Comments on: Step Right Up!

By: Mike Rinder

Mike Rinder — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 00:16:22 +0000

In reply to Hiatus57. See my other response to you. This falls into the same category. I hate to break this news to you, but scientologists only THINK they have the answers to everything.

By: Hiatus57

Hiatus57 — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 23:48:01 +0000

In reply to Foolproof.

I don’t why you bother to try and explain sane think to the insane.

Auditing does not work eh?

Alarmist views eh, bit reasonable.

Merchants of Chaos is more fitting.

LRH wrote reams about the NCG’s and exactly why they are NCG.

You cannot run an engram if

a) You don’t have any, Ser-Fac

b) You don’t want to improve as nothing works anyway Apathy case

c)This will never work on me. PTS/Sp case

d) I could go on but you get my drift

By: Cindy

Cindy — Tue, 15 Jul 2014 05:02:56 +0000

“I was around auditing lines for years which I don’t think you guys were and I never heard of any problem like this. So stop trying to make out that “auditing” is dangerous based on about – I don’t know – 20 cases from about 10 million. Most people on this board and who have had auditing can see through the obvious alarmist statements you make.”

Excellent comment, Foolproof

By: Foolproof

Foolproof — Tue, 15 Jul 2014 04:25:15 +0000

Belated reply to Hei88008 and Alanzo: Yes of course there are some – and but very few relatively – cases where people have had mental trouble after so-called “auditing”. If we are looking at 60+ years there are always going to be some. Mostly these people I would hazard a good guess were what the Church called “illegal PCs” and probably should not have been allowed on lines as they had been messed up by other practices long before they encountered Scientology. And we must define what we mean by “auditing”.This would certainly not mean the type of “auditing” now being practiced in the squirrelly Church. Auditing mis-done especially at the higher levels can cause problems. But you guys (gal?) are making out that “all auditing is dangerous” because of a very few cases that a) probably should not have been given auditing in the first place and b) the “auditing” they received was squirrel, which cases are always proved time and time again. This does not excuse the squirreling but does present the facts of the situation better than what you are trying to do with your alarmist views based on some problem of yours that you seem to have personally with Scientology. I was around auditing lines for years which I don’t think you guys were and I never heard of any problem like this. So stop trying to make out that “auditing” is dangerous based on about – I don’t know – 20 cases from about 10 million. Most people on this board and who have had auditing can see through the obvious alarmist statements you make.

By: Odd Thomas

Odd Thomas — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:51:06 +0000

In reply to Zephyr.

Greta — I too have read that this was LRH’s MO in choosing people and saw this in action numerous times. Over the years I looked out for this trait and noted that it wasn’t just his notion, others have shared his perspective as well. But many of the ‘characters’ he loved, seemed to excel during periods of conflict and high confront – as in someone shooting at them.

They were dependable because they had a high survival instinct, they got moving fast and furious in no time flat. And in the process they had a predictably high body count along the way. The ‘characters’ made for great comrades in arms and in similar situations, but administratively, within the confines of a Church, they wreaked havoc at almost every turn.

They were also great characters for his Pulp stories of the 1930s, tough brawny types that waded into one disaster after another without fear or reflection. Fantastic people — just NOT in an Org.

In my opinion Scientology needed the more cerebral type, with a predilection towards compassion and insight and not constant motion and instant results. But then, SCN was never simply a religion. It was a Chimera – religion, business, military and MLM.

As an old administrator who tried very hard to get policy in and the Orgs doing well financially, I had more firefights and battles with these types than anyone else. I admit it – the constant in-fighting, the constant demand for higher and higher stats, the gradual but continuous decline of the importance of taking care of one’s staff – burned me out. Lots to tell about that time – but another day.

Just my thoughts on the “Ideal Sailor” or SO Member.

Odd

By: Cindy

Cindy — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 03:55:53 +0000

In reply to Bob Dobbs. Don't forget to include cleaning the bilges and cleaning the swamp of feces out. I wonder if LRH did that job too or did he save the best for the RPF?

By: Cindy

Cindy — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 03:48:43 +0000

In reply to David Cooke. "In my opinion, the two sides of the equation are the KSW zombies who plug their ears against any criticism of Hubbard or the tech, and the other ratpack who have elected Hubbard and the tech as their personal enemies to be fought all the way. Both sides are being lazy. There’s no excuse for anyone who refuses to think for themselves." Bingo, David Cook. Well said.

By: Alanzo

Alanzo — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 22:27:44 +0000

In reply to Espiritu.

LOL! Excellent comment!

I was furiously scanning Shakespeare’s “Julius Ceasar” for witty comebacks to top this one, but I can’t.

Your post rhymed, and was even written in something close to iambic pentameter.

Once again, Espiritu rises above…

Alanzo (:>

By: Cindy

Cindy — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 18:24:40 +0000

In reply to KFrancis. Yes, get the IAS into a room and they'll start digging out each other's gold fillings.

By: Cindy

Cindy — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 18:19:26 +0000

In reply to Espiritu. Espiritu, excellent comment! Rock on.