Scientology and Hypnotism — Even some ex-members can’t admit its central role

[Gib]

Keep in mind that WHATEVER the techniques used in scientology,

They are capable of turning a daughter against a mother, a son against a father,

or inducing suicide...

Such is not the work of rhetoric alone.

===============


It has always been the writers contention that Hitler is the greatest hypnotist of our day" G. H. Estabrooks 1943

I would agree.

However how do other gigs like MLM's get people to be fanatics?

I'm just learning this stuff myself, and have become fascinated with history, which I was not prior to scientology.
My clue was the letter to Dean Wilbur in 1936 saying he studied Rhetoric and would use it. So I started researching Rhetoric.

In my research of Rhetoric there is also Sublime writing, which I never heard of before until just this last year. I concluded Hubbard was a Sublime writer as well. For Hubbard said he was a writer. Well, what kind of writer? My answer is he was a writer of rhetoric, sublime, the mind, hyponisis and Sci Fi and wove them all together.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_(literary)

Even Kant used Sublime and Freud too who called it Sublimation.

" Sigmund Freud took the literary sublime and examined the psyche behind it, resulting in what he termed "sublimation"

This is a fascinating read on Rhetoric and Sublime:

http://books.google.com/books?id=oN...&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I'm afraid I just to not have the brain power to explain it all in a few posts here, how it is all interwoven. I'm just introducing a missing piece to the puzzle since as far as I can tell nobody else has noticed Hubbard used the 3 means of persuasion of Rhetoric in his books and lectures.

Consider this:

http://catalog.williams.edu/catalog.php?&strm=1151&subj=PSCI&cn=333

"This course examines discourses on terror, wonder and awe from the Enlightenment to the present, using the idea of the sublime to rethink important events like the French Revolution and the recent War on Terror. The sublime has meant different things to a great number of thinkers in the Western philosophical tradition, going back to a treatise attributed to Longinus, a 1st century Greek rhetoretician. Longinus was concerned with the power of great poets to "elevate" their audiences, transporting them beyond the limits of their comprehension through mixtures of terror, wonder and awe. How did this old text focusing on experiences beyond the rational come to hold such fascination for philosophers and political thinkers during the Age of Enlightenment? What is the relationship between current events in politics and public culture and the recent revival of scholarly interest in the sublime? Beyond revolution and war, course readings will explore the limits of human comprehension and apprehension in environmental politics, debates over fetal rights, and the fear of confronting people different from ourselves. Though we will regularly take up examples drawn from the worlds of art, literature, politics, and the mass media, our central focus will be on the careful reading of philosophical and critical texts, including Kant's Critique of Judgment and writings from among the following authors: Edmund Burke, Friedrich Schiller, G.F.W. Hegel, Slavoj Zizek, Hannah Arendt, Bonnie Mann, Christine Battersby, and Jean-François Lyotard."

As I highlight in red, did not Hubbard do this in his books and lectures? He elevated us into thinking we could become homo novis and cleared theta clear and OT.

 

[Gib]

Yes,

ESMB is a nice place for Socrate method - which stimulate critical thinking
This is why I like this place - reading discussions opened my mind and help me to make my own conclusions - I would never come to any $cientology issues resolving alone, with introspection, as the truth comes from many angles.

But there is also rhetorhic talk, that may happens, to wag the dog
(evade the issue ; hide the real issue ; sidestep the issue ; obfuscate ; cloud the issue ; bamboozle ; blind with science ; duck the issue )
This is more a way of pushing an agenda, rather than discussing to get the more viewpoints and information .
It sometimes happens with very specific subjects when LRH and the pseudo-tech is concerned.

I myself, sometimes, push my own agenda - which is against $cientologys and hubbardism slavery!
:wink2:

I'm only promoting one study up on Rhetoric, namely the three means of persuasion (ethos, logos & pathos), not to use it,

but to find out how Hubbard used Rhetoric on us.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/11/14/classical-rhetoric-101-an-introduction/

"Protects you from intellectual despotism. I had a classics professor that said, “Advertising is the tool of the despot.” That idea really stuck with me. Since ancient times, powerful men have used propaganda to maintain control over their subjects. According to my professor, advertising is just a benign name for propaganda. Both rely on emotional appeals to change our ideas and feelings about a cause, position, or product."

As I highlight in red, didn't Hubbard do that?

He caused us to have the idea that clear & OT were possible,

he caused us to believe only the scientologist can................

he caused us to believe scientology was the only route out............

he caused us many things that only lead to living the life of a scientologist as told by Hubbard.

Now, this is hypnosis, suggestion, brainwashing, etc

The definition of each of those words no matter, it's all the same more or less.

 

[mockingbird]

Gib ,I at first resisted learning the undue influence model as I had just learned about mind control and brainwashing and some other models of influence and persuasion and went " What the fuck , another fucking theory to research and coordinate with all my other stuff and cross reference with psychology ! UGGH !"

But , I actually have found it to be the simplest accurate model to explain and the most all-encompassing theory that includes totalitarian groups , cults , abusive relationships and even what are not traditionally recognized as totalist groups but are in fact such groups in my opinion .

It has MLMs and similar groups in the scope of it and I recommend it to every ex as a comparison to Scientology.

From Merriam Webster Undue Influence :improper influence that deprives a person of freedom of choice or substitutes another's choice or desire for the person's own .

This fits the hypnotic relationship with elevated altitude that is customary in Scientology.

I see it as having a power holder that by any means gains control or dominance over another's will or mind.

The power holder can be a person , government , cult , company , abuser , parent etc.

The point is that by fear , abuse , drugging , hypnotic mind control or any of several methods the power holder asserts a relationship of blind obedience or total trust or really submission and the victim has impaired independence and critical thinking ( making this in fact hypnotic domination even when no hypnosis is EVER used ).

It fits so well I cannot overstate the simplicity or usefulness.


It is not about complex theories on mind control ( which I have plenty of ) or social psychology ( which we NEED to learn ).

It is about an effect and cause and human vulnerability and the actions of abusers.

The model breaks down others to the most basic components and has a clear line of what is and is not undue influence.

It covers so many things well and certainly fits Scientology for me .

See , whether others use the term Hypnosis or rhetoric etc.- IF you in fact deny or substitute freedom of choice you very often by whatever way you got there fit the hypnotic model and so the dozens of ways to describe the journey do not have to conflict if we agree on the destination and its legal and mental effect .

 

[Gib]

Gib ,I at first resisted learning the undue influence model as I had just learned about mind control and brainwashing and some other models of influence and persuasion and went " What the fuck , another fucking theory to research and coordinate with all my other stuff and cross reference with psychology ! UGGH !"

But , I actually have found it to be the simplest accurate model to explain and the most all-encompassing theory that includes totalitarian groups , cults , abusive relationships and even what are not traditionally recognized as totalist groups but are in fact such groups in my opinion .

It has MLMs and similar groups in the scope of it and I recommend it to every ex as a comparison to Scientology.

From Merriam Webster Undue Influence :improper influence that deprives a person of freedom of choice or substitutes another's choice or desire for the person's own .

This fits the hypnotic relationship with elevated altitude that is customary in Scientology.

I see it as having a power holder that by any means gains control or dominance over another's will or mind.

The power holder can be a person , government , cult , company , abuser , parent etc.

The point is that by fear , abuse , drugging , hypnotic mind control or any of several methods the power holder asserts a relationship of blind obedience or total trust or really submission and the victim has impaired independence and critical thinking ( making this in fact hypnotic domination even when no hypnosis is EVER used ).

It fits so well I cannot overstate the simplicity or usefulness.


It is not about complex theories on mind control ( which I have plenty of ) or social psychology ( which we NEED to learn ).

It is about an effect and cause and human vulnerability and the actions of abusers.

The model breaks down others to the most basic components and has a clear line of what is and is not undue influence.

It covers so many things well and certainly fits Scientology for me .

See , whether others use the term Hypnosis or rhetoric etc.- IF you in fact deny or substitute freedom of choice you very often by whatever way you got there fit the hypnotic model and so the dozens of ways to describe the journey do not have to conflict if we agree on the destination and its legal and mental effect .

Hubbard said PDH was brainwashing. Which is Pain, Drugs & Hypnosis.

So, all dianetics and scientology people think

something like this:

well, dianetics & scientology does not use drugs, people are supposed to have a good nights sleep before an auditing session and no alcohol for 24 hours or drugs for a week, and Hubbard said Dianetics and scientology wakes people up, while hypnosis puts people to sleep.

That all sounds good. And dianetics/ scientology people think they are not being hypnotized or persuaded or brainwashed.

So all scientolgists think they are waking up.

When in fact they are being turned into a scientologist, thinking they are waking up to states of existance as defined by Hubbard, namely clear & OT.

This is the art of persuasion, and undue influence. Meaning one does not know the cause of influence. It's hidden.

edit: oh boy, I'll just say Hubbard said hypnosis or brainwashing cannot occur without pain and drugs being involved. not true.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Who are the several people?
Who are this one and that one?
Who are the several other people?
Who is the same other one?
Who is the same other ones who often indulge in whispering campaigns?
Who are the someone here who has opted to listen to them?

WTF are you talking about?

Sounds like a process. Awesome.

My needle is floating.

 

[GreyLensman]

While I wouldn't presume to contradict the work Arnie, Atack, mockingbird and others have put in, and probably because my 'laymans' idea of hypnotism is the clichèd 'man in a dinner jacket with piercing eyes swinging a pocket-watch', hypnotism doesn't ring a bell for me either, at least not with respect to my initial contact with scn.

No, the main element that drew me into the fold (yes, fold, as in sheep) was the over-the-top (not really noticed at the time) validation, the love-bombing and the opportunity to be not a chemist, or a sociologist but a scientologist, the 'ist' then being important to me, as in those days, real academic qualifications were a bit thin on the ground and did not come along until a lot later. Being accepted and part of a group was enormously important at the time.

If any hypnotic effects did occur, it was surely when I began training as an auditor and started doing TR's etc, along with studying the 'confusing' contradictory nature of the materials.

You are thinking of the deep fluttering eyes and walking like a chicken. That's not the hypnotism practiced, what was and is being done is way more long term, done right in front of you with your knowledge and participation.

• hypnosis is simply an altered state
• we naturally enter lots of altered states or trances ourselves every day
• it's not necessary to have your eyes closed
• hypnosis can be induced without words, and
• most importantly it reduces critical faculties and the ability to evaluate information and make decisions.

(from http://www.decision-making-confidence.com/hypnotic-mind-control.html, just to give credit)

Scientology was systemically designed and patterned to reduce critical thinking, to love-bomb and then to specifically validate the person as a "big being" or "old thetan", and then to flow them through into the illusion and certainty they are helping the world (and conversely that if they betray the group they are damned for all eternity...).

Your entire existence as a "Scientologist" is influenced and with a lowered critical thinking capacity. The lack of sleep, the ridiculous demands, the constant hill 10 bullshit, Thursdays at 2 PM. All of that was intended and designed to reduce any independent or volitional thought about Scientology or about its purpose.

Everyone denying this dives immediately to auditing and the accusation that that was where the control lay, that auditing itself was the laying in of unknown control. Not necessarily at all. All auditing and TRs did was make the person enter a suggestible compliant state, or even a MORE suggestible and compliant state. But the hypnotic piece of it is in the whole experience.

see Steven Hassan's Combatting Cult Mind Control.

You were controlled, constantly subtly and intentionally. If anyone asked you at any point were you hypnotized you would (I did) answer that Scientology is the exact opposite of hypnotism, it wakes me up and I am more aware. If asked if you could question your religion you would answer that of course you could do that. And yet, deep down you knew, you knew, that that was not true.

Hypnotism.

I would argue that mindfulness creates similar states to auditing, at least successful auditing can, but that in neither case was that the immediate purpose.

 

[eldritch cuckoo]

I've recently found a visual ten-commandmends-rip-off that thematizes the logical fallacies. (Actually, it's infinitely better than the ten commandments.) Thought it could be useful here...

PS: When clicking on "reply with quote" and taking the attachment's exscn-URL while viewing in the "source mode", the already uploaded pic can be used in other threads. :wink2:

 

[Gib]

You are thinking of the deep fluttering eyes and walking like a chicken. That's not the hypnotism practiced, what was and is being done is way more long term, done right in front of you with your knowledge and participation.

