we perceive others. One study took a bunch of photos of men and had women rate them for attractiveness. Then those same photos were accompanied by various other information such as wealth and job status. Suddenly, unattractive men who were wealthy with high status became attractive and attractive men with no money and low status became unattractive.

    I like to see a person as a person, without the influence of their wealth or status, or what they can do for me. What is the true character of the person you're talking to?
  6. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    I don't want to play with you, and that's my choice. I'm sorry it bugs you. There are plenty of others with whom you can play. :)

    For general information...

    Here's the comment by Jeff affirming Hubbard's authorship of the "Russian" Brain-Washing Manual, and recounting his time at the Pub[lications]s Org with John Sanborn. Do a find on "manual" and it will bring up other responses to Jeff's comments. Even around the Pubs Org - which was a specialty Org - as Jeff states, the BWM was "never publicly stated to be" authored by Hubbard. It was even less acknowledged in ordinary orgs. That's just the way it was. Hubbard's Black Propaganda Tech was not widely acknowledged in Scientology. It was a confidential tech. The BWM was an early example of Black Propaganda by Hubbard.

    I've already provided references, on this thread, and the area has been covered multiple times.

    The important point is that Hubbard used the BWM on Scientologists.

    I can't say it any simpler.
  7. Claire Swazey

    Claire Swazey Spokeshole, fence sitter


    It's a somewhat common ESMB meme to use the term "trolling" for "I don't like what you're saying" or "I think you're being obtuse (and now I'm seeing a big bad conspiracy just because you don't talk/think like me and I'm gonna make stuff up about you, a person I've never met.)"

    It's absolutely fracking stupid to accuse people of trolling who are on the board talking about posted commentary. It's irresponsible and it's nasty.

    Other than that, it's just fine, mon. :coolwink:
  8. I told you I was trouble

    I told you I was trouble Suspended animation

    Lol ... I believe we all have our moments (of 'trolling') ... I know I do. We used to call it bull-baiting (when done out of the course-room) and non cultic people probably think of it as stirring or teasing, its often done with a light touch and some humour and I don't know what all the fuss is about.

    If you want to see some serious 'trolling' watch any close family interact, whether animal or human.


  9. Alle G

    Alle G Patron with Honors

    I found this on an old thread and Brian Ambry is brilliant. I hope Paul does not mind if I post it here. I often wondered why BWM (and scientology onion) is mentioned so often in different threads. After all who cares what this poof Hubbard had to say. I understand now.

    "Comm Ev
    Started by Bea Kiddo, 14th January 2007 01:16 PM

    1. Dulloldfart Posts #74

    The different layers of Scientology policy are referenced at the end of another thread on this board. At Veda's suggestion, I read Brian Ambry's "Brainwashing Manual Parallels" piece (97 pages .pdf file online). It's probably the best analysis of the long-term operations of LRH and the that I've seen.

    I consider it essential reading for anyone trying to understand the seeming contradictions in Hubbard's policy. I don't see how anyone could grasp what is going on without being exposed to Ambry's points. After 35 years in Scn, 23 of them in the SO, and thousands of hours reading about Scn on the Net I still found the piece eye-opening, and significantly viewpoint-changing.

    Maybe there are shorter pieces of Ambry's that get across the same ideas well that someone could reference. Not everyone wants to a 100-page work. Veda's summary here is pretty accurate, although a brief summary of an outstanding work is never a good substitute for the original.


    Alle G
  10. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Panda "promoting Scientology?!?!" . . . . ya gotta be out of your mind, or trolling yourself. Your whole post here is rather perverse . . . WTF are you actually trying to communicate . . . what's with this: "an opinion contrary to the originator of the thread then you're trolling" you wrote???

    For the record, Panda has been one of the very most balanced commentators on the Scn scene here for a very long time . . . that as compared to your relative new history of having joined just a year ago . . . I suggest you study the history of Panda and ESMB before making statements like your's above.


  11. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    No, Rog. :no:

    He was being deliberately ironic in order to heighten the ridiculousness of similar charges being made by others of Panda in all seriousness. :eyeroll:

    Panda understood and replied in kind. LS has made it clear recently he is aware of the too frequent and ridiculous charges being bandied about on the board by certain parties in the attempt to "dead agent" those who may not agree with them.

    Mark A. Baker
  12. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    Thanks, Mark. I would have said much the same thing, Lone Star's humor is appreciated. I also thank Roger for his kind words, regardless. :thumbsup:
  13. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    Yep....I should've used the LOL emoticon. :duh: I thought the cool wink would signal that I was being ironic or at least purposely absurd to make a point.

    Oh well...some got it.

    Couldn't agree more with you on Panda. :thumbsup:
  14. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    OMG!! This is priceless! You found yet one more opportunity to expound on the BWM. :roflmao:

    Do you sleep with a copy of the BWM under your pillow?
  15. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    He turned me onto it by this tread. I am happy to read it finally and connect dots.
  16. Lone Star

    Lone Star Crusader

    And that is great. :thumbsup: I'm totally serious too. It is a historically important book which aids in one's understanding of LRH. I sometimes call Veda out, but I also kid him.
  17. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Yes, I have it now . . . I hadn't followed the thread very closely but saw the post in isolation rather mistakenly . . .

    Good to have friends correct my goofing :yes:

  18. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Glad I could be of assistance.

  19. Claire Swazey

    Claire Swazey Spokeshole, fence sitter

    Panda doesn't promote Scn, true. But he does sometimes say relatively positive things about it- giving credit where he thinks it's due. If I (or a couple others here) were to write the same identical posts, I'd/we'd be either treated to a lot of sententious claptrap about how we needed help or would be pilloried.

    It's not just what gets said - it's sometimes who says it.

    For the record, I happen to think Panda has a very good understanding of where Scn went wrong and goes wrong and a great outlook and a wonderful sense of humor.

    I'm glad that people can recognize that- even if some seem incapable of applying this understanding to others.

    Sorry to sound snarky or upset. However, when it all comes down to it, I find that critical fora, websites, pickets and other things in the anti CofS movement accomplish far more good than not.
  20. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    MY bolding in the above 2 quotes.

    I think it lays in the area of the relinquishing of self control, or decision that one has not been able to control, (as in failed self control =a ruin) followed by the decision to ALLOW another to take control of part or all of one's control of mind (perception, evaluation and decision making) resulting in henceforth being controlled at least in part by Ron's/scientology ideas. The degree to which one has given over one's mind to someone/some idea is the degree to which one ceases to be self. There is a lot more that could be said about this, but I think the pivotal point is, who and what is influencing one's decisions, emotions and thus actions.