Technical Purity

Vedas'a dictionary:

"Derailing a thread--saying something he disagrees with.

Scientologist--there is not a definition for this word, but he uses it alot.

Proof--Veda's opinion."

Get over yourself, kid.

Unfortunately, nothing you say about Scientology, even when it's true, which is usually the case, will stand up in court because you have to prove your warrants and you never do.

You just sound like an ex-smoker talking about other smokers.

But it is amusing listening to you.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Last edited:

Veda

Sponsor
Vedas'a dictionary:

"Derailing a thread--saying something he disagrees with.

Scientologist--there is not a definition for this word, but he uses it alot.

Proof--Veda's opinion."

Get over yourself, kid.

Unfortunately, nothing you say about Scientology, even when it's true, which is usually the case, will stand up in court because you have to prove your warrants and you never do.

You just sound like an ex-smoker talking about other smokers.

But it is amusing listening to you.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Jeez.

Peace out, dude.
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
I disagree. I find Veda's opinions well-researched and persuasive. He speaks with authority, and so do I. I was taught, in school, never to use the "passive voice". Always talk like you know what you're talking about. If the reader disagrees, that's fine, but don't INVITE them to disagree.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Vedas'a dictionary:

"Derailing a thread--saying something he disagrees with.

Scientologist--there is not a definition for this word, but he uses it alot.

Proof--Veda's opinion."

Get over yourself, kid.

Unfortunately, nothing you say about Scientology, even when it's true, which is usually the case, will stand up in court because you have to prove your warrants and you never do.

You just sound like an ex-smoker talking about other smokers.

But it is amusing listening to you.

The Anabaptist Jacques

I don't agree with any of the criticisms in this post.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Ya know, I very much like what Veda says, when he says it about Scientology.

And, I very much like what TAJ says, when he says it about Scientology.

Yet, they are often, or at least recently, "at each other's throats".

This does get to a point where it becomes a distraction.

Talking about each other, pissing on each other, and having any attention "on each other" takes away from where attention should be placed - on some aspect of the scam known as Scientology.

I see this all as certain posters getting a little bit TOO immersed in their own slant of things.

I suppuse it might be a good idea at times to ask, "will my response result in more distraction, or will me post contribute to a better examination and analysis of the flaws and faults of Hubbard and Scientology".

Cripes, we each look at it somewhat differently based on our own unique bundle of experiences, education and personal values. Pull back from the minor differences (and they ARE MINOR), and get on with the matter at hand - tearing down the Church of Scientology by the communication of honest observations on ESMB. :thumbsup:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
What was it about his posts that made you stop reading them?

Sorry, I don't think through a well-reasoned argument for putting someone on ignore. It's just that there comes a point where I've read so much garbage from someone that it's easier to just blank out all their posts for an extended time than try and deal with them in any other way. I often skim through posts I am not interested in, but there are some posters that I'm happier with (I've found) if I simply ignore them wholesale.

Having views generally contrary to mine doesn't count as "garbage" per se.

Paul
 
... I was taught, in school, never to use the "passive voice". ...

Not a very good school then clearly. :eyeroll:


... Always talk like you know what you're talking about. ...

Especially when you don't?

... If the reader disagrees, that's fine, but don't INVITE them to disagree.

And clearly emphasizing the use of rhetoric as a tool for persuasion rather than analysis as a means of furthering comprehension. Very much in keeping with modern trends in argument where it matters not if what is said is true as long as enough people accept it as such. :eyeroll:

A greater familiarity with classical lit can aid in fixing that. :yes:


Mark A. Baker
 

Lone Star

Crusader
Just a quick word to Veda, TAJ, Gadfly, Mark A. Baker, Smilla, and Paul.....I just couldn't imagine ESMB without any one of you. I luv you all as posters, and I'm sure if I knew you "in real life" I'd really like you in that setting as well. Sure, I get annoyed at times, but each one of you bring something special to the Forum. The faults and the strengths make each one of you great reading. And of course each one of you in your own way is intelligent and very insightful. Far more than myself. I've learned a lot over the past 4 months here. ESMB is a very delicious stew with very spicy and diverse ingredients!

