Over and out.

[Gadfly]

​

​

+

 

[Mystic]

Well, is Mike Laws, in-Laws, out-Laws, under-Laws, over-Laws and no-Laws gone?

...I don't fell any different.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

We live in a world of endless opportunity. There is little more beautiful than the good will of strong and well intentioned people, little more value than genuine friends.

My presence on this board is has resulted in distraction and fustration for people of good will (such as Emma) and Friends who felt, without my desire or request, the need to defend me or vouch for my credibility. I won't create stress for good people, especially without any significant gain, and I believe my presence and potential contribution as a frequent poster on this board does not outway the cost to these people.
...

This is an increadibly valuable board with a wealth of information. Look after Emma, she is an exeptional person worthy of support and defense. My resignation is as much respect for her and her goals than anything else.

I redacted some of the post just for brevity.

I enjoyed our discussion on the thread you started - hope you will find time to stop by there and keep it going but if not - well it was interesting an fun.

Unfortunately, Mike, you seem to have run into something which has been ongoing since the early days of ARS which is the obsession some people have of "spotting OSA".

It is hard, I think, for Scientologists to just deal with people via the written word. there always has to be a constant searching for "why?" or "what?" that is behind the words.

I went through this argument many times on ARS and have kind of gotten used to skipping it of late but I waned to use this thread to sort of sound off again.

It does not matter, in the least whether someone is an OSA "plant" or op or whatever. it really doesn't.

This is a message board, its where things get posted and debated and the debate should be about WHAT IS POSTED. If the person posting is posting crap or rumors or whatever then the mods job is to set them straight of get rid of them.

Personally I would encourage OSA plants to post on message boards - it is probably the only time they ever get to hear some sanity.

Good luck on your journey.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Hi Mark, it is not at all a case where Hubbard's "theory" in the area of ethics is all wonderful, and that it is only the "practice" as it occurs in the Church that is "bad". ...

Nor did I claim that it was, G. I merely pointed out that the so-called Hubbardian view that "ethics are reason" actually has a basis & lengthy history of exposition in traditional western philosophy, specifically Platonism & its derivatives.

Hubbard had much to say about "ethics" which he saw as extending the scope of this precept. Much of his extension is faulty, however the basic precept, which is specifically referenced in the tech dictionary, is not invalid.

FWIW, the extension of a person's remarks beyond what is actually said on the board is also a logical error committed all to often on esmb. You may have noticed that it is especially common among those "factionalists" whose apparent intent is merely to "make wrong" those whose with whom they disagree without actually having to go to the trouble of refuting their views.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Nor did I claim that it was, G. I merely pointed out that the so-called Hubbardian view that "ethics are reason" actually has a basis & lengthy history of exposition in traditional western philosophy, specifically Platonism & its derivatives.

Hubbard had much to say about "ethics" which he saw as extending the scope of this precept. Much of his extension is faulty, however the basic precept, which is specifically referenced in the tech dictionary, is not invalid.

FWIW, the extension of a person's remarks beyond what is actually said on the board is also a logical error committed all to often on esmb. You may have noticed that it is especially common among those "factionalists" whose apparent intent is merely to "make wrong" those whose with whom they disagree without actually having to go to the trouble of refuting their views.


Mark A. Baker

This is circular reasoning Mark. Just because Ethics is defined as reason and then one says one's own work is in the realm of ethics does not actually make it true or even related. Hubbard redefined words because, IMHO, he never did understand the basics of the subjects and he was merely trying to palm off his material as actually being related when, in fact, it is not.

But let us, for the sake of this argument, state that Ethics is supposed to be the study and application of rules and decisions that are aimed at bettering the state of people and mankind.

That doesn't then prove that Hubbard's work is actually "ethical".

And , of course, his precepts are deeply flawed as can be seen as soon as anyone tried to implement them.

His work on Ethics "conditions" is a dramatization of the totalitarian. The work on dealing with "counter intention" is taken directly from the works of people like Feliks Dzierżyński, Stalin, Heydrich et al - the idea that "counter revolutionary" ideas should be rooted out as preventing the inevitable spread of the true belief..

Hubbard's work was utterly simplistic and, at bottom, total twaddle.

 

[dianaclass8]

We live in a world of endless opportunity. There is little more beautiful than the good will of strong and well intentioned people, little more value than genuine friends.

