The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[CarmeloOrchards]

HOW BAD IS THE ECONOMY


Women are having sex with their husbands/boyfriends because they can't afford batteries.

Jury Duty is now considered a good-paying job.

I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.

African television stations are now showing 'Sponsor an American Child' commercials!

I ordered a burger at McDonald's and the kid behind the counter asked, "Can you afford fries with that?"

CEO's are now playing miniature golf.

Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.

My ATM gave me an IOU!

A stripper was killed when her audience showered her with rolls of pennies while she danced.

I saw a Mormon polygamist with only one wife.

I bought a toaster oven and my free gift with the purchase was a bank.

If the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," you have to call them and ask if they meant you or them.

McDonald's is now selling the 1/4 ouncer.

Angelina Jolie adopted a child from America ..

Parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned the names of their children.

My cousin had an exorcism but couldn't afford to pay for it, and they re-possessed her!

A truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico .

Motel Six won't leave the light on for you anymore.

A picture is now only worth 200 words.

They renamed Wall Street " Wal-Mart Street .."

When Bill and Hillary travel together, they now have to share a room.

One of the casinos in Las Vegas is now managed by Somali pirates.

And, finally... I was so depressed last night thinking about the economy, wars, jobs, my savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc., I called the Suicide Hotline. I got a call center in Pakistan , and when I told them I was suicidal, they got all excited, and asked if I could drive a truck.

 

[RogerB]

No worries, Toady,

That little line of mine you highlighted: "Now I'll be able to enjoy your humor even more! For I'd have hated to be stuck with the idea that you were totally shit negative! " was my clumsy attempt at humor.

You're far better at it than I am.

Our last two posts posts crossed. I had mine in progress and was called to help get some of the dinner cooked.

There's never been anything else than honor and appreciation of you on my end . . . despite what some would label you to be.

Rog

 

[Ted]

More on Int/Ext

Lakey, My Dear,

I think I must be a little explicit here

In simple terms, you've missed the subtlety of nuance, the shades of gray, and the exhibition of good manners a statesman must use when a guest in the house of a host.

Kind of like LRH and the Blackfoot Indians? Or the Mongol tribes that he rubbed elbows with? Imagine where we'd be if he had pissed off those people.


1) I am a total, absolute and complete ex-$scn. So, as with the label you have for Toady being "definitely a true or total "ex Scientologist" . . . stick it on me too!

Labels are used for several reasons. I can think of a few off hand: 1. as assumptions to initiate an investigation or to avoid any further confront, 2. relative to int/ext, to keep a person in or hold them out. Holding a person out is easy to figure. Can't get in the country club, can't have your OT levels, etc. Now keeping another in is another thing. Here's a way to put them in: starrate checkouts, and repeated checkouts on KSW. Now that many of us are out, I see still an effort to hold people in.

I can tell you that I am out. That doesn't mean I can't go in (to scientology as a practice). I can certainly do that, and when I choose to work with someone with that practice, I am usually successful. But, when I do that to get someone out of whatever they wish to get out of, I am also putting them into more Scientology. There comes a point where that is an overt.

LRH said there would come a time when the student had to run out Scientology itself. There are some around here and other discussion groups that won't permit a person to step out. I see it in there comments. I am continually stepping out. I spent many years praising Hubbard and making his tech work. Now when I want to step out or away the conversation killer is to insist I have an M/U or I need to look at more Hubbard.

2) I would say it is imprecise to say that I am "a bit more moderate in his (my) position on Hubbard and Scientology tech." There is nothing moderate about my position regarding Hubbard and the $cn Tech. I've stated and demonstrated clearly that he was a fraud and evilly intended! Ya can't be more direct than that! And I've stated and demonstrated there are colossal and tragic errors and incompletions in his "tech." Ya can't get more direct than that. It's also true I noted those items of tech that have some workability and use. If one is to be factual, one must acknowledge that.

True. If one is to be factual, one has to acknowledge the good and the bad.


3) And yes, I was invited to and presented at the FZ conference. That does not make me a FreeZoner . . .