• hypnosis is simply an altered state
• we naturally enter lots of altered states or trances ourselves every day
• it's not necessary to have your eyes closed
• hypnosis can be induced without words, and
• most importantly it reduces critical faculties and the ability to evaluate information and make decisions.

(from http://www.decision-making-confidence.com/hypnotic-mind-control.html, just to give credit)

Scientology was systemically designed and patterned to reduce critical thinking, to love-bomb and then to specifically validate the person as a "big being" or "old thetan", and then to flow them through into the illusion and certainty they are helping the world (and conversely that if they betray the group they are damned for all eternity...).

Your entire existence as a "Scientologist" is influenced and with a lowered critical thinking capacity. The lack of sleep, the ridiculous demands, the constant hill 10 bullshit, Thursdays at 2 PM. All of that was intended and designed to reduce any independent or volitional thought about Scientology or about its purpose.

Everyone denying this dives immediately to auditing and the accusation that that was where the control lay, that auditing itself was the laying in of unknown control. Not necessarily at all. All auditing and TRs did was make the person enter a suggestible compliant state, or even a MORE suggestible and compliant state. But the hypnotic piece of it is in the whole experience.

see Steven Hassan's Combatting Cult Mind Control.

You were controlled, constantly subtly and intentionally. If anyone asked you at any point were you hypnotized you would (I did) answer that Scientology is the exact opposite of hypnotism, it wakes me up and I am more aware. If asked if you could question your religion you would answer that of course you could do that. And yet, deep down you knew, you knew, that that was not true.

Hypnotism.

I would argue that mindfulness creates similar states to auditing, at least successful auditing can, but that in neither case was that the immediate purpose.

I'll just throw this in here as a follow up:

http://www.alanzosblog.com/how-l-ron-hubbard-tricked-you-scientology-and-hypnosis/

 

[Type4_PTS]

I'll just throw this in here as a follow up:

http://www.alanzosblog.com/how-l-ron-hubbard-tricked-you-scientology-and-hypnosis/

^^^^^

This post on Alanzo's blog is worth reading.

He points out (among many other things) that Hubbard MIS-defined the term 'hypnosis' for scientologists, and gave us false information about it.

As Hubbard studied hypnosis for YEARS prior to publishing Dianetics this false definition would have been intentional, wouldn't it?

For what purpose though?

 

[mockingbird]

Oh boy , now you guys are having the kind of discussion I LIKE !!!

First I'll address Gib's excellent point about PDH .

Hub used the LIE that drugs are needed for mind control as a misdirection and as part of a larger method of confusion that permeates ALL his work in the doctrine of Dianetics and Scientology !

Arnie has pointed in the direction of this for some time by pointing out the reverse blockade from Political Ponerology :"Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. "
Page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski

Arnie also points in the right direction when he talks of the importance of logical fallacies .The following is taken from the Nizkor project .

Also Known as: Golden Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of Moderation
[h=4]Description of Middle Ground[/h] This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Position A and B are two extreme positions.
2. C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
3. Therefore C is the correct position.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price.
This fallacy draws its power from the fact that a moderate or middle position is often the correct one. For example, a moderate amount of exercise is better than too much exercise or too little exercise. However, this is not simply because it lies in the middle ground between two extremes. It is because too much exercise is harmful and too little exercise is all but useless. The basic idea behind many cases in which moderation is correct is that the extremes are typically "too much" and "not enough" and the middle position is "enough." In such cases the middle position is correct almost by definition.
It should be kept in mind that while uncritically assuming that the middle position must be correct because it is the middle position is poor reasoning it does not follow that accepting a middle position is always fallacious. As was just mentioned, many times a moderate position is correct. However, the claim that the moderate or middle position is correct must be supported by legitimate reasoning.
[h=4]Examples of Middle Ground[/h]

1. Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me.
2. Congressman Jones has proposed cutting welfare payments by 50% while Congresswoman Shender has proposed increasing welfare payments by 10% to keep up with inflation and cost of living increases. I think that the best proposal is the one made by Congressman Trumple. He says that a 30% decrease in welfare payments is a good middle ground, so I think that is what we should support.
3. A month ago, a tree in Bill's yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe's new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn't going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars. end quote .

And I plan on writing a thread to more extensively expose the method - Jon Atack has a piece coming soon on the double bind as well .

I contend that the thousands of contradictory pieces of info function as embedded commands ( a technique I have written on before from NLP ) and with repetition and variation serve to confuse a victim's mind .

So , I both agree and will have a LOT more to say on this !!

Now as to Greylensman , your comments follow:

You are thinking of the deep fluttering eyes and walking like a chicken. That's not the hypnotism practiced, what was and is being done is way more long term, done right in front of you with your knowledge and participation.

• hypnosis is simply an altered state
• we naturally enter lots of altered states or trances ourselves every day
• it's not necessary to have your eyes closed
• hypnosis can be induced without words, and
• most importantly it reduces critical faculties and the ability to evaluate information and make decisions.

(from http://www.decision-making-confidenc...d-control.html, just to give credit)

Scientology was systemically designed and patterned to reduce critical thinking, to love-bomb and then to specifically validate the person as a "big being" or "old thetan", and then to flow them through into the illusion and certainty they are helping the world (and conversely that if they betray the group they are damned for all eternity...).

Your entire existence as a "Scientologist" is influenced and with a lowered critical thinking capacity. The lack of sleep, the ridiculous demands, the constant hill 10 bullshit, Thursdays at 2 PM. All of that was intended and designed to reduce any independent or volitional thought about Scientology or about its purpose.

Everyone denying this dives immediately to auditing and the accusation that that was where the control lay, that auditing itself was the laying in of unknown control. Not necessarily at all. All auditing and TRs did was make the person enter a suggestible compliant state, or even a MORE suggestible and compliant state. But the hypnotic piece of it is in the whole experience.

see Steven Hassan's Combatting Cult Mind Control.

You were controlled, constantly subtly and intentionally. If anyone asked you at any point were you hypnotized you would (I did) answer that Scientology is the exact opposite of hypnotism, it wakes me up and I am more aware. If asked if you could question your religion you would answer that of course you could do that. And yet, deep down you knew, you knew, that that was not true.

Hypnotism.

I would argue that mindfulness creates similar states to auditing, at least successful auditing can, but that in neither case was that the immediate purpose. end quote.

I have been TRYING to explain this for months now !


You see , there is a very small number of people that just either do not get or agree or understand this vital point in understanding mind control !!!


Look , I am not looking for blind acceptance or submission .

I am not an authority or guru .

I want people to hear me out with an open mind AND strive to have an equal or adequate understanding of what I write about BEFORE trying to disagree .


And I especially am not interested in ad hominem or variations of it .

I want people to question , wonder and investigate the ideas I propose and theories behind them .

I am not looking to encourage blind agreement .

Parroting me or Jon or Arnie or Steve Hassan will not contribute to your recovery to me .

On your own working out what happened AND developing critical and independent thinking in a scientific way , learning about fallacies and logic , learning the Socratic method and developing a doubting - questioning approach to thinking and possibly a touch of skepticism ( okay I have more than a touch myself - I think I am a skeptic but I am not sure ) is to me much more beneficial for you and your future than agreeing with me ever will be .


See , Hub said he encouraged thinking in several ways and places in the doctrine but it was all absolute bullshit !

I will write ANOTHER thread specifically on thought stopping that will show actions that are specifically done exclusively to stop independent and critical thinking .

There are a LOT of them and a lot to say about that .

Well , at least as a critic of Scientology mind control I have no lack of material to write on !


If only Smersh paid me by the word...

Now , Eldritch Cuckoo , That is a great post on the fallacies and one I have in my collection too .

I of course have a thread planned on the dozens of common fallacies and several custom built complex ones that Hub implanted in Scientologists to both stop and channel thought in Scientologist's minds to make them robotic unthinking SLAVES until death .

This is to address the ad hominem and many other unthinking blind behaviors demonstrated often in Scientologists , exes , indies , freezoners and some who believe they are recovered .( Please DO NOT send me a torrent of " I do not do that " posts as they ARE this behavior !!

If you do not do this then that is great and you do not have to say it to me ! Please notice I wrote OFTEN not ALWAYS and YOU personally ! )

I also like Alanzo's article on hypnosis . And yeah Type 4 PTS Hub LIED to you !

I cannot stress enough that Hub's most consistent quality in my mind is that he was a pathological liar - even more than anything else !

And his purpose was obvious -he redefined terms to confuse , control and misdirect so as to defraud and enslave .

See , now we are getting to the heart of this and this is what I like !

 

[Gib]

Sounds like a process. Awesome.

My needle is floating.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?37515-Why-was-FBM-banned&p=979107&viewfull=1#post979107

Here's Pat

 

[Gib]

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?37515-Why-was-FBM-banned&p=979107&viewfull=1#post979107

Here's Pat

Mockingbird,

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...s-central-role&p=978572&viewfull=1#post978572

Claire never answered phenomanon questions.

Helpful hint. There is a little blue box after a poster name here makes a post which allows one to click on it to follow the replies.

Helpful hint, Claire does not specifically reply to posts and as a result it can be hard to follow.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Mockingbird,

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...s-central-role&p=978572&viewfull=1#post978572

Claire never answered phenomanon questions.

Helpful hint. There is a little blue box after a poster name here makes a post which allows one to click on it to follow the replies.

Helpful hint, Claire does not specifically reply to posts and as a result it can be hard to follow.

Oh those questions. Yeah, pretty silly. Sounded like listing-lol! My needle floated.

I answered your question weeks or more ago. And I thought and still think- that it was weird for you to even ask in the first place. But, yes, I answered it. You either don't remember or you just like complaining.

 

[mockingbird]

Gib , I have Claire on add to ignore and so do not see or choose to see her posts .

 

[Gib]

Oh those questions. Yeah, pretty silly. Sounded like listing-lol! My needle floated.

[STRIKE]I answered your question weeks or more ago. And I thought and still think- that it was weird for you to even ask in the first place. But, yes, I answered it. You either don't remember or you just like complaining.[/STRIKE]

You never answered Phenomenon questions.

Are you going to?

(somehow, I pray, logic, will prevail)

 

[Gib]

Gib , I have Claire on add to ignore and so do not see or choose to see her posts .

I do not have anybody on ignore. nor do I wish too.

I do not think with the blinders of scientology nor can anybody re convince me to, LOL

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...in-Scientology&p=979108&viewfull=1#post979108

ergo, claire or CBS have no effect on my beliefs, just emotions every now and then.

 

[Claire Swazey]

You never answered Phenomenon questions.

Are you going to?

(somehow, I pray, logic, will prevail)

No. Because they made no sense. Any exchanges along that line would lead to some tangled ill will laden convolutedback and forthing. I'm not doing it and I am very sure that the mods would prefer that I didn't. She got the answer that those "questions" deserved. They were largely rhetorical anyway; they weren't truly requests for information.

Nobody here answers all questions put to them. It depends on the question, the circumstances surrounding it.

I am not sure why you persist in hectoring me, but you know what, I can stick to my guns and I can maintain my stance for years on end.

I was civil. Count yourselves fortunate.

 

[Claire Swazey]

ergo, claire or CBS have no effect on my beliefs, just emotions every now and then.

I think it's a situation you've created for yourself.

 

[Gib]

No. Because they made no sense. Any exchanges along that line would lead to some tangled ill will laden convolutedback and forthing. I'm not doing it and I am very sure that the mods would prefer that I didn't. She got the answer that those "questions" deserved. They were largely rhetorical anyway; they weren't truly requests for information.

Nobody here answers all questions put to them. It depends on the question, the circumstances surrounding it.

I am not sure why you persist in hectoring me, but you know what, I can stick to my guns and I can maintain my stance for years on end.

I was civil. Count yourselves fortunate.

her questions were not rhetorical, but simple questions.

And yes, they were requests for information, which you never answered but side stepped thru your double talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-talk

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sidestepped

 

[Claire Swazey]

her questions were not rhetorical, but simple questions.

And yes, they were requests for information, which you never answered but side stepped thru your double talk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-talk

No, it would have been the beginning of a flame war had I responded. And anyone who would seriously ask what I mean by this person doesn't like that one would have to have never been on this board or any board more than five seconds in any event.

I do not have to answer all questions. No one here answers all questions.

I am not going to back down on this. You can nag and hector and harass all you like; it will avail you nothing.

Let me know when you decide to get the bees out of your bonnet, dump the pet peeves, stop trying to make others do what you think they should do and actually have a real discussion.

Frankly, I'm not holding my breath.