What?
Use a policy from LRH?
Oh, Chuck. You know DM would never allow that!

L Yash – Good one! “God without philosophy is blind” would have been a good comeback. lol

It was just a pleasant conversation. He knew I wasn’t going to (immediately) become a Hare Krishna, and I knew he wasn’t going to (immediately) become a scn-ist.

Many people say they continue to find knowledge gained in scn useful. I might add that if nothing else it’s a framework for reference. I still enjoy some scio-speak. For example, who doesn’t know someone who is “a problems case”, “buttered all over the universe” or a “comm cutter”?

Chee – This is a guess, I don’t feel like looking up the exact details. Sometime in the 1960’s about 50 to 100 people from all walks of life gathered together at Saint Hill Manor in England to see if they could develop a workable applied philosophy over the course of a year or two. There was a lot more going on than elron blabbing on lectures.

Peer reviewed research of scn in the 1960’s would be government funded university eggheads sent in to protect the status quo, or at least that would be the scientological point of view. lol

Someone recently said debates about scn would go on until the last two scn-ists write knowledge reports on each other. I’d extend that until the last true scn-ist enters the void. LOL

OSD….7 kids, 2-3 wives, 3 families.
Now that is someone from whom I would seek marriage/happy family advice!

Richard,
There was no peer reviewed research.
(Clinical or otherwise)

Saying there were ‘hundrends of taped lectures describing the trial and error’ is only proof that Hubbard could speak for hundreds of lectures and that people were willing to listen to the.

I’ll qualify my assertion to add… Dianetics was reviewed (per Hubbard’s request) by a psychiatric organization (whatever the US psych organization was called back in the 50s).
They denounced it as pseudo-science and nonsense.
Hence Hubbard’s subsequent hatred of the psychs and the laughable attempts to ‘annihilate’ the psychs over the years.

Just because Hubbard claimed there was trial and error doesn’t make it true. (Except for the error part).

Just look at the history of the Introspection Rundown. Ron tested that out on one person and declared it a success.

Ask Lisa McPherson’s family how it worked out for her.

Of course, if you have evidence of peer review analysis, I’d love to see that.
If you can provide the links I would appreciate
It.
As they sometimes say on the Internet, ‘Dox, or I don’t believe it’. (Of course, that’s not what they really say – it’s ‘dox, or STFU) but I try to remain civil in these interactions and try not to use vulgarity (though I do enjoy it in RL…..it’s too easily misunderstood unless you are speaking to the person in RL)

Major violent felon can certainly be used to describe Hubbard. Those calling him fat sound immature, if that is their only fault found.

Referring to him as “no saint” was meant as irony. Referring to me as stupid for saying it, doesn’t really need any further comment.

I have no problem with survivor.