questions

Share your personal experiences with others. We're not here to judge or criticise, but to share and support.

Moderator: Dorothy

User avatar
lermanet_com
Posts: 4149
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 11:00 am
Location: Hop-Skip Away from Scientology TODAY!
Contact:

While scientology's army runs off in the night

Post by lermanet_com » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:17 am

Ball of Fluff wrote:1) I am mainly interested in criticizing CofS here. I do not post "wins" or "testimonials" so your Godwin's law analogy is totally specious. I do identify myself as an indie Scn'ist because I am truthful and I'm not about to lie to people about who I am. And that's as far as it goes. As I said, I don't post wins or testimonials. (I also find your Nazi/Godwin's law analogy to be insulting as well as completely inapropos) Other people bring this stuff up about me. I do not proselytize or post wins.

2) I don't sanction CofS. I do not believe it is a viable organization. At all.

I criticized it on the radio in June and have recently also talked -critically- to a couple other reporters, granting one a print interview.

So there you go.

You've defended the indefensible and I've now countered with all the facts you either left out on purpose or of which you were unaware.

sorry... you are an actress

you always wanted to be an actress

What dirt does scientology have on you?

What leverage do they have upon your rat brain?

You are transparent
a picket posted
at one layer of
scientology's onion
of deception,
a signpost, that reads,
go back,
there is nothing here to get excited about,
go back... nothing here
all thats changed is
that you have moved a
layer or two out..
But that's just
part of the show too.

What are their bonds?

What do they have on you?

break that chain!!
Do you THINK scientology works?
Then read [url=http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=20255&start=285]THIS PAGE[/url] here on XENU.NET

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

Post by Ball of Fluff » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:22 am

Uhhhh...who's this "They"? I'm ex CofS. I criticize them in the media.

And, no, I'm more interested in foreclosures and title work than in acting. No acting here.

(boy, that really didn't make any sense, did it! Whatever he's smoking, I want some!) :roll: :twisted: :P

User avatar
programmer_guy
Posts: 8877
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:55 am
Location: Somewhere far beyond the land of Oz.

Post by programmer_guy » Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:43 am

1) I am mainly interested in criticizing CofS here. I do not post "wins" or "testimonials" so your Godwin's law analogy is totally specious.

So? You come to the rescue for "the tech" time and time again. Shall we discuss Xenu and the BTs again?


I do identify myself as an indie Scn'ist because I am truthful and I'm not about to lie to people about who I am. And that's as far as it goes.

It does go further than that.
You don't proselytize in any overt way. But, sometimes what you say could be viewed as a covert way of proselytizing "the tech" to those that know no better.


2) I don't sanction CofS. I do not believe it is a viable organization. At all.

But you DO sanction "the tech" which is unscientific. But you don't seem to care about this. The scientific slant of "the tech" that has been promoted by the Church of Scientology is something that you can choose to ignore. But this is one thing that is used to rope people in. And you can deny this because you can't defend this. This seems to be very convenient on your part.


I criticized it on the radio in June and have recently also talked -critically- to a couple other reporters, granting one a print interview.

Yeah, I read one of those. After reading what you said "on the air" I realized that I would never refer ANYONE to you who was contemplating joining the cult. What a disaster that could be.

User avatar
Ladybird
Posts: 5630
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:22 pm

Post by Ladybird » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:06 am

Fluff said: I criticized it on the radio in June and have recently also talked -critically- to a couple other reporters, granting one a print interview.

Programmer Guy said: Yeah, I read one of those. After reading what you said "on the air" I realized that I would never refer ANYONE to you who was contemplating joining the cult. What a disaster that could be.

Ladybird says: Gee Fluff, should we bring up your one and only infamous radio interview where you referred people to the cults black propaganda lies at RFW (Religiious Freedom Watch) but failed to mention www.xenu.net?

Get a grip, Ball of Fluff. Read Shmoodles post again. That is how I see you. Then go look in a mirror.

:anykey:

User avatar
Shmoodles
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:52 am

Post by Shmoodles » Sun Oct 23, 2005 10:37 am

Merlin,

Did my post help undress scientology?
Well...

Scientology as an organization HAS murdered people. Just like Nazi's murdered people.

The scale of course isn't as large. However, I don't quantify evil just on the basis of morality being determined by sheer body-count.

This young fellow Johnny who was asking questions, was, in my view getting a soft-sell of Scientology. And I really thought that this was pretty weird...

For instance this:
Anyway, the reason so many people make a big deal about Scn is that a lot of them are, as I said, ex members. Some of them had bad things happen to them in CofS. Which, since it bills itself as the most ethical group on the planet, really sets up some red flags in many people's minds.
A lot of these people went through far more than I ever did. I mean, I encountered some bullshit, but others have had it far far worse than I.

And that's why some people get heavily involved with criticism of Scn and of CofS.

I personally think that anything that people do- in this case by "people" I mean CofS- should be broad public knowledge. If it's ok for them to do certain things, then it's ok- more than ok- for others to know about it.

