It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected to hear!
What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood about the subject itself?
The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in some earlier thread.
If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > Ph.D.
No, I am using a title I worked very hard to earn. I'm not "demanding" or expecting anything of anyone, only accurately stating my credentials.
>only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
To be precise, in 2009.
> And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > to hear!
You obviously don't understand what is involved in a doctoral level education. That's not what it is about at all. In fact, what I have to say is ironically, what some in my profession do not want to hear when I criticize certain cherished therapies that lack empirical support.
> What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > backup.
I'm not sure what you mean by "proper backup" but to me, that would mean actual research evidence, properly designed that tested the claim through randomized clinical trials.
>Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > some people did.
No, my experiences are based on my experiences and those "some people" included LRH.
>I question how much you actually ever have understood > about the subject itself?
I studied it for six years. The bottom line is that it makes a number of unsupported claims that have not been properly tested.
> The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > my questions when I queried some of your claims.
I wasn't aware of your questions. Would you like to repeat them?
> Here it also became > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > some earlier thread.
What I know is that LRH was aware of all of the Flag Orders that were written when he was aboard and that there were direct LRH orders regarding getting the RPF set up and later, he personally ordered a number of people onto the RPF. You're giving me the party line. I was there and saw the reality of the situation, first hand and there are many other witnesses to corroborate this.
> If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
Peer review and scientific studies applie to claims for the auditing itself. Whether certain events happened and who was responsible for what is not the same issue as whether or not Scientology works as it claims. Whether events happened would be established by the kind of evidence that would be presented in a court of law -- e.g. corroborating witnesses to events. These are two separate issues.
You seem to be using the Scientology definition of "data" which means any kind of information. I use data in the scientific sense. Where is the evidence that it does what is claimed? And no, success stories and testimonials are not evidence.
> It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > to hear!
> What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > about the subject itself?
> The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > some earlier thread.
> If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> RR
She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard work and determination. We all know you never went to school for archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish yourself?
> > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > Ph.D.
> No, I am using a title I worked very hard to earn. I'm not "demanding" > or expecting anything of anyone, only accurately stating my > credentials.
I don't get that impression from these pages of yours that you link to.
> >only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
> To be precise, in 2009.
> > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > to hear!
> You obviously don't understand what is involved in a doctoral level > education. That's not what it is about at all. In fact, what I have to > say is ironically, what some in my profession do not want to hear when > I criticize certain cherished therapies that lack empirical support.
Well, the theory of evolution has no empirical support. But it is still thrown about. What I meant is that it must fall within these guiding rules that were put up by some people. It is then of lesser relevans if some particulars are still not liked, if it does pass THEIR test of things, it is then automatically accepted.
> > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > backup.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "proper backup" but to me, that would > mean actual research evidence, properly designed that tested the claim > through randomized clinical trials.
And that is exactly what I do not mean at all. Even clinical trials as such are subjective. It is pending what tests it is run through. But if you, by proper application of some processes, actually can repeat a desired result, THEN this has turned into something one can work with. The more interesting it becomes if futher persons can also replicate that.
> >Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > some people did.
> No, my experiences are based on my experiences and those "some people" > included LRH.
As I said before, I don't think you have met him. Sure, you met a person, but it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard. You have to examine the statures of the technology and the person from prior to and after early 1973. Science and research is not about to only regard matters from an isolated time frame, and all you got is 1973-76.
> >I question how much you actually ever have understood > > about the subject itself?
> I studied it for six years. The bottom line is that it makes a number > of unsupported claims that have not been properly tested.
Six years you say? Alright, so you got into Scientology in 1970, went on as ship crew in 1973, and then left in 1976.
As it is in university, people go over materials and adopt so very much, because they do not study with a critical mind. I know people that have been in Scientology since the very beginning years, or they may have been staff for 30 years. And still I catch them with basic misunderstandings. The question to you would be if you have done extensive comparitive testing regarding what you 'studied'. You see, if a person wants to understand, he/she first has to get rid of the previously established frame of mind. This is the filter which he/she uses to view all other things. Do you understand what I mean?
> > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > my questions when I queried some of your claims.
> I wasn't aware of your questions. Would you like to repeat them?
I made notice that you had adopted various paradigms that in fact are actively counteracted in guidelines found in policy letters that were already available at that time. The word of L. Ron Hubbard is not law, he too has to abide to these policy letters. If you had been wronged you simply use the format of 'Orders, Query of', and this means you do not follow or obey that what has been laid upon you. A query simply means that you do not follow it, it does not have to be approved by anyone!!!! (a very common misconception by most Scientologists I would say). You see, supporting evidence or other MUST instead be presented by the issuer! If they can not, they have nothing.
Authorship and/or involvement of L. Ron Hubbard in FO 34334 and subsequent series. In fact there are none. Ken Urquhart is the sole designer of the whole RPF plan.
> > Here it also became > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > some earlier thread.
> What I know is that LRH was aware of all of the Flag Orders that were > written when he was aboard and that there were direct LRH orders > regarding getting the RPF set up and later, he personally ordered a > number of people onto the RPF. You're giving me the party line. I was > there and saw the reality of the situation, first hand and there are > many other witnesses to corroborate this.
As I said, I don't think you met L. Ron Hubbard. Then, I am quite unsure about if this L. Ron hubbard was aware of all Flag Orders that were being issued. We are having here a bit lazy L. Ron Hubbard. It says in the FO 3434: These policies and regulations may only be put aside or amended or cancelled with the approval of the Commodore or of LRH Pers Comm., and the latter was Ken Urquhart. This L. Ron Hubbard was all into Apollo Stars and later filming.
You are only then able to make a full assessment of the scene if you have gone through all available data and accordingly have done a full evaluation of each of these. You need to have the pre-scene, the after- scene and the inbetween.
If the value of it all is this socalled technology itself, then this should be the guiding line. It hen requires to do a ful study of the scene prior and after, and to establish if any changes in basics had been violated and were not reversed. My findings are that the scen from 1950 to 1972 are very straight forward, and suddenly matters went into an entirely different direction. I talk here about a study of the FULL scene!!!!! This is also part of science. Have you performed such a study?
> > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> Peer review and scientific studies applie to claims for the auditing > itself. Whether certain events happened and who was responsible for > what is not the same issue as whether or not Scientology works as it > claims. Whether events happened would be established by the kind of > evidence that would be presented in a court of law -- e.g. > corroborating witnesses to events. These are two separate issues.
> You seem to be using the Scientology definition of "data" which means > any kind of information. I use data in the scientific sense. Where is > the evidence that it does what is claimed? And no, success stories and > testimonials are not evidence.
Indeed success stories and testimonials are not my guideline. I follow however what I see in front of me. No one tells me anything, I will see for myself if a particular replication of a change in an individual can take place. In my reality no evaluated data equals no data.
> > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > to hear!
> > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > about the subject itself?
> > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > some earlier thread.
> > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > RR
> She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > yourself?
All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you just don't know what I went to school for, and what not) Another thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > Ph.D.
> > No, I am using a title I worked very hard to earn. I'm not "demanding" > > or expecting anything of anyone, only accurately stating my > > credentials.
> I don't get that impression from these pages of yours that you link > to.
The pages I link to is my response to an all out internet smear campaign where all kinds of lies have been posted about me.
> > >only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
> > To be precise, in 2009.
> > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > to hear!
> > You obviously don't understand what is involved in a doctoral level > > education. That's not what it is about at all. In fact, what I have to > > say is ironically, what some in my profession do not want to hear when > > I criticize certain cherished therapies that lack empirical support.
> Well, the theory of evolution has no empirical support. >But it is > still thrown about. What I meant is that it must fall within these > guiding rules that were put up by some people. It is then of lesser > relevans if some particulars are still not liked, if it does pass > THEIR test of things, it is then automatically accepted.
That is not correct at all. It has a ton of empirical support, contrary to the myths about it Creationists would have us believe.
> > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > backup.
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "proper backup" but to me, that would > > mean actual research evidence, properly designed that tested the claim > > through randomized clinical trials.
> And that is exactly what I do not mean at all. Even clinical trials as > such are subjective. It is pending what tests it is run through.
That's why I said the methodology had to be sound. Well-designed, randomized clinical trials. Nothing is 100% perfect but when they are replicated, they control for a number of human biases that cannot be controlled for by anecdotes and success stories.
>But > if you, by proper application of some processes, actually can repeat a > desired result, THEN this has turned into something one can work with. > The more interesting it becomes if futher persons can also replicate > that.
> > >Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > some people did.
> > No, my experiences are based on my experiences and those "some people" > > included LRH.
> As I said before, I don't think you have met him. Sure, you met a > person, but it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard. You have to examine the statures > of the technology and the person from prior to and after early 1973. > Science and research is not about to only regard matters from an > isolated time frame, and all you got is 1973-76.
All I know is that when I came aboard the Apollo in 1973, most of the people at the time had been there for years prior to that and they saw LRH before and after his disappearance in 1972 and reappearance in 1973 including his own family. No one I know had any question about it being the same person.
> > >I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > about the subject itself?
> > I studied it for six years. The bottom line is that it makes a number > > of unsupported claims that have not been properly tested.
> Six years you say? Alright, so you got into Scientology in 1970, went > on as ship crew in 1973, and then left in 1976.
Yes, that's correct.
> As it is in university, people go over materials and adopt so very > much, because they do not study with a critical mind.
Sez who? Some do, some don't. It depends on the student and how good the teacher is at teaching the students to think critically.
>I know people > that have been in Scientology since the very beginning years, or they > may have been staff for 30 years. And still I catch them with basic > misunderstandings. The question to you would be if you have done > extensive comparitive testing regarding what you 'studied'. You see, > if a person wants to understand, he/she first has to get rid of the > previously established frame of mind. This is the filter which he/she > uses to view all other things. Do you understand what I mean?
Yes, that is always the case and it is unavoidable. We all look at things through various filters. The main thing is to be honest about identifying what they are. What I don't buy is that Scientologists have gotten rid of theirs. On the contrary, they are viewing things through a Scientology filter.
> > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims.
> > I wasn't aware of your questions. Would you like to repeat them?
> I made notice that you had adopted various paradigms that in fact are > actively counteracted in guidelines found in policy letters that were > already available at that time.
For example? If you're saying there were contradictions, you bet there were. One that I pointed out in My Nine Lives is that Hubbard said that punishment doesn't work, but yet the RPF and much of the heavy ethics was punishment.
>The word of L. Ron Hubbard is not law, > he too has to abide to these policy letters. If you had been wronged > you simply use the format of 'Orders, Query of', and this means you do > not follow or obey that what has been laid upon you.
