Teresa,

"I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from."

There's nothing to figure out. I'm just me. I'm not here on anyone's behest. I don't have any hidden or secret agenda. I don't say one thing and mean another.

I've said this before, but there are topics that this subject touched on that I really would have liked to discuss. Perhaps not many people are interested. That may be so. Or perhaps the childish jibes and people trying to attract attention to themselves and show how witty they can be create such an atmosphere of noise that anyone who might like to exchange ideas and join a real discussion would take one look and leave.

Antinous was right. There's nothing to be gained from this discussion any more.

If we all just calmed down and stopped trying to prove something, you never know, we might even get to understand each other a little better and learn something. Teresa, in spite of what you may think, I don't think I'm superior or inferior to you or anyone else. I am me and you are you. Comparing two people is like trying to compare, oh, I don't know, windscreen wiper blades and green tea. With a calm, reasoned discussion, you could learn something from me and I could learn something from you.

John Davis

The Guinness in cans has a widget in it that rattles when it's empty. As far as I understand, this delivers nitrogen when the can is opened. Nitrogen gas, as opposed to carbon dioxide has much finer bubbles and this makes the froth taste creamy.

However, the Guinness in bottles, at least the stuff we get in Japan, is far superior. The canned stuff does have a nice froth, I'll give it that, but the beer itself tastes like "black budweiser." In other words, it doesn't taste of much at all. The stuff in bottles has that delicious bitterness and the full taste of a good Guinness.

Of course, none of these are anything like what you get in Dublin. They are mere substitutes. But when the airfare to Dublin is several arms and several legs, what is a guy to do?

John Davis

We could have spent the money researching a new form of energy that wouldn't need oil, put it on the market, put Saddam and the other oil leeches of the world out of business and put the States at the top of the world, making everybody richer.

"Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been."

P.G. Wodehouse

John Davis

One more for Teresa.

When I was at the Scientology organization in Florida a few years ago, a guy I roomed with told me a story about LRH. It was interesting and since you want me to tell my experiences, I thought I would write it here.

This guy was an engineer on the Apollo, the ship that LRH had lived on for many years. One day. he was fixing something on the deck and he had his tools laid out in front of him. Ron was curious and watched what he was doing for a while. Many of his tools had seen better days, and one especially nasty specimen caught Ron's eye. "What is that?" Ron asked. "Sir. It's a monkey wrench," answered my room mate. "That," replied Ron," "is not a monkey wrench. Look at it. What is it?" My friend looked at this tool, really looked at it for probably the first time in his life and said, "Sir. That is a piece of scrap iron!" Ron's reply to this was, "Right. It's a piece of scrap iron. Call it what it IS, not what it WAS."

People often call things by what they should be or what they were, rather than what they actually are.

You call yourself a moderator. Yet you don't moderate. You have a very visible bias. What does it take to be a moderator. Let's take a look at how Antinous describes the post:

"The idea of moderation in these threads is to maintain a balance between freedom of expression by individual commenters and creating a comfort zone that encourages a diverse group of commenters and readers to participate in the conversation. It is a tight-rope act."

Create a comfort zone?

If that is part of your job description, you have failed miserably.

Much of what you post is just "Plain Nasty." (The old #5.) It's not oil on troubled waters, it's trying to put out fire with kerosene.

Your position should be impartial. As I have commented earlier, you seem to have a seething hatred of everything scientological. If you want specifics, I would be happy to point them out to you.

Don't call yourself a moderator if you don't moderate.

John Davis

Teresa, the moderator who doesn't moderate:

"Shouldn't 32 years of studying Scientology have made you a better rhetorician by now? Or is this one of those things like the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit not including a discerning taste in religious tchotchkes?"

#5. Just plain nasty.

"You likewise can't talk about your your personal experiences, or what specific miracles Scientology has wrought for you."

Do you think I'm going to talk about my personal experiences, my most private precious experiences and have you and the other guys pull them to pieces and make fun of them?

I'm perfectly willing to talk about these things. But not in this situation. Of course, you could do your job and moderate this forum so that it is a safe space for me to express the things that really matter, but you don't seem to be able to do this, do you?

"You know, that's not actually true. Sure, there's an element of attempted control in any interaction in which someone lies to you; but there's also an element of attempted control in just about any other interaction with other human beings. Furthermore, having someone lie to you doesn't infallibly mean they're trying to control you, unless you're using "control" in such a broad sense that it's practically useless."

Now this is good. This I can handle. You disagree with something. Great. We could discuss this. This is not knee jerk reaction.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the time, Teresa, I just get the feeling that you are seething with hatred for LRH and Scientology. You have made up your mind that it's all bad and that I am some kind of devil because I defend it.

