questions

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

Moderator: Dorothy

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 5:37 pm

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:

Quote:
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.


Schmoodles, I already did that. Last night. Not in the post you quoted above, though there's not anything wrong with that one.

I wrote much about the tactics of CofS, ripoffs, etc.. To the point where Merlin quoted me. Here:

Sometimes a person coughs up a whole bunch of money to do auditing or training at Flag (CofS Mecca/Corp Headquarters) goes all the way down there (clearwater, FL) and is then told he can't do the services 'cuz he didn't prove his loyalty or something like this, something in his history, what have you. CofS does NOT allow ap funds to be transferred from a "higher org" (like "flag") to a "lower org" or "mission".

A couple of these people ended up just donating the money. We're talking tens to hundreds of thousands here.

My husband and I were just talking about this. It's fraud, plain and simple.

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 5:51 pm

Ladybird wrote: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:
As I said before, I've been communicating with other reporters.

You know that I said this since you commented on it just last week.

If you've a problem with my talking to the press, then go talk to them yourself about what you want to talk about. Post under or alluding to your real name as I've always done.

I don't consider any omission in that interview a "failure". I discussed what I wanted to discuss.

Yes, I know what PG said. I can read.

I do not consider CofS to be a viable organization. I've said so publicly and I will continue to do so. If that's bad advice, then, baby, sign me up.

Feel free to look in a mirror yourself. Take your own advice, it's worth about what I paid for it.

I will continue to post as and where I please and to talk to whomever - reporters, friends, people who write me for advice- I please. If this is a problem for you, then don't read my stuff or petition Andreas to ditch me from the forum, or you can always start a forum of your own where only your point of view is allowed.

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

Post by Ladybird » Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:22 pm

Ball of Fluff wrote:I will continue to post as and where I please and to talk to whomever - reporters, friends, people who write me for advice- I please.
Good! Me too!!

Now, would you like to explain to us again how you, as a scientologist, only have to apply the Creed of a Scientologist to other scientologists?

" The Creed of a Scientologist"
"That all men have the inalienable rights to think freely,
to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and
to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others". - LRH

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

Post by D-Rad » Sun Oct 23, 2005 7:35 pm

jonny wrote:...When I said, be gentle, I just was hoping no one would attack me personally...
No way dude, there is no reason to attack you only inform you. There is a lot of reading you can do here on what has happened to people in $cientology (Lisa Mcphearson being a good example). The tech doesn't work, a momentary release of endorphines does not make it so. Read on and ask away friend, most of us here will never attack you.

D
"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

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

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Sun Oct 23, 2005 8:33 pm

Hey Jonny,
Hubbard was nuts...
Join scientology and learn to duplicate souce.


++++++++++++++++++Sacred Cult Scripture +++++++++++++++++++

"In the Marcab Confederacy they had a race-track. And you were probably
there. And you either have attended its races or had something to do
with it, because you find it on most cases.

There's one 1216 B.C, that shows up on any case - the Brotherhood of the
Snake. 1216 B.C. It shows up on any case. Well, evidently, this other
one is the same breed of cat. Almost anybody going through Marcab
Confederacy sooner or later got mixed up with the racetracks.

They had turbine-generated cars that went about 275 miles an hour. They
ran with a high whine. I notice they've just now invented the motor
again. And they had tracks that were booby-trapped with atom bombs, and
they had side bypasses. The tracks were mined, and the grandstands were
leaded-paned. And the audience - it got to be kind of a "no audience."
You never could see the audience.

And oh, they had loose-sand sections and they had slick-oil asphalt and
they had ice sections and loose gravel. Any kind of hazards you could
think of. A mountain that you went up to the top of and fell off; you
know?

And just - there were just more drivers killed. There was more blood
pouring on that track, you see, all the time. I mean it was always
goofed up. Ten, twelve thousand years, this was the favorite sport of
the Marcab Confederacy, apparently...

I'd just keep going back and beating my own record, see? And I finally
would just be exhausted, you know? You know, the Green Rocket. The Red
Comet. The Silver Streak. You know? The Gold Bomb, you know? Oh! Whoo!"

