Voltaire's Child
Fool on the Hill
I finally figured out what the deal was.
When I was in CofS and was posting to a.r.s. and encountered so much resistance, I was told- and it was mostly true the majority of the time- that it was because I was part of a criminal cult that I was getting ummm...talked to as sternly as I was, with so much personalization. And it's true. I was part of a criminal cult. Eventually I figured it out and I walked away a year before my expulsion and declare.
I went on being candid about my stance as well as my identity since I knew that contributors, often targetted by OSA themselves or witnesses to such are very suspicious of anonymous contributors who have minority views re Scn. So I admitted and emphasized my ideological stance and also my identity. The comments still raged on. And I kept making tactical errata by arguing back. This really pissed those people off.
Now, I personally found that bizarre. If a man walks down the street and someone runs up to him and attacks him, no reasonable person would expect him to be passive. Yet, I was getting a lot of dressings down for doing exactly that.
But I kept harping on it. I still do, in fact. The thing I kept asking was "why are you doing this? How can this be on topic?" That's why I keep talking about this. I never ever got a straight answer. I just got a lot of "q&a" and side stuff about hair, job, marriage, please list everything you did in CofS, stop talking back, Hubbard had rotten teeth, you intend this, you intend that. So the answers I got were those people's opinions about me. This was very relevant and heartfelt for them. I could see that. But it was an answer to a different question. It was not an answer to the question I was asking.
I pointed out again and again that those boards and ngs were about Scn, Hubbard, etc. And still it went on. Frequent and heartfelt commentary about my defects, with my answering back listed as number one, pretty much.
And I finally have my answer. And believe me, I am not being sarcastic or facetious. I really figured it out. I had to figure it out myself because those people who were (some of whom still are, in fact) so angry with me- as much for answering back as for just having a different belief system- just would never ever answer my question.
Remember, I asked again and again about relevance to the forum subject matter, and how could this be about me, then, and why was it not ok for me to speak up against those derailments.
But the thing is, I now know why they thought it was relevant and why they were so very disgusted with my answering back.
If someone's doing an intervention or a deprogramming of Person X, then Person X truly is the subject matter. Therefore, those efforts are entirely relevant. Those individuals consider that deprogramming someone from Scn is part of the subject matter. And I suppose, in a way, that's correct. It's too bad they wouldn't come out and be honest about it, though. I guess it was too much of a hot potato to come out and say.
Think about it. There's a show called Intervention on an American cable network. So Addie the Addict comes tripping trustingly down the stairs and into the Big Old Confrontation Room. She's told they're all going to discuss politics or have dinner or whatever. (They do the same thing with the show "What Not To Wear" which is a much fluffier type of deprogramming having to do with fashion. but the same lure sets the scene since they KNOW the person won't show up if they're told "come down here to be told that you suck.") So she gets there and it's all about her and how she needs to stop doing what she's doing. She IS the subject of the intervention. If she talks back, says anything other than, yes, I'm wrong and I'll go to rehab, everyone's gonna be like, WTF? You're an addict. You are avoiding the elephant in the room. You need to quit taking heroin. Bottom line.
So Addie the Addict is the subject of the intervention. She needs deprogramming. If you've ever read Rummies by Peter Benchley - a murder mystery that starts with an intervention with the protagonist, a full on raging alkie- you'll see that any evasion by that person can not be countenanced since the individual is in the wrong and has nothing positive to contribute as long as he or she is defending his or her destructive way of life.
So if a thread goes on and on about Nora the Non CofS Scientologists' infamies and she argues back, then she is considered to be destructive and derailing the whole thing since those people (who've never met her) obviously know better than she. They're quite sure that she's running down the wrong path. They are not only worried about Nora but they are afraid that if allowed to continue to speak freely about her horrible views, she will corrupt others.
So those people will consider what they are doing to be on topic and that any time Nora says "leave me alone. Let's talk about Hubbard" to be a thread derailment. And derailed those threads were. Though Nora sees it as derailed from discussion of CofS and Scn. Because there's an unwritten blurb on each forum and in the minds of many contributors that Interventions and Deprogrammings are on topic and that derailing those is the real derailment. Because an addict is talking back and therefore can, by definition, have nothing constructive to say unless it's "I agree with you and I need to go to rehab."
The only flaws I could see in this were that those are cyberstrangers, that unlike the people on Intervention, they often make up a lot of things to support their positions and that they aren't coming out and admitting what they are doing.
As it happens, I think those are rather big flaws.
I eventually left Scn behind, but it was not due to those intervention efforts.
But I now know why I've seen so much dismay (in posts and sometimes in pms and emails) expressed at my arguing back. Of course they think those were destructive posts and derails on my part. I wasn't allowing the interventions!
So to those people, I'll just say that I think I figured it out now and that
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=400542&postcount=1
When I was in CofS and was posting to a.r.s. and encountered so much resistance, I was told- and it was mostly true the majority of the time- that it was because I was part of a criminal cult that I was getting ummm...talked to as sternly as I was, with so much personalization. And it's true. I was part of a criminal cult. Eventually I figured it out and I walked away a year before my expulsion and declare.
I went on being candid about my stance as well as my identity since I knew that contributors, often targetted by OSA themselves or witnesses to such are very suspicious of anonymous contributors who have minority views re Scn. So I admitted and emphasized my ideological stance and also my identity. The comments still raged on. And I kept making tactical errata by arguing back. This really pissed those people off.
Now, I personally found that bizarre. If a man walks down the street and someone runs up to him and attacks him, no reasonable person would expect him to be passive. Yet, I was getting a lot of dressings down for doing exactly that.
But I kept harping on it. I still do, in fact. The thing I kept asking was "why are you doing this? How can this be on topic?" That's why I keep talking about this. I never ever got a straight answer. I just got a lot of "q&a" and side stuff about hair, job, marriage, please list everything you did in CofS, stop talking back, Hubbard had rotten teeth, you intend this, you intend that. So the answers I got were those people's opinions about me. This was very relevant and heartfelt for them. I could see that. But it was an answer to a different question. It was not an answer to the question I was asking.
I pointed out again and again that those boards and ngs were about Scn, Hubbard, etc. And still it went on. Frequent and heartfelt commentary about my defects, with my answering back listed as number one, pretty much.
And I finally have my answer. And believe me, I am not being sarcastic or facetious. I really figured it out. I had to figure it out myself because those people who were (some of whom still are, in fact) so angry with me- as much for answering back as for just having a different belief system- just would never ever answer my question.
Remember, I asked again and again about relevance to the forum subject matter, and how could this be about me, then, and why was it not ok for me to speak up against those derailments.
But the thing is, I now know why they thought it was relevant and why they were so very disgusted with my answering back.
If someone's doing an intervention or a deprogramming of Person X, then Person X truly is the subject matter. Therefore, those efforts are entirely relevant. Those individuals consider that deprogramming someone from Scn is part of the subject matter. And I suppose, in a way, that's correct. It's too bad they wouldn't come out and be honest about it, though. I guess it was too much of a hot potato to come out and say.
Think about it. There's a show called Intervention on an American cable network. So Addie the Addict comes tripping trustingly down the stairs and into the Big Old Confrontation Room. She's told they're all going to discuss politics or have dinner or whatever. (They do the same thing with the show "What Not To Wear" which is a much fluffier type of deprogramming having to do with fashion. but the same lure sets the scene since they KNOW the person won't show up if they're told "come down here to be told that you suck.") So she gets there and it's all about her and how she needs to stop doing what she's doing. She IS the subject of the intervention. If she talks back, says anything other than, yes, I'm wrong and I'll go to rehab, everyone's gonna be like, WTF? You're an addict. You are avoiding the elephant in the room. You need to quit taking heroin. Bottom line.
So Addie the Addict is the subject of the intervention. She needs deprogramming. If you've ever read Rummies by Peter Benchley - a murder mystery that starts with an intervention with the protagonist, a full on raging alkie- you'll see that any evasion by that person can not be countenanced since the individual is in the wrong and has nothing positive to contribute as long as he or she is defending his or her destructive way of life.
So if a thread goes on and on about Nora the Non CofS Scientologists' infamies and she argues back, then she is considered to be destructive and derailing the whole thing since those people (who've never met her) obviously know better than she. They're quite sure that she's running down the wrong path. They are not only worried about Nora but they are afraid that if allowed to continue to speak freely about her horrible views, she will corrupt others.
So those people will consider what they are doing to be on topic and that any time Nora says "leave me alone. Let's talk about Hubbard" to be a thread derailment. And derailed those threads were. Though Nora sees it as derailed from discussion of CofS and Scn. Because there's an unwritten blurb on each forum and in the minds of many contributors that Interventions and Deprogrammings are on topic and that derailing those is the real derailment. Because an addict is talking back and therefore can, by definition, have nothing constructive to say unless it's "I agree with you and I need to go to rehab."
The only flaws I could see in this were that those are cyberstrangers, that unlike the people on Intervention, they often make up a lot of things to support their positions and that they aren't coming out and admitting what they are doing.
As it happens, I think those are rather big flaws.
I eventually left Scn behind, but it was not due to those intervention efforts.
But I now know why I've seen so much dismay (in posts and sometimes in pms and emails) expressed at my arguing back. Of course they think those were destructive posts and derails on my part. I wasn't allowing the interventions!
So to those people, I'll just say that I think I figured it out now and that
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=400542&postcount=1