What's new

What is a right and wrong? Story and Question.

Status
Not open for further replies.

uniquemand

Unbeliever
It's a good lesson in cyber friendship. It's a very different thing to have a friend who you know and understand in real life, we are genetically designed to read each other extremely well visually.

Cyber relationships are all about mental activity. Reading is mental. You might touch someone emotionally with your story, but the MEDIUM of contact is mental, and so relationships tend to be mostly mental. If someone has a disagreement with you that is large enough that their thoughts are unreal to you, there is almost no reason to continue contact in a mental environment. It's different, and people should remember that.

A friend in need is a friend indeed.
 

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
Mike,

I could refute the BS here on this thread, including what you have now posted about me, but after this last week when I dropped back in and posted for a bit, it became clear that ESMB wasn’t a platform for *me* in order to do that.

I will say this though…………..

Until today, I wasn’t actually sure where you were at or what you were up to, but with your lies in this post (and I use the word “lies” to differentiate from simply that of a different *perspective*), you now have confirmed to *me* that you do indeed have a hidden agenda (not that I know exactly *what* that agenda is).

I don’t particularly like being in a position of having to speculate and/or having doubts about what I can only *perceive* to be true from the data available, so I suppose that’s at least one consolation with your post here and an aspect of all this which is something I am actually quite thankful for.

Carmel

So you're saying it's *not true* that you dropped Mike like a hot potato when he refused to join in your natter about Scotter & Feral. It has to be that because I know first hand that Mike is not lying about anything else in his post.

So are you trying to tell us that you weren't bitching & moaning about Feral & Scooter, cause I think thats now beyond any hope of refuting, or are you telling us that ..... what? What exacly is Mike lying about Carmel?
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
I don't think anybody who posts on Facebook can expect their communication to be held confidential.

I also can't imagine Zinj or Alanzo are posting about Scientological or ESMB issues on FB because they don't want anyone to know what they think. When did they not want everyone to know what they think?

I think you missed the point of my post that Uniquemand was responding to.

The matter of privacy that I was commenting upon was NOT about "what we/they think" but rather about the personal details -- photos of family activities, current address, work history, personal likes and dislikes, etc. -- that many, perhaps most, people publish on their Facebook pages.

Users of Facebook have various levels of "security" to protect their personal information, and the option to hide their personal information from the general public. I would guess most people share it only with their "friends" although many also share with "friends of friends" in order to expand their connections.

When you sign up to become "friends" with someone in order to participate in their "discussion group," any of your personal info on your page that is open to view by your "friends" will be available to the owner of the discussion group.

Afaik there is no commitment, amongst members of Facebook, to respect or protect others' privacy. So, in my opinion, signing on as someone's "friend" on Facebook in order to join their "discussion group" carries with it considerably more privacy risks than signing on as a member of a forum such as this.
 

LongTimeGone

Silver Meritorious Patron
Mike,

I could refute the BS here on this thread, including what you have now posted about me, but after this last week when I dropped back in and posted for a bit, it became clear that ESMB wasn’t a platform for *me* in order to do that.
<snip>
Carmel

Oh thank God for that - Hopefully this means I won't have to read any more of this nitpicking tripe.

LTG
 
... Cyber relationships are all about mental activity. Reading is mental. You might touch someone emotionally with your story, but the MEDIUM of contact is mental, and so relationships tend to be mostly mental. ...

The same is true with regard to other relationships, and indeed the 'fact' of existence. What you regard as 'you' relates to the 'universe' mentally. All experiences are mediated through the mind, including the illusion of 'physical reality'.

A primary distinction is the 'degree of separation', as in the point you make here where a 'cyberfriend' is distinctly different from a personal friend. Hubbard's old idea of 'communication on a via' is vary applicable in this regard. In this, 'minds' are generally 'mechanisms of communication'. That which is communicated and that which is communicated to being distinguished by 'degree of separation' (another view on 'affinity'). Of course 'reality' is seen to be present in terms of the context which the mind(s) hold and which facilitates communication, either internal to a single mind or between minds.