I'm not against people studying what they want to study or auditing or any of that. But I am for freedom of information. Some of that information is highly negative. People should know about that."

I read this several times over... and I didn't see a dressing down of Scientology. Seriously..just re-read these words a few times.
What is the overall message here for Johnny?

Any mention of the abuses that Scientology has committed against people? Any mention of Lisa McPherson? Any mention of Dead Agenting? Any mention of how much of those thousands of dollars they are hoping to get from Johnny here, will end up paying attorneys to harrass critics, and hire private investigators to "handle" Suppresive people?

No.. none of that.
Just the warm reassurance that "the tech" is of value, and the mild encouragement that Johnny or others explore auditing and materials from the cult.

Now.. if Ball of Fluff is really concerned about Johnny not been fleeced out of money, or defrauded, or sucked into the cult and abused etc... then she might have made mention of the kinds of tactics the Cult uses to suck people in, and get their claws into "raw meat" (as they refer to new recruits)... but no... there's none of that.

It's just a kind of *interesting* approach to criticsm of the cult... oops... church, right Fluff? That's what I'm supposed to call it? A CHURCH, and not a cult? !

User avatar
D-Rad
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:26 pm

Re: Pop Quiz

Post by D-Rad » Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:24 pm

merlin wrote:...D-Rad:

Did your contributions to this discussion help or hinder Jonny in his quest to understand why we say Scientology is not a good path to follow?...
D-Rad wrote:...The Cult is every bit as dangerous as the Nazis... I know for a fact the tech is all bullshit and there are people here with many more years in the Co$ then you and I combined that will tell you the same thing. If you want to sell that bullshit in the Freezone then that's your business but it doesn't make you any better then the Cult, apples and apples...
That I told him that Scientology is a Crock of Bull whether it is in or out of the Cult and is dangerous then the answer to your question Merlin is Yes I do believe what I said helped. As far as I'm concerned $cientology = Cult of $cientology, apples and apples just different varieties! They're both a waste of time and money as they don't work. If someone ever believed that the tech worked then it is possible that they may start to think that if they can't get it through the freezoners then they might as well go to their local Org and get it. I still believe Shmoodles analogy was very good and I stand by my statement.
"Please let me point out to any new people that
one of the Targets of OSA is to:

1) DISTRACT anyone OFF of the topic of
Scientology onto ~anything~ else at all. "
- Magoo

Freedom from religion: www.deism.com

User avatar
Ltricha1
Posts: 1627
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:36 pm
Location: Back home in Chicago

Post by Ltricha1 » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:11 pm

MERLIN!,
WHat attack have I launched. This thread is about fluffy? Another thread where fluffy is 'defending' herself'? Jesus? I am sick of her poor me shit, but I DID NOT START OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS SHIT! Fluffy is good at manipulating people with this crap.

REREAD WHAT I WROTE!

Jon,
Your only defense is to read and discover the truth about $cientology. The admission are here for everyone to so that can 'see' what kind of person created $cientology.

Good Luck.
[url=http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?p=220008#220008]$cientology's real product[/url]
[url=http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=16563]Read[/url]
Tech is the Carrot,
Admin is the Cart,
Ethics is the whip,
Guess who the Horses are.

User avatar
pitbull
Posts: 4430
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 4:51 am

Post by pitbull » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:49 pm

Why is it that whenever someone says they like something about the tech that someone chimes in about BT's and Xenu? That just shows a boneheaded lack of understanding of the elements of Scientology.

Auditing has produced excellent results. Many new offshoots of scientology have produced exellent results.

Just because ron was a self-serving (and possiblity insane) nutjob that created a totally loony set of OT levels (with help from Mayo and others) does not mean that other elements are not useful.

In fact, there are just so many pathedic weeners out there that want to be part of something like the sea-org that it serves a purpose. You join up and give up your rights, you get abused. It's your choice. Stop blaming the church.
There's an old saying: when the going gets tough - pit bulls call a Scientologist."
-David Miscavige- 8 October, 1993
http://www.earthstation1.com/ThemeSongs/Branded.wav

User avatar
D-Rad
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:26 pm

Post by D-Rad » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:15 pm

pitbull wrote:Why is it that whenever someone says they like something about the tech that someone chimes in about BT's and Xenu?...
Maybe because that IS $cientology/Co$ in a nutshell.
Auditing has produced excellent results. Many new offshoots of scientology have produced excellent results...
Scientology auditing has produced nothing but money for a select group of people, the tech is bogus and there is no scientific proof to it's effectiveness
...Just because ron was a self-serving (and possiblity insane) nutjob that created a totally loony set of OT levels (with help from Mayo and others) does not mean that other elements are not useful...
The whole thing from Dianetics to $cientology, OT levels, et all, was created and written by that nutjob and it's all loony. None of it is useful and a person would have to be loony if they thought that any of it was.
...Stop blaming the church.


