Just registered, looking for superman

[Free Being Me]

Not true. The entire time that Claire has been on ESMB she has been selective about her comments in criticism of other critics, although that point has often been lost upon those who felt themselves criticized. Moreover she has been correct to do so. Poor arguments and bad conduct among critics undermines the effort to expose the abuses of hubbard and the church.

Some critics feel that saying anything nasty online about others is wholly justifiable, without regard to the truth or appropriateness of their remarks, provided only that the target of their remarks is seen by themselves as somehow supportive of scientology.


Mark A. Baker

You're the biggest troll of critics here, a one man [STRIKE]In[/STRIKE]Dependent $cientology OSA Dept.
​

 

[Claire Swazey]

Not true. The entire time that Claire has been on ESMB she has been selective about her comments in criticism of other critics, although that point has often been lost upon those who felt themselves criticized. Moreover she has been correct to do so. Poor arguments and bad conduct among critics undermines the effort to expose the abuses of hubbard and the church.

Some critics feel that saying anything nasty online about others is wholly justifiable, without regard to the truth or appropriateness of their remarks, provided only that the target of their remarks is seen by themselves as somehow supportive of scientology.


Mark A. Baker

Thanks for quoting that, Mark. I'd not have seen that otherwise.

Yeah, so let me take that up now that I can see this allegation.

I did not denounce the entire critic's movement on ESMB or anywhere, anytime,ever. I repeatedly- and I mean REPEATEDLY- said that I thought the MAJORITY of critics were great. I said that there was a toxic minority- albeit with some truly unwise wording- for which I later apologized. And there was an ensuing series of angry posts and an intervention of sorts, though I opted not to respond to the latter, at the time.

I even created a thread after that where I yet again reiterated the fact I thought that the majority of critics were fine and great. I also apologized on both threads for using inflammatory wording. IIRC, three times in total.

What I think is that if someone can read those posts where I say that a negative situation is in the minority and that the majority of people in the venue are just fine then there's something up and it's not with me. Other than my inflammatory wording for which, as I say, I'd already apologized.

I'm not suggesting that anyone essay any word clearing or other Hubbardite technique- I'm not a Scientologist of any sort and neither are most of the regulars here. But it probably wouldn't hurt to grab a dictionary and review the definitions of "some" "minority" and "majority".

 

[Mark A. Baker]

You're the biggest troll of critics here, a one man [STRIKE]In[/STRIKE]Dependent $cientology OSA Dept.
​

Glad you think so.

The reality is I get along quite well with intelligent critics. In point of fact I am one.

Only those who evidently equate irrational barking with reasonable dialog seem to routinely have a problem with my posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He82NBjJqf8


Mark A. Baker

 

[Type4_PTS]

Glad you think so.

The reality is I get along quite well with intelligent critics. In point of fact I am one.

Only those who evidently equate irrational barking with reasonable dialog seem to routinely have a problem with my posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He82NBjJqf8


Mark A. Baker

 

[Free Being Me]

>snip<

>snip<

>snip<

 

[Anonycat]

Just joined. Just started my real philisophical journey a little over a year ago. I'm 33 and walked through life like most, completely wrapped up in life trying to stay in my own personal bubble, never really evolving to a point of real freedom. Finally after going through some dramatic times I stumbled upon Dianetics, which for whatever reason changed my life, if even just because it made me think far outside the box i considered life that I had framed so imperfectly. So since then I've done quite a bit of research involving much religion, the occult, and Scientology. Most of all Scientology has intrigued me. I've read 3 book by LRH so far. I haven't been able to locate an auditor. I plan to try and get a copy of self clearing and continue reading his books.

Since then I've taken a whole new approach to life, mostly defined by being as honest and truthful to myself (the biggest one) and others as possible. That what's true for you is true for you is a big one. So is treat others as you would like to be treated. So much of what is written in these books seems so workable and true I'm just curious what would you, now having been through all that you have been through, and certainly after being members of COS recommend someone in my position?

I don't want to sound desparate but to be honest if COS is not what would be considered a good, morally sound organization, my next step is to join possibly an organization such as Church of Satan (the other COS lol). Not because I am seeking to be some bad ass, stereotypical, desparate, in need of attention, black trench coat wearing, full of piercings, racist, chop up babies for ritual sacrifices type of lifestyle. But from what I've read they seem to truly approach real issues, with real attitudes towards liberating man, and finding true harmony for us in the world. Any experiences with them that you would like to share? Maybe this should have been another post entirely just thought perhaps it would give you a better idea of where I'm at altogether.

Any help would be appreciated.

Robert

So what did you end up doing?

 

[Student of Trinity]

Do normal people today really read a book and say it "seems so workable"? [My italics.] That just sounds like a strange expression to me. Hubbard evidently wrote as though it were the most ordinary thing in the world to praise something by calling it 'workable', but I really don't think I've heard the word used very much. I might say, "a workable solution", maybe "a workable idea". But to me there's a nuance that means that the word "workable" isn't applicable all that often.

An established method that you can apply off-the-shelf is never 'workable', for me. It just works. It's time-tested. Even if it's not idiot-proof, even if you have to use it properly in order to get it to work, still the proper use has been clearly established. When you talk about the method, you mean the method properly used, and that just works. There's no "-able" about it. It works.