Of course many more of you that I named above are also included in this mix....I'm just addressing the current dialogue on this particular thread in present time....

:thumbsup:
 
Just a quick word to Veda, TAJ, Gadfly, Mark A. Baker, Smilla, and Paul.....I just couldn't imagine ESMB without any one of you. I luv you all as posters, and I'm sure if I knew you "in real life" I'd really like you in that setting as well. Sure, I get annoyed at times, but each one of you bring something special to the Forum. The faults and the strengths make each one of you great reading. And of course each one of you in your own way is intelligent and very insightful. Far more than myself. I've learned a lot over the past 4 months here. ESMB is a very delicious stew with very spicy and diverse ingredients!

Of course many more of you that I named above are also included in this mix....I'm just addressing the current dialogue on this particular thread in present time....

:thumbsup:

Are we gonna sit here and take this kind of talk from him?

Let's get him, guys.

Seriously, thanks and I agree with what you said.

Especially about me.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Just a quick word to Veda, TAJ, Gadfly, Mark A. Baker, Smilla, and Paul.....I just couldn't imagine ESMB without any one of you. I luv you all as posters, and I'm sure if I knew you "in real life" I'd really like you in that setting as well. Sure, I get annoyed at times, but each one of you bring something special to the Forum. The faults and the strengths make each one of you great reading. And of course each one of you in your own way is intelligent and very insightful. Far more than myself. I've learned a lot over the past 4 months here. ESMB is a very delicious stew with very spicy and diverse ingredients!

Of course many more of you that I named above are also included in this mix....I'm just addressing the current dialogue on this particular thread in present time....

:thumbsup:

Are we gonna sit here and take this kind of talk from him?

Let's get him, guys.

Seriously, thanks and I agree with what you said.

Especially about me.

Gadfly

P.S. Oh, except for the "faults" in "the faults and the strengths make each one of you great reading". That IS TRUE for all the others though. (kidding)

Well, except for possiby MAB . . . . . (kidding?)

In my list I would have been sure to include Hoaxter, as his humorous slant on aspects of Scientology continues to tear new holes in the scam - day after day and week after week (at least for me).
 
Sorry, I don't think through a well-reasoned argument for putting someone on ignore. It's just that there comes a point where I've read so much garbage from someone that it's easier to just blank out all their posts for an extended time than try and deal with them in any other way. I often skim through posts I am not interested in, but there are some posters that I'm happier with (I've found) if I simply ignore them wholesale.

Having views generally contrary to mine doesn't count as "garbage" per se.

Paul

Are you still here?

I thought you died when the New World Order dropped poisoned chemtrails in your neighborhood.

Or that you scratched yourself to death when the Mossad put itching powder in your Preperation H when you found out they blew up the World Trade Towers.

(Note to other exes: if you're over his house don't touch his keyboard. It's probably very sticky)

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Last edited:
Are we gonna sit here and take this kind of talk from him?

Let's get him, guys.

Seriously, thanks and I agree with what you said.

Especially about me.

Gadfly

P.S. Oh, except for the "faults" in "the faults and the strengths make each one of you great reading". That IS TRUE for all the others though. (kidding)

Hey. I wrote this post. who is playing games?

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
Not a very good school then clearly. :eyeroll:




Especially when you don't?



And clearly emphasizing the use of rhetoric as a tool for persuasion rather than analysis as a means of furthering comprehension. Very much in keeping with modern trends in argument where it matters not if what is said is true as long as enough people accept it as such. :eyeroll:

A greater familiarity with classical lit can aid in fixing that. :yes:


Mark A. Baker

Be careful, Mark. This is a rough crowd.

In tempore praeterito plus quam perfecto de te mox dicent.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Gadfly

Crusader
Damn...it must be OSA. They're mad because I didn't include them. :biggrin:

(Or maybe it's the Creature from Jekyll Island)

Is that anything like the Creature from the Black Lagoon?

Black-Lagoon.jpg
 
Top