Oh, yes. But "we" would so like for you to be "in."

though it makes me a guest of them. And as a guest, I am not so rude as to offend my hosts by trashing their beliefs.


LRH's advice in the PL on Manners is very good advice.

I think he didn't use it himself, or if he did it was to manipulate.

If one really looks at my presentation, you'll note I did a deconstruct of $cn tech, pointing out its errors and areas where advancement and correction to it have been made by others.

And brilliant it was/is. I really like the observation of opposition at the top of the scale. Very accurate I'd say.


But if you listen to the presentation carefully, you'll hear there is a point of abrupt editing It is the point where I mentioned the unholiest of unholies . . . that "Hubbard had his flaws" (the words I used) . . . the edited clip comes back to me carrying on to say that "Bless his heart, without him, I'd have probably ended up either as a drunken bum on the beaches of Sydney, or in jail!"

That was a biased bit of editing, wasn't it?



So, I write the above in order that no one is unclear as to my position re $cn tech and Hubbard.

What is moderate about me is my dealing with others on the issues and my mode of discussing them with others.

The thing one must remember is that people come to the conclusions they have about things/issues/people/subjects based on their experience and perceptions (though some such can be given by others to them). . . . and it is both pointless and extreme rudeness to counter them and say they are wrong in this. That is the way to conflict and eventual severance of amity.

One can only ever really present them with additional or alternative information/experience/perception such that they can come to greater wisdom by exercise of their own volition.

Yes. I agree.


So, Lakey, the "moderateness" you see of my attitude as being toward Hubbard and $cn is not so. What of it is crap, evil and bad is crap, evil and bad; and what of it is workable and of value is workable and of value. Them's the simple facts.

My moderateness is in my mode of relaying my views to others . . . that is, in my relationships with others on these issues . . . . well, there's always the occasional idiot who wants to try a destructive put-down of me personally, I can get snarly and snappy back at them: but that's toward the attack on me personally, not on the issue being communicated about. Two quite different issues and subjects.

Oh, yes, the other thing while I'm pounding the keys Toady and I always have had a lot of fun together and true understanding of where each is at and coming from etc. There is no "when we might have a meeting of the minds" . . . we're there already!

The scenario isn't that we, as you wrote: "may be able to "arrive at mutual agreement". I believe that things such as that are needed and it would be really nice if it occurred between you two." We're already there!

You see, we're having fun with our little differences of view and position based on our experiences. I totally understand and honor Toady's position, and I'm not trying to "correct it" or change it

That last exchanges between Toady and me was a questioning of him to elicit points of higher understanding between us . . . note those words elicit points of higher understanding between us . . . . it had nothing to do with coming to anything.

Rog

Good, Roger!

 

[RogerB]

Got it.

However most of your posts are derogatory of scn tech.

However you, and for that matter Alan, have stood on the shoulders of LRH.
Despite his many flaws.

Maybe as an experiment talk of where LRH had some good ideas?

May be interesting for some.

Yes my Dear T,

While it may offend that I put down $cn tech, if you note carefully, my posts of such are most always posts that elucidate its errors or incompleteness and further expound on corrections thereto.

My action isn't just being derogatory of the tech, that is a misrepresentation of the action, it is a correcting of it.

You seem to have missed that nuance. If one is to correct something, one must point out its error or inadequacy. And also the likely reason for that error and/or inadequacy . . . and typically those errors and inadequacies have been the result of Hubbard's deceitful agenda; his shoddy, inept "research" methods, and his penchant for the impressive "razzle-dazzle" to impress rather than an honest effort to find the truths that would benefit his fellows.

LRH isn't the only one Alan and I learned things from studying. There have been many more. But it happens he was the only one with a dishonest, deceitful agenda that has resulted in destructive harm to many.

Indeed, as Alan said to me once: Well, we did learn what was not right from him!

On the other hand, you seem to have missed or occluded my comments on where I have seen items of $cn tech have validity, workability and to have myself benefited from its use and benefited others with it. Indeed, my very first post on ESMB was one.

