Discussion in 'Scientology and Anonymous' started by Anonymous, Jan 17, 2012.
Dude, you talk a truck load of shit, period
Oh Hai Herro,
As a trained Ethics Specialist, I can confirm that Jesus is not compatible with Scientology doctrine.
In Scientology, Christians are considered PTS to the Middle Class, among other things.
Kindly review the HCOBs regarding PTSness, and PTS to the Middle Clas, before you start spouting nonsense.
The burden of proof falls on YOU, since numerous Scientology dox leaked over the years conclusively show Hubbard's disdain for Christianity, as well as Hubbard's disdain for most other major religions.
@ Herro, Dox or STFU.
PS, I do like you Herro, please don't take this personally.
FFS, ITS FAKE
An idiot like you is uncapable of understanding the point that I was making.
Can anyone prove that HCOB about Jesus being a pedophile is a fake?
Enough exes who have done OT VIII have stated it isn't part of the current material and to my knowledge no ex has authenticated it.
That's enough to shift the burden of proof onto those who want to say it is real.
Have you even seen a non-text version of it? i.e. one that looks like a scan of an actual HCOB.
How could anyone do that? That's called proving a negative. I could write up a fake HCOB in Hubbard's style. How would you prove was a fake?
Unlike almost all other leaked material, no one has confirmed that HCOB was part of the OT7 pack.
Understand that when Fishman and Wolly were gathering stuff for their cases, they didn't have the advantage of decades of leaks and many ex-members to double-check everything to see if it was genuine materials. They just got piles of stuff from unknown sources.
Eat a dick you idiot. Just look at the content of what you poast. You talk shit, people point and larf at you here.
Hence, why you now stink up OCMB with your piffle and don't poast in WWP leik you did before.
Oh, I should be fucking scared nao because you're an old Digger with mad trolling skillz.
Don't go outside, faggot. Those tickets you have on yaself will blow away in the breeze
You, motherfucker, not just talk shit, you eat shit because you're a fuktard. You Mom should have had an abortion rather than producing such fucking idiot like you.
There is a way of proving that this HCOB is a fake -- that would be admission of guilt by the person who manufactured it.
True, there was no confirmation from the people who completed OT 8. Perhaps, not all of them were supposed to see.
I could give an example of another confidential HCOB where Hubbard says that his initial, "L", is for Lucifer. L. Ron Hubbard Junior said in his interview that his father believed that he is Satan, so there is a possibility that Senior wrote this HCOB as well.
Anyway, I am not saying that it is certain that Hubbard called Jesus a "pedophile". Maybe, he did not. My point is that there is not enough data to draw a conclusion.
A non-text version -- like a mime troupe (Blue Man Group?) acting out this stuff? No I haven't seen it. And I don't want to.
L. Ron Drugface's written crap is utterly ridiculous as it is. I don't want to see a multimedia version of it (Battlefield Earth).
That's the best you have, mom jokes?
BAHAHAAAA, yeh, you get skillz all righty.
I have something better that your rotten brain cannot comprehend. But I am going to post it anyway.
There is a lot of uncertainty in Scientology data because of the presence of confidential CoS materials. Therefore, it is impossible to tell with 100% certainty whether the “Jesus data“, or any other CoS data, is authentic. But we can count probabilities if we want to access certain Scientology data.
This is how the probabilistic Bayesian theory works: equal probabilities are assigned to all possible outcomes of an experiment; later incoming data is used to update the probability of each outcome.
In case of Jesus data initially there is 50% probability that the person who discovered it is telling the truth. Since initially CoS lawyers claimed that publishing of this data is a violation of CoS copyrights, probability of correctness of data went above 50%. But later they dropped the claim of violation of copyrights, so the probability of the data being correct dropped to 50%, where it stays now.
Another scenario would be the CoS denial that the Jesus data is authentic right after it had been published. In this case the probability of the data being true would have been below 50%.
Now, about the probability that Hubbard called himself “Lucifer” -- when I learned about this data, the probability of it being correct was 50% for me. Later I got confirmation from independent source that the data is true, so the probability of it being true went above 50%. Then I read the interview by L. Ron Hubbard Junior where he says that his father believed that he is Satan, so the initial probability of this data being true went up again.
A person who reads this article may not believe that I am telling the truth about the “Lucifer data”, so for them the initial probability of this data being correct is the same 50%, if they use the Bayesian approach. But there is additional data confirming my presentation, which is the aforementioned interview, so the probability that Hubbard wrote HCOB where he called himself “Lucifer” is higher than 50%.
Herro, your message is unclear, just like everything you have said so far. Sometimes I wonder if there is any message or just pointless blathering
What you've failed to do is reduce the probability for each person who has done the level that the Jesus material is claimed to be part of who said that they've never seen it.
This application of Bayesian theory is limited in practical use. If we assume 50% as an starting estimate, then end up with a probability around 50% we shouldn't be too surprised because that's what we assumed.
If I told you that I have six legs then no additional data is received then you would have to assume the probability that I have six legs is 50%. And, assuming the other full 50% was for two legs then I would have an expected average of 4 legs.
Most OTs are ex-OTs and have turned against Scientology. If that were ever part of the OT levels then none of those ex-OTs have ever said so even though a lot has been said. Maybe it was on the OT levels for a very short time but we have no scans of originals. It might be a fake or might have been briefly used and then discarded but we can not lay any store by it. Until an original turns up or an ex-OT says they remember that as part of the OT course (not Fishmann himself) then we should just not factor it into our judgement bur rather discount it.
This seems to be a valid objection; apparently, you understand Beyessian approach better than majority of my opponents. However, the fact that these people did not see the data in question does not constitute the denial of it -- there may be a variety of reasons why they did not see it. In belief networks, that are based on Beyssian theory, only the data that directly confirms or denies certain event are taken into account. If those people have said, for example, that they saw a document written by Hubbard which denies the rumors that he called Jesus a “pedophile”, their accounts would have been taken into consideration (there is a 25% chance that they are correct)
Part of your reply is correct in a sense that not all Statisticians accept the Bayesian theory. However, your calculations based on it are incorrect. I have already said that if the Scientology lawyers have said from the start that the Jesus data is false, the probability of it being correct would have been less than 50%, so it is not always 50%, as you interpret it -- the sequence of events does affect the probability count.
Roland, we have already passed this point of discussion and have moved to statistical evaluation of UNCERTAIN data
OK, then can it go through both slits at the same time?
We can, but I have a better idea.
Consider two statements: 1. The “Jesus pedophile HCOB” us authentic; 2. Everyone who reaches OT 8 is given that HCOB.
These statements are logically disjoint, meaning that, even if the second one is false, it does not follow that the first one is false. Indeed, the person who obtained the Jesus HCOB could have erroneously concluded that all OT 8 individuals have it too, because the person who procured the HCOB is an OT 8, for instance. There is so much uncertainty in the data that it is impossible to draw a definitive conclusion.
One of the ways to solve this problem is to find a person other Hubbard who knows all Scientology data. But so far no one had laid such claim.
It is possible that it was briefly part of OT VIII but got withdrawn. These OT levels went through a lot of changes. It reads like it was written by Hubbard but then his style can be copied.
Your ideas are always better.
The Bible is not even compatible with itself
Just like Scientology?
ronnie start-ed satanistand bigamy and finished drug addict with vistaril in the butt
Demented LRH, I miss the good old days when you posted brilliant stuff like this, please come back!!!
DeathHamster, I don't believe that was ever an HCOB, but I think I've heard L Ron say that in a taped lecture. Has anyone asked over at ESMB?
If it were confidential (ever) it would have been included on the Class VIII course. Even as a tape, it would have been included on there. Maybe not the newer version of Class VIII, but one of the older versions, say from the 70s or 80s.
oh, and in a pathetic attempt to un-derail the thread, an oldie comparison: http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/muslinger/hub_xtian.htm
You'd be the first that I know of to say that. Could you remember more details of when and where you think you heard it?
Like I said, I think it was a tape or excerpt used on the Class VIII course. I'm sure it was never an HCOB - the style is all wrong, for one thing. L Ron had only two styles of writing for HCOBs and HCOPLs. The first style was long, boring, overdetailed and tedious. All those early LRH HCOBs and PLs written in that style were later revised to the easier to read style that we see now or cancelled completely . Of COURSE the evidence of these two completely different writing styles was destroyed so that COS could say that L Ron personally wrote everything. A few of us have personal knowledge of those being destroyed as well as the two styles of writing. (Another reason why many of us are quite certain David Mayo wrote and developed a lot of the early tek -wish he could say so.) But I digress..
At one time I read every scrap of anything I could find on the subject of Scientology v Christianity and I'm pretty sure someone showed me that, but I could be wrong - that was over 20 yrs ago. If it isn't from a tape on the Cl VIII course then I'd give up on it.
I was just thinking of the Scientology and the Bible book that was published by COS back in the early 80s. It never went over very well, but it was COS's best attempt to try to say they were similar.
FYI, ALL of the Class VIII transcripts were leaked a few years ago.
Fishman was a bit of a loon, who liked to embellish. It sometimes happens with ex culties, not placing blame on Fishman.
Since no one else has yet to corroborate *with dox*(or even without dox) the Fishman version of OT VIII pedo, I'd say it's pretty safe to dismiss the JC pedo claims.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!