beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
The best way to describe it is a load of utter fucking wank pushed onto vulnerable people by a bunch of manipulative lying cunts.Meltingpot said:
Could the conspiraloons sink any lower?
- Thread starter the button
- Start date
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
"there is no link between the right to bare arms and gun death"
Very true, what do bare arms have to do with guns?
Very true, what do bare arms have to do with guns?
longdog said:Have they?
That was the best bit
Well after some top level research. Chatting about scientology to a mate down the pub, I'm lead to believe they have.
yeah was the best bit. Stupid bastards no jack about marketting. Now they just look like boring religious numpties, when they could have sold the whole wandering alien spirits thing and volcano shit much more. Might have been interested then.
4thwrite said:Question for Meltingplop and t'other loons:
Okay, this was done by the cia/black ops ; JFK - check; 911 - check; oklahoma - check...
... how do we we know what isn'tblack ops!Wayne Rooney shagging that granny - Black Ops? The ominous rise of the Chuckle Brothers - Black Ops? The Pedalo incident?
So how do you lads sort this out? Do you have some test of reaonableness? 'Yeah, obviously, the Death of Diana was down to the combined forces of Princes Phillip and the Arch-Lizard - but Keith Chegwin getting his cock out on Channel 4? Nah, we'd look really stupid if we said that was'
Quality!!
xenon_2 said:
Meltingpot, does this sort of post, and posts like 4thwrite's add to your conviction that you have a cast iron primie facie case for believing something that there's absolutely zero proof or evidence for, anywhere in existence?
Glad to hear you're open minded though. So openminded that your brains have quite clearly fallen out.
Suggestion : apply the same level of scepticism to thoise fruitcake conspiraloon made up fandangos as you do to anything and everything that 'The Establishent' ever say.
Do that -- you know, proper scepticism against made up 100% implausible nonsense recycled from dodgy fruitcake websites-- and then you might have a case for saying (as you no doubt think, like most conspiraloons) that 'we'** are 'all' gullible dupes of the establishment.
**Common sensiblists
Oh, and you sound like one of those 'gun freedom' nutcases as well. NRA yeah?
Meltingpot
Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea
beesonthewhatnow said:
It's not as simple as that, because some of those "manipulative lying cunts" are vulnerable people who have themselves been lied to and think they're saving the planet, particularly the ones you'll meet if you walk into your local org. They work very long hours for little pay (I don't think Scn. orgs follow minimum wage legislation) and have no opportunity to question either Scientology policy or the workability of the Tech. If they fall seriously out of favour with the Scientology establishment, they can be "declared" which means that no Scientologist is ever allowed to speak to them again, thus losing their friends and even their family all in one fell swoop. It's a very nasty and ruthless organisation.
But as for the Scientology Tech (which is used by people outside the Church as well, there is a Scientology freezone), if you're going to say it's a load of wank, are you going to use the same standard for other forms of counselling and/or therapy? Don't get carried away by all this stuff about Xenu, most Scientologists can't afford the levels on which this is dealt with (and I'm not at all convinced that he ever existed).
pembrokestephen
New Member
Jazzz, you were making the comparison with psychoanalysis and Scientology, in terms of the costs.Jazzz said:
Yes, it is true that some people can be in analysis for a very long time, and hourly costs are high. But nobody's misleading anybody. In Scientology, if you decide you've had enough and want to leave, they won't make it easy. Nor is there any ethical standards to which Scientology is bound to adhere in terms of the way it treats its "patients", and there is serious doubt about the benefits of the "tech" that Scientology is getting people to pay an awful lot of money for (not to mention the techniques they use to get people to pay the money in the first place - a psychoanalyst wouldn't reduce a patient to a dissociative dream state then get him to sign a bank mandate to pay for his treatment, which has happened in Scientology, and appears to be part of policy).
I also think that comparing psychoanalysis with Scientology is to grant a respectability to Scientology's claims to having sound credentials for its "treatments". It is considered normal in most civilised countries to submit processed claimed to deliver medical benefits to some kind of review process: the mainstream therapies, in general, have this built in to their structure, and research, peer reviewed work, case studies and critiques are a major part of the academic underpinnings of these modalities. Scientology, on the other hand, has steadfastly refused to co-operate with, or participate in, any kind of independent study of its claims. Their response ranges from a flat refusal, through grandiose explanations of how LRH already did all that, to questioning the motives - and criminal past - of the person making the suggestion, until, finally, when they've run out of delaying and distraction tactics, they play their ace card and say "Well, we're a religion, and it's all about faith, anyway, so you can't do a clinical study on faith. So ner."