(CREATE AND CONFRONT, lecture of 3 January 1960)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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 9:15 pm

Commenting freely upon the writings, utterances, etc of others means to comment on the posts and the content therein. So if someone posts something about Scientology pets or about CofS, then discussing things that person has not brought up is, of course, off topic and when it's personalized and ad hominem, it's discourteous and "out netiquette", as well.

I once again refer you to the Manners PL and to the rules of conduct for this forum and to previously posted URLS about netiquette. If you've any questions, I'm sure Andreas and Merlin would be more than happy to enlighten you.

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

Post by Shmoodles » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:06 am

Ball of Fluff wrote:Commenting freely upon the writings, utterances, etc of others means to comment on the posts and the content therein. So if someone posts something about Scientology pets or about CofS, then discussing things that person has not brought up is, of course, off topic and when it's personalized and ad hominem, it's discourteous and "out netiquette", as well. I once again refer you to the Manners PL and to the rules of conduct for this forum and to previously posted URLS about netiquette. If you've any questions, I'm sure Andreas and Merlin would be more than happy to enlighten you.
How Is it an ad-hom to mention somebody being a scientologist, on a thread about scientology's treatment/beliefs about pets/animals, when somebody is defending Scientology against criticism that the cult does not value pets/animals, by talking about how they and their friends (Scientologists) have pets?

Agreed, Ladybird could have been more polite about your affiliation with Scientology, instead of refferring to it as Hubbardsville. But, let's face it Fluff, when you call yourself a Scientologist, and you do not repudiate Scientology... well... considering what Scientology has done to people, why do you expect people to have any respect at all for somebody who is promoting the beliefs of a cult that hurt them so?

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

Post by Ltricha1 » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:12 pm

Ball of Fluff wrote:Yes, Lt. I do. In fact I know so. You've railed and inveighed against my having any interest in Scn and you've been doing it for years. You've been admonished by the moderator, you've apologized, then restarted the same behavior. Again and again and again.

So, yeah. No way would I or anyone who reads those posts think that you are ok with anyone believing differently from yourself on this.
I just want to go back and discuss this one second.
Fluffy,
Add up your posts.
Give yourself 1 point for addressing Jonny
Give yourself -1 point for addressing others

Score?
-13 (+/- 1 point)

You, by design or ignorance have taken over this thread. You, have out posted any 3 other posters on this thread combined.

My main complaint against you is that you soft sell the 'tech' which is garbage. That is not a belief it is FACT!

Yet I try to avoid you like the freaking plague, because of your tendency to do, exactly what you did in this thread. Turn it into a thread about YOU!

This thread is about JONNY and his questions. Get the F**K over yourself already.


All others, including you merlin,
What I said about the manipulation is SPOT ON, and every single other poster here, including myself NEEDS TO STOP allowing threads such as this to be manipulated.

Done.

Jonny,
I do hope you are finding the answers you need.

As for $cientology making people more able, that is false. $cientology does make people more able, more able to be controlled and that is it. The only successful $cientologists are those who were successful before $cientology, or $cientologists who are scam artists...

Too many 'Rich' $cientologists have been caught in fraudelant scams.

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.

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

Post by jonny » Mon Oct 24, 2005 4:54 pm

I don't mind any responses, or how many there are. I'm trying to get a feel for the group. I've done so much reading on this site, my eyes are bugging out. I'm learning a lot, but also doing a mild comparison. There's people here who have been a wonderful source of information, and for that, I thank you for your help. Well, back to reading....

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

Post by jonny » Mon Oct 24, 2005 5:53 pm

This is something else I discovered. I stated before that the basic courses were great for me, and I stand by that. This is the other half, I was coerced into joining staff, which only lasted a couple weeks thankfully, my 7 dollar paycheck was a record though!!

I went through a one year period where they were always trying to get me to join the Sea Org. I was always very adamant that it would never happen, but I still spent countless hours telling them no. It was only after telling them that I was in Scientology for myself only, and not the world and if they didn't desist I would leave, then they backed off.

Ocassionaly, they will start a phone campain, but I'm good at putting that fire out quickly. Maybe that's one of the reasons I don't get harassed as much. They know if they come on too strong, I'll bolt.

