Balthasar said:Now what regards Paulette Cooper. Paulette Cooper is not whistle blowing. That is not the same. This was a heinous attack towards a group of people minding their own business.
Paulette Cooper meticulously planned and carried out her odious attack in a very unfair manner to say the least. Her mind was made up in advance. She was going to find what she wanted to find. Maybe she thought, that is what is going to sell well. After all, who would care about this Scientology cult being one of many back that days?
While we don't know what was going through her mind, it stands to reason to suspect that her motivations were money driven...
Paulette Cooper has heinously attacked Scientology and Hubbard in the first place. Paulette Cooper was not a "nice" person. Paulette Coopers motives were based on greed and hate. Paulette Cooper, while she later became a "victim", was the initial aggressor...
Bathazar said:What was all my fuss about it? Please let me try to explain.
It seems so far Paulette Cooper initiated the attacks on Scientology and Hubbard. Paulette Cooper fair gamed Scientology. That would Hubbard make a victim and Paulette Cooper the aggressor.
As I am defending Hubbard I will not take this lightly much less to let you off the hook.
You have 48 hours to come up with evidence that Paulette Cooper was NOT the initial aggressor otherwise you are toast.
I am sticking with everything I have said.>snip<
I am sticking with everything I have said.
Geir Isene: Scientology Fair Game & forced Disconnection. So what?
Geir Isene: Fair Game & forced Disconnection. So what?
http://isene.me/2014/05/08/fair-game-disconnection/
I am sticking with everything I have said. Although I admit, I have let Veda off the hook, after all. I started to like that guy.
--snipped--
What I did point out (and still willing to do) is that the CoS would have had every right to use any legal ways to fight back the attack of Paulette Cooper.
I maintain that Paulette Cooper was the initial aggressor and in my opinion this makes a difference.
Paulette Coopers journalism was unfair, superficial, damaging and very offending to anyone practicing Scientology at that time.
What we have here is an inverse timeline of events where the original attacker became a victim and the victim became the heinous lawbreaking attacker.
The CoS by doing so has, to great extent to say the least, lost any benefit of the argument that it was actually Paulette Cooper who initiated the attack.
If Paulette Cooper wouldn't have attacked CoS in the first place we wouldn't have this particular discussion now at all.
Still nobody could disprove my point that Paulette Cooper was the one who initiated the attack on Scientology.
My argument is still that Paulette Cooper did the fair gaming first.
If you have ever been on the receiving end of slander in form of a book, campaign or witch hunt or whatever, you might understand me better.
It is a stellar example of fair journalism and it does the job more than any unqualified, superficial slander could ever achieve.
I understand the ongoing upset my posts re Paulette Cooper. However, please note that I never said that I would condone the way CoS has handled that matter as it was criminal.
What I did point out (and still willing to do) is that the CoS would have had every right to use any legal ways to fight back the attack of Paulette Cooper. I pointed out that Paulette Cooper was NOT a Scientologist. She was NOT a victim of Scientology. I maintain that Paulette Cooper was the initial aggressor and in my opinion this makes a difference. It is different to fair gaming former Scientologists who, after they have been treated unfairly or witnessed such, spoke out.
How to conduct fair journalism is best demonstrated by John Sweeney and Tony Ortega. I went into this as well in my "In defense of Hubbard" thread. Paulette Coopers journalism was unfair, superficial, damaging and very offending to anyone practicing Scientology at that time.
What were her motives? I don't know, you tell me. I let everybody speculate himself what that could have been.
The problem is, of course which is a significant one, that time seems to have proven Paulette Cooper right. Even more so as she became subsequently a real victim of criminal acts perpetrated by CoS targeting Paulette Cooper completely and utterly out of proportion. Now that makes it difficult to see Paulette Cooper as anything else than a victim. Evidently she was a victim. Saying that she has been treated unfairly would be a gross understatement after all what she had to endure.
What we have here is an inverse timeline of events where the original attacker became a victim and the victim became the heinous lawbreaking attacker. The CoS by doing so has, to great extent to say the least, lost any benefit of the argument that it was actually Paulette Cooper who initiated the attack. If Paulette Cooper wouldn't have attacked CoS in the first place we wouldn't have this particular discussion now at all.
I try to be not too emotionally attached when doing my analysis on things. I merely pointed out who did what and when. I am exempting nobody, not CoS, not Exes, not myself. If I am incorrect in my thinking please be specific as possible.
