Why Did You NOT Get Involved With Scientology?
Tigger
From: Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 14, 12:26 am
From:
Subject: Why Did You Get Involved In Scientology In The First Place?
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
Roadrunner
Per this account, Sir Peter de Schilte declined for Scientology 'cause
it got his ex-girlfriend off drugs (after 4 failures trying to
accomplish that elsewhere), and that she became a happy mother and now
had her own business.
Surely this is a grand reason to NOT get involved...
RR
Lawrence
"Tigger" <Tiggeri...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:9a58fa18-5bc3-4dce...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Peter:
A lot of people like Kirstie Alley got involved in Scientology
because of a drug problem too.
--
Read "The Diary Of A Scientologist"
http://mysite.verizon.net/toomajan/
Larry
Peter Schilte
It seems to be beyond your comprehension that, even when she got of
drugs, Narconon is still a scam.
You could also have read that my view on scientology was not
influenced by the result Narconon had with my friend. It was the
result of LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES.
You should try that too for a change.
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"
Peter Schilte
> "Tigger" <Tiggerinthe...@webtv.net> wrote in message
Narconon isn't any better than any other rehabilitation facility.
2 years ago a Greek woman died of an overdose at Narconon Zutphen.
A few years back a young man was taken to hospital because of
urinating blood, caused by the "treatment" in Narconon Zutphen. I know
his father.
I am still in contact with a mother of a young man that was in
Narconon twice, and he still is using drugs.
Yep, Narconon is great..............
Lawrence
"Peter Schilte" <peters...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24f6ceab-b675-4e6e...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> 2 years ago a Greek woman died of an overdose at Narconon Zutphen.
> A few years back a young man was taken to hospital because of
> urinating blood, caused by the "treatment" in Narconon Zutphen. I know
> his father.
> I am still in contact with a mother of a young man that was in
> Narconon twice, and he still is using drugs.
>
> Yep, Narconon is great..............
>
> 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"
>
> http://www.scamofscientology.nl
Fortunately my drug use never required the intervention
of drug rehabilitation specialists.
It was just some joints and LSD a couple of times, nothing
like you know the straight jacket type for people that are
having withdrawal symptoms and screaming.
Roadrunner
A MIRACLE has occurred!!! Yeaheaheaheah...!!!
Ya think you have any credibility left after your new blunder?? No one
is listening to you...
> You could also have read that my view on scientology was not
> influenced by the result Narconon had with my friend. It was the
> result of LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES.
You are a liar, you never looked at the positive side.
> You should try that too for a change.
In my researches I provided for conclusive evidence that I did. Your
'site' however shows conclusively you did NOT DO THAT!
RR
Roadrunner
You are to focus on the percentage rate of actual confirmed success.
You however focus on the failures.
Without willingness of the person to get off drugs, success is limited
to impossible. It doesn't say a thing about a particular treatment
being great or not.
RR
Roadrunner
> "Peter Schilte" <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Dependability on drugs or ever having been subjected to that indicates
a certain weakness.
I have seen your site, you should not assume that much, it has quite a
few historical and factual errors and misrepresentations...
RR
Peter Schilte
No, it is the result of evaluating the facts.
> Ya think you have any credibility left after your new blunder?? No one
> is listening to you...
>
First: I don't care about credibility, especially from you. Second:
You are listening, because you respond.
> > You could also have read that my view on scientology was not
> > influenced by the result Narconon had with my friend. It was the
> > result of LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES.
>
> You are a liar, you never looked at the positive side.
>
Again: It seems to be beyond your comprehension that at first I had a
positive view on both Narconon and scientology, after having looked at
one side, but changed my mind after looking also at the opposing
side.
Calling me a liar for the simple fact that YOU are unable to do the
same thing is ridiculously arrogant.
> > You should try that too for a change.
>
> In my researches I provided for conclusive evidence that I did.
We are not discussing your researches. We are discussing this and
here.
> Your
> 'site' however shows conclusively you did NOT DO THAT!
No, it shows the negative sides of scientology and its management. The
assumed positive sides are very well represented by scientology
websites.
You have admitted yourself it isn't the information that you oppose,
but the way it is presented.
Peter Schilte
You are referring to the lies spread by Narconon? What was it? 75%, or
80% success rates?
While in fact the success rate was a mere 6 or 7%. Focusing on that
figure, one may conclude that Narconon is in no way better, and
because of their use of inflated figures, one can also conclude it is
a scam.
> Without willingness of the person to get off drugs, success is limited
> to impossible. It doesn't say a thing about a particular treatment
> being great or not.
>
Yeah: If it works, it is scientology. If it doesn't, it is people. I
know, Michel, I know.
Roadrunner
Indeed, a scam that got your ex-girlfriend off the drugs where 4
earlier attempts elsewhere miserably failed.
You were never even there, you totally rely on what some other tell
you.
RR
Roadrunner
What facts? But you are just using my terms about the matter of
evaluation without even knowing what you talk about.
>
> > Ya think you have any credibility left after your new blunder?? No one
> > is listening to you...
>
> First: I don't care about credibility, especially from you. Second:
> You are listening, because you respond.
I don't listen, I look... and I see a nutcase that NEEDS TO HAVE
RIGHT...
RR
Peter Schilte
Do the research, but do not limit yourself by only looking at one
side.
> But you are just using my terms about the matter of
> evaluation without even knowing what you talk about.
>
Yeah, right.
>
>
> > > Ya think you have any credibility left after your new blunder?? No one
> > > is listening to you...
>
> > First: I don't care about credibility, especially from you. Second:
> > You are listening, because you respond.
>
> I don't listen, I look... and I see a nutcase that NEEDS TO HAVE
> RIGHT...
>
I KNOW you don´t listen. You have shown that many times before.
And I deny I need to be right. It is the facts that are right. Not a
70 or 80% success rate, but a poverish 6.6%. You cannot find it? You,
the researcher by his own admission??
BTW, do you notice that you are still responding to me?
Peter Schilte
Yes. Like Narconon fails in 93.4% of all cases.
