Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Attacks and critique from anti-Scientologists overturned  or      A matter of critique, ad hominem attacks or illiteracy? (Critique received (3) from anti-Scientologists)

(to other Scientology pages)

1) G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w / i n t r o d u c t i o n :   M i s s i o n   s t a t e m e n t ,   o v e r v i e w ,   r e s e a r c h   s p e c i f i c s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   L R H K e e p i n g   S c i e n t o l o g y   W o r k i n g ,   f u n d a m en t al s S c i e n t o l o g y   i n   m e d i a   a nd   I n t e r n e t   ( +   f o r u m s ,   W i k i p e d i a ) S c i e n t o l o g y :   I t s   t r u e   h i s t o r y   e x p o s e d ? S c i e n t o l o g y   Q & A   ( F A Q ) E x t e r n a l   l i n k s M a t e r i a l s   w a n t   l i s t R e c o m m e n d e d   l i s t   o f   m a t e r i a l s 2) R e s p o n s e s   ( w i t h   a n n o t a t i o n s ) : A p p r e c i a t i v e   r e s p o n s e s   t o   m y   p a g e s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 1 )   f r o m   c h u r c h g o i n g   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 2 )   f r o m   o u t - o f - c h u r c h   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d    ( 3 )   f r o m   a n t i - S c i e n t o l o g i s t s 3) T o p i c s   o f   p a r t i c u l a r   i n t e r e s t : (a): G e n e r a l   t o p i c s H o l y   S c r i p t u r e s   v s   S c i e n t o l o g y L R H   v s   D i c t i o n a r i e s L R H   v s   t h e o r y   o f   e v o l u t i o n L R H ' s   w o r k s   o f   f i c t i o n (b): O r g a n i z a t i o n a l   t o p i c s A   p r i n t i n g   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   m a t e r i a l s   o f   S c i e n t o l o g y S c i e n t o l o g y   M e m b e r s h i p :   H A S I   v s   I A S L R H   v s   p r i c i n g   p o l i c i e s T h e   c o p y r i g h t s   i s s u e   a n d   l i c e n s i n g (c): T e c h n i c a l   t o p i c s H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   a )   G e n e r a l H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   b )   D e t a i l e d ‘ C l e a r ’   d e f i n e d N E D   f o r   O T s T h e   ‘ P r i m a r y   R u n d o w n ’ 4) C o n t r o v e r s i a l   t o p i c s : M i s t a k e n   i d e a s   o f   ‘ E t h i c s ’   c l a r i f i e d T h e   F a i r    G a m e   L a w P r a c t i c e   o f   D i s c o n n e c t i o n S e c u r i t y   C h e c k i n g F r e e l o a d e r s   v s   E x - s t a f f   m e m b e r s T h e   ‘ R e h a b i l i t a t i o n   P r o j e c t   F o r c e ’   ( R P F ) 5) C h a n g e s   i n   t h e   f l o w   o f   ‘ i n f o r m a t i o n ’: (a): A l t e r a t i o n s   ( L R H   o r   n o n- L R H ? ) L R H   v s   A l t e r a t i o n s N o n - L R H   t u r n s   i n t o   L R H ?   &   P r o p o s a l   t o   s o l u t i o n T h e    ‘ C r a m m i n g   S e r i e s ’   -   L R H   o r   n o t   L R H ? B a s e d   o n   L R H   p u b l i c a t i o n s (b): G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w L R H   v s   A   N e w   O r d e r   ( i n t r o d u c t i o n ) → A d m i n i s t r a t i v e   a n d    o r g a n i z a t i o n a l   m a t t e r s S e t u p   o f   t h e   p r i n t e d   m a t e r i a l s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 6 ) T h e   R T R C ,   t h e   u n i t   t h a t   w r o t e   L R H   i s s u e s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 2 ) T h e   d a w n i n g   o f   R T C   a n d   n e w   m a n a g e m e n t   ( 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 ) → T e c h n i c a l   m a t t e r s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   t h e   e v e n t   o f   l o s i n g   a   B r i d g e ) A n a l y s i s   o f   H C O B   “ T e c h   C o r r e c t i o n   R o u n d - u p ” L o s t   B r i d g e :   T e c h   c h a n g e s   d u r i n g   1 9 7 8 - 8 2 T h e   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   o r i g i n a l   O T   V I I I ‘ G o l d e n   A g e   o f   T e c h ’   ( G A T )   a n a l y s i s D r i l l i n g   i n   S c i e n t o l o g y (c): T h e   m a t t e r   o f   D a v i d   M a y o S t o r y   o f   D a v i d   M a y o ‘ S O   E D   2 3 4 4   I n t’   a n a l y s i s T r a i n i n g   d r i l l s   ( T R s ) M a y o   r e f e r e n c e   l i s t 6) C o n s p i r a c i e s   -   I n   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ' s   f o o t s t e p s S c i e n t o l o g y   v s   a   N e w   W o r l d   O r d e r → W h e r e   i s   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ?   ( c h r o n o l o g y   o f   S c n   h i s t o r y ) W h e r e a b o u t s   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   c h r o n o l o g y T h e   e r a   o f   a d o r a t i o n ;   P r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   i n t o   a r t i s t r y :   M u s i c   &   F i l m → W h e r e   i s   h i s   w i f e   a n d   f a m i l y ? S t o r y   o f   M a r y   S u e   H u b b a r d T h e   l a s t   s t a n d :   T h e   G u a r d i a n   O f f i c e 7) S c i e n t o l o g y   u n d e r   a t t a c k (a): A   p r e m e d i t a t e d   s e r i e s   o f   o c c u r r e n c e s ?   ( ’ 8 0 s   c o n s p i r a c y ) I n t r o d u c t i o n   &   R o n   D e W o l f G e r r y   A r m s t r o n g   ( ‘ a f f i r m a t i o n s ’ ) R u s s e l l   M i l l e r    ( ‘ B a r e - F a c e d   M e s s i a h ’ ) A   r e l i g i o n   c r e a t e d   f o r   t h e   m o n e y ? (b): B a t t l e s   f o u g h t   a n d   t h e   i n t e r n e t   ( 2 0 1 6 -   ) L e a h   R e m i n i :   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   t h e   A f t e r m a t h   ( T V   s h o w )

