Witnesses don't like saying the same things over & over again. Don't assume those here haven't done a heap of research and entertained many scenarios and discussions before arriving at their views. These guys are incredible, the research is specific and extensive. I love Anonymous. <3
us people tend to very naturally "love" the associations we are affiliated with and love less those associations we are not affiliated with.
(sigh) Reversetidez... I've seen the frowns of Arthur Hubbard, Janet and others when recalling their personal experiences with L Ron Hubbard - and we were in the Sea Org then, dedicated staff. There are no personal accounts showing Hubbard to be a compassionate or nice man. He just wasn't. Social? Charming? Certainly - when it served his purposes. There is the fabricated myth of the man, which Everybody in Scientology looooves to believe... and then there is the truth of who he was and what he actually did. It's jarring to find out the truth, I know. It was jarring for me when I first found out, too, but pushing the truth away will not help anyone. Do you know what Hubbard said and did when he heart the news about his son, Quentin, barely over 20, committing suicide? (ah, and here's another statement from another who knew Hubbard personally - Laurel Sullivan): "He thought Quentin was an embarrassment," said Laurel Sullivan, Hubbard's former public relations officer, who had a falling out with the organization in 1981. "And he told me that several times." In 1976, Quentin parked on a deserted road in Las Vegas and piped the exhaust into his car. At the age of 22, he killed himself. When Hubbard was told of the suicide, "he didn't cry or anything," according to a former aide. His first reaction, she said, was to express concern over the possibility of publicity that could be used to discredit Scientology." Her recollections are supported by a number of other eyewitnesses: From Jon Atack, "A Piece of Blue Sky": "Quentin had tried to measure up to his father's expectations - he was one of the few top-grade Class Twelve Auditors - but he did not share his father's temperament. By all accounts he was far too gentle to govern Scientology, or indeed to govern anything. All he wanted was to fly airplanes, and he often pleaded with his father to allow him to leave the Sea Org and do just that. He had disappeared several times in an attempt to escape. There was also an aspect of his nature which could never be reconciled with his father's philosophy: Quentin was a homosexual. There is little doubt that his death was self-inflicted, as he had attempted suicide before.11 Mary Sue broke down and wailed when she heard the news. She later tried to persuade friends that her son had died from encephalitis. Quentin's father's response was cold-blooded, he was furious that his son had let him down. There was an immediate cover-up. Documents were stolen from the coroner's office and taken to Hubbard. In accordance with Hubbard's policy regarding bad news, Scientologists were not told about Quentin's death. Some who found out were told he had been murdered." From Kima Douglas (RIP, Kima. We will miss you.): "This kid was a miserable, miserable boy. He was good at the tech. His father crucified him - had him com-eved [tried in a Scientology court], thrown in the RPF [forced labour], declared out-tech [heretical]. He was not a boy with a manly demeanour. He was a little kid out of his depth. He knew he could never compete with his father. He was in a no win situation. Hubbard put him into isolation after a suicide attempt, then put in the RPF." http://www.xenu-directory.net/victims/hubbard1.html Who but a sociopath would treat his own child this way?
He already did but ashtray was too enturbulating to him to actually command it with superior OT-powers
@ Reversetide in a sideways sortta way~ Dear silly boy... I suspect that the OP is/was trolling, and to that I'd say go lurk and read more noobie. You'd have to be pretty dense to think that we all just jumped on a bandwagon of hate against old Flubbernutz just because we read a bit on the net, were bored, and decided to be expurts. Knowing several people who worked with, and knew, Hubbard over the years, and many hours of reading about him and his fuckery, it doesn't take a bloody rocket scientist to know he was a twisted, greedy, asshole~ does it make me an expert? Nope, but I bet I know more about the dead fuck than 99.99% of his present followers, its called research, most of which is accomplished by reading. Then there's the hundreds of hours of insanity tapes where Hubbard tried to make sense, and if a crazy man's own words don't give you a good idea of where he's coming from then you may be too stupid to avoid being stupid and might want to read some of his books, which you sound like you'd enjoy. *insert Godwin here about meeting Hitler* Now off ya go to the archives, go see if you can figure it out before the next red tide poisons all the minnows in yer brain-pan and extra confusion ensues. Gah!
Damn. got to page five and I still don't know what reverze-whotsit actually wants here. Dude seems to have some communication difficulties. Scientology can help with that.
Despite this thread being a bit of a trainwreck, I do think some good can be salvaged from it. Collecting the personal testimonies from the people who knew Hubbard into one thread (including videos, copied posts, links to dox/websites by said critics, etc.) seems a worthwhile and novel idea. Going to use this tread a bit of a dumping ground for this.
you all don't see to se the shocking conformity of your reaction and your fierce enforcement on one person just questioning the possible gap between meeting someone and the stories that circulate about someone. Concept and experience is not the same. Rumours and reality often are found not to match up no matter how sure people were that the rumours were true. THAT is all I was asking talking about, pointing to. It i just surprising to me how borg like internet people can be. I did not say anything flattering about L Ron Hubbard nor flattering about his ideas nor about anyone associated with him. My personal opinion, based solely on hearsay and what I have heard from mostly internet sources like most of you you have all heard as a source, is that he was intelligent but that his ideas were flawed and that he lacked integrity but then that describes all of us. I would not recommend anyone join or be part of his group based on what i have heard. But this group here and similar protest critic anti groups? I mean, common, you all are extremely freaky and don't see that you are freaky. I would not suggest anyone join groups of crusaders like this and start repeating the party lines they parrot without question either.
Oh YAY! Thank you, Asheera. I've really enjoyed posting original Elron stories here & even learned quite a bit. IMHO, without the controversy, it would be a bit dry. Luv the Anon humour sprinkles thruout.
You seem to be using standard Scientology techniques. I doubt that impresses anyone, except those who haven't seen it before would probably judge you as rude and insane and might attempt to corre ct you. Which would be like getting into the mud to wrestle a pig. On the offchance you are not a Scientologist, and I am mistaken, would you please have the common courtesy to reciprocate for the time spent responding to you, by stating if you are aware of Hubbard ever being wrong about Scientology? If that simple task is too hard , I suggest you would benefit from an education elsewhere, and fucking off without us troubling you any further .
got this hunch he will stick around to spite us, be a Hubbard apologist and generally trolling I've seen this type of writing somewhere before but I can't point my finger directly at it, just my two cents Lost your guest name did you tide WTF happened to your sock account which was abandoned immediately after posting the thread?
I am not aware of L Ron Hubbard ever being wrong, never met the guy nor tried his ideas on' "Wrong" is a concept, it does not exist in reality, it is a judgement, like "evil". I would take the case though that because Hubbard was human, that he was subject to all the folly and crap we all are and that he lied and did things that did not work for himself and others, like we all do. Hubbard was no doubt as big an asshole as the rest of us assholes. I do not meet him to know that. But as far as specifics , I have nothing to speak to other then the hearsay I have heard on the internet. Declined As ifness, is it lost on your how conforming your response is? Not sure why but I have been asked this " if you are aware of Hubbard ever being wrong about Scientology" 3 times already in this thread. That is the kind of parroting I am talking about. You all try and get creative with your ad hominems but still basically say the same thing over and over. And this business where you call anyone a "scientologists" who does not conform to your point of view sure sounds a lot like that US politician who said something like "if your not with us your with the terrorists" . Really?
You give me too much credit. You can read countless books on The Internet. But I did not actually write any of them.
Scientology probably took all their activities and practices and "techniques" as you call them from other places. I doubt there are any things that they do or use that people who are not "scientologists" do not use and did not use long before L Ron Hubbard lifted them from wherever he lifted them from. You give Scientolology way more importance and significance than I ever would. But I do not know for sure. Has anyone ever looked into the roots of all these things you are criticizing, they must come from other sources hundreds if not thousands of years old that predate l Ron Hubbards mashing them together for his own group and interests.
Here is your chance to get a personal impression how a pathological lying sociopath named el con hubbard is acting (start at 12:00): If that´s not enough to convince you, then probably nobody wil be able to help you.
I have it on good authority from an expert on not knowing anything specific, that we can know critics are misguided, but not Hubbard. So nothing we know about Hubbard can ever tell us he was wrong. Simple.
I really feel sorry for reverso. Insane or pretending to on be insane - either way its quite an indictment on Hubbard and his legacy.
That is why the folks here replied with facts, with eyewitness accounts, with links for you to check yourself. Do you really think anons gathered here or got involved in protests across the globe on a hunch or rumour guesswork? The majority of the long standing anons here have done research, a lot of research. Did you really think your question about whether we met hubbard or not would get us all scratching our heads in wonder, enlightened by your wisdom? Dude, that makes no sense at all. Hubbard lied about his education. He lied about his military record. He lied about his abilities. His life achievments and lifestyle were at odds with what he taught. He contradicted himself in his perfect 'tech'. This means that he was WRONG. He claimed to be an expert nuclear physicist yet his education records showed that he had mediocre grades and dropped out of college then he is shown to be wrong. He wrote a whole book about radiation that can be easily disproved by any half decent physicist with access to a lab. That shows his words to be false and hubbard was either a liar, a fool or a lunatic. He was simply, plainly, objectively, measurably, demonstrably WRONG. Poorest. Argument. Ever. It sounds like you are suggesting that the fact that none of us are perfect means we aren't in a position to criticise a man who lied, mistreated his wives, held and taught racist views to others, embezzled money, is responsible for child abuse, tried to infiltrate government agencies... etc etc etc
Since reverso thinks the concept of 'wrong' is imaginary and can't be applied to Hubbard, the Scientological genius is no doubt incapable of envisioning a means to falsify anything Hubbard said. Ergo worthless. Game over.
Hugs to reverso. I love how none of its strong and mad opinions will tolerate a basis in 'hearsay'! Reverso's every hit of knowledge is strictly first-hand.
Yes Actually no, it does not "mean" that. "Wrong" is a conclusion that you are drawing, adding to it. What you said actually means is that "he lied about his military record. He lied about his abilities. His life achievements and lifestyle were at odds with what he taught. He contradicted himself in his perfect 'tech'." Nothing more then that. Based on what you presented, if it was true, I would draw the conclusion that L Ron Hubbard was not to be trusted and would keep an eye on him and avoid all his endeavours with extreme prejudice but would be cognizant that these were my conclusions and choices. Again "wrong" is your conclusion/judgement. It is not unreasonable but it is till something you are bringing to it. I would not say that exactly, I wold say that it is worth factoring in that none of us are perfect as part of the discussion. To leave it out creates a distorted picture that one person is weaker than the rest of us, somehow unique and special, evil, badder, wronger.
LOL@"reverso", I feel like a bonafide comic book villain now. I just need the costume and some kind of a helmet or mask.
It most certainly can be "applied" to L Ron Hubbard, I am just saying that it is something we are applying. I am not saying that it is inappropriate to apply it in this case. I would apply "wrong" to him as well, given what has been said. But it does not exist in reality, it is a judgement I am making on something or someone.
Well Samki, I want to know the same thing every guy would want to know before saying yes to an invitation like that, will there be lots of hotties in your "cult"?
It all comes down to this for reverso: If the genius precludes a basis for ever concluding Hubbard is wrong, reverso can never be educated and never come to any moral conclusions . Sad.
Oh please. I am engulfed in my own moral conclusions, that should be obvious. I have as many moral conclusions about L Ron Hubbard as anyone, about his ideas, and as well, about protestors. And on good days, I am able or remember to distinguish them as MY personal moral conclusions. Where is the folly in that?
Eh? Some people violate shared ethical standards more than others. Some people really cross the line and outrage nearly everyone --Ariel Castro comes to mind. The emotional outrage one feels toward Ariel Castro is not a quality of Mr. Castro's, like his height and weight. That's obvious. It's a subjective response to reports of his behavior. You seem to be arguing that we ought to separate our subjective reactions to information about Hubbard from the available facts. That is good advice. However, you offer this advice without context. That is over-generalizing and trolling. People say, "Don't feed the trolls." But I say, "Chew toys are fun!" I am awarding you 8/10 points for your trolling, sir. You are a cut above the ordinary. Respect bump --Bam!
I like how reverso was keeping track of how many times he was asked if Hubbard ever said anything wrong about Scientology ,before he actually answered it and fell into the idiot pit against again. He must have thought he was cleverer than the facts bear out.
The folly is that you come to this site to espouse your "moral conclusions." (Ooooh. YSOSerious?) I've never met YOU, and now, I've decided... well, damn. I don't like you. But. As far as I know, you've done nothing but troll this website, so I could give a fuck. But if I learn you've hurt others, the way elaraitch hurt so many, then different story.
