tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post5939535092262434119..comments2023-09-18T04:45:52.991-07:00Comments on Ask the Scientologist: Scientologists: Don't you wonder?Just Billhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-56758625014087559292010-07-23T17:11:24.173-07:002010-07-23T17:11:24.173-07:00"criticizing Hubbard is not evil incarnate&qu..."criticizing Hubbard is not evil incarnate" I like this phrase. To disagree or to critisize a theory, a philisopy, a book, a writer, an idea, a suggestion, is part of an individual's rights of freedom---the right to express an opinion. But why should the criricised feel threatened and shout "enemy" because of a critisism? No one is perfect in this world. No human being is faultless and no human being can afford to by-pass a chance for improvement from honest and scencere critisism.Growth comes from critisism, too. That is one of the ways change can come.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-72338305260334439712010-05-23T10:32:50.172-07:002010-05-23T10:32:50.172-07:00@Sylver
Please stop completely altering what I sa...@Sylver<br /><br />Please stop completely altering what I said and then claiming that's what I "<i>really</i> meant".<br /><br />Your "examples" do <i>not</i> prove your point and your "paraphrasing" <i>completely</i> alters what I said.<br /><br />Is this some kind of by-product of Scientology Study Tech, where you can't read what was written but must alter it to say something completely different? You really should get a refund.<br /><br />I have <i>never</i> said, inferred, thought or written that the subject of Scientology should be destroyed. On the contrary, I <i>have</i> said, <i>many</i> times, that I thought there was some good in the subject and hoped those parts would be preserved and enhanced.<br /><br />From your rewording, it appears that you believe that criticizing Hubbard is <i>exactly the same</i> as wishing for the destruction of Scientology. Some day, when you are able to think clearly again, you will see that one does <i>not</i> mean the other and that criticizing Hubbard is not evil incarnate.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-54446168552908156142010-05-23T03:41:30.776-07:002010-05-23T03:41:30.776-07:00@JustBill:
Your exact statement is above, and the ...@JustBill:<br />Your exact statement is above, and the comment you are responding too is just above that. <br /><br />Given that context, who do you think you are fooling? <br /><br />You did not *just* say that <i>LRH "created the environment that was, and is, prone to abuses"</i>. You then went on to say "<i>I believe that LRH created the environment that inevitably resulted in Miscavige</i>". <br /><br />As you consider Mr. Miscavige to be a psycho dictator who enslaves scientologists (am I putting words in your mouth here?), it follows *inevitably* that you believe LRH created an environment (through Scientology, right?) which would lead to the raise of a psycho dictator. <br /><br />You can't really contest that one, it's hardly more than a paraphrase of your original statement.<br /><br />Further you state that this post was written with a scientologist audience in mind which is the reason why you are "being nice" with LRH, because you want to take things "with a gradient", whereas your actual opinion is a total condemnation of LRH and his works. <br /><br />Your intentions are fairly obvious, you know. Why do you keep trying to cover it up by quoting LRH, when you have made it abundantly clear you consider his words to be hogwash?<br /><br />You are not just an enemy of the Church and of its current leadership. You are an enemy of the subject itself, and even though you want to do it "in gradients", only an idiot could fail to see that destroying the subject itself is indeed your goal.Sylvernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-43906881728874344102010-05-22T11:24:34.532-07:002010-05-22T11:24:34.532-07:00@Anonymous