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

	“Criticism is ... as preferred by the best writers and speakers and as carrying no derogatory connotations. The proper aim and the content of a criticism have never been definitely fixed, and are still subjects of controversy, but the term usually implies an author who is expected to have expert knowledge in his field, a clear definition of his standards of judgment, and an intent to evaluate the work under consideration”
	(from ‘Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms’; 1951; page 210)

 
Index:

		An introduction
		The situation regarding the common anti-Scientology activist ...
	Attacks and critical responses received from anti-Scientologists overturned
		Attacks received from anti-Scientologists
			- (attack 1) “Michel Snoeck has been known to shade the truth and hold moonbat opinions long after he's been shown to be incorrect.” - (attack 2) “Snoeck is quite well known for his obfuscation of the facts” - (attack 3) “‘WiseOldGoat’ will take references from ‘What is Scientology?’ and use them as historical facts to make conclusions about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology history, completely ignoring non-Scientology approved sources and facts.” - (attack 4) “This writer is looking for a pony in all the Hubbard horse$%!*” - (attack 5) “It's probably a good idea to use Michel Snoeck ...'s site carefully. Sometimes I've known him to tailor the facts to fit his conclusions” - (attack 6) “probably a scn site so proxy up”
		Critique received from anti-Scientologists
			- (sequence 1) About making up or not making up your mind?!? - (sequence 2) The ‘“(un)conscious”’ or the ‘(un)conscious’ mind? (an example of illiteracy)
	Additional critique received
		Critique received (1) from churchgoing Scientologists  (on separate page)
		Critique received (2) from out-of-church Scientologists  (on separate page)

An introduction

The critiques that I received here were in part a result of me going around on forums, newsgroups, bloggs and so on. Other responses that I listed are from people that were directed to or found my Scientology pages and started a discussion about it with other persons, or they just forwarded a general critique (as in opinion) at some place on the Internet.