My presence on this board is has resulted in distraction and fustration for people of good will (such as Emma) and Friends who felt, without my desire or request, the need to defend me or vouch for my credibility. I won't create stress for good people, especially without any significant gain, and I believe my presence and potential contribution as a frequent poster on this board does not outway the cost to these people.

Thank you for your welcomes, friendships and experience, at least to most of you.

A few points in closing.

Despite observable organizational degradation, it remains a mistake to underestimate OSA. An old trick they love to play that people don't seem to remember based on the Whale post is passing different information or different stories even slightly different elements or numbers to different suspected leaks and read the boards to see what is released.

Terrel, I tremendously respect your unrattlable nature and compassion to anyone. You are, however, my dear man somehwat niave as to the ways of OSA. I don't know Dexter from a hole the ground, beyond what he has written on me here, nothing motivating me to bother researching him further. You say he could not be a plant, because he wrote success stories. You forget when RTC was going after Mayo in the early and mid 80s, I was part of the team, our best spy was one of Mayo's most lauded celebrities ... Bob Mithoff, Ray Mithoff SNR C/S Ints BROTHER. There is nothing they won't do or will hold sacred.

Terrel, could Dexter be a Church plant? Absolutely. Is he? I doubt it for reasons I don't want to publish here where OSA can read and use. If he were in fact being influenced by the church, based only on an observable excitable and managable nature shown on his ESMB writings, I would most likely assume him as a blind resource, someone targeted as a friend by operatives covertly and suggestively influencing him, unaware of whose benefit he was really working for or who information he was providing was actually going to.

Dexter, thank you for remdinging me so thorougly why I want nothing further to do with Scientology and its culture.

From the outside, the hypocracy and arrogance is abhorant. You speak of the sanctity of the tech, KSW, ARC triangle, tone levels, etc. yet cry foul when someone uses another piece of LRH tech on you in a way you don't like ... such as the PR series or the Guardian Orders, now OSA Network Orders, most of which are LRH.

You spout to be such an adherant to standard LRH yet post the virulent rantings of a man too scared to give his name, rather than check for missed withholds. You go so far as telling 6 other people with different perspectives of the same person (who they know personally, some life long) that they are delusionally wrong.

You claim to be a leader of the freezone, an auditor of such excellence that you must teach others about the tech on a radio show, yet on a public forum you invalidate and evaluate Emma by telling her she is so overwhelmed by her legal concerns that she doesn't know what is real and can't see the truth. Remind me where this is in the auditors code or any other LRH tech other than OSA Network Orders as a tool to be used against enemies.

You scream foul that I am running an op for Marty's team (one time you say I am running his op, another you say I am his ruler and treasury) because I admit to being his friend, yet you publically friend and apear on a radio show with Jim Logan who is a thousand times more invested in the Indendants than I am and a publically virolent supporter of Marty. What exactly is your message?

I don't know who your friend, that is like a brother, who knows me and my world class evilness and wealth so well; the circumstances you describe don't match anything I recall, and facts don't match reality. When your friend finds his testicals, tell him to call me, I have had the same phone number for 15 years. If I genuinly wronged him, we can talk about it. If it is who I suspect, one of the very few people I have truly battled with since leaving the SO, it gives me pleasure to know you are in each others lives.

Finally, on your facebook ego ... I understand you feel you are so important and such a leader that Marty, Mike, Logan and I (as either pawn or ruler) plotted to friend you in facebook in a secret conspiracy to leach and empower ourselves off your greatness. The reality is I didn't know you, hadn't heard of you, don't remember friend requesting you, and if I did, and the others in fact did, it was because someone made a friend suggestion. I have half a thousand facebook friends, half of whome I don't know in real life. Sounds like I need to clean house. If there is indeed a friends request from me PLEASE DELETE IT!!!

Again, thank you to those who greeted me so warmly, accepted me at face value or took the time to learn something about me and share of yourselves. I enjoyed my time here, and will mis a few characters such as Alanzo, and critics such as Wenlock, who I developed a real respect for. My friends know how to stay in touch otherwise, behond that I hope opportunity arises for me to reaquaint with others I met here.

This is an increadibly valuable board with a wealth of information. Look after Emma, she is an exeptional person worthy of support and defense. My resignation is as much respect for her and her goals than anything else.

