What is a right and wrong? Story and Question.

[Nicole]

can you write this in English?

Use the google translator


Diese ganze OSA Diskusion gibt OSA die Kraft hier zu agieren und zu handeln.

Ich kann dieses ganz einfach erklären, einen guten OSA Spion erkennt man nicht, er wird sich hier nicht zeigen, sondern andere so aussehen lassen als wären sie ein OSA - Spion.

Wenn man hier über "wer könnte OSA sein" nicht mehr diskutiert und OSA nicht mehr überall sieht, dann hat OSA hier keinen Angriffspunkt mehr.


Also vergiss OSA und Du wirst OSA sehen können, weil sie dann anders agieren müssen...

 

[Infinite]

. . . you arrogant prick . . .

That's the way, Sneaky - like I said, out in the open. Now everyone can judge the merits, or otherwise, of your contribution. Thanks, appreciate the honesty.

 

[Emma]

OSA hunting comes with the territory. Get over it.

No. I won't get over it. OSA hunting is futile and there has been very little of it until recently.

I hate it myself, but lets have it out in the open. In this specific instance you will have to acknowledge that Laws brought up the possibility of his being OSA. In a bizarre admission of participating in illegal currency trading, he goes on to ask the board for advice. My response was DOX or STFU - anyone here can tell TAJ the same thing because its in the open. Its the back channels where rumour turns to fact, and plots to plans.

So because Laws is telling a story about yet another dodgy Scn money scheme that he got out of, this is somehow - what??

Yes, by all means, if you feel like it, call me a cunt, tell me I've fucking lost it and gone nuts, tell me dig up my dead granny's rotting corpse and root it to bits - tell me what ever you like. Just do it to my face, out in the open where others can see, and I can respond. That's bravery and should be encouraged, not Com Ev'd.

Nup. Not on ESMB. I'll tell you what I think to your face but I'm going to be as civil as I can muster at the time. This crap can stay on the chan boards where it belongs. It's not bravery to call you a cunt. Actually I think it's dumb and cowardly. Whats brave is to not call you a cunt but to say why I think you are wrong and why.

 

[MrNobody]

Emma,

The guy's texture, tone and content is the most obvious shibboleth I have ever seen.

That is all I am saying.

You don't have to defend him. Let him defend himself.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Quoting TAJ here, but this goes to everyone:

It's (almost) impossible to prove a negative, so what do you expect from Mike, Emma, or whomever?

Here's an account of someone having done OSA's job, manipulating a whole town's government, and many years later, it was me who had to say in a private conversation: "Well, let's face it, you and and your father were OSA, doing OSA's job."

OSA, being the nameless, faceless, scarecrow that it is, doesn't have much power - basically they can't hurt you more than a bee sting; if any at all. It's the power of fear, control and acceptance given to them by people like you. That's where OSA's power comes from. It's all in your head.

Once you recognize that, what can OSA do? Leave you standing there with a flat tire? Booo fucking Hoo. In today's day and age, what can they really do to you? Nothing, once you don't accept the mental power they have over you anymore.

Believe it or not, under almost every OSA skin, there's a human being.

 

[Infinite]

Openly accusing someone of being OSA is a no win situation and it WILL NOT resolve by talking about it.

Dude - to put it in your own fucking lingo - DOX or GTFO.

Open discussion is *always* a win-win situation. The person making accusations gets feedback, the person being accused gets the chance to defend themselves, and everyone watching gets an idea of what's going on. If I make some claim without DOX, go for it, give me heaps. If I persist, people will quickly catch on as to what's what or, who knows, I might actually present DOX . . . or join sufficient dots to make my case.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

And I responded (in part)

You said "a sincere ex scientologist and a critic" and then just after that "this means you DO scientology." :confused2:

I can't see "the character and mindset of a Scientologist who deeply believes in the Tech." in anything Mike Laws has written, therefore your comments ARE based soley on his writing style, ie "the patronizing and condescending tone of your posts."

And if you do see something I don't, then I offered an alternative explanation that seems to have gone unnoticed.

Fair enough.

So let me clarify.

If you and I worked in a circus. We would have possibly enough similar experience that even though we never knew each other when we worked in the circus, we might recognize characteristics, that is, mannerism, ways of expressions, and other things that we knew identified another as haveing a similar circus experience.

Agreed?