I copied here a selection of these attacks and critiques that fold out a very common development of these discussions and show the general pattern as you find them on these forums and places. They pretty much all follow this very same pattern.

Which is, that (1) if no adequate counterargument can be given, the claimer will either disappear or ignore (which is convenient), or (2) come with various opinionated generalities (and then disappear), or (3) they will get highly aggressive and accusative. Those that silently disappeared from that discussion will habitually return on some other thread or discussion repeating their original claim, and will attempt to get away with it this time. Of course they figure that they have right, but enjoy or crave being patted on the shoulder by their fellow plotters. Mind here that generally the level of intelligence of these persons does appear to be a bit inadequate. Then the ones that may appear intelligent seem to suffer from a pixilated parrot syndrome. They can't take in information that clashes with their claims. There is seldom found any depth in their arguments, and so all they can do is just repeat their claim. These particular people are thus no critics in the right sense.

There is a simple reality about these things. If you show your head, someone will shoot at it. And so, I am being shot at. So, let the fun fair begin!

Nonetheless the common anti-Scientology critic chooses not to discriminate, and he does not find out about matters either. They too generally do not belong to the intelligentsia, far from it.

Attacks received from anti-Scientologists

• (attack 1) “Michel Snoeck has been known to shade the truth and hold moonbat opinions long after he's been shown to be incorrect.”
• (attack 2) “Snoeck is quite well known for his obfuscation of the facts”
• (attack 3) “‘WiseOldGoat’ will take references from ‘What is Scientology?’ and use them as historical facts to make conclusions about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology history, completely ignoring non-Scientology approved sources and facts.”
• (attack 4)  “This writer is looking for a pony in all the Hubbard horse$%!*”
• (attack 5)  “It's probably a good idea to use Michel Snoeck ...'s site carefully. Sometimes I've known him to tailor the facts to fit his conclusions”
• (attack 6)  “probably a scn site so proxy up”

	(attack 1) “Michel Snoeck has been known to shade the truth and hold moonbat opinions long after he's been shown to be incorrect.”

Some person (username ‘Dott’) on some forum (in February 2012) made a reference to my Scientology pages and then the person wrote:

A response which was followed up by another person (username ‘DeathHamster’) saying:

The ‘Dott’ person than responded back:

I responded to ‘DeathHamster’:

“RR, I'm not going to get into a pissing match or an endless argument with you. We've gone round and round before. The Wise Old Goat web site is a wonderful resource for obscure documents, I don't know of any other web site quite like it. I do not, however, agree with some of the conclusions you draw on the web site. WOG web site has a large and useful repository of off-the-beaten-path dox, but the opinions expressed can sometimes be too FZish tinged for my liking. Please note that I have no personal grudge against you. But I still stand by what I wrote above -”

To which I responded:

And after some forths and backs, and intermediate responses from some more individuals, we then got into an Anonymous person posting:

“Problems with Wise Old Goat / Indy proclamations about Fair Game and Disconnection: 1) Hubbard public policy is full of ‘acceptable truths’. Some easy examples are the industrial quantities of horseshit in ‘What Your Fees Buy’, the claims that he wasn't in charge, etc. Therefore saying Fair Game was cancelled just because a policy that says so exists is unsound. Ex public holding this position may just be naive but those who had access to Flag Orders, GO / OSA orders, etc. are likely being dishonest. 2) Ample evidence exists that both practices continued throughout the 70s. CoS lawyers admitted Fair Game was ongoing in the GO trials. SP / PTS doctrine was never suspended and disconnection is a key part of this. 3) The policy trail itself is incomplete and subject to different interpretation but this isn't really needed.”

And here we are then stuck again with exceedingly opinionated utterances, about persons that have claimed so and so. With no interest to get to the actual bottom of matters, and no person identifying any exact source or why's. And so I was “shown to be incorrect” because of, ah well ... opinion. When all I ever did was collecting and presenting the available information and then subject it to the various options of interpretation and evaluation.

