What's new

Just Saying...

Roan

Patron with Honors
There are those who claim that he (James Randi) has refused to let impartial third parties hold the proof while people took the test. I personally think he's as big a liar as Hubbard ever was, if not more.
Fluffy, this is how you have gained your "reputation" on message boards critical to Scientology.

Using apparently moronic thought processes, you have the unmitigated gall to try foist upon people the idea that James Randi, a debunker, was a bigger liar than L. Ron Hubbard, who is generally viewed as perhaps the biggest/most destructive con man of the 20th Century. Your viewpoint, your reasoning is so idiotic 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).

Once in a while, mildly stating that Hubbards claims were "exaggerated" does not make you a critic, Fluffy.

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've said the same exact thing many many times. And you know what? I still, to this day just about, get claims that I think it's just the current regime that's effed up and that everything Ron did was fine.

So seems to me that people on this forum are judged not so much by what they write in every instance, but by what people WANT to see.

.
 

Mojo

Silver Meritorious Patron
Fluffy, this is how you have gained your "reputation" on message boards critical to Scientology.

You have the unmitigated gall to try foist upon people the idea that James Randi, a debunker, was a bigger liar than L. Ron Hubbard, who is generally viewed as perhaps the biggest/most destructive con man of the 20th Century. Your viewpoint, your reasoning is so idiotic 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).

Once in a while, mildly stating that Hubbards claims were "exaggerated" does not make you a critic, Fluffy.

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?!?!)



.

"deleted"

by Mojo
 
Last edited:

gomorrhan

Gold Meritorious Patron
Fluffy, this is how you have gained your "reputation" on message boards critical to Scientology.

Using apparently moronic thought processes, you have the unmitigated gall to try foist upon people the idea that James Randi, a debunker, was a bigger liar than L. Ron Hubbard, who is generally viewed as perhaps the biggest/most destructive con man of the 20th Century. Your viewpoint, your reasoning is so idiotic 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).

Once in a while, mildly stating that Hubbards claims were "exaggerated" does not make you a critic, Fluffy.

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?!?!)

.

That Hubbard was a jackass and a domineer isn't really in question. It is certain that he victimized many, many people for his own personal aggrandizement, and that the Church of Scientology, in his memory, continues to do so for the sole purpose of making money, making more money, and making others make more money for their coffers. In fact, that's official policy.

Fluffy's point, from my reading of her, is that she feels her experience of scientology benefited her, and that she has found ways to implement scientology that continue to benefit her and those that she relates to. I wouldn't advocate that people study scientology, knowing what I know now about it, but I'm glad I ran across the SUBJECT, myself, because I took a lot of valuable information away from it. It's a very different story concerning the ORGANIZATIONS, which I consider a pox upon the land.

I can't put words in Fluff's mouth, so hopefully she'll correct me if I mis-stated her position.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Fluffy, this is how you have gained your "reputation" on message boards critical to Scientology.

For not liking the Amazing Randi?

:goodluck: :hysterical:

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! :giggle:

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
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
That Hubbard was a jackass and a domineer isn't really in question. It is certain that he victimized many, many people for his own personal aggrandizement, and that the Church of Scientology, in his memory, continues to do so for the sole purpose of making money, making more money, and making others make more money for their coffers. In fact, that's official policy.

Fluffy's point, from my reading of her, is that she feels her experience of scientology benefited her, and that she has found ways to implement scientology that continue to benefit her and those that she relates to. I wouldn't advocate that people study scientology, knowing what I know now about it, but I'm glad I ran across the SUBJECT, myself, because I took a lot of valuable information away from it. It's a very different story concerning the ORGANIZATIONS, which I consider a pox upon the land.

I can't put words in Fluff's mouth, so hopefully she'll correct me if I mis-stated her position.

Nothing really to correct here. Not only do I think CofS only cares about the money (though there are some very nice staff there who DO care but ultimately, it's all overshadowed by the cult and ultimately this means they don't really get to help people even if they wish to do so.) I also think Hubbard did, as well.

I disdain the Amazing Randi but I'm also pretty scathing in my criticisms of not only DM, but also CofS and of Hubbard. I'm an equal opportunity gal.

I think there are some problems with the Scn philosophy and I've said so.

But some people cannot stand the fact that I publicly say I have any use for any of it and this sort of commentary keeps popping up from people who think that way, and that even though this is a debate forum with multiple sorts of viewpoints (and one which even has a Freezone and Independent section built on to it by the FORUM OWNER), they post this sort of thing repeatedly, from forum to forum.

I dislike being told what to think or believe or that I have no right to the creed I have, but what I dislike even more is having my opinions (and other things) repeatedly misrepresented then bapped in my face like a stinking wet towel that has been used to clean up after a very sick cat.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I also want to say that nowhere in the rules of conduct on this board or any of the others, have I seen a list of viewpoints people are allowed to have.
 

byte301

Crusader
Locking a 4 year old kid in a chain locker for 2 days is something elron did on the Apollo.

Having a 50 year old man push a peanut around the deck of the Apollo WITH HIS NOSE til it bled, while his wife, kids, and the rest of the crew watched was something elron did.

Having people pushed overboard with their hands tied and blindfolds on was something he also did on the Apollo.

He was just getting started.

If he hadn't been such a big chicken shit and decide to hide from the FBI and let his wife go to prison for him and then turn into a fucking doper he would have been at least as, and probably more, savage and obscene then Davey. He was one nasty son of a bitch. Depends on how one defines problematic, I guess.
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
Locking a 4 year old kid in a chain locker for 2 days is something elron did on the Apollo.

Having a 50 year old man push a peanut around the deck of the Apollo WITH HIS NOSE til it bled, while his wife, kids, and the rest of the crew watched was something elron did.

Having people pushed overboard with their hands tied and blindfolds on was something he also did on the Apollo.

He was just getting started.

If he hadn't been such a big chicken shit and decide to hide from the FBI and let his wife go to prison for him and then turn into a fucking doper he would have been at least as, and probably more, savage and obscene then Davey. He was one nasty son of a bitch. Depends on how one defines problematic, I guess.

Well stated byte. :thumbsup:
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Nothing really to correct here. Not only do I think CofS only cares about the money (though there are some very nice staff there who DO care but ultimately, it's all overshadowed by the cult and ultimately this means they don't really get to help people even if they wish to do so.) I also think Hubbard did, as well.

I disdain the Amazing Randi but I'm also pretty scathing in my criticisms of not only DM, but also CofS and of Hubbard. I'm an equal opportunity gal.

I think there are some problems with the Scn philosophy and I've said so.

But some people cannot stand the fact that I publicly say I have any use for any of it and this sort of commentary keeps popping up from people who think that way, and that even though this is a debate forum with multiple sorts of viewpoints (and one which even has a Freezone and Independent section built on to it by the FORUM OWNER), they post this sort of thing repeatedly, from forum to forum.

I dislike being told what to think or believe or that I have no right to the creed I have, but what I dislike even more is having my opinions (and other things) repeatedly misrepresented then bapped in my face like a stinking wet towel that has been used to clean up after a very sick cat.

Well said (and LOL at the end). :)
 

DartSmohen

Silver Meritorious Patron
Locking a 4 year old kid in a chain locker for 2 days is something elron did on the Apollo.

Having a 50 year old man push a peanut around the deck of the Apollo WITH HIS NOSE til it bled, while his wife, kids, and the rest of the crew watched was something elron did.

Having people pushed overboard with their hands tied and blindfolds on was something he also did on the Apollo.

He was just getting started.

If he hadn't been such a big chicken shit and decide to hide from the FBI and let his wife go to prison for him and then turn into a fucking doper he would have been at least as, and probably more, savage and obscene then Davey. He was one nasty son of a bitch. Depends on how one defines problematic, I guess.

Come now, don't sit on the fence, stop pulling your punches and really let it rip! :yes:
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Locking a 4 year old kid in a chain locker for 2 days is something elron did on the Apollo.

Having a 50 year old man push a peanut around the deck of the Apollo WITH HIS NOSE til it bled, while his wife, kids, and the rest of the crew watched was something elron did.

Having people pushed overboard with their hands tied and blindfolds on was something he also did on the Apollo.

He was just getting started.

If he hadn't been such a big chicken shit and decide to hide from the FBI and let his wife go to prison for him and then turn into a fucking doper he would have been at least as, and probably more, savage and obscene then Davey. He was one nasty son of a bitch. Depends on how one defines problematic, I guess.

Well, I only used the term "problematic" in the one thread and I wasn't speaking of those things as you name above. I've called him far worse on other threads.

So I'm not down with having my use of the word "problematic" being lobbed at me as if that usage was, well....ummm... problematic.
 

byte301

Crusader
Well, I only used the term "problematic" in the one thread and I wasn't speaking of those things as you name above. I've called him far worse on other threads.

So I'm not down with having my use of the word "problematic" being lobbed at me as if that usage was, well....ummm... problematic.

Fair enough.
 

Pixie

Crusader
Yeah, I know. I wish I wasn't so goddamn theety wheety about this subject. :hysterical:


For sure, good one byte301, you wouldn't be human if you didn't feel this, either that or you'd be in denial. Evil scum doesn't even come close to what he was and the way he treated humans. Pity someone didn't have the balls to throw him overboard or lock him in a cupboard. :angry: Pity I couldn't slip back in time, I tell you what, I'd do it myself.
 

byte301

Crusader
For sure, good one byte301, you wouldn't be human if you didn't feel this, either that or you'd be in denial. Evil scum doesn't even come close to what he was and the way he treated humans. Pity someone didn't have the balls to throw him overboard or lock him in a cupboard. :angry: Pity I couldn't slip back in time, I tell you what, I'd do it myself.

Pixie,

If you ever find that time machine I want to go along with you! LOL Now that would be fun. Throw that bastard over the side and feed him to the sharks. I hear sharks really love blubber.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
For sure, good one byte301, you wouldn't be human if you didn't feel this, either that or you'd be in denial. Evil scum doesn't even come close to what he was and the way he treated humans. Pity someone didn't have the balls to throw him overboard or lock him in a cupboard. :angry: Pity I couldn't slip back in time, I tell you what, I'd do it myself.

It takes balls to be evil.

.
 

DartSmohen

Silver Meritorious Patron
Pixie, If you ever find that time machine I want to go along with you!  LOL  Now that would be fun.  Throw that bastard over the side and feed him to the sharks.  I hear sharks really love blubber.
How about dosing him with glycol and frozen alcohol and piutting him an electronic mountain trap, powered by an eternal battery (as in his video clip):hysterical:
 

Pixie

Crusader
Pixie,

If you ever find that time machine I want to go along with you! LOL Now that would be fun. Throw that bastard over the side and feed him to the sharks. I hear sharks really love blubber.

That would be too fast a death for him byte301, I could think of much slower ways which I couldn't possibly put into print here.. :coolwink:
 
Top