There are many who've been hurt as a result of Hubbard's conduct and techs (both case handling and admin techs); and the only way the hurt will be truly and fully undone (not just buried or avoided) is to expose the errors of the tech and its equally erroneous application. Talking about the good things of the subject or man isn't going to undo the hurt.

And besides, those who want to, as you say: "Maybe as an experiment talk of where LRH had some good ideas?" Or for whom, as you say it: " May be interesting for some" . . . I say go to it. It's your want, not mine. But I'd suggest this is not the venue for it

Rog

 

[RogerB]

So, Ted,

You liked my little ditty above, huh?

Rog

 

[Auditor's Toad]

So, Ted,

You liked my little ditty above, huh?

Rog

Yes !

And thank you Roger for the clarification on your role at the Freezone Convention.

As you know, it wasn't presented on this board in this thread that way at all.
...

I had to be away while a musican friend of mine stopped by to skim through a play book with a singer picking tunes for an upcoming show. I got to listen while he played the piano and she sang.

Wasn't hard to shut off the 'puter and listen to show tunes and jazz ( Unfortunately, not the kind of stuff that some have posted will increase my IQ 1 point for every hour I listen to it.....where have I heard that one before...nevermind ).
....

Someone somewhere posted above they doubt anyone who has been in scientoology doesn't on some level still use some of it every day.

I've posted I still use some of it.

Let me put it this way, having been on course or auditing for the better part of some 30 years for some of it not to be ingrained deeply a person would have to be brain dead... would they not ?

If anyone has found a way to bleach scientoology out of their brain do please let me know how.

And if there is no way to do that, as I suspect there is not, then could the people who have to point out " if you did scientoology then you still do scientoology " please take a deep breath and try to make somewhat saner statements?

And I know, I know, some people just have to compulsively talk the talk of it by using all the cutesy little cult buzz words.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

This is an open forum...
< ( longish ) snip>
... I am sorry.
Lakey

Thank you for telling me that.

 

[Ted]

So, Ted,

You liked my little ditty above, huh?

Rog

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Nah, Say it ain't so

:confused2: Sure hope the OP didn't derail this thread.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Posted by RogerB

snipped

My moderateness is in my mode of relaying my views to others . . . that is, in my relationships with others on these issues . . . . well, there's always the occasional idiot who wants to try a destructive put-down of me personally, I can get snarly and snappy back at them: but that's toward the attack on me personally, not on the issue being communicated about. Two quite different issues and subjects.

:surprise1:


Nah, it isn't an attack on you personally Roger, I feel the same about all wannabee messiahs on ESMB, they should take the lectures elsewhere or at least stick to the Indie/FZ area IMHO and allow the newbies and lurkers to clear their heads as they work out what happened to them, reading a post about ser facs (for example) may not be conducive to clearing ones head of culty nonsense.

Nice hat though.

 

[FoTi]

:confused2: Sure hope the OP didn't derail this thread.

I don't think anyone could dump this boat over. It has a very deep, heavy keel.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I don't think anyone could dump this boat over. It has a very deep, heavy keel.

That's the anchor and its pulling you all under at the rate of knots (hope you can swim).

 

[Hatshepsut]

....

 

[Hatshepsut]

That's the anchor and its pulling you all under at the rate of knots (hope you can swim).

Got it covered

 

[lkwdblds]

Lakey, My Dear,

I think I must be a little explicit here

In simple terms, you've missed the subtlety of nuance, the shades of gray, and the exhibition of good manners a statesman must use when a guest in the house of a host.

The host, Sharone, posted numerous videos of one of my best friends, Candy. They were posted without comment by Sharone. As a host, Sharone probably did something against the rules of ESMB by posting Candy's videos without asking her permission. By putting up the videos without comment, Candy and I and others of her friends thought Sharone liked the videos. We made favorable comments about them. It turns out this is not what Sharone wanted; she stated much later in the thread that she was appalled by Candy's videos and thought they were terrible and was shocked when favorable comments started rolling in. Immediately, various bashers started posting saying terrible things about Candy. You see that because of Sharone's lack of comment, we did not realize at first that we were offending our thread host. Once Candy was attacked, we fought back and that is how this whole thing got started. Our initial actions were not intended to deshonor our host.