User avatar
mickwenlock
Posts: 720
Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 2:32 pm

Re: questions

Post by mickwenlock » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:28 pm

jonny wrote:This is my first time on this site, so be gentle. Granted, I've hardly read anything on this site, so I'm not overly informed, but I did read one post about being kicked out of the church.

I guess I'm just wondering what the big deal is? I've been involved half heartedly with Scientology for the last 5 years. To be honest, I found the basic courses to be very beneficial, at least for me. They helped me overcome some obstacles in life, and I'm happy for that. I joined staff, but quit after a couple of weeks, and no one bothered me about it.

It just seems to me that the Scientologists I know seem to be happy and successful. I've also been debating doing the PTS/SP course, but I thought I should question things a little before I did. Any insightful input would be appreciated
You mention that you have been involved half-heartedly for five years. Why half heartedly? You say that the Scientologists you know are happy and successful, you say you got wins on the basic courses - so why the half heartedness?

That does not make any sense at all. If I were to join a group where the members I knew were all happy and successful and thanked "Hubbard" for their success and happiness and I had the wins that you describe why would I not go for it?

I think you are not putting forth the whole picture here.

Let me ask you a couple of questions
jonny wrote: It just seems to me that the Scientologists I know seem to be happy and successful
What exactly do you mean by this? I have known a LOT of Scientologists in my time in the Church and while there were successful individuals in there, the rest were usually a mixture of disgruntled, broke, upset or unhappy. Possibly because every Scientologist I have ever met has, above all else, considered his or her personal feelings and reactions to be of paramount importance.

of course, most Scientologists learn to tack on a falsely positive face (having BI's is an indicator that you are not doing the tech..) and would do anything to avoid looking like they are going bankrupt in a hurry (because really, the best indicator that you are an "upstat" is how much money you have).

Let me be as blunt as I can.

Scientology is a "religion" that would have comm eved Mother Theresa for being non productive and worker oriented.

Scientology is a "religion" that would refuse to audit Steven Hawking because of his medical condition. In addition, of course, to blaming him for the condition of his body.

You need to take your rose colored glasses off and actually look at what you are thinking of doing.

And if you decide to go ahead - don't say you were not warned.

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

Post by Ball of Fluff » Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:24 pm

See previous posts.

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

Post by Ltricha1 » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:37 pm

Jonny,
Yes the first stuff is helpful,
lets go over it though, how 'insightful' was it?
'Earthshattering?'
'Groundbreaking?'
'Good ole common sense?'
....
'Pure BS?'

I found i to be Good ole common sense.
I had realized many years before joining $cientology that there would always be a certain percentage of people who are just plain mean. People who get they enjoyment from causing others pain. (Suppression and PTS or the Ups and Downs in life).

That telling someone a lie, leads to bigger lies, which then forces you to distance yourself from that person to protect the lie. (Overts/withholds)...

The starting stuff makes sense.... It really is basic knowledge, psychology if you will and by basic I mean basic... psychology 101!

But I want to hear your take on this.
[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.

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

Post by jonny » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:15 pm

Why half heartedly???? I'll tell you, because in the beginning, I really thought I had found something. My personal experience was and is, to not trust anything. The first two years, I refused to call it a church, because of past experiences. When I said that it seemed that everyone involved was a success story, that's EXACTLY what I meant, I didn't once come on this site, telling anyone that Scientology had all the answers. I came asking questions. The reason for that was because I was coming to the conclusion that I had to make a decision one way or another. Either go for it or stop.

Maybe you have it all figured out, but I don't. I'm learning as much as I can from this site so I can make an informed decision. So far the people on this site have been very helpful, but to make the assumption that I wear rose colored glasses is an insult. If that was the case, I never would have come here. I'm doing nothing more than trying to find my own way.

Trisha (can't remember the correct spelling) To be honest, the Overcoming ups and downs, success through comm, bsm were real eye openers for me. I also loved the tone scale. I am wise though as to what you guys are saying. I'm having a lot of trouble digesting some of the atrocities recorded here. I'm not sure if I'll ever go back, but for right now the answer would be no.

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

Post by jonny » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:17 pm

Ltricha, the reason those courses were such eye openers, is because I had never heard that stuff before, as incredible as that might seem

Post Reply

Return to “Your story from inside Scientology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest