Why Am I the Only Critic on the Scientology Forum?

[Alanzo]

Oh for Christ sake. You characters have been attempting to spam ESMB with teasers to lead the unwary to Geir's site for more than a month now. Do you really see ESMB as your 'Raw Meat'?

I'm sure that, by now, anyone who gives a fuck about a forum that's deliberaely castrated enough to be 'harmless' to a true believer would have found the place.

Are we really supposed to be so blind that you can flash us your tits and make us drool?

Zinj

I am not marketing.

I am merely getting down low enough into the muck to match the tone level of my audience here on ESMB in order to move them on up to a higher level of awareness and enlightenment.

I am like that auditor guy in the tech film who lowers the cans down, deep into the hole where the pc is, so I can pull him up into the fresh air and sunshine.

And anyway, my wrinkled, scratchy, man-boobs would make anyone drool.

 

[Zinjifar]

Zinj

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Democrats corrupt? Not in any way that is a genuine threat to the nation. The democrats engage in the sort of petty corruption & scandal that results from electing humans to political office.

Sex & bribery are ubiquitous. These traits they share with the republicans. However, unlike the republicans the democrats are their own "Loyal Opposition". They can not agree among themselves and therefore do not conspire among themselves to the nation's detriment. Democrats have never changed in this regard. They've always been disorganized. Nothing to worry about from that quarter.

Not true at all , the left is ruthless about adhering to party ideology. The problem they have is that people realize it is tripe and try to stray from it.

Republicans are quite different. Republicans primary political characteristic is the exercise of party discipline. Republicans do not engage in rancorous public disputes. A "knockdown dragout" among republicans corresponds to a democratic party sunday tea & social.

Nice words but complete tripe.

Republicans do as they are told. They accede to party seniors and vote en block to achieve party end's or to obstruct legitimate government business, regardless of personal objections, since that is the way to get on in the party.

Oh dear you actually don't follow politics at all do you? Does the name, for example Olympia Snowe mean anything to you? I thought not.

As for republicans voting the party line - actually it is democrats who vote the party line or did you not notice that in the senate and the house over the last years? or is this just one more of your hyperbolic statements that when examined prove to be total rubbish?

Hence, corruption in the party is simultaneously throughout ALL aspects of the party.

Alas your first part is tripe, therefore your hence introduces even more of the tripe.

I blame Reagan. He created the modern consolidated republican party and eliminated the dissension which came from the moderate and conservative intellectual wings of the party traditionally. He wasn't terribly clever nor interested in facts himself, and he taught the party that a complete disregard for truth or honesty need not be a bar to electoral success. All that matters is the "appearance".

roflmao. You have not even read anything Reagan wrote have you? Instead you try to trot out the tired old trope about whether Reagan was "smart". he was smart enough to be elected Governor of California - twice, President of the USA, twice. I would suggest you actually read what he wrote - I know you won't because it would cause you to have to think but, oh well.

Democrats are certainly not all honest, but there isn't a republican politician involved in national politics whom I regard as having a mote of personal integrity. Might as well all be working for DM. Perhaps they are.

well your regard would not count for much, alas.

Mark A. Baker
p.s. Still don't recognize AuH2O, eh? No doubt that's why you defend modern republicans.

only someone without much in the way of political wit or acumen would assume that people would not recognize AuH20. It's a rather bad pun that ran its course in 1964.

Bit like your hackneyed "black pr" about Reagan.

Seems like you cannot just shed that Scientology "tech" eh?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I have no idea who I'm really talking to over there. It could have been our "Alex", or it could have been an account name held by many Scientologists posting to ARS, etc. over the years.

What I don't get is why Lionheart or anyone else should think that even if that Alex is lying about his identity, what the fuck that has to do with me moderating posts on that forum. I mean, Jesus. It's like tin foil hat-ville or something.

It doesn't matter. What matters is that the Church's information control is broken and factual information gets through which gets Scientologists thinking again.

Yep, you get a big thumbs up from me on this point (and other points, too, of course).

That has happened to me a few times, too.

But I persisted through it. I actually think it is a glitch in the forum software.

