Church Expansion and Fundraising Activities

Given the insane media reporting today, I wanted to repost something that went on ScientologyMyths.info about a year ago. Here it is:

Church Expansion and Fundraising Activities

Scientologists contribute voluntarily and generously to the Church both for the religious services in which they participate as well as to support the opening of new Ideal Scientology Organizations and the implementation of large‐scale humanitarian and social programs around the world.

A great number of international Church programs, particularly in the fields of drug education and rehabilitation, raising literacy standards and advancing human rights, are funded by grants from the International Association of Scientologists, which raises donations from its members without regard to their participation in any services.

Scientologists contribute because they want to receive the benefit of L. Ron Hubbard’s technology and they want millions of people world over to benefit from it too and thus achieve the Aims of Scientology.

The result of these efforts is unprecedented expansion in the actual delivery of Scientology religious services—an increase of 40 times over previous levels—and the religion now measured in terms of more than 10,000 Churches, Missions and affiliated groups, with millions of members in 167 countries.

It is no surprise this individual is complaining, with orgs reaching into their communities at unprecedented levels. L. Ron Hubbard (LRH) covers this in a Bulletin of 1 May 58 called SIGNS OF SUCCESS:

Whenever we’re really winning, the squirrels start to scream. You can tell if somebody is a squirrel. They howl or make trouble only when we’re winning. — LRH

What follows are applicable LRH references in response to specific claims made by some squirrels who, while claiming to be a “auditors” or “trained”, never did any of the Golden Age of Tech line up, never did the Basics Books and Lectures and wasn’t even around for the ACCs release.

Topics:

1. Squirrels
2. Rumors
3. Using Policy to Stop

4. International Association of Scientologists
5. Ideal Organizations
6. Donations for new buildings

7. PCs or Pre-OTs doing an Return/Advance Program
8. Length of time on Lower Grades
9. Nattering

72 Comments

  1. Hip hip hooray !!!!!!!! We are winning and the ant-social personalities that attack us can’t stand it!

    My only advice to our critics is to try to see the other side of the story. Buy and read some Scientology books, then try out a few courses and then get at least 12 hours of auditing. And then maybe join staff at your local Church of Scientology for at least one year and THEN make your judgment of Scientology. That is the only fair way to see the truth. I guarantee you will see the error of your ways. Walk a mile in our shoes.

  2. Compleat and utter 360 degrees expansion is happening here.
    Upward and onward. The critics can’t stand us prospering. LOL!!!
    Long time Scientologists already know this. Ideal Orgs are a reality.
    The squirrels are going mad just knowing this and so they natter!

  3. It’s easy to see that scientology is spending more and more money, that much is true. But that’s not a sign of success. Why is it that the ONLY resource that shows that scientology is ‘growing’ in members is from scientology, and is in no way validated? This site claims to use non-scientology resources, but that’s a lie. And that’s because all of the non-scientology sources show scientology is actually shrinking rapidly. But some scientologists STILL believe that it’s growing simply because they were told so- they’re given no proof. For all the lip service of ‘knowing for yourself’ they sure swallow that line easily. How can you know for yourself when you’re just believing what you’re told? Scientology is shrinking- members are leaving (former OTs and Clears, with their names publicized when they talk about their experiences). There’s far more past members speaking out than their are current members defending it.

  4. “What follows are applicable LRH references in response to specific claims made by some squirrels who, while claiming to be a “auditors” or “trained”, never did any of the Golden Age of Tech line up, never did the Basics Books and Lectures and wasn’t even around for the ACCs release.”

    Oh… My God! Who/what was this written for? Do you really think non-Scientologists care AT ALL that an ex-member “never did any of the Golden Age of Tech line up” or “wasn’t even around for the ACCs release” (whatever the heck those are)?

    Try to understand this; “WOGS” DO NOT CARE about these issues; that an ex-member didn’t do some specific XYZ thing in Scientology does NOT hurt their reputation in the eyes of non-Scientologists.

    You’re preaching to the choir; only people deep on the inside can make heads or tails of what you’re trying to say and care about it. Have you completely forgotten how to communicate with people on the outside?

    • Yell at Wright, silly. He’s the one who wrote about auditors. LOL

      • He was quoting Louanne and speaking to her. He wasn’t talking about the critically acclaimed book by Pulitzer Prize winner Lawrence Wright. He was talking about the way that Louanne speaks while, essentially, representing scientology (on a site that claims to provide”[r]esponses from the Church of Scientology to critical articles and media reports presented against the Church”). Both you and her speak in a way that immediately isolates a non-scientologist and quickly turns confrontational. I may be mistaken, but that’s they way I interpret what Ulysses is saying- it’s just odd, is all, and does very little to represent the group.

      • Really? Because I’m pretty sure this post isn’t about Lawrence Wright, but about the ex-Scientologists who are suing your church for fraud. So LOL at you for getting the context wrong.

        My point is, non-Scientologists (what you people call “wogs”) DO NOT CARE if someone is a “squirrel” or has never done the “Golden Age of Tech;” they don’t even know what these things are, and making a big deal out of it just marginalizes you makes you look weird to the public.

        Imagine you saw some guy on the street and he told you “Don’t listen to John Doe; he’s a Gopher who’s never done the Silver Era Program.” You’d probably think to yourself, “what the hell is this crazy person talking about,” right?

        Well, that’s how you sound to us “wogs;” you sound weird, and it makes people want to avoid you.

        I do not know who this “squirrel” Louanne is talking about is, but I guarantee you this. No “wog” cares that they’re a “squirrel.” No “wog” cares that they’ve never done the “Golden Age of Tech.” No “wog” cares that they’ve never done the “ACCs.” Get it?

    • Louanne was referring specifically to Wright’s data. He used the terms. No mention was made about lawsuits. If there are terms that Ulysses doesn’t understand the glossary is available here. http://www.scientologymyths.info It’s interesting to me that the term “wog” is interpreted as derogatory when it means “worthy oriental gentleman”. Also, not a term that Louanne used.

