An Observation and a Beef

byte301

Crusader
A rhetorical post purely for form's sake:

Who is "We"? Who is "our"? Who is "us"?

"We think ...." "So do us a favor and ...." "... do the same for ESMB ...."

Those of US who believe Marty is a con artist. Does that answer your rhetorical question?
 

Ned Kelly

Patron
Well I understand your point but I do not necessarily agree with it.

I think that it is highly presumptuous of you to think or demand that anyone has an obligation to speak out. Yes, it may in fact be the ethical or moral thing to do, but that does not in my opinion mean that a person should be responsible for becoming a whistle blower.

Many of these people, after spending the majority of their life, committed to a cause, only to find out that they now can no longer support that cause, or can no longer support it in its current form, have decided to “end cycle” on it and just go away and start repairing themselves and building a normal life. Some have decided to take principles they have learned with them, some have abandoned any and all principles they learned while in altogether. Some have decided to appoint themselves as the new reformers.

Each ex is an individual and will make their own decision as to which path they wish to pursue and how they will pursue it.

We live in societies run under the principal of law. Part of that principal has to do with the presumption of innocence. It is up to the law to bring to justice those that they believe are involved in criminal activity and they also are responsible for proving their allegations before the accused can be found guilty of such behaviour.

So whether or not ex Int staff were complicit in any criminal activity, they would be very unwise to implicate themselves publicly in any such behaviour. If they feel responsible and remorseful for any crimes that they may have committed, then they should seek legal advice and in my opinion approach the authorities to deal with the matter. They should not, nor do they have any obligation to, participate in baring their crimes to the world through media outlets.

Do you honestly believe that because someone was at Int in a senior post, who may have been involved in criminal activity, has a duty or responsibility to go to the media, or a web site, and reveal those crimes?

As I said, taking some responsibility for ones actions may be the ethical or moral thing to do, but that is not the world we live in. I do not think that we live in a world where people are expected to confess their transgressions to the general public and ask for forgiveness. Maybe I have it wrong, maybe the media is the new confessional.
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
Well I understand your point but I do not necessarily agree with it.

I think that it is highly presumptuous of you to think or demand that anyone has an obligation to speak out. Yes, it may in fact be the ethical or moral thing to do, but that does not in my opinion mean that a person should be responsible for becoming a whistle blower.

Many of these people, after spending the majority of their life, committed to a cause, only to find out that they now can no longer support that cause, or can no longer support it in its current form, have decided to “end cycle” on it and just go away and start repairing themselves and building a normal life. Some have decided to take principles they have learned with them, some have abandoned any and all principles they learned while in altogether. Some have decided to appoint themselves as the new reformers.

Each ex is an individual and will make their own decision as to which path they wish to pursue and how they will pursue it.

We live in societies run under the principal of law. Part of that principal has to do with the presumption of innocence. It is up to the law to bring to justice those that they believe are involved in criminal activity and they also are responsible for proving their allegations before the accused can be found guilty of such behaviour.

So whether or not ex Int staff were complicit in any criminal activity, they would be very unwise to implicate themselves publicly in any such behaviour. If they feel responsible and remorseful for any crimes that they may have committed, then they should seek legal advice and in my opinion approach the authorities to deal with the matter. They should not, nor do they have any obligation to, participate in baring their crimes to the world through media outlets.

Do you honestly believe that because someone was at Int in a senior post, who may have been involved in criminal activity, has a duty or responsibility to go to the media, or a web site, and reveal those crimes?

As I said, taking some responsibility for ones actions may be the ethical or moral thing to do, but that is not the world we live in. I do not think that we live in a world where people are expected to confess their transgressions to the general public and ask for forgiveness. Maybe I have it wrong, maybe the media is the new confessional.

Just out of curiosity: Who is this "you" who you are talking to? You didn't cite or quote anyone?

/me iz confuzed...

:questions:
 

bts2free

Patron with Honors
Thanks for all the great responses to this.

I'm not saying that these guys have to spill their guts about everything and possibly risk going to jail. But, there are many who should be speaking out who aren't. And I didn't say it had to be to the media. In fact, they can do so anonymously. I don't care. But, from what I can tell, not many anonymous people these days are speaking out about Int base events either.