I know: When it works it is scientology. When it doesn´t it is people.
> You were never even there, you totally rely on what some other tell
> you.
When someone warns me to not put my hand on a hot stove, I would be
stupid when I did put my hand on it, right?
It is often a matter of common sense to listen to what other people
have to say, so one doesn´t have to repeat the mistakes other people
made. But common sense is not your strongest side, now is it Michel?
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
yer cult is a toastie poastie birdy boy
Roadrunner
That is all you ever do yourself...
>
> > But you are just using my terms about the matter of
> > evaluation without even knowing what you talk about.
>
> Yeah, right.
Fact!
>
>
>
> > > > Ya think you have any credibility left after your new blunder?? No one
> > > > is listening to you...
>
> > > First: I don't care about credibility, especially from you. Second:
> > > You are listening, because you respond.
>
> > I don't listen, I look... and I see a nutcase that NEEDS TO HAVE
> > RIGHT...
>
> I KNOW you don´t listen. You have shown that many times before.
> And I deny I need to be right. It is the facts that are right. Not a
> 70 or 80% success rate, but a poverish 6.6%. You cannot find it? You,
> the researcher by his own admission??
And how do you know that? Your pals told you so...
>
> BTW, do you notice that you are still responding to me?
You only say that because you get exposed here, this is simply your
attempt to intimidate to get me to stop responding.
Fact of the matter appears to be:
Your ex-girlfriend 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
Your source for this claim? Have you ever been there?
The matter appears to be:
Your ex-girlfriend 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...
> I know: When it works it is scientology. When it doesn´t it is people.
>
> > You were never even there, you totally rely on what some other tell
> > you.
>
> When someone warns me to not put my hand on a hot stove, I would be
> stupid when I did put my hand on it, right?
> It is often a matter of common sense to listen to what other people
> have to say, so one doesn´t have to repeat the mistakes other people
> made. But common sense is not your strongest side, now is it Michel?
>
> Peter
ALL you do is attack, attack, attack, you are quite sick... incapable
of any sensible conversation or exchange.
You continue to fail to explain how a 'scam' got your ex-girlfriend
OFF DRUGS where 4 previous attempts FAILED. You witness here about a
MIRACLE, but you don't explain ANYTHING.
It gets quite understandable why you attack Scientology. It got your
ex-girlfriend to become cause over you... and you didn't like that...
and so you went out on the Internet... and invalidated her... you
NEEDED to invalidate.
RR
Peter Schilte
Of course, Master Michel. Of course!
Fact remains that you want people to evaluate and when they do, you
invalidate their evaluations.
Invalidating, is that what one is taught while being brainwashed by
scientology tech?
Because it seems it is about all you have to offer.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Ya think you have any credibility left after your new blunder?? No one
> > > > > is listening to you...
>
> > > > First: I don't care about credibility, especially from you. Second:
> > > > You are listening, because you respond.
>
> > > I don't listen, I look... and I see a nutcase that NEEDS TO HAVE
> > > RIGHT...
>
> > I KNOW you don´t listen. You have shown that many times before.
> > And I deny I need to be right. It is the facts that are right. Not a
> > 70 or 80% success rate, but a poverish 6.6%. You cannot find it? You,
> > the researcher by his own admission??
>
> And how do you know that? Your pals told you so...
>
Nope.
>
>
> > BTW, do you notice that you are still responding to me?
>
> You only say that because you get exposed here,
Nope. You claimed no one is listening to me. Fact is that your
responses show the exact opposite.
> this is simply your
> attempt to intimidate to get me to stop responding.
>
Nope. I don't intimidate people. Why should I? You can respond as much
as you like.
> Fact of the matter appears to be:
> Your ex-girlfriend will have interesting things to tell. She got off
> drugs
> because of Narconon, and then you told here what you found on the
> Internet...
She may have interesting things to tell. Fact is that she didn't when
I showed honest interest. As if there were things that needed to kept
secret.
When she didn't want to answer, there was only one way to find out,
and yes, I told her what I found (as we used to have no secrets for
each other, remember?) In fact it is her indoctrination that drove me
to the internet where I found the answers. And much, much more. I
stopped telling what I found as it became obvious it was useless to
discuss matters concerning scientology. Why is that often the case
with scientologists? One can discuss matters concerning other real
religions with parishioners of that religion, however never with
scientologists.
> and invalidated her...
Nope. Besides: Is it invalidating to discuss scientology? Is it
invalidating to tell scientologists things that are kept secret from
them? Is that the reason why scientologists do not want to discuss
scientology? Is that what they are indoctrinated to, in an attempt to
avoid scientologists to find out about the abuse and inhumane
policies, the dead space aliens?
Peter Schilte
Find out yourself. You are the expert on research, so it must be an
easy task for you.
> The matter appears to be:
> Your ex-girlfriend will have interesting things to tell. She got off
> drugs
> because of Narconon, and then you told here what you found on the
> Internet...
She may have interesting things to tell. Fact is that she didn't when
I showed honest interest. As if there were things that needed to kept
secret.
When she didn't want to answer, there was only one way to find out,
and yes, I told her what I found (as we used to have no secrets for
each other, remember?) In fact it is her indoctrination that drove me
to the internet where I found the answers. And much, much more. I
stopped telling what I found as it became obvious it was useless to
discuss matters concerning scientology. Why is that often the case
with scientologists? One can discuss matters concerning other real
religions with parishioners of that religion, however never with
scientologists.
> and invalidated her...
Nope. Besides: Is it invalidating to discuss scientology? Is it
invalidating to tell scientologists things that are kept secret from
them? Is that the reason why scientologists do not want to discuss
scientology? Is that what they are indoctrinated to, in an attempt to
avoid scientologists to find out about the abuse and inhumane
policies, the dead space aliens?
>
> > I know: When it works it is scientology. When it doesn´t it is people.
>
> > > You were never even there, you totally rely on what some other tell
> > > you.
>
> > When someone warns me to not put my hand on a hot stove, I would be
> > stupid when I did put my hand on it, right?