      Ulysses, the UK and Canada refused to publish this book. Just because he got an award in the past doesn’t make this book true or well-written. It’s yellow journalism at best. “Journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers.” from thefreedictionary.com.

      appless, you said ” I happen to work very closely with government researchers”. To that I say “Mr Government”. Where did you say that you had a friend in the government? (You didn’t and misrepresented that you did).

      • “appless, you said ” I happen to work very closely with government researchers”. To that I say “Mr Government”. Where did you say that you had a friend in the government? (You didn’t and misrepresented that you did).”

        No, you said “Mr. Government Shill”. Did you misrecall what you yourself said? Or is petty name-calling just part of your communication technology?

        I do have friends in the government, among them are those that I work closely with. Maybe it’s foreign to you that you can be friends with those you work closely with, but to me it’s quite common. In the future, I’ll be more clear when I’m saying something to someone else, when you might read it and reference it. While the intended recipient of my communication understood, I should have thought about you, who might read it and feel the need to reference it in the next time you feel the need to call me something. My mistake, I’ll be very clear in the future.

      • And, since you’re okay with responding to other people’s comments, I’ll just point out that the recent NPR interview revealed that the book never had a planned Canadian publisher. Where are you getting your information saying they did?

      • my error, last comment. disregard.

      • “No, you said “Mr. Government Shill”

        Yep, I said that. Still believe it, especially with the “I happen to work very closely with government researchers” comment. Between that and the confirmation bias showing you to be a Source of Trouble type H, you have no credibility here.

      • At least your being honest now, not changing what you said any more (at least not since I called you on it).

        I’m desperately curious, what am I shilling FOR?

      • I love that insult, by the way. “You have an open mind!”

        lol, no, I know what you’re trying to mean, and that’s real nifty. The problem with your attempt to fit everyone (me, in this case) into a little box is that it doesn’t apply to everyone. I have a sincere desire for knowingness, but you’ve already made up your mind about that. But it’s a convenient way to simply discard questions, especially ones that you can’t and won’t answer anyways.

        The funny thing is that you keep telling me that if I want to know if if works, I need to try it! Would that make me a type F?

      • Someone took a screenshot of someone called thetaworks? whoopi doo! I don’t know what that has to with me. Once I purposely posted as thetaworks to show how easy it was to post under a different identity and I was wide open about that. I am not this other person so you can play that all you want but it won’t change anything.

        I actually think it’s cool for this person to sell Scientology books and get the word out. It’s still telling that someone would call it wrong to make a profit off of dissemination. Kinda fits under the anti-social characteristics.

      • no, pat, someone took a screen shot of YOU posting as thetaworks. you left your account logged in and continued your conversation. you seven referenced things you said earlier as pat and signed it as pat. and that’s what sayingintotality was saying- you’re making money off scientology and are lying about that fact. It calls into question what you say, since you can’t be honest about your financial benefit which is bolstered by your posts here.

        No one is saying it’s wrong to sell books- you’re making that up. refusing to be honest about the financial benefits you receive indirectly by posting here is.

      • thetaworks also is an accountant, and also has 4 kids, and also has been a scientologists for around forty years. are you saying that’s an amazing coincidence, that a person just like you posted responding to your conversation moments before ‘you’ posted again (as you happened to be on the same site at the same time, and ‘they’ have never posted here before) and signed as pat?

        my mind is just blown that you can’t be up front about the fact that you sell books on eBay. it’s not a big deal, it’s just a matter of credibility.

      • anyhow, I’ve said my piece. you can feel free to claim to be who you want, or to not be who you are, it’s all the same to me when there’s far more interesting things to discuss. we can just agree to disagree :-P

    • “What follows are applicable LRH references in response to specific claims made by some squirrels who, while claiming to be a “auditors” or “trained”, never did any of the Golden Age of Tech line up, never did the Basics Books and Lectures and wasn’t even around for the ACCs release.”

      Ulysses: Yup, some poor bastards were only trained by Hubbard himself, and didn’t have the benefit of Miscaviges “improvements”. Most of Hubbard’s personal staff, and many that he personally trained, are either blown or declared suppressive under miscavige. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

      Pat; I’m really not interested in your standard answers here. Thanks for understanding.

      • I’m so glad you consider them standard. Having done drills using the Golden Age of Tech (consists of drills using the LRH references, done to certainty). That is per LRH directive so the squirrels appear to be howling, huh? Hoist in their own petard. LOL

      • Lol; so I make it clear that I’m talking to someone else, and you feel the need to butt in. I make it clear that I would prefer you don’t answer, and you butt in. You seem to like to try and force yourself on others. Is that only online, or in real life as well?

      • Pat- I apologize for that comment, about you “trying to force yourself on others.” That was rude of me, and I regret it.

      • Oh you get me wrong. I didn’t say “I said Mr government “. I referred to you as Mr government in one comm and as Mr government shill in another. In neither case did I say that I didn’t say it, so it’s kinda funny that you decided that I did. Review the posts.

        Your reference is on page 217 of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics. Type H. Are you now trying to say I said you were Type F? Geez, dude.

        You think being labeled Type H by me, as an insult? Does that mean I get to be Cause and you’re Effect?

      • “The problem with your attempt to fit everyone (me, in this case) into a little box is that it doesn’t apply to everyone.”

        That’s true. I didn’t say “everyone” was in the little box. Are you saying that you have a personal desire for auditing or knowingness? I noticed you left out the “auditing” part of that sentence, changing the meaning (look up “or” as it’s used in this reference). — Dictionary.com “(used to connect alternative terms for the same thing)”

        So, what is your real agenda in attacking Scientology and Scientologists?

