FP you referenced my being vague about the video about the ethics of sex act scale. Since we are after all on the subject of scales. Nora Crest speaks about where gay sex acts fall in relation to pedophilia in this video:
https://youtu.be/gkMSqklwR0k
She further shares other areas where LRH puts in written published form his despicable ‘tech’ by himself, printing his disdain and invalidation of gay people:
https://youtu.be/_-lkYwv-nHQ
Allow me to be specific in my comments as you do not.

FP, the video on LRH’s homophobic ‘tech’ is here:
https://youtu.be/_-lkYwv-nHQ
This video discusses the acceptable sex acts on a scale:
https://youtu.be/gkMSqklwR0k
In case you were feeling like I was pulling that out of the air.
L Ron is not Nora Crest’s best friend, mankind’s best friend or mine.
Too bad he’s yours.

. . . he signed his name to the bottom of everything he wrote for copyright protection which worked in the early days to stifle competition from “squirrel groups”. Like scientology or not, the law rightfully protects intellectual property. From what Mike has said the CoS no longer pursues lawsuits for copyright infringement.

Yeah the world is terribly unfair to you. You are mistreated, maligned and misunderstood at every turn.

Scientology can handle that. You just need to get yourself to Grade 2.

Here you go again – a) calling me a homophobe when I am not; b) saying I was “compelled” to comment when I was not – I was answering CNC’s ridiculous assumptions; c) swinging racism into the arena now; d) not forgetting misogyny being thrown into the pot. Anything else now to avoid and deflect the correction of CNC’s “fantastic” assumptions and other’s slanderous remarks? How about gender? (I see Nazi was cleverly thrown in also.)

But it is interesting that I notice you didn’t say anything when some other commenter accused Hubbard of being a pedophile and DM as gay? The double standards here are flagrant and selective.

I didnt say you were liberal or a nazi. I said you were compelled to express YOUR opinion that homosexuals fit the description of L. Ron Hubbard that they are 1.1. You need not have said anything. At the very least you could have kept your homophobic opinions to yourself.

You’re like the guy that says “I am not saying black people are inferior, but by my observation and experience they are low IQ fools. Just being honest. Dont take offense.”

It’s a common refrain of homophobes, racists and misogynists when they are called on their hateful stereotyping.

You can’t take back what you said. You COULD apologize. But that’s not what scientologists do. They assert their absolute rightness to the very end. I thought Hubbard claimed to have cured that affliction or didn’t you do Grade IV yet?

“Had to”? I didn’t start the ball rolling on this. Clearly Not Clear did. And my observations are my observations – but there is no like or dislike implied or meant. In fact you wouldn’t believe how liberal I am.

You’re not homophobic — but you just HAD to express your “observation” that you agree with Hubbard that most homosexuals you have encountered were 1.1.

Why?

As to your assumption that I am “homophobic” – very clever. Your OSA training coming in useful now eh? There is nothing in my statement for you to assume such which you well know. An observation is not a phobia. As I stated above I don’t care what people do. I am not at all homophobic. In fact one of my best auditors was and probably still is gay and good luck to him. But as I spoil the little “parties” of “I think Hubbard said” or “I’m pretty sure there’s a film and writings but I can’t recall them” which some people here commenting like to throw about, with some facts, you will take anything to try and hose down and tar my statements so that the little Assumption & False Data Tea Parties can carry on assuming and slandering.

As to Clearly Not Clear’s remarks, yes, you can brush aside the 2D rules HCO PL as that doesn’t fit your pet theory here – and which “films”and “writings” are these then or are all these just your assumptions? Yes, I would also like to see this “fantastic” video, or at least it’s name – I am sure it must be quite “fantastic”. And the “writings” as well. As for “frequently wrote conflicting policies” which ones are these then? “I find your assumptions because of your anti-LRH bias to be so much talk”. Your remarks are all hot air with no substance.

And I don’t like people stating to other people that they are despicable in much the same way that a homophobic person might do, but you won’t get the paradox.

That’s the truth Mike Rinder!