Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
I used to be good friends with a girl who knew Charles Manson's ex cell mate. I think he did CCHs, mainly, with the guy.
Veda's post is right in line with what she told me.
Persistence of Freezone public?
- Thread starter Student of Trinity
- Start date
I used to be good friends with a girl who knew Charles Manson's ex cell mate. I think he did CCHs, mainly, with the guy.
Veda's post is right in line with what she told me.
G
Gottabrain
Guest
Ah, I don't deserve to be called Voltaire. I can only aspire to be his humble child. (aka Fluffy aka Claire)...
But, with all due respect, Gottabrain, this IS the Free Zone SECTION of the EXScn message board. Got it? Good.
Okay, Voltaire's Child. Carry on.
Mark Baker - You are rude, aggressive and use defensive communication in place of the real thing. Not a good example at all of "a winning FZer", all commonly despised personality traits of many C of S members.
Shut YOUR mouth, Mark, if you prefer silence to free speech. I live in a democracy. One where we speak freely and try to use manners.
On the other hand, Terril and Voltaire's Child are fine people as are many others in the FZ.
Smilla
Ordinary Human
There is no point. It's just an interesting snippet of history.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Thank you for your commendation.
Still, as Fluff has also, if possibly more gracefully, said ....
I've seen quite a few people here force-feed their beliefs down the throats of others. Most of the time, though, the posts weren't made by Free Zone or others interested in Scn ideology...just sayin'.
But why someone would go to the Free Zone section of the board then imply or state that he or she had been force fed is, truly, one of the fascinating phenomena of lifie.
Mark A. Baker
Smilla
Ordinary Human
I don't either really - as long as they are willing to be open and transparent to their clients.
At least one of the problems with 'The Freezone' and 'Independent Scientologists' is that they're attempting to control and limit the opposition to Scientology to *only* opposition to the 'Church' of Scientology, and, they're doing so by *lying* about the nature of Scientology itself.
At the very least this serves to dilute and weaken the kind of public and social opposition that has taken years to achieve. And, it's a deliberate lie; an acceptable truth. No, it's *not* only Miscavige and no, it's *not* just about Slappy slapping some people around. It's about 50 years of deliberate subversion, corruption and abuse. To deliberately attempt to hijack the terms of opposition for their own purposes is not only counter-productive in halting the abuse but deliberate sabotage.
Not to mention confusing for Media that's already confused by years of Scientology shenanigans and lies.
Zinj
At the very least this serves to dilute and weaken the kind of public and social opposition that has taken years to achieve. And, it's a deliberate lie; an acceptable truth. No, it's *not* only Miscavige and no, it's *not* just about Slappy slapping some people around. It's about 50 years of deliberate subversion, corruption and abuse. To deliberately attempt to hijack the terms of opposition for their own purposes is not only counter-productive in halting the abuse but deliberate sabotage.
Not to mention confusing for Media that's already confused by years of Scientology shenanigans and lies.
Zinj
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
That would be like saying that anyone who professes any ideology and discusses it from that context is lying when, in fact, they're just saying what they believe. Same with people who are incorrect on political views that they are airing, but are being earnest and candid.
Further, there are no "people in the Free Zone and Independent Scientologists". Everyone's an individual and says and does different things.
I wonder how things worked out with that wife you posted about who used to be in Scn, what sorts of things you said to her and if she knows about some of the rather strongly worded things you've said about Scientologists.
Further, there are no "people in the Free Zone and Independent Scientologists". Everyone's an individual and says and does different things.
I wonder how things worked out with that wife you posted about who used to be in Scn, what sorts of things you said to her and if she knows about some of the rather strongly worded things you've said about Scientologists.
I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing by bringing in my personal life, but, while I'm willing to grant that some of the 'Independent Scientologists' who are attempting to control the terms of opposition may actually *believe* the lies they're telling, many do not and are perfectly aware of the dishonesty of their position. However, in a further application of 'Scientology PR Tech' they grab to exactly the kind of deliberate lie called an 'acceptable truth' within *Scientology* (not the 'Church' of Scientology or Miscavology or whatever) and attempt to sell *that* 'truth' to media and others.