	(attack 2) “Snoeck is quite well known for his obfuscation of the facts”

On a forum in February 2012 some discussion about the matter of Disconnection was ongoing and some Anonymous person put out a link to my study that I had made about that. Then we have this user ‘DeathHamster’ responding to that with:

“Ohshi! Mod's, can you ditch my OP with that link? Snoeck is quite well known for his obfuscation of the facts and I don't particularly want his site riding the coat-tails of WWP's glorious Google indexing Thanks DH for the heads up”

Here I am thus accused of “obfuscation of the facts”. But as it always goes, never any argumentation is forwarded to support that claim. Mind also that the bulk of the posters are hiding behind their anonymity. Some persons at least think up an username to use (they are still anonymous though), but this person did not even do that.

Also this posting makes it rather clear that I am feared (at least I interpret it that way), because this anonymous person does not want my researches to appear in “Google indexing”. Isn't it so that people should be able to make up their own mind? Besides that are actual researches not welcomed? After all I am one of the very few that actually has performed research about these matters.

He says that I am “quite well known” for that critique. Ah, well, and who are they?  So, by whom is this “quite well known”?  Such generalities are often added by such persons in an attempt to win credibility by statement alone.

Now, do you see how this one goes?

	(attack 3) “‘WiseOldGoat’ will take references from ‘What is Scientology?’ and use them as historical facts to make conclusions about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology history, completely ignoring non-Scientology approved sources and facts.”

Here we have another person (username ‘Alanzo’) originating the following on some forum in December 2011:

“For instance, I have seen where ‘WiseOldGoat’ will take references from ‘What is Scientology?’ and use them as historical facts to make conclusions about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology history, completely ignoring non-Scientology approved sources and facts. And then other Scientologists will focus on ‘WiseOldGoat's’ data and conclusions because it validates their present worldview – it's ‘safe’ for them to think with. I believe that this is a mistake that should be avoided.”

This evaluation is not quite true. Just because I at times make reference to this book ‘What Is Scientology?’ (which indeed is published by the Church of Scientology), it does not mean that I take or present that information as established fact. The book contains information and as such this itself should be evaluated, and thus can and/or should be forwarded.

And where have I ever been “ignoring non-Scientology approved sources and facts”?  The same rule applies here, this information as well has to be evaluated for its correctness. I find that regularly decisions of some court judge are being presented as if ‘established fact’ by persons like this ‘Alanzo’. They make the mistake here that the court house is not a scientific or research facility. It is also not a fact finding entity, all it basically does is attempting to win a case through using these phrases of text that we find collected in these many thick volumes of books that make up this so-called ‘law’. All this data, from all these places, if it be from court procedures, statements from authorities or witnesses, assumed findings popping up here and there, or Church of Scientology publications and their presentatives, are all treated by me in the very same way.

And indeed if people do as ‘Alanzo’ notes, then this definitely “is a mistake that should be avoided”. But I am not making that mistake, people do! I have made my position very clear indeed on my website, you have to figure out yourself how to take on the information found on my pages. And I insist that no person adopts anything I say as I only forward research. Think for yourself folks!

We have a ‘Marildi’ responding to this ‘Alanzo’ as follows:

	(attack 4) “This writer is looking for a pony in all the Hubbard horse$%!*”

Some person with username ‘Don Carlo’ compiled and posted in November 2008 on various forums some sort of an overview of Mary Sue Hubbard and descendents. At the end of the essay he does make reference to my study about Mary Sue Hubbard. But then he adds there the text:

Now, do you see how these people go about matters?

	(attack 5) “It's probably a good idea to use Michel Snoeck ...'s site carefully. Sometimes I've known him to tailor the facts to fit his conclusions”

On Wikipedia the following entry (from July 2006) can be found on one of its discussion (Talk) pages:

	(attack 6) “probably a scn site so proxy up”

A discussion was ongoing in April 2010 on some forum about Disconnection related matters. Referred here was to BPL “PTS Type A Handling”, then an Anonymous poster wrote:

• (sequence 1)  About making up or not making up your mind?!?
• (sequence 2)  The ‘“(un)conscious”’ or the ‘(un)conscious’ mind? (an example of illiteracy)

	(sequence 1)  About making up or not making up your mind?!?