      • “I love that insult, by the way. “You have an open mind!” ”

        I suggest you re-read that. It says Quote [‘Persons who ‘have an open mind’ but no personal hopes or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things, and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone’s effort ‘to convince them’ “] Unquote

        There is no purpose in answering your questions here. It’s a waste of time.

      • Oh, Pat. Okay, sure, even though your message on jan 26 at 12:15 was you recapping what you said when you called me a shill (I would expect more maturity than that, really). I still can’t figure out why you felt the need to call me that, without knowing anything about me, but whatever floats your boat. But, it’s a moot point.

        “Your reference is on page 217 of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics. Type H. Are you now trying to say I said you were Type F? Geez, dude.”

        Geez, Pat, learn to take a joke once in a while. Wow.

        “You think being labeled Type H by me, as an insult? Does that mean I get to be Cause and you’re Effect?”

        Only if you I was actually insulted, I suppose. For the record, it’s “your” that I think you’re looking for.

        “That’s true. I didn’t say “everyone” was in the little box. Are you saying that you have a personal desire for auditing or knowingness? I noticed you left out the “auditing” part of that sentence, changing the meaning (look up “or” as it’s used in this reference). — Dictionary.com “(used to connect alternative terms for the same thing)””

        There’s that pesky “or” that you’re ignoring. Auditing OR knowingness. Like I said, I desire knowingness.

        “So, what is your real agenda in attacking Scientology and Scientologists?”

        So you didn’t like my little joke earlier, okay. I don’t have one- last one first, where am I attacking scientologists? I’m not; I’m being respectful and having a back and forth conversation, even with the person that’s no longer here. I’m not attacking any scientologist, and if you FEEL attacked by questions, that might be your hang-up. Nor am I attacking scientology- if you think that questioning scientology is the same as attacking it, then that’s YOUR issue, not mine. Questions have been a valid part of learning since before Socrates, and those that avoid questions can only see part of the topic.

        “I suggest you re-read that. It says Quote [‘Persons who ‘have an open mind’ but no personal hopes or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored, as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of ability to decide about things, and are seldom found to be very responsible and waste anyone’s effort ‘to convince them’ “] Unquote”

        Two issues here. One, recall that “or”. OR knowingness. It doesn’t apply to me because I very much desire knowingness. That’s why I enjoyed talking to Stewart so much, because he actually helped me learn about this fascinating topic.

        “There is no purpose in answering your questions here. It’s a waste of time.”

        That attitude is probably why I stopped asking YOU questions- you just jumped in. It’s bizarre, it’s like crashing a party and complaining about the music :)

      • “Two issues here. One, recall that “or”. OR knowingness. It doesn’t apply to me because I very much desire knowingness.”

        But not auditing which is the other part of the “or”, which means that you’re here on an agenda that has nothing to do with gaining understanding with Scientologists.

        What is your agenda in attacking Scientology and Scientologists?

      • Or generally implies one or the other. Sometimes both, but ‘and’ would apply to what you’re referring to. Regardless, whatever box you want to put me in is fine for me, since it only exists to scientologists. It’s not like, tomorrow at work, someone is going to tell me, “I heard you’re a PTS! How dreeeeeeaaaaaadfullll”. So, I’m still pursuing knowingness- I don’t need your approval to learn.

        “What is your agenda for attacking Scientology and Scientologists?”

        So you didn’t like my little joke earlier, okay. I don’t have one- last one first, where am I attacking scientologists? I’m not; I’m being respectful and having a back and forth conversation, even with the person that’s no longer here. I’m not attacking any scientologist, and if you FEEL attacked by questions, that might be your hang-up. Nor am I attacking scientology- if you think that questioning scientology is the same as attacking it, then that’s YOUR issue, not mine. Questions have been a valid part of learning since before Socrates, and those that avoid questions can only see part of the topic.

        (sounds very similar to the panicked repetition of “what are your crimes? what are your crimes?” I have no crimes, in case you were wondering)

      • Also, by the way, I’ve never asked anyone to “convince me”. But with all that, I could easily see the interpretation that you have, about “or” meaning “and”- if you want to put me in that category, I’ll just have to live with that.

        But, you’re the one that seems to seek me out. So what is it called if someone seeks out someone that they’ve decided is a PTS? That’s a rhetorical question, dear, I don’t expect a straight answer.

        In the meantime, I’ll remain genuinely curious and continue seeking knowledge.

      • I’ve seen a lot of videos with scientologists repeating ‘what are your crimes? What are your crimes?’ when they have nothing left to fall back on. It’s creepy, just like when pat does nearly the same thing. It’s a self-protection mechanism, they always use it when they need to ignore facts and shut someone out.

        pat has a vested interest- she sells scientology books on eBay. she is making a profit off of this. She’s making money off of scientology so she defends it so aggressively.

      • If I wanted to know what his crimes were, I would have asked him.

        Asking what his agenda is in his persistent use of criticism and ad hominem comments is not the same thing. I was hoping that he’d come clean about his true motives, but he avoids answering me like the plague and ad homs to divert attention, then pretends to be all innocent that he’s just curious. Yeah, right. pull the other one. As I told him, he’s lost all credibility. Your motive is also obvious, and I say the same to you.

        Go to http://www.scientologymyths.info and look up “overt motivator sequence” for the tech behind the crime question.

        I’m actually pleased that you think I sell books on Ebay. I’ve created an effect so now you try to investigate me!! Woo hoo! LOL

      • And he answered your question. Several times, in fact. But have you ever seen those creepy videos where scientologists start chanting “what are your crimes? what are your crimes?” It’s very similar.

        But of course you don’t trust him, I wouldn’t expect you to. he MUST be lying (as you say, regarding his true motives)… why exactly?

        And what crimes are you looking for? I got a speeding ticket a few years ago- does that count? But what you forget is that while an ulterior motive CAN color one’s actions, it doesn’t deminish fact. Appless could be paid every day by big pharma, but that doesn’t make the facts any less true.