To me, calling something 'workable' implies not only that you can get it to work, but also that you have to actively make it work. It won't just work automatically. You need to keep watching it, and regularly improvising new tweaks in order to keep it working. It can work, but only if you make it work. A jury-rigged contraption that is prone to fall apart in a dozen different ways could be workable. If it really wasn't all that hard to keep the thing running — if a kid could do it, say — I might go as far as saying "very workable".

But I would never say "so workable". That's like saying "so potentially adequate". "Workable" just does not go with "so", to my ear for the English language. It sounds silly. I could only say it with a smirk, as a joke.

Am I just being peculiar, here? Or is "it seems so workable" an Scn tell, the way it sounds to me — something that only an indoctrinated Scientologist would ever say? Or could somebody conceivably have picked up the usage just from reading a couple of Hubbard's books?

My guess, by the way, is that Hubbard himself actually understood the word 'workable' in my way, and that's why he used it: because none of his methods every really worked automatically, despite all his insistence on the effectiveness of 'standard tech'. I'm guessing that, at best, they could sometimes be made to work, often with a lot of nursing and babysitting. But then Hubbard noticed that if he just kept repeating 'workable' or 'uniformly workable' as though it meant a reliable technology, he could impress people without actually committing himself to very much. Like marketing a health nostrum with a big, flashy label saying "presumed innocuous", instead of promising any positive benefits.

 

[Purple Rain]

Do normal people today really read a book and say it "seems so workable"? [My italics.] That just sounds like a strange expression to me. Hubbard evidently wrote as though it were the most ordinary thing in the world to praise something by calling it 'workable', but I really don't think I've heard the word used very much. I might say, "a workable solution", maybe "a workable idea". But to me there's a nuance that means that the word "workable" isn't applicable all that often.

An established method that you can apply off-the-shelf is never 'workable', for me. It just works. It's time-tested. Even if it's not idiot-proof, even if you have to use it properly in order to get it to work, still the proper use has been clearly established. When you talk about the method, you mean the method properly used, and that just works. There's no "-able" about it. It works.

To me, calling something 'workable' implies not only that you can get it to work, but also that you have to actively make it work. It won't just work automatically. You need to keep watching it, and regularly improvising new tweaks in order to keep it working. It can work, but only if you make it work. A jury-rigged contraption that is prone to fall apart in a dozen different ways could be workable. If it really wasn't all that hard to keep the thing running — if a kid could do it, say — I might go as far as saying "very workable".

But I would never say "so workable". That's like saying "so potentially adequate". "Workable" just does not go with "so", to my ear for the English language. It sounds silly. I could only say it with a smirk, as a joke.

Am I just being peculiar, here? Or is "it seems so workable" an Scn tell, the way it sounds to me — something that only an indoctrinated Scientologist would ever say? Or could somebody conceivably have picked up the usage just from reading a couple of Hubbard's books?

My guess, by the way, is that Hubbard himself actually understood the word 'workable' in my way, and that's why he used it: because none of his methods every really worked automatically, despite all his insistence on the effectiveness of 'standard tech'. I'm guessing that, at best, they could sometimes be made to work, often with a lot of nursing and babysitting. But then Hubbard noticed that if he just kept repeating 'workable' or 'uniformly workable' as though it meant a reliable technology, he could impress people without actually committing himself to very much. Like marketing a health nostrum with a big, flashy label saying "presumed innocuous", instead of promising any positive benefits.

I think "workable" was always intended to point the reader towards anecdotal evidence in order to divert their attention from the dearth of scientific evidence. "Here, try this. Do you feel better? Hey, it's workable! This proves everything I've said. Did somebody else feel better? Well, there you go!" By the time they get around to wondering why their eyesight hasn't improved with this "workable" technology, they've already accepted that it does work and are forced to try and rationalise the discrepancy. Unless it occurs to the reader that their initial premise, that it works, is flawed, they will be desperate to create an explanation that incorporates both those facts. Usually this has to mean blaming the reader themselves or the practitioner, or some other unfortunate party like a relative who didn't think much of the book and considers it a big waste of time.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I agree with Purple Rain. Also, "workable" to me was a term I only encountered once firmly ensconced within CofS. I did not read the stuff or do the TRs then run home crowing "it's so workable!". I only started using that term once I was in, perhaps even not til I went on staff.

A normal person who is just phrasing things his or her own way, who likes something in the self help or spiritual vein, is probably going to say something like it seems to help, it makes sense to him or her, seemed neat.

Hubbard put a lot of emphasis on what he termed to be "applicability". I think that's a worthy goal except I think it ended up being inapplicable, IOW goal not reached.

Now as to why goal not reached, lots of guesses and thoughts on this have been posted in the past and will continue to be posted. And a lot of those opinions have been pretty interesting and seemed to make sense to me.

 

[Student of Trinity]

The other thing I thought funny about this Robert guy's post was just that he was essentially asking for help in choosing between Scientology and Satanism. As a tactic for trying to get people to say good things about Scientology, that's only slightly less desperate than asking for help in choosing between the CofS and Al Qaeda. Maybe this guy just really was happening to choose between these two particular paths ... but, sheesh, you know?

In fact, just to be fair: even though I'm a Christian myself, I don't consider the LaVeyan type of Satanism to be anything all that bad. I don't think it's right, but I don't think it's horrible. If you look at what the Church of Satan actually says, and ignore their somewhat problematic brand identity, it's a reasonably respectable ethos. Probably more so than some of the more solipsistic interpretations of Scientology, actually. If the goal was to get a softball for Scn, maybe they should have picked Al Qaeda.