While people were risking their lives and careers and families and reputations to oppose Scientology, many of these people were still *in* Scientology, some as the point elements in selling lies and committing abuses. Now, as johnny-come-lately opponents of the 'Church' they're *still* attempting to sell lies.
I'm less irritated by them, to tell you the truth, than I am by those who promote the lies in full knowledge that they're lies because they see a *tactical* advantage in doing so. Scientology and the 'Church' of Scientology survive by lies. If either can survive without lies, then fine, but, nobody is well served by a continuation of deliberate dishonesty.
I have no intention of embracing the kind of winking bullshit being sold, no matter *who* is selling it.
Zinj
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Zinj,
You had posted about it. This is not from an email or some back channel or clandestine thing. I've been a tad bit mystified by it for quite some time, now, to be perfectly honest. But, if you'd rather, I won't bring it up again, even if you DON'T reciprocate. That's just the kind of good awesome nice chica I am.
People are individuals.
And disagreeing with a true believer does not make that true believer a liar, even if the person's some flat earther or whatnot.
You had posted about it. This is not from an email or some back channel or clandestine thing. I've been a tad bit mystified by it for quite some time, now, to be perfectly honest. But, if you'd rather, I won't bring it up again, even if you DON'T reciprocate. That's just the kind of good awesome nice chica I am.
People are individuals.
And disagreeing with a true believer does not make that true believer a liar, even if the person's some flat earther or whatnot.
And, some people operate in concert
A person who perpetuates an untruth knowingly is a liar. Even if he's doing it 'for the cause' or 'because it helps the cause' or 'for tactical reasons'.
A person who *deliberately* protects his own ignorance in order to be able to support a lie may not be at least *one* version of liar, but, it's not far off. Scientology's 'acceptable truth' is deliberate untruth.
Zinj
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
Try a different question — why can you? (It's a serious comment, not a joke or insult.)
I would guess that the confusion comes from the two words "(in)dependent" and "pendant" (hanging necklace-type object) being similar in meaning but having different spellings. And this similarity, uninspected, causes the mush-up. Kinda like the uninspected earlier-similar, but not exactly the same. Terril, as an experienced word-clearer, should appreciate this gem.
Paul
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
Yes, I have seen a number of people act "in concert" but I try not to hold that against them, of course.
And, no, if a person's a true believer, then he's not knowingly saying anything false.
Veda
Sponsor
"Real powers are developed by tight conspiracies," L. Ron Hubbard
Hit a nerve?
Hit a nerve?
Terril park
Sponsor
Try a different question — why can you? (It's a serious comment, not a joke or insult.)
I would guess that the confusion comes from the two words "(in)dependent" and "pendant" (hanging necklace-type object) being similar in meaning but having different spellings. And this similarity, uninspected, causes the mush-up. Kinda like the uninspected earlier-similar, but not exactly the same. Terril, as an experienced word-clearer, should appreciate this gem.
Paul
English has the world's largest vocabulary and I believe the most exceptions re spelling. And the yanks decided to interfere and confuse matters.
In a course room I'm severely[ sort of] KSW with a battery of dictionaries
from baby to " World Book" and squirrel my way around with good results.
While posting from the keyboard I can't be bothered to consult the panopoly of dicts and play it by ear.
LRH commented on OT 2 materials that in the future word meanings may change and one has to use the def that gives most TA.
I'm furthering that wish with creative spelling. Create, no?
Sadly the spelling police have migrated from my FZ forums.
I stand firm, asserting the rights of personal creation!!
What specific lies are these freezone individuals perpetuating? Generalities don't cut it. Specifics or GTFO.
Regards, Allen
AnonKat
Crusader
OT 2 is the sex stuff isn't it , Does he write good porn ?
Veda
Sponsor
Don't be silly.
Get some file cards. On one print: Aberration, on the other print Independent, and on the other print Miscavige.
Your promo will be much more effective if you spell these three words correctly.
And why not?
Smilla
Ordinary Human
One of the lies is that that Scientology is the road to freedom. It isn't, and never was. The history of the subject gives times, places, forms and events, supportive of my assertion.