Scn'ists (non CofS); How do you perceive critics of non CofS Scn?

[Voltaire's Child]

I've been on Scn critical fora for a long time. I've been interested in Scn, first in CofS and then outside of it. Now, it's just some things I like, some I don't, and I ditched the label and the identity. But I'm still in touch with with a lot of non CofS Scn'ists. I'd say that I support them, but saying that implies that THEY are the only ones. Actually, I'm just as supportive of people's right to criticize Scn (in ANY venue) and to ditch the whole entire thing (If they're an ex) or to never get involved in the first place. I probably have just as many friends in that "camp", so to speak, as I do amongst FZers and Indies, if not more.

I see too much them and us'ing. I've seen it among some FZers in other venues and occasionally on ESMB. However, I've seen many many posts and have many IRL conversations with non CofS Scientologists who had no wish to denigrate anyone's right to not choose Scn and/or to criticize it. Some of these people picket Cof$ , some of them have a lot of friends in the critic's scene. DianaClass8 and Terril Park are two examples of either of these, but they aren't the only ones.

Lately, I've been seeing a number of comments by those who feel that they are being dismissed and/or referred to as "haters" by non CofS Scn'ists. I won't go into my opinions too much in this opening post, though I'll be happy to in a separate one here. I will only say this: anyone who dismisses the entirety of all critics/criticism of CofS as bigotry/hating/haters is completely wrong to do that. It wouldn't be fair or correct or accurate. It would be a discounting and dismissal of many individuals who have so much to teach and share with, well, anyone and everyone.

I have, as it happens, commented on the thought that non CofS Scn'ists have a certain general or at least frequently occurring stance, elsewhere on this board. And I've just said that this would not be, if it were the case, something I could ever support or be happy about. So what I want to do here is create a poll so that maybe we can get an idea of how many non CofS Scn'ists think of criticism of Scn and of the FZ as hating/bigotry, etc.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

"I'm not a non CofS Scn'ist, like some of it & feel same as in choice #9"

Is choice #9

 

[Voltaire's Child]

To clarify choice 3-- typo there- I meant that choice to be someone who considers self indie/FZer and considers no criticism to be bigotry ever. The next choice is for ppl who like some of it but ain't using the label "Scn'ist".

I wanted to have this poll have alternating choices for

A) FZers/Indies

B) ppl who don't use the Scn'ist label but still kind of like some of it.

Those are the people for whom this poll is intended.

Now for whom is this thread intended and whose comments would I like to see in the thread? Anyone and everyone who'd like to comment, that's who!!

 

[programmer_guy]

Is choice #9 recursive? It refers to itself.
Please make a correction.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I LUFF my critic friends.

I LUFF my FZ and Indie friends.

Ok, gotta go. Have maudlin attention seeking (enormous) kitten in lap. She's about to do something to the computer if I don't log off.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

LOL ... I think you forgot to add ...

"I am a Freezoner/Indie (you coined the phrase I know!) and I do realise that on an EX scientology message board there are going to be critics of scientology, some more rabid than others and if I don't like it ... I can always go elsewhere.

 

[Dulloldfart]

#11: I am interested in some of Scn but am not willing to work out which of these complicated options, if any, I should pick.

Paul

 

[Voltaire's Child]

LOL ... I think you forgot to add ...

"I am a Freezoner/Indie (you coined the phrase I know!) and I do realise that on an EX scientology message board there are going to be critics of scientology, some more rabid than others and if I don't like it ... I can always go elsewhere.

Ah, but the purpose of the poll was to show the board what FZers and Indies think about criticism. So much has been said about their attitudes, I figured you should get it from those individuals.

And, yes, anyone can go elsewhere. Nobody has to read any posts in the FZ or Independent sections of the board if those are offensive or uninteresting to them.

 

[uniquemand]

Criticism is a necessary function, for understanding and correct application to take place. Thus, the only time I'm bothered by it is when the criticism is stupid, or the conversation is not criticism, but personal attack.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Criticism is a necessary function, for understanding and correct application to take place. Thus, the only time I'm bothered by it is when the criticism is stupid, or the conversation is not criticism, but personal attack.