If Scientology "tech" worked, it could be proved to work. It can't, and therefore their taking of sums of money, no matter how large, off people to do things they claim to be able to, but can't prove they can, is fraud, pure and simple, regardless of how much other psychotherapies might charge. At least they can point at some (though perhaps there's never enough) research to support their claims for efficacy.
pembrokestephen
New Member
I bet they haven't. THey might SAY they have, but that is only because, after years of trying to stuff the cat back into the bag, they've realised it's an impossible task (not that that usually stops them).xenon_2 said:
L Ron Hubbard invented the "tech", and as such it is immutable and unchanging (I'm talkin about the attitudes of "official" Scientology here, Meltingpot, not the Freezone). They could no more whip out OT III (that's the souls of murdered space aliens bit) than the Archbishop of Canterbury could suddenly decide to elide the Gospel of Matthew from the New Testament.
pembrokestephen
New Member
Actually, everyone could do with some therapy. It's interesting, bound to lead to some kind of self-discovery, and often a wonderful way of learning a bit more about what makes us tick.Jazzz said:Ah, now where have I heard that before?
Well, look how useful growing up with psychoanalysts about was then, as far as we can see
You will be told the same!
I have business cards, if anyone's interested
pembrokestephen
New Member
To be fair, I think he's talking about this thread, not the killings. And, to be even fairer, the existence of this thread is only tangential to the killings - check out the title.8den said:
I'd be prepared to cut him some slack on this, if only because maybe he's found some of my posts entertaining, and that's always gratifying...
Meltingpot
Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea
I agree with that, and part of the reason for Scientology's refusal to submit their claims to rigorous testing is their paranoia about government and psychiatrists.
Somebody (called Foster, I believe) did once do an informal study of the infamous OCA personality test that the Church uses to induct new members and found that people who gave widely differing answers to the questions all ended up with broadly the same set of scores. That seriously embarrassed them although they made light of it at the time.
Somebody (called Foster, I believe) did once do an informal study of the infamous OCA personality test that the Church uses to induct new members and found that people who gave widely differing answers to the questions all ended up with broadly the same set of scores. That seriously embarrassed them although they made light of it at the time.
Meltingpot
Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea
William of Walworth said:
Meltingpot, does this sort of post, and posts like 4thwrite's add to your conviction that you have a cast iron primie facie case for believing something that there's absolutely zero proof or evidence for, anywhere in existence?
Glad to hear you're open minded though. So openminded that your brains have quite clearly fallen out.
Suggestion : apply the same level of scepticism to those fruitcake conspiraloon made up fandangos as you do to anything and everything that 'The Establishent' ever say.
Do that -- you know, proper scepticism against made up 100% implausible nonsense recycled from dodgy fruitcake websites-- and then you might have a case for saying (as you no doubt think, like most conspiraloons) that 'we'** are 'all' gullible dupes of the establishment.
**Common sensiblists
Oh, and you sound like one of those 'gun freedom' nutcases as well. NRA yeah?
You're making an awful lot of assumptions about me here.
I think I am sceptical, you may have have noticed I said I wasn't convinced by the story that 9/11 was planned by the US government. I will acknowledge though that I'm probably a bit less plugged into consensual reality than most people who post here seem to be.
But do I detect a circular argument here? If I link to an article, on, say, Alex Jones's Prison Planet, 1984 Brigade or David Icke, it can't be good because it's from a "dodgy fruitcake website". How do I know it's a "dodgy fruitcake website"? Because it hosts "dodgy" articles. Can't really win, can I?
In case anyone's still interested, the CIA assassin theory was gleaned from a couple of David Icke books I read in the late 90's; he claimed that the killers of Robert Kennedy and John Lennon were both CIA controlled agents, also that Timothy McVeigh had a psychiatric assessment with Louis Jolyon West. And yes, we do know that the CIA paid psychiatrists such as West and Ewen Cameron to research mind control.
I think it could be true. As for why I take conspiracy theory seriously when I can't be certain about it, I use a variant of Pascal's wager here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
If I believe it and it turns out to be wrong, all that happens is that I turn out to be a prat (and I'll laugh at my gullibility along with everyone else, probably over a pint down the pub). If on the other hand I reject it and it turns out to be right, I've done nothing to prevent the coming of a global fascist state.
So now you understand (hopefully).
Sorry, but I don't intend posting any more on this, it takes up too much of my time. At least not for a day or two. I just don't really have the motivation for the time and effort required, and my arms get sore.
Yours,
Meltingpot (brains still in head the last time I looked)
)kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Jazzz said:
To someone like that I'd tell them to go and join the Catholic Church - confession is far, far cheaper than therapy.
Comment from my therapist: You can stay in therapy for years and years, but that's basically a personal indulgence and indicative of a client who isn't really making any effort to help themselves.
I saw mine for 6 months and was more than happy with the process (some specific things to be addressed), have gone back for a few more since which probably brings the total up to about 60/70 sessions, but someone who's had it for 15 years...they don't WANT to be helped.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
True, but 15 years? That's a very expensive shoulder to cry on...
pembrokestephen
New Member
David Icke simply isn't, ever, going to be considered an authoritative source. Again, he makes claims he utterly fails to substantiate.Meltingpot said:
That may well be so, but I don't think we can necessarily take the fact (if it is fact) that CIA paid someone to research something as evidence that that something has any validity. It's in the interest of nations to look into all kinds of weird possibilities, and outfits like CIA and the Rand Corporation are constantly looking into various bits of "blue sky" research. Most of it will come to nothing.Meltingpot said:
