A rather odd exchange with a scientologist

Most exchanges I have with current scientologists follow a predictable pattern. A scientologist needs to stay out of trouble – by any means. One should not look at any critical information, not surf around on the Internet where critical information could pop up, not engage in conversations with people who could be critical of Scientology and certainly not talk to anyone shunned by their church. When a Scientologist contacts me, the exchange usually dies out after a couple of messages.

Not this one. This is an odd one out, and I would appreciate your help in understanding what is going on in this e-mail exchange.

It started out with a question from “E”:

How is your FSMing going?

An FSM cycle I initiated:
After hearing of his breakup from his then wife Jodhi Meares, I wrote a letter to James Packer (a multi-billionaire Australian businessman) about Scientology (included in the letter was material about services available at the Flag Land Base and an FSM selection slip for services at Flag). I sent a copy of the selection slip to Flag via AOSH ANZO. The next I heard was that James was receiving Scientology services in Sydney and later he stated that the services he’d received had been “helpful.”

Best wishes for 2016

From the question “How is your FSMing going?”, we get this conversation:

G: Not too well:-/

E: What barrier have you hit?

G: My own interest in FSM’ing:-) Two weeks after I attested OT 8 in 2006, I met with David Miscavige. That meeting helped me resolve many questions I had during my 25 years as a Scientologist. I then left the church. I found out that there are more Class XII auditors outside the church than inside – as most of the Class XIIs trained directly by LRH was expelled by the current management. Having discovered this, I was able to do my L11 and to fantastic wins.

E: Was there a time prior to your losing interest, where you were winning as an FSM?
What was discussed at the meeting (questions that were asked, replies that were given, etc)?

G: I used to be the top FSM in Norway, but after meeting David Miscavige in person, I decided that I would not again FSM for the church. Basically he violated a dozen or so LRH policies right in front of me. He tried to recruit me as the ED of Oslo Org right there on the spot and at the same time sacking the current ED which he admitted that he didn’t know. The way that conversation went was just about the weirdest I have experienced. I realized the church was indeed run by a dictator. If you want more details, I can give you more,

E: SPECIFIC MEETING INFO SOUGHT:

  1. When exactly it occurred (date).
  2. Where it took place (location).
  3. What time of the day or night it was held at.
  4. What day of the week it occurred on.
  5. If it took place inside a building (which one).
  6. If it took place inside an office (describe the interior).
  7. Whether you were given any refreshments (coffee).
  8. Whether anyone else was present.
  9. Whether the door was shut.
  10. Whether you were summoned to the meeting.
  11. The amount of time (notice) you were given to show up.
  12. Whether you were escorted to the meeting.
  13. The duration of the meeting.
  14. Whether anyone was outside the door when you left.
  15. Any other details that come to mind.

G: Wow – that was an interesting list:-)
You are thorough. It would be interesting to see the same thoroughness applied to a look into the church statistics. Like the number of Scientologists in the world.
Let me give you the story of my meeting with David Miscavige: https://elysianchakorta.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/when-i-met-david-miscavige/
(I also attached my “doubt write-up“)

E: Re the recruitment method which David Miscavige (unsuccessfully) attempted on you: He no doubt would have found this particular approach successful at various times in the past, thus he adopted it as his SOP (standard operating procedure).

G: No doubt.
What do you think of his approach?
And what do you think about the content of my Doubt write-up?

E: I prefer to look at the incident from the viewpoint of observing the technique you use to personally handle certain types of people. Let’s say I’m your boxing coach and I want you to be able to handle every type of opponent you meet in the ring with style, effectiveness and finesse and not let any of them land a punch on you. What I do after the match, is I ask you how you felt you went. You are really the final arbiter of how you performed. You determine whether you performed at 100 percent, 75 percent, 50 percent or 25 percent. Then — if you believe you fared below 100 percent — we look at what you could have done to fare better.

G: In the real world outside of Scientology – you are absolutely right. And this is exactly how I view that it should be done. See the attached article, it thoroughly validates your viewpoint. But in the world of Scientology, one is supposed to follow LRH’s word to the letter – especially the management of the church. And here is where the glaring outpoint with that meeting really shines.

Then out of the blue, he sent me this:

2016-01-17-120017_591x725_scrot

G: Before you send this anywhere, you should read the attached.

Then I sent him both Six months in the open and From Independent Scientologist to just me. He then read “all of Six months” and “most of Just me”, and sent me this:

Prerequisites to study
The most important prerequisite as far as I’m concerned is a Non-Oppressive Environment in which to study. As far as I’m concerned they can stick their f***ing academies up their asses. I FUCKEN HATE studying in Scn academies. Let me repeat that in case someone never heard what I said: I FUCKING HATE STUDYING IN SCIENTOLOGY ACADEMIES. I like to study WHERE I want and WHEN I want, without some fuckwit pissing me off with their bullshit. My favourite place to study is lying down in the park under a shady tree. Then i might walk off and go and buy an icecream. Then, there is a possibility that I will go back to study half-an-hour later — WHEN I FRIGGEN WELL FEEL LIKE IT. And if I don’t feel like it, I won’t. I hate being bugged by idiots around me, pestering and annoying me when I’m studying. It sends me wild. I am usually a fairly calm and easygoing person, but if there is one thing that brings out a FULLBLOWN RAGE in me it’s anything to do with being pestered while I’m studying. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

And then he actually sent his CSW to “David Miscavige, Chairman of the Board” via info@scientology.org – asking him to take me on as his personal recruitment consultant.

G: Please help me understand; What is your ambition in doing this? What were your thoughts after reading the two books I sent you?

He then sent me this link and this link, before I reiterated what he thought about my two books, whereupon he answered:

E: You are not OT VIII — you’re a False Declare.

G: That is a one way to deal with the cognitive dissonance. So, you think the tech in the church is faulty, since it would allow a person to go through all the Bridge with thousands upon thousands of hours of auditing and sec checks and courses and let through a false OT VIII declare?
Also, what would be your idea of a “correct” OT VIII?

E: It’s a matter of mathematics. Absolutes are unobtainable. There is always a blacker black or a whiter shade of white. The delivery lines have been under continual improvement from the day LRH gave his first session. There are so many variables involved, so many areas where breakdowns can occur. It’s not a matter of the tech being faulty; the delivery of it can always be more polished. Training has been under continual improvement. The ability of those working on the lines can always be lifted up a further notch. If you wish to disagree with the TRUTH I have revealed to you, fine.

G: What is the “TRUTH” you have presented to me?

And that is my answer to “E” just this morning.

What is your take on this exchange?

Update 2016-01-18:

The exchange continued…

E: I stated that: You are not OT VIII — you’re a False Declare. I also stated: If you wish to disagree with the TRUTH I have revealed to you,
fine. In other words, if it is your TRUTH that you ARE an OT VIII completion, well that is your truth.
You are free to keep on believing your own bullshit till the end of time if you so wish.

G: Really E, I don’t care if I am an OT 8 or not. I am who I am and I am jolly happy to be just that, me:-)
You seem aggravated by this conversation. Why? Is it because I do not conform to your expectation of an OT 8? Is it because you sent that CSW
even after having read all that I sent you? Is it that you admitted to hating to study in a Scientology Academy? Or is it something else? Please
enlighten me. Or better, gather the courage to speak your mind in the open by commenting on my blog or on that Facebook discussion.
I still find this exchange of ours interesting. You may want to follow (and comment) on this: https://isene.me/2016/01/17/odd-exchange/. In addition to my blog, you may want to check out my Facebook page where another set of comments regarding our exchange is unfolding.

This has been an interesting exchange. But I am struggling to understand your motivations. And since you didn’t seem willing to share your reasons for our exchange, or at least didn’t answer my questions about it, I thought I would get help from others. If you have balls, you can speak your mind on my blog or on that facebook discussion.

E: “I don’t care if I am an OT 8 or not”… No OT VIII completion would ever say such a thing. You are swimming in so much unhandled stuff that it’s not funny. Please send me the name of the person who signed off on your “OT VIII” cycle — so I can add them to the report I’m writing up.

G: You don’t know much about the upper bridge. There are literally dozens of people involved in verifying a person through OT VII and VIII. I spent 2,5 years auditing on OT VII with 4-6 sessions every day. And then there was the 6-month refreshers at Flag with verifications through auditing and sec checks and the course room. There were my supervisors, the Cramming Officer, the Qual Consultant, The Qual Sec, The D of P, The auditors, the FES-ers, Ethics Officer, Lead Ethics Officer and even the RTC was involved.

The OT VII End Phenomena Check is the most thorough action on the bridge with lots of people involved in seeing it through with all sessions video taped and checked by RTC. In itself it contains a huge Sec Check. Then there was the Sec Check for leaving Flag and then there was the Mother Of All Sec Checks… the OT VIII Sec Check aboard the Freewinds. Then there was the OT VIII cycle verified by the most highly trained and then there was another Sec Check. So, aboard the Freewinds for OT VIII, you have another set of MAA, Supervisor, D of T, D of P, auditors, Qual… you name it. You may start counting names:-)
You see, I discovered that the whole concept of the OT III case with Body Thetans and Clusters and the story about the Galactic Overlord Xenu is wrong. It is fiction. What we audited on these upper levels are not BTs – it is our own case. It is not separate identities that is beyond our creation, it is case purely of our own making. Now That is taking real responsibility for one’s own stuff. LRH tried to blame other beings. That may be one reason why he died as a mentally crippled man full of neurosis and using a psych drug before he died.
It seems you are having a rough time with our exchange. You don’t answer my questions. I answer your questions. Why this one-sided conversation?

Update 2016-01-19:

E: Then send me the names of ALL OF THEM — so I can add the lot of them to the report I’m writing up about your botched up cycle, in order to get them handled. No OT VIII “completion” should hereafter be allowed off the ship, to turn out like the piece of shit that you ended up as.

G: I cannot possibly remember the more than 50 names involved – many of the names I never even got (they were post names behind the scenes. And why
should I even try to remember? The church is disintegrating as we speak. There are less than 40 000 scientologists world wide and it is shrinking.
People are leaving the SO like never before. There isn’t much left to be corrected in the way it needs correcting. What needs correcting is David
Miscavige and his few minions. Remember, he was the one that wanted to put me on post as the ED of Oslo Org only two weeks after that “botched up
cycle” – so make sure to include him in that report. Also include yourself.

E: Would it be correct to say that you felt okay about OT VIII, right up until you returned for the OT Ambassadors photo shoot where the incident with Miscavige took place and something keyed-in?

G: No. Nothing keyed in. I’m jolly happy about all my services. But the fact of the matter is that the church is run by a dictator who physically abuses his juniors. And, as I told you, LRH got much of the upper bridge wrong. It works quite well, but not for the reasons you are told.

E: When exactly did you come to this conclusion?

G: After about 1000 hours of research – including interviewing people who had been physically abused by Miscavige and people who saw others get beaten.

In this last round of exchange, E also tells me something personal, upon which I answer:

G: As you know, I successfully coach people in all walks of life. I would love to help if I could. Let me know.

578 thoughts on “A rather odd exchange with a scientologist

  1. That conversation could be many things, but sane and rational it is not. I can’t begin to fathom what E might be up to, but he’s all over the place. No coherence.

    In your shoes I wouldn’t spend any more time on it to be honest. If I can’t figure out what someone is after in a conversation, then there’s no point in continuing and you might as well be talking to a lunatic. E could be an OT8 who just had a psychotic break, could be a kid on the internetz thinking he can mess with your head, could be OSA trying some new weird game. Or could be something else entirely and equally bizarre.

    It doesn’t make sense, so don’t try make sense out of it

  2. Good morning Geir, I would say if future conversations with OTHER Scn exhibit a similar tone, than it is management showing the first major chink in its armor. It is desperate and trying something/anything to recover. If this is just the communication from this one individual, then I agree with splog; E is completely irrational.

  3. “E” is robotically following a Scientology procedure to revitalize FSMs.

    His questions are intended to “as-is” the moment Geir decided not to FSM. “E” did not accomplish that but assumed that he has planted seeds in Geir’s mind that may eventually help overcome Geir’s objections.

    His “CSW” is incomplete staff work. He seems to think that by implanting a greater purpose he might be able to overcome all cognitive dissonance.

    The basic foundation of his thinking is that LRH Tech is right. It just has to be applied correctly to get the results. He is operating from that conviction.

    His own cognitive dissonance is suppressed. It may come to fore if he is asked about the church refunding monies for all the tech delivered incorrectly. This this the ethical thing to do in the wog world. It would be intersting to see how he responds to that.

    Money is the soft belly of this beast.

    1. I invited him to follow this discussion and to comment on it if he wished. Will be interesting to see if he has balls enough to speak his mind here.

            1. Continually acting like a jerk will get any “someone” suspended. But it requires far more idiotic beahvior here than any other blog that I know of.

    2. Sorry to jump in slightly off topic but I wanted to get back into comm with both Geir and Marildi. I was dying between August and December last year, but decided not to leave and came back . I lost my contacts when one pc before this one cratered and don’t have contact info y’all. I’d love to get back in comm with both … My email address is docwhittaker2@gmail.com. I’m currently writing a Science Fiction book called Real Magic Research and Development – The Battle of Midway and I wanted to talk with Marildi about it.
      ML,
      Doc

      1. Hi Doc!

        Great to hear from you after all this time. I wondered what was happening. Good to know all is well. I remember you were writing that book too. I’ll write you an email.:)

        ML,
        marildi

  4. Hi Geir. One glaring RED flag here! — Oh-so-OSA! Degraded, lower order, robotic circuit response (ordered!!) to (can you believe this?) install DOUBT — in YOU??
    ROTFLMAO! 😀

    Per Splog, and I agree — SANE it is NOT! (Then again, with his self-determinism, loooooong since abandoned to his ‘master’, he is, sadly, merely a slave, of a totally desperate despot.

    Apart from the pathetic attempt to win you over with the over-the-top ‘siding’, with your ‘perceived’ position, this certainly can be a crudely disguised attempt, to milk out, the very responses being written here.

    Which ever way you examine this pile of shit, that has plopped down from “THE Cuckoo’s Nest”. — That’s actually all it is. –( Another day in THE institution!)😀

  5. Great example of roteness at its extreme being the epitome of psychosis.

    Not to mention the rage in his comment about studying in an Scientology Academy – again an extreme indicating insanity.

    1. And the inclusion of his remarks about study in this particular comm cycle couldn’t have been more non-sequitur.

      We should have compassion for the poor guy.

    1. Hi Spyros. I wanted to read your blog post today but when I tried to go there, I got a page that said “marked private by its owner” and required a password. Is it an “exclusive” site now?😛

      1. Hola Marildi:) Of course, it’s only available to up$stat members.

        Sorry, but I currently don’t know what to do with the blog. I have lots of appetite for discussion, but I get little feedback, compared to the number people that follow it, and it worries me if and how much I’m understood. I’d be cool to have a common thought pool.

        1. I see. Well, I guess I’m not up$tat enough to be allowed into Spyros’ inner sanctum.😛😉

            1. Oh, I get it. Okay, I choose to work for free.😛 Invite me as a viewer. I won’t charge you.😀😛

  6. Gag me with a spoon, Geir! This is a perfect demonstration of scientology dementia. The total lack of any real ARC, the attempt at pretended ARC the “complex and continuous attempt to harm or destroy” your position…… Yech! What a suppressive organization it has become!

  7. Sounds like your correspondent is an auditor who got busted to some lower post and is trying to use tech to handle you, hence the ARC combined with imperviousness. Good luck with handling him!

    Roland Aldridge

    >

  8. Seemed very strange to me. Total non-sequitur with the training rant. Anyone in would be considered quite nuts to have such an attitude — you’d spend your life in ethics for a good while imagine. The BS about whale hunting is quite strange as well given his dubious
    good-standing”, it had to have happened many moons ago, if ever. Nor would he have gotten any commission from his report, so no real FSM success there.

    Writing a CSW to DM is even more la-de-dah, lol.

    Given his sending you entheta articles on the SO would seem to put him in the “out of the Co$” classification, so sending a CSW or trying to recover you is bizarre.

    Seems to me you’re talking to damaged goods. Is he in your vicinity? I’d keep such at long range from me were I you.

    I’d probably carry on the exchange just to see what other crazy showed up.

    Is he on some one-man crusade to fix things from beneath?

    Enjoy!

  9. Please DO continue down that “odd path” ; it is becoming very revealing indeed! The more communication exchanges like those are posted at any forum , the more others can recognize the crooked logic that most Scientologists follow. In fact, I am compiling many comments from different Scientologists posted at many blogs , so that others can understand the harmfulness of a cult to the members’ freedom of thought. Probably I’ll send it to you to do what you wish with them.

    Best,
    Peter

          1. Hi there, dear Calvin ; happy New Year for you too! I hope that life and family is okay. My best wishes to you all over there at SA.

            ML,
            Peter

            1. My friend, I’m trying to make the best of the biggest loss of my current life. Details on Geir’s earlier post “Happy New Year.” Life goes on, buddy. WE have a hand in that, I’m pleased to say.

              ML back at cha,
              — Calvin.:)

            2. I wasn’t aware that something had happened, dear Clavin, but I’ll look on that thread you mentioned so that I can properly acknowledge you. Take care.

              ML,
              Peter

            3. My dear Calvin, I just went to check Geir’s “Happy New Year” post as you pointed out, and just found out about your loss. I am really sorry that I didn’t find out about this before to offer you my condolences and support. Sorry if I am bringing up bad memories by posting this, but I felt that I had to let you know that I am here for anything that you might need. Plese don’t hesitate to contact me if you need to talk or anything at all. You have always striked me as a very decent and kind individual. And if you are, I am sure she was as well. My best wishes to you and your kids. May the spiritual guides offer you comfort, and might help you two to reconnect at some future time.

              You can contact me at :

              thetaclear68@yahoo.com

              I am at your services.

              ML,
              Peter

            4. Peter. Your understanding and support are so much appreciated. Thank you. As a person of Spanish decent, you can truly understand the emotional underbelly of relationships, their highs and lows.

              This is one of those rollercoaster situations for which I was not at all prepared.
              Just have to deal with the harsh realities of irreparable loss and guilt, via the grieving process, with all its pain and regrets.

              Analytically, I realize it will take as long as it takes. It’s at the emotional level, that remains a daily, exhausting challenge. I’m using guidelines of how to deal with this, from reading advice from therapists in this field on the ‘net.

              Thank you again, Peter. I may yet contact you by e-mail.

              ML, Calvin.:)

  10. Some of the invalidating comments above dehumanize this individual.

    But I see that Geir has been kind in his communications with him. It seems he has treated him like an ACTUAL REAL human being!

    Wow.

    Thanks dude. Fist bump.

    May I suggest we use an actual USEFUL principle out of this said “applied philosophy” and grant “Beingness” to the person even though he is probably not reading this blog? If you aren’t a Scientologist, like me, perhaps you can “granting the honor of a welcomed existence.”

    Just a thought.

    Because he JUST MIGHT come here someday and read your comments. In fact, I might be presumptive here in suggesting this but IF you contact Geir he MIGHT delete your comment at your request.

    1. Good thoughts, Kat. What you have observed is accurate too. The saddest thing, is when one has become so robotized, (mind-controlled), one effectively loses their ‘sense-of-self’ and therefore their own self determinism. Thereafter, it becomes impossible, for the hapless victim, to see the situation objectively. And obediently, just blindly goes thru’ the motions, as an apathetic slave.

      This is the modus operandii of David Miscavige, sociopath extraordinaire

      1. Calvin: “Thereafter, it becomes impossible, for the hapless victim, to see the situation objectively.”

        Cal, I think the point here is that none of us was being very OBJECTIVE either. Except Kat – the non-Scientologist. The rest of us were too busy trying to point out either how this “odd exchange” is typical of Scientologists – or, as in my case, that it isn’t typical but an extreme.

        In other words we were all too busy with our own particular ax to grind to see the guy as a human being with feelings – who might be reading our rather unkind evaluations of him. Even Geir, when he invited the guy to participate, should have taken into account the fact that the posters here would undoubtedly be making harsh, personal comments about him.

        My 2 cents.

        1. Thanks, Marildi. Now this other element, “being right” of course, invariably plays it’s part.

          Katageek stated his view. Gently, without anything derogatory being added.

          Woulda, shouldas, needn’t enter in here. We are all big enough, (though perhaps not yet as perceptive as we like to believe) to just take our ‘lesson’, (courtesy of Kat) — on the chin!! :) Here’s a little amelioration for just such a tricky spot:

          It’s GREAT to be “right”.

          It’s OKAY, and responsible, to accept being “wrong”.

          It’s NOT “right” to make the other “wrong”

          After all, need having a “view”, become a regret?
          ❤ Cal.

          1. “Katageek stated his view. Gently, without anything derogatory being added.”

            Yes, Cal, he was gentle – and honest when he said our comments were “dehumanizing.” That’s pretty derogatory, isn’t it?

            “Woulda, shouldas, needn’t enter in here.”

            I feel they sometimes do need to enter – although the connotation of the words “woulda/shoulda” tend to belittle the idea of admitting to a mistake. There are times when it’s a good idea to review one’s words – and if they weren’t okay, to admit it, for future reference. Confronting what was said, with no excuses, not only benefits oneself but, by putting it on the record publicly, others may reassess their words too.

            That was nicely said on your amelioration points.:) One of them was this:

            “After all, need having a ‘view’, become a regret?”

            Of course not. One can have a view – it’s how and when the view is expressed that can be regretful.😉
            ❤ marildi

            1. p.s. In the second paragraph, where I wrote “That’s pretty derogatory…” I should have added – “and rightly so.”

              We gotta watch our words.😛:)

            2. Lovely stuff, me❤. I live — to learn — each day… That's a blessing! 😀

        2. Marildi… I do agree with you… And what I have read here so far, is a total negative evaluation of the beings who happen to think -express self differently.. Stoned to death for having different belief and act accordingly what that belief demands.
          Being labelled robotic, not right, insane, or not OK…. please just because having different reality for that reason no Entity-Being should be condemned. Wars start that way: Not allowing beingness to others, believing that others are less because they dont have the same beliefs.
          What I have learned over the years that my thoughts-beliefs -considerations are not better have more value what others have beliefs are just different.
          There are as many Universes as are Awareness.

  11. Seems like more than one person answering with some predetermined answers to different problem scenarios. I doubt the person even speaks English very well.

  12. I added another update just now. I think it might be the last update. I have cut down the exchange to remove personal stuff from E and also redundant stuff. The continuing exchange could be running into a hamster wheel scenario.

      1. Given the personal stuff he added, I am not so sure. My conclusion at the moment is that he is the product of CofS conditioning. And thus this could serve as an example of how grueling that can become.

        1. I would rightly call it “Scientology’s conditioning” intead of “CofS’s conditioning” ; the latter is “late in the chain” , and wouldn’t exist w/out specific LRH’s policies.

          Peter

  13. Well, I’ve never seen anyone be that extreme a product of CoS conditioning. It’s just too unreal.

    And he is just too out-reality. Asking for all 50 names? Or CSW’ing COB – as an experienced FSM? Someone highly conditioned would have a far better reality than that on the CoS scene. And throwing in the irrelevant rant about study? Nah.

    I take back what I said about his insanity. He’s probably disappointed that he hasn’t gotten your goat!😀

      1. Neither did I get any indication that he was trained. But if he had been “around” for any length of time, he would know better than what he “apparently” does. That was my point.

    1. I should add that I did meet quite a few people inside the church that were on par with “E” – but this is the first time I have been able to capture one example in writing.

      1. I never met anybody who was like him. Conditioned, yes. But not that out-reality – which would be almost the opposite of conditioned.

          1. Were they on lines? It would be hard to believe that anyone like that would be on lines for long. He would be getting himself in trouble left and right.

            ‘Gnite, Geir. ‘Gday to you.:)

            1. Yes – most were on-line, albeit on-and-off courses and handlings and such. Give a troubled mind to the CoS and you may very well have a disaster unfolding.

            2. Here is E’s latest e-mail:

              Your great cheer squad is bulging with non-persons, the vast majority being
              nothing but shaking-in-their-boots gutless wonders sitting at .96 on the tone
              scale: TERROR — too scared to come out from behind the bushes.

          2. Hey Geir!::) This latest morsel offered by E, to my mind, is nothing more than additional “bait”, with a slightly different flavor. There apparently is a simple purpose to this hapless hamster’s treadmill, or so it seems. >>>> Infiltrate, ingratiate into the (your) comm lines, enturbulate. and hopefully, there just may be a little leftover rice and beans, to fuel the next 24,000 revolutions ordered by it’s master.

            1. Unless there is a new breed of cat as staff members (which could be the case ; I left the CofS 15 years ago) , with new patterns of thoughts , and with more “freedom” to act unsupervised (which I doubt it) , this “E” individual seems to be an OSA guy trying to create an effect (on you ? The Indies ? Your blog ? ) I am not sure of as yet.

              Peter

  14. Geir: “My conclusion at the moment is that he is the product of CofS conditioning. And thus this could serve as an example of how grueling that can become.”

    My conclusion? We have been tricked, hoodwinked, taken in, and suckered.

    In other words – trolled!

    This guy is a common variety troll, for godsakes. Probably laughing his head off about now and saying how WE are the conditioned ones – reacting like typical former Scientologists. LOL😀

    1. Nope. I got more personal stuff back channel. I know his identity, he’s on fb, LinkedIn and Google+. He know people I know well, etc. I test with my conclusion. I think Scientology has helped this guy become this way.

      1. Either you have his identity or you’ve been further duped. How can we know – when you say you have info we don’t? That’s a weak argument, Geir.

        1. You have to trust me (rather than justifying this). I know it can be scary to contemplate how this can reflect badly on the tech.
          But, I am not going to reveal his identity and that is final.

          1. “I am not going to reveal his identity and that is final.”

            I never asked you to reveal his identity. It wouldn’t matter because for all we know he is faking his identity.

            And which logical fallacy is “You have to trust me”?😛

            1. Why? Because I’ve learned I should think for myself. Not to trust “authority.” It’s too authoritarian.😉

              All I know is that YOU claim know this guy’s identity. Anyone can mock up an email address with a given name. That’s basically what I’m saying.

            2. I was thinking the same – that it’s unfair of you to say “I have data you don’t so you have to take my word for it.”

              What you could do is to to say – in general terms, with no names given – how you were able to prove his identity. I can’t even mock that up, using my imagination.

            3. There does come a point where you have to trust what I am saying since you cannot have access to his identity. I have checked him out on facebook, linkedin and google+. He gave me personal information that correlates well with my reasearch into him. And as I say, he knows people I know well. And that is all that I can say without outing him. So, again you can trust me or not. I will protect his identity. Doing otherwise would be unfair.

              Marildi, why would you want to justify his behaviour? So as to ensure it doesn’t reflect badly on LRH’s tech?

            4. Calling him a troll is justifying his behavior? That’s illogical too.

            5. Not really. It may serve to protect from the possibility that his behaviour could be the product of Scientology conditioning – I mean “Nothing in Scientology could condition a person to be That weird – he Must be a troll!”

            6. Geir, the same kind of thing could be said of your stance: It may serve to protect from the possibility that his behavior is NOT the product of Scientology conditioning. Which isn’t even logical given the things he says don’t match up to Scientology conditioning.

            7. Sure, that is a fair stance. He could just be off the rails. But – he is in fact a scientologist and he is on a mission to recover FSMs. That much is clear. But to jump to the conclusion that he is simply out to pull someone’s leg, now That is protective justification.

            8. I didn’t “jump to that conclusion.” I bought it at first.

              But you’re still not answering my question as to how one can be certain of a person’s identity from his emails – even if it’s the same name seen elsewhere. And I do think you can answer that question in a general way, as I said above. So why not just do so?

              I have to go now but I’ll look for your answer when I get back to my computer.

            9. I already answered that. He gave me personal info that matches his linkedin profile, his blog, his Google+ and his facebook to just mention a few of the places he can be found. He is that guy. No doubt. To go ahead and doubt this would be tantamount to doubting that I am writing this or that Vinaire is not Chris or that you are not Calvin. There is no way to know 100% sure. You could be someone other than who I think you are. But I am very sure about this.

            10. You are too much of a decent guy, dear Geir ; sometimes we must learn when to “change gears” , otherwise, we may fail to understand the ulterior motives of others , and will only engage in pointless arguments. You don’t have to prove yourself to anybody.

              Peter

            11. Ok Geir , here we go.

              You got into this communication cycle with this “E” individual – which according to your verifications is a Scientologist – and you wanted others to see for themselves how weird and crooked the “logic” of many Scientologists (specially the Still-ins) is , as your experience with many of them have convinced you it is. You wanted to ascertain and survey what others thought and felt about that behavior. Your intentions were clear , honest and unbiased.

              Many posters offered their opinions about the sanity (or cultish nature) or lack thereof of this guy “E”. The attention was being placed all along on “E” , and on how come he reacted like that , trying to establish a thought pattern that most Scientologists (the KSW supporters ones) share. And how come this pattern exist in the first place ? , where does it come from ? , was the main line of discussion in this thread.

              But some posters (and who exactly, I’ll leave that ENTIRELY TO YOU) , changed the line of discussion , and turned this into a “how come you are so sure that “E” is who he says he is ? , he might be pulling your leg , he ‘doesn’t’ sounds like a Scientologists” , and blah, blah, blah , yawn, yawn, yawn. Suddenly this post became about YOU for quite a few comments.

              I operate under this one rule, dear Geir ; I don’t fucking have to prove myself to ANYBODY, and sorry for my language ; I am a Hispanic guy, and we are very emotional about things unlike you Europeans. You should never attempt to convince anybody of your honesty about anything.

              My dear Geir, this cult has affected more people that is even realized by we Ex(es) [sorry, I know that you do not like being characterized , neither do I ; let’s just call us “Applied Philosophers” ] . It has impaired the free will of hundreds if not thousands of individuals in an insidious and unsuspected way. And thus , even when many Indies or “Liberal Scientologists” (or even Exes) seems to have rid themselves of the cultish nature of Scn , the reality is that they still haven’t to a very large extend. Therefore, many resent Scientology (even if they accept some criticisms towards LRH) being made look destructive , unworkable, or inherently cultish. They thus react to that , and attempt to rationalize it all only manifesting “Cognitive Dissonance” , as they can’t reconciliate 2 conflicting ideas.

              I hope that I had helped you to make more sense out of this ; but something tells me that you had already arrived to the same conclusions , even if perhaps , you can’t publicly accept it. But me saying it is okay, as I am already known as a strong “hater”. :-)))

              Best ,
              Peter

            12. Thanks for that. Here is my take: Marildi specifically has this pattern of derailing a discussion if it in any way can shed negative light on the tech. She goes into “protective justification” or tries to make the discussion about something or someone else. Sometimes about me – like here. She comes from being an avid defender of everything LRH and all his tech. She has become better but still suffers from the need to protect the tech. In doing so discussions often derail.

            13. Geir : “Thanks for that.”

              Peter : You are most welcome.

              Geir : “Here is my take: Marildi specifically has this pattern of derailing a discussion if it in any way can shed negative light on the tech.Sometimes about me – like here.”

              Peter : Yes , I am VERY familiar with Marildi’s habit ; she does it at EVERY blog she participate
              in.

              Geir : “She goes into ‘protective justification’ or tries to make the discussion about something or someone else.”

              Peter : Thus my advice about “knowing when to change gears” , and putting a “little ethics in”. :-)))
              “Protective justification” is a polite name to describe cultism. :-))) , but then you are always the gentleman.

              Geir : “She comes from being an avid defender of everything LRH and all his tech.”

              Peter : Oh, I’ve met that trait of her , all right , in more ways that I would care to describe.

              Geir : “She has become better but still suffers from the need to protect the tech. In doing so discussions often derail.”

              Peter : Yeah, she has eased off over the years , but still has a LOT to learn about cultism. Margaret T Singer would be an excellent start.

              I believe that Marildi has one of the best minds that I has ever seen. BRILLIANT girl indeed. I am waiting for her to really understand everything about cultism (in philosophy and in science as well) to invite her to help me research a better route. But perhaps she is just too upset with me. I tend to be a self-righteous asshole. :-))) I don’t possess your great manners.

              Take care, dear Geir ; nice exchanging comms with you. You are among those greatest minds as well.

              ML,
              Peter

            14. “Here is my take: Marildi specifically has this pattern of derailing a discussion if it in any way can shed negative light on the tech. She goes into ‘protective justification’ or tries to make the discussion about something or someone else. Sometimes about me – like here.”

              My take wasn’t about you, Geir – until YOU made it about you because I didn’t agree with your conclusion. And now you are the one “derailing” the exchange between us by not simply answering my question:

              “If you were able to get personal info from those sources, why wouldn’t this guy be able to do the same?”

              You apparently have no answer to that, so your response is to resort to Ad Hom. That’s additional “logic” I don’t agree with.

              Calvin commented that the guy’s purpose was to “Infiltrate, ingratiate into the (your) comm lines, enturbulate. and hopefully, there just may be a little leftover rice and beans, to fuel the next 24,000 revolutions ordered by it’s master.

              Your reply to him was “yeah, there is some sort of pattern here.” I found that strange as I had started out simply saying I thought the guy was a troll. You then started to make the discussion about ME because I wasn’t accepting your data as proof of your conclusion.

              Also, in my last reply to you, besides asking the question I quoted above, I also said that this guy may or may not be who he says he is, but that it doesn’t really matter because the significant thing is that he did stir up the kind of response trolls intend. For example, you quoted his last email as saying:

              “Your great cheer squad is bulging with non-persons, the vast majority being nothing but shaking-in-their-boots gutless wonders sitting at .96 on the tone scale: TERROR — too scared to come out from behind the bushes.”

              That and his other emails fit the profile of a troll, whether he’s being directed by the CoS or not – as I also noted in my last reply to you.

              Troll: “One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.” http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

            15. “Off the mark” doesn’t speak to any of the points I made. You didn’t reply to my last comment either, and it seems you have no answer that isn’t a logical fallacy. That’s fine. The exchange speaks for itself.

            16. Sigh. Marildi. Here we go again.

              Let me rip your post apart on one obvious point:
              “Troll: “One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.””

              He never posted “provocative message to a newsgroup or message board”. Thus the definition is indeed “Off The Mark”. Now, get it?

            17. No, I don’t get it. This is another Red Herring.

              And if you’re going to be that rote, here’s another definition (as if you didn’t know), from Wikipedia:

              “In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.”

            18. For Gawd’s sake Marildi. He didn’t post any messages in an online community. That definition really didn’t help. Let it rest. He is not a troll by any definition. I get it that you want him to be a troll. But he isn’t.

              In fact I do believe him to be a product of Scientology conditioning.

            19. “He is not a troll by any definition.”

              He did post to a blog, as per the Wkp definition. It seems you didn’t even read it.

              And his emails to you were “inflammatory and extraneous” – essentially trolling, if one isn’t being rote about it.

              “:I get it that you want him to be a troll. But he isn’t. In fact I do believe him to be a product of Scientology conditioning.

              I get that you want him to be a product of Scientology conditioning.

              You’re welcome to your opinion. But you should be willing to let me have mine without instigating a smear campaign on me. That kind of thing has probably chased posters away over the years.

            20. Marildi: Please read again the definitions you posted. He Does Not Fit Any Of Those Definitions. The fact that he has posted something entirely different to some other blog on the net does not make him a troll. You managed to post definitions here that plainly refute your own argument. Congrats on that. Now let it rest. Please.

            21. Marildi: Please read again the definitions you posted. He Does Not Fit Any Of Those Definitions. The fact that he has posted something entirely different to some other blog on the net does not make him a troll. You managed to post definitions here that plainly refute your own argument. Congrats on that. Now let it rest. Please.

              Sorry, I forgot that you were quoting from his email in your comment to update us on the latest. https://isene.me/2016/01/17/odd-exchange/#comment-102814

              You yourself must have forgotten that I also said in that same post that “his emails to you were ‘inflammatory and extraneous’ – essentially trolling, if one isn’t being rote about it.”

              And you always want to “let it rest” when you have no good reply to what I’m saying.

            22. Then he is an “unwilling troll by proxy” and I am the troll. But, by the definitions you posted, He is Clearly not a troll. I can’t believe you’re not getting this. Have you gone completely dim, or what? No, I get it… YOU ARE THE TROLL! Yes, you would in fact fit those definitions you posted quite well. Can you see that?

            23. “He is Clearly not a troll. I can’t believe you’re not getting this.”

              And I can’t believe you still haven’t duplicated my comment about him being “essentially”
              like a troll, knowingly or not.

              “No, I get it… YOU ARE THE TROLL! Yes, you would in fact fit those definitions you posted quite well. Can you see that?”

              No, I don’t see that, Geir. It was you who started and continued to keep challenging my view. I had no intention in the beginning to do more than state how I saw it. You could have let it go – because, in fact, I wasn’t the only one who commented they thought he was a troll! You let them have their say, but not me.

              Perhaps both of us should do some mindful meditation about all this.😉

            24. The purposes are entirely different. Bullbaiting is intended to flatten your buttons. Trolling is intended to merely enturbulate.

            25. And bullbait is also for the purpose of drilling the person to be and remain in present time.

            26. Oh, I think I see what you were getting at, Valkov. No, I wasn’t bullbaiting Geir. I wouldn’t even be interested in such a thing – my mind doesn’t work that way. I was only stating my honest take. If Geir hadn’t kept trying to convince me otherwise, I would have left it at that. I don’t even see why he is saying I derailed the thread – when, in fact, I was responding directly to the blog post, where he asked for “help in understanding what is going on in this e-mail exchange.” If Geir didn’t want to spend that much time debating it with me, he could have ended the exchange at any time, like he did with others who had a different viewpoint from his.

            27. Come to think of it, bullbait may be the right word for “E”, rather than troll. That was actually the concept I had when I commented that he was probably laughing his head off at all of us, if in fact he was pulling our leg and we were buying it.

              Okay, I’ve said my piece. Peace, everybody.

            28. I think that most posters here understood that you was really referring to “Bull-baiting” or “Attempting to enturbulate” when you spoke about “Trolling”. But regardless of E’s intentions, his actions are the direct result of Scientology’s conditioning, which was the actual point that Geir was assering all along ; a point you might agree or disagree with as your right, but that evidently, most posters here doesn’t seem to share with you.

              Peace, dear.

              Peter

            29. TC: “But regardless of E’s intentions, his actions are the direct result of Scientology’s conditioning…”

              There are plenty of ways that Scientologists are conditioned, and I have no disagreement with that. But in all the blog comments I’ve read over the years, other than this thread I’ve never once seen anyone – even rabid critics – claim that Scientologists are conditioned to bullbait someone just to annoy him, or to get their jollies by successfully pulling the person’s leg. OSA might do that sort of thing – or even get a public Scientologist to do it – for the purpose of enturbulating someone who is being fair gamed. But OSA is in a whole different category than public Scientologists – unless they’re being run by OSA, as I’ve said.

              Geir may very well be right that the guy seriously wants to FSM him and sincerely believes he is applying FSM tech – but if so, he is grossly MISAPPLYING it. In that particular way, he may be like many Scientologists, but that wouldn’t be a matter of conditioning.

              Anyway, thanks for your reply.

            30. You most welcome , dear Marildi ; I do understand your point now, and it sound sensible to me. Perhaps we (at least myself) didn’t duplicated you before. Take care.

              Best,
              Peter

            31. Thanks, Peter. I must say, I give you credit for this last reply.

              You take care too.:)

            32. Perhaps reviewing in a new unit of time LRH’s article “You Can Be Right” can shed some light into this, dear Geir. :-)))

            33. “Perhaps reviewing in a new unit of time LRH’s article “You Can Be Right” can shed some light into this”

              Hubbard’s writing routinely reminds me of myself and some of my Facebook friends who continually “share” a barrage of positive quotes from others, sort of in keeping with his “Affirmations.” It seems to me that I can read the cognitive dissonance in myself and in others by what happy quote seems to quell that cognitive dissonance.

            34. I am not sure what you meant by your post, Chris ; I am afraid that you’ll have to clarify for me first so that I can reply to you. I prefer direct communications with direct messages. :-)))

            35. “I prefer direct communications with direct messages. :-)))”

              Hubbard was all over the place with his writings. I can tell something about what was bothering him and what he liked as a solution at any time by what he promoted that day. One day, GPMs, one day dry feather dusting of his favorite auto, one day SMERSH, another day, “You can be right.” I wasn’t making much of a point, just remarking that one can’t take Hubbard’s writing too seriously.

            36. marildi, by those definitions Geir might be considered as trolling his own blog! He is the one who posted the OP which stirred us readers up into making comments… :)

            37. Similar to that, I think his intention was to get readers to agree that this guy is a typical, conditioned “Scientologist” – knowing that people get bent out of shape on the subject.

            38. Geir: “He gave me personal info that matches his linkedin profile, his blog, his Google+ and his facebook to just mention a few of the places he can be found.”

              If you were able to get personal info from those sources, why wouldn’t this guy be able to do the same? And it’s not that I’m challenging your honesty, as thetaclear has insinuated “some posters” are doing. I got it that you are convinced “E” is seriously trying to FSM you.