        And you do- lying is very poor form. You sell books as ThetaWorks on ebay- I didn’t have to investigate you, I used to know one of your sons. I won’t say which, of course, but he was quite vocal about your activities here. So, if by “investigate” you mean “listened to your son”… then sure.

        Besides, you stand to profit financially from scientology, so your relentless protection of your profit motives is very clear. That’s why you can’t admit any flaw in the group, because you’re profiting financially.

      • It’s pretty clear that you’re going to continue to lie and misrepresent yourself for your profit motive. You’re clearly making enough money that you’re willing to lie about many things, and I can’t respect that. That’s why you chased off the only person here that was willing to tell the truth- because it might have impacted your bottom line. What do you do instead? Direct people to things that could ultimately increase your profits. So you chase off the only honest scientologist here and continue to try and dominate everything on this little blog all because you’re making money off scientology. Your motives are clear, and that’s why you’re willing to lie. And if you’re willing to lie even about the money you’re making selling books, then it makes sense that you would like about other things, too. But why not? Even hubbard lied about his war record and other things in his life- even the courts said so (you know, when his wife accused him of abuse- one of his three failed marriages and I think one of the ones he cheated on, but I can’t recall). Some “humanitarian”.

        I’m out of this insanity.

      • actually, pat, let’s be honest about that.

        You accused me of attacking scientology and scientologists. I demonstrated no less than three times that I didn’t attack anyone. I asking questions is not an attack. If iI were to say that the Catholic Church handled the molestation scandal wrong, would you say that’s attacking anyone?

        if you need to believe that, I won’t stop you. I but it’s untrue. and, between the two of us, you’re the only one that resorted to name-calling.

      • Comment by sayingintotality on January 28, 2013 9:51 am

        It’s pretty telling that you think it’s a bad thing for this person to make profit from a business selling things on Ebay. Now I know how you feel about a person being successful in life. My own profession is in bookkeeping and tax preparation. I do well enough with that. Having the tools on finances that Scientology gives me has come in quite handy. I notice that there’s a lot of disagreement on the fact that we exchange for our services. That is enlightening that you say that about profiting from a business and at the same time say I’m lying about making a profit, tho’ I have no idea where I said that. You’re the only one who commented on profit. I am not thetaworks and I don’t have a son who has anything to do with what I do here. You evidently have posted here before under a different name because this isn’t the first time someone asserts that I have a son that discusses me. I don’t care at this point if you think I’m lying or not. You just go right on believing that. Doesn’t make it true. Bye.

      • Just for my two cents, since saying said (ha!) that he was leaving, I actually thought it was common knowledge. I’ve seen the screenshots where you posted as thetaworks, forgetting that you were logged into your wordpress account. Someone took screencaps when you did that (several times in fact), so it’s pretty well known.

        And, perhaps he does know your son- I don’t know. But it seems that he’s right about you having a son (more than one?) which says something.

        I think (and if saying does come back, he’s free to correct me) that he was saying that since you make a profit off of scientology, you have a very vested interest in propegating it- the fact that you make money FROM scientology certainly introduces the possibility of an ulterior motive. Wouldn’t you say the same if someone was making money by posting critical information? Again, saying can correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that he was saying that you’re being mistruthful (in things that you say) which directly supports your income source.

        It’s just a fact that making money off of something raises questions about your motives. Nothing personal.

      • I’m sorry, app, but this hypothetical in no way has a basis in reality and I question your sanity for posing such a scenario.

      • what’s hypothetical?

  5. I wasn’t aware of the lawsuit until I read this.

    Is there a possibility that the church will engage in a policy of transparency regarding its finances? Of course, it’s not legally required that they do so, but it would certainly put an end to a great deal of criticism, particularly regarding the apparently lavish lifestyle that David Miscavige lives.

    • I doubt that. That “criticism” is just another outgrowth of some fanatics to seed doubts. If you have ever seen Mr. Miscavige at work you know that this man has no intent nor need of a “lavish lifestyle.” Apart from that, it’s covered here:

      http://www.lawrencewrightgoingclear.com/wright/chapter-9/miscavige-wealth.html

      • While very nice, that page really only amounts to “nuh uh!” against the critic’s “uh huh!” It doesn’t really refute anything, but merely disagrees with it.

        Would there be any down side to scientology engaging in complete transparency with it’s finances, which might outweigh the benefit of completely eliminating the criticism?

        I’m not sure how you would define a lavish lifestyle, but the home in which he lives, his multiple vehicles, private jet, very fine clothes and other fineries would certainly give the *appearance* of such a lifestyle, wouldn’t you say?

      • There hasn’t been any reliable or even close to objective evidence for what you say. Mr. Miscavige does not have multiple vehicles or a private jet. What for? And his clothing, as it can be seen at events, is appropriate for his function. Even the accounts of those that have an axe to grind with him (because he kicked them out for messing things up once too often) do not describe anything else like a normal home where he could have a villa (in his position anyway) without any Scientologist objecting. This is a ridiculous discussion.

        – L

      • I assume, Louanne, that this is because while the word of current scientologists is beyond dispute, the word of former members and what they claim to have witnessed is immediately discarded?

        I’m very curious- some claim to have… have YOU seen his house, automobiles and wardrobe? Have you personally observed how he lives? You’ve likely seen the pictures of him enjoying time at the races, or throwing birthday parties for one particular member, or enjoying a very nice motorcycle- surely one can’t doubt that he lives a very comfortable life.

        But, let’s call it all a wash and acknowledge that, if nothing else, there is a common perception that the man receives an inordinate benefit from his position; wouldn’t financial transparency eliminate this very common criticism? If there’s nothing to hide, what is the harm in releasing the organization’s financials?

      • “I assume, Louanne, that this is because while the word of current scientologists is beyond dispute, the word of former members and what they claim to have witnessed is immediately discarded?”

