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

Who is Geir Isene?

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by skollie, Aug 11, 2009.

  1. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    I get it, Veda. The same as I got it when you answered me in the post you linked. It just seems really odd to me that someone would, on the one hand, refute Hubbard's statements as rubbish and then, on the other hand, insist that these same statements are the only means by which a thing may be measured. It seems odd to me.

    OT *is* a scientology term but to me it simply is a term that encompasses the concept of a Spiritual Being who is capable of operating independently of a body and able to influence material things. I had this concept long before I ever heard the term OT. It's a concept that is much older than scientology and will certainly outlive it. As will I.
  2. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    It was a DC-8! :D
  3. He knows Scientology has nothing to do with spirituality. Seriously can you think of anyone less spiritual than L. Ron Hubbard ... other than his self trained protégé David Miscavige? Don't get me wrong I have no problem with you diluting yourself by submitting to Hubbard's con game, I just have a problem with the delusional followers of a con man expecting people who know better to humor them by entertaining their fantasies
  4. Ackerland

    Ackerland Patron with Honors

    in DMSMH Hubbard also very frequently says stuff like (it's not verbatim, I am quoting from memory) "this was confirmed in xxx cases, each and every one was cured", "dianetics is an exact science", "the road to your mind has been paved, you only need follow it", "it has been confirmed that clears don't suffer from xyz".

    already in DMSMH hubbard claims Clears do exist, here is the quote:

    Book 1, Chapter 2: "The Clear"

    A few paragraphs later:

    You notice how he says: "came to light in the process of observing clears and aberrees"? That is past tense, not future tense.

    So please don't give me all that crap about Hubbard only writing about a theoretical state of clear that he sought to achieve time of his life. In Dianetics, he says he _observed_ clears, writes very exactly about what the state of clear is and what it is going to deliver. So if what you say about Hubbard not having produced clears at the time of releasing DMSMH is true (and most certainly I believe it is) this only leads me to the conclusion that already back then the writings in Dianetics were scientifically unsound from a friendly perspective, but more likely a fraud and a con as I believe it to be.
    And this is what people who go into Scientology are promised when they get into it and read the book. Spare us with the "oh many people have very different definitions of what clear is", Hubbard wrote it and you can read it exactly in dianetics. Please spare us with the notion that Hubbard amended his definition of clear in later works (like on OT levels), this doesn't make it any better at all. May I remind you of what he wrote in DMSMH about what dianetics is? Ok, here goes:

    Book 1, Chapter 1: "The Scope of Dianetics"

    Oh I really _do_ love reading Dianetics.
  5. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    How this works:

    First you hypothesize something: e.g. 'A Bank Account under the name Zinjifar with $1,000,000,000.00 in it.'

    Next: You give it a name: 'I'll call this bank account 'Pokey''

    Then you talk about Pokey until it's got enough 'mass'.

    If some scoffer says that Pokey is imaginary, you tell them that, no, it's not imaginary because there *are* bank accounts with $1,000,000,000.00 in them, so, they shouldn't dispute the reality of Pokey.

    Finally, you go to a Realtor and buy yourself a sand castle using credit on your Pokey.

  6. You'd also have to tell the person questioning your claim that they could not possible believe money or bank accounts exist, simply because they are questioning you.
  7. Mick Wenlock

    Mick Wenlock Admin Emeritus (retired)

    I should have realized panda :duh:
  8. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    I don't think you do; however, I don't wish to derail this thread.

    Or, God forbid, morph it into a thread such as the one below:

    At least we can be glad that Hubbard had a big head, because some of you guys are never gonna get out of there.

    Someone should have told you about the tilted walls and tilted floors and the fun-house mirrors, before you wandered into the Hubbard Labyrinth.

    Too late now, but please try to understand that there's still time to warn others.
  9. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    Ackerland, I think you (and perhaps others) misunderstand what I mean when I say "posited/postulated" the attributes of a Clear.
    What I mean is; he "made it up", DMSMH is a mostly work of fiction.