When I was in Russia I could spot another American. I didn't need to hear him speak. I could tell by the mannerism that this guy or that guy was an American or not.

Now, my point with Mike Laws is that I see things in his posts that tells me he may be OSA.

I'm not talking about actions that he is accused of doing, or the things he said because I think that is what OSA wants people to think.

I am talking HOW he communicates, his mannerisms.

And I said that if I am wrong about his being OSA I still see in him those destructive characteristics that come with people who are true believers.

By that I mean the condescending and patronizing attitude, the carefully selected words and an overiding calculated presence in how he spoke.

Not what he said, but how he said it.

This stuff usually wears off from exes with the more interaction with society outside of Scientology.

He doesn't seem to have lost a drop.

And those characteristics are especially destructive in group social interaction.

So I've seen the characteristics and the effect on others that those characteristics have.

So the chaos that has followed in this guys wake--I'm not saying he banned anyone--but he and Dexter both creatde the chaos that tripped up a lot of good critics.

If he's not OSA fine. But I still see the inevitable consequences--intended or not--of that kind of Scientologist.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Carmel]

<snip>
You have nothing but slimey innuendo, (God give me strength) "writing style", "intuition" , the word of a FZer who can't reveal his source (how convenient) and Carmel who's pissed at Mike because he wouldn't take her side when she was trying to black PR Feral & Scooter.

To what I've bolded - Where did this idea come from?

Up until about a week or two before the Inquiry (when we got included in proceedings), Mike Laws and I were in regular contact. After that we weren't. He didn't respond when I dropped in FB chat, and he didn't respond to a an email I sent him. From memory I think we've had one very brief FB chat since the Inquiry. It was light and social, and not in 'real time' coz he wasn't responding when I was around and vice versa. Mike kinda dropped off the face of the earth for me, and I found that odd at the time, as I did that when he ignored me when I posted to him on ESMB (while he seemed to be responding to everyone else..........rightly or wrongly I put it down to Feral being in his ear).

Get this - Mike Laws and I were no longer 'in touch' so to speak, just *prior* to the Inquiry and *post* Inquiry, and haven't been since. Prior to the Inquiry I had no problem with Scoots or Feral, I thought things were all hunky dory between us (although later I found out that it clearly wasn't from their end). It was only *after* the Inquiry and after the blow up over my email, that I had a problem with Feral, but I had *no* problem with Scoots back then, and as far as I was concerned, we were still friends back then.

So, who told you that I was trying to black PR Feral and Scoots to Mike Laws? If you don't want to answer that here, that's fine by me, but I think it's a question that ya might want to ask yourself and a place where you might find some answers...........I did *NOT* try to black PR Feral or Scoots to Mike Laws. IIRC, I have never communicated to Mike Laws about Feral since the Inquiry. I know for sure that I wouldn't have spoken to him about Scooter, because I didn't even have any angst about Scooter until recently when it seemed apparent from his postings here on ESMB that he had angst about me. Mike Laws and I haven't been in touch for yonks. Do ya see the 'outpoint'?

Hey, someone *has* been spinning you a yarn. I'll leave it to you to find out who.

Where is your god damned proof!!!!!

Where's the proof that I was pissed at Mike because he wouldn't take my side when I was trying to black PR Feral & Scooter? You stated this as *fact*, but TAJ stated his as opinion.............I think that if anyone should be providing proof, that *you* should be in this instance, or at least asking yourself why you can be so confident that what you have said is true.

Feel free to post here any emails or photos of chat or whatever you have, to show that I was doing what you say I was.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Use the google translator


Diese ganze OSA Diskusion gibt OSA die Kraft hier zu agieren und zu handeln.

Ich kann dieses ganz einfach erklären, einen guten OSA Spion erkennt man nicht, er wird sich hier nicht zeigen, sondern andere so aussehen lassen als wären sie ein OSA - Spion.

Wenn man hier über "wer könnte OSA sein" nicht mehr diskutiert und OSA nicht mehr überall sieht, dann hat OSA hier keinen Angriffspunkt mehr.


Also vergiss OSA und Du wirst OSA sehen können, weil sie dann anders agieren müssen...

I got it. A good spy is not seen.

 

[TheSneakster]

That's the way, Sneaky - like I said, out in the open. Now everyone can judge the merits, or otherwise, of your contribution. Thanks, appreciate the honesty.

