Questions go here!

Hi Everybody!

I was a bit busy in the past two weeks but be assured that I am around and won’t go away…. If you have burning Qs send me an email (louanne@scientologymyths.info).

I closed the main discussion thread (434 entries in 2 weeks!) and opened a new one right here.

– Louanne

Add 5 May: I don’t find the time these days to go on here and check the comments. Please, please, please, send me you questions on email, scientologymyths(at)yahoo.com. Thanks!

128 Comments

  1. Hi and thanks, Tantor.

    As a note, I don’t find the time these days to go on here and check the comments. Please, please, please, send me your questions on email, scientologymyths(at)yahoo.com. Thanks!

    – Louanne

  2. I need to get back to work. I don’t know if I’ll be able to check in again, but I want to thank the site owners for putting up this website and forum.

    Good luck to everyone here – with questions or with answers.

    I hope you guys find some way to work things out.

  3. I once had an M.D. who was a Scientologist. I don’t remember how I found that out, because he never brought it up, but he was a good doctor.

    And his receptionist was gorgeous! I’m sorry I had to move. Another few years and I might have worked up the nerve to ask her out. :-)

  4. A Scientologist named Mike gives his take on the the “Freight Trains on Venus?” question on his website http://www.theta.btinternet.co.uk/venus.htm

    I don’t want to step on the toes of anyone who feels strongly, but for me, controversial quotations on any subject come down to the context of the material and how it’s interpreted or applied.

    I’ve heard good and bad stories about Scientology, but If I joined or attacked any religion because of pro or con stories about it, then I’d have to join and attack every religion in the world.

    I respect that there are people who find great value in Scientology, and I respect that others have questions or concerns about it.

  5. lol, I like how I’m getting more complete answers about Scientology on a Scientology blog from non-scientologists.

    Anyway, thanks Tantor. Though the entry above does bring up a bunch more questions on the same topic.

  6. so… haven’t asked a stupid question here in a while.

    4 questions, all come from hubbard quotes

    first,
    “Radiation is apparently enormously water-soluble as well as water removable. According to researchers, one merely has to take a hose to a building surface or a road to wash the radiation off of it. This factor is well known to defense trained personnel.” – L. Ron Hubbard, Clear Body, Clear Mind, page 47

    ok… what the hell? I’m fairly sure that radiation is NOT water soluable. (otherwise, they would have cleaned up all of chernobyl in a few days)
    could you explain weather or not this would actually be used to deal with radiation in its unlikely case in scientology orgs?

    second
    Now you look at this. You look at this, now. The complete idiocy of it. Somebody sits up on Venus — there are probably some other stations around up in the system. This one’s on Venus. I notice that we all believe that Venus has a methane atmosphere and is unlivable. I almost got run down by a freight locomotive the other day — didn’t look very uncivilized to me. I’m allergic to freight locomotives, they’re always running into you.” From “Between Lives Implants”, SHSBC #317. 23 July 1963

    now, I’m sure when he wrote it, he had no idea that we’d know by now that venus has no locomotives… and that Hubbard never went there.
    since “the tech in infaliable and always right” why aren’t there locomotives on venus?

    third,
    “Therefore we really do have the remedy before the assault weapon is produced. Did you ever read poor old George Orwell’s uh.. 1984? Yes, yes, that’s wonderful. That would be, could be, the palest imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence.” – L. Ron Hubbard, Philadelphia Doctorate Course Tape 20

    now… that’s pretty chilling… you’ve read 1984 right? great book… a bit depressing in the end, and a bit dry, but good book.
    if you haven’t read it, here’s a long quote from it, pretty much explains what hubbard was talking about when he said the world would be like 1984 if scientology ran it.

    “Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need for science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always – do not forget this, Winston – always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”

    and also, I’d probably like to inform you (probably not the first time) that even though the sp order was removed, the practice is still in use

    “ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” – L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 18 October 1967 [SP = Suppressive Person a.k.a. critic of Scientology]

    “The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.” – L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 21 October 1968, “Cancellation of Fair Game”

  7. I can’t speak for the beliefs of Scientologists, but from my study of Mr. Hubbard’s writings, there’s both spiritual, mental and physical conditions, and they can all affect each other.

    This is covered pretty well in “The Assists Processing Handbook”, which contains spiritual and mental processes that can help an ill or injured person feel better – but if they have a physical condition that responds to helpful medical treatments, nutrition or physical therapy – then those physical treatments are what’s recommended.

    “Mental upset aggravates physical discomfort. Physical discomfort aggravates mental unrest,” is how Mr. Hubbard describes it on page 33 of that book, recommending you do whatever is best for the person you’re helping – spiritual, mental and/or physical. Send them to a doctor (of their choice) if they need medical treatment.

  8. I think it’s a really important question whether or not Scientologists believe in cancer in light of recent events. Can we get a straight answer here instead of dancing around the subject? It should be simple to answer. Can cancer be psychosomatic? Or, since Asbestos is an actual physical thing, does that mean it cannot be cured by auditing or other Scientology methods?

  9. I feel so so terrible for those people.
    Who is going to pay for their medical expenses?

  10. BTW, here’s the official press release from the Curacao Drydock Company:

    http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?n=1&neID=200805023600.3_33bc000d60868fe7

    If you or anyone you know has been aboard the Freewinds, they need to seek medical attention immediately.

  11. I hate to beat this fat horse, but you can’t have it both ways guys, either KA has a medical condition (but she DOESN”T) or she gained weight because of a miscarriage, and that doesn’t make sense either. She was divorced in 1997, and didn’t start gaining weight til way after that, so that makes no sense. She ballooned up and did fat actress in 2005 and it WASNT TIL she went on Jenny Craig that she lost weight, not because of scientology. ANd now that she’s off jenny Craig, she’s ballooning up again.

    What I’m getting at is $cientology is about spiritual well being right? When someone is grossly obese like she was for so long it is a clear indication that they are suffering MENTALLY, and stress eating, and whatever she is doing to be spiritually advanced isn’t working, or she wouldn’t feel the need to stuff her face, and put her health and her career at risk

  12. 70% of man’s ills are psychosomatic.

    Even cancer? (Let’s hope so, because you guys are gonna get a lot of it from the Freewinds.)

  13. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 2, 2008 4:35 am

    In each reference you cite, he specifically talks about those illnesses created by the mind – psychosomatic. 70% of man’s ills are psychosomatic.

    Why is there a problem with that?

    Pat

  14. It’s survive as or through. Optimum survival.

    Pat

  15. I have a question about an apparent contradiction…

    According to Scientology, a person is really a thetan. A thetan is immortal and indestructible.

    Why, then, the emphasis on “survival” in the dynamics? A thetan doesn’t ‘survive’, in that it has no alternative to existence. In fact, existence is completely unavoidable.

    How can a thetan be motivated by survival without the impetuous of cessation of existence?

  16. Scientology is all about spiritual improvement. Why this fixation on bodies?

    Also from the report:

    That Hubbard and scientology specifically claim to heal, and attract people in the belief that they do heal, is obvious from HCO Pol. Lr. of the 1st September, AD 12 (1962), entitled “Healing Promotion”. That letter reads:

    “By healing you can graduate a pc up to clearing interest and thus we have a lower level feeder line, capable of successful accomplishment with normal HCA/HPA training. That programme has the following thought major: Maybe you’re not sick. Maybe you’re just suppressed. See us and find out.

    “The phrasing can be more elegant, the message remains the same.

    “Legally, this permits us to heal without engaging in healing as, in actual fact, we address no illnesses and indeed, deny people are ill – they are only suppressed. Sickness occurs, we say, where suppression has been too great. The argument is – have you been sick? Did you go to doctors to be cured? Did they cure it? Then (as they didn’t) maybe you’re not sick, maybe you’re just suppressed. So take some processing and find out. And the person gets well! We use on him the exact button he came to us on. So he’s never dismayed at any change of tack on our part. Then we interest him in clearing.

    “This, I am sure, is the long sought gradient. This, used right, will build our new buildings, use our Academy Graduates and give us a chance to train up auditors to clearing.

    “The legal argument is simple, we don’t believe in sickness, we do not address illness, we do not diagnose, we believe that freeing the human spirit also incidentally prevents sickness. We are doing prevention. We also find people do not have to be crazy to be suppressed, that nearly everybody is suppressed. We do send acutely ill people to doctors. We advertise to cure no diseases! That last is important legally. We only infer that people who think they are sick are really not, but only suppressed.”

    Yet Scientologists still get sick and die. So either he’s wrong about spiritual improvement leading to physical improvement, or he’s wrong about Scientology causing spiritual improvement. Either way, it doesn’t look good for Hubbard.

