Scientology is all bad

[degraded being]

Amended:

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

 

[Panda Termint]

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.

"Don't bother everyone else with it"? You're not the Boss Of Me!

If you bothered to read my original post on the matter, you'd possibly see who I was actually addressing. I have taken it up with the Moderators, long before today. I even used the appropriate form!

 

[Veda]

There's no nice way to say it.

People who, decades after leaving Scientology, still identify themselves as Scientologists, have been damaged by Scientology.

On a Message Board where most people are seeking to recover from Scientology, they - despite any PR and schmoozing skills - serve mainly as sources of confusion.

Yet, these Scientologists need our help too.

The difficulty is in how help them, while also lessening the harm they may do to others.

 

[degraded being]

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?



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

On Terril. I don't care much whether it's scientology or OSA related or not (although it is not entirely uninteresting). I agree with the points I think you made. Too much personal boundary crossings -in you face, in your pms, in your house, up yer arse and everywhere, interference. . Actually, I know people like to point out that Terril is (probably) a good guy. On that, i don't give a fuck cos i have not seen much of it, just what I see as bad. Based only on what I have seen here but referring to offline life.
But that's enough for me to say about Terril. So I will shut up now on that.

On Panda. I think Panda was critcising ESMBers for not showing adequate (in his opinion) politeness...an opinion he says is based on Board rules not been fully applied. Did he mention specific posters? Can't remember, but whether he did, directly or indirectly or not, that was his point AFAIK. Is there a semantic argument? Was his point really criticizing? I think so. I am using the word in that sense of complaining (observing) about the perceived faults of posters. I don't think there is much value in going on about it anymore. It might be time for me to STFU on this too, because I have said my piece.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

I don't understand this comment, can you expand?

Disconnection = Being Banned as a form of discipline or control.

 

[Lone Star]

"Don't bother everyone else with it"? You're not the Boss Of Me!

If you bothered to read my original post on the matter, you'd possibly see who I was actually addressing. I have taken it up with the Moderators, long before today. I even used the appropriate form!

Whew!! I'm glad you used the appropriate form!


Wow! This is my 1000th post.

 

[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!

Thanks, Mick. I appreciate your post. Were you to revisit the thread, starting with my stmt from Hub re imaginary incidents, you would see that Claire Swayze quoted that message and said something like psychologists do it too and asked me a direct question about what did I think about Psychology. I answered her q truthfully that I didn't know what they do, and asked her if she knew and had she consulted them. I don't think I could find the answer to that in any book about Psychology., unless Claire Swayze has written one.

That's why I thought that your recommendation to me that I should read a couple Psychology books was uncalled for.

Actually, I had a course in Univ re Psychology, and another re Abnormal Psychology, and that doesn't mean that I know what they DO. I know a couple lady Psychologists over on Whidbey Island and they have said something about 'sand box' training. Maybe they all do that. Maybe not. I don't give a rat's ass what Psychologists do.

What I do know is that you can't read a couple books by LRH and know what a Scn'ist actually DOES.

Anyways, I reckon I was butthurt about your perceived unfair remark to me. I will thicken up my skin in Future.

Thanks again for clarifying. I will STFU about it.

phenomanon

 

[Boomima]

Disconnection = Being Banned as a form of discipline or control.

What is it when every other message board does the same thing? People are banned from boards all over the internet everyday and there is no connection to Scn. It can be the only way to keep asshattery under control on the internet.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

 

[Demented LRH]

Personally, I find this Post most disgusting. I know Zinj...I'm not one of his Cabal, don't agree with and despise his Emma bashing stuff...but, I do hold some respect for him.

You're WAY F'n off the Mark.

IMO, anyone on this Board that participates in your weird little proposed operation is a jerk.

If you wanna live in a sewer then go do it but, don't expect Us folks to all jump in and swim with you or let you use this Board to recruit turds for you to play with.

Face

How would you expalin the fact that Zinj's wife is in on staff, but he was not disconnected from her? I am waiting for your explanation. So far you sound like a <edit>.

How about this for a "conspiracy theory" -- Zinj wants to shut down this website by forcing Emma into early retirement with his endless attacks on her. Wouldn't OSA benefit from that?

You achieved one thing with your post -- <edit>.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Holy moley, I passed 1000 posts! God, I need to get away from this place!

 

[Panda Termint]

Demented LRH, Get over yourself, fer chrissakes! Your post above is one of your most ridiculous to date, and that's saying something!

 

[degraded being]

"Don't bother everyone else with it"? You're not the Boss Of Me!

If you bothered to read my original post on the matter, you'd possibly see who I was actually addressing. I have taken it up with the Moderators, long before today. I even used the appropriate form!

You could have simply told me who you were referring to but I had to go on your wild goose chase to find your original post on the matter (on this thread). Unless you mean on another thread??? longer wild goose chase?
Anyway, I found this:

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."

So were you talking about HH...who was the immediate poster before you?
When you said ".. the level of tolerance for violations of the Board's "be courteous to others" Rule Of Conduct when it comes to Mark" that sometimes astounds you, was the person you were "actually addressing" HH? And if you were actually addressing him, does it mean that he was the only person whose violations of the rules on courtesy in regard to Mark Baker astound you in regard to the way they are tolerated.?

A simple yes or no will suffice.
Please don't answer with this discourteous stuff "..If you bothered to read my original post on the matter.."

 

[SweetnessandLight]

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.

This is actually a very healthy sign of healing taking place, and that folks getting back to "normal" social discourse, and feeling freer to speak their minds and be "critical" of each other and moving further out and away from the valence of "being" a Scientologist (and of speaking as if from a certain level on that blasted tone scale..)

Just trust me on this... it may seem counter-productive, but it actually is a good sign of folks recovering their authentic feelings, independent minds and freedom to speak.

 

[Emma]

What is it when every other message board does the same thing? People are banned from boards all over the internet everyday and there is no connection to Scn. It can be the only way to keep asshattery under control on the internet.

It seems that once you have been a Scientologist, you can never end a relationship, unfriend on Facebook, refuse a communication or ban a troublemaker because it's disconnection. It seems that everyone else in the world is still afforded that right, but when an Ex does it, it's called *disconnection*. It's ridiculous.

 

[Emma]

How would you expalin the fact that Zinj's wife is in on staff, but he was not disconnected from her? I am waiting for your explanation. So far you sound like a <edit>.

How about this for a "conspiracy theory" -- Zinj wants to shut down this website by forcing Emma into early retirement with his endless attacks on her. Wouldn't OSA benefit from that?

You achieved one thing with your post -- <edit>.

Hey, I understand your feelings about Zinj, I really really do, but you are just being an asshat. Face is anything but a fucktard, you however......

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Whew!! I'm glad you used the appropriate form!


Wow! This is my 1000th post.

Hey guys, we popped two cherrys on this thread!!! I think that's a first!

 

[Emma]

This is actually a very healthy sign of healing taking place, and that folks getting back to "normal" social discourse, and feeling freer to speak their minds and be "critical" of each other and moving further out and away from the valence of "being" a Scientologist (and of speaking as if from a certain level on that blasted tone scale..)

Just trust me on this... it may seem counter-productive, but it actually is a good sign of folks recovering their authentic feelings, independent minds and freedom to speak.

Yeah except Zinj was never a Scientologist.

 

[Panda Termint]

[/B]

You could have simply told me who you were referring to but I had to go on your wild goose chase to find your original post on the matter (on this thread). Unless you mean on another thread??? longer wild goose chase?
Anyway, I found this:



So were you talking about HH...who was the immediate poster before you?
When you said ".. the level of tolerance for violations of the Board's "be courteous to others" Rule Of Conduct when it comes to Mark" that sometimes astounds you, was the person you were "actually addressing" HH? And if you were actually addressing him, does it mean that he was the only person whose violations of the rules on courtesy in regard to Mark Baker astound you in regard to the way they are tolerated.?

A simple yes or no will suffice.
Please don't answer with this discourteous stuff "..If you bothered to read my original post on the matter.."

Perhaps if you actually read the thread? I quoted the OP I was referring to for your benefit at post #1133. In the thread I've already said that I wasn't referring specifically to HH. Read the thread.

 

[degraded being]

Perhaps if you actually read the thread? I quoted the OP I was referring to for your benefit at post #1133. In the thread I've already said that I wasn't referring specifically to HH. Read the thread.

I have read the thread. What's the problem? Just clarify it. One or two sentences?