You should review my posting history. I've never been anything but up front, direct, open and honest about whatever is on my mind the whole time I have been posting on this board or on A.R.S. before that.

I neither need nor want your smug, condescending at-a-boys. But then you already knew that from our previous encounters in your previous incarnations here on ESMB, now didn't you ?

 

[MrNobody]

I got it. A good spy is not seen.

That was only a part of her message.

Let me explain: Once you no longer focus on the scarecrow(s) OSA set up, you'll be able to recognize OSA. And you would no longer care.

 

[programmer_guy]

Sorry mate, I didn't really get the inference when you posted that originally.

So who are the two scam artists then?

The said "nervous about setup and execution" stinks to high heaven.
Not myself, nor anyone that I know, talks about their true legal financial investments in those terms.

Again, not that I know anything illegal happened, I just don't know anyone that talks in those terms.

 

[TheSneakster]

The guy's texture, tone and content is the most obvious shibboleth I have ever seen.

There is no valid shibboleth for positively identifying OSA minions, TAJ.

 

[Free to shine]

Fair enough.

So let me clarify.

If you and I worked in a circus. We would have possibly enough similar experience that even though we never knew each other when we worked in the circus, we might recognize characteristics, that is, mannerism, ways of expressions, and other things that we knew identified another as haveing a similar circus experience.

Agreed?

When I was in Russia I could spot another American. I didn't need to hear him speak. I could tell by the mannerism that this guy or that guy was an American or not.

Now, my point with Mike Laws is that I see things in his posts that tells me he may be OSA.

I'm not talking about actions that he is accused of doing, or the things he said because I think that is what OSA wants people to think.

I am talking HOW he communicates, his mannerisms.

And I said that if I am wrong about his being OSA I still see in him those destructive characteristics that come with people who are true believers.

By that I mean the condescending and patronizing attitude, the carefully selected words and an overiding calculated presence in how he spoke.

Not what he said, but how he said it.

This stuff usually wears off from exes with the more interaction with society outside of Scientology.

He doesn't seem to have lost a drop.

And those characteristics are especially destructive in group social interaction.

So I've seen the characteristics and the effect on others that those characteristics have.

So the chaos that has followed in this guys wake--I'm not saying he banned anyone--but he and Dexter both creatde the chaos that tripped up a lot of good critics.

If he's not OSA fine. But I still see the inevitable consequences--intended or not--of that kind of Scientologist.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Thanks for the explanation but I am a growed up too.
I was not only a child scientologist, I also worked for the GO. I also recognise characteristics.

Let's just get it down to basics, you don't like the bloke. Fair enough? No need to say such awful things. God knows if you were talking about me I wouldn't be in a hurry to come here and try to reply. It's a no win situation, as has been stated.

 

[scooter]

To Mike Laws,

First of all, you don't have to convince me that Dexter is a first rate dweeb. I could see through him in the first post he wrote, and in every other post he wrote.

What will be difficult for you is to try and convince me that you're not a first rate dweeb too.

I don't care if you are OSA or not. Personally, I think you are, but I could be wrong.

So to be fair to you I will post the reason I think you could be OSA so there is no mystery and you can defend yourself if you like so there is no slander done to you.

First, no one has said to me anything about you. I was going by my intuition based on your posts and the consequences of you being here.

I've done stuff in the past for the GO and OSA. And one of those things was infiltrating a dissafected and nattering field with another GO terminal. We pitted ourselves against each other so that ultimately one of us would be discredited and the other would have the trust of the people we were targetting.

So what you say about Dexter and what he says about you is all irrelevent to me. What matters is the chaos you are a part of.

My intution tells me that your posts are calculated and carefully worded; much too carefully than someone speaking from their heart.

Also your syntax is too polished for someone who has a sincere emotional involvement in what they are saying.

In a word, your posts seem too carefully prepared.

You may not be OSA, but since I've seen all this before then, well, I think if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and leaves a trail of duckshit behind it, then I assume it's a duck.

And the same goes for lover-boy Dexter. He had a slightly diffrent tact, but otherwise he is much the same.

But someone has told me that you have done some good things for the critics in Austrailia.

Once I was asked by the GO to take part in an operation that would put me in a deep, deep cover. It ultimately wasn't carried out because of certain logistics. So I know that what you do for critics is also irrelevant to me.