Just because you put words in my mouth...@Anonymous<br /><br />Just because you put words in my mouth doesn't mean I said them. Just because you <i>think</i> I have some intention doesn't mean that <i>is</i> my intention.<br /><br />You are wrong.<br /><br />I have no intention to "destroy Scientology as a subject". I never said that I <i>never</i> thought that and I <i>certainly</i> don't want that.<br /><br />If <i>you</i> want to "destroy Scientology as a subject", go ahead and try -- you won't have any luck. You cannot "destroy" an idea, and trying to do so will have the opposite effect.<br /><br />I <i>said</i> that I believed that LRH "created the environment that was, and is, prone to abuses". I <i>said</i> that I don't have as high an opinion of LRH as True Believers do. How on earth did you take that and warp it into my "intending to destroy Scientology as a subject"?<br /><br />Please, don't try to put words in my mouth, it's not nice.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-26200667633875799982010-05-22T11:04:53.497-07:002010-05-22T11:04:53.497-07:00Nice comment. It's another way of saying that ...Nice comment. It's another way of saying that your *real* intention is to destroy Scientology as a subject.<br /><br />Your "scientologist-friendly" mask just kind of splattered on the floor, you know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-40897973500810280852008-04-03T06:24:00.000-07:002008-04-03T06:24:00.000-07:00Thanks, anonymous.I, personally, do believe that L...Thanks, anonymous.<BR/><BR/>I, personally, <I>do</I> believe that LRH created the environment that was, and is, so prone to abuses. I believe that LRH created the environment that <I>inevitably</I> resulted in Miscavige.<BR/><BR/>However, this particular post is designed to be readable by, and acceptable to, the average Scientologist - who, usually, <I>does</I> have a higher opinion of LRH.<BR/><BR/>They often need to open their eyes on a gradient.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-14943760752857605712008-04-03T05:15:00.000-07:002008-04-03T05:15:00.000-07:00Thanks for a great site.What makes me wonder about...Thanks for a great site.<BR/>What makes me wonder about this post is that you seem to believe that CoS was a great place and that the tech actually worked, when LRH was in charge. You seem to be forgetting that LRH invented both Fair Game and "Attack, never defend"! There's no doubt that Miscavige is a tyrant, but LRH was too (although not as powerful as DM).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-35144038582949125382008-04-02T14:11:00.000-07:002008-04-02T14:11:00.000-07:00Well said, anonymous.In the end, those in the CoS ...Well said, anonymous.<BR/><BR/>In the end, those in the CoS who have exploited the good-but-gullible people will have to answer for all this.<BR/><BR/>At lease, I believe that will happen.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-1583430232528431782008-04-02T12:20:00.000-07:002008-04-02T12:20:00.000-07:00I thought there was meant to be a confront for eve...I thought there was meant to be a confront for everything? It doesn't look very good for LRH tech if scientologists have to be kept away from opposing views and criticism in case it "enturbulates" them. It's sad, really, that people invest so much time, effort and money in scientology and get so little of any real value back. Especially the staff. There's nothing more hurtful than giving your all to something and then continually being told it's not good enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-28441568321052842382008-03-21T06:06:00.000-07:002008-03-21T06:06:00.000-07:00Scientologists can't look at ARS and Clambake. Th...Scientologists can't look at ARS and Clambake. They can't look at much of <I>anything</I>. So speaking to Scientologists about that sort of thing does not communicate.<BR/><BR/>The reason I wrote this post the way I did is to point out all those obvious things that Scientologists <I>can</I> look at and <I>can</I> see, and note what <I>any</I> Scientologist should note: Things are not right.<BR/><BR/>You can't talk to Scientologists about things they are not permitted to know about.<BR/><BR/>But here we show that the CoS is so far gone that they can no longer hide their corruption.Just Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700571144527474381noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5588150109003847843.post-88873476991117510562008-03-20T18:41:00.000-07:002008-03-20T18:41:00.000-07:00It makes me more than wonder. It's so obvious that...It makes me more than wonder. It's so obvious that the church was taken over by a psychotic dictator. Yet, some people still stand up and cheer. If they only knew just how much of an evil tyrant David Miscavige was (and the details of this are being provided on web sites like ARS and Operation Clambake by people who witnessed his brutality first hand) then they'd stop rationalizing why things "just don't seem right for some reason" and LOOK AT THE FACTS. The data is there. Find out for yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com