Mike "I'm All About the Crimes" Rinder

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
@Emma

Here is my response to your last post about Jeffrey's email (including the parts of my post you responded to):

response1.PNG

Maybe you were mistaken?

You didn't go back and check after I accused you of lying?

And yes, all of his financials were laid bare. And you know what? Alanzo is the one who's actions made that information public by choosing to file for bankruptcy.

As I had written in my original post,
"Public disclosure is the price one pays for going bankrupt in America and getting rid of their debts."


response2.PNG

Yeah, I saw that as well. But see no evidence that that was suggested by either Roger or Jeffrey, however you left others to believe that that was the case.

What you could have done when you saw people making reference to Alanzo's financial status was moderate their posts, deleting any reference to his finances, and privately warning them to not to it again.

Instead, you let it go on with no moderation, and both you and Alanzo took action to draw maximum attention to it. And then you published a private email from Roger without his permission which essentially confirmed that Alanzo filed for bankruptcy.

response3.PNG

Yeah, I guess not. But who did make the cut?

You had written this:
"...two people confirmed and forwarded the email to me. A LOT of people got that email"

Who is the second person who confirmed and forwarded that email to you?

And who are the "LOT" of people who got it?


response4.PNG

If someone who represented themselves as a critic ran a CoS campaign against ME for years, I would also begin to look into the background of the person doing it. And many others would as well.

It doesn't seem though that you have a problem with smearing. You've allowed Alanzo to do it on ESMB against others for almost two months now.

You only have a problem with it when Alanzo is the target.

Why is that?


response5.PNG

If someone handed him an envelope full of OSA cash do you believe Alanzo would have reported it to the bankruptcy court to go on his public record?


response6.PNG


I would exercise great caution if I were you when listening to Alanzo's stories.

He has demonstrated time and again that he doesn't allow the facts to get in the way of a great story.


response7.PNG

Sending a private confidential email to a friend which includes a public domain document is not "fair game".

But maybe to characterize it as such and reporting on ESMB as you did is fair game. Here's your quote about it:
"If you saw the email you'd puke. It's as nasty as anything OSA have ever done."

I understand that you are more than likely unfamiliar with how the bankruptcy process works here in the U.S., and the implications that that has for the one filing (making their financials public). But Alanzo IS familiar with it as he filed for it, yet he did nothing to correct your portrayal of it.
And yet, both of you are screaming that HE has been fair gamed. Once again, Alanzo is the one who made his financials public, by filing for bankruptcy. If that's fair game than he fair gamed himself.


response8.PNG

Seriously? Even if what you were saying was true, he could have had someone else post it online for him. :duh:

But he didn't. He exercised discretion by not doing so.
 

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
Agree Caroline, "grudge match" is a rather nebulous term to gloss over something deeper and more sinister than 2 people having mere differences of opinions. Sweep something under the carpet as personal in nature vs. scientologically subversive. To me, the controlled opposition want certain topics to go away. What better way to make that happen than downgrading to appear as benign.
It occurred to me this morning how ironic the earlier beginning was to that whole incident, which actually started on alt.religion.scientology. Posts were disappearing, the sporgery thing, personal attacks by "critics," long story.

Gerry and I needed to make a record of the attack posts. It was a really good thing we did. For one thing, the Scientology v. Armstrong case was in active litigation and a stack of these attack posts were filed and became part of the record. For another, I didn't think it was cool that people could send out ugly attack "bombs" and then delete them shortly afterwards. It was very gaslighty. There were many more of them than us, and there was no way to respond to all the people in the pile-on.

I'll also point out that at the time, OSA, run by Mike Rinder, was punishing Gerry $50,000 per a.r.s. post, and wanted to keep adding these $50,000-per-utterance punishments to the end of time. It was unconscionable.

I posted my archive of at least some of the offending posts on gerryarmstrong.org. Most of the posters objected, and to the excellent animated gif I made that implied their behavior was goonish and served the Scientology corporation/OSA's purposes. And you can still see them over there can-canning if you look hard enough.

The group attacks followed us to OCMB and then ESMB.

The point: It is difficult to manage this sort of online behavior, and I do not envy any moderator's job. I think Gerry gave very good arguments for not putting those posts into a Members only area, and not classifying the content as "grudge match." It is Emma's board and she did what she did.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I was working on my Form site a little while ago, and came across this ditty posted by me four years ago.

I was struck by its applicability in explaining the catastrophic nature of the intense and destructive arguing, name calling and other conflict that has existed in the Ex-Scio community.

Here is the ditty:

ON THE SUBJECT OF PRECEPTS, BELIEFS AND THOUGHTS

This is a huge and important subject that is not properly or fully addressed in other subjects than Knowledgism.

As I have often written, your current condition is the outcome of your accumulated earlier solutions. And that is a truth that is worth pondering, as you will see as we proceed.

In our Knowledgism Dictionary, Precept is defined as follows:​
Quote​
PRECEPT 1. A prescribed rule of conduct or action; instruction or direction. 2. Instruction or direction regarding a given course of action, especially a maxim in morals. The basis and source of a belief system. (Study Series 3) 3. A substitute for you. It is a substitute of your perception, because you've perceived through the precept. Precepts are the basis for all study problems. The basic thing about a precept is it is a form of not being there. The precept is there, and you're not. (Lecture: "Comprehension of Precepts," January 22, 1993)​

In actuality, precepts, beliefs and thoughts act as automatic false perception mechanisms that are superimposed on top of the actuality of what one should be truthfully and directly perceiving.

In the presence of precepts, beliefs and thoughts, one does not see truth: one only sees one's superimposed solutions to life. Opinions also fall into this category of alteration to actuality . . . ever tried to discuss (or argue) with anyone who is totally stuck with their beliefs and opinions about any subject in life? Opinions, of course, being what the person "thinks" about the thing being discussed.

The above is all bad enough; but here is the real disaster caused by this form of superimposed solution to life.

As Alan has revealed in our famous SPIEPIR formula, SPIEPIR is the sequence by which we Beings bring about conditions of existence, including physical universe actualities.

It runs like this: the Being, as a Spiritual presence Perceives existing conditions and, based on that perception forms an Intention regarding that which has been perceived. The intention, of course can be anything: it could be to have things continue as they are or to make changes, but either way the intention is followed by an Envisioning of exactly how the creation intended will be (including exactly when it will actualize). Following the envisioning is the development of the Plan needed to be Implemented to obtain the intended Result of the actualized vision as envisioned. Hence the acronym SPIEPIR.

And it is because of this sequence that the false perceptions introduced into this life cycle are so very dangerous and often destructive.

False perception leads the Being to create false or erroneous intentions and visions which then lead to erroneous, even destructive, plans, actions and outcomes (results).

Ever wondered why folks do stupid things or behave as such stupid twits??? Here is your answer: it lies in the fact that they are operating based on false perception arising out of having superimposed into their universe and onto the environment and others about them their "think" . . . and they do not see actuality. They only see their own created, superimposed precepts, beliefs, thought, opinions and the like.

Down in the Red Zone where delusion reigns, all this stuff actually acts as a substitute for the Being himself: that is, he himself does not do the perceiving, the precept and beliefs handle it all for him. And that in actuality is the basis of why and how these solution mechanisms were set up by the Being . . . to handle life and/or that which was too difficult at one time or another to be handled directly. He solved the situation by putting a substitute for self and his own direct perception and experiencing of the thing there instead.

In 1963, L. Ron Hubbard touched on this subject superficially. He came out with the '63 version of what he called the "Service Facsimile" (Serfac, for short). Originally, the Serfac R/D was based on finding the "safe solution" the guy was automatically and unknowingly running his life on. At that time is was said to be "a computation that made self right and others wrong, aided one's survival while impeding the survival of others and, helped one escape domination while dominating others.

Well, that was quite a good discovery as far as it went, and certainly so for the time. The following year, Hubbard goofed and claimed that listing for the "safe solution" of/on the case was an over run of the Problems Release state many had achieved.

But the big error was in thinking we each only had one "serfac" . . . we have many, many of them. Indeed it is relatively correct to say we have at least one for each of the major areas and/or subjects of case we have . . . remember, we created these things to handle "life" and its charge and problems in the stead of us; and they take many forms.

The other big error by Hubbard was in not observing these precepts, beliefs, thoughts, opinions are not just "computations" (as he called them); but are indeed THINGS. They exist as reality for the Being and have solidity and location, duration and contain all of the attributes of life itself!

Hence the "Thoughts Are Things" rundowns we have in Knowledgism. These R/Ds totally unlock, dissipate the built up charge and encysted life-force and emotions and restore the Being's cause and sovereignty in the area.

There are three such R/Ds:
The one most used is now part of the "case handling" version of our famous "Thoughts are Things Clean Slate Procedure" posted elsewhere.

Then we have two versions of the original "Thoughts are Things Exercise" as released in 2005 on the Omni-Sovereign Course. One version addresses the thoughts, beliefs and precepts you have stuck yourself with; and the other deals with the thoughts others are or have projected upon you.

Attached is the version you can use to handle the thoughts you have put upon yourself or the environment and Beings about you.

It happens I had a hand in bringing about the development of this particular tech within Knowledgism. But I'll leave that data for later when I discuss the subject of a missing step in the SPIEPIR formula (as above) that occurs at the perception step when one first makes contact with what one becomes aware of before deciding what to do about "the thing" . . . it is here that one "evaluates" (analyzes) the thing perceived as to worth, value, substance, condition, suitability, and such in order to decide what should be intended.


COPYRIGHT © 2015
By Roger E. Boswarva
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
:hysterical:
 

freethinker

Sponsor
Agree Caroline, "grudge match" is a rather nebulous term to gloss over something deeper and more sinister than 2 people having mere differences of opinions. Sweep something under the carpet as personal in nature vs. scientologically subversive. To me, the controlled opposition want certain topics to go away. What better way to make that happen than downgrading to appear as benign.
Who put it in Grudge matches? Maybe you ought to ask that question.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
It occurred to me this morning how ironic the earlier beginning was to that whole incident, which actually started on alt.religion.scientology. Posts were disappearing, the sporgery thing, personal attacks by "critics," long story.

Gerry and I needed to make a record of the attack posts. It was a really good thing we did. For one thing, the Scientology v. Armstrong case was in active litigation and a stack of these attack posts were filed and became part of the record. For another, I didn't think it was cool that people could send out ugly attack "bombs" and then delete them shortly afterwards. It was very gaslighty. There were many more of them than us, and there was no way to respond to all the people in the pile-on.

I'll also point out that at the time, OSA, run by Mike Rinder, was punishing Gerry $50,000 per a.r.s. post, and wanted to keep adding these $50,000-per-utterance punishments to the end of time. It was unconscionable.

I posted my archive of at least some of the offending posts on gerryarmstrong.org. Most of the posters objected, and to the excellent animated gif I made that implied their behavior was goonish and served the Scientology corporation/OSA's purposes. And you can still see them over there can-canning if you look hard enough.

The group attacks followed us to OCMB and then ESMB.

The point: It is difficult to manage this sort of online behavior, and I do not envy any moderator's job. I think Gerry gave very good arguments for not putting those posts into a Members only area, and not classifying the content as "grudge match." It is Emma's board and she did what she did.
Important history, right here.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
@Emma

Here is my response to your last post about Jeffrey's email (including the parts of my post you responded to):

View attachment 15899

Maybe you were mistaken?

You didn't go back and check after I accused you of lying?

And yes, all of his financials were laid bare. And you know what? Alanzo is the one who's actions made that information public by choosing to file for bankruptcy.

As I had written in my original post,
"Public disclosure is the price one pays for going bankrupt in America and getting rid of their debts."


View attachment 15900

Yeah, I saw that as well. But see no evidence that that was suggested by either Roger or Jeffrey, however you left others to believe that that was the case.

What you could have done when you saw people making reference to Alanzo's financial status was moderate their posts, deleting any reference to his finances, and privately warning them to not to it again.

Instead, you let it go on with no moderation, and both you and Alanzo took action to draw maximum attention to it. And then you published a private email from Roger without his permission which essentially confirmed that Alanzo filed for bankruptcy.

View attachment 15901

Yeah, I guess not. But who did make the cut?

You had written this:
"...two people confirmed and forwarded the email to me. A LOT of people got that email"

Who is the second person who confirmed and forwarded that email to you?

And who are the "LOT" of people who got it?


View attachment 15902

If someone who represented themselves as a critic ran a CoS campaign against ME for years, I would also begin to look into the background of the person doing it. And many others would as well.

It doesn't seem though that you have a problem with smearing. You've allowed Alanzo to do it on ESMB against others for almost two months now.

You only have a problem with it when Alanzo is the target.

Why is that?


View attachment 15903

If someone handed him an envelope full of OSA cash do you believe Alanzo would have reported it to the bankruptcy court to go on his public record?


View attachment 15904


I would exercise great caution if I were you when listening to Alanzo's stories.

He has demonstrated time and again that he doesn't allow the facts to get in the way of a great story.


View attachment 15905

Sending a private confidential email to a friend which includes a public domain document is not "fair game".

But maybe to characterize it as such and reporting on ESMB as you did is fair game. Here's your quote about it:
"If you saw the email you'd puke. It's as nasty as anything OSA have ever done."

I understand that you are more than likely unfamiliar with how the bankruptcy process works here in the U.S., and the implications that that has for the one filing (making their financials public). But Alanzo IS familiar with it as he filed for it, yet he did nothing to correct your portrayal of it.
And yet, both of you are screaming that HE has been fair gamed. Once again, Alanzo is the one who made his financials public, by filing for bankruptcy. If that's fair game than he fair gamed himself.


View attachment 15906

Seriously? Even if what you were saying was true, he could have had someone else post it online for him. :duh:

But he didn't. He exercised discretion by not doing so.
@Type4_PTS

I'd like to verify that you have claimed to be very familiar with the federal bankruptcy process in the United States, that you work in this area as part of your job, and the statements you have made here about me, and the accusations you've made here about me, are based on your extensive experience with the US Federal Bankruptcy rules.

Is that true?
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
@Emma


If someone who represented themselves as a critic ran a CoS campaign against ME for years, I would also begin to look into the background of the person doing it. And many others would as well.

It doesn't seem though that you have a problem with smearing. You've allowed Alanzo to do it on ESMB against others for almost two months now.

You only have a problem with it when Alanzo is the target.

Why is that?
Hey! I'ma working! Stop posting! :D

Just wanted to comment on this, nothing else is new so Don't take it as me jumping on you T4, it's just that everything I've said to anyone else has already been said at least three times. :)

I hope you are aware that Emma deleted at least 2 posts from Alanzo on the smears he made on her. Once back in August when he tried to get me to google it up, and once some days back when he actually posted some "factual" emails that Co$ had presented on her. So, to arbite, she has actually moderated some of the worst slurry remarks made from Alanzo.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
@Type4_PTS

I'd like to verify that you have claimed to be very familiar with the federal bankruptcy process in the United States, that you work in this area as part of your job, and the statements you have made here about me, and the accusations you've made here about me, are based on your extensive experience with the US Federal Bankruptcy rules.

Is that true?
I'm not interested in biting into your red herring.

If you actually have something you disagree with regarding my postings or something I posted about the bankruptcy process, feel free to express it and I'll respond to it.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I'm not interested in biting into your red herring.

If you actually have something you disagree with regarding my postings or something I posted about the bankruptcy process, feel free to express it and I'll respond to it.
When you say this:

Type4 accuses Alanzo of Bankruptcy fraud.png

You do realize that you are accusing me of a federal crime on a public message board.

You are aware of that, right?
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Hey! I'ma working! Stop posting! :D

Just wanted to comment on this, nothing else is new so Don't take it as me jumping on you T4, it's just that everything I've said to anyone else has already been said at least three times. :)

I hope you are aware that Emma deleted at least 2 posts from Alanzo on the smears he made on her. Once back in August when he tried to get me to google it up, and once some days back when he actually posted some "factual" emails that Co$ had presented on her. So, to arbite, she has actually moderated some of the worst slurry remarks made from Alanzo.
Thanks He-man, and I certainly don't take your post as "jumping on me".

And yes, it IS true some posts have been deleted.

But in the past on ESMB what I noticed is that when someone flagrantly violated the board rules, and did so repeatedly, the Admin/Mod would not only edit the post (if necessary) but issue a warning to the one in violation. And continued behavior along the same line would result in either a temporary or permanent ban.

With Alanzo, I haven't seen him suffer any repercussions from his behavior other than having some posts deleted as you noted. But then he continues to do exactly the same type of thing over and over. I've seen Emma delete part of a particular post he made, and some days later he posted pretty much the same thing.
 

He-man

Hero extraordinary
Thanks He-man, and I certainly don't take your post as "jumping on me".

And yes, it IS true some posts have been deleted.

But in the past on ESMB what I noticed is that when someone flagrantly violated the board rules, and did so repeatedly, the Admin/Mod would not only edit the post (if necessary) but issue a warning to the one in violation. And continued behavior along the same line would result in either a temporary or permanent ban.

With Alanzo, I haven't seen him suffer any repercussions from his behavior other than having some posts deleted as you noted. But then he continues to do exactly the same type of thing over and over. I've seen Emma delete part of a particular post he made, and some days later he posted pretty much the same thing.
Whale, I suppose Emma decided to go corrupt and turn into a squirrel moderator.

Don't worry! All things ends, nothing is eternal, not even Scientology! :booze:
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
I hope you are aware that Emma deleted at least 2 posts from Alanzo on the smears he made on her. Once back in August when he tried to get me to google it up, and once some days back when he actually posted some "factual" emails that Co$ had presented on her. So, to arbite, she has actually moderated some of the worst slurry remarks made from Alanzo.
I just reread your post I had already responded to.

Did you write that correctly? Alanzo made two smears on Emma??:unsure:

I hope not! :grouch:
 

RogerB

Crusader
Boy, can you belief the insane extent to which the Alanzo twists things to bullshit his was through life . . .

In post #749 above he has raised (in his own warped mind) the posing of a question "IF" someone has done something, to be a crime!?!

He is simply not credible. This kind of distortion is, of course, par for his course of "discussion."
 

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Such an OSA-like response.

Tsk, tsk...
Are you too obtuse to recognize your quarrel is with Occam’s Razor, Allen?

But since there’s so little time left until you return to your little box, will you, at last, explain your use of the patently dishonest “shore story” that you’re “a fan of Leah Remini” when you unsuccessfully attempted to join the Supporters of Leah Remini Facebook group?
In what universe was that an “acceptable truth?”
Why did you lie? Did the ends justify the means?
 

RogerB

Crusader
Actually, now that the "other her" has been named . . . will we never learn??? :D

I find it actually very heart warming that our Emms acted to delete the smear shit the "Ace Shit Stirrer A" posted.

Well done Emms!
 

Tanchi

Patron with Honors
Such an OSA-like response.

Tsk, tsk...
Are you too obtuse to recognize your quarrel is with Occam’s Razor, Allen?

But since there’s so little time left until you return to your little box, will you, at last, explain your use of the patently dishonest “shore story” that you’re “a fan of Leah Remini” when you unsuccessfully attempted to join the Supporters of Leah Remini Facebook group?
In what universe was that an “acceptable truth?”
Why did you lie? Did the ends justify the means?

I was particularly disgusted with Alanzo using his filibuster techniques with Mirriam Francis.
She joined Supporters after her and Saina's episode aired, expecting support, and to help others who had been in a similar situation. Her contributions would have helped, imo. I could tell by the episode she has had extensive real therapy.

After Stanfield hammered away at her re: Hubbard scripture, she and Saina faded away.

Free speech, yes. Compassion for exes, not so much imo.
 
Top