SLY AND TALL EDGY LURKS, 'IVy' Mag

[Veda]

One of the earliest items that I posted on ESMB was a link to an article from 'International Viewpoints' magazine. IMO, while not ignoring the negative, it was, ultimately, extremely positive.

My guess is that, for some, my positive postings, and positive links, have been ignored. And I suspect these same folks will continue to ignore them.

Unfortunately, there's not much that I can do about that.

Ironically, these are the same people who accuse me of never posting anything positive.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=386

 

[Vinaire]

One of the earliest items that I posted on ESMB was a link to an article from 'International Viewpoints' magazine. IMO, while not ignoring the negative, it was, ultimately, extremely positive.

My guess is that, for some, my positive postings, and positive links, have been ignored. And I suspect these same folks will continue to ignore them.

Unfortunately, there's not much that I can do about that.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=386

Veda, I appreciate your viewpoint. You are perfectly OK in my eyes.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

Veda, I appreciate your viewpoint. You are perfectly OK in my eyes.

.

Well, personally, I think Veda's a little too irritable, however right he may be

Admittedly, dealing with Scientologists can make you irritable; especially if you used to be one.

Still, I suggested The Aberree around the same time as Veda suggested IVy and, I've had any number of both civil and interesting 'comms' with Anthony and appreciate his efforts with 'International Viewpoints', although I have no interest whatsoever in actually *using* the 'Tech'.

Once the 'Church' is dismantled; defunct and prosecuted, it's quite possible that being a 'Scientologist' might deserve a 'review' with an eye to 'castrated Scientology and whether it's as offensive as full bore Scientology'.

Until then, I can understand people using the 'Tech', minus the most offensive parts, but, *not* demanding that they be recognized as 'Scientologists'.

It's like people who like wearing black uniforms with armbands demanding to be called 'Nazis' while at the same time whining about being 'misunderstood'.

If you wanna do 'The Tech' (minus things like KSW and 'Disconnection' and 'Fair Game' and 'Scientology Ethics' and 'Clear Planet' and 'Special Zone Plans' and 'Bolivar'... well... then, knock yerselves out.

Just don't call it Scientology or yourselves Scientologists.

Without expecting the appropriate reaction.

Zinj

 

[Veda]

Well, personally, I think Veda's a little too irritable, however right he may be

Admittedly, dealing with Scientologists can make you irritable; especially if you used to be one.

Still, I suggested The Aberree around the same time as Veda suggested IVy and, I've had any number of both civil and interesting 'comms' with Anthony and appreciate his efforts with 'International Viewpoints', although I have no interest whatsoever in actually *using* the 'Tech'.

Once the 'Church' is dismantled; defunct and prosecuted, it's quite possible that being a 'Scientologist' might deserve a 'review' with an eye to 'castrated Scientology and whether it's as offensive as full bore Scientology'.

Until then, I can understand people using the 'Tech', minus the most offensive parts, but, *not* demanding that they be recognized as 'Scientologists'.

It's like people who like wearing black uniforms with armbands demanding to be called 'Nazis' while at the same time whining about being 'misunderstood'.

If you wanna do 'The Tech' (minus things like KSW and 'Disconnection' and 'Fair Game' and 'Scientology Ethics' and 'Clear Planet' and 'Special Zone Plans' and 'Bolivar'... well... then, knock yerselves out.

Just don't call it Scientology or yourselves Scientologists.

Without expecting the appropriate reaction.

Zinj

Do you think I should start using smiley faces?

I should tell you in advance that I refuse to use them - for "philosophical reasons."

But, smiley faces or not, I do wish those who assert that I "never post anything positive," would actually read the postings and links that I have posted.

 

[Zinjifar]

Do you think I should start using smiley faces?

I should tell you in advance that I refuse to use them - for "philosophical reasons."

But, smiley faces or not, I do wish those who assert that I "never post anything positive," would actually read the postings and links that I have posted.

I use them, but, I doubt they have any serious effect, so, I wouldn't recommend them.

The people objecting to you are'nt really objecting to *you* (since they dont' know you) but to your position, which endangers their own 'self-image'.

I do think you could be more understanding of the fact that the people 'defending Scientology' are defending something they spent their lives supporting and that they're in the horrible position of 'slippery slope' as to admitting that it was a bad investment.

The fact that they're communicating at *alll* is a good thing. Agreement is probably too much to ask.

That you get vicious attacks as your 'counter comm' is just the way it goes.

It might help if you were more compassionate for those still horribly cognitively disfigured....

Zinj

 

[Vinaire]

Do you think I should start using smiley faces?

I should tell you in advance that I refuse to use them - for "philosophical reasons."

But, smiley faces or not, I do wish those who assert that I "never post anything positive," would actually read the postings and links that I have posted.

Do you have to be defensive? Just be what you are.

.

 

[Veda]

Do you have to be defensive? Just be what you are.

.

I don't have to be defensive.

But I thought I'd try it for an afternoon and see what it was like.

 

[Alan]

I find Veda's posts to be very on the mark.

Acerbic at times - but cracking through delusions sometimes takes a bit of snarly impingement!

Alan

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Depends on his post. Not all of them are the same. Just like with anyone else.

 

[Björkist]

Depends on his post. Not all of them are the same. Just like with anyone else.