Why Did You Get Involved In Scientology In The First Place?
Lawrence
for a long time that I was a person with bad intentions.
I felt like I had false purposes for living and that Scientology
was the only way to address those issues. I learned about
my good qualities on my own however by having to go
out into the world and assume responsibility for things,
not by engaging in any of the kind of activities that
Scientologists promoted to me the idea of engaging in
the whole time I was involved. For that knowledge and
for my self I am grateful.
--
Read "The Diary Of A Scientologist"
http://mysite.verizon.net/toomajan/
Larry
Roadrunner
> I got involved in Scientology originally because I believed
> for a long time that I was a person with bad intentions.
> I felt like I had false purposes for living and that Scientology
> was the only way to address those issues.
"This is so true that if you thought you found yourself in one of the
above, you most certainly are not anti-social. Self-criticism is a
luxury the anti-social cannot afford. They must be RIGHT because they
are in continual danger in their own estimation."
>I learned about
> my good qualities on my own however by having to go
> out into the world and assume responsibility for things,
> not by engaging in any of the kind of activities that
> Scientologists promoted to me the idea of engaging in
> the whole time I was involved. For that knowledge and
> for my self I am grateful.
What 'Scientologists promoted'??? Now what does that got to do with
the actual subject Scientology???
You also missed the 'Code of Honour'. What HAVE you been doing in
Scientology???
RR
Lawrence
"Roadrunner" <roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2407affc-4a74-4c77...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
But if your response is the reason why you got into Scientology
then please don't talk me to anymore.
Barbara Schwarz
I came to Scientology because other religions were not able to answer
my many religious questions. But Scientology did.
Barbara Schwarz
--
Attrocities committed by Christians, human race insulting idiots who
think that their despicable crimes will be forgiven by God and/or
Jesus and that is why they continue to commit crimes.
I am rather a Scientology as Scientology per L. Ron Hubbard teaches
ethics, which I uphold. It teaches that ANY bad act has not just
horrible consequences for the victim but also for the person who
commits the crime.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide2.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Read "The Diary Of A Scientologist"
>
> >http://mysite.verizon.net/toomajan/
>
> > Larry- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lawrence
"Barbara Schwarz" <BarbaraSc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:0a27e763-44c8-4f2a...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
It answered mine too Barbara at the time.
Barbara Schwarz
> "Barbara Schwarz" <BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com> wrote in message
Well, Larry, but my questions are still answered. And by the way, RR
is a nice person.
You might appreciate his postings once you know him better.
Peter Schilte
An ex-girlfriend of mine whom I didn't see for over 13 years came over
to my house one day. She told me she had been in the rehabilitation
facility Narconon at Zutphen and was no longer using drugs as heroin.
She also told me she was a member of CoS.
I was very surprised, because she told me she had been to at least 4
other rehabilitation facilities before without kicking the habit. At
the time I thought it was great!
She told me a little about scientology, and I became curious. I
started to ask questions, which for starters were hesitately answered
to. But I kept having questions, and she more and more avoided or
plainly refused to answer them.
So I started to read the official scientology websites and was
surprised about what I found. It was exactly the opposite of what some
critical websites I stumbled upon said. It raised my interest in the
subject, so I started to read more and more, both official websites
and critical sites. And kept asking questions to my ex-girlfriend.
Critical questions too.
At first I didn't know what to believe: The official websites or those
critical to scientology?
But later, after reading more and more similar stories from different
people about their experiences in scientology, I started to collect
information, read a lot, (finally even Dianetics) and it became clear
to me that scientology was a mind manipulating kind of psychology,
that used old techniques to brainwash people into believing the most
idiotic things.
Above that, I found that scientology's leadership and management were
abusing people, and that Hubbard lied a lot about his so called
research and life in general.
I collected a lot of information, which finally resulted in my website
that contains only a selection of the information I found. And I
intendedly choose to put information on my website of which I knew
scientology's management wouldn't want to be known. The purpose of my
website was to create a counter balance for the propaganda on the
official websites, and to offer easy to read information that can be
verified by the many links I added.
I never was a scientologist, and I thank Xenu for that! But I am still
grateful for the fact that Narconon, however a recruiting tool for
scientology, managed to get my ex-girlfriend away from drugs. She is
no longer practicing scientology, is a happy mother now and has her
own business.
Peter
"A psychiatrist today has the power to (1) take a fancy to a woman (2)
lead her to take wild treatment as a joke (3) drug and shock her to
temporary insanity (4) incarnate [sic] her (5) use her sexually (6)
sterilise her to prevent conception (7) kill her by a brain operation
to prevent disclosure. And all with no fear of reprisal. Yet it is
rape and murder. We want at least one bad mark on every psychiatrist
in England, a murder, an assault, or a rape or more than one. This is
Project Psychiatry. We will remove them."
- L. Ron Hubbard, Sec ED, Office of LRH, Confidential, 22 February
1966, "Project Psychiatry"
Roadrunner
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You are the prototype of a coward and a runner, or 'hit and run'. You
have NO answer to the angles that are forwarded to you, and you DARE
TO SAY that I WOULD BE IGNORANT???? Are you TOTALLY OUT OF YOUR
F***ing MIND?????
If you are unable to nor explain my forwardings, then literally your
credibility went seriously down the drain. If you don't address it
properly you actually admit that you have been a blind follower that
has not grasped the subject at all.
RR
Roadrunner
wrote:
He has always avoided answering to my questions and queries... he
doesn't sound to me being a too-bright person.
RR
Roadrunner
In fact, you created your own propaganda site.
>
> I never was a scientologist, and I thank Xenu for that! But I am still
> grateful for the fact that Narconon, however a recruiting tool for
> scientology, managed to get my ex-girlfriend away from drugs.
So she got off drugs thanks to Narconon... something doesn't make very
much sense here, now does it...
>She is
> no longer practicing scientology, is a happy mother now and has her
> own business.
Ah, no longer into Scientology... hmmm, 'a happy mother now' and has
her 'own business'... hmm, thanks to Narconon and Scientology
technology.
Indeed, you make very much sense here Sir Peter, very much sense...
RR
Jonathon Barbera
<peters...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I never was a scientologist, and I thank Xenu for that! But I am still
>grateful for the fact that Narconon, however a recruiting tool for
>scientology, managed to get my ex-girlfriend away from drugs. She is
>no longer practicing scientology, is a happy mother now and has her
>own business.
Thank you for your decency, Peter.
Jonathon Barbera
I predict that Peter's mental machinery will not respond well to this
level of sarcastic antagonism.
Either invalidate him completely and utterly -- or try a more patient
tone with him. No use going halfway.
Mark Charles de Rothschild
news:4b258b0c$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
Only the unwashed, ignorant and gullible get involved with Scientology when
'get involved' means joining the cult.
The intelligent elite among us don't 'get involved' with Scientology other
than to attempt to point out to potential victims the the folly of 'getting
involved' with Scientology.
Mark Charles de Rothschild
Mark Charles de Rothschild
>
>
> He has always avoided answering to my questions and queries... he
> doesn't sound to me being a too-bright person.
>
> RR
That's to be expected for only not-too-bright persons join a cult in the
first place.
If somebody wishes to have religious questions answered and then joins a
cult for the answers then they're barking up the wrong tree so to speak.
It's tantamount to joining a knitting club to learn how to shoot skeet.
Mark Charles de Rothschild
Mark Charles de Rothschild
news:8a5a152a-cc06-45c7...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Peter
http://www.scamofscientology.nl
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Now, here's a perceptive individual. The chap uses his head. If everybody in
the world were as keen as he is cults would not be able to get a foothold to
do their dirty work.
Mark Charles de Rothschild
Roadrunner
wrote:
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ab617305-5a42-4905...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > He has always avoided answering to my questions and queries... he
> > doesn't sound to me being a too-bright person.
>
> > RR
>
> That's to be expected for only not-too-bright persons join a cult in the
> first place.
The bright person looks for the values, and finds out if he can do
something with it. Only the blind believer turns it into a cult.
RR
Roadrunner
wrote:
> "Peter Schilte" <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
So, mind to explain yourself, or is it irony. See, Sir Peter listens,
he does not look. What he saw was good, but when he started to listen
it was suddenly bad.
RR
>
> Mark Charles de Rothschild
Roadrunner
wrote:
> "Lawrence" <xxxxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote in message
Ah, would you care to explain to us all why, in particular during the
first 20 years, that it was only highly educated people that were
involved with Scientology.
RR
Peter Schilte
To you? No, it doesn't make much sense of course. No surprise there.
> >She is
> > no longer practicing scientology, is a happy mother now and has her
> > own business.