But let's say I am wrong and you are a sincere ex-Scientologist and a critic.

I still don't trust you. Why? Because even if you aren't operating as an OSA operative, you still have the character and mindset of a Scientologist who deeply believes in the Tech. And, of course, the same goes for Dexter.

What this means is that you DO Scientology. That you will screw-up any social situation just as a Scientologist would, because your operating basis in life is based on L. Ron Hubbard's anti-humanistic, fascistic, and elitist view of life.

And this makes a lone Scientologist especially viral when working in a group.

The elitism is visible in the patronizing and condescending tone of your posts.

Alanzo, a great critic of Scientology, posts here no more. Zinj, another great critic post here no more. Both were great critics of Scientology itself. And by great I mean that both were able to analyze and point out the flaws of Scientology and communicate those flaws effectively to exes, newbies as well as veteran exes, and to non-Scientologist alike.

Nexus and Byte are also gone. And Good Twin and others have become dissillusioned with the Board.

And Emma is upset and seeminly frustrated.

But here you are.

Granted these guys and gal may have miscalculated their steps; but their miscalculated steps were bad because they stepped on the land mines that you and Dexter planted in the ESMB community.

And I have also notice there are voices on this board that Alanzo and Zinj were noise and we should be nice to the Freezoners because they are on our side, etc. etc.

I smell a rat. Maybe you are not the rat, but you have help with the infestation.

So if you are a sincere critic and want to help, just go away from this board where you are creating havoc and go back to helping the Aussies.

They are all good people, and if they want your help they will ask for it.

The Anabaptist Jacques

TAJ, I've followed what you've written from this post onwards and I still don't get how you arrive at "Mike Laws is OSAOSAOSA"

Yes, I'm Ozzie and Mike and I have worked on stuff together and he's been a great help but that's just my take on it. I don't feel it's my place to say what he's done and he's too modest to put his hand up and take the credit rightfully due to him.

But he's helped out a lot of people who've left the cult and were having trouble finding their feet. If he talks like a scilon, maybe it's 'cause he was brought up as one. When we chat, he's just another mate to me and I don't notice the scilonese because well - I still fall into that too. I was there 30 years and have only been out less than three.

I know this won't neccessarily change any view you have but I would like you to consider what other sources you have that contributed to your view of Mike. I see incomplete logic when I look at your reasons, and I have considered them carefully. I usually find your logic compelling but can't see it in this instance.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Fair enough.

So let me clarify.

If you and I worked in a circus. We would have possibly enough similar experience that even though we never knew each other when we worked in the circus, we might recognize characteristics, that is, mannerism, ways of expressions, and other things that we knew identified another as haveing a similar circus experience.

Agreed?

When I was in Russia I could spot another American. I didn't need to hear him speak. I could tell by the mannerism that this guy or that guy was an American or not.

Now, my point with Mike Laws is that I see things in his posts that tells me he may be OSA.

I'm not talking about actions that he is accused of doing, or the things he said because I think that is what OSA wants people to think.

I am talking HOW he communicates, his mannerisms.

And I said that if I am wrong about his being OSA I still see in him those destructive characteristics that come with people who are true believers.

By that I mean the condescending and patronizing attitude, the carefully selected words and an overiding calculated presence in how he spoke.

Not what he said, but how he said it.

This stuff usually wears off from exes with the more interaction with society outside of Scientology.

He doesn't seem to have lost a drop.

And those characteristics are especially destructive in group social interaction.

So I've seen the characteristics and the effect on others that those characteristics have.

So the chaos that has followed in this guys wake--I'm not saying he banned anyone--but he and Dexter both creatde the chaos that tripped up a lot of good critics.

If he's not OSA fine. But I still see the inevitable consequences--intended or not--of that kind of Scientologist.

The Anabaptist Jacques

In the 1960s, the US had a draft for boys 18 and over to go into the military if they didn't have a compelling reason not to. I had a lawyer, Joel Kriner, (who I think is still "in") who advised me to go to Fresno for my draft physical. More deferments were given in the boonies for the reasons I was stating that made me exempt from fighting a stupid war. Fresno is in the middle of nowhere. At the physical there were hundreds of guys there. Five of us spotted each other in the huge group. I had driven from San Jose, another from Santa Barbara, another from Lake Tahoe, etc. We could each see in each other's eyes that we weren't from Fresno. We easily spotted and recognized one another for not being locals.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Quoting TAJ here, but this goes to everyone:

It's (almost) impossible to prove a negative, so what do you expect from Mike, Emma, or whomever?