              In any case, whether he is or isn’t who he says he is isn’t even the most significant point. Either way, he fits the picture of a troll better than anything – and possibly an agent of the CoS, knowingly or not. I read Mike’s blog post today, and it seems there are other activities going on these days that are intended to upset former Scientologists,

    2. marildi, he may sincerely believe Geir is an “overt product”. But if Geir is an overt product, what does this say about the CoS and the state of their delivery?
      I do wonder, in view of Mike’s latest(today) post about apparent “interrogatories” being sent out, if this is not related?

      1. “But if Geir is an overt product, what does this say about the CoS and the state of their delivery?”

        Yes, that part is obvious. What doesn’t compute is why this person is so out of touch with what goes on in the CoS, if he’s supposed to be who he claims he is.

        Gotta get going pretty soon, but I’ll check out Mike’s post later on when I get back. Thanks.

        1. Unless I missed something, (which is entirely possible), I got hat he is an FSM, thus a Scientologist out in the field, and perhaps has been prttey inactive and out of touch with the CoS.

            1. Thanks Geir. In fact, I think most Scientologists who are not in the Sea Org or involved with the S.O. in terms of trying to get up the upper bridge, are probably not very in touch with the CoS as it really is. I think we on these blogs hear a lot from ex-S,O. members and that is where we get our impressions of “the CoS”.

          1. Does FSM mean OSA FSM?

            I believe this guy -like most of the rest of the COS people- is honestly unaware, and faithful that things are alright with the Church, and going according to Ron’s plan. Which is about why they wouldn’t care to listen to a person like myself or another who would tell them otherwise. You see I do make Ron wrong, in a way, by asserting that his group went haywire, even if I don’t turn against him, personally. And as you see, many exes still assert that the Church is going according to Ron’s plan, and they dump the whole subject, altogether. In my case what happened is that I saw some gross misalignment between what I had read and what I had experienced. And when I found that i was not only in my local Church, I quit. It was quite a relief.

  15. The actual EP of OT VIII is you become totally compliant to the biggest thetan (Miscavige). You blew that Geir. So you are not OT VIII.

  16. Geir. The latest round of activity on several blogs,(including Mike’s and yours) leaves little doubt that this has emanated from the usual source “Big Bean!”

    The purpose? Disrupt! Destroy! So, (yawn), what’s new?

  17. What I know is that I haven’t made any blog posts nor have I written any books, read by thousands, that would discourage one to get into SCN, in general. What I did to the COS was to talk to a couple of persons about it, long years ago, saying more or less the COS was squirreling, and they could have their SCN independenty. I was also starting to get trained as an auditor back then, and there was potential of me to start to deliver, untill I no longer wanted to train. And anyway, that got me declared, judging by member’s attitude (I’m like the devil now). Not to menton the treason conditions and make guilty for my departure from staff, prior to that.

    WTF standards do you have in declaring people, folks in the Church? Perhaps if you saw more ‘potential’ in me, in offering something to you (like work and money), you would be more permissive? That’s what I’ve seen till now, that what I see in your comm with Geir too. Is that what you’ve been learning in SCN all this time or is it some OT cog, to treat people analogous to what you or your group can gain from them?

  18. *No no sorry…I got the truth now. I think E is honest, and he is not trolling on purpose, other than faking his tone level, and his view about the Academy to match Geir’s views, as he thinks.

    The truth -according to E- must be that I am SP (probably some others too) and Geir is our PTS. Of course, as SP I cannot know that I’m SP, but E can tell because I have a declare. And them HCO guys, are always right, because they are. God says so. Otherwise I wouldn’t have a declare.

    I am the reason why Geir turned against SCN. Deep down -but very deep- I am against LRH too, but I never show it.

    Geir, aren’t you cogniting anything, by reading the truth? Perhaps you should go for the PTS RD.

  19. So, what is the central issue here? Is it not whether or not this E. person is sincere or not? I think of a “troll” as being disingenuous by definition. This guy appears to be trying to “think with” scientology definitions because he believes them, thus his conviction that Geir is an overt product. Or, he is doing this as some kind of “making amends”, “striking a blow” action to “save” himself or imp[rove his standing with the CoS, in which case he certainly could be described as conditioned, brainwashed, or delusional. Those are not equatable, really. His condition and behavior could be more, or less, self induced, and I don’t think we have determined which it is. But I do think it is largely based on his own agreement with some scientology definitions.

    1. Valkov: “But I do think it is largely based on his own agreement with some scientology definitions.”

      Is that a diss to Scientology?

    2. I don’t think that it really matter whether this “E” guy is adopting the beingness of a “FSM handler” or that of a Scientologist having been assigned a low condition who is “delivering an effective blow to the ‘enemies’ of the group” ; or that of an “OSA operative” (which is only attempting to “troll” ) ; or any other Scientology related beingness at all. EACH of those beingness(es) IS the result of “cult mentality” or “cult conditioning” resulting DIRECTLY from the undue influence of LRH’s writings.

      That was the whole point of Geir to begin with ; and his point has been proved to my satisfaction by posting E’s replies to him. And w/out trying to sound authoritarian or biased here , anyone who doesn’t think that most Scientologists exhibit a typical faulty logic in their views of life to the point of even violating the rights of others and even those of themselves , either is unfamiliar with cultic studies , is still under the unsuspected undue influence of the cult called Scientology, or has no fucking clue what Human Rights are all about. It is one or the other. That’s my certainty (not “opinion” ) about it. And I am not in this game to make friends, be liked or admired, or become “popular”. I am in this game to wake others up.

      Peter

      1. I see virtually everyone on earth as to some degree immersed in “cult conditionings” of various kinds. This is due to my background and the circumstance into which I was born and under which I grew up. Geir’s post stimulated some discussion among a few people as to the specifics of this particular individual vis-a-vis scientology. That’s what I responded to. Beyond that, just about all human groups, religious, political, educational, social, etc etc involve “conditioning” and indoctrination. Autonomous thinking and behavior is not really much encouraged in any society. Doing so is what got Socrates killed. That is still true today.

        1. Can’t disagree with any of that, dear Iamvalkov ; that’s why I said “I am here (at any forum) to wake others up”. I wasn’t just referring to Scientology, but to man’s inclination to follow any “Authority” but his own.

          Peter

            1. I get ya. But the fact is the indoctrination begins with birth and first comes from the people upon whom we depend for survival.

            2. I agree with that, Val. I’ve been reading and listening to various non-duality teachers and they basically say that our whole mind/ego consists of indoctrination, and that a person has to become free of it to reach enlightenment. One guy, by the name of Tony Parsons, stated that when his own ego “died” there was a big explosion, and after that he was free. That made sense to me because of the principle that the mind is composed of energy and mass. Tony says that now he observes his own body and actions the same way he observes those of others, since we are basically all one.

          1. I appreciate your being here. We all (as Valkov noted) are basing our thinking upon some viewpoint/stable datums/paradigm – just pick your word. Lest we forget of another alternative I present a quote from another:

            “In your struggle with Duality…us vs. them…Just know there is only one of us”

            As to the original post and the “odd exchange” – more data of those with fixed viewpoints or paradigms to view the world from. Not worse, not better – merely different. Truth – that my friend is the treat at the end of the rainbow. I thank Geir for merely allowing us a place for thoughts, discourse and the stage for a view of the dream. I will agree that truth is merely an agreement and we each have our own. But it does give us something to think and chat about (or even disagree upon.)

            Tis a cold and white morning upon this part of the world we live on (at least for those of us who get to enjoy a real winter scene during this month.) :) Spring will arrive with sunshine, flowers blooming and a furious activity surrounding us to remind us that life continues. Enjoy the journey! I enjoy the ability to participate and the addition of your contributions.

            Be Flexible, In Body and Mind…
            Be Wise and Prize What You Find…
            Be Clear, No Fear to Blind…
            Be Nice, Think Twice, Be Kind

            1. That was a very insightful, wise, and beautiful post, dear Still Awakening ; spoken like a true poet, I like that. I am very happy to be among such great minds. :-)))

              ML,
              Peter

            2. thetaclear – Thanks! I am not the poet who originally wrote these words (and didn’t want you to credit me for them) but I do not know who did. I just know it said and was the wording for my thoughts. The great minds are those willing to think for themselves, think outside of the box and play the game they dream of. I know you would agree (I take liberty to state this).

              I do appreciate your intentions. Tis not “I”, but “we” who make this community of comments and viewpoints that is to be acknowledged and appreciated.

            3. “thetaclear – Thanks! I am not the poet who originally wrote these words (and didn’ t want you to credit me for them) but I do not know who did.”

              Peter : Thanks for telling me , dear Still Awakening ; though I didn’t just refer to the end of your post, but to it as a whole. It had the touch of poetry.

              ” I just know it said and was the wording for my thoughts.”

              Peter : Got it ; good choice.

              “The great minds are those willing to think for themselves, think outside of the box and play the game they dream of. I know you would agree (I take liberty to state this).”

              Peter : Yes, I do agree, and fully.

              “I do appreciate your intentions. Tis not “I”, but “we” who make this community of comments and viewpoints that is to be acknowledged and appreciated.”

              Peter : Thanks ; you are right about that. Take care.

              ML,
              Peter

          2. “Raiding the Matrix One Mind at a Time …” Tis what we do here and is why I continue to follow this blog and comment from time to time. People wake up from their own situation, in their own time and what moves them along that path is a myriad of new viewpoints, thoughts and information.

            1. “Raiding the Matrix One Mind at a Time …”

              What a great quote. Or is it your own phrase?

              It’s a great way to define ego: one’s own personal matrix created by oneself.

            2. Btw, this is probably the only missing piece of Hubbard’s and why it only went as far as it did. And why he himself failed.

            3. I mean the missing piece to “total freedom” – enlightenment.

              According to many teachers, mostly non-duality ones, it isn’t only our unintentionally created barriers that limit freedom – i.e. what LRH called the reactive mind (our own and that of others that influence us), or Eckhart Tolle calls the “pain-body” (basically defined like the reactive mind), or Ken Wilbur and others call “shadows,” or Lester Levenson (who studied Scientology), and others call the “negative personality.”

              Most of them say we do need to handle this aspect of “case” at least to the point where we are free enough to handle the main barrier to freedom – which is all the things that make up the self/ego – basically, one’s personality. The only thing I can think of that the tech covers along those lines is ser facs.

            4. Two things: #1 I believe taht the Bridge really only deals with self-created case and that Hubbard was only partly aware of that – especially on the OT levels where he started to shift responsibility away from the individual (a horrible mistake). #2 I believe there are more missing pieces to the picture.

            5. “I believe that the Bridge really only deals with self-created case and that Hubbard was only partly aware of that. ”

              Yes, all of it is self-created – even Hubbard said that about the reactive mind on its core level. He may have been only partly aware of the negative-gain part of case, but his tech does get people sufficiently past the point – possibly better than any other – where they can move forward from there, as other teachers state must be done.

              “I believe there are more missing pieces to the picture.”

              Pray tell.:)

            6. He was quite aware of that up to and including OT 2. But from OT 3 and up he is adamant that what is handled is Not self-created and everything is handled accordingly. Here is my main point regarding #1.
              As for #2, it is more like a strong hunch as I sure know that there is more to it than what I have done. No specifics as of yet.

            7. “…from OT 3 and up he is adamant that what is handled is Not self-created and everything is handled accordingly.”

              Yes, but OT 3 up is not handling what he called the individual’s “own” reactive mind – and neither do these other teachers mean more than that much when they teach to first handle “negative personality” before going on to the “positive,” because the negative will block the way. And handling that first area does seem to be enough – at least for many, if not most, people – to handle the rest of case and achieve enlightenment.

              “As for #2, it is more like a strong hunch as I sure know that there is more to it than what I have done. No specifics as of yet.”

              If you have no specifics, then it may be that your hunch lies in the direction of the school of thought I’ve been talking about.

            8. It may be just semantics – or the way I myself am wording (or mis-wording) these other teachings.

              What would you call the reactions people have that limit their knowingness and ability?

            9. No, there isn’t. There is only recovery of Self ; Self-mastery. And it isn’t achieved by “elimination” as such , but by recovering the control of your own thoughts. Controlling and directing your thoughts at will (most of us can’t ; I can’t to a large degree) is the COMMON DENOMINATOR of every different path to higher spiritual awareness and abilities.

              LRH’s methods at getting others to be cause over their thoughts – which is what a Clear should be , and what the “Clear Cog” should represent even if it doesn’t in reality – are just too long and complex , dear Geir.

              Take for example , Grade I (Help and Problems). One needs to run more than a dozen of processes to allegedly arrive at the EP of “No longer worry about problems (at ANY flow) ; has no problems”. In the first place this “EP” is seldom achieved by others in actuality, after they glibly attest to it. Most Grade I “completions” stumble across many PTPs in their lives again. This is no mystery. In the 2nd place , it is usually ONE idea that the person is operating on (a false idea) which causes this constant worry/anxiety/indecision that causes one to feel the “having a PTP” phenomena. Find that idea, and replace it by the more uptone, more truthful one by Autosuggestion (Auto-hypnosis also) , and the person suddenly feel relaxed and able to comfortable confront and solve his problems. How long does that take ? 10-20 15-25 mins sessions , or roughly 6 hours depending on the case.

              Not only one has to do 6 Grades before NED, taking aprox 150 hours, but the NED itself might take one 150-250 hours. That’s 300-400 hours of processing to understand that one is “mocking it all up” , a Cognition that apparently many “Clears” doesn’t hold for too long, as most of them go back to exhibit many out-Grade symptoms. Isn’t that EXTREMELY long and complex for such an incomplete result ?

              And then all those hours of OT I-IV + 2,000 give or take of Solo-NOTs to allegedly achieve “Cause Over Life” , only one really ISN’T ? Almost 4,000 hours of processing (sometimes even more with Power, R6EW and the C.C. ) , more than $500,000 for what result ? Was it really worth it to you, dear Geir, when compared against how long it took you, and how much it cost you ? Was it ?

              I’ve won more (and understood more about life) with a simple do-it-yourself method of Auto-suggestion (after having understood everything about it, of course) , and all under 60 hours , than ANYTHING I’ve done in Scn combined for the last 30 years. You know how much it cost me ? Zero, zip, nada. I downloaded all the needed sources and books for free. And not only me have been helped by that simply and yet powerful method , but hundreds of individuals. So much for the Scn’s “Bridge to Freedom, ah ?

            10. Yes, it was worth it. Around twice what I paid for in money and time. Not because I necessarily got what was advertised – I often didn’t. I got lots of pet gains:-)

            11. Then I am very happy for you, dear Geir ; and thanks a lot for your honesty and integrity. I had a lot of excellent wins myself, but many false promises as well which woke me up as to LRH’s real intentions.

              Take care.

              Peter

            12. I am pretty sure LRH had some dark intentions. He certainly was no saint and he ended up in a mess. That however doesn’t affect my wins.

            13. “Yes, all of it is self-created – even Hubbard said that about the reactive mind on its core level. He may have been only partly a ware of the negative-gain part of case, but his tech does get people sufficiently past the point – possibly better than any other – where they can move forward from there, as other teachers state must be done.”

              “Possibly better than any other…”

              Just show me a “Clear” who in ANY way is more equiped to handle life than any educated and pro Human Rights “wog” , and then state that again. I don’t know if we are living in the same world, Marildi, but in the one I live in , most of my educated friends (non-Scientologists , and “not” Clear ) exhibit more control over their life, mind, and emotions than most Scientologists (even Indies) I know (which is a lot).

              The fact is that the “Clear Cog” (“I am mocking it all up”) is a phenomena very misunderstood , and misguidedly attributed a “special powerful state of beingness” to, in that most of these “Clears” exhibit afterwards so many life situations, PTPs , financial trouble, troubled relationships, etc ; that is IMPOSIBLE that they “Know” that they are “Mocking it all up”. I mean, it is even contradictory. How can you “know” that you are mocking up the mental pictures (which include ARCxs, O/Ws, Engrams, etc) and ideas that are creating your difficulties in life, and yet to have them ? This is silly, indeed.

              The claim from LRH is that O/Ws, Evil Purps exist beyond and apart from the “Reactive Mind” , and therefore a “Clear” can still have many life situations. Wow! , what a fucking piece of stupidity. But then the FPRD is used to “De-bug” these “Clears” , only trouble being that they keep having many difficulties in life ; most of them at least. But of course, the reason for that now are fucking “BTs” that are “influencing” your behavior. In other words, other-determinisms which makes one a damn victim of it all. Oh please, give me a fucking break. I can get others to that “Clear” state in 1/10 or 1/15 of the time taken from Scn SW to NED , and all done by themselves by Auto-suggestion methods like Emile Coue’s.

              Wake, dear Marildi, Scientology is Stone Age.

              Peter

            14. TC, you being a scientific-minded person (which you probably consider yourself to be), you should appreciate the fact that there are many variables that are perpetrated in the CoS besides the tech itself.

              As for Emile Coue, I looked up the article on him in Wikipedia. Here’s an excerpt:

              “While most American reporters of his day seemed dazzled by Coué’s accomplishments and did not question the results attributed to his method,[11]), a handful of journalists and a few educators were skeptical. After Coué had left Boston, the Boston Herald waited six months, revisited the patients he had ‘cured’, and found most had initially felt better but soon returned to whatever ailments they previously had.

              “Few of the patients would criticize Coué, saying he did seem very sincere in what he tried to do, but the Herald reporter concluded that any benefit from Coué’s method seemed to be temporary and might be explained by being caught up in the moment during one of Coué’s events.[12] Coué also received much criticism from exponents of psychoanalysis, with Otto Fenichel concluding: ‘A climax of dependence masked as independent power is achieved by the methods of autosuggestion where a weak and passive ego is controlled by an immense superego with magical powers. This power is, however, borrowed and even usurped’.”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Cou%C3%A9#Criticism

              In a nutshell, I would say that neither you nor I nor anybody else can do more than state our own opinions and experiences and that of others we know. Other than that, there is no way to make a definitive statement about the tech or to compare it to other methods without real research being done – and that hasn’t happened. Therefore, let’s save our time and energy.😉

            15. “TC, you being a scientific-minded person (which you probably consider yourself to be), you should appreciate the fact that there are many variables that are perpetrated in the CoS besides the tech itself.

              As for Emile Coue, I looked up the article on him in Wikipedia. Here’s an excerpt:”

              You must be kidding me, dear Marildi ; “You should appreciate the fact that th ere are many variables that are perpetrated in the CoS besides the tech itself ” ? I was talking about Indies ; unsuppressed by the CofS Indies , Marildi , and people from before DM, a lot of which I know. The only “variables” to consider here are those many introduced by the incompetent research from LRH himself. The fact IS, the most “Clears” are VERY, VERY far from being an actual representation of ANY “Clear” definition from LRH. That is a known observable FACT (for the ones who had already waked up) , and not an “opinion”.

              And as regard to Coue’s work, Wikipedia ? Really Marildi ? My God! , you call that being “Scientific” ? Have you even read just one of his books ? Have you ? Have you tested his method ? Of course you didn’t ; you looked up “Wikipedia”. I , being a real scientists, studied his method in detail, reviewed the evidence kept at the Nancy School, studied many professional studies of his methods by many competent psychotherapists, used his method on myself for dozens of hours, trained others at the method, and got them to apply it with EXCELLENT results every time so far, including the mother of my kid that tried w/out success EVERY Scn method to handle a long ruin of sleeplessness , but with Coue’s method was able to fully handle it in just 10 short sessions!!! And a class VI, OT VIII (a very KSW terminal, by the way) who having gone all the way up the “Bridge to Nowhere” , tested this method after my constant insistence that there was nothing to lose in trying it, but possibly a lot to gain from, and started getting excellent results.

              I am no “Arm-Chair philosopher” , dear Marildi ; I am not a “Wikipedia Scientist” ; I am a REAL researcher with REAL skills. I am not a “book nerd” but an applied philosopher who have actually researched and applied Scn processing to hundreds of cases. So speak for yourself when you say this nonsense :

              “In a nutshell, I would say that neither you nor I nor anybody el se can do more than state our own opinions and experiences a nd that of others we know. Other than that, there is no way to make a definitive statement about the tech or to compare it to other methods without real research being done – and that ha sn’t happened. Therefore, let’s save our time and energy. ;)”

              As I said, I am not a “Book Nerd” ; I DO research by APLYING the data to myself and others.

              Nice exchanging with you. Perhaps you would like to hire my services. I won’t charge you a dime. :-)))

              And I am Peter, not “TC”. You already know my name , where I am from, and even my e-mail address (though you never accepted my invitation, but I don’t bite). So just call me Peter.

              Peter

            16. Peter, is there anything beyond your apparent braggadocio? Reread your own post to marildi – it sounds just like many of the things Hubbard said about himself. Where is your “research” written up? Who has validated it? Where are those results written up? Etc. I feel you are in danger of losing your credibility with me…. You make many claims about yourself but they appear to be documented no better than many of the things Hubbard said about himself or OTs etc…. That is not to say you don’t believe these things you say about your own knowledge, but there are also people who think HUbbard believed himself also….

            17. This is a reply to IanValkov. I couldn’t find a reply button under his, and his comment didn’t arrive at my inbox.

              “I feel you are in danger of losing credibility with me” ? That would be the least of my worries, dear Iamvalkov. I am not LRH ; I do not need “admirarion” , “agreement” , or “followers”. And I made no claims at all beyond the fact that I had researched Coue’s methods extensively, that I had applied his method to me and a few others, and that they worked extremely well for us. You comments and misguided attempt to get me to “prove it” , would be the same as me attempting to get you to “prove” the wins you had on your Bridge ; something VERY silly indeed, don’t you think ? If you want my friend’s phone numbers, I’ll be happy to provide them for you ; then you can ask them yourself.

              As to ” my reseach” , you can review it if you want by :

              1. Reading all about Emile Coue and the subject of Autosuggestion.

              2. Finding at the Nancy School archives the records of the many psychotherapists including Coue that worked with hundreds of patients successfully.

              3. Applying the method to yourself, and decide based on your OWN observations whether it works or not. Do you want me to do your work for you ? I am not going to. Roll up your sleeves , and apply yourself to it as I did. Then, and only then, you’ll have enough data to competently debate the subject. Otherwise you are just being emotional.

              Peter

            18. It’s as I have said about scientology – you take out of it what you bring to it. Sounds like coueism is like that, too. Perhaps that holds true for any school of self-development. I think that’s true for scientology. Or as someone once put it, “The road you carry you unroll before you.” However, about coueism, I think there are virtues to twinning that it may lack.

            19. Yes , I do understand you logic , Iamvalkov. I am not trying to sell Couetism as the best method there is ,but only stating what I and others have been able to get out of it so far ; which to me and those others, have been more effective , simpler, cheaper, and much, much less time-consuming than Scientology’s methods. But you won’t really know until you have studied the full mechanisms behind the method which require at least a few books , and to have thoroughly tested the method by yourself on yourself.

              It is true ; one often get as much out of anything as we put in. But the ratio of input v/s output might be different in each method, and that’s the important factor to evaluate, and to keep in mind. I look for methods where the input/output ratio is always less than one , meaning that for each unit of input you get more than one unit of output. This input is measured in terms of time and money invested. The output part is how many stable wins you got out of it. If Coueism if Self-audited , cost you nothing, and you get similar wins as with Scn is less time , then it is more effective then , wouldn’t you agree ? That was my whole point to begin with. It wasn’t to attribute Coueism an excessive effectiveness.

              I am not sure I understood by you meant by , “there are vittues of twinning that it lack” ; please clarify. Thanks.

              Peter

            20. I think for many people twinning produces better results than working alone. And I don’t mean that “You get as much out of it as you put in it”, I mean that you get the quality out of it that you bring to it.. I’m not talking about quantity here.

            21. Thanks for clarifying ; I understood your assertions now , thank you. Yes, many might like and work better with others. In my case I’ve always worked better Solo-style. I never did good with auditors, even the IXners ; I was always one step ahead of them, while they were still there watching the e-meter. In time, I just grew tired of it , and just switched to Solo. Best decision I’ve ever made in Scn.

            22. Sorry for my grammar horrors ; I am still battling with my English.

              The last part should have read, “I am not sure I understood what you meant by ‘I think there are virtues to twinning that it may lack’ “.

            23. Peter, no offence intended when I refer to you as “TC” or “thetaclear”– that’s usually how I introduce quotes of your posts, as opposed to addressing you directly as Peter.

              As for your research, I was going to ask the same thing Valkov did: Where is it written up? Who has validated it? Where are the results written up?

              But those are just rhetorical questions for you to point out what I meant when I said the research hasn’t been done on Scientology tech. And until it has, there’s no sense in us trading experiences and anecdotes – it proves nothing. Also, I’m not interested in doing my own research on Coue because I prefer to study up on others, whose methods happen to appeal to me.

              TC: “I was talking about Indies; unsuppressed by the CofS Indies, Marildi, and people from before DM, a lot of which I know.”

              I know a lot of them too. And you can read incredible success stories on many of the blog posts and comments at MilestoneTwo. Again, however, these are all just personal experiences and anecdotes. Not research. And it works the same way with the sour experiences – no one has done scientific research on them, to determine any and all variables, and put it in writing.

              TC: “You already know my name, where I am from, and even my e-mail address (though you never accepted my invitation, but I don’t bite).”

              Thank you, Peter. I’ll keep that in mind.😉

            24. Marildi : “Peter, no offence intended when I refer to you as “TC” or “thet aclear”– that’s usually how I introduce quotes of your posts, as opposed to addressing you directly as Peter.”

              Peter : Got it, thank you ; my mistake for taking it personally. :-)))

              Marildi : “As for your research, I was going to ask the same thing Valkov did: Where is it written up? Who has validated it? Where are th e results written up?

              Peter : See my reply to Valkov on that. In the field of psychotherapy (which is what Scn actually is as well) what we frequently have is anecdotal evidence as such , meaning the disseminated wins of the participants. My only allegations were that in my OWN personal experiences with Coue’s methods, and in using it with other people, it produced similar wins than Scn in much much less time , in a simpler way , and at no cost to others . When you or anybody here , or at another forum , comment about your wins with Scn or any other practice, I don’t remember EVER having questioned, challenged, or doubted those wins ; EVER. In fact, what I DO remember is (and I can post that evidence for you and Valkov if you want me to ) having validated such wins ; ALWAYS. I never asked ANY of you to “prove” ANYTHING ,did I ? See my many posts at BIC and MS2 in the past before I was black-listed by MS2. :-)))

              I never uttered any expressions as to the Coue’s method , or any other method for that matter , being the best there is or capable of getting you to OT or a real Clear or anything like that. I merely told you guys and gals, that I had 1) Researched the method, 2) Studied the cases where it was used (not Wikipedia, mind you) , and 3) That I had used such method on myself and a few others very successfully. And the same way that I trust you and trust that others are being sincere and honest when you talk about your wins , I expect the same courtesy in return , and not this nonsense of “where is your research written up ?” and all that bs as if I had made any excessive claims as LRH always did ; I DIDN’T. My ONLY claim was that it worked for me and for a few others of my friends when I trained them on the method, and got them to use it on themselves. And that the results were very promising.

              My ex-2D (before I went into priesthood) handled with it a long ruin with nervous sleeplessness that she had tried to handle with tons of processing, including hundreds of hours of the LRH process allegedly designed for that ; “Walking around the block and looking at things until they look more solid”. She had even done a Prepcheck on the subject of “Sleeplessness” to take charge off the subject to no avail, as the trouble with sleep continued. Then I trained her, and got her to use an specific autosuggestion daily at night, and just under 10 short sessions the condition improved to a point of almost being no great issue for her. I , in spite of all my processing and training , was always under this big anxiety and heavy stress with no apparent reason to feel that way. I wasn’t under any suppression nor had any particular PTP, but always felt this big anxiety. Then I tried the method with some minor modifications, and under 60 hours I got excellent results to the point of feeling sort of strange at being so relax as compared to how I felt before. Still I feel strange after having lived with that for so, so long. Is this something I need to prove to you, to Valkov or to anyone here ? The HELL I have!!!

              Marildi : “But those are just rhetorical questions for you to point out wh at I meant when I said the research hasn’t been done on Scientology tech. And until it has, there’s no sense in us trading experiences and anecdotes – it proves nothing. Also, I’m not interested in doing my own research on Coue because I prefer to stu dy up on others, whose methods happen to appeal to me.”

              Peter : I got your points. However, no “research” is really needed about Scn’s tech to realize that the advertised results are seldom the ones people get. Or are you implying that a real “Clear” per LRH’s own definitions of it, and/or an “OTs” per his definitions of it , has ever been brought about with the tech of Scn ? It is common knowledge that it hasn’t per hundreds of reports of the PCs themselves when asked about it, or when posting at blogs. So no “research” is needed to arrive at that conclusion as already IS a totally KNOWN fact. Now , if any of you guys and gals have the characteristics of a real Clear and OT, please speak up, and I won’t invalidate your experiences are you are unwittingly and unintentional doing with me (I know that you are a good person).

              I have asked dozens of people about their wins (probably beyond the 100 ) , and even though most of them did experienced good wins with Scn , those wins were never close to the advertized results , per their OWN admission of it , not mine. And that is called FRAUD , Marildi. It wasn’t “errors in research” ; it was dishonest advertising of results ; LRH KNEW that even he hadn’t gotten those results himself. That’s my beef with LRH, and yes, it is VERY personal. Plus the fact that I WAS there, even though that you guys might want me to “prove” it to you. My real relationship with LRH will never be known either publicly or privately but it DID occurred. And don’t take my word for it , but he was an INTENTIONAL con man ; INTENTIONAL.

              TC: “I was talking about Indies; unsuppressed by the CofS Indie s, Marildi, and people from before DM, a lot of which I know.”

              Marildi : “I know a lot of them too. And you can read incredible success stories on many of the blog posts and comments at Milestone Two. Again, however, these are all just personal experiences and anecdotes. Not research. And it works the same way with the sour experiences – no one has done scientific research on them, to determine any and all variables, and put it in writing.

              Peter : Marildi, the accumulation of anecdotal experiences IS RESEARCH in the field of psychotherapy. You guys never seems to understand that point, neither Rinder does. I HAVE read those wins at MS2 and I BELIEVED each one of them. I never doubted not even one of them. I am a real auditor with my auditor’s code really in , something I can’t say of many “Scientologists”. And in most of those disseminated experiences , you can see how many already “Clears” and “OTs” were experiencing a lot of life PTPs, and many out-Grade phenomena (evaluating it from the perspective of the advertised Grades’ EPs ) , and how the processing with such and such Indie auditor helped them. The point is that wins with Scn DO occur (I’ve had plenty myself, and still DO) , but seldom (to not be absolute and say “never” ) the advertized ones by a long, long ways. And no “research” , and no genius is needed to arrive at that particular conclusion as the PCs themselves (a TON of them) have already accepted it.

              TC: “You already know my name, where I am from, and even m y e-mail address (though you never accepted my invitation, bu t I don’t bite).”

              Thank you, Peter. I’ll keep that in mind.😉

              Peter : Yes, please, DO keep that in mind. :-)))

            25. TC: “And the same way that I trust you and trust that others are being sincere and honest when you talk about your wins, I expect the same courtesy in return, and not this nonsense of ‘where is your research written up ?’ ”

              I’m sincerely happy for the results you and your ex-wife and others got from Coue’s methods – and no one is doubting your sincerity either. But no scientific-minded person would simply take your word for it that your research proved Coue’s methods are better than Scn tech. As with other scientists, your research is potentially faulty in any one of many ways, which is why researchers themselves seek out the review of their peers.

              And to be blunt, Peter, I shouldn’t have to explain all this to you, but maybe you need to be reminded. Valid research is not just “a collection of anecdotal experiences,” as you stated. There is much more to scientific protocol than that.

            26. “I’m sincerely happy for the results you and your ex-wife and others got from Coue’s methods – and no one is doubting your sincerity either. But no scientific-minded person would simply take your word for it that your research proved Coue’s methods are better than Scn tech.”

              Peter : I wasn’t ever attempting for you or anyone here to “take my word” as to ANYTHING , Marildi ; that’s not how my mind works , dear. PLEASE , know myself already. You would have known that , if you would have really duplicated my many posts at BIC and at Rinder’s. I offered you and others here MY reality according to my OWN observations that Coue’s method was faster, simpler and more cost-effective than Scientology’s. But it wasn’t intended AT ALL to impose my reality on you or on anybody else’s as regards to that reality, but only as an INVITATION for you to take a look for yourself , and arrive at your OWN conclusions. God! , am I so difficult to duplicate ? Is it my Hispanic nature ? Why do you always misinterpret most of what I write about ? Couldn’t you ask questions to clarify first instead of assuming so much about me ?

              Believe what you like about me ; I don’t have to prove myself to you , you know ? I am only attempting for you and others to examine other viewpoints and arrive at your own god-damned conclusions ; that’s all. Stop being so defensive about EVERYTHING.

              “As with other scientists, your research is potentially faulty in any one of many ways, which is why researchers themselves seek out the review of their peers.”

              Peter : No disagreements on that AT ALL.

              “And to be blunt, Peter, I shouldn’t have to explain all this to you, but maybe you need to be reminded. Valid research is not just “a collection of anecdotal experiences,” as you stated. There is much more to scientific protocol than that.”

              Peter : But of course there is more to it than “Anecdotal Evidence” , Marildi. I never said , “it is ‘JUST’ a collection of anecdotal evidence”. The “just” part was your OWN addition to my comment. Here it is :

              “In the field of psychotherapy (which is what Scn actually is as well) what we frequently have is anecdotal evidence as such , meaning the disseminated wins of the participants.”

              From “What we ‘FREQUENTLY’ have…” to “JUST” , there is a BIG difference indeed. Marildi, in the field of psychotherapy where one is trying to ascertain the workability or lack thereof of any system , the primary research data (not the ONLY one) is anecdotal evidence ; meaning the success stories of the participants undergoing such particular system of psychotherapy. That includes personality tests and other psychometric tests , which is also anecdotal as it is based on how the participant view himself/herself.

              The “efficacy” of Scn was always assessed by LRH, in the main , by those types of anecdotal evidences. No different with other systems. When one is trying to ascertain whether a system is helping or not a participant , as opposed to attempting to ascertain whether a system produce or not some VERY specific result (“Clear” , “OT” , “Theta Clear” , “Stably Exterior” , “Free of illnesses” , etc, etc) ; one mostly (not ONLY) relies on the participants’ success stories. In the latter case of SPECIFIC abilities gained, more specialized tests and experiments needs to be conducted then.

              Now, do you understand where do I stand now , or do we have to keep this up endlessly ? I am beginning to think that you like to dissent just for the fun of it , or some kind of game , perhaps ?

            27. Marildi : “Also, I’m not intere sted in doing my own research on Coue because I prefer to study up on others, whose methods happen to appeal to me.”

              Peter : Yeah, so you always say when confronted with something that might be useful to you beyond Scn , or that might shed some light into the real activities and intentions of LRH. You and me have played this game for too long. :-)))

            28. ” TC, you being a scientific-minded person (which you probably consider yourself to be)”

              “That I consider I am” ? Tell you what, dear Marildi ; why don’t we test our scientific knowledge publicly so that others here know who is a “Wikipedia Scientists” and who isn’t ?

              Care for some public challenge ? How is your Calculus and Differential Equations ? Let’s see what we really have, so that you can, with certainty, state that I “think” of myself as a “Scientific-minded” person. I promise to be nice. Let’s talk about real science here , with scientific and mathematical rigor ; what do you say ? Care fot the callenge ?

              Peter

            29. TC: “How is your Calculus and Differential Equations?”

              I’m a mathematical whiz.:)

              TC: “Let’s see what we really have, so that you can, with certainty, state that I ‘think’ of myself as a ‘Scientific-minded’ person. I promise to be nice. Let’s talk about real science here, with scientific and mathematical rigor; what do you say? Care for the challenge?”

              That’s a nice promise, Peter. But I don’t have time or interest in such debates – or any long debates currently. But I’ll let you know when there’s something I want to challenge you on. Okay?

            30. Ok, then. If you are “uninterested” in the challenge, then do not try to diminish me with 1.1 comments. If you doubt my expertise, we can always test it publicly. Just remember, that I’ll test yours as well. :-)))

            31. 1.1 comments? I don’t think I’ve made any 1.1 comments to you – here or anywhere else. I’m much more likely to be blunt. This is the sort of non-factual and off-the-wall remarks you make that discourage discussion with you, Peter.

              Let’s give it a rest. We both had our say. Catch you next time.

            32. “1.1 comments? I don’t think I’ve made any 1.1 comments to you – here or anywhere else. I’m much more likely to be blunt. This is the sort of non-factual and off-the-wall remarks you make that discourage discussion with you, Peter”

              “Let’s give it a rest. We both had our say. Catch you next time.”

              Peter : Ok Marildi, I think that you should know , considering the many posts that I have written before on scientific subjects to which you had even replied to, that I am into math and science. I mean, it is clear enough for many friends of mine at different blogs. Not only that , but I am sure that I’ve said in more than one occasion at threads where your were also participating at, that I have studied more about science than about Scn. I have an excellent memory, Marildi. Now, based on these points, read in a new unit of time this comment of yours, and do it unbiasedly adopting my viewpoint , and tell me if you yourself wouldn’t have taken such comment as a sort of sarcasm ? If you honestly think that you would not have taken it that way, then I’ll apologize to you ; fair enough ?

              “TC, you being a scientific-minded person (which you probably consider yourself to be), you should appreciate the fact that there are many variables that are perpetrated in the CoS besides the tech itself.”

            33. “Just show me a “Clear” who in ANY way is more equipped to handle life than any educated and pro Human Rights “wog” , and then state that again. I don’t know if we are living in the same world, Marildi, but in the one I live in , most of my educated friends (non-Scientologists , and “not” Clear ) exhibit more control over their life, mind, and emotions than most Scientologists (even Indies) I know (which is a lot).”

              That’s a hard hitting argument against there being any scientific relevance to Scientology. My pithy opinion is that Scientology set out to make an argument for all its many snake oil claims. Failing to prove its great claims, Hubbard turned instead to the haven of religion where one only needs faith and that was a good fit and is what Scientology is, a thought-stopping religion. I think that the queerest thing about Scientology is not its so called controversial status as a religion, but rather the wink that its parishioners give one another when referring to its religious status as just one more way in which it is getting one over on “The Man.” Its convoluted double-reverse think that it is really science masquerading as religion, but really religion masquerading as science is a thing of beauty and nearly impossible to break fantasy role playing system. Like other religious parishioners, the Scientologist is conditioned to no longer discern the difference between a belief and a fact. The Scientologist is in the doubly unlucky position to be taught that science is good and that Scientology is senior to science, all the while he is being fed some of the gall darndest of lies that one hears in any religion anywhere.

  20. Hi Geir. I’m just stopping by here and have some points regarding the “odd exchange”.

    “E” is using the ‘tech’ trying to handle you and to point out your ‘out-ethics’. With the shouting about the study, he is probably trying to use the tone scale – for whatever. Among other things, he is trying to ‘handle’ your non-existing ARCX.

    If he would acknowledge that you are right, it would mean for him that he is wrong; he is scared of that and in fear of the consequences. It’s also impossible for him to consider that an OT8 could be so blasphemes – thus it must have been a “false declare”. Against your factual argumentation he has no other means than to fight back with invalidations.

    The degree of cognitive dissonance is so that his argumentation sounds crazy (somehow it reminds me also of some public hypnotic shows where people act and talk very strange and don’t remember after).

  21. PS: I’m very delighted that you and Anette are expecting a baby. Greetings to lovely Anette.

  22. Hubbard said ARC = Understanding. The most important point being communication. “E” is trying to communicate and establish communication, as taught by Hubbard, so as to reach agreement. Geir is doing the same.

    However, let’s consider,

    Hypnosis is agreement. And if that is true, the most important point of the ARC triangle is not communication, but establishing agreement = understanding.= following suggestions.

    http://hypnosistrainingacademy.com/4-covert-agreement-tactics-to-set-a-yes-mood-in-hypnosis/

    “If you can’t get your subject to agree with you, hypnosis doesn’t happen… period!

    As a hypnotist, you have to get your subject into a state of mind where they trust you and feel they can safely accept any suggestions you make.

    And if you’re a Stage or Street hypnotist, you need to do it quickly.”

    Hubbard wasn’t a stage or street hypnotist, he was a gradient hypnotist, also called a writer.

    Another trick by Ron. The most important point is to establish agreement, and then you have somebody under control and then can get into communication with so as to agree with scientology.

    So E and Geir don’t agree, but yet you are trying to agree by communicating. LOL

      1. A “Religion” and a “Cult” are two VERY different things in their approach to spiritual knowledge/ wisdom. There are a lot of websites about cultic studies that list the main differences between bona-fide religions and cults. Scientology IS a cult , and not a religion per se. Here are some good links :

        https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-religion-and-a-cult

        http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-cult-and-religion/

        You can also look into the ICSA’s website (International Cultic Studies Association) for more details and professional papers on it.

        http://www.icsahome.com/

        Margaret T. Singer’s “Cults in our Midst” is the BEST research to date done on cults by a geat scholar with an incredible academic and research record. Read those references and decide based on them whether or not Scn is a religion ; it ISN’T and never has been.