  17. The fact that people can get physical results from handling psychosomatic illness isn’t new in religion.

    But the fact that Hubbard calls well-nigh every illness psychosomatic is. From the report cited above by Libraesque:

    The claims for dianetics, as appearing on the dustcover of Dianetics: MSMH and in the text, include assertions that cases of “Psychosomatic ills such as arthritis, migraine, ulcers, allergies, asthma, coronary difficulties (psychosomatic – about one-third of all heart trouble cases), tendonitis, bursitis, paralysis (hysterical), eye trouble (non-pathological) have all responded …. without failure”; in fact, the claim made is that with the techniques mentioned in Dianetics: MSMH, “The psychiatrist, psycho-analyst and intelligent layman can successfully and invariably treat all psychosomatic ills and inorganic aberrations,” and that it can cure 70 per cent. of all man’s illnesses and aberrations.

    In various places Hubbard has written to the effect that arthritis, eye conditions, heart conditions, cancer, all psychosomatic illnesses, morning sickness, ulcers, tuberculosis, the common cold, the common cough, illness from bacterial or virus infections, alcoholism and a multitude of other complaints and conditions are engramic and respond to processing.

    In A History of Man, Hubbard wrote: “Cancer has been eradicated by auditing out conception and mitosis”. In Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, Hubbard claimed that “Scientology is the only specific (cure) for radiation (atomic bomb) burns”. In Scientology: issue 15-G, Hubbard writes,

    “Leukaemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least eight cases of leukaemia had been treated successfully by dianetics after medicine had traditionally given up. The source of leukaemia has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase ‘it turns my blood to water’.”

    The 1957 edition of Hubbard’s Scientology: 8-80 contained a new introduction by a “doctor of scientology”, stating, “how an auditor trained in this material by the Academy of Scientology can handle with precision even the insane or a few days’ old baby”; and the editorial note reads,

    “The discovery and isolation of Life Energy in such a form as to revive the dead or dying has been an ambition as old as Man himself. In the last two thousand years a few individuals have claimed the ability without explaining it. With this book, the ability to make one’s body old or young at will, the ability to heal the ill without physical contact, the ability to cure the insane and the incapacitated, is set forth for the physician, the layman, the mathematician, and the physicist.”

  18. @Comment by Libraesque on May 1, 2008 5:01 pm
    >Pat, Kirstie Alley being a lard ass has nothing to do with anything that was physically wrong with her. She obviously has emotional/mental issues going on to get that huge, which means “spiritually” she’s fucked up, which means $cientology aint workin’ for her, even after all these years.

    Amazing. Now you’re a Medical Doctor that’s able to diagnose from a distance and have decided that she has no physical reasons for weight gain (if she even has – again, I have no data that this is even the case)

    Pat

  19. @Comment by Libraesque on May 1, 2008 5:59 pm
    >I just saw this

    >Kevin Anderson noted in his report [ 2 ], published in 1965 for the state of Victoria, Australia

    >The official attitude advanced at the Inquiry that scientology did not claim to heal was, and is, only a camouflage. […] The belief that scientology is a cure for many illnesses, both mental and physical, is propagated by Hubbard consistently and deliberately. No opportunity is missed of claiming for scientology the credit of a cure, and in his books and other writings repeated claims are made and cases quoted of alleged cures, many of them said to be miraculous.

    >so Pat, has that changed now? Because it says mental AND physical

    The fact that people can get physical results from handling psychosomatic illness isn’t new in religion. We do that by addressing the spirit. Pretty miraculous. But I forgot. You won’t buy that because the idea of immortal spiritual beings is unbelievable, right? Are you one of those who wants us to believe that we are animals (meat bodies)?

    Pat

  20. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 2, 2008 12:31 am
    >For example, Kirstie Alley started gaining weight after a traumatic miscarriage. She tried a number of diets but wasn’t successful until after a Dianetic session that helped her resolve the trauma of the miscarriage.

    >Yeah, but then she got fat again. Fat enough to get herself fired as the Jenny Craig spokeswoman. And this is after she attained the rank of OT VII. So it looks like Scientology hasn’t been able to provide a permanent solution to her problems.

    Who said she get fired? That is data I haven’t seen before.

    Scientology is all about spiritual improvement. Why this fixation on bodies?

    Pat

  21. For example, Kirstie Alley started gaining weight after a traumatic miscarriage. She tried a number of diets but wasn’t successful until after a Dianetic session that helped her resolve the trauma of the miscarriage.

    Yeah, but then she got fat again. Fat enough to get herself fired as the Jenny Craig spokeswoman. And this is after she attained the rank of OT VII. So it looks like Scientology hasn’t been able to provide a permanent solution to her problems.

  22. Some people have experienced that by resolving spiritual, mental or emotional barriers with Dianetics, their body’s own systems (or healthy physical treatments) work better.

    For example, Kirstie Alley started gaining weight after a traumatic miscarriage. She tried a number of diets but wasn’t successful until after a Dianetic session that helped her resolve the trauma of the miscarriage.

  23. Because “on” is a preposition making “on the couch” a prepositional phrase. Prepositions are locational.

    If you look up “on” in the dictionary you’ll see that it’s a preposition. That’s why word clearing would be the tool for figuring out the meanings of words in the context used.

    But there’s nothing inherent in the grammar of the sentence or in the meaning of “on” that implies that the prepositional phrase “on the couch” modifies the subject Bob. Suppose I give you the sentence “Bob ate the cookies on the table.” Would you infer that Bob sat on the table as he ate the cookies?

  24. I just saw this

    Kevin Anderson noted in his report [ 2 ], published in 1965 for the state of Victoria, Australia

    The official attitude advanced at the Inquiry that scientology did not claim to heal was, and is, only a camouflage. […] The belief that scientology is a cure for many illnesses, both mental and physical, is propagated by Hubbard consistently and deliberately. No opportunity is missed of claiming for scientology the credit of a cure, and in his books and other writings repeated claims are made and cases quoted of alleged cures, many of them said to be miraculous.

    so Pat, has that changed now? Because it says mental AND physical

  25. Im wondering why you changed your Contact info on this website from,

    “ScientologyWorks@gmail.com”

    im a little confused about this.

    thanks in advance,
    -OTsci-luver

  26. Pat, Kirstie Alley being a lard ass has nothing to do with anything that was physically wrong with her. She obviously has emotional/mental issues going on to get that huge, which means “spiritually” she’s fucked up, which means $cientology aint workin’ for her, even after all these years.

  27. @Comment by veritas on May 1, 2008 4:36 am
    >Ii might have been the ARC angle I dont know, I just saw it(a pyramid) being flashed at the bottom of two cos dianetics promotional videos.

    As Tantor says it’s the Dianetics triangle. The 4 green divisions represent the first 4 dynamics (the urge toward optimum survival as or through self, family and sex, groups and mankind).

    >Incidentally I read one of hubbards short pieces on crime&”punishment” though it was quite good and a brief note on ethics and so anyway the intro book on scientology ethics caught me eye at the bookstore, I was wondering if one could still benefit from a read even though I have not read his earlier philosophic/religious works?(still got to find dianetics and give it a read) or if there is any concepts and prerequisites for the intro ethics book?

    The tech of ethics and jurisprudence that LRH developed is well worth the read. It’s part of the basic books of Scientology. It has an extensive glossary and can be read as a stand-alone book. You can get the Dianetics book from here: http://www.dianetics.org or bridgepub.com and all the basic books are now in every US library and most of the libraries in EU and other continents. These are donated by us (the parishioners).

    Pat

  28. If it was a triangle at the end of a video, it was the Dianetics symbol, which is in the shape of the Greek letter Delta (triangle shaped). http://www.essentialdianetics.org/

  29. Ii might have been the ARC angle I dont know, I just saw it(a pyramid) being flashed at the bottom of two cos dianetics promotional videos.

    Incidentally I read one of hubbards short pieces on crime&”punishment” though it was quite good and a brief note on ethics and so anyway the intro book on scientology ethics caught me eye at the bookstore, I was wondering if one could still benefit from a read even though I have not read his earlier philosophic/religious works?(still got to find dianetics and give it a read) or if there is any concepts and prerequisites for the intro ethics book?

  30. @Comment by Libraesque on April 30, 2008 7:56 pm

    >And if $cientology “works” so well, how come kirstie alley was such a lard ass? Why was jenny Craig the only thing that could help her lose weight, not $cientology? And she’s getting fat all over again…wouldn’t that indicate that she has mental/emotional problems that $cientology is not helping her with?

    Where did you get that idea? Scientology is for spiritual betterment. We don’t do physical healing. That’s the realm of Medical Doctors.

    Pat

  31. @Comment by Libraesque on April 30, 2008 7:52 pm
    >and what if the kid you choose dies right after childbirth…then what? Do you just “jump right in” to another baby?

    >DO you “jump right in” before birth or right after

    @Comment by Libraesque on April 30, 2008 7:56 pm

    >And if $cientology “works” so well, how come kirstie alley was such a lard ass? Why was jenny Craig the only thing that could help her lose weight, not $cientology? And she’s getting fat all over again…wouldn’t that indicate that she has mental/emotional problems that $cientology is not helping her with?

    I’m sorry you have a hard time believing. This is why I asked you to go on your own reality. Nope, that wasn’t good enough.

    Pat

  32. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 30, 2008 8:16 pm

    >Finally, an answer. And what makes you so sure that it’s Bob on the couch and not the cookies?

    Because “on” is a preposition making “on the couch” a prepositional phrase. Prepositions are locational.

    If you look up “on” in the dictionary you’ll see that it’s a preposition. That’s why word clearing would be the tool for figuring out the meanings of words in the context used.

    Pat

  33. What pyramid symbol? Are you talking about the ARC triangle?

    That is explained in the basics section on the video site

    http://www.scientology.org

    or the ChurchofScientology channel on YouTube

    Pat

  34. @Comment by Libraesque on April 30, 2008 6:02 pm
    >I just saw this quote from Kirstie Alley, which makes NO sense at all to me

    >PLAYBOY: Where do we go when we die?

    >Kirstie Alley: We just pick another body. We go to the nearest hospital where women are giving birth, find some good-looking parents and jump in. I don’t think there’s a rest period, though there might be a confusion period if you were killed in an accident and knocked out of your body. It would all depend on the shape you’re in as a spiritual being, which is our natural state. The better the shape you’re in, the less confusion. At least that would be my hope. This is just a prison planet–and here’s what it takes to get out: a Get Out of Jail Free card or a Get Off of Planet Earth Free card. You should have one in your wallet or purse at all times, just in case. You know how we’re all looking for the big secret in life? That’s it.

    >So, what she’s saying is that you pick some newborn and your spirit then inhabits that newborn???? What happens then….as far as the $cientologists beliefs, and “being” a $cientologist???? I mean what if the kid is raised in a hardcore Catholic family, or Amish family????? What would happen to the $cientologist spirit in the kid?

    What happens is up to the being. It’s called self-determinism. There’s no set formula or ritual or anything like that. It can be totally random.

    Pat

  35. Whats up with the pyramid symbol in scientology?

  36. Isn’t that the ship that they do all the high levels on? You’d think for something that important they’d maintain it better. That sucks. Hope nobody gets sick from it. Or worse, gets cancer.

    Do Scientologists believe in cancer? I know you don’t believe in mental illness, but what about physical stuff?

  37. calling Erin Brockovich!!!!!

  38. I smell a class action law suit

    If they’ve known about it for 7 years and maliciously exposed people to blue asbestos, a shit storm is sure to hit

  39. I’m going to change subjects here for a moment and while honestly this isn’t a question it needs to be said, and I’m not sure of any other venue to reach Scientologists.

    If you, or any scientologist you know has been on the Freewinds, you need to see a doctor.

    http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=287791

    The Freewinds has been drydocked due to being full of blue asbestos which causes cancer and is extremely deadly. As per Lawrence Woodcraft’s 2001 affidavit he states that in 1987 when he was working on the Freewinds retrofit a lot of blue asbestos was stirred up and could have gotten into the air circulation systems on the boat.

    Right now, I don’t care about the Anon vs. Scientology fight. I just want this information to reach Scientologists, former Scientologists or anyone else who has been on that boat in the past 20+ years. You need to see a doctor and explain to them that you came in contact with blue asbestos.

    I’m not looking to start a fight, or trying to make the CoS look bad. I want people who were exposed to get checked out. I don’t want anyone, Scientologist or ex to die due to this.

    I am in contact with a couple cancer charities and hopefully they will get back to me within the next couple days as to what people who have been exposed should do and how they should go about being checked out by doctors.

    I will post any information given to me here if that is ok so that any Scientologists reading can take the actions necessary.

    I don’t care if you don’t believe me, or that asbestos is bad but please think of your loved ones and inform anyone you know who has been on the Freewinds to seek medical help. Hopefully most people will be fine but they still need to be examined

  40. Like it or not, I stand by this. Word clearing words would also include the grammar as well.

    But grammar doesn’t exist on the level of individual words. Grammar, by definition, consists of the relationships between words. That’s why syntactic ambiguity can cause a problem even if every single word has been “cleared.”

    What it is is part of a prepositional phrase showing where bob was when he ate the cookies

    Finally, an answer. And what makes you so sure that it’s Bob on the couch and not the cookies?

  41. And if $cientology “works” so well, how come kirstie alley was such a lard ass? Why was jenny Craig the only thing that could help her lose weight, not $cientology? And she’s getting fat all over again…wouldn’t that indicate that she has mental/emotional problems that $cientology is not helping her with?

  42. and what if the kid you choose dies right after childbirth…then what? Do you just “jump right in” to another baby?
    DO you “jump right in” before birth or right after

  43. I just saw this quote from Kirstie Alley, which makes NO sense at all to me

    PLAYBOY: Where do we go when we die?

    Kirstie Alley: We just pick another body. We go to the nearest hospital where women are giving birth, find some good-looking parents and jump in. I don’t think there’s a rest period, though there might be a confusion period if you were killed in an accident and knocked out of your body. It would all depend on the shape you’re in as a spiritual being, which is our natural state. The better the shape you’re in, the less confusion. At least that would be my hope. This is just a prison planet–and here’s what it takes to get out: a Get Out of Jail Free card or a Get Off of Planet Earth Free card. You should have one in your wallet or purse at all times, just in case. You know how we’re all looking for the big secret in life? That’s it.

    So, what she’s saying is that you pick some newborn and your spirit then inhabits that newborn???? What happens then….as far as the $cientologists beliefs, and “being” a $cientologist???? I mean what if the kid is raised in a hardcore Catholic family, or Amish family????? What would happen to the $cientologist spirit in the kid?

  44. @Comment by veritas on April 30, 2008 4:29 am
    >Hey Scientolgists- Would any of you care to answer some questions pertaining to the ‘freezone’?

    There’s a section on it on
    http://www.scientologymyths.info

    Pat

  45. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 29, 2008 4:45 pm
    >Bob ate the cookies on the couch.

    >Subject = Bob
    >Verb = ate
    >Direct Object = the cookies
    >Indirect Object = the couch.

    >Does that help, Pat? Now, how does one clear that sentence?

    Couch is not the indirect object. Check this definition

    indirect object
    n. An object indirectly affected by the action of a verb, as me in Sing me a song and turtles in He feeds turtles lettuce.

    What it is is part of a prepositional phrase showing where bob was when he ate the cookies

    http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/preposition.htm

    I’m sorry you guys don’t like my style. I want you to look for your answers. Only one person actually did make an attempt to figure it out grammatically and that was Tony. That’s why I ask you this stuff. You need to be a little more active in your own education and stop depending on others for your facts. If you’d rather be lazy about your facts and go to others for your data then this is not the best place to come. I am more likely to give you a reference, or ask you to figure it out, than tell you what you expect to hear. Why do I do this? Because most of the questions here are asked with pre-formed opinions from other sites’ data. I’ve lost count of the number of times I answered and had it “rejected” because it didn’t agree with your opinion. When you do that, you’re wasting my time and yours. It doesn’t help anyone. That’s why I ask you to ask if you really want an answer.

    Pat

    Pat

  46. errata

    grammerical should be “grammatical”

    Pat

  47. >>Are you saying that syntactic ambiguity, as defined and explored on the Wikipedia page, does not exist? That no sentence is ambiguous if it has been sufficiently word cleared?

    >Yes. Exactly. I’m glad you got that. There’s one exception and that is if the syntax is completely non sequitur or nonsense. Like “Bats is hats”.

    Like it or not, I stand by this. Word clearing words would also include the grammar as well.

    Unless the sentence is “gibberish” as t puts it, you can understand the sentence if you understand the words and the grammerical parts they play in the structure. That’s all part of word clearing and study tech.