1) I am a total, absolute and complete ex-$scn. So, as with the label you have for Toady being "definitely a true or total "ex Scientologist" . . . stick it on me too!

Rog, you are correct it you use Emma's definition of "ex". Toady and his cohorts do not accept that definition and have redefined the term. Please see my comments below!

2) I would say it is imprecise to say that I am "a bit more moderate in his (my) position on Hubbard and Scientology tech." There is nothing moderate about my position regarding Hubbard and the $cn Tech. I've stated and demonstrated clearly that he was a fraud and evilly intended! Ya can't be more direct than that! And I've stated and demonstrated there are colossal and tragic errors and incompletions in his "tech." Ya can't get more direct than that. It's also true I noted those items of tech that have some workability and use. If one is to be factual, one must acknowledge that.

Yes, I agree with every one of the statements which you have made but with Toady and his cohorts, one must agree 100% or they are attacked. I explain below why even though you were very direct in stating your negative beliefs, you are still more moderate than they are.

3) And yes, I was invited to and presented at the FZ conference. That does not make me a FreeZoner . . . though it makes me a guest of them. And as a guest, I am not so rude as to offend my hosts by trashing their beliefs. If one really looks at my presentation, you'll note I did a deconstruct of $cn tech, pointing out its errors and areas where advancement and correction to it have been made by others. But if you listen to the presentation carefully, you'll hear there is a point of abrupt editing It is the point where I mentioned the unholiest of unholies . . . that "Hubbard had his flaws" (the words I used) . . . the edited clip comes back to me carrying on to say that "Bless his heart, without him, I'd have probably ended up either as a drunken bum on the beaches of Sydney, or in jail!"

Yes, but merely by attending, you gave them support and lent the prestige of your name to their organization. You used some Scientology terms and occasionally said that Hubbard did some good things though not going far enough. As I point out below, they are very extreme and do not tolerate any support whatsoever to Hubbard or his tech. They particularly detest someone if they present Hubbard tech to brand new people.

So, I write the above in order that no one is unclear as to my position re $cn tech and Hubbard.

What is moderate about me is my dealing with others on the issues and my mode of discussing them with others.

Yes, you are moderate in your modes of discussion. As a result, Toady has respect for you and took a liking to you and gave you a "free pass". However, others in the Freezone camp tried that. Terril tried it with Veda and someone named Voltaire or something similar just tried it with Markus and Sharone and both of them were roughed up very badly. Even you were dealt with harshly by "ItoldyouIwastrouble"

The thing one must remember is that people come to the conclusions they have about things/issues/people/subjects based on their experience and perceptions (though some such can be given by others to them). . . . and it is both pointless and extreme rudeness to counter them and say they are wrong in this. That is the way to conflict and eventual severance of amity.

That's the truth. I do not tell them they are wrong. They continually tell me that I am wrong. I have a big tent and want to support them. They do not reciprocate.

One can only ever really present them with additional or alternative information/experience/perception such that they can come to greater wisdom by exercise of their own volition.

Have you actualiy read my posts over there. That is precisely what I attempt to do. These guys are set in their ways. Almost nothing is going to budge them.

So, Lakey, the "moderateness" you see of my attitude as being toward Hubbard and $cn is not so. What of it is crap, evil and bad is crap, evil and bad; and what of it is workable and of value is workable and of value. Them's the simple facts.

I added the red highlight above. Toady and his cohorts do not want to hear that anything Hubbard is workable and of value. Go over there and read a few pages of posts and you will get the idea. That is what I am trying to convey to you!

My moderateness is in my mode of relaying my views to others . . . that is, in my relationships with others on these issues . . . . well, there's always the occasional idiot who wants to try a destructive put-down of me personally, I can get snarly and snappy back at them: but that's toward the attack on me personally, not on the issue being communicated about. Two quite different issues and subjects.