Exactly!

 

[Sindy]

Criticism is a necessary function, for understanding and correct application to take place. Thus, the only time I'm bothered by it is when the criticism is stupid, or the conversation is not criticism, but personal attack.

Agreed 100%. My problem is with non-critical or just plain moronic thinking and I very much appreciate it, that when I engage in such (which certainly happens to everyone as they unravel from the trance) I am kindly and intelligently shown the error of my ways. When I am attacked, I retreat. I have to say that I was criticized on Marty's blog several times and now I really don't go there much.

 

[Sindy]

I've been on Scn critical fora for a long time. I've been interested in Scn, first in CofS and then outside of it. Now, it's just some things I like, some I don't, and I ditched the label and the identity. But I'm still in touch with with a lot of non CofS Scn'ists. I'd say that I support them, but saying that implies that THEY are the only ones. Actually, I'm just as supportive of people's right to criticize Scn (in ANY venue) and to ditch the whole entire thing (If they're an ex) or to never get involved in the first place. I probably have just as many friends in that "camp", so to speak, as I do amongst FZers and Indies, if not more.

I see too much them and us'ing. I've seen it among some FZers in other venues and occasionally on ESMB. However, I've seen many many posts and have many IRL conversations with non CofS Scientologists who had no wish to denigrate anyone's right to not choose Scn and/or to criticize it. Some of these people picket Cof$ , some of them have a lot of friends in the critic's scene. DianaClass8 and Terril Park are two examples of either of these, but they aren't the only ones.

Lately, I've been seeing a number of comments by those who feel that they are being dismissed and/or referred to as "haters" by non CofS Scn'ists. I won't go into my opinions too much in this opening post, though I'll be happy to in a separate one here. I will only say this: anyone who dismisses the entirety of all critics/criticism of CofS as bigotry/hating/haters is completely wrong to do that. It wouldn't be fair or correct or accurate. It would be a discounting and dismissal of many individuals who have so much to teach and share with, well, anyone and everyone.

I have, as it happens, commented on the thought that non CofS Scn'ists have a certain general or at least frequently occurring stance, elsewhere on this board. And I've just said that this would not be, if it were the case, something I could ever support or be happy about. So what I want to do here is create a poll so that maybe we can get an idea of how many non CofS Scn'ists think of criticism of Scn and of the FZ as hating/bigotry, etc.

I think the results of this poll, if the Indies/FZ'ers/etc. actually took it, would be very useful and would bring about a better understanding and bring us all closer together. I personally have a goal to love others in general. Why would I love a "never before been a Scientologist" person more than I love those who have had such similar experiences to me? I think that clearly some people are totally benighted in their thinking but I don't dislike them. I probably just wouldn't invite them over for dinner and a game of cards.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

This whole personal attack business is overrated.

The vast majority if not all of the criticism of David Miscavige can be viewed as a personal attacks, natter, yapping, or what ever else Marty calls criticism of Hubbard of Himself these days. Yet it is valid criticism.

Usually someone plays the "personal attack" card to stop what is being discussed.

We had an overload of this method of deflection in the media prior to last Tuesday's election.

I'm not about to stop personally attacking L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige, and any of Miscavige's former water-boys including Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder, until they show me a reason to believe they deserve some respect.

 

[Sindy]

This whole personal attack business is overrated.

The vast majority if not all of the criticism of David Miscavige can be viewed as a personal attacks, natter, yapping, or what ever else Marty calls criticism of Hubbard of Himself these days. Yet it is valid criticism.

Usually someone plays the "personal attack" card to stop what is being discussed.

We had an overload of this method of deflection in the media prior to last Tuesday's election.

I'm not about to stop personally attacking L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige, and any of Miscavige's former water-boys including Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder, until they show me a reason to believe they deserve some respect.