>
> Ah, no longer into Scientology... hmmm, 'a happy mother now' and has
> her 'own business'... hmm, thanks to Narconon and Scientology
> technology.
>
> Indeed, you make very much sense here Sir Peter, very much sense...
>
Of course you wouldn't understand, Michel. All it needs is to be
honest, something you have difficulties to practice yourself.
She is one of the few that got off and stayed off the drugs after the
Narconon rehabilitation program.
Like others have achieved with other programs. Narconon isn't any
better in rehabilitating than other programs.
But how would you know....
Peter Schilte
First I listened, THEN I looked more closely. And I didn't get myself
trapped like you were.
Mark Charles de Rothschild
>
>
> Ah, would you care to explain to us all why, in particular during the
> first 20 years, that it was only highly educated people that were
> involved with Scientology.
>
> RR
Highly educated does not necessarily correlate with intelligence and common
sense. Take Monica Pignotti as an example. She is highly educated as she's
earned a Ph.D. but she's none to bright when dealing with day to day
affairs. Highly educated, depending upon the university, might well mean
highly brainwashed with a highly liberal social agenda.
Peter Schilte might not be highly educated but he does seem to be highly
intelligent. In other words, high intelligence is something one is born
with. Highly educated is often a function of wealth above ability.
Mark Charles de Rothschild
Roadrunner
Illogic doesn't make sense to a sensible person, but it does to an
illogical person. Indeed no surprise here.
>
> > >She is
> > > no longer practicing scientology, is a happy mother now and has her
> > > own business.
>
> > Ah, no longer into Scientology... hmmm, 'a happy mother now' and has
> > her 'own business'... hmm, thanks to Narconon and Scientology
> > technology.
>
> > Indeed, you make very much sense here Sir Peter, very much sense...
>
> Of course you wouldn't understand, Michel. All it needs is to be
> honest, something you have difficulties to practice yourself.
> She is one of the few that got off and stayed off the drugs after the
> Narconon rehabilitation program.
Then it can not be a scam.
You write: "she had been to at least 4 other rehabilitation facilities
before without kicking the habit"
> Like others have achieved with other programs. Narconon isn't any
> better in rehabilitating than other programs.
> But how would you know....
A whole lot better than you. ALL you know is that your ex-girlfriend
got off drugs. This really is ALL you know. All other you think you
know you have been told, you listened, you did not look yourself.
If we would ask your ex-girlfriend then what is she going to say? ...
what is she going to say about you? ... what is she going to say what
you did?
RR
Roadrunner
Excuse me? You got trapped by what they TOLD YOU! Where your ONLY
firsthand experience is that your ex-girlfriend got off her drug
habit. Something that you address as a scam
You DON'T LOOK, you LISTEN!!!!!
You should look up the LRH HCO PL about this, evidently you don't know
what that even means, look and listen.
RR
Tigger
RoadRunner asks:
>So, mind to explain yourself, or is it irony. See, Sir Peter listens,
> he does not look. What he saw was good, but when he started to listen
> it was suddenly bad.
LOL....what is ironic, Mr. RR, is that you are chastising Peter for
doing the 'RESEARCH' which you keep saying is the right thing to do
and that you do it.
Peter didn't just listen to his friend or what SCN had to say
especially after she couldn't answer his questions, he investigated
what other people.... ex-scientologists, reporters, doctors, lawyers,
family members, etc. had found in their research, observation and/or
involvement in the "religion" invented by a science fiction writer and
conman, L. Ron Hubbard to make money.
I think I may have missed your answer to the question this thread
asks. Enquiring minds would like to know...How, when, where, why did
you get involved in Scientology. Simple questions. You got any
simkple answers?
Examples:
How: Dianetics...... a friend..... the personality test, a free
lecture, stress test, SCN front group...Narconon, WISE, etc.
Other........
Where: on the street in ..........., a SCN org in............
other...............
When: Age 18 when I was between high school and the real
world.......Age 30 when I was a drug addict.......Age 39 when I lost a
loved one.......Age 45 when my business needed help. Age 50 when I
lost my job Other..........
WHy: I was vulnerable....... I was searching for a religion.......
Other........
> RR
>
Tigger
THE LATEST SOCKPUPPET OF GREGORY HALL wrote:
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ah, would you care to explain to us all why, in particular during the
> > first 20 years, that it was only highly educated people that were
> > involved with Scientology.
>
> > RR
>
> Highly educated does not necessarily correlate with intelligence and common
> sense.
Right you are Mr. Hall...especially common sense.
> Take Monica Pignotti as an example. She is highly educated as she's
> earned a Ph.D. but she's none to bright when dealing with day to day
> affairs.
LOL...and I suppose you think you are a prime example of intelligence,
education and common sense. These little stupid bullbaiting games
you attempt to play with Ms Schwarz testify to the opposite.
>Highly educated, depending upon the university, might well mean
> highly brainwashed with a highly liberal social agenda.
And also a highly "conservative" social agenda. That's why there
should be separation of church and state. There are so many
brainwashed "conservatives" in Oklahoma, it makes one's blood curdle
with embarrassment.
> Peter Schilte might not be highly educated but he does seem to be highly
> intelligent. In other words, high intelligence is something one is born
> with. Highly educated is often a function of wealth above ability.
And common sense is often a function of experience above Mensa scores.
Tigger
>
> Mark Charles de Rothschild
Peter Schilte
It CAN be, and it is in fact. It uses inflated figures and therefor
lies about its results, for one.
Most of the staff has no training, other than being an ex-drug addict
themselves. None of them have done a real study on the subject of
rehabilitation. They use controversial mind manipulating techniques
and dangerous use of sauna and vitamins. All without any scientific
research and proof.
That is what makes it a scam.
> > Like others have achieved with other programs. Narconon isn't any
> > better in rehabilitating than other programs.
> > But how would you know....
>
> A whole lot better than you. ALL you know is that your ex-girlfriend
> got off drugs. This really is ALL you know. All other you think you
> know you have been told, you listened, you did not look yourself.
>
You assume too much, Michel. You don't know shit about me.
> If we would ask your ex-girlfriend then what is she going to say? ...
> what is she going to say about you? ... what is she going to say what
> you did?
I know. You don't.
And I know what she thinks about about you. And you don't.
Peter Schilte
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
> > > > >http://mysite.verizon.net/toomajan/
> > > > > Larry
> > > > Peter
> > > >http://www.scamofscientology.nl
> > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
> Excuse me?
No. I do not.
> You got trapped by what they TOLD YOU!
Nope.
> Where your ONLY
> firsthand experience is that your ex-girlfriend got off her drug
> habit.
Nope.
> Something that you address as a scam
Yep.
> You DON'T LOOK, you LISTEN!!!!!
Nope.
I listened AND I looked. And other than you, O looked AND listened at
both sides.
The simple fact that I disagree with you and look at things
differently doesn't mean I didn't look.
It is a stupid remark, Michel.
> You should look up the LRH HCO PL about this, evidently you don't know
> what that even means, look and listen.
You evidently assume too much again, Michel. It makes you
preconceived, prejudiced and idiotic.
Skipper
<19f05052-c840-4821...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Tigger <Tiggeri...@webtv.net> wrote:
Hey "Tigger" - you display your WebTV ignorance with just about every
post. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the LETTER that all the "separation
of church and state" so-called "liberal" blather is about, it had
nothing to do with what you idiot "progressives" want. The Founding
Fathers did not want a STATE RELIGION like the Anglican Church in
England, which came about because of a despot named Henry VIII who
divorced from the Catholic Church so he could kill wives and get
another one who would give him a son.
When Thomas Jefferson was President, they had REGULAR church services
in the Capitol building.
You are blisteringly stupid as well as being abysmally uninformed.
Typical "progressive."
Astrid
> I got involved in Scientology originally because I believed
> for a long time that I was a person with bad intentions.
I'm always interested in the reason people get involved in Scientology
and your explanation Lawrence, is very honest and interesting.
However, I don't understand what you mean by "believed for a long time
that I was a person with bad intentions."
Did you have urges to harm others? Or hurt yourself?
Or was it just that Scientology presented this grandiose plan to save
the planet, and it made you feel like your intentions -- to just get
along (survive) and be healthy and happy -- were somehow "bad" or not
good enough. That's a process I'd be interested in hearing about, if
that is the case.