    Pat

  48. Thank you T, I think that is a decent answer to the question asked

  49. Hey Scientolgists- Would any of you care to answer some questions pertaining to the ‘freezone’?

  50. Clearing a word gives you full understanding of that one word. If you put a cleared word in a stream of gibberish, the stream will remain gibberish. If you put a cleared word in an inherently ambiguous sentence, the sentence will remain ambiguous.

    Thank you. I figured this was the case, but for some reason Pat has been insisting that there’s no such thing as an inherently ambiguous sentence.

    Comment by Pat on April 24, 2008 3:49 am

    >Are you saying that syntactic ambiguity, as defined and explored on the Wikipedia page, does not exist? That no sentence is ambiguous if it has been sufficiently word cleared?

    Yes. Exactly. I’m glad you got that. There’s one exception and that is if the syntax is completely non sequitur or nonsense. Like “Bats is hats”.

    I assume this is a misunderstanding of Study Tech on Pat’s part, a misunderstanding she has thus far refused to correct (probably because she’s an SP).

  51. Speaking of clearing words (and symbols), I just ran into this essay on the ampersand symbol. I never suspected it to be a written contraction of “et,” the Latin word for “and.” Apparently the symbol’s present form evolved from those two letters joined in a ligature.

    www (dot) typography.com/ask/showBlog.php?blogID=98

    Enlightening piece.

  52. I don’t think clearing all words in a sentence will remove intrinsic ambiguity from that sentence.

    Clearing a word gives you full understanding of that one word. If you put a cleared word in a stream of gibberish, the stream will remain gibberish. If you put a cleared word in an inherently ambiguous sentence, the sentence will remain ambiguous.

    It is entirely possible that after clearing all words in a text the text remains incomprehensible. There is no magic involved in the study tech, it won’t miraculously turn rubbish into wisdom. It is simply a tool to attain comprehension where comprehension is attainable.

    www (dot) scientologyhandbook.org/CHAPTER1.HTM

  53. Er, don’t know the “answer” rather.

  54. I too would like to know exactly how the tech clears that sentence, because I don’t know the question. Enlighten us.

  55. (third attempt to post one single link…)

    @Comment by Libraesque on April 29, 2008 5:14 pm

    > Why can’t you answer a simple question like HOW does a scientologist who “drops” his/her body inhabit a new body and HOW is that body chosen?

    Why don’t you read the following 3-page essay from Ron:

    www (dot) ronthephilosopher.org/phlspher/page56.htm

    You may find answers to your questions there.

  56. @Comment by Libraesque on April 29, 2008 5:14 pm

    > Why can’t you answer a simple question like HOW does a scientologist who “drops” his/her body inhabit a new body and HOW is that body chosen?

    Why don’t read the following 3-page essay from Ron: http://www.ronthephilosopher.org/phlspher/page56.htm

    You may find answers to your questions there.

  57. @Pat:
    >This is a blog about Scientology.
    >If you wish to have a civil question answered about Scientology, I’ll be glad to help.

    How is this not a civil question? You made a strong claim about the power of Hubbard’s study tech. We asked you to back it up. Five days later, you’re still dodging the question. We could all have moved on to other topics by now. Instead, you’re slowly becoming the Sonya Bianca of this forum.

    I’m not even sure that the CoS claims word-clearing removes all ambiguity in the English language. Maybe it’s a conclusion that can be drawn from what they do claim. But you did claim it, in no uncertain terms, and I’m not going to let this go.

  58. Pat, you’re not answering the fucking question.

    “How have you been doing it for the last trillion years or so? You already know the answer.”

    Pat

    Trillion years? WTF!!???

    Why can’t you answer a simple question like HOW does a scientologist who “drops” his/her body inhabit a new body and HOW is that body chosen?

  59. Bob ate the cookies on the couch.

    Subject = Bob
    Verb = ate
    Direct Object = the cookies
    Indirect Object = the couch.

    Does that help, Pat? Now, how does one clear that sentence?

  60. “This is a blog about Scientology.

    If you wish to have a civil question answered about Scientology, I’ll be glad to help.”

    I am being civil and I am asking a question in regards to Scientology, you just refuse to answer it and demonstrate your scientology teachings. I’ll repeat the question.

    Sentence: Bob ate the cookies on the couch.

    Question: Using the sentence provided, scientology study tech and word clearing answer the following question: Did Bob eat cookies while sitting on the couch, or did Bob eat cookies that were on the couch?

    This is a question directly related to Scientology because it deals with word clearing and study tech that is promoted by AS. So please answer the question.

  61. @Comment by veritas on April 28, 2008 10:27 pm

    >I am looking for Rons Journal 67(RJ67) in its entirety either audio or written transcript, I have only been able to find bits and pieces via the web, if anyone has a link or resource that would be great.

    You can go to a Church or Mission and ask to listen to it. Since it’s copyright, hopefully you’re not asking for a pirated copy of it.

    Pat

  62. This is a blog about Scientology.

    If you wish to have a civil question answered about Scientology, I’ll be glad to help.

    Pat

  63. “Grammar.

    What’s the subject? what’s the verb? what’s the object? direct? indirect?”

    Complete sentences, use them. It sounds like your brain is having a computer meltdown.

    Also answer the question that was asked of you by Anmn. You (and Scientology study tech) said anything properly word cleared removes all abiguity. Therefore word clear the sentence provided and remove the abiguity. My point is without context it’s impossible. Scientology study tech teaches otherwise so word clear that sentence.

    Here, I’ll make life easier on you Pat. Using the sentence provided, scientology study tech and word clearing answer the following question: Did Bob eat cookies while sitting on the couch, or did Bob eat cookies that were on the couch?

  64. @Comment by Libraesque on April 28, 2008 10:18 pm

    How have you been doing it for the last trillion years or so? You already know the answer.

    Pat

  65. @Comment by nothernon on April 28, 2008 6:30 pm

    Grammar.

    What’s the subject? what’s the verb? what’s the object? direct? indirect?

    Pat

  66. “You see, Pat? You are a suppressive person. I bet that’s why you’re on this blog. You’re an SP, and you’re trying to discredit Scientology by making its adherents look like brainwashed fanatics. Well, guess what, Pat? It won’t work. The other Scientologists on this blog are good, decent people, and I won’t be fooled by someone pretending to be a mindless fundie.”

    The more I read from Pat, the more I think this is true. I really do hope it’s true, because s/he is confirming every negative thing I’ve heard about Scientologists and I was really hoping that there was a bright side to the religion. Brad, Lou, and the others just don’t give off that negative/scary vibe. Granted, I disagree with a lot of what they say, but they seem like normal, rational people and I’m enjoying the discussion. Pat, you scare me. Today was the first day coming back to the blog since I asked my last question nearly a month ago. I was afraid of the responses and, to my surprise, my questions were just blown off. I’d repeat them, but they’d just get blown off again. How disappointing.

    Anyway, time has passed and I’ve got more questions. Hopefully these get answered. Going off of the Thetan/spirit debate. Are thetens conscious of what is happening between bodies? Can people recall things that they did when they weren’t out of a body? I know you can recall past lives (as a side tangent, though I don’t believe in Scientology, I do believe in past lives). I think it’d be really interesting to have memories of floating around sans a body. Anybody here have a memory like that?

    Likewise, do you believe that Hubbard is just floating out there as a thetan or do you think he’s in a new body? Or is there no way to know?

  67. @ Anyone

    I am looking for Rons Journal 67(RJ67) in its entirety either audio or written transcript, I have only been able to find bits and pieces via the web, if anyone has a link or resource that would be great.

  68. I’m asking how a scientologist chooses a body…….I don’t believe what you do, I’m not asking for myself, I’m asking YOU how does a scientologist choose a body. I mean obviously an existing body on Earth, a living person is going to….have a life already, and possibly religious beliefs , etc….so how is the “body” and obviously the mind, spirit, etc of this living person chosen?

  69. @Pat:
    >This is relevant to Scientology Myths how?

    It started as a side question about study tech. It is relevant because you claim word-clearing removes all ambiguity in the English language. It is a counter-example that challenges you to back up your statement or be proven wrong.

    It is related to the myth: study tech does not work.

    @Pat:
    >You’re right. No one can cause a thetan to die.

    How does murder fit in to this view? By that, I suppose I mean killing a body.

  70. “This is relevant to Scientology Myths how?”

    Because it deals with word clearing and the ambiguity of words which Scientology (and you) claimed no longer takes place when words are properly cleared.

    So back to the question:

    “Bob ate the cookies on the couch.

    Did Bob eat cookies while he was on the couch, or did he eat cookies that were on the couch?”

    Pat, you have claimed that anything properly word cleared has no abiguity. How do you word clear that sentence and make it not abiguous? Without context (ie: actually seeing Bob eat the cookies) that sentence will always be abiguous.