Yes, I knew that well. That's exactly what I tried to do on the Apollo when I was wrongfully accused, but it didn't work. If LRH wanted something, it happened, regardless of whether it violated policy.
>A query simply > means that you do not follow it, it does not have to be approved by > anyone!!!! (a very common misconception by most Scientologists I would > say). You see, supporting evidence or other MUST instead be presented > by the issuer! If they can not, they have nothing.
I tried to present evidence and it was ignored.
> Authorship and/or involvement of L. Ron Hubbard in FO 34334 and > subsequent series. In fact there are none. Ken Urquhart is the sole > designer of the whole RPF plan.
Again, that simply is not the case. LRH personally ordered a number of people to the RPF. Have you read Nancy Many's book. He ordered to to the RPF while she was pregnant.
> > > Here it also became > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > some earlier thread.
> > What I know is that LRH was aware of all of the Flag Orders that were > > written when he was aboard and that there were direct LRH orders > > regarding getting the RPF set up and later, he personally ordered a > > number of people onto the RPF. You're giving me the party line. I was > > there and saw the reality of the situation, first hand and there are > > many other witnesses to corroborate this.
> As I said, I don't think you met L. Ron Hubbard. Then, I am quite > unsure about if this L. Ron hubbard was aware of all Flag Orders that > were being issued. We are having here a bit lazy L. Ron Hubbard. It > says in the FO 3434: These policies and regulations may only be put > aside or amended or cancelled with the approval of the Commodore or of > LRH Pers Comm., and the latter was Ken Urquhart. This L. Ron Hubbard > was all into Apollo Stars and later filming.
See my previous reply. I knew Quentin and if that weren't his dad, he surely would have known, a would Hana Eltringham and the many others who were there from the late 60s on.
> You are only then able to make a full assessment of the scene if you > have gone through all available data and accordingly have done a full > evaluation of each of these. You need to have the pre-scene, the after- > scene and the inbetween.
That's what Quentin and many of the others had.
> If the value of it all is this socalled technology itself, then this > should be the guiding line. It hen requires to do a ful study of the > scene prior and after, and to establish if any changes in basics had > been violated and were not reversed. My findings are that the scen > from 1950 to 1972 are very straight forward, and suddenly matters went > into an entirely different direction.
There were many abuses that took place in the late 60s, such as the overboardings ordered by Hubbard and many other punishments.
>I talk here about a study of the > FULL scene!!!!! This is also part of science. Have you performed such > a study?
Have you written this up anywhere? How did you go about doing that?
> > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > Peer review and scientific studies applie to claims for the auditing > > itself. Whether certain events happened and who was responsible for > > what is not the same issue as whether or not Scientology works as it > > claims. Whether events happened would be established by the kind of > > evidence that would be presented in a court of law -- e.g. > > corroborating witnesses to events. These are two separate issues.
> > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > to hear!
> > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > about the subject itself?
> > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > some earlier thread.
> > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > > RR
> > She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > > yourself?
> All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you > just don't know what I went to school for, and what not)
Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your word as an expert.
> Another > thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or > titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here > and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> RR
I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
> > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > to hear!
> > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > > some earlier thread.
> > > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > > > RR
> > > She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > > > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > > > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > > > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > > > yourself?
> > All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you > > just don't know what I went to school for, and what not)
> Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school > for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge > of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your > word as an expert.
> > Another > > thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or > > titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here > > and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> > RR
> I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be > why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as > an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like > Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
You are babbling and using imagination... get real... but that is too much asked...
> > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > > > some earlier thread.
> > > > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > > > > RR
> > > > She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > > > > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > > > > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > > > > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > > > > yourself?
> > > All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you > > > just don't know what I went to school for, and what not)
> > Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school > > for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge > > of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your > > word as an expert.
> > > Another > > > thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or > > > titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here > > > and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> > > RR
> > I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be > > why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as > > an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like > > Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
> You are babbling and using imagination... get real... but that is too > much asked...
> RR
This of course from the poster on ARS who would not recognise reality if it picked him up by the scruff of the neck whilst carrying a big sign saying "I AM REALITY" with a sworn affidavit to this effect in its pocket, signed by the creator and countersigned by an infiniate number of lesser deities. Who subsequently held him over the compulsary alligator pit and jiggled him about upside down untill all his loose change, credit cards and other miscellaneous items fell out making a disapointing but nevertheless tempting appetiser for the aforementioned el lagarto waiting below.
And worse still if he then did recognise 'reality' in his situation would be too stuborn to admit it and the Alligator mississippiensis would enjoy ground coockoo on the rocks, so to speak.
> > > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > > > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > > > > some earlier thread.
> > > > > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > > > > > RR
> > > > > She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > > > > > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > > > > > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > > > > > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > > > > > yourself?
> > > > All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you > > > > just don't know what I went to school for, and what not)
> > > Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school > > > for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge > > > of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your > > > word as an expert.
> > > > Another > > > > thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or > > > > titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here > > > > and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> > > > RR
> > > I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be > > > why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as > > > an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like > > > Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
> > You are babbling and using imagination... get real... but that is too > > much asked...
> > RR
> This of course from the poster on ARS who would not recognise reality > if it picked him up by the scruff of the neck whilst carrying a big > sign saying "I AM REALITY" with a sworn affidavit to this effect in > its pocket, signed by the creator and countersigned by an infiniate > number of lesser deities. Who subsequently held him over the > compulsary alligator pit and jiggled him about upside down untill all > his loose change, credit cards and other miscellaneous items fell out > making a disapointing but nevertheless tempting appetiser for the > aforementioned el lagarto waiting below.
> And worse still if he then did recognise 'reality' in his situation > would be too stuborn to admit it and the Alligator mississippiensis > would enjoy ground coockoo on the rocks, so to speak.
No, he would look at Reality, carrying it's sign and bashing him over the head with it... and then decide that to recognize it for what it is would be too mainstream or "authority worship". Why look at data and fact when you can have paranoid conspiracy theories? Why have an education at all when you can read a few pages of a book and be an "expert" on the subject? Why EARN people's respect by being a good/ intelligent person when you can put all your efforts into bringing down everyone you even remotely dislike?
Silly RR. The coyote could have him in a cooking pot and he wouldn't even recognize it.
> > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > > > some earlier thread.
> > > > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > > > > RR
> > > > She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > > > > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > > > > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > > > > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > > > > yourself?
> > > All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you > > > just don't know what I went to school for, and what not)
> > Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school > > for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge > > of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your > > word as an expert.
> > > Another > > > thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or > > > titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here > > > and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> > > RR
> > I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be > > why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as > > an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like > > Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
> You are babbling and using imagination... get real... but that is too > much asked...
> RR
What part of that was imagination? Hubbard DID buy diplomas from a mill. Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work. You DID admit that you did not have a degree in Archaeology, even though you presented yourself as an authority on the subject.... an authority who didn't know the basics when asked.
Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
> > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > Ph.D.
> > > No, I am using a title I worked very hard to earn. I'm not "demanding" > > > or expecting anything of anyone, only accurately stating my > > > credentials.
> > I don't get that impression from these pages of yours that you link > > to.
> The pages I link to is my response to an all out internet smear > campaign where all kinds of lies have been posted about me.
Yes, I have become aware of that. But what caused all that? Consider also that the person L. Ron hubbard may have been seriously smeared for various reasons during a number of years.
> > > >only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
> > > To be precise, in 2009.
> > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > to hear!
> > > You obviously don't understand what is involved in a doctoral level > > > education. That's not what it is about at all. In fact, what I have to > > > say is ironically, what some in my profession do not want to hear when > > > I criticize certain cherished therapies that lack empirical support.
> > Well, the theory of evolution has no empirical support. > >But it is > > still thrown about. What I meant is that it must fall within these > > guiding rules that were put up by some people. It is then of lesser > > relevans if some particulars are still not liked, if it does pass > > THEIR test of things, it is then automatically accepted.
> That is not correct at all. It has a ton of empirical support, > contrary to the myths about it Creationists would have us believe.
I believe some of these are rather outdated! These are easily counteracted in fact. But what about the deliberate mix up by evolutionists regarding micro-evolution and macro-evolution in about all of their presentations?
Either way, evolutionism is as unempirical as creationism is. The only difference between them is that a different interpretation of the observed is adhered to.
It's funny that you claim tons of empirical support, when in fact they have none. I am rather familiar with the experimenting performed and the assumptions exercised in this area and conclusions drawn from these, more in particular archaeology though. It is all largely a matter of deliberate selection.
I oppose the theory of evolution strictly based on scientific grounds.
> > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > backup.
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by "proper backup" but to me, that would > > > mean actual research evidence, properly designed that tested the claim > > > through randomized clinical trials.
> > And that is exactly what I do not mean at all. Even clinical trials as > > such are subjective. It is pending what tests it is run through.
> That's why I said the methodology had to be sound. Well-designed, > randomized clinical trials. Nothing is 100% perfect but when they are > replicated, they control for a number of human biases that cannot be > controlled for by anecdotes and success stories.
One can not guarantee that it will follow your above guidelines. In addition you have the very fallible human factor in selecting your tests.
> >But > > if you, by proper application of some processes, actually can repeat a > > desired result, THEN this has turned into something one can work with. > > The more interesting it becomes if futher persons can also replicate > > that.
> > > >Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > some people did.
> > > No, my experiences are based on my experiences and those "some people" > > > included LRH.
> > As I said before, I don't think you have met him. Sure, you met a > > person, but it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard. You have to examine the statures > > of the technology and the person from prior to and after early 1973. > > Science and research is not about to only regard matters from an > > isolated time frame, and all you got is 1973-76.
> All I know is that when I came aboard the Apollo in 1973, most of the > people at the time had been there for years prior to that and they saw > LRH before and after his disappearance in 1972 and reappearance in > 1973 including his own family. No one I know had any question about it > being the same person.
If you have jumped on a merry-go-round then how observative are you still when you are in the middle of it? I can tell you, most persons not very much at all. You should be aware of this datum.
> > > >I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > I studied it for six years. The bottom line is that it makes a number > > > of unsupported claims that have not been properly tested.
> > Six years you say? Alright, so you got into Scientology in 1970, went > > on as ship crew in 1973, and then left in 1976.
> Yes, that's correct.
> > As it is in university, people go over materials and adopt so very > > much, because they do not study with a critical mind.
> Sez who? Some do, some don't. It depends on the student and how good > the teacher is at teaching the students to think critically.
If you are critical according to a particular frame, then what arises from that is not criticism per definition.
