What the fuck is going on?

[Purple Rain]

How about this.

It could be just as related to those, and it could be related to those who bought the lemon, ate it, and spat it out but still don't recognise lemon juice when they see it.

Suckerism welcomes people of all faiths nonfaiths and exfaiths.

What if they recognise it as a lemon, but they sometimes use lemon juice in a recipe?

All people are suckers sometimes. Suckerism is part of the human condition. Anyone who ever trusts or believes will be betrayed by someone or something.

 

[JBWriter]

What if they recognise it as a lemon, but they sometimes use lemon juice in a recipe?

All people are suckers sometimes. Suckerism is part of the human condition. Anyone who ever trusts or believes will be betrayed by someone or something.

^^^^In re: bolded above.

Perhaps what is most unforgivable is when a trusted someone/something causes a person to betray himself/herself?

Just a thought,

JB. (Doesn't seem right to call it 'self-suckerism', but I haven't another phrase which remains on point. No disrespect intended.)

 

[Purple Rain]

^^^^In re: bolded above.

Perhaps what is most unforgivable is when a trusted someone/something causes a person to betray himself/herself?

Just a thought,

JB. (Doesn't seem right to call it 'self-suckerism', but I haven't another phrase which remains on point. No disrespect intended.)

You know what. I really don't care. I don't use Scientology. I don't have any time for Scientology. I splurge on the Schadenfreude. I just believe in live and let live, letting people think for themselves and do what they want if they're not hurting anyone - not just "hurting" as defined by a bunch of extremists, but "hurt" as defined by the parties actually involved.

And I don't think anyone can CAUSE YOU to betray yourself. They can trick you, invite you, pressure you. It's still your decision.

All this discussion is based from the question of who or what is a Scientologist. And I just believe in a person's right to self-identify with that label or not, and not have it inflicted on them by a bunch of wounded people with a fanatical agenda.

Like "dogpiler" it does serve a purpose to label others "Scientologist". But labelling theory holds that it sucks to do that to people and I tend to agree.

 

[Free to shine]

I saw that post by Free to Shine, asking me about my definition of a Scientologist. I have an answer but don't know how it applies to this thread, so I declined posting it. Perhaps s/he could expand on the relevance. Otherwise, it could appear like a bit of a derail. "Who or what is a Scientologist?" is a huge subject, so perhaps deserves its own thread.

Sorry, I was in a rush when I asked. I meant to say "the scientologists" and "scientologists and their collaborators" when I asked for your definition, both concepts that you use constantly in your posts. Example: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ck-is-going-on&p=799504&viewfull=1#post799504

Serious question, and no it doesn't need a new thread or a lengthy explanation. Is this a specific group, or people who are currently in scientology, or people who have ever had anything to do with it? With such a general term being used, it is sometimes hard to follow who you are talking about, that's all.

 

[Panda Termint]

What if they recognise it as a lemon, but they sometimes use lemon juice in a recipe?
<snip...>

That's where the Citrics of Scientology come into it!

 

[Purple Rain]

That's where the Citrics of Scientology come into it!

Could you orange for me to meet them?

 

[JBWriter]

You know what. I really don't care. I don't use Scientology. I don't have any time for Scientology. I splurge on the Schadenfreude. I just believe in live and let live, letting people think for themselves and do what they want if they're not hurting anyone - not just "hurting" as defined by a bunch of extremists, but "hurt" as defined by the parties actually involved.

And I don't think anyone can CAUSE YOU to betray yourself. They can trick you, invite you, pressure you. It's still your decision.

All this discussion is based from the question of who or what is a Scientologist. And I just believe in a person's right to self-identify with that label or not, and not have it inflicted on them by a bunch of wounded people with a fanatical agenda.

Like "dogpiler" it does serve a purpose to label others "Scientologist". But labelling theory holds that it sucks to do that to people and I tend to agree.

I posed the question as it relates to all people - not scientologlists/ex-scientologists/fz'ers/indies -- just people, all of us. Your post actually prompted me to think about trust and betrayal, something everybody's experienced, just as you described. I wondered if the worst type of betrayed trust was when a person went against their own conscience - that's it. I wasn't calling anyone a 'self-suckerist' or some such label - merely trying to add to your post, not detract from its impact or content at all.

I've betrayed myself - and paid most of the resultant consequences. I hope not to do it again, but it might happen, so I do my level best to consider risks/advantages before I act -- just like most people. I haven't answered the question I posed here because I honestly don't know which is worse - being betrayed by someone/something or betraying myself.

Thanks for bringing up the topic,

JB.

 

[Purple Rain]

I posed the question as it relates to all people - not scientologlists/ex-scientologists/fz'ers/indies -- just people, all of us. Your post actually prompted me to think about trust and betrayal, something everybody's experienced, just as you described. I wondered if the worst type of betrayed trust was when a person went against their own conscience - that's it. I wasn't calling anyone a 'self-suckerist' or some such label - merely trying to add to your post, not detract from its impact or content at all.

I've betrayed myself - and paid most of the resultant consequences. I hope not to do it again, but it might happen, so I do my level best to consider risks/advantages before I act -- just like most people. I haven't answered the question I posed here because I honestly don't know which is worse - being betrayed by someone/something or betraying myself.

Thanks for bringing up the topic,

JB.

Does there have to be a worse? It's like when your whole world is crashing down around you and you know there are starving children and people in hospital dying of cancer and all kinds of horrible things, but pain is still pain. When I was in hospital with my deep vein thrombosis there was this lovely woman in the bed next to me who was suffering from pneumonia. She was in her seventies and my heart just went out to her, watching what she went through. But when we got talking to each other, she felt just as sorry for me - thought my pain was worse - so it just goes to show.

Bad things that happen should all be treated with respect in terms of how they affect the person I think, from a child's disappointment that seems trivial to others to getting a knock on the door from a policeman saying someone you love has been killed in a car crash. It should all be respected, I think.

Comparisons are always interesting, of course, but I think the conclusions about betrayal versus self-betrayal would depend on the relative values of the people concerned.

 

[JBWriter]

Does there have to be a worse? Nope; doesn't even have to be measured. Betrayal of trust is, most people agree, simply wrong.

It's like when your whole world is crashing down around you and you know there are starving children and people in hospital dying of cancer and all kinds of horrible things, but pain is still pain. When I was in hospital with my deep vein thrombosis there was this lovely woman in the bed next to me who was suffering from pneumonia. She was in her seventies and my heart just went out to her, watching what she went through. But when we got talking to each other, she felt just as sorry for me - thought my pain was worse - so it just goes to show. Agreed; pain is pain, pain is real, and empathy/understanding of another's pain/suffering is one of the best traits we humans have. (Other animals, too.)

Bad things that happen should all be treated with respect in terms of how they affect the person I think, from a child's disappointment that seems trivial to others to getting a knock on the door from a policeman saying someone you love has been killed in a car crash. It should all be respected, I think. Agreed; to respect how another deals/copes with the bad things that happen in that other person's life - whether effectively or not -- falls under the umbrella term 'basic civility'. (<---Which also covers the concepts of tolerance/intolerance as described in post #1 of this thread.)

Comparisons are always interesting, of course, but I think the conclusions about betrayal versus self-betrayal would depend on the relative values of the people concerned. Interesting point re: relative values as a factor. Thank you.

Lots to think about, thanks.

JB.

 

[Emma]

Only in your mind does my comment resemble a "KR."

To me, and to most people, the word "noted" means just that: that something was noticed.

At least understand that much.

It wasn't just in my mind. Quite a few other members "noted" the noting.

Besides I never said it was a KR. It was an ethics gradient.

 

[Lone Star]

It wasn't just in my mind. Quite a few other members "noted" the noting....

Ahhhhhh......very noteworthy.

 

[Caroline]

Sorry, I was in a rush when I asked. I meant to say "the scientologists" and "scientologists and their collaborators" when I asked for your definition, both concepts that you use constantly in your posts. Example: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...ck-is-going-on&p=799504&viewfull=1#post799504

Serious question, and no it doesn't need a new thread or a lengthy explanation. Is this a specific group, or people who are currently in scientology, or people who have ever had anything to do with it? With such a general term being used, it is sometimes hard to follow who you are talking about, that's all.

Thanks for fixing your question, FTS. “Scientologists,” as a term is both specific and amorphous.