I made an offer at OCMB and I'll make it here. If there are any ex-Int basers who want to tell their story, or give out vital info either here, or on OCMB due to membership restraints, I will post it for you. And if that person wants to remain anonymous, I can be trusted with keeping your identity fully secret.

I can be emailed at [email protected]

The difference between me asking these people to speak up, and someone else is that I worked with most of them and was there. Plus, there have been many others who worked at the base who laid their necks out on the line much earlier, and even now, by speaking out and exposing the truth. If you think my request is a bad thing, or even presumptuous, you have your opinion and I have mine.

Honestly, I think it would be great if the Independent Movement started their own message board like this one, or OCMB, instead of it being on one guy's blog. Open discussion would be great. People would have the option of posting their stories or not, and away from the "natter boards."

The last time I really started to dig around over at Marty's and was told that I was asking the RIGHT questions, I was told that it should be taken "back channels." So much for open discussions.
 
Thanks for all the great responses to this.

I'm not saying that these guys have to spill their guts about everything and possibly risk going to jail. But, there are many who should be speaking out who aren't. And I didn't say it had to be to the media. In fact, they can do so anonymously. I don't care. But, from what I can tell, not many anonymous people these days are speaking out about Int base events either.

I made an offer at OCMB and I'll make it here. If there are any ex-Int basers who want to tell their story, or give out vital info either here, or on OCMB due to membership restraints, I will post it for you. And if that person wants to remain anonymous, I can be trusted with keeping your identity fully secret.

I can be emailed at [email protected]

The difference between me asking these people to speak up, and someone else is that I worked with most of them and was there. Plus, there have been many others who worked at the base who laid their necks out on the line much earlier, and even now, by speaking out and exposing the truth. If you think my request is a bad thing, or even presumptuous, you have your opinion and I have mine.

Honestly, I think it would be great if the Independent Movement started their own message board like this one, or OCMB, instead of it being on one guy's blog. Open discussion would be great. People would have the option of posting their stories or not, and away from the "natter boards."

The last time I really started to dig around over at Marty's and was told that I was asking the RIGHT questions, I was told that it should be taken "back channels." So much for open discussions.

"back channels"?

Earlier I stated they were still waist deep in the mindfuck,

I stand corrected

They are still head deep in the mindfuck,

They are getting more and more like Batshit Crazy Bill Robertson Galactic Patrol every day.

Maybe Marty can get Virginia and Mike McClaughry to work Security for him,

And they can all take turns manned the telescope looking for Hubbard's spaceship to return
 

Ned Kelly

Patron
Thanks for all the great responses to this.

I'm not saying that these guys have to spill their guts about everything and possibly risk going to jail. But, there are many who should be speaking out who aren't. And I didn't say it had to be to the media. In fact, they can do so anonymously. I don't care. But, from what I can tell, not many anonymous people these days are speaking out about Int base events either.

I made an offer at OCMB and I'll make it here. If there are any ex-Int basers who want to tell their story, or give out vital info either here, or on OCMB due to membership restraints, I will post it for you. And if that person wants to remain anonymous, I can be trusted with keeping your identity fully secret.

I can be emailed at [email protected]

The difference between me asking these people to speak up, and someone else is that I worked with most of them and was there. Plus, there have been many others who worked at the base who laid their necks out on the line much earlier, and even now, by speaking out and exposing the truth. If you think my request is a bad thing, or even presumptuous, you have your opinion and I have mine.

Honestly, I think it would be great if the Independent Movement started their own message board like this one, or OCMB, instead of it being on one guy's blog. Open discussion would be great. People would have the option of posting their stories or not, and away from the "natter boards."

The last time I really started to dig around over at Marty's and was told that I was asking the RIGHT questions, I was told that it should be taken "back channels." So much for open discussions.

Why should many be speaking out?

That is my point. I know that you feel it is for the best, and I have no problem at with that. I even understand why you would like it to be that way. But my issue is with the whole “should” thing.

I don’t think that anyone “should” speak out. I do not think there is any obligation on a person to speak out. If they decide to speak out, then great and more power to them. If they decide not to, then that is their choice.

Yes you did not say it had to be to the media. But if I look out how things generally go down on chat boards (damn that SP trait of generalising) someone tells someone privately of specifics of activities or crimes that they may have observed or committed. The anonymous person’s tale is then re-written to protect the sources identity, and then posted on a board. Now intelligent and curious minds start discussions of particulars and pretty soon one has a fair idea of who the anonymous source is and it will be known to the whole world through the internet media.

