What's new

Ok, here's a criticism

Tanstaafl

Crusader
I'm sorry that I offended you. Truly. Just a little levity. These threads sometimes meander and sometimes we get a little jovial. (or glee of insanity)

I started this thread with a criticism and was glad to do so, but sometimes it's fun to get a bit silly.

No need to apologise Fluffy.
If people took time to get a feel for ESMB before posting they wouldn't get all uppity about trivia like this.
One of the great things about this place is how many regulars have such great senses of humour.
Challenge can go and reinvigorate The Serious Thread. :yes:
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Yeah, I know what you mean. Anyway, there're plenty of threads here where people are getting serious about this or that. A little levity never hurt anybody.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Yeah, I know what you mean. Anyway, there're plenty of threads here where people are getting serious about this or that. A little levity never hurt anybody.

There are many serious things to consider. We have no time to waste.

.
 

Mojo

Silver Meritorious Patron
Musings about the genesis of Dianetics and Dr. Winter yadda yadda are perfectly fine, but, not particularly new to people here.

Feel free to muse on, if you want. Or not, if you don't.

Zinj

Fluffy is a dedicated scientologist (just ask her if you disbelief me). Thus her every communication on a scientology (pro or con) board, has a scientology purpose/slant. It's her nature.

Truth be known she was savvy enough to defeat me on message boards long before message boards about scientology were anything worthy of mention.

And how exactly did she do it? Simple. She dead-agented me. Hubbard's first and foremost approach to critical opposition. Lol. She targeted my approach to any discussion instead of conceding to the substance of my post and prose. To wit she penned (over and over and over and over and over again): Look at him, he has numerous nicks!!!!!

A fundamentally stupid charge. So be it.

Fluffy is a scientologist.

Which is fine, execpt for one little reality, which is, Fluffy is a scientologist.

A scientologist by definition being: a human being that believes in the doctrine, philosophy, religion and or so-called science of one L. Ron Hubbard.

Fluffy (like Ron) is a wolf in a sheeps (or kittens) clothing.

Make no mistake about it. If you were subject to Fluffys idea of right and wrong in this world, in the absence of social protection, you would be dead meat. So to speak. For the simple reason Fluffy Loves Ron and his theories.

And her pretentious bull-shit disgusts me (and those whom stand with me).

I, unlike most of those whom post here, or view here, have known fluffy for over 7 years, and can say unequivically, she is as psychologically and spiritully sick as was her Master, L. Ron Hubbard.

Scientology as an applied philosophy has destroyed more lives than any religion in the (spiritual) world, even as fluffy continues to justify it.

Fluffy has made clear she will not personally acknowledge me because I have used multiple nicks to uncover the insanity of scientology. Go figure.

Mojo
P.S. notice how Fluff will re-direct.
 

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
fluffy started this lost thread by saying -

It is my opinion that the problems in CofS originated with Hubbard and that it started to go downhill as soon as he made the "postulate" or decision that the organization was more important than the individual.
==========================

So in other words he invalidated the first dynamic.

Can we place "more important than family" in there also?

If so then we could say that he invalidated the second dynamic.

Yet I think others would say that he only used the group to further his desires.

If that selfish act was a reality then it is a whole new ball game.

My thoughts are that he drew conclusions without enough counter analysis and with incomplete analysis.

Such a shame.

Something tells me that the person in charge at this moment is the perfect person to be in charge.

Either that or the absolute wrong person to have in charge.

It is a sad day in hell

Well not for me, but perhaps for those who have had their hopes dashed in a gosh awful manner.

Rd00

Rd00
 

grundy

Gold Meritorious Patron
Really, I think the problem is that he came up with "Scientology = 4th dynamic" (A=A) and then tried to sell that to all of his followers.

The result being that ANYTHING that contributes to Scn, no matter how destructive on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd dynamics might be necessary because the 4th trumps all of those in many people's minds.

If I knew something I was doing was helping mankind, I would be willing to sacrifice a lot on my other dynamics. That's just the way it is.

3rd dynamic concentration is actually frowned upon if you think about it. For example, a person who is part of the 3rd dynamic group called "white people" pushing their agenda to the destruction toward OTHER 3rd dynamics ("black people", "Asians", "Latinos" "Jews" etc etc) is recognized by most as actually being destructive toward the cohesiveness of the 4th dynamic.

Those that sacrifice greatly to help mankind as a whole are considered, almost invariably, as heros - no matter what their method.

Even those that push the necessity of war don't push it on people as being better for their group (country etc) but better for ALL groups (mankind as a whole - 4th dynamic).

Just a thought ....
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Hi, Grundy,

That's certainly a problem--it's just that I think the cultic abuses in CofS are rooted in Hubbard's writings and taped lectures and that those were created by Hubbard's disregard for staff and even for public.

I recommend Dianetics in Limbo- have you read it?
 

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Fluffy is a dedicated scientologist (just ask her if you disbelief me). Thus her every communication on a scientology (pro or con) board, has a scientology purpose/slant. It's her nature.

Truth be known she was savvy enough to defeat me on message boards long before message boards about scientology were anything worthy of mention.

And how exactly did she do it? Simple. She dead-agented me. Hubbard's first and foremost approach to critical opposition. Lol. She targeted my approach to any discussion instead of conceding to the substance of my post and prose. To wit she penned (over and over and over and over and over again): Look at him, he has numerous nicks!!!!!

A fundamentally stupid charge. So be it.

Fluffy is a scientologist.

Which is fine, execpt for one little reality, which is, Fluffy is a scientologist.

A scientologist by definition being: a human being that believes in the doctrine, philosophy, religion and or so-called science of one L. Ron Hubbard.

Fluffy (like Ron) is a wolf in a sheeps (or kittens) clothing.

Make no mistake about it. If you were subject to Fluffys idea of right and wrong in this world, in the absence of social protection, you would be dead meat. So to speak. For the simple reason Fluffy Loves Ron and his theories.

And her pretentious bull-shit disgusts me (and those whom stand with me).

I, unlike most of those whom post here, or view here, have known fluffy for over 7 years, and can say unequivically, she is as psychologically and spiritully sick as was her Master, L. Ron Hubbard.

Scientology as an applied philosophy has destroyed more lives than any religion in the (spiritual) world, even as fluffy continues to justify it.

Fluffy has made clear she will not personally acknowledge me because I have used multiple nicks to uncover the insanity of scientology. Go figure.

Mojo
P.S. notice how Fluff will re-direct.
I, too, have known Fluffy via internet for more than seven years. She considers herself a scientologist. She has expressed her differences with the Church, and thinks for herself. Your stating that she doesn't, or has any other agenda than hers, is bullshit. I don't know why you attack her, instead of discussing particular points of hers, but I don't really care, either. "Those who stand with" you? Absurd. This isn't a high-school popularity contest. Go stand by yourself in the corner, and don't forget your dunce cap.
 

Escalus

Patron Meritorious
P.S. notice how Fluff will re-direct.

Woh there... I think we need to differentiate between different personality types. I can't think of much fluffy and I may agree on, and the same is true with alex and myself, but at least they are willing to engage an issue with an idea that someone who disagrees with them just isn't a stupid wog or something. I think that's a vast difference between her and people who come out to bullbait protesters or something and won't do anything but attack like a robotic pit bull.

I think that's kind of an unfair assessment, I mean coming at it as someone (me) who basically just got here.
 

grundy

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hi, Grundy,

That's certainly a problem--it's just that I think the cultic abuses in CofS are rooted in Hubbard's writings and taped lectures and that those were created by Hubbard's disregard for staff and even for public.

I recommend Dianetics in Limbo- have you read it?

no .. never heard of it actually
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I really don't care how many nicks someone uses. I killfiled Mojo- and I've told him this on forums and in PMs-because he's spent years denigrating me, then apologizing, then denigrating me, then apologizing on a.r.s., OCMB, Beliefnet and ESMB. I've lost count of how many times this pattern has repeated.

Sure, he has, in fact, done this under a number of different nicks but that's not the issue.

It's nasty, it's illogical, it's a bunch of ridiculous flip flopping and I'm just not putting up with it.

But please note, I'd never have responded in any way had I not seen the text quoted here by another because when I pull up the threads and Mojo is posting, it just says he's in my ignore list. So I had NO idea what Vinaire meant re popcorn. (except that I'd like butter on mine.)

