Anonymous: I can’t see that they are helpful for anything.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/41977337#41977337

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

26 Comments

  1. Louanne- you closed your new thread before I could clarify my first statement, and before you could react to the second! Was that accidental, or is it ironic when you say that one can stop communicating altogether?

  2. In the aside, I thought this site had responses from the Church of Scientology to critical articles and media reports presented against the Church. Wouldn’t our discussion fall within that guideline?

  3. It’s a shame, too. For a while, we were actually communicating quite well. Then, suddenly, you shut yourself off again. Oh, well, hopefully someday we can complete a conversation. If you’re interested, there’s several dozen cycles that we’ve started and you’ve abandoned, even several that you started then didn’t complete. If you’d like to talk about something else, we could continue one of those.

  4. That’s YOUR rule, Pat- you keep forcing that one the rest of us. Especially since SHE’s the one that brought up the e-meter. By your rules, she violated her own blog. But, that’s fine. Reality is that I don’t believe you CAN answer these questions. This isn’t the first time you’ve used that excuse.

    -out-

  5. Let’s get something straight here. This site was designed by Louanne to deal with handling myths about Scientology. Asking technical questions about e-meters is not in that category nor is “how does this work” or “how does that work”? That’s not the purpose of this blog. Any questions about the tech don’t belong here. It’s gone way off the rails to even discuss any question about Clear or e-meters, etc.

    This is my last communication on this thread since it’s off-topic.

    Pat

  6. well that’s quite an abrupt end to the conversation :) I suspect that there’s more than meets the eye here…

    So you had nothing more to say as to the utility of applying the tech, and are choosing not to answer the outstanding questions?

  7. There is nothing more to discuss on this subject.

    Pat

  8. Louanne,
    May I please be permitted to continue the very productive conversation with pat regarding the utility of tech application?

  9. Shall we cease this line of comms, as well?

  10. “Comment by BigDaddy on March 27, 2011 3:40 pm
    Louanne, surely you logged in to close the thread. May I please ask why this conversation was halted?”

    Because it went completely off-topic and I don’t have time to get a Thunderdome set up for you two.

    – L

  11. So then, what it sounds like you’re saying is that the correct application of the tech will result in financial betterment 100% of the time? Or did I misunderstand? Similarly, it also sounds like you’re saying that all OTs are exactly in the situation in which they desire to be, if they are properly applying the tech? In other words, are you saying that all scientologists are prosperous if they are applying the tech?

    re: Laurie: I really don’t see the difference. How is she not explaining the tech? She didn’t provide a reference- she defined it herself.

  12. @Comment by Bigdaddy on March 28, 2011 6:34 am

    “I see… Given the absolutes provided, the poor are poor because they’re failing to do something correctly? Are there poor scientologists; or for that matter, OTs in a situation in which they don’t want to be but is beyond their control?”

    It isn’t beyond their control. If they are having financial problems then there is some tech not being applied. There is a lot of data about finances, managing them and applying conditions (see Ethics book). Of course, I am referring specifically to Scientologists here.

    The point is, there are tools that Scientology can offer that handles the “poor”, so one can flourish and prosper. I’ve seen it over and over and over in the last 40 years that when something fails it’s due to misapplication or non-application of the tools. Even with myself.

    “But, at first glance, is she not answering the same question to which you provided a quote indicating it violates ethics to do?”

    No, she’s giving real life experiences. Explaining would be to tell you what the reference means.

    Pat

  13. I see… Given the absolutes provided, the poor are poor because they’re failing to do something correctly? Are there poor scientologists; or for that matter, OTs in a situation in which they don’t want to be but is beyond their control?

    Thank you, again, for the stimulating conversation! Thank you also for the additional data from ms. Hamilton. I will review soonest. But, at first glance, is she not answering the same question to which you provided a quote indicating it violates ethics to do?

  14. @Comment by BigDaddy on March 27, 2011 3:31 pm

    “Pat, Is it possible for someone that is poor to reach the highest levels of scientology?”

    Being poor is a condition of existence. It means that one is not applying the conditions to his life or the affluence of tools available in Scientology Administration Tech. Any condition can be improved and this is something that seems to be invalidated by those who wish to see one fail. That’s why the critics like to harp about cost, when the tools are there to help us flourish and prosper.

    Pat

    p.s. Look at this answer on Laurie Hamilton’s blog: about Clear. I think she says it better and I’m glad I checked here blog out to find this.
    http://en.allexperts.com/q/Scientology-1751/2011/3/Clearing-dynamics.htm

  15. Louanne, surely you logged in to close the thread. May I please ask why this conversation was halted?

  16. Pat, Is it possible for someone that is poor to reach the highest levels of scientology?

  17. last thread was closed. Oh well. par for the course here, I suppose :)

  18. whoops, in english, that was that he’s the “best one EVER, many lulz”.

  19. Video::


    If he’s trolling, it’s the best one every, many lulz. If that’s ACTUALLY his personality, I really want John Cusak to end up with the girl he liked.

  20. yes, but it’s the mannerisms and attitude. Seems pretty similar to me, and I never liked that character…

  21. Comment by bigdaddy on March 11, 2011 10:55 pm

    “tell me I’m not the only one that sees it.”

    Can’t do that. Different hair, different eyes, different mouth.

    Pat

  22. tell me I’m not the only one that sees it.
    That guy’s a tool.

  23. I can’t see it on this ‘puter. Is there a print version of the story?

  24. Changed now… Anonymous was what I meant.

  25. Whoops! I guess that link did not go where I wanted it to go to….

    Let me change that!

    – L

  26. politicians or wisconsinians?
    lol :)
    What’s with the category of “anonymous”, out of curiosity?


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

  • 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

    Road Cross

    Raquel llora por sus hijos

    LOPBURI TEMPLES

    More Photos