The reason I got involved is:
Seeing the Tom Cruise video, and particularly the part about
envisioning a world of all Scientologists, and NO critics one hundred
years from now. It sounded deluded, totalitarian and fascist. I began
to read much more about it. Before this, I just thought Scientology
was a kooky but relatively harmless self-help scam for people with too
much money. I'd never heard of the name "David Miscavige." I assumed
the "religious" part had something to do with Hubbard wanting to reach
a wider audience. The reason I thought it was a scam or not serious,
is that no people of intelligence were mentioning that they were
"Scientologists" or in my extensive reading, some by people with great
minds, I've never encountered any author or scientist who mentioned
Hubbard's theories.
Also, the volcano on the cover of Dianetics was too cheesy looking for
anyone in their right mind to take it seriously, coupled with the
content. They might as well called it "Scam Cult."
Little did I know that Hubbard thought he could clear the planet in
one year, and all the freaky policies and abuses that go on in the
cult.
Astrid
Peter, don't you think it is possible that the component of Narconon
that may have helped your girlfriend, where other programs had failed,
might be the vigorous exercise.
Being physically active is no guarantee of keeping someone off drugs,
since some athletes become drug addicts. However, I think it could be
key for SOME people and account for Narconon being about as successful
as other programs. Narconon keeps people busy, with exercise, sauna,
doing things, and the combination of that may help people who may not
be successful in other programs.
Hubbard did not discover the benefits of exercise, vitamins or sauna,
but the combination of these things might be help for some addicts who
had really bad eating habits, and were not getting proper nutrition,
which I imagine is common.
Is it total genius? Does it mean everything else Hubbard thought up is
brilliant and effective and how the world should be run? Hell no!
Hubbard's brainwashing routines no doubt help some people who are in
harmful patterns, or full of self-destructive thoughts, to break out
of the pattern. On the other hand, it could drive some people over the
edge, or more commonly, make them addicts of Hubbard crap for a long
time. Depending on how much money they have, or how many family
relationships are destroyed in the process, it ends up being okay for
them or very destructive.
What is infuriating, the deception involved, and their claim of
Hubbard way being the ONLY way to solve complex problems, and the
claim the whole shebang is viable. In fact, it is the lunatic fringe,
preying on the egos and vulnerabilities of celebrities and others.
Roadrunner
You haven't been there. How would you know. You are all into your 'It
CAN be' world again...
> Most of the staff has no training, other than being an ex-drug addict
> themselves. None of them have done a real study on the subject of
> rehabilitation. They use controversial mind manipulating techniques
> and dangerous use of sauna and vitamins. All without any scientific
> research and proof.
> That is what makes it a scam.
You haven't been there. How would you know ANY OF THAT? You are all
into your 'It CAN be' world again... And all that got your ex-
girlfriend off drugs, yeah right...
>
> > > Like others have achieved with other programs. Narconon isn't any
> > > better in rehabilitating than other programs.
> > > But how would you know....
>
> > A whole lot better than you. ALL you know is that your ex-girlfriend
> > got off drugs. This really is ALL you know. All other you think you
> > know you have been told, you listened, you did not look yourself.
>
> You assume too much, Michel. You don't know shit about me.
Ah, but this is ALL you revealed to us. I simply made an evaluation
per the data at hand.
>
> > If we would ask your ex-girlfriend then what is she going to say? ...
> > what is she going to say about you? ... what is she going to say what
> > you did?
>
> I know. You don't.
> And I know what she thinks about about you. And you don't.
I think she will have interesting things to tell. She got off drugs
because of Narconon, and then you told here what you found on the
Internet... and invalidated her...
RR
Roadrunner
Thus you say: 'It is a scam that got my ex-girlfriend off her drug
habit.'
And then: 'she told me she had been to at least 4 other rehabilitation
facilities before without kicking the habit.'
Care to explain this miracle???
RR
Barbara Schwarz
> On 14 Dec, 13:19, "Mark Charles de Rothschild" <gregh...@home.fake>
> wrote:
>
> > "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ab617305-5a42-4905...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > He has always avoided answering to my questions and queries... he
> > > doesn't sound to me being a too-bright person.
>
> > > RR
>
> > That's to be expected for only not-too-bright persons join a cult in the
> > first place.
>
> The bright person looks for the values, and finds out if he can do
> something with it. Only the blind believer turns it into a cult.
>
> RR
Neal Warren ala Greg Hall is a criminal forger, he doesn't even know
the definition of value,
RR.
--
Neal Warren aka Greg or Gregory Hall forges Mark Charles de Rothschild
on Usenet.
Neal Warren is a fanatical Christian sexist and anti-semitist who
commits one crime after the other and who should be incarcerated.
The Dark Bible Women's Inferior Status
Burn the daughter!
Cut off her hand!
Expose her breasts!
Female births get penalty
Female inferiority
God's OK on abortion
Jesus will kill children
Kill the witches!
Moses' mass murder
Rape my daughter
Raping and killing
Silence the woman!
Stone the woman
"Virgin" mistranslation
Virgin's worth
Wives, submit yourselves!
Women shall not speak
Women's sorrow
Rip up pregnant women
The wicked woman
And here the bible paragraphs, where you can find that disgusting
stuff.
http://nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> > If somebody wishes to have religious questions answered and then joins a
> > cult for the answers then they're barking up the wrong tree so to speak.
> > It's tantamount to joining a knitting club to learn how to shoot skeet.
>
> > Mark Charles de Rothschild- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Roadrunner
wrote:
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You measure intelligence by their like and dislikes. You make a grand
team with Sir Peter de Schilte... you appear to share his level of
'intelligence'...
Tigger
> In article
> <19f05052-c840-4821-9a01-3b65f4ee7...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Well thank you for the ancient history lesson, Skippypoo. But don't
forget while Jefferson believed in a higher power, he didn't believe
in a Christian God or any other man made God.
> When Thomas Jefferson was President, they had REGULAR church services
> in the Capitol building.
So what? As long as "religion", any religion did not have the power
to dictate
national policy, laws, etc. Going to church services does not
necessarily mean one is a believer. Heck, claiming to be a believer
does not necessarily mean that one is a believer. It has been that
if one wants to get elected in this country, one has to present a
persona that one is a believer.
BTW you do remember, Skippypoo, that "under God" was never in the
Pledge of Allegiance until it was added in the 1950's.
>
> You are blisteringly stupid as well as being abysmally uninformed.
LOL....But I know how to pudh yout buttons, don't I, Skippypoo? Even
when I'm not even trying to. :>)
So Sippypoo, are you going to answer the question that this thread
asks? You were a Scientologist, weren't you? I'm sure we all would
like to know How someone as blisteringly intelligent as you got hooked
by such a scam. What "bait" did you swallow?
>
> Typical "progressive."-
Hate to diappoint you, Skippypoo but this tigger ain't "typical"
anything. You can be thankful I'm one of a kind. :>)
Tigger
Tigger
Hey RoadRunner,
When are you going to tell us how, when, why and where you got
involved in Scientology?
Tigger
Marie Antoinette
"Mark Charles de Rothschild" <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
news:3c1vp1....@news.alt.net...
With respect,Mark,that's rather judgemental and condescending . The fact you
call yourself part of the 'intellectual elite' indicates you'd be good
material to be brainwashed as a Scientologist .After all,they're told
they're the 'intellectual elite' aka 'Homo Novis'(New Man),superior to the
rest of humanity.
I've never been in a cult,but I can understand why good,intelligent people
get caught into these traps. It's easy with hindsight and all the info we
can on cults these days to go,"How could anyone get suckered into that?" but
there are various reasons why people get drawn into these groups.
Don't forget,things were different in the 50s,60s and 70s. It was a whole
period of social revolution, of trying new things. People were finally
admitting that for a lot of them,conservative religions weren't satisfying
them emotionally or spiritually.Some of the groups that sprung up were often
genuine attempts to find less structured,alternative paths to God. Alas
there will always be those who will exploit others,especially those in need
of love and assurance.Cults took (and continue to take) advantage of the
fact that there were/are a lot of people in morally restrictive,emotionally
repressed backgrounds looking for a freer spirituality and a sense of
community and acceptance. Cults don't exploit stupidity,they exploit
emotional damage, a desire for religious fulfilment and a longing for real
love and have a sense of meaning/purpose in life. That's not
gullibility,it's human nature.
Even today,a lot of cults use a lot of clever tactics to hide the fact
they're a cult. Look at Scientology:how many front groups has it again? You
go for drug rehab and you find out you're doing Hubbard tech.(Narconon) You
think you're involved in a Human Rights Activist group,and turns out you're
in a cult 'enemies list' watchdog group.(CCHR) Way to Happiness,Study
tech,the list
goes on and on.
