Thank you to Alanzo

[Vinaire]

I want you to read a part of what Dennis wrote about Emma on ARS.

My "warning" about ESMB was meant in two ways. First, because my bs
detectors seem much more sensitive than the average recovering ex, I
wondered if maybe some nefarious influence had their "hooks into" what
seems, on the surface, to be a calm, nurturing, self-help message
board. It seems I was expected to be cowed by a bullying, slanted
moderator's public and private threats and personal attacks. So
imagine how the average ex-cultist would feel being pressured like
that.


Now I admit the possibility that these might simply be the symptoms
someone who is weak, unfamiliar with having power over people and so
needs to be vindictive if her flaws are pointed out. In which case
it's merely an example of baser human nature and the
predator/protector instinct kicking in. And if so I can only hope she
calms down and begins acting more maturely at some point in the
future.


This is not a poster discussing a moderator's actions.

This is a nasty piece of shit tearing apart a person on a public forum on a very personal level who thought he was her friend.

I call them as I see them. I am getting more than a little tired of people trying to explain away this kind of behavior because they think Dennis is some sort of fucking icon.

Well, guess what.

I don't.

Any more than I think that the King of Greed Larry Wollersheim is.

I don't buy any of this this for a fucking minute, and I never will.

It's interesting that it seems to be people who either have never been in Scientology or never been in the Sea Org are the ones who fall for this crap.

I was in the Sea Org. I was in later than both Dennis and Larry. I was in the throes of the Miscavige psychosis, which occurred after both of them left. I can tell you that I went through far more hell than either one of them did.

There are people who were in the SO and did shitty things as a result of the pressure they were in when they were there.

There are people who were in the SO who did shitty things and are out and are still doing shitty things.

Because they are just that way.

I think some people need to open their eyes and start seeing the difference.

Q.: Do psychotics deserve freedom of speech?

A: I guess, as much as a phonograph record.

.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

And I've posted that Dennis should consider talking to Emma as I think he's hurt her. I ventured the thought that he may also be feeling hurt- and that's all the more reason that it might be good if the two of them talked- really talked. Nicely.

I also told him that he and Emma are never ever going to have the same perspective on this. That's just the way it goes. But it would be great if he could talk to her.

 

[Free to shine]

I want you to read a part of what Dennis wrote about Emma on ARS.

My "warning" about ESMB was meant in two ways. First, because my bs detectors seem much more sensitive than the average recovering ex, I wondered if maybe some nefarious influence had their "hooks into" what seems, on the surface, to be a calm, nurturing, self-help message board. It seems I was expected to be cowed by a bullying, slanted moderator's public and private threats and personal attacks. So imagine how the average ex-cultist would feel being pressured like that.


Now I admit the possibility that these might simply be the symptoms someone who is weak, unfamiliar with having power over people and so needs to be vindictive if her flaws are pointed out. In which case it's merely an example of baser human nature and the predator/protector instinct kicking in. And if so I can only hope she calms down and begins acting more maturely at some point in the future.


This is not a poster discussing a moderator's actions.

This is a nasty piece of shit tearing apart a person on a public forum on a very personal level who thought he was her friend.

I agree, there is no excuse for that kind of bullshit. It is disgusting, uncalled for obviously designed to cause dissent amongst exes. It's a projection! So it makes you wonder what "nefarious influence" has it's hooks in the writer.

I don't know him, and based on those comments I don't really want to. I do know Emma and judging what I have seen here, she has my total support.

 

[Emma]

And I've posted that Dennis should consider talking to Emma as I think he's hurt her. I ventured the thought that he may also be feeling hurt- and that's all the more reason that it might be good if the two of them talked- really talked. Nicely.

I also told him that he and Emma are never ever going to have the same perspective on this. That's just the way it goes. But it would be great if he could talk to her.

Been there, done that. He twists my words and uses them against me.

As far as I'm concerned he is a dead subject. Can we move on?

 

[Vinaire]

And I've posted that Dennis should consider talking to Emma as I think he's hurt her. I ventured the thought that he may also be feeling hurt- and that's all the more reason that it might be good if the two of them talked- really talked. Nicely.

I also told him that he and Emma are never ever going to have the same perspective on this. That's just the way it goes. But it would be great if he could talk to her.

Can you hurt reactive machinery?

.

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

I don't visit a.r.s. because I don't like the format, but I read all of Alanzo's story II and really think it was a story worth telling. The inserted documents were a little hard on the eyes, but his general prose was informative without embellishment, and I would like to read about how he actually got out, what the fallout was (if any), and how he rebuilt a new org-free life.