I don't think you are a bad person, but I think you are operating on false data. You only know what you have been given to know, and not all of that is true. I'd be willing to be that you have never actually taken a course in a Scientology organization.

You and other guys on this forum think you know about the material in the upper levels of Scientology. I'm stepping over the line here to say this, but you don't. You don't have a clue. You have been lied to by people who would try to control you. I'm not going to discuss this any further, as you say, I cannot. But I can just say this. It's not what you think it is at all. Not even close.

You assume that I'm here for "damage control," you write, "It's increasingly clear that you're operating under a set of rules."

Teresa, you are confusing your own assumptions with reality.

Believe me, nobody sent me. I'm not doing this on the Church's behalf. I'm not operating on a set of rules or guidelines. If I were, I could prove it to you, but it's very hard to prove one is not doing something.

I'm sorry if I offended you with the "boys and girls" bit. I was patronizing. With all the "Yah boo sucks!" going on, I should have been a bit more saintly and just turned the other cheek. I am not perfect, after all. But then, I know that and admit it.

Do you?

John Davis

Teresa - the moderator who doesn't moderate.

You write:

"John in Sapporo: trying to drag in Bush, WMDs, and the war in Iraq is a gorgeous red herring. I don't think anyone here is going to fall for it, but I can admire the audacity of the attempt."

What red herring?

It's an example and a damned good one to illustrate the quotation. Bush and the wrecking crew lied to us about WMDs. You think this had NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTROL?

It had EVERYTHING to do with control. And is exactly the context that Hubbard made this statement about. Governments controlling people, manipulating them with misinformation and lies.

I can't make head or tail out of what you want to say here:

"Unfortunately, whatever warm fuzzies that earns you is more than cancelled out by your excessive use of vertical white space."

"Warm fuzzies?"

Nothing about this gives me any emotion even slightly close to warm.

"Vertical white space" loses me. I'm sorry it's over my head. Could you make it simpler for me?

John Davis

Antinuous:

You write, "Why is this discussion still going on? Is anyone deriving anything of value from it any more?"

For me, I feel it's getting a little pointless.

There were many points that could have been discussed, but discussion seems to be a bit beyond many of the posters on this board.

You know, wouldn't it be good for someone to make a point and for others to step in with their agreements, disagreements, personal points of view and discuss the issues presented here? In an adult fashion?

Personally, I would very much like to do that. The reason being that through a real discussion and exchange of viewpoints, you widen your own viewpoint and find new things, new knowledge.

This is the truly wonderful thing about websites like this. It could be a learning experience. It's such a pity that it's abused.

But there was one thing that I got out of it, and it came from a post of yours. It was this line:

"A glance at the news makes it evident that religion is a declaration rather than a philosophy for very many people."

There is so much truth in that short sentence. With most religionists I meet, this is what I find. The philosophy is way above their heads, they don't analyze or think with it. It's just a declaration.

It was timely for me, because I had just come from this exact situation. I'm a musician and while we were waiting to go on stage, two of the singers were talking. They are both Baptists, Christians. Both of them have husbands in the US military. This struck me as odd and still does. How can a Christian condone going to war? How can a soldier lob a bomb into a house containing many innocent people, children, babies and so on and then go to Church the next day?

Anyway, thank you for your sane comments.

Yours sincerely,

John Davis

MORE ABOUT LIES

For those who are interested. Here is the exact quotation by L.Ron Hubbard about lies and control:

"They only way you can control a people is to lie to them. And you can write that down in your book - very big letters.

All right. Now, look. When you find an individual is lying to you, you know that the individual is trying to control you. You can put that down, one way or the other, this individual is trying to control you. That's a mechanism of control. The individual is lying to you, so they're trying to control you."

Note the cunning, "minor" changes in the "quote" someone posted above and the actual Hubbard quote.

Above quote: "The only way you can control people ....."
Hubbard quote: "The only way you can control A people ....."
(Emphasis added)

There is a world of difference between "people" and "a people."

Hubbard is NOT recommending a course of action, he is showing people how they have been duped and lied to so that they can be controlled.

Whoever removed the "a" from the original quotation was doing just this. He/she was lying to you in an attempt to control.

John Davis

At last, someone on this board posts something that makes some sense:

THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them.

-L. Ron Hubbard

EXACTLY.

Now, boys and girls, think very carefully. Can you think of a time when someone tried to control you by lying to you? No? Never happened?

There's so much stuff on this, it would fill pages.

