another board ramping up
the guy running it used to do it back in the 90s and early 00s. He's starting up again.
Originally Posted by CarmeloOrchards View Post
try this alternative
http://www.freezoneamerica.org/forum/
it is the beginning notes that will be put to the symphany
in other words. sign on and play.
Another pro-$cio site
http://www.freezoneamerica.org/forum/
Why bother, $ci is debunked.
So, if you believe that to be true why do you waste so much time commenting about it?
Mark A. Baker
Why do you use bakerology to defend it?
Originally Posted by HelluvaHoax! View Post
I can help with that. In case anyone wonders what would happen next, the pattern is 100% standard.
EX-SCN POSTER: blah blah blah
MARK BAKER HANDLING #1: You have obsessions and you lie.
EX-SCN POSTER: But blah blah blah.
MARK BAKER HANDLING #2: You do not understand words. You do not understand Scientology.
EX-SCN POSTER: But blah blah blah.
MARK BAKER HANDLING #3: Your blah blah blah reveals and says more about your (bad characteristic) than it does about (Hubbard/Scientology).
It's funny, but it's not a joke.
Take a look at Baker's responses when he gets nervous by being in the proximity of facts about Scientology's tech. It's incredibly fun once you know what he does time and time again.
The commands are always run as follows: 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3....(to "eternity").
Standard Bakerology!
The invalidation lies in the suggestion that criticising Scientology is a waste of time. For sure, the subject has been scientifically, systematicaly, throughly, and anecdotally, debunked over and over again. Yet, there are still some trapped in the Hubbardian mind-meld who need assistance. Suggesting that a person wanting to help is wasting their time in a quest to be of assistance is, if not invalidating, then, at least, demeaning. Suggesting that the response of Free's comment was "simply asking a question" is disingenuous - how about I ask you a simple question: when did you first beat your wife? Geddit? You also misrepresent Free's position when you attempt to put words into their mouth - Free never said the subject was not worthy of reading or writing about. Where did that come from?
Perhaps you don't share my viewpoint on this, but I see little need for you to cheer people on in their disparagement of others.
AN INVALIDATION WOULD LIE IN THE SUGGESTION THAT CRITICISING SCIENTOLOGY, SYSTEMATICALLY IS A WASTE OF TIME IF SOMEONE HAD SUGGESTED THAT. AGAIN I ASK WHO? CERTAINLY NOT ME! I PERSONALLY HAVE WRITTEN REAMS OF MATERIAL ON THIS AND OTHER THREADS CRITICIZING SCIENTOLOGY AND L RON HUBBARD. I AM NOT ABOUT TO SUGGEST THAT ALL THE HOURS I HAVE SPENT CRITICISING SCIENTOLOGY WERE A WASTE OF TIME.
GET REAL BLIP! YOU ARE READING INTO WHAT I WROTE THINGS THAT ARE NOT THERE. TALK ABOUT ME PUTTING WORDS INTO FREE'S MOUTH, ALL OF YOUR COMPLAINTS ABOUT ME CONSIST OF YOU PUTTING WORDS INTO MY MOUTH
THAT IMPLY HIDDEN INTENT IN MY SHORT POST THAT SIMPLY IS NOT THERE.
You state, "Free never said the subject was not worthy of reading or writing about. Where did that come from?"
Free gave a link to a new pro Sci discussion board and then added, "Why bother, $ci is debunked." Free is inconsistent, he posts a link to a pro Sci discussion board and then adds, "Why bother, $ci is debunked." To me, if someone comments, why bother (reading a pro Sci discussion board) the subject is debunked, I can safely assume that he is suggesting that the debunked subject Sci is something not worthy of reading (or writing about as well because when you go onto a discussion board you generally both read and write).
I find it frightening that an intelligent person such as yourself cannot connect the dots and figure out that Free is suggesting not to read a pro Scio site or post there, when he says "Why bother, $cio is debunked" and yet you read into my post to MAB that I have invalidated Free. Free says something and you deny it was said. I did not say something and you insist that I implied it.
I see that you lowered your charges against me from invalidating Free to demeaning and disparaging him. I am willing to meet you half way on this. I found Free's comments inconsistent, promoting a pro Sci discussion board and then saying his "why bother because the subject has been debunked" comment. We already know that you and Free do not care for any Scio tech. If you guys want to comment periodically and remind us of your feelings about this matter, I respect that and think it is a good thing to have your presence on the board. All valid points of view need to be represented here!
What sparked my retort against Free was an earlier episode when our number of hits was 66,000 or so. A poster named Challenge was very offended any time I mentioned our views stats and she and some others were saying that the thread had lost its way and was no longer of its earlier quality level. As the thread host, I can view the list of posters daily and Challange and the other people who were knocking the thread were all reading the thread every day and my response was, if it is no good anymore, why read it every day?
That is my main gripe about people such as Free. They knock something but spend a lot of time reading and writing about it. I accept your explanation that people such as you and Free are doing a public service by reading this thread and reminding people over and over that you feel that scio has been totally debunked. That is a valid public service, as you state, so I hope that you and Free both continue posting here and offer an anti Scio point of view whenever people mention that they have had wins of some sort with Scio based procedures.
Lakey
My post was in response to a pro $ci site, advertised on this thread. I never said $ci wasn't worth talking about, happens every day on ESMB. My point was pro$ci sites have the life expectancy of a deer caught in the head lights of an oncoming car.
I was bashing a new pro$ci site. I didn't "bash" anyone here, didn't comment on the content of the thread regarding "wins". I said $ci is debunked. This is my gripe with people such as lkwdblds. The assumption that a general comment about $ci is a personal attack. I bashed a pro$ci site. Not anyone in particular.