 

[Alanzo]

Does right to free speech means one has the right to be irrational?

But when one is being irrational, is one really there?

.

Yes, Vinaire. The right to free speech means one has the right to be irrational.

You always have the right to be irrational.

The idea that "no one had a right to a bank" was an L Ron Hubbard suppression of rights.

Remember - no one gives out rights. You are born with them.

And no one can take away rights.

Not even L Ron Hubbard.

 

[Vinaire]

Yes, Vinaire. The right to free speech means one has the right to be irrational.

You always have the right to be irrational.

This was an L Ron Hubbard suppression of rights.

Remember - no one gives out rights. You are born with them.

And no one can take away rights.

Not even L Ron Hubbard.

One has the right to self-audit.
One has the right to be mean.
One has the right to slander another's reputaion.
One has the right to be Mr. Bean.

.

 

[Div6]

Irrational is just irresponsible. As thetans cannot "die" they fake it through insanity.

I think the Creed was where LRH said "The souls of men have the rights of men."
So that keeps it within the social interface with which we are surrounded...

 

[Alanzo]

The right to free speech includes the right to be wrong and to be irrational or a jerk or whatever.

And, yes, Lulu, I do know what the difference is. No offense, but I do.

He was unhappy with the moderator actions. I happen to think he's incorrect there. But I also think he has the right to discuss it from his point of view. And Emma happens to be the moderator who took the actions.

I truly think her actions were right but I in no way support any implication that Dennis or anybody else shouldn't discuss her actions and their thoughts about them on this or any other venue.

So, yes, I know the difference but my point is above.

This is an example of Fluffy creating a point that was never made and then arguing against that fake point.

No one EVER said or implied anything like Dennis shouldn't discuss Emma's actions or his thoughts about them.

What I did was argue against Dennis' statements like "Emma doesn't support the freedom of speech" and that she is cultish and controlling, and then his conclusion that that ESMB is not good for ex-cultists. Those points are false, and I showed that they were.

 

[Alanzo]

I don't visit a.r.s. because I don't like the format, but I read all of Alanzo's story II and really think it was a story worth telling. The inserted documents were a little hard on the eyes, but his general prose was informative without embellishment, and I would like to read about how he actually got out, what the fallout was (if any), and how he rebuilt a new org-free life.

Thanks, Royal Prince Xenu! (All Hail Him)

I'll be telling that story next. It's bubbling and percolating in me now.

 

[Alanzo]

One has the right to self-audit.
One has the right to be mean.
One has the right to slander another's reputaion.
One has the right to be Mr. Bean.

.

Right!

And one has the right to whip out their haiku-meter and spray the place with bad poetry any time they goddamn want, too!

 

[Vinaire]

Right!

And one has the right to whip out their haiku-meter and spray the place with bad poetry any time they goddamn want, too!

That's correct!

.

 

[jodie]

Been there, done that. He twists my words and uses them against me.

As far as I'm concerned he is a dead subject. Can we move on?

Hell, yeah.

I always had a view, and it only gets stronger with time - people are people with their own personalities. These personalities generally get scrambled in the cult. But generally, there are people who were nice before, during and after the cult. And there were people who were sadistic SOB's before, during and after the cult. The SOBs cannot be blamed on the cult, they were already like that. The cult is merely a fertile ground for this type of personality to flourish. As is an environment like arse.

Ergo the "Reverend". He reminds me of the character who said "Its Jesus time" in William Gibson's "Johnny Mneumonic" - he comes to "save" you while driving nails into you.

I agree with Emma - lets move on already (Alanzo, I appreciated your posts to arse as well, just wanted you to know that) and get back to what makes this forum so great!

- jodie

 

[Bea Kiddo]

Yeah!!!!

 

[Lulu Belle]

I always had a view, and it only gets stronger with time - people are people with their own personalities. These personalities generally get scrambled in the cult. But generally, there are people who were nice before, during and after the cult. And there were people who were sadistic SOB's before, during and after the cult. The SOBs cannot be blamed on the cult, they were already like that. The cult is merely a fertile ground for this type of personality to flourish.

I agree.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I think so, too.

It's almost like an "in vino veritas" thing. meaning, ok, he did what he did while under the influence of (wine, cult, whatever) but it was in him all the time.

Well, to an extent. People do things, as we know, that they might not ordinarily do out of fear or stress.

So maybe another criterion can be--does he/she do that all the time? Do they do it a lot or not?

Is it years after they left the cult or whatever, and they're still acting in that same way or what?