> >I know people > > that have been in Scientology since the very beginning years, or they > > may have been staff for 30 years. And still I catch them with basic > > misunderstandings. The question to you would be if you have done > > extensive comparitive testing regarding what you 'studied'. You see, > > if a person wants to understand, he/she first has to get rid of the > > previously established frame of mind. This is the filter which he/she > > uses to view all other things. Do you understand what I mean?
> Yes, that is always the case and it is unavoidable. We all look at > things through various filters. The main thing is to be honest about > identifying what they are. What I don't buy is that Scientologists > have gotten rid of theirs. On the contrary, they are viewing things > through a Scientology filter.
Of course, as ordinary people follow the social 'authority' filter. We are all subjected to brainwash, anywhere and everywhere. And people like so very much to 'follow'.
The value of the subject of Dianetics and Scientology is the information that it provides. But if no person guards it or even applies it, it will be of no use to anyone.
> > I made notice that you had adopted various paradigms that in fact are > > actively counteracted in guidelines found in policy letters that were > > already available at that time.
> For example? If you're saying there were contradictions, you bet there > were. One that I pointed out in My Nine Lives is that Hubbard said > that punishment doesn't work, but yet the RPF and much of the heavy > ethics was punishment.
Therefore from 1950-1972 it was a logical development. But actually starting with early December 1972 opposing practics were introduced and not counteracted. Indeed, punishment does not work.
> >The word of L. Ron Hubbard is not law, > > he too has to abide to these policy letters. If you had been wronged > > you simply use the format of 'Orders, Query of', and this means you do > > not follow or obey that what has been laid upon you.
> Yes, I knew that well. That's exactly what I tried to do on the Apollo > when I was wrongfully accused, but it didn't work. If LRH wanted > something, it happened, regardless of whether it violated policy.
Did anyone ever opposed with strict application of policy letter principles? Did you ever see that happen? I wonder this, because I would never have submitted to a lie. That what attracted me in the subject was its sanity and pure logic. Therefore an enforced illogic would have been opposed by me and I would have been furious and refused submittance to that at all cost. So, did you send a cramming to L. Ron Hubbard?
> >A query simply > > means that you do not follow it, it does not have to be approved by > > anyone!!!! (a very common misconception by most Scientologists I would > > say). You see, supporting evidence or other MUST instead be presented > > by the issuer! If they can not, they have nothing.
> I tried to present evidence and it was ignored.
Then the order was illegal and off-policy and you should never have submitted to that. But this is a hard thing to abide by, if you are surrounded by 'followers' on the ship, and most people simply submit. So, return the favour and 'ignore the order'.
> > Authorship and/or involvement of L. Ron Hubbard in FO 34334 and > > subsequent series. In fact there are none. Ken Urquhart is the sole > > designer of the whole RPF plan.
> Again, that simply is not the case. LRH personally ordered a number of > people to the RPF. Have you read Nancy Many's book. He ordered to to > the RPF
> > > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > > > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > > > > some earlier thread.
> > > > > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > > > > > RR
> > > > > She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > > > > > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > > > > > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > > > > > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > > > > > yourself?
> > > > All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you > > > > just don't know what I went to school for, and what not)
> > > Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school > > > for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge > > > of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your > > > word as an expert.
> > > > Another > > > > thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or > > > > titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here > > > > and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> > > > RR
> > > I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be > > > why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as > > > an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like > > > Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
> > You are babbling and using imagination... get real... but that is too > > much asked...
> > RR
> What part of that was imagination? Hubbard DID buy diplomas from a > mill.
Ah, did he now... evidence please...
>Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work.
And for that reason one becomes an authority? Is that a target of some sort?
>You DID admit > that you did not have a degree in Archaeology,
You have no clue what I have or do not have, I did not admit to anything that you claim...
>even though you > presented yourself as an authority on the subject....
Ah, ah... see, that is the very last I am interested in to be regarded as... and no, I have never presented myself as an authority, I have only presented myself as a person that is rather familiar with the subject and has personal experience and observations during a number of years in the subject.
>an authority who > didn't know the basics when asked.
Ah... and what may they be???? Now, is this the same girl that confused archaeology with paleontology, an unforgivable mistake... .-)
> Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor > will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica > because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed > and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
I don't resent Monica, big, big mistake... and yes, your mistakes are imortalized... .-)
> > > > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > > > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > > > > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > > > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > > > > > some earlier thread.
> > > > > > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > > > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > > > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > > > > > > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > > > > > > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > > > > > > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > > > > > > yourself?
> > > > > All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you > > > > > just don't know what I went to school for, and what not)
> > > > Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school > > > > for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge > > > > of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your > > > > word as an expert.
> > > > > Another > > > > > thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or > > > > > titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here > > > > > and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> > > > > RR
> > > > I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be > > > > why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as > > > > an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like > > > > Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
> > > You are babbling and using imagination... get real... but that is too > > > much asked...
> > > RR
> > What part of that was imagination? Hubbard DID buy diplomas from a > > mill.
> Ah, did he now... evidence please...
So you don't have to provide evidence for your claims (such as your claim that Lucy is a fraud), but I do? Bwahahaha go fuck yourself, hypocrite!
> >Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work.
> And for that reason one becomes an authority? Is that a target of some > sort?
It makes them very knowledgeable in the subject they have a PhD in, yes!
> >You DID admit > > that you did not have a degree in Archaeology,
> You have no clue what I have or do not have, I did not admit to > anything that you claim...
You present yourself as an authority on the subject, yet cannot demonstrate a working knowledge of the basics... you are a fraud. Even if you are purposely not giving answers to even the most basic of questions in order to mess with me, all you are doing is making yourself look like more of a jackass.
> >even though you > > presented yourself as an authority on the subject....
> Ah, ah... see, that is the very last I am interested in to be regarded > as... and no, I have never presented myself as an authority, I have > only presented myself as a person that is rather familiar with the > subject and has personal experience and observations during a number > of years in the subject.
You presented yourself as an authority on the subject by bashing myself and several others experience in the field... saying your years of experience amount to more knowledge than what we have... thus making you a more credible source. At least, in your own opinion.
> >an authority who > > didn't know the basics when asked.
> Ah... and what may they be???? Now, is this the same girl that > confused archaeology with paleontology, an unforgivable mistake... .-)
That was Peter, not me. And by the way? The two fields are very much related.. they are not as different as an apple and a tire as you would so like to make them out to be. Were you not looking for any little thing to find fault over and were you actually versed in the two fields, you would know that.
> > Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor > > will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica > > because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed > > and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
> I don't resent Monica, big, big mistake... and yes, your mistakes are > imortalized... .-)
> RR
My only mistake was ever thinking there was a brain in that hollow head of yours.
Where is your personal research showing Lucy was a fake?
Where is your personal research showing Jeremy Perkins had psych care prior to his mothers death?
The gist of what you're saying, if I am understanding you correctly is that you think that Hubbard's policies were being violated or applied inconsistently, including by Hubbard himself. There are indeed contradictions and yes, it does seem to be completely against what Hubbard wrote in Dianetics, that he would send a woman who was 5 months pregnant to the RPF and she stayed there until just before giving birth. The RPF was also a contradiction. The Sea Org and what actually went on under Hubbard is full of contradictions. There was no way Hubbard's orders could be opposed. If they were, the person would have gotten offloaded from the Apollo. That was the choice we were given. When I experienced enough of these contradictions, I realized that Scientology, Hubbard and the Sea Org were not what I had been led to think and I did not like what I saw and experienced, which was nothing short of abuse and not at all something I wanted to be associated with. That's why I left.
On May 27, 3:45 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > Ph.D.
> > > > No, I am using a title I worked very hard to earn. I'm not "demanding" > > > > or expecting anything of anyone, only accurately stating my > > > > credentials.
> > > I don't get that impression from these pages of yours that you link > > > to.
> > The pages I link to is my response to an all out internet smear > > campaign where all kinds of lies have been posted about me.
> Yes, I have become aware of that. But what caused all that? Consider > also that the person L. Ron hubbard may have been seriously smeared > for various reasons during a number of years.
> > > > >only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
> > > > To be precise, in 2009.
> > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > to hear!
> > > > You obviously don't understand what is involved in a doctoral level > > > > education. That's not what it is about at all. In fact, what I have to > > > > say is ironically, what some in my profession do not want to hear when > > > > I criticize certain cherished therapies that lack empirical support.
> > > Well, the theory of evolution has no empirical support. > > >But it is > > > still thrown about. What I meant is that it must fall within these > > > guiding rules that were put up by some people. It is then of lesser > > > relevans if some particulars are still not liked, if it does pass > > > THEIR test of things, it is then automatically accepted.
> > That is not correct at all. It has a ton of empirical support, > > contrary to the myths about it Creationists would have us believe.
> I believe some of these are rather outdated! These are easily > counteracted in fact. But what about the deliberate mix up by > evolutionists regarding micro-evolution and macro-evolution in about > all of their presentations?
> Either way, evolutionism is as unempirical as creationism is. The only > difference between them is that a different interpretation of the > observed is adhered to.
> It's funny that you claim tons of empirical support, when in fact they > have none. I am rather familiar with the experimenting performed and > the assumptions exercised in this area and conclusions drawn from > these, more in particular archaeology though. It is all largely a > matter of deliberate selection.
> I oppose the theory of evolution strictly based on scientific grounds.
> > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > backup.
> > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "proper backup" but to me, that would > > > > mean actual research evidence, properly designed that tested the claim > > > > through randomized clinical trials.
> > > And that is exactly what I do not mean at all. Even clinical trials as > > > such are subjective. It is pending what tests it is run through.
> > That's why I said the methodology had to be sound. Well-designed, > > randomized clinical trials. Nothing is 100% perfect but when they are > > replicated, they control for a number of human biases that cannot be > > controlled for by anecdotes and success stories.
> One can not guarantee that it will follow your above guidelines. In > addition you have the very fallible human factor in selecting your > tests.
> > >But > > > if you, by proper application of some processes, actually can repeat a > > > desired result, THEN this has turned into something one can work with. > > > The more interesting it becomes if futher persons can also replicate > > > that.
> > > > >Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > some people did.
> > > > No, my experiences are based on my experiences and those "some people" > > > > included LRH.
> > > As I said before, I don't think you have met him. Sure, you met a > > > person, but it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard. You have to examine the statures > > > of the technology and the person from prior to and after early 1973. > > > Science and research is not about to only regard matters from an > > > isolated time frame, and all you got is 1973-76.
> > All I know is that when I came aboard the Apollo in 1973, most of the > > people at the time had been there for years prior to that and they saw > > LRH before and after his disappearance in 1972 and reappearance in > > 1973 including his own family. No one I know had any question about it > > being the same person.