There are fairly innocuous lies such as, "Go to bed now, or the Bogey man will come and get you!"

And there is, lest we forget, a whole WAR in Iraq right now, where a culture is being destroyed and hundreds of thousands killed and many, many more injured and traumatized, their lives ruined.

BECAUSE OF LIES.

Try a web search for "Bush lies" and see what you come up with. "They got WMDs - we know where they are ......"

The whole Iraq "war" is based on lies. They lied to the world to bring about this incredible, meaningless destruction.

You lifted this quotation out of context to make it look like Hubbard is recommending a course of action, which he isn't.

Why?

You have been lied to about Scientology by people who are trying to control you.

There are people who are lying about Scientology on this board in some vague effort to control.

If there is anything that I would like to accomplish on this board, it's to clean up some of the lies about my religion.

It may be impossible.

It probably is.

But there's no harm in trying.

John Davis

"too bad the best non-draught Guinness comes in a can."

Can't agree with you there, I'm afraid. The best non-draught Guinness comes in a bottle.

The guys at Guinness really do get some great ideas. Much of their advertising has been superb.

John Davis

Dear Alessandro,

You write: "And why should the kid's use of the word 'cult' offend British police officers? That's the question. But perhaps those British police officers part-timing for BoingBoing forums."

I don't think they were offended by the word "cult," but worried that some people would be and that this might lead to an incident of "civil unrest," something that they are supposed to prevent.

I wish I had seen your poem before the "deep colonic," or whatever they call it. Is there anywhere else on the net it's posted?

John Davis

One important datum in the study technology is the observation that the reason people get confused or have the impulse to give up a study is that they have gone past words or symbols that they didn't understand.

Let's rephrase that. There's something you don't understand, the impulse is to reject it. And if it's not possible to reject it, the solution is to withdraw yourself from it.

"Aah! But I do understand Scientology - it's a dangerous cult!"

Boys and girls, that is not understanding. That is exactly what I'm on about. It's rejection, pure and simple. "It's a dangerous cult, so I don't have to think about it any more!"

Understanding is a much deeper thing. It involves being able to analyze, see the parts of it, perceive it directly, think with it.

I see very little of that on this site. As far as I can see, most, if not all of the negative statements about Scientology are not even first hand. It's on the lines of, "I know all about that. My friend told me about it and he had read the whole back page of a paperback what was wrote by RLH* himself."

*NOTE: I know that it's LRH - this is called "sarcasm."

If you want to find out about Scientology - probably many of you don't because you already know ALL about it, in the sense of the example above, go to a library, and do as Hubbard suggests. Get a good dictionary, read a bit, think about it, think about if it's true for you or not. If it isn't, forget it. No harm done. If it is, maybe you got yourself a new hobby!

John Davis

Antinuous-san,

You raise some interesting points:

"I do see Scientology as being analogous to Buddhism in that they are both self-centered (literally, not pejoratively) rather than god-centered."

I cannot discuss Buddhism because I have only a superficial knowledge of it, but as for Scientology, I would say that it includes self where many religions deny self. "I" is included in the equation, but is not necessarily the center of it.

"dynamic(s): there could be said to be eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These we call dynamics. These are motives or motivations. We call them the eight dynamics. These are urges for survival as or through (1) self, (2) sex and family, (3) groups, (4) all mankind, (5) living things (plants and animals), (6) the material universe, (7) spirits, and (8) infinity or the Supreme Being." L.Ron Hubbard

"Having said that, there are murderous, raving lunatics and saintly people in every religion, even Buddhism."

A very interesting point indeed. One wonders if a person like Bush who brought about a war and indirectly, the murder of hundreds of thousands (I don't have an exact figure), many of them innocent bystanders, could be considered a Christian. His religion tells its adherents that they shouldn't murder "Thou shalt not kill (murder)," "Love your enemies," "Turn the other cheek," and so on. What is a guy who lobs a grenade into a house full of people on Saturday who goes to Church on Sunday?

There may be murderous raving lunatics in Buddhism, I don't know, but it seems to me that they would be the exception. Those Buddhists I have met have been very calm, patient and kind people who do not criticize unduly and accept people as they are. This is very evident in Thailand which must be one of the largest practicing Buddhist communities on the planet. These people are very tolerant. They accept. Parents are not ashamed of their son being a Ladyboy, or their daughter being a prostitute. They love and accept them as they are.

The way for Scientology to handle this phenomenon is the much criticized "Suppressive Person Declare." This has a long religious precedent and is a kind of excommunication. Charles Manson said that he was a scientologist. Did this make him one? Hardly. He was declared suppressive to show the fact that he is not a scientologist because that is what this declare means.