  71. @Comment by Libraesque on April 25, 2008 5:16 pm

    How do you choose the body

    You should be asking yourself that. I can’t predict your future for you.

    Pat

  72. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 25, 2008 10:00 pm

    You’re right. No one can cause a thetan to die.

    Pat

  73. @Comment by anmn on April 25, 2008 8:15 pm

    >Did Bob eat cookies while he was on the couch, or did he eat cookies that were on the couch?

    This is relevant to Scientology Myths how?

    Pat

  74. I don’t think a lot of significance is put on the fact that he dropped his body.

    You know, you’re awfully nonchalant about that which we wogs call “death.” Tell me: what’s Scientology’s stance on causing someone else to drop his or her body? (I know it’s a bad choice of words, since you can’t really force another thetan to do anything, but I think you know what I mean.)

  75. There is no debate. You don’t like my answer. You invalidate.

    No, I’m pressing you to explain your answer.

    The cookies or Bob, Pat? The cookies or Bob?

  76. @Pat:
    >Celebrities are respected but I’d sure like to know what it is he got that everyone else didn’t. Do you know?

    Scientology has a vested interest in keeping its high-profile members happy.

    Here’s another excerpt, this one transcribed by Anonymous. This is from Part 7.

    —–

    Mark Bunker: How are celebrities treated inside Scientology?

    Jason Beghe: All I know is how I was treated, and you know, my peers. I mean, that’s who I hung out with. I do know, I know that it’s a lot different, actually I do. Only because, like, this was another question for me. Like, here I was: I had Ray Mithoff, who’s the head, the top auditor on the planet, the senior CS International. I had RTC technology, technicians – whatever – people. Plus, and I mean in LA. I had my own auditor, the CS, the senior CS and then they would all go over my folder, and then they’d send it to Richard Reece at FLAG, who’s the senior CS at FLAG, and he’d go over the folder, and they would… do you know how long it took me to get a fuckin’ CS? Like, I’d do a thing and I’d make an origination, like, you know… “I’m not sure I like this.” My next session would be about a month later! Because they couldn’t fuckin’ handle… because there were so many “via’s” on the “comm line”.

    So, how was I handled? I was handled with the best attention ever. And I said, “Do you know something? If this is the best of the best…” – that’s what I was saying to them at the end – I said, “How the fuck?” – and that’s another thing I was saying about clearing the planet – “You are the best motherfuckers in the world and you admitted you fucked the shit out of me!” What happens to poor Schmoe at Orange County Org, who you’re saying, you know, just… when you’re first saying, ‘You just need ethics!’ Or some fuckin’ thing.” He’s still stuck in some ethics cycle going [unintelligible gibberish] and they’re fucking, it’s ’cause they fucked him up! And they say, “No! You need more sec checking!” And he can’t afford it…

    —–

    Looks like CS is Case Supervisor, but I’m not familiar with much of the process he mentions, about “getting a CS” and originating and vias.

    >The ambiguousness is in the understanding of the reader/listener. Not the language. How literally is one taking what’s said? What definition is being used? Not ambiguous at all.

    Bob ate the cookies on the couch.

    Did Bob eat cookies while he was on the couch, or did he eat cookies that were on the couch?

  77. SO you guys believe you “go get” another body for your spirit to live in? How do you choose the body

  78. @Comment by Libraesque on April 24, 2008 6:00 pm

    >so…he killed himself????

    He can’t kill himself. He’s immortal being. Just like you.

    Pat

  79. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 24, 2008 6:11 pm

    There is no debate. You don’t like my answer. You invalidate.

    Pat

  80. Now I am amused. So juvenile.

    That’s all you got, huh? I take it that you’re conceding my point by engaging in this little act of invalidation and suppression?

    Not ambiguous to me.

    Then which is it, Pat? The cookies or Bob? (Please note that Bob’s house is a mess. It is entirely likely that cookies would be found lying on the couch. And it is entirely likely that Bob would eat those cookies.)

    What is this thing you have that everyone has to agree with you?

    It’s this thing called “debate.” If I am wrong, prove me wrong. If I am right, deal with it. Either way, we can come to an agreement.

    Some people just plain don’t have a problem with words.

    It’s not a problem with words. It’s a problem with syntax.

    I’ll ask you again: the cookies or Bob, Pat? The cookies or Bob?

  81. so…he killed himself????

  82. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 24, 2008 5:10 pm
    >The ambiguousness is in the understanding of the reader/listener. Not the language. How literally is one taking what’s said? What definition is being used? Not ambiguous at all.

    >Whoa. I just felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of linguists cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. Try this one on for size. “Bob ate the cookies on the couch.” Which one was on the couch: the cookies or Bob? The syntax of the sentence is ambiguous, and no amount of “word-clearing” will save you.

    Not ambiguous to me.

    What is this thing you have that everyone has to agree with you? We should all be part of some mold you want us in so we’re — I don’t know what. Some people just plain don’t have a problem with words. It’s not a universal condition that “everybody” has.

    Pat

    Pat

  83. @Comment by Libraesque on April 24, 2008 5:29 pm
    >I have a question. Scientologists were told L. Ron had deliberately discarded his body to do “higher level spiritual research,” unencumbered by mortal confines, and was now living “on a planet a galaxy away.” re: his death. He died of a stroke.

    I don’t recall the “on a planet a galaxy away” part. Wouldn’t that put him back into mortal confines again?

    >Do scientologists believe he deliberately had a stroke?

    Since we have a choice on whether to have a body or not, it’s a choice he made and he had every right to make it. I don’t think a lot of significance is put on the fact that he dropped his body. He’s a spiritual being, after all. That’s what’s important (his advancement as an OT)

    How did he achieve this? Did he “will” himself into having a stroke?
    I have no idea. Stopped his heart?

    If he wanted to “discard” his body, why wouldn’t he just kill himself?

    what’s scientologys stance on suicide?

    That it’s his choice. It was his body not himself, after all.

    Pat

  84. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 24, 2008 4:04 pm
    >>No thanks. You’re on a Scientologist’s blog, not Anon’s. You want to PR (public relations, in case you don’t know that abbreviation) yourself you’ll have to do it with other Anon.

    >So… you refuse to let yourself be amused by Anonymous. Quod erat demonstrandum.

    >You see, Pat? You are a suppressive person. I bet that’s why you’re on this blog. You’re an SP, and you’re trying to discredit Scientology by making its adherents look like brainwashed fanatics. Well, guess what, Pat? It won’t work. The other Scientologists on this blog are good, decent people, and I won’t be fooled by someone pretending to be a mindless fundie.

    Now I am amused. So juvenile.

    Pat

  85. by kill himself I mean……by traditional methods…because I guess technically he did commit suicide, right????

  86. I have a question. Scientologists were told L. Ron had deliberately discarded his body to do “higher level spiritual research,” unencumbered by mortal confines, and was now living “on a planet a galaxy away.” re: his death. He died of a stroke.

    Do scientologists believe he deliberately had a stroke?
    How did he achieve this? Did he “will” himself into having a stroke?
    If he wanted to “discard” his body, why wouldn’t he just kill himself?
    what’s scientologys stance on suicide?

  87. The ambiguousness is in the understanding of the reader/listener. Not the language. How literally is one taking what’s said? What definition is being used? Not ambiguous at all.

    Whoa. I just felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of linguists cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. Try this one on for size. “Bob ate the cookies on the couch.” Which one was on the couch: the cookies or Bob? The syntax of the sentence is ambiguous, and no amount of “word-clearing” will save you.

  88. No thanks. You’re on a Scientologist’s blog, not Anon’s. You want to PR (public relations, in case you don’t know that abbreviation) yourself you’ll have to do it with other Anon.

    So… you refuse to let yourself be amused by Anonymous. Quod erat demonstrandum.

    You see, Pat? You are a suppressive person. I bet that’s why you’re on this blog. You’re an SP, and you’re trying to discredit Scientology by making its adherents look like brainwashed fanatics. Well, guess what, Pat? It won’t work. The other Scientologists on this blog are good, decent people, and I won’t be fooled by someone pretending to be a mindless fundie.

  89. @Comment by anmn on April 24, 2008 5:22 am

    >Beghe was a star in the Church. Miscavige called him a poster boy. He does talk about some of the people who were assigned to him. It was much more than the average Scientologist got.

    So he admits that he wasn’t wearing his hat as a Scientologist. Celebrities are respected but I’d sure like to know what it is he got that everyone else didn’t. Do you know?

