Mike "I'm All About the Crimes" Rinder

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I neither commented on the subject matter of your OP or your comment on Bill's alleged hypocrisy. So you can continue to beat the strawman all day. It's still a logical fallacy.


Most of your postings consist of:
1) A strawman fallacy
2) A red herring fallacy
3) Accusations against others with zero evidence presented
4) Ad Hom fallacies
5) Cherry-picking data from social scientists that aligns with your narrative while ignoring data that contradicts your narrative.
6) a combination of the above.

Characterizing something that is at best your opinion as "factual information" is I'm sure another fallacy. Not sure the name of it this moment. :D

Show me one piece of "factual information" that I've characterized as a logical fallacy.

I can hear the answer already. It's:

<crickets>
It is a fact that Mike Rinder has never been restrained from exposing crimes by the "restraints of sponsored television".

Yet you've just demonstrated that you can't see that fact.

Why?
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
It is a fact that Mike Rinder has never been restrained from exposing crimes by the "restraints of sponsored television".

Yet you've just demonstrated that you can't see that fact.

Why?
On the contrary, it's a fact that Mike and Leah's Aftermath show was restrained from exposing crimes and/or alleged crimes.

The Danny Masterson case was just one example.

Your "facts" are factually challenged.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
On the contrary, it's a fact that Mike and Leah's Aftermath show was restrained from exposing crimes and/or alleged crimes.

The Danny Masterson case was just one example.

Your "facts" are factually challenged.
You changed my fact - why?
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
You changed my fact - why?
It seemed immaterial.

But your original unaltered statement was not a bit any more factual than what I wrote.

The legal department of any TV network can and will suppress content to reduce legal exposure.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
It seemed immaterial.

But your original unaltered statement was not a bit any more factual than what I wrote.

The legal department of any TV network can and will suppress content to reduce legal exposure.
But mike has never been restrained from exposing crimes by sponsored television. Yet he claimed he was. How is that possibly immaterial?

Mike Rinder has always had access to many ways of exposing crimes - for 12 years.

Yet he blames the TV show and you swallowed his string-along excuse.

Why?
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
But mike has never been restrained from exposing crimes by sponsored television.

He has always had access to many ways of exposing crimes - for 12 years.
I know of people who did expose crimes by making a report to the FBI. They were told by the FBI agent NOT to publicly speak of the investigation.
That was reported years ago either by Tony Ortega or the The Tampa Bay Times.

And still, to this day we don't know who all those people are (at least 15 of them).

Yet he blames the TV show and you swallowed his string-along excuse.

Why?
This is another example of what Bill was referring to - you asserting what the opinions of others are.

I didn't comment on the matter, so you certainly don't know my opinion.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I know of people who did expose crimes by making a report to the FBI. They were told by the FBI agent NOT to publicly speak of the investigation.
That was reported years ago either by Tony Ortega or the The Tampa Bay Times.

And still, to this day we don't know who all those people are (at least 15 of them).


This is another example of what Bill was referring to - you asserting what the opinions of others are.

I didn't comment on the matter, so you certainly don't know my opinion.
Again, your attention deflects off of the facts that challenge your beliefs, you think up rationalizations to protect them, and look at those instead.

You didn't learn anything from getting out of Scientology, did you?
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Again, your attention deflects off of the facts that challenge your beliefs, you think up rationalizations to protect them, and look at those instead.

You didn't learn anything from getting out of Scientology, did you?
You apparently either don't know my beliefs or this is a failed attempt on your part of gaslighting, as well yet another ad hom thrown in for good measure.

One of the things I did learn from Scientology is that some people who claim to be wanting to help you are engaged on an entirely different activity. :D

Let's just say that I've got no interest in your "help".
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
You apparently either don't know my beliefs or this is a failed attempt on your part of gaslighting, as well yet another ad hom thrown in for good measure.

One of the things I did learn from Scientology is that some people who claim to be wanting to help you are engaged on an entirely different activity. :D

Let's just say that I've got no interest in your "help".
Mike Rinder was never restrained from exposing crimes by sponsored television.

Is that factual, or not?
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Mike Rinder was never restrained from exposing crimes by sponsored television.

Is that factual, or not?

What's factual is that the Aftermath show was restrained from exposing alleged crimes by the A&E Network.

If you believe he should report crimes on his blog rather than to law enforcement maybe you can set a good example.
Write up YOUR crimes and publish them on your blog.

You claimed to be a Mission Holder or Executive Director at a Mission if I recall correctly.
Did you engage in fraudulent marketing?
I would bet that yes, you did.
Why haven't you reported those crimes?
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Mike Rinder was never restrained from exposing crimes by sponsored television.

Is that factual, or not?
Facts? Do you care?

Fact: You don't know what restraints Mike is under. I don't know. No one here knows. Got it?

We don't know. You don't know.

Can you stop the silly question now?

I understand that you want to smear Mike with the question, and maybe he deserves that, but the bottom line is -- we don't know. Can you understand that's all the answer we have.

Your continued asking the same question again and again is silly. We don't know and we do not assume anything about guilt or cover-ups because -- pay attention now -- we don't know.

If you have facts, please provide them. If all you have is the same silly question, skip it
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Here's part of the statement from Mike & Leah

Our work is not done yet. Unfortunately sponsored television has limitations. There are things we cannot film or show on camera because of certain restrictions. These restrictions have limited us in many ways to tell the full story and in some cases, not permitted us to tell the story at all.