Maria had a huge misemotional outburst on me a couple of weeks ago, and she has not been back since then. She had been countering everything I said for weeks. Every single little thing.

I like Maria and I'm guessing that you also do. She's pretty cool. I've never felt that you were mean to her but I think you were pointed enough and persistent enough to where she, perhaps, felt beleagured. I think that maybe she does not like balls to the wall debate. I also think she has a much broader definition of ad hom than I. It is my speculation (and I'm presenting it as such) that she might feel that critics like you and probably other ones, too, are crapping on something quite special to her. Now, I am not saying that you- or should I say we- are crapping on her practice of Scn. But I think she may feel that way and it's a point of view I used to have years ago. (contrary to what some forum regulars here and on OCMB have said, I do not get angry with people for not liking Scn or CofS and haven't since I left CofS, even when I was still a Scn'ist of sorts. I get angry over bad manners and frequent prolonged over the top ad homs and hounding. Period.)

At one point she even said she countered things I said even when she agreed with me, just to have the counter point to mine on the board. I began to see how she was running the Church party line, whether she thought it was true or not. She soon had the emotional flameout and now she's not posting any more.

Well, I hope she comes back. I like her. I don't agree with her, but she's very bright and erudite and I think she's a nice person. One of the things with which I disagreed was/were a number of responses she wrote to you, actually.

But, Alanzo, lambie, you (like me) have a way of getting under people's skin sometimes. Remember? And, yes, it takes one to know one...

Maybe she realized that she had been lying in defense of something for years.

My guess is that she's just pissed off and doesn't want to debate anymore and is giving posting a breather. Just speculation. She has not talked to me about this and I wouldn't be able to share anything she were to say to me, even if she had.

That's what happened to me right before it all fell apart as a Scientologist. I realized that I could not lie any more, nor could the truth defend Scientology.

That's because you were examining ideas in the cold light of day, so to speak, and unindoctrinating yourself. (gratuitous references to Scn concepts regarding same withheld.:wink2: )

That's the breaking point of a Scientologist.

Yes. Or at least of one who is become an ex Scn'ist.

I believe that Fluffy does her very best to tell the truth as she sees it without taking sides. When she's talking to Scientologists, this puts her in a position where she has to defend critics. When she's talking to critics, this puts her in a position where she has to defend Scientology.

Yeah, I'm seeking a golden mean. This is a bit ironic considering my tendency as a person to be immoderate.

Over the years, I have seen fluffy choose the most difficult point of debate, the one where she is going to take the most shit from every side. She seems to love it.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning! well, I do like a good debate. I don't approve of the vitriol, though. That's why when people claim they want to help me or practice tough love or whatever, if they're vitriolic, nagging, etc, I flat out don't believe 'em. I lost a couple of friends that way, but you know what, this happened to me in CofS, too. I was friends with a lady at the org (she's since moved away) and I had a certain "cycle" that was not going well. Me, being me, I didn't want to go through church channels, they weren't working and it was capricious plus I'm always one to look for a third way when I'm offered only one or two choices. So she phoned me about my attitude and for an hour (should have hung up on the stupid C U Next Tuesday but I was still hoping to preserve the friendship, worthless as it turned out to be.) she ranted and raved and screamed at me. Really, this was a dead ringer for one or two communiques I've received from alleged friends in the critic's community. It didn't fly with me when a Scn'ist was doing that and it won't fly with me when someone else does it.

But I have no doubt she does it out of a sincere attempt to defend the truth as she sees it at all times.

Yep.

The fact that fluffy is a mod there shows that Geir is serious about the free expression of ideas on his forum. Time and again I have tested him, and EVERY TIME he has made the decision based on principles of the freedom of speech.

I think so. He doesn't seem to hold my stance against me. Neither do my FZ friends. How odd that more than one critic has actually objected enough to it to make fun of it, belittle it and to see conspiracies in it when none exist.

I actually think that there aren't that many Scientologists left. It takes so much out of you to continue to be a Scientologist that I think most have just quit.

Prolly true. Though the FZ seems to be getting some new members. Hard to discern but your comment seems to click with me.