    >They admitted they couldn’t help him, and the CoS tried and failed to find someone who could.

    Who admitted they couldn’t help him? Who in the CoS tried and failed to help him?

    >This has come up before, and didn’t go anywhere. But that’s Beghe’s view. It’s not a matter of misunderstanding, just spin and perspective.

    That tells me that he had someone on him with a Party line long before he crashed.

    >Not like he could have avoided it. He was OT4 and nearly died in a car wreck. Isn’t that basically a textbook example of a serious PTS?

    PTS to his auditor(s)?

    >>Basically, he was saying his auditor(s) were suppressing him as SPs. What he didn’t say is that he was sent to Ethics to handle what he was complaining about. His choice was to leave when he could have handled it.

    After years and years of not getting answers, of not getting results, of getting more and more confused, I would understand his desire to not go through another ethics cycle when he could instead leave and live his own life as billions before him have done just fine.

    More party line. More natter. More “Look what they did to me”. Misunderstood word Second Phenomena

    The ambiguousness is in the understanding of the reader/listener. Not the language. How literally is one taking what’s said? What definition is being used? Not ambiguous at all.

    Pat

  90. @Pat:
    >Yes, the sad thing is that his confusions weren’t seen by whoever. I am curious about who he talked to about them in the Church so he could be helped.

    You haven’t watched the interview yet, have you?

    Beghe was a star in the Church. Miscavige called him a poster boy. He does talk about some of the people who were assigned to him. It was much more than the average Scientologist got. They admitted they couldn’t help him, and the CoS tried and failed to find someone who could.

    @Pat:
    >See, there is something I can say he misunderstood. We didn’t celebrate the correction of CoS mistakes. We celebrated the discovery of those mistakes and the fact that LRH’s books were now as LRH wrote them. See how that’s slanted?

    I absolutely see the slant in that statement. This has come up before, and didn’t go anywhere. But that’s Beghe’s view. It’s not a matter of misunderstanding, just spin and perspective.

    >He told his auditor(s) he was PTS.

    Not like he could have avoided it. He was OT4 and nearly died in a car wreck. Isn’t that basically a textbook example of a serious PTS?

    >Basically, he was saying his auditor(s) were suppressing him as SPs. What he didn’t say is that he was sent to Ethics to handle what he was complaining about. His choice was to leave when he could have handled it.

    After years and years of not getting answers, of not getting results, of getting more and more confused, I would understand his desire to not go through another ethics cycle when he could instead leave and live his own life as billions before him have done just fine.

    >Yes. Exactly. I’m glad you got that.

    But that’s just not true. Ambiguity exists in the English language. There are sentences and phrases that can be interpreted multiple ways. It’s a property of the language.

    Two men walk into a bar. The third man ducks.

  91. >Beghe goes through much more than the tech. He told his auditors that they were the reason he was PTS, and they couldn’t disagree. He gets mad at Miscavige for celebrating the correction of the CoS’s mistakes instead of apologizing. He tried to get data and sources in order to be able to debate psychiatry, but no one had it. Through most of it, he doesn’t lose sight of Scientology, but the way it’s administered.

    See, there is something I can say he misunderstood. We didn’t celebrate the correction of CoS mistakes. We celebrated the discovery of those mistakes and the fact that LRH’s books were now as LRH wrote them. See how that’s slanted? He told his auditor(s) he was PTS. Basically, he was saying his auditor(s) were suppressing him as SPs. What he didn’t say is that he was sent to Ethics to handle what he was complaining about. His choice was to leave when he could have handled it.

    >Are you saying that syntactic ambiguity, as defined and explored on the Wikipedia page, does not exist? That no sentence is ambiguous if it has been sufficiently word cleared?

    Yes. Exactly. I’m glad you got that. There’s one exception and that is if the syntax is completely non sequitur or nonsense. Like “Bats is hats”.

    Pat

  92. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 23, 2008 10:40 pm

    No thanks. You’re on a Scientologist’s blog, not Anon’s. You want to PR (public relations, in case you don’t know that abbreviation) yourself you’ll have to do it with other Anon.

    Pat

  93. @Comment by Babyboots on April 23, 2008 7:43 pm
    >>@Comment by Pat on April 23, 2008 2:47 am
    >>For starters, I would have cleared up his misunderstood words on the LRH references, since he seems to have misduplicated them.

    >What does misduplicated mean?

    To not get what was written or said. When one understands he gets a duplicate of what emanated at a source-point. I was referring to his misunderstanding of what LRH said about gays. I think that was helped along by others misunderstandings as well.

    Yes, the sad thing is that his confusions weren’t seen by whoever. I am curious about who he talked to about them in the Church so he could be helped.

    >Is that a scientology word?
    Maybe coined. Mis- as a prefix (error or mistake) and duplicate (copy).

    >Why didn’t his councilors(auditors?), or whoever helps him with scientology, address these misunderstandings? It just seems such a waste, and I got the feeling he felt let down, or conned. Like he dedicated a lot of time and energy to Scientology.. and it let him down. If it was just poor communication, that seems doubly sad.

    I agree it should have been handled. Anytime someone leaves over misunderstandings, it’s sad. I guess my question is, who did he tell to get it handled? He doesn’t say. Kind of a general thing.

    >I’ll watch the interview again, which words did you notice he misunderstood? I basically need a scientologese dictionary for half the stuff he says anyway.

    That’s part of the problem. As a Scientologist he learned the nomenclature and also that those outside don’t know it, yet he’s using it in a vid that is going to be seen by non-Scientologists. I’ll do what he should have and define any terms for you that he said, ok?

    Pat

  94. how come those fuckers over at ICHC never put my captions on the vote page!!!!! I’m FUNNY damnit!!!!

  95. Maybe just duplicate what I said, ya think?

    Maybe just duplicate what I said, ya think?

    What I do find amusing is that you seem to care what we think of you.

    We don’t care what you think. We care what you do. What you do is to shriek “OMG TEH EBIL PSYCHS R GETTIN TERRISTS TO SUPPRESS R RELIDGIN!” at the slightest provocation. And we lol.

    I didn’t say I refused to be amused by Anon. That’s where the misunderstanding comes in.
    That to me implies that I found them amusing then suppressed the amusement.

    No, it implies that a reasonable person would find them amusing. I admit I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt by calling you “reasonable,” but still.

    Go to this site:

    http://icanhascheezburger.com/

    And realize that these so-called “LOLcats” were started by Anonymous, as part of a *chan meme called Caturday.

  96. @Pat:
    >Well, you see he left. I don’t need to hear his natter to know he has misunderstoods on the tech to have gone where he did. It’s basic once one knows the technology.

    Right. Because the tech always works for everyone, so if it doesn’t work for you, you’re doing something wrong. (sigh)

    Beghe goes through much more than the tech. He told his auditors that they were the reason he was PTS, and they couldn’t disagree. He gets mad at Miscavige for celebrating the correction of the CoS’s mistakes instead of apologizing. He tried to get data and sources in order to be able to debate psychiatry, but no one had it. Through most of it, he doesn’t lose sight of Scientology, but the way it’s administered.

    And it’s not all negative. He has great respect for individuals who are hardcore Scientologists, especially the Sea Org. He talks about some major wins from the TRs.

    >Why do you want to argue? I’m not here to argue. Is that why you’re here? I just want to clear up misunderstandings you have about my Church.

    Perhaps a poor choice of words. I’m not here to argue, but it does happen.

    >I didn’t say I refused to be amused by Anon. That’s where the misunderstanding comes in.
    >That to me implies that I found them amusing then suppressed the amusement. It WAS NOT and IS STILL NOT amusing. It NEVER WILL BE amusing to me. Is that clearer for you?

    It wasn’t about suppressing amusement you have felt, but refusing to believe that you could ever be amused by anything relating to Anon.

    @Pat:
    >Bear left at the zoo.

    >Example shows definition of bear being misunderstood, because if he knew all the definitions he’d know it was the definiition “tend toward or in the direction of”. There would be no ambiguity.

    “Bear” also has the definition of “large mean animal.” The sentence can be interpreted coherently with either definition. Either interpretation might have been intended. From the sentence alone, there’s no way to tell.

    Are you saying that syntactic ambiguity, as defined and explored on the Wikipedia page, does not exist? That no sentence is ambiguous if it has been sufficiently word cleared?

  97. and MONEY, you forgot the MONEY he spent

  98. @Comment by Pat on April 23, 2008 2:47 am
    For starters, I would have cleared up his misunderstood words on the LRH references, since he seems to have misduplicated them.