> > It is often a matter of common sense to listen to what other people
> > have to say, so one doesn´t have to repeat the mistakes other people
> > made. But common sense is not your strongest side, now is it Michel?
>
> > Peter
>
> ALL you do is attack, attack, attack, you are quite sick... incapable
> of any sensible conversation or exchange.
>
Mirror mirror on the wall......
> You continue to fail to explain how a 'scam' got your ex-girlfriend
> OFF DRUGS where 4 previous attempts FAILED. You witness here about a
> MIRACLE, but you don't explain ANYTHING.
>
You continue to fail to read. Or you are simply to ignorant and stupid
to understand. As I said: It is beyond your comprehension.
> It gets quite understandable why you attack Scientology. It got your
> ex-girlfriend to become cause over you...
LOL! You have a very vivid but insane imagination, Michel.
> and you didn't like that...
> and so you went out on the Internet... and invalidated her... you
> NEEDED to invalidate.
>
In your preconceived and troubled mind there only can be YOUR
explanation for your assumptions, not even facts!
In your troubled mind it can only be that I needed to invalidate her.
Therefor I MUST have invalidated her.
You are a sicko, Michel.
BTW, this is a topic about "Why Did You NOT Get Involved With
Scientology?"
What have you to add that is on topic?
Peter
Roadrunner
Grand answer again! In fact it is beyond any sensible person's
comprehension how this miracle could occur...
RR
Roadrunner
You steal my use of 'evaluation', and then you steal this last
sentence here in the above as well.
You deem that any that sees or experiences something positive within
the subject of Scientology being brainwashed.
>
> > > > > > Ya think you have any credibility left after your new blunder?? No one
> > > > > > is listening to you...
>
> > > > > First: I don't care about credibility, especially from you. Second:
> > > > > You are listening, because you respond.
>
> > > > I don't listen, I look... and I see a nutcase that NEEDS TO HAVE
> > > > RIGHT...
>
> > > I KNOW you don´t listen. You have shown that many times before.
> > > And I deny I need to be right. It is the facts that are right. Not a
> > > 70 or 80% success rate, but a poverish 6.6%. You cannot find it? You,
> > > the researcher by his own admission??
>
> > And how do you know that? Your pals told you so...
>
> Nope.
But you don't explain... you are a liar! Now, are you quickly making
up a story now as to make it appear that this is your own data??? You
haven't made up one yet, as you fail to clarify where you got it from.
>
>
>
> > > BTW, do you notice that you are still responding to me?
>
> > You only say that because you get exposed here,
>
> Nope. You claimed no one is listening to me. Fact is that your
> responses show the exact opposite.
>
> > this is simply your
> > attempt to intimidate to get me to stop responding.
>
> Nope. I don't intimidate people. Why should I? You can respond as much
> as you like.
>
> > Fact of the matter appears to be:
> > Your ex-girlfriend will have interesting things to tell. She got off
> > drugs
> > because of Narconon, and then you told here what you found on the
> > Internet...
>
> She may have interesting things to tell. Fact is that she didn't when
> I showed honest interest. As if there were things that needed to kept
> secret.
> When she didn't want to answer, there was only one way to find out,
> and yes, I told her what I found (as we used to have no secrets for
> each other, remember?)
So you found out she got off drugs, but still you were showing her the
bad stories that you found? Sounds like invalidation to me.
>In fact it is her indoctrination that drove me
> to the internet where I found the answers.
What indoctrination? No clarification here...
>And much, much more. I
> stopped telling what I found as it became obvious it was useless to
> discuss matters concerning scientology. Why is that often the case
> with scientologists? One can discuss matters concerning other real
> religions with parishioners of that religion, however never with
> scientologists.
Ah, and why do you deem all that see something usefull within the
package of data of Scientology to be brainwashed? See, one can not
discuss such matters with you people.
What you tell is actually total nonsense. People within Scientology
are for the most very ordinary people.
>
> > and invalidated her...
>
> Nope. Besides: Is it invalidating to discuss scientology?
May very well be if you show things you found on the Internet.
> Is it
> invalidating to tell scientologists things that are kept secret from
> them?
Pretty much so.
But the matter is not that things are kept secret from them.
>Is that the reason why scientologists do not want to discuss
> scientology?
I have spoken to thousands of Scientologists, what is this nonsense
you talk here. You don't know anything about this.
> Is that what they are indoctrinated to, in an attempt to
> avoid scientologists to find out about the abuse and inhumane
> policies, the dead space aliens?
And you were talking abut these matters to her after you found she got
off drugs with Narconon? What a fine example of a human being you are!
RR
Peter Schilte
Nope. So far it's just you. And how could you possibly know about any
other person? Are you God or so?
Roadrunner
> On 16 dec, 13:42, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > You continue to fail to explain how a 'scam' got your ex-girlfriend
> > > > OFF DRUGS where 4 previous attempts FAILED. You witness here about a
> > > > MIRACLE, but you don't explain ANYTHING.
>
> > > You continue to fail to read. Or you are simply to ignorant and stupid
> > > to understand. As I said: It is beyond your comprehension.
>
> > Grand answer again! In fact it is beyond any sensible person's
> > comprehension how this miracle could occur...
>
> Nope. So far it's just you. And how could you possibly know about any
> other person? Are you God or so?
This is not accomplished by vote. This is explained with logic, and
you don't explain ANYTHING!!!!
You are either a liar or an infantile.
RR
Peter Schilte
Aw! Michel, did I really? Do you have copyrights on them? Or do you
mean that only you are entitled to use 'evaluation', or that no one
ever is allowed to use any phrase you accidentally used in the past?
Are you really that crazy that you think you >own< words and phrases!?
> You deem that any that sees or experiences something positive within
> the subject of Scientology being brainwashed.
>
Nope. That is what YOU manipulate my words into.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > Ya think you have any credibility left after your new blunder?? No one
> > > > > > > is listening to you...
>
> > > > > > First: I don't care about credibility, especially from you. Second:
> > > > > > You are listening, because you respond.