        While the word of former members is “beyond dispute” (no cites) the word of current members is immediately discarded (cites).

        Your confirmation bias is showing, Mr government shill.

      • You just can’t resist answering for other people, can you Pat? You see Louanne’s name and you say, “I can answer the question that was asked of her!” It’s an odd habit that you have, but at least your consistant.

        Let me try to figure out your childish name calling… government shill.. Oh, I get it, because I mentioned that I know people that work for the government, I must be a government shill! Lol, classic pat.

        I don’t need to provide cites to you, especially given the context (in which I presented an assumption to louanne for her to answer). If Louanne wishes to answer the question that I asked of her, I welcome her input. Will you be continuing to intrude on comms cycles, like you did with Stewart?

    • I communicated to Stewart about a reference. That wasn’t in reply to any comm cycle that you were in with him. I didn’t answer any question of yours or his. He can do that if he so chooses. My original objection a while back was that another poster answered a question I asked of someone else, essentially cutting that communication. It appears that you have a misunderstanding of communication cycle.

      • I also didn’t answer any question from you to Louanne. Feel free to comment on my comm to others. You do anyway.

      • Let’s walk through what happened, then, shall we? Stewart and I were having a positive communication in which he was representing scientology well. He was knowledgeable, poised, and actually discussed questions- something you rarely do. In fact, that’s essentially what you scolded him for with your customary negative and confrontational tone.

        You were directive in your email, and DID answer his question by telling him what I “need” to do. And you haven’t even fully answered that, as your follow-up was too vague to be of any use and you’ve ignored the request for clarification. How shall I observe if I’m uninjured? Give an assist to someone else? Watch someone receive one?

        Look at the difference, even in my own tone. Stewart is able to effectively communicate and fostered a positive atmosphere. Yet communication with you, looking at your history, is generally negative. How can Stewart communicate so well, whereas you are so negative?

        And you want to talk about cutting communciation? I haven’t seen Stewart since you scolded him. I hope he comes back.

        Please provide cites for your accusation that I comment on your comm to others. I may have, I’m not saying as a fact that I haven’t, and I look forward to seeing on what you based that charge.

        TL;DR: the only scientologist that actually answered questions here seems to have been chased off by the one that is famous for not doing so.

      • “Give an assist to someone else?” Yes. That would definitely be first hand observation.

        “Watch someone receive one?” You could but based on your communication to Stewart where you questioned the possibility that “personal feelings” got in the way of really being able to tell if he’s exteriorized or not. In other words, you refused to accept his answer and questioned it, which is invalidation. It is something you do in almost every communication with others here in this forum, IMO, which is why I pointed out the confirmation bias. The reference I gave Stewart applies and I don’t care if you like that or not. I don’t need your approval. Bye

      • huh?

        I was asking YOU what you were saying that I should do, regarding a touch assist for uninjured me. you directly said something to me, do you understand what YOU said?

        Stewart can say so if he felt invalidated. He might be someone that can answer questions without taking curiosity personally.

      • I’ll try to make this more clear, since you kind of merged multiple conversations together.

        1. Would a touch assist even work in a lab environment? For example, in the way that Stewart suggested? Or would a touch assist only work in an unmonitored environment?

        2. If I wrote a word on a piece of paper and sat in one room, could an OT in another room exteriorize and see what I’ve written?

        They’re quite simple questions. Are you able to answer them, or should I wait for someone else?

      • Comment by appless on January 26, 2013 11:51 am

        “Let’s walk through what happened, then, shall we? Stewart and I were having a positive communication in which he was representing scientology well.”

        As I’ve already stated, you questioned every answer. I don’t see that as positive. He continued to repeat his answers without pointing out to you that he’d already answered them. The same way that he answered the questions that you are now asking me. Redundant and invalidating his answers. You wanted to know how to get knowledge of touch assists working, if you were uninjured, asking if you should give one to someone else, and I replied yes. Now you invalidate that answer by claiming I didn’t? LRH is very clear that Scientology needs no proof. The test is in doing it yourself and observing the result. Empirical testing is a valid form of scientific research, yet I see constant reference to labs. Why do that when LRH has made it a major tenet that it isn’t true for you unless you personally observe it in application? (Article on Personal Integrity). Its a common attempt by anti-Scientologists to alienate others by continuing to insist on methods used for physical universe verifications. Scientology is about you as a spiritual being, not about what happens in a lab. Therefore, any “proof” is in the doing and seeing the result. People who continue to insist on others proving technology are unable to do or look for themselves. Thus, the reference I gave Stewart. It’s a waste of time since I don’t see you looking for yourself.

      • So, then, now you can probably see why I tend to not direct questions towards you when there’s someone here that can actually discuss them.

        If Stewart had a problem with my questions, he was free to say it. But, just like you do with Louanne’s “rules”, you decided to do it yourself. You tend not to answer questions, and seem to have pushed away the only person that did. When Stewart DID answer one of my questions, I thanked him, and either accepted it or asked for clarification or further discussion. He indulged my curiosity, which is what normal people normally do. You, however, do not. Another difference? He made me MORE curious about scientology, and made it look like a positive thing. Would you say that you do the same?

        “The same way that he answered the questions that you are now asking me”

        He didn’t really answer the second. He answered the first- he said that a touch assist is consistant and could be seen in a neutral, controlled environment. It seems that you don’t believe that to be the case, else it would be very easy for you to answer. But, you can’t. I can only reach the conclusion, also, that exteriorization has no practical application. At least he started to answer the question, something you haven’t even done.

        But, let’s say for a moment that exteriorization HAS practical application- that an OT could see what’s written in another room. They could, then, be saving lives every single day by locating victims in house fires, or any number of other scenarios. But they don’t. Are the OT’s unable or unwilling to save those lives?