When I was a Scientologist, I used Hubbard's definitions. Here are a few:

SCIENTOLOGIST, 1. one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others by using Scn technology. (Aud 73 UK) 2 . one who controls persons, environments and situations. A Scientologist operates within the boundaries of the Auditor’s Code and the Code of a Scientologist. (PAB 137) 3 . one who understands life. His technical skill is devoted to the resolution of the problems of life. (COHA, p. 12) 4. a specialist in spiritual and human affairs. (Abil Ma 1)

Hubbard, L. Ron. (1979). Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California.

SCIENTOLOGIST, someone who can better conditions. A Scientologist then, is essentially one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others by using Scn technology. Of course, there are lots of "do-gooders" and people trying to better conditions, but the difference between them and a Scientologist is that the Scientologist is the one who knows how. He is equipped
with far superior know-how. He is in much better shape than the person on the street. (BPL 21 Oct 71 I) 2. an individual interested in Scn. Disseminates and assists Scientologists. (HCO PL 21 Oct 66 11, City Office System) 3. the being three feet behind society's head. A trained Scientologist is not a doctor. He is someone with special knowledge in the handling of life. (HCOB 10 Jun 60)

Hubbard, L. Ron. (1976). Modern Management Technology Defined. Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California Publications Organization United States.

Scientologists are roughly hominids who comply with Scientology-related policies, orders or intentions and call themselves Scientologists.

The Scientologists’ collaborators are hominids who comply with Scientology-dictated policies, orders or intention and call themselves wogs, or homo sapiens, or human beings, or persons, or anything but Scientologists. I don’t think that the lettuce farmer who fulfills an order for 115 heads of lettuce a day at Gilman Hot Springs is therefore a collaborator with the Scientologists because he complies with their produce orders, any more than I would think that the farmer who delivered 15 heads of lettuce to Osama Bin Laden’s camp in Afghanistan was necessarily an al Qaeda collaborator. Collaboration is working together. It is neutral. Collaboration with the enemy is commonly treason.

Gerry and I also collaborate. We work very close, indeed we act in concert. We work to free everyone so they can discuss their experiences and knowledge.

The Scientologists and their collaborators comprise a criminal conspiracy to deprive citizens of their basic human rights, to prevent them from discussing their experiences and knowledge. Relevant collaborators with the Scientologists are wogs who collaborate and who know, or ought to know, better. The Scientologists’ attorneys are good examples. Everyone knows that the wogs among those attorneys collaborate with the Scientologists. The Scientologists’ wog attorneys are paid millions to collaborate with the Scientologists. Their collaboration is in large part in the suppression and destruction of both wogs’ and Scientologists’ psyches, lives and basic human rights. But there are citizens in classes beyond lawyers who collaborate with the Scientologists in their war on wogs: media, intel, PIs, PRs, politicians, dupes, psychopaths, etc. Why exactly any or all of these people collaborate with the Scientologists is in many instances unanswered.

In the example you provided where I used "Scientologists and their collaborators," I was talking in the context of their attacking and threatening:

Truth vs. lies, victims vs. victimizers, Jews vs. Nazis, has not much to do with enjoyment. Carrying on without necessarily enjoying something is often an important and profitable activity. With that said, I think I’ve been blessed with the gift of enjoyment or joy that I know is close even when the Scientologists and their collaborators attack and threaten. In fact that’s probably a factor in why they hate and attack Gerry and me so much. We’re life-loving, joy-loving people, and not even slightly how they black PR us.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?31408-What-the-fuck-is-going-on&p=799504&viewfull=1#post799504

Scientologists attack and threaten people in my class in application of their SP doctrine, and justify their attacks and threats with this doctrine. As I was explaining to Pirate and Bum earlier in the thread, the issue is the SP doctrine, and Scientologists are determined largely by the doctrine. How Scientologists may further identify among themselves or others is quite irrelevant in this context. No Scientologist of any faction or splinter has ever repudiated the SP doctrine that I know of.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I'm reminded very much recently of one of the reasons I dumped scientology ... there was always way too much endless, wordy, paranoid waffling and overly significant 'make wrong' that never went anywhere worthwhile or achieved a single damn thing while using words like 'wog' (which I abhor).

