Well Fluffy, I think you dragged up this old post (that you were not a part of) to make yourself right ... again and perhaps to 'let me know' that you are 'watching' me ...
Ummm...noooo. The post was about two weeks old when I answered it. Sorry if that seems a bit late. Perhaps it was.
I'm not watching you. I read the thread and had some stuff to say.
I personally, did not come here to spend my time arguing with bolshy scientologists, (though there are some lovely ones here and I am happy to spend time with them). I have already spent enough of my life with scientologists and I feel that I know the 'script' and its variations and I know the 'tools' that are available and I have dumped them, or at least I am in the process of dumping them as most of us here are (including some lurkers that would possibly prefer to join an ESMB that is safer to post in ... at least when they are new).
I think the bolshy term is interesting, but as it precedes that particular noun, I think it contradicts what you later say. I do like the idea of being a bolshy Scn'ist rather than being the sort I was when I was in CofS.
I am an Ex scientologist ... that is uncomplicated and simple to understand.
It's not like I doubted it or wondered about it or worried about it. I mean, yeah, ok, have at it. Not a concern for me. Some of my best friends are, etc.
You Fluffy, seem to have a (self appointed) role to be the one to 'handle' some of us that dare to differ with you or like minded people (to you).
Nope. It's just posts on a public forum. And some debate. I always figured it was ok to debate on forums of this sort. Plenty of others do so.
There is someone in this exchange who is writing personalized commentary but that isn't I. You've speculated that I'm watching you and want to let you know that (wrong) and you've commented that I seem to have a "self appointed role to be the one to "handle" some of us that dare to differ with your or like minded people (to you).
... and my reply to you was more to do with what I felt was your bullying of 2 other posters that had a differing viewpoint to yours than about the actual issue (Nicole Kidman).
I replied to some posts, yes. I didn't call any forum contributor any names or anything of the sort.
I am never quite sure what you have 'come as' (to this fancy dress party called ESMB where most of us wear a mask) and when you become a (sometimes ranting) scientologist (often mid thread) it is very tiring to respond to ... so I normally don't unless I have a positive to add.
I'm sure we can either discuss the problems of the cult or something of the sort. That would be preferable to being psychoanalyzed by you.
You are a chameleon IMHO and are therefore effectively, more anonymous than most others here, despite your protestations on another thread.
Everyone's a chameleon. We all have different moods,external influences etc. I'm amazed that anyone would represent that as negative. I'm quite well known, critics have met me (many), my address and name, etc are known and so forth. I get the rhetoric- that somehow being a "chameleon" makes a person an unknown quantity- and by implication, an object of trepidation. Were that the case, however, everyone who wasn't a total robot, zombie or coma patient would be such. That does not follow.
You are also a 'straight speaker', so I know you will not object to being on the receipt end of some here at ESMB ... you have your TRs in (no doubt) and can handle it.
I do object to ad homs, though. Straight speaking isn't an excuse.
I have the right to post where and when I like and to have different ideas and moods at different times. I'm not perfect and never said I was. What I don't need is some cyberstranger whapping me in the face with it.