        “You wanted to know how to get knowledge of touch assists working, if you were uninjured, asking if you should give one to someone else, and I replied yes”

        Kind of. That’s why I clarified my question to get more to the point. What would I learn from giving an assist? I would have to take the person’s word for it if they feel better. Wouldn’t it be more effective, for someone like me who likes to learn, to take out the subjective part (“do you feel better?”) and use objective, measurable metrics? Again, much like Stewart suggested. I’ll be blunt, again, I don’t think that you believe Stewart’s experiment would work. If you were confident in the process, it would be very easy for you to say, “of course it would work!” like Stewart had.

        “Empirical testing is a valid form of scientific research, yet I see constant reference to labs.”

        So is eliminating variables, something which you can’t seem to accept. But let’s come up with a specific example- the effects of alcohol on cognitive functions. Do you think that a researcher would get himself drunk to do his experiment? Maybe, as part of it, but that wouldn’t be the core of the research. He would watch someone drink and then test them- NOT get personally involved. That’s a pretty core part of research- actual research. Empirical testing does NOT mean personal involvement, it means observing using trial and error without a set hypothesis. It’s a doctor trying different combinations of medicines to see what works, not the doctor taking pills himself. You’re not even talking about research, you’re talking about validating a theory WITH a set hypothesis- that should be able to be demonstrated, adn wouldn’t need the further research that you keep advocating.

        I could go on, but what’s the point? You’ve made your only point, that scientology “needs no proof”. I can only assume that scientology can OFFER no proof- that it’s not possible to apply after eliminating the variables. It would be incredibly easy to do so, if true, but you offer the same science that voodoo offers; just do it and try it yourself and you’ll FEEL that it’s true.

        There’s three basic ways to learn about something:

        1. learn how to do it and do it yourself
        2. accept what you’re told
        3. ask experts and delve into it deeply

        You historically advocate the first two; the first isn’t practical all the time, especially if one doesn’t have the intent of pursuing the subject full-time. For example, if you had the simple question, “why is the sky is blue?”, how many classes would you need to take before you could answer it yourself? Meanwhile, you’re taking time away from other pursuits. You’ve also demonstrated the second with your parroting of anti-psychiatric messages. You’ve never tried psych drugs, have you? Never been to medical school? So, you’re left accepting what you’re told. Or, perhaps you would say that you’ve asked experts and studied it? Have you asked the deep questions? If so, how is that different than me asking questions to better understand?

        How have you reached your conclusions about psychiatric (or illegal) drugs? Have you merely accepted what you’re told? Or did you ask questions like I am doing (which would make you a hypocrite)?

        You may not be familiar, but even Socrates advocated asking questions in order to learn (and, by his method, to teach).

        I AM looking for myself- and I can wait until someone else shows up that could maybe discuss them. It’s very rare to find a scientologist online at all, much less one that could answer questions without name-calling (don’t worry, I won’t hold that against you) or evasion.

        TL;DR: you’ve said the same thing that you’ve said before. Thanks for repeating it, but I’ll look out for someone that can actually discuss the concepts.

      • “Empirical testing is a valid form of scientific research, yet I see constant reference to labs.”

        “So is eliminating variables, something which you can’t seem to accept.”

        Stewart told you it works consistently and that it varies from individual to individual, in how long it takes. That answered that question and yet you continue to refuse it, thus refusing empirical testing as a valid method. “Did it work?” is empirically sound research.

        Empirical testing defined: from Merriam Webster
        ” 1: originating in or based on observation or experience
        2
        : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
        3
        : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

        I’m not the one who can’t accept.

      • “1. Would a touch assist even work in a lab environment? For example, in the way that Stewart suggested? Or would a touch assist only work in an unmonitored environment?

        At which point, I told you to try it for yourself. BTW, it isn’t true for me unless I’ve personally observed it and I have, giving and receiving.

        “2. If I wrote a word on a piece of paper and sat in one room, could an OT in another room exteriorize and see what I’ve written?”

        You need to go back and review that conversation. He answered that. Evidently you expect each individual to be the same with the same abilities and results. Abilities and perceptions vary from person to person. Why don’t you find one of your apostate buddies who claims to be OT and ask him / her to test it for you? Remember, observation or experience.

      • “How have you reached your conclusions about psychiatric (or illegal) drugs? Have you merely accepted what you’re told? Or did you ask questions like I am doing (which would make you a hypocrite)?”

        I have seen the results. I’ve observed and or experienced it in someone else. Where did the idea come from that I had to personally experience something to know it’s true? You keep forgetting about the observation part being able to be objective as well as subjective. Do you honestly think that no one can know something unless he tries it? Does that mean you took LSD to know that it causes hallucinations? How do you think that the FDA got the data on psychotropics causing suicidal and homicidal ideation, diabetes, heart failure, sudden death, aggression and violence? I’ll answer that – from those who experienced it or observed it.

        So, what is your true agenda for attacking Scientology and Scientologists?

      • “Stewart told you it works consistently and that it varies from individual to individual, in how long it takes. That answered that question and yet you continue to refuse it, thus refusing empirical testing as a valid method. “Did it work?” is empirically sound research.”

        We can go back to that, if you’d like, but that’s not what you and I were discussing. We were talking about your apparent fear of seeing scientology lab-tested. It’s very clear that you don’t think it will stand up to actual unbiased scrutiny. I think you’re right. It’s actually very simple- one COULD eliminate the possibility of bias, but I think you and I both know that it won’t work then.

        Empirical testing is well-suited for testing a hypothesis, especially when lab testing is not possible. What would be the harm in testing it objectively? Besides your apparent confidence that it wouldn’t work.

        Let’s look at Stewart’s proposed test- blood alcohol content. How can you test that by observation? You cannot- you can only ask someone “feeling” questions about their perceptions. Taking blood samples or breathalizers, while not in a lab, would get rid of all bias.