        Peter

          1. Again, dear Geir, as I replied to Chris ; you are coming up with this dictionary definition of religion attempting to make a case about an incredible researched subject (religions/cults) , instead of using professional resources on BOTH subjects : The many dissertations on them by many scholars, and ACTUAL studies, not dictionary definitions , mind you. You are also a VERY Science oriented individual with a great understanding of science. Do you really want me to play a high school game with you on this subject ? Cause that’s what you are asking me to do. If you want to PROFESSIONALLY debate this, then let’s do it professionally. Your choice.

            Peter

          2. The most shared opinion by religion scholars as to the root of the word “Religion” is that it means “To bind together”. Also to “Have a care for”. “Religare” (one of the principal roots of the word) is related to “Relegere” which is opposed to “Neglegere” which denotes “not observe” , “not attend to” , not observe one’s duty about a thing”.

            http://www.jstor.org/stable/3087765

            So religion is basically an activity intended originally to unite others in a common purpose ; one that was more important than selfish and materialistic needs. One that required sacrifices (efforts , I meant) , devotion, and loyalty to principles. Religion was then that thing generally being shared by the members of a culture with the idea of “binding them together” using a common purpose and common principles to achieve spiritual perfection , whatever that meant for different cultures. It it true that they were mostly based on FAITH , usually one in relation to one god or another. But no matter the actual existence or not of such “gods” , religion gave people the sense of BELONGING and PURPOSE ; a route to travel, a path to enlightenment.

            Many ancient religions as Hinduism (not known by that name in ancient times) , Buddhism, Confucianism , were a path you CHOSE to follow. They were not meant to deceive you or to enforce beliefs in you. You either had Faith or not. The emphasis was on the scriptures themselves and on the chosen god(s). It was not blindly placed on any one leader by asserting they were right about everything. Gautamma Siddharta disseminated a path of auto-revelation , not an authoritarian belief in himself. These religions were meant to unite people, give them a sense of purpose, of belonging , and to help them lead a more ethical and fulfilling life. They were not about money and power as cults are.

            ANY religion can become a cult by the faulty and suppressive interpretations , and misguided enforcement of its scriptures by the parishioners themselves or by crazy religious “leaders”. The EXACT point , the EXACT moment when a movement becomes a cult is when Human Rights violations begin to occur. To the degree that Human Rights are violated by any religious movement, to that degree it has become a cult ; plain and simple. It is not the beliefs themselves that are at fault – Faith is faith , and need no “logical” interpretations – but the ENFORCEMENT of them. Authoritarianism is the recipe for a cult ; ANY cult (psychotherapeutic, political, religious, social, or scientific ).

            A cult has VERY specific characteristics that are so well described at so many professional websites on it , that I don’t need to list them here. Anyone interested can do his OWN homework on it ; I certainly did mine , so I expect anyone to do the same. The ones who REALLY want to learn , WILL do so. The ones who only want to make themselves right , won’t. That’s the simplicity of it all , I am afraid.

            Peter

          3. “I am not that interested in attempts to vindicate “apples” by trying to cull the “bad apples” when they are indeed of the same class of “apples”.

            Peter : Then with all due respect , dear Geir, you never understood “Apples” in the first place. Otherwise , you would be be able to see that they are not , indeed, the same kind of “fruits”.

            Just because all candies taste sweet doesn’t mean that they are made with the same ingredients. You can’t use a “Theory of Sets” logic to this , and obtain correct answers from it. You are wrongly using “Belief” , “Faith” , “A path” , and “Scriptures” as a classification criteria. You see, “Cults” is not a Sub-set of “Religion” , no matter how you put it. They MIGHT look the same, but they are not the same in actuality. Calling a cult a “Religion” is like calling a Crusader a “religious” man ; he is not.

            Peter

            1. A Crusader is not necessarily a religious man, but a religious man may also be a Crusader.

            2. Peter, I do not take the first two links you provided seriously. The Quora link is to some guy’s opinion, nothing more. The ICSA link is far better. And going by their definitions, it is clear that there is a logical overlap between “religion” and “cult”. A Religion can be a Cult and vice cersa. There is logically a union of the two. Therefore, arguing that X is a Cult is not the same as arguing that X is Not a Religion. And therefore in discussing whether Scientology is a Religion, throwing in the argument that “but, but, but… IT’S A CULT!” is merely the logical fallacy of Red Herring. So, back to the question: “Why is Scientology not a religion?”

            3. Geir : “Peter, I do not take the first two links you provided seriously. The Quora link is to some guy’s opinion, nothing more.”

              Peter : Yeah, Geir ; I knew that the site was posting a guy’s opinion , but his “opinion” happen to be the way cults are described by cult experts in many excellent books in the subject like Margaret T. Singer’s. Google-search her , and read about her research. You do not have to read her book as such. The first 2 links described exactly the difference between a cult and a religion. I wanted to keep them simple and more user friendly, but both “opinions” are correct and based on professional research that they were both basically parroting back from the sources they had read. Like any physicist explaining QM on a blog. That he is doing it on a non-academic environment, doesn’t mean that his explanations are not Source-based.

              Check Margaret’s woks on these links. Her research was the foundation for the ones that followed up :

              http://www.prem-rawat-bio.org/academic/singer.html

              Also check Steven Hassan’s research online. Here is the link :

              https://www.freedomofmind.com/Info/BITE/bitemodel.php

              Geir : “The ICSA link is far better. And going by their definitions, it is clear that there is a logical overlap between “religion” and “cult”.”

              Peter : Yes, Geir ; there can be an overlap as you say, as in the broad category of it all , they share some basic elements. But a cult and a religion have very distinct characteristics unique to each other. You could say that one is “Theta” and the other is “Entheta”. One is “Light” and the other is “Darkness”. One leads to wisdom (or at least to love and compassion) and the other leads to exclusion, hate, and stupidity.

              Geir : “A Religion can be a Cult and vice cersa. There is logically a union of the two.”

              Peter : You still have not gotten my point. They are different manifestations of belief, Geir ; they can not be interchanged in any way, shape or form.

              Geir : “Therefore, arguing that X is a Cult is not the same as arguing that X is Not a Religion.”

              Peter : Yeah , it IS the same indeed ; that has been my main argument all along. If X is a cult , it can’t also be a religion. If X is a religion, then it is not a cult.

              Geir : “And therefore in discussing whether Scientology is a Religion, throwing in the argument that “but, but, but… IT’S A CULT!” is merely the logical fallacy of Red Herring. So, back to the question: “Why is Scientology not a religion?”

              Peter : Because it is a cult. Your logic is circular on this. If something is a cult, then it is not a religion. I don’t know how else to explain it to you. Study the BITE model of Steven Hassan, on the link provided, and analyze Scn against the checklist. Study Margaret’s criteria for what is a cult , and compare Scn against it. Actually it is very simple, dear Geir. A cult and a religion look EXTREMELY similar to each other, but only on the surface. Internally they are worlds apart. But to finally answer your question and stop my “logical fallacy of Red Herring” [which is allowed in debates, did you know that ? :-) ] , this is how Scn is not a religion :

              1. Instead of having many religious leaders representing the movement , and which parishioners can question , Scn has ONE leader that NOBODY can question.

              2. Those many leaders that religions have are not considered to be god-like (remember Chris is a god himself according to Christians, the son of God) individuals capable of no errors. LRH was and is considered god-like and infallible.

              3. Religions are about setting others free even is they can’t actually do it. But their intentions are honorable. It is not about power or money ; it is about honest help. Scn was money motivated since its beginning , And LRH strived for power. He died a millionaire, when every staff basically had just to eat. He used slaves to make money for him.

              4. Religions are inclusive (Islam is no fucking religion , but I am no wasting my time trolls regarding this ) , and welcome others to freely participate on it. Scn is extremely exclusive and want everybody to become Scientologists and lose any other beliefs no matter the PR otherwise. I WAS on staff ; I was on the SO. When and where is top secret, sorry. :-)))

              5. Even that most religions ask for donations, it is usually the so called 10% , and it is not forced. Many parishioners never donate. People do donate their time in many helping activities which are clearly seen in our culture. Many drugs addicts and homeless individuals are alive because of the work of churches. Scn is ALL about money, and its “donations” are the biggest in the history of “religions”.

              6. Besides conflicting issues like abortion , same-sex marriages , etc, religions don’t take the government as their enemies, but frequently work with him. Religions doesn’t have this “us v/s them” mentality. Scn is ALL about “us v/s them” manifestations.

              7. Religions keep their scriptures open to all publics. Scn have lot of “confidential” stuff ONLY intended to keep you going with the “Mystery Sandwich” , and bringing money in.

              8. Religions doesn’t copyright and trademark their scriptures. Scn does.

              9. Religions give space to other to interpret their scriptures in varying degrees of freedom. Scn not only forbid that, but PUNISH you, and even vanish you from their group by ANY alteration.

              10. Religions doesn’t attempt to pose as other things to protect themselves or hide any truth. Scn was considered by LRH only as a Science, but then decided to become a religion for protection purposes and for NOTHING more (besides for money, power, and slaves, of course).

              11. Religions are genuine about their scriptures. Scn’s scriptures say one thing to then contradict itself with other parts. Scn attempt to deceive others. Yeah, I know ; the Bible also contradict itself in many parts.

              12. Religions are about Faith , compassion and forgiveness. Scn is about violations of Human Rights , individuation from the world, and showing compassion only for its devoted members, if even that.

              Should I even continue, dear Geir ? I need to sleep now, dear Geir. Will reply to you tomorrow.

              Peter

            4. First you say that there is an overlap, then you say there is no overlap. Which is it? Can you point to one single accepted definition that exclude any and all religions from being a cult and any and all cults from being a religion. I.e. that they are absolutely and unquestionably mutually exclusive. Just anwer this simple question first, OK?

            5. “First you say that there is an overlap, then you say there is no overlap. Which is it?”

              Peter : I was referring to this definitiom of “overlap” :

              “If two or more activities, subjects, or periods of time overlap, they have some parts that are the same”.

              The key word is “some”. Of course the subjects of “Faith in something” , “some kind of worshiping” , “Some kind of scriptures” , are shared by both , but for ENTIRELY different purposes.

              Geir : “Can you point to one single accepted definition that exclude any and all religions from being a cult and any and all cults from being a religion. I.e. that they are absolutely and unquestionably mutually exclusive. Just anwer this sim ple question first, OK?”

              Peter : Not in an absolute sense ; I can’t. But can you call two guys “friends” just because you see them frequently together , work together , and even go out together ? You can be mislead by using too general indicators and categories. But these are workable guidelines , instead of absolute terms :

              http://www.icsahome.com/articles/characteristics

              http://www.icsahome.com/articles/onusingtermcult

            6. So, if they are not absolutely mutually exclusive, then they have an intersection ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_(set_theory) ). And as they have an intersection there exists religions that are cults and cults that are religions. To say otherwise would be a serious rewrite of the human social history as most of the accepted religions throughout history would also comply to your linked definitions of cults. And therefore saying that Scientology is a not a religion BECAUSE it is a cult is a logical fallacy. You cannot argue that because Scientology is a cult, then it is not a religion. To say that Scientology is Not a religion, you have to prove that it is Not a religion – and not by claiming it is a cult, a business, a science or whatnot.

            7. Geir : “So, if they are not absolutely mutually exclusive, then they have an intersection
              (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersection_(s et_theory) ).
              And as they have an intersection there exists religions that are cults and cults that are religions.”

              Peter : I don’t know where did you get the impression that if 2 sets share “some” elements (have an intersection) , that this means then that Set A = Set B. , which is basically what you are saying . This just isn’t the case.

              Geir : “To say otherwise would be a serious rewrite of the human social history as most of the accepted religions throughout history would also comply to your linked definitions of cults.”

              Peter : “Most religions” ? I don’t see how ; that doesn’t agree with my own observations of most principal religions. I am afraid that you would have to discuss WHICH religions and WHICH characteristics you are referring to . Otherwise is just too much of a general assertion.

              Geiar : “And therefore saying that Scientology is a not a religion BECAUSE it is a cult is a logical fallacy. You cannot argue that because Scientology is a cult, then it is not a religion. ”

              Peter : Yes, I can. As I said, that two subjects share some characteristics in common doen’t make them equal or even in the same category when we go to the specifics of it. You are using Theory of Sets wrongly here.

              Geir : “To say that Scientology is Not a religion, you have to prove that it is Not a religion – and not by claiming it i s a cult, a business, a science or whatnot.”

              Peter : I don’t subscribe to that “logic” of Set Theory ; never did. Set Theory has its great uses in Computing and Statistical analysis. But we can’t just apply a mathematical logic to life itself in a purely mathematical sense ; that’s being robotic about it. Set Theory is mainly (not only) a two-valued logic ; life is mainly an infinity-valued logic. This dilemma can’t be solved by “Logic” neither by “Theory of Sets”, but only by philosophy.

            8. Peter : I don’t know where did you get the impression that if 2 sets share “some” elements (have an intersection) , that this means then that Set A = Set B. , which is basically what you are saying . This just isn’t the case.

              Geir: No that is definitely NOT what I am saying. At this point you seem to be slipping in logic for emotional reasons. This seems to have struck some cord in you that make you read stuff in what I write that was never there. Now, here’s the deal (please read and understand what I am about to write):

              We have Set A and Set B. Set A is “a Religion”, while set B is “a cult”. Since these sets are not absolutely mutually exclusive, they have an intersection, A ∩ B. This means that the element “x” can be in both A and B, or in plain text: Scientology (x) can be both “a religion” (A) AND “a cult” (B). Therefore it is a logical fallacy to claim that “Scientology is NOT a religion BECAUSE it is a cult”. Get it?

              Please note: I am claimimg that whether Scientology is a cult or not is IRRELEVANT to the argument of whether Scientology is a religion or not. This does not mean that the discussion of whether Scientology is a cult is irrelevant as A SEPARATE discussion, only that it has NO BEARING on whether it is a religion.

              Maybe we should chalk this up as your challenge to Marildi? And in that, I have won this contest (on her behalf):-)

            9. No, dear Geir, I understand Theory of Sets just fine ; I just don’t agree with your (or its) two-valued interpretation of intersection ; that’s all. You keep bringing Theory of Sets to “prove” your arguments as if it was an infallible totally correct mathematical system ; it ISN’T. As I said before , Theory of Sets has good uses in computing (which is basically a “yes or no” system – two-valued – ) , and in some statistical analysis. But as a “Foundation” for mathemathics (that needed NONE at the time Cantor created this system) ; it has very limited uses. As a mathematical object it has some good uses in handling other marhematical objects ; but in using it to try to explain or analyze multiple-valued systems such as life, it is TOO limited, rote, robotic and UNREAL.

              Please, stop trying to use Theory of sets as a stable datum as if it was for me a well ; it ISN’T. We are not departing from the same stable datum ; you are just ASSUMING we are.

              If Set A (a religion) , intersect with Set B (a cult) with the shared element X (Scientology) , it ONLY, ONLY means that they SHARE one or more common element ; that’s ALL it means. It means absolutely nothing more.But by sharing just one or a few elements , doesn’t mean that they share ALL ELEMENTS. For subject X (Scientology) to be a religion, it must have ALL elements of Set A (a religion) and not just one or a few. Get it now ? Saying that X is contained in both Set A and Set B , and therefore can be called either Set A or Set B is just a “crazy” logic indeed. You apparently take for granted and as true every damn “standard” science and mathematical concept you stumble across. What’s the matter ? Use your own wits which you have even more than me.

              Geir : “May be we should chalk this up as your challenge to Marildi ? and in that, I have won this contest (on her behalf)”.

              Peter : Now Geir, have you been drinking ? It is Friday ; perhaps you are celebrating about your beautiful son, and have developed a great sense of humor. I busted your ass, my friend ; that’s what happened !!! :-)))

              Peter

            10. Peter, you lost this one. Your logic is flawed and it is easy for any casual reader to see. You admitted that there are cults that are religions and that there are religions that can be cults since these are, per you, not mutually exclusive. Therefore, you cannot prove that Scientology is not a religion by claiming it is a cult. Now how hard can this be to understand. Seriously, Peter. Seriously.

            11. “Peter, you lost this one. Your logic is flawed and it is easy for any casual reader to see.”

              Peter : That some “casual readers” agree to it (which you are assuming they are) doesn’t mean anything. While millions believed Earth to be flat , and the one who said “no, it isn’t” as a crazy one ; the one had the right perspective against those millions.

              Geir : “You admitted that there are cults that are religions and that there are religions that can be cults since these are, per you, not mutually exclusive. Therefore, you cannot prove that Scientology is not a religion by claiming it is a cult. Now how hard can this be to understand. Seriously, Peter. Seriously.”

              Peter : You are just using word games using a Theory meant for mathematical objects , and attempting to apply it to real life issues. Sorry, doesn’t work that way. What I meant in the first place was that this was not a totally “white and black proposition” as some cults may exhibit some characteristics of a religion even though they were not a religion per se. But that they do exhibits SOME characteristics doesn’t make them a religion anymore than a wolf is not a dog even if the share some traits.

              As I said, we seems to have reached an impasse on this issue which is okay with me. We both did our job. “Winning” or “losing” an argument is irrelevant to me ; debating itself is the important issue as from it new ideas are born. I always win when I lose ; always. So if you want to take the win , you can have it. I already won just by the exchange.

              Peter

              P.S.
              Do you feel in any way offended or diminished by expressions like “Yes, dear Geir” ?

            12. Remember, it was you who brought up the point about winning😉 You challenged Marildi just for that. Another inconsistency it seems.

            13. Another of your assumptions. I don’t know where on hell you took the idea that I ever implied that. You are giving this a personal twist that you should have never given to it as the moderator and director of this blog. This is very unprofessional of you, Geir. I don’t mind disagreeing with you on any given subject at all. But this childish attitude of “vengeance” and getting emotionally involved in issues between posters (and more so when those posters know each other from a long time) proves that you are no leader, and you can no longer have my respect.

              Best,
              Peter

            14. And bear in mind that I am not arguing against Scientology being a cult, only that this is irrelevant to its status as a religion.

            15. “And bear in mind that I am not arguing against Scientology being a cult, only that this is irrelevant to its status as a religion.”

              Yeah, I knew what you was arguing about. Our basic disagreement has all along been on this : “only that this is irrelevant to its status as a religion.”

              You see, it IS relevant ; otherwise this whole psychotherapy and philosophy based on the deceit from cults trying to pose as religions would just crumble. That cults have “similarities” with religion is not the thing debated about ; they DO share some similarities. But “similarities” doesn’t mean “The same” or even “under the same SPECIFIC (not general) category”. Cults are DESIGNED to pose as religions, and to LOOK as religions. That’s why the are so destructive to Free Will, Freedom of Thought, and to Freedom itself. If you attempt to say that a cult is also a religion , you are failing to make the NECESSARY distinctions for a logical/prosurvival handling of undue influences. And I just can’t have that.

              Peter

            16. Peter, what would be the practical difference between saying that Scientology is a cult vs. Scientology is both a religion and a cult.

            17. “Peter, what would be the practical difference between saying that Scientology is a cult vs. Scientology is both a religion and a cult.”

              I’ll give you an analogy before answering that directly : A restaurant serve food to people. “Food” is a substance that nourish your body properly ,and it is animal or vegetable in nature (this is my established assumption). When the word “restaurant” is mentioned , people get a picture on their minds about people eating delicious and nutritive food. The “concept” embedded in the word “restaurant” is that one. A con man establish a “restaurant” that serve delicious “food” , only problem being that it is totally synthetic and very harmful for health. People gets sick from eating there w/out even noticing it as the effect slowly builds itself with time. Now , BOTH places are called a “restaurant”. Both places serve something delicious. Both places has chairs , tables , a bar , a waiter , etc. Both places charge for the “food”. Both places “treat” people well apparently. But , even with all these apparent “similarities” , one is a restaurant and the other is NOT , even if it “appears” to be one. Calling this place that serve synthetic harmful substances a “restaurant” would be false , misleading and destructive.

              Do you get my message ?

              Peter

            18. No, Peter, I still don’t get your message. It seems like a False Analogy (a logical fallacy).

              Perhaps my question should be phrased: What practical difference would it make to call an establishment “a restaurant where harmful food is served” vs. calling it “a restaurant where harmful food is served? Keep in mind that I’m asking what PRACTICAL difference it would make.

            19. P.S.

              In my hypothetical example a restaurant is defined as “A place where food is served with the intention to properly feed others , and to get a proper monetary exchange from it”. “Food” in my example is defined as “Any substance of animal or vegetable origin that nourish a body properly”. The place where synthetic dangerous substances are sold is intended to make money by deceiving others while harming their bodies.

              So by my definition , this place run by this con man is NOT a restaurant per se , but only intented to LOOK like one.

              Religion has a purpose of “binding others together in a common prosurvival purpose” which is the etymology of the word religion = religare. It is based on a system of beliefs genuinely intented to increase spiritual awareness , and to bring us closer to a higher conscience whatever that may mean for different denominations. Even if people don’t achieve the perfection that they were looking for in that system of belief, at least they learned good positive things from it, and their experiences with the subject are usually healthy and humanizing. These religions are not inherently authoritarian in their beliefs , and work more with inclusion than exclusion. They usually have many leaders that only guide people (everything in life need leaders) , but they are many with no god-like attributes (they don’t have this only leader in charge of EVERYTHING , and who can’t be even questioned). We have had many of those religions throughout history which still are being practiced : Buddhism, Christianism , Hinduism , Judaism, original Islam (to some degree, but not that much) , etc, etc.

              If you assert that a cult is also a religion , you would be misguidedly and unwittingly putting others at risk by failing to alert them. You would also be actually degrading the concept of religion and belittling its purpose and role in society. Religions – REAL religions – got a bad name by positioning them together with cults. A propaganda by redefinition of words was created against religion, and today religion has become a subject with a lot less ARC than it originally had. A great percentage cringe at just the mentioning of the word. I feel that we have a moral duty to rehabilitate the subject, and to give it back to the people in an non adulterated state. Call me an idealist ; call me a self-righteous man if that is needed. But I stand by my principles. I am a man of a lot of Faith , Marildi ; a VERY strong faith. Not only I am a theist , but I believe very much that real religions are the saving grace of mankind ; science isn’t as much as I love it ; it is religion itself that is. Perhaps you can understand more my disagreements now.

              Peter

            20. Oops – I meant “a restaurant where harmful food is served” vs. “an establishment where harmful food is served.”

            21. “No, Peter, I still don’t get your message. It seems like a False Analogy (a logical fallacy).”

              “Perhaps my question should be phrased: What practical difference would it make to call an establishment “a restaurant where harmful food is served” vs. calling it “a restaurant where harmful food is served? Keep in mind that I’m asking what PRACTI CAL difference it would make”

              “Oops – I meant “a restaurant where harmful food is served” vs. “an establishment where harmful food is served.”

              Ok , let’s define “practical” first, shall we ?

              Practical : Adjective. 3. Capable of or suitable to being used or put into effect; useful”. (Online dictionary by Farlex)

              The “practical” different in the case of the restaurant would be that if I tell others, “Hey, there is a great ‘restaurant’ over there” , when obviously it is not a restaurant, they would go there, eat their “food” , get sick and die. Now, what can possibly be more “practical” than that, Marildi ? And let’s not forget that you calling that establishment a “restaurant” is using a WRONG definition ; and as a Flag sup, you know VERY well the possible consequences of that in real life when interacting with those things that we wrongly defined.

              Defining things correctly , is not a matter of being literate ; it is a matter of responding correctly to life situations.

              Peter

            22. Okay, Peter. So you’re actually campaigning for a particular use of the word “religion.” That’s a different pursuit from simply educating people on what a cult is. It seems to me that it would be more successful to simply focus on the latter. It’s almost impossible to enforce how a word is used – and some people might see it as leading towards authoritarian control.

            23. “Okay, Peter. So you’re actually campaigning for a particular use of the word “religion.” That’s a different pursuit from simply educating people on what a cult is. It seems to me that it would be more successful to simply focus on the latter. It’s almost impossible to enforce how a word is used – and some people might see it as leading towards authoritarian control.”

              Perhaps you are right on that point , but I feel that BOTH campaigns are needed for a correct balance to be kept. I know that probably I sound authoritarian with views on this, but I assure you, it is not my intention at all. I have no real problem with others practicing whatever the feel like practicing. I just hate to see others trapped in strict unevaluated dogmas based on the authoritarian beliefs of ONE leader who only strive for power and money as most cult leaders do. That’s all. That’s why I feel than understanding EVERYTHING about cults using standard and well researched sources , is a must. I can see now that the other coin must be equally stressed also ; explaining to others what real religions are all about. But I am never about imposing my views on others. But don’t expect me neither to not keep trying to push a point home that I feel must be pushed for the welfare of others.

              Peter

            24. “I can see now that the other coin must be equally stressed also ; explaining to others what real religions are all about.”

              Got it. Keep in mind too that some cults are not perceived as religions and don’t present themselves as such. Charles Manson’s cult is an obvious example.

            25. “Charles Manson’s cult is an obvious example.”

              That’s a good point. Whereas there are many sources specifying what elements a cult has, less attention is paid to the elements of a religion which is pertinent to this hair splitting argument. Using a couple key strokes I found this link to Global Studies

              7 Elements of Religion posted Sep 9, 2011, 10:43 AM by Brian Gray

              Today we looked at the 7 elements of Major Religions:

              1. Belief in a Supernatural Power (Theta) 2. Holy Text (Source) 3. Method of Salvation (Sec Checking) 4.Rituals (Auditing, Model Session) 5.Place of Worship (Ideal Orgs everywhere) 6.Belief in the Holy or Sacred (Sanctity of Source, etc.,) 7. Sinful Acts (O-W)

              All major religions are made up of these elements. We even made up our own religions using students in the class and came up with the Dolanist Religion and the Micalite religions using these elements. All the student have a handout on the elements and this page can be found in the documents page shortly.

              Next Class, we will look at the actually elements of the Major religions.

              Let’s compare to see if Scientology religion contains these 7 elements. I put my opinions in the parentheses after each numbered element. ~Chris

            26. ” Got it. Keep in mind too that some cults are not perceived as religions and don’t present themselves as such. Charles Manson’s cult is an obvious example.”

              Thanks, Marildi ; I’ll keep that in mind.

            27. “Okay, Peter. So you’re actually campaigning for a particular use of the word “religion.” That’s a different pursuit from simply educating people on what a cult is. It seems to me that it would be more successful to simply focus on the latter. It’s almost impossible to enforce how a word is used – and some people might see it as leading towards authoritarian control.”

              Good job. Keep going!

            28. “Peter, what would be the practical difference between saying that Scientology is a cult vs. Scientology is both a religion and a cult.”

              Good try Marildi. Watch carefully how theism derails a discussion – every time.

            29. You’d seem much less condescending if you dropped all this “dear” crap from your posts, I and I’m sure many others find it to be most annoying.

            30. Now, what is it with you guys and this fixation of this alleged “condescending” ? I know that those with enough self-respect and self-confidence won’t find anything condescending about my posts. And the “dear” thing is a cultural thing with me as with most Hispanic people, specially Puerto Ricans) . It is meant to create a sense of closeness that implies that even though disagreements might exist, friendship remains as it is never personal. Is that so bad ?

            31. “Thanks for the advice, but I think that I’ll do my OWN “survey” on that before deciding on its use. :-)))”

              You’ve dozens of interactions here from which to survey. If you aren’t getting the result you intend, then why don’t you change tactics? Or are you getting the result that you intend? You even asked and then argued when you didn’t get the answer you pushed for.

            32. I can’t just stop being myself just to please any of you guys ; that’s slavery. And as to “not having the intended result” , it is more than clear to me now that this isn’t the forum for that just as MS2 wasn’t as well. Many of you guys here have a VERY set ideas that you are not even willing to inspect. One reason that I learned a lot, was because I always paid a lot of attention to the posts of others, trying to see what I could learn from them. I was like a sponge.

              I’ve seen how in blogs like BIC, Rinder’s others change or modify their viewpoints with the exposition to a multiplicity ideas. I’ve seen them grow. I grew a lot myself. But here is different.

              This is not my place, definitively.

              Best,
              Peter

            33. “This is not my place, definitively.”

              Oh, com’on. You’re the new guy and can’t take a little ribbing?? You’ll be alright. Hang around a few years, the fun’s just starting!

            34. “You’d seem much less condescending if you dropped all this “dear” crap from your posts, I and I’m sure many others find it to be most annoying.” LOL! I’m with you on that one, except I don’t find it most annoying dear, I find it very annoying! LOL!

        1. Your answers crack me up Peter and I love it when people split hairs between “cults” and “real religions.” I also enjoy when I ask a question and someone gives me a research project in reply. I take that as passive-aggressive condescension. Clever.

          cult
          kəlt/Submit-noun-a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
          “the cult of St. Olaf”
          a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
          “a network of Satan-worshiping cults”
          synonyms: sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction
          “a religious cult”
          a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
          “a cult of personality surrounding the leaders”
          synonyms: obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of, devotion to, worship of, veneration of
          “the cult of eternal youth in Hollywood”

          and

          re·li·gion
          rəˈlijən/ noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. “ideas about the relationship between science and religion”
          synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
          a particular system of faith and worship.
          plural noun: religions
          “the world’s great religions”
          a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
          “consumerism is the new religion”

          From this, I get that the differences between cults and religions may be in terms of size and maybe duration. Within religions there are denominations and within denominations there are synods (smaller groups.) Within these smaller groups there are local churches and within these local churches there are smaller groups such as bible study and prayer groups. Which among these are religions and which are cults? That may not be an adequate amount of hierarchy.

          Do you also think Islam is a cult (Mohammed, halal slaughter)? Mormonism (Brigham Young)? Catholicism (Jesus, “holy ghost”, saints, apostles, and Mary, blood, holy water)? Jews? (Yaweh, wailing wall, blood, passover, kosher slaughter, etc.)? Hindu? (fuggeduboudit, I love all their gods),

          Like my dad used to tell me religious practice that you like is religion and religious practice that you don’t like is cult. To me, cult is just a derogatory term for religion, nothing more. But then I’m an atheist so how could I know !?!?

          1. Heard on a tv show some years ago (I forget the name):

            “A cult is what the big church calls the little church”

            1. Hi Chris,

              I get along and like you get a little older each day. Changed jobs recently, comes with some “interesting” duties like dealing with 4 major crises in a week:-)

              Other than that life is OK, kids are growing up and I still smoke too much. Oh well.

              But the biggest change is that I’ve lost interest in all things Scientology. I still check Tony’s site out of habit and this one too and comment once in 6 months if a topic catches my eye. Scientology is almost completely in my past now, relegated to that category of really stupid things humans sometimes get themselves mixed up in.

              Alan

            2. So true Alan, so true. My family has readjusted in importance in my life that I too am thinking about these old worn out issues less each day and having more fun in the bargain. ~Chris

          2. Chris : “Your answers crack me up Peter and I love it when people split hairs between “cults” and “real religions.” I also enjoy when I ask a question and someone gives me a research project in reply. I take that as passive-aggressive condescension. Clever.”

            Peter : Gee , dear Chris ; you are breaking my heart. I am almost ready to cry now!!!

            Chris : “Cult kəlt/Submit-noun-a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. “the cult of St. Olaf” a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or pr actices regarded by others as strange or sinister. “a network of Satan-worshiping cults” synonyms: sect, denomination, group, movement, church, pers uasion, body, faction “a religious cult” a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing. “a cult of personality surrounding the leaders” synonyms: obsession with, fixation on, mania for, passion for, idolization of, devotion to, worship of, veneration of “the cult of eternal youth in Hollywood”

            Peter : Really Chris ? Offering a dictionary definition for a subject so researched and so specific ? That’s like sending someone who wants to know what QM is all about to the dictionary to define the word!!! Who would do such a thing ? Now it is YOU who are forcing me to be “passive-aggressive condescenting” about this glib answer. You are a scientist , for Chris sakes!

            and

            Chris : “re·li·gion rəˈlijən/ noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. “ideas about t he relationship between science and religion” synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More a particular system of faith and worship. plural noun: religions “the world’s great religions” a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. “consumerism is the new religion”

            Chris : “From this, I get that the differences between cults and religions may be in terms of size and maybe duration. Within religions there are denominations and within denominations there are synods (smaller groups.) Within these smallergroups there are local churches and within these local churches there are smaller groups such as bible study and prayer groups. Which among these are religions and which are cults? That may not be an ad equate amount of hierarchy.”

            Peter : You WOULD KNOWN, if you would have researched the topic as I’ve been doing for the last 2 years instead of using wikipedia for everything!.

            Chris : “Do you also think Islam is a cult (Mohammed, halal slaughter)? Mormonism (Brigham Young)? Catholicism (Jesus, “holy ghost”, saints, apostles, and Mary, blood, holy water)? Jews? (Yaweh, wailing wall, blood, passover, kosher slaughter, etc.)? Hindu? (fug geduboudit, I love all their gods),”

            Peter : ANY but ANY movement that fit in the description of the links that I posted , IS a cult ; PERIOD. Believe all you want ; you are entitled to. But all your beliefs are not going to make gravity go away by making things fall away from Earth. They will STILL fall back to Earth in spite of any beliefs. This isn’t a matter of “opinion” as many posters from this blog including dear Geir considers many things to be. Life is based on FACTS, and a cult is a VERY specific phenomena not open to “opinion”.

            Chris : “Like my dad used to tell me religious practice that you like is religion and religious practice that you don’t like is cult. To me, cult is just a derogatory term for religion, nothing more. But th en I’m an atheist so how could I know !?!?

            Peter : Yeah, go tell that to the thousands of people who suffered for years from insidious undue influence of a cult. “A derogatory term” my ass. It is a SCIENTIFIC term, totally well researched and studied. But to each its own. While you guys are “philosophying” here, I am actually helping many free themselves of any type of authoritarian approaches to wisdom and attempts to suppress power of choice and Human Rights.

            Peter

            1. Because I feel that any answer would be a waste of my time anyway, as you apparently have already decided on the subject , and feel there is nothing more to learn about it. So why even try ? What positive purpose would it serve ? I only post with a product in mind , not to entertain myself. I only post for educational purposes , Chris.

              Peter

            2. Unlike you, who has not already decided on the subject? LOL How is it not waste of time “talking” with you?

            3. “Unlike you, who has not already decided on the subject? LOL How is it not waste of time “talking” with you?”

              You are missing an educational opportunity from Peter! Going once, going twice, . . .

            4. Peter, I’m afraid I have to side with Geir on this.

              Scn is both a religion and a cult. Your long list of criteria for religion is too restrictive. Scn on basic principles looks like a fine religion. (Salvation for the spiritual being). You claim that Hubbard’s only intent was to make money from day one. I don’t agree. I think the man was far more complex than that. I believe he really believed he could figure out how to make OTs. The Co$ today is quite different from what Scn could have been had it gone differently. It didn’t have to become a cult. For many years it was my religion (I didn’t know all that was going on back then.)

            5. Well, you are entitled to your opinions, Freebeing ; I am totally okay with them. My posts were meant to open the discussion on this, and for others to have a multiplicity of viewpoints on the subject so that they can make their OWN decisions on it. I think that the discussion has been VERY interesting and educational on BOTH sides ; so I am perfectly happy with it.

  23. Well Geir, for some unknown reason I am not able to post here. I’ve had to change my passwords, but that doesn’t help.

      1. Well, I changed my nick only at WP’s behest. I did not even create this latest one, it just appeared, as far as I know.

  24. Even if I have to login every time I post, which seems to be what WP is now demanding of me…

    1. “Even if I have to login every time I post, which seems to be what WP is now demanding of me…”

      I have the same issue unless I post from my email by pushing “reply.” Do you already do that?

      1. yes, I post from “reply”. I believe the problem started when I changed my “iamvalkov” gmail password. It snowballed from there, and Wp then got my juno.com email account involved and it turned into a snarled mess. But at least now I can post as Geir has approved mt new nick.

      1. I think JW (Watchtower) is a cult. It is also extremely “Christian”. It is recognized in 190-some countries as a religious organization. That doesn’t change the fact that it is also a cult. You’ll find many stories from ex-JW on blogs and youtube telling about their travails. They practice “disconnection” just like Co$.

        You’ll find other cults that are Christian-based. FDLS, and these nutballs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggressive_Christianity_Missionary_Training_Corps

        Islam sects seem to also have cults. ISIS, Al Qaeda — these are religious cults.

        I guess you would strip the “religious” from them, but I”m sure they would disagree with you whole-heartedly.

        1. Thanks for the information ; we agree on that. As to this :

          ” I guess you would strip the “religious” from them, but I”m sure they would disagree with you whole-heartedly.”

          The adjective “religious” can also be used to differentiate the type of cult ; political, psychotherapeutic, scientific, “religious” , etc. That would mean a cult based on some kind of weird “faith” and “worshiping”. I wouldn’t strip the whole phrase “religious cults” necessarily, but I would NEVER call the a religion per se.

          They might disagree as it is their right to do ; but it is also my right to disagree with them, you, Geir, and anyone else for that matter.

          1. The issue at hand is rather that you disagree with yourself. Reread the thread and see the inconsistencies. If you cannot, then I am sure Vinaire can help you. He’s all into removing inconsistencies:-)

            1. I thinks that we will just have to agree to disagree on the impasse, Geir. Honestly, just as you can’t believe how it is that I can’t see your point as regards to your Theory of Sets based analysis, I can’t understand how it is that you can’t seems to grasp that you are using a two-value mathematical object to evaluate a multiple-valued issue , and that even if considering just Theory of Sets and nothing else, you have interpreted it wrong. I use to debate a lot with a professor of Theory of Set about the many inconsistencies of the system. I demonstrated to him the fallacy of a few of the theorems of Theory of Set when applied to real life instead of to mathematical objects. But he always found a way around it all. At the end, we agreed to disagree.

              I think that you stated your points and I stated mine, all done professionally and with respect ; and that’s all that really matters to me. Now others have multiple viewpoints to evaluate by themselves. Some will agree with you ; and others will agree with me. But as long as they have power of choice over data ; I am perfectly happy either way.

            2. You started out by blowing your own horn here in a somewhat condescending style claiming to be quite a wiz and throwing down a gauntlet to a lady to prove your intellect superior. I was intrigued and interested to see if those claimed had essence. It’s now fair to say that essence has sublimated.

            3. “You started out by blowing your own horn here in a somewhat condescending style claiming to be quite a wiz and throwing down a gauntlet to a lady to prove your intellect superior.”

              Peter : My issue was with her as we had some background which you can’t possible understand , and the fact that I felt at the time that she was attempting to diminish me. And because I felt she did, then I offered her a challange, as many debaters do. I wasn’t attempting to prove myself “superior”. Making such assumptions about me w/out even knowing me is incredible presumptuous of you and misguided. You guys are used to “debate” here in a Scn related blog. I’ve done it professionally in academic contexts. You can’t teach nothing at all really.

              Geir : I was intrigued and interested to see if those claimed had essence. It’s now fair to say that essence has sublimated.

              Peter : Yeah, like you “proved” something yourself ; you DIDN’T. But I thought that you had a better grasp of Science/Math than the one you have actually showed you have. So let’s just say that your “essence” has also sublimated and call it even. :-)))

          1. Chris, it seems to me that you are toning down Scientology’s disconnection practice by comparing it to other excomulgation-type of practices. If you study your own links , you’ll notice that the majority of those religions have excommunication as a last resort when the parishioner refuse to take responsibility for his acts. And when it does happen, are mostly due to acts than you and me would find ethically and morally wrong. Religion as groups separated from the state has its own justice codes as expected from any civilized group.

            These acts of excommunication from those religions seems to happen with little frequency. Scientology’s reasons for “excommunication” (Disconnection) can’t be described any other way but incredible abusive and destructive to basic Human Rights. It happens due to reasons that most religions won’t agree to. So putting Scn’s disconnection practice in the same Set called “Excommunication practices” is a wrong comparison that can lead to dismiss or belittle that abusive practice from the CofS and from LRH himself.

            1. “What has excommunication got to do with religiosity?” Asked another way, does the practice of excommunication void the label of religion?

            2. Talking about the 16th Catholic Church is like talking about 20th century physics ; in BOTH cases a lot of changes occurred during those 100 years. In physics , you have both “Classical” and “Modern” physics coexisting in one same century. In Catholicism, you have pre-Reformation and after-Reformation occurring in the same century. What “Catholic Church” are you referring to ?

            3. Ok , got it ; though, I sincerely don’t know where are you getting at with this. Are you after the argument now that if I say “No, it is not a religion” , then you’ll say that Catholicism is a subset of Christianity and therefore a “religion” as I have expressed before some affinity for Christian principles ? Are we going down the “Theory of Sets” again ? Tell you what , I’ll tell you where I am getting at, and where I am going towards , and then will answer your question directly. Fair enough ?

              I am a Theistic Humanist (not necessarily the same as “Humanitarian” which I don’t have nor probably ever will , any production record to take on that “title” ) that support Humanism as exposed in the Human Manifesto II , but with some minor modifications as regards to the origin of life and the mind/soul/body relationship as I strongly disagree with this point , “Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of evolutionary change, an unguided process”.

