BS: History of Scientology-by josepp

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 12:13 PM

////I agree with Ebbie's measured and thoughtful assessment of the quality of Josepp's writing. As he claims to be a professional writer it is reasonable to criticise such weaknesses.////

It is reasonable as long as your own grammar is flawless but to criticize someone's grammar with flawed grammar is pointless.

And I guess I just can't make clear to you that I don't care if you like my writing or not. No, I will not give you any proof that I write for a living. You've made very clear that you believe me to be a virtual illiterate and so proof is pointless. And, aside from that, I just don't care.

When someone says he doesn't care what I have to say about anything and posts a dozen or more times on the same thread repeating that statement, surely even you could understand this person has some underlying issues. And when this person could just go away and ignore me but refuses to do so but instead must let me know at all costs and at every opportunity how much he hates me and how stupid, contemptible and loathsome I am in his eyes, surely something has to be clicking in your brain that my writing style is the least of what concerns him.

If you're content to join in his game, feel free. But it is you who is wasting his time responding to me, not the other way around. You come across as having nothing more productive to do. I've never treated anybody in here this way simply because I DO have better things to do than follow someone around calling him names and telling him he's a jackass and an idiot everytime he posts something. If that's the company you prefer to keep, then by all means, keep it.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 12:29 PM

Who is this person to whom you refer, josepp?

Ebbie? Dave? Jack? Brendan? Q? Greg?

I make that at least 5 who have made similar points.

Not that I bear any brief for Scientology, whose mischievous & antisocial nature I should have thought sufficiently documented to have no need of any form of fairness in defence from any but its own brainwashed victims. But you accuse an individual in your last post, and I have named at least 5 to whom your animadversions might apply; none of whom however has posted anywhere approaching the 'dozen or more' that you claim. So I ask, simply for enlightenment, which?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 02:27 PM

"It is reasonable as long as your own grammar is flawless but to criticize someone's grammar with flawed grammar is pointless."

Nope! Not at all. You, by calling it a "History", are creating a much higher standard than a simple post to the Mudcat. It is reasonable for a reader to expect your writing to live up to this pretension.

On a personal note, no one hates you. No one thinks that you are illiterate. Many of us think that your writing on this thread is unprofessional and we have told you so. But unprofessional is a far cry from illiterate. Why do you insist on these hysterical exaggerations?

Except for the flaws that Ebbie pointed out your writing is pretty good.

Calm down, have a nice cup of tea and try to write as if you respect the reader and the subject matter and you will get some readers.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Will Fly
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 02:38 PM

Josepp - I really do think that you're your own worst enemy.

1. To begin with, you create a thread with four immensely long posts - surely better situated in a separate blog somewhere.

2. You choose Scientology as a topic. Now I know that the BS section of Mudcat is a free-for-all on anything we choose - but, just think whether you're going to get folks's attention or not. Many people around here probably don't give a rats' ass for the topic.

3. You say your thread is an extract from a "book" (your quotation marks) - but it's apparently a book with no footnotes, references or other substantiation - so you're immediately leaving yourself open to criticism.

4. When people ask to see more of your writing - which, apparently you "do for a living" (my quotes) - you fob them off.

5. When people read what you've written and say quite candidly that they don't care for your grammatical style, you get all huffy and defensive. You don't ever appear to be able to take even the mildest of criticism without getting uptight

Surely it would have been more practical for you to post your "book" on a separate site as a PDF file, or even as a series of html pages - there are plenty of places out there - then post a link on Mudcat to the pages and sit back and wait for discussion.

If you want to be taken seriously as a serious writer, then you should observe some of the scholarly techniques that professional writers use. If you don't, then what you write will be taken as just personal opinion and not as a serious critique. As such, it may be deemed worthless or trivial. The fact that you loathe Hubbard and Scientology is perfectly clear. So do I, but I wouldn't write on the subject without displaying some intellectual, philosophical or factual evidence for my loathing.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 03:20 PM

Josepp, if you write for a living, then presumably you are published someplace. Asking WHERE you have been published is a fair question, and in order to maintain credibility by substantiating your claim, it demands an answer.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a writer, and I have been paid for my writing, but at present I cannot claim that I "write for a living." I have been writing since I was in my early teens and one of my short stories in a high school creative writing class was sent into the Atlantic Monthly high school short story contest where it won an honorable mention. I majored in English at the University of Washington with an eye toward—writing for a living. This was before a passionate interest in folk music developed and I changed my major to Music.

I worked for some years, under contract, for the Bonneville Power Administration's residential weatherization program as a technical writer. As a radio announcer who doubled (tripled?) as a news director and producer of commercials, I wrote—and voiced—both news and commercial copy. I have written—and had published—some seventeen articles on various aspects of folk music for Victory Review magazine, and some years ago, I had an article published in Sing Out!

And as suggested by Joe Offer in his post of 15 Jul 12 - 12:00 a.m. above, and with permission, I MAY begin posting a series of chapters or excerpts from the book on my adventures in folk music in the Pacific Northwest—which I am currently editing—hopefully—for publication, possibly by the University of Washington Press, since the U. of W. is currently working with Bob Nelson (Deckman) in his monumental PNW folk music archiving project, and their interest in this area seems to run high.

So, josepp, on the basis of your claim, it is fair to ask you if you can post a similar resumé.

Don Firth

P. S. And if you don't have a copy of The Elements of Style, by William Strunk and E. B. White (simply known among most serious writers as "Strunk and White"), then for heaven's sake get one. And read it. It can be purchased HERE, or at any well-appointed book store. Also, there are a number of sites where you can download it as a PDF file.

I might also suggest a copy of the The Chicago Manual of Style, by The University of Chicago Press Staff.

And another very good book is Getting the Words Right: How to Revise, Edit and Rewrite, by Theodore A. Rees Cheney. The title is from a quote by Ernest Hemmingway. When asked why he had rewritten the ending of A Farewell to Arms some 39 times, he responded "I was just getting the words right!"

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 03:42 PM

proper use of footnotes.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 04:08 PM

Correction:   Only one "m" in "Hemingway."

Careful proof-reading is important. Spelling errors and faulty grammar tend to undercut one's credibility, especially if one purports to write for a living. Unprofessional.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 06:28 PM

Hubbard was a religion entrepreneur and off the wall.

Dianetics, however has an interesting premise, all negative experience, traumatic,
are contained in cellular structure in the body. These "engrams" can be accessed and their effect minimized according to this theory. For some, this might be pure bunk.
But the idea is interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 06:41 PM

Most science-Fiction is interesting. That don't make it true.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 06:54 PM

Just for the record, jp's alleged research is about as bad as his grammar. His account is rich with falsehoods and distortions, which could easily have been straightened out by anyone who bothered to do the ordinary legwork of an interested journalist.

Say, jp, did you ever meet anyone who had actually been in the group which your hatchet-job focuses on? As I recall they call their counselors "auditors". because they listen, which seems to be more than you do, but have you ever talked to one about his principles, practices and perspectives?

If you have not, I submit that you really have little or no idea what the hell you are talking about. The Scientology crowd has plenty of detractors, and plenty of defenders, but the good ones at least make a reasonable effort to get their facts straight, and the decent ones (on both sides of the controversy) try not to tell whoppers. You could start a fast-food chain with yours.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 07:04 PM

Hubbard's structure of the mind follows some of the work of the people I mentioned. In some ways, it's conventional. Then it veers off into unknown territory. The bottom line is that none of it has been or (in his own words) can be proven scientifically.

Put it this way: Suppose you discovered something that you absolutely knew to be true but it was so new to our way of thinking that nobody else had figured it out. But you have such a good grasp of it that you know it has a scientific basis. If so there has to be a way to prove it. If you succeed, you go down as one of the worls' great minds.

Would you then suddenly declare this knowledge religious and found a church on it? You've just undercut your credibility. So this is problem with Scientology--it delves into the mind with a seemingly scientific understanding of its workings but declares itself a church complete with tax-exempt status. It can't be anything but a scam.

I have a lot more respect for Anton LeVey. He founded the Church of Satan but the church paid taxes every year and still does as far as I know. He wouldn't support any Satanist organization that declared itself tax-exempt. I find that admirable. Hubbard I do not.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 07:15 PM

Amos,

An ex-Scientologist (a recording engineer) critiqued it for me. I made corrections where he was certain corrections had to be made. Some of it he couldn't vouch for but I got that info from other ex-Scientologists and he thought it had the ring of truth. I left that info in.   

Are we done with the condescending sneers now or do you have to do it some more to feel better?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 07:29 PM

Well, JP, your protesting against sneers is kind of amusing considering the amount of distorted sneering you resort to in your "history". I know a few ex-Scientologists, a couple of whom were present at some the events whiich you pretend to report on, and they just shake their heads and laugh--their used to this sort of thing, having seen stories like this come and go for decades.

Personally, you understand, I do not belong to that group, and I do not care what you think about it. But when you take a whole population of people--I suppose they number in their thousands--and decide you are going to reveal that they are all gulled or mad, why I just think you should have some hard facts consistent with the principles of human decency to back up such a report; otherwise you are just participating in the Big Lie syndrome, like a good German; and I am sure you don't want to be doing that.


A

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 07:31 PM

Just one more....

I find your defense of your writing more palatable than the writing its self.

But I'm starting to understand your style. You are hysterical and hyperbolic with no supporting evidence even in your personal communication. Why not in your writing?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 07:34 PM

"Are we done with the condescending sneers now or do you have to do it some more to feel better?"

Now, THAT is condescending!

I know a number of ex-Scientologists who would take issue with much of what you've written, josepp. They have plenty of reason to be disillusioned, but they are nowhere near as spiteful as you seem to be.

Here's a question I think some of the people here might be interested in hearing you expound on:

What has been YOUR direct, personal experience with Dianetics and Scientology?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 08:24 PM

You're right, Don. I am condescending and mean-spirited. I write badly about things of which I know nothing in a doomed attempt to learn something about that of which I am not acquainted. But I hope if I stay at Mudcat long enough I will acquire some small degree of your erudition, fair-mindedness and ability to see the truth in all things.

Please forgive my rashness in thinking that I could learn about a cult without joining it first. I know now I was in error. All I did was talk to an ex-member not to the 50 or so you know as soon as I brought this unfortunate subject up. I should have known how easily you would be able to outdo me. And it never occurred to me to make footnotes. How could I be so inept?

I was wrong to post this thread and everybody else here was right. I am a stupid, petty, illiterate man--and my own worst enemy. I had no right to waste everybody's time by forcing them to read this drivel. I humbly beg forgiveness of you all.

Someday I will learn to have the generosity of spirit that I've been shown here. If it were possible, I would ask the moderators to close this thread down and relive you all of the pain and anger I have caused by posting it. I take full responsibility for this incredibly arrogant, thoughtless act.

So thank you, one and all, for showing me how worthless I am. I've always known but I tried to cover it up but I should have realized I could never sneak that past the wise and benevolent this for my own good and I am grateful. Thank you for your concern and, once again, total apologies on my part are in order.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 08:28 PM

Moderators,

IMHO he has taken enough abuse and given it. Please consider his request to close the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 08:38 PM

Psychology, of which Hubbard attempted to interpret along his lines, is anything but a precise science, in fact precise science might be an oxymoron.

His idea of how we retain negative experiences in our lives is not totally off the wall.
Dianetics had a grain of logic attached to it based on an interesting idea that shouldn't be cavalierly dismissed as "fiction". We do retain a physical "record" of traumatic experiences, some great some small.

The fact that it all went haywire into the maelstrom of Scientology, which became a cult, doesn't negate all of the initial premises about Dianetics.

Psychology is filled with odd people who offer some interesting insights.

Crazy people, like the stopped clock being right twice a day, sometimes have interesting insights.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 09:09 PM

Josepp, I never said I knew "50 or so" people who were into Dianetics and later Scientology. I knew maybe five or six, and briefly met several others, including a couple of self-styled "auditors." I never "joined" the group. I was investigating it, as many people were at the time.

The first introduction of Dianetics was through the pages of Analog Science Fiction magazine which, at the time, published a non-fiction article per issue, and John W. Campbell, who was editor at the time, saw fit to publish Hubbard's first articles on the subject. This engendered interest in a large number of people, particularly science fiction enthusiasts, of which I was (am) one. I, like a number of others, investigated what appeared to be a new and interesting approach to psychology, but after a time, found it wanting and moved on.

As to the rest of your sarcastic screed, you said it, I didn't.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 06:44 AM

The only thing wrong with josepp his his verbal diarrhea, why use one sentence when a couple of hundred will do.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 07:30 AM

"The only thing wrong with josepp his his verbal diarrhea, why use one sentence when a couple of hundred will do."

Funny, I have heard the same comments about William Faulkner.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: BrendanB
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 10:41 AM

Not to mention Henry James.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 10:50 AM

In defense of JP, it serves the public to know about cults in general, how they operate and play on the emotions of their victims. In this way, I think Josepp is doing a service.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 11:41 AM

There is no shortage of accurate, peer-reviewed articles.

No "service" to the public here.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 12:52 PM

It's true that these articles exist but not many read them, motivating JP to blow the whistle.
No service to the public to ignore them.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 02:54 PM

Unfortunately, josepp's "exposé" is in the form of an emotional rant filled with inaccurate and unsubstantiated allegations.

His obvious emotional state tends to undermine his thesis.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 04:33 PM

Don, please enumerate these unsubstantiated allegations.

On the contrary, his passion for the subject doesn't undermine but underscores his interest.

Most of what has been posted by JP and others seems to be pretty accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 Jul 12 - 05:03 PM

I don't have much time at the moment to do a blow-by-blow of josepp's first posts, but suffice it to say that in the time I was acquainted with people interested in Dianetics, there was absolutely nothing in evidence about any association at all with Rosicrucianism and AMORC, or the Great Goddess or Blood Rituals, or ANY of that. As I mention in a post above, I had a close relative who was deeply into Rosicrucianism, so I was, frankly, more familiar with it than I really cared to be.

Had any of this stuff come up early on, I would have been out the door like a shot!

My interest, as was the interest of many others, was in what appeared to be a new approach to psychology. When it morphed into the Church of Scientology and the "operating Thetan" stuff started being talked about, I stepped out for a beer and never came back.

So if what josepp said in his early posts was actually true, it had to have manifested itself much later.

Don Firth