        “At which point, I told you to try it for yourself. BTW, it isn’t true for me unless I’ve personally observed it and I have, giving and receiving.”

        Noted, thanks for your advice. I can only surmise that you don’t think it will work in a lab environment (you know, where they can actual verify what’s happening?)

        “You need to go back and review that conversation. He answered that. Evidently you expect each individual to be the same with the same abilities and results. Abilities and perceptions vary from person to person. Why don’t you find one of your apostate buddies who claims to be OT and ask him / her to test it for you? Remember, observation or experience.”

        He actually didn’t. He started to, but you took care of that one. He was talking about the concepts, but he never got a chance to talk about the practicalities of it. In a practical scenario, could an OT read my writing? Don’t worry, I don’t expect an answer from you on that one. Frankly, I think that your inability to answer, paradoxically, answers the question.

        “Where did the idea come from that I had to personally experience something to know it’s true?”
        Ummm… you. You’re telling me that I can’t “observed and or experienced it in someone else” regarding a touch assist- that I need to be a part of it to understand it. Yet, somehow you get a pass when you discuss psychiatric drugs. Why the double standard?

        “You keep forgetting about the observation part being able to be objective as well as subjective. Do you honestly think that no one can know something unless he tries it?”

        So, then, Stewart’s proposed experiment is fine, then?

        “So, what is your true agenda for attacking Scientology and Scientologists?”

        I’m paid by the American Psychiatric Association, of course. And big pharma. We can see that scientology is much more effective than actual medicine (which IS validated in the lab whenever possible and DOES subject itself to peer review by unbiased parties).

      • Besides, I don’t think that CSI would ever support further testing of Dianetics. Recall that when it was new, Hubbard excitedly tried to “sell” various medical entities on the concept. It was not well received.

        “Objective experimental verification of Hubbard’s physiological and psychological doctrines is lacking. To date, no regular scientific agency has established the validity of his theories of prenatal perception and engrams, or cellular memory, or Dianetic reverie, or the effects of Scientology auditing routines. Existing knowledge contradicts Hubbard’s theory of recording of perceptions during periods of unconsciousness.”
        – Professor John A. Lee

        Per wikipedia, The MEDLINE database records two independent scientific studies on Dianetics, both conducted in the 1950s under the auspices of New York University. Harvey Jay Fischer tested Dianetics therapy against three claims made by proponents and found it does not effect any significant changes in intellectual functioning, mathematical ability, or the degree of personality conflicts; Jack Fox tested Hubbard’s thesis regarding recall of engrams, with the assistance of the Dianetic Research Foundation, and could not substantiate it.

        Now, I bet that you’d say the conditions were wrong, or the environment invalidated the “test”. If I’m right, that only further supports the position that these concepts couldn’t stand up to rigorous scientific validation. You would think that these things could work anywhere, but it appears that they can’t.

        You keep talking about empirical evidence, but you ignore the critical element of scientific controls. Without controls, you have no way of validating data. It’s simply poor science.

        It’s very interesting, as well, that you say that Scientology (when we’re referring to Dianetics, I merge the two sometimes) doesn’t ‘need proof’. Hubbard claimed, in an interview with the New York Times in November 1950, that “he had already submitted proof of claims made in the book to a number of scientists and associations.” He added that the public as well as proper organizations were entitled to such proof and that he was ready and willing to give such proof in detail.

        What I’m very curious about, and don’t expect you to answer, is if it is as you say, and a touch assist works invariably, then why aren’t we all using it? Why hasn’t it found it’s way into modern medicine? Even Reiki (very similar in concept- not the same, but similar) has a large following that you don’t see with touch assists. Another thing that I don’t expect you to answer is why aren’t scientologists putting their exteriorization abilities to good use and saving lives? Why do they allow firefighters to die when they could very easily tell them exactly where people are located and how many are trapped in the fire?

      • The problem with labeling people, Pat- especially based on limited knowledge of them- is that it can only close your mind even further. And it seems that scientology is full of labels for people. There’s the “psychs”, and the “2 1/2 percenters” and the “PTS type x’s” and the “SPs” and the “Wogs”… the list goes on. But when you label people, it’s easy to forget that they’re people. Why do you think, in combat, soldiers don’t shoot “people”, they shoot “charlie” or another generic label. Labeling people based on arbitrary experience is a bad thing.

        In this case, inaccurate as well, by the way. Another thing is that I don’t want anyone to “convince” me of anything. I’m only looking for perspectives so I can make up my own mind. I ask questions to learn- you seem to dislike that, which is why I wasn’t asking YOU the questions until you (ahem) joined in.

        With all due respect, I’ll wait until another scientologist arrives- one is bound to sooner or later. I know you want me to leave, but I’m not quite ready to. Feel free to ignore me, if you’d like. :)

      • Lastly, for the moment, you seem to have ignored a (well, many, but one in particular) question. It’s a question that I can’t “find out for myself” because it’s not about the tech or about any process. It’s a “why” question.

        If it’s true that an OT could actually leave their body and view the shared universe, then how can they sit by and let people die when they could so easily help? Why can so many scientologists just allow people to die horrible deaths and refuse to help them?

        Or, is it more accurate to say that an OT could not, for example, view inside a burning house and find where a family is hiding from the flames?

      • Comment by appless on January 27, 2013 11:03 am

        That has been answered. You don’t have to be OT to go exterior. I’ve said that B4. Your question implies that being able to go exterior means that we are omnipresent and see all tragedies. Hell, why not just call us Gods and blame us for every death, making us Cause over everyone’s lives. If you want to make me Cause over you, your life and your decisions and decide whether you live or die, I’m willing to be responsible for that. Evidently you see Scientologists as Cause over everyone’s life, and blame us for people dying. .

        What is your agenda for attacking Scientology and Scientologists?

      • I don’t recall you saying that, but I’ll take your word for it.