Finally,cults use sophisticated hypnosis and thought-stopping rituals,honed
over generations by professional subjugators of the human mind. It is a
subtle and gradual process involving love bombing,emotional blackmail,trance
induction,semi-starvation,sleep deprivation etc etc. Hard to be critical on
500 calories a day,2 hours of sleep and three hours of staring into space.
The mind pretty much shuts down after this kind of abuse.
Cults LOVE it when people say,"I'm too smart to fall for a cult," It is
exactly this sort of ill-placed confidence and under-estimation of the power
of thought control that they can use.
I do hope you never have a loved one that gets into the trap of one of these
organizations. Good smart people DO get involved in these groups. The best
we can do is try to 'cult-proof' our kids from understanding how these cults
work and to avoid getting involved in them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E
And let's not forget the kids born into these groups. If this is all you've
ever known,it's hard to know there's more to life than the cult cause.
Roger Larsson
> I got involved in Scientology originally because I believed
> for a long time that I was a person with bad intentions.
> I felt like I had false purposes for living and that Scientology
> was the only way to address those issues. I learned about
> my good qualities on my own however by having to go
> out into the world and assume responsibility for things,
> not by engaging in any of the kind of activities that
> Scientologists promoted to me the idea of engaging in
> the whole time I was involved. For that knowledge and
> for my self I am grateful.
>
> --
> Read "The Diary Of A Scientologist"
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/toomajan/
>
> Larry
I got involved in scientology in purpose to have a lazy time but the
shortcut was in the reality a longer way I could have spared me by
saying "NO THANKS" to scientology in an early stage.
Roadrunner
I already shared that publicly, although not here on ARS.
RR
Roadrunner
> On Dec 13, 5:46 pm, "Lawrence" <xxxxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > I got involved in Scientology originally because I believed
> > for a long time that I was a person with bad intentions.
>
> I'm always interested in the reason people get involved in Scientology
> and your explanation Lawrence, is very honest and interesting.
> However, I don't understand what you mean by "believed for a long time
> that I was a person with bad intentions."
>
> Did you have urges to harm others? Or hurt yourself?
>
> Or was it just that Scientology presented this grandiose plan to save
> the planet, and it made you feel like your intentions -- to just get
> along (survive) and be healthy and happy -- were somehow "bad" or not
> good enough. That's a process I'd be interested in hearing about, if
> that is the case.
>
> The reason I got involved is:
>
> Seeing the Tom Cruise video, and particularly the part about
> envisioning a world of all Scientologists, and NO critics one hundred
> years from now. It sounded deluded, totalitarian and fascist. I began
> to read much more about it. Before this, I just thought Scientology
> was a kooky but relatively harmless self-help scam for people with too
> much money.
Thus your mind was already formed, and you just added on to it. See
how this one goes...
>I'd never heard of the name "David Miscavige." I assumed
> the "religious" part had something to do with Hubbard wanting to reach
> a wider audience.
You assumed wrongly...
>The reason I thought it was a scam or not serious,
> is that no people of intelligence were mentioning that they were
> "Scientologists" or in my extensive reading, some by people with great
> minds, I've never encountered any author or scientist who mentioned
> Hubbard's theories.
You haven't gotten around then. In addition why does something that is
worthwhile has to be mentioned or named by your 'people of
intelligence'? This has actually NO merit here in this society here.
Authority worship???
>
> Also, the volcano on the cover of Dianetics was too cheesy looking for
> anyone in their right mind to take it seriously, coupled with the
> content. They might as well called it "Scam Cult."
Sir Peter de Schilte admitted though that Narconon got his ex-
girlfriend off drugs (having failed 4 times before elsewhere). A
powerful scam it is then... ain't that so...
>
> Little did I know that Hubbard thought he could clear the planet in
> one year,
One year? Never heard that one before.
>and all the freaky policies and abuses that go on in the
> cult.
Nothing freaky about the policies, misinterpretation and
misrepresentation however can indeed become freaky. Abuses are caused
by incompetent people.
RR
Lawrence
"Peter Schilte" <peters...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a5a152a-cc06-45c7...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 dec, 01:46, "Lawrence" <xxxxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>> I got involved in Scientology originally because I believed
>> for a long time that I was a person with bad intentions.
>> was the only way to address those issues. I learned about
>> my good qualities on my own however by having to go
>> out into the world and assume responsibility for things,
>> not by engaging in any of the kind of activities that
>> Scientologists promoted to me the idea of engaging in
>> the whole time I was involved. For that knowledge and
>> for my self I am grateful.
>>
>> --
>> Read "The Diary Of A Scientologist"
>>
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/toomajan/
>>
>> Larry
>
Peter:
A lot of people like Kirstie Alley got involved in Scientology
because of a drug problem too.
Lawrence
"Astrid" <Astrid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2bfa5898-f78e-440f...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 13, 5:46 pm, "Lawrence" <xxxxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>> I got involved in Scientology originally because I believed
>> for a long time that I was a person with bad intentions.
>
> I'm always interested in the reason people get involved in Scientology
> and your explanation Lawrence, is very honest and interesting.
> However, I don't understand what you mean by "believed for a long time
> that I was a person with bad intentions."
>
> Did you have urges to harm others? Or hurt yourself?
No.
I was using a lot of drugs and was beginning to be a moody
type of combative person and it was reflected in my relationships
with others when they developed.
So, L. Ron Hubbard said not in these words but to this effect:
"All of this comes from the reactive mind" so I figured no more
reactive mind = no more drugs = no more moods = no more problems.
>
> Or was it just that Scientology presented this grandiose plan to save
> the planet, and it made you feel like your intentions -- to just get
> along (survive) and be healthy and happy -- were somehow "bad" or not
> good enough. That's a process I'd be interested in hearing about, if
> that is the case.
Yes. And I also realized that there were a lot of people that did not have
problems and that possibly those people would benefit from this information
as well. I thought it would be fantastic if I was the person to introduce
them
to this new tech, so to speak. I am not a selfish person.
>
> The reason I got involved is:
>
> Seeing the Tom Cruise video, and particularly the part about
> envisioning a world of all Scientologists, and NO critics one hundred
> years from now. It sounded deluded, totalitarian and fascist. I began
> to read much more about it. Before this, I just thought Scientology
> was a kooky but relatively harmless self-help scam for people with too
> much money. I'd never heard of the name "David Miscavige." I assumed
> the "religious" part had something to do with Hubbard wanting to reach
> a wider audience. The reason I thought it was a scam or not serious,
> is that no people of intelligence were mentioning that they were
> "Scientologists" or in my extensive reading, some by people with great
> minds, I've never encountered any author or scientist who mentioned
> Hubbard's theories.
>
> Also, the volcano on the cover of Dianetics was too cheesy looking for
> anyone in their right mind to take it seriously, coupled with the
> content. They might as well called it "Scam Cult."
>
> Little did I know that Hubbard thought he could clear the planet in
> one year, and all the freaky policies and abuses that go on in the
> cult.
The planet was supposed to Clear in 1983, so I guess that was another
lie they told, right?
Lawrence
"Roger Larsson" <exin...@tiscali.se> wrote in message
news:16c2167a-bbce-490f...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 Dec, 01:46, "Lawrence" <xxxxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>> I got involved in Scientology originally because I believed
>> for a long time that I was a person with bad intentions.
>> I felt like I had false purposes for living and that Scientology
>> was the only way to address those issues. I learned about
>> my good qualities on my own however by having to go
>> out into the world and assume responsibility for things,
>> not by engaging in any of the kind of activities that
>> Scientologists promoted to me the idea of engaging in
>> the whole time I was involved. For that knowledge and
>> for my self I am grateful.
>>
>
> shortcut was in the reality a longer way I could have spared me by
> saying "NO THANKS" to scientology in an early stage.
True Roger:
And those people that are in there right now are finding out for
themselves first hand that people looking for a free ride to
capitalize on people's disabilities is a "Scientologist Originated"
thought.
How do the Scientologists in New York for example now feel after
they have treated me the way that they have, that they come out of their
church at least once a month to 100 chanting protestors standing across
the street with signs?
If I was still in the church, should I come to the church's rescue and
save
them from Anonymous? No, I would leave, because those Anons have a
real reason to be there.
Barbara loves Marty
> "Mark Charles de Rothschild" <gregh...@home.fake> wrote in messagenews:3c1vp1....@news.alt.net...
>
>
His name is not Mark. His name is Neal Warren and he is a sexist and a
criminal from Islamorada Florida.
How can somebody have respect of a criminal?