Oh, yes, the other thing while I'm pounding the keys Toady and I always have had a lot of fun together and true understanding of where each is at and coming from etc. There is no "when we might have a meeting of the minds" . . . we're there already!

The scenario isn't that we, as you wrote: "may be able to "arrive at mutual agreement". I believe that things such as that are needed and it would be really nice if it occurred between you two." We're already there!

You see, we're having fun with our little differences of view and position based on our experiences. I totally understand and honor Toady's position, and I'm not trying to "correct it" or change it

Rog - I know Toady personally and got along with him well the 3 times we met in the last 8 months or so. You are doing much better than me communicating with him on ESMB. I admire your skill in doing that and acknowledge you. What you can't know is that I don't really try and correct him. It starts out, I write something, he tears it to shreds and I point out a passage where his logic was not sound in my opinion. This fiasco went on for about 20 posts before I finally put him on ignore. If you go over on that thread now and say something positive about some portion of Scientology tech having worked for you, I would bet you that you will be taken down and bashed, no matter how skillfully you write your post.

That last exchanges between Toady and me was a questioning of him to elicit points of higher understanding between us . . . note those words elicit points of higher understanding between us . . . . it had nothing to do with coming to anything.

Rog

Rog, you are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine. I spent a month over on the Sharone thread where Candy's videos talking about LRH are posted. I say unequivically that you are a bit more moderate in your outlook towards Scientology and Hubbard than Toady. To say anything else is just denying the truth.

Just go over to that thread and read various exchanges between me and Toady. I am not going to get into the details but basically Toady objected to my using any Scientology words, even borderline words such as "raw" (as in raw public) and "case" as used in the medical profession. He challenged those as being Scientology words and stated that they should not be used on an Ex Scientology Message Board. If I mentioned anything positive about Hubbard or Scientology tech, such as saying that I got some benefit from TR2, I was attacked and bashed for being pro Hubbard. I submit that you are more moderate than Toady and his cohorts in this regard.

You have given compliments many times to certain things that LRH did which were helpful. You use Scientology words on occasion in your posts. For God's sake, you were the main speaker at the 2009 Freezone Convention.

Toady and his associates detest the Freezone and the Independent field. They ascribe all sorts of mental illnesses and and phobias to people who interact and/or support Freezoners or Indies. Again, you are more moderate and do not react in their manner.

THE TERM "EX SCIENTOLOGIST" ESMB defines it as one who is out of the official Church of Scientology. Toady and his associates do not agree with that definition. They say that a true "ex" cuts all ties with Hubbard, the C of S, and all of Hubbard's tech. They say that one who has left the official church but has not renounced Hubbard and all his tech 100%, not 95% but literally 100% is not an "ex". They suggest that such people be called instead "ex C of S". They created these distinctions, not me.

My only beef with Toady and his cohorts is that he insists that all exes behave as he does. I consider myself an ex and I agree with 70% to 75% of his positions but unless I agree with him 100% he doesn't want me posting on a thread which was started by one of his fellow exes, Sharone. He has done everything he can to stop me from posting there, virtually bashing almost every sentence of every post I write.

If you side with him over me I could care less. Of course you are free to do so. I do object to you stating that you are just as much an ex as he is. This may be true using Emma's definition of ex but not using Toady's definition.

The Freezone and the Independent field think very highly of LRH, they love his tech prior to 1973 or some arbitrary date, they deliver LRH tech to the public, particularly people who have just left C of S or those who are brand new and have never done any Scientology.

All these activities are bitterly fought by Toady and his cohorts and merely thinking that any of them are good is sufficient to disqualify you from being an "ex" the way they define the term. You did not just think well of the Freezoner's convention but actually supported the Freezone Convention and served as their main guest speaker!! (I do understand your comments above that your support was not unconditional nor totally an endorsement of LRH - far from it.)