              I am a Theist that use science and logic, not as the end of Wisdom, but only as its beginning. Science and logic are just the beginning of Wisdom , and tools that helps you isolate and stay on a path that leads to spiritual enlightenment. Where is the “logic” of loving our kids in spite of ANYTHING they might do in life or to us ? Where is the “logic” in having Hope and Faith that something will happen in spite of ALL scientific evidence against that ever being possible ? Yet humans can’t live happily w/out unconditional love, hope and faith. But the Soul and the concept of Faith (not , “faith in” ) being absent from the Human Manifestos make it much, much less attractive to the Theists which is the largest percent of society.

              I believe that Science, something which is finite , won’t ever find the answers for something which is Infinite. I believe that the answers to life are beyond the realm of logic and science , but that a sensible use of science will guide us down the logical-scientifically methodological path that will prevent us from falling into blind faith scenarios.

              I believe that in its ancient roots , religions were designed to “bind humans together” making justice to the roots of the world “Religion”. They were intended to create a sense of purpose, of belonging , that united others in the quest for increased spiritual awareness that lead to overcome the sufferings inherently in living a mortal life.

              Those ancient religions were in the main non violent and non authoritarian. I am talking about original Buddhism, Hinduism (Vedism) , Taoism, Confusianism , etc. I am not referring to the Abrahamatic Religions , though Judaism have always had a much less violent past than Christianism (and its subsets such as Catholicism , Protestantism) and Islam have had.

              I believe that Christianity in all its versions , but specially Roman Catholicism have just TOO many crimes against Humanity. The Roman Catholicism was used to heavily indoctrinate the Western world specially through the Conquest Period . I believe that this was due to the heavy impingement that the Roman government had in the world , and the fact that its religion became Christianity. If the Roman Empire would have never adopted Christianity, Christianity might have been a insignificant religion today. Christianity , Roman Catholicism prevented the oriental religions from being disseminated and known in the western world. And so we went into a period of obscurantism.

              I believe that Roman Catholicism is but an organized religious mafia that have been keeping this world kidnapped for centuries, and that have shaped for the worst many world events. At the parishioner level -due to the parishioners’ own interpretation of scriptures and his own sense of good v/s right – it might act as a “religion” . But at the institutional level is but a “religious” mafia , the VERY personification of religious hypocrisy itself. A religion ? Not in my dictionary, no.

              How’s that for an answer, Geir ?

              Peter

            4. That’s a TL;DR-answer to a very simple question. So, the answer is “No”. Good.

              Next – is the “Gelug” school of Tibetan Buddhism at the present a religion?
              Then: Was the Inca beliefs as practiced in the year 1500 a religion?
              A simple “yes” or “no” to these two simple questions will do just fine.

              You asked for the debate to be based on specifics. I am trying to determine your specifics regarding the classification of relgions by providing specific examples. Seems fair?

            5. Sorry for the delay in replying ; I was caught at back logged work.

              Geir : “That’s a TL;DR-answer to a very simple question. So, the answer is “No”. Good.”

              Peter : TL;DR ? . Well , I found a reply to that online : “I’m sorry you don’t have the requisite attention span to read a complete treatment of a complex subject.”

              Geir : Next – is the “Gelug” school of Tibetan Buddhism at the present a religion? Then: Was the Inca beliefs as practiced in the year 1500 a religion? A simple “yes” or “no” to these two simple questions will do just fine.”

              Peter : Sorry, I simple “yes” or “no” doesn’t cut it for me, Geir ; so I guess I’ll be seeing a lot of “TL;DRs” then.:) This is not a white and black proposition , neither a cour of law activity. You are going to have to play by my rules as well , to play at all.

              Geir : “You asked for the debate to be based on specifics. I am trying to determine your specifics regarding the classification of religions by providing specific examples. Seems fair?”

              Peter : Yes, seems fair as long as I provide my specifics for my “yes” or “no”.

              For i.e , regarding the Buddhist sect called “The Gelug” (“The Yellow Sect”) , in the “1905 Tibetan Rebellion” they MURDERED several Chinese officials , French Roman Catholic priests and Christian converts in the province of Yunnan, in vengeance for the missionaries’ success at converting natives to Catholicism.

              The Gelup raised to “power” by force , by eliminating the domestic political opponents (the other Buddhist sects). They created a system of Feudalism , in the 17th century , where the ruling elite of monks exploited land and people for a few centuries up to 1950 with the Chinese occupation of Tibet. They are responsible for many, many violent events, including their tyrannical oppresion of other Buddhist sects.

              http://www.eunacom.net/DalaiLama_E.htm

              http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

              As to the current Dalai Lama , here are some interesting links :

              http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/may/29/downwiththedalailama

              http://god-knows-what.com/2009/04/09/the-dalai-lama-saint-or-sinner/

              One more balanced than the other. The Dalai Lama is another big “religious” hypocrite dictator who like others Lamas before him , only attempt to sell us Westerns on the alleged “history” of “non violence” and “goodness” that Buddhism have had in the world. Pure horse shit if you ask me.

              So, no ; it is not a religion per my standards. Per the robotic repetition of dictionary definitions perhaps , but in actually this is just another mafia dressed up as lambs. They only look as “lambs” , but they are wolves , all right.

              Regarding the Incas, I think that it is quite obvious, don’t you think ? Of course it wasn’t.

              Now, Geir, where are you getting with this ? ; I am beginning to lose interest. Better state your point fast.

              Peter

            6. ) Look Geir ; I’ve been thinking in all this about “religion v/s cult” while reviewing my knowledge of the principal religions practiced in this god forsaken planet . I’ve reviewed dozens of scholar dissertations about the meaning of “religion” (where none of them seems to agree) . I’ve tried to no avail to come up with the best definition for it on my own (besides the criteria that I already had when we started this debate) making sure that no aspect is left out, and that no group is left out. But I just keep running on circles every time. I give up ; I’ve to admit that this is just too damn complex for me. It seems that the “religiosity” of something isn’t necessarily related to its cultic aspect or lack thereof. It seems that an activity can be BOTH , a religion and a cult at the same time ; they are not mutually exclusive.

              In my attempts to “save” others from the undue influence of so, so many groups , I attempted to re-position religion to its ancient roots , but ANYWHERE I look , even in religions like Buddhism and ancient Hinduism (The original Vedas) , I find many inconsistencies , authoritarianisms in some form or another, exclusion in some forms , and even many hidden passages that foster some kind of violence and Human Rights abuses. It seems that religion has always been a bad adjective after all.

              It seems to me that the answer to this riddle of life and existence lies in philosophy itself (which to me includes science) , and its subset , Humanism , but with the element “The Soul” and “Faith” (not “Faith in”) added to it. I really can’t find any lasting Human improvement (as a species) brought about by ANY one religion ; something most frustrating indeed. In fact, most of them have sunk men even deeper into the mud , or have kept him stuck at the very least.

              So it seems that you’ve won this debate after all , but not w/out my sadness about this all.

              Best,
              Peter

            7. Peter, in my book, you just went up another big notch. This follows the other big notch upwards, just a few days ago, in my last reply to you. (I hope you saw that, btw.)

              Kudos!:)

            8. “Peter, in my book, you just went up another big notch. This follows the other big notch upwards, just a few days ago, in my last reply to you. (I hope you saw that, btw.)

              Kudos! :)”

              Peter : Thanks, Marildi ; most kind of you. Excuse my manners in not having replied to your previous post to me ; I had got caught at work. I just posted it now.

              Take care.

              Best,
              Peter

            9. An interesting and expansive post. I too believe this a complex domain. And I think you are right in turning to philosophy and include science in that. Peace.

            10. ” An interesting and expansive post. I too believe this a complex domain. And I think you are right in turning to philosophy and include science in that. Peace.”

              Thanks, Geir ; peace to you as well. :-)))

              Peter

            11. “So it seems that you’ve won this debate after all , but not w/out my sadness about this all.”

              When knowledge changes us, we all win, brother-winner. Namaste. ~Chris Thompson

            12. ” When knowledge changes us, we all win, brother-winner.”

              Thanks Chris! ; that’s very true , very true indeed!

              Namaste. ~Chris Thompson

              :-))) Thanks!

              Peter

            13. I’ve been wondering at my changeability in light of these discussions. Then observed yours and want to say how I admired the way you worked your way through this current exchange.

              I’m so pleased that you’re here with us. I hope we can enjoy writing to each other for a long time to come

            14. “I’ve been wondering at my changeability in light of these discussions. Then observed yours and want to say how I admired the way you worked your way through this current exchange.”

              Peter : Thanks Chris ; most kind of you. :-)))

              “I’m so pleased that you’re here with us. I hope we can enjoy writing to each other for a long time to come”

              Peter : The pleasure is all mine in participating with such great minds as yours , Marildi’s , Geir’s and so many others in this so uptone blog. And yes, we’ll definitively keep interacting , as I won’t miss the fun and educational benefits of it. :-)))

              Take care, my friend!

              ML,
              Peter

            15. No. I just posted something more about it. somewhere here.

              How it is used may be useful in dangerous mind-controlling cult determination😉

          2. In both JW and Co$ continued association with the ‘disconnected” party will also get you thrown out.

            As Peter replied, it’s used far more often and its much easier to find yourself under threat in these groups. It is used as a tool of control. You could argue that it is used as a tool of control in any group, but for some reason it seems far more odious the way JW and Co$ do it. The Amish are also pretty intolerant of their children leaving the faith too.

            This is not a necessary criteria of a cult.

            Most groups will throw you out or shun you if you no longer subscribe to the group’s beliefs/ideals or start making waves. Try being a boy scout and saying you’re not going to wear the uniform, merit badges are dumb and “be prepared” is stupid. I think you’d find yourself on the outs.

            The difference with most group is that you didn’t enmesh your entire life, beliefs, friendships and family with the group. Just because you’re kicked out of the KingPin Bowling league will not you lose your family.

    1. He continues to write me – but we made a deal; I will not write anything more about our conversation if he comes clean as to his intentions and how he got my e-mail address and why he sent that first e-mail to me. I am holding up my part of the agreement. He has so far failed to come clean. If he doesn’t come clean, there is perhaps more to see here.

  25. I can’t reply directly to your post Peter. But I’d like to comment on the list of attributes you gave:

    “1. Instead of having many religious leaders representing the movement , and which parishioners can question , Scn has ONE leader that NOBODY can question.”

    Most religions have God as the “leader” as represented by the writings of whatever prophet/holy-man. Nobody questions the word of God. If you do you’ll soon find yourself ostracized from your Church.

    “2. Those many leaders that religions have are not considered to be god-like (remember Chris is a god himself according to Christians, the son of God) individuals capable of no errors. LRH was and is considered god-like and infallible.”

    Rev Moon comes to mind here. Now you may think the “Moonies” are a cult, but I’m sure many Moonies would argue with you about that. What about the Pope, you think he gets questioned much?

    Hubbard never claimed to be anything but a man. That he’s put up on a pedestal is really neither here nor there. You have Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha. All men. All revered.

    “3. Religions are about setting others free even is they can’t actually do it. But their intentions are honorable. It is not about power or money ; it is about honest help. Scn was money motivated since its beginning , And LRH strived for power. He died a millionaire, when every staff basically had just to eat. He used slaves to make money for him.”

    Ask any run of the mill Scientologist if Scn is about freeing beings and think you will get a definitive YES. I would not say that religions are about setting others free. Most are about “saving” men’s souls, this is quite different. Freedom isn’t part of the deal. It’s obeying God’s will in most cases.

    “4. Religions are inclusive (Islam is no fucking religion , but I am no wasting my time trolls regarding this ) , and welcome others to freely participate on it. Scn is extremely exclusive and want everybody to become Scientologists and lose any other beliefs no matter the PR otherwise. I WAS on staff ; I was on the SO.”

    Scn is more than happy to have you in their fold. Quite inclusive as long as you go with the program, just like any other group. Other religions don’t tell you: “Oh it’s fine to be a X (some other religion)”. They are all about converting you to their flavor of “faith”. Members are most welcome to contribute funds and those that do are the ones that rise up in status too. Granted, nothing as insane as the status-happy BS going on in today’s Co$.

    5. Even that most religions ask for donations, it is usually the so called 10% , and it is not forced. Many parishioners never donate. People do donate their time in many helping activities which are clearly seen in our culture. Many drugs addicts and homeless individuals are alive because of the work of churches. Scn is ALL about money, and its “donations” are the biggest in the history of “religions”.

    Many don’t donate? I think that most church-going people do donate, at least from time to time. And no it isn’t anything like what goes on in the Co$ but believe me those churches don’t get built using government grants now do they? Donations are not “forced” in Scn. If you don’t donate nobody is going to throw you out – you won’t be doing much in the way of services, but you can still call yourself a Scilon and believe in your religion.

    “6. Besides conflicting issues like abortion , same-sex marriages , etc, religions don’t take the government as their enemies, but frequently work with him. Religions doesn’t have this “us v/s them” mentality. Scn is ALL about “us v/s them” manifestations.”

    Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. There is no shortage of us vs them going on among various religions. It is almost a built-in certainty that you’ll get this happening. Especially with fanatics.

    Scn is quite happy working with the gov’t these days. It would love more grants to spread its front-group programs. Once the IRS battle was one Co$ changed its tune. I don’t see that this item has any validity in religious determination. In the USA separation between Church and State is embodied in the Constitution – Bill of Rights. You may not give Moslems religious status, but I think you’re position is a minority one as far as world governments are concerned. And here we are with a religion that is in jihad against the western world. Thus this item must come off your list.

    “7. Religions keep their scriptures open to all publics. Scn have lot of “confidential” stuff ONLY intended to keep you going with the “Mystery Sandwich” , and bringing money in.”

    There are other religions with secret scriptures. Mormons for one. Probably others as well. I imagine you would not be given access to all the scrolls in some Buddhist monasteries either. The vast majority of Scn “scripture” is made available for anyone. So I have to say this item is off the list.

    “8. Religions doesn’t copyright and trademark their scriptures. Scn does.”

    I don’t know if other religions have done this. But I don’t think this is any criteria. Suppose the Co$ dropped all the trademarks & copyrights…

    “9. Religions give space to other to interpret their scriptures in varying degrees of freedom. Scn not only forbid that, but PUNISH you, and even vanish you from their group by ANY alteration.”

    Um, sorry, but no, this is not true at all. Many churches will punish you for interpreting things in a way they don’t approve. Witness the inquisition? So out with this one. Don’t be messing with the word of God my friend. Oh yes, remember the Catholic Protestant split? PROTESTant. Seems there was a bit of strife other these matters wouldn’t you say? Are you saying that Christianity is not a religion?

    “10. Religions doesn’t attempt to pose as other things to protect themselves or hide any truth. Scn was considered by LRH only as a Science, but then decided to become a religion for protection purposes and for NOTHING more (besides for money, power, and slaves, of course).”

    Yes, he said is was a science. Clearly it isn’t. But then again you have many religions claiming that they have the Word of God as their authority. Really? I haven’t seen God walking about town in quite some time. Religions “pose” as what they want to pose as. Doesn’t make it true. Who is to decide what is “truth”? Hubbard may have found being a religion convenient in 1953 given the laws against practicing medicine without a license and who could blame him — he WAS trying to free/improve spiritual beings so why shouldn’t he form religion. He had every right to seek the protection afforded religion in the USA.

    “11. Religions are genuine about their scriptures. Scn’s scriptures say one thing to then contradict itself with other parts. Scn attempt to deceive others. Yeah, I know ; the Bible also contradict itself in many parts.”

    Seriously? You invalidate this item yourself so I will leave it at that.

    “12. Religions are about Faith , compassion and forgiveness. Scn is about violations of Human Rights , individuation from the world, and showing compassion only for its devoted members, if even that.”

    You’ve got to have a LOT of faith to continue up the Bridge. Scilons have great faith. I think you know that. Why did you join the SO? Did you not have faith that Scn was the only hope for mankind? Will you argue that you “knew” it was as opposed to it being “faith”? Would a Christian tell you he knew he was saved because of Jesus? Baby it is faith-FUL

    I’d say that Scn qualifies as a religion and a cult. You may not like the religion any more than you like Islamic fundamentalist. It isn’t up to you alone to decide what is and what is not a religion.

    People will believe the darndest crap. Let them so long as it doesn’t do harm. Co$ has a rather long list of harm. As I said in another post. It didn’t have to be that way, but that’s the way it rolled – sadly.

    1. I did got and read your post to me, Freebeing ; thank you. Thanks for taking the time. That’s how debate is done. I agree with several of your points. However, I am not going to be analyzing each one to answer you in turn as I already have been back and forth on this subject for just too long. And it suddently took a personal turn which I didn’t expected from “dear” Geir. When I was enjoying it the most, and was interpreting it as an entertaining endeavor to have some fun , and thought that others, specially Geir, were just having fun with it -attempting to prove his points for the fun of debating , you know – then it suddently was personal right from the start ; something I had not suspected before.

      He even attempted to misguidedly get himself involved in an issue that was PERSONAL between Marildi and me, that we go back to when we both participated in BIC a long time ago. She and me had had some disagreements before and had resolved them just fine most of the time w/out ANY needed intromission from No moderator. Gier, w/out having that background between us , ASSUMED whatever the hell he wanted from an incident between Marildi and me, and USED it personally allegedly to “test” me, not with the intention to debate for fun, but with the hidden intention to “prove” me wrong , something that he actually couldn’t accomplish at all. You did 10x better than him in a single post that he did in 10-12 posts.

      He apparently was being misemotional about it all along , and that to me is hypocrisy. And I don’t like dealing in hypocrisy. I am blunt and direct. With me what you see is what you get. So it is no longer fun posting. I’ll reply to Marildi which I haven’t done yet (if he even let me) , and be done with it. I like to participate in blogs where I can trust in the leadership of his moderaror. Geir is not just one additional poster here. He IS this blog’s moderator and director. He should have never taken personal an issue between Marildi and me. That was TOTALLY unprofessional from him. Perhaps she is a very personal friend of his that he misguidedly felt he had to go “to the rescue”. I don’t know and I don’t care. We and Marildi had done just fine in the past. Many times when I was an asshole to her I apologized and she KNOWS this. There was no reason for Geir to play his twisted game which he thinks he won ; how silly of him.

      So, I am really sorry, Freebeing. Your logic was fine and I wish that we could have continued with our debate. But my principles comes first.

      Best
      Peter

      1. Peter, dear:) I don’t think this is the best attitude I’ve seen of you. We’re all here to learn, the same as you – Geir too, who calls himself “a work in progress.” We aren’t going to learn, or help others to do so, if we bail as soon as we think someone is off the rails, even if they really are – maybe we could help them see their error. Or they’ll help us see ours.😉

        I don’t always like what you have to say, but I know you are sincere and mean good. If we can all grant each other that much, then we’ll have fun and learn too – just as you said.

        1. “Peter, dear:) I don’t think this is the best attitude I’ve seen of you.”

          Peter : At least you don’t seem to mind me calling you “dear”. I am a father. I see most women as my daughter , and treat them (at least I try as much as I can) as I treat her with words like “dear” , “sweetie” , etc. I am a very parternal guy. I hug and kiss my family ; my sisters , my parents, my brothers. I don’t understand how americans and/or Europeans find the word “dear” condescending unless I have this word “condescending” wrong. My definition for it is,

          “Treating someone as if you are more important or more intelligent than them”.

          How does calling someone “dear” has anything to do with that ? How can it be annoying ?

          I can have a TON of defects, but treating others like that has NEVER being one of them even when I was a Scientologists still-in who frequently suffer from that. It has NEVER , EVER crossed my mind that I am superior in ANY way to you or to ANYBODY else for that matter. This just isn’t me.

          But when I post links to Chris, for example, ONLY establishing WHERE did I took my data from (as we debaters frequently do in academic forums) , it is interpreted as if I was condescending! How on hell are those two things related ? This is madness!!!! Either I have totally lost contact with the real world, or I am a damn weird individual cause I’ve never have such thought patterns. I never think in such terms like Posting references = condescending ; calling someone dear = condescending. What the hell is all that ? Must I now stop being myself just to please others ? The hell I will ; the hell I will indeed. I better not post at all. What kind of friends want us to change to adapt to themselves ? This is just crazy.

          This is why I am upset , Marildi. You’ve witnessed me many times publicly apologizing to you in more than one ocassion, and to several others as well. I have no problem with that ; never did. And if I don’t do it more often is that I haven’t realized that I have offended someone in some way. I tried to apologize to you the other day ; perhaps you saw the post. I asked you to see your comment from my perspective, and to tell me if you would have considered it sarcastic. Told you that if you wouldn’t , that I would then offer you publicly my apologies ; did you see it ? It is right there and I MEANT it when I said it.

          But people just mis-read one’s intentions everytime. They attribute you with traits you do not possess ; they question your motives left and right with no basis at all. They try to take “revenge” , and keep inside hidden hostilities towards you while posing otherwise. I am not into those silly games. That’s why I took on the life of a priest.

          Marildi : “We’re all here to learn, the same as you – Geir too, who calls himself “a work in progress.” We aren’t going to learn, or help others to do so, if we bail as soon as we think someone is off the rails, even if they really are – maybe we could help them see their error. Or t hey’ll help us see ours. ;)”

          Peter : I see your point, and agree to it ; but when the moderator himself play those silly games ; those childish games of “proving you wrong” with a sort of vengeful attitude ; how can you then keep the respect needed to trust his impartiality ? As I said before, I don’t mind disagreeing at all ; not one bit. The times that I have learned the most have been those times when someone showed me how wrong I was at some issue. Those times I ALWAYS remember them. The times when I was right, I forget them rather easily.

          When I debate , I do it for fun, and to learn. If I am actually proved wrong in a debate , then I very much appreciate it as only by losing , real lasting changes are brought about by professional debates. To hell with winning. I was recently (5-6 months ago) proved wrong on a sciece issue relating to radiant energy as related to the Purification RD which I was defending. And I was in shock about how I had held a datum as true for so long. You know what happened ? That “defeat” prompted me to study all about radiation again, and I discovered a whole new world. I am telling you ; the times that I have won the most are those times when I was proved wrong.

          But many people here thinks the opposite of me just because I keep finding holes in their arguments. Gee, what I wish is for them is to find mine. But Gier didn’t , no matter what he believe ; not with those Theory of Set “arguments”. The ones from Freebeing were much, much, much better and DIRECTLY to the point of debate. THAT is debating. Taking the list of arguments from your “opponent” , and throwing it back at him analyzed from other perspective that he had failed to look them from.

          Marildi : “I don’t always like what you have to say, but I know you are sincere and mean good.”

          Peter : Thanks, dear. I really appreciate it. I hope you don’t mind calling you “dear”. I do it because I really like you , and see my daughter or sister in you.

          Marildi : ” If we can all grant each other that much, then we’ll have fun and learn too – just as you said.”

          Peter : Thanks for your wise words. Let’s see first what happens.

          Take care.

          Best,
          Peter

          1. Peter, I , like Marildi, know that you are a really sincere, hard-working guy, that often goes to extreme lengths, to make your point/s and take up up ANY debate, with more “gusto” than anyone else I’ve ever seen.

            Having those qualities, is something special, my friend. It has and will continue to take you a looong way into the future.

            Sincerely Pete, perhaps there is just one area which needs a thorough overhaul?

            The current “seriousness” vs “humor / nonchalance” ratio??

            Is that do-able, Pete? I reckon it is. The outcome might surprise a lot of people.

            Doing so, completely changed my life for the better, buddy.😀

            ML, Cal,

            1. “Is that do-able, Pete? I reckon it is. The outcome might surprise a lot of people. Doing so, completely changed my life for the better, buddy. :D”

              Good post Calvin.

            2. My dear friend Calvin ; thanks for your kind words, validation and wise advice. I really appreciate it. As always, you are the balm for the soul ! :-)))

              Sorry for the delay in acknowledge you.

              ML,
              Peter

          2. thetaclear: “I don’t understand how Americans and/or Europeans find the word ‘dear’ condescending…”

            One thing is that in the American culture, men don’t usually call other men “dear” – only women. And some men do mean it in a condescending way, as they did in earlier times when women were thought of as inferior but to be treated “kindly,” sort of like children. That’s why many women today don’t want to be called “dear,” “honey,” etc., as often it is being said condescendingly.

            Personally, I don’t have a problem with it – I like it.:) It can probably be overdone, however, so if I were you, at least with Americans, I would use it a lot less often. That would be more in Reality with the culture.

            TC: “I never think in such terms like Posting references = condescending; calling someone dear = condescending. What the hell is all that? Must I now stop being myself just to please others?”

            I believe you that you don’t think in such terms. But you do sometimes come across as a little bit arrogant/condescending or, as someone earlier inferred, bragging. Whether or not you mean to express any of those things is beside the point of how it comes across. This is probably something you’ll have to become more aware of. And it’s not that you have to stop being yourself – of course not. It’s just that we don’t always see ourselves as others do, and sometimes they’re doing us a favor by letting us know.

            TC: “I tried to apologize to you the other day; perhaps you saw the post. I asked you to see your comment from my perspective, and to tell me if you would have considered it sarcastic. Told you that if you wouldn’t, that I would then offer you publicly my apologies; did you see it? It is right there and I MEANT it when I said it.”

            Here again, I do believe you. And yes, from your explanation, I can see how you thought I was being sarcastic – but I didn’t intend to be. Thanks for pointing it out, though. I’ll try to take my own advice and be more aware!:) I can see too that you are very sensitive, so I think Calvin gave you some good advice about the ratio of “seriousness” vs “humor / nonchalance.”

            TC: “But people just mis-read one’s intentions every time. They attribute you with traits you do not possess; they question your motives left and right with no basis at all. They try to take ‘revenge’, and keep inside hidden hostilities towards you while posing otherwise. I am not into those silly games. That’s why I took on the life of a priest.”

            Understood. And you’re right – it works both ways. Other than stating too many generalities, you are free to state your objections and grievances too. I think that’s much better than to blow up and then quit – and miss an opportunity to learn something and/or to help somebody else learn something. (Wow, I”m really in lecture mode, aren’t I? I’m going to stop any minute now!😀 )

            TC: “I see your point, and agree to it; but when the moderator himself plays those silly games; those childish games of “proving you wrong” with a sort of vengeful attitude; how can you then keep the respect needed to trust his impartiality?”

            Maybe that is your misconception – Geir doesn’t really act as a moderator. Even a new poster has only his first post “awaiting moderation,” and if Geir can see he’s not a troll or the like, from then on his posts aren’t moderated and go through immediately.

            Also, in the exchanges between posters Geir gives them freedom to have their discussions or debates or arguments without the interference of “moderation.” He only enters into an exchange at times as any other poster might do. Of course, as the blog holder he gets treated with a little more respect, because of the appreciation for his hosting of the blog. But, as you’ve noticed, a person can disagree with him or with anybody else without him deleting their posts or even banning them. In that respect, he’s better than any other blog holder I know, and I give him all due credit. His blog is kind of unique and we have a unique opportunity to learn things all manner of things – including about ourselves – and at times to just have some fun.

            Okay, end of lecture.😀

            It’s getting late so I’ll just say about your other comments – many thanks for sharing your experiences.

            Take care,
            marildi

            1. It is getting kind of late for me too, but I wanted to acknowledge you first before getting to bed for such wonderful advises. You impress me every time, dear. It DOES feels great calling you dear, as you ARE very dear to me.

              I’ll reply later on tomorrow.

              Best,
              Peter

            2. Marildi : “One thing is that in the American culture, men don’t usually call other men “dear” – only women. And some men do mean it in a condescending way, as they did in earlier times when women were thought of as inferior but to be treated “kindly,” sort of like children.”

              Peter : I see what you mean ; thanks you for the data. I’ve always treated women differently, but not because they are “inferior” or “less” intelligent. I do it because they are special and unique as a lot of us men aren’t. Also I see my own sisters, daughter and my mom in most women depending on their age. It is more like a paternal thing in me. We men “collapse” into a brute particle of force, but women “collapse” into beautiful waves of Art , care for the species , and wisdom.

              Marildi : “That’s why many women today don’t want to be called “dear,” “honey,” etc., as often it is being said condescendingly.”

              Peter : Got it ; what a strange behavior indeed! Women here in my country love to be treated as queens with such words and others as well. We live to be their slaves. :-)))

              Marildi : “Personally, I don’t have a problem with it – I like it.:)

              Peter : I am glad you do! When I say it to you , it is meant as a compliment.

              Marildi : “It can probably be overdone, however, so if I were you, at least with Americans, I would use it a lot less often. That would be more in Reality with the culture.”

              Peter : Thanks for the advice ; I’ll keep it in mind.

              Marildi : “I believe you that you don’t think in such terms. But you do sometimes come across as a little bit arrogant/condescending or, as someone earlier inferred, bragging.”

              Peter : Guilty as charge!!! I am a man VERY sure of himself with a lot of certainty on my views/principles ; and I have noticed that it upset quite a few, specially other men , even when I am being carefully (many times I am not, I admit it) to not look that certain or positive. But yes, I am aware that I might come across as arrogant and bragging with a lot of frequency. One thing though, I don’t like to “act the valence” of being sort of apologetic and propitiative just to earn agreement and/or ARC. I am very positive, sure of myself, and have a lot of self-respect, and that’s how I like to look cause that’s how I feel and am.

              Marildi : “Whether or not you mean to express any of those things is beside the point of how it comes across.”

              Peter : I assure you that it is not my intention to express those things. “In the flesh” I am extremely humble according to my friends. Peter the blogger and Peter in the flesh are very distinct persons.

              Marildi : “This is probably something you’ll have to become more aware of.”

              Peter : Yes, I am beginning to become aware of it now ; thank you.

              Marildi : “And it’s not that you have to stop being yourself – of course not. It’s just that we don’t always see ourselves as others do, and sometimes they’re doing us a favor by letting us know.”

              Peter : Yes, they are. I have a big mouth more times that I would want to. Sometimes I just react too fast to a comment instead of just relaxing , taking a deep breath, and then posting it. I need to work on that , I know.

              Marildi : “Here again, I do believe you. And yes, from your explanation, I can see how you thought I was being sarcastic – but I didn’t intend to be.”

              Peter : Thanks dear ; your word is enough for me.

              Marildi : “Thanks for pointing it out, though. I’ll try to take my own advice and be more aware!:)

              Peter : You are most welcome.

              Marildi : “I can see too that you ar e very sensitive, so I think Calvin gave you some good advice about the ratio of “seriousness” vs “humor / nonchalance.”

              Peter : Sometimes just TOO sensitive! :) , and yeah, Calvin is very right about that as he usually is.

              Marildi : “Understood. And you’re right – it works both ways. Other than stating too many generalities, you are free to state your objections and grievances too.”

              Peter : Agreed!

              Marildi : “I think that’s much better than to blow up and then quit – and miss an opportunity to learn some thing and/or to help somebody else learn something. (Wow, I”m really in lecture mode, aren’t I? I’m going to stop any minute now!😀 )

              Peter : That’s quite all right ; I love your “lecture mode” indeed! And you are right ; “when in trouble , communicate more”.

              Marildi : “Maybe that is your misconception – Geir doesn’t really act as a moderator. Even a new poster has only his first post “awaiting moderation,” and if Geir can see he’s not a troll or the like, from then on his posts aren’t moderated and go through immediately.”

              Peter : You are right about that ; I had noticed that myself.

              Marildi : “Also, in the exchanges between posters Geir gives them freedom to have their discussions or debates or arguments without the interference of “moderation.”

              Peter : Right again!

              Marildi : “He only enters into an exchange at times as any other poster might do. Of course, as the blog holder he gets treated with a little more respect, because of the appreciation for his hosting of the blog. But, as you’ve noticed, a person can disagree with him or with anybody else without him deleting their posts or even banning them.”

              Peter : That’s true as well.

              Marildi : “In tha t respect, he’s better than any other blog holder I know, and I give him all due credit. His blog is kind of unique and we have a unique opportunity to learn things all manner of things – including about ourselves – and at times to just have some fun.”

              Peter : Yeah, I fully agree with all that. Your description of his blog and him match mine. I just feel that in this particular instance , he got too emotional involved on his replies (not emotional about the subject itself and/or about the arguments being debated, as that’s WELL expected from ANYONE) ; but emotional about ME. To THAT was that I protested against, and it was exactly THAT, that I found non professional, and I stand for my original comment as regards to that.

              Does that means that I should have overreacted to it ? No, it doesn’t. Does that means that I am justified now in playing the “victim” ? No, I am NOT. Does my changing now my attitude and emotion about the event, him, and his blog , means that his attitudes are now justified ? No, they AREN’T. It was wrong from him to had done that ; it was covertly hostile , and even deceitful. I didn’t like it then ; I don’t like it now, and no arguments from him , or from anybody else’s for that matter , are going to change my viewpoint on that. That doesn’t mean , though , that I hold any anger towards him now ; I don’t. But it DOES mean that I never compromise with my own reality about what is wrong or right.

              Marildi : “Okay, end of lecture.😀
              It’s getting late so I’ll just say about your other comments – many thanks for sharing your experiences.”
              “Take care, Marildi”

              Peter :Thanks a lot , Marildi ; I really appreciate you having taken the time to write all these wise comments to me. That was very sweet of you indeed. You are A+++++++ in my book.

              I am quite aware that I’ve been an asshole with you in more occasions that I would like to remember. Scn related activities sometimes get the worse of me out. I am so much different than those mistakes. It is said in many cultures (in mine it is) that after a man have a daughter, he never look at a woman in the same way. When I am an asshole with you , I then feel like shit as if I had hurt my own daughter. And I am really sorry for that. Outside of Scn related activities, I am so much myself. But with Scn I sometimes get these mood changes that people frequently gets when driving , when they act and say things they don’t normally say. Perhaps I should just disconnect from the subject completely. I feel I must reform it for the sake of others , but it take away the best out of me.

              Anyway, thanks for being there. You are an angel.

              Best wishes,
              Peter

            3. Peter, you’ve completely confirmed my faith in humanity!❤

              Seriously, I really admire your responses to all my blunt observations. What you wrote came through as genuine and honest – including with yourself. You were a little hard on Geir, but even there I have to give you credit for speaking your truth. As for past exchanges with me – no worries!

              Right now I'm the one saying I'm glad you are here. You make a nice addition with your own unique beingness.😉

            4. Marildi : “Peter, you’ve completely confirmed my faith in humanity! <3"

              Peter : :-)))

              Marildi : "Seriously, I really admire your responses to all my blunt observations. What you w rote came through as genuine and honest – including with yourself."

              Peter : Thanks, Marildi ; most kind.

              Marildi : "You were a little hard on Geir, but even there I have to give you credit for speaking your truth."

              Peter : Yes , perhaps I was reacting to my OWN previous self-righteous attitude. :-)))

              Marildi : "As for past exchanges with me – no worries!"

              Peter : Thanks! ; you are the best!

              Marildi : "Right now I'm the one saying I'm glad you are here. You make a nice addition with your own unique beingness.😉 "

              Peter : That's very mind and sweet of you , thanks! ; I am glad to be here.

              ML,
              Peter

          3. Peter, there’s no misemotion on my part. It’s all good:-) If you hang around, you will get your “sea legs” as Chris mentioned. No need to get upset or to rage-quit. Take the wise advices from Marildi, and you’ll do fine.

          4. Peter, it is I who need to apologise to you… It was not the word ”Dear” I have objected to since I used that word often and I mean when I do, so please accept my sincere apology.
            captain Bill and LRH are not the good example to show what auditing technology can do.
            Please read this post it is from my blog.

            Miracles …yes.

            Recovery from brain damage, what I really wanted to say with this post that auditing works and can handle any situation.
            I have been in a head an collision in 94, woman has driven into my lane I was going 34 miles an hour she has going about the same speed
            After the collision for nine day I was totally blown out of the MEST, exterior, I felt fantastic nothing bad, had no pain what so ever the collisions impact pushed me out of the MEST and all the connections were severed and because of that I was totally happy, sang all day long, danced inside my skin so to speak and had incredible amount of energy and only had few hours of sleep that period of 9 days, the world was a beautiful place to be in since everything was perfect.
            The tent day when I have reconnected=no longer being exterior to the body it has collapsed and as I passed-went unconscious, taken to the hospital when I have come too, I found my self in Hell=bank=heavy restimulation buried in strong-heavy pain and I could not understand what people were talking about because I have lost all capabilities of understanding, I have heard the sounds the voices but there were no meanings to the spoken words and because of the brain damage I suffered my speech become almost incoherent from that day on and I passed out regularly, I would find my self-laying on the ground saliva was flowing out of my mouth and I could not focus on anything I had no attention span, no memory but continual screaming pain I was experiencing.
            The x-rays showed that left side of the brains become lose, sort of slushy and the connections were severed whatever that meant, I did not understood.
            I could hardly move the body, I only could shuffle dragged my feet and I sobbed, screamed great deal and I have fallen into very deep depression.
            The pain I felt was unbearable and of course I had continual mind boggling headaches, yet I refused drugs to ease the pain.

            I received weekly: 2 acupuncture, 3 chiropractic and 2 massage therapies and about 6 months’ time there was enough improvement and I connected enough to what I have known in the past and I was able to recall some of the questions from the Rudiments and I started to have sessions but I had problem because I could not keep the attention on the items but I persisted till I finished that session: item and it has taken another year till those auditing conditions have improved and I could run a continual session.
            So there were daily sessions but I still had problems with functioning of the body -moving and I could only shuffle my feet dragging them and the incredible tiredness and depression did not ease up, the suffering was too much, unbearable.

            At that time my husband packed up left for another woman and left me penniless, with two dogs, he sold the house and I had to move out into apartment and before I moved I had to put the dogs to sleep which was very painful experience.
            I still had difficulty functioning, the headaches and muscle pains were constant but I had to make a living and support myself, I had to find work. But what can one do when one hardly understand what people say, and cant remember from one minute to the next what was happening?

            I have asked our former cleaning lady to show me how to clean houses professionally and I learned from her and after that I hired myself out to clean houses since that did not required thinking which helped a lot because I haven’t regained the memory of what I have known before and of course I could not learn anything new, but I could do cleaning work which did not required knowledge and slowly I could take my time with the work, it worked but the tiredness and depression was so overwhelming that I every day all I wanted to do is to end the misery and die.. Suicide…that thought was ever present… all I thought I want is to go.. wanted to get out of this condition, the death of the body would be the answer because I could not bear to be in HELL any longer.
            But I was hanging in there on a thin tread because I did not want to leave the body-mind in that state as a loser taking all that with me unhandled.
            I did solo every day but that impact of the car accident-loss of memory, constant heavy pain plus losing my home, the divorce brought an extra amount of heavy stimulation and because of these the sessions did not bring fast enough relief from the overwhelm. Of course had had cognitions, but there was just too much there to handle.
            When 1 ½ year passed after the accident I felt enough life in me and I realized that I missed reading and I started to teach myself to read again, it was not easy because I could read but there was no meaning to the words which I read, I could not comprehend what I was reading but I still made myself to do it as a daily exercise: word by word one or two sentence a day I read and with great effort I made myself to explain the meaning of each word how I understood it, I am speed reader now yet I don’t have the left side brain working, the right side has taken over.
            But now I can compute with the speed of light: at glance.
            Taken me years to confront all what has happened in that accident, divorce and with that the total loss of how I was before that accident;That life was gone.
            I have had over 10 thousand hours in session just to as-is that mass and the most difficult condition was to as-is the constant headaches and the deep depression.:)

            The depression persisted because I missed my earlier life style but the continual solo sessions slowly were erasing all the loses, item by item and finally taken me out of those conditions, and I did not go into agreement with the Doctors: that“””””” I will not be able to move my neck ever again and the spine will collapse in few years and I will be in wheelchair and in total helpless state”””””hehehe.. the good Doc meant : vegetable.:)

            Nothing wrong with my neck or the spine and no depression in my universe on the opposite I am a very happy content spiritual being and the 76 years old body is in total health.
            In sessions I have found my postulate to cause that accident, yet it was other person who ‘’’’caused the accident’’’ and that was established by the police and after all it was she who driven head on into my car: I have found all the postulates for the cause of the accident and for the agony, the pain etc.

            I have immense case gain because out of that accident; I have pulled all that in the order of to confront the worsts part of my existing reality-life and that was Hell itself and I was able to come out as a winner, yes and I know how to confront and as-is MEST and what on incredible adventure I have had so far in this life and I have no regrets.
            THE MAIN COGNITION WAS: I wanted the logical mind, the bank erased [ I made that postulate when I got into scientology]and yes that what has happened but then I have not realized if the bank is erased with one blow what we have learned this life and that includes speaking, thinking, reading, adding 2+2, and body movement , understanding what is going in one’s life and to be able to make the decisions all that will blow will be erased too, I was not ready for such on adventure but I was in it..
            After that I had to build a new life, I had to learn how to function and audit -as-is those loses which were gone because certain thing I never could do again. Example: I can’t repeat-recall what I read in a earlier sentence,. I don’t have a memory. I only have NOW.. this experience., in this moment..
            But on the other hand I gained abilities I never had before… interestingly my IQ is so high it can’t be measured… hehehe.. that alone made my universe unique because I started to “”see”” things around which I never seen before. The IQ test was done, 8hours worth in Seattle, University of Washington

            What I have now is Knowledge which has come from sessions, they are the cognitions and cognitions hold pure form of knowledge since the lies were erased.

