"Human Potential, self discovery outside and beyond Scientology"

[Voltaire's Child]

Well, here I am being accused of wanting to "deprogram Scientologists," for supporting...





?

It appears that Terril was answering your post with that accusation/assessment. I didn't see any trepidation or dismay expressed or implied about the existence of this particular sub forum.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Great. Difference is when he talks it's from a perspective on his interests. When someone else puts up a thread (case in point: Veda), it's "deprograming".

Actually, the sub category was created by Emma and this thread was created by me, not by Veda.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I have a suggestion to fix this little moment of puzzlement.

When Terril is here to talk, post or discuss a topic he has
a "I'm here to post" at the bottom of his comments.

When Terril is here to sell $cientology for the FZ, he has a
"I'm here to sell $cientology and recruit people at this mes-
sage board" at the bottom of his comments.

Problem fixed. That way the board members know which Terril
is dropping by for a visit.

Except that some people will always accuse Terril of trying to recruit, even if he's posting a recipe for soup or something. I know this, because it used to happen to me all the time. All I had to do was just SAY that I was an indie Scn'ist, as I used to be, then people would accuse me of trying to recruit, even though I'd not posted any success stories belonging to anyone else and any personal wins of mine (RARELY EVER posted) were only posted when people asked for them.

So it doesn't matter what disclaimers Terril uses or were to use. Someone will just turn around and say that's not true, he's lying or whatever. People see what they want to see.

Here's an analogy. (I'm a fan of Edwardian children's fiction and was raised on it. And, no, I'm not THAT old) From Anne of Green Gables series...

Anne and her pal Diana have these arch nemeses, Gertie and Josie. They mention in the book that til they got to know those girls, they thought the names were really pretty. Now, it's like BLEAH!

Meaning--once one takes a dislike to someone, then everything they do is viewed through that perspective.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

So there is no post here by anyone, Scn'ist or non Scn'ist, that indicates any dismay over the creation of the Human Potential, self discovery outside and beyond Scientology section of this board.

Veda did not create this particular thread, I did. Veda did create a thread re FZ recently but that was not dismissed as a brainwashing or deprogramming attempt.

 

[Veda]

So there is no post here by anyone, Scn'ist or non Scn'ist, that indicates any dismay over the creation of the Human Potential, self discovery outside and beyond Scientology section of this board.

Veda did not create this particular thread, I did. Veda did create a thread re FZ recently but that was not dismissed as a brainwashing or deprogramming attempt.

I thought this was already cleared up. I'm not sure if it's worth unjumbling the jumble but here goes. (It's not that important. )

Anyway, it involves several threads. Here's the sequence:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=529283&postcount=17

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=529581&postcount=18

OK?

 

[Student of Trinity]

Just because I was never in Scn doesn't make me any kind of umpire here, but for what it's worth, I think people on both sides around here can sometimes be unusually sensitive. Often I'll read a post and think nothing particular of it, only to see someone else respond angrily to what they perceived as a sly dig at, or for, independent Scientology.

Of course, some folks really do believe in independent Scientology. And some people really do hate it. And of course these opinions are bound to leak through in a lot of their posts. So I'm not saying the sly digs aren't there.

But there's a difference between someone deliberately making an argument for one side, and someone just letting their personal opinions show, maybe even unconsciously, in a random post.

If an argument is clearly made, then that's offering a challenge, and battle can begin. But opinions are everyone's right to hold, and people ought to be free to post without being called out for every insinuation that can be read into what they wrote. Especially when their opinions are no secret, anyway.

And, sure: the line between challenging with an argument, and just letting your opinions show, isn't sharp. There's a continuum, and everybody calls it as they see it. Everybody runs their own 'argument detector' on posts they care about, to decide whether it's just so-and-so being so-and-so, or whether there's a need to return fire.

But I think some people around here may have their 'argument detectors' turned up a bit too high. It might be worth dialing them just a notch or two toward the live-and-let-live direction. There are still going to be battles worth fighting. But maybe we could all save a bit of energy for the most important battles, and let a few little ones slide?