> If you have jumped on a merry-go-round then how observative are you > still when you are in the middle of it? I can tell you, most persons > not very much at all. You should be aware of this datum.
> > > > >I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > I studied it for six years. The bottom line is that it makes a number > > > > of unsupported claims that have not been properly tested.
> > > Six years you say? Alright, so you got into Scientology in 1970, went > > > on as ship crew in 1973, and then left in 1976.
> > Yes, that's correct.
> > > As it is in university, people go over materials and adopt so very > > > much, because they do not study with a critical mind.
> > Sez who? Some do, some don't. It depends on the student and how good > > the teacher is at teaching the students to think critically.
> If you are critical according to a particular frame, then what arises > from that is not criticism per definition.
> > >I know people > > > that have been in Scientology since the very beginning years, or they > > > may have been staff for 30 years. And still I catch them with basic > > > misunderstandings. The question to you would be if you have done > > > extensive comparitive testing regarding what you 'studied'. You see, > > > if a person wants to understand, he/she first has to get rid of the > > > previously established frame of mind. This is the filter which he/she > > > uses to view all other things. Do you understand what I mean?
> > Yes, that is always the case and it is unavoidable. We all look at > > things through various filters. The main thing is to be honest about > > identifying what they are. What I don't buy is that Scientologists > > have gotten rid of theirs. On the contrary, they are viewing things > > through a Scientology filter.
> Of course, as ordinary people follow the social 'authority' filter. We > are all subjected to brainwash, anywhere and everywhere. And people > like so very much to 'follow'.
> The value of the subject of Dianetics and Scientology is the > information that it provides. But if no person guards it or even > applies it, it will be of no use to anyone.
> > > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims.
> > > > I wasn't aware of your questions. Would you like to repeat them?
> > > It was the interaction between us in this thread:http://tiny.cc/rpf
> > > I made notice that you had adopted various paradigms that in fact are > > > actively counteracted in guidelines found in policy letters that were > > > already available at that time.
> > For example? If you're saying there were contradictions, you bet there > > were. One that I pointed out in My Nine Lives is that Hubbard said > > that punishment doesn't work, but yet the RPF and much of the heavy > > ethics was punishment.
> Therefore from 1950-1972 it was a logical development. But actually > starting with early December 1972 opposing practics were introduced > and not counteracted. Indeed, punishment does not work.
> > >The word of L. Ron Hubbard is not law, > > > he too has to abide to these policy letters. If you had been wronged > > > you simply use the format of 'Orders, Query of', and this means you do > > > not follow or obey that what has been laid upon you.
> > Yes, I knew that well. That's exactly what I tried to do on the Apollo > > when I was wrongfully accused, but it didn't work. If LRH wanted > > something, it happened, regardless of whether it
On 28 Maj, 02:01, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote:
> The gist of what you're saying, if I am understanding you correctly is > that you think that Hubbard's policies were being violated or applied > inconsistently, including by Hubbard himself. There are indeed > contradictions and yes, it does seem to be completely against what > Hubbard wrote in Dianetics, that he would send a woman who was 5 > months pregnant to the RPF and she stayed there until just before > giving birth. The RPF was also a contradiction. The Sea Org and what > actually went on under Hubbard is full of contradictions. There was no > way Hubbard's orders could be opposed. If they were, the person would > have gotten offloaded from the Apollo. That was the choice we were > given. When I experienced enough of these contradictions, I realized > that Scientology, Hubbard and the Sea Org were not what I had been led > to think and I did not like what I saw and experienced, which was > nothing short of abuse and not at all something I wanted to be > associated with. That's why I left.
You can not have a person going through this much effort to develop a technique that addresses the ails of man rather effectively, and at the other hand sends pregnant women to some RPF. As I said, there are NO contradictions if matters are put in the proper perspective.
At this time YOU have to ask yourself if you have not been lead behind the curtain by a fraud impersonating L. Ron Hubbard. Now, did this L. Ron Hubbard that you met, did you see this person ever with any of his children?
You see, my attention was caught to the subject itself and its values. But you abandoned it all because of some people and what they did. If the subject was interfered with, and if the organization was actually infiltrated (learn from worldhistory), then it seems to me that you swallowed the tale they told willingly. So why did you ever got involved with the organization at all, why did it took you 6 years, and why did you abandon the subject? Or are you telling me that you went around blindfolded for 6 whole years??
Now, about established filters, you have been adhering to a particular view on these matters for quite some time, would you be able to considers alternates that would contradict your thus far accepted reality on this subject?
> > > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > > Ph.D.
> > > > > No, I am using a title I worked very hard to earn. I'm not "demanding" > > > > > or expecting anything of anyone, only accurately stating my > > > > > credentials.
> > > > I don't get that impression from these pages of yours that you link > > > > to.
> > > The pages I link to is my response to an all out internet smear > > > campaign where all kinds of lies have been posted about me.
> > Yes, I have become aware of that. But what caused all that? Consider > > also that the person L. Ron hubbard may have been seriously smeared > > for various reasons during a number of years.
> > > > > >only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
> > > > > To be precise, in 2009.
> > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > You obviously don't understand what is involved in a doctoral level > > > > > education. That's not what it is about at all. In fact, what I have to > > > > > say is ironically, what some in my profession do not want to hear when > > > > > I criticize certain cherished therapies that lack empirical support.
> > > > Well, the theory of evolution has no empirical support. > > > >But it is > > > > still thrown about. What I meant is that it must fall within these > > > > guiding rules that were put up by some people. It is then of lesser > > > > relevans if some particulars are still not liked, if it does pass > > > > THEIR test of things, it is then automatically accepted.
> > > That is not correct at all. It has a ton of empirical support, > > > contrary to the myths about it Creationists would have us believe.
> > I believe some of these are rather outdated! These are easily > > counteracted in fact. But what about the deliberate mix up by > > evolutionists regarding micro-evolution and macro-evolution in about > > all of their presentations?
> > Either way, evolutionism is as unempirical as creationism is. The only > > difference between them is that a different interpretation of the > > observed is adhered to.
> > It's funny that you claim tons of empirical support, when in fact they > > have none. I am rather familiar with the experimenting performed and > > the assumptions exercised in this area and conclusions drawn from > > these, more in particular archaeology though. It is all largely a > > matter of deliberate selection.
> > I oppose the theory of evolution strictly based on scientific grounds.
> > > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > > backup.
> > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "proper backup" but to me, that would > > > > > mean actual research evidence, properly designed that tested the claim > > > > > through randomized clinical trials.
> > > > And that is exactly what I do not mean at all. Even clinical trials as > > > > such are subjective. It is pending what tests it is run through.
> > > That's why I said the methodology had to be sound. Well-designed, > > > randomized clinical trials. Nothing is 100% perfect but when they are > > > replicated, they control for a number of human biases that cannot be > > > controlled for by anecdotes and success stories.
> > One can not guarantee that it will follow your above guidelines. In > > addition you have the very fallible human factor in selecting your > > tests.
> > > >But > > > > if you, by proper application of some processes, actually can repeat a > > > > desired result, THEN this has turned into something one can work with. > > > > The more interesting it becomes if futher persons can also replicate > > > > that.
> > > > > >Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > > some people did.
> > > > > No, my experiences are based on my experiences and those "some people" > > > > > included LRH.
> > > > As I said before, I don't think you have met him. Sure, you met a > > > > person, but it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard. You have to examine the statures > > > > of the technology and the person from prior to and after early 1973. > > > > Science and research is not about to only regard matters from an > > > > isolated time frame, and all you got is 1973-76.
> > > All I know is that when I came aboard the Apollo in 1973, most of the > > > people at the time had been there for years prior to that and they saw > > > LRH before and after his disappearance in 1972 and reappearance in > > > 1973 including his own family. No one I know had any question about it > > > being the same person.
> > If you have jumped on a merry-go-round then how observative are you > > still when you are in the middle of it? I can tell you, most persons > > not very much at all. You should be aware of this datum.
> > > > > >I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > > I studied it for six years. The bottom line is that it makes a number > > > > > of unsupported claims that have not been properly tested.
> > > > Six years you say? Alright, so you got into Scientology in 1970, went > > > > on as ship crew in 1973, and then left in 1976.
> > > Yes, that's correct.
> > > > As it is in university, people go over materials and adopt so very > > > > much, because they do not study with a critical mind.
> > > Sez who? Some do, some don't. It depends on the student and how good > > > the teacher is at teaching the students to think critically.
> > If you are critical according to a particular frame, then what arises > > from that is not criticism per definition.
> > > >I know people > > > > that have been in Scientology since the very beginning years, or they > > > > may have been staff for 30 years. And still I catch them with basic > > > > misunderstandings. The question to you would be if you have done > > > > extensive comparitive testing regarding what you 'studied'. You see, > > > > if a person wants to understand, he/she first has to get rid of the > > > > previously established frame of mind. This is the filter which he/she > > > > uses to view all other things. Do you understand what I mean?
> > > Yes, that is always the case and it is unavoidable. We all look at > > > things through various filters. The main thing is to be honest about > > > identifying what they are. What I don't buy is that Scientologists > > > have gotten rid of theirs. On the contrary, they are viewing things > > > through a Scientology filter.
> > Of course, as ordinary people follow the social 'authority' filter. We > > are all subjected to brainwash, anywhere and everywhere. And people > > like so very much to
> > > > > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > > > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > > > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > > > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > > > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > > > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > > > > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > > > > > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > > > > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > > > > > > some earlier thread.
> > > > > > > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > > > > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > > > > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > > She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > > > > > > > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > > > > > > > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > > > > > > > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > > > > > > > yourself?
> > > > > > All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you > > > > > > just don't know what I went to school for, and what not)
> > > > > Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school > > > > > for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge > > > > > of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your > > > > > word as an expert.
> > > > > > Another > > > > > > thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or > > > > > > titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here > > > > > > and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> > > > > > RR
> > > > > I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be > > > > > why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as > > > > > an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like > > > > > Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
> > > > You are babbling and using imagination... get real... but that is too > > > > much asked...
> > > > RR
> > > What part of that was imagination? Hubbard DID buy diplomas from a > > > mill.
> > Ah, did he now... evidence please...
> So you don't have to provide evidence for your claims (such as your > claim that Lucy is a fraud), but I do? Bwahahaha go fuck yourself, > hypocrite!
This newsgroup is about Scientology is it not? You claimed Scientology research, but you don't forward it.
> > >Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work.
> > And for that reason one becomes an authority? Is that a target of some > > sort?
> It makes them very knowledgeable in the subject they have a PhD in, > yes!