>
> > > > > I don't listen, I look... and I see a nutcase that NEEDS TO HAVE
> > > > > RIGHT...
>
> > > > I KNOW you don´t listen. You have shown that many times before.
> > > > And I deny I need to be right. It is the facts that are right. Not a
> > > > 70 or 80% success rate, but a poverish 6.6%. You cannot find it? You,
> > > > the researcher by his own admission??
>
> > > And how do you know that? Your pals told you so...
>
> > Nope.
>
> But you don't explain... you are a liar!
Nope. In stead, YOU have been proved to be a liar, documented and all.
> Now, are you quickly making
> up a story now as to make it appear that this is your own data???
Nope.
> You
> haven't made up one yet, as you fail to clarify where you got it from.
>
Nope. I found it, so can you.
And why don I not show you where I found it? Because, when asked, you
don't either. Then you say "do the research". Consider this to be a
piece of your own cake, Michel.
And experience how annoying you can be.
>
>
>
>
> > > > BTW, do you notice that you are still responding to me?
>
> > > You only say that because you get exposed here,
>
> > Nope. You claimed no one is listening to me. Fact is that your
> > responses show the exact opposite.
>
> > > this is simply your
> > > attempt to intimidate to get me to stop responding.
>
> > Nope. I don't intimidate people. Why should I? You can respond as much
> > as you like.
>
> > > Fact of the matter appears to be:
> > > Your ex-girlfriend will have interesting things to tell. She got off
> > > drugs
> > > because of Narconon, and then you told here what you found on the
> > > Internet...
>
> > She may have interesting things to tell. Fact is that she didn't when
> > I showed honest interest. As if there were things that needed to kept
> > secret.
> > When she didn't want to answer, there was only one way to find out,
> > and yes, I told her what I found (as we used to have no secrets for
> > each other, remember?)
>
> So you found out she got off drugs, but still you were showing her the
> bad stories that you found? Sounds like invalidation to me.
>
To you it certainly will. But after all, you are extremely
preconceived. So that is hardly any surprise to me.
> >In fact it is her indoctrination that drove me
> > to the internet where I found the answers.
>
> What indoctrination? No clarification here...
>
Indoctrination, as in scientology's mind control techniques. You know:
The same that made you for what you are.
> >And much, much more. I
> > stopped telling what I found as it became obvious it was useless to
> > discuss matters concerning scientology. Why is that often the case
> > with scientologists? One can discuss matters concerning other real
> > religions with parishioners of that religion, however never with
> > scientologists.
>
> Ah, and why do you deem all that see something usefull within the
> package of data of Scientology to be brainwashed? See, one can not
> discuss such matters with you people.
>
Well, you are wrong about that. One can discuss matters with anybody,
EXCEPT with scientologists. Being brainwashed is an explanation for
this kind of strange behavior.
> What you tell is actually total nonsense. People within Scientology
> are for the most very ordinary people.
>
Possibly yes. But why are they unable to discuss scientology? SOMEHOW
they are conditioned to NOT be able to do that.
>
>
> > > and invalidated her...
>
> > Nope. Besides: Is it invalidating to discuss scientology?
>
> May very well be if you show things you found on the Internet.
>
So the truth is invalidating for a scientologist? How weird that
is....
> > Is it
> > invalidating to tell scientologists things that are kept secret from
> > them?
>
> Pretty much so.
>
So it is okay to keep the truth away from scientologists and leve them
with the lies they are told. Nice "religion" that must be....
> But the matter is not that things are kept secret from them.
>
In a minute I expect you are going to say it is to protect them....
> >Is that the reason why scientologists do not want to discuss
> > scientology?
>
> I have spoken to thousands of Scientologists, what is this nonsense
> you talk here. You don't know anything about this.
>
Thousands? You must have spoken to every single one then.
You are a scientologist yourself, not a "wog". So your experience with
"thousands" of scientologists can never be compared with my "wog"
experience.
> > Is that what they are indoctrinated to, in an attempt to
> > avoid scientologists to find out about the abuse and inhumane
> > policies, the dead space aliens?
>
> And you were talking abut these matters to her after you found she got
> off drugs with Narconon? What a fine example of a human being you are!
You make it sound like I told a little child Santa is not really
existing. However, this is a grown up person that is being kept away
from knowing what scientology in the end is about: dead space aliens.
I am not sure, so I wont be bragging about it, but it may be possible
that she left scientology because of the things I told her about
scientology. If that was the case, I am very proud I did. Now she has
her own working hours, her own working days, and no longer has to do a
job in her free time to pay for her "studies", living at a minimum
standard. She can spend her hours as she likes. Her life is no longer
controlled by scientology.
I call that a win.
Peter Schilte
> On 16 Dec, 14:14, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 dec, 13:42, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > > > > You continue to fail to explain how a 'scam' got your ex-girlfriend
> > > > > OFF DRUGS where 4 previous attempts FAILED. You witness here about a
> > > > > MIRACLE, but you don't explain ANYTHING.
>
> > > > You continue to fail to read. Or you are simply to ignorant and stupid
> > > > to understand. As I said: It is beyond your comprehension.
>
> > > Grand answer again! In fact it is beyond any sensible person's
> > > comprehension how this miracle could occur...
>
> > Nope. So far it's just you. And how could you possibly know about any
> > other person? Are you God or so?
>
> This is not accomplished by vote.
> This is explained with logic, and
> you don't explain ANYTHING!!!!
>
Because your social inabilities prevent you from comprehending my
answers and explanations doesn't mean that I didn't explain. For once:
Try a view outside the boundaries of the scientology box you live in.
Try to perceive things without your scientology tunnel vision. Maybe
then you will understand my explanations.
> You are either a liar or an infantile.
Orly?
Marie Antoinette
"Lawrence" <xxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:4b26ee61$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
It's my personal opinion that Kirstie has merely replaced drugs with food.
Everybody struggles a bit with keeping their weight at the right level(not
too thin or heavy) but Kirstie has such massive fluctuations it can't be
good for her.Clearly something is still wrong that she seeks comfort in
food. Shouldn't an OT have perfect control of their appetite or mood swings?
