Too Much Cruelty

[The_Fixer]

He sure did keep people guessing. And still is. The cruelty/kindness thing ended up being like some dysfunctional 5 year old who has found out how to press Mommy's buttons so he can jump up and down in the kitchen screaming at her "You're not doing it right".
So we learn who is supposed to be the boss of Mommy.
If Mommy doesn't comply, that's ok, Mommy's is paying attention.

No offence to Mommy.
No offence to Alanzo.
No offence to the brothers and sisters and aunts and uncles and cousins who had their Sunday afternoon picnic directed to concerned discussion about little brother Alanzo and his aydeedee or aspies or ohceedee or whatever it is.

This is my style of getting to the point. It really is not meant to bash Alanzo.
But Jesus! someone who he actually listens to (not me) has to have a good straight talk to him.

Or

 

[TG1]

Something we don't often talk about here is how much we like or dislike other members of the board.

The concept of "popularity," when it arises, is often referenced as if it were a discounted currency, something less valuable than board tenure, knowledge of Scientology, intellectual prowess, wit, tenderness, empathy, and other valued attributes and behaviors.

Instead, popularity is an amalgam of our collective reactions to all those things. Our assessment of others' popularity is pragmatic. We may not be able to define it, but we do recognize people we like when we see them in action.

TG1

 

[Veda]

.....

 

[degraded being]

Something we don't often talk about here is how much we like or dislike other members of the board.

The concept of "popularity," when it arises, is often referenced as if it were a discounted currency, something less valuable than board tenure, knowledge of Scientology, intellectual prowess, wit, tenderness, empathy, and other valued attributes and behaviors.

Instead, popularity is an amalgam of our collective reactions to all those things. Our assessment of others' popularity is pragmatic. We may not be able to define it, but we do recognize people we like when we see them in action.

TG1

Yes, but 'we' is a magic word. When 'we' want to express 'our' collective agreement or affection for someone, 'we' can easily pretend that those of 'us' who don't show how closely they are bonded with 'us' are not really there, or that 'they', not being part of 'we', do not have such a worthwhile view of things as 'we' do.

I am sure we can all agree with this.

 

[TG1]

Yes, but 'we' is a magic word. When 'we' want to express 'our' collective agreement or affection for someone, 'we' can easily pretend that those of 'us' who don't show how closely they are bonded with 'us' are not really there, or that 'they', not being part of 'we', do not have such a worthwhile view of things as 'we' do.

I am sure we can all agree with this.

We agree.

 

[Veda]

-snip-

It came out that there were (in earlier days) some attempts to "handle" certain members on this board to not post negatively about Hubbard or Indies. I thought it was good that it came out. Nothing more needed to be done about it because it was all history anyways.

-snip-

OK, I'll try again. So many new posts have suddenly been added to this thread that I mistakenly responded to another post by HH after my initial response went poof! (And it's getting late!) So, I'll try to recreate my response:

Yes, I also thought it was good that it came out, and I advised Alanzo that pursuing it would be unwise. This was because it was such a sensitive and touchy area that pursuing it would not result in any additional positive communication and, very possibly, Alanzo's pursuing it would be regarded as an attack and then subject to counter attacks. Alanzo insisted on pursuing it anyway.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

…….

 

[Panda Termint]

Re: Too Much Jewelry

Yes, but 'we' is a magic word. When 'we' want to express 'our' collective agreement or affection for someone, 'we' can easily pretend that those of 'us' who don't show how closely they are bonded with 'us' are not really there, or that 'they', not being part of 'we', do not have such a worthwhile view of things as 'we' do.

I am sure we can all agree with this.

We agree.

I agree with us.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

OK, I'll try again. So many new posts have suddenly been added to this thread that I mistakenly responded to another post by HH after my initial response went poof! (And it's getting late!) So, I'll try to recreate my response:

Yes, I also thought it was good that it came out, and I advised Alanzo that pursuing it would be unwise. This was because it was such a sensitive and touchy area that pursuing it would not result in any additional positive communication and, very possibly, Alanzo's pursuing it would be regarded as an attack and then subject to counter attacks. Alanzo insisted on pursuing it anyway.

Did anyone not answer a question that Alanzo asked? I don't recall that.

I do recall asking Alanzo in a post WHO EXACTLY IS CRUEL? which he chose to not answer. That seemed rather odd since he was the one that started the "TOO MUCH CRUELTY" thread. See my point?

 

[Veda]

-snip-

destroying the board and leaving it behind as collateral damage on their noble quest to find Alanzos lost ship.

-snip-

Oy vey.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Yes, but 'we' is a magic word. When 'we' want to express 'our' collective agreement or affection for someone, 'we' can easily pretend that those of 'us' who don't show how closely they are bonded with 'us' are not really there, or that 'they', not being part of 'we', do not have such a worthwhile view of things as 'we' do.