            Because the accident has erased immense amount of learned knowledge and what was left behind was ”void” I started to refill this void: by anything I wanted to know I had session on that item and the new understanding: realizations have become mine.

            I never stopped the sessions…And I don’t miss the MEST universe because after all, those considerations which made it existing made me believe it was real and those considerations were only a very small part of the Universal considerations.

            That accident was in 94. Since then the ability to confront and handle any MEST related considerations has increased have become immeasurable in comparisons what it was before, the as-ising is instantaneous now when spotting the lie and cog. is there.
            I do believe that auditing works, anything can be handled in session regardless what is that concept, even the excuses can be audited out why one is not continuing with auditing…
            I also learned from the accident that no matter what ever happens to one.. we can’t blame others, and not much point in that any way. But by taking responsibility what ever happened one can come out as a big time winner.

            PS: since I could not learn-retain read material after the accident and because I needed to earn living I have stayed with cleaning business, I have built it up and it given me an excellent revenue and I cleaned houses for 14 years, worked beside the girls till I have retired age 71 [the body].
            The first 5-6 years were hell because the extreme fatigue I suffered from and the depression I was fighting the suicide thoughts but the daily sessions continued so were the therapy with acupuncture, massage therapy+ chiropractor once a week.
            But I was winning and slowly I built a different life for myself and there was a passion which has become my main daily activity. I dedicated all my free time to continue with Solo sessions..

            The cognitions poured in, and problems the ARCB’s vanished.
            If anyone looking for the easy way out… well, they might find it.. But that way they will never confront those hidden energy masses-considerations which only a heavy impact could bring back to life to re-stimulate.. and trust me we all had those in the track..

            Miracle??? yes… auditing tech works, but has to be used in order to have results.
            Best Elizabeth

            1. Thanks for the apology, Elizabeth, and it is quite all right.

              That’s an incredible and inspirational story indeed ; thanks for sharing it. You have a very strong character and the persistence of a true warrior ; I am very happy that you made it through. You are an example of persistence , faith, endurance, and mastery of self.

              I agree with the wonders of Solo-auditing. I did that myself for quite some time with excellent results, and has no regrets with it. I brought myself as high as the Scn tech allowed me to , excepting the “OT” levels which were never real to me. For me the C.C. (Clearing Course) , OT II and III are an imposed reality , regardless of the many wins (which I validate them ALL) that others might have had with it. I could never brought myself up to accepting anything based on “Faith” or in the Scn god, the E-meter. For me seeing or experiencing is believing. That others had wins with them is no proof of the actual existence of those incidents. A “read” means nothing at all as regards to “validating” the existence of a past event. Only actually EXPERINCING those “memories” again , and other individuals validating having experienced themselves those memories again, would indicate that there is indeed, some truth to it.

              I trained very thoroughly in the theory of those levels (including all of NOTs) , but them decided that I rather not do them. I had this “intuition” , this “calling” (I don’t know how to call it w/out breaking realities) of not doing them. The times that I don’t follow those “callings” , I always get into trouble afterwards. . So I have learned to trust my “instincts”.

              NOTs seemed to me as a going back to DMSMH , where the PC was the “victim” of EVERYTHING , of other determinisms , which is unnatural to me, so I passed on it as well. Not that I disbelieved the existence of “BTs” as stumbling upon “entities” had been a frequent and bothersome experience for me. It still is , but I just close myself to them. I don’t need more complications in my life. Have enough difficulties with the living to have to deal with the dead as well , you know. I am sorry for them , but I think I’ll pass as well , thank you. :-)))

              Anyway , the point is that Scn served me well up to a certain point beyond which others methods are needed to fill the gabs now. So I am researching those methods now while building my own philosophy of life by finding the common denominators that many great philosophies and ancient religions shared. It is a VERY fascinating game indeed.

              Thanks for the comm ; and much success to you , spiritual fighter.

              Best,
              Peter

            2. Thank you Peter.. thank you for sharing your reality with me.
              By using the Tech. I discovered how I have built the Universe, the universe I know, I am aware of: this includes all, not just the connection to the body and living here on this planet. Not only the bothersome sensations-incidents I take into sessions but any subject I am interested in. After all, I been having solo sessions for 42 years and no one can have that much ARCb’s-problems.
              I cant say I have become introvert …not at all…example: I can view any object and see them as holographic image. view this image from every direction, I not only see the outside of on flower but I can see inside how the energy moves, the root system etc.. there are hundreds of abilities regained because of these sessions on different subjects. Another example I have trurely examined-confronted the subject of dementia and Alzheimer’s; forgetting-not remembering, loosing identity, losing body functions, etc..etc.. and I have found the cause on the track and these are not illness to which scientist think will find the cure for but condition -beliefs -considerations, in fact disconnection from ”life” is we know it here on Earth. I have written a whole post on this, and this post is in my blog.
              About BT’s Clusters…. I could write a book on these incredible wonderful wondrous Beings.. And Peter, bad they are not, just because few who have fears of Ghostly Entities well…in fact they have a fear of being self…the true self when not being in the body ‘[ that too is just a consideration too=being inside the body.]
              Ask Marildi what I know of quantum p. she will explain better than I can…:)
              Being introvert is on consideration a belief, on idea and nothing more.
              Best to you E.

            3. Dear Elizabeth ; my apologies for the long comm lag in replying to you.

              You are most welcome.

              I am glad about the abilities you’ve got with your Solo sessions. I wish you more like those.

              Regarding your post at your blog , I’ll take a look at it.

              I understand what you mean about BTs not being bad and agree with that. My experience have been more with entities (spirits, “ghosts” ) not attached to bodies as such. I was referring to those in my post. They are mostly inoffensive, and in a state of heavy confusion. But getting in “communication” with them is not something I seek at the moment as once I open that door , I am afraid that I will never he able to close it. I don’t want to complicate my life anymore that it already is. :-)))

              I am sorry if my previous comments regarding the subject of introversion might have sounded sort of evaluative ; that wasn’t my intention nor I tried to imply that you were. I just wanted to communicate my own experiences regarding going down the track for too many times. In my particular case it tends to be an introverting activity , but it doesn’t necessarily have to be for others. I just wanted to clarify that.

              Take care and much success to you.

              ML,
              Peter

            4. PS…Peter what I have found out: if we can ask a question than we know the answer but the true answer has to be in the form of cognition. Not altered.

            5. Peter I haven’t used the E-meter for 35 -37 years.. yet I have daily session, E-mater is not needed in order to understand -feel energy-mass. This Universe is nothing but energy, we experience this continually.. we are in it. Solidity dont exist.. there is nothing solid in this Universe we just experience as different levels density;vibration which to us more or less stimulating.

            6. Got it. I’ve done hundreds of hours Solo-style w/out the e-meter as well. I was never that convinced that all e-meter lectures as per LRH necessarily mean everything he said they meant. I have a program on stand by to test each and every lecture, including the creation of a series on totally invented “GPM” lines (invented Line Plots) , and test it on others for “read”. Of course , they will not know that they are invented. I’ll make sure not to use any lines with any type of resembling with the C.C. and OT II lines , but will invent a cosmology for others to believe. Will tell them that I am trying to “verify” a very ancient legend of a “lost” book recently found, and will ask for their help to “test” it. Sort of the “Stanley Milgram Experiment” type of thing. Of course, I’ll tell them at the end that it all was a test so as to not leave them with any kind of suggestions.

              Everything will be videotaped including all e-meter reads (with the agreement of the testee, of course and a release form signed). I’ll pay them $50 for 1-2 hours of their time, and will test 15-20 individuals. I’ll then analyze my results , and post it online so anybody can verify it. Then, perhaps we’ll be able to understand more about why the C.C. and OT II lines “read” in the first place. Or it could be even verified that there is indeed something real or factual regarding those levels. Should prove to be a VERY interesting experiment , indeed.

              Take care.

              ML
              Peter

            7. TC: “I’ll then analyze my results…”

              Peter, are you going to analyze gains, and if so what types of gains – and how are you going to measure those?

            8. My emphasis won’t be so much in gains as such , but in testing if those invented GPM lines can “read” once the subject have been influenced (under my suggestions) by my fictional cosmology story , and then “stop” reading upon the repetition of the lines. I will be testing the e-meter as such and not the value of any psychotherapy. The subjects won’t be expecting gains necessarily at this stage of the experiment , but a “verification” of that story. I just want to test a hunch I have.

              Please , feel free to make any suggestions.

              ML
              Peter

            9. Okay, got it. My prediction is that you are going to find that the meter and its reads are valid.😉

            10. :-)))

              Well, if that’s the case, that’s the way I’ll report it. I promise to keep an unbiased and objective view of it all. 😉

            11. “Anyway , the point is that Scn served me well up to a certain point beyond which others methods are needed to fill the gabs now. So I am researching those methods now while building my own philosophy of life …”

              Me too, Peter. I wish us all rich successes to know our heart’s desires.

            12. “Dear Peter”
              The sentence which I put into bracket stayed with me, please understand I don’t write to make wrong but I am offering a different viewpoint on how far Scn. Tech. can take or allows the person to go.
              I agree with the wonders of Solo-auditing. I did that myself for quite some time with excellent results, and has no regrets with it. “”I brought myself as high as the Scn tech allowed me to.””
              From experience I know if we have a question we can find the answer if this would not be the fact discoveries in any field could not be.
              Every person who ever wanted to ‘’know’’ have asked questions, [this I don’t have to tell you] they questioned the subject of their curiosity till they have found the answer which to them was the right answer the truth.
              Scn. Tech. is only different in one aspect, it has a structure which allows the person to go to the heart the core of the matter faster, by repeating the question on the subject over and over, than person can look at similar beliefs- different sides on the same subject, than can look-confront the opposite side and can cover all the minus and plus side-reasons –understanding on that subject and get the right answer.
              We can even ask why we have forgotten that subject, for what reason we can’t recall.
              All the answers are there. Yes, it takes time and determination but we have that too, if not than we can ask what is the reason we don’t have. 
              The only reason this TECH. stops working- because the decision is made that it don’t work.
              BEST!!!!

            13. Got it, Elizabeth ; thanks! And that’s quite all right ; I know that you are not trying to make me wrong. I understand your points.

              Best,
              Peter

        2. “We aren’t going to learn, or help others to do so, if we bail as soon as we think someone is off the rails, even if they really are – maybe we could help them see their error. Or they’ll help us see ours. ;)”

          Our resident peacemaker! Good comment Marildi. Peter may be a little out of his depth and bruised but he’ll be okay and may even learn to like blogging with us once he gets his “sea legs.”

          1. “Peter may be a little out of his depth and bruised but he’ll be okay and may even learn to like blogging with us once he gets his ‘sea legs.’ ”

            Exactly. Good comment yourself!😉

      2. I didn’t see anything personal going on in the exchanges between you and Marildi. You of course are the one who has the experience with her. But I went back looking for this ‘situation’ that Geir supposedly got in the middle of — I don’t see anything “personal” on the face of it. (No need to explain it to me either.) Why should Geir see it that way (as some personal thing)? I doubt he did. Looked to me that he was just responding to posts. I’ve don’t recall Geir ever playing twisted games on this blog.

        I see your certainty. I’ve come to learn that many of my most stable “certainties” were just beliefs and that beliefs don’t really serve when knowledge is the goal. My own inclinations are towards the intellectual but these days I am working towards gaining actual experience. For example OBE — I’ve read all about it, believe it, but haven’t experienced it — so it’s time to experience it. No amount of belief is going to supplant real experience. Similarly for “enlightenment”.

        1. Sorry for the delay in replying to you , Freebeing.I fully agree with your analysis of this incident. Never mind, I was just having one of those days of mine , if you know what I mean. :-)))

          Regarding OBE , that’s been my fascination for the last 12-15 years. It lead me to read EVERYTHING LRH ever wrote on Exteriorization, including every method ever created in Scn to allegedly bring that state about. All SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) like SOP-III , SOP-V , SOP-8 , SOP-8C , SOP-8D , and SOP-0. I was never able to see any Mock-ups (some key step leading to Exteriorization , allegedly) after dozens of hours working on it , and every remedy for the Step V case (the one who allegedly can’t see his Mock-uos) as discussed in the 1st , 2nd , and 3rd ACCs.

          I wasn’ able to experience any OBE neither. There is still one LRH process that I have not tested yet it yet. It allegedly is “fool-proof” , but then, wasn’t everything from LRH according to him ? He created it in 1957. It consist of grabbing your head with both hands and keeping it from going away. Then holding your knees and keeping them from going aways, alternately.

          After I test that for enough hours, I’ll then test other approaches that I am researching from other practices. The reason I got into Scn in the first place was seeking to have OBEs. I wasn’t interested in anything else at the time.

          Anyway , I wish you much success in your path.

          Best,
          Peter

            1. You really want to know that? If I remember correctly you have asked this on the phone and I have given what I know. Or you are asking again to see I might have gained a bit more reality on the subject?

            2. I’d like to hear it again. There’s a study tech datum that the number of times over the materials equals certainty and results.:)

            3. I need to pull up my socks to write all what I know and I am slow writer… first I look at my blog to see if I have posted anything on this.

            4. No hurry. I’m working and watching the blog comments at the same time.

            5. M…. here is one… I have one more

              Last night had a great cognition regarding ANCHOR POINTS how we continually re-establish …re confirm our location.

              This cog. was the outcome of a unusual experience I have had about 10 days back while I was walking I observed a very long freight train passing by: 140 units I have counted and when the train was gone the immediate Terrain to the railway was moving with the house on it and of course the fence moved too and I watched this phenomenon for about 30 seconds at first I thought I was imagining this but the land with the house was just sliding away than the movement slowed down and finally the house and the fence slid back to its original location.

              I am aware of that this Universe is nothing more than energy, and everything we believe in, what the eyes see exists because we believe it exists: therefore things are only solid because we believe that they are solid.

              YES I KNOW…if something falls on my foot it can hurt like hell and the pain is real, hehehe but the reason for the foot being there and the thing falling on it and the pain being real so is the tears in my eye because I BELIEVE IT IS HAPPENING AND IT IS REAL! What we have on this planet, our so called life is nothing more than grand illusion and the collected agreements make it so: solid=permanent!

              The funny part is that we do not know what others feel, what they believe in: how they perceive their own illusion yet we agree that it is real.

              Back to the Anchor Points: I realised

              ….. as we walk, we move about WE CONTINUALLY RE POSITION _FIX and refix OUR POSITION IN THE LANSSCAPE.

              BECAUSE THE EYES see, and “ through our knowingness we ” CONSTANTLY EVALUATE THE DISTANCES BETWEEN OBJECTS related to SELF=THE BODY and this automatic evaluation give the fixed position for self=the body …. and we good old saps we say ”’yes, I am here, and I know this because I have taken these steps to get here…now I am here arrived from that point…and am here now …and moved from that place to over here, standing here or sitting on this stool in the cafe

              WE constantly wedge self- self into these make belief positions regarding: objects-buildings-landmarks with that we GAIN A SOLID POSITION and with that illusion in place we reassure self we are solid: of course we are because we have a location !! Idiots galore hehehe this includes me of course!

              This cognition brings again a major shift in awareness, on understanding how we operate… and of course this stupidity we do by continuously re-anchoring self into the MEST: EXTERIORIZATION IS IMPASSIBLE: how can the Entity go exterior when believes that he is sitting in a armchair-which is by the window, inside the house, in the living room to the opposite of another armchair!

              When I was in the car accident and collision was on the back end of the car the impact was huge jolt that pushed me out of the body= lost all the anchor points around me which I was constantly recreating while driving and I seen the car—the body collapsed over the wheel , the road and other cars from above I also observed whirling energy masses over the terrain at the same time.

              Now I understand what we do how we STAY IN SOLID POSITION!!!

              The constantly created anchor points and with that in place fixing self in position – hold us in the same place and we can’t observe more than what we allow self to see within this space and what we see is what the ‘’eyes’’ see… hehehe and that is not real.

              This cog is good!

            6. M….I have been most interested in this subject therefore activity and I have had hundreds of sessions on this subject over the years. here is one more
              I hope Geir dont mind these posts.
              FREE FLOATING … not being connected, letting go, not within the fixed –stationary unmovable boundaries: being EXTERIOR. I had sessions on LRH’s definitions of what is a out-body experiences “”exteriorization or interiorization””.

              I have had many wins but today I have realised I never looked at before the concepts of ‘’FLOATING or FREE FLOATING’’ and now having session on this concepts and of course other closely related subjects-items I had new understanding of what we do when we decide to let go of being anchored to any objects: which include having a human meat bodies. I have found in these sessions many many reasons why the person sticks to the body and why it is so difficult to let it go: we use illnesses, old age, violence: like hearth attack, heavy stroke, all sort of different accidents like: being shut, committing suicide, overdosing on drugs, we do all sort of things in order to severe the connection and to be able to float freely once more= to get away from it all! hehehe

              Also in session I have found that there are many reasons we carry ‘’weight’’ in reality we don’t carry anything but we gotten our-self attached =got stuck- trapped and imprisoned into heavy –dense stationary subjects; which simply are our own belief [ I looked for the reasons] and one of major reason is to hold us in fixed position: to keep us in location: to be stationary.

              The bodies are born small not much weight to them but we make them grow with that they become more solid and heavier of course and that weight gives steadiness =existence for the being and the supreme illusion of permanency- longevity!!!!!

              In that so called lifetime we collect solid articles and with those we secure self-further into MEST also we go into all sort of agreements with others [we are this or that being] in order to remain stable to remain in one place: to have a permanent surrounding and to be documented recognised- acknowledged that WE ARE HERE and we have a presence: therefore we are alive… we are living… we have continuum and most of all that ”WE ARE”. [that seems very important to believe that we are solid and exist and being part of the MEST.

              We have done immense amount of things on the track because we are spirits and we don’t usually have a body therefor we don’t have a weight consequently we had to invent different means in different lifetimes to stabilize self to remain in position: Example: Life span—conceived-born-living-and ending it; death of the body, with this we have invented “time” having past and deciding that we have future this two consideration alone gives the great booboo believing that there is “continuum..”

              Rolling pictures seeing them one after the other also hold us in position.[ every one of these concepts are implanted stuff, illusions.] another good example is: Anticipation; looking forward to the ‘’future’’ what is yet to come is a very effective -good working anchor.. We use thousands of these anchors to hold us “” in the body” what by now we believe is real and solid therefor to FREEFLOAT once more, to go and “””exteriorise””” at our determination the person needs to remove- as-is all the believes-considerations one has collected why wants to remain within the boundaries whatever those may have been created by each individuals existence in the MEST. The belief of BEING in a SOLID BODY and BEING THE BODY IT SELF IS ONE OF THE MOST PROFOUND –WEIGHTY CONSIDERATIONS WE HAVE ACCEPT AS TRUE and WENT INTO AGREED OTHER IN ORDER TO REMAIN IN STATIONARY POSITION AT ALL TIMES. PS: IMPORTANT: Not being, not existing, not being known, fear of such a conditions makes us hold onto solid beliefs.. Therefor free-floating being exterior permanently outside of the MEST is impassible, longs as anyone has thoughts on or about the MEST U. because those thought-reality-belief will hold that person in place within the boundaries of MEST U.

            7. M..my last.
              Here is my take on being interior or exterior.

              By now I have expressed my own reality-experience what is exteriorization. That is impossible to do because we as Spiritual do not move: only matter shifts.

              We CONSIDER: I am inside the house: with that consideration the person “SEES” inside the house.

              I am outside of the house: the person ‘’SEES” the portion of the house which can be observed with the EYES.

              The Looking Bit, using the EYES is the confusing factor because the being looks at object inside or outside therefore believes the being inside or outside of the house.

              Having the mental picture of the house that picture automatically gives the person all the considerations which the house is made up from.

              When one mention: inside the picture of the inside pups up.. But please understand that picture is not real, it is there because it was considered agreed to that its exist because the ‘’eyes’’ can take the photograph of it. There is a picture is called inside, there a picture called wall, stairs, celling hallway etc.. and the other concept added: Inside wall, inside stairs, outside wall, outside stairs etc..

              The Spiritual can see observe without the use of the optical lenses Holographic pictures.

              As the person erases more and more of the existing pictures which are barriers: seeing them only by that person gotten stuck, since long as they are in place the person cant observe other pictures. So more of them are removed the wider range of pictures can be seen.

              The interesting thing is…. Long as one beliefs he sees inside, only that can be seen. After eraser of this planet all the considerations-agreements going with it, plus when one erases the need to use the eyes to see with. The being will be able to see anything which will be THE NEW REALITIES GAINED, now he can see holographic pictures of anything he wants to.

              All he needs is put his attention on the subject.. and He will view that item.. Full perception and have not moved one inch… Objects moves since they are energy.. but not the viewer.

              Example: view inside the Sun… good one.. when viewing the Sun the Viewer will also have total understanding when the Sun was created how it become as it is now and what will happen how it will end up.. since all matter sooner or later will change shape.

              One can look inside a boulder and see interesting things-pictures and these pictures are not available for the optic lenses to view.
              PS: We are exterior when we live the body.

            8. M……

              Exterior, the Infinite.

              When “I” lose the very last anchor point: that is the last though, the last consideration, the last wall=the last barrier, it is like stepping out of the airplane free floating, yet what one experiences is nothing like that at all since skydiver is not free floating but experiences controlled falling, being pulled down by gravity through thin energy layer toward the Earth. Yet it is the falling through that space gives on illusion of being free, being disconnected from solidity and hovering in space.

              Better explanation would be: on astronaut free floating in space, yes that one can imagine easily.

              As the ”I” the Entity as-is the last though the last sound from the Implanted Universe that action severs the connection to the MEST. BUT WITH THAT LAST ACTION THE “I” TOO WILL DESAPER!! Since the “I” self only exist while is being stuck to energy-masses. BUT NOT IN REALITY.. The ‘SELF’ which vanishes is not the ENTITY IT SELF but the made believe image!

              The real Entity can not vanish can not be as-ised in session, I tried but could not attain such a reality.

              The “I” steps into a different Universe where nothing exists as in MEST=Solidity: but pictures -creation are dimensional holographic, here postulates wishes are not needed or wanted since those concepts express not having.. Here in total harmony, here the “I” do exist this SELF live, have a life in very different reality which know to humans.

              This Universe, this different Universe where one “is” the “awareness” without existing as a body and in that moment one regains the self the Intangible the Infinite.

              One free float, independent of thought, sounds, emotions, free from all old agreements, considerations and the learned believes, finally by severing, as-ising the last anchor to one so called track that point one free floats.

              Yes, here the awareness is “exterior” to the Universes, where is no beginning, where is no end.

            9. E. – that was an awesome series of posts.

              What I get is that the idea of being “out of body” or “exterior” is just that – an idea. It is a CONSIDERATION of being positioned in a particular location different from the location our body is currently in. How it works is that we base our considerations on many pictures relating to being located, or on beliefs that we’ve accumulated – as well as on what the body’s eyes can see. (Btw, I prefer calling them “beliefs” rather than “implants” because, at least for the most part, we “implant” ourselves with these considerations.)

              And this explains remote viewing too – which would be a matter of having the consideration that we are in a particular location – specifically, the place we want to view. Sometimes it’s a matter of considering ourselves to be in both locations, the location of the body as well as the location that is being remote viewed.

              I also resonated with what you said about the “I”. My way of understanding this is that it takes some type of MEST – such as the denser MEST of a human body or the very light MEST of a body that exist in a less dense reality frame – which a being identifies with and thus has the consideration of and creates the “I”. Said a little differently, there has to be some “attachment,” physically or mentally, to energy in some form, even if it is only as light as a concept or thought that is being identified with. So if we are identifying with something, that something is “I”.

              All this means that we can be an individual, a single being, or not – depending on whether or not we are identifying with an energy form. And the energy manifestation that we are calling “I” can be anything from the very light energy pattern of a thought – to a dense physical body. Otherwise, there is only “aware of being aware,” with no notion of “I” involved. In other words, we create the “self” the “I” by identifying with energy to any degree.

              I think all of this was said by LRH too, but you found the truth of it through your auditing experiences. Brava! And thanks – you made it more clear to me than ever.:)

            10. M…. ”I” this ”I” is needed when communicating… But, This Entity here , no longer ”identifies” but is AWARE OF… that means separated from vibrations.
              when identifying-ing occurs, to me that is believing that ”I am”–this or that… I call that identification with mass-of vibration-having on experience like wearing on overcoat or being inside a cocoon. Example : being angry, or love, or sleepy….I am angry, I am in love, I am sleepy… that is saying I am stimulated by the vibration which I labeled etc.. etc.. etc..

            11. as you know I only studied-taken courses on LRH’s stuff which were the must in order to go full OT 7.. What I know are the results of sessions. :)

            12. Yes, I know. Peter should study you as a whole experiment in yourself. You are the proof that LRH did not just “invent” a cosmology for others to believe – because you never received any of the indoctrination. 😀

              Thanks for the enlightening exchange. And have a good night, my dear.:)

            13. “Yes, I know. Peter should study you as a whole experiment in yourself. You are the proof that LRH did not just “invent” a cosmology for others to believe – because you never received any of the indoctrination.😀 ”

              “Thanks for the enlightening exchange. And have a good night, my dear.:)

              Yes, I might as well do that ; Elizabeth is an extraordinary being indeed!

              The problem that I have with cosmological based psychotherapy is not so much the plausibility of the past or present existence of extraterrestrial civilizations , and their possible meddling in human affairs ; I was studying that possibility since I was on high school. My issue with it is the Ad havoc characteristic inherently in it. Too much emphasis is placed on “faith” (the infallibility of the e-meter) , and on the authoritarianism of one single source of information.

              For i.e , the “Clearing Course” and OT II are based on the assumptions , 1) The existence of a method of insidious and totally unsuspected undue influence , called , “The Electronic Implant” where highly advance electronics (and the understanding and command of alleged hitherto discovered energy frequencies) is used to fixate in the mind , patterns of behavior and action. And 2) that we humans have hundreds! of those implants that are making our life a living hell. There are hundreds! on GPM lines and about 20-30 GPM Line Plots (the whole GPM itself) when we combine OT II and the C.C.

              The C.C. and OT II implants were allegedly implanted and/or reinforced (as many of them had allegedly been used before that Inc II period, 75M ago) at INC II of OT III. That’s why one does OT II first ; to run those implants out on ourselves and on the BTs themselves as well , as those implants are earlier on the chain than the “Soul-clustering” that allegedly occurred afterwards , that resulted in the “Body Thetans” . By the way, it was never explained by LRH why is that the “Clear Cog” (when brought about by NED) renders the C.C implants ineffective as you don’t need to do the Clear Alternate Route if you went “Clear” at NED. The C.C. implants are NOT contained in the OT II instructions. The OT II implants are other entirely different ones. But this is another controversial issue as so many others in Scn , to be discussed in a separate post.

              We are talking here of HUNDREDS! of GPM lines (worded “Goals” held together by a principal one ; the “Subject” ) that LRH was magically able to isolate with laser precision ; something that would take an extraordinary memory of whole track incidents. I mean, per the Tech on GPMs from the BC lectures and HCOBs, those goals lines need to be PRECISELY worded to the minutest article or conjunction . It needs to be THAT precise according to GPM Tech. I almost know every BC lecture by heart which “modern” BC students don’t even understand what the hell a GPM is really all about. That would mean that LRH had an almost perfect whole track recall. But this is in contradiction with the fact that original OT VIII was researched in the first place (per the class VIII lectures) to “handle” the reasons for amnesia in the whole track. OT VIII is from the 1968-69 research. The BC was a 1962-66 research , BEFORE that OT VIII research , but LRH was able to “recover” ALL of those hundreds of GPM lines with laser precision ? Can we really buy any of this ? And all based on “reads” ? I am sorry, but that would make us religious people and not science minded individuals. If the argument used is only “Faith” , then it is ok with me as regards to granting beingness to religious beliefs. But please, let’s not put this under the category of competent research , as it isn’t.

              Competent research on this issue would encompass people having ACTUAL recalls of those GPM incidents , where we can cross reference the data from many individuals undergoing such processing. It would encompass individuals , not in any way influenced by others individuals undergoing the same processing , actually recalling similar incidents. Then, and only then , can any light be shed into this.

              The fact that LRH died in the way he died, and was immerse in such HUGE PTPs in during the last 6 years on his mortal life , doesn’t fit with what he allegedly discovered about GPMs , specially Actual GPMs as opposed to Implanted GPMs. He must have at least run a dozen of his Actual GPMs which would cause him (according to his won “research” ) not to be prone to dramatize his “Term-Oppterm” pairs (from his last thousands of lifetimes as 12 GPMs cover a period of thousands if not millions of years) , and thus his obvious hostility against so many groups and his prone to become PTS to them, would have been absent otherwise. Let’s not forget the fact that he was AUDITED (not self-audited) on his GPMs, most of the time by Mary Sue , an EXCELLENT auditor herself. So all of this is contradictory, Marildi , w/out even taking into account that there are several totally backed by evidence instances where LRH lied to us. And once you lie like that , everything one has ever asserted must be taken with EXTREME caution ; with EXTREME caution, indeed!

              It is not that I necessarily disbelieve in whole track cosmologies. I believed in them “psychically intuitive” long before I knew Scn existed. It is just that research only based on “reads” is not research at all. That’s all. So let’s do it the right way this time around ; that’s my proposal. And it will either be true or not , or partly true and partly false. I am ok with either results as long as it is backed up by empirical and reliable data. Seems fair ?

              Best,
              Peter

            14. Thanks for the link , Geir. I took a look at it including watching your VERY interesting interview with Jeffrey on “Surviving Scientology”. Actually, your link only direct to the short 4-11 mins section of the whole interview which is almost an hour long , which is incredible informative and interesting.

              Only the CofS would “hire” (it seems they didn’t pay you ? ) an Internet expert to then TOTALLY ignore his great advises. Who understand these people ? :-)))

              They hire a PR expert to handle the “enemies” of the Church, only they fail to notice that it is THEY themselves their own enemies.

              Regarding this :

              “As a science fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard was well accustomed to painting predictive futures through his books. He presumably had access to countless earlier space civilizations to draw predictions from through his auditing of previous lives. He describes several earlier civilizations in detail. But no Internet.”

              Perhaps you’ll be interested in this quote from HCO PL 25 Nov 1985 , “Computer Series 4 , INCOMM” , OEC Vol 2 page 458. In page 459, section “BACKGROUND” it reads :

              “The power and capabilities of computers are almost unlimited. Unfortunately, the existing state of administration in the society today is so poor that most computers , no matter how fancy their ‘circuitry’, are being wasted. Computers end up being used only for counting up how much tax someone has to pay or predicting how many auto accidents will occur next year.”

              “But I’ll let you in on a little-Known fact. On the track , real computers (not Earth’s current home or business entertainment toys) have successfully administered whole planets. They actually were able to do work. They were not merely consoles and recorders that a person punched data into so that they would spit the data back at him.”

              “The point here is that this planet’s current popular concept of how to use a computer would make a baby laugh. It’s a bit like using a nuclear reactor to boil water, which is also being done on this planet at this time.”

              And on the section titled “FUTURE” on that same HCO PL , on page 460 , it reads :

              “But this is going to change. Today’s current stone-age computers will be updated with ‘new’ computer technology. (Sounds odd, but that’s it. ) The use of one will become real , for blood , doing work and getting work done use , which this planet has never seen (though seen on other planets).”

              As you can see, Geir ; LRH might have not described the Internet as such , but it should be clear from the above quotes that he “knew” of “Advance whole track computing” even “advance” enough to “handle an entire planet” !!! It seems to me that predicting the Internet should not have been that difficult for him. It is my take that his cultic fixation in Scn being perfection in itself and man’s only chance for spiritual salvation , just blinded him utterly to future realities regarding Scn. That and the fact that he might have been inadvertently putting ethics in on himself , and that’s why his last 6 years were a total mess.

              Anyway, I want wanted to let you in on my views on it.

              Best,
              Peter

              P.S. I am intrigue as to why you oppose the subjects of “Patents”. Don’t you think that if one design a scientific device , for i.e. , after a lot of hard work and research , that one is entitled then to the monetary benefits of patenting it ? If not, then there is no real incentives to engage in scientific research. Patenting the discovered knowledge as such , I don’t approve of as knowledge should be an universal commodity. But specific devices built using that discovered knowledge, and more so if that information was discovered by oneself , should be permitted to be patented. Anyway , expand on your views on that please if you still have them.

            15. In 1985, when LRH wrote this, the Internet was already many years mature – he actually didn’t predict anything. He was still talking about Administring a whole planet – and nothing about the freedom of communication… the very freedom that would eventually shed light on his weirder sides and beome the downfall of his church.

              As for why patents and copyrights should be abolished – I urge you to read this: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

            16. “In 1985, when LRH wrote this, the Internet was already many years mature – he actually didn’t predict anything.”

              Peter : Yes, I know the Internet was already on its way , and that LRH didn’t predict it as such (at least in writing) . I was merely pointing out to the fact that he did “knew” whole track “advance” computing systems and therefore, it should have been easy for him to predict the Internet as for a system to handle a “whole planet” must be interlinked at many, many points with some kind of interconnected system , which will not take a genius to extrapolate it to a globally publicly interconnected network system.

              My point was that he could have predicted it very easily, but didn’t (or might actually done so, we don’t know) , or did and didn’t care as he really never saw any problem with Scn institutionally. I don’t think that he saw himself as a plagiarist and/or a false scientific claims disseminator, and thus felt no need to either protect his reputation or that of his works. You are assuming that he was sort of in this Missed withhold about it all , and therefore, needed to be careful with globally shared information. My take is that he wasn’t. That’s why I said that he might have been inadvertently putting in ethics on himself in the last decade of his mortal life.

              “He was still talking about Administering a whole planet – and nothing about the freedom of communication… the very freedom that would eventually shed light on his weirder sides and become the downfall of his church.”

              Peter : Well, he should have extrapoled it all quite easiky. He surely had enough intellect for that. The fact that he didn’t mention it , can’t necessarily be interpreted as he didn’t. Remember, most cult leaders honestly think that they are right about all of their assertions.

              “As for why patents and copyrights should be abolished – I urge you to read this: htt p://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm”

              Peter : Thanks for the link. I’ll study it in detail and get back to you if you are interested in discussing that particular subject any further. I don’t want to force a discussion you might no longer be interested in.

            17. TC: “Too much emphasis is placed on ‘faith’ (the infallibility of the e-meter)…”

              I don’t think that’s true, Peter – although it has been asserted by many critics. It has probably become an “everybody knows” among them, if I’m right that it has been repeated enough to have that effect.

              Actually, all the repetition might have caused critics (some of them) to essentially be brainwashed – which is ironic, since brainwashing is another accusation of theirs about Scientology. I’m not saying this happened to you on the subject of meters or anything else, but I imagine it has happened to many critics – and in fact to all of us at times, on a variety of subjects.

              In any case, I think you are open-minded enough, when deciding on your premises and hypotheses, to take into consideration the opinions and firsthand experience of veteran auditors – who I am certain would say that the meter is an invaluable detector of charge and where exactly it lies. But they would never say the meter is “infallible” – that supposed claim is apparently the critics’ way of trying to make nothing of it.

              Ron himself never said the meter was infallible. In fact, he said a read only means the meter showed a read – and now the auditor has to determine what it read on. And one possibility is that it was a “false read” – which, when it occurs, can easily be handled as well.

              As for implants, I think virtually any experienced auditor will tell you that they are very real – based on what is known, from many case histories, about the way real incidents respond as opposed to the imaginary, and on what they (auditors) personally have observed over the course of many, many delivered sessions.

              I myself had a pc on my NED Auditor Course, who was rather green and quite amazed when an implant incident came up. The session had started to bog and, as per the tech, I got out a repair list – which read on “invisible?” When that question was directed to the pc, he suddenly got the picture of a screen between him and the implanter. After that, it didn’t take long to get a BD F/N VGI’s and the other end phenomena.

              Also, if you go over to the IST (Independent Spiritual Technology) forum, you can read about many personal experiences running implants, by doing a site search on “implant.” You might have to sign up again if you signed up as a member in the past and haven’t been active recently.

              Over to you, Pete.:)

            18. Marildi : “I don’t think that’s true, Peter – although it has been asserted b y many critics. It has probably become an “everybody knows” among them, if I’m right that it has been repeated enough to have that effect.”

              Marildi : “Actually, all the repetition might have caused critics (some of them) to essentially be brainwashed – which is ironic, since brain washing is another accusation of theirs about Scientology. I’m not saying this happened to you on the subject of meters or anything else, but I imagine it has happened to many critics – and in fact to all of us at times, on a variety of subjects.”

              Peter : Nice try , clever girl , but not good enough. 😉

              In the first place, I am a totally trained “critic” of Scn/LRH. By totally trained I meant that I’ve read and put into successful practice most of Scn , totally self-taught (most of it at least) , during the last 12-15 years out of the 30 years that I’ve been related to Scn. I decided that I had had enough with incompetent Sups (I wish I would have known you back then ; my life would have been so much easier ) , with their constant misguided interruptions of a totally F/Ning student, and their robotic interpretation of the Tech. So I basically decided to sent them all to go fuck themselves (excuse my language, we Hispanic need to wash our big mouth with Clorox) , and engaged into this big study of the Tech in my own but from a totally research viewpoint. I , being a word clearing junkie , studied it all with thoroughness , while connecting all dots. I’ve probably read the same issue 3-5x , and many of them as many as 10x. I cross referenced everything so that I could relate each piece of the Tech with all others in a chronological sequence of development and meaning.

              I know every HCOB , what it means , and where to exactly find it. I am not telling you this to either impress you , or to infer that I am more knowledgeable than you or anybody else here regarding the Tech , or that I am an “authority” in Scn related matters , or to even brag about my knowledge – though I do brag many times😉 I am only telling you this so as to establish some background so that we don’t lose time in the debate/discussion in assuming things about others ; which I am not saying that you are necessarily doing neither. But I do have to keep in mind correct positioning , if you know what I mean😉. (you see ? I am learning from you to express myself more politely. It seems that we men do need women to keep ourselves in check) 😉

              Marildi : “In any case, I think you are open-minded enough, when deciding on your premises and hypotheses, to take into consideration the opinions and firsthand experience of veteran auditors –who I am certain would say that the meter is an invaluable detector of charge and where exactly it lies.”

              Peter : I do take their opinions and considerations in mind ; very frequently indeed. Most of my friends are practicing highly trained auditors. I’ll let you in on something. About 3 years ago I decided to go into the Net and read EVERYTHING about the Independent Field ; about every key player , every blog and site in existence , both pro and anti LRH/Scn. So I compiled every source of information that I could possibly find ,studied all of them , including reading almost every post of every poster. It took me almost two years to do all that. I listened/watched to every lecture or video from Mary and Frankie Freeman , Anita and Les Warren , David Mayo , Pierre Ethier , Otto Roos , and all those LRH personally trained class VIIIs and beyond.

              I became good friend with a few highly trained auditors including one (who actually is the step father of my dear daughter) who is a veteran class VIII , class IX C/S , AO Review auditor and C/S , and class XII from the days of the Apollo. He C/Ses for a lot of Solo_NOTs auditors in the Independent Field. We’ve have many long and interesting discussions about the Tech , and so far he has not found any Tech point that I have either misunderstood as written by LRH , or that I am unfamiliar with.

              Again , I tell you this not to brag or impress , or anything like that. But a proper starting point is needed to keep the arguments properly directed. I DO have many comm lines with many highly trained veteran Scientology practitioners , and I HAVE used such comm lines in lots of occasions.

              Marildi : “But they would never say the meter is “infallible” – that supposed claim is apparently the critics’ way of trying to make nothing of it.”

              Peter : I never implied that the e-meter was considered infallible by them in a sense like “they (the e-meters) are always right”. Neither I listen to critics , Marildi ; you are assuming that I do. If you were to personally know me , you would understand how an individual like me seldom listen to any “authorities’. In fact , I am a pain in the ass as regards to that. Most of my friends feel that I am just too independent in my thoughts. Forget about critics ; they never interested me. Why do you think that it took me 3 whole years in finally deciding about LRH/Scn ? Because I never took any of the critic’s assertions as true.

              Marildi : “Ron himself never said the meter was infallible. In fact, he said a read only means the meter showed a read – and now the auditor has to determine what it read on. And one possibility is t hat it was a “false read” – which, when it occurs, can easily be handled as well.”

              Peter : I know very well everything LRH uttered about the e-meter ; remember , I was (am still) a LRH junkie. But he DID depended on reads for many of his research. I am quite familiar with all posts from Alan Walters , Otto Roos on the IVY magazine (International Viewpoints Magazine) , and many others who were there with LRH researching the Tech at the original BC and on the Apollo with the first class VIII course and the research into psychosis that lead to Exp Dns and the Ls RDs.

              I have exchanged comms with some of them. LRH DID used reads to guide himself into deciding if something was right/true or not regardless of any actual incidents being actually recalled. It was mostly about reads , believe me. Ask any of them if you want. Alan is already dead , but some of them are still alive. Otto is and Mayo is as well , though he is difficult to reach because of the gag order. And if one guided a “research” mostly based on reads and no actual recalls , I am sorry but that only result in ad hoc type of hypothesis to “explain” the reads.