Barbara Schwarz
http://barbaraschwarz.wordpress.com/
>
>
>
> > "Lawrence" <xxxxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote in message
> work and to avoid getting involved in them.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E
> And let's not forget the kids born into these groups. If this is all you've
> ever known,it's hard to know there's more to life than the cult cause.- Hide quoted text -
Tigger
So, will it kill you to "share" that here on A.R.S. After all that
is what this thread is for, is it not? Are you ashamed of how, when,
Barbara loves Marty
> On 14 Dec, 05:38, Barbara Schwarz <BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 10:23 pm, "Lawrence" <xxxxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > > "Barbara Schwarz" <BarbaraSchwarz2...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:0a27e763-44c8-4f2a...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Dec 13, 8:14 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On 14 Dec, 01:46, "Lawrence" <xxxxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
>
> > > >> > for a long time that I was a person with bad intentions.
> > > >> > I felt like I had false purposes for living and that Scientology
> > > >> > was the only way to address those issues.
>
> > > >> above, you most certainly are not anti-social. Self-criticism is a
> > > >> luxury the anti-social cannot afford. They must be RIGHT because they
> > > >> are in continual danger in their own estimation."
>
> > > >> >I learned about
> > > >> > my good qualities on my own however by having to go
> > > >> > out into the world and assume responsibility for things,
> > > >> > not by engaging in any of the kind of activities that
> > > >> > Scientologists promoted to me the idea of engaging in
> > > >> > the whole time I was involved. For that knowledge and
> > > >> > for my self I am grateful.
>
> > > >> the actual subject Scientology???
>
> > > >> You also missed the 'Code of Honour'. What HAVE you been doing in
> > > >> Scientology???
>
> > > >> RR
>
> > > > I came to Scientology because other religions were not able to answer
> > > > my many religious questions. But Scientology did.
>
> > > > Barbara Schwarz
> > > > --
>
> > > It answered mine too Barbara at the time.
>
> > Well, Larry, but my questions are still answered. And by the way, RR
> > is a nice person.
> > You might appreciate his postings once you know him better.
>
> He has always avoided answering to my questions and queries... he
> doesn't sound to me being a too-bright person.
>
> RR
Most posters here know better, they just lie hoping that others will
buy it.
Barbara Schwarz
http://barbaraschwarz.wordpress.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> > Barbara Schwarz
> > --
>
> > Attrocities committed by Christians, human race insulting idiots who
> > think that their despicable crimes will be forgiven by God and/or
> > Jesus and that is why they continue to commit crimes.
>
> > I am rather a Scientology as Scientology per L. Ron Hubbard teaches
> > ethics, which I uphold. It teaches that ANY bad act has not just
> > horrible consequences for the victim but also for the person who
> > commits the crime.
>
> >http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide2.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Roadrunner
> "Astrid" <Astrid7777...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You don't even ask her where this one year claim derives from...
Supposed to Clear in 1983??? Are you people making up all this stuff
as you go along, amazing....
RR
Lawrence
"Roadrunner" <roadrunn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b2ed4ab-3ab8-448d...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
because if you were and truly have been following this newsgroup
all along, you would know and like me not need to ask.
That is why it is a strange thing to me that you comment on
this thread.
rwalker
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
snip
>And let's not forget the kids born into these groups. If this is all you've
>ever known,it's hard to know there's more to life than the cult cause.
Speaking of that, I've been reading the book "Blown for Good," mostly
out of curiosity after hearing the author interviewed. If what he
says is true, why in God's name would anyone voluntarily join this
organization?
Lawrence
"rwalker" <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:a7gei5tq1th5epvbd...@4ax.com...
Scientologists are very good liars.
People can be very innocent and naive non Scientologists
at the time Scientologists lie to them.
This is why Scientology makes some deprogrammers very,
very mad.
Roadrunner
> "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote in message
A reference please, that would have taken you less time then given
another AVOIDING response...
RR
Roadrunner
> "rwalker" <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a7gei5tq1th5epvbd...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:00:10 +1000, "Marie Antoinette"
> > <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> >>And let's not forget the kids born into these groups. If this is all
> >>you've
> >>ever known,it's hard to know there's more to life than the cult cause.
>
> > Speaking of that, I've been reading the book "Blown for Good," mostly
> > out of curiosity after hearing the author interviewed. If what he
> > says is true, why in God's name would anyone voluntarily join this
> > organization?
>
> Scientologists are very good liars.
>
> People can be very innocent and naive non Scientologists
> at the time Scientologists lie to them.
Tell me, what is the correct definition of 'a' Scientologist??? You
have been pointed out before about the 'Code of Honour' and all that.
Ignoring all that?
Where, where, oh where, is your evidence that 'Scientologists' must
act against their integrity???
Are you going to respond here again with that it is 'known that I am
ignorant'??? Really wouldn't surprise me nor anyone as you have NO
answer to my queries...
RR
Astrid
>
> Speaking of that, I've been reading the book "Blown for Good," mostly
> out of curiosity after hearing the author interviewed. If what he
> says is true, why in God's name would anyone voluntarily join this
> organization?
>
Anonymous, is that many more people than in the past will at least
read about Scientology before they start taking courses.
Even kids who are born into it, like Marc, will have the internet to
look up resources they didn't have before, like ex-scientology kids.
In the past, the two components that are usually present for a person
to join are:
1. Ignorance of the abuses, ignorance of the financial
pressuring...the other side of Scientology.
2. Vulnerability. That can be being many things, including being young
and inexperienced, or being depressed, lonely, desperate or mentally
ill. Whatever the vulnerability is, it catches people at a time they
are willing to buy into Scientology's promises and myths that they are
"saving the planet."
Scientology thinks that its new square footage and star power, is
giving it respectability and that it is becoming more mainstream.
Instead, the internet is exposing how Scientology operates and abuses
people for financial gain, and how much they lie. For example, who
really wants to join and organization that pushes STUDY TECH yet is
led by a man who is a high school dropout cult fanatic.
Also, the magick, and workable elements in Scientology are getting
very dated. Most people would see it as a scam and farce to being
with, but as it gets older and L. Ron can be widely heard "lecturing"
etc., well, it just has to be taken as more comical or at least
suspicious than ever.
The same younger people who might have been vulnerable in the past,
like kids interested in sci fi, are the kids who are now interested in
computers, and laughing it up about Scientology's bogus "importance"
and ideas.
Scientology is torn between two things that worked for them in the
past, at least enough to make billions. Those two things were secrecy
(the esoteric nature of the crap they feed) and wanting to spread
worldwide, including throughout the Universe.
That worked in the past, when they could keep both those things
relatively secret.
Consider that internal video meant to shake down members for
donations, about making every org an ideal org, because it will reach
every child in a community. Before the internet, the public would
never see that Scientology involves that level of delusion. Take some
city that has a population of 100,000 and they get an org and
eventually build up to 50 people taking courses. How is that reaching
every child in the community?
The reality is different. The reality is Nancy Cartwright's ex-fiance
gave like a million to Scientology, then when his construction
business failed, he jumped off a bridge. Not just the "bridge to
freedom," but a regular bridge. That's part of what Scientology can do
for you too. That's the NEW message of Scientology, the new meme.
In the past, there were a lot of libraries that didn't even have BARE-
FACED MESSIAH or Paulette Cooper's book. Scientologists probably had a
way of removing them from shelves, then as it went out of print, they
library couldn't even reorder them.
They'd like to do that with all of the information about them
available on the internet but they can't.
The only way to understand how people get involved in something like
Scientology, is to consider some dumb things or bad decisions you have
made in your own life. Things that in retrospect seem so stupid, but
at the time seemed to make some kind of sense, or seemed to be worth a
try at least.
Or, the things you believed, just because your parents taught you to
believe in those things.
When I was young, and let's say I wanted to be a doctor at one point.
I wanted to read books by people who became doctors. I wanted to know
about their experiences of the good and bad sides. I'd read several
books on that. So, why wouldn't people who are considering joining the
Sea Org for the next billion years, and don't know what it is REALLY
like, why wouldn't they want to read a book like Marc's?
I think more and more, they will.
Tigger
Hey Road Runner,
Why are you running away from revealing how, when, where, why you got
involved with Scientology? Do you have something to hide? Are you
ashamed? Embarassed? Afraid? Will you get pneunomia and die if you
tell?
Tigger
realpch
Well they don't tell you that's what's going to happen.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Peter Schilte
I remember Michel Snoeck admitting he was "involved" (his word) with
scientology 23 years. However he never told any details about all
those years.
That is supposed to make him an expert.
OTOH, when ex-scientologists, having been in for 25 or 30 years, wrote
about their experiences, he invalidated them.
He also claimed to have been working in a Narconon facility. Again, he
never told any details about that period.
He definitely has something to hide.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for 15 years!