    The "case studies" you mention are surely bogus. There were no actual Clears at that time, Hubbard made them up too. That's what he did.

    There *are* undoubtedly certain truths contained within the text but these were mostly "borrowed" from other sources.

    IMO, Dianetics is a "theory" that Hubbard postulated and espoused which others who followed then turned into a movement. It wasn't Hubbard who created his own "religion", it was us, the people who followed him!

    I didn't always think this way but I do now. Is that clear enough?
  10. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    Why do you always have to make it personal, Veda?

    I think I brought this thread back to being about Geir Isene twice.

    If you look back over the thread you'll see that I was simply calling ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn on his propensity for dropping off-subject turds into the thread. He seems to do that on many threads, it's not discussion it's rant.

    I've asked several times about his rationale and the source of his certainty about scientology, Clears and OTs etc. He hasn't ever answered those questions.

    You seem to have the impression that I'm a scientologist, intent on defending it and trolling to that purpose. I'm none of those things and I'm not the one trolling here.

    If I was really intent on trolling ESMB I'd probably;

    (a) adopt a Username that provoked a degree of cognitive dissonance right from the outset, something like "MinnieMouseCleansMyHouse" (that ought to get their cognitives dissonating!)

    (b) then I'd add a disturbing symbol to my Avatar, something like a swirling flaming crucifix, a pentangle, a magical symbol loaded with significance etc (that should soften their cognitives up)

    (c) then I'd create a verbal turd like "scientology works, Hubbard was right, Clears and OTs are everywhere" etc and drop it into every thread that caught my attention (the suckers are so busy dissonatin', they'll never notice)

    (d) continue to do these things, thread by thread, day after day simply because I find it "entertaining".

    Luckily for me I'm not that kind of guy.

    I think it's much more beneficial to allow Exes to rationally discuss their experiences, learn about the lies they've been told (without adding further lies) and allow them to find their own way out of the scientology maze.

    Geir Isene is a good example of a scientologist in the process of doing exactly that.
  11. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill


    I think it became theoretical when he realized, early on, that he wasn't actually producing any. Or let me put it this way- for those of us who are still interested at all in it, it did become theoretical.
  12. Is contracting pneumonia from reading his cheesy science fiction before you pay for it, also "theoretical" too?
  13. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    He didn't say people would always get pneumonia. He said could or they could also become severely ill. "Could" not "will". He probably became ill and figured others probably would, too.

    Being restimulated can make a person ill, it's just stress.
  14. lie2meiluvit

    lie2meiluvit Patron with Honors

    Last edited: Sep 1, 2009
  15. exscilon

    exscilon Patron

    RJ67 was addressed to all staff & students of Scientology IIRC.

    Elron said he was describing OT3 in very broad detail because otherwise it was LIKELY to make you very sick.

    Millions of humans know about Xenu and they don't get sick from it .......though they could die laughing.
  16. We aren't talking about being restimulated, we are talking about reading Hubbard's third rate science fiction.

    So you think it's actually possible to contract pneumonia from reading Hubbard's cheesy science fiction before you pay for it?
  17. Pepin

    Pepin Patron with Honors

    die laughing yes.

    Indeed I think very little of what really happened is detailed and not for anyone getting sick but for far dire consequences like self annihilation.

    Yes, us humans can create some crazy stuff
  18. Feral

    Feral Rogue male

    How very progressive of you Panda, next you'll be saying that we shouldn't call people 'psycho' because they believe in something we don't.

    How I love the dogmatists.

    At least they are consistent, if a little dull and repetitive.
  19. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    You know me, I'm always doing my best to make the world a better place. :)
  20. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    "Likely" does not mean "definitely".

    Point of fact, I do know several people who did get sick from hearing OTIII stuff out of context. And it wasn't suggestion, either, as not one of them believed that they were hearing the actual OT materials. I also hasten to say that not one of them, to my knowledge, regrets hearing it and all are fine now.