              I know that an auditor is supposed to determine in what the e-meter read on , and to not just robotically accept any reads. But one is not ascertaining what the e-meter read on , but only what the PC HIMSELF had reality about what was the read about. Those are two different things. In my personal case , many things that “read” and even F/Ned as in BD F/N items from L&N , were things that I later found out that my reality on them changed with time , and if the items would have been assessed in PT , I would have totally different reasons for its reading , and they would “F/N” based on totally different cognitions.

              A read means nothing beyond what your own reality on something is. But that can’t be interpreted as meaning necessarily that such a “reality” is an actuality. A reality and an actuality are not necessarily the same thing. But in research we look for actualities and not for realities. An actuality in cosmology based psychotherapy , can’t just be determined by reads only. It needs to be backed up by actual recalls from many , many different individuals , and cross referencing all data so acquired to ascertain similarities , and establish patterns.

              Marildi : “As for implants, I think virtually any experienced auditor will tell you that they are very real – based on what is known, from many case histories, about the way real incidents respond as opposed to the imaginary, and on what they (auditors) personally have observed over the course of many, many delivered sessions.”

              Peter : I never implied that implants were an unreality. I only asserted that finding hundreds and hundreds of alleged GPM lines (worded goals) to the most exact wording of them would take an extraordinary memory of the whole track , and per the data that we have about LRH from those same veterans auditors that worked for and WITH LRH like Alan Walter , LRH didn’t have such an ability. Let’s assume he had for the sake of discussion. In the class 8 tapes , he talks about the need of recovering whole track recall and how the handling of the reasons for amnesia on the whole track are a key element in achieving Total Freedom.

              He implied that he DIDN’T have such a recall himself , and that he was researching original OT VIII to bring about such an ability. This was 1968-69. The BC was 1962-66. By reductio ad absurdum , if he was seeking to recover that ability in 1968-69 , it means he didn’t have it in the early ’60s neither. So all the GPM lines were based on reads as there is absolutely no report online or from those auditors that worked directly with LRH , where any PC was found to have such a recall of those implants themselves. If they were based on reads , as all evidence points out they were , then the e-meter , for all practical purposes was considered as infallible by LRH , don’t you think ?

              Marildi : “I myself had a pc on my NED Auditor Course, who was rather green and quite amazed when an implant incident came up. T he session had started to bog and, as per the tech, I got out a repair list – which read on “invisible?” When that question was directed to the pc, he suddenly got the picture of a screen between him and the implanter. After that, it didn’t take long to g et a BD F/N VGI’s and the other end phenomena.”

              Peter : And I believe you. As I said before , I never stated that implants don’t necessarily exist. I believe psychically intuitive that they do. But that some PCs here and there in a totally sporadic way recalled some kind of implant doesn’t in any way refute or inval any of my arguments.

              Marildi : “Also, if you go over to the IST (Independent Spiritual Technology) forum, you can read about many personal experiences running implants, by doing a site search on “implant.” You might have to sign up again if you signed up as a member in the past and haven’t been active recently.”

              Peter : Yes , I’ve been there before. I like reading IST. I like it a lot more than I like NOTs per LRH.

              Over to you, Pete.:)

              Thanks ! Now over to you.

              Peter

            19. Peter, thanks very much for all the info – I see better where you’re coming from. And I’m glad that you seem able to duplicate the Venusian point of view. Not too many Martians do.😉

              Okay, I’ve boiled your post down to this part of of it as the central issue:

              TC: “LRH DID use reads to guide himself into deciding if something was right/true or not regardless of any actual incidents being actually recalled. It was mostly about reads, believe me.”

              Well, I’ve seen data that is very different from what you’ve seen. As an example, the following excerpt is from the writings of a poster on the IST forum who calls himself “Underdog.” He gives a brief account of LRH’s research methods with regard to the Clearing Course. I’ve seen posts on other websites too that describe LRH’s research as having been much more than “determined by reads only” (whatever that would mean), but this was the only post I could easily locate to quote for you. Note that what he calls the “Student” in this context is the person auditing the Clearing List. I think you’ll find this history of the development of that piece of tech to be much more than “reads only.”

              “…The Clearing List is the only known way to discover these Prime Incidents.The Wordings were not discovered by just remembering further and further ago in some different way. Nor were they discovered by some logical arrangement of Duality pairs. Rather a specific technique called ‘Listing and Nulling’ was designed in the 1960s to allow a special team of Scientologists to discover the fundamental desires, or urges hidden at the core of the Mind. These desires were the same ‘person to person’ within the research group and later confirmed among over two thousand parishioners.

              “The Clearing List is these desires and urges in exact sequence, oldest first!

              “Long ago the Student acted upon these desires and urges. When everything went well it was a ‘well done’, no trauma memory. When failure occurred a ‘Prime Incident memory’ was thus created. These Prime Incidents could contain anything: pain, emotion, evil thoughts, and so on. Later similar memories affixed themselves to these Prime Incidents thus shielding them. Prime Incidents are foundational to the Student’s Mind as they are tied directly to the Clearing List. The only known way to reveal them is use of this List…”

              “I labored for many months on how to present this without the vast technical language unique to Scientology. So much had been written about this by L. Ron Hubbard as the research progressed in the 1960s…”

            20. Hi Marildi ,

              I just saw your reply to me. I just wanted to let you know that I’ll reply to it some time during tomorrow. For me it is already 4am [ what time zone are you in ? , are you a “late shifter” like me ? :) ] , and I am going to try to sleep now. Take care , work less and enjoy more. Just kidding.:)

              Best ,
              Peter

            21. Marildi : “Peter, thanks very much for all the info – I see better where you’re coming from.”

              Peter : You are most welcome, and I am glad you do!

              Marildi : “And I’m glad that you seem able to duplicate the Venusian point of view. Not too many Martians do.😉

              Peter : Thanks! , and yes , unfortunately not to many do.:-) Having a daughter prompted me to decide to understand “Venusians” as much as I could, if that is even possible! :-))) I am just joking.

              Marildi : “Okay, I’ve boiled your post down to this part of of it as the central issue:

              TC: “LRH DID use reads to guide himself into deciding if something was right/true or not regardless of any actual incidents be ing actually recalled. It was mostly about reads, believe me.”

              Peter : Yeah , you got it right ; that’s was and is my central point.

              Marildi : “Well, I’ve seen data that is very different from what you’ve seen . As an example, the following excerpt is from the writings of a poster on the IST forum who calls himself “Underdog.”

              Peter : Ok, I’ll play along. Just remember that that’s just one single account , and “seen data” is plural. :)

              Marildi : “He give s a brief account of LRH’s research methods with regard to the Clearing Course. I’ve seen posts on other websites too that describe LRH’s research as having been much more than “determined by reads only” (whatever that would mean), but this was the only post I could easily locate to quote for you.”

              Peter : Then you need to do better than that, I am afraid , and do locate those “other” posts for me. An “Underdog” just doesn’t cut it , Marildi ; you should know that. “Underdog” ? The ones that were really there almost always posted their real names and no silly pen names. They feel no need to “hide” from anything. David Mayo didn’t ; Otto Roos didn’t ; Alan Walters didn’t ; and so many others didn’t as well .Those feel as real people who were there. “Underdog” ? I had never heard of him, and I went around almost every Scn related blog. But let’s play.

              Marildi : “Note that what he calls the “Student” in this context is the person auditing the Clearing List. I think you’ll find this history of the development of that piece of tech to be much more than “reads only.” ”

              Peter : Let’s see about this “history” from this “Underdog”.

              Underdog : “…The Clearing List is the only known way to discover these Prime Incidents.”

              Peter : First of all , there wasn’t such a thing called “The Clearing List” , Marildi. I have in my possession most of the confidential HCOBs on the BC period where the Clearing Course was researched and created. And I don’t recall LRH ever calling it a “Clearing List” as such but things like “Implanted GPMs” , “Line Plots” “Goals List” , etc. So that’s your first outpoint right there. Let’s continue , shall we ?

              Underdog : “The Wordings were not discovered by just remembering further and further ago in some different way. Nor were they discovered by some logical arrangement of Duality pairs.”

              Peter : “Duality pairs” ? Again, another out-point right there. LRH never called anything “Duality Pairs” ever. He used words like “Pair of RIs” throughout the BC lectures ; “Term-Oppterm lists” ; “Reliable Items” (RIs) ; etc. How can an “auditor” who was allegedly “there” at SH during the BC research use such words as “Duality Pairs” ? That’s totally inconsistent with Scn jargon and the jargon of Saint Hillers. But let’s continue, shall we ?

              Underdog : “Rather a specific technique called ‘Listing and Nulling’ was designed in the 1960s to allow a special team of Scientologists to discover the fundamental desires, or urges hidden at the core of the Mind.”

              Peter : In no known HCOB from the era (even the confidential ones) , and in no BC lecture did LRH ever mentioned any such thing as “using” L&N to “locate hidden impulses”. Not even in LRH’s psychosis research and C/Ses – that lead to Exp DNs and the Ls RDs (which are mostly based on L&N procedures) – did LRH ever mentioned something like that. Not only that, but L&N as such -even though it did existed in some basic form in the BC , which was used to find the correct Goal – was codified and fully understood at the original class 8 course. That’s why so many PCs got their cases so messed up at Actual GPMs processing. Next .

              Underdog : “These desires were the same ‘person to person’ within the research group and later confirmed among over two thousand parishioners.”

              Peter : Where exactly he got that “2,000 parishioners” from ? According to Alan Walters , who was ACTUALLY there as a research auditor , and who extensively talked about the research in the BC era in his hundreds of posts at ESMB (which I happen to have ALL of them in pdf form) , there were never that many PCs. It was all done in a rush always on a “enough as needed basis” which usually weren’t that many. LRH was almost daily or weekly coming up with new processes or new modifications. Obviously, that could have only taken no more that a few dozens of PCs at the most, being generous in my numbers.

              Underdog : ” “The Clearing List is these desires and urges in exact sequence, oldest first! ”

              Peter : ????????? That’s all that assertion is worthy of.:)

              Underdog : “Long ago the Student acted upon these desires and urges. When everything went well it was a ‘well done’, no trauma memory. When failure occurred a ‘Prime Incident memory’ was thus created.”

              Peter : “Prime Incident Memory” ? ; “Trauma Memory” ? What kind of a BC student (which being one is the ONLY way to have any inside research inf at all) use such terms ? LRH never ever used such terms. Flunk! You are a Flag trained Course Sup, and a damn smart individual. But you fell for this BS , and failed to notice the inconsistencies. That’s a flunk. Lose the metaphysical stuff when dealing with Scn. They don’t mix well ; you should know that.

              Underdog : ” These Prime Incidents could contain anything: pain, emotion, evil thoughts, and so on. Later similar memories affixed themselves to these Prime Incidents thus shielding them.”

              Peter : God! Marildi ; I thought that you had forgiven me for being an asshole with you in the past. Why are you torturing me now ? What have I done to you now ? :-)))
              Please, please, I beg you ; no more “Underdogs” dear. :-))) Yes, he is “under the dog” , all right. :)

              Underdog : “Prime Incidents are foundational to the Student’s Mind as they are tied directly to the Clearing List. The only known way to reveal them is use of this List…”

              Peter : Please, please, no more torture Underdog ; I promise to be good and control my “foundational mind” and stop dramatizing my “Prime incidents”.

              Underdog : “I labored for many months on how to present this without the vast technical language unique to Scientology. ”

              Peter : Oh well , that explains it all then ; thank you “Underdog” ; I feel so much better now. And the fact that it “took” you that many months to say NOTHING at all for all practical purposes, makes me want to cry as well, for so much kindness! :-((((

              Underdog : “So much had been written about this by L. Ron Hubbard as the research progressed in the 1960s…”

              Peter : I am sorry , what was your name again ? Under…. what ? Must be my “fundational mind” reactivating my “Prime Incidents” creating a “Fundational Amnesia” in my “Prime Memory”. Now, I get it.

              And I bet you thought that I didn’t have sense of humor, ah Marildi ? Now , when can we take up again the SERIOUS arguments about this ? Ready when you are. I am being sarcastic dear, but not to you, only to “Underdoggy”. :-)))

              You can do so much better than that when you are not attempting to defend LRH/Scn. But when you you are, you miss seeing the inconsistencies , just as I missed mine when I just didn’t want Scn to be a “Religion” , and degrade more a word that so many cults had already degraded. But my “wanting it not to be a religion” didn’t Not-is the fact that it is , and that apparently all religions has cult aspects inherently in them. And thus I collided with cognitive dissonances in my own thinking. Just a thought , dear. :)

              Peter

            22. Peter, first, sorry for the delay in replying – very busy these days. But here we go.

              TC: “Then you need to do better than that, I am afraid , and do locate those ‘other’ posts for me.”

              Better than that? I don’t recall that you locating for me even one single post that backed up the radical opinion you stated here:

              “LRH DID use reads to guide himself into deciding if something was right/true or not regardless of any actual incidents being actually recalled. It was mostly about reads, believe me.”

              At least I quoted one of the sources I’ve seen that indicated LRH did much more than “mostly” base his work on reads, and you need to do the same for me. But please don’t give me some long article(s) to read. Just quote something that directly supports what you wrote in the above statement.

              TC: “First of all, there wasn’t such a thing called ‘The Clearing List’…’Duality Pairs’? That’s totally inconsistent with Scn jargon and the jargon of Saint Hillers. But let’s continue, shall we?”

              How ’bout let’s be a little less rote and little more conceptual – shall we?😛 And besides, in that quote of Underdog, he even stated that he had “labored for many months on how to present this without the vast technical language unique to Scientology.” His point is that he doesn’t want only former Scientologists to be able to use the methods he has developed – which are based on the tech but are intended as an improvement of it. I thought that would be right up your alley…

              TC: “I had never heard of him, and I went around almost every Scn related blog. But let’s play.”

              Okay, you little squirt😀 let’s play I guess you must have missed the early days, before your time, when Underdog was apparently active on the site alt.religion.scientology (see WKP) – which started up in 1991 and was very active in its time, from what I’ve heard. Underdog posts under the same handle as he did then, so I’m sure all those pioneer protesters know him. Here’s another quote from one of his papers that I downloaded from the IST forum:

              “We started using false names during the early days of the internet Scientology discussion groups to protect our identity. Almost everyone who wished to post a comment critical of the Church or the technology sought concealment from the vindictive nature of the new Church executives. Almost all in the early discussion groups were expert Scientologists of twenty and thirty years of service.”

              Underdog : “The Clearing List is these desires and urges in exact sequence, oldest first!”

              Peter : “????????? That’s all that assertion is worthy of.:)

              It apparently did “clear” people to a far greater extent than NED does, judging by the posts that Dan Koon and others have written about their experiences on the Clearing Course. I get that it really handles the tiger – a huge chunk of the bank.

              With NED, on the other hand, LRH discovered that a pc rather quickly went Clear in the sense that he became cause over his own reactive mind, and that continuing to run him on engrams would have been detrimental to him. Furthermore, LRH always wanted to keep pcs moving forward to the OT levels as soon as they were capable of it, because he considered this to be the fastest way to get a pc to full OT where he would be at cause overall. And yes, I know that full OT never occurred, but it doesn’t mean that LRH didn’t have that goal. So let’s not don’t go off onto another subject now – known as a Red Herring. Let’s keep the discussion manageable.

              Peter: “Where exactly he got that ‘2,000 parishioners’ from? According to Alan Walters , who was ACTUALLY there as a research auditor , and who extensively talked about the research in the BC era in his hundreds of posts at ESMB (which I happen to have ALL of them in pdf form) , there were never that many PCs.”

              What I got was that the figure 2,000 was the accumulated number of parishioners who had done the Clearing Course over the period of time when it was being done by most pcs.

              TC: “You can do so much better than that when you are not attempting to defend LRH/Scn.”

              And you can do so much better than mainly being sarcastic – regardless of the humor.😛

              So leave out all that, and the Logical Fallacies too – such as Appeal to Ridicule😛 – and just stick to supporting your assertions. Let’s test your assumptions about me by making it more of a straight discussion than poking fun. Shall we?😀

            23. Marildi : “Peter, first, sorry for the delay in replying – very busy these days. But here we go.”

              Peter : That’s quite all right ; I understand.

              Marildi : “Better than that? I don’t recall that you locating for me even one single post that backed up the radical opinion you stated here:

              TC ; “LRH DID use reads to guide himself into deciding if something was right/true or not regardless of any actual incidents being actually recalled. It was mostly about reads, believe me.”

              Marildi : “At least I quoted one of the sources I’ve seen that indicated LRH did much more than “mostly” base his work on reads, and you need to do the same for me. But please don’t give me some long article(s) to read. Just quote something that directly supports what you wrote in the above statement.”

              Peter : Nice try again ; but not good enough , I am afraid. In the first place your “quote” doesn’t say absolutely anything about LRH using actual recalls of anything. In the 2nd place , I need no such quotes as no datum as to LRH ever having used actual recalls for research as ever appeared at ANY forum. So it is YOU , that has to prove otherwise , not me. Better yet , let’s quote some of it again :

              Begin quote : ““…The Clearing List is the only known way to discover these Prime Incidents .The Wordings were not discovered by just remembering further and further ago in some different way. Nor were they discovered by some logical arrangement of Duality pairs. Rather a specific technique called ‘Listing and Nulling’ was designed in the 1960s to allow a special team of Scientologists to discover the fundamental desires, or urges hidden at the core of the Mind. These desires were the same ‘person to person’ within the research group and later confirmed among over two thousand parishioners.” End of quote.

              Peter : It clearly says “Rather a specific technique called ‘Listing and Nulling’……” . L&N is based on READS , Marildi. One have a question , the PC list , one assess and find a BD F/N item ; that’s IT. Please , note that it doesn’t say absolutely anything about recalls as such. And just so you know – which apparently you a very unfamiliar with – the laws of L&N were not fully codified and understood until the original class 8 course , which happened in 1968 , not in 1965-66 when the Clearing Course was researched. HCOB 1 AUG 68, THE LAWS OF LISTING AND NULLING. Also you can find more data on that on lecture #9 of the Class 8 course , with the same title. So , bottom line , your “quote” doesn’t even support your argument to begin with , besides coming from a totally unknown terminal who call himself “Underdog”. You want quotes from ACTUAL terminals who WERE there ? Let’s play then , shall we ? This quote is from Alan Walters from a thread at ESMB forum :

              Begin quote : ” Thread 109: Making sense of the madness you have escaped from! Post #1 20070113-1846 Making sense of the madness you have escaped from!

              “One of the hardest things to do for an ex-scientologist or for that matter anyone who has escaped any cult, is to arrive and stay in present-time. It took me 17 years to arrive stably in PT. I am still undoing the subtle enslavements. In many ways I was lucky as I came into Scio in an era that questioned everything. I also compartment my thinking into three basic areas. ”

              “1. What could be proven as a fact. Good indicators. Life going easier. Increased life skills. Wins. More abilities. Etc.”

              “2. What was just speculation or could not be proven as a fact. Past lives. Xenu. OT III incident. Implants. Trains on Venus. Etc.” End of quote.

              Please , read #2 well . If Alan is saying , “What was just speculations or could not be proven as a fact….” , it means that it couldn’t have been based on a similarity of hundreds of recalls ; otherwise , it doesn’t make sense saying that. Now , I don’t know if you know this datum , but Alan Walters was one of the principal research auditors of the BC era , and even of the class 8 course era. Just search all his posts at ESMB (as I did ; I do my homework , you know) , and see it for yourself. Also read all issues (As I did) of the Ivy magazine where many of those old timers original BC auditors (most of them research auditors at the time) posted articles. We are talking of individuals like Otto Roos , David Mayo , Mike Goldstein , Gordon Bell , Jack Horner , Richard Steeves , Charles Berner , Ray Kemp , Irene Mumford (Dianasis) , Bob Ross , Kenneth Urquhart , Thok Sondergaard , Terry E. Scott , Mark Jones , Robert Ducharme , etc, etc. These guys and gals were there , and many of them researched and created their own therapies like Danasis , Idenics , TROM , Knowledism , etc.

              I have read all issues of Ivy , and there is not even ONE single account from any of those individuals as to ANY recalls ever been part of the research. I mean , don’t you think that at least some mention of it would have occurred , and more so with so many criticisms towards LRH occurring at the time ? Most of these individuals held a high ARC for LRH in spite of his errors of judgment. Not ONE single time ,one of the principal research auditors , Alan Walter , ever uttered anything about any recalls. As I said ,I’ve read ALL his posts at ESMB and at Alt Religion as well. Check this next quote :

              Alan Walters : ” Dianne Henderson was the only person out of 100,000’s of people who came through my centers over the years – that ran the OT III incident in her early Dianetic sessions….she had no way of knowing the material beforehand.” Alan Walters in ESMB.

              When Alan asked her if she had read the story before , she said “no” , but this happened around 1972 , so we can’t be sure she really didn’t. But my point is , that Alan is saying than in “100,000’s” of PCs , he never saw anybody ran the OT III materials Dianetically which means actually RECALLING it. See this next quote :

              Alan Walters” In Las Palmas we were openly processing on OT1 and OT2. Hubbard would take us on tours and describe how the scenery in Grand Canaria, the street, the people, the clothes, everything was exactly like it was 75 million years ago when the incident happened. You know about the local church and “Inc 1”. After the first news of the mission to St Hill came back, Hubbard burst into tears. I remember him saying “Damn it, it looks like we are back in the org business again”. We had been piloting the ethics conditions (see the thread). Our handling of MEST and our action levels were so high that we were turning on all kinds of abilities. We viewed the “Inc 2” story as being exactly that, – a story. When he told us that we were all the effect of it, we were somewhat derisive. That is why he introduced the bit about the Loyal Officers. There were some who obviously missed the implant – it was those who were away at the time of “Inc 2” and did not receive the implant. Quite a few of the crew bought into the whole story, the real believers at least. The rest of us were happy with the loyal officer thing. It was good positioning. Hubbard, in his drugged state was upset by this as all of a sudden, he no longer held a perceived “higher position” to the rest of us. He decided to form the Sea Organization to oversee Scn globally. He came up with the fanciful idea of a billion year contract. This stemmed from the original KSW policy where he said if you were in, you were in for the whole ride.” Alan Walter.

              Peter : It is obvious from this quote that those research auditors didn’t bite LRH’s stories about Inc 1 and Inc 2. If they would have been based on recalls as such , certainly , those auditors would not have doubted it , don’t you think ? I mean , it is only logical.

              Dart Smohen was the person in charge of the OT research. Google-search for “Dart Smohen’s story” (a 132 page document) and see it for yourself. I mean , this guy and Otto Roos were THE guys in charge of that research. Read also “The Otto Roos’s Story”. There is absolutely no mention in those stories of LRH ever using recalls in his “research”. As I said , it was mostly based on reads ; and don’t pretend , as you did , that you was not “clear” what I meant with that ; you KNEW quite well what I meant the first time. I think that we are pass the point now of ‘insulting” each other’s intellect. So let’s just skip that , would you ? ;-)))

              TC: “First of all, there wasn’t such a thing called ‘The Clearing List’…’Duality Pairs’? That’s totally inconsistent with Scn jargon and the jargon of Saint Hillers. But let’s continue, shall we?”

              Marildi : “How ’bout let’s be a little less rote and little more conceptual – shall we?😛 And besides, in that quote of Underdog, he even stated that he had “labored for many months on how to present this without the vast technical language unique to Scientology.”

              Peter : My point exactly!!! He “labored” for “many months” to say absolutely NOTHING at all , Marildi ; can’t you see that ? He said nothing , for Christ sakes!

              Marildi : :His point is that he doesn’t want only former Scientologists to be able to use the methods he has developed – which are based on the tech but are intended as an improvement of it. I thought that would be right up your alley…”

              Peter : Oh , come on , it is me Peter , Marildi. He just uttered a bunch of nonsense ; that’s what he did. I even got sarcastic about but that reason.

              TC: “I had never heard of him, and I went around almost every Scn related blog. But let’s play.”

              Marildi : “Okay, you little squirt😀 let’s play I guess you must have missed the early days, before your time, when Underdog was apparently active on the site alt.religion.scientology (see WKP) – which started up in 1991 and was very active in its time, from what I’ve heard.”

              Peter : I am not that old. :-))) Just kidding. I knew about Alt.religion , but has not studied it a lot except Alan Walter’s posts. But I have not seen “him” any place else. Not at ESMB , not at Rinder’s , BIC , and others blogs/sites as well. How strange that almost all those old timers original BC and class 8 students frequently posted at the Ivy mag , ESMB , etc , BY NAME , by I had never heard of “Underdog”. Doesn’t that strike you as odd ?

              Marildi : “Underdog posts under the same handle as he did then, so I’m sure all those pioneer protesters know him. Here’s another quote from one of his papers that I downloaded from the IST forum:

              Underdog : “We started using false names during the early days of the internet Scientology discussion groups to protect our identity. Almost everyone who wished to post a comment critical of the Church or the technology sought concealment from the vindictive nature of the new Church executives. Almost all in the early discussion groups were expert Scientologists of twenty and thirty years of service.”

              Peter : Not a fact at all. May be in the beginning yes , but just in the beginning. Please see Ivy magazine , and many posts at ESMB , but specially at Ivy. All those old-timers original BC who were also the research auditors , posted at Ivy BY NAME , their REAL name. And that he still has his identity hidden after all this time is only a GROSS out-point. I attack frequently Scn/LRH at every blog I participate in. And I only started as “ThetaClear” because I saw so many using weird names , and as a favor to a dear friend to whom I could be tied to , who was still in with money in account , and “he” wanted to take his money first. But my real name has been posted in lots of occasions since more than a year ago , and I’ve been only posting for two years , even though I’ve known about the Independent Field since more than a decade. He is exaggerating , and covering his ass. I never needed to ; I only did a favor to a friend for just under a year.

              How is that the CofS doesn’t attack me who am a well known critic of LRH/Scn , even though they know me by name , by country of residence , and the fact that I have a Yahoo e-mail so easily to track ? Gee , OSA even know about me as a private detective came to me to ask me some questions about a con artist auditor that I reported broadly online a few months ago. How do you explain that ? You know why ? Cause I don’t care a rat’s ass about the CofS , DM , OSA , BOSA or whatever the hell they call themselves these days. I care about no attacks at all. I can confront each and every one of them , and they know it. So I don’t buy that story of victims ; I never was , and so many others old timers were not as well.

              Underdog : “The Clearing List is these desires and urges in exact sequence, oldest first!”

              TC: “????????? That’s all that assertion is worthy of.:)

              Marildi : “It apparently did “clear” people to a far greater extent than NED does, judging by the posts that Dan Koon and others have written about their experiences on the Clearing Course. I get that it really handles the tiger – a huge chunk of the bank.”

              Peter : I know about that ; it did “cleared” people much , much better than NED does. But that has anything to do with the subject at hand. Besides , there is no Clearing List” as such but as series of Implanted GPMs lines that one run out as one run the ones from OT II , but at least 10 “Runs” were done back then at the C.C. That the C.C handles apparently a chunk of charge , doesn’t mean that PCs runs incidents Dianetically ; they DON’T. They BELIEVE those incidents exist by faith and reads ; that’s all. That the running of those lines produce case gain (which it DOES frequently) , can’t be construed as those incidents actually happened.

              Marildi : “With NED, on the other hand, LRH discovered that a pc rather quickly went Clear in the sense that he became cause over his own reactive mind, and that continuing to run him on engrams would have been detrimental to him. Furthermore, LRH always wanted to keep pcs moving forward to the OT levels as soon as they were capable of it, because he considered this to be the fastest way to get a pc to full OT where he would be at cause overall.”

              Peter : We are not discussing here “NED v/s the Clearing Course”. That’s another different subject to tackle and debate about. NED is no way is better than the C.C , not in a million times. That’s exactly why he drooped it , he really never wanted others to be better than him. He sought control , and eliminating the C.C from the main line , Power , and the Actual GPMs , would accomplish that , and more so when we add NOTs to it. That’s “Reverse Processing” what he did , all right. wake up and smell the coffee. But this is just my educated opinion and nothing more , I admit.

              Marildi : “And yes, I know that full OT never occurred, but it doesn’t mean that LRH didn’t have that goal. So let’s not don’t go off onto another subject now – known as a Red Herring. Let’s keep the discussion manageable.”

              Peter : I am glad you realize that a full OT never happened. That was about time you realized that. And no , he didn’t have that goal at the end. Before 1964 , perhaps , but not afterwards. And I wasn’t ever discussing that in my earlier posts that I know of ; where did you got that impression , I am curious ?

              TC: “Where exactly he got that ‘2,000 parishioners’ from? According to Alan Walters , who was ACTUALLY there as a research auditor , and who extensively talked about the research in the BC era in his hundreds of posts at ESMB (which I happen to have ALL of them in pdf form) , there were never that many PCs.”

              Marildi : “What I got was that the figure 2,000 was the accumulated number of parishioners who had done the Clearing Course over the period of time when it was being done by most pcs.”

              Peter : Perhaps so.

              TC: “You can do so much better than that when you are not attempting to defend LRH/Scn.”

              Marildi : “And you can do so much better than mainly being sarcastic – regardless of the humor. :P”

              Peter : That was good! , clever girl.

              Marildi : So leave out all that, and the Logical Fallacies too – such as Appeal to Ridicule😛 – and just stick to supporting your assertions. Let’s test your assumptions about me by making it more of a straight discussion than poking fun. Shall we?😀 ”

              Peter : But I was having fun , what’s wrong with a little fun ? , relax , would you ? I would invite you to a coffee if you were not that “slippery” , and will teach you humor in more than one way. :-)))

              Take care ,
              Peter

            24. Yes , I have indeed ; thank you , Geir. Unfortunately , our mutual clever friend doesn’t seem to think so , or perhaps doesn’t want to think so ? :-)))

            25. Peter, you really do need to limit the length of your replies and not keep going off onto all kinds of tangents. Sorry, but I don’t have the time or the interest in debating all the points you bring up, and it makes the discussion rather tedious. It also happens to be a Logical Fallacy – called “Snow Job.”🙄:) Besides, I think it must discourage posters from having a discussion with you, don’t you?”

              Just a quick reply regarding what you wrote about Alan Walter finding only one person who recalled the OT III incident: There was a poster on Marty’s who also stated that she had recalled that incident. She said it was when she was on an L, and that she even told her auditor Xenu’s name. She also said she had not done OT III yet and had never seen the data. I did a site search for her post but couldn’t find it. Anyway, this is just for your possible interest – not for us to go on about it!😉

              TC: “There is absolutely no mention in those stories of LRH ever using recalls in his ‘research.’ As I said, it was mostly based on reads; and don’t pretend, as you did, that you was not ‘clear’ what I meant with that; you KNEW quite well what I meant the first time. I think that we are pass the point now of ‘insulting’ each other’s intellect. So let’s just skip that , would you? ;-)))”

              Ya know, Peter, what isn’t clear in comments like the above is whether you are kidding or not – regardless of the emoticons. And if you aren’t kidding, then it is insulting for real. Come on, can’t we just have a discussion without all the personal remarks and innuendo? I won’t bother to quote all of them, but there’s a limit to how much “kidding” is still kidding. And didn’t you say you were trying to be more polite?😛

              In any case, I wasn’t “pretending” that what you meant was unclear – since you seemed to be mixing two different points. One had to do with meter reads being used as the main (or only) tool of research – and yet you only gave the example of GPM’s research. So that was one thing that threw me off.

              The other point you were making was that implants in GPM’s weren’t being recalled and compared, pc to pc, and thus they (the implants) were not proven to be real – but you also seemed to be assuming that this proved they were NOT real. That would be an illogical conclusion. So there again, the focus in your comments was confusing.

              All that aside, let’s stick to the more significant point in any case – which isn’t whether or not the incidents are real; it’s whether or not the auditing gave gains to the pc. And they did – very much so, as you know. So I’ll say again – as I did from the beginning – that, with respect to your intended research, I would re-evaluate importances if I were you. Just my point of view, and you can take it or leave it.:)

            26. Marildi : “Peter, you really do need to limit the length of your replies and not keep going off onto all kinds of tangents. Sorry, but I don’t have the time or the interest in debating all the points y ou bring up, and it makes the discussion rather tedious.”

              Peter : That’s your choice, dear. It was you who started the debate. My original comment was directed to Elizabeth , and not to you. But I was polite enough to continue the comm cycle with you. She doesn’t seem to have any problem with the “length” of my posts. As regards to this : “and not keep going off onto all kinds of tangents” , it seems to me like “Pot is calling the kettle black” !

              And as to limiting the “size” of my replies , I am not a fan nor a supporter of the “TR;DR” type of responses. You have your choice to either read it or not , reply to it or not. So exercise that choice. I am not changing my “tutoring” style to please you or anyone else here. I don’t remember ever asking any poster such things ever , and limiting their comms. It is irritating and presumptuous.

              Marildi : “It also happens to be a Logical Fallacy – called “Snow Job.”🙄:) Besides, I think it must discourage posters from having a discussion with you, don’t you?”

              Peter : Just your opinion to which you are entitled to , but that I don’t share. And you and Geir seems to love that “Logical Fallacy” phrase. To me, is meaningless , just so you know where I stand. So no repetition of it is going to change anything in me.

              Marildi : “Just a quick reply regarding what you wrote about Alan Walter finding only one person who recalled the OT III incident: There was a poster on Marty’s who also stated that she had recalled that incident. She said it was when she was on an L, and that she even told her auditor Xenu’s name. She also said she had not done OT III yet and had never seen the data. I did a site search for her post but couldn’t find it. Anyway, this is just for your possible interest – not for us to go on about it!😉

              Peter : Thanks ; I’ll look into it. It does interest me to find out more about these things.

              TC: “There is absolutely no mention in those stories of LRH ever using recalls in his ‘research.’ As I said, it was mostly based on reads; and don’t pretend, as you did, that you was not ‘clear’ what I meant with that; you KNEW quite well what I mea nt the first time. I think that we are pass the point now of ‘in sulting’ each other’s intellect. So let’s just skip that , would yo u? ;-)))”

              Marildi : Ya know, Peter, what isn’t clear in comments like the above is whether you are kidding or not – regardless of the emoticons . And if you aren’t kidding, then it is insulting for real. Come on, can’t we just have a discussion without all the personal remarks and innuendo? I won’t bother to quote all of them, but there’s a limit to how much “kidding” is still kidding. And didn ’t you say you were trying to be more polite?😛

              Peter : I stand for what I said earlier to you regarding that you needed to relax about things and embrace humor. You lectured me the other day (to which I didn’t complain as I found it truthful and helpful) , so I am returning the favor. You are too damn serious about things. I am not a Gringo with all due respect for Americans. We Hispanic people have many volatile emotions which we are not timid expressing. We get very angry, we curse a lot, we talk straight to our friends w/out having to be so damn careful how we say things. We are seldom personal about things. We don’t have much that social veneer that many cultures have. We are not careful but carefree. We enjoy and are not that serious. We adapt, we change.

              This is who I am. At no time I am feeling any type of misemotion towards you even if it feels I do. Emoticons for me are ways of expressing “even if I disagree with you, it is not personal ; even if I say something a little harsh to you, I am not really mad , we are friends”. That’s what it means to me. You seems to have a real hard time reading my true self. But that’s ok. I can live with that.

              Marildi : “In any case, I wasn’t “pretending” that what you meant was unclear – since you seemed to be mixing two different points. One had to do with meter reads being used as the main (or only) tool of research – and yet you only gave the example of GPM’s research. So that was one thing that threw me off.”

              Peter : Because Implanted GPMs was the only subject I was referring to, and no any other from Scn. I was specifically referring to the incidents of the Implanted GPMs of the C.C. , OT II, and Inc 1 and 2 from OT III. I think that if you review my original post, you’ll find that to be the case. And my emphasis was “main tool” not “the only”. I am okay with the Scn 0-V research including “Power”. I am okay with the Correction Lists, TRs, ’51-’57 processes and a bunch of other things except the concept of “Standard Tech” and KSW #1. I support and believe in 80-85% of all the Tech at the O-V level including NED (Grade V) and Power. With very minor modifications, and leaving all hype behind, I am ok with most of Scn technically speaking.

              I do not support most of the Admin and Ethics part, nor the upper level stuff as it is an unproved thing besides being “Reverse Processing” , and a “Executive C/Sing” scenario as there is no way that all those alleged whole track implants applies to all people of Earth. But there isn’t a preliminary step to find out first , whether they apply to one or not. One just do them. That’s both, Invalidation and Evaluation , and Executive C/Sing. There isn’t just one Bridge ; there are many. Scn Bridge is a “One size fits all” proposition. It is intuitively wrong.

              Marildi : “The other point you were making was that implants in GPM’s weren’t being recalled and compared, pc to pc, and thus they (the implants) were not proven to be real – but you also seemed to be assuming that this proved they were NOT real. That would be an illogical conclusion. So there again, the focus in your comments was confusing.

              Peter : I never implied “are not real” but only “not proved” , two different things. Whether they are actually real or not needs to be researched properly as it should have been done in the first place WITH, WITH recalls as such, besides e-meter manifestations and Indicators. Are we finally clear now ?

              Marildi : “All that aside, let’s stick to the more significant point in any case – which isn’t whether or not the incidents are real; it’s whether or not the auditing gave gains to the pc. ”

              Peter : Not my opinion, dear. Religiously speaking , wins are all that matters , and from that viewpoint, I am ok. That’s why they are religions ; they are based on trust and faith. But as a psychotherapy, which is what it actually IS (all the other “it is a religion” stuff, no old timer ever really bought it) , then the actuality of those incidents becomes extremely vital. Not seeing it that way, just establish bad precedents for competent research. One LRH was enough. I am not following his foot steps.

              Marikdi : And they did –very much so, as you know.”

              Peter : Not in all cases, no. It most cases, apparently yes. There is a long list of people who got severely sick and even died in the upper levels. The percentage is not that large, but enough to be responsible to research that. Even one case in 1,000 is enough to require urgent research. All lives are important. Humans are not statatistics. I don’t believe in that bs premise that if it save 1,000 but kills 5 , then it is ok. To hell with that. All those strange manifestations, illness and even deads (which have been enough of them ; in the hundreds apparently) needed and need to be researched ASAP. I can not support it in its present state of research. And NOTs is Reversible Processing” in my opinion. Can’t recommend it neither. But that’s another post.

              Marildi : “So I’ll say again – as I did from the beginning – that, with respect to your intended research, I would re-evaluate importances if I were you. Just my point of view, and you can take it or leave it.:)

              Peter : Thanks , but I always do. And by all signs, I am one of the VERY few that do.

            27. you are rare bird Peter.. and I am glad of that because if your kind would not be than my self would go apply for hunting license and get a gun plus lots of amo.
              Oh… I am not volatile… no… just born in Hungary and we love drama we love to describe our actions how we would like to eliminate those who cause us unpleasant whatever OHHH -emotions.:)

            28. Okay, Peter, you can claim that I’m just “too serious,” but what you call humor doesn’t come across as humor. And I have not observed any of the Hispanics I’ve known, some of them quite well, to come across the way you do.

              How about we simply agree to not make evaluations, assumptions and personal remarks to each other? If that’s agreeable to you then I think we can complete the discussion.

              You wrote the following in your last reply to freebeeing (who apparently also wasn’t clear on what you had written):

              TC: “What I was saying was that upper research was not done using actual recalls on incidents (with Visio, Sonic, etc), but mostly using prepared lists, L&N on specific key Qs, and the like…”

              With regard to L&N, are you saying that pc’s would get a read on a Listing Question, then list items, and nulling of the list would produce a Reliable Item – which, per the materials, read with a rock slam? All that because LRH had described an incident to them?

              None of the above aligns with the theory of Listing and Nulling that I recall from the Solo Course – starting with the fact that if the Listing Question isn’t a valid one in the first place – i.e. based on research – you will get a dead-horse list, which is a list that cannot produce an actual Item.

              There’s also the fact that pc’s being audited on GPM’s would experience pain when listing terminal items and sensations on the opterms (which is Dianetics theory)- not to mention the huge amounts of tone arm action they got on the overall procedure.

              You mean to say that all the above was based, as you stated earlier, on their “trust and faith”? That sure isn’t my understanding of how the e-meter works – nor does it match my experience with it. Did you ever hear of pc’s responding to someone’s narrative with the kind of meter action and somatics as occurred on GPM procedures?

            29. It is already very late for me , but I just wanted to validate you for this reply. You see, I do not agree with most of your arguments in this reply, and I’ll explain tomorrow, but those arguments are more in line with correct deabating as you are trying to find holes in my reasoning and logic using my same assertions. You have actually forced me to think this more in depth, and that is what dabating is all about. Otherwise is becomes a parade of misemotional comments. The key to debate is to make sure that you duplicated your “opponent” in the first place. If you are not sure you understood , clarify first , and then use what you understand now to find holes in the reasoning by staying in the same line of logic. That’s what Freebeing did in his last reply. I know when someone is correctly debating as I feel that I must stop and analyze the scene again before replying. So, well done!!!

              Peter

            30. TC: “The key to debate is to make sure that you duplicated your ‘opponent’ in the first place. If you are not sure you understood, clarify first , and then use what you understand now to find holes in the reasoning by staying in the same line of logic.”