"A glance at the news makes it evident that religion is a declaration rather than a philosophy for very many people."

A lot of truth in this, Antinuous, a lot! I loved this line. So, so true!

John Davis

Teresa,

Thank you for your communication. It was better. Better, yes, but we are not there yet.

However, if you sincerely want me to talk about what I personally believe at greater depth, may I suggest that you grit your teeth and resist this urge to lard your posts with carping little criticisms.

This passage in particular:

"It's exceedingly odd to see a professed believer avoiding those topics, since devout adherents of almost every other religion are irrepressible when they get to talking in that vein. The only exception are members of religions that don't seek out new converts; but as a longtime member of the First Church of "Would You Like to Take a Free Personality Test?" you hardly qualify."

Imagine that you went to see a movie. You really enjoyed the movie. Everything about it was great. You told your friend that you had seen that movie and his reaction was to criticize the movie, the actors, the director, the story line and so on. Would you want to continue talking about the movie?

I may be wrong, but what I get from your communication is NOT, "John, please tell us what Scientology has done for you," but, "John, shut up and get out of here."
"Also, I have real trouble believing that a non-celebrity English teacher could be a Scientologist for 32 years without working for the organization."

Why? I know a lot of people like me. People who get on with their lives, go and have some auditing or do a course from time to time. We are everywhere. We don't necessarily shout about being scientologists. I've met doctors, dentists, pilots, shop assistants, people in all walks of life. I wonder if the policeman who started this whole discussion wasn't a scientologist also.

"If you're a celebrity you get it for free"

Teresa, there you go again. They certainly do not. They may get preferential treatment to some degree, but they would get that anywhere. And they pay for it the same as anyone else.

"if you work for the organization you get it at a discount."

What does that have to do with the price of fish?

You can get a book out of the library and not pay a cent - except what you are paying for the privilege indirectly in taxes. I met an Australian farmer in Sydney a few years ago. He told me this story. One day, he went to town to do some shopping and picked up a copy of the Dianetics book in a second hand bookstore. He and his wife read it avidly and decided to audit each other. "Auditing" (basically audire = listen) is a procedure where an auditor asks a question and listens to the answer without commenting, criticizing or otherwise adding his own ideas to what the person being audited is saying. This is vastly different to counseling for many reasons, the principle being that the auditor does not add anything to the communication at all.

Anyway, these two decided to audit each other and they did. A year or so later, the guy was in trouble. He couldn't find anything to audit on his wife. She was not in trouble, she was really happy and felt twenty years younger. So the next time they were in town, they went into the local Church of Scientology and the guy's wife checked out CLEAR.

I don't know how much the book had cost them - a couple of dollars? So her journey to clear cost her one dollar.

"Everyone else runs out of money, and it doesn't take them 32 years to do it."

I see the problem. You're equating again. You're thinking, "It doesn't take 32 years to read the bible, or How to Make Friends and Influence People." There is MUCH, MUCH more data than you would believe. I mean bookshelves full of books, shelves and shelves of taped lectures. Do you think that the whole subject of the mind and the human condition can be expressed in ONE VOLUME? This is a large and complicated subject.

If you want to know about me, I have spent time during these years running Scientology study groups (for which I charged JUST enough to cover the rent of the room we were using), done auditing as a volunteer and helped countless people how to study using Hubbard's study technology. Scientology is my life work. I don't want to work within the organization. I respect those who do, really, but it's too total for me.

"Specifically regarding your comment @174: I really have trouble believing you've been a Scientologist for this long without hearing the common criticisms made of the organization."

Well, I don't know which criticisms you mean, since you don't say. But let me tell you that in Japan I am off the mainstream. We don't have a TV or read newspapers. This is nothing to do with Scientology, it's our preference. I get news from people or from the internet - one of the sources is BoingBoing.

"Besides, it has to take a lot of the sting out when the "minority group" you belong to believes it's superior to everyone else on the planet."

Dear, dear, Teresa, you have to try to curb these little barbs of criticism. A moderator is supposed to moderate, "calm the waters," "not take sides."

I spoke to you about something that I had learned, a realization that I had had and you smack it into my face. Your knee jerk reaction is a fallacy. The "minority group" to which I belong - Scientology, is not a single being. In other words, "IT" cannot and does not have ONE OPINION. There are scientologists who think they are superior and others who don't. It's a very varied lot.

Over to you.

