Will Smith's New School For Scientology?

[Anonymousse]

Sniff.

[Red Pill]

Anonymousse wrote:

I found "Study Tech" useful. Those three simple educational techniques were useful before Hubbard endorsed them, and they are useful now, whether associated with Scientology or not.

Another testimonial, and another assertion without evidence.

[Slick]

Anonymousse wrote:

What's with the "we", Miz Rachel? You part of a little protective group where everyone agrees to agree with each other?
I'm not. I lived with a Scientologist for a little while and took some classes. Then we split up and went our separate ways. I have enough integrity to speak up about what I found useful (and what I didn't find useful.) Free speech -- use it or lose it. If I agree or disagree with you, I'll say so.
These disparaging characterizations such as "spouting" -- are you by any chance trying to intimidate me? Like those awful Scientologists you're trying so hard to get away from?
... If so, just to let you know...your bad habits are following you...you might want to take a deep breath, relax, and back off from the compulsion to attack (unless Hubbard somewhere endorsed deep breathing, and now you're terrified of that also)

OK, so YOU believe that Hubbard's Study Tech works, right? So please provide links to the independent tests that prove that.

You have SAID IT WORKS, so please provide proof. I mean, it ISN'T just blind, unthinking belief on your part, is it?

[Anonomomily]

If a school chose to integrate the your magic three ingredients into a comprehensive curriculum,I actually would not have a problems with it. The basic concepts are indeed VERY basic, and in non-sci lingo seem to be:

1. build models or use manipulatives to enhance learning or augument a lesson.
2. If a concept is not mastered, go back and master it before proceeding.
3. look up words in the dictionary if you don't understand them.

Oh wait, they already do those things! Gee, do you think they need to pay Applied Scholastics 4% of the school income in order to use those methods? Do they need to learn the terms "mass" and "gradient' and "misunderstoods" (which isn't even proper grammar by anyone's standards)? Do they need to thank very dead Mr Hubbard and applaud his picture on the podium? Do they need to write Knowledge reports on each other and write up their "wins" to advance?

Finally, Hubbard "tech" = scientology scripture. It cannot be separated as Applied Study Tech presents it. It is indoctrination and a cash cow for the Co$$$$$$$$$$

I like this article: http://www.watchman.org/sci/appliedscientolog...

"Though many of their strategies are covert, there is overwhelming evidence demonstrating that the sole purpose of every enterprise of Scientology is to advance the religious philosophy of Scientology."

[Rachel99]

Anonymousse wrote:

What's with the "we", Miz Rachel? You part of a little protective group where everyone agrees to agree with each other?
I'm not. I lived with a Scientologist for a little while and took some classes. Then we split up and went our separate ways. I have enough integrity to speak up about what I found useful (and what I didn't find useful.) Free speech -- use it or lose it. If I agree or disagree with you, I'll say so.
These disparaging characterizations such as "spouting" -- are you by any chance trying to intimidate me? Like those awful Scientologists you're trying so hard to get away from?
... If so, just to let you know...your bad habits are following you...you might want to take a deep breath, relax, and back off from the compulsion to attack (unless Hubbard somewhere endorsed deep breathing, and now you're terrified of that also)

Nope, "reality by agreement" is your cult's thing-not mine.

As for trying to intimidate you, don't flatter yourself. You mean nothing to me and I thought you said a while back that you weren't going to respond to me anymore. Let's go with that.

[Rachel99]

Anonomomily wrote:

If a school chose to integrate the your magic three ingredients into a comprehensive curriculum,I actually would not have a problems with it. The basic concepts are indeed VERY basic, and in non-sci lingo seem to be:
1. build models or use manipulatives to enhance learning or augument a lesson.
2. If a concept is not mastered, go back and master it before proceeding.
3. look up words in the dictionary if you don't understand them.
Oh wait, they already do those things! Gee, do you think they need to pay Applied Scholastics 4% of the school income in order to use those methods? Do they need to learn the terms "mass" and "gradient' and "misunderstoods" (which isn't even proper grammar by anyone's standards)? Do they need to thank very dead Mr Hubbard and applaud his picture on the podium? Do they need to write Knowledge reports on each other and write up their "wins" to advance?
Finally, Hubbard "tech" = scientology scripture. It cannot be separated as Applied Study Tech presents it. It is indoctrination and a cash cow for the Co$$$$$$$$$$
I like this article: http://www.watchman.org/sci/appliedscientolog...
"Though many of their strategies are covert, there is overwhelming evidence demonstrating that the sole purpose of every enterprise of Scientology is to advance the religious philosophy of Scientology."