And now he's doing it again on a thread where I'd not mentioned him in any way whatsoever. I would never have seen this nastiness that he posted had it not been quoted. Interesting that this is still going on. So obviously I have no good reason to talk to him.

It's also ridiculous that he is slamming me again on a thread that I created that criticizes Hubbard- yet he calls Hubbard my master. I wonder if he really reads what he says he's reading or if he just looks at the name of the contributor and then goes into attack mode. This isn't the first time he's attacked me on a thread wherein I criticized Scn, CofS, Hubbard, etc. That really makes no sense.
 
Last edited:

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Grundy,

Dianetics in Limbo was written in 1953 by Helen O'Brien. It's a very good book. She obviously still thought highly of Dianetics even after breaking with Hubbard but boy, she really takes Hubbard to task in this book.

I was lucky enough to obtain a copy of the book from EBay. However, it can be found on the following link. I'm told there may be a few typos in there but really, I would think it's still worthwhile. It's not a very long book and it's so good. It shows how even in 1952/1953, VERY early on, Hubbard was greedy and corrupt in some ways.

It wasn't one of those things where he's totally perfect but much later falls from grace. I found this extremely interesting.

Believe me, this is worth the read.

http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/dil/Dianetics_in_Limbo.txt
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Woh there... I think we need to differentiate between different personality types. I can't think of much fluffy and I may agree on, and the same is true with alex and myself, but at least they are willing to engage an issue with an idea that someone who disagrees with them just isn't a stupid wog or something. I think that's a vast difference between her and people who come out to bullbait protesters or something and won't do anything but attack like a robotic pit bull.

I think that's kind of an unfair assessment, I mean coming at it as someone (me) who basically just got here.

Exactly!

I've always discussed Scn with the critic and have always deplored Hubbard's attitudes toward critics, toward staff, and toward a great many things. I like some of his methods, his theories about theta, but he (LRH) has never, since I left CofS, gotten a free pass from me. I've criticized him many times. Did so on this thread as well. If that's bad, then let me be the worst motherfucker ever.
:coolwink:

I am truly ok with the idea that others may not want to do Scn or see any validity in it. I have many critic friends and consider myself to be a critic as well. I also think the future of Scn may be piecemeal- as in, some ideas that some people like may survive here and there in things like TIR and Knowledgism. I don't see any future for CofS and I think that Hubbard failed to take responsibility for a number of things.
 

Challenge

Silver Meritorious Patron
Exactly!

I've always discussed Scn with the critic and have always deplored Hubbard's attitudes toward critics, toward staff, and toward a great many things. I like some of his methods, his theories about theta, but he (LRH) has never, since I left CofS, gotten a free pass from me. I've criticized him many times. Did so on this thread as well. If that's bad, then let me be the worst motherfucker ever.
:coolwink:

I am truly ok with the idea that others may not want to do Scn or see any validity in it. I have many critic friends and consider myself to be a critic as well. I also think the future of Scn may be piecemeal- as in, some ideas that some people like may survive here and there in things like TIR and Knowledgism. I don't see any future for CofS and I think that Hubbard failed to take responsibility for a number of things.


I have no interest in what you do or do not believe.
I came onto a board named " EX-Scientologist Message Board". Naturally, I expected to find EX-Scientologists here.
I replied to a thread originated by you in which there was speculation as to why Mr. Hubbard was so antago towards Psychiatrists. I posted hard data regarding that. I felt that going to , or at least near, the beginning of a ( this lifetime) chain on it would help in solving the confusion that exists on that subject.
My post was met with not only no interest, but trivialized by a spin regarding footwear and handbags.
There is a section on this Board called "Humour". Perhaps the discussion re footwear and handbags would be more appropriate there?
That was a very pretty apology,Fluffy, and I accept it in the spirit in which it was given.


Challenge
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
The inaugural post on this thread that I wrote does not, in fact, speculate on why Hubbard was antago toward psychiatrists.

Your post was interesting, nonetheless. I didn't respond to it, but I did read it and, as I say, found it interesting. That's all I have to say on that.

These threads meander. Some of us have gotten to know one another and we sometimes joke around. I don't feel bad about that.

My previous and penultimate posts were in response to other contributors than yourself.
 
Top