Scientology is all bad

[afaceinthecrowd]

I don't believe in outing people, on general principle. I suppose there could be an exception but in general, no. I cannot imagine why someone would want to do that and I think the best thing might be to ask that person privately why. I'm not saying not to go to the Mods if something objectionable is posted. Not at all. Just that back channel might sometimes be a helpful venue. Or at least, I hope so. I know if it were happening to me I'd want to ask the person why.

Well, I asked him why on the open Board and never got a straight answer. He made his Posts openly, I answered why openly and questioned him openly.

He want's me "Out" in the "Open". Well, what's good for the Goose is Good for the Gander.

I'm sure he's a good guy like you and Carmelo say but, unfortunately, due to his messin' with my bees knees after repeatedly and politely being asked not to and told, in general terms, why I don't wish to interact with him personally.

I'm not saying I'm gonna run to the Mod's and cry 'cause someone said something I don't like. I'm a big boy, I've been around here a couple of years and can take care of my myself. But, if someone is gonna directly or by innuendo openly "stalk" my, or another Members, IRL identity after being asked, openly, not to do so...and, by the way, this last time another Member chimed in and said (and I paraphrase) "Yeah, Face, what's up with that? What are you Chicken or something?"...then, in my view at that point I've got two choices: 1. Break camp and ride off into the sunset or 2. Report my displeasure and state my position to the Mods and see what shakes out.

Like I said...Nuff said.

Face

 

[Claire Swazey]

I dunno, either, Mick, but Zinj established the beginning of a pattern when he outed the supposed Buttersquash cabal just because of a website that had some court info on it that wasn't ready to be released yet.

Later, he crossed swords with one of those critics again, resulting in being removed from an IRC channel. That got him more into Buttersquash conspiracy myth.

Then later, the stuff with ESMB that he was alleging. He's been doing this for a long time.

What's sad is that there are people who buy into what he's saying- then and now.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

I read a couple of messages here that stated that the ppl who posted them didn't come here to hear about the 'tek'. Now I feel bad about ever posting anything about Dn or Scn stuff.

It started out with a stmt by Hub that imaginary incidents were OK to encourage because they led to safety with recalling real incidents. Then it got to be about running past lives was only done in Dn. ( NOT). I got carried away 'splaing how past lives were encouraged thruout the tek by the use of the Earlier Sillyler (I mean Similar, lol) questions. Etc.

I declined to continue an exchange going on about how the Grades were only run to F/N, cog, vgi's and so were not run past life . I could have said that the majority of PCs ran out of answers on their current life situations, so the Auditor was tasked with continueing to ask for Earlier Similar and the PC would then come up with a past life answer.

I got a reprimand from Winlock for not reading books on Psychology. I don't rilly know what that was about. Well, really I do know, but it had nothing to do with the posts that i made. lol. well. I don't wish to antagonize a Mod.

Anyways, I will self censor in future and will not talk any tek drek again.
Sorry to have upset youse guys.

phenomanon

You have not upset me - you asked a question about psychology that I pointed out you could have gotten the answers easily yourself. You also stated something about psychology and psychologists which was incorrect.

The other part is - do not worry, at all, about antagonizing this moderator. If we are discussing something then you are as entitled to your opinion on here as I am to mine. And if I get "offended" that is MY problem - not yours.

I have been arguing and debating on line since 1994 and have been flamed in far more vicious groups than any scientology message board - so don't worry!

 

[Claire Swazey]

Sometimes Mick is just being a contributor and is being blunt. Every now and again he posts a "what the fuck are you doing dude/lady" type post. Those are hilarious when I'm not the recipient. Well, they probably are hilarious when I am the recipient, come to think of it.

 

[Sydney]

I love this thread

 

[Panda Termint]

To be fair, Z has written a lot about the cult. He's written a lot- period.
<snip for brevity...>

I know, Claire, but I'd imagine that if you were to examine, let's say the last 6 months of that writing, you'd probably find more direct criticism of ESMBers, Exes and Indies than you would of Hubbard and the CofS. It's odd.