        Pat, it’s a very simple question. I’ll even rephrase it. If a firefighter comes running into an org and says, “there’s a house on fire, and we really need to see where the family is!” What would the scientologists inside do? Let’s say that it’s full of clears and OT’s- would they be able to help in any material way?

        And, yes, you’ve made it clear that scientologists CAN be to blame for many deaths. If any scientologist CAN exteriorize, and it means anything at all in the material world, then it’s horrible that they sit back while so many die in ways that they could prevent. If what you say is true, then the fact that they decide NOT to help when people are dying is just… disgusting.

        Or, perhaps, they can’t actually see anything that reflects a shared, common reality with the physical universe. In which case they’re not doing anything wrong- it’s just of no real use.

        I’m in no way asking you to be “Cause” over me or anyone else. I’m only asking why, if scientologists actually CAN help others with their gift, they refuse to do so. During 9/11, why were scientologists busy offering “touch assists” when they could have been directing rescuers to trapped victims? The scientologists were RIGHT THERE- why didn’t they help save lives of people that were trapped?

        “What is your agenda for attacking Scientology and Scientologists?”

        So you didn’t like my little joke earlier, okay. I don’t have one- last one first, where am I attacking scientologists? I’m not; I’m being respectful and having a back and forth conversation, even with the person that’s no longer here. I’m not attacking any scientologist, and if you FEEL attacked by questions, that might be your hang-up. Nor am I attacking scientology- if you think that questioning scientology is the same as attacking it, then that’s YOUR issue, not mine. Questions have been a valid part of learning since before Socrates, and those that avoid questions can only see part of the topic.

        (sounds very similar to the panicked repetition of “what are your crimes? what are your crimes?” I have no crimes, in case you were wondering)

      • “If you want to make me Cause over you, your life and your decisions and decide whether you live or die, I’m willing to be responsible for that.”

        ‘whether you live or die’… that sounds chilling. I could easily guess which you would chose.

      • “Pat, it’s a very simple question. I’ll even rephrase it. If a firefighter comes running into an org and says, “there’s a house on fire, and we really need to see where the family is!” What would the scientologists inside do? Let’s say that it’s full of clears and OT’s- would they be able to help in any material way?”

        My question is, why would a firefighter, who is supposed to be putting out the fire, be doing at the org?

      • luckily they were very close by and sent a resting firefighter to the org, because they need help finding the trapped family- its a large building.

        does the firefighter receive help?

      • Are you saying that firefighters know about Scientology’s technology and that someone has that ability at the org and would leave a fire and their duty to put it out, before someone gets hurt? No more hypotheticals. Real life.

      • It isn’t a simple question. it’s a hypothetical under circumstances that don’t exist. No fireman is going to run to an org when he’s supposed to be putting out a fire.

      • of course they would, pat, if they had any reason to believe that it could work. the question, therefore, is quite practical and realistic. should a firefighter, in real life, even consider that they would get any help?

        it doesnt sound like you think they would, as you seem to be looking for any reason not to even answer.

      • Comment by appless on January 29, 2013 5:18 am

        That last sentence is a perfect example of being critical of a Scientologist. The scenario is not real and I did answer. You just didn’t like my answer, evidently. I don’t see it happening at all, whatsoever based on the hypotheticals that you gave. If that isn’t clear enough then ce la vie.

      • Two issues, Pat. My last comment is a reflection on your personal communications abilities- it has nothing to do with your religion, unless your religion is the reason that you simply can’t answer a “yes” or “no” question. Is your religion the reason you’re being evasive? If not, then it is an accurate statement about you.

        The scenario is VERY real. Do you have any idea how many deaths could be prevented if exteriorization can view and interact with the shared, physical universe? Do you have any idea how many people die in fires because they can’t be reached in time? Do you have any idea how many people couldn’t be located in time in earthquakes all over the world? It’s very real to ask if rescuers could ask a scientologist who claims to be able to exteriorize for help.

        Your answer amounted to “I won’t answer”. I would say that if the answer was “yes”, then you would have no problem answering. The only logical conclusion is that you believe the answer to be no, since you refuse to answer either way.

        Given that, I think that it IS clear enough- exteriorization has absolutely no practical application in the shared physical universe.

      • “Given that, I think that it IS clear enough- exteriorization has absolutely no practical application in the shared physical universe.”

        Since exteriorization is a spiritual phenomenon, I would have to agree with you, especially since no Scientologist has ever claimed that it had a physical universe “application”. Your motive now becomes clear with that sentence. It’s what you’ve been trying to set up all along. Too bad I didn’t play your game LOL

        This closes out any further communication on my part to you. Keep on howling :D

      • “Since exteriorization is a spiritual phenomenon, I would have to agree with you, especially since no Scientologist has ever claimed that it had a physical universe “application”.”

        And you couldn’t have said that DAYS ago? Seriously, you can finally say something straightforward to my straightforward answer, but it took days of rephrasing and clarification to get an actual answer from you. And, in the end, you finally answered the original question surprisingly directly. I accept your answer, and that lines up with my understanding.

        So, if you finally answered one question, what was stopping you from doing so before?

        “Your motive now becomes clear with that sentence. It’s what you’ve been trying to set up all along.”

        To get an answer to a pretty serious question? Yeah, you caught me. That’s why I asked it directly previously, and clarified when I needed to and rephrased when you avoided it. You sure made me work for the answer! :)

        “Too bad I didn’t play your game”

        You answered my question. If this my “game” was twenty questions, we sure did play for a while. Either way, thanks for the answer.

        “This closes out any further communication on my part to you. Keep on howling”

        Ask a question, wait a couple of days for a vague response, then have it “closed out”- it’s like dealing with EA technical support (bazinga).

        Now, in your own way, you’ve helped me to understand something that I’ve been trying to understand, and helped to clarify (or, more accurately, complete) what Stewart was saying. So, even though you refused for so long, thank you for finally answering my question.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • 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