Getting very tired of having to read dozens of long-winded non-sequitur comments from you. If you think me quoting L. Ron Hubbard is “attacking scientology” then your very well-audited and very well-trained self has resulted in you being completely unable to differentiate things = (by Hubbard’s definition) insane.

I think you are someone who simply likes to see people respond to you. There are people who love attention all over social media. They will say whatever gets a rise out of people.

I know you would protest this, but there are a lot of new people reading this blog and the numerous comments you wrote that are sitting here for me to read this morning make you look obsessed and unhinged. You think you are helping defend the good of scientology. Believe me you are convincing the uninformed that ALL scientologist, in or out of the church lose any sense.

Time for you to start your own blog where you can say whatever you want. Your comments are becoming a distraction here. I am going to just approve them all this one last time and not allow ANY follow up responses to them. You will have the last word, all you said is sitting there for the world to see and everyone can come to their own conclusions about what image of Scientology you represent.

My personal and sincere advice to you is to take a break and stop obsessing over what some people say on a blog that you disagree with. Get on with living the life YOU want to live instead of trying to convince others they are wrong for thinking and feeling the way they do about their experiences.

FG, Hubbard was a criminal sociopath. That has been PROVEN with real evidence. I have NO idea what you are trying to say otherwise.

As I recall Brian, did not the Buddha state that his work would be completed in the west about the middle of the 20th century by a red haired man? I seem to remember the quote coming from an independent source other than the pen of L Ron Hubbard. Perhaps you might like to find the quote and present this for all to see before you spout off as above. I stand to be corrected but then again I don’t have a big deal on this, as you seem to do. I don’t give a hoot if Hubbard was the reincarnated Buddha or not as we now have the Tech Volumes. But I can see this would thoroughly piss you off it was found to be true though and would spoil your little party piece above, so we will see what you come up with on this eh?

Unless of courses there was another red-haired man who invented a spiritual and mental technology in the western hemisphere in the mid 20th century? Can’t think of any others. Hmmm!

Dear Peon, I am sure you and Brian won’t be at all successful in destroying Scientology but hey, you can always try! (You’ve got Miscavige on your side so you might have a slim chance!) Keep up the bad work and when it all gets tough try some of Brian’s meditation – it works wonders, calms you down no end and puts you straight into the still parts of implants.

So Scientologists respond by name calling eh? And yet here we have Brian calling me “Fool Proof” instead of “Foolproof”. You got that one in sneakily did you not “Brain”? Tut, tut, double standards eh!

Firstly as to the placebo effect, this is purely your invention. It is the first time I have ever heard Scientology being associated or rather disassociated with this. You can go on ad infinitum by associating some (negative) thing with Scientology and say, for instance, “are Scientologists nuts for wanting auditing?” or “are Scientologists lacking self-confidence by wanting to change?” Scientology has (or perhaps rather had when I was doing it “officially”), countless checks and reviews to make sure that people were getting the gains they should have (which other “therapy” does such?) Either people have had the gains or they haven’t. Next you will raise the question of “if a tree fell down in St Hill but no Scientologist were there to hear it, did they write Success Stories on doing so?” or “is the table we see in the corner really there?” Your theory is about the same level of logic.

As to your point that I am using the supposed “Scientology way” of arguing with you by saying you have MisUs, again I replied on this above to Mike and I don’t see anything particularly wrong with my counter-arguments. I get the feeling here that you are trying to get readers on your side by making out and repeating that I am doing something “taboo”, but which you, from the contents and claims from your articles, are ENGAGING IN WITH GUSTO! You are just doing it in a round-about way by implying that maybe the tech doesn’t work and maybe it “was all illusion”. You (and Mike) are cleverly juxtaposing my quite straightforward and simple counter-arguments as being some sort of rabid frothing at the mouth rant. I am sure that people with MisUs don’t like having this pointed out to them, initially anyway, but it doesn’t then exclude the fact they have got MisUs does it? You yourself state more or less that you aren’t sure about your case gains and open the question up for debate, so when I propose the usual solution to this you imply that I shouldn’t do so and that this is somehow poor form. But you brought up your case in the first place! Your articles in general are, more or less, saying “Scientology is wrong”, or, to be somewhat kinder “could be wrong”. Yet when I say “no, no, you are wrong and here is the reason why as you have misunderstood something”, you (and Mike) then reply that I cannot say someone is wrong. Really this is a case of double standards here, if that is the right phrase.

