What's new

Partying with Mike Rinder and Squirrel Busters

Gadfly

Crusader
I also like some of Gadfly's posts and believe in telling the truth. But I also believe that sometimes the truth is best not spoken, especially when it's whole nature is concerned with picking apart another person or making someone feel embarrassed. If I have to go down that road I will seize up and end off. It's not needed, there's been plenty of that already in the CoS.

I also defend people's right to practise their religion of choice and to be able to be a Scientologist should they choose to be, in or out of the Church and to hold any other belief without others insisting that it is their duty to pick it apart.

If speaking the truth results in an unintended and unintentional "feeling bad" on another, well that's how it goes. Please realize that people have a choice in HOW they "react". I haven't been "offended" in probably . . . . well, ever! A person has to "take something personally", and in those cases it is THEM doing it, no matter what is said or intended. When an uptight atheist walks by a Christian church and is grossly "offended" by the image of a cross, who is at fault?

To me it is the upright and neurotic atheist who is OVERREACTING, and he doesn't HAVE to REACT so intensely to an inanimate object (the image of the cross). The same is true for words. If a person gets embarassed, in the end, whose fault is it? Stick and stones can break my bones, but . . . . My suggestion is don't be such a wimp - or get some confront - or get some more auditing so you won't cave in at every word that disagrees with or invalidates you. Or, lose some of that "ego" so that you stop identifying with this flimsy image of your "self" that "gets hurt" when somebody says words or ideas that you don't like. See, to me, a person in good mental and emotional shape wouldn't give the slightest shit about "entheta".

I agree that it serves no purpose for anybody to state ANYTHING (truth of false) with the sole aim of "picking apart another person or making someone feel embarrassed". And, while I may have succumbed to that occassionally, to some small degree on ESMB, it is rare. I try to let the "obvious facts" speak for themselves.

While I see some small amount of "picking apart another person or making someone feel embarrassed", here on ESMB, it doesn't seem that overly common to me. But, yes it does happen, from BOTH sides. I need not mention names but anyone who reads ESMB should know who are the most common violators.

And, if a person is really being dumb, blind or oblvious to facts and actual realities, sometimes a little embarrassment might be just what the doctor ordered. :confused2:

While this was recently hashed out on another thread I do NOT "defend people's right to practice their religion of choice" WHEN AND IF IT INVOLVES HARMING OTHER PEOPLE. I DO defend people's rights to believe whatever nonsense they desire to believe, but again, ONLY AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT HURT ANYBODY ALONG THE WAY.

And, because of THAT, there is a major problem with defending people's "rights" to practice the C of S version of Scientology. Why? Because, whether the supporters know it or not, they contribute to a deceitful organization that follows exact LRH policies aimed at harming, overwhleming, controlling and not-ising MANY people. Organized Scientology involves MIND CONTROL, and behavioral manipulation, no matter HOW you want to cut the cake. It is what it is, not matter WHAT any true-believing Scientoogy dummies believe and are "certain of" to the contrary.

Would you support a Muslim fanatic's "right to practice his religion"? When he harms other people in planned suicide bombings? While not exactly the same, there is a SIMILARITY with organized Scientology. Organized Scientology can and will ALWAYS hurt people by applying Hubbard's insane policies on hard sell, overwhleming to win, lying, excessive PR, setting up innocent people in crimes they didn't commit, noisy investigations, exaggerated claims of efficacy of the "tech", manipulative uses of ARC, manipulative ruin-finding, declares, disconnection, fair game, and on and on and on.

Again, while I defend any person's right to think and say whatever they choose, I do NOT blanket defend every person to freely practice their religion when doing so HURTS REAL LIVE PEOPLE.

Sorry, some of what you stated is WAY too LIBERAL for me. It is too general and requires qualification to be acceptable. In other words, you are TOO tolerant. I AM fully tolerant for any thought, idea or belief, but I am NOT tolerant of actions that HARM others directly, as a result of the application of certain nutty "beliefs".

You can think and believe whatever you want about me, but if you step onto my property with an aim to seriously harm me or my family, I will happily, with zero regret, put a bullet right between your eyes. And I won't lose a second's sleep. See, there is a BIG difference between beliefs (ideas) and practices (behavior). When the beliefs directly lead to nasty behaviors, as they often do in Scientology, then one has to be VERY careful and VERY concerned.

People do NOT enjoy any "right" to hold "any other belief without others insisting that it is their duty to pick it apart". Freedom means that others are free to pick apart whatever they choose. Your only choice is in not listening. But, just as you are free to sat whatever you want, so are others free to tear it apart.

If you don't like it, then change the channel. Which I suppose is what you mean by "cutting the entheta line". :confused2:

(Note to RogerB - here are some more words . . . . ) :biggrin:

Oh, also, no place can be "safe" for everybody, especially when 1) their feelings are too fragile, 2) their confront is much too weak, or 3) their belief system (fixed ideas) are WAY too rigid to allow flexibility.
 
... Oh, also, no place can be "safe" for everybody, especially when 1) their feelings are too fragile, 2) their confront is much too weak, or 3) their belief system (fixed ideas) are WAY too rigid to allow flexibility.

You left out #4:

4. the environment is too chaotic and any meaningful or intelligent exchange of signal information is lost due to the background noise level.

Or does that last principle reflect too much 'entheta' for you? :angel:


Mark A. Baker :coolwink:
 

Sindy

Crusader
If speaking the truth results in an unintended and unintentional "feeling bad" on another, well that's how it goes. Please realize that people have a choice in HOW they "react". I haven't been "offended" in probably . . . . well, ever! A person has to "take something personally", and in those cases it is THEM doing it, no matter what is said or intended. When an uptight atheist walks by a Christian church and is grossly "offended" by the image of a cross, who is at fault?

To me it is the upright and neurotic atheist who is OVERREACTING, and he doesn't HAVE to REACT so intensely to an inanimate object (the image of the cross). The same is true for words. If a person gets embarassed, in the end, whose fault is it? Stick and stones can break my bones, but . . . . My suggestion is don't be such a wimp - or get some confront - or get some more auditing so you won't cave in at every word that disagrees with or invalidates you. Or, lose some of that "ego" so that you stop identifying with this flimsy image of your "self" that "gets hurt" when somebody says words or ideas that you don't like. See, to me, a person in good mental and emotional shape wouldn't give the slightest shit about "entheta".

I agree that it serves no purpose for anybody to state ANYTHING (truth of false) with the sole aim of "picking apart another person or making someone feel embarrassed". And, while I may have succumbed to that occassionally, to some small degree on ESMB, it is rare. I try to let the "obvious facts" speak for themselves.

While I see some small amount of "picking apart another person or making someone feel embarrassed", here on ESMB, it doesn't seem that overly common to me. But, yes it does happen, from BOTH sides. I need not mention names but anyone who reads ESMB should know who are the most common violators.

And, if a person is really being dumb, blind or oblvious to facts and actual realities, sometimes a little embarrassment might be just what the doctor ordered. :confused2:

While this was recently hashed out on another thread I do NOT "defend people's right to practice their religion of choice" WHEN AND IF IT INVOLVES HARMING OTHER PEOPLE. I DO defend people's rights to believe whatever nonsense they desire to believe, but again, ONLY AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT HURT ANYBODY ALONG THE WAY.

And, because of THAT, there is a major problem with defending people's "rights" to practice the C of S version of Scientology. Why? Because, whether the supporters know it or not, they contribute to a deceitful organization that follows exact LRH policies aimed at harming, overwhleming, controlling and not-ising MANY people. Organized Scientology involves MIND CONTROL, and behavioral manipulation, no matter HOW you want to cut the cake. It is what it is, not matter WHAT any true-believing Scientoogy dummies believe and are "certain of" to the contrary.

Would you support a Muslim fanatic's "right to practice his religion"? When he harms other people in planned suicide bombings? While not exactly the same, there is a SIMILARITY with organized Scientology. Organized Scientology can and will ALWAYS hurt people by applying Hubbard's insane policies on hard sell, overwhleming to win, lying, excessive PR, setting up innocent people in crimes they didn't commit, noisy investigations, exaggerated claims of efficacy of the "tech", manipulative uses of ARC, manipulative ruin-finding, declares, disconnection, fair game, and on and on and on.

Again, while I defend any person's right to think and say whatever they choose, I do NOT blanket defend every person to freely practice their religion when doing so HURTS REAL LIVE PEOPLE.

Sorry, some of what you stated is WAY too LIBERAL for me. It is too general and requires qualification to be acceptable. In other words, you are TOO tolerant. I AM fully tolerant for any thought, idea or belief, but I am NOT tolerant of actions that HARM others directly, as a result of the application of certain nutty "beliefs".

You can think and believe whatever you want about me, but if you step onto my property with an aim to seriously harm me or my family, I will happily, with zero regret, put a bullet right between your eyes. And I won't lose a second's sleep. See, there is a BIG difference between beliefs (ideas) and practices (behavior). When the beliefs directly lead to nasty behaviors, as they often do in Scientology, then one has to be VERY careful and VERY concerned.

People do NOT enjoy any "right" to hold "any other belief without others insisting that it is their duty to pick it apart". Freedom means that others are free to pick apart whatever they choose. Your only choice is in not listening. But, just as you are free to sat whatever you want, so are others free to tear it apart.

If you don't like it, then change the channel. Which I suppose is what you mean by "cutting the entheta line". :confused2:

(Note to RogerB - here are some more words . . . . ) :biggrin:

Oh, also, no place can be "safe" for everybody, especially when 1) their feelings are too fragile, 2) their confront is much too weak, or 3) their belief system (fixed ideas) are WAY too rigid to allow flexibility.

I have deleted my last post as I changed my mind and don't want to keep this whole drama going.

Love ya all...........:) I better go get some work done.
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
噢,我的上帝。我没有翻译,你是对的 - 艺术字小丑高科技活得很好!



哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈哈

我在地板上滾動,我笑的這麼多,我的屁股摔了下來。


Originally Posted by HelluvaTranslator:

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I am rolling on the floor and laughing so hard my ass fell off.
 
Last edited:
Top