Why leave? hang in there and tell us some stories
ESMB is not as bad as it looks...the critics always make sure that history is written correctly...

 

[Gadfly]

(snip)

FWIW, the extension of a person's remarks beyond what is actually said on the board is also a logical error committed all to often on esmb. You may have noticed that it is especially common among those "factionalists" whose apparent intent is merely to "make wrong" those whose with whom they disagree without actually having to go to the trouble of refuting their views.

Mark A. Baker

Yes, I see it all of the time, here and in life. The fatal flaw is the inability or unwillingness to honestly examine the details of some situation, and to intelligently discuss various observations based upon an intelligent use of similarities and differences (i.e the ability to differentiate).

And once again (drum roll), Hubbard at times discusses quite well the importance of being able to "diifferentiate", BUT he also sets up much of the subject in such a way that makes doing so impossible (talk about creating an unsolvable "games condition").

I first contacted the notions of examing similarities and differences from studying Scientology, and while early noticing that the Church made it impossible in many ways to PRACTICE the ideas, it also got me started looking into the subject where Hubbard "borrowed" the ideas from - General Semantics.

+

 

[Mystic]

Nor did I claim that it was, G. I merely pointed out that the so-called Hubbardian view that "ethics are reason" actually has a basis & lengthy history of exposition in traditional western philosophy, specifically Platonism & its derivatives.

Hubbard had much to say about "ethics" which he saw as extending the scope of this precept. Much of his extension is faulty, however the basic precept, which is specifically referenced in the tech dictionary, is not invalid.

FWIW, the extension of a person's remarks beyond what is actually said on the board is also a logical error committed all to often on esmb. You may have noticed that it is especially common among those "factionalists" whose apparent intent is merely to "make wrong" those whose with whom they disagree without actually having to go to the trouble of refuting their views.


Mark A. Baker

Yes. Many of us have graduated from the childish mind games.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Yes, I see it all of the time, here and in life. The fatal flaw is the inability or unwillingness to honestly examine the details of some situation, and to intelligently discuss various observations based upon an intelligent use of similarities and differences (i.e the ability to differentiate).

And once again (drum roll), Hubbard at times discusses quite well the importance of being able to "diifferentiate", BUT he also sets up much of the subject in such a way that makes doing so impossible (talk about creating an unsolvable "games condition"). ...

Well, not quite "impossible", merely "extraordinarily difficult". Certainly as things are within the context of the church. Nor is it completely a "piece of cake" outside of the strictures of the church.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

This is circular reasoning Mark. Just because Ethics is defined as reason and then one says one's own work is in the realm of ethics does not actually make it true or even related. Hubbard redefined words because, IMHO, he never did understand the basics of the subjects and he was merely trying to palm off his material as actually being related when, in fact, it is not.

But let us, for the sake of this argument, state that Ethics is supposed to be the study and application of rules and decisions that are aimed at bettering the state of people and mankind.

That doesn't then prove that Hubbard's work is actually "ethical".

And , of course, his precepts are deeply flawed as can be seen as soon as anyone tried to implement them.

His work on Ethics "conditions" is a dramatization of the totalitarian. The work on dealing with "counter intention" is taken directly from the works of people like Feliks Dzierżyński, Stalin, Heydrich et al - the idea that "counter revolutionary" ideas should be rooted out as preventing the inevitable spread of the true belief..

Hubbard's work was utterly simplistic and, at bottom, total twaddle.

Apart from your conclusion, I don't disagree with you, Mick. I see Hubbard's work as neither "total twaddle" nor "a gift to mankind". Rather, I see it is a "mixed bag" lying somewhere in the middle. You are certainly free to your own perspective, though.


Mark A. Baker

 

[nozeno]

Snip, snip, snippity snip.......

You may have noticed that it is especially common among those "factionalists" whose apparent intent is merely to "make wrong" those whose with whom they disagree without actually having to go to the trouble of refuting their views.
Mark A. Baker

A distinction without a difference.

Proud "factionalist" since 2007.

 

[Veda]

Isn't this an example of Hubbard's propaganda by redefinition of terms, Veda?