And I would not be surprised if sooner or later I am called a “fundamentalist” (actually Mike has already called me that) or a Scientology Nazi. And I have been called all sorts of names on here with no censure, yet when I defend Hubbard and the technology it seems that other have a carte blanche to call me all the names under the sun! Actually I do rather like the M2 web site but I am not associated with them as such. Yet when I say (the extremely benign in comparison) “you have MisUs” or “get your case handled” (that you and other people first mention and complain about – not me) that is somehow vile and improper. I am currently “brainwashed” according to Marie.

I will round off my rather long “rant” now by stating that if you get so easily upset by the somewhat minor and trivial statements of “you have MisUs” and “get your case handled”, I suggest you get your Grade III (upsets) handled and buy a tech dictionary, and retrain your HSDC, tout de suite! Now, am I joking here? Haha! Sorry, couldn’t resist it! Another “haha!”

Now if you want “ad hominem” just ask Mike for a few choice anecdotes under daily life with Miscavige and his gang of thugs. And you complain about my totally innocuous remarks in comparison! Jeez! Let us actually put things in perspective here.

Yes, I am a very well-audited and very well-trained “case” and this is exactly my point. My second somewhat subsidiary point is that the technology works if applied. This is why I defend it because, as the saying goes at the Examiner’s desk “would you like others to achieve the gains that you have?”, to which I always replied “I do”.

My third (not yet really mentioned above) point is that Scientology is a workable technology and yet here we have people attacking “Scientology” by confusing this with the depredations that Miscavige’s church has inflicted on people, probably including your OT friends who have undoubtedly been hauled over the coals by Harvey and his thug gang and executive “C/Ses” at FSO. Me and a few of the people I know could have sorted them all out in a few days and a few sessions.

But we also have people attacking the technology as well, and quite frankly they are despicable and should be shot from the guns (that they have leveled on themselves anyway).

Foolproof: Thanks for jumping in. First of all, I don’t claim to be erudite, particularly scientific, or smarter than anyone else. I do like looking at things LRH wrote through a different set of eyes than I used to view his stuff with. If nothing else, it’s fun dissecting a piece of tech, thinking of examples of how it works and how it doesn’t, whether it’s fully logical or is lacking. For years, I wasn’t allowed to talk about this. Now I can.

Your argument seems to be that you don’t like the way I present these topics, that I’m not fair, that I’m biased. Okay. I really don’t care all that much what people think of me.

That’s said, I would invite you to discuss the topic at hand. I think readers of Mike’s blog would be much more interested on someone’s take who’s had such phenomenal wins as you. You’d make a much bigger impact if you logically explained why the placebo effect has nothing to do with Scientology than by blasting me.

You’re a well-spoken guy and it’s beneath you to use the argument that the readers of this blog simply have misunderstood words, have never had adequate case gain, and are sitting on overts. You can do better. If some aspect of Scientology works, tell us why in your own words. If you don’t agree with something, tell us why. Contribute to the discussion.

Wynski and Brian, I started scientology in 1972. I wouldn’t deny that there was some Miscavige type of person in the GO mostly, but the org ws so busy and there was wins.
It all changed in 1982.
Before it was scientology, including the cult aspect. By 1983 it was no longer scientology.
“Critics of scientology” is taken from a lecture, been upgraded to be a policy in a time which is more than 50 years ago.
Time have changed, this policy makes no sense now.

I haven’t asked you to prove scientology works. I merely asked you to explain what “case gain” is in your own words and in your own experience. As best I can make out from your comment, case gain is a “palpable result” and in your experience that includes an increased IQ score, never getting colds or headaches, no need to take drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, attaining the Grades EP’s, unbearable (to your wife sometimes) self-confidence and OT abilities such as the time you cured a woman of a three day hiccuping episode by simply telling her to stop resisting it. Your training has enabled you to hold down high paying jobs.

As you didn’t have these attributes prior to scientology those attributes are “gains” in your “case”. That is quite impressive indeed. I only wish my old friend Mario Feninger who also did old OT 7, could have experienced a fraction of your gains. Or any of the other OT’s I used to know in the pre-David Miscavige days. But anyway, thank you for answering my question.