There's no doubt in my mind that LRH was wrong on the "third Party law". I had no doubt on that when I was a Scio either. I didn't and don't believe that all conflicts are a result of "third party", and the concept that a person stirring up trouble had to be in the ears of both who were in conflict, is just stupid, IMO.
However, I also believe that it is stupid to negate the fact that a third party (English definition) can often cause enormous conflict between two other parties, with anything from a simple lie through to a covert manipulation in order to deceive and divide.
Carm,
No-one is negating the observation that such a thing can happen. What has been said on this thread, at least, is that this explanation is the least likely of most explanations.
Let me try an example of where I am coming from on this - something that does not involve Scientology or people here.
I am driving my car on a lonely highway and it suddenly dies on me. It is a dangerous highway.
What are the troubleshooting possibilities?
1) the car ran out of petrol
2) the electrical system malfunctioned
3) an engine mechanical malfunction
4) the petrol is bad
5) someone put sugar in the petrol
6) someone has a special weapon to disable cars remotely and used it
One starts troubleshooting the problem - is there gas? If no then its a question of trudging to the petrol station, if there is petrol then one checks to see if there is electrical power, if there is then one starts getting more granular (and if you are me it then becomes a question of calling for roadside assistance cos thats as far as my skills go.. LOL) and so on.
So - OK let's add some more stuff into the equation. Let's say I have been very active in organizing protests against a huge international corporation, I have been instrumental in actually threatening their well being and I am on my way to an important meeting with someone who can inflict even more damage on the target.
Does this change the order of troubleshooting?
The answer, logically, is no. But emotionally - maybe.
Carm - I do not doubt that OSA would love to have critics brawling and fighting each other. What I really doubt is their ability to make that happen at their discretion. The very policies and theories they base their actions on are twaddle. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while but just because they have intimated or bullied does not make them any sort of a force.
Critics fight - if we were not the type of people who like to pontificate in public and be strong in our belief that our opinions are correct WE WOULD NOT BE HERE. It is the natural order of things for us to debate and to fight and to misunderstand each other on occasion. It is only in totalitarian groups like Scientology that people agree with each other all the time and speak lavishly of 'dear leader"
You, Ems, Feral, Scooter, Panda, Cherished and all the others there are strong (and dare I say it - opinionated) Antipodeans. More power to ya all I say - now will all of ya just get together and get totally pissed and falling down drunk, shout at each other, argue, maybe swing a punch and finally get over it all?