byte301
Crusader
I think he's probably more comfortable over on Marty's blog.
And welcome, grinder.
Lynn
I think you're probably right, Lynn. He's welcome to it.
I think he's probably more comfortable over on Marty's blog.
And welcome, grinder.
Lynn
There seems to be a new theme developing on ESMB, that differing views are simply trolling, and possibly OSA.
When ESMB started there was an atmosphere of tolerance and posters with differing views were engaged or not depending on the intelligence and interesting ideas in their posts.
There was a general sympathy for the residual fondness for the tech by the people who rejected it, as it was part of the common experience.
And the tech lovers understood those who rejected it as they also had similar invalidative experiences with the church's culture.
The arrival of the anon and its very different culture, and the more recent arrival of a substantial force of Australians, who are very self confident in their own correctness, seems to be turning ESMB from Emma's tea party, to campaign headquarters against the church.
Pro scientology views are ridiculed with little thought given to the fact that they are views once also held by most of the people here.
Threads are treated as if this is all about serious business.
What happened to this being a place where we could all talk, with out the subtext of suspicion and the implication that hidden adgendas were being run?
Diverting a thread may just be a way to keep some conversation going. Some of the best threads on this board have gone for hundreds of pages with massive diversions and then someone replies to the original posters theme and its back on course. Its all communication.
I am personally sensitive to this OSA paranoia as I have often been accused of being such. I am listed on lermanet.com as such. And I have a tendency to have thoughts sparked by what people say and post in a thread with tagential thoughts that some would think diversionary.
But there are people on this board who have access to my real name.
My whole point being that some of the feeling that this is a safe place for anyone with a scientology experience to talk is to some degree being undermined by a trend towards stonger activism and less tolerance.
For those of you who feel the need to "rescue" your fellow man from thier beliefs, perhaps you are shooting yourself in the foot when you encourage an atmosphere of looking out for the OSA and labeling differences as trolling.
I have no qualms with seeing people who left the church as people of good intent. I desire reform in the church, and think that it is currently way off track from its stated goals. But is anti-scientology really a good new religion?
alex (who expects to be relabeled an osa troll. perhaps emma will change my "status" lable to osa troll extrodinare.)
Old post but a good one.
There does seem to be an intolerance on this web site to anyone giving an opinion or point of view that is different than what the majority think.
Can you think of another group of people ( or church ) who are intolerant towards people with who have a different point of view than what the group thinks?
I did see some people here get rather harsh with Alex.
I do not consider expressing disagreement with views to be harsh at all. Just so you know.
I saw some namecalling, too, though. That's mainly what I was thinking of when I wrote the other post.
I do not consider expressing disagreement with views to be harsh at all. Just so you know.
I saw some namecalling, too, though. That's mainly what I was thinking of when I wrote the other post.
I think that just about sums it upUnlike in a Scientology world, disagreement on ESMB does not constitute harassment.
We are allowed to invalidate crap anytime we see it. We can even put little comical flags on it and point it out to others.
Bear in mind, this applies to *any* piece of crap, even those I generate. In general ESMB requires a modicum of civility in discourse, but, it does *not* require telling crazy aunt Sally who wears a lampshade that her elizabethan crown proves that she's the legitimate monarch.
Nobody here has ESMB thugs sent out to 'ruin them utterly' for something they say here, although they may well have to survive laughter. Including, in the best of circumstances, learning to laugh at themselves.
Zinj
Yes exactly - this is how I see it too - to express diagreement is not harsh at all. But if you think Scientology is a criminal abusive organization you should be free to express that. And if you for yourself found out that this crimes of the church were clearly caused by the stupid Technology of MR. Hubbard you should be free to express this here. Even if this is causing big discontent for true believers of the Tech on this board.
And "name calling" is absolutely not ok - I totally aggree - but this was not my point.
Love
Markus
Pleaze. Pleaze. Tease the Sleeze.
Hey fluffy, dear Wench, are you up to it ?
We are allowed to invalidate crap anytime we see it. We can even put little comical flags on it and point it out to others.
Bear in mind, this applies to *any* piece of crap, even those I generate.
This is an example of what needs to stop.
"Sleeze" and "Wench", this is just name calling and should be stopped on this website.
Apparently name calling is ok on this website but pro Scientology viewpoints will get you banned or labeled a "troll".
This is an example of what needs to stop.
"Sleeze" and "Wench", this is just name calling and should be stopped on this website.
Apparently name calling is ok on this website but pro Scientology viewpoints will get you banned or labeled a "troll".
This is an example of what needs to stop.
"Sleeze" and "Wench", this is just name calling and should be stopped on this website.
Apparently name calling is ok on this website but pro Scientology viewpoints will get you banned or labeled a "troll".
Well Zinj, I'm glad you finally admitted that you do in fact, generate crap.