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

Indies, FZers, etc- is criticism hatred or what?

  • I am a non CofS Scn'ist & I don't approve of any criticism of non CofS Scn. It's bigotry

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Not a non CofS Scn'ist but like some of it.My views are same as in choice #1.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm (see choice #2) but I have NO problem with ANY amount or type of Scn criticism EVER.

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Not a non CofS Scn'ist, though like some of it. My views are same as in choice #3.

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • I'm a non CofS Scn'ist & I think some criticism is bigotry, some's not, depends on what's said.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm (see choice #2) & I think some criticism is bigotry, some's not, depends on what's said.

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • I like some Scn and/or am an Indie/FZer & my criterion is not type of criticism, but quantity.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a non CofS Scn'ist ; I only consider critics as "haters" if their commentary turns personal.

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • I'm not a non CofS Scn'ist, like some of it & feel same as in choice #9.

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • I have some interest in Scn or am Indie/FZ but none of the above apply.

    Votes: 3 21.4%

  • Total voters
    14

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Chuck,

I agree that criticizing Hubbard is not a "personal attack" and I have seen Free Zoners opine that it was. Fortunately, they don't all think this. I have never ever agreed with this view.

As to Marty, well, I've seen criticism of his actions as a public figure that seemed to me to be relevant. I've also seen criticism of him that seemed kinda personalized but with a public figure there's a grey area or a fine line and it's not like I'm a rocket scientist, yanno? :coolwink:
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
:no:
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.

Yep, I knew what the purpose of your poll was.

Thank goodness you are here to moderate this board and keep us all under control.

Not.

Can we haters and natterers have a section on your pro scientology board please Fluffy?

:eyeroll:


Just accept that for many people being (finally) allowed to say what they like within the ESMB rules is very therapeutic and that if some people wish to stroll into the equivalent of an alcoholics anonymous meeting swigging from a large bottle of scotch and then handing it around to the members and getting all whiny about what member's are saying ... they are probably going to get verbally thrashed now and then ... and rightly so, and they are quite able to retaliate as and when they wish to.

And yes, I do know that they have their own section and no, I will not be asking Emma to close their section.

Under the circumstances I believe we all get on pretty damn well.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
:no:

Yep, I knew what the purpose of your poll was.

Thank goodness you are here to moderate this board and keep us all under control.

I am not one of the mods here.



You are correct. I am not one of the mods here.

Can we haters and natterers have a section on your pro scientology board please Fluffy?

I haven't seen any haters and natters on ESMB. I've never used that term, either. I only see people who are expressing their views on Scn. I'm very glad they are doing so. I enjoyed your posts on the Dexter/FZ thread very much. I like a lot of them.

The only people I ever saw here who were haters/natterers were some OSA bots who came on here to attack Emma and the forum. I did not approve of them.

I do not know what my board has to do with anything said here.



Just accept that for many people being (finally) allowed to say what they like within the ESMB rules is very therapeutic and that if some people wish to stroll into the equivalent of an alcoholics anonymous meeting swigging from a large bottle of scotch and then handing it around to the members and getting all whiny about what member's are saying ... they are probably going to get verbally thrashed now and then ... and rightly so, and they are quite able to retaliate as and when they wish to.

That's my stance, too. Coolness.

Under the circumstances I believe we all get on pretty damn well.

Sure. Just as long as we both realize that I'm not one of Human Again's moderators and that my board has nothing to do with anything here, I think it's all pretty groovey.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
:no:

Yep, I knew what the purpose of your poll was.

Thank goodness you are here to moderate this board and keep us all under control.

Not.

Can we haters and natterers have a section on your pro scientology board please Fluffy?

:eyeroll:


Just accept that for many people being (finally) allowed to say what they like within the ESMB rules is very therapeutic and that if some people wish to stroll into the equivalent of an alcoholics anonymous meeting swigging from a large bottle of scotch and then handing it around to the members and getting all whiny about what member's are saying ... they are probably going to get verbally thrashed now and then ... and rightly so, and they are quite able to retaliate as and when they wish to.

And yes, I do know that they have their own section and no, I will not be asking Emma to close their section.

Under the circumstances I believe we all get on pretty damn well.

I don't like the comparison of ESMB to AA. I find the concept of "alcoholism" a false idea, on its face, and don't think that addiction, at any rate, is a good analogy to cult experience. I know there are people who disagree with me, and I expect that.

I do see that "Emma" had included "recovering from a cult experience" in the purpose of the board, but I don't believe that this recovery means complete denial of anything of value in Scientology. Things are rarely that simple.

My view is that there are a number of truths contained in Scientology, as well as a number of valuable practices. Leaving the Church of Scientology doesn't necessarily mean ceasing to be able to experience truth, or acknowledge valid practices. Integration of those truths and practices is made difficult by the manipulative and deceptive efforts of Hubbard and various of his minions who continue in those roles created and assigned for those purposes. I can understand that some might just want to reject the whole, and start from scratch, and that is their right. It's not their right to tell me or anyone else that I must also reject the whole, nor do I, personally, think it is good to pretend that recovery is assisted by this.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I'm interested in freedom of speech. I would feel the same way about someone who came here and then got mad that some (many/most) contributors were saying they didn't like Scn as I would about anyone saying people shouldn't discuss their continuing interest in Scn, if they have such.

I have, in fact, expressed disagreement with some people who didn't like seeing people "natter" or whatever on ESMB. Sorry, but if they don't like it, they should either not be here or else stay but cut everyone some slack. A lot of ppl here have been badly hurt by CofS and consequently want nothing to do with the philosophy, either.
 
Top