I agree with you that in the case of the big boys, that hold themselves out to be opinion leaders, they are tacitly agreeing to greater scrutiny. I would agree that personal attacks have their place to create a possibly good effect on those who hear the attack but, if one was looking to actually get through to the individual in question, well, the phrase "Marty needs to show proof of what he is saying. Let's see some dox." will probably garner more results than, "Marty is a complete wanker that couldn't find the truth even if it was plastered to his bottle of tequila. What a moron." Just sayin' ...though, it does feel good sometimes.

I think the main point of the poll was that all people can't logically be lumped into one category and then be pitted one against the other.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

This whole personal attack business is overrated.

The vast majority if not all of the criticism of David Miscavige can be viewed as a personal attacks, natter, yapping, or what ever else Marty calls criticism of Hubbard of Himself these days. Yet it is valid criticism.

Usually someone plays the "personal attack" card to stop what is being discussed.

We had an overload of this method of deflection in the media prior to last Tuesday's election.

I'm not about to stop personally attacking L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige, and any of Miscavige's former water-boys including Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder, until they show me a reason to believe they deserve some respect.

No, a personal attack is when a contributor to a forum with whom one disagrees is attacked as a person. Now, I know it annoys some people no end when I do this but what the fuck, I'll do it anyway. I'm going to give you examples from my past back when I used to actually engage in flame wars with people who said stuff like this.

On public forums, before I was flame free and when I was still calling myself an Indie Scientologist, I repeatedly had my motives for posting questioned. My line of work, my physical appearance, my hair, my vacation schedule- all those things were posted about and not nicely. I was called useless, irresponsible, dangerous, a liar, fat, a sociopath, a computing psychotic, someone posted that I was a woman in her 40s and I act this way and that way, I was called FOS, dishonest, frightening, blind, repeatedly accused of not wanting to have certain things said, I was also accused of "you are dead wrong, irresponsible, and destructive to the well being of children" ,someone posted that I had no children (I've always refused to share my reproductive status with critical fora) and when I deflected this none-of-her-fucking-business comment, the person came back again and again. I was repeatedly told not to believe what I believed, I was told I need courses in logic, more education, that I should stay away from other people's kids, I was accused of posting from 50 IP addresses, of posting porn on the internet, of not doing my (day) job, of being OSA and on and on.

Those were personal attacks. They've stopped because I've changed tactics in posting. That's the only reason.

I've also seen personalized insults against Terril Park, Mark Baker, Dexter Gelfland and others. All those individuals can take care of themselves, just as I always could. None of us are or were victims. but those things were said, and they are obviously personalized and those aren't rare.

But don't tell me that it's a "personal attack card". Clearly, when things such as the above take place, it is not. I don't care what philosophy someone espouses- no one deserves to have those things said and those things are against the rules of conduct of message boards where they've appeared.

This thread isn't about Marty although he's relevant (to this thread here) as one factor out of many.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

No, a personal attack is when a contributor to a forum with whom one disagrees is attacked as a person. Now, I know it annoys some people no end when I do this but what the fuck, I'll do it anyway. I'm going to give you examples from my past back when I used to actually engage in flame wars with people who said stuff like this.

On public forums, before I was flame free and when I was still calling myself an Indie Scientologist, I repeatedly had my motives for posting questioned. My line of work, my physical appearance, my hair, my vacation schedule- all those things were posted about and not nicely. I was called useless, irresponsible, dangerous, a liar, fat, a sociopath, a computing psychotic, someone posted that I was a woman in her 40s and I act this way and that way, I was called FOS, dishonest, frightening, blind, repeatedly accused of not wanting to have certain things said, I was also accused of "you are dead wrong, irresponsible, and destructive to the well being of children" ,someone posted that I had no children (I've always refused to share my reproductive status with cricial fora) and when I deflected this none-of-her-fucking-business comment, the person came back again and again. I was repeatedly told not to believe what I believed, I was told I need courses in logic, more education, that I should stay away from other people's kids, I was accused of posting from 50 IP addresses, of posting porn on the internet, of not doing my (day) job, of being OSA.

Those were personal attacks. They've stopped because I've changed tactics in posting. That's the only reason.

I've also seen personalized insults against Terril Park, Mark Baker, Dexter Gelfland and others. All those individuals can take care of themselves, just as I always could. None of us are or were victims. but those things were said, and they are obviously personalized and those aren't rare.

But don't tell me that it's a "personal attack card". Clearly, when things such as the above take place, it is not. I don't care what philosophy someone espouses- no one deserves to have those things said and those things are against the rules of conduct of message boards where they've appeared.

That's a completely different story, you're talking about OSA-esque character assassination tactics that are based on fabricated information.

Those tactics usually make the attacker look like an unhinged whack job and little else.

And I think that is where they can be used to deflect conversations away from certain topics.

I have to go back to the interview with Heber Jentzsch, Dennis Erlich and Priscilla Coates, when Heber was asked why did didn't attend a trial in Spain, he started to explain the charges were false and Priscilla Coates replied by saying

" You told him your mother was dying, Heber, you made up another story."

Heber went into a fake outrage acting as if Priscilla just called his mother a whore.

He used her factual comment to act as if he was just subjected to the same type of personal abuse you were subjected to, and he wouldn't drop it because it was successful in derailing the conversation away from the abuses of the cult.

Now If I say Hubbard was an abusive con man, or Marty was one of Miscavige's thugs, those are both personal attacks, but not along the lines you are describing.

 

[Commander Birdsong]

it's the yankees i hate

i'm a non-vatican christian but i pay attention when the pope speaks. i love freedom of speech. CoS doesn't offer it. criticism is just fine especially when it is intelligent and/or humorous. if a person considers dianetics entirely worthless it's no problem to me and in fact i believe there's no better place than esmb for someone who truly understands and can use the subject. i'm one of Truman's children. he was a damn democrat but i sorta like the sonofabitch. he said "if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen"

 

[degraded being]

My head hurts.

 

[AlphOhm]

No, a personal attack is when a contributor to a forum with whom one disagrees is attacked as a person. Now, I know it annoys some people no end when I do this but what the fuck, I'll do it anyway. I'm going to give you examples from my past back when I used to actually engage in flame wars with people who said stuff like this.

On public forums, before I was flame free and when I was still calling myself an Indie Scientologist, I repeatedly had my motives for posting questioned. My line of work, my physical appearance, my hair, my vacation schedule- all those things were posted about and not nicely. I was called useless, irresponsible, dangerous, a liar, fat, a sociopath, a computing psychotic, someone posted that I was a woman in her 40s and I act this way and that way, I was called FOS, dishonest, frightening, blind, repeatedly accused of not wanting to have certain things said, I was also accused of "you are dead wrong, irresponsible, and destructive to the well being of children" ,someone posted that I had no children (I've always refused to share my reproductive status with critical fora) and when I deflected this none-of-her-fucking-business comment, the person came back again and again. I was repeatedly told not to believe what I believed, I was told I need courses in logic, more education, that I should stay away from other people's kids, I was accused of posting from 50 IP addresses, of posting porn on the internet, of not doing my (day) job, of being OSA and on and on.

Those were personal attacks. They've stopped because I've changed tactics in posting. That's the only reason.

I've also seen personalized insults against Terril Park, Mark Baker, Dexter Gelfland and others. All those individuals can take care of themselves, just as I always could. None of us are or were victims. but those things were said, and they are obviously personalized and those aren't rare.

But don't tell me that it's a "personal attack card". Clearly, when things such as the above take place, it is not. I don't care what philosophy someone espouses- no one deserves to have those things said and those things are against the rules of conduct of message boards where they've appeared.

This thread isn't about Marty although he's relevant (to this thread here) as one factor out of many.

Sounds like you met up with dianer/referen.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Sounds like you met up with dianer/referen.

Oh, gosh, no. Never had a problem with her whatsoever.