For us, the work never stops. There are things we and others have done and are doing that have not been able to air.
We have met with lawyers, we have met with law enforcement and victims have come forward and spoken. You will see and hear more about this in the future.

We have done some amazing work up to this point, and for that we are eternally grateful to our partners at A&E and IPC, especially Devon Graham Hammonds at A&E who has been our angel, our champion and our friend. But now we need to go further. And we need to change our course of action.

In truth we have only scratched the surface so far.
He says they will go further. So let him do what he (and Leah) are going to do.

You keep ranting on about him not exposing crimes, yet he states that he has met with law enforcement.

Some of the things that didn't go to air are stories that are known. They just haven't gotten the exposure that a show like Aftermath can give.

We've known about Kyle Brennan for 12 years. We've known about Danny Masterson for around 3 years.

What is your goal? Do you want Rinder in jail? Or is he just a foil in your anti-anti-cult agenda?

Your accusations are speculation. We should all climb aboard the Alanzo train and join you in decrying the speculated offenses of someone that has done very good work in exposing abuse.

How about you file a lawsuit instead? Sue Mike Rinder for what he is doing. Put your money where your mouth is.
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
And he thinks I should stop doing that.

Not surprising that you aren't seeing the hypocrisy here either.
I said my opinion was that you shouldn't do what you are doing.

You can't see that's completely different from you telling us what to think and not think? Really?

Really?
 

JustSheila

Crusader
When someone has an unpopular viewpoint, that means that the majority of people disagree.

To Alanzo, that means the majority of people who disagree are disagreeing because they are following a tribe. :duh:

If, for example, the majority of people were against hanging black people, by Alanzo's logic, those people who were against it weren't against it for good reasons, or because it was unjust, cruel, prejudicial, etc. By Alanzo's logic, the small number of people who would be pro-hanging would be a small number (minority) so because they are a small number, that makes them right, and they are therefore persecuted by the majority, who are ethical, compassionate people, because those against hanging were merely acting as tribe members because there are more of them than the small number that want hangings. :screwy: Makes no sense!

The majority of people here work to expose the crimes of Scientology because they are crimes against individuals and BAD. They don't want people to get hurt.

If a minority of people like Alanzo support groups that abuse others, then I am very glad they are a minority and I'd like to see that minority shrink to nothing, just like the KKK and any other abusive groups.

Kudos to those who work to fight abuse! :bighug:We are a majority! :laugh:
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
This is quite a post, Shelia.

The majority of people here disagree and work to expose the crimes of Scientology because they are crimes against individuals and BAD.

Really? How many crimes have you exposed, exactly? The last time anyone on ESMB exposed any crimes was for the Federal inquiry for Australia's Parliament back in 2009/2010. And that led to Emma's fair game, and that led to an end to all that. And you didn't even notice.

Do you just say that you are "exposing abuse" give yourself a good feeling? Because it's delusional to think anyone is exposing any criminality or even abuse here on ESMB in the last 5 years - at least.

If a minority of people like Alanzo support groups that abuse others, then I am very glad they are a minority and I'd like to see that minority shrink to nothing, just like the KKK and any other abusive groups.

I don't support groups, or people, who abuse or commit criminal acts on others, Shelia. I also don't support people or groups who hide and distract from the criminality of Marty, Mike & Dave's Church of Scientology.

Unlike you.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
This is quite a post, Shelia.



Really? How many crimes have you exposed, exactly?
You're just attacking without ever having bothered to look. Keep your blinders on, Alanzo.

I've exposed many, many crimes. Maybe hundreds. Look them up for yourself. But you? Nothing, nada. Just a lot of insulting others who have the courage to come forward.

I've told everything I know. Everything. And you insult me. That's predictable behavior for a Scientology shill who doesn't want the Church of Scientology's crimes exposed.

Here's just a few threads for starters:

https://exscn.net/forum/threads/a-nanny-story.41344/

https://www.forum.exscn.net/threads...i-ie-had-a-psychotic-break-in-your-org.38005/

https://exscn.net/forum/threads/par...ad-a-psychotic-break-in-your-org.43120/page-5

Please note: The first thread of the "How Many People Went Type Three" is not the original thread on this and the majority of posts in that original thread seem to have been lost.
 
Last edited:

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
I said my opinion was that you shouldn't do what you are doing.

You can't see that's completely different from you telling us what to think and not think? Really?

Really?
Tell me.

How is it different, exactly?

Go on, let's see how you aren't being a hypocrite.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Alanzo, vying for the post of The Grand Inquisitor.

350


During the Age of the Empire, the title of Grand Inquisitor was held by a Pau'an male who reported to Darth Vader. This Grand Inquisitor was dispatched by Vader in order to find Force-sensitives and either recruit them to the dark side of the Force or eliminate them. In this capacity, he hunted the rebel cell that operated on the Outer Rim world of Lothal in an attempt to destroy their leader, the Jedi survivor Kanan Jarrus, and his Padawan, Ezra Bridger. This hunt, however, ultimately led to his death during a confrontation with Jarrus. The Grand Inquisitor allowed himself to die during this lightsaber duel, knowing that his failure to destroy the Jedi would incur a far greater suffering from Darth Vader than death. The death of the Grand Inquisitor subsequently left the position open...
 
Top