I'm just sayin'.
Lawrence
"Marie Antoinette" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4b2a63f7$0$1784$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Lawrence" <xxxxx...@xxxxx.xxx> wrote in message
> news:4b26ee61$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
>>
>> "Tigger" <Tiggeri...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:9a58fa18-5bc3-4dce...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Dec 14, 12:26 am
>>>
>>> From:
>>>
>>> Subject: Why Did You Get Involved In Scientology In The First Place?
{SNIP}
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> Peter:
>>
>> A lot of people like Kirstie Alley got involved in Scientology
>> because of a drug problem too.
>
> It's my personal opinion that Kirstie has merely replaced drugs with food.
> Everybody struggles a bit with keeping their weight at the right level(not
> too thin or heavy) but Kirstie has such massive fluctuations it can't be
> good for her.Clearly something is still wrong that she seeks comfort in
> food. Shouldn't an OT have perfect control of their appetite or mood
> swings?
> I'm just sayin'.
Probably less control, because a person that is *OT* would exist
apart from their body, their body would be temporary, so because
Kirstie feels like she can always get a new body in another lifetime
any time she wants, she eats like a pig.
Tigger
>
> It's my personal opinion that Kirstie has merely replaced drugs with food.
> Everybody struggles a bit with keeping their weight at the right level(not
> too thin or heavy) but Kirstie has such massive fluctuations it can't be
> good for her.Clearly something is still wrong that she seeks comfort in
> food. Shouldn't an OT have perfect control of their appetite or mood swings?
> I'm just sayin'.- Hide quoted text -
>
We share the same personal opinion! (you're not an Okie, ere ye?)
Wouldn't you just love to hear Oprah ask and Kirstie answer, "Now
Kirstie, you've said over and over again that Narconon/Scientology
cured your addiction to drugs. So why can't Narconon/Scientology do
the same for your food problem?"
Tigger
L
Roadrunner
You do it repeatedly but without the needed understanding... after all
you are NOT a particular educated person, so how could you!
Still no explanation, yeah, we know, you are just a simple uneducated,
unknowing person...
>
> > >And much, much more. I
> > > stopped telling what I found as it became obvious it was useless to
> > > discuss matters concerning scientology. Why is that often the case
> > > with scientologists? One can discuss matters concerning other real
> > > religions with parishioners of that religion, however never with
> > > scientologists.
>
> > Ah, and why do you deem all that see something usefull within the
> > package of data of Scientology to be brainwashed? See, one can not
> > discuss such matters with you people.
>
> Well, you are wrong about that. One can discuss matters with anybody,
> EXCEPT with scientologists.
Unsubstantiated and an utter lie.
>Being brainwashed is an explanation for
> this kind of strange behavior.
Assumption without any support nor explanation.
>
> > What you tell is actually total nonsense. People within Scientology
> > are for the most very ordinary people.
>
> Possibly yes. But why are they unable to discuss scientology? SOMEHOW
> they are conditioned to NOT be able to do that.
This is a just an utterly stupid and false statement. You don't know
anything about this... you were not ever there either... I am Sir
Peter, I don't know anything, but I am the expert of all...
>
>
>
> > > > and invalidated her...
>
> > > Nope. Besides: Is it invalidating to discuss scientology?
>
> > May very well be if you show things you found on the Internet.
>
> So the truth is invalidating for a scientologist? How weird that
> is....
You don't present truth... You use to shock.
>
> > > Is it
> > > invalidating to tell scientologists things that are kept secret from
> > > them?
>
> > Pretty much so.
>
> So it is okay to keep the truth away from scientologists and leve them
> with the lies they are told. Nice "religion" that must be....
No lies are being told. You made up for yourself what truth is, and
your interpretation of it...
>
> > But the matter is not that things are kept secret from them.
>
> In a minute I expect you are going to say it is to protect them....
>
> > >Is that the reason why scientologists do not want to discuss
> > > scientology?
>
> > I have spoken to thousands of Scientologists, what is this nonsense
> > you talk here. You don't know anything about this.
>
> Thousands? You must have spoken to every single one then.
> You are a scientologist yourself, not a "wog". So your experience with
> "thousands" of scientologists can never be compared with my "wog"
> experience.
Shouldn't know any reason why not... except for that you don't even
know what the subject is about, you truly still have not a clue
whatsoever...
>
> > > Is that what they are indoctrinated to, in an attempt to
> > > avoid scientologists to find out about the abuse and inhumane
> > > policies, the dead space aliens?
>
> > And you were talking abut these matters to her after you found she got
> > off drugs with Narconon? What a fine example of a human being you are!
>
> You make it sound like I told a little child Santa is not really
> existing. However, this is a grown up person that is being kept away
> from knowing what scientology in the end is about: dead space aliens.
You are indeed a very gullible and exceedingly ignorant individual. I
got NOTHING to do with that whatsoever...
> I am not sure, so I wont be bragging about it, but it may be possible
> that she left scientology because of the things I told her about
> scientology.
Narconon got her of drugs (where 4 earlier attempts elsewhere had
failed), and this a reason for you to throw your nonsense at her. Your
act is a typical act of suppression. You purposely wanted to put her
down...
> If that was the case, I am very proud I did. Now she has
> her own working hours, her own working days, and no longer has to do a
> job in her free time to pay for her "studies", living at a minimum
> standard. She can spend her hours as she likes. Her life is no longer
> controlled by scientology.
> I call that a win.
I think we should locate the girl and let her speak for herself...
You relate about no specifics. The bulk of the people I have spoken to
are not even subjected to your conjectures.
You also refuse to account for the miracle that Narconon got on her.
No, you just invalidate the whole damn things. Indeed what a very nice
example of a member of the human race you are...
RR
Tigger
Ahem....Mr. Road Runner, perhaps you are confused about the title of
this thread.
It's a place for people to tell WHY THEY DID "NOT" get involved with
Scientology.
So this shoe doesn't fit you, does it?