John Davis

Takuan-san,

My dearest little yellow pickled radish. Show me that you are capable of DISCUSSING anything connected with Scientology in an unbiased manner, and I will be happy to get into a discussion with you. As it is, this kind of stuff seems to indicate that you have a bias:

John Davis

(THESE ARE ALL TAKUAN QUOTES)

put all the $cientologists in a cage and walk away

$cientolgy is not a cult, it's just a business. Like the Mafia.
why not feel bad about those that $cientology has killed and ruined?

What you have to give to $cientology is the back of your hand. At speed.

put all the $cientologists in a cage and walk away

all neither here nor there. Continue to speak out against $cientology. Give them nothing. Never stop raising your hand against them. Boycott any with them.

Think of the worst abuses of Guantanamo as a mild preview of a world where $cientology prevailed.

Yer right. I'll just take them over to the dustiest stacks and mis-file them. Sorry noble librarians, but we are fighting evil here.
Always make a point of covering them with other titles when in bookstores.

ah good, now they can sue $cientology and shut them down for good

you must adopt a $cientologist and raise it as one of your own
$cientology will be defeated by starving it of new victims. Those already inducted are pumped dry soon enough. Protests like this prevent them from getting fresh blood.

I will no longer give money to prominent $cientology shills (Tom Cruise. Travolta etc.) by patronizing any of their work. I wll do this consciously and will do the work of seeking out the information to avoid giving money directly or indirectly to this cult. Should be pretty painless.

yer on, though $cientology is still more of a common scam - give er another century or two to qualify as an organized religion

Dear AGENT86,

"You work for a cult,"

STOP assuming!

AGENT-san, I work for NO ONE but myself. I promise you. I'm not here, as our moderator who isn't a moderator, Teresa-sama assumes, I AM NOT HERE FOR DAMAGE CONTROL.

"I'm just a guy." I teach English in Japan. I have spent the best part of 32 years studying (part time) Scientology and feel I know quite a lot (but not all) about it.

But I DO NOT work for the Church of Scientology.

"your cult will always receive nothing but scorn from me and mine."

"I'm glad I don't like wearing pajamas, because if I liked wearing pajamas, I'd have to wear them, and I'd hate that."

Ain't a cult, AGENT-san. Scientology is NOT a cult. It's very difficult to say what it is, because there is not much in Earth culture that bears any resemblance.

Personally, I accept that Scientology is a religion, but I cannot accept that it's a religion in the sense that Christianity is a religion. I see it more as Buddhism. Now, another scientologist might not agree with that. As I said, that's my opinion. So, personally, I don't like the term Church. I don't think it fits.

You see, we are not clones. Scientologists can have different opinions. As I keep trying to explain, this is a study of knowledge and NOT belief.

"On a side note, I firmly believe that a lot of your applied study works better than what I see going on in our public education system."

You better believe it, but, sincerely, do you know about this?

Study technology is pretty near incredible. There is so much to say about it, but the main thing for me is that TIME has nothing to do with education - i.e. you take a test at 18 and if you pass you're OK and if you fail you're a dumb dumb.

That never made sense to me.

In the study technology of Scientology, TIME has nothing to do with it. You graduate when you can get 100% on a test - or you can prove that you know and can apply the data. EVERYBODY graduates. EVERYBODY graduates with 100%.

It's always seemed strange to me that someone can become a medical doctor by passing a test with 65%. What about the 35% they got wrong?

"Too bad you folks haven't turned from a money-hungry organization into a true teaching establishment."

Like I said, AGENT-san, I'm not "you folks." I'm just a guy.

I'm not here on "Damage Control," or anything else. I'm an English teacher who has studied quite a lot of Scientology and who digs it, who also digs BoingBoing and visits every day. Whether you like it or not, I'm a member of your community.

"Maybe next generation, when the majority of your high-ups will have been born and raised in your mythos and truely believe, being a Scientologist will mean something."

Huh? Sorry I couldn't get that. What do you want to say?

Peace,

John Davis

TENN-sama,

I stand corrected.

The swindle thread was your contribution:

"#135 POSTED BY TENN , MAY 23, 2008 3:13 PM
those at the top of the management structure got there only by technical knowledge and the ability to apply it correctly

That technical knowledge being a fine ability to swindle."

It doesn't alter the fact that what you said was insulting and totally away from the truth.

However, Teresa, is not guiltless either:

"#123 POSTED BY TERESA NIELSEN HAYDEN / MODERATOR , MAY 23, 2008 5:20 AM
Establishing an absence of religion isn't freedom either. Freedom is being able to have religion or not, as you choose.