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:00:10 +1000, "Marie Antoinette"
>
>
> snip
>
> >And let's not forget the kids born into these groups. If this is all you've
> >ever known,it's hard to know there's more to life than the cult cause.
>
> Speaking of that, I've been reading the book "Blown for Good," mostly
> out of curiosity after hearing the author interviewed. If what he
> says is true, why in God's name would anyone voluntarily join this
> organization?
a) My mom was into it, she was briefly director of FCDC evening
organization
b) In the "duck and Cover" age I grew up in, I was at the top of the
entire school system in science, math, abstract reasoning, art but
not english .. who was I to question a Navy War Hero who was an
Atomic Physicist?\
I had already learned that I could figure out how anything in the
material world worked... I was reading schematics and fixed my first
TV at 11... but I did not understand how people worked.... how the
mind works... Hubbard SAID that HE did..
After being hypnotized by Hubbards book, I think it was "A New Slant
on Life" I became convinced.... and gave it a try ( and gave in to my
mom's pressure)
c) There was no internet back then..
Of course, all of his claims were and ARE lies... including being an
atomic physicist and navy war hero....
http://www.lermanet.com/LRonHubbard.htm
But hindsight is 20/20 eh?
Also see 8steps out
http://www.Lermanet.com/cos/8steps.html
and this one about Endorphins induced by minute amounts of
electricity
http://www.lermanet.com/e-metershort.htm
Tigger
10 REASONS WHY PEOPLE JOIN the "Church" of Scientology
1. They are in a vulnerable situation and in the wrong place at the
wrong time (Mind muggings)
2. They are loved bombed by Scientologists.
3. They want to improve themselves or something in their lives.
4. .They take a "free" personality test or a "free' stress test and
are told they have some problems, but not to worry, Scientology can
fix it. (Being manipulated and deceived.)
5. They hire a business management company to improve business and
they and their spouses are sent to the "church" for courses to
"improve" themselves, their marriage etc. (Being manipulated and
deceived.)
6. They have an employer who will fire them (or not hire them) if
they don't take "a course". (Being manipulated and deceived)
6. They have a relative who gives them a free cruise on the Freewinds
or will throw them away (disconnect) if they don't accept
Scientology. (Being manipulated and deceived)
7. They have an addiction and go to NarCONon. (Being manipulated and
deceived)
8. They are married to a Scientologist, who wants a divorce if they
continue to be an SP and don't/can't accept his/her "religion". (Being
manipulated and deceived)
9. They are told not to listen to or believe anything negative about
Scientology because it comes from SP's, criminals, drug pushers,
psychs, etc. who want to destroy Scientology and don't know what
Scientology is because they have never taken a course. "Take a course
and see for yourself". (Being manipulated and deceived)
10. They read "Dianetics" and for some reason, believe Hubbard's
weird science fiction.
Bottom line: BEING VULNERABLE, MANIPULATED AND/OR DECEIVED.
Tigger
******************************
"You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people
some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the
time."
******************************-
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for 15 years!
Oh yeah... I was an anti-war activist, and had been gassed on the
pentagon steps.. and thought I could use Hubbard's dreck to end war.
Tigger
Hey Larry....
There's a wonderful website where you can get the answer from the
horses' mouths....people who have "gone through the door" and
succeeded in getting out the door. I think if one did a tally, it
would be found that hardly any got involved because of "religion". If
you haven't already, you might want to take the survey there and tell
how you got involved.
I've looked at several of CO$' Talk to a Scientologist cookie cutter
pages and have yet to find a single one who got involved with
Scientology because of "rellgion". I'm not saying they aren't
there....I just haven't seen any.
If anyone has seen any who did, please let us know.
Tigger
Scientology - Through the Door - Introduction
http://alley.ethercat.com/door/
Quote:
Scientology - Through the Door
This website explores the thoughts of people who have participated in
the Church of Scientology - their reasons for joining, for staying,
their thoughts while a member, and their reasons for leaving the
organization. It is hoped that through this series of interviews,
people who have never been members can gain a comprehension of the
motivations shared by the members and ex-members, as well as an
understanding of the different experiences members have had.
If you have ever been a member of the Church of Scientology, please
take the time to answer the questions within. All questions are
voluntary, except the first and last questions: Name or Alias, and
Comments.
If you have ever been INT Base Staff, please consider answering the Ex-
INT Base Staff Interrogatory.
If you have ever disconnected or been disconnected from someone,
please consider doing the Disconnection Hurts interview.
Thank you,
ethercat
Tigger
> On 15 dec, 16:52, Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > Hey Road Runner,
>
> > Why are you running away from revealing how, when, where, why you got
> > involved with Scientology? Do you have something to hide? Are you
> > ashamed? Embarassed? Afraid? Will you get pneunomia and die if you
> > tell?
>
> > Tigger
>
> I remember Michel Snoeck admitting he was "involved" (his word) with
> scientology 23 years. However he never told any details about all
> those years.
> That is supposed to make him an expert.
> OTOH, when ex-scientologists, having been in for 25 or 30 years, wrote
> about their experiences, he invalidated them.
>
> He also claimed to have been working in a Narconon facility. Again, he
> never told any details about that period.
>
> He definitely has something to hide.
I agree with you Peter. But why does he have something to hide? Is
he lying? Is he afraid? Why would
someone not tell details about his great experiences unless he is
hiding something or is afraid of something or someone?
Tigger
Roadrunner
> On Dec 15, 10:16 am, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15 dec, 16:52, Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > > Hey Road Runner,
>
> > > Why are you running away from revealing how, when, where, why you got
> > > involved with Scientology? Do you have something to hide? Are you
> > > ashamed? Embarassed? Afraid? Will you get pneunomia and die if you
> > > tell?
>
> > > Tigger
>
> > I remember Michel Snoeck admitting he was "involved" (his word) with
> > scientology 23 years. However he never told any details about all
> > those years.
> > That is supposed to make him an expert.
> > OTOH, when ex-scientologists, having been in for 25 or 30 years, wrote
> > about their experiences, he invalidated them.
>
> > He also claimed to have been working in a Narconon facility. Again, he
> > never told any details about that period.
>
> > He definitely has something to hide.
>
> I agree with you Peter. But why does he have something to hide? Is
> he lying? Is he afraid? Why would
> someone not tell details about his great experiences unless he is
> hiding something or is afraid of something or someone?
Hihih, ecce the infantiles confirming eachother in their shared
delusions... yeaheaheha...
RR
Roadrunner
> On 15 dec, 16:52, Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > Hey Road Runner,
>
> > Why are you running away from revealing how, when, where, why you got
> > involved with Scientology? Do you have something to hide? Are you
> > ashamed? Embarassed? Afraid? Will you get pneunomia and die if you
> > tell?
>
> > Tigger
>
> I remember Michel Snoeck admitting he was "involved" (his word) with
> scientology 23 years.
It's 27 years now.
>However he never told any details about all
> those years.
None of your business quite frankly. Although I did make some few
referrals to happenings.
> That is supposed to make him an expert.
No, not necessarily at all. I've seen many old-timers not knowing nor
understanding very much at all.
> OTOH, when ex-scientologists, having been in for 25 or 30 years, wrote
> about their experiences, he invalidated them.
If they talk nonsense I tell them that, and that is not invalidation.
>
> He also claimed to have been working in a Narconon facility. Again, he
> never told any details about that period.
I did actuallly share a few details.
>
> He definitely has something to hide.
Ah, 'cause I don't respond to your command I must be hiding something.
The logic of the infantile...?
Now tell us how you invalidated your ex-girlfriend after she got off
drugs with Narconon... We should actually locate this girl and
interview her, now what will we hear Sir Peter?? What will she
tell...?
RR
Tigger
Shared "delusions"? What's delusional about observing that for some
reason you refused to share when, where, how or even why you got
involved with Scientology and comparing your "silence" with the
observation that other Scientologists and ex-Scientologists, who post
less than you, have no problem telling how they got involved with
Scientology?
So what's your problem? Why won't you reveal how, where or why you
got involved with Scientology? T"wentyseven years ago" tells when....
now it's time to tell HOW, WHY and WHERE. Unless/until you do, it is
only natural to think you have something to hide and wonder what it is
and why.
Tigger
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tigger
>
> > > Peter
Peter Schilte
> On 15 Dec, 17:16, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 15 dec, 16:52, Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > > Hey Road Runner,
>
> > > Why are you running away from revealing how, when, where, why you got
> > > involved with Scientology? Do you have something to hide? Are you
> > > ashamed? Embarassed? Afraid? Will you get pneunomia and die if you
> > > tell?