 

[degraded being]

To be fair, Z has written a lot about the cult. He's written a lot- period.

But he's become conspiracy minded. First it was the dreaded "Buttersquashers" ( a conspiracy and entity that resided solely in his own mind) then it was Mike Rinder pulling Emma's strings - which I highly doubt is true. He got mad about her not fessing up to this untrue allegation and he got mad over the subsequent banning and he's sounding off.

Zinj would do well to get off the conspiracy think. If he doesn't like this or that person, fine, whatever- that can happen at times. But the conspiracy think is never a good thing for any critic of Scn to indulge in.

And because I luuuurve playing devil's advocate, I will point out that as long as he was saying the sorts of things that went over well with the majority of the forum- he did have a bit of a guru thing going- everything was fine with people here. So what does that say about us? Probably nothing all that great.

Devil's advocate OK...but [STRIKE]obsessive[/STRIKE] highly overused devil's advocate = messy arguments and annoying. Did you notice how I very graciously crossed out the word "obsessive"?

 

[Claire Swazey]

I know, Claire, but I'd imagine that if you were to examine, let's say the last 6 months of that writing, you'd probably find more direct criticism of ESMBers, Exes and Indies than you would of Hubbard and the CofS. It's odd.

It's not odd if you know the guy.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Devil's advocate OK...but [STRIKE]obsessive[/STRIKE] highly overused devil's advocate = messy arguments and annoying. Did you notice how I very graciously crossed out the word "obsessive"?

Sour grapies!!

 

[Panda Termint]

It's not odd if you know the guy.

I think you might mean it's not odd behavior given past behavior. That's a different thing than a "critic of scientology" who devotes much of his time to criticising ESMBers and other critics of scientology. Surely, that's odd?

 

[degraded being]

I don't believe in outing people, on general principle. I suppose there could be an exception but in general, no. I cannot imagine why someone would want to do that and I think the best thing might be to ask that person privately why. I'm not saying not to go to the Mods if something objectionable is posted. Not at all. Just that back channel might sometimes be a helpful venue. Or at least, I hope so. I know if it were happening to me I'd want to ask the person why.

Why the hell should Face, or anyone else who got that 'outing', interfering crap go "back channel"? Is that what Terril was doing? trying to drive someone back channel. Sounds to me like trying to back someone into an alley where the damage being done will not be seen publicly. I seem to recall Terril's off-board and back channel interactions being used by him to claim friendship and affinity with a certain poster. That poster then had to come out and let people know how Terril was not a friend and actually disliked just so that the poster was not turned into a piece of fiction. ....a piece of fiction which served Terril.

 

[degraded being]

I think you might mean it's not odd behavior given past behavior. That's a different thing than a "critic of scientology" who devotes much of his time to criticising ESMBers and other critics of scientology. Surely, that's odd?

I thought it was odd when you got all uppity about ESMBers manners falling below your standards, specifically in regard to Mark Baker. Was that criticising ESMbers?

 

[Panda Termint]

Sure was! My point is I don't do it often, I do it here on ESMB where it might do some good and I don't think that disrespectful commentary is some godawful OSAOSAOSA Conspiracy. YMMV.

BTW, they're not my standards, they're the Board's Rules Of Conduct standards. If we were to apply my standards, that'd be a whole different ball game.

Just for the record, let's review what I actually did say:

I actually admire Mark Baker. Amongst other things, I admire his ability to hold his position in the face of relentless criticism and, dare I say it... of course I do, bullying.

There seems to be a level of tolerance for violations of the Board's "be courteous to others" Rule Of Conduct when it comes to Mark that sometimes astounds me. Perhaps the attitude is that Mark brings it on himself or encourages it but I'm not sure that's true. Mark, is that true?

In any event, Baker-Baiting is the thing I most dislike about ESMB. Luckily for me, there are a hundred other things about ESMB which I like immensely.

"Look around here and find something you don't have to chew up."

 

[Gottabrain]

Why the hell should Face, or anyone else who got that 'outing', interfering crap go "back channel"? Is that what Terril was doing? trying to drive someone back channel. Sounds to me like trying to back someone into an alley where the damage being done will not be seen publicly. I seem to recall Terril's off-board and back channel interactions being used by him to claim friendship and affinity with a certain poster. That poster then had to come out and let people know how Terril was not a friend and actually disliked just so that the poster was not turned into a piece of fiction. ....a piece of fiction which served Terril.

Good point, db, and glad you brought it up. The "back channel" stuff has been the source of gossip, innuendo and libel to some of the most active ex's. If a person is honest, they can state what they wish openly.

Terril DID make a point of getting personal info from some of the ladies here and assumping intimacy as a FRIEND that was usually unwarranted. I don't think it's fair to assume his intentions were bad, but because he is a Scn and used Scn in this sort of think and was disrespectful of boundaries, he violated mine and others' privacy, taking liberties with personal info that he had no right to take. His intentions probably WERE good - but what good can come out of Scn PR and media relations policy?

I thought it was odd when you got all uppity about ESMBers manners falling below your standards, specifically in regard to Mark Baker. Was that criticising ESMbers?

Panda didn't criticize any ESMBers. I don't recall a single post where he's ever done that. Do you?

 

[Lone Star]

I hope that when this thread finally and mercifully comes to an end, we can all sing Kumbaya and have a group hug. :wink2:

Knowwhutimsayin'?

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Sure was! My point is I don't do it often, I do it here on ESMB where it might do some good and I don't think that disrespectful commentary is some godawful OSAOSAOSA Conspiracy. YMMV.

BTW, they're not my standards, they're the Board's Rules Of Conduct standards. If we were to apply my standards, that'd be a whole different ball game.

Just for the record, let's review what I actually did say:

Just made a Post re: my thoughts re: Mark Baker.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...he-Apollo-1973&p=720960&viewfull=1#post720960

I ask anyone that wishes to comment, to comment on the Thread I Posted on and not derail this Thread.

The Thread (Apollo) I posted this on is, like me, a train wreck still headin' down the tracks and, therefore, can't be derailed.

Face

 

[Panda Termint]

I think Terril just likes to be "in the know" about everything and everyone.
He'll be back any day now, let's ask him.

 

[Boomima]

I know, Claire, but I'd imagine that if you were to examine, let's say the last 6 months of that writing, you'd probably find more direct criticism of ESMBers, Exes and Indies than you would of Hubbard and the CofS. It's odd.

I read some of that nonsense. Here's what I got from his FB group - "Emma and Panda are big meanies and I am not inviting them to my birthday party!" Maybe there's some insight there but I'm not willing to delve any deeper. I don't get why Clare seems to be giving them a bit of wiggle room when they are far more harsh than anyone is to either Mark or Terrill.

 

[degraded being]

Sure was! My point is I don't do it often, I do it here on ESMB where it might do some good and I don't think that disrespectful commentary is some godawful OSAOSAOSA Conspiracy. YMMV.

BTW, they're not my standards, they're the Board's Rules Of Conduct standards. If we were to apply my standards, that'd be a whole different ball game.

Just for the record, let's review what I actually did say:

On the bit about your point is that you don't do it often and (not) OSA conspiracy...fair enough.
On the rest....Well, when these things bother you, make a complaint to the appropriate authority about who broke which rule, how, and when. Make sure it is in the proper form. Don't bother everyone else with it.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

>>>>>>>> hot doggies over der>>>>>>

<<<<<<<<<<<sittin' log over der<<<<<<

>>>>>>>> over der>>>>>>>

It's a CLAMBAKE!!!!