People newly out of scientology & ESMB

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
Geez! I was simply giving the definition of the term "ex". It means what it means per standard dictionaries and long-term usage. You can imagine it to mean whatever else you want.

Any person surfing the Net will see "ex-Scientologist" as part of ESMB, and until he or she digs in and finds out that ANYBODY can happily post here, they will tend to probably stay away if he or she still considers him or herself to be a "Scientologist". It doesn't matter what me or anyone else might "think" it "means". For MOST people, "ex-Scientologist" has a fairly exact meanig that is NOT what the DETAILED PURPOSE of ESMB is at all.

Yes, I well know what and how Emma defines the purpose of ESMB. In truth, the "name" ESMB isn't a very accurate description, but also, in truth, for the most part the majority of people who post here ARE "EXES", of BOTH the Church of Scientology and of the majority of the subject and practices of Scientology.

I don't see many people coming here and posting who actually consider themselves to be "Scientologists". That isn't a coincidence. It has more than a little to do with the NAME of the board (Ex-Scientologist) AND the CONTENT of the posts on this board. But, some of you can argue about such nonsense if you like.

I have zero interest in monitoring or policing what type of person posts here (contrary to some others who recently posted previously on this thread).

There you go using common sense again.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
There you go using common sense again.

Yeah, something that those who imagine themselves to be "master debaters" here on ESMB don't quite grasp. And, it is no accident that "master debators" sounds awfully close to . . . . well, you know. :confused2:

Except that they do it with IDEAS instead of with their . . . .

Really, survey 1000 people and see what they think. Ask them what it means to be:

1. an ex-Christian

2. an ex-Muslim

3. an ex-wife beater

4. an ex-Scientologist

Tally the results. It will be failry obvious - except to the anally-retentive over-thinking types or hopelessly confused.
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
:thumbsup:
Yeah, something that those who imagine themselves to be "master debaters" here on ESMB don't quite grasp. And, it is no accident that "master debators" sounds awfully close to . . . . well, you know. :confused2:

Except that they do it with IDEAS instead of with their . . . .

Really, survey 1000 people and see what they think. Ask them what it means to be:

1. an ex-Christian

2. an ex-Muslim

3. an ex-wife beater

4. an ex-Scientologist

Tally the results. It will be failry obvious - except to the anally-retentive over-thinking types or hopelessly confused.

:thumbsup:
 

SchwimmelPuckel

Genuine Meatball
This is quite simple - to me.

This board is named "EX" - Scientologist. "Ex" means "former".

2.a prefix meaning “former,”“formerly having been” <snip>
Just to aggravate the point: The word 'Ex-Scientologist' would be considered a very 'bad indicator', almost certainly a case of treason.. To state that one is an 'ex' is to 'publicy disawow Scientology', which is treason by green on white policy (I don't care to find out which..). That was how it was when I ran puking away in 1987. From reading recent reports this has gotten even worse.

And of course.. To be a member of this group, ESMB, is to maintain comm-lines with flamin' supressives!!! - Also a high crime for which you are promptly declared.. (Unless you have money..)

:yes:
 
Geez! I was simply giving the definition of the term "ex". ...

Yes, one that directly conflicts with the founding board owner's specification as to how the term relates to this board and its membership. :eyeroll:

What is curious is what it says of an individual who despite repeated corrections of just exactly this question over the years this board has been operating, including several corrections made by the board owner herself, nevertheless continues in promoting his own distorted views. ??? Does such behavior reflect continuing confusion, personnel delusion, a private agenda, or perhaps some other peculiar mental state? Is there perhaps a compulsive need to evaluate others identities for them?

One can only guess. :whistling:


Mark A. Baker
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Yeah, something that those who imagine themselves to be "master debaters" here on ESMB don't quite grasp. And, it is no accident that "master debators" sounds awfully close to . . . . well, you know. :confused2:

Except that they do it with IDEAS instead of with their . . . .

Really, survey 1000 people and see what they think. Ask them what it means to be:

1. an ex-Christian

2. an ex-Muslim

3. an ex-wife beater

4. an ex-Scientologist

Tally the results. It will be failry obvious - except to the anally-retentive over-thinking types or hopelessly confused.


Hilarious stuff. In spite of Baker having thundered down a non-appealable Judicial Ruling from his unassailable and lofty position as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:

"And far more important than YOUR OPINION on the matter, the board founder and former owner of esmb has defined the term "ex-scientologist" for the purpose of this board as meaning a person who was formerly a member of the church of scientology. Full Stop.

Your 'preference' reflects an obvious error of 'study' which results in misconception or deliberate deceit; to whit application of an incorrect definition."


:hysterical: Full Stop? Misconception or deliberate deceit? To whit? :hysterical:

What preposterous pomposity! This is a freaking message board where people simply voice their ideas and opinions, not a courtroom with legally framed judicial mandates! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
Hilarious stuff. In spite of Baker having thundered down a non-appealable Judicial Ruling from his unassailable and lofty position as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:




:hysterical: Full Stop? Misconception or deliberate deceit? To whit? :hysterical:

What preposterous pomposity! This is a freaking message board where people simply voice their ideas and opinions, not a courtroom with legally framed judicial mandates! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Aw now, some thrive on the mental masturbation of their own self importance.
( not to mention their status as self appointed Hall Monitor of this, that ,& the other on some chat board. Even lower than the Spelling Police or the Puncuation Police ( both very seriously undertaken by those so engaged).

Anyway, it's too deep to be a mere valence issue :duh:
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Yes, one that directly conflicts with the founding board owner's specification as to how the term relates to this board and its membership. :eyeroll:

What is curious is what it says of an individual who despite repeated corrections of just exactly this question over the years this board has been operating, including several corrections made by the board owner herself, nevertheless continues in promoting his own distorted views. ??? Does such behavior reflect continuing confusion, personnel delusion, a private agenda, or perhaps some other peculiar mental state? Is there perhaps a compulsive need to evaluate others identities for them?

One can only guess. :whistling:

Mark A. Baker

You know what, I said FUCK FOUNDERS and SCREW SOURCES when I left Scientology.

WHO exactly has had "repeated corrections"? Please fill in the specifics.

If I had some confusion, personal delusion or distorted view about ESMB, how is it that "Gadfly" is in the top three on Likes and Thanks? That would seem impossible if what you say is true. And, also, you have almost TWICE AS MANY POSTS AS I do. My "batting average" seems to be fairly good. I suspect that it is NOT I who have the confusion, personal delusion or distorted views (about a great many things).

Also, I have never been censored or banned for any period of time. The worse it ever got was when I kept derailing Cowboy's thread because I was going viral on "Cowpoke Avatar Madness", I just couldn't contain myself, and a Mod PM'ed me a few times to STOP IT. :confused2: :duh:

pirate-squirrel4s.jpg


Mark, I even took the time to put the damned cowpoke hat on the PARROT in your avatar!!!!!! :thumbsup:

vin4.jpg
Sneaks1.jpg
avril49.jpg
taz_devil5s.jpg
hang_hun6_no-1.jpg
lurker5_4.jpg
minime5_avatar.jpg


So, it would seem that if ESMB member concensus is any indication, I certainly have a fairly good grasp of what ESMB is all about. Yes? No? Maybe? But really, I am not asking you, because I gave up trying to have an intelligent conversation with you a long time ago. This post is for the viewers, and not really "for you".

For myself, I don't much bother talking about HOW we all discuss here. I tend to discuss Scientology and Hubbard, and not very much concern myself with "rules" and "regulations" of ESMB-land. I guess I never much cared for police mentalities. :whistling:

I also came to the conclusion that people who want to use NON-COMMON and UNUSUAL definitions for what are actually simple terms, as is done with Scientology nomenclature, are out to mess with people and confuse them.

I really don't give a shit what anybody thinks or says "ex-Scientology" should "mean" that is different than what the words themselves mean to most people most of the time. As I said earlier, I really don't care and don't give it any concern.

Guess what? I have NEVER spent even a second thinking about "the founding board owner's specification as to how the term relates to this board and its membership." Does anyone REALLY care? Other than YOU? :confused2:

Go roll your eyes up your ass Baker. :yes: :omg:

Since you are getting attacking and personal, I suppose I can play too.

You know sometimes I really enjoy your posts and other times you are basically like an annoying GNAT or bug that won't stay away. I find this interesting because it displays almost two different distinct personalities. Do you yourself notice any correlation between these fairly drastic swings in types of posts as your mood disorder kicks in and out? You might want to keep notes for a few months, monitoring your mood condition and the type of post that you are putting up on ESMB - who knows, there might be some connection between the two. And, maybe not. :whistling:

(two can play at your inane innuendo game - not that I will play it long because I find it non-interesting and largely boring)

Did I cross a line there? But, really I AM curious about it, because I do see and notice a marked difference in the "emotion" in your posts at different times.

I will reiterate, no matter what anyone thinks or wants, no matter the "real intention of ESMB" might be, when a person newly leaves the Church of Scientology, and still harbors an attachment and like for many of or all things Hubbard, he or she will usually NOT gravitate here because the NAME ALONE, Ex-Scientologist, is antipathetic to them. That is simply the way it is. It isn't my hope, opinion or desire. It just is what it is.

And, of course, the largely anti-Hubbard and anti-Scientology slant here won't do much to atrract them either.
 
Last edited:
... Do you yourself notice any correlatrion between these fairly drastic swings in types of posts as your mood disorder kicks in? ...

Actually you grossly over simplify. With regard to your question, yes I have been well aware for many years of how my mood affects my interactions & communications. I'm something of an expert on the topic. And in part for that reason I'm also fairly attuned to how it is present with others, even where they may not recognize the effects of emotive mood on their posts.

That is a key component in my own emphasis on the value of substantive content within posts rather than simply posting as an expression of unreason or irrational reactivity. Yelling does not advance public discourse, whereas discussing the basis of feelings of anger may.


Mark A. Baker
 

Dave B.

Maximus Ultimus Mostimus
how is it that "Gadfly" is in the top three on Likes and Thanks? That would seem impossible if what you say is true. And, also, you have almost TWICE AS MANY POSTS AS I do. My "batting average" seems to be fairly good.


Where can I find that info? Is it in the profile personal info section somewhere?
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
Tool bar at top of page.
Find " community" & click on it.second row, 5th from left side
From the drop down the last one is " likes/dislikes stats" Click on it.
Read'em & weep.:)

Top 10 Thanks (Received)
HelluvaHoax! (4127)
Veda (2880)
Gadfly (2530)
Smilla (2295)
Free to shine (1992)
Emma (1834)
Sindy (1649)
Karen#1 (1630)
afaceinthecrowd (1545)
sallydannce (1520)

Top 10 Likes (Received)
HelluvaHoax! (11719)
Smilla (5684)
Gadfly (5636)
Veda (3732)
Sindy (3636)
Emma (2595)
afaceinthecrowd (2491)
Panda Termint (2460)
Free to shine (2362)
Dulloldfart (2342)

Uh, Gadfly speaks the truth.
 

Dave B.

Maximus Ultimus Mostimus
Tool bar at top of page.
Find " community" & click on it.
From the drop down the last one is " likes/dislikes" Click on it.
Read & weep.:)


haha, first thing I thought is: "ESMB does better stats than the cult." :) Concise, clean, & tells the story.
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
haha, first thing I thought is: "ESMB does better stats than the cult." :) Concise, clean, & tells the story.

I REALLY dislke stats, but, ya asked.

Oh, & I'll give ESMB this: They keep stats that have some meaning.

Whereas the cult seemed to use stats as yet another way to fuck people over.

To me, an immense difference.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I was talking about ths likes/dislikes thing with a good friend- soon after I was singled out (due to two people clicking a whoooolllle lotta dislikes on my posts) publicly here re that "stat". He said it's a drama generator and that it might make more sense to post a different sort of stat- the ratio of likes/dislikes the person presses, not receives.

I think he's right.
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
I was talking about ths likes/dislikes thing with a good friend- soon after I was singled out (due to two people clicking a whoooolllle lotta dislikes on my posts) publicly here re that "stat". He said it's a drama generator and that it might make more sense to post a different sort of stat- the ratio of likes/dislikes the person presses, not receives.

I think he's right.

Oh, there ain't much in the world that can't be improved on next Monday morning.

On the like / dislike thing I can see where it seemed like a good idea at the time.
After seeing it for a few years could it now be tweaked ? Yeah, but probably a few dozen other things are more critical & demanding of limited manpower available.

It is a whole page that can be ignored or obsessed over - just like everything else.
 
Top