Takuan myn, I hold that Scientology does not qualify as a religion, because the further up the management structure you go, the less the people at that level believe what they teach."

I've seen many criticisms of Scientology. You may not believe this, but there are some that I accept. Whereas I haven't found anything yet to disagree with what Hubbard said or wrote, this is not true for everyone who professes to be a scientologist.

But this is just OFF THE WALL.

Those people I have met in upper management of Scientology KNOW THEIR STUFF and PRACTICE IT.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, this is a far, far higher level of knowledge than you know.

Picture a pile of books the size of the Oxford English Dictionary (13 volumes) and the Encyclopedia Brittanica (I've no idea how many volumes, but LOTS), imagine a person who can tell you which volume, which page and how far down the page and who can instantly give you ten examples of how to apply (use) a particular piece of information contained in the study materials.

This is the level of knowledge required.

Believe me, my pantaloons are devoid of any wadding whatsoever.

TENN, and TERESA, you insult my religion.

That is what I want to say.

Peace,

John Davis

As I was on my bike today, scooting back from work, I thought about some of the verbal exchanges on this site over the last couple of days. One thing that I realized - it may strike you as painfully obvious - was, that, as a scientologist, I'm a member of a minority group. I can understand the feelings that members of other minority groups, whether a group of sexual orientation, skin color or religion. It was a humbling thought, I can tell you.

When someone says, "You're a (member of disliked ethnic group)! You guys eat cats, pick your nose in public and don't wash your hands after going to the toilet." How does the member of disliked ethnic group (above) feel when he has never seen a member of his group pick a nose, several of his friends have cats and no one, including his mother has EVER served cat or even talked about it, and, as far as he knows. everyone of his group always washes their hands after going to the toilet.

That's how I felt when I saw the line, "the further up the management structure you go, the less the people at that level believe what they teach."

This is SO FAR from the truth, it was off the wall.

It was an insult.

Especially as it appeared in a post by Teresa - a person who claims to be a moderator, but evidently is not.

She even went on to add insult to injury with this lovely line:

"That technical knowledge being a fine ability to swindle."

Teresa, this is insulting.

John Davis

Takuan,

If you knew anything at all about Scientology you would know that it doesn't have anything to do with belief.

"Sciens" = from the Latin "scire" = "knowing"
"logos" = from the Greek "logos" = "study"

Scientology is the study of knowing. It doesn't require that you believe ANYTHING.

What is the difference between belief and knowledge?

Knowledge is direct perception. You know things you can perceive and/or experience directly. You believe things that people tell you.

L.Ron Hubbard "Look. See what you see, not what someone tells you that you see."
L.Ron Hubbard

"What you observe is what you observe. Look at things and life and others directly, not through any cloud of prejudice, curtain of fear or the interpretation of another."
L.Ron Hubbard

"The most flagrant lies can be punctured, the greatest pretenses can be exposed, the most delicate puzzles can be resolved and the most remarkable revelations can occur, simply by gently insisting that someone look."
L.Ron Hubbard

John Davis

Teresa,

I'm not here as damage control, I'm not here as anything. I'm just myself. I like BoingBoing and look at the site most days over a cup of coffee in the morning. I looked at the comments on this topic and thought I would put my two cents in.

For a moderator, you don't seem to be doing much moderating, more twisting what people write into something that you want to say. Teresa, you seem awfully biased to me.

1. You wrote this: "I hold that Scientology does not qualify as a religion, because the further up the management structure you go, the less the people at that level believe what they teach."

2. I replied, "......... those at the top of the management structure got there only by technical knowledge and the ability to apply it correctly."

3. Then you wrote this: "those at the top of the management structure got there only by technical knowledge and the ability to apply it correctly

That technical knowledge being a fine ability to swindle."

You're just twisting what I wrote.

The technical knowledge required to become a senior executive in the Church of Scientology is A LOT of material. It is (very roughly) the equivalent of a PhD. (Lots and lots of books with no pictures in them!) They higher up you go, the more you have to know. It's similar to the Dalai Lama. That guy knows A LOT about his subject. I have met several senior execs and they KNOW A LOT about Scientology. And there is a lot to know, believe me.

The point I wanted to make was this: In my experience, people at the upper management levels of the Church of Scientology DO know their materials and they DO apply them.

Peace,

John Davis

Jake accuses me of being a troll. What Takuan is saying, God only knows. Takuan, you talking to yourself. Did you ever suspect there might be people out there?

Does anyone here know how to discuss?

John Davis

"NOWHERE in the study materials required to be a senior executive in the Church of Scientology teach or encourage anything to do with swindling.