For example, if I discussed even vaguely what my role was at Int, I would say within a matter of minutes someone, possibly even you, would know who I was. If any of the details as to the activities I was involved in were made public, even without revealing my position or name, anyone who had a clue would know exactly who I was.
 

dchoiceisalwaysrs

Gold Meritorious Patron
Why should many be speaking out?

That is my point. I know that you feel it is for the best, and I have no problem at with that. I even understand why you would like it to be that way. But my issue is with the whole “should” thing.

I don’t think that anyone “should” speak out. I do not think there is any obligation on a person to speak out. If they decide to speak out, then great and more power to them. If they decide not to, then that is their choice.

Yes you did not say it had to be to the media. But if I look out how things generally go down on chat boards (damn that SP trait of generalising) someone tells someone privately of specifics of activities or crimes that they may have observed or committed. The anonymous person’s tale is then re-written to protect the sources identity, and then posted on a board. Now intelligent and curious minds start discussions of particulars and pretty soon one has a fair idea of who the anonymous source is and it will be known to the whole world through the internet media.

For example, if I discussed even vaguely what my role was at Int, I would say within a matter of minutes someone, possibly even you, would know who I was. If any of the details as to the activities I was involved in were made public, even without revealing my position or name, anyone who had a clue would know exactly who I was.

Ned, I don't think anyone 'should' be a martyr.

But the concepts of 'we are all our brothers keepers' and '.. if good men do nothing...' lend credence to why more with 'core' scientology experience 'should' choose to continue to pull the curtain back.

Of course personal choice is key, and making those choices can involve many influences. In my case, the uncertainty that 'fair=oppressive game' might precipitate an early family death. That in and of itself speaks to the need for overwhelming corroboration of the destructive actions of this anti-human rights cult.
 

Ned Kelly

Patron
Ned, I don't think anyone 'should' be a martyr.

But the concepts of 'we are all our brothers keepers' and '.. if good men do nothing...' lend credence to why more with 'core' scientology experience 'should' choose to continue to pull the curtain back.

Of course personal choice is key, and making those choices can involve many influences. In my case, the uncertainty that 'fair=oppressive game' might precipitate an early family death. That in and of itself speaks to the need for overwhelming corroboration of the destructive actions of this anti-human rights cult.

Point well made and taken.

It would be great if many more did speak out, but as discussed it will depend on the circumstances and views of the individuals involved.

That someone is not speaking out, does not in my view make them evil or bad or whatever.
 

The Great Zorg

Gold Meritorious Patron
Cool

They have jump over the fence and escaped from the prison,
but still want to keep the prison uniform and shackles on as a security blanket,
hopefully someday they will be able to remove the prison uniform and shackles,
and fully experience freedom by learning to live on their own terms and not Hubbard's

Well said! :yes: :thumbsup:
 

bts2free

Patron with Honors
Point well made and taken.

It would be great if many more did speak out, but as discussed it will depend on the circumstances and views of the individuals involved.

That someone is not speaking out, does not in my view make them evil or bad or whatever.

Agreed Ned. I never said anything about these people being evil or bad. And I'm not even trying to enforce the idea that they "should" speak out, because you're right, it's a personal choice for each person and how they go about doing that. I can voice my opinion and what I would really like to see though.

I am going to point out the LACK of and no communication from certain people who probably really should be helping to lift the curtains and shed some light. And, I see no harm in asking for some of these people to step out and pipe up. Instead, seems like some of them are quite happy living it up in Shack land while allowing Marty and Mike to be the main spokes persons and representatives for their scene. I think it's pretty convenient actually, but that's just my own observation.
 

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
I can't emphasise enough how valuable the data is from ex Int base staff, and those who were involved in the secret side of scientology that the majority of scio staff and public didn't have access to.

I used to hang out (and still do) for posts from BFG, Mr Peacock, Little Bear Victor, Dart Smoen (and many more) - and you John! This info fills in the picture, gives the missing puzzle pieces and brings to light the hidden crimes that need to be exposed. It helps the rest of us make sense of the twisted concepts we had been living with, and I for one am very grateful for their courage.