    Pat

    What does misduplicated mean? Is that a scientology word? Why didn’t his councilors(auditors?), or whoever helps him with scientology, address these misunderstandings? It just seems such a waste, and I got the feeling he felt let down, or conned. Like he dedicated a lot of time and energy to Scientology.. and it let him down. If it was just poor communication, that seems doubly sad.
    I’ll watch the interview again, which words did you notice he misunderstood? I basically need a scientologese dictionary for half the stuff he says anyway.

  99. Wrong Pat, I really did, and still do, but obviously it’s your prerogative to side-step any question you want

  100. @Comment by Libraesque on April 23, 2008 5:55 pm
    >Pat, I never asked any “loaded” questions. I asked questions that you didn’t want to answer. I presented FACTS, that have been proven over and over again, and asked you how $cientologists, and you, feel about these facts. No one can know how you feel about anything unless you say, therefore my questions most certainly were NOT “loaded”

    Then you and I have different definitions. Because to me you made the accusation in the question. You didn’t really want my data at all.

    Pat

  101. @Comment by anmn on April 23, 2008 5:01 am
    >I have a question about MUs and word-clearing. How is word-clearing applied to sentences that remain ambiguous regardless of how well you know their definitions? There are a bunch of examples on this page:

    >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_ambiguity

    Open a dictionary.

    Bear left at the zoo.

    Example shows definition of bear being misunderstood, because if he knew all the definitions he’d know it was the definiition “tend toward or in the direction of”. There would be no ambiguity.

    I’m going to sleep. (“Going” can be a verb with destination “sleep” or an auxiliary indicating near future. There is little difference in meaning between the two parses.)

    from dictionary – to act so as to come into a certain state or condition.

    It’s a great clue if someone thinks something is ambiguous. There’s a wrong, or incorrect definition. It can really screw up understandings when these aren’t caught and handled and misunderstoods are what lies behind overts and blows. (leaving, sudden departures).

    Refer:
    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH1_3.HTM (section on Second Phenomena)

    Pat

  102. Pat, I never asked any “loaded” questions. I asked questions that you didn’t want to answer. I presented FACTS, that have been proven over and over again, and asked you how $cientologists, and you, feel about these facts. No one can know how you feel about anything unless you say, therefore my questions most certainly were NOT “loaded”

  103. @Comment by anmn on April 23, 2008 4:54 am
    @Pat:
    >>If Scientologists call someone a “faggot” then it’s from their own case and not any teachings of LRHs.

    >I hope you’re not arguing with me on this point, because I was agreeing with you.

    Alright.

    @Pat:
    >>For starters, I would have cleared up his misunderstood words on the LRH references, since he seems to have misduplicated them.

    >If all you can offer about Beghe is that he should have word-cleared harder, it’s obvious you haven’t watched a single minute of the interview.

    Well, you see he left. I don’t need to hear his natter to know he has misunderstoods on the tech to have gone where he did. It’s basic once one knows the technology.

    @Pat:
    >>Maybe just duplicate what I said, ya think?

    >You’re an extremely frustrating person to argue with. There’s nothing wrong with clarifying or rewording a statement. In fact, in this mode of conversation, it’s probably beneficial to keep people from having to follow a long chain of quotes. So let’s try this again.

    Why do you want to argue? I’m not here to argue. Is that why you’re here? I just want to clear up misunderstandings you have about my Church.

    >Can you clarify how these two statements you made can both be true? Do you, perhaps, believe there are no amusing things about Anonymous?

    I didn’t say I refused to be amused by Anon. That’s where the misunderstanding comes in.
    That to me implies that I found them amusing then suppressed the amusement. It WAS NOT and IS STILL NOT amusing. It NEVER WILL BE amusing to me. Is that clearer for you?

    Pat

  104. I have a question about MUs and word-clearing. How is word-clearing applied to sentences that remain ambiguous regardless of how well you know their definitions? There are a bunch of examples on this page:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntactic_ambiguity

  105. @veritas:
    >Fucking site is keeps not allowing my second part to show up

    If you post two or more URLs in a comment, it gets held by the spam filter. Strip out the http and www and the board won’t parse them.

  106. @Pat:
    >If Scientologists call someone a “faggot” then it’s from their own case and not any teachings of LRHs.

    I hope you’re not arguing with me on this point, because I was agreeing with you.

    @Pat:
    >For starters, I would have cleared up his misunderstood words on the LRH references, since he seems to have misduplicated them.

    If all you can offer about Beghe is that he should have word-cleared harder, it’s obvious you haven’t watched a single minute of the interview.

    @Pat:
    >Maybe just duplicate what I said, ya think?

    You’re an extremely frustrating person to argue with. There’s nothing wrong with clarifying or rewording a statement. In fact, in this mode of conversation, it’s probably beneficial to keep people from having to follow a long chain of quotes. So let’s try this again.

    —–

    Pat: You want us to be amused by a group that has a goal to take down our Church?
    Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

    OIAN: You say you refuse to let yourself be amused by Anonymous.

    Pat: False. I most certainly did not say that.

    —–

    Can you clarify how these two statements you made can both be true? Do you, perhaps, believe there are no amusing things about Anonymous?

  107. Fucking site is keeps not allowing my second part to show up

  108. Welcome Back Lou!
    Pat did a pretty darn good job filling in while you were out, you should consider officially hiring him/her as your fill-in ;)

    Question for LOU-
    What are your thoughts on hubbard seemingly framing this person by claiming they wrote a book on brainwashing? It looks legit since the COS published it,
    Link Here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-Washing_(book)

  109. .

  110. WB Lou!
    Pat held the fort down pretty darn well in your absence-you should hire him/her as your official fill in ;)

    – Got a question for ya LOU-
    Why in the heck would lrh try and frame someone, its seems valid as the COS published it too-thougts?
    Link Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-Washing_(book)

    Also unrelated Lou- I dont know if you have this added to your myths info yet but Ron JR. signed a document basically saying his penthouse interview&claims from the blue sky book or w/e/ its called were untrue, basically dispelling the more vitriolic rumors
    http://www.freewebtown.com/luana/rondewolf-july87.pdf

  111. Comment by Libraesque on April 22, 2008 10:27 pm

    why did you ask me if I still beat my wife?

    I didn’t. I gave you that as an example of a leading question. I think this is the 3rd or 4th time now I have told you that. Is there a word there you don’t understand?

    Pat

  112. @Comment by Libraesque on April 22, 2008 7:27 pm
    >gays are covertly hostile in $cientology speak?

    Your reference is Science of Survival, Chart of Human Evaluation.

    >SO, if homosexuals are given a covertly hostile number of 1.1, what number are the people given who tell pregnant women in the COS to get abortions so they can stay on track, and what number is given to the people who drive them to the clinic in….Burbank???

    Actually, that band on the emotional scale covers quite a bit, but LRH never used that word. He is talking about the Second Dynamic (Creation Dynamic – urge to survive through procreation and family). He says that people in that band is where you’d find those who have a perversion of the second. That would include child molesters, rapists (sex as punishment).

    Is it Burbank? alright. You must be referring to the Sea Org members who got pregnant against the Sea Org policy and decided to stay in the Sea Org rather than go to a non-Sea Org Church as Staff. They each and every one had choice.

    Doesn’t it annoy you how things keep getting presented all twisty?

    Pat

  113. @Comment by meh on April 22, 2008 8:12 pm
    >wow, i figured this thing would have disappeared. should be interesting in the coming days, what with jason beghe tearing y’all a brand new gaping asshole and all.

    Was there supposed to be something happen? You have data that I don’t have?

    Pat

  114. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 22, 2008 9:24 pm
    >>False. I most certainly did not say that.

    >Well, what else am I supposed to make of your statement?

    Maybe just duplicate what I said, ya think?

    >>You want us to be amused by a group that has a goal to take down our Church?
    >>Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

    Yep, that’s exactly what I asked. EA understood it since that was in reply to HIS question about Anonymous.

    >I see two elements in Anonymous.
    >1. The TERRORIST! kind that use your “name” to hide behind
    >2. The 411chan guys that got hijacked and are still trying to be about lulz, but that went bye bye in January and February when you became tools.

    You still don’t get it. You don’t get it, and you never will get it. We aren’t anyone’s tools. We do what we do because of the lulz, because drama queens like you over-react and call us TERRORISTS! If your Church is a destructive cult and taking it down saves people from harm, then hey, bonus points. But at the end of the day, all that matters is that we milked the ultimate lol-cow and lived.

    You’re absolutely right. I don’t get how you think it’s funny.

    What I do find amusing is that you seem to care what we think of you.