>
> > > Tigger
>
> > I remember Michel Snoeck admitting he was "involved" (his word) with
> > scientology 23 years.
>
> It's 27 years now.
>
Congratulations.
> >However he never told any details about all
> > those years.
>
> None of your business quite frankly. Although I did make some few
> referrals to happenings.
>
So in fact you keep it hidden. Not what one would expect from a person
that is so overly grateful for all the things he supposedly received
from it......
> > That is supposed to make him an expert.
>
> No, not necessarily at all.
Well, you have shown you are not the expert you like to play here. So
I agree with you this time.
> I've seen many old-timers not knowing nor
> understanding very much at all.
>
Translation: I have seen many old-timers not in agreement with my
views on matters.
> > OTOH, when ex-scientologists, having been in for 25 or 30 years, wrote
> > about their experiences, he invalidated them.
>
> If they talk nonsense I tell them that, and that is not invalidation.
>
Translation: If their experiences do not match with my view on
matters, I invalidate them, although I refuse to admit I do.
>
>
> > He also claimed to have been working in a Narconon facility. Again, he
> > never told any details about that period.
>
> I did actuallly share a few details.
>
You did? Where? When? Do you mind to share them in this thread, as it
would be very on topic.
>
>
> > He definitely has something to hide.
>
> Ah, 'cause I don't respond to your command I must be hiding something.
> The logic of the infantile...?
>
LOL! I used YOUR logic, and it worked very well. Thanks for exposing
yourself.
> Now tell us how you invalidated your ex-girlfriend after she got off
> drugs with Narconon...
Why would I invalidate her? Is it invalidating to ask questions about
Narconon and scientology!? Is it really THAT bad?
You seem to oversee the fact that, at that time, I didn´t know much
about scientology. It were her answers on one side, and refusing to
answer on the other side that made me go on the internet and find out
myself.
> We should actually locate this girl and
> interview her, now what will we hear Sir Peter?? What will she
> tell...?
Go ahead, Michel, locate her and ask your questions. I am confident
they will NOT confirm your preconceived an prejudiced opinions on me.
Not by a mile! So go ahead! I bet she would see right through you and
laugh about you.
You see, we know each other for almost 35 years. We never had any
secrets for each other, except when she joined the scam of
scientology. THAT is when I started to look for information.
But that will be beyond your comprehension too, right Michel?
Dennis L Erlich
But I think the simplest answer to rwalker's q is that some people
~need~ simple answers. It's like fast food. tl;dr, dw, dl. The cult
serves up lots of simple answers fast. Formulae, bogus scales, axioms
of ronsense.
So if a person is needy and has other human "flaws" which allow him to
ignore or minimize contradictions, he is vulnerable to a degree. The
flaws might include: naivety, a lack of street smarts, a desire to be
useful or fit in, a need for fellowship, a quest for tools with which
to help himself and others, a lack of social skills, a lack of
education, etc.
I became interested because of a desire to gain personal control of my
thoughts and emotions. And to help others who wanted to do the same.
There were a lot of other, less important reasons. But that was the
main thing, and that was my sole goal and only roll in the cult.
I held one other post outside Tek and Qual. That was my first post in
Div 3, Dept of Ram. I was Material Clerk in the basement of LA Org in
1967. I had a small closet full of supplies, pens, stationary, and
T/P.
All my other posts were in Div 4 & 5.
Astrid <Astrid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Good thoughts, Astrid.
D
----------------
"All the people involved were not following the laws ...
were not allowing me to have my civil rights." - anonymous ex-scieno
Lawrence
"Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for 15 years!" <arnald...@lermanet.com>
wrote in message
news:6507e365-1a0e-47ac...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Is that why?
I just wanted to be Clear and free from my bank.
Not to mention that your Clear # is somewhere around
3,500 or so and today the Clear #'s are above 150,000.
So, if a person was a Scientologist and made it to Clear,
they had to have been doing something right.
I don't need to ask you what went wrong. {LOL}.
I read some other things about it on your site a couple
of times.
Lawrence
"Dennis L Erlich" <info...@informer.org> wrote in message
news:suhfi5p1s05tdaqjj...@4ax.com...
And Astrid is just the kind the kind of person to ask you:
"Why did you think your thoughts and emotions were out of control?"
and probably know the answer too.!
Lawrence
"Tigger" <Tiggeri...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3f7ecb03-3260-4693...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
No Tigger.
No one gets involved with Scientology because of their religious
beliefs.
People get involved in Scientology because they are facing a problem
without answers.
In the 9 years that I was in Scientology I never
saw 1 wedding, 1 funeral or 1 Sunday mass performed with
some religious text and a preacher. Not once.
I realize that there are people in Scientology or out of it
that have gotten married there but I witnessed it.
And when I read the Dianetics book and went in for the
first time I was still not 100% sure if I should remain
a Catholic or not yet. So it is not religion that intererests
people, its the thought of becoming more yourself, more
perceptive, having a higher understanding of life and others
that does it. Not Sunday masses.
Dennis L Erlich
>"Why did you think your thoughts and emotions were out of control?"
We start out in life that way. It is through socialization,
education, discipline and maturity that we gain a ~partial~ control of
our thoughts and emotions.
I was 21 yrs old with a hormonal wife and new-born daughter when I was
introduced to the cult. You show me anyone at that age with those
responsibilities that has his thoughts and emotions completely under
his own control.
So I thought it was a worthwhile goal.
D
-----------------
"I was one of those." - Leonard Cohen
Lawrence
There isn't anything unusual about that.
I had hormonal girlfriends when I was 14
so that might have been on the back of my
mind as well to get involved in Scientology! {LOL}
What really happened was that I was using drugs
and hanging with druggies and then all of a sudden
I had to go out in to the world and earn a living. And
people out there in the world {most of them} trying
to really earn a living do want to go smoke some reefer.
So, that was that. But Scientology did not help Dennis.
It is almost as if they were saying to me: "Larry, you should
take drugs, they're good for you!" That was when I first started
to really have my doubts about them. I mean did they want
to help me or break my arm so they could have something
to feel a certain way about me with?
Scientology just turned out to not be the place for me.
rwalker
wrote:
>
>"Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for 15 years!" <arnald...@lermanet.com>
>wrote in message
>news:6507e365-1a0e-47ac...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 15, 11:25 am, "Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for 15 years!"
>> <arnaldole...@lermanet.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 15, 2:57 am, rwalker <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:00:10 +1000, "Marie Antoinette"
>>>
>>> > <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > snip
>>>
>>> > >And let's not forget the kids born into these groups. If this is all
>>> > >you've
>>> > >ever known,it's hard to know there's more to life than the cult cause.
>>>
>>> > Speaking of that, I've been reading the book "Blown for Good," mostly
>>> > out of curiosity after hearing the author interviewed. If what he
>>> > says is true, why in God's name would anyone voluntarily join this
>>> > organization?
>>>
snip
Thanks everyone for the answers.
Anonymous
You's said before that you joined because you were "young, and
idealistic." Hubbard quenched that idealism for you then?
>
> -----------------
>
> "I was one of those." - Leonard Cohen
"I was! Because I grunted, therefore I was" - Socrates
Lawrence
> On Dec 14, 5:23 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14 Dec, 21:38, Tigger <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey RoadRunner,
>>
>> > When are you going to tell us how, when, why and where you got
>> > involved in Scientology?
>>
>> > Tigger
>>
>> I already shared that publicly, although not here on ARS.
>>
>> RR
{SNIP}
Publicly where? You remind me of a person who shows up
at a costume party and tells people "I can't wear my costume
because it is too new. I just got it yesterday".
Obviously if you really had any true experience to share with
anyone about your involvement in Scientology {seeing as how
you are continually in the valence of "The Discussionist" you would
have done so by now.
As they say in the game Deus Ex but only as regards Roadrunner:
"Nothing to see here...move along".
--
Read "The Diary Of A Scientologist"
http://mysite.verizon.net/toomajan/
Larry
>
> So, will it kill you to "share" that here on A.R.S. After all that
> is what this thread is for, is it not? Are you ashamed of how, when,
> why and where you got involved in Scientology?
>
> Tigger
Marie Antoinette
"Mark Charles de Rothschild" <greg...@home.fake> wrote in message
news:3c1vp1....@news.alt.net...
> "Lawrence" <xxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:4b258b0c$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>> I got involved in Scientology originally because I believed
>> for a long time that I was a person with bad intentions.
>> was the only way to address those issues. I learned about
>> my good qualities on my own however by having to go out into the world
>> and assume responsibility for things,
>> not by engaging in any of the kind of activities that Scientologists
>> promoted to me the idea of engaging in the whole time I was involved. For
>> that knowledge and for my self I am grateful.
