Relaying a Message
I often say that the vast majority of Scientologists are terrific people who are trying to improve the planet. The only one I’ve ever met and disliked was Dennis Clarke because he is just a bully and would be even without Hubbard’s tech.
But the sane and rational conversations never happen in our videotaped encounters because Scientologists are instructed to “always attack, never defend.” That’s why it’s so nice to meet someone like Billy Sheehan who believes in communication.
Now here is another Scientologist, who believes his/her fellow members should behave more like Billy. This person got banned from a YouTube discussion thread and asked me to pass this along. I don’t personally believe in banning and do it only for spam and threats of violence.
I posted this on your Scientology Crazy Followers video:
I must say I am disappointed in my fellow Scientologists. First off, if the street is open to the public, its open to the public.
Secondly, the first policy is to maintain friendly relations with the environment and the public and especially so if you have a camera in your face you are dealing with the public, b/c thats who sees these videos. They aint thinkin too far in the future on this one.
And third, these Q’s are for use IN a session w/ the purpose to HELP someone, not to harass & punish them.
And Butterflygrrl posted this reply:
“I am mocking up my own reactive mind.”
“Now I know what I am not and I am ready to find out what I am.”
Those are the Clear and OT8 Cognitions, respectively.
Do they sound like they’re worth all that money?
And before I could reply to her (him) I was blocked from posting comments both by Butterflygrrl and the host of the video Valarauko. So, would you please relay the following message to Buttfuckgrrl for me as I am sure you will not be banned/blocked.
FYI — Im one of those free thinking Scientologists who isnt afraid to speak out or reply to these hostile intolerants who chant hatred from ignorance. I know Scientology has issues, but on a whole I am certain there is something to the tech and that it can help. Nobody tells me I can or cant go on the internet and I am not in Doubt about being a Scientologist. I have DONE the formula. I am in the top 5% of trained individuals in my area and I have taken ample look at both sides of the fence.
Please forward the following to butterflygrrl:
As a typical, I was not able to reply to you on the page that you commented on my prior comment. Seems the host for that video banned me from making any further comments.
Man is that annoying. I tend to think its because the hosts are pussies. Usually, when I find fault in the logic of these people that make these hostile videos, I leave a comment. I point out errors and illogic and theyre response is usually first delete my comment and then to ban me after replying with some childish attack which also has errors in logic. What pussies. I guess it goes with the tone levels of invalidating/hostile/irresponsible and, of course, coward or as I like to say, pussy.
My reply to you was the following:
If you have really taken an honest look at something and its not for you then its not for you. For you to attempt to evaluate for me if its for me is Wrong Source.
I make those evaluations. It sounds like your communication is from the invalidation/nullify band of attempted persuasion.
I get enough (so very much) from Scientology that I have decided to BE a Scientologist. I’m not really interested in your invalidating bent. It’s not your decision.
I’ll make up my own mind, thank you.
Also, those are confidential cognitions, so I totally get that your being a dick by revealing these “cognitions” to me because you think it will annoy me or scare me or something along these lines. And I have to evaluate at what tone level that communication comes from, is it genuine concern? No, again, its a pathetic invalidation and an attempt to spread fear. These evaluations are fully covered in Science of Survival.
Do you even realize how insensitive you’re being or are you on a totally automatic death and destruction rampage? Do you have such a need to be right that you have to make others wrong? Can you not allow others to make their own decisions and allow them the right to make they’re own spiritual choices? Well, Scn can help you with that. Ha.
I would recommend that you read The Way to Happiness, one precept summarizes to Do unto others… another states, Don’t do to others what you would not want done to you. There is one other, Respect the religious beliefs of others. You should take a look at those.
So, unless you can change you tone/attitude I don’t wish to communicate further.
Thank you, Mark, for relaying this communication. I would have replied directly, but it seems they couldnt stand to tolerate a reply and so blocked me before I could respond (within 30 minutes). And because I am choosing to relay this communication through you doesnt mean were in communication but I have a feeling you will relay the message.
Please allow me to apologize for those dimwits on the video who have misapplied tech and policy in attempting to handle you. My philosophy is communication is the Universal Solvent, and tolerance and understanding. I wish Scientology would address SOME of the issues that are made against them. I strongly believe they are doing far more good than harm, but I dont believe that the statement greatest good can justify human rights violations and is in itself only a Justification for overts committed.
The Ends do not justify the Means.
Now, I don’t agree with this person’s arguments and I think the reply has more than a tinge of the anger this person believes shouldn’t be on display in the videos but it’s a perfectly acceptable communication and there’s no reason to ban someone over anything that was said.
I would argue that it’s pretty hypocritical to say people should be free to make the choice of Scientology but then the group dedicates itself to destroying psychiatry. Shouldn’t people be free to choose that as well?
And as with most of Hubbard’s public writings in the Creed of the Scientologist or the Way to Happiness, when he says man has the right to think freely and speak freely” he really means “except when you speak against us.”
And when he writes that man has the right to the religion of his choice, it really is just a fancy way to say, “Leave us alone.”Explore posts in the same categories: New Voices