              Um, you seem to be forgetting the other side of the coin, which is to make sure you are clear in what you yourself are communicating – not to mention “staying in the same line of logic” (as you also advised) and not going all over the map, which makes it all the more confusing.

              You finally made yourself a little bit clearer in your reply to freebeeing, who also didn’t seem to understand what you were getting at – and that was right up to our last exchange, which was just before my comment tonight.

              You kept saying LRH’s research was “mostly reads” and I’m afraid “reads” is very inadequate to describe L&N and the whole GPM procedure, and I’ve already explained why. As I say – it was confusing as to what you were talking about. So your “compliment” to me for finally getting what a debate should be doesn’t match my view of it.

            31. TC: “The key to debate is to make sure that you duplicated you r ‘opponent’ in the first place. If you are not sure you understo od, clarify first , and then use what you understand now to find holes in the reasoning by staying in the same line of logic.”

              Marildi : “Um, you seem to be forgetting the other side of the coin, which is to make sure you are clear in what you yourself are communicating – not to mention “staying in the same line of logic” (a s you also advised) and not going all over the map, which makes it all the more confusing.”

              Peter : Now, how is it that I already knew that your response would be very similar to that one ? Always wanting to have the last word, ah Marildi ?

              Marildi : “You finally made yourself a little bit clearer in your reply to freebeeing, who also didn’t seem to understand what you were ge tting at – and that was right up to our last exchange, which was just before my comment tonight.

              Peter : Did you notice how Freebeing instead of ASSUMING anything , clarified my origination , and explained possible scenarios about my arguments but sort of in “interogative mode” ? , like clarifying things , you know ? There is something called TR4 , ever heard of it ?

              Marildi : “You kept saying LRH’s research was “mostly reads” and I’m afraid “reads” is very inadequate to describe L&N and the whole G PM procedure, and I’ve already explained why. As I say – it was confusing as to what you were talking about.”

              Peter : Then clear your own M/U on the word “Read” with all its conceptual meanings. The way you do it is you take the subject index of the Tech Vols and search under “Read” , then you read (great, an homophone! ) everything written about it. You end up then with a full conceptual meaning of the word. If you do that, you’ll understand then what I meant by “Mostly by reads”.

              Marildi : “So your “compliment” to me for finally getting what a debate should be doesn’t match my view of it.”

              Peter : Now, why does that comment doesn’t surprise me at all ? :-))) You see what you made me do ? Another emoticon.

            32. Peter: “Then clear your own M/U on the word “Read” with all its conceptual meanings.”

              So are you saying that by “reads,” you had in mind all along the instant rock slams that were REQUIRED for all Reliable Items on the L&N of GPMs? And that you actually believe pcs would get such reads – plus a lot of TA – on a narrative that was strictly made? And they would do so merely because of their “trust and faith” in LRH? You haven’t answered that directly.

              As for the rest of your post, I thought we were going to keep the comments directed at the actual argument being presented – the current one, not something in the past, as that just resulted in “tit for tat.” The idea was to skip the sarcasm and invalidation of the other person.

              A sincere and skillful debater wouldn’t feel the need to get personal, just one who is using debate “tactics” to win, rather than come to a valid resolution – and/or one who has nothing better to say in response and doesn’t want to admit it. You did admit that sort of thing in your exchange with Geir, so it seems you do have the capacity.

            33. Marildi : “So are you saying that by “reads,” you had in mind all along the instant rock slams that were REQUIRED for all Reliable Items on the L&N of GPMs? ”

              Peter : Yes, Marildi ; ANY needle reactions or patterns used to diagnose or interpret anything is a “Read” ; it is something you “Read” on a electronic devise. When you have any electronic devise that measures something , what you get are “reads”. A “Theta Bob” means something specific ; “Death” or “wanting to get out” , “compulsive Exteriorization”. A “Raising Needle” means “No confront , irresponsability”. A “Rock Slam” means a “Games Condition” on the subject ; the effort to stop something , an area of insanity. “Falls” represent “protests about life” which the individual is aware of. A “Rocked Read” means that a Goal has been found. Etc, etc. All of those are meter reads. Read = a reaction of the needle to a question. I am not a KSW robotized follower, for Chris Sakes. In the beggining LRH would use different needle reactions to determine many things and different manifestatiins of life.

              I admit that I forgot that you are interpreting everything text-book wise ; i.e using strictly Scientology definitions , and mostly from the ’60s on. As I lost my fixation with Scn since quite some time ago , I do not think with “Standard Tech”. My mistake. Perhaps I should have used the phrase “Mostly by needle reactions” , instead.

              Marildi : “And that you actually believe pcs would get such reads – plus a lot of TA – on a narrative that was strictly made? And they would do so merely because of their “trust and faith” in LRH? You haven’t answered that directly.

              Peter : Yes, I believe that, but the correct technical term is “Suggestion” ; but I have told you in various occassions by now , it is something that I need to prove. Right now is only an hypothesis based on a lot of observations, and on my own experience with hundreds of Solo-auditing hours. I told you it was an HYPOTHESIS at this stage. I told you that right from the start.

              My argument was – and that was clear ENOUGH – that there is abosolutely NO records as to LRH having based his Implanted GPM research ( The C.C. , OT II, and OT III) on actual recalls from many people. It was not that a lot of individuals recalled the same incs in a controlled environment. If that would have been the case, records of it (even if eye witness reports from research auditors of the time) would have been known by now. I have reviewed all available records online for the past 3 years. I am a professional ; I don’t play silly games.

              Google-search and read Dart Smohen’s story ; a 132 document from who Alan Walters and other research auditors of the time describes as THE guy that put together the research into the OT levels specially III and others. He doesn’t mention anything about recalls. Alan Waters doesn’t mention anything about recalls. Dennis Stephens (from TROM) doesn’t mention anything about recalls. Neither Bob Ross, Otto Roos, and all other research auditors that has ever posted anything online.

              Most of the research into Actual GPMs were done using needle reactions like the Rocket Read and the R/S. It was a listing action and a L&N action, two different things. The processes researched were various versions of Goal listing , nulling the list to find a Goal that Rocked read , finding Term-Oppterm pairs by R/S , and that was about it. Different versions that did the same.

              Yes, some PCs here and there recalled apparently some Implants or part of it ; but just some. The research wasn’t apparently done using recalls ; that was not a prerequisite from LRH apparently. He thought that he was this “mighty” being with “excellent” whole track recall, and that we petty humanoids didn’t have that ability. So he decided to “undercut” it all , and look for a way to “handle” the BPC (everything in the bank is PBC) w/out requiring from PCs specific recalls. He “figured” it out how to do it by “Reads”. But FAITH on him and trust was required and taking his word as true that those incidents allegedly shared by Earthlings actually happened.

              That’s why he researched original OT VIII in the first place in 1968-69 ; to GET others to be able to “remember”. Obviously any OT VIII completion will tell you it all was bullshit. The only “whole track” recall they DO have is having spent more than $500,000 and 10-15 years in a Bridge to Nowhere. That happens to be the SHARED “memory” most OT VIIIs that know have.

              Marildi : “As for the rest of your post, I thought we were going to keep t he comments directed at the actual argument being presented – the current one, not something in the past, as that just result ed in “tit for tat.” The idea was to skip the sarcasm and invalidation of the other person.”

              Peter : Pot calling the kettle black.

              Peter : My arguments have been based in more responsible research and a LOT more hours of investigation in the subject than you have invested yourself. Let me know when you have read and examined everything that I’ve read, and then we’ll be on a level of comparative magnitude as to amount of accumulated data is concerned. You see, I DID my homework, Marildi. For you to be intellectually honest in this dabate you would have to have the same data I have on the subject, not some isolated comments here and there. If not you are just pretending to be wise about it , and to look wise about it ; that’s all. But I don’t think that most posters here buy that. You are your best fan.

              Marildi : “A sincere and skillful debater wouldn’t feel the need to get personal, just one who is using debate “tactics” to win, rather than come to a valid resolution”

              Peter : “Win” ? There is no winning with you , honey!!! Only endless debate and back and forth. You better be death than to be wrong about anything. I’ve been following you since years. You lack humility.

              Marildi : ” – and/or one who has nothing better to say in response and doesn’t want to admit it.”

              Peter : Oh I can say a lot of things, believe me. I learned my comm abilities with the master himself ; My friend Mark Shreffler. I am never w/out responses. I am afraid that I am too sure of myself. But saying more isn’t going to get you any closer to the truth, so why even bother ? This debate is already closed for me. If you want to attribute the victory to you ; it is perfectly fine by me. I have no compulsions to be right. Whatever makes you happy , dear.

              Marildi : ” You did admit that sort of thing in your exchange with Geir, so it seems you do have the capacity.”

              Peter : Because Geir has the willingness to recognize truth as opposed to you when it comes to Scn/LRH. Becuase Geir has humility. Because Geir only debate in subjects he really have knowledge about and leave the others subjects alone, or go and do the professional thing , and do his homework , before engaging in debate. That’s why. And I do have the capacity ; that’a a PROVEN thing in this blog, in BIC many times, at Rinder’s many times, and at MS2 many times. However, I can’t say the same thing about you , honey. I’ve never seen any post from you where you admitted to being wrong. Better rains upwards first.😉

            34. Getting Marildi to admit she is wrong?? About anything? Good luck with that – it’s near to impossible – and certainly not before several hundred iterations back and forth. When someone claims that everything is possible, I could go “But sir, I have this lady commenting on my blog…”.

              Marildi; It almost seems like you think admitting any wrongs would instantly put Scientology, The Holy Tech and Hubbard of Nebraska into forever disgrace and damnation.

            35. Sorry, Geir, but that was a cheap shot. I highly doubt you even followed the discussion. You aren’t that off-the-wall – even when you want to see LRH proven wrong.

              And when was the last time you admitted you were wrong? Never. I asked you that question the other time you made the accusation of me – and the only thing you could come up with was a time you had “admitted” something about LRH was even worse that you previously thought. LOL!😀

            36. There are several discussions were I admitted to be wrong. Go search for it. But this wasn’t about me. It was about you. Did you ever admit you were wrong? Peter sure did.

            37. “Go search for it.”

              Trying to dismiss it by sending me on a wild goose chase? LOL

              Yes – Peter did admit he was wrong. And it was so unheard of on this blog that several of us commented on it!

            38. Again trying to deflect the point. Nice try. This wasn’t about me or other people. It was about you. Please reconsider that tactic.

              Besides, Chris has admitted to being wrong on many occasions. So has Spyros. And several others. But as I said, this one is about you. Have you ever admitted to being wrong in a discussion here? Like Peter did? Seems he’s at least one level above you here.

              Also, the “LOL”s really doesn’t do your answers any service.

            39. No, I can’t name a time when I said I was wrong in a discussion. And I don’t believe you can either – so this is about you too, since you are making the accusation. “Nice try” applies.

              On the LOL, I decided it was a little nicer than what I first wrote, which was “Laughable.”

            40. And thus my comment about you never admitting to ever be wrong in a discussion was in fact spot on, by your own admission. Thank you.

            41. Can you admit it about yourself?

              Let’s be honest – both of us are reluctant to grant the opposite stance to ours, either that LRH had a lot he should be credited for or LRH had a lot he should be discredited for, respectively. This is why you never chime in and support my side of the discussion when you know very well that a particular criticism of LRH or Scn is a stretch at best . Whereas, you often do so with the critic’s side. And I do the same kind of thing. Can you admit that much too?

            42. I have supported you many times. I was certainly not siding with Peter when he ended up admitting he was wrong.

              Thing is – I happen to believe that Scientology is a trap. That is my stance. I also admit that it has helped me greatly – and I have said so to many times to count. I have even given the exact points where I think Scientology has specific and great value. I can admit to its value and to its bullshit and to it being a trap. All with great details and specifics. Now, what was your point again?

            43. My point was the same as yours – which you are now changing into something else. It that you haven’t ever admitted in a discussion that you were wrong – meaning, in that discussioon itself.

              If any of those links show that, please say which one and give me a quote so I don’t have to look through the whole thing. Otherwise, it seems like another wild goose chase you’re sending me on.

            44. You have again tried your best to divert the discussion. For you and any other reader of this – here’s how it went:

              Peter : ““Win” ? There is no winning with you , honey!!! Only endless debate and back and forth. You better be death than to be wrong about anything. I’ve been following you since years. You lack humility.”

              I commented on that by: “Getting Marildi to admit she is wrong?? About anything? Good luck with that – it’s near to impossible – and certainly not before several hundred iterations back and forth.”

              Then you go “But, but, but, you’re no better!!!” and you try to make this about everybody else but you. I cannot recollect you ever having admitted to being wrong. What I see is endless back and forth and knitpicking, deflections and misinterpretations in debates. And then I even indulged you by providing links to where I and others have admitted to being wrong. But that will surely not be enough, you will go back and forth on this too. Because You Are Unable To Admit You Are Wrong – And You Must Have The Last Word.

              This all makes it tideous to have a discussion with you, Marildi. Please do consider changing tactics. Or behaviour. Or even viewpoint.

            45. “Then you go ‘But, but, but, you’re no better!!!’ and you try to make this about everybody else but you.”

              Funny how you stopped being specific right when it came to telling my part in the exchange – so I will. My point was that you single me out for something that is not only true of you yourself but virtually all posters.

              “And then I even indulged you by providing links to where I and others have admitted to being wrong.”

              Now, there’s an LOL – even a “laughable”! You sent me links to several long threads to go through where – supposedly – you “and others” eventually admitted in a discussion to have been wrong on the topic being discussed. I asked you to please give me the specific link where YOU admitted that, as I have not witnessed it – and I’m pretty damn sure I would have noticed. Instead, you posted the comment aobve – totally deflecting off my question. And this wasn’t the only deflection tactic you have used in this exchange.

              If you or anybody else is too biased and/or illogical to see that, I don’t much care to try drawing more of a picture than I have. Actually, that’s one area where I have definitely been wrong – e.g. carrying on the exchange with Peter past the point where I started to see it was a waste of time trying to have a rational discussion with him. (Hey, does that count as admitting I was wrong?:) ) Anyway, I’m pretty sure you didn’t read much of that discussion, yet you leaped at the chance to make me wrong and yourself right.

              Btw, just now I was reading a post on one of the Integral Theory websites, which started out with the following:

              “There are good reasons why, traditionally, politics and religion are not discussed in polite company. ‘It’s because they express very deep patterns of our thinking and feeling,’ Jeff says, ‘If you start screwing with my spiritual beliefs and my politics, you’re screwing with me and my whole sense of identity.” https://www.dailyevolver.com/2016/02/integral-political-practice-crisis-in-mormonism/

              There aren’t many people here who don’t fit into that, IMO.

            46. No, Marildi. I sent you specific links to exact comments. You didn’t even bother to click the links, did you, Marildi? Again proving my point. You are simply to stuck in your own viewpoint.

              I know you will never stop. You simply Have To have the last word. Therefore I will do this: No matter what you decide to content beyond this, I will not answer your comment. This exchange stands on its own. To anybody seeking to have a fruitful discussion with Marildi, don’t bother.

            47. Then why didn’t you bother telling me when I asked? It was an honest mistake, but if you want to use it for your purposes, that too speaks for itself.

              I will look at the links, but I’m willing to bet that this is just another deflection.

            48. Okay, I looked – none of them showed where you “eventually admitted in a discussion to have been wrong on the topic being discussed” – quoting my exact question.

              The only thing even remotely “similar” to that – on the surface – was the following:

              “I squarely admit I was wrong here. I used the wrong phrase. I should have used the phrase “In relation to the above” or similar – and I wrongly used ‘According to’ as I believed that phrase had a definition similar to the one I should have used.” https://isene.me/2013/03/13/brainwashed/#comment-33753

              An admission of inadvertently using the wrong phrase? Wow. And it wasn’t even on the topic of discussion, per se.

              The other links were about being wrong on something in the past – not about being wrong in the discussion itself.

              We’ve had this exchange before and you could never give an example of saying you were wrong in a discussion. So why you brought it up again is hard to imagine – except that it was the best you could do to deny that you yourself are in the same category you put me in and wanted to make a big deal of it.

            49. I am sorry. I was wrong. I cannot find any other links that support my argument better. You win this argument.

              And I was wrong in saying that I would not answer to your next comment. This is an answer to that comment.

              Now it is your turn to get that last word.

            50. “Now it is your turn to get that last word.”

              We’re taking turns at having the last word? Isn’t that the usual? I mean, one person can only keep posting replies when the other person keeps posting replies in return, right? But okay – if you promise not to say I always have to have the last word even though you keep responding to all my “last words.”😀

              You wrote: “I am sorry. I was wrong. I cannot find any other links that support my argument better. You win this argument.”

              Now, wait a sec…are you sure you aren’t willing to say you were wrong and that I win the argument – just to make yourself right and me wrong? But okay, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll make the same kind of admission to being wrong as yours:

              I was wrong not to say by now that I have actually criticized LRH – and the tech! The first example I could find by googling was just a couple months ago, but I couldn’t find one that goes back further than a couple years ago – I hope that’s good enough. Here’s part of a reply I posted to Calvin:

              “One thing I disagree with LRH about is the prohibiting of ‘verbal tech.’ But that is policy, I believe, and in any case it definitely isn’t a fundamental of Scientology. I may not have made it clear to you that it’s the fundamentals I’m interested in discussing, more so than the tech – which I don’t claim is perfect either.

              “The question I was actually hoping you would answer was whether you saw any flaws in the core basics. That is what I would find to be an interesting subject to ponder! It’s not that I think Scientology basics constitute a monopoly on truths. All those truths are no doubt found elsewhere too, just expressed differently – and perhaps not as comprehensively all in one place.” https://isene.me/2013/11/26/logical-fallacies/#comment-49778

              And further down the page (it was a looong discussion on this point), I posted this:

              “p.s. to Calvin:

              “Btw, I don’t particularly feel made wrong when someone expresses a criticism about Scientology or LRH. It’s the frequent reference to me as being being stuck in my “beliefs” and unwilling and unable to change – things like that – which are actually versions of the Ad Hom fallacy but that doesn’t seem to inhibit those who do it, who for some reason feel they are justified in so doing. Those are the kind of things I find to be personally offensive – and, once again, disappointing!”

              And here’s part of a comment to you:

              “In any case, I have long ago stopped believing that the tech is 100% perfect. But your selective memory seems to sift out such things.”

              So you see, I knew about your selective memory and should have spoken up and reminded you about these kinds of comments. I was wrong! (Hope I’m not being too serious.:) )

              And in a reply to you, I wrote:

              “In any case, I have long ago stopped believing that the tech is 100% perfect. But your selective memory seems to sift out such things.”

              So you see, I knew about your selective memory and should have spoken up and reminded you and everybody about these kinds of comments of mine.

              I was wrong!

              (Hope I’m not being too serious.:) )

            51. “Fuck, you can’t even take an admission without twisting it. That really is mean and sick Marildi.”

              Amen. But take the frustration we feel reading it and multiply it to get the idea how a person feels writing it. It is my opinion that a person suffers for their ideologies because of the mental trade-offs, deals with the Devil, if you will. Ideologies give mental security but one has to give up the freedom of filterless observation in exchange. Your old saw of “losing one’s freedom in an area of mental defense” is an example of what I am referring to.

            52. Yes. It’s worth noticing that Marildi rigged it so that no matter what I did, she would twist herself to be a “winner”. First I didn’t admit I was wrong (because I didn’t see it) and she made herself a “winner” by saying I didn’t admit I was wrong. Then I admitted I was wrong (as I could see that) and she twisted that, too. How sick is that?

            53. “How sick is that?”

              I think it is the heart and soul of human preference for ideologies over the raw and unstable feeling of seeing and analyzing the world for ourselves.

            54. I am getting to believe that Scientology is amongst the most dangerous of ideologies because of its insistence on being right and “hammering out of existence” anything that threatens it. It’s the Borg of ideologies.

              This exchange with E and with Marildi being but two examples.

            55. Yes.. you are right and the other hand you represent the other side …. but what ever you represent -ideas -considerations is to tally fine because in my reality billions have different view on the same though and none of them is negative or positive but just different.
              Yes, I think this is what its called ALLOWING BEIGNESS and by doing so we have created a wonderful versatile exciting universe. Have a lovely evening. Elizabeth

            56. Geir : “I am getting to believe that Scientology is amongst the most dangerous of ideologies because of its insistence on being right and “hammering out of existence” anything that threatens it. It’s the Borg of ideologies.”

              Peter : I wouldn’t say that Scientology is among “the most dangerous of ideologies” , but THE most , instead. I’ve never seen in my entire life any other cult (your are being too much of a gentleman calling it an “ideology” ) whose members are so damn difficult to deprogram. I mean , forget about Margaret T. Singer’s works ; her handlings doesn’t work well on Scientologists , and neither does Steven Hassan’s. Brother I exchanged comms for MONTHS with a dear friend. A class VI C/S and OT VIII. He is in a VERY serious physical condition. He is a lover of LRH’s tech. I have shown him each and every LRH policy as EXACTLY written by him, totally unadulterated by the CofS , where LRH is CLEARLY violating Human Rights left and right if compared with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , one of the most extraordinary documents that any group of humans have ever written.

              And I showed this friend how each part of every one of those policies EXACTLY violated many of those described Human Rights. But oddly so , all I ever got from him was many “Yeah, that ‘might’ be the case, but he left us this great ‘legacy’, and blah, blah, blah, yawn, yawn, yawn”. And I would say to him, “Listen, you are a damn class VI C/S ; what would you say to an auditor who accepted his PC’s justifications w/out pulling them ?”. And he would answer, “Well, of course I would cramm him on that , the PC would just Cave-in”. And I would go, “Exactly so ; so why on hell are you justifying LRH then ? How it is that we petty humanoids are expected to go up the conditions from lower on up when we fuck up, but when it comes to LRH we are just so damn forgiving w/out he having shown ANY BUT ANY type of remorse for what he did or even admitted in any way that he was ever wrong about those policies ?”.

              And my friend always just Q&Aed with my questions just as Marildi used to do at BIC with me on similar Qs. I mean , I wrote a whole essay for the BIC blog titled “On Free Will , Fundamentalism and the Workability of Scientology” ; one of the most balanced treatments of the subject of Scn/LRH that I had ever seen so far , and one that dozens of posters validated me for. But there was one specific poster that not only didn’t validate me for it , but PROTESTED about me having put that Human Rights document in so high esteem. Believe or not she attempted to diminish and belittle that document in an attempt to cleverly DIVERT the attention from the important matter at hand, and to tone down what LRH had done.

              But she apparently didn’t know who she was debating with, and I most easily knocked her down. It was then that I realized, “God , what a clever and interesting girl ; it seems I have a lot of work in my hands”. :-))) That intriguing and interesting girl was Marildi. It seems that I’ve always been fascinated by the dichotomies. :-)))

            57. “Peter : I wouldn’t say that Scientology is among “the most dangerous of ideologies””

              Me neither. What is dangerous about it is that its advocates are conditioned out of having a conscience to the degree that they can justify they have followed standard tech. Written another way, the only block to murder as a solution to any immediate problem they face is the law and justice of the land. And you know I’m not kidding about that.

            58. Oh boy – wrong again. My double posting on the last part was inadvertent, and worse than you using the wrong phrase! 🙄

            59. What sick mind game are you playing here, Marildi? I would use this very discussion in the future to point out yet another odd exchange with A scientologist. You. Your incessant defence of Scientology and Hubbard has no doubt helped many depart the subject faster, not only me and Chris. You are a good example of what one can become when joining Scientology and start walking down the path of Keeping Scientology Working.

            60. Geir: “What sick mind game are you playing here, Marildi? I would use this very discussion in the future to point out yet another odd exchange with A scientologist. You.”

              In that case, you need to include my response to the comments above, because you’ve missed some things. You wrote the following:

              “I am sorry. I was wrong. I cannot find any other links that support my argument better. You win this argument.”

              First of all, the argument as I understood it was whether or not you (or I) had ever in the past admitted in a discussion to being wrong – with respect to the topic of that discussion. It was NOT whether you could find links that prove you have done that. So “admitting” you were wrong about the links proving anything was not admitting that you have never in any discussion said you were wrong about what you had been saying (in that discussion) and now you’re admitting it. Also, the admission about the links seemed like a humorous (or else convenient) way to get around the fact that your initial claim that they supported your argument wasn’t true. For all these reasons, I thought you had to be kidding.

              Then you stated: “And I was wrong in saying that I would not answer to your next comment. This is an answer to that comment.”

              There again, I thought you must be pulling my leg to “admit” to being wrong on some small sub-argument (if it was even that). Besides, the argument wasn’t whether you could prove you were CAPABLE – in the future or even in PT – of saying you were wrong about something or other of your choice. We were talking about the past and specifically whether or not you have ever stated you were (had been) wrong ON the topic of discussion.

              You ended the post with this: “Now it is your turn to get that last word.”

              The insinuation of “that last word,” when added to the rest of the post, definitely came across as mocking.

              I hope you and others can see where I was coming from when I wrote that comment as a sort of satire to make it funny.

            61. Wow, such heated posting.

              I’ve been reading this blog for a long time and I certainly am familiar with the participants.

              I’ll just say that Marildi is not the same person she was a few years ago. I’ve seen her expanding her horizons beyond Scn. and I think that’s a very good thing. She’s still sharp as a tack and exhibits very good manners in her postings while taking a lot of adhom. We all can misread the intent/meaning in another’s posts from time to time. It’s not exactly clear what Geir was “admitting” but certainly he was demonstrating that he can say he is wrong, even if it is not something “major”:)

              I feel the stomping on Marildi was a bit too harsh, but I do understand there is history…

              I’m glad some resolution on some things has come to pass. It was getting a bit much to read all this.

              And I see there is a new topic posted, so perhaps I have spoken too soon as I haven’t read it yet.

            62. freebeeing

              “I’ll just say that Marildi is not the same person she was a few years ago. I’ve seen her expanding her horizons beyond Scn. and I think that’s a very good thing. She’s still sharp as a tack and exhibits very good manners in her postings while taking a lot of adhom.”

              10+ with:):):) those who cant see the change in others and tin their surroundings because the change haven’t happened in their own universe. As V…would say Filter are still there.

            63. Elizabeth and freebeeing, I meant to say thanks for the votes of confidence!:)

            64. You are so far out it isn’t funny. I couldn’t find the links because I cannot recollect having said I was wrong IN any previous discussion. So I admit I was wrong right here. In this very discussion. And you cannot have it without even making this wrong. The way you twist and turn this is remarkable. You are into some sick mind games, indeed.

              You have been assimilated by the Borg.

            65. It seems my reply to Thetaclear was spot on:

              “Getting Marildi to admit she is wrong?? About anything? Good luck with that – it’s near to impossible – and certainly not before several hundred iterations back and forth. When someone claims that everything is possible, I could go “But sir, I have this lady commenting on my blog…”.”

            66. Geir: “I couldn’t find the links because I cannot recollect having said I was wrong IN any previous discussion. So I admit I was wrong right here. In this very discussion. And you cannot have it without even making this wrong. The way you twist and turn this is remarkable.”

              There was no intention on my part to twist anything. The actual topic we were discussing was whether or not you had ever – and I will quote what was said – “eventually admitted in a discussion to have been wrong on the topic being discussed.”

              So when you said you had been wrong about your links not proving that (what I just quoted), it was not admitting that you have never done what I just quoted.

              This was why, when you said to me “You win,” I didn’t think you were being sincere, since it wasn’t the point of our discussion that you (or I) had never said we were wrong about anything – just in the sense I’ve quoted. Sorry I invalidated your admission, though.

            67. And I will help you out:

              http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22I+was+wrong%22+site%3Aisene.me

              You appear in zero of these search results. I and others appear in several. Some of mine are here:

              https://isene.me/2013/07/10/scientology-church-of-scientology/
              https://isene.me/2013/03/21/invalidation/#comment-35758
              https://isene.me/2013/08/02/hubbard-on-power/#comment-45088
              https://isene.me/2013/03/13/brainwashed/#comment-33753
              https://isene.me/2013/03/07/scientology-does-it-work/#comment-32452

              And this is just for the very blatant, quick non-goose-chase search for “I was wrong” on my blog. You may try other searches like “I am wrong”, “I was mistaken” or similar wordings.

              I am sure even now you cannot admit to having been wrong even here. That would only prove my point.

            68. Marildi : “Yes – Peter did admit he was wrong. And it was so unheard of on this blog that several of us commented on it! ”

              Peter : Now , that’s totally unfair from you to say that. In the first place , my debate with Geir was my first one here in this blog. I just started to post here in this blog , and this is something you are WELL AWARE of. Geir, had I ever posted in your blog before ? My debate with Geir in this blog started possibly after my 3-4th comment in this blog , so this comment about “it is so unheard of” is totally misemotional , and only a hurt woman’s attempt at “getting even” because I apparently hurt her pride , because she is apparently use to the idea that no man can match her intellect.

              It is even painful for you to say that , as you know damn well how many times I have admitted, and PUBLICLY SO, about having been wrong about you and/or my comments against yours. I mean, this happened at BIC many times. And at Rinder’s a few times as well. Unlike you, honey, I can go and search , if want want me to right now, at least 10 comments where I did EXACTLY what I did with Geir in this blog. Tell you what, I’ll search for them, and even post them here TODAY , if and only if you promise to offer me a PUBLIC apology for having asserted something you KNEW before you asserted it that was a lie. This, of course, if I can show you publicly here at least 10 comments where I did admitted to you and others that I was wrong about something. Care for the challenge ? Do we have and agreement ?

              Either you knew that it was a lie, or your memory sucks, lady. Or you just had one of those stupid women things at getting even. It is one or the other.

              Unlike you , I can accept you wrongly assuming things about me, and even making accusations not supported by facts. I am not that pussy-boy. I am a man with huge balls. But something that you had experience yourself ? Those many times that I publicly admitted being wrong and even apologized to you ? I knew you had many flaws in character, dear ; we all have, and I have 100x more than you. But accussing someone of something you knew was not like that , with the idea to sort of “getting even” like a hurt woman ? I never thought that that was part of your character. You just surprised me, and caught me totally off-guard. You never striked me as the vengeful type.

              Even when I apparently “attack” you here, I always talk about how incredible smart you are ; I can attack a viewpoint (not the person ) but validate her/him at the same time. You lack humility Lady ; I bet you are all alone, and that you are not a mother. Mothers are never like that.

              Please understand that I don’t mind you attacking me, or assume things about me. I can take that. But do not be unfair with comments that don’t reflect the reality that you was supposed to be aware of , and even experienced. And I , that was always feeling so guilty about those times when I was harsh with you , even when I had apologized publicly. It seems that being a gentleman these days doesn’t pay. Women and their stupid feminism! bullshit . The word itself denotes feelings of inferiority. I am in support of “Bitches” who doesn’t have any need to “defend” themselves from any man. I just love bitches. They are so relaxing to have around.

            69. Peter, but you have totally misduplicated what I meant. I wasn’t referring to you at all -as you say you are new on this blog. I was referring to the rest of us.

              Sorry, but I have to run out the door right now, so if you reply to this I will have to respond to it later.

            70. Marildi : “Peter, but you have totally misduplicated what I meant. I wasn’ t referring to you at all -as you say you are new on this blog. I was referring to the rest of us.

              Peter : Thanks for your reply. It was so strange to think that you would say something like that. It was so unlike you. My apologies for all my emotional rant. It seems that my language limitations cause me more duplication difficulties than I thought.

              It might take me a few days to reply to any of your posts that I still have not replied to. I need to take a few days off from blogging. I just feel too emotional these says. I just miss my daughter too much.

              Best,
              Peter

            71. “I need to take a few days off from blogging. I just feel too emotional these says. I just miss my daughter too much.”

              It’s Valentine’s Day in America, I suppose across the Universe, I guess. Give her a call. You’ve reminded me to call mine as well. We’ll talk soon.

            72. Chris : “It’s Valentine’s Day in America, I suppose across the Universe, I guess. Give her a c all. You’ve reminded me to call mine as well. We’ll talk soon.”

              Peter : That was very kind of you to say, Chris ; thanks! I’ll do that. Since that last comment of mine I blew a few things in Solo(ing). It is amazing what the correct tech can accomplish which may or not be LRH’s “Standard Tech”. One can be at the bottom of the tone scale and suddenly the right auditing question , right indication , or handling can boost you right up once again. Amazing indeed.

              I hope that you were able to contact your daughter. My blessings for your family.

            73. Geir : “Getting Marildi to admit she is wrong?? About anything? Good luck with that – it’s near to impossible – and certainly not before several hundred iterations back and forth. When someone claims that everything is possible, I could go “But sir, I have this lady commenting on my blog…”.

              Peter : Jjjjjj

              Oh Geir, I had not had such a good laugh since some time ago since my daughter left with mom to the USA. I pretend a humor I don’t really feel , but this time was real ; the “needle” went “bang !!! ” , thank you.

              Geir : “Marildi; It almost seems like you think admitting any wrongs would instantly put Scientology, The Holy Tech and Hubbard of Nebraska into forever disgrace and damnation.”

              Peter : My same assessment as well, Geir. I once asked Shreffler for advice a long time ago when I first decided to make contact with the Independent Field , and do something for it. I wanted to wake up all those robotized Still-ins , and to help them see the light. I am not using “Robotized” in the derogatory sense of the word , but rather its technical connotation : how an unsuspected PTS sit can cause one to become a robot (a “Blind Follower” ) to someone else, or even to SOMETHING else (to a subject itself, AS a subject) .

              As you may know already and even migh agree to it , false data , specially from what one considers an “Authority” and trust worthy individual , can make a person to go PTS and R/C on it. He goes PTS to it , because the information he is operating on is misleading , false or partly false , and insidiously dangerous to Freedom of thought , Free will and self-determinism. He also goes PTS to it , because the INTENTION from the “authority” is thought of as prosurvival whereareas it is really contra-survival to the individual.

              Because Still-ins are constantly being indoctrinated into NOT Google-searching ANYTHING about Scn to allegedly “protect” them from “entheta” to avoid “PTSness” , I felt (still DO) that no comm line existed where a False Data Stripping type of activity could be done in a VERY broad and far-reaching way. As I myself had woke up by de-PTSing myself by False data stripping my assumed “facts” and “good” intentions from DM, the CofS and even from LRH himslef and many of his writings ; I wanted to do that for the thousands still-ins. Not with the idea necessarily of they leaving Scn as a subject , but ONLY with the idea to rehabilitate Freedom of thought, Free will and power of choice over data. I wanted real Free Thinkers. I wanted others to be ALIVE . I wanted others TO BE.

              And so I asked Shreffler – knowing him as one of the best individuals there is in marketing , dissemination , correct PR , and specially being a MASTER communicator – for IDEAS on how to reach those Still-ins but in VOLUME to direct them to a de-PTSing website that I was designing similar to “Friends of LRH” , but with additional data about the shortcomings itself of many parts of Scn , and about LRH presented as a human individual who made many errors in judgement and also violated many Human Rights with several of his policies. Shreffler just said “write a book”. “Write a book ? , what is wrong with Shreffler today ? Didn’t he duplicate my intentions in the first place ? , I want to REACH those Still-ins, not the Indies” , I thought , sort of disappointed with his reply.

              Sheffler’s viewpoint on that scene basically was that I was confronting a problem endemic to all humans and not only limited to Scientologists. A problem that has to do with the tendency from us humans to blindly trust in “authorities” , and to easily abandon our own power of choice over data , surrendering our observation power to charismatic “leaders” and supposed “authorities” at ANY field : psychotherapy , religion , science (as the more important ones).

              At the time , it was ME that didn’t duplicate him. With time and more experience , I finally did and was able to understand his always wise and insighful viewpoints.

              When I “look” at Marildi , I see an incredible smart individual ; someone different and intriguing. I opted for the life of a priest (not in the Catholic sense but in the Buddhist monks sense) since 5-7 years ago, and I am a man of strong beliefs and self-control. But I got to confess that women like that sometimes makes me doubt my vows , and that’s a LOT to say ; a lot to say indeed.

              But that “disease” that Shreffler talked about , insidiously grows inside her, and she can’t even recognize how Scn has totally blinded her. Her fixation with Scn/LRH makes her dismiss many facts , and become unwilling to objectively inspect any viewpoint that might “attack” Scn and/ot LRH. By doing so , she fails to recognize the many Human Right abuses that LRH is guilty of. And w/out that recognition , no real reforms can be accomplished for Scn , and the subject will die. It WILL die, because any bad cause that is not admitted in any area of a subject , eventually destroy the whole of the subject because all wrongdoings are like a boomerang that finally reach its sender back . Only it violates the laws of psysics , and comes with a lot more speed , and this energy, than it was sent out.

              Marildi could become a great leader if only she can learn “To Be Wrong” which is in itself a VERY high ability that VERY few have command over . She would become the “Perfect Bitch” (please refer to Sherry Argov’s books for my definition of “Bitch” ) for any man that is interested in playing the 2D game ; I am not into that game anymore. I can sometimes falter a bit sometimes , but I always com back to senses. But She’ll be the “Perfect Bitch” by excellence , I can recognize that. And that sounds intriguing indeed. ;-)))

              Anyway, I just wanted to add that to your reply. You know me by now, I am always talking too much. :-)))

            74. Marildi : “Okay, Peter, you can claim that I’m just “too serious,” but what you call humor doesn’t come across as humor. And I have not observed any of the Hispanics I’ve known, some of them quite well, to come across the way you do.

              Peter : Well , that’s only because they were not as special as I am , dear ! :-)))

              I still want to teach you some Puerto Rican humor while eating some “Mofongo con Camarones” , though. It seems to me that you’ve only met the “serious” ones. Certainly, not Puerto Ricans. 😉

              https://www.tripadvisor.ca/Guide-g147320-k1304-San_Juan_Puerto_Rico.html

              Marildi : “How about we simply agree to not make evaluations, assumptions and personal remarks to each other? If that’s agreeable to you then I think we can complete the discussion.”

              Peter : How about if I invite you to chat over coffee so you learn how to relax , dear ? I don’t bite the last time I checked. Remember, I am a “priest”. :)

              Marildi : “You wrote the following in your last reply to freebeeing (who apparently also wasn’t clear on what you had written): ”

              Peter : I am listening.

              TC: “What I was saying was that upper research was not done using actual recalls on incidents (with Visio, Sonic, etc), but m ostly using prepared lists, L&N on specific key Qs, and the lik e…”

              Marildi : “With regard to L&N, are you saying that pc’s would get a read on a Listing Question, then list items, and nulling of the list would produce a Reliable Item – which, per the materials, read with a rock slam? All that because LRH had described an incident to them?

              Peter : Do you doubt the power of the mind and of Faith , then ? Do you really think that all those “miracles” that occur in collective praying (to one god) is the result of Jesus Christ acting on it ? Welcome to the “Power of the Postulate” and the “World of the Subconcious” , honey. I suggest two excellent books to you. They are called , “Think and Grow Rich” by Napoleon Hill , and “Thought Vibration : or The Law of Attraction in the Thought World” by Willian Walter Atkinson. Do you think that LRH covered the subject of “Postulates” to any real depth ? Ah , think again! Read those books, and find it out by yourself.

              Besides, what you are talking about is ACTUAL GPM running, and not Implanted GPM running. On “Actual GPM” running you search for a Goal which does NOT R/S , dear, it only “Rocket Read” , a very different type of read, more similar to a “Speeded Fall”. What does R/S is the RIs themselves with are the Term (the assumed identity of the PC ) , and the Oppterm (the Opposition Terminal opposing that identity).

              The Goals themselves does not Rock Slam as such, they Rocket Read. “To destroy Catfish” is a Goal ; so it Rocket read when found. “A Catfish Destroyer” is a Reliable Item ( RI ) , a Term or Uppterm depending on the viewpoint, that Rock Slam. But we are talking here about Actual GPM Tech. In the case of IMPLANTED GPM, about which all my posts have been about , you don’t have a list of RIs as such , but only a list of GOALS. “To build a thinking machine” , “To Survive and then die” , “To Know” , “To Catch a catfish” ; all those are GOALS , not terminals as such. That’s why on the C.C , and OT II, you do not look for any Rock Slams, you look for “Falls ; small and large”. The items (which are Goals ; those lines you repeat while spoting the thetan and spoting the light) have a instant read which size and frequency diminish as the charge is allegedly lifted off of them.

              The “Listing and Nulling” I was referring to would be something like asking a speficic question, having the PC list items, and find the one that F/N BD. Repeat that with several PCs on that same question and you would have a specific “button” that many respond to. Like “Destroy” or “withdraw” , you know ? Commonly shared charged phrases. Then by asking other types of Qs and repeating that procedure, you can come up with a list of buttons that many react to. That can also be done by “Listing” itself, not L&N. Like having a prepared list , and Assess it, find a buch of bottons, and do that with many people to find common bottons that get reactions.

              Remember the famous SOP-8 Step IV GITA list ? (Give and Take processing). It was a list of more than a hundred items that apparently many responded in a similar way to. That ONY mean that the Button itself is charged, but it can not be construed as meaning that ACTUAL incidents exist based on those buttons. Not necessarily.