I am sure we can all agree with this.

We agree.

I'll just wait and see what the majority feel and then agree with them. That way, in case there is a flame war I will be on the side more likely to win.

 

[Veda]

Did anyone not answer a question that Alanzo asked? I don't recall that.

I can't easily re-quote it as it's now in the Grudge match section. But none of the questioned parties communicated with Alanzo. This was the beginning of the end for Alanzo.

I do recall asking Alanzo in a post WHO EXACTLY IS CRUEL? which he chose to not answer. That seemed rather odd since he was the one that started the "TOO MUCH CRUELTY" thread. See my point?

That came later. The ship - which, according to Mr. N, would have destroyed ESMB - was already sinking under heavy bombardment, with Captain Alanzo becoming disoriented, as he alternated between capitulation and reacting angrily.

Now it's getting late, and I don't want to keep discussing this topic.

 

[Veda]

Really? I don't recall editing anything out.

-snip-

My mistake. See preceding post.

HH, if you could delete your response to that mistake, just as I deleted the initial mistake, that would prevent any possible confusion for other readers.

Thanx.

Now I have to get some sleep.

 

[TG1]

Veda,

For days (weeks?) you've been saying you don't want to discuss Alanzo's Indy OSA accusations. But then you keep bringing it up. And then throwing your hand across your brow and saying "It's too much -- I can't bear to discuss it anymore." Over and over.

Either bring it up and discuss it. Or don't.

TG1

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I can't easily re-quote it as it's now in the Grudge match section. But none of the questioned parties communicated with Alanzo. This was the beginning of the end for Alanzo.

--snipped--

Now it's getting late, and I don't want to keep discussing this topic.

Okay, thanks, get some rest bud.

Your first sentence probably explains why I have no idea what happened on this thread because something happened on another (Grudge) thread that I don't know about.

 

[Veda]

Okay, thanks, get some rest bud.

Your first sentence probably explains why I have no idea what happened on this thread because something happened on another (Grudge) thread that I don't know about.

It wasn't originally in the Grudge match section.

But to heck with it.

And, yes, I will get some sleep.

 

[Veda]

Veda,

For days (weeks?) you've been saying you don't want to discuss Alanzo's Indy OSA accusations. But then you keep bringing it up. And then throwing your hand across your brow and saying "It's too much -- I can't bear to discuss it anymore." Over and over.

Either bring it up and discuss it. Or don't.

TG1

I am trying to avoid it, and be a good, well-adjusted, ESMB member.

Really, I'm trying.

Unfortunately, when Alanzo is being discussed "it" sometimes becomes relevant.

I should never have mentioned it, or posted anything on this thread, but I stayed up too late.

Am sleepy.


Nighty night.

 

[degraded being]

I am trying to avoid it, and be a good, well-adjusted, ESMB member.

Really, I'm trying.

Unfortunately, when Alanzo is being discussed "it" sometimes becomes relevant.

I should never have mentioned it, or posted anything on this thread, but I stayed up too late.

Am sleepy.


Nighty night.

Good night.

 

[MrNobody]

I am trying to avoid it, and be a good, well-adjusted, ESMB member.

Really, I'm trying.

That's pretty much the same thing Alanzo said he was doing. You know how that ended.

Unfortunately, when Alanzo is being discussed "it" sometimes becomes relevant.

I should never have mentioned it, or posted anything on this thread,

I don't see why you shouldn't have. The thing is: You can't make a point without saying what your point is. Being unwilling to specify and discuss it doesn't help either. It just pisses people off and rightfully so, IMHO. Frankly, you're currently heading down the same road to nowhere Alanzo did and I don't like to see that at all. I'd prefer it a lot more if you just took a deep breath and re-evaluated the whole situation. It really isn't even half as bad as you think it is.

but I stayed up too late.

Am sleepy.


Nighty night.

Night Veda and have a good sleep and a good breakfast afterwards before you decide to come back here. ESMB isn't a real-time medium and a good, well thought-out reply can easily survive a good nights sleep.

 

[Pooks]

Did anyone not answer a question that Alanzo asked? I don't recall that.

I do recall asking Alanzo in a post WHO EXACTLY IS CRUEL? which he chose to not answer. That seemed rather odd since he was the one that started the "TOO MUCH CRUELTY" thread. See my point?

The true and real back story.


For a while I pretty much thought he was talking about me. In his 2011 attempted suicide by mod, he accused me of not only being the nastiest person on the internet, but also of being OSA and controlling ESMB by controlling Emma and squashing any and all attempts at discussing moonbat theories of OSAOSAOSA.


Of course he missed my withold- almost found out that it's not OSA but the Marcabs that are in charge-- and so Marcab Fleet ordered him banned in an attempt to keep my cover.