I understand that for some ex Int staff the process of feeling safe enough to go public, including considerations of family safety, are vitally important. Sometimes this takes time. It also depends on whether that person actually can face talking about what they did, and what was done to them. There can be so much hidden guilt, confusion and thought stopping concepts that still need to be addressed.

I agree that parking halfway out with a severely moderated blog is still a step out, we can only pray that each individual involved realises it is only a step outside the walls - and there is still a way to go....!

Each time someone speaks out it HELPS A LOT OF PEOPLE.

Something worth remembering. :)
 

Truth&Honesty

Patron with Honors
*

My 2 cents......and that's all it's really worth.

Some people decompress at different rates.......some fast....some slow. No one can, or should, be pushed into something they feel uncomfortable about. It's really up to the individual, and is a matter of conscience. However, with that said, .......

Isn't the timing is right........to put aside our differences and start to build the quintessential historical record of what really happened?

If we continue to squabble, we waste valuable time. The opportunity will soon be lost forever to capture and record for future generations, actual first hand accounts of what really happened from those who lived it.



hourglass.jpg




If we don't build this historical account now.......then you can bet the dwarf's cult will spin the facts and attempt to revise history to reflect their own delusional version. They've already been doing it for the last 30 years.

Everyone can contribute their own stories, and if they are afraid of repercussions......they can (through trusted friends) remain anonymous, if they so choose.

It might be a good idea.....for at least 3 - 4 high ranking, well trusted, ex-SO executives to serve on the advisory committee, and to help oversee the coordination of submissions. And because through their extensive connections, they can verify what really happened should any conflicting stories be submitted.

Thoughts?
 
Well I understand your point but I do not necessarily agree with it.

I think that it is highly presumptuous of you to think or demand that anyone has an obligation to speak out. Yes, it may in fact be the ethical or moral thing to do, but that does not in my opinion mean that a person should be responsible for becoming a whistle blower.

Many of these people, after spending the majority of their life, committed to a cause, only to find out that they now can no longer support that cause, or can no longer support it in its current form, have decided to “end cycle” on it and just go away and start repairing themselves and building a normal life. Some have decided to take principles they have learned with them, some have abandoned any and all principles they learned while in altogether. Some have decided to appoint themselves as the new reformers.

Each ex is an individual and will make their own decision as to which path they wish to pursue and how they will pursue it.

We live in societies run under the principal of law. Part of that principal has to do with the presumption of innocence. It is up to the law to bring to justice those that they believe are involved in criminal activity and they also are responsible for proving their allegations before the accused can be found guilty of such behaviour.

So whether or not ex Int staff were complicit in any criminal activity, they would be very unwise to implicate themselves publicly in any such behaviour. If they feel responsible and remorseful for any crimes that they may have committed, then they should seek legal advice and in my opinion approach the authorities to deal with the matter. They should not, nor do they have any obligation to, participate in baring their crimes to the world through media outlets.

Do you honestly believe that because someone was at Int in a senior post, who may have been involved in criminal activity, has a duty or responsibility to go to the media, or a web site, and reveal those crimes?

As I said, taking some responsibility for ones actions may be the ethical or moral thing to do, but that is not the world we live in. I do not think that we live in a world where people are expected to confess their transgressions to the general public and ask for forgiveness. Maybe I have it wrong, maybe the media is the new confessional.


So whatever anyone has done to anyone, if the law does not catch them, all who know that they have done something should shut up. Is that it?
I don't think it's about stealing newspapers. Some people have been fucked over and it is presumptuous to tell them they should not demand that those who played a major part in that, spill their guts.
The problems about the legal issues that may be involved by doing so are the offenders problems, and that may cause them to remain tight lipped. It is presumptuous to ask victims to take this on as a problem to add to the ones they already have, even if they do feel inclined to think about it, as a result of being in the situation of having being screwed over.
 

Ned Kelly

Patron
[/SIZE]

So whatever anyone has done to anyone, if the law does not catch them, all who know that they have done something should shut up. Is that it?
I don't think it's about stealing newspapers. Some people have been fucked over and it is presumptuous to tell them they should not demand that those who played a major part in that, spill their guts.
The problems about the legal issues that may be involved by doing so are the offenders problems, and that may cause them to remain tight lipped. It is presumptuous to ask victims to take this on as a problem to add to the ones they already have, even if they do feel inclined to think about it, as a result of being in the situation of having being screwed over.