>>
>> --
>> Read "The Diary Of A Scientologist"
>>
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/toomajan/
>>
>> Larry
>
>
>
>
> when 'get involved' means joining the cult.
>
> The intelligent elite among us don't 'get involved' with Scientology other
> than to attempt to point out to potential victims the the folly of
> 'getting involved' with Scientology.
>
>
> Mark Charles de Rothschild
With respect,Mark,that's rather judgemental and condescending . The fact you
call yourself part of the 'intellectual elite' indicates you'd be good
material to be brainwashed as a Scientologist .After all,they're told
they're the 'intellectual elite' aka 'Homo Novis'(New Man),superior to the
rest of humanity.
I've never been in a cult,but I can understand why good,intelligent people
get caught into these traps. It's easy with hindsight and all the info we
can on cults these days to go,"How could anyone get suckered into that?" but
there are various reasons why people get drawn into these groups.
Don't forget,things were different in the 50s,60s and 70s. It was a whole
period of social revolution, of trying new things. People were finally
admitting that for a lot of them,conservative religions weren't satisfying
them emotionally or spiritually.Some of the groups that sprung up were often
genuine attempts to find less structured,alternative paths to God. Alas
there will always be those who will exploit others,especially those in need
of love and assurance.Cults took (and continue to take) advantage of the
fact that there were/are a lot of people in morally restrictive,emotionally
repressed backgrounds looking for a freer spirituality and a sense of
community and acceptance. Cults don't exploit stupidity,they exploit
emotional damage, a desire for religious fulfilment and a longing for real
love and have a sense of meaning/purpose in life. That's not
gullibility,it's human nature.
Even today,a lot of cults use a lot of clever tactics to hide the fact
they're a cult. Look at Scientology:how many front groups has it again? You
go for drug rehab and you find out you're doing Hubbard tech.(Narconon) You
think you're involved in a Human Rights Activist group,and turns out you're
in a cult 'enemies list' watchdog group.(CCHR) Way to Happiness,Study
tech,the list
goes on and on.
Finally,cults use sophisticated hypnosis and thought-stopping rituals,honed
over generations by professional subjugators of the human mind. It is a
subtle and gradual process involving love bombing,emotional blackmail,trance
induction,semi-starvation,sleep deprivation etc etc. Hard to be critical on
500 calories a day,2 hours of sleep and three hours of staring into space.
The mind pretty much shuts down after this kind of abuse.
Cults LOVE it when people say,"I'm too smart to fall for a cult," It is
exactly this sort of ill-placed confidence and under-estimation of the power
of thought control that they can use.
I do hope you never have a loved one that gets into the trap of one of these
organizations. Good smart people DO get involved in these groups. The best
we can do is try to 'cult-proof' our kids from understanding how these cults
work and to avoid getting involved in them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E
Richard Ford
> On Dec 14, 7:54 am, "Mark Charles de Rothschild" <gregh...@home.fake>
>
> THE LATEST SOCKPUPPET OF GREGORY HALL wrote:
>
> > "Roadrunner" <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ah, would you care to explain to us all why, in particular during the
> > > first 20 years, that it was only highly educated people that were
> > > involved with Scientology.
>
> > > RR
>
> > Highly educated does not necessarily correlate with intelligence and common
> > sense.
>
> Right you are Mr. Hall...especially common sense.
>
> > Take Monica Pignotti as an example. She is highly educated as she's
> > earned a Ph.D. but she's none to bright when dealing with day to day
> > affairs.
>
> LOL...and I suppose you think you are a prime example of intelligence,
> education and common sense. These little stupid bullbaiting games
> you attempt to play with Ms Schwarz testify to the opposite.
>
> >Highly educated, depending upon the university, might well mean
> > highly brainwashed with a highly liberal social agenda.
>
> And also a highly "conservative" social agenda. That's why there
> should be separation of church and state. There are so many
> brainwashed "conservatives" in Oklahoma, it makes one's blood curdle
> with embarrassment.
>
> > Peter Schilte might not be highly educated but he does seem to be highly
> > intelligent. In other words, high intelligence is something one is born
> > with. Highly educated is often a function of wealth above ability.
>
> And common sense is often a function of experience above Mensa scores.
>
> Tigger
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark Charles de Rothschild- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I suspect the real reason the OP did his own research was that his
girlfriend could not answer questions honestly. Scientologists, quite
honesty are a little weird. It is this that makes people doubt what
they say, not extra terestrial conspiracies ext.
Roger Larsson
> "Roger Larsson" <exins...@tiscali.se> wrote in message
>
> news:16c2167a-bbce-490f...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 14 Dec, 01:46, "Lawrence" <xxxxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> >> I got involved in Scientology originally because I believed
> >> for a long time that I was a person with bad intentions.
> >> I felt like I had false purposes for living and that Scientology
> >> was the only way to address those issues. I learned about
> >> my good qualities on my own however by having to go
> >> out into the world and assume responsibility for things,
> >> not by engaging in any of the kind of activities that
> >> Scientologists promoted to me the idea of engaging in
> >> the whole time I was involved. For that knowledge and
> >> for my self I am grateful.
>
> > shortcut was in the reality a longer way I could have spared me by
> > saying "NO THANKS" to scientology in an early stage.
>
> True Roger:
>
> And those people that are in there right now are finding out for
> themselves first hand that people looking for a free ride to
> capitalize on people's disabilities is a "Scientologist Originated"
> thought.
>
> How do the Scientologists in New York for example now feel after
> they have treated me the way that they have, that they come out of their
> church at least once a month to 100 chanting protestors standing across
> the street with signs?
>
> If I was still in the church, should I come to the church's rescue and
> save
> them from Anonymous? No, I would leave, because those Anons have a
> real reason to be there.
The ones able to look themselves in their own eyes and say "my god how
I love you your honest bastard" are true to themselves. To be honsest
is something you do to your self and not to the ones you are honest
towards. Self-esteem is to feel good when others tries to make you
feel bad. At the ending it's what you have done to yourself and not
what you have done to scientology.
Lawrence
"Roger Larsson" <exin...@tiscali.se> wrote in message
news:db8c2f88-12de-4188...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> The ones able to look themselves in their own eyes and say "my god how
> I love you your honest bastard" are true to themselves. To be honsest
> is something you do to your self and not to the ones you are honest
> towards. Self-esteem is to feel good when others tries to make you
> feel bad. At the ending it's what you have done to yourself and not
> what you have done to scientology.
Roger:
Why Did You Get Involved In Scientology In The First Place?
Roger Larsson
On a world wide tour I met scientologists on a street in Sydney,
Australia on my way to a pub at Kings Cross. I answered some questions
and followed them to their church for an evaluation. I made it from
doing the personality test but not from the chat with a reg. He held
up a copy of book one and told me this book had all the answers to the
mind and I answered him that I liked science-fiction and such stuff.
He looked me into my eyes and told me it's not about science-fiction
and I looked him back and flunked. I didn't know about the TRs making
scientologists able to sell lies without any human emotions and
reactions so I bought a copy written in swedish to read on my flight
back to Sweden. I read book one twice and two years later I made a
visit to the org in Gothenburgh. The church of scientologys
brainwashed followers made me financial functional disorder and I
don't like organizations making people financial handicapped.
Instead of making the down up and going scientology limits the freedom
of movement.
Lawrence
Roger:
That is great! Thanks for sharing.
Isn't that the absolute truth. I used to love doing TR's a while back
and my TR's were unshakeable because I wanted to be a very good
auditor, ONCE.
After I would talk to people and use SUPERB TR's my
friends were practically tearing my pants off to learn how I did it like
the guy did with you when you went in the first time.
But sometimes its not always the person's TR's that get you in.
Sometimes you just want to help people.
Roger Larsson
Yup! Why pretend to feel good in a false world when it's possible to
feel good in a real world?
A "NO" to a false world, to a scientology world and a "YES" to a real
world makes life to something else then to a show inwhere actors make
their roles as if it's the way to glory and hallelujah.
Cult-leaders scaring their followers with harsh fates if they don't
obey are much more nearer to a harsh fate than their disobedient
followers.
Tigger
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sounds familiar, Roger. No not me, but my then husband. He was in
New York City (from upstate N.Y.) for a physics conference. When he
was taking a break (out gaping at the tall buildings) a pretty young
lady came up to him and invited him to a "free lecture" and "party".
He took the bait, swallowed the hook (signed up for a "communications
course") and perhaps is the only physicist in the world stupid enough
to be an OT8. Education and intelligence does not mean one also has
common sense.
Tigger