No, It only turns them molded in some form as per the wishes of some supposedly learned group of people.
> > >You DID admit > > > that you did not have a degree in Archaeology,
> > You have no clue what I have or do not have, I did not admit to > > anything that you claim...
> You present yourself as an authority on the subject, yet cannot > demonstrate a working knowledge of the basics... you are a fraud. Even > if you are purposely not giving answers to even the most basic of > questions in order to mess with me, all you are doing is making > yourself look like more of a jackass.
> > >even though you > > > presented yourself as an authority on the subject....
> > Ah, ah... see, that is the very last I am interested in to be regarded > > as... and no, I have never presented myself as an authority, I have > > only presented myself as a person that is rather familiar with the > > subject and has personal experience and observations during a number > > of years in the subject.
> You presented yourself as an authority on the subject by bashing > myself and several others experience in the field... saying your years > of experience amount to more knowledge than what we have... thus > making you a more credible source. At least, in your own opinion.
> > >an authority who > > > didn't know the basics when asked.
> > Ah... and what may they be???? Now, is this the same girl that > > confused archaeology with paleontology, an unforgivable mistake... .-)
> That was Peter, not me.
And you copied, was that not so? You did the very same when you copied from the YouTube guy, including copying his mistake... you really think you have not been figured out yet, little girl??
>And by the way? The two fields are very much > related.. they are not as different as an apple and a tire as you > would so like to make them out to be. Were you not looking for any > little thing to find fault over and were you actually versed in the > two fields, you would know that.
Whahahaha... no... they in fact are very disrelated... jeez, what are you ignorant... whahah...
Paleontology very briefly is the study of an organism through a period of time. Archaelogy is about activities that have been left by this organism. These are very different topics indeed...
> > > Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor > > > will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica > > > because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed > > > and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
> > I don't resent Monica, big, big mistake... and yes, your mistakes are > > imortalized... .-)
> > RR
> My only mistake was ever thinking there was a brain in that hollow > head of yours.
> Where is your personal research showing Lucy was a fake?
> Where is your personal research showing Jeremy Perkins had psych care > prior to his mothers death?
> > > > > > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > > > > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > > > > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > > > > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > > > > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > > > > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > > > > > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > > > > > > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > > > > > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > > > > > > > some earlier thread.
> > > > > > > > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > > > > > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > > > > > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > > > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > > > She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > > > > > > > > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > > > > > > > > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > > > > > > > > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > > > > > > > > yourself?
> > > > > > > All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you > > > > > > > just don't know what I went to school for, and what not)
> > > > > > Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school > > > > > > for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge > > > > > > of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your > > > > > > word as an expert.
> > > > > > > Another > > > > > > > thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or > > > > > > > titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here > > > > > > > and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be > > > > > > why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as > > > > > > an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like > > > > > > Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
> > > > > You are babbling and using imagination... get real... but that is too > > > > > much asked...
> > > > > RR
> > > > What part of that was imagination? Hubbard DID buy diplomas from a > > > > mill.
> > > Ah, did he now... evidence please...
> > So you don't have to provide evidence for your claims (such as your > > claim that Lucy is a fraud), but I do? Bwahahaha go fuck yourself, > > hypocrite!
> This newsgroup is about Scientology is it not? You claimed Scientology > research, but you don't forward it.
> > > >Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work.
> > > And for that reason one becomes an authority? Is that a target of some > > > sort?
> > It makes them very knowledgeable in the subject they have a PhD in, > > yes!
> No, It only turns them molded in some form as per the wishes of some > supposedly learned group of people.
> > > >You DID admit > > > > that you did not have a degree in Archaeology,
> > > You have no clue what I have or do not have, I did not admit to > > > anything that you claim...
> > You present yourself as an authority on the subject, yet cannot > > demonstrate a working knowledge of the basics... you are a fraud. Even > > if you are purposely not giving answers to even the most basic of > > questions in order to mess with me, all you are doing is making > > yourself look like more of a jackass.
> Claims, claims and more claims...
> > > >even though you > > > > presented yourself as an authority on the subject....
> > > Ah, ah... see, that is the very last I am interested in to be regarded > > > as... and no, I have never presented myself as an authority, I have > > > only presented myself as a person that is rather familiar with the > > > subject and has personal experience and observations during a number > > > of years in the subject.
> > You presented yourself as an authority on the subject by bashing > > myself and several others experience in the field... saying your years > > of experience amount to more knowledge than what we have... thus > > making you a more credible source. At least, in your own opinion.
> > > >an authority who > > > > didn't know the basics when asked.
> > > Ah... and what may they be???? Now, is this the same girl that > > > confused archaeology with paleontology, an unforgivable mistake... .-)
> > That was Peter, not me.
> And you copied, was that not so? You did the very same when you copied > from the YouTube guy, including copying his mistake... you really > think you have not been figured out yet, little girl??
> >And by the way? The two fields are very much > > related.. they are not as different as an apple and a tire as you > > would so like to make them out to be. Were you not looking for any > > little thing to find fault over and were you actually versed in the > > two fields, you would know that.
> Whahahaha... no... they in fact are very disrelated... jeez, what are > you ignorant... whahah...
> Paleontology very briefly is the study of an organism through a period > of time. Archaelogy is about activities that have been left by this > organism. These are very different topics indeed...
If you believe that that demonstrates that they are unrelated disciplines then I think you are very much mistaken.
How might it be possible to study a creature through time without studying the traces left by the organism.
This is somewhat related to the disingenuous claim of creationists you repeated elsewhere that there is no evidence for evolution, there is a great deal of evidence of evolution, it's called the fossil record.
What there is less evidence for is the mechanism of evolution, though various studies of fruit flies for instance have suggested that punctuated equilibrium is the best predictive theory for the mechanism so far advanced.
So to say that Paleontology and archeology are very different is like saying tea and hot water are very different, it might be semantically true but try having a cup of tea without either.
> > > > Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor > > > > will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica > > > > because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed > > > > and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
> > > I don't resent Monica, big, big mistake... and yes, your mistakes are > > > imortalized... .-)
> > > RR
> > My only mistake was ever thinking there was a brain in that hollow > > head of yours.
> > Where is your personal research showing Lucy was a fake?
> > Where is your personal research showing Jeremy Perkins had psych care > > prior to his mothers death?
> > > > > > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > > > > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > > > > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > > > > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > > > > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > > > > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > > > > > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > > > > > > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > > > > > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > > > > > > > some earlier thread.
> > > > > > > > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > > > > > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > > > > > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > > > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > > > She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > > > > > > > > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > > > > > > > > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > > > > > > > > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > > > > > > > > yourself?
> > > > > > > All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you > > > > > > > just don't know what I went to school for, and what not)
> > > > > > Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school > > > > > > for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge > > > > > > of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your > > > > > > word as an expert.
> > > > > > > Another > > > > > > > thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or > > > > > > > titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here > > > > > > > and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be > > > > > > why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as > > > > > > an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like > > > > > > Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
> > > > > You are babbling and using imagination... get real... but that is too > > > > > much asked...
> > > > > RR
> > > > What part of that was imagination? Hubbard DID buy diplomas from a > > > > mill.
> > > Ah, did he now... evidence please...
> > So you don't have to provide evidence for your claims (such as your > > claim that Lucy is a fraud), but I do? Bwahahaha go fuck yourself, > > hypocrite!
> This newsgroup is about Scientology is it not? You claimed Scientology > research, but you don't forward it.
I did. You ignored it.
> > > >Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work.
> > > And for that reason one becomes an authority? Is that a target of some > > > sort?
> > It makes them very knowledgeable in the subject they have a PhD in, > > yes!
> No, It only turns them molded in some form as per the wishes of some > supposedly learned group of people.
So if you had a medical emergency, you wouldn't see a doctor if it meant saving your life? Do you honestly believe that you can teach yourself everything that a university would possibly teach you at a PhD level on a subject? If so, you are delusional.
> > > >You DID admit > > > > that you did not have a degree in Archaeology,
> > > You have no clue what I have or do not have, I did not admit to > > > anything that you claim...
> > You present yourself as an authority on the subject, yet cannot > > demonstrate a working knowledge of the basics... you are a fraud. Even > > if you are purposely not giving answers to even the most basic of > > questions in order to mess with me, all you are doing is making > > yourself look like more of a jackass.
> Claims, claims and more claims...
Verifiable claims, as it is all in your ars posting history.
> > > >even though you > > > > presented yourself as an authority on the subject....
> > > Ah, ah... see, that is the very last I am interested in to be regarded > > > as... and no, I have never presented myself as an authority, I have > > > only presented myself as a person that is rather familiar with the > > > subject and has personal experience and observations during a number > > > of years in the subject.
> > You presented yourself as an authority on the subject by bashing > > myself and several others experience in the field... saying your years > > of experience amount to more knowledge than what we have... thus > > making you a more credible source. At least, in your own opinion.
> > > >an authority who > > > > didn't know the basics when asked.
> > > Ah... and what may they be???? Now, is this the same girl that > > > confused archaeology with paleontology, an unforgivable mistake... .-)
> > That was Peter, not me.
> And you copied, was that not so?
Nope. I did not.
> You did the very same when you copied > from the YouTube guy, including copying his mistake... you really > think you have not been figured out yet, little girl??
That would be your opinion, RR. One based on personal prejudices and lack of actual knowledge about me.
> >And by the way? The two fields are very much > > related.. they are not as different as an apple and a tire as you > > would so like to make them out to be. Were you not looking for any > > little thing to find fault over and were you actually versed in the > > two fields, you would know that.
> Whahahaha... no... they in fact are very disrelated... jeez, what are > you ignorant... whahah...
*facepalm* Really? The study of humans in years past and their artifacts has nothing to do with the study of how humans evolved as organisms? Someone call narcanon, RR is doing crack!
> Paleontology very briefly is the study of an organism through a period > of time. Archaelogy is about activities that have been left by this > organism. These are very different topics indeed...
You really think that Paleontology with regards to humans and archaeology, which studies humans and their remains, have no connection? That they never overlap? Wow... just.. wow. *facepalm* You... are a special kind of retarded.
> > > > Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor > > > > will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica > > > > because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed > > > > and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
> > > I don't resent Monica, big, big mistake... and yes, your mistakes are > > > imortalized... .-)
> > > RR
> > My only mistake was ever thinking there was a brain in that hollow > > head of yours.
> > Where is your personal research showing Lucy was a fake?
> > Where is your personal research showing Jeremy Perkins had psych care > > prior to his mothers death?
> > Still nothing? Pathetic.
> Indeed, pathetic... .-)
> RR
How nice of you to admit that you are indeed, pathetic. Duly Noted.
> > > > > > > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > > > > > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > > > > > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > > > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > > > > > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > > > > > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > > > > > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > > > > > > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > > > > > > > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > > > > > > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > > > > > > > > some earlier thread.
> > > > > > > > > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > > > > > > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > > > > > > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > > > > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > > > > She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > > > > > > > > > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > > > > > > > > > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > > > > > > > > > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > > > > > > > > > yourself?
> > > > > > > > All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you > > > > > > > > just don't know what I went to school for, and what not)
> > > > > > > Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school > > > > > > > for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge > > > > > > > of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your > > > > > > > word as an expert.
> > > > > > > > Another > > > > > > > > thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or > > > > > > > > titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here > > > > > > > > and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> > > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > > I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be > > > > > > > why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as > > > > > > > an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like > > > > > > > Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
> > > > > > You are babbling and using imagination... get real... but that is too > > > > > > much asked...
> > > > > > RR
> > > > > What part of that was imagination? Hubbard DID buy diplomas from a > > > > > mill.
> > > > Ah, did he now... evidence please...
> > > So you don't have to provide evidence for your claims (such as your > > > claim that Lucy is a fraud), but I do? Bwahahaha go fuck yourself, > > > hypocrite!
> > This newsgroup is about Scientology is it not? You claimed Scientology > > research, but you don't forward it.
> I did. You ignored it.
> > > > >Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work.
> > > > And for that reason one becomes an authority? Is that a target of some > > > > sort?
> > > It makes them very knowledgeable in the subject they have a PhD in, > > > yes!
> > No, It only turns them molded in some form as per the wishes of some > > supposedly learned group of people.
> So if you had a medical emergency, you wouldn't see a doctor if it > meant saving your life? Do you honestly believe that you can teach > yourself everything that a university would possibly teach you at a > PhD level on a subject? If so, you are delusional.
> > > > >You DID admit > > > > > that you did not have a degree in Archaeology,
> > > > You have no clue what I have or do not have, I did not admit to > > > > anything that you claim...
> > > You present yourself as an authority on the subject, yet cannot > > > demonstrate a working knowledge of the basics... you are a fraud. Even > > > if you are purposely not giving answers to even the most basic of > > > questions in order to mess with me, all you are doing is making > > > yourself look like more of a jackass.
> > Claims, claims and more claims...
> Verifiable claims, as it is all in your ars posting history.
> > > > >even though you > > > > > presented yourself as an authority on the subject....
> > > > Ah, ah... see, that is the very last I am interested in to be regarded > > > > as... and no, I have never presented myself as an authority, I have > > > > only presented myself as a person that is rather familiar with the > > > > subject and has personal experience and observations during a number > > > > of years in the subject.
> > > You presented yourself as an authority on the subject by bashing > > > myself and several others experience in the field... saying your years > > > of experience amount to more knowledge than what we have... thus > > > making you a more credible source. At least, in your own opinion.
> > > > >an authority who > > > > > didn't know the basics when asked.
> > > > Ah... and what may they be???? Now, is this the same girl that > > > > confused archaeology with paleontology, an unforgivable mistake... .-)
> > > That was Peter, not me.
> > And you copied, was that not so?
> Nope. I did not.
> > You did the very same when you copied > > from the YouTube guy, including copying his mistake... you really > > think you have not been figured out yet, little girl??
> That would be your opinion, RR. One based on personal prejudices and > lack of actual knowledge about me.
> > >And by the way? The two fields are very much > > > related.. they are not as different as an apple and a tire as you > > > would so like to make them out to be. Were you not looking for any > > > little thing to find fault over and were you actually versed in the > > > two fields, you would know that.
> > Whahahaha... no... they in fact are very disrelated... jeez, what are > > you ignorant... whahah...
> *facepalm* Really? The study of humans in years past and their > artifacts has nothing to do with the study of how humans evolved as > organisms? Someone call narcanon, RR is doing crack!
> > Paleontology very briefly is the study of an organism through a period > > of time. Archaelogy is about activities that have been left by this > > organism. These are very different topics indeed...
> You really think that Paleontology with regards to humans and > archaeology, which studies humans and their remains, have no > connection? That they never overlap? Wow... just.. wow. *facepalm* > You... are a special kind of retarded.
> > > > > Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor > > > > > will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica > > > > > because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed > > > > > and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
> > > > I don't resent Monica, big, big mistake... and yes, your mistakes are > > > > imortalized... .-)
> > > > RR
> > > My only mistake was ever thinking there was a brain in that hollow > > > head of yours.
> > > Where is your personal research showing Lucy was a fake?
> > > Where is your personal research showing Jeremy Perkins had psych care > > > prior to his mothers death?
> > > Still nothing? Pathetic.
> > Indeed, pathetic... .-)
> > RR
> How nice of you to admit that you are indeed, pathetic. Duly Noted.
It's always nice when someone keen to unjustly criticise others for clumsyness, trips over their own feet.
> > > > > > > > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > > > > > > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > > > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > > > > > > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > > > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > > > > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > > > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > > > > > > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > > > > > > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > > > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > > > > > > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > > > > > > > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > > > > > > > > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > > > > > > > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > > > > > > > > > some earlier thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > > > > > > > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > > > > > > > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > > > > > She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > > > > > > > > > > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > > > > > > > > > > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > > > > > > > > > > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > > > > > > > > > > yourself?
> > > > > > > > > All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you > > > > > > > > > just don't know what I went to school for, and what not)
> > > > > > > > Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school > > > > > > > > for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge > > > > > > > > of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your > > > > > > > > word as an expert.
> > > > > > > > > Another > > > > > > > > > thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or > > > > > > > > > titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here > > > > > > > > > and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> > > > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > > > I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be > > > > > > > > why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as > > > > > > > > an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like > > > > > > > > Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
> > > > > > > You are babbling and using imagination... get real... but that is too > > > > > > > much asked...
> > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > What part of that was imagination? Hubbard DID buy diplomas from a > > > > > > mill.
> > > > > Ah, did he now... evidence please...
> > > > So you don't have to provide evidence for your claims (such as your > > > > claim that Lucy is a fraud), but I do? Bwahahaha go fuck yourself, > > > > hypocrite!
> > > This newsgroup is about Scientology is it not? You claimed Scientology > > > research, but you don't forward it.
> > I did. You ignored it.
> > > > > >Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work.
> > > > > And for that reason one becomes an authority? Is that a target of some > > > > > sort?
> > > > It makes them very knowledgeable in the subject they have a PhD in, > > > > yes!
> > > No, It only turns them molded in some form as per the wishes of some > > > supposedly learned group of people.
> > So if you had a medical emergency, you wouldn't see a doctor if it > > meant saving your life? Do you honestly believe that you can teach > > yourself everything that a university would possibly teach you at a > > PhD level on a subject? If so, you are delusional.
> > > > > >You DID admit > > > > > > that you did not have a degree in Archaeology,
> > > > > You have no clue what I have or do not have, I did not admit to > > > > > anything that you claim...
> > > > You present yourself as an authority on the subject, yet cannot > > > > demonstrate a working knowledge of the basics... you are a fraud. Even > > > > if you are purposely not giving answers to even the most basic of > > > > questions in order to mess with me, all you are doing is making > > > > yourself look like more of a jackass.
> > > Claims, claims and more claims...
> > Verifiable claims, as it is all in your ars posting history.
> > > > > >even though you > > > > > > presented yourself as an authority on the subject....
> > > > > Ah, ah... see, that is the very last I am interested in to be regarded > > > > > as... and no, I have never presented myself as an authority, I have > > > > > only presented myself as a person that is rather familiar with the > > > > > subject and has personal experience and observations during a number > > > > > of years in the subject.
> > > > You presented yourself as an authority on the subject by bashing > > > > myself and several others experience in the field... saying your years > > > > of experience amount to more knowledge than what we have... thus > > > > making you a more credible source. At least, in your own opinion.
> > > > > >an authority who > > > > > > didn't know the basics when asked.
> > > > > Ah... and what may they be???? Now, is this the same girl that > > > > > confused archaeology with paleontology, an unforgivable mistake... .-)
> > > > That was Peter, not me.
> > > And you copied, was that not so?
> > Nope. I did not.
> > > You did the very same when you copied > > > from the YouTube guy, including copying his mistake... you really > > > think you have not been figured out yet, little girl??
> > That would be your opinion, RR. One based on personal prejudices and > > lack of actual knowledge about me.
> > > >And by the way? The two fields are very much > > > > related.. they are not as different as an apple and a tire as you > > > > would so like to make them out to be. Were you not looking for any > > > > little thing to find fault over and were you actually versed in the > > > > two fields, you would know that.
> > > Whahahaha... no... they in fact are very disrelated... jeez, what are > > > you ignorant... whahah...
> > *facepalm* Really? The study of humans in years past and their > > artifacts has nothing to do with the study of how humans evolved as > > organisms? Someone call narcanon, RR is doing crack!
> > > Paleontology very briefly is the study of an organism through a period > > > of time. Archaelogy is about activities that have been left by this > > > organism. These are very different topics indeed...
> > You really think that Paleontology with regards to humans and > > archaeology, which studies humans and their remains, have no > > connection? That they never overlap? Wow... just.. wow. *facepalm* > > You... are a special kind of retarded.
> > > > > > Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor > > > > > > will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica > > > > > > because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed > > > > > > and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
> > > > > I don't resent Monica, big, big mistake... and yes, your mistakes are > > > > > imortalized... .-)
> > > > > RR
> > > > My only mistake was ever thinking there was a brain in that hollow > > > > head of yours.
> > > > Where is your personal research showing Lucy was a fake?
> > > > Where is your personal research showing Jeremy Perkins had psych care > > > > prior to his mothers death?
> > > > Still nothing? Pathetic.
> > > Indeed, pathetic... .-)
> > > RR
> > How nice of you to admit that you are indeed, pathetic. Duly Noted.
> It's always nice when someone keen to unjustly criticise others for > clumsyness, trips over their own feet.
> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > > > > > > > > Ph.D. only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > > > > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > > > > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > > > > > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > > > > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > > > > > > > > backup. Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > > > > > > > > some people did. I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > > > > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > > > > > > > > > The problem I encounter with you is that you refrained from answering > > > > > > > > > > > > my questions when I queried some of your claims. Here it also became > > > > > > > > > > > > very clear that you have misinterpreted what Flag Orders were for and > > > > > > > > > > > > how to work with these. See, you didn't follow up on my inquiry in > > > > > > > > > > > > some earlier thread.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you then are involved with peer review, science, publication and > > > > > > > > > > > > all that, then review ALL available data concerning the subject of > > > > > > > > > > > > Dianetics/Scientology. I don't think that you did that!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > > > > > > She DOES deserve respect for her PhD... it represents years of hard > > > > > > > > > > > work and determination. We all know you never went to school for > > > > > > > > > > > archaeology, even though you claim to be an expert in it. What's the > > > > > > > > > > > matter, RR? Jealous of something you are unable to accomplish > > > > > > > > > > > yourself?
> > > > > > > > > > All I see is blind defamation from you thrown att my address. (you > > > > > > > > > > just don't know what I went to school for, and what not)
> > > > > > > > > Really? Because you pretty much admitted that you didn't go to school > > > > > > > > > for archaeology and couldn't demonstrate a fundamental basic knowledge > > > > > > > > > of the subject... even though you demanded we all take you at your > > > > > > > > > word as an expert.
> > > > > > > > > > Another > > > > > > > > > > thing I see is your devotion and belief in people that show certs or > > > > > > > > > > titles of some sort. I take and evaluate a person at face value here > > > > > > > > > > and now, credentials or papers have NO SAY IN THAT.
> > > > > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > > > > I *AM* taking/evaluating a person on face value here. That would be > > > > > > > > > why I think you are full of shit, even though you present yourself as > > > > > > > > > an expert regarding archaeology. =) Not everyone BUYS a diploma like > > > > > > > > > Hubbard did... almost all people work for theirs!
> > > > > > > > You are babbling and using imagination... get real... but that is too > > > > > > > > much asked...
> > > > > > > > RR
> > > > > > > What part of that was imagination? Hubbard DID buy diplomas from a > > > > > > > mill.
> > > > > > Ah, did he now... evidence please...
> > > > > So you don't have to provide evidence for your claims (such as your > > > > > claim that Lucy is a fraud), but I do? Bwahahaha go fuck yourself, > > > > > hypocrite!
> > > > This newsgroup is about Scientology is it not? You claimed Scientology > > > > research, but you don't forward it.
> > > I did. You ignored it.
> > > > > > >Monica DID earn hers through years of hard work.
> > > > > > And for that reason one becomes an authority? Is that a target of some > > > > > > sort?
> > > > > It makes them very knowledgeable in the subject they have a PhD in, > > > > > yes!
> > > > No, It only turns them molded in some form as per the wishes of some > > > > supposedly learned group of people.
> > > So if you had a medical emergency, you wouldn't see a doctor if it > > > meant saving your life? Do you honestly believe that you can teach > > > yourself everything that a university would possibly teach you at a > > > PhD level on a subject? If so, you are delusional.
> > > > > > >You DID admit > > > > > > > that you did not have a degree in Archaeology,
> > > > > > You have no clue what I have or do not have, I did not admit to > > > > > > anything that you claim...
> > > > > You present yourself as an authority on the subject, yet cannot > > > > > demonstrate a working knowledge of the basics... you are a fraud. Even > > > > > if you are purposely not giving answers to even the most basic of > > > > > questions in order to mess with me, all you are doing is making > > > > > yourself look like more of a jackass.
> > > > Claims, claims and more claims...
> > > Verifiable claims, as it is all in your ars posting history.
> > > > > > >even though you > > > > > > > presented yourself as an authority on the subject....
> > > > > > Ah, ah... see, that is the very last I am interested in to be regarded > > > > > > as... and no, I have never presented myself as an authority, I have > > > > > > only presented myself as a person that is rather familiar with the > > > > > > subject and has personal experience and observations during a number > > > > > > of years in the subject.
> > > > > You presented yourself as an authority on the subject by bashing > > > > > myself and several others experience in the field... saying your years > > > > > of experience amount to more knowledge than what we have... thus > > > > > making you a more credible source. At least, in your own opinion.
> > > > > > >an authority who > > > > > > > didn't know the basics when asked.
> > > > > > Ah... and what may they be???? Now, is this the same girl that > > > > > > confused archaeology with paleontology, an unforgivable mistake... .-)
> > > > > That was Peter, not me.
> > > > And you copied, was that not so?
> > > Nope. I did not.
> > > > You did the very same when you copied > > > > from the YouTube guy, including copying his mistake... you really > > > > think you have not been figured out yet, little girl??
> > > That would be your opinion, RR. One based on personal prejudices and > > > lack of actual knowledge about me.
> > > > >And by the way? The two fields are very much > > > > > related.. they are not as different as an apple and a tire as you > > > > > would so like to make them out to be. Were you not looking for any > > > > > little thing to find fault over and were you actually versed in the > > > > > two fields, you would know that.
> > > > Whahahaha... no... they in fact are very disrelated... jeez, what are > > > > you ignorant... whahah...
> > > *facepalm* Really? The study of humans in years past and their > > > artifacts has nothing to do with the study of how humans evolved as > > > organisms? Someone call narcanon, RR is doing crack!
> > > > Paleontology very briefly is the study of an organism through a period > > > > of time. Archaelogy is about activities that have been left by this > > > > organism. These are very different topics indeed...
> > > You really think that Paleontology with regards to humans and > > > archaeology, which studies humans and their remains, have no > > > connection? That they never overlap? Wow... just.. wow. *facepalm* > > > You... are a special kind of retarded.
> > > > > > > Your ad hom's won't change what you have posted in ars, buddy, nor > > > > > > > will they change verified historical fact! You seem to resent Monica > > > > > > > because she did things you never could.... go to school and succeed > > > > > > > and met Hubbard. It's very pathetic!
> > > > > > I don't resent Monica, big, big mistake... and yes, your mistakes are > > > > > > imortalized... .-)
> > > > > > RR
> > > > > My only mistake was ever thinking there was a brain in that hollow > > > > > head of yours.
> > > > > Where is your personal research showing Lucy was a fake?
> > > > > Where is your personal research showing Jeremy Perkins had psych care > > > > > prior to his mothers death?
> > > > > Still nothing? Pathetic.
> > > > Indeed, pathetic... .-)
> > > > RR
> > > How nice of you to admit that you are indeed, pathetic. Duly Noted.
> > It's always nice when someone keen to unjustly criticise others for > > clumsyness, trips over their own feet.
You're asking me if I ever saw LRH with any of his children on the Apollo? Yes, many times and also with his wife, Mary Sue. They all saw him on a regular basis and I had no indication any ever thought he was an impostor. And no, I didn't "swallow" anything while I was there. That was why I got into trouble so often was because I did challenge what was going on. The reason, though, isn't because LRH was replaced by an impostor. The reason was because LRH often contradicted himself. As for why it took me 6 years to leave, I believe I explained that in the write-up I did of my experience.
I'm always willing to consider alternatives if the alternatives have some kind of evidence to support them. With regard to LRH being replaced by an impostor in 1973, however, there is too much evidence against that. The other thing is that LRH's abuses didn't begin in 1973. The late 60s aboard the Apollo was a very abusive time with people getting thrown overboard and all kinds of heavy ethics. His behavior with the RPF was entirely consistent with that and all of that contradicted some of his writings that people read when they first get in, that he was against punishment.
I'm curious, though. What is it about the subject of Scientology that you find positive that is unique to Scientology?
On May 27, 9:00 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 Maj, 02:01, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > The gist of what you're saying, if I am understanding you correctly is > > that you think that Hubbard's policies were being violated or applied > > inconsistently, including by Hubbard himself. There are indeed > > contradictions and yes, it does seem to be completely against what > > Hubbard wrote in Dianetics, that he would send a woman who was 5 > > months pregnant to the RPF and she stayed there until just before > > giving birth. The RPF was also a contradiction. The Sea Org and what > > actually went on under Hubbard is full of contradictions. There was no > > way Hubbard's orders could be opposed. If they were, the person would > > have gotten offloaded from the Apollo. That was the choice we were > > given. When I experienced enough of these contradictions, I realized > > that Scientology, Hubbard and the Sea Org were not what I had been led > > to think and I did not like what I saw and experienced, which was > > nothing short of abuse and not at all something I wanted to be > > associated with. That's why I left.
> You can not have a person going through this much effort to develop a > technique that addresses the ails of man rather effectively, and at > the other hand sends pregnant women to some RPF. As I said, there are > NO contradictions if matters are put in the proper perspective.
> At this time YOU have to ask yourself if you have not been lead behind > the curtain by a fraud impersonating L. Ron Hubbard. Now, did this L. > Ron Hubbard that you met, did you see this person ever with any of his > children?
> You see, my attention was caught to the subject itself and its values. > But you abandoned it all because of some people and what they did. If > the subject was interfered with, and if the organization was actually > infiltrated (learn from worldhistory), then it seems to me that you > swallowed the tale they told willingly. So why did you ever got > involved with the organization at all, why did it took you 6 years, > and why did you abandon the subject? Or are you telling me that you > went around blindfolded for 6 whole years??
> Now, about established filters, you have been adhering to a particular > view on these matters for quite some time, would you be able to > considers alternates that would contradict your thus far accepted > reality on this subject?
> RR
> > On May 27, 3:45 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 26 Maj, 23:44, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> > > > wrote:
> > > > On May 26, 5:01 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > > > Ph.D.
> > > > > > No, I am using a title I worked very hard to earn. I'm not "demanding" > > > > > > or expecting anything of anyone, only accurately stating my > > > > > > credentials.
> > > > > I don't get that impression from these pages of yours that you link > > > > > to.
> > > > The pages I link to is my response to an all out internet smear > > > > campaign where all kinds of lies have been posted about me.
> > > Yes, I have become aware of that. But what caused all that? Consider > > > also that the person L. Ron hubbard may have been seriously smeared > > > for various reasons during a number of years.
> > > > > > >only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
> > > > > > To be precise, in 2009.
> > > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > > You obviously don't understand what is involved in a doctoral level > > > > > > education. That's not what it is about at all. In fact, what I have to > > > > > > say is ironically, what some in my profession do not want to hear when > > > > > > I criticize certain cherished therapies that lack empirical support.
> > > > > Well, the theory of evolution has no empirical support. > > > > >But it is > > > > > still thrown about. What I meant is that it must fall within these > > > > > guiding rules that were put up by some people. It is then of lesser > > > > > relevans if some particulars are still not liked, if it does pass > > > > > THEIR test of things, it is then automatically accepted.
> > > > That is not correct at all. It has a ton of empirical support, > > > > contrary to the myths about it Creationists would have us believe.
> > > I believe some of these are rather outdated! These are easily > > > counteracted in fact. But what about the deliberate mix up by > > > evolutionists regarding micro-evolution and macro-evolution in about > > > all of their presentations?