Now why don't you "run" over to the thread where you can tell us "WHY
YOU GOT INVOLVED IN SCIENTOLOGY IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Thanks ever so,
Tigger
Roadrunner
How gullible, trying to save your pal from total disaster. You are
mistaken though, this is about how Sir Peter got involved with
Scientology...
RR
Roadrunner
> On 16 dec, 14:34, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 Dec, 14:14, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 16 dec, 13:42, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > > > > You continue to fail to explain how a 'scam' got your ex-girlfriend
> > > > > > OFF DRUGS where 4 previous attempts FAILED. You witness here about a
> > > > > > MIRACLE, but you don't explain ANYTHING.
>
> > > > > You continue to fail to read. Or you are simply to ignorant and stupid
> > > > > to understand. As I said: It is beyond your comprehension.
>
> > > > Grand answer again! In fact it is beyond any sensible person's
> > > > comprehension how this miracle could occur...
>
> > > Nope. So far it's just you. And how could you possibly know about any
> > > other person? Are you God or so?
>
> > This is not accomplished by vote.
> > This is explained with logic, and
> > you don't explain ANYTHING!!!!
>
> Because your social inabilities prevent you from comprehending my
> answers and explanations doesn't mean that I didn't explain. For once:
> Try a view outside the boundaries of the scientology box you live in.
> Try to perceive things without your scientology tunnel vision. Maybe
> then you will understand my explanations.
Correction, you are not an infantile. You are just plain insane. You
have never been able to show that my views and argument would be
limited in any way are placed in some box.
Just another of you explain-aways. You NEVER EXPLAIN ANYTHING...
RR
Peter Schilte
That is what happens in discussions, Michel. One person says
something, the other person uses those words to reply.
But "stealing"? Do you have copyrights on them? Or do you
mean that only you are entitled to use 'evaluation', or that no one
ever is allowed to use any phrase you accidentally used in the past?
Are you really that crazy that you think you >own< words and phrases!?
>
>
It IS an explanation. Not the one you like, but that is beside the
point.
"We"know? Who is "we"?
Uneducated? Did you have excess to my school-records? No? Then you are
purely assuming.
As I said before: You assume too much.
>
>
> > > >And much, much more. I
> > > > stopped telling what I found as it became obvious it was useless to
> > > > discuss matters concerning scientology. Why is that often the case
> > > > with scientologists? One can discuss matters concerning other real
> > > > religions with parishioners of that religion, however never with
> > > > scientologists.
>
> > > Ah, and why do you deem all that see something usefull within the
> > > package of data of Scientology to be brainwashed? See, one can not
> > > discuss such matters with you people.
>
> > Well, you are wrong about that. One can discuss matters with anybody,
> > EXCEPT with scientologists.
>
> Unsubstantiated and an utter lie.
>
Nope. Fact.
> >Being brainwashed is an explanation for
> > this kind of strange behavior.
>
> Assumption without any support nor explanation.
>
Nope. Evaluated fact.
>
>
> > > What you tell is actually total nonsense. People within Scientology
> > > are for the most very ordinary people.
>
> > Possibly yes. But why are they unable to discuss scientology? SOMEHOW
> > they are conditioned to NOT be able to do that.
>
> This is a just an utterly stupid and false statement.
Nope. I saw it with my friend, I saw with many scientologists, I see
it with you: Scientologists are unable to discuss scientology.
> You don't know
> anything about this... you were not ever there either...
That is not the point.
> I am Sir
> Peter, I don't know anything, but I am the expert of all...
>
Wrong. And I never claimed to be an expert.
I disagree with you. That is what bothers you and that is way you
invalidate.
How educated is that........
>
>
> > > > > and invalidated her...
>
> > > > Nope. Besides: Is it invalidating to discuss scientology?
>
> > > May very well be if you show things you found on the Internet.
>
> > So the truth is invalidating for a scientologist? How weird that
> > is....
>
> You don't present truth... You use to shock.
>
If the truth is shocking you can hardly blame me. And the truth IS
shocking.
>
>
> > > > Is it
> > > > invalidating to tell scientologists things that are kept secret from
> > > > them?
>
> > > Pretty much so.
>
> > So it is okay to keep the truth away from scientologists and leve them
> > with the lies they are told. Nice "religion" that must be....
>
> No lies are being told. You made up for yourself what truth is, and
> your interpretation of it...
>
Lies are meant for the gullible and when used correctly, the gullible
person wont know he is lied to. Then the person who was lied to will
insist that no lies are being told, and will continue to say "You made
up for yourself what truth is, and your interpretation of it..."
>
>
> > > But the matter is not that things are kept secret from them.
>
> > In a minute I expect you are going to say it is to protect them....
>
> > > >Is that the reason why scientologists do not want to discuss
> > > > scientology?
>
> > > I have spoken to thousands of Scientologists, what is this nonsense
> > > you talk here. You don't know anything about this.
>
> > Thousands? You must have spoken to every single one then.
> > You are a scientologist yourself, not a "wog". So your experience with
> > "thousands" of scientologists can never be compared with my "wog"
> > experience.
>
> Shouldn't know any reason why not...
No surprise there.
> except for that you don't even
> know what the subject is about, you truly still have not a clue
> whatsoever...
>
Still, a scientologist is unable to discuss scientology. Even YOU
cannot discuss scientology! You always have to fall back on personal
attacks and invalidations, avoiding to discuss the subject. You show
this behavior even in this thread.
>
>
> > > > Is that what they are indoctrinated to, in an attempt to
> > > > avoid scientologists to find out about the abuse and inhumane
> > > > policies, the dead space aliens?
>
> > > And you were talking abut these matters to her after you found she got
> > > off drugs with Narconon? What a fine example of a human being you are!
>
> > You make it sound like I told a little child Santa is not really
> > existing. However, this is a grown up person that is being kept away
> > from knowing what scientology in the end is about: dead space aliens.
>
> You are indeed a very gullible and exceedingly ignorant individual. I
> got NOTHING to do with that whatsoever...
>
See what I meant with "Even YOU cannot discuss scientology! You always
have to fall back on personal attacks and invalidations, avoiding to
discuss the subject. You show this behavior even in this thread."?
> > I am not sure, so I wont be bragging about it, but it may be possible
> > that she left scientology because of the things I told her about
> > scientology.
>
> Narconon got her of drugs (where 4 earlier attempts elsewhere had
> failed), and this a reason for you to throw your nonsense at her.
Manipulative nonsense. Preconceived conclusion. And untrue.
> Your
> act is a typical act of suppression.
Ah. The truth now is suppressive?
> You purposely wanted to put her
> down...
>
Manipulative nonsense. Preconceived conclusion. And untrue.
> > If that was the case, I am very proud I did. Now she has
> > her own working hours, her own working days, and no longer has to do a
> > job in her free time to pay for her "studies", living at a minimum
> > standard. She can spend her hours as she likes. Her life is no longer
> > controlled by scientology.
> > I call that a win.
>
> I think we should locate the girl and let her speak for herself...
>
What is keeping you from doing that? Afraid for the truth?
> You relate about no specifics. The bulk of the people I have spoken to
> are not even subjected to your conjectures.
>
And you are gullible enough to think they will tell you?
> You also refuse to account for the miracle that Narconon got on her.
Getting of drugs is not a miracle. Most drug abusers do not kick the
habit the first, or even the second or third time.
> No, you just invalidate the whole damn things.
Nope. I put them in perspective.
> Indeed what a very nice
> example of a member of the human race you are...
Thank you! Yes, many people agree with you on that! Honest people that
is, not lying or manipulative people like you, however.
But there's a place for you too, Michel: On staff with scientology.
Peter Schilte
> On 16 Dec, 14:57, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 16 dec, 14:34, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 16 Dec, 14:14, Peter Schilte <peterschi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 16 dec, 13:42, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > snip
>
> > > > > > > You continue to fail to explain how a 'scam' got your ex-girlfriend
> > > > > > > OFF DRUGS where 4 previous attempts FAILED. You witness here about a
> > > > > > > MIRACLE, but you don't explain ANYTHING.
>
> > > > > > You continue to fail to read. Or you are simply to ignorant and stupid
> > > > > > to understand. As I said: It is beyond your comprehension.
>
> > > > > Grand answer again! In fact it is beyond any sensible person's
> > > > > comprehension how this miracle could occur...
>
> > > > Nope. So far it's just you. And how could you possibly know about any
> > > > other person? Are you God or so?
>
> > > This is not accomplished by vote.
> > > This is explained with logic, and
> > > you don't explain ANYTHING!!!!
>
> > Because your social inabilities prevent you from comprehending my
> > answers and explanations doesn't mean that I didn't explain. For once:
> > Try a view outside the boundaries of the scientology box you live in.
> > Try to perceive things without your scientology tunnel vision. Maybe
> > then you will understand my explanations.
>
> Correction, you are not an infantile.
Thank for finally admitting you were wrong all the time!
> You are just plain insane.
Damn! You started so well, why spoil it again?
> You
> have never been able to show that my views and argument would be
> limited in any way are placed in some box.
>
Your answers need no further explaining, Michel. They are showing very
nicely your one-sided views on matters.
> Just another of you explain-aways. You NEVER EXPLAIN ANYTHING...
>
Not explaining away but explaining. But that is beyond your
comprehension, Michel, so much is clear.
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."
Chef Xenu
This is gonna be a wall of text, so if you don't have the time or
attention, scroll to the bottom for the tl;dr
I don't know what triggered it, (a smell? a sound?) but I just found
myself in one of those nostalgic moments when you clearly remember a
period of your life you hadn't thought about in ages. I think the
reason my brain selected this period was that I've kept seeing this
thread ("Why Did You NOT Get Involved With Scientology?") on usenet's
alt.religion.scientology group. I'm going to be very candid here, I
have nothing to hide, though I am sure some of this will be used by
Scientologists to try to invalidate me. This is not about why I
protest Scientology, this is why I didn't join it when I discovered
it.
It was the spring of 1994 in Orlando, Florida, and I was at the lowest
point in my life. I had been medically retired from the US Navy the
previous summer, and had just moved in with friends after an
unpleasant breakup with my fiancée who was cheating on me for the
second time. For my last year and a half in the Navy the neurologist
gave me a variety of drugs, most with side effects which were...
well... let's just say detrimental to my psychological well-being.
After being given one drug (which I later found out to be a powerful
psych med being experimentally used for migraines) I was diagnosed
with a possible seizure condition. I was subsequently placed on
another drug (which I later found out to be an extremely powerful
psych med being experimentally used for migraines). To this day I
feel like I was being used as a lab rat. Its a good thing my
introduction to Scientology was Dianetics and not CCHR. Between the
meds and the girl, I was an emotional wreck when I moved out. (I
stopped taking my meds about the same time I started reading
Dianetics, but there was no conscious connection between the two.)
Readjusting to civilian life is much like coming out of a cult. It is
a different world, no one quite speaks your language, they don't get
your jokes. The identity you were given in the forge of boot camp/
basic/recruit training is mostly stripped away, your access to that
community becomes more or less limited. Added to this is the
challenge of finding work as a partially disabled vet, trained at
Nuclear Field 'A' School and Naval Nuclear Power School, half of
which's curriculum is classified. I ended up working as a parking lot
attendant with my fiancée and "the other man", and then catching
circuit boards as they came out of the oven that baked the green
coating on for $5.25 an hour. Suffering from frequent migraines which
make being in a brightly lit, incredibly loud factory environment
impossible meant I wasn't getting rich.
I had been dabbling in alternative religions for several years, and
finally had strong enough feelings about Wicca (or maybe my krafty
girlfriend) to replace the "No Rel. Pref." in my service record to
"Wicca." The Navy was very accommodating. Even the complexities and
nuances of that didn't satisfy the intellectual part of my spiritual
side though. Looking for some kind of results to quiet the empirical
demands of my mind, I drifted more and more toward the occult. By the
time I was discharged I guess I was spiritually in a pretty dark
place. Though my fiancée was a witch, and her mother was a
spiritualist, they mostly stuck to the white variety of the craft so I
tried to keep them insulated from my darker excursions.
