Re: Interested in reading LRH? Free Sample. Enjoy!

In <3rbjr6$f7l@newsbf02.news.aol.com> wonderfulr@aol.com (WONDERFULR) writes: >
> >Stephen waxes poetic with:
>Stephen waxes poetic with: >
> >>>>a sickeningly-sweet verbosity that
>>>>a sickeningly-sweet verbosity that >fails to mask the stench of his hypocrisy.<<<
>fails to mask the stench of his hypocrisy.<<< >
> >Stephen, I think you'll have to admit - this is sort of the pot
>Stephen, I think you'll have to admit - this is sort of the pot calling >the kettle black.
>the kettle black. >
> >Russell
>Russell >
> >(posted & e-mailed)
>(posted & e-mailed) Russell,

I have to give you credit for finding the one sentence in my post that I truly, deeply cared about. While I wouldn't call it poetic, thanks, I do feel that it has a certain ring to it. "This is the essence of Elron, a sickeningly-sweet verbosity that fails to mask the stench of his hypocrisy." - it does have a mantra-like charm now that you mention it.

Anyway Russell, I do not admit that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I would have to concede if you called my posts poorly punctuated or grammatical wastelands, but you didn't ...so I can't concede. My verbosity has never been mistaken as sickeningly-sweet, tedious perhaps but never sickeningly-sweet. I'd be interested to know what you found hypocritical about my post(s). Fire Away!

If it could be proven that I am indeed the pot would you then admit that LRH is the kettle? Read page #3 of "Dianetics"! LRH is the pot, the kettle and the whole kitchen-kaboodle. I love page #3 of "Dianetics" for a variety of reasons: A) LRH tips his hand sooo early, he couldn't even wait a few more pages before he begins his bombastic prose. B) I never quote the whole paragraph, I don't want to be squashed by Bridge Publications, but I think it would be Ok in this context, I'm sure Bridge will let me know if I am wrong.

Taken from pages #3 and #4 of "Dianetics" by LRH, published by Bridge Publications, Inc. copyright 1992. Added comment is my own.

"This volume has made no effort to use resounding or thunderous phrases, frowning polysyllables or professorial detachment."

Well right from the start LRH does exactly what he says he will not do. Why didn't he say "big words" instead of "polysyllables"? Because he didn't really mean it, that's why. He knew he didn't really mean it that's why he defines "polysyllables" at the bottom of the page.

"When one is delivering answers which are simple, he need not make the communication any more difficult than is necessary to convey the ideas. "Basic language" has been used, much of the nomenclature is colloquial; the pedantic has not only not been employed, it has also been ignored."

I LOVE THIS! First of all he puts "Basic language" in quotation marks of condescendence. Is LRH lowering himself to speak with us in a language our feeble minds can understand? This is what he implies, both with this statement and the scores of definitions he loads onto nearly every page. "Gentle reader, confused by the term "atom bomb"? Fear not! I have provided a handy definition at the bottom of the page". (and he does on page #9) The atom bomb definition is not an isoloted incident, many such definitions are condescendingly given throughout the book. LRH is always trying to place himself intellectually above the reader. He wants power. The whole "much of the nomenclature is colloquial; the pedantic has not only not been employed, it has been ignored" part of the sentence is absolutly hilarious. HE JUST DID IT AGAIN! Rather than ignoring it he wallows in it. He feels the need to define THREE of the terms in the sentence. So much for ignoring the pedantic. He can't seem to help it. He loves flashy two-dollar words, despite his own statement. Hypocrisy.

"This volume communicates to several strata of life and professions; the favorite nomenclatures of none have been observed since such a usage would impede the understanding of others. And so bear with us, psychiatrist, when your structure is not used, for we have no need for structure here; and bear with us, doctor, when we call a cold a cold and not a catarrhal disorder of the respiratory tract."

"Call a cold a cold" BWAHAHAHAHA! LRH was not a doctor or a scientist; LRH was a writer words were his scalpel and his microscope, the tools of his trade. Does LRH call a cold a cold when he uses the word colloquial instead of informal? How about when he says "polysyllables" instead of "big words"? LRH rarely called a cold a cold, he seems to prefer to say catarrhal disorder of the respiratory tract. Words are LRH's smoke and mirrors. I also like the slight dig at psychiatrists and doctors. Undoubtedly he anticipated their reaction to his dubious theories.

"For this is, essentially, engineering, and these engineers are liable to say anything. And "scholar," you would not enjoy being burdened with the summation signs and the Lorentz-FitzGerald-Einstein equations, so we shall not burden the less puristic reader with scientifically impossible Hegelian grammer which insists that absolutes exist in fact."

Why is "scholar" in quotes? I don't know if he is putting me down or trying to suck-up. Perhaps a little of both. Certainly he doesn't want me to hate him, he needs the reader to buy his ideas. On the other hand he doesn't want me to feel to good about myself, otherwise I might not feel the need for his product. Lorentz-FitzGerald-Einstein equations and Hegelian grammer? A) Name Dropping B)LRH understands all of this, do you? Don't worry gentle reader, LRH won't scare you away with his brilliance. He just wants you to know that he "knows" stuff, really smart stuff, but he isn't gonna flash it around, well ....except here and IN THE WHOLE DAMN BOOK! Name dropping to intimidate, despite his claim otherwise, the reader.

So Russell, that is why I love page 3. Take a good look at LRH's writing style: sickeningly-sweet and hypocritical. Look at what he says and how he says it. Usually what he says is contradicted by how he says it. LRH wanted to catch some flies with "Dianetics" hence the sickeningly-sweet part. LRH's research and scientific facts are nothing more than opinions hence the contradictions. LRH was a writer not a scientist. Undoubtedly you have a different take on LRH. I would be interested to hear what you thought while you were reading "Dianetics". Did you find LRH to be charming? Wise? A smart man, smarter than yourself? A good guy who wanted to help the world? How did you feel about LRH?

Take Care,

Stephen Jones