In a Scn Org, the "Ethics Officer" is really a "Justice Officer," often justice in the sense of "application of the law" rather than "what is just or fair." Ethics has been redefined here. In PLs, "Ethics" (normally a capital E) usually means "The Ethics Section" or "the Ethics Officer," not the philosophic subject.

Paul

Yep.

What you see is not what you get.

Deception, bait and switch, etc.

 

[Mystic]

Is a giggle how threads like this show up the hubbard-implant contamination still being carried around by some usually oh-so-logical folks.

 

[Pooks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y

LOL!

Exactly!

 

[Pooks]

It does not matter, in the least whether someone is an OSA "plant" or op or whatever. it really doesn't.

This is a message board, its where things get posted and debated and the debate should be about WHAT IS POSTED. If the person posting is posting crap or rumors or whatever then the mods job is to set them straight of get rid of them.

Personally I would encourage OSA plants to post on message boards - it is probably the only time they ever get to hear some sanity.

Good luck on your journey.

I agree. Some exes get all kinds of crazy and start witch hunts and finger pointing and see OSA OSA OSA.

I think it's fine if OSA posts here and gets honest reactions. Maybe it will wake them up!

I've been on the end of being accused of being OSA or doing OSA's work and I generally laugh at them or make fun of them. You can't let people get to you like that. Toughen up and come back and post.

 

[fisherman]

Others have responded more ably than I can to Mark Baker's observations. I would only add that where I live we have an ol' fashioned town drunk who wanders prominently about main street sputtering philosophic tautologies and maxims. His peripatetic wisdom is also "... very much in the flavor of Plato's discussions on the nature of ethical reasoning & action."

Just a guess on my part, but I suspect Hubbard and my besotted townsman have more in common than Hubbard and Socrate's famous student, Plato, or Plato's famous student, Aristotle, or Aristotle's famous student Alexander the Great.

The western philosophic tradition is a pretty big tent. :wink2:

Actually, S, Hubbard's conception of "ethics are reason" (excerpt from tech dict. #2) is very much in keeping with how ethics has been regarded in Platonic philosophy for the last 2400 years. Hubbard's statements tend to be somewhat oversimplified and restated in his own peculiar fashion, but they are very much in the flavor of Plato's discussions on the nature of ethical reasoning & action.

fisherman

 

[Feral]

This is circular reasoning Mark. Just because Ethics is defined as reason and then one says one's own work is in the realm of ethics does not actually make it true or even related. Hubbard redefined words because, IMHO, he never did understand the basics of the subjects and he was merely trying to palm off his material as actually being related when, in fact, it is not.

But let us, for the sake of this argument, state that Ethics is supposed to be the study and application of rules and decisions that are aimed at bettering the state of people and mankind.

That doesn't then prove that Hubbard's work is actually "ethical".

And , of course, his precepts are deeply flawed as can be seen as soon as anyone tried to implement them.

His work on Ethics "conditions" is a dramatization of the totalitarian. The work on dealing with "counter intention" is taken directly from the works of people like Feliks Dzierżyński, Stalin, Heydrich et al - the idea that "counter revolutionary" ideas should be rooted out as preventing the inevitable spread of the true belief..

Hubbard's work was utterly simplistic and, at bottom, total twaddle.

I agree, Scientology ethics is no more related to reason than the data series is related to logic.

Ethics and reason are inextricably connected, Hubbard played on that connection to fool us.

 

[Free to shine]

I agree, Scientology ethics is no more related to reason than the data series is related to logic.

Ethics and reason are intractably connected, Hubbard played on that connection to fool us.

Amen to that.

Even when at my most indoctrinated I said there is something very wrong with the ethics system. It didn't make sense.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Others have responded more ably than I can to Mark Baker's observations. ...

I agree, you did a very poor job.

Fortunately for you, Kevin got it right.

... Ethics and reason are inextricably connected, Hubbard played on that connection to fool us.

Mark A. Baker

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I just received this apology from our esteemed colleague...

Originally Posted By Mark Baker
I deeply regret my previous postings defending Hubbard's philosophical address of Ethics as being the legitimate descendant of Plato. Like Ron, I have suffered greviously at the hands of lesser beings who undertook the malevolent transcription of my scripture. As such, I submit to you my original words on Ron and Plato:

"Hubbard's philosophical concepts can be very favorably compared to the works of Play-Doh that I and my fellow Scientology Academician's have worked out."