For the above reasons, I suggested that you were more moderate than Toady in the way you regard Hubbard and Scientology. I have shown above that you are more moderate than Toady in this regard. If you still are not convinced, go over to that thread and read a couple of pages of posting, at random, and check out what Toady writes and you will see that I am correct.

If you still deny that you are more moderate than Toady in the way each of you regard Hubbard and Scientology then in my eyes you will lose considerable credibility.
Lakey

 

[I told you I was trouble]

Got it covered

I don't want to be negative on this lovely positive thread (giggle) but I think your lifeguard may save the hand(s) that feed him (his own) before he attempts to save any of you.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Rog, you are entitled ... <snip> ... lose considerable credibility.
Lakey

Thank you for telling me that.

 

[FoTi]

:surprise1:


Nah, it isn't an attack on you personally Roger, I feel the same about all wannabee messiahs on ESMB, they should take the lectures elsewhere or at least stick to the Indie/FZ area IMHO and allow the newbies and lurkers to clear their heads as they work out what happened to them, reading a post about ser facs (for example) may not be conducive to clearing ones head of culty nonsense.

Nice hat though.

You're not the only person on ESMB and some of us like to hear the "lectures". Roger's posts, as well as other posters here, who have explored various techs have been very helpful to me sometimes. And other people on this board have expressed their appreciation of these type of postings, as well.

If you don't like Roger or other tech oriented people being helpful to some of the rest of us, why don't you just stay off of this thread, instead of bitching about the people who post some helpful information here. Or...you could just put Roger and who ever else you consider to be "wannabe messiahs" on "Ignore", that way you wouldn't be exposed to the helpful information anyone else has for the rest of us, and their posts wouldn't then interfere with you clearing your head of culty nonsense.

And....maybe it hasn't occcurred to you that sometimes it takes discussing the culty nonsense to straighten out the mess that one has ended up with, because of the cult.

Try putting Roger and whoever you consider to be the other "wannabe messiahs" on "Ignore",..... that way what any of them have to say to the rest of us, won't bother you any more and the rest of us can enjoy their posts.

It's only by some of the information that has been shared on this board (that you so loudly complain about), that I have been able to dig myself out of some of the mess.

Or, I guess you could just keep bashing people who are generous enough to share information with the rest of us, in an effort to help those who might want it. and find it helpful.

It's only "in" Scientology where people are not allowed to discuss Scientology tech or any other kind of tech. Here, on this board, it's allowed. If you expect a bunch of ex-Scientology tech people to never talk about Scientology tech or other kinds of tech, you are dreaming. It will never happen and you are wasting your time attacking people for communicating with one another on a subject they spent years of their life being involved in, and which they are still exploring and learning more about.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

You're not the only person on ESMB and some of us like to hear the "lectures". Roger's posts, as well as other posters here, who have explored various techs have been very helpful to me sometimes. And other people on this board have expressed their appreciation of these type of postings, as well.

If you don't like Roger or other tech oriented people being helpful to some of the rest of us, why don't you just stay off of this thread, instead of bitching about the people who post some helpful information here. Or...you could just put Roger and who ever else you consider to be "wannabe messiahs" on "Ignore", that way you wouldn't be exposed to the helpful information anyone else has for the rest of us, and their posts wouldn't then interfere with you clearing your head of culty nonsense.

And....maybe it hasn't occcurred to you that sometimes it takes discussing the culty nonsense to straighten out the mess that one has ended up with, because of the cult.

Try putting Roger and whoever you consider to be the other "wannabe messiahs" on "Ignore",..... that way what any of them have to say to the rest of us, won't bother you any more and the rest of us can enjoy their posts.

It's only by some of the information that has been shared on this board (that you so loudly complain about), that I have been able to dig myself out of some of the mess.

Or, I guess you could just keep bashing people who are generous enough to share information with the rest of us, in an effort to help those who might want it. and find it helpful.

It's only "in" Scientology where people are not allowed to discuss Scientology tech or any other kind of tech. Here, on this board, it's allowed. If you expect a bunch of ex-Scientology tech people to never talk about Scientology tech or other kinds of tech, you are dreaming. It will never happen and you are wasting your time attacking people for communicating with one another on a subject they spent years of their life being involved in, and which they are still exploring and learning more about.

