Mike Rinder's brother Andrew on Opening of Scientology Sydney Continental Org

[Gadfly]

Oh right and everyone else would be above doing anything like that, right?

Your assumption with covert sarcasm.

Does Veda want or require that everybody else agree with every tidbit of his/her viewpoint? I don't think so, but could be.

What I do know is that Hubbard was 100% all about garnering TOTAL AGREEMENT with every word and idea he uttered or wrote.

I suspect Veda would like people to read his info-posts, and make up their own mind based on the facts.

Not true for Hubbard and Scientology. There is no "making up your own mind". There is only one allowed response - 100% avid agreement with all things Hubbard and Scientology.

Repetition has different uses and motivations underlying it.

Again, to equate what Hubbard created and did with HIS methods with OTHERS is disingenuous, snarky and plain dumb.

 

[Lone Star]

Ordinarily this is the point of the thread in which I jump in and things up and get it nice and flaming .

But I have no desire for it. I suppose it's because I'm on medication now. A psych drug? No, it's a diuretic. I have to lose some water in a specific part in my head. LOL... Maybe I've just always been a "water head". LOL...

Carry on....Don't mean to derail. Fascinating stuff!!

 

[Panda Termint]

Waterlogged from the Brainwashing?

It's OK, re: the . I'm done now... I think.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I kinda define Personal as discussing the Poster rather than the content of the posts.

I say again, your information as to my discussion of my gains in scientology is false and your conclusions about it (sorry, I meant to say "opinions") are mistaken. I've spoken openly about my journey since I arrived here in 2008.

You have already explained to me many hundreds of times how wrong my opinions are. Countless other times you have tried to moderate, shame or intimidate me into not saying whatever I want. Something about your tech is not working. LOL.

And, perhaps you haven't noticed--I stopped attending the "YOUR OPINIONS ARE WRONG" lecture series and briefings, years ago.

Maybe there is someone else you can promote to that might actually be interested to sign up for your personal enhancement workshops. LOL.

 

[Panda Termint]

You have already explained to me many hundreds of times how wrong my opinions are. Countless other times you have tried to moderate, shame or intimidate me into not saying whatever I want. Something about your tech is not working. LOL.

And, perhaps you haven't noticed--I stopped attending the "YOUR OPINIONS ARE WRONG" lecture series and briefings, years ago.

Maybe there is someone else you can promote to that might actually be interested to sign up for your personal enhancement workshops. LOL.

... I'm done now... I think.

Maybe not!

Say whatever you like, HH, as long as you allow that I may also say what I like and call BULLSHIT and/or Ad Hom when I see it.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Things get really nasty really fast around here these days ... it's brilliant that we all know each other so well and have history now but it's also destroying the camaraderie.

Should we agree to let bygones be bygones and just accept each others viewpoints as they are delivered on the day, then discuss, argue and debate them till we are all blue in the face but without dragging up the past?

 

[Panda Termint]

We could try. I'm up for it.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Say whatever you like, HH, as long as you allow that I may also say what I like and call BULLSHIT and/or Ad Hom when I see it.

Well, at least that explains why you don't "call BULLSHIT and/or Ad Hom" the multitude of times when you do it.

LOL

 

[Panda Termint]

This is me taking the High Road.

 

[Lone Star]

This is me taking the High Road.

Stop preaching!!!





Oooops.....need to adjust my dosage.

 

[Lone Star]

For crying out loud Claire. A 'disagree' for a post which was clearly a joke?

Do you get context at all? Nuance?

Sometimes I think hitting 'disagree' is your most favorite thing to do.

 

[Free Being Me]

I doubt that he had much choice in that matter, Karen. What a terrible thing it is when scientology sets family members against each other.

I'd have thought it was obvious that anyone who stuck at scientology for any length of time must have, at least, thought that were getting something of value in exchange for their time and money.

Whilst it's probably comforting for some to think of it all as imagined, delusion, hypnosis or some kind of sleight of hand, the simple fact is that most (not all) probably got something out of it. Historical revisionism goes both ways, IMO.

ESMB, these days, seems to be mostly peopled by posters who've written the whole thing off as a bad experience, those who got little or nothing from scientology and/or those reluctant to even answer up to questions about any benefits they think they may have received through their participation in scientology.

Just my opinion.

Interesting contradiction. Good times had by all.

Contradiction? You do understand how things work in scientology, right?

Of course. One of those contradictions (a double bind) is taking people to task for not writing success stories about their experiences in the cult yet on the other hand stating how terrible the cult is.

You'll have to point out the part where I'm "taking people to task for not writing success stories about their experiences in the cult". That makes no sense at all.

My position on this matter is simple and straightforward; some people obviously got something which they value out of their time in scientology and any suggestion that they didn't is not only disingenuous, it's downright silly.

To me, doing my part in exposing scientology for what it is requires that I tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as I see it. I don't insist that my truth be your truth but do reserve the right to comment as I see fit in this matter. I extend the same courtesy to you.

The whole point of a cult is being controlled with erroneous conclusions while unknowingly subjugated through various means of psychological/emotional manipulation. The degree a person believes some benefit is offered is proportional that cults influence, presently or lingering. Pointing out the cult is terrible and rightly so versus ESMB is mostly peopled by posters who've written the whole thing off ($cientology) as a bad experience because said posters aren't writing about the "benefits" of the cult is contradictory and plain dissonant.

Pick one:

I joined the $cientology cult and:

• It broke up my family
• I had a forced abortion
• I needed therapy for PTSD, depression, anxiety, etc.
• My credit is destroyed
• I was offloaded onto the street
• I was fair gamed with lies and lawsuits
• Someone I knew committed suicide
• I escaped from Foul Winds while in a foreign country
• and many more ... cult benefits for everyone!

You obviously have trouble differentiating between the Cult of scientology and the actions of well-intentioned people working to help others. I won't try to disabuse you of your self-certainty.

Yes, all of those things listed above happened in, or as a result of actions by, the Cult of scientology. You give a poor choice of options to pick from, though, very one-dimensional.

Note: I didn't say the bolded word above and your understanding of what I wrote is suspect. They are two separate categories of Posters.

I'll leave you to your people aren't posting enough about cult benefits to your standards but the cult is terrible contradictions lets make snide holier than thou remarks when others disagree theory. Cult cognitive dissonance runs deep. Sad, really.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

This is me taking the High Road.

"this is me holding my temper , Jimmy Boy" - h/t to Patriot Games

 

[Claire Swazey]

HH and FreeBeingMe

I was thinking about this discussion and I was wondering if the point of disagreement is, perhaps, a thought that making excuses (or seeming to do so) for CofS members would be tolerating and condoning evil. And that Panda's posts might seem to be coming from that perspective.

I mention this because there've other discussions over time about moderate critics vs those who are not.

This is just something that occurred to me, and I was wondering if that's the sticking point here.

 

[Panda Termint]

I think you'd need to also consider the amount of straw being strewn around, Claire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

There is no "sticking point" for me, I simply disagree with personal attacks against Posters here on ESMB and assert my right of reply when that Poster happens to be me.

 

[BunnySkull]

No worries, there's room for two in Bwaaaahmbulance, hop aboard! :

I don't think the bwaaaaambulence means what you think it does and your use of the term is rather embarassing not at all. Nothing like a poster trying to demonstrate how hilarious they think their weak burns are with smilies.

 

[Panda Termint]

It means exactly what I think it means, though I did add the "B" to make it sound a little more "poor baby". Veda has been whining about that stolen cheese for a year or more. HH has been whining about imaginary "Campaigns" against him for almost as long. It seemed appropriate given the tenor of the conversation ie. tit for tat.

waaaambulance
1. A derisive word used on someone who is whining too much.
"Are you okay, wittle pwecious? Did I hurt your feelings? Better call the waaaambulance!"

2. A slang term to describe someone who has been whining and bitching so much they need an ambulance

"oh em gee let me call a waaaambulance"

etc

Do you have another definition in mind?

 

[BunnySkull]

HH and FreeBeingMe

I was thinking about this discussion and I was wondering if the point of disagreement is, perhaps, a thought that making excuses (or seeming to do so) for CofS members would be tolerating and condoning evil. And that Panda's posts might seem to be coming from that perspective.

I mention this because there've other discussions over time about moderate critics vs those who are not.

This is just something that occurred to me, and I was wondering if that's the sticking point here.

Hammer meet nail head. This is exactly the problem. You are excusing or rationalizing abhorrent behavior and the support of an evil organization. It's implying the members have absolutely no capacity to refuse to do what the cult says. They are simply brainwashed zombies that would be the most wonderful people if only the cult didnt "force" them to do such horrible things or think a certain way. Im sure Andrew Rinder has a perfectly nice facade, but below that is currently a very dark fellow capable of some very nasty things all in the name of scientology. Actions define a person.

For once the comparison to Nazi was somewhat apt -meaning plenty of "good Germans" supported the regime because they thought it was for the best. They allowed one of the greatest evils of the 20th century to be perpetrated because they believed it was for the greater good of Germany. The excuse didn't wash very well after the war with the rest of Europe, just as it doesn't play well as an excuse for scientologists who committ evil or cruel acts.

Too many inhumanities and crimes could be wiped if society accepted the "I thought I was doing the right thing" defense.

This is not to say once people leave or see the truth that they can't truly become good people again - this board is full of wonderful examples of people working to stop a wrong they were once a part of. But I would never trust a current true believer, because so many have proved themselves capable of great cruelty and injustice in the name Scientology.

 

[Panda Termint]

Riddle me this, Bunnyskull; how does

Most of the Aussies know Andrew.
He's not a bad dude at all, just misguided in his Beliefs.

or

I doubt that he had much choice in that matter, Karen. What a terrible thing it is when scientology sets family members against each other.

add up to excusing or rationalising evil behavior?

To me, it's simply commentary as to the truth of the matter.

 

[anonomog]

Where do you draw the line for the guy who is a bastard because if he isn't he could lose family, job or in some regimes be shot? Or forthe guy who is a bastard because the culture allows him to be one and rewards him for being one.

One of my big questions re scientology, unlikely to be resolved, is where does the brainwashing start and end. To wipe the slate clean because of the brainwashing excuse is as daft as to condemn someone completely because brainwashing isn't an excuse to act inhumanely.

I see Panda's and HH's points as equally valid.

It would be nice to have a fixed line that delineate what would be considee wrong behaviour and what would be given a pass because of brainwashing. At one point I felt that if a person could legally make contracts, raise a family, live in an apparent normal fashion then brainwashing could not be an excuse because it hasn't overwritten the ability to function within society's norms. But many people with OCD do exactly that even though their thinking on certain matters are quite twisted.