Mark A. Baker
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
. . . <snip> . . . Consider this. Zinj made over 17,000 posts on ESMB. If each post represents an average of 10 minutes (logging on, reading postings, writing, etc ... some of his posts are short, others are long and detailed), this represents some 3,000 man hours or the equivalent of a full time job for 2 years. If he spent the equivalent time working in Starbucks as a barista, he might have made $40-50,000 dollars! . . . <snip> . . .

Starbucks pays $16.67 per hour?
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
We opened a Starbucks to run near a Pizza Hut inside the large atrium of the hotel. The only applicants were of high school age. So I don't think they paid that much. :no:
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
Carmel, I like you but you need to start being specific in your replies on this thread. Calling someone a liar does not make them one.
 

scooter

Gold Meritorious Patron
Mike,

I could refute the BS here on this thread, including what you have now posted about me, but after this last week when I dropped back in and posted for a bit, it became clear that ESMB wasn’t a platform for *me* in order to do that.

I will say this though…………..

Until today, I wasn’t actually sure where you were at or what you were up to, but with your lies in this post (and I use the word “lies” to differentiate from simply that of a different *perspective*), you now have confirmed to *me* that you do indeed have a hidden agenda (not that I know exactly *what* that agenda is).

I don’t particularly like being in a position of having to speculate and/or having doubts about what I can only *perceive* to be true from the data available, so I suppose that’s at least one consolation with your post here and an aspect of all this which is something I am actually quite thankful for.

Carmel

After Mike say:

can't speak for anyone else, but can speak for why Carmel is upset with me. I backed off from our friendship. I did this for three reasons, and will prefix with the statement Carm was going through a rough spot when this happened, which was after the enquiry. She started trash talking her friends, many of whom were friends of mine, and I felt she wanted me to take sides which I refused to do.

She asked me for some discreet information, which I gave her, and later was asked about by two other people who said Carm told them. This was not malicious, not OSAish, but not what Carm and I agreed upon. When I called her she first said she didn't tell them, then corrected herself and explained why she had to do it. I think it helped her feel relevant and current.

I am a pretty private person, and I felt like she was crossing the line in giving me too much private information about people and why I should or shouldn't get close to them. Made me uncomfortable, if she said that about others, what would she say about me?

Carm is a driven, passionate and high powered woman, when she gets on a roll she becomes a phenomenon, a juggernaught.

My weakening or withdrawn friendship with Carm made me OSA.

Reading many posts between Carm and her other now ex friends, it seems Carm is being left out of current un published actions against the church in OZ. Carm is really upset because she may have been THE driving force behind the enquiry, now the game is moving forward and she is not in the middle, which validly would be upsetting to her. If Carm reads this, and if she were to ask my advice, it would be to stop all this noise in public, visit your old mates, talk to them in private, make your peace in private. Or, go start a new game that challenges her passion and power.


Now, what part of this is untrue per you, Carmel?

What Mike says makes a lot of sense to me given what I've been discovering about you and your backlines campaigns of late.

And you've gone from "Mike Laws is OSAOSAOSA" to "Mike Laws is BIA" very quickly indeed. Like, overnight, since it was finally revealed that the source for all that nuttiness was indeed the VP of the cult.

In fact, when BIA first began posting, you privately told me BIA was either me, Feral or Stably Exterior. And demanded that I/them stop posting what I/they were posting. I suggested you PM BIA and guess what? You didn't, did you? Not per BIA. Why was that?

I think Mike's comments about you resentful of being left out of the loop are spot-on, given what I've seen since. Even tho' you were the one who "retired" from it all.

But to be part of "outing" another critic is the part that I just can't stomach. Even if it's incorrect that Mike is BIA, it's still a very low act.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Wow!!! Whattathread! I just got finished reading the whole thing and that's a couple of hours I'll never get back!

Some of the comments that caught my eye include;
None of this really matters ...

OSA are just people that happen to think we are SP's.

They have no effect whatsoever on what we do (unless we allow it) and I couldn't give a toss who is or who isn't OSA.
:happydance:
Yep, besides which, if you think they're OSA, they probably ain't. OSA Ops are supposed to be much better at hiding their OSAness.
IMO, OSA are much more Effect of us than we'll ever be of them.
Mike re-introduced himself to me ages ago as we knew each other from his days in CLO ANZO when I was downstairs in Sydney org. We'd had a bit to do with each other then as his post brought him down to the academy to survey students.

He also knew Panda quite well from their mutual experiences in the cult and those two had kept in touch up until a few years back if my recall is correct. Mike has never made any secret of his friendship for Marty and it's never been a problem to me - Mike doesn't neccessarily share Rathbun's worldview any more than I may share Panda's or Feral's or Emma's. Or TAJ's or Alanzo's for that matter.

Mike is my friend. I don't expect to see eye-to-eye with him on everything.

I've worked on projects with Mike and we've kept each other informed of what's been happening in our respective circles - tentatively at first as we didn't fully trust each other. I now trust Mike fully.

He's not done anything to give me pause that he may be anything other than he says - just anther ex trying to recover from the toxic cult and trying to help others do the same.

I may well be completely misled.

But that's up to you to judge.
Yes, I've known Mike Laws for a while. I also knew and loved his Father, Mother and Sister. We knew each other in Sydney, I saw Mike briefly in LA just after his Mother had died. I twinned with his Father at Flag and on the Freewinds, Gunther was one of my favourite people in scientology. I wrote a little about this on the "Who Is Gunther Laws?" thread. I used to correspond with Mike a good while ago when he was doing other things and kept track of him over the years. We re-established our friendship at the time of the Gunther thread.

I trust Mike fully but anyone reading this should probably know that;

(a) I was once a Guardian Assistant Scientologists who conducted many successful operations on behalf of the GO in the mid-70s. These operations included infiltrating and dividing groups perceived as Enemies Of Scientology (see the OSA Operatives: How-to Guide).

(b) I have been accused of being a potential OSA-spai on Marty's Blog.

(c) I love Carmel like a sister, Feral and Scoots like brothers and Emma like an adopted child (yes, I'm that old!). I also like Zinj and Alanzo out of all proportion to any cause they've given me for doing so. Not only that but I talk to each and every one of them and can see and understand where they're coming from. I think I should at least get a nomination for OSAbot Extraordinaire per the Third Party datum!
I went back and read some of Mike Laws original posts and for record, I do not think Mike is OSA. No way.

I did infiltration work for OSA for many years. IMO, these are not the posts of someone working for OSA.

P
Ditto and Agreed!
Oh, dear. I just had a terrible thought.

What if the person who told me that BOB ADAMS, OSA, is the source of the rumours that Mike Laws is an OSA plant, was really an OSA plant??

Stay with me on this. So, this person knew I'd tell ESMB that BOB ADAMS, OSA, is the source and ESMB'ers, being naturally OSA-skeptical (although at the same time being OSA-BOTS) would decide not to believe BOB ADAMS, OSA that Mike Laws is an OSA plant, THEREBY enabling Mike Laws, OSA PLANT, to embed himself even further into ESMB!!
GO Maxim re Divisive Rumors: Plant it and it will grow.
Had a very friendly conversation with Mike. We got on well.

FWIW I think he's one of the good guys and despite Emma's
latest pronouncement one of the few here who is not OSA. :)
See what I mean, it's probably me! :dieslaughing:
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
The most ironic thing that happened to me was when I commented on something Alanzo wrote on Facebook, only to have my comments deleted, then the whole thread (including everyone elses comments) was deleted, and then he unfriended me so I can't read him at all.

The irony in that was so thick I found it hard to breath for a few minutes :)

:dieslaughing: :dieslaughing: :dieslaughing:

I hope you have real flesh-and-blood people around you to help you keep your sense of humor about all this. :thumbsup:
 
Had a very friendly conversation with Mike. We got on well.

FWIW I think he's one of the good guys and despite Emma's
latest pronouncement one of the few here who is not OSA. :)

Yes, and you feel the same way about Marty Rathbun. :eyeroll:

Admit it Terril, you like EVERYONE! :yes:

You basically lack any discernment or judgement about people. According to you they are all wonderful. This MIGHT be 'spun' as a good trait for an auditor. Outside of a session it is a decidedly questionable personality characteristic. :whistling:


Mark A. Baker
 
G

Gottabrain

Guest
Carm,
You are indeed a mover and shaker. So is Emma, so are Paul and Kevin.

When AOLA and AOSH moved to Big Blue, there were 4 Chief Chefs. They all wanted to be in charge of everything, none would give an inch or work for the others. Three quit, blew the SO entirely, and the food was horrible or at best mediocre for years afterward and the kitchen always horribly undermanned with good staff. It never recovered.

Personally, I'd like to see each of you leaders lead a different project and never want to lose any of you. There is too much to do.

And Carmel, one of our protestors has a very big project she would like to work with you on if you have the time and inclination. It's huge, it's exciting. If you're interested, let me know and I'll get you hooked up. Otherwise, I'm going to ask Kevin or someone else. But she specifically wanted to work with you and has already gotten a great deal of work and homework done.

What do you say?

I am SO not getting in the middle of this...

Love,
Sheila
 

Carmel

Crusader
<snip - quote from Mike Law's post>
Now, what part of this is untrue per you, Carmel?

What Mike says makes a lot of sense to me given what I've been discovering about you and your backlines campaigns of late.

And you've gone from "Mike Laws is OSAOSAOSA" to "Mike Laws is BIA" very quickly indeed. Like, overnight, since it was finally revealed that the source for all that nuttiness was indeed the VP of the cult.
Scooter,

I've haven't gone from "Mike Laws" is OSA to "Mike Laws is BIA".

Firstly, there's a difference between preceiving someone as "OSA" and perceiving that they were running an OSA type "op". I have perceived the *latter* and said so, but have been unsure as to what camp Mike is in, and as to why he's been doing what he's doing.

Secondly, I have never thought, nor said privately, nor publicly that Mike Laws was BIA. Nor have I said that I even suspected it, to *anyone*.........Yet here is Mike Laws posting it as fact, and here is you (among many I'm sure) believing it and promoting it.

In fact, when BIA first began posting, you privately told me BIA was either me, Feral or Stably Exterior. And demanded that I/them stop posting what I/they were posting. I suggested you PM BIA and guess what? You didn't, did you? Not per BIA. Why was that?
The following is the only thing I've said to you regarding BIA (I pm'd you after I was somewhat perturbed by a comment you made to me on one of BIA's threads) :

Carmel said:
Hey Scoots,

I don't know whether BIA is you, Kevin, Dean or who, but my concern is that this will put OSA into an absolute frenzy and be sec checking the fuck out of their entire crew......As in label the lot, and put them all on beans and rice and worse hours and conditions, till the culprit is found. Hence my comment to steer them off that...........They are renowned for wrong targeting, and I'm concerned that it'll make things worse rather than better for the existing crew.

My 2 cents.

Cheers,
Carmel
So yeah, you did respond to that pm with a suggestion that I pm BIA (I can post it if you like), but I didn't *tell* you who BIA was nor *demand* anything of you. If you perceive it that way *now*, now that you've "been discovering all about me and my back channel campaigns" (much like you had "discovered" what I was supposed to have thought or said about BIA, I'd presume), then there's not much I can do about that.
 

Realitywilltell

Patron with Honors
...

Admit it Terril, you like EVERYONE! :yes:

...

Mark A. Baker


Actually I might be the one of the few people Terril does not like (along with Alert and others on OCMB) as I am one of the people who heavily countered his FZ advertising on OCMB for a few years in which my modus operandi involved pictures, animations and, advertising copy (I have a couple relatives in the advertising industry and learned the concepts from them)! :D

He always complained I was doing the cos's work but the truth is 95% of my pics & animations even at that time were j&d of the cult only and actually didn't like doing ones about Terril & FZ but felt they were necessary for what I saw as his vulture type ads on an opinions & debate forum where there were people trying to recover from the cult. And little work I did to counter his ads were never solely on the FZ and/or but also never put Hubbard and the tech in a good light also so I never saw myself as doing the cult any favors either.

As soon as he stopped (when Andreas asked him to do so, I stopped) but any reprisals of it there were immediately countered.

Here I know is different and there is a freezone section so that would not happen here (unless Emma asked & I doubt she would). :)

So no, I do not believe that Terril likes everyone! :coolwink:

Sorry for the little derail, I just had to chime in on that one Mark.

P.S. Don't worry Terril I'd never put those up here. :)
 
Last edited:

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
(sigh) Zinj has also asked me to post some of the messages he's posted to FB. I said I would because they've been discussed here. I know he'll read this so let me be clear. This is the LAST Time I'm doing this. I'm doing it because you requested it and no other reason. But I won't do it again.

Joe Lynn February 10 at 5:29am
I'm still waiting for Marty Rathbun to tell me who I 'really am' :) But, as far as ESMB goes, the iffy part is that the real witch hunt is being run from the backchannels by the people controlling the board. It's beyond me what the attacks on Carmello and Dex are supposed to accomplish, beyond distracting suspicion from Mike L. Pretty obvious and deliberate Dev-T :) But, can you imagine such vaporous 'financial crimes' charges being allowed against anyone *not* in the crosshairs of Emma and crew? I mean, the charges aren't even against Dex himself, but, guilt by association, 2nd hand guilt based on nothing but allegations. Weird, unless it's deliberate.

And, why is the 'source' of the DA on Mike Laws even important? I've seen it and, whether OSA derived or not, it's just not a big deal. In fact, the most 'incriminating' charges are things Mike Laws has himself *confirmed*.

I have to admit, the *fact* that Mike Laws is still in 'good standing' with the 'Church', attends events and claims that he's even a VIP whom Miscavige can't touch because of his money and connections is something Mike Laws revealed himself years ago, when he was posting to ESK. Does that mean he's OSA? Well, yes, I suppose it does :) Unless you subscribe to the fantasy that he could be the major financer of Marty Rathbun's Road Show and Traveling Circus without 'Church' approval while still being 'in good standing'. :)

I'm afraid that's a chasm I just can't leap. But, it's still no reason he couldn't post to ESMB. We've had similar Ops run before without causing disruption to the normal ebb and flow of the board. Who *cares* if OSA posts? For us OSA Watchers, it's a wonderful gift.

What makes *this* Op unique is the collaboration of the board owner and her cadre of willing dupes, sychophants and dogpiles and the quite transparent attempt to 'control' discussion to 'acceptable' subjects. Anything but the actual problem. :)

So, sorry for the rant, but, since I can't post this to ESMB you unfortunates get to hear it :)

Whew, and thanks.

and...

Joe Lynn February 7 at 3:55pm
Future ESMB Trends

So, finally, and after months of low level grumbling and thumping in the dark and a month of purges and spin, ESMB still exists. It's not what it once was, and, that's OK. Forums evolve; sometimes they're deliberately altered. In the grand scheme of things, it's small potatoes and barely worthy of mention.

But, in the meantime it's become almost dogma that 'ESMB Is Emma's Home', and, there's some truth to that. At the very least, it's 'her' forum and over 4 years it's survived and thrived thanks to her care and investment. So, ESMB *is* 'hers', in at least a couple of senses. But, it's not *only* hers.

Yes, Emma owns the servers and software and it's her management that's allowed ESMB to exist. But, with the servers and software and management *alone*, ESMB would not be ESMB. What's made it a unique forum and a valuable place has been the contributions of the participants. Without Emma, ESMB would not exist, and, it's even questionable whether *any* forum like it would have existed. But, that's a moot point. For 4 years ESMB has grown and moved and taught and revealed and been the site of spats and love and brilliance and stupidity, because of the *participants*.

But, thanks to *how* Emma chose to manage, ESMB was *allowed* to become what it became. Not thanks to planning, but thanks to a 'hands off' management that had as its sole purpose the facilitation of communication. Not 'some' communication. Not 'directed' communication, but anywhere it chose to go; within some very loose guidelines. No threats or promotion of violence; that was essential, and except for the usual OSA provocateurs, seldom an issue. No personal attacks or gang-bang dogpiling; and, for the most part that was achieved, not because ESMBers were immune to the usual faults of public internet forums, but because *Emma* was the sole arbiter and her arbitration was even handed; to the point where Emma herself was more constrained than the ESMB participants. Constrained to hold her *own* tongue, rather than speak her mind and give rise to charges of impropriety and bias in her management. Not that those charges didn't come anyway. Any side or faction was free to see anything less than 100% Agreement with *its* side as 'bias'. It's the nature of the beast, but, ESMB survived thanks to the group sanity of ESMB, and thanks to Emma's own restraint.

Other forums operate and operated other ways. In almost all cases, the forum is 'run' by a back-channel 'cabal' of 'insiders'; sometimes a number of them. Sometimes *competing* factions, with 'back-channel' spats breaking out onto the main forum and creating civil war. ESMB was spared that because the only 'back-channel' was Emma, and the only 'herding' going on was the minimal (and I'm sure overwhelming at times to her) moderation necessary to *allow* communication. It's a unique (to my knowledge) way to run a Forum, and, it's why I was a participant for 4 years.

And, without all the other hundreds of participants, and even the lurkers ESMB would not have been ESMB. So, thank you Emma and thank you ESMBers; you done good.

And now, unfortunately, that stage of the evolution is done. The 'why' is unimportant here, but, ESMB has moved on to being an 'asset'. A 'herded' platform with a Party Line. A more or less typical internet forum run from behind by 'special' people who have an agenda and a certainty that they can *use* ESMB for 'good'. A perfectly normal and even potentially valuable exercise, but, it's not the ESMB that Was.

And, the symptoms are startling; purges and 'investigations', even *beyond* ESMB itself. Enemy lists and lies; spin and attacks. Demands for 'knowledge reports' and breaches of confidentiality. I've seen it all before, and, so have you.

No, ESMB may be Emma's 'home', but, it's not mine any more. Under other circumstances I would probably continue to post, and, if ESMB adopts the 'prior restraint' model of control and moderation a'la MartyWorld, I probably will. After all; if I can post to MartyWorld, why couldn't I post to MartyWorld Lite? 'Certain' questions would not be allowed; 'certain' thoughts could not be expressed. There will never be a *list* of 'forbidden subjects' because that list itself would give rise to 'thoughtcrime'. Oh well. It's a moot point.

I've seen it happen before, and, I should probbly be surprised that it didn't happen before on ESMB. The fact remains though that, once it *has* happened, there is no going back. The trust is shattered; the freedom squelched. Much as I'd love to see a miraculous recovery, I'm realisitic enough to know it's not only highly unlikely but practically impossible.

But, in the meantime, ESMB *remains* a valuable asset, because it's the repository of 4 years worth of stories, thoughts and revelations by *hundreds* (if not thousands) of people. And, ESMB may be Emma's 'home', but she does *not* own those thousands of posts. You know, the ones that show up on almost *any* search for 'scientology' and almost any other term. The ones that answer questions from *beyond* ESMB.

Emma is at *most* the custodian of that 4 years of history; not the owner. She has a human and essential *duty* to preserve them, and preserve them as written. If she can't or won't, then she has a duty to pass that historical archive on to someone who will.

Thank you Emma and ESMB; it was a good run.

Zinj


p.s I have the conversation saved where zinj asked me to do this and if needed I can publish.
Dunno what good this will do but there ya have it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top