Mosey sues cult for harrassment

M

Moderator 3

Guest
...
I really hope he stays (though I doubt he will) as it brings a new energy to the board.

:yes:


Oops, sorry but he/she is taking a short (2 week) holiday. Maybe he/she is tough enough to come back after that short break. The personal abuse thing doesn't work here, even if it's simply a case of someone attempting to "match tones" with antagonists. :biggrin:

My bet, he/she will be back. There's a point to be made. :)
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Well I don't know Debbie at all. However it seems her mail
was something she believed people should read. Idealism.
Its hard to see a money motive here. Potentially setting herself
up for legal costs against CO$. Then when giving her leaving
whatever the heck it was by Ableson she neglected to take her
check with her. Then CO$ initiated the lawsuit not Debbie.

well Terril - I do like your outlook.

now consider this.

Debbie had been sucking the life blood out of scientologists for decades, she has bought bmws out of her income from that. She has never, ever once apologized, expressed remorse tried to make up to the people who were absolutely destroyed by Flag and its rapacious thuggish regges and execs.

And you opine that she suddenly came over all noble? Well sure it could happen - but if that is the case why did she not go the whole hog and expose everything she knew? She had the chance , But she settled for swanning around the gulf. Writing her blog about what she and her hubby were up to next.

Sorry terril - you are in error - she has had every chance to be what a lot of scientologistsd dreamed of - but she turned out to just be debbie cook - retirement planner.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Oops, sorry but he/she is taking a short (2 week) holiday. Maybe he/she is tough enough to come back after that short break. The personal abuse thing doesn't work here, even if it's simply a case of someone attempting to "match tones" with antagonists. :biggrin:

My bet, he/she will be back. There's a point to be made. :)

That sounds fair enough to me.

Thanks also for removing that offensive meme.

:coolwink:
 

Lone Star

Crusader
I disagree Cats, I think it's a really good sign that he's willing to come here and talk in the full knowledge that nothing is likely to change on either "side".

It's very unhealthy for anyone to just blithely accept orders from cult "seniors" and I'm pretty certain this guy is not doing that, he's running his own ship, he just chooses a different ship to most of us at this time.

He's not as robotic as many scientologists are either and I applaud that.

In the main he has also been well mannered (I did find the "retard" post offensive) throughout and seems to be genuine in his attempt to have us understand his viewpoint (and we were all like that once).

I really hope he stays (though I doubt he will) as it brings a new energy to the board.

:yes:


He won me over with the funny cat pictures.
 
Oops, sorry but he/she is taking a short (2 week) holiday. Maybe he/she is tough enough to come back after that short break. The personal abuse thing doesn't work here, even if it's simply a case of someone attempting to "match tones" with antagonists. :biggrin:

My bet, he/she will be back. There's a point to be made. :)

This 2 week, but not forever ban, gladdens my heart.

If the valued contributor decides to return I shall say:

"Hi Semi. How's goin'? How y' ban lately?
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
He's doing the old "dirty your needle" drill. "I don't understand. Show me proof. I don't understand. Show me proof."

Agreed and this is why I think a ban was appropriate.

I disagree Cats, I think it's a really good sign that he's willing to come here and talk in the full knowledge that nothing is likely to change on either "side".

It's very unhealthy for anyone to just blithely accept orders from cult "seniors" and I'm pretty certain this guy is not doing that, he's running his own ship, he just chooses a different ship to most of us at this time.

He's not as robotic as many scientologists are either and I applaud that.

In the main he has also been well mannered (I did find the "retard" post offensive) throughout and seems to be genuine in his attempt to have us understand his viewpoint (and we were all like that once).

I really hope he stays (though I doubt he will) as it brings a new energy to the board.

:yes:


Not at all. I would welcome a pro-CofS poster who actually came here and went toe to toe with us, and attempted to persuade any fence-sitters on here or amongst lurkers that the the CofS was following a broadly correct and justified course of action, even if mistakes were made. But that wasn't what semioldguard was doing.

(She (it could be a "he", but I see no reason to automatically use "he" in instances of indeterminate gender) repeatedly refused to answer reasonable questions put to her, first by Veda and then by me (when I repeated them). That's why I came to the conclusion she was trolling, and a ban is appropriate in that instance.
 
Last edited:

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
<snip> give her her own thread away from the rest of the board where she can post to her heart's content and other people who feel so inclined can engage with her there.

<snip>

:hmm: Really? I wouldn't like that. There are a few posters here who I don't like to read, so usually, I just scroll down to the next post(er). Occasionally, I decide to reply to a post I find annoying, but I let most of the stuff slip by, because frankly: I couldn't change anyone's views/behavior/style/whatever, only they could do that. So why bother?

My question: If every poster who is found annoying by the majority of members was awarded his/her own personal sand box to play in, what would that achieve?

To me it'd be just like using the Ignore function, which I never found necessary. It'd just be like sticking your fingers into your ears and singing :blah:.

The downside of that: If people changed their mind and now had become valuable contributors, you probably won't even notice - and if they only made a one-off good post, you'd notice even less of it.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
:hmm: Really? I wouldn't like that. There are a few posters here who I don't like to read, so usually, I just scroll down to the next post(er). Occasionally, I decide to reply to a post I find annoying, but I let most of the stuff slip by, because frankly: I couldn't change anyone's views/behavior/style/whatever, only they could do that. So why bother?

My question: If every poster who is found annoying by the majority of members was awarded his/her own personal sand box to play in, what would that achieve?

To me it'd be just like using the Ignore function, which I never found necessary. It'd just be like sticking your fingers into your ears and singing :blah:.

The downside of that: If people changed their mind and now had become valuable contributors, you probably won't even notice - and if they only made a one-off good post, you'd notice even less of it.

Fair point, but whether somebody is "annoying" isn't the issue here - I'm sure we all have our list of those even amongst the regular and accepted posters here. The issue is whether or not the person is trolling the board, i.e. disrupting the normal communications amongst us without adding valuable content of their own.
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
Fair point, but whether somebody is "annoying" isn't the issue here - I'm sure we all have our list of those even amongst the regular and accepted posters here. The issue is whether or not the person is trolling the board, i.e. disrupting the normal communications amongst us without adding valuable content of their own.

Oh, there's at least one long-standing regular here who immediately pops up in my mind and I wouldn't have to think hard to come up with more, but I see no point in posting my list, or is it? :biggrin:

I still can't see the benefits in confining certain users to their own personal sand box(es).

Splitting the forum in several topical sub-sections as it is, is fine by me, but splitting the forum up in several personal sand boxes is counter-productive, IMO.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Agreed and this is why I think a ban was appropriate.



Not at all. I would welcome a pro-CofS poster who actually came here and went toe to toe with us, and attempted to persuade any fence-sitters on here or amongst lurkers that the the CofS was following a broadly correct and justified course of action, even if mistakes were made. But that wasn't what semioldguard was doing.

(She (it could be a "he", but I see no reason to automatically use "he" in instances of indeterminate gender) repeatedly refused to answer reasonable questions put to her, first by Veda and then by me (when I repeated them). That's why I came to the conclusion she was trolling, and a ban is appropriate in that instance.




:confused2:


Just because someone doesn't answer questions it doesn't automatically mean they are trolling and need banning.

A current scientologist is not going to be able to truly answer questions (from the heart) of the kind you and I, Anonymary and Veda asked, because while he remains in the cofs he can't can he? I suppose he could have insulted us by trotting out some silly cult approved answers but apparently chose not to and I appreciated that.

Current scientologists are no enemy of mine ... far from it, they are all future exes as far as I'm concerned and many truly believe they are trapped, just as I once did, by family connections or for other reasons and play the part expected of them right up until the day they decide to get real and get out ... and that can happen overnight as many of us know.

I was disgusted by those videos semi posted here but the target of my disgust was David Miscavige, who (no doubt) had them made and released.

If I wanted some opposition though, my eye would surreptitiously drift towards "indies" because every now and again they actually have the nerve to come here and try and recruit and would no doubt like to see us all remain in the insane and narrow mindset of a scientologist, talking endless crap about "body thetans" and "meter reads" and other senseless drivel.

I'd prefer to talk to semi any day.



:biggrin:










 

JustSheila

Crusader


:confused2:


Just because someone doesn't answer questions it doesn't automatically mean they are trolling and need banning.

A current scientologist is not going to be able to truly answer questions (from the heart) of the kind you and I, Anonymary and Veda asked, because while he remains in the cofs he can't can he?

<snip>

I'd prefer to talk to semi any day.


:biggrin:


Mmmm, not sure I agree with that.

It's part of being a fake persona to always attack others' views and never present one's own ideas and personality. That's a troll.

One has to be TRAINED to be a fake persona and led to believe that the fake persona is not only real, it's BETTER than a person would be on their own.

We definitely put some chinks in semioldguard's fake persona armor.

Still, everyone has to come to their own conclusions in their own time. I don't think anyone has yet had a real conversation with the real person behind the semioldguard fake persona. We won't, either - but we can teach that the behaviour is unacceptable, fake, and there are better ways.

People who ask questions to annoy, not to actually get answers, aren't gong to learn much of anything.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Good post Sheila. There was a point earlier in the discussion where SOG clicked the "Disagree" and "WTF"? boxes in response to Anonycat's posts, and when Anonycat (quite reasonably) asked SOG, "What is it about my post you disagree with?" SOG still wouldn't tell him. To me, that's a big red flag.

Having said that, Trouble made an excellent point here;

"Current scientologists are no enemy of mine ... far from it, they are all future exes as far as I'm concerned and many truly believe they are trapped, just as I once did, by family connections or for other reasons and play the part expected of them right up until the day they decide to get real and get out ... and that can happen overnight as many of us know."

That hit a big nerve for me, as it comes from a perspective I lack from experience and yet is shared by a good many people here.

So all in all, I'm really not sure what to think. Well done both of you for your parts in carrying on a good discussion.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
Trouble, here's a hypothetical question for you;

For the time being, let's suspend the idea that SOG is a troll - they may or may not be - and look at the implications for ESMB.

Suppose someone actually did come here to troll us and disrupt the board, knowing she would be banned for it and yet either privately convinced she was doing the right thing or under directions to do so by someone higher up in the CofS.

If what you're saying is true (and it may well be), the board would have a problem, because we would have to choose between the preservation of the normal functioning of the board (which the troll was trying to disrupt) and the possibility that by allowing the troll to continue posting here, she would start to wake up and question her continued involvement in the CofS.

So, how under those circumstances could we have any rules at all, or at least be able to enforce them? Inquiring minds (or at least this one) would like to know.
 
Last edited:

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Trouble, here's a hypothetical question for you;

For the time being, let's suspend the idea that SOG is a troll - they may or may not be - and look at the implications for ESMB.

Suppose someone actually did actually come here to troll us and disrupt the board, knowing he would be banned for it and yet either privately convinced he was doing the right thing or under directions to do so by someone higher up in the CofS. (The great majority of trolls are male in my experience, so I see no inconsistency in using the masculine pronoun here.)

If what you're saying is true (and it may well be), the board would have a problem, because we would have to choose between the preservation of the normal functioning of the board (which the troll was trying to disrupt) and the possibility that by allowing the troll to continue posting here, he would start to wake up and question his continued involvement in the CofS.

So, how under those circumstances could we have any rules at all, or at least be able to enforce them? Inquiring minds (or at least this one) would like to know.

We have perfectly good rules already that are enforced and we all have to abide by them whether still in, an indie or a true ex and that's cool with me.

People wake up when they are ready, I doubt we would make any difference to someone who isn't ready, we may even make them more determined to remain cultic and that is their choice.

We know when we are being "trolled" (it's not hard) but if we start yelling "troll" and threatening to ban people for not fitting in with the "normal functioning of the board" we may as well close up shop and all go home because we will be as bad as the cofs.


:)
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
We have perfectly good rules already and we all have to abide by them whether still in, indie or true exes and that's cool with me.

We know when we are being "trolled" (it's not hard) but if we start yelling "troll" and threatening to ban people for not fitting in with the "normal functioning of the board" we may as well close up shop and all go home because we will be as bad as the cofs.

:)

Have you ever run a board Trouble, or helped to? I have, and dealing with trolls is an, if not everyday, at least common experience. It goes with the territory. There's no "as bad as the CofS" about it.

Good ones can be very clever and pretend to be someone they're not or to have had experiences they haven't had. I've even seen people boasting about trolling another board, in the shoutbox of the one I belonged to, and saying which characters they were playing there.

There's also a big difference between "not fitting in" (which could apply even to several regular posters here) and a conscious intention to deceive or disrupt.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
Posted by Cat's Squirrel

Have you ever run a board Trouble, or tried to? I have, and dealing with trolls is an, if not everyday, at least common experience. It goes with the territory. There's no "as bad as the CofS" about it.

Good ones can be very clever and pretend to be someone they're not or to have had experiences they haven't had. I've even seen people boasting about trolling another board, in the shoutbox of the one I belonged to, and saying which characters they were playing there.

There's also a big difference between "not fitting in" (which could apply to several even regular posters here) and a conscious intention to deceive or disrupt.


No, I haven't.

If a person (any person or character) breaks the rules ... they cop the result.

Simples.

:coolwink:



 

Terril park

Sponsor
well Terril - I do like your outlook.

now consider this.

Debbie had been sucking the life blood out of scientologists for decades, she has bought bmws out of her income from that. She has never, ever once apologized, expressed remorse tried to make up to the people who were absolutely destroyed by Flag and its rapacious thuggish regges and execs.

And you opine that she suddenly came over all noble? Well sure it could happen - but if that is the case why did she not go the whole hog and expose everything she knew? She had the chance , But she settled for swanning around the gulf. Writing her blog about what she and her hubby were up to next.

Sorry terril - you are in error - she has had every chance to be what a lot of scientologistsd dreamed of - but she turned out to just be debbie cook - retirement planner.

Looks like she has always, at least until her court case, supported
Scn. Looks like her e-mail was an effort to save it, and a very brave
move. I think she exposed the most important thing she could describing
for a court record the conditions of the hole and how she and the exec made to lick a toilet floor were treated. And informing what was
probably the majority of scientologists how screwy the leadership
was. She did all this while suffering from a debilitating disease.
 

Gizmo

Rabble Rouser
Ah, Mosey costs the cult - say - 20 million in legal fees before they fork over a cool 100 million to her.

THAT starts to slap a knot on their thick little heads.

This peanut thinking of 8 - 10 mil needs to go away !
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Just a quickie reminder...

TeamRathbun's response to TeamCSI's latest (stupid) brief* to the Texas 3rd Circuit Appellate Court is due on/about March 6, 2015.

JB

*The brief that brags about TeamScio 'winning' an anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss in the California case, Woodward v Scientology, et. al.

:scnsucks:
 
Top