On another forum we had this user ‘wiseoldgoat’ (not me!) posting in a discussion in April 2013:

“Here you go for a good analysis: http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/index_scientology.html”

“Thanks! There's some good, meaty info in there. Luv it. Objective confirmation like this - when someone I've never met, worked with, spoken to or known, someone with entirely different beliefs than mine - comes up with the SAME observations... that's pretty damning evidence. Lots of specifics here, too. Check out this quote from that link: [3 paragraphs of text from my pages are quoted] So there you go.”

When I saw these messages they were just 30 minutes old, I decided to join the conversation. Posting as ‘Roadrunner’ I wrote among other:

A bit later ‘Gottabrain’ directed himself to me writing:

To which I responded:

‘Gottabrain’ now replied:

“Yes, I am asking that. With details. He is Hubturd to me - I was in the SO 9-1/2 years. Call him whatever you wish - I know I will. As previously stated, we do not share beliefs in common. However, I see a good deal of your information was meticulously researched and accurate. I respect that. I do not respect the dead H man or his abusive practices.”

That I gave the response:

By this time this ‘Gottabrain’ apparently started to change his tune towards me and wrote:

“Thank goodness I'm not in your whacked out head having your whacked out insights. And speaking of abusers, your reputation precedes you. Unpopular here, much?”

I wondered what had happened here actually. First so positive and now this. So I wrote back:

“You should make up your mind. First you respect my research, and in the next it's all ‘whacked out’... Over and out.”

This was however not the end of it. A week later this ‘Gottabrain’ took an old message of mine and wrote:

“RR, you really ought to take a proper research class. Finding facts and stating them is objective. Drawing a conclusion based on those facts is a subjective opinion. Not a fact, nor an insight, not an axiom, not a correlation. An OPINION. It is not FACT because one study does not possibly include all information from all sources. There may be an avalanche of information to contradict your conclusion, but that information was not presented. Conclusions are not facts. Get it? When one begins a research project by deciding in advance what the results will be and manipulating tests or information to achieve that result, the research is tainted. When you research, for example, the changes in Hubbard's writing and search for the source(s) of it, but do not research outside of Scientology (i.e., what other writers or not Scientologists said about Hubbard's writing), your research is then limited, and therefore, flawed. Research of anything but the most narrow subjects with full attention to controls is nearly always flawed (see above). You have a natural knack for good research, a good attention to detail. I never said you have a knack for conclusions. Talking down to others who don't agree with your OPINIONS (conclusions) and BELIEFS (unproven data assumed to be true) is not cool.”

It now all started to become rather nonsensical. I wrote back:

“You know what double standards are? You wrote about me in this thread on 17 April: ‘Objective confirmation like this - when someone I've never met, worked with, spoken to or known, someone with entirely different beliefs than mine - comes up with the SAME observations... that's pretty damning evidence. Lots of specifics here, too.’ Why would I care about people who claim to know things but have virtually no personal experiences and/or actual understanding of a particular subject? Now, that really would be flawed... Did the psychiatrist listen to what Tom Cruise had to say about that ‘Blue Lagoon’ girl debacle? They replied that he had not properly studied psychiatry, so how could he make sense out of it! Now, how is that for a reply? No, you say, I have to include your ‘outsiders’. Ah well, have a nice day... come again if you have something to offer that people can follow up on ... If you claim that I am involved with beliefs then I say what Bob Dylan said in 1966 when he was attacked: ‘You are lying!’”

‘Gottabrain’ responded:

“You are again twisting facts with beliefs and emotions. Seriously - take a university research class. Otherwise you just sound snarky and stupid. I'll bet research would be a good career for you that you would enjoy. It certainly pays well in the right area. You have some misguided ideas and a lack of education on what constitutes actual research and it shows. Especially here - with so many Anons with degrees. I took a research class in Psychology. It was clear afterward that Hubturd never did - there are gaping holes, lack of controls and a definite bias in his research. For example - Hub never acknowledged that the larger proportion of those who join scn leave it and always have and these alone constitute a failure or at the least, ‘nul’ results of the tek.”

By this time had dropped my involvement in this interaction. Anyhow, one may wonder what caused all this to happen? A few observations can be made though. The person claimed to have been in Sea Org for 9½ years, but says today that L. Ron Hubbard and all that were all wrong. Then one would serious wonder why the person stayed on for such a very lone time! I wouldn't have taken a sensible person this long time to determine such a thing.

Another indicator we can get through this rating system that is in use on this forum. You can give thumbs up or a thumbs up, but only those that had earned enough thumbs up thus far. I checked the persons rating, and he had 1,131 thumbs up and 0 thumbs down. As a comparison I checked my own rating, I had 7 thumbs up and 48 thumbs down. I spoke my mind, but does this person actually do that? Many of the thumbs down I actually received from this person. Now, is this person readily adapting himself to the general tune? He sure changed his mind very quickly about me! This balance of these thumbs up and thumbs down for this person I would say are a bit extreme.

“Everything you've said is irrational. You are on ignore now. Suggest that everyone interested in the thread topic do the same.”

I responded:

And you know what? The person shortly after reverted again. I was ok again. I guess this is how things can go?!

	(sequence 2)  The ‘“(un)conscious”’ or the ‘(un)conscious’ mind? (an example of illiteracy)

On an infamous anti-Scientology newsgroup (A.R.S.) we had this occurrence during 16 Jan-3 Feb 2011.

Earlier editions (but not necessarily the European editions) of the book ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ had this pre-chapter called “Synopsis”. On that newsgroup A.R.S. at a point it got into discussing the validity of the book. User ‘Transremaxculver’ suggested that “the fundamental principles of Dianetics which are at fault”.

“A simple read of the book Dianetics however will allow you to make up your own mind.”

In reply and to support her notion user ‘Transremaxculver’ posted the following:

	“Certainly do, especially if you want a giggle.
	‘The source of aberration has been found to be a hitherto unsuspected sub-mind which, complete with its own recordings, underlies what man understands to be his “conscious” mind.’ Dianetics p5 1950.
	No acknowledgement of Freuds 1896 or later papers, discussing the unconscious mind and in fact in the next sentence Hubbard attempts to dodge this
	‘The concept of the unconscious mind is replaced in dianetics by the discovery that the “unconscious” mind is the only mind which is always conscious.’
	Which appart from the contradiction, is also disengenuous since he then goes on in the same paragraph to say,
	‘It does not “think”; it selects recordings and impinges them upon the“conscious” mind and the body without the knowledge or consent of the individual. The only information the individual has of such action is his occasional perception that he is not acting rationally about one thing or another and cannot understand why.’
	If it is without the knowledge or consent of the individual, how then is it conscious? If Hubbard acknowledged Freud and argued he was interpreting him in a new way we might be able to take him more seriously, but he doesn't, he just claims it all, as if it jumped into his mind fully formed, his and his alone. His inflated sense of his own importance waving like a flag in the wind. All in all one is left feeling he just couldn't be bothered acknowledging that he was like all of us standing on the shoulders of giants. (A long used metaphore possibly first used by Bernard of Chartres but more famously by Isaac Newton) Have a read and a good giggle.”

Well, are we having that giggle here now? I guess I am having it. I perceived here that she could not understand the text. But she also actually leaves out some pieces of text that explain it more.

	“The source of aberration has been found to be a hitherto unsuspected sub-mind which, complete with its own recordings, underlies what man understands to be his ‘conscious’ mind. The concept of the unconscious mind is replaced in dianetics by the discovery that the ‘unconscious’ mind is the only mind which is always conscious. In dianetics this sub-mind is called the reactive mind. A holdover from an earlier step in Man's evolution, the reactive mind possesses vigor and command power on a cellular level. It does not ‘remember’; it records and uses the recordings only to produce action. It does not ‘think’; it selects recordings and impinges them upon the ‘conscious’ mind and the body without the knowledge or consent of the individual. The only information the individual has of such action is his occasional perception that he is not acting rationally about one thing or another and cannot understand why. There is no Censor. The reactive mind operates exclusively on physical pain and painful emotion. It is not capable of differentiative thought but acts on the stimulus-response basis. This is the principle on which the animal mind functions. It does not receive its recordings as memory or experience but only as forces to be reactivated. It receives its recordings as cellular engrams when the ‘conscious’ mind is ‘unconscious.’”
	(from ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’; Hermitage House, New York; 1950; page 5, chapter “synopsis”)

Why did she leave out these sections? Even for the casual reader it should now start making some sense and enables to see how things fit together.

“You have serious duplication disabilities.”

To which she replied:

“Or rather Duplication is a disability, leading to blind obedience.”

Excuse me?

Anyway I replied:

“... These are 2 separated situations. (1) in communication and establishing at both (or more) sides that one has received the message and that it has arrived as put out by its originator. (2) here it gets weird as you assume that duplication must lead to blind obedience. Of course I referred to the use as found in (1)”

She then answered:

“1) False assumption: onus is placed on the one recieving the communication to establish clarity, rather than the one sending it. This is a reversal of the true nature of communication, where the onus rests on the one sending the message to confirm that the message recieved was the one sent. This is particularly true, and one might say of central importance, for an author. There is an exception to this rule, when one is communicating with children, who are still learning their communications skills, but only when the child is communicating, when the onus is on the parent or adult to ensure that they have recieved the message sent, rather than the one they have recieved. Thus 2) Duplication as you describe it here leads into unequal communication and therefore seeks to engender blind obedience.”

Can you still follow this? I sure can't! Now, how did it all get to this? What is she talking about here? What does this got to do with actually understanding a text in a book? And this can just go on and on like this.

I responded back:

“And you come to that conclusion only because you don't understand what he is writing... whahahahaha... See, it doesn't answer to your conditional. The simplest answer and first option is that you do not understand the text.”

Then user ‘Transremaxculver’ gets it to:

	“And you come to yours because you don't understand what he is writing. Which is to a large extent Hogwash, and where it isn't it's because he plagerised it from someone else. And as a whole he is writing to provide the reader with as many opportunities to ‘buy into the fantasy’ as he can. To be fair to Hubbard he is pretty clear he intends to try and program his readers,
	‘It is suggested that you read straight on through. By the time you get into the appendix, you should have an excellent command of the subject. The book is arranged that way. Every fact related to dianetic therapy is stated in several ways and is introduced again and again. In this way, the important facts have been pointed up to your attention. When you have finished the book you can come back to the beginning and look through it and study what you think you need to know.’ Page 14 paragraph 2.
	Another words: don't read critically, just accept the first interpretation that comes into your head and then let me reinforce it multiple times in the text and then come back and reinforce it some more.

Mind here though that is an actual handbook, it teaches you how to learn to use the dianetic procedure and understand fully its principles. And after that you can apply it and see how it works all out. Now, how else are you going to learn the technique? Isn't any therapy book laid up like this? Of course they are.

Earlier in the discussion I also did point at the sales figures of the book. I was asking how this would be possible if it was so incomprehensive and contradictious? Well, I guess that according to her really a lot of people got fooled (programmed) then! It is contradictorily though that the public that was reaching for it were rather highly educated, doctors, engineers, technicians, researchers and so on. Every single one of the old-timer Scientologists that I have personally met have been intelligent and well educated people. It is not the kind of people that would have been fooled so easily. If the book would have been rubbish, they would not have gotten themselves involved with it. This however is for each individual to find out for him or herself.

“Which is of course what Hubbard often does in his writing. He leaves big holes so that his readers can project what they like into the gaps, or says two different things at the same time so that for ease of understanding the reader would tend to recognise the bit he agreed with rather than recognise the contradiction inherent in what was said/written.”

So she says the book has “big holes” but also “he intends to try and program his readers”. Ah well ...

“So do many. You advice people to read dianetics. I have read it. It is horribly written, full of unsupported claims, idiotic statements and obviously written by a wannabe scientists, which resulted in a pseudo-scientific diarrhea of words. Impressive only to the gullible and uneducated.”

With my reply:

“Which of course would explain why it was the educated (above normal) made out the bulk of the Scientology public during at least the first 20 years of its existence... You are an illiterate and so you will have a problem with any of such books. You however blame others for your miscomprehension.”

“If you people can not understand and duplicate a simple paragraph then it is, by fact, your mind that is narrow.”

Then user ‘Transremaxculver’ tells me:  (I posted as ‘Roadrunner’)

“So here roadrunner makes clear that only obediently accepting a single perspective on a text is acceptable, alternate interpretations, and any deconstruction, or critical evaluation is unacceptable in his view.”

This is sort of interesting as it basically implies here that if one properly understands a text that it is thought that one has failed to apply “any deconstruction, or critical evaluation”. But then in order to be able to do a “deconstruction” or a “critical evaluation” it is required that you first actually need to understand the text you are analyzing!

So, on the other hand if you find that there is a “contradiction” and find it “is also disengenuous”, well then, according to user ‘Transremaxculver’ you have successfully stood up against “blind obedience”. As after all she promotes “Duplication is a disability”, it is thus a not-understanding (misduplication) that would be the goal. And in fact when I later in the discussion again said: “you have very serious duplication problems..”, she replied with: “I will take that as a compliment”.

My reply given on the newsgroup:

“Disturbed logic. You probably don't realize it, but your logic and utterance here above is quite insane. We have 2 angles here, (1) I understand the text in the paragraph, and (2) you don't. That's it! And see what you made of it.”

Her reply back:

“How is the logic in the above in error, you clearly arguing against criticism of the internal logic of Hubbards statement implying that such criticism implies narrowmindedness. You are therefore claiming that critical scrutiny of what Hubbard wrote is not acceptable, that it is narrow minded. This is clearly a logical fallacy, applying critical scrutiny of texts, rather than accepting them on face value is clearly open minded. Whereas accepting on face value is not.”

And here she is adding after my initial 2 given options:

“or 3) the paragraph is contradictory. 4) the paragraph is incomprehensible. 5) the paragraph has a undisclosed agenda 6) the paragraph was not thought through by the writer. 7) the paragraph attempts to pass on material the writer has not correctly understood. 8) the writer made a mistake which was not corrected in the proof before the manuscript went to printing. 9) some theme or flaw not listed here,10) two or more of the other possibilities concurrently, 11) all of the previous possibilities concurrently except 10.”

Well, I figured that it would be a lot easier to simply to just read and understand a text, but that's me.

And so it went on and on, and while all this was ongoing we had this other user that was pretty much copying the statements made by ‘Transremaxculver’ and battering me with that. I guess it is contagious then. We even had Gerry Armstrong dropping by and saying hi (19 Jan).

“So how can it be both conscious and Unconscious at the same time? How is that not a contradiction? How can it be always conscious but not availabel to the individual? These are contradictions.”

It may be so that this person at some point started to realize how awkward it was getting when she persisted with this, refusing to admit to anything, and finding more and more excuses and explain-aways, as I didn't let it go. Here on this newsgroup however it would mean losing face, and these people would just never submit to that. After all this is the place where the topic is attacked vigorously, not however with very much sense as I found out. Here people gather to lavish themselves ridiculing the topic into the extreme and as much as they possibly can! They will look at anything that can be interpreted as being a downer or a bad thing and they then pound on that. Any person saying against will be their immediate target. And how gruesome it can get.

I myself figured this occurrence to be a matter of not understanding the use of figure of speech or rather the meaning of the use of so-called scare quotes. After all in the 2 paragraphs taken from the book we see 7 times that various words are placed in quotation marks (= scare quotes). Indicating special attention, skepticism, irony or even disagreement. To use this is very customary for L. Ron Hubbard. In particular on his tape lectures he uses really a lot of irony, it shouldn't be all taken literally.

Vocabulary:

     BPL:
‘Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs had been revoked.
     Free Zone:
Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window). 
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     OSA:
‘Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (What Is Scientology? (1992), p. 649)
     PTS, PTSness:
‘potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)