    Pat

  115. @Comment by Babyboots on April 23, 2008 12:29 am
    >Hi Pat, as a long time Scientologist what was your reaction to the Jason Beghe interview? Do you feel some of his concerns are valid? Do you agree with how his case was handled? Is there anything you feel should have been done differently? What do you think ultimately prevented him from getting the gains that scientology promises? Are there people on course with similar problems?

    For starters, I would have cleared up his misunderstood words on the LRH references, since he seems to have misduplicated them.

    Pat

  116. @Comment by Libraesque on April 22, 2008 9:44 pm
    >I was aksed by Pat if I still beat my wife, that shit aint amusing…well actually it is because I don’t have a wife

    Let’s make this real simple for you, Lib.

    It’s an example of a leading question. Just like the ones you were asking. You’ve already determined the answer in the question. It’s called, in debate a loaded or leading question. If you still don’t see it then maybe you’re just trying to stir up trouble?

    Pat

  117. @Comment by anmn on April 22, 2008 7:02 pm
    @Pat:
    >>Again, MB has attempted to skew the truth. Not unexpected.

    >Not really. His prompts were on both sides, and he let Jason talk about what he experienced and what he believed. Perhaps there’s some devil’s advocate there, but it doesn’t interfere with what Jason says.

    >>Reposting for new thread, if we’re going to discuss this. Also extended the end a bit because it explains why Jason interpreted LRH how he did.

    It still doesn’t change the fact that there were later issues by LRH that specifically state there are no rules about gays. That’s what I meant. There are gay Scientologists.

    If Scientologists call someone a “faggot” then it’s from their own case and not any teachings of LRHs. It’s the same if you have a button on fat women and call someone a slob or fat bitch or something. Does that mean that your religion taught you to say that?

    If a Christian decides to bash gays does that mean it’s the whole of Christianity bashing them?

    People are people with their own viewpoints and opinions about anything and everything. Do we now target one’s Church for those opinions?

    Pat

  118. Hi Pat, as a long time Scientologist what was your reaction to the Jason Beghe interview? Do you feel some of his concerns are valid? Do you agree with how his case was handled? Is there anything you feel should have been done differently? What do you think ultimately prevented him from getting the gains that scientology promises? Are there people on course with similar problems?

    You don’t need to reply to each, just looking for your thoughts on the interview.

  119. so Pat, if this is true:
    Comment by John on April 6, 2008 6:15 am
    Do any of the TRs contain an example that references ‘wife beating’?

    Comment by Pat on April 6, 2008 6:36 am
    @Comment by John on April 6, 2008 6:15 am
    >Do any of the TRs contain an example that references ‘wife beating’?
    Not that I know of. I’ve done TRs and don’t recall ever seeing that.
    Pat

    why did you ask me if I still beat my wife?

  120. I was aksed by Pat if I still beat my wife, that shit aint amusing…well actually it is because I don’t have a wife

  121. False. I most certainly did not say that.

    Well, what else am I supposed to make of your statement?

    You want us to be amused by a group that has a goal to take down our Church?
    Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

    Unless you’re being trolled by someone else I don’t know about, it sure looks like you’re referring to Anonymous. Hence my observation: “[y]ou say you refuse to let yourself be amused by Anonymous.”

    Do you have a problem duplicating or at the very least repeating what was said exactly?

    Of course not. Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V are very good friends of mine.

    I see two elements in Anonymous.
    1. The TERRORIST! kind that use your “name” to hide behind
    2. The 411chan guys that got hijacked and are still trying to be about lulz, but that went bye bye in January and February when you became tools.

    I lol’d.

    You still don’t get it. You don’t get it, and you never will get it. We aren’t anyone’s tools. We do what we do because of the lulz, because drama queens like you over-react and call us TERRORISTS! If your Church is a destructive cult and taking it down saves people from harm, then hey, bonus points. But at the end of the day, all that matters is that we milked the ultimate lol-cow and lived.

    Do you really find that amusing?

    I find you amusing.

  122. wow, i figured this thing would have disappeared. should be interesting in the coming days, what with jason beghe tearing y’all a brand new gaping asshole and all.

  123. gays are covertly hostile in $cientology speak?

    SO, if homosexuals are given a covertly hostile number of 1.1, what number are the people given who tell pregnant women in the COS to get abortions so they can stay on track, and what number is given to the people who drive them to the clinic in….Burbank???

  124. @Pat:
    >Again, MB has attempted to skew the truth. Not unexpected.

    Not really. His prompts were on both sides, and he let Jason talk about what he experienced and what he believed. Perhaps there’s some devil’s advocate there, but it doesn’t interfere with what Jason says.

    Reposting for new thread, if we’re going to discuss this. Also extended the end a bit because it explains why Jason interpreted LRH how he did.

    —–

    Jason Beghe: I had this big car accident, in the middle of OT5. I nearly died. I was in a coma for three and a half weeks. … So, of course, we gotta find my PTS terminal. … “Are you sure it’s not that person? He’s gay.” That’s what somebody told me. I mean, that’s how naive some of these people– That’s an RTC terminal. Which is like the gold standard of technical perfection. … So they believe that homosexuals are all 1.1.

    Mark Bunker: They still believe that.

    JB: There are some that do. I never believed that, I interpreted it differently. But it was something where I had to do some mental gymnastics in order to make work.

    MB: Well, that’s what Hubbard wrote, though, that they were 1.1.

    JB: Well, it’s debatable. I know that he wrote, he said something like, “your homosexuals,” when he’s saying the 1.1s. So I don’t know if it’s all homosexuals or what. …

    MB: Yet the Church has said that they no longer think negatively of homosexuals.

    JB: I’ve never heard the word “faggot” more than when I hang around people at Gold. Til the point where I said I don’t like it. My brother’s gay, and he sure ain’t 1.1. I got great friends of mine that are gay. You’re telling me Leonardo da Vinci is 1.1? I don’t think so. If he’s “covertly hostile,” I mean, he’s got so much that he did that was good, that, as much hostility as he may have exuded, I think he made up for it. You see?

    MB: Yeah.

    JB: I don’t buy it. I never bought it. And, again, in my own universe when I was in it, I just thought– (shrug) When you’re in it, LRH is this super-duper guy, so you make him into your own super-duper guy, I suppose.

    —–

    from blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/04/jason_beghe_on.php , part 5

  125. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 22, 2008 3:37 am

    I see two elements in Anonymous.
    1. The terrorist kind that use your “name” to hide behind
    2. The 411chan guys that got hijacked and are still trying to be about lulz, but that went bye bye in January and February when you became tools.

    Do you really find that amusing?

    As for stats, we’ve been doing it for years. I think you misunderstand when I say upstat. Yes, an occasional week where it goes down, but we view these on a trend. And that keeps going up. No such thng in this universe as an absolute :)

    Pat

  126. @Libraesque

    lol @ faggot, if I had a penny for each time I read that on the chans and all the wonderful innuendos I would be rich. In the Marines and Army wow, that was a ton. The word obviously has moved into the multi-use word of F@^K.

    As for what LRH said, to be honest I have not read that yet but will give you my answer then as to my interpretation.

    As for Judaism, reform has accepted homosexuals, but the conservative movement is dividing and will likely split where those that accept as law homosexuals will be absorbed in the reform movement leaving a “conservadox” movement. This is happening in the Anglican church as well. My best friend who lives in Dallas has joined an Anglican church that has refuted the acceptance of the bishop.

    The way this is argument is being presented it comes off as that there should be a litmus test for homosexual acceptance as to validate or invalidate a faith.

  127. @Comment by Libraesque on April 22, 2008 4:36 pm
    >great….so we have an organization here that teaches that the word faggot is okay, they assign a” number” to homosexuals, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with the “church” or who questions it is a baby rapist and a criminal??? That’s great, just great…..and they think Anonymous are terrorists?????
    The more I learn about $cientology the more the image of a guy with a funny moustache keeps popping into my head

    You’ll have to find that reference where the Church teaches that the word “faggot” is ok.

    Again, MB has attempted to skew the truth. Not unexpected.

    Yes, anyone who does not use sex to procreate was put in the 1.1 band on the emotional tone scale. I can’t believe that Jason got all the way to OT 5 without ever understanding how that works. 1950. There are 17 Basic Books after Dianetics. There are over 244 lectures in the Basic lineup. As he wrote, he researched and the tech evolved to what it is today. Before telling us what we believe, read all the references.

    What’s 1.1 (Covert Hostility), is taking something like that out of context and drop out time and say “here is what you believe”, for the sole purpose of enturbulating.

    Pat

  128. […] Questions go here! […]


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos