BS: History of Scientology-by josepp

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

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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: BrendanB
Date: 16 Jul 12 - 06:34 AM

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. His more recent posts also indicate failings in his grasp of grammar and syntax. I also feel that Jack the Sailor's point regarding verification of claims made in Josepp's posts is cogent and, so far, remains unanswered.
We are all free to hold any opinions we like but we do not have the right to have those opinions respected by others. I respect your right to hold an opinion but do not necessarily respect your opinions. What little I know about scientology suggests to me that it is a bizarre and ludicrous organisation led by charlatans. However, that is only my opinion and I cannot claim to have enough incontrovertible evidence to insist that my opinion is a fact.   In my judgement Josepp is in the same position.

Josepp, you stated in an earlier post that you write for a living. This would suggest that at least some of what you write is in the public domain. Could you direct me to any book, periodical or other publication where your work can be found?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 10:45 PM

Call it an unsupported conclusion if it makes you feel better.

The fact that you are defending it as a fact is very likely the problem with your writing.

The FACT is, for one example, you can't know he was "shameless" about anything unless you somehow connected him up to one his Dianetics gadgets and read his mind. Or unless you have testimony from someone else who has read his mind. Do you? If so PLEASE PROVIDE REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES. WE DON'T BELIEVE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED SOURCES!!!!!!

If you can't know something, you can't state it as a fact and have any credibility as a writer of a "History."

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 10:19 PM

/////Below is not a fact. It is clearly an opinion. It is clearly presented as the opinion of the author of the piece.   

"Although a shameless shyster and thief, we should not dismiss Hubbard as merely a huckster who used occultism strictly to further his own ends."/////

You have done no research on L. Ron Hubbard so where do you get off making this claim? Hubbard was a member of the OTO in Pasadena in the 40s which was run by a rocket scientist named Jack Parsons at the direction of Aleister Crowley in England. Parsons raved in his letters to Crowley about Hubbard as "the most Thelemic person" he had ever met and that they were going in the desert regularly in an attempt to create a "moon child." Crowley was immediately suspicious of Hubbard but could do nothing to keep Parsons and Hubbard apart.

The first thing Hubbard did was start screwing Parsons's wife, Betty. Parsons was so taken with Hubbard, though, that he accepted this. Crowley was furious when he heard about this but Parsons continued to hold Hubbard in high esteem and the moon child experiments continued causing Parson to neglect his duties of running the OTO which greatly displeased the other members--some of whom wrote to Crowley about it.

Hubbard married Betty in 1946 (despite being married to another woman at the time) and then the happy couple persuaded Parsons to sink his savings into a business they called Allied Enterprises. Hubbard continued to snow Parsons about having visions of the moon child which Parsons enthusiastically wrote about to Crowley who wrote to another member saying: "Apparently Parsons or Hubbard or somebody is producing a Moon Child. I get fairly frantic when I contemplate the idiocy of these louts."

But eventually, Hubbard and Betty fled Pasadena with Parsons's money that he had invested into Allied Enterprises. They bought a yacht with $10,000 of Parsons's money. Hubbard dubbed the yacht--surprise!--"Diane." Parsons chased them but they managed to put the vessel to sea but, as fate would have it, they ran into a squall, were badly damaged and were forced to return to port where Parsons took custody of his boat. He sued for his money but only received a small portion. After that, he severed all contact with L. Ron Hubbard but, by then, Crowley had replaced him as head of the OTO.

All this is covered in an earlier chapter that I haven't posted because it had nothing to do with Scientology. So, as you can see, Hubbard was a thief, a shyster, a liar, a conman. He was not to be trusted. His turning Dianetics into a church was similarly nothing but a con job. Everything he told people about himself to puff himself up were lies.

So I did not do a hatchet-job on him--I told the truth. Not that you care. You're just trying to be an asshole--and you're succeeding admirably.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 09:45 PM

"Hatchet-job implies I butchered the religion when, in fact, I presented the facts as clearly as I could get them. "

Below is not a fact. It is clearly an opinion. It is clearly presented as the opinion of the author of the piece.   

"Although a shameless shyster and thief, we should not dismiss Hubbard as merely a huckster who used occultism strictly to further his own ends."

You seem to think that you deserve the courtesy of your unsupported, poorly articulated opinions being read as "History".

Ebbie did you a kindness by wading through all of that muck then giving you her feedback. How did you react? By attacking her. I doubt that you will get her to read any long piece of yours again. I'll bet that you have lost a few readers with this thread. If you want readers you need to show more respect for your audience, both in the whiting and the feedback stage.

By the way Don Firth's little piece is by far the most credible and readable information about Scientology on this thread.

On a personal note, is your employer hiring people to write?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 09:11 PM

Joe,

Yes, I wrote that. It did not come from anyone else's website or blog although I availed myself the use of several blogs written by ex-Scientologists for some of my info--Jon Atack, for example.

I don't believe I did a hatchet-job on Scientology. Once of the facts of it are known, being impartial is a practice in futility. You have to call it the way you see it. It is what it is.

If I were going to do a hatchet-job, I would have accused Scientology, for example, of fostering a denial of the Holocaust because one of its longtime members, Tom Marcellus, is also a longtime Holocaust-denier working for racist Willis Carto. I didn't mention that because that would be unfair. I'm sure most Scientologists are not Holocaust-deniers and I have no idea of what Hubbard believed about it.

Hatchet-job implies I butchered the religion when, in fact, I presented the facts as clearly as I could get them.

Don or someone claimed that I stated that Scientology became a church long after I said it did in 1952. But I just went to Wiki to see about that and here is what it says:

"The first Scientology church was incorporated in December 1953 in Camden, New Jersey, by American science fiction author[8][9] L. Ron Hubbard."

Unless we stretch things a bit and insist that 1953 occurred long after 1952, I was pretty close. The wiki may not be correct either. When I wrote this piece, there was no such thing as Wikipedia. I believe my info came from Jon Atack whom I found to be knowledgeable since he was once a member of the church but not likely to gloss over its more questionable practices as a current member would probably do.

Much of my info come straight out of "Dianetics" which I have read. The comparison of engrams to homeopathy was my own. While investigating homeopathy, I found the parallels to be suspicious--but I could be wrong. I doubt it though. Hubbard put a little of everything in his religion to sell it to as wide an audience of gullible rubes as possible.   

His church also gave birth to the Process Church of the Final Judgement which was started by two ex-Scientologists--Robert De Grimston Moore and his wife Maryanne. They too used e-meters on their members and even appropriated the name "Scientology" for a time but were made to stop. They, in turn, had an influence on Charles
Manson who also took Scientology courses while incarcerated. One of Manson's hardcore followers, Dennis Rice, was a Scientologist and so was his girlfriend who mysteriously turned up murdered. Maybe she didn't like Dennis hanging out with the Family.

After reading an account of what happened to Lisa MacPherson, I see no reason to be "impartial" to Scientology. It doesn't deserve it.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: GUEST,999
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 07:21 PM

That was me.

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

I don't know squat about dianetics and scientology except to say that Hubbard was right about one thing for sure: writing stories at a penny a word will not make you rich. Starting a religion will. He said that in the 1950s. What's new?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 03:05 PM

I read Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health when it first came out in 1950, as did a number of friends and acquaintances. Since we were in college at the time and most of us had taken at least freshman psychology classes, it engendered a fair amount of discussion. It looked at the time as if it might be a promising new approach to psychology, hence the interest.

A couple of acquaintances got into it very deeply, followed when, a few years later, it morphed into Scientology. The idea of styling it as "a new religion" didn't appeal to me, but one person told me that this was primarily a "dodge," because, he claimed, "The Forces of Conventional Psychiatry" were trying to ban or outlaw Dianetics, so Dianeticists were trying to defend it by claiming that it was a religion in order to have First Amendment protection from persecution.

A couple of friends and I played around with the Dianetics part of it for awhile, and I eventually lost interest, especially when they got into such things as "operating Thetans" (being able to leave your body and travel freely through the Cosmos—fun idea, perhaps, but kinda "woo-woo.").

Some years later, I noticed that there was a "Church of Scientology" in the area. It was nothing more than a storefront office, but just to see what these folks had been up to recently, I dropped in. I wound up talking to an eighteen-year-old girl who was wearing a black skirt, jacket, and blouse with a white clerical collar. The kind of garb a female priest—if there ever were such an critter—might wear (I have since seen Pastor Shannon of the nearby Central Lutheran Church wearing such a uniform; she, however, is a genuine ordained minister). The young woman introduced me to her assistant. He was similarly dressed, a stern black suit, black shirt, and white "dog collar" (as Pastor Shannon calls it). He couldn't have been more than about eighteen himself.

After a conversation about "spiritual rehabilitation," I thanked them for their time and departed.

After what I thought could have been a promising beginning, they'd gone completely around the bend.

Josepp, I don't remember anything at all about Rosicrucianism and AMORC (I had a close relative who was into this), and some of the other things you mentioned, as being associated with Dianetics and Scientology. Perhaps this was later, but certainly not in the beginning.

####

A brief critique of your article, if I may:   Right from the start, you make it plain that your purpose is to debunk the whole thing, without giving an accurate description of what it is all about. Your tone is negative right from the start, and much of what you describe doesn't seem to bear a great deal of resemblance to the Dianetics that I was acquainted with.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending Dianetics and Scientology. I personally (AND with some personal knowledge to base my opinion on) think it's all a load of codswallop and a great field for charlatans.

But as a presumable somewhat academic analysis of the subject, you make it plain right from the start that your purpose in writing about this subject is to do a hatchet-job.

At the very least, you need lots of footnotes and references, and preferably, a bibliography of material, to support your thesis..

Don Firth

P. S. I was thinking that L. Ron Hubbard was a halfway decent science fiction writer back before he started taking himself too seriously. Then I found out that one of his stories that I particularly liked, "Far Centaurus," was actually written by A. E. Van Vogt.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 12:18 PM

Another long blog, without pertinence to mudcat.

My vote is for deletion.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 04:16 AM

josepp is delusional if he seriously thinks anyone will actually read all that shit, life is too short.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 04:11 AM

Actually, I regret the tone I used in my post. I got carried away. In my defense, however, I had read every word of what josepp wrote and got a little overwrought at its tone and the fact that there was no accountability in any of it. Heck, any one of us is capable of choosing a target and making up our own story about it. Scientology - much as I don't understand/condone/participate in it and its premise - is an actual phenomenon with adherents and in my opinion if one is to attack it one had better document one's sources.

Reminds me of once when I went to a church to hear a highly touted musical quartet. The preacher (I think it was the preacher) spoke before the music came on and said something about Jehovah's Witnesses and said something to the effect of "and we know what they are like". If I'd been JW I would hope I would have walked out. Probably should have, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 02:09 AM

Once upon a time little Elron made a bet. Then he made a boatload of money. But not on the bet. On the premise of the bet.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 01:28 AM

Well, it WAS long....but I'm not the one who deleted it. That's not my department any more. I get to be Mr. Nice Guy. You know, Spaw, the good cop/bad cop act.

-Joey-

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: catspaw49
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 01:03 AM

...........***sigh***............Since my super tremendous long winded C&P Scientology post has been deleted, let me repost the essence of it in a shorter form.

***Scientology is fucked up.
***If you believe in it, you're fucked up.
***If you're posting a load of shinola about Scientology for reading by aging folkies, you're fucked up beyond all recognition.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology-by josepp
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Jul 12 - 12:00 AM

Seems to me that Jack's suggestion is a good one. It should always be crystal-clear who is the source of information posted here. From the first post, it sounds like the piece was written by josepp. It that's not the case, then we do have a violation of the one-screen limit on non-music copy-paste posts (although Max did not reconfirm that limit when he switched things around last August, so the limit is in limbo).

Now, there never has been a limit on Music copy-paste posts, whether they were written by the poster or not. That being the case, Don Firth should be aware that he is more than welcome to post his folk music retrospective. He might have to post it in pieces because there is a physical limit on the size of a post, but I'd think he could fit a chapter in a single post.

So, I added josepp's name to the thread title. Josepp, can you please confirm that it is indeed your work?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 08:54 PM

Aw Caitlin, there is a major cult of nasty assholes around here of which I am one. and we generally only jump on someone after one or more of us is fed up. We meet every third Tuesday and alternate Thursdays to determine our targets. You're safe for now but watch it! Everyone is free here to post their own favorite crap and psychobabble and we all have the right to say we hate it. Damn free speech stuff works both ways.

So never fear, JoBoo will continue to post completely undaunted and we'll move on once again. Next meeting is Tuesday, til then.........where's Sawzsaw?


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Wesley S
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 08:14 PM

For me - a better way to approach a book is to just present the facts and let the reader decide for themselves. Then it's unnecessary to write a sentence along the lines of - " Although a shameless shyster and thief, we should not dismiss Hubbard as merely a huckster" ect.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 08:00 PM

I can see where you might read it if you already knew a lot about the subject and wanted to see L. Ron called nasty names. I was expecting a history. Not a screed.

"I was reading for content"

I ask this seriously. How do you know which content is valid and which is josepp's opinion?

I got nasty because he got nasty with Ebbie but I was already P.O.ed with him for wasting my time. But it did prompt me to find a better written History of Scientology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 07:56 PM

Joez...

It's not my convenience as much as it is you trying to give enough of a summation to get folks interested... I mean, we all write with the hopes - horrors, lol - that someone will want to read what we have written...

Just trying to lend a helping hand in your project...

Think of it as a blurb... Or intro...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: caitlin rua
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 07:28 PM

Probably taking my life in my hands to say this but: I found josepp's posts an interesting read, though I already knew most of that stuff, having had some friends who fell victim to Scientologists one way or the other (either getting into their bad books or too far into their good ones). Yeah, the text has some errors & vagaries but I was reading for content, not with my lit crit hat on. And it's by no means as bad as some of the above comments make out. (Anybody read some of the other stuff out there lately? Not just on the internet either.)

I am really, truly baffled by the nastiness in this thread. Which I know I have now drawn down on my own head simply for mentioning it. But what's all this attacking about? What happened to allowing everyone their individual freedom of exression and all that? Jeri's right.

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 06:04 PM

By the way. If the whole book is a joke. I don't get the joke. I admire the effort and excuse all the errors, but I don't get the joke. Is it a joke?

Subject: RE: BS: History of Scientology
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Jul 12 - 06:01 PM

Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to vent about some truly horrible writing. As for positive feed back. Ebbie covered that nicely.

You, jackass that you apparently are, attacked her.

I shall endeavor to give you positive feedback. You make too many unverifiable claims. Your writing style in this piece is hysterical. The sentence structure makes it difficult to read.

My I please ask what you makes you an authority on each of these things?
L. Ron Hubbard,
Dianetics
Scientology
bad science-fiction
pseudo-Crowleyan occultism

You are presenting yourself as a historian but you are not supporting you "conclusions" or writing in an intelligible or professional way.

You write for a living? Cool! Do you get paid for writing of that quality? If so please tell us who pays you. I have some chimps banging on typewriters in a warehouse testing probability theory. I'd sure like to get paid for their efforts.

Again, thank you so much for this chance to vent.