Still nobody could disprove my point that Paulette Cooper was the one who initiated the attack on Scientology. My argument is still that Paulette Cooper did the fair gaming first. If you have ever been on the receiving end of slander in form of a book, campaign or witch hunt or whatever, you might understand me better. It's not something nice. Particularly not if you have invested a lives work in something. Critic is never nice but there are boundaries of fairness and respect regarding other peoples work, ambitions and strives. As I said, I like the way Tony Ortega does go about. It is a stellar example of fair journalism and it does the job more than any unqualified, superficial slander could ever achieve.
What above posters like HH and such are trying to do is to stir up feelings of people who have been hurt by Scientology by quoting me from another thread. That is fine, I am ok with that. I just wanted to have mentioned this too. That's not the "in defense of Hubbard thread" so don't expect me repeat, comment or defend my views on Paulette Cooper beyond what I have said above.
I still don't see how Paulette Cooper fair gamed or slandered Scientology or Hubbard. There is nothing in what Face, Dart, or anyone else who actually knew and worked with Hubbard have written to suggest that. Given that they have first hand information and as a group are amazingly consistent, I will believe their accounts before I accept the arguments of a true believer.
I maintain that Paulette Cooper was the initial aggressor
I understand the ongoing upset my posts re Paulette Cooper. However, please note that I never said that I would condone the way CoS has handled that matter as it was criminal.
What I did point out (and still willing to do) is that the CoS would have had every right to use any legal ways to fight back the attack of Paulette Cooper. I pointed out that Paulette Cooper was NOT a Scientologist. She was NOT a victim of Scientology. I maintain that Paulette Cooper was the initial aggressor and in my opinion this makes a difference. It is different to fair gaming former Scientologists who, after they have been treated unfairly or witnessed such, spoke out.
How to conduct fair journalism is best demonstrated by John Sweeney and Tony Ortega. I went into this as well in my "In defense of Hubbard" thread. Paulette Coopers journalism was unfair, superficial, damaging and very offending to anyone practicing Scientology at that time.
What were her motives? I don't know, you tell me. I let everybody speculate himself what that could have been.
The problem is, of course which is a significant one, that time seems to have proven Paulette Cooper right. Even more so as she became subsequently a real victim of criminal acts perpetrated by CoS targeting Paulette Cooper completely and utterly out of proportion. Now that makes it difficult to see Paulette Cooper as anything else than a victim. Evidently she was a victim. Saying that she has been treated unfairly would be a gross understatement after all what she had to endure.
What we have here is an inverse timeline of events where the original attacker became a victim and the victim became the heinous lawbreaking attacker. The CoS by doing so has, to great extent to say the least, lost any benefit of the argument that it was actually Paulette Cooper who initiated the attack. If Paulette Cooper wouldn't have attacked CoS in the first place we wouldn't have this particular discussion now at all.
I try to be not too emotionally attached when doing my analysis on things. I merely pointed out who did what and when. I am exempting nobody, not CoS, not Exes, not myself. If I am incorrect in my thinking please be specific as possible.
Still nobody could disprove my point that Paulette Cooper was the one who initiated the attack on Scientology. My argument is still that Paulette Cooper did the fair gaming first. If you have ever been on the receiving end of slander in form of a book, campaign or witch hunt or whatever, you might understand me better. It's not something nice. Particularly not if you have invested a lives work in something. Critic is never nice but there are boundaries of fairness and respect regarding other peoples work, ambitions and strives. As I said, I like the way Tony Ortega does go about. It is a stellar example of fair journalism and it does the job more than any unqualified, superficial slander could ever achieve.
What above posters like HH and such are trying to do is to stir up feelings of people who have been hurt by Scientology by quoting me from another thread. That is fine, I am ok with that. I just wanted to have mentioned this too. That's not the "in defense of Hubbard thread" so don't expect me repeat, comment or defend my views on Paulette Cooper beyond what I have said above.
:confused2:
Paulette had every right to "attack" the cult ... she was only using words not bullets or bombs. Ortega and John Sweeney use words too.
Go and have a lie down now Balthasar, you're starting to sound a bit confused.
Yes, and I'm not convinced that various Christian leaders wouldn't do it again if they still had the power, although of course one can hope that those belief systems have truly moved on from all that. Still, how many great people were persecuted because of their sexuality and ruined utterly because of Christian dogma? I guess, I'm thinking of Alan Turing mainly, but Oscar Wilde comes to mind also.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/bigread/bigread_wilde.shtml
Sure, there is freedom of speech so I let you have this one.
Whatever the case may be, my leisure time is over. I am going to get back to my biz after having taken off a few days. I be better concentrating on things taking more priority in my life at the moment. This board drains energy. I need to focus my mind, that's very important - get the mind in the right direction! Focus your mind - relax - concentrate on what you want to do - focus your mind......
Pleasure to talk to you though
You're unhappy with Christianity because it isn't perfect. Meanwhile, we have atheist systems, in the USSR, China, Cambodia, and elsewhere, being responsible for killing upwards of 100 million of their own period. And let's not forget that before Christianity came into power, the Roman Empire was fairly bloody-minded about those who would challenge their power, as the residents of Carthage would testify (had the Romans left any alive).
Humans are violent and crave power. The correct question is "Does a religion or philosophical system INCREASE or DECREASE the natural inclination towards seeking power and killing those who are perceived as threats or obstacles?"
I understand the ongoing upset my posts re Paulette Cooper. However, please note that I never said that I would condone the way CoS has handled that matter as it was criminal.
What I did point out (and still willing to do) is that the CoS would have had every right to use any legal ways to fight back the attack of Paulette Cooper. I pointed out that Paulette Cooper was NOT a Scientologist. She was NOT a victim of Scientology. I maintain that Paulette Cooper was the initial aggressor and in my opinion this makes a difference. It is different to fair gaming former Scientologists who, after they have been treated unfairly or witnessed such, spoke out.
How to conduct fair journalism is best demonstrated by John Sweeney and Tony Ortega. I went into this as well in my "In defense of Hubbard" thread. Paulette Coopers journalism was unfair, superficial, damaging and very offending to anyone practicing Scientology at that time.
What were her motives? I don't know, you tell me. I let everybody speculate himself what that could have been.
The problem is, of course which is a significant one, that time seems to have proven Paulette Cooper right. Even more so as she became subsequently a real victim of criminal acts perpetrated by CoS targeting Paulette Cooper completely and utterly out of proportion. Now that makes it difficult to see Paulette Cooper as anything else than a victim. Evidently she was a victim. Saying that she has been treated unfairly would be a gross understatement after all what she had to endure.
What we have here is an inverse timeline of events where the original attacker became a victim and the victim became the heinous lawbreaking attacker. The CoS by doing so has, to great extent to say the least, lost any benefit of the argument that it was actually Paulette Cooper who initiated the attack. If Paulette Cooper wouldn't have attacked CoS in the first place we wouldn't have this particular discussion now at all.
I try to be not too emotionally attached when doing my analysis on things. I merely pointed out who did what and when. I am exempting nobody, not CoS, not Exes, not myself. If I am incorrect in my thinking please be specific as possible.
Still nobody could disprove my point that Paulette Cooper was the one who initiated the attack on Scientology. My argument is still that Paulette Cooper did the fair gaming first. If you have ever been on the receiving end of slander in form of a book, campaign or witch hunt or whatever, you might understand me better. It's not something nice. Particularly not if you have invested a lives work in something. Critic is never nice but there are boundaries of fairness and respect regarding other peoples work, ambitions and strives. As I said, I like the way Tony Ortega does go about. It is a stellar example of fair journalism and it does the job more than any unqualified, superficial slander could ever achieve.
What above posters like HH and such are trying to do is to stir up feelings of people who have been hurt by Scientology by quoting me from another thread. That is fine, I am ok with that. I just wanted to have mentioned this too. That's not the "in defense of Hubbard thread" so don't expect me repeat, comment or defend my views on Paulette Cooper beyond what I have said above.
Believers in Ron's "tech" are having an absolutely horrid time trying to figure out what to do about Ron's Fair Gaming innocent people.
To be honest, believers in Ron's "tech" are having an absolutely horrid time trying to figure out all kinds of things. I doubt some of them know how to make toast.
You need to learn to multi-task Balthy (instead of ... "blowing" when it gets uncomfortable).
You're unhappy with Christianity because it isn't perfect. Meanwhile, we have atheist systems, in the USSR, China, Cambodia, and elsewhere, being responsible for killing upwards of 100 million of their own period. And let's not forget that before Christianity came into power, the Roman Empire was fairly bloody-minded about those who would challenge their power, as the residents of Carthage would testify (had the Romans left any alive).
Humans are violent and crave power. The correct question is "Does a religion or philosophical system INCREASE or DECREASE the natural inclination towards seeking power and killing those who are perceived as threats or obstacles?"