Who loves Clay Demos!?

Share your experiences and comments about Scientology's "Study Technology".
User avatar
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:20 pm

Post by MerC76 » Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:49 am

Claydemos were good for those times when you were sitting in the course room for hours and your neck feeling all stiff, legs numb but you wouldn't dare move around or strech or anything cause if you did you'd be forced to look up MUs.

At times like that I could not wait to get to a claydemo item on my check sheet. I'd go take 30 mins doing clay then I'd ask to go to the bathroom and wash my hands. It was a nice mini break for me. 8) I didn't mind doing them but I hated putting on labels.


Post by Escaped » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:51 pm


Yes, I also found clay demos a good excuse to break the monotony of learning nonsense (see my earlier post) with playing a nonsense game. I once did a clay demo (on the SO ship Excalibur) of the effects of a misunderstood word where the human figure would fall over by itself (as in a faint) as the supervisor was checking it out. It was fun and challenging to get the timing just right. She laughed and passed me on it. Now the "still believers" that are here will say I must have had mu's to criticize clay table demos but that wasn't true at all. I couldn't since I did very well in all the demos, clay demos, tests etc. The Scientologists have a BIG problem with the fact that someone could understand and grasp the "tech" and know it's a load of crap. Understanding is not the same as agreement. You Scio's out there - see if you can clay demo this concept!

Hubbard's patronizing clay demo method clearly shows that he regarded his subjects as mentally inferior. Those that insist that it's a great technology after all these years are too brain washed and “Hubbard pliable� to be saved and most of them can never be made to wake up. Too bad, but we the living must move on.


Ball of Fluff
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 2:23 am
Location: Cyberspace

Post by Ball of Fluff » Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:14 pm

Well, I'm a "still believer" and I don't go around saying that those who aren't must have MU's.

Please don't stereotype other people.

Now back to what was said about course. I always thought that course periods were set up as being too long, too inflexible (re lateness, not being able to come in sometime, talking to another student, etc).

I would contrast that against a college night class. Now, there, they get great attendance without cracking the whip. People are paying to be there, they want to be there, they know if they don't show up it'll affect their grade plus they won't get all the info. People don't chat a lot with their neighbors but they don't need someone standing over them screaming and KR'ing, either.

Simply put - CofS (and Hubbard, too, in some of his writings) did not and do not treat students like adults.

If you don't treat someone like an adult, it shouldn't come as a surprise when he doesn't act like one or feels he cannot take the risk of acting like one.

I also think that someone who was truly treated like an adult would probably make more progress in whatever he was studying.


Post by Escaped » Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:34 pm


You certainly are not a stereotype!

The purpose in my statement :
"Now the "still believers" that are here will say I must have had mu's to criticize clay table demos but that wasn't true at all"
was to avoid all the boring scn droids who would come back with the predictable response. I was not thinking of you at the time. It’s just a figure of speech but I guess it could be thought of as stereotyping but it’s not meant that way, but it has its useful purpose. I would expect many Scios to come back with a response about MUs and I still think I would be mostly right. This tends to preclude those answers. I wouldn't think every single one of them would, so the statement only applies to those who would. In other words it stops them cold and it works. That's just too much to put in a short response so I could never have the time to get across what I am trying to say.

If I had said all members of a specific race would say or do something, that would be stereotyping. But if I refer to "still believers" it refers to a group of people who have so many similar beliefs that it's a fair statement as to how many of them will react to a given stimulus (as in commenting on my criticism of clay table training). It just like when I use the word "T H E Y" in the presence of scientologists. It's really funny when they almost always come back with "Who are T H E Y". There's a certain satisfaction in controlling the actions of group that considers themselves free of brainwashing, and the rest of us just semi conscious droids. It's just too much fun for one person to have!

So you can tell I do not consider what I do stereotyping at all. Would saying that Scientologists believe that we are a spirit apart from our bodies be stereotyping? Of course not because you don’t consider that a derogatory statement. What about Scientologists believe that Scientology is the only way to true freedom? How about post partum women shouldn’t take drugs to help with post partum depression? ..and what about the infamous getting rid of 1.1 and below without sorrow. At what point do they stop being reasonable generalizations and start being stereotypes?

I reserve the right to make that choice for myself. I do so without guilt or remorse. You cannot label what I do stereotyping, tell me to stop, and expect compliance. It was never about you in the first place. It was about ..... T H E M.


Ball of Fluff
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 2:23 am
Location: Cyberspace

Post by Ball of Fluff » Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:48 am

Ok, Escaped. Point taken. Good deal. (not being sarcastic) :)

Post Reply

Return to “Study Technology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest