Fluffy, this is how you have gained your "reputation" on message boards critical to Scientology.
For not liking the Amazing Randi?
You have the unmitigated gall
It's a public forum. I'm posting posts in a public forum. I realize that's just a terrible thing to do on debate forums, but oh well, that's just how I roll.
to try foist upon people the idea that James Randi, a debunker, was a bigger liar than L. Ron Hubbard,
Actually, I did not compare the two people.
But, as it happens, I disdain the Amazing Randi. And you know what? It's my opinion, I've a right to it, and that's final. Others can approve of him all they want. But nobody's going to tell me what to think.
who is generally viewed as perhaps the biggest/most destructive con man of the 20th Century.
You're welcome to your opinion. This is a forum where many sorts of opinions are aired daily. I've a right to my opinions, as well.
Your viewpoint, your reasoning is so idiotic
I wonder if it's as idiotic as saying that someone is a mortgage processor (when they're not and never have been), that others are telling them what to say and think (also not true) and that only people who start their own companies can be businesspersons.
it is actually obscene to the real victims of Scientology. This is why you receive the vitriolic responses you do (which you love whinge about).
Well, you seem to be enjoying yourself with such things. And, really, isn't that all that matters? I'm very glad you're having fun!
You know what? I don't think anyone has any business being vitriolic just because someone else has different opinions than they. But if they did- well, they'd have to recount and summarize that person's opinions accurately instead of misrepresenting them.
So is it obscene to the real victims of Scn when I send a critic who's down on his or her luck some money? I've done that. Is it obscene to the real victims of Scn when I suggest that people who are leaving CofS take a break from all things philosophical and that family is the most important thing? Is it obscene when I offer to put people in touch with others and to help people who are getting out of the SO? Both John and I have said we'd help. Is it obscene to the real victims of Scn when I say that Hubbard hurt a lot of people and set the stage for what DM is doing now?
Wow.
Once in a while, mildly stating that Hubbards claims were "exaggerated" does not make you a critic, Fluffy.
Never said it did.
A critic is one who criticizes.
I've criticized Cofs many many times. I've been scathing in my denunciations of OSA, the RPF, disconnection, the "loans" they arrange, the fact they talk people into cashing in IRAs, selling their homes, getting into debt, the enforced/coerced abortions in the SO. I told my own story of when I was on staff, and I repeatedly said that as bad as that was, that others had that worse.
I said that Hubbard lied many times, was heard raving and utterly bugfuck crazy in his final months/years, I said that he was into the money, power, that he treated people like shit. That sound mild to you?
I've posted that on many forums. I've posted that here, OCMB and on a.r.s.
So I think your posts would come off a whole lot better if you would be a lot more accurate and a whole lot more observant of the rules of conduct and of netiquette when you post about other people. Instead of saying that people are mortgage processors and that others are telling them what to think and saying they aren't critics -despite the above (and I know darn well you've seen me post about every single one of those things.)- you would do your reputation and the boards on which you post a tremendous service. It would be better for everyone all way 'round.
Think about it.
On message boards filled with people who have had decades of their life ruined by LRH you, time after time, try to float the proposition that Hubbard was just "problematic" (wtf?!?!)
I have never, in all the echoing corridors of time, said he was "
just problematic". In that thread, I said that he was problematic. Not "just problematic". Problematic. I also said all the things listed above on many many other occasions. THOSE things amount to far more than saying someone was problematic. (I never said "just problematic". That would be false and it would be a whole different meaning.)
But you know what? Even if I thought he was god's gift to mankind and never did anything wrong (which is totally not what I think) it really wouldn't be anything for YOU to worry about. I will post whatever I like, whatever opinions I like. Luckily for you and those with oh so delicate sensibilities, I do, as it happens, discuss the way he treated others, his greed and his insanity. Which, obviously, is far more than saying he's "just problematic".
In closing, I invite you to rereview the rules of conduct for this board. I read them and I believe it says something about being polite.
Sign me,
Still not a mortgage processor in Seattle