Like everything else the nut discovered, it's largely plagarized. Well except for the Xenu thing. That he dreamed up all by his lonesome.

[Anonomomily]

Also, FYI, Applied Scholastics takes a 4% cut of the gross income of the schools that it licenses. At NVA, that means 40 students at $13000.00 a kid. So skim $20800 off the top for Applied Scholastics'cut! That's one way to pay your blackmail money to Co$!

[Anonomomily]

Rachel99 wrote:

<quoted text>
Like everything else the nut discovered, it's largely plagarized. Well except for the Xenu thing. That he dreamed up all by his lonesome.

No,no... He had help with Xenu. From Mr Pink and Mr Grey, and Captain Morgan :)

[Rachel99]

Slick wrote:

<quoted text>
Orders. OSA standard orders. When they are "not a Scientologist" they think they make it seem like "even non-Scientologists agree!" It also gives them the option of behaving quite badly without (they think) reflecting badly on the church.
It WOULD work, too, if Scientology's claims made ANY sense. But since they don't, the pretend not-a-Scientologist postings can't pass the sniff test.
To pass the sniff test, they'd have to face reality and admit various truths, something a Scientologist CANNOT do.

Thanks Slick.

[Anonymousse]

"If a school chose to integrate the your magic three ingredients ..."

They aren't "my" three ingredients and they aren't "magic". They are just three old and effective techniques that a person can use or not use.

"...into a comprehensive curriculum, I actually would not have a problems with it."

Well okay. What's bugging me here is the insistent BS about there being something quite strange and even dangerous about "Study Tech" that will brainwash the innocents etc. etc. and turn them into robots etc. etc.

However, you are mistaken in your belief that all schools use those three basic principles.

Long experience as a volunteer in schools (both before and after my biological kids went through their K-12 years) turned up many instances where persistent problems resulted from violating those simple basics: learning vocabulary, linking lessons to 3-D reality, and "beginning at the beginning."

Don't take my word for it. Go volunteer in some of those "failing schools" and see for yourself.

And... for the sake of $$$, or the Deity, or the Lord, or Xenu, or whatever it is you believe in now, please don't discourage people from using techniques that can help them to improve their educational level and improve their lives in general.

[Anonomomily]

I will discourage any attempt to finance the Co$ by incorporating it's licensed "tech" with all it's attendant Scilon idiocy into any curriculum funded by public tax dollars and not clearly labeled (in the case of private schools) with it's origin as a Co$ gateway group meant to bring in members and dollars to the Co$.

In other words, IF the origin and intent of the school is scientologist in nature AND clearly admitted to be such, AND parents are completely aware of the connection and it's implications and the controversy and are STILL dumb enough to want this for their child, then...that is their choice.

Do NOT try and sneak it in, do NOT lie about it, and do NOT expect my tax dollars to pay into Co$ coffers, and that includes the various vouchers, tax breaks and other goodies schools get from the government.

[Slick]

Anonymousse wrote:

"If a school chose to integrate the your magic three ingredients ..."
They aren't "my" three ingredients and they aren't "magic". They are just three old and effective techniques that a person can use or not use.

"Effective." You're still spouting the Scientology claim that Hubbard's Study Tech is, somehow, effective. And I'm still waiting for you to come up with some proof of your statement. Who ran a study that found the results you are claiming: That Hubbard's Study Tech is "effective"? So far it's just you and the Church of Scientology making that claim.

You keep making that claim and making that claim and making that claim. What is that claim based on? What study? What research? Who? When?

[crobertson241]

hey if he wants to do it all the power, but i do think that he jumped on the tom cruise wanna be group. what is it with all of hollywood and the ever growing scientology fan club. Anyone ever research the origin of this religon.... didn't the whole thing come from a sci fi author?

crobertson
www.mycelebritytalk.com
www.mycelebritytalk.com/forums

[edwardwoodward]

Slick wrote:

<quoted text>
"Effective." You're still spouting the Scientology claim that Hubbard's Study Tech is, somehow, effective. And I'm still waiting for you to come up with some proof of your statement. Who ran a study that found the results you are claiming: That Hubbard's Study Tech is "effective"? So far it's just you and the Church of Scientology making that claim.
You keep making that claim and making that claim and making that claim. What is that claim based on? What study? What research? Who? When?

He's seen it with his own eyes, Slick. Ain't that enough?

[Slick]

edwardwoodward wrote:

<quoted text>
He's seen it with his own eyes, Slick. Ain't that enough?

No. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

But, we're not talking about anecdotal evidence. Anonymousse said, very specifically, "Scientology 'Study Tech' does in fact work".

That's an extremely boldfaced claim! Anonymousse says it "IN FACT" works. That isn't stated as opinion or personal experience but FACT.

It is only reasonable to ask for the research and reports that contained those "facts". This is the same thing for all Scientology claims, boldfaced claims, but never, ever any proof.

Anonymousse: You said "Scientology 'Study Tech' does in fact work". Your exact statement. Now, the actual research that stated this as FACT.

But, I expect I'll have a long, LONG wait for that.

[Anonymousse]

Anonomily described study tech like this: "The basic concepts are indeed VERY basic, and in non-sci lingo seem to be:

1. build models or use manipulatives to enhance learning or augument a lesson.

2. If a concept is not mastered, go back and master it before proceeding.

3. look up words in the dictionary if you don't understand them."

Prove to me that those techniques DON'T work.

Also, prove to me that working one-on-one with a tutor or a very small group in a personalized setting isn't going to be helpful.

You have gone beyond your angry opinion and disapproval of the Scientology organization (okay, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it), to providing disinformation about Will Smith's school and the study techniques they plan to use.

Smith's school is only objectionable to you because you have a beef with Scientology, but you are extending your opposition beyond what I consider reasonable. And I'm telling you what I think of your unreasonable objection, which seems to ruffle you quite a bit.

If you were attacking Catholic or Fundy Christian schools such as Liberty University because of your objections to their religious doctrines, I would have the same response to you.

Diversity is a good thing. Alternatives are a good thing.

Disinformation is not such a good thing...and if you are going to ask for proof of THAT bold statement, you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

[Slick]

Anonymousse wrote:

Anonomily described study tech like this: "The basic concepts are indeed VERY basic, and in non-sci lingo seem to be:
1. build models or use manipulatives to enhance learning or augument a lesson.
2. If a concept is not mastered, go back and master it before proceeding.
3. look up words in the dictionary if you don't understand them."
Prove to me that those techniques DON'T work.
Also, prove to me that working one-on-one with a tutor or a very small group in a personalized setting isn't going to be helpful.
You have gone beyond your angry opinion and disapproval of the Scientology organization (okay, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it), to providing disinformation about Will Smith's school and the study techniques they plan to use.
Smith's school is only objectionable to you because you have a beef with Scientology, but you are extending your opposition beyond what I consider reasonable. And I'm telling you what I think of your unreasonable objection, which seems to ruffle you quite a bit.
If you were attacking Catholic or Fundy Christian schools such as Liberty University because of your objections to their religious doctrines, I would have the same response to you.
Diversity is a good thing. Alternatives are a good thing.
Disinformation is not such a good thing...and if you are going to ask for proof of THAT bold statement, you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

WRONG. Sorry, your misdirection will not work. Nice try, though!

I made no claims. YOU made claims. The onus of proof is on you because YOU MADE THE CLAIM: "Scientology 'Study Tech' does in fact work". That's a direct quote from YOU.

I'm not arguing with anything Anonomily said. And you DIDN'T SAY that "'The basic concepts' do in fact work". YOU SAID that Scientology "Study Tech" DOES IN FACT WORK.

That's your claim, so back it up with proof.

In addition, you CANNOT claim that three "old techniques" which exist AS A MINOR PART of who-knows-what OTHER study technologies is IDENTICAL to Hubbard's Study Tech as a stand-alone, all by itself, study system! That's completely unsupported by ANY facts. And, logically, is just absurd.

And, lastly, please quote from ANY comment I've made where I've ever said Will's school is "only objectionable to me because I have a beef with Scientology." That is not my position and never has been. There are many "Scientology Schools" and I'm not objecting to ANY of those. Gee, what is the difference? The difference is between ADMITTING the school is "Scientology" and NOT ADMITTING it. I've said this over and over and over and over. If you can't "duplicate" this, maybe you need word clearing.

[Slick]

Of course, you could say "Gee, I was wrong, there is no proof that Scientology 'Study Tech' does in fact work. Sorry to have bothered you."

You could say that, because it is factually true that there IS no proof. It's just a Church of Scientology unsubstantiated claim.

You COULD say that.

But you won't.

[Anonomomily]

I like how my words are cherry picked for spin. Let me restate this, just so it's on the same page:

I will discourage any attempt to finance the Co$ by incorporating it's licensed "tech" with all it's attendant Scilon idiocy into any curriculum funded by public tax dollars and not clearly labeled (in the case of private schools) with it's origin as a Co$ gateway group meant to bring in members and dollars to the Co$.

In other words, IF the origin and intent of the school is scientologist in nature AND clearly admitted to be such, AND parents are completely aware of the connection and it's implications and the controversy and are STILL dumb enough to want this for their child, then...that is their choice.

Do NOT try and sneak it in, do NOT lie about it, and do NOT expect my tax dollars to pay into Co$ coffers, and that includes the various vouchers, tax breaks and other goodies schools get from the government.

And Slick? you can call me Milly.

[edwardwoodward]

Anonymousse wrote:

Anonomily described study tech like this: "The basic concepts are indeed VERY basic, and in non-sci lingo seem to be:
1. build models or use manipulatives to enhance learning or augument a lesson.
2. If a concept is not mastered, go back and master it before proceeding.
3. look up words in the dictionary if you don't understand them."
Prove to me that those techniques DON'T work.
Also, prove to me that working one-on-one with a tutor or a very small group in a personalized setting isn't going to be helpful.
You have gone beyond your angry opinion and disapproval of the Scientology organization (okay, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it), to providing disinformation about Will Smith's school and the study techniques they plan to use.
Smith's school is only objectionable to you because you have a beef with Scientology, but you are extending your opposition beyond what I consider reasonable. And I'm telling you what I think of your unreasonable objection, which seems to ruffle you quite a bit.
If you were attacking Catholic or Fundy Christian schools such as Liberty University because of your objections to their religious doctrines, I would have the same response to you.
Diversity is a good thing. Alternatives are a good thing.
Disinformation is not such a good thing...and if you are going to ask for proof of THAT bold statement, you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

Mate, you're being very disingenuous here. You've turned Slick's original argument on its head (gone from making your own unsubstantiated claim to demanding others substantiate their claims).
You've been very selective with what evidence you have provided, even cherry picking positive statements from a report that is overwhelmingly negative.
And now you're varying your arguments on the teaching methods to make it seem like people arguing against what you say are being unreasonable.

You've also gone off a tangent, bringing us the shocking revelation that some schools in rough areas have disciplinary problems and poor educational records (no, really?). Will we see $cientology making any efforts in these cases, I wonder. No. Why not?

Most people who have looked at $cientology in any depth and with any sense of balance know there are little bits here and there that have some merit because Hubbard cobbled his "tech" together by lifting from other sources.
The man didn't have an original thought in his head. It wouldn't surprise me if he even found Xenu in somebody else's work.

As for your point about disinformation, which seems to me to be obfuscation at best, you could take that right back to the beginning and say that's where we started: disinformation by Saint Will and his new "church" about the real purpose of his pet school.
Gold Mask proved the point that this school would employ $cientologists and had changed its website to obscure this fact, a point you have yet to acknowledge.