"Mom" had taken me under her wing, helping me with my rune readings (I
seemed to have a talent for it) and teaching me tidbits of folk wisdom
and scrying methods. She would often allude to some kind of ascended
being she called "the Columns" but it was some kind of big secret
"you're not ready for just yet." She was slowly bringing together a
small group of followers, after some drama/power-play had torn her lat
circle apart. After "mom" and a bunch of her circle cornered a friend
and I in the living room for an "exorcism" lasting a couple hours
(plus one very uncomfortable moment when "mom" broke out her dad's
Knights of Columbus sword) I made a silent decision not to believe a
word she said. Whatever she was up to clearly had no power over me,
except her ability to manipulate her daughter.
I had a passing interest in computer programming as a kid, and during
and after NNPS I would lay in bed and run a nuclear reactor in my
head, trying to keep track of all the variables, temperatures,
pressures, changes in rod positions. After reading some of Leary's
writings on reprogramming your own mind a year or so before, I had
been contemplating the mind as biological technology, being accessible
and programmable. These ideas were easily integrated with my occult
pursuits, and soon I was actively engaged in trying to change my
reality through sheer force of will. Other than a few visionary
experiences (totally explainable by science, I'm sure) and some minor
physical... um... symptoms.. which could also be explained away as
psycological/mind over body thing, and which I took at least as
evidence of my ability to program myself to some degree, I still was
searching for a measurable effect.
The reality I was trying to construct for myself began to take on a
nightmarish, albeit beautiful, life of its own. My fiancée was
advising me on herbal teas, extracts, and balms to try to help with my
headaches and depression (in retrospect caused at least in part by the
meds). Between all the tinkering with my chemistry, and all the
drama, I was in a vulnerable emotional state when I started reading
Dianetics.
So anyway the last stage of my moving out of her place was retrieving
my books from her place, and unpacking them in my room in my friends'
apartment near Lake Eola, the neighborhood where Jack Kerouac once
lived. While unpacking the boxes and constructing shelves from milk
crates, my foot locker, and an aluminum table, I came across a copy of
Dianetics which I had purchased some time before from a used book
store, but never read. Recalling that my father, a Quaker minister
and sci-fi enthusiast, had once mentioned it while we talked about the
Dune books, I set it aside for perusal. He had said some people
accused Frank Herbert of trying to start a religion, but the much
inferior Dianetics read like sci-fi and became a religion. I had
bought it thinking it would be funny, but now I had a new perspective,
and nothing left to lose but what was left of my sanity.
Over the following weeks I slowly worked through it. I found myself
attracted to its ideas about valences and their rolls in human
communication and actions. I thought I could recognize at least some
of this in what was going on with me, my fiancée, and "the other man",
and other areas of my life. I liked the idea of taking the emotional
charge off of key phrases that cause us to react negatively. I began
to try to apply some of the principles to get my life back where I
wanted it. At that point in my life I even liked his talk about using
technology to become a superior species. I was too wrapped up in my
own head to think of the implications of that. When Hubbard would try
to sound scientific, sometimes it just didn't sound right to me, but I
wrote this off as being related to how my civilian trained friends
often used different terms, had different symbols for variables, and
etc. than I had learned at NFAS & NNPS. The illusion of "science" in
DtMSMH was a big selling point for me.
I found out there was a Church of Scientology in Orlando and I
considered going there, but decided to finish the book and see if it
helped at all; after all, everyone I talked to had said only the first
visit is free. I thought that was weird, but still continued studying
and trying to apply this new technology. It didn't work. Everything
continued to swirl around the downward spiral. My migraines got
worse, and I had a full on seizure (fortunately in a room full of
friends). So after applying Dianetics my 1st dynamic was going even
more wonky, my 2nd dynamic went to hell, my 3rd dynamic was
incomprehensibly chaotic, and I was in fear of my 4th dynamic. I was
done. Needless to say, I never set foot in the Orlando Org, though I
did look in the window. I put the copy of Dianetics back in the book
shelf and didn't read it again until I went to college in 2001 to
study comparative religions.
I'm one of the lucky ones, they caught my interest at the best time
(for them) in my life, but the circumstances didn't work out in their
favor.
tl;dr=illegal pc read dianetics at impressionable time, applied it,
shit got worse, didn't get involved in scientology
Peace,
Chef Xenu
--
REB Slaughter (USN-RET)(SP V) 614-321-XENU http://www.chefxenu.net
4th (or 5th) Marcabian Invader Force Mess Saucer 1138
Everybody Loves Pie! http://cbusanon.foromotion.net/
Message to Durable Slate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbDpIYKv07g
Tigger
> 4th (or 5th) Marcabian Invader Force Mess Saucer 1138
> Everybody Loves Pie!http://cbusanon.foromotion.net/
> Message to Durable Slatehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbDpIYKv07g
Wow, Chief Xenu, you were an ideal candidate for any cult, especially
Scientology. Highly vunerable. In transition, at loose ends, losing
a girlfriend, physically ill, sci-fi fan, seeking solutions and
spirtual enlightenment, etc. The only thing lacking seems to be a
personal encounter with a Scientology org and/or a Scientologist. You
were in the right physical, mental and life situations to be recruited
by a cult.
But you made it through a real wall of fire and didn't get hooked.
Congratulations and many thanks for telling your story. It may help
Scientologists in realizing why they got involved in Scientology in
the first place
and help WOGS to NEVER get involved in Scientology.
Tigger
Tigger
P. S.
Hey Prince Xenu,
What do you think about posting your story on ESMB and/or OCMB? IMO
it needs to be given more attention than just on a.r.s.
Tigger
Chef Xenu
Thanks tigger, I took your advice and posted to both those forums.
Peace,
Chef Xenu
--
REB Slaughter (USN-RET)(SP V) 614-321-XENU http://www.chefxenu.net
4th (or 5th) Marcabian Invader Force Mess Saucer 1138