I think that's completely true. You're not lieing when you actually believe what you're saying yourself. Whether other people get the feeling that they're educated or bullshitted is a different story."

Thank you NEX. I appreciate that.

I haven't actually studied all the materials that a senior exec in top management would, but the possibility of a "How to Swindle" checksheet existing is totally unthinkable. I have studied a lot of the materials and this would be so totally out of place, I just can't think with it. Kind of on the lines of a book titled, "Where I went wrong and screwed it all up," by George Bush.

What I'm most familiar with, in Hubbard's work is the data about Study. I'm an English teacher and I use this information all the time. It works. It works like a dream. The lessons run well, students learn and retain their knowledge. There are some MAJOR, MAJOR discoveries in his research. This is not my BELIEVING in it therefore it works for me. It's logical. It's common sense.

John Davis

Dear Tenn,

Excuse me for saying this, but your comment is exactly the kind of thing that prompted me to put in my two cents in the first place:

"those at the top of the management structure got there only by technical knowledge and the ability to apply it correctly

That technical knowledge being a fine ability to swindle."

NOWHERE in the study materials required to be a senior executive in the Church of Scientology teach or encourage anything to do with swindling. In fact, it's the opposite.

I'd just like to give Teresa, especially, a better reality on exactly what it does take to be a senior exec.

A person would have get through their basic training - five, six weeks at two and a half hours per day, prove by actual statistics that they can use this data, complete all the study for their particular post - probably a couple of months - show that they can apply this with a rise in statistics, get promoted, complete all the study for that post and so on. To become a senior executive in a small Church would entail the equivalent study of a BA, higher up, the equivalent of an MA and to be in top management, the equivalent of a Doctorate Course and several internships.

And what does this study consist of?

Sitting in a room listening to a lecturer droning on and on, with several students in the room nodding off or texting their friends?

NO WAY

Each student has a checksheet that contains all the steps he has to complete for that particular course. Each step is varied, it might be listening to a tape, reading something, writing an essay, doing a drill. It's a nice balance. You take in some information, you do something with it. And because each student has his or her own checksheet, you study at YOUR pace, which might be fast or slow, it is up to you.

The result is that in one hour of study, twenty students are doing twenty hours of work. It's very intense. It has to be - to get through the amount of material there is.

Teresa, senior managerial staff know the tech. They would have to - to keep it going and growing the way it is.

John Davis

Theresa,

Where on Earth do you get this idea?

" I hold that Scientology does not qualify as a religion, because the further up the management structure you go, the less the people at that level believe what they teach."

I have 32 years of experience in Scientology and I would say the exact opposite. The further up the management structure you go, the more they apply with and think with the tech. And there is an awful lot of tech to know. I have bookshelves full of books, books that don't repeat themselves nor do they contradict themselves, all by Hubbard on the subject of the mind, life and livingness.

I would go so far as to say that any trouble that the source of trouble that people have had with scientologists is either beginning scientologists or people who were on staff who hadn't really any knowledge of the subject. In both cases, they were people who were not applying the tech, i.e. they were not scientologists. Scientology IS very exact. Applied correctly it can and does produce miracles. Applied incorrectly or mixed up with something else, it's a mess. I find it interesting that, way back, in the 50s, when Dianetics was a major best seller and the subject was threatening to intrude on psychology's turf, there were all kinds of attacks in the media, but most of these contained the line, "Hubbard is a superb psycho-analyst, ...."

And to go back to the subject, those at the top of the management structure got there only by technical knowledge and the ability to apply it correctly.

John Davis

PADSTER:

"I find creationism offensively stupid."
But if people find it true, surely they have a right to believe it?

"I find the stoning to death of female rape victims for supposed "adultery" offensive."
Of course! Or even if it were adultery, and the woman was just as responsible as the man, stoning either or both to death is more than offensive, it's a repulsive anachronism.

"I find the billions of dollars worth of human effort that goes into absurd religious monuments offensive, when children are starving."
Small fry indeed when compared with the incredible amounts of cash Bush, Cheney and crew are spending on the Iraq "war." The Guardian newspaper estimated it at THREE TRILLION DOLLARS.

John Davis

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Martin Luther King Jr.

I'm sorry about the four letter words. I do feel strongly about this and get fed up with people posting all kinds of weird stuff that comes 100% from someone's imagination. However, it did make a point. My post was taken down, just as the 15yr old's placard was taken away from him.

Hubbard notes that people tend to see things that are unfamiliar to them in terms of things they already know. A person who saw a sitar for the first time might describe it as "an Indian guitar."