I never mentioned anything about what others know about someone. If they want to talk about what they know, then that is their affair. I don’t even care if they stand there demanding that those responsible should fess up and spill their guts.

But yes it is presumptuous to think that the other person will comply with the request to do so. As I said, it may be the moral or ethical thing to do, but it is their legal right in this society to not say a bloody thing if that is what they want to do.

The offender does not have any legal issues to worry about until it becomes a legal matter at which time, yes, it does become the offenders problem.

If someone has been screwed over, as I think a lot of us here have, and have “problems” with it, then unfortunately that is their problem. These are problems that us ex’s are all having to deal with and we deal with it in the way we feel is best. I certainly do not agree with all the ways different people deal with their problems but how they decide to deal with it and what they do is their choice – not mine.

Now as I am an ex SO member who held a number of posts at Int, I take it that I should be contrite and confess to you all my sins? If that is what you think I should do, then fuck off.:grouch:
 

anonomog

Gold Meritorious Patron
Now as I am an ex SO member who held a number of posts at Int, I take it that I should be contrite and confess to you all my sins? If that is what you think I should do, then fuck off.:grouch:

I don't think anyone should do the sack cloth and ashes thing and yes, its a personal choice. And I don't believe it is an easy one to make.

But I do think that if someone wants to hasten the end of the cult's slavery and abuses AND if they have knowledge of something which would have a large influence in dismantling the cult and ending the abuses, then I feel that individual should seriously consider how and when would be best to get the information out.
 
I never mentioned anything about what others know about someone. If they want to talk about what they know, then that is their affair. I don’t even care if they stand there demanding that those responsible should fess up and spill their guts.

But yes it is presumptuous to think that the other person will comply with the request to do so. As I said, it may be the moral or ethical thing to do, but it is their legal right in this society to not say a bloody thing if that is what they want to do.

The offender does not have any legal issues to worry about until it becomes a legal matter at which time, yes, it does become the offenders problem.

If someone has been screwed over, as I think a lot of us here have, and have “problems” with it, then unfortunately that is their problem. These are problems that us ex’s are all having to deal with and we deal with it in the way we feel is best. I certainly do not agree with all the ways different people deal with their problems but how they decide to deal with it and what they do is their choice – not mine.

Now as I am an ex SO member who held a number of posts at Int, I take it that I should be contrite and confess to you all my sins? If that is what you think I should do, then fuck off.:grouch:

About your last paragraph, no, I don't have any ideas that any ex SO, no matter what posts at what level, for how long etc, need to be contrite to anyone.

Nearly everything you wrote (quoted in this post) seems to be along the lines that I am thinking. On the issue of *what people have done* I am really only thinking about very serious cases of abuse of others.

In that context, I am not sure about this though:

"But yes it is presumptuous to think that the other person will comply with the request to do so. said, it may be the moral or ethical thing to do, but it isAs I their legal right in this society to not say a bloody thing if that is what they want to do."

If they have broken laws but are not legally liable in any way because of the statute of limitations or some other legal *out* then they are not obliged to say anything....but whether they should morally is a moot point. But if they are not covered by the statute of limitations I don't see that it is a legal right to conceal their crimes by denial, silence or any other means. If they are arrested, taken to court etc, AFAIK they have a legal right not to *out* themselves. That seems to be a matter of procedure for ensuring the law achieves certain things while the law is being applied.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just thinking things through as I write. To me it seems that you are saying that committing crime is sanctioned by law as long as you don't get caught. (I could be misinterpreting you.) Yes, in court people have a right to the law, even if they are guilty, but does the law say that criminals can be criminals as long as it's kept quiet? It may be that *in effect* or by default, but that could be accident, not design.
BTW I am not advocating witch hunts or *going after* people.

Next, it's a little bit off topic, but related, so......

To be honest, I think that as an ex, I am far softer on other exe who have done nasty things in scientology than I might be in other places. I get the feeling a lot of exes may be that way. That is another side to the whole thing which could take another thread, but it is not specifically mentioned much...the way ex power-weilders from the cult are *assessed and evaluated*, good examples being M&M whom some deem to be good guys or redeemed guys and others see one or both of them as criminals.
I don't really judge exes on whether they were SO or INT or whatever, although I wouldn't trust any ex full time OSA as far as a I could throw them, unless they do something to show I should rethink.
 