Here's an account of someone having done OSA's job, manipulating a whole town's government, and many years later, it was me who had to say in a private conversation: "Well, let's face it, you and and your father were OSA, doing OSA's job."

OSA, being the nameless, faceless, scarecrow that it is, doesn't have much power - basically they can't hurt you more than a bee sting; if any at all. It's the power of fear, control and acceptance given to them by people like you. That's where OSA's power comes from. It's all in your head.

Once you recognize that, what can OSA do? Leave you standing there with a flat tire? Booo fucking Hoo. In today's day and age, what can they really do to you? Nothing, once you don't accept the mental power they have over you anymore.

Believe it or not, under almost every OSA skin, there's a human being.

You sure didn'tget the point of anything I wrote.

You know, there may be others who think he was OSA. But they didn't jump all over me when I said he might not be OSA.

I'm not the one who is up tight about OSA.

I'm not screaming that the sky is falling because someone from OSA is on the board.

I have seen people acting like the sky is falling because I said he may be OSA and even if he isn't he still may be poison.

The lesson I'm learning from this, and it is being driven home quite clearly and forcebly, is that I would have been better off just to use the backchannels than say what I think out loud to everybody.

Then I would just be the loveable old TAJ that we've all grown to love.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

There is no valid shibboleth for positively identifying OSA minions, TAJ.

What is a valid shibboleth for a person is one that the person feels himself is a shibboleth.

I have mine for different things and you have yours for different things.

There is no encyclopedia of valid shibboleths that one goes to look up what he should think about someone.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Thanks for the explanation but I am a growed up too.
I was not only a child scientologist, I also worked for the GO. I also recognise characteristics.

Let's just get it down to basics, you don't like the bloke. Fair enough? No need to say such awful things. God knows if you were talking about me I wouldn't be in a hurry to come here and try to reply. It's a no win situation, as has been stated.

Okay, let's get down to basics.

Am I wrong because that is what I think?

Am I wrong because I expressed it?

Or am I wrong because you disagree with it?

If I said he definitely wasn't OSA:

Would I be wrong because that is what I think?

Would I be wrong because I expressed it?

Or would I be wrong because you agreed with it?

The Anabaptist Jacques

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Emma]

Okay, let's get down to basics.

Am I wrong because that is what I think?

Am I wrong because I expressed it?

Or am I wrong because you disagree with it?

If I said he definitely wasn't OSA:

Would I be wrong because that is what I think?

Would I be wrong because I expressed it?

Or would I be wrong because you agreed with it?

The Anabaptist Jacques

The Anabaptist Jacques

Thing is TAJ that you have no proof of a serious accusation against someone you admit you don't know apart from an intuition and reading between the lines.

What good is there in slandering this person who has helped a lot of people quietly behind the scenes in situations you know nothing about?

Why do you think this is a good thing?

 

[Infinite]

So because Laws is telling a story about yet another dodgy Scn money scheme that he got out of, this is somehow - what?

But that's not all Laws said - he's still wondering whether to obey the law and take the matter to the authorities - and it was all part of his allegedly locating Dexter's source, a source he believes is wandering about calling him OSA. The point is, Laws brought it up: as we see here, some people prefer to continue with the belief that he is OSA, others not so much, and some don't believe it at all. But it was raised as part of the OP. That was what was being addressed.

Okay - I concede, calling people cunts isn't the most helpful debate tactic and, sure, its your board and certain language can be prohibited by subjective dictate. I have no objection to that. There are ways and ways of saying the same thing, as you point out. It also has to be remembered that, generally speaking, where there are Ex-Scientologists there is usually OSA; sometimes lurking, sometimes in the thick of things, sometimes both. Strictures on discussing it are unhelpful. My "get over it" was also unhelpful; apologies.

With TAJ what we had was a statement of his genuine belief along with his argument for it - that's different from simple abuse. Whether the argument holds up, is also a different thing. Along with his observations on Laws' composition-style, comes years and years of experience. Who knows, in six months TAJ might write a grovelling apology, or he might be saying "told ya so".