This is what I get fed up with. The description of Scientology in the original Guardian article was SO off the wall that - using the analogy above - it described a sitar as "a Chinese iPod."

But, back to the topic. The policeman in question might just have been a scientologist. Perhaps punishing the kid this way is a borderline application of the law, but, what is needed more in our society is tolerance. And if that is what was in this policeman's mind, I applaud him.

John Davis

'm gttng fd p wth th crp tht pprs n sts lk ths.

Ths knd f ln jst kps n pprng: "Pr fls kp lbbng t mny fr yrs nly t fnd tht t's bd scnc fctn stry."

mn, wht th fck r y tlkng bt?

Ths s BLLSHT!

dtng s ncrdbl! Th whl thng s wndrfl vry stp f th wy. Y fnd t bt Y.

Why d ppl py fr t?

Bcs t's wrth t!

t's nt clt, t's nt smn tllng y wht t blv, t's n ncrdbl jrny nt yrslf.

Scntlgy s Scntlgy. t s tslf. Thr's nthng ls qt lk t.

"Lk. S wht y s, nt wht smn tlls y tht y s." L.Rn Hbbrd

Jhn Dvs

ILL ICH asks:

"Does anyone have any figures on how many people have actually been reasonably HELPED by Scientology? And how much money did it cost them to get to that point?"

I personally don't, but I do know that each course a person takes in Scientology, however short, is thoroughly checked by several independent people. The person has to be completely satisfied with what he has done and make a statement to that effect and write a success story that shows this. Each person.

And in case any doubting Thomas thinks that hypnosis, drugs or persuasion of one kind or another are used. THEY ARE NOT. If they were, you can imagine the uproar.

So, each person who completes a course of one kind or another is - according to his evaluation (what other is there) - helped by Scientology. That's a lot of people.

As for how much it cost. Some courses take years - the equivalent of a university course and others might only take part of a day. Some are free. Others, due to their length and the number of people involved might be considered expensive.

Yours sincerely,

John Davis

Teresa - This is a bit out of date, but you write, "JohninSapporo, if you actually follow those instructions, you'll find that the further up the chain of command you go in Scientology, the less the people involved believe what they're preaching."

That has been the total OPPOSITE of my 32 years of experience.

a) Scientology doesn't preach - sounds like you have it mixed up with something else.
b) Scientology isn't about belief - again, that's some other practice. Scientology is about knowing. Knowing and believing are totally different things. You might believe that it's going to rain tomorrow, but knowing it's raining involves using your senses, looking at the rain, listening to it, smelling it, feeling it, even tasting it if you want.
c) Until you meet some of these people and talk with them directly, you have absolutely NO idea of the level of knowledge these guys have.

Scientology study is very, very exact. You study something, write essays about it, drill it, get checked out on it (means you have to be able to define ANY word in the materials INSTANTLY and explain and give real world examples of any of the principles the materials contain.

The pass mark on any test is 100%. This is very, very exact stuff.

Don't believe EVERYTHING you read on the hate sites.

And if you are a moderator, please moderate and don't take sides!

Peace!

JohninSapporo

TAKUAN "6,000,000+ iraqi civilians. four thousand+ american youth, fit, trained, dead. tens of thousands injured. one fourth of returnees with ptsd. 100+ confirmed soldier suicides."

Right on!

That's something worth protesting.

The cost currently stands at over - $494,180,826,913

You have an insane president who's determined to bring the U.S.A. to its knees and you waste time on some pimply moron's personal vendetta.

Protest something worth protesting!

JohninSapporo

What an incredible waste of energy.

With the Patriot Act and phone/email surveillance, Guantanamo and waterboarding, Bush and crew are turning the country that once stood for Freedom into the biggest prison/mental hospital on Earth.

For God's sake, if you want to protest something, protest something meaningful.

JohninSapporo

"An authority is somebody who knows nothing loudly" L.Ron Hubbard

"What you observe is what you observe. Look at things and life and others directly, not through any cloud of prejudice, curtain of fear or the interpretation of another." L.Ron Hubbard

JohninSapporo

"WHAT YOU OBSERVE IS WHAT YOU OBSERVE. LOOK AT THINGS AND LIFE AND OTHERS DIRECTLY, NOT THROUGH ANY CLOUD OF PREJUDICE, CURTAIN OF FEAR OR THE INTERPRETATION OF ANOTHER." L.RON HUBBARD

"AN AUTHORITY IS SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS NOTHING LOUDLY" L.RON HUBBARD

The books are in libraries. Read them and understand them before you comment.

johninsapporo