Ned Kelly

Patron
About your last paragraph, no, I don't have any ideas that any ex SO, no matter what posts at what level, for how long etc, need to be contrite to anyone.

Nearly everything you wrote (quoted in this post) seems to be along the lines that I am thinking. On the issue of *what people have done* I am really only thinking about very serious cases of abuse of others.

In that context, I am not sure about this though:

"But yes it is presumptuous to think that the other person will comply with the request to do so. said, it may be the moral or ethical thing to do, but it isAs I their legal right in this society to not say a bloody thing if that is what they want to do."

If they have broken laws but are not legally liable in any way because of the statute of limitations or some other legal *out* then they are not obliged to say anything....but whether they should morally is a moot point. But if they are not covered by the statute of limitations I don't see that it is a legal right to conceal their crimes by denial, silence or any other means. If they are arrested, taken to court etc, AFAIK they have a legal right not to *out* themselves. That seems to be a matter of procedure for ensuring the law achieves certain things while the law is being applied.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just thinking things through as I write. To me it seems that you are saying that committing crime is sanctioned by law as long as you don't get caught. (I could be misinterpreting you.) Yes, in court people have a right to the law, even if they are guilty, but does the law say that criminals can be criminals as long as it's kept quiet? It may be that *in effect* or by default, but that could be accident, not design.
BTW I am not advocating witch hunts or *going after* people.

Next, it's a little bit off topic, but related, so......

To be honest, I think that as an ex, I am far softer on other exe who have done nasty things in scientology than I might be in other places. I get the feeling a lot of exes may be that way. That is another side to the whole thing which could take another thread, but it is not specifically mentioned much...the way ex power-weilders from the cult are *assessed and evaluated*, good examples being M&M whom some deem to be good guys or redeemed guys and others see one or both of them as criminals.
I don't really judge exes on whether they were SO or INT or whatever, although I wouldn't trust any ex full time OSA as far as a I could throw them, unless they do something to show I should rethink.

I do see where you are coming from and why you might think that I am saying that a person who commits a crime is sanctioned by law as long as they don’t get caught. This is not what I am saying. I definitely am not sanctioning criminal activity.

That said, this is a very tricky situation. A person commits a crime. Until such a time as they have been judged guilty by law of having done such they are innocent. Therefore they have the rights and liberties of innocent people. If someone knows of someone who breaks the law, then they have the right to report the matter to the authorities. The authorities can then take action to apply due process and test the case, if they decide to pursue it, in the legal arena. The person will either be vindicated or they will be punished accordingly.

What I personally object to is trial by media – press, TV, newspapers, internet chat boards, blogs etc. There is no due process that needs to be followed and they invariably turn into witch hunts. This is not to say that I disagree with the reporting of facts, discussions or even people voicing their opinions. But I do not think that a person of interest should be forced, pressured or coerced into playing that game. To reveal matters publicly (either directly or as an anonymous source) of a personal nature, whether criminal or otherwise, is that persons personal choice. If they are aware of criminal activities, then if anything they should speak with the appropriate authorities.

Where an ex has first-hand knowledge of crimes committed by the CoS or people within the CoS then I believe that they should approach the correct authorities with the information and evidence to support the claim and let the authorities do their job.

Where an ex has been complicit in criminal activity that they still could be prosecuted for, I would advise them to get professional legal advice before saying anything to anyone.

Where an ex has been complicit in criminal activity, that they have already been prosecuted for or cannot be prosecuted for, then I would like them to speak out, but it is their decision.

Where a person does not have any first-hand knowledge about criminal activity but has story to tell, then it is their choice on whether or not they want to talk.

I hope this clarifies my position.
 
If anyone can do something or provide information which will help get a person out of slavery, as a human being they owe it to their fellow man.This is where Marty and his followers fail.

They will help as long as if helps Marty's cause. And then they will spend the rest of the day hyping it up and patting each other on the back for their PR victory.

They would just as soon see innocent people rotting their lives away in the RPF than to help them out if it would cause a PR flap for Scientology or a little personal inconvenience for themselves.

Nobody has to come out and say anything ... but it's the right thing to do.

And if you don't understand this, then why are you even here?

I believe this was the point of the Original Post.
 
Top