Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
This term came up the other day. Afterward, I got to thinking. What would that actually be?
To me, it sounds like it means a typical Scientology apologist.
Wouldn't a typical one be a "Ron can do no wrong" type guy or gal? I think it would. I see stuff like that from Scientologists in letters to the editors, or picked up by critics from various sources and reposted. I have also met and talked to Freezoners who felt that way. Don't diss Ron. If he were here, he'd sort everything out. It's only DM who's the problem.
Another trait of the classic Scientology apologists I've seen is to have total and utter faith in the tech and to not admit that Hubbard's claims were and remain exaggerated.
I don't know of anyone here who has that view. I know I don't. I wouldn't want either of the points of view described above. In fact, I've never ever used any of the arguments I've seen the real hide bound Scn'ists in CofS and the Freezone use. I don't believe in most of 'em. I do think that Scn has a lot of brilliance and truth in it, but from there, the hardliners and I part company. I don't believe in everything Hubbard wrote, I don't believe that Scn is the only metaphysical, self help, or other methodology people should try. None of that.
I do think Scn is out-gradient for people, and that includes myself. I posted a topic about that months ago where I posited that as my theory. It's a theory I've been playing with for some months now. But that's not a matter of "you poor slobs don't get it". It's more my observations on the many contradictions in Scn, the fact that LRH threw everything in there, and the many times I've seen trained staff mangle Scn concepts, mangle Scn techniques, as well as the many things I've seen ex members say.
No, no, I leave "classic Scientology apologism" to churchies and some of the more hard line among the Freezoners. At this point, I'm playing with concepts and theories. Since they're theories, I don't have to officially back 'em up. Because they are concepts I'm playing with. All I have to do is say why I think this might be the case. So I really don't need any "classic critics" calling me names.
To me, it sounds like it means a typical Scientology apologist.
Wouldn't a typical one be a "Ron can do no wrong" type guy or gal? I think it would. I see stuff like that from Scientologists in letters to the editors, or picked up by critics from various sources and reposted. I have also met and talked to Freezoners who felt that way. Don't diss Ron. If he were here, he'd sort everything out. It's only DM who's the problem.
Another trait of the classic Scientology apologists I've seen is to have total and utter faith in the tech and to not admit that Hubbard's claims were and remain exaggerated.
I don't know of anyone here who has that view. I know I don't. I wouldn't want either of the points of view described above. In fact, I've never ever used any of the arguments I've seen the real hide bound Scn'ists in CofS and the Freezone use. I don't believe in most of 'em. I do think that Scn has a lot of brilliance and truth in it, but from there, the hardliners and I part company. I don't believe in everything Hubbard wrote, I don't believe that Scn is the only metaphysical, self help, or other methodology people should try. None of that.
I do think Scn is out-gradient for people, and that includes myself. I posted a topic about that months ago where I posited that as my theory. It's a theory I've been playing with for some months now. But that's not a matter of "you poor slobs don't get it". It's more my observations on the many contradictions in Scn, the fact that LRH threw everything in there, and the many times I've seen trained staff mangle Scn concepts, mangle Scn techniques, as well as the many things I've seen ex members say.
No, no, I leave "classic Scientology apologism" to churchies and some of the more hard line among the Freezoners. At this point, I'm playing with concepts and theories. Since they're theories, I don't have to officially back 'em up. Because they are concepts I'm playing with. All I have to do is say why I think this might be the case. So I really don't need any "classic critics" calling me names.