              As I say to you , my take is that the mind can be influenced by “leaders” with great charisma and data altitude, and falsely made many buttons read because of the power of the suggestion. That’s why I say that I planned that experiment where I would design false Line Plots based on a false cosmology to test how others , purposely influenced by me , “read” to it all. To test the “infallability” of the “god” the E-meter. And it will either confirm my hypothesis or prove me wrong. I am perfectly ok with either results.

              Marildi : None of the above aligns with the theory of Listing and Nulling that I recall from the Solo Course”

              Peter : That’s because you DO NOT use any type of L&N on any upper level stuff in PT. The only confidential procedure that use L&N is the Ls RDs themselves.

              Marildi : ” – starting with the fact th at if the Listing Question isn’t a valid one in the first place – i. e. based on research – you will get a dead-horse list, which is a list that cannot produce an actual Item.”

              Peter : Only if we are talking about Actual GPM research which is a different kind of reseach which first, does not require any recall as such to either work or help the individual, and secondly , because we are looking at VERY personal incidents and not at commonly shared ones as in Implanted GPMs. Got it now ?

              Marildi : “There’s also the fact that pc’s being audited on GPM’s would experience pain when listing terminal items and sensations on the opterms (which is Dianetics theory)- not to mention the huge amounts of tone arm action they got on the overall procedure.”

              Peter : Again, you are talking about ACTUAL Goals GPM research, Marildi. That’s a different breed of cat.

              Marildi : “You mean to say that all the above was based, as you stated earlier, on their “trust and faith”? That sure isn’t my understanding of how the e-meter works – nor does it match my experience with it. ”

              Peter : I didn’t expect you to have any other realitity on it. That’s the reality you wish to have , not necessarily the actuality of it all.

              Marildi : “Did you ever hear of pc’s responding to someone’s narrative with the kind of meter action and somatics as occurred on GPM procedures?”

              Peter : That kind of “meter actions and somatics” occurred on Actual GMP research. And Actual Goals research ISN’T about incidents AT ALL ; they are ONLY about Goals and assumed identities ; that’s all.

              Peter : Now, can you accept already that you lost this one, or Pride is getting in the way of that, honey ? 😉

            75. “As I say to you , my take is that the mind can be influenced by “leaders” with great charisma and data altitude, and falsely made many buttons read because of the power of the suggestion. That’s why I say that I planned that experiment where I would design false Line Plots based on a false cosmology to test how others , purposely influenced by me , “read” to it all. To test the “infallability” of the “god” the E-meter. And it will either confirm my hypothesis or prove me wrong. I am perfectly ok with either results.”

              A perfectly good control methinks. Based on my own opinion of how this would run on me, I think perfectly fine and to a good result as I am placebo-prone. Set me up as well I was set up for Scientology Standard auditing and it should run like a watch.

            76. “A perfectly good control methinks. Based on my own opinion of how this would run on me, I think perfectly fine and to a good result as I am placebo-prone. Set me up as well I was set up for Scientology Standard auditing and it should run like a watch.”

              Yeah, I know what you mean. Most people are very placebo-prone. Emile Coue studied this subject intensely in the late 1800s and early 1900s with amazing revelations. All one need is Data Altitude, Charisma, power of impingement , lots of Faith , a great interesting story , and viola! , one gets results every time.

            77. TC: “Do you doubt the power of the mind and of Faith, then? Do you really think that all those ‘miracles’ that occur in collective praying (to one god) is the result of Jesus Christ acting on it? Welcome to the ‘Power of the Postulate’ and the ‘World of the Subconcious’, honey.”

              Leaving aside your condescending tone (here and all through your post, actually), I never for a moment said I doubted the power of the mind – or the postulate – or the subconscious. That has nothing to do with what I’ve been saying. Logic-wise, you are mixing apples and oranges.

              What I was talking about was pcs releasing enough charge that it shows up on the e-meter as tone arm action – which typically occurs in upper level auditing, including implant GPMs in the past per the data I have seen. On the other hand, there is no evidence that it typically occurs in prayer, OR in postulates, for that matter – other than the postulates that occur AFTER charge has been restimulated and then released.

              Peter : “I didn’t expect you to have any other reality on it. That’s the reality you wish to have, not necessarily the actuality of it all.”

              No, that’s another assumption – based on nothing but preconceived ideas on your part. And I could very easily assume the same about your reality – that you simply wish to have it, especially since you seem to have a lot of BPC on LRH.

              Peter : “How about if I invite you to chat over coffee so you learn how to relax, dear ? I don’t bite the last time I checked. Remember, I am a ‘priest’.:)

              I wish you could see how arrogant you sound so much of the time. If this is the style of Puerto Ricans – sorry, count me out. And I see now that your use of “dear” and “honey” is often just as offensive as the patronizing “gringos” of an older generation, who have the same attitude.

              Peter: “Now, can you accept already that you lost this one, or Pride is getting in the way of that, honey?”

              In your mind maybe. But frankly, I’m not interested in continuing to go round and round with you. Let’s let the thread speak for itself – we’ve each stated our views.

              Maybe we’ll try again some other time. I have no ill will towards you. You take care.

            78. Marildi : “Leaving aside your condescending tone (here and all through your post, actually), I never for a moment said I doubted the power of the mind – or the postulate – or the subconscious. That has nothing to do with what I’ve been saying. Logic-wise, yo u are mixing apples and oranges.”

              Peter : Well it seemed to me you doubted it.

              Marildi : “What I was talking about was pcs releasing enough charge that it shows up on the e-meter as tone arm action – which typically occurs in upper level auditing, including implant GPMs in the past per the data I have seen.”

              Peter : Marildi , you are just assuming that a TA action necessarily indicate real case change, and this might or not be the case. You are assuming that LRH was right about his assertions about what the different needle and TA manifestations means. You are starting it all from that assumed premise that you apparently feel that I share with you. And thus we are both starting from premises that the other do not necessarily agree on. Better find some mutually agreed upon premise and start from there. I am sure we can find quite a few of those.

              Marildi : On the other hand, there is no evidence that it typically occurs in prayer, OR in postulates, for that matter – other than the postulates that occur AFTER charge has been restimulated and then released.

              Peter : You don’t know about that and neither do I as we haven’t researched that. Again, you are assuming too much. This is not your style.

              “TC : “I didn’t expect you to have any other reality on it. That’s the reality you wish to have, not necessarily the actuality of it all.”

              Marildi : “No, that’s another assumption – based on nothing but preconceived ideas on your part. And I could very easily assume the same about your reality – that you simply wish to have it, especially since you seem to have a lot of BPC on LRH.”

              Peter : I do have BPC with LRH, but I can be impartial and unbiased about him, Marildi. That’s who I really am. If you knew me you’ll immediately realize about that.

              TC : “How about if I invite you to chat over coffee so you learn how to relax, dear ? I don’t bite the last time I checked. Remember, I am a ‘priest’.:)

              Marildi : “I wish you could see how arrogant you sound so much of the time. If this is the style of Puerto Ricans – sorry, count me out.”

              Peter : I was actually trying to be nice. It was an honest invitation. Why you saw it as arrogant escapes my understanding. Perhaps differences in cultures or language difficulties.

              Marildi : “And I see now that your use of “dear” and “honey” is often just as offensive as the patronizing “gringos” of an older generation, who have the same attitude.”

              Peter : I am 47. Don’t know what you mean by “older generation”. And I am sorry you feel that way about me. It was sincere what I felt. I promise not to use it again if that bother you. I hold a very high respect and esteem for all women. I feel they are more advance and mature than us men, and w/out them this world would lose all its beauty. I am sorry to disappoint you. It seems that I always have that effect on you.

              TC: “Now, can you accept already that you lost this one, or Pride is getting in the way of that, honey?”

              Marikdi : “In your mind maybe. But frankly, I’m not interested in continuing to go round and round with you. Let’s let the thread speak for itself – we’ve each stated our views.”

              Peter : Ok, sounds fair enough to me.

              Marildi : “Maybe we’ll try again some other time. I have no ill will towards you. You take care.”

              Peter : And I never had any for you , but it seems you think I did or do.

              You know Marildi , I am not the macho-type. I’ve never felt superior to women, and to any one man neither for that matter. I think women are very special beings who bring all the beauty this world has. I think that women bring balance to life, wisdom and tolerance. W/out you gals we are but brute animals driven by instinct.

              I might strike you as arrogant and condescending , and I don’t deny having had those qualities at some portion in my past. But it is a long gone past. Of course that I sometimes make mistakes and some manifestations of that might surface here and there sometimes. But when they do , it is only very briefly and I come to senses quite fast. My calling you “dear” and “honey” is sincere as I like you very much. I find it very interesting exchanging comms with you. Individuals with whom I can exchange ideas about any one subject , and intelligently so do not abound. I can’t explain why I feel attracted to you , I just know I do. It is not a 2D flow. It is just a desire to have a good friend to talk to. I can sense some “energies” sometimes, some “perceptions” around my space even over long distances. And it happens to me in relation with you , and I don’t know why. It feels like I know you from somewhere, like you feel very familiar. Perhaps I am not making any sense. I tend to babble a lot.

              I know that you are so damn stubborn , but I don’t seem to mind that. I know that you do not like to admit to being wrong , but I do not seem to mind that either. I feel I can have you as you are. You feel like family. It is a strange feeling.

              Anyway , I won’t bother you more with more “honey(s)” and “dear(s)”. I don’t mind your love for Scn and LRH. My point about those Bridge steps not having been based on actual recalls are not meant to invalidate the whole of Scn. It is an attempt to test its workability and reform it as needed. If I can perform research leading to determine whether those incs actually occurred or not , I think that it is a good and responsible idea, not an invalidation. I am honest enough to accept they are real if my research points to that. I am an honest researcher, Marildi, and I am a very honest person as well. I do not want to take Scn from you or any other of your beliefs. I just want you to feel free to disagree with any part of the subject, and that’s quite all right you know. I don’t feel that you are free as regards to that , no evaluation intended. But friends are honest with each other , right ? A friend might tell you something you don’t want to hear , but he feels the duty in doing so.

              I really thought that we could become good friends. Perhaps the cultural barriers are against that. Perhaps there is something that I am missing that I can’t see right now. I never intended to upset you as such. We live here in an Island of 33 miles x 108 miles. We are but just a point in space. Because of that we here tend to be very impersonal. We do not have a lot of social veener that other cultures have. We meet at buses and talk to each other as if we have known each other all our lives. When we get upset we don’t hide it. We are blunt and direct and emotional, but it is never personal. Not for most of us, at least. We can take criticism rather easily. We can fight and be friends at the same time.

              But you seems to get offended rather easily. You see “hidden intentions” where they do not exist. You doubt the intentions of others ; I’ve seen this many times. You doubt the sincerity of many comments. You seems to be very defensive and protective of yourself. And I don’t know if this is just part of your personality or if it is a cultural thing. Either way I like you the way you are. Why ? I have no clue. You just feel familiar.

              Well , enough babbling for one night. It is already 1:17pm for me. Tomorrow is holiday in PR , but when is it not here ? By the way , I meant it the thing about that “Mogongo con Camarones”. I was just trying to smooth things out between us , but it seems that I am getting clumsy at it after many years away from people [ and from women:) ]

              Take care,

              Peter

            79. Peter, thank you for all the nice words. I like you too.:) And thanks for telling me more about yourself and your culture. It was really interesting.

              I’m glad you had a good session today. You said it was solo auditing and I wondered if it was NOTs style. If so, you might want to check with David St. Lawrence (the one who hosts the Spiritual Rescue Technology forum and a few other sites). He has greatly improved upon the NOTs tech and offers a free intro session. I got auditing from him on this and so have many others, and I can highly recommend him. Here’s his email address if you are interested: david.stlawrence(at)gmail.com

              My best to you!

              marildi

            80. Marildi : “Peter, thank you for all the nice words. I like you too.:) And thanks for telling me more about yourself and your culture. It was really interesting.

              Peter : Thanks! ; You are most welcome.

              Marildi : I’m glad you had a good session today. You said it was solo auditing and I wondered if it was NOTs style.”

              Peter : No , it wasn’t. To tell you the truth , I don’t have much affinity for NOTs. It just never appealed to me. I can do it and understand its theory quite well , but I prefer to handle my own case directly by addressing my own considerations. I don’t mind others doing it , though , if it really helps them.

              My handling today was more in the line of Rudiments. Most problems in life are out-Rudiments situations of some kind or another , and the Rudimeents can go out for several reasons. But I discovered that an ARCX for example , has more subdivisions to it (parts) that just the CDEI scale. There is more than just “Curious” , “Desire” , “Enforced” , “Inhibited” , “No” , and “Refused”. We also have , “Rejected” , “Invalidated” , “Denied” , “Hidden” , “Altered” , “False” , “Pretended” , etc.

              Also O/Ws are frequently the direct result of prior ARCXs with terminals, areas, locations, objects, and subjects. Problems are also frequently the result of prior ARCXs besides O/Ws on the terminals , objects and areas. They are all inter-connected and related to each others. They form a “Negative Triangle” just like the ARC triangle, but in the negative harmonic . So if one has a situation in any area of life or with a terminal -and by “situation” I mean any misemotion, non-survival attitude, PTP, fixation, etc – One can address it by putting in all Rudiments on it. Running all ARCXs, Problems, and O/Ws regarding the terminals as just terminals , or the area by finding the terminals that represent the troublesome area.

              This is done as part of the PTS RD, but not much outside the RD itself. But most situations in life are “purpose v/s purpose” , “intention v/s intention” propositions of one kind or another , and thus PTS sits. So we run all Rudiments out , and a few tricks can be added to it that works quite well.

              For example, after handling an ARCX we can ask, “Did an Overt/Withhold happened because of it ?” and handle it. Also, “Did a problem resulted from it ?” and handle it as well but not necessarily with E/S but as repetitive commands or a 2WC process. You’ll be amaze how much you can handle playing with one thing against the other.

              That’s how I usually address my situations in life. And I can be rock-bottom ARC broken, and totally out of it usually under an hour. I usually start thinking how dog someone has been to me , and end up thinking how dog I was. :-)))

              I am also researching about Actual GPM handling, specifically handling the PT GPM the individual is dramatizing. I believe that handling those Actual Goals/Term-Oppterm packages is the key to blow whatever actual Implanted GPMs exists and even BTs as well. I believe that BTs would blow by the ton by running out our Actual GPMs. I am currently studying TROM to test it in handling PT GPMs. It was suggested to me by Freebeing , and what I have read so far looks promising. I shall see in a few weeks.

              Marildi : ” If so, you might want to check with David St. Lawrence (the one who hosts the Spiritual Rescue Technology forum and a few other sites). He has greatly improved upon the NOTs tech and offers a free intro session. I got auditing from him on this and so have many others, and I can highly recommend him. Here’s his email address if you are interested: david.stlawrence(at)gmail.com”

              Peter : Thanks for the information ; I know about David’s research , and he seems like a great guy. That’s an area I am interested in taking up next , but my interest is more in learning to establish comm lines with disembodied spirits and not so much with BTs. I remember having that goal since 5 years old more or less. But I chicken out when a girl who was secretly in love with me (we were both the same age more or less, 9-10 ) and that had recently passed away, went down through the roof and approached me in bed. I became so scare that I almost had a heart attack. My sister and I were kind of mediums, but that was it for me. I shut all my “psychic” perceptions up since then until I met Scn like 9-10 years after. :)

              But even with Scn , I still heavily resist making any contact. I am fearful of opening the Pandora Box with beings outside my perimeter of action.

              But I’ll take a look into David’s again. It has been a while since I last checked.

              “My best to you!
              marildi”

              Thanks!
              Peter

            81. Peter: “To tell you the truth, I don’t have much affinity for NOTs. It just never appealed to me. I can do it and understand its theory quite well, but I prefer to handle my own case directly by addressing my own considerations. I don’t mind others doing it, though, if it really helps them.”

              I think it does really help – when done correctly or with DSL’s (David St. Lawrence’s) improvements. We have to keep in mind that there are two sides of “the bridge” – and by that I mean the “bridge” on any path. It wasn’t just Hubbard who recognized that part of the road to freedom, in addition to handling one’s own “shadows,” is training – i.e. knowledge and the handling of others and life. I’ve heard that even the Buddhists nowadays are having their monks do more than meditate almost all the time. They’ve recognized the need to get out into society and interact in life.

              I mention all that because, with regard to spiritual entities (any bodyless spirits, not just BTs) the KRC triangle applies, since this is an area where a person’s own positive Control can be sabotaged. If a person doesn’t have the Knowledge needed, and take Responsibility in the this area, Control goes out – even to the degree that an entity can take over and run the body/mind as “captain of the ship.” So-called “multiple personalities” is one thing David and other SRT auditors have helped people to handle.

              Even if entities aren’t completely taking over a person, they can still greatly alter the person’s attitudes, emotions, sensations and pains – AESP’s. Just as Dianetics handles AESP’s when the source of them is the bank, so does NOTS and SRT handle the entities as another source – which, like the bank, is amazingly hidden from people.

              Peter: “Thanks for the information; I know about David’s research, and he seems like a great guy. That’s an area I am interested in taking up next , but my interest is more in learning to establish comm lines with disembodied spirits and not so much with BTs. I remember having that goal since 5 years old more or less.”

              Wow – that’s exactly the focus of SRT. Many other groups around the world have also known that there are “spirits” connected to and interacting with people. The ones that are trying to help are sometimes called “spirit guides,” and others are seen as evil. All types are addressed in SRT. They usually need some auditing, and when they get SRT auditing they often choose to stay and help the person with his goals, etc. Some of them decide to leave and get a body of their own (as they are now able to) and they are free to do so. The ones who stay are called “Spiritual Team Members” – or STM’s.

              Peter: “But I chicken out when a girl who was secretly in love with me (we were both the same age more or less, 9-10), and that had recently passed away, went down through the roof and approached me in bed. I became so scare that I almost had a heart attack. My sister and I were kind of mediums, but that was it for me. I shut all my ‘psychic’ perceptions up since then until I met Scn like 9-10 years after.:)

              Auditing can handle that.😀 Seriously, why don’t you audit this area?

              Peter: “But even with Scn, I still heavily resist making any contact. I am fearful of opening the Pandora Box with beings outside my perimeter of action. But I’ll take a look into David’s again. It has been a while since I last checked.”

              Okay, good. I’m pretty sure you will find that it doesn’t have to be a Pandora’s Box.😉

            82. TC: “To tell you the truth, I don’t have much affinity for NOTs. It just never appealed to me. I can do it and understand its theory quite well, but I prefer to handle my own case directly by addressing my own considerations. I don’t mind others doing it, though, if it really helps them.

              Marildi : “I think it does really help – when done correctly or with DSL’s (David St. Lawrence’s) improvements. We have to keep in mind that there are two sides of “the bridge” – and by that I mean the “bridge” on any path. It wasn’t just Hubbard who recognized that part of the road to freedom, in addition to handling one’s own “shadows,” is training – i.e. knowledge and the handling of others and life. I’ve heard that even the Buddhists nowadays are having their monks do more than meditate almost all the time. They’ve recognized the need to get out into society and interact in life.”

              Peter : Yes , I agree with your assertions there. I am quite aware that Entities ( BTs , Free spirits ; trapped spirits but not in bodies as such , but in the “other plane” ; “Demons” ; “Guardians” ; “angels” ) DO exist , and that they DOES have an effect on us to a greater or lesser degree , although , never the effect LRH attempted us to believe with his NOTs. Not to that degree , by a long , long ways. In the case of the “Girl in love” that I talked about , she remained with me till recently ( a year or so ago ) , and caused me more trouble ( unwittingly as she meant good ) than I had imagined. Health trouble and many fears as well. When I was able finally able to contact her ( not with NOTs , but a much , much real experience w/out the aid of Reads ) , I felt this immense grief coming from her (which became mine as well for like an hour ) as finally having been acknowledged. I thanked her and flow a very high ARC wave at her acknowledging her existence. It turned out that she had been attempting to warn me all along of some future danger ahead , but I just wasn’t able to pick that up before she left my space.

              I’ve always felt this intuition that I will face deadly dangers not only to my body but to my spiritual existence as such , but I’ve never wanted to confront my perceptions . Still don’t. Something will happen to this planet in our generation. I hope that I am only being delusional. I feel like many souls inside my head trying to get me to listen to them , but I don’t want to. I don’t want to carry a load I am not ready to carry. I want to pretend to be normal. But It feels that I was meant for something that I’ve never wanted to confront , but chose to live a “normal” life this lifetime instead. One of hiding from my higher duties , because others won’t be able to Miss the W/H anyway ; thus , I am “safe” then. That’s why I do not want to go into the spiritual world , because then I won’t have any justifications for not confronting my fate then. I want to be normal , Marildi. I want the cat , the dog , the house , the mortgage , the kid , the illusions of it all. My life have been one about running away from my responsibilities for the greater sphere of life.

              Marildi : “I mention all that because, with regard to spiritual entities (any bodyless spirits, not just BTs) the KRC triangle applies, since this is an area where a person’s own positive Control can be sabotaged. If a person doesn’t have the Knowledge needed, and take Responsibility in the this area, Control goes out – even to the degree that an entity can take over and run the body/mind as “captain of the ship.” So-called “multiple personalities” is one thing David and other SRT auditors have helped people to handle.”

              Peter : Yes , I am aware of that ; specially in others , not in myself. You’ll be amazed of the control that I can exert over any being even over long distances. I am not worry about what they can do to me , believe me. I am the captain of my own self , body and mind. But I am quite aware that most people aren’t.

              Marildi : “Even if entities aren’t completely taking over a person, they can still greatly alter the person’s attitudes, emotions, sensations and pains – AESP’s. Just as Dianetics handles AESP’s when the source of them is the bank, so does NOTS and SRT handle the entities as another source – which, like the bank, is amazingly hidden from people.”

              Peter : Yes , I am aware of that , and always was long before Scn. But in my own personal case , I can spot thoughts outside my head with a lot of frequency. I pity the BTs , I don’t fear them , not I am concern over the effect they might have over me. Certainly no more that I allow them to have. Not really a situation with me. Higher beings with a full command over the electronics of the mind , not that DOES worry me , and a LOT. Those I fear. That’s my fear , not BTs or disembodies beings roaming around Earth. Those are very easy to control. Those are harmless even the ones dramatizing their Evil Purps ; At least , they are to me.

              TC: “Thanks for the information; I know about David’s research, and he seems like a great guy. That’s an area I am interested in taking up next , but my interest is more in learning to establish comm lines with disembodied spirits and not so much with BTs. I remember having that goal since 5 years old more or less.”

              Marildi : “Wow – that’s exactly the focus of SRT. Many other groups around the world have also known that there are “spirits” connected to and interacting with people. The ones that are trying to help are sometimes called “spirit guides,” and others are seen as evil. All types are addressed in SRT. They usually need some auditing, and when they get SRT auditing they often choose to stay and help the person with his goals, etc. Some of them decide to leave and get a body of their own (as they are now able to) and they are free to do so. The ones who stay are called “Spiritual Team Members” – or STM’s.”

              Peter : Thanks , Yes , I have read about it in the SRT site , and I am a follower of Vedic Astrology as well where the subject has been studied as well since thousands of years ago. Alan Walter also worked with it as well.

              TC: “But I chicken out when a girl who was secretly in love with me (we were both the same age more or less, 9-10), and that had recently passed away, went down through the roof and approached me in bed. I became so scare that I almost had a heart attack. My sister and I were kind of mediums, but that was it for me. I shut all my ‘psychic’ perceptions up since then until I met Scn like 9-10 years after.:)

              Marildi : “Auditing can handle that.😀 Seriously, why don’t you audit this area?”

              Peter : Cause I belong to that realm , Marildi , I do not belong here ; and I am afraid of what might happen. Cause then I won’t have any excuse to say that I didn’t “listened to” the message of the Guardians .Cause I would have to confront a destiny I don’t feel ready to confront yet. Cause I am able to sense futures in my aberrated state , like the death of my brother and other events , and I am afraid to predict the death of a love one w/out being able to do anything about it as it happened with my dear brother. My life has been about suffering , a big portion of it. I just one to be a normal guy for once , that’s all. I want to wake up one day and be normal. To get hypnotized into being normal. To forget about the future , and all the sensations that I feel in a daily basis , with all these energies around me overwhelming me all the time. My life is a mess , Marildi ; a royal mess.

              TC : “But even with Scn, I still heavily resist making any contact. I am fearful of opening the Pandora Box with beings outside my perimeter of action. But I’ll take a look into David’s again. It has been a while since I last checked.”

              Marildi : “Okay, good. I’m pretty sure you will find that it doesn’t have to be a Pandora’s Box.😉 ”

              Peter : Perhaps for others , it won’t ; but in my case , it is a disaster about to happen. I just one to be normal , and enjoy life as others do , w/out having to be worry about futures. I don’t want to be able to listen to no damn spiritual messengers and guardians. I just want to be left alone by them. So they might as well look for another vessel ; I am not going to be it.

              Thanks for your concern , I really appreciate it. I do not dismiss your ideas on the area , as they have always been very real to me since only 5 years old. It is just than I am not ready yet. For me it is a lot more than just the read and the vague concept that a Solo-NOTs gets. My astrologer told me some time ago ( I into the metaphysical world as well , surprised ? ) that I had medium capabilities , and I that attracted lots of souls even from past lifetimes. I thought then that he was full of shit . Well , it seems he wasn’t. I use Cedar oil to drive them away. Sorry , I know that it doesn’t sound like the Peter you know ; but it you were to see my life through my own eyes , you would understand.

              Take care ,

              Peter

            83. Peter: “I’ve always felt this intuition that I will face deadly dangers not only to my body but to my spiritual existence as such , but I’ve never wanted to confront my perceptions.”

              You’ve reminded me of something that occurred when I was relatively new in Scientology but had already done some training. I was driving along on my way to the org to get a session, and the closer I got, the more I did NOT want to be there – even though I knew there was no rational reason for it. If it hadn’t been for having a basic understanding of the mind, I would have turned around and gone back home. But I knew better, and forced myself to continue. And of course it all got handled – with an Int Rundown: “don’t want to go in,” I believe was the button.:)

              This was the first of many times where a session, or more than one, put me in a whole new condition, or reality. I’m sure you’ve had similar experiences so I just wanted to remind you of those, in case they might apply to your situation.

              Peter: “Thanks for your concern, I really appreciate it. I do not dismiss your ideas on the area, as they have always been very real to me since only 5 years old. It is just than I am not ready yet. For me it is a lot more than just the read and the vague concept that a Solo-NOTs gets.”

              Understood. If you ever do decide to talk to David SL about the subject, you may find that he is aware of the type situation you’re in and can tell you about some others who have been in similar straits.

              Peter: “My astrologer told me some time ago (I am into the metaphysical world as well surprised?) that I had medium capabilities, and I that attracted lots of souls even from past lifetimes. I thought then that he was full of shit. Well , it seems he wasn’t. I use Cedar oil to drive them away. Sorry, I know that it doesn’t sound like the Peter you know; but it you were to see my life through my own eyes , you would understand.”

              No, I’m not surprised. And I have no considerations about you or anyone delving into such things as Astrology. To me, if particles can be entangled with each other, I don’t see why the particles of bodies and auras can’t be entangled with the stars.:)

            84. p.s. One other thing I forgot to mention:

              TC: “What I was saying was that upper research was not done using actual recalls on incidents (with Visio, Sonic, etc) , but mostly using prepared lists, L&N on specific key Qs, and the like, to ‘validate’ LRH’s own ‘recalls’ of ‘Whole track’ incidents , to then expect us ‘little Homo Sapiens lacking whole track recall’ to just ‘believe’ him. To HELL with that shit!!!”

              In the above, you directly linked L&N to “LRH’s own ‘recalls.'” This is an example of what I meant when I said your posts have been confusing – and it’s one the reasons it is tedious to attempt a discussion with you.

              Just a little advice – ease up on being so full of yourself. Take it or leave it.

            85. Marildi : “Just a little advice – ease up on being so full of yourself. Take it or leave it.”

              I like you when you are angry , and when you are blunt and direct. That’s the way I like it ; no social veener bullshit.

            86. P.S.
              I forgot to mention that the alleged “marvelous” Actual GPM “research” you referred to, is to date the Scientology procedure where cases got utterly bogged the most, and many even died. Check many of Alan Walter’s reports on that on ESMB. Many other original BC research auditors have talked about that in great detail. Listen also to Dennis Stephens’ “O4-Expanding on Level 5” lecture. He is the creator of TROM. He was there at the BC, and is a reliable witness of what really went down at the Actual GPM research. Alan Walter was also there , and even had to repair dozens if not hundreds of heavily bogged GPM research cases. Dennis also repaired a lot of them. So much for a “competent” and reliable “research” , ah Marildi ?

            87. There is very little information available on exactly how Hubbard’s research was done. I do recall reading that a group effort was involved as regards implants either on the CC or OT II, I don’t rcall which or where I read it, probably ESMB.

              Now as to your assertions that only reads were used… You have to have some item to get a read in the 1st place. So these items came from someplace. You assume from L&N. Could be. But to put together the clearing course required more than just doing L& N. There are multiple sections to the incident. It is not a line-plot incident at all. This required more than just reads. It required sequencing which reads alone will not give you. Whether anyone else besides Hubbard himself was audited through the CC implant for research is not known to me. I really can’t say.

              You have Ken Ogger as another example of a researcher. He too provided detailed information for running a number of implants. This wasn’t put together just using reads. As you lift charge off these things the incident comes more and more into view. Harping on “it was all just reads” seems a bit silly to me. I imagine Elizabeth could tell you quite a bit about handling implants:) and she doesn’t use a meter at all so no L&N involved.

              Your assertion that it was all reads is just your assumption, you weren’t there and you don’t know, so why you engage in this drawn out discussion is beyond me. I guess you’d just like to discredit “the research” Hubbard did? I’m sure it is worthy of criticism, but there is very little evidence available of how it was done.

            88. if you would have enough experience in sessions-confrontation than by now you would know how things were put together and why.
              No amount of research -reading stuff on how something was done will give that first hand experience which is knowing-understanding.
              huje vagy…

            89. Yes! The knowledge comes from your own experience. I’ve run into implants in session and they certainly were not “just reads”, There was an incident there to be explored. Had a beginning (curious) middle (not so fun) and end (glad to get the hell out of there!):)

              Much more to be experienced (I don’t like the word confronted) Thank you for your encouragement Elizabeth

            90. Freebeing : “Your assertion that it was all reads is just your assumption, you weren’t there and you don’t know, so why you engage in this drawn out discussion is beyond me. I guess you’d just like to discredit “the research” Hubbard did? I’m sure it is worthy of criticism, but there is very little evidence available of how it was done.”

              Peter : “Asumptions” ? Tell you what, Freebeing, when you go and read ALL ESMB posts about it as I DID, including ALL of Alan Walter’s posts (which I also DID) , and when you read ALL articles of EVERY issue of the Ivy magazine (as I did as well) where most of those old timers BC research auditors posted for more than a decade, then come, and I’ll be very happy to continue with this discussion. Otherwise , it is YOU, and not me the one making “assumptions” about what I do know or not, and about my “real” intentions. I have no time nor patience to play these games with you. Read them all, and tell me when you are ready. I am not doing your work for you.

              Peter

            91. Other than all the Ivy issues (I’ve only read Ivy’s available online), I have read all your proffered data sources.

              Perhaps your use of the term “meter reads” is not quite as exclusive as I am taking you to mean? Usually there is some narrative to go along with a ‘read’. Otherwise you haven’t a clue what ‘read’. Are you are stating that is the only thing Hubbard used to “validate” what he or a pc recalled? I think there was more involved (like a manifested change the person). I will grant that the fact of using a ‘read’ to “prove” something’s actuality is not justified in all cases (perhaps never if you are looking for scientific proof.) Neither is it complete bunk. How exactly would you go about “proving” the “fact” of someone’s before this life recalls? I haven’t run across any copies of “A Short History of the Universe” in my travels with which to check up on billion/trillion year old history…😀

              I do know from personal experience that addressing various “whole-track” incidents has been quite beneficial to me. Some would say that was “false memory syndrome” — something which I’d politely not agree.

            92. Freebeing : “Other than all the Ivy issues (I’ve only read Ivy’s available online), I have read all your proffered data sources.”

              Peter : Good! , that’s good to know , then. We seem to be in the same wavelength here.

              Freebeing : “Perhaps your use of the term “meter reads” is not quite as exclusive as I am taking you to mean? ”

              Peter : Yes, It was never that “exclusive”. It mostly meant “Not Dianetically recalled”.

              Freebeing : “Usually there is some narrative to go along with a ‘read’. Otherwise you haven’t a clue what ‘read’. ”

              Peter : Not necessarily. L&N is not a “narrative” type of item, neither Assessments are. If you meant “narrative” as coming from the PCs themselves, it could only be short answers in the form of “yes” or “no” , or short verbal phrases , or sustantives (nouns). But it is not necessarily a narrative , Dianetically speaking , which include Recalls as such not in “Reverie”.

              Freebeing : “Are you are stating that is the only thing Hubbard used to “validate” what he or a pc recalled? I think there was more involved (like a manifested change the person).”

              Peter : No, that wasn’t necessarily what I meant. Of course he used “Indicators” coupled with “Reads” to validate recalls. He always did, so it seems. What I was saying was that upper research was not done using actual recalls on incidents (with Visio, Sonic, etc) , but mostly using prepared lists, L&N on specific key Qs, and the like, to “validate” LRH’s own “recalls” of “Whole track” incidents , to then expect us “little Homo Sapiens lacking whole track recall” to just “believe” him. To HELL with that shit!!!

              If you listen to all the BC lectures, which you did, and read all of Alan Walter’s reports at ESMB and Alt.religion, plus all reports from all those original BC research auditors that posted at Ivy, like Otto Roos , Dart Smohen (the principal research ch guy of OT II and III , and above (Not NOTS, but the original ones) , etc ; there is no mention of any Implanted GPs from the C.C. , OT II , and OT III, having been done by having PCs recall Dianetically actual incidents, isolated from each other, then seeing the similarities in recalls. I haven’t been able to locate any such report from any of them. It is not online anywhere to be found.

              Don’t you think that if those type of reports would have existed, we would have known them by now ? And more so, to validate and rehabilitate LRH’s research ? Surely by now those old timers KSW supporters would have got a hold of such reports, don’t you think ? They don’t exist as nobody seems to remember them. I mean, that’s logic 101 , Freebeing. Those type of events tends to get disseminated and spread like fire. They become legend.

              Freebeing : ” I will grant that the fact of using a ‘read’ to “prove” something’s actuality is not justified in all cases (perhaps never if you are looking for scientific proof.) Neither is it complete bunk. How exactly would you go about “proving” the “fact” of someone’s before this life recalls? I haven’t run across any copies of “A Short History of the Universe” in my travels with which to check up on billion/trillion year old history…😀

              Peter : It is not a matter of “proving” anybody’s past life recalls. That was never my issue. I am talking about a SIMILARITY of recalls of those specific “implants” from the Implanted GPMs of the C.C. , OT II, and Inc 1 and 2 of OT III. Those SPECIFIC incidents (not just any past life recall ) were NOT researched by having X numbers of PCs, isolated from each other, recall DIANETICALLY speaking (Visio, Sonic, Somatic recall) those alleged incidents to then determine that if X amount of people actually RAN them w/out none of them having had any kind of contact with each other (not even the auditors themselves) , then they must have , indeed, happened.

              The data so far gathered by me, after having inspected and studied in detail all possible posts online (books, stories, blogs, sites, magazines, etc) , doesn’t indicate that anything except Reads themselves were used in such research as with L&N Qs, Listing in general, specific assessments, etc. That’s the data so far gathered. If you have anothe, please do present it.

              I was not talking about the general past life recall that has been proved in various ways, at least to my own satisfacion. And a this planet past life is indeed VERY easy to be “verifiable”. All it takes is a VERY simple experiment. PC A recalls specific incs from lifetime B. It is demostrated first that he never visited such country nor even saw it on TV or online. He gives from his recalls VERY specific details of places, forms, objects, etc. Then one can go visit that place and determine if those objects, forms, etc actually exist. You repeat that experiment with enough people, and you made it.

              But of course, many “scientists” would say something like, “Yeah, but he could have dreamed about it, and the ‘collapsing cat’ that was neither alive nor dead, sent a ‘collapsed wave’ to his brain from a ‘photon’ that existed at that period of time, who had an immediate ‘action at a distance’ effwct on a ‘photon’ entering his eyes , who then ‘collapsed’ into a wave in his brain, and gave him an ‘encripted’ meassage”. Or some other nonsense to avoid the self-ridicule caused by non understanding.

              Freebeing : “I do know from personal experience that addressing various “whole-track” incidents has been quite beneficial to me. Some would say that was “false memory syndrome” —something which I’d politely not agree.”

              Peter : And I wouldn’t politely agree to it neither. Past lives are a reality for me. Implants feels “psychically intuitive” to me , even though I have never run any in actuality. And I don’t dismiss the idea of cosmological based psychotherapies. But, I just like to do research differently ; that’s all. If I am going to determine that some specific incs are commonly shared by thousand of individuals, I am going to want to study a representative sample, get them to recall Dianetically – each participant never having heard of such incs before in theor lives , and being totally isolated from each others- and then comparing and cross referencing such recalls. Part of the research would be the Reads thus obtained in such recalls. THAT’s how that type of research is done. And then having other teams repeat the research.

              But expecting others to just trust our “research” , and believe that such incs are “real” just becuase we got “reads” , is the worst of the authoritarianisms. That’s how I see it. Clear enough now ?

              By the way, THANKS a lot for the documents you sent me ; I got them all. I’ll be taking a look at them these next days.

              Best,
              Peter

            93. Supposedly there was collation of a number of people’s recalls used to create OT II. There is a wealth of information from some old-timers like Alan Walter and Roger Boswarva on ESMB that relate their actual experiences at St Hill at the time that GPM research was in progress. Dennis Stephens also was at St Hill at the time and developed TROM as a result of Hubbard’s failure to solve the GPM.

              One thing to note: Hubbard did not handle the item’s charge. He assumed that mere listing was all that was required — this was a huge mistake (he made a number of mistakes in regard to GPM tech.) So it is quire understandable that he wound up in the end as he did as he never actually handled the goals you, I think, are assuming he did.

            94. Freebeing : “Supposedly there was collation of a number of people’s recalls used to create OT II . There is a wealth of information from some old-timers like Alan Walter and Roger Boswarva on ESMB that relate their actual experiences at St Hill at the time that GPM research was in progress. Dennis Stephens also was at St Hill at the time and developed TROM as a result of Hubbard’s failure to solve the GPM.”

              Peter : Yeah, I am quite familiar with Dennis , and the late Alan Walters. I happen to have all of Alan’s posts at ESMB, which I’ve read them all like 2-3x. I’ve also read part of Dennis’s TROM and his many articles at Ivy magazine . In none of their posts , did any of those individuals mentioned anything about a “collation of a number of people’s recalls” used to create OT 2. That just isn’t so , Freebeing. Otto Roos , was more trained than any of those individuals, and personally worked with LRH on his OT research. Otto was (still is) one of the first original class XIIs who trained under LRH. He was even better than Mayo, and that’s a lot to say. I’ve read everything Otto ever wrote on Scn/LRH, specially the famous Otto Roos’s letter, and his many articles at Ivy. And he never ever mentioned about any type of recall as such used for OT research. I mean, Otto was the best there is.

              Freebeing : “One thing to note: Hubbard did not handle the item’s charge. He assumed that me relisting was all that was required —this was a huge mistake (he made a number of mistakes in regard to GPM tech.)”

              Peter: It might have not been fully handled as you say , but if one is able put together the whole Line Plot of a GPM with all its RIs (Reliable Items, the Terms and Oppterms = The terminal + the Opposing terminal) and corresponding goals , one is then able to bleed a TON of charge from the RIs and the goals themselves. By just correctly assembling the whole GPM (the Line Plot) , one is getting the PC to cognite on how exactly he had been living that particular goal with its modifications through time, and what valences he assumed and fought. Wow, that to me does represent handling the item’s charge to a very large degree.

              Yes, I can understand that we can address specific processes directly addressed to the Term-Oppterm pair to bleed more charge out of them, but assembling the GPM all by itself should handle most of the Rock Slaming manifestations of the RIs. At laest the PC should not be dramatizing his Evil Purps so much in that area.

              Freebeing : “So it is quire understandable that he wound up in the end as he did as he never actually handled the goals you, I think, are assuming he did.”

              Peter : Not at all, Freebeing. It is not “understandable” at all. The man run at least 12 whole Actual GPMS, for Christ sakes! A 1 or 2 GPM fully run on someone would make him a Clear per LRH. A 4-7 GPM release was considered an OT as such. Listen to the BC lectures again. Add to that that he did all Ls which allegedly handles psychosis, specially L-10 which came from his Psychosis Research cases and C/Ses. Plus he must have run all FPRD forms on himself. And STILL he was dramatizing Evil Purps against so many items ? Come on , that’s the most contradictory scene that I have ever seen!!! TOTALLY inconsistent. Something just doesn’t add up here. And when something doesn’t add up, usually there are just too many arbitrary factors (lies) in the scene.

              Anyway , those are my views on it.