Now Veda and Bjorkist is more like Itchy and Scratchy..