> > > Either way, evolutionism is as unempirical as creationism is. The only > > > difference between them is that a different interpretation of the > > > observed is adhered to.
> > > It's funny that you claim tons of empirical support, when in fact they > > > have none. I am rather familiar with the experimenting performed and > > > the assumptions exercised in this area and conclusions drawn from > > > these, more in particular archaeology though. It is all largely a > > > matter of deliberate selection.
> > > I oppose the theory of evolution strictly based on scientific grounds.
> > > > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > > > backup.
> > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "proper backup" but to me, that would > > > > > > mean actual research evidence, properly designed that tested the claim > > > > > > through randomized clinical trials.
> > > > > And that is exactly what I do not mean at all. Even clinical trials as > > > > > such are subjective. It is pending what tests it is run through.
> > > > That's why I said the methodology had to be sound. Well-designed, > > > > randomized clinical trials. Nothing is 100% perfect but when they are > > > > replicated, they control for a number of human biases that cannot be > > > > controlled for by anecdotes and success stories.
> > > One can not guarantee that it will follow your above guidelines. In > > > addition you have the very fallible human factor in selecting your > > > tests.
> > > > >But > > > > > if you, by proper application of some processes, actually can repeat a > > > > > desired result, THEN this has turned into something one can work with. > > > > > The more interesting it becomes if futher persons can also replicate > > > > > that.
> > > > > > >Also your experiences with it during 1973-76 are based on what > > > > > > > some people did.
> > > > > > No, my experiences are based on my experiences and those "some people" > > > > > > included LRH.
> > > > > As I said before, I don't think you have met him. Sure, you met a > > > > > person, but it wasn't L. Ron Hubbard. You have to examine the statures > > > > > of the technology and the person from prior to and after early 1973. > > > > > Science and research is not about to only regard matters from an > > > > > isolated time frame, and all you got is 1973-76.
> > > > All I know is that when I came aboard the Apollo in 1973, most of the > > > > people at the time had been there for years prior to that and they saw > > > > LRH before and after his disappearance in 1972 and reappearance in > > > > 1973 including his own family. No one I know had any question about it > > > > being the same person.
> > > If you have jumped on a merry-go-round then how observative are you > > > still when you are in the middle of it? I can tell you, most persons > > > not very much at all. You should be aware of this datum.
> > > > > > >I question how much you actually ever have understood > > > > > > > about the subject itself?
> > > > > > I studied it for six years. The bottom line is that it makes a number > > > > > > of unsupported claims that have not been
> I follow however what I see in front of me. No one tells me anything
There are fairies at the bottom of our garden! It's not so very, very far away; You pass the gardener's shed and you just keep straight ahead I do so hope they've come to stay. There's a little wood with moss in it and beetles, And a little stream that quietly runs through; You wouldn't think they'd dare to come merrymaking there, Well, they do!
There are fairies at the bottom of our garden! They often have a dance on summer nights; The butterflies and bees Make a lovely little breeze, And the rabbits stand about and hold the lights. Did you know that they could sit upon the moonbeams And pick a little star to make a fan, And dance away up there In the middle of the air Well, they can!
There are fairies at the bottom of our garden! You cannot think how beautiful they are; They all stand up and sing When the fairy queen and king Come gently floating down upon their car. The king is very proud and handsome; The queen, now can you guess who that would be? She's a little girl all day But at night she steals away. Well, it's me!
On 28 Maj, 05:07, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> wrote:
> You're asking me if I ever saw LRH with any of his children on the > Apollo? Yes, many times and also with his wife, Mary Sue. They all saw > him on a regular basis and I had no indication any ever thought he was > an impostor.
I have difficulties to get that confirmed. But I will ask some people that I know that were there before and after December 1972.
>And no, I didn't "swallow" anything while I was there.
You swallowed the philosophy. Today you find that Dianetics has little value, or do you not...
> That was why I got into trouble so often was because I did challenge > what was going on. The reason, though, isn't because LRH was replaced > by an impostor. The reason was because LRH often contradicted himself.
See, that is my point. If a person contradicts it will catch my attention immediately. I then would clarify them there and then. Do you recall the extent of 'ethics presence'?
> As for why it took me 6 years to leave, I believe I explained that in > the write-up I did of my experience.
I read that in the early 90's. Fine, I will go over that again. But feel free to elaborate here on the exact reason. As it is not clear to me.
> I'm always willing to consider alternatives if the alternatives have > some kind of evidence to support them. With regard to LRH being > replaced by an impostor in 1973, however, there is too much evidence > against that.
You haven't even looked at that data found at the link I provided, did you?
>The other thing is that LRH's abuses didn't begin in > 1973. The late 60s aboard the Apollo was a very abusive time with > people getting thrown overboard and all kinds of heavy ethics. His > behavior with the RPF was entirely consistent with that and all of > that contradicted some of his writings that people read when they > first get in, that he was against punishment.
You were on a ship. The life on a ship is tough, it needs to be. Injustices however is an entirely different issue. You should clarify the 'overboardings' themselves. You should not only listen to 'complainers' that may have justifiers. I pointed this out to you earlier. science is NOT about SELECTION...
You see, it clashes if you have a person describing human behaviour that well, and being at the other hand sort of ruthless and inconsiderate.
> I'm curious, though. What is it about the subject of Scientology that > you find positive that is unique to Scientology?
Because it is one of the very few effective approaches to actually rehabilitate the individual, instead of just altering the outward behaviour of a person. The latter is exemplary for for example psychology, psychotherapy and sorts.
The principle of Dianetics is a simple reality, and it does work. It has a detailedly working definition of that thing that is circumscribed as the 'reactive mind'. The 'unconscious' as other treatments address it is in fact obscure. But I would assume that you found out after 6 years that Dianetics principles was nothing to have either way.
I have seen the differences in persons before and after far too many times. I am not impressed however by persons doing the 1978 Bridge. The subject has been interferred with.
> > > The gist of what you're saying, if I am understanding you correctly is > > > that you think that Hubbard's policies were being violated or applied > > > inconsistently, including by Hubbard himself. There are indeed > > > contradictions and yes, it does seem to be completely against what > > > Hubbard wrote in Dianetics, that he would send a woman who was 5 > > > months pregnant to the RPF and she stayed there until just before > > > giving birth. The RPF was also a contradiction. The Sea Org and what > > > actually went on under Hubbard is full of contradictions. There was no > > > way Hubbard's orders could be opposed. If they were, the person would > > > have gotten offloaded from the Apollo. That was the choice we were > > > given. When I experienced enough of these contradictions, I realized > > > that Scientology, Hubbard and the Sea Org were not what I had been led > > > to think and I did not like what I saw and experienced, which was > > > nothing short of abuse and not at all something I wanted to be > > > associated with. That's why I left.
> > You can not have a person going through this much effort to develop a > > technique that addresses the ails of man rather effectively, and at > > the other hand sends pregnant women to some RPF. As I said, there are > > NO contradictions if matters are put in the proper perspective.
> > At this time YOU have to ask yourself if you have not been lead behind > > the curtain by a fraud impersonating L. Ron Hubbard. Now, did this L. > > Ron Hubbard that you met, did you see this person ever with any of his > > children?
> > You see, my attention was caught to the subject itself and its values. > > But you abandoned it all because of some people and what they did. If > > the subject was interfered with, and if the organization was actually > > infiltrated (learn from worldhistory), then it seems to me that you > > swallowed the tale they told willingly. So why did you ever got > > involved with the organization at all, why did it took you 6 years, > > and why did you abandon the subject? Or are you telling me that you > > went around blindfolded for 6 whole years??
> > Now, about established filters, you have been adhering to a particular > > view on these matters for quite some time, would you be able to > > considers alternates that would contradict your thus far accepted > > reality on this subject?
> > RR
> > > On May 27, 3:45 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 26 Maj, 23:44, Monica Pignotti <monica.pignotti....@gmail.com> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On May 26, 5:01 pm, Roadrunner <roadrunner.eni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > It seems amost like you want/demand respect for your socalled title. A > > > > > > > > Ph.D.
> > > > > > > No, I am using a title I worked very hard to earn. I'm not "demanding" > > > > > > > or expecting anything of anyone, only accurately stating my > > > > > > > credentials.
> > > > > > I don't get that impression from these pages of yours that you link > > > > > > to.
> > > > > The pages I link to is my response to an all out internet smear > > > > > campaign where all kinds of lies have been posted about me.
> > > > Yes, I have become aware of that. But what caused all that? Consider > > > > also that the person L. Ron hubbard may have been seriously smeared > > > > for various reasons during a number of years.
> > > > > > > >only indicates that you did things in such a way as was > > > > > > > > established by some panel (appointed group of persons) some time ago.
> > > > > > > To be precise, in 2009.
> > > > > > > > And that you were able to provide them with the answers they expected > > > > > > > > to hear!
> > > > > > > You obviously don't understand what is involved in a doctoral level > > > > > > > education. That's not what it is about at all. In fact, what I have to > > > > > > > say is ironically, what some in my profession do not want to hear when > > > > > > > I criticize certain cherished therapies that lack empirical support.
> > > > > > Well, the theory of evolution has no empirical support. > > > > > >But it is > > > > > > still thrown about. What I meant is that it must fall within these > > > > > > guiding rules that were put up by some people. It is then of lesser > > > > > > relevans if some particulars are still not liked, if it does pass > > > > > > THEIR test of things, it is then automatically accepted.
> > > > > That is not correct at all. It has a ton of empirical support, > > > > > contrary to the myths about it Creationists would have us believe.
> > > > I believe some of these are rather outdated! These are easily > > > > counteracted in fact. But what about the deliberate mix up by > > > > evolutionists regarding micro-evolution and macro-evolution in about > > > > all of their presentations?
> > > > Either way, evolutionism is as unempirical as creationism is. The only > > > > difference between them is that a different interpretation of the > > > > observed is adhered to.
> > > > It's funny that you claim tons of empirical support, when in fact they > > > > have none. I am rather familiar with the experimenting performed and > > > > the assumptions exercised in this area and conclusions drawn from > > > > these, more in particular archaeology though. It is all largely a > > > > matter of deliberate selection.
> > > > I oppose the theory of evolution strictly based on scientific grounds.
> > > > > > > > What I know about you is that you have claimed things regarding the > > > > > > > > subject of Dianetics/Scientology that are not supported by proper > > > > > > > > backup.
> > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "proper backup" but to me, that would > > > > > > > mean actual research evidence, properly designed that tested the claim > > > > > > > through randomized clinical trials.
> > > > > > And that is exactly what I do not mean at all. Even clinical trials as > > > > > > such are subjective. It is