Yes Foti, I could do as you suggest ... or I could ignore your advice completely and continue to post to the lurkers and newly out and I think I'll probably do that, because it matters more (to me) than you or your new guru matter.

 

[FoTi]

Rog, you are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine. I spent a month over on the Sharone thread where Candy's videos talking about LRH are posted. I say unequivically that you are a bit more moderate in your outlook towards Scientology and Hubbard than Toady. To say anything else is just denying the truth.

Just go over to that thread and read various exchanges between me and Toady. I am not going to get into the details but basically Toady objected to my using any Scientology words, even borderline words such as "raw" (as in raw public) and "case" as used in the medical profession. He challenged those as being Scientology words and stated that they should not be used on an Ex Scientology Message Board. If I mentioned anything positive about Hubbard or Scientology tech, such as saying that I got some benefit from TR2, I was attacked and bashed for being pro Hubbard. I submit that you are more moderate than Toady and his cohorts in this regard.

You have given compliments many times to certain things that LRH did which were helpful. You use Scientology words on occasion in your posts. For God's sake, you were the main speaker at the 2009 Freezone Convention.

Toady and his associates detest the Freezone and the Independent field. They ascribe all sorts of mental illnesses and and phobias to people who interact and/or support Freezoners or Indies. Again, you are more moderate and do not react in their manner.

THE TERM "EX SCIENTOLOGIST" ESMB defines it as one who is out of the official Church of Scientology. Toady and his associates do not agree with that definition. They say that a true "ex" cuts all ties with Hubbard, the C of S, and all of Hubbard's tech. They say that one who has left the official church but has not renounced Hubbard and all his tech is not an "ex". They suggest that such people be called instead "ex C of S". They created these distinctions, not me.

My only beef with Toady and his cohorts is that he insists that all exes behave as he does. I consider myself an ex and I agree with 70% to 75% of his positions but unless I agree with him 100% he doesn't want me posting on a thread which was started by one of his fellow exes, Sharone. He has done everything he can to stop me from posting there, virtually bashing almost every sentence of every post I write.

If you side with him over me I could care less. Of course you are free to do so. I do object to you stating that you are just as much an ex as he is. This may be true using Emma's definition of ex but not using Toady's definition.

The Freezone and the Independent field think very highly of LRH, they love his tech prior to 1973 or some arbitrary date, they deliver LRH tech to the public, particularly people who have just left C of S or those who are brand new and have never done any Scientology.

All these activities are bitterly fought by Toady and his cohorts and merely thinking that any of them are good is sufficeint to disqualify you from being an "ex" the way they define the term. You did not just think well of those activities but actually supported the Freezone Convention and served as their main guest speaker!!

For the above reasons, I suggested that you were more moderate than Toady in the way you regard Hubbard and Scientology. I have shown above that you are more moderate than Toady in this regard. If you still are not convinced, go over to that thread and read a couple of pages of posting, at random, and check out what Toady writes and you will see that I am correct.

If you still deny that you are more moderate than Toady in the way each of you regard Hubbard and Scientology then in my eyes you will lose considerable credibility.
Lakey

Who cares if someone is an ex or an ex-ex or an ex-ex-ex or if someone is more moderate than someone else, or some people like to use some of the tech or not. What difference does it make? If people are out of the cult, they can do whatever they want to do. What's the big fight about? All I can think of here is that LRH's policy and OSA's policy is attack, attack, attack....cause turmoil and trouble and create chaos for those who have left the CoS and speak out. Isn't it a Scientology trick to create trouble and confusion among exes? Isn't that what seems to be happening here?

And Toady doesn't make the rules here, Lakey, Emma does. Toady can have any "opinions" he wants. It doesn't mean his "opinions" are right or wrong...they are just his "opinions". He can also make up his own definitions if he wants to. It doesn't mean you have to accept them.

If someone is bashing you, please report it to Emma.

And please untwist your knickers.