Ok fair enough.
Look, D, Everyone has a right to their opinions and to post them. So what if not everyone has the same thoughts as everyone else? Hey, if it weren't for that fact, I'd not have ultimately started looking at other ideas which led me to leave CofS. So I rejoice in diversity.
OK fair enough
I don't "demand the freedom". I have the freedom. And so does anyone else around here. I am in favor of freedom of speech and I personally defended critics and criticism to the OSA reps sent to handle me.
Fair enough
Perhaps you should have asked me why I said what I said. But you didn't.
Sometimes we can't know what we should have asked until we have hindsight - which we only get after going over stuff in discussion. I think that applies to all of us. BUT this is just "a thought" about it. Not an argument aganist what you said.
The reason I wrote that post is this: When I saw the thread title, I thought "Right on!" I was thinking of the crap like seeing SPs behind every bush and barrel, Scn'ists who constantly call people 1.1, the "biochemical personality" and "illegal pc" and "PTS III" labels. So I was like, whoa! Great point! Then I read the list. Boy, what a mess. It had all sorts of terms that describe (or attempt to, if you like) mental phenomena. There was everything in there but the goddamned kitchen sink. So, no, there's no way I'm going to agree with a post like that. I thought of all the psych courses I took in college (and, yes, I'm PRO psychiatry and PRO psychology, thank you very much) and what happened in my family and recalled all the labels THEY have. And some of those are pretty damn definite. And I thought "What the fuck is the difference?" Just different theories.
Fair enough, and interesting.
So my problem with that huge long laundry list is just that. That it's a huge long laundry list. It includes the exclusionary terms you guys are trying to decry-and I'm right there with you on that- but it also lumps in a lot of terms that attempt or purport to describe existing mental/emotional/psychological or spiritual phenomena. And I thought that did not make sense and I'm sticking with that.
Ok.
So you want to make me into the bad guy who thinks Ron was right about everything and thinks Scn never practiced exclusionary practices that fucked people up? Well, that's not me. And if you'd have bothered to ask me you'd have found that out.
I don't think I was going that far. Although it could have looked like that.
I had noticed that you disagree with things about scientology or the administrators of scientology, or elron. And I think I was a bit confused in that area too.
I have no objection to Scn being criticized. At all. I just don't think people should write a bunch of ad hominem stuff about others and the rules of conduct are what they are. I didn't write them, you know.
Yeah ok.
I, too, am an ex member of CofS. I'm also a vocal critic of not just the present CofS midgetment but of Hubbard, too. Further, when I posted a poll to try to ascertain the demographic here, non CofS Scn'ists were NOT in the minority. But even if they were, Emma allows them to be here and so must you.
Just a thought. Perhaps some people have a need to totally reject all of something. Whether it be scio or other beliefs they grew up with etc.
On the basis that there was a time when they could not reject it and when they start getting the courage to let go of beliefs which seem important to their survival they still have "part X" which they are scared to question.
So they get into a sort of experiment with rejection of the whole shebang to see what happens. To see if they will come out the other side not needing any of it. I seriously think that some exes want to do this to purge themselves totally. Anyway that's just a little thesis I have going. It may make people unwilling to be objective because objectivity and fake objectivity
has been used to keep them trapped. Whatever.
This last paragraph is not an argument against anything you've said. Just thoughts happening as a result of discussion and thinking about it.
See y' later.
Yes, I can answer the disagreement. But if the disagreement includes ad hominem statements, it will not go well for anyone who does that.
Yes. You're saying anyone who does not act the way you think they should is a troll. Unfortunately, you've not done your homework.
You must be a genius also. 