Dunno what's happening around here but I'm off to do something pleasant and lighthearted for a while before I lose the will to live.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I'm reminded very much recently of one of the reasons I dumped scientology ... there was always way too much endless, wordy, paranoid waffling and overly significant 'make wrong' that never went anywhere worthwhile or achieved a single damn thing while using words like 'wog' (which I abhor).

Dunno what's happening around here but I'm off to do something pleasant and lighthearted for a while before I lose the will to live.

Just for you , Trouble....

http://youtu.be/vbaiQ00gywI

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

And this...

http://youtu.be/m5TwT69i1lU


The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Emma]

Thanks for fixing your question, FTS.

"fixing your questions" WTF?

I think you need to look at how you address us plebs Caroline. We don't want lectures. We don't want condescension. And we really don't want to have have to "fix our questions" for you so you deem them up to a certain standard to be answered.

FFS.

 

[degraded being]

What if they recognise it as a lemon, but they sometimes use lemon juice in a recipe?

All people are suckers sometimes. Suckerism is part of the human condition. Anyone who ever trusts or believes will be betrayed by someone or something.

I think I agree with the second paragraph. On the first part, if they use it in a recipe and they consume what is made using the recipe they are suckers.

 

[degraded being]

You know what. I really don't care. I don't use Scientology. I don't have any time for Scientology. I splurge on the Schadenfreude. I just believe in live and let live, letting people think for themselves and do what they want if they're not hurting anyone - not just "hurting" as defined by a bunch of extremists, but "hurt" as defined by the parties actually involved.

And I don't think anyone can CAUSE YOU to betray yourself. They can trick you, invite you, pressure you. It's still your decision.

All this discussion is based from the question of who or what is a Scientologist. And I just believe in a person's right to self-identify with that label or not, and not have it inflicted on them by a bunch of wounded people with a fanatical agenda.

Like "dogpiler" it does serve a purpose to label others "Scientologist". But labelling theory holds that it sucks to do that to people and I tend to agree.

What about the label "extremists" that you use while trying to make your point?

I don't think the label "scientologists" is always important to me. Sometimes it might be useful, but scientologists are not all the same, so context is important.
On the "dogpiler" label, where do you think that came from; Veda? He used it and got dogpiled using the term itself, as part of the dogpiling on him --as though he dreamed it up. He didn't AFAIK, others have used it in the past to protest about posters here getting rough treatment; especially, new posters. Perhaps one or two who actually dogpiled Veda, partly for using that term, used it to protest others being dogpiled. I am 95% sure of that, from memory.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

I've changed my mind.. I'm gonna say something in here anyway.. I think Gerry and Caroline are great! They are untiringly talking shit about the Sinister Scam Cult of Scientology. I like that.. Gerry left the cult carrying doc's, not something insignificant either: Hubbard's Admissions.. Caroline maintains one of the best websites for documenting CofS's nefarious policies.. I like all that too!

They know who the 'enemy' are.. Usually..

Allright, Caroline has been telling us a lot of things lately.. But since my mum told me: 'If you ain't got nutting good to say, keep ye'r mouth shut!', I will studiously not say a damned thing!

 

[Purple Rain]

What about the label "extremists" that you use while trying to make your point?

I don't think the label "scientologists" is always important to me. Sometimes it might be useful, but scientologists are not all the same, so context is important.
On the "dogpiler" label, where do you think that came from; Veda? He used it and got dogpiled using the term itself, as part of the dogpiling on him --as though he dreamed it up. He didn't AFAIK, others have used it in the past to protest about posters here getting rough treatment; especially, new posters. Perhaps one or two who actually dogpiled Veda, partly for using that term, used it to protest others being dogpiled. I am 95% sure of that, from memory.

From wikipedia:

Extremism (represented on both sides of the political spectrum) is any ideology or political act far outside the perceived political center of a society

The ideology that has been expressed by certain people is far outside what I perceive as the political centre on the issue of Freezoners or Independent Scientologists. To me, it is extremist. I make no apology for that. My point was not about pointing a finger to a particular person and saying, "Oh, the extremist has spoken!" or "Another extreme comment from an extremist, I see." My point was to describe the fundamentalist fervour I perceive in trying to inflict one's views on others who are basically minding their own business. I hope that clarifies my position.

No, what Veda did was to use the term "dogpiler" like Scientology would use "hater". It was not cool. That is my view and I don't resile from it.