No, that is where the most blame belongs as that is where it all starts :bootyshake:
"Please let me point out to any new people that
one of the Targets of OSA is to:

1) DISTRACT anyone OFF of the topic of
Scientology onto ~anything~ else at all. "
- Magoo

Freedom from religion: www.deism.com

jonny
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:49 pm

Post by jonny » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:43 pm

I found the whole auditing thing kinda freaky. I've had a grand total of about 15 minute's worth. The auditor went straight into a personal relationship I had with an ex girlfriend. I was not willing to give one iota of information about the subject as I'm a very private person. Finally, he said, did you do this? I kinda lost it and ended the session right there, and no, it wasn't a cheating issue. I was stunned that he guessed so easily.

Merlin, just so you know, I've found all the posts helpful. I knew from the get go that some would take a very hard stance against Scientology, but I did pose the question, so I was ready for the responses. When I said, be gentle, I just was hoping no one would attack me personally. So far all the posts have been very insightful.

Hubbard's Mushroom
Posts: 8290
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:02 pm

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:48 pm

Hello! ...With this statement,

"Just because ron was a self-serving (and possiblity insane)
nutjob that created a totally loony set of OT levels (with help
from Mayo and others) does not mean that other elements
are not useful. " Pitbull

you have defeated your own argument.

If any of the tech worked, then why did hubbard DIE
"a self-serving (and possiblity insane) nutjob?"

Hubbard's Mushroom
Posts: 8290
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:02 pm

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:06 pm

"As I said, I don't post wins or testimonials.
Other people bring this stuff up about me. I
do not proselytize or post wins. "

On another thread, you posted how a guy used
Hubbard's tech to gain inches.
Then you said "I fucked him".

Sounds like a testimonial for the tech to me.
You've said you refuse to discuss your "personal life"
on clambake.
"I fucked him." seems a bit "personal" to me.

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

Post by Ball of Fluff » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:09 pm

No, PG, you didn't "read one of those". You read my synopsis of my radio interview. The other hasn't come out yet.

The radio interview was going to be a puff piece about CofS. It was going to be pro CofS. I'm the one who introduced the fact that CofS has a hate site against critics and told people where to find it and also told people where to find a.r.s.- a forum CofS deathly hates.

If you've got a problem with all that, well, then, that's silly.


In this thread, Ltricha alleged that he did not hate Scn beliefs or resent people for having any. This was untrue and I said why. That's all it was. That was the extent of the exchange between Ltricha and myself on this thread. It was not an invitation to you to air your grievances about another contributor.

And, no, I don't "come to the rescue of the tech". I discuss what I know about it, same as anyone else. If this is a problem for you, then you might want to ask Andreas to ban any points of view other than your own from the board. He can change the board, though I doubt he'll do it. If you've a problem with other people having other points of view other than yourself, then I suggest you get yourself a neat little safehouse and never leave it.

Why should I discuss Xenu and the BTs? I haven't in the past, so why should I do so now? Tell you what. You discuss it with those who are interested in doing so. Have fun!

My personal interest in Scn is really none of your affair.

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

Post by Ball of Fluff » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:32 pm

Hubbard's Mushroom wrote:"As I said, I don't post wins or testimonials.
Other people bring this stuff up about me. I
do not proselytize or post wins. "

On another thread, you posted how a guy used
Hubbard's tech to gain inches.
Then you said "I fucked him".

Sounds like a testimonial for the tech to me.
You've said you refuse to discuss your "personal life"
on clambake.
"I fucked him." seems a bit "personal" to me.
No. I've posted many details about my personal life here. I just get to pick and choose about which ones since it is my life. Same as anybody would. Most people here post some autobiographical detail and tend to stop at some point or another.

And if we are discussing Scientology pets or what CofS does and that's all we are discussing, then it is vastly inappropriate for people to start talking about my personal life in any manner.

I've posted about having been on staff and what it was like for me- in fact, one of the more lengthy threads on OCMB was started by me with that post. I've discussed my experiences in the second expulsion. I've mentioned my husband. I wrote a thread/paeon to Kate the Wondercat.That's all stuff about me.

And so on.

I'm sure I can post a little throw away line about fucking every now and again...all the other kids 'r' doing it. 'Less you prefer I go back to posting about Kate the Wondercat and the cute things she used to do.

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

Post by Ball of Fluff » Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:36 pm

Ltricha1 wrote:MERLIN!,
WHat attack have I launched. This thread is about fluffy? Another thread where fluffy is 'defending' herself'? Jesus? I am sick of her poor me shit, but I DID NOT START OR PARTICIPATE IN THIS SHIT! Fluffy is good at manipulating people with this crap.

REREAD WHAT I WROTE!

Jon,
Your only defense is to read and discover the truth about $cientology. The admission are here for everyone to so that can 'see' what kind of person created $cientology.

Good Luck.
No, you did not start or participate in this stuff here.

I had answered a civil reply of yours to one of my posts. Then...you know the rest.

That was, however, the extent of the communication between you and me here. And there haven't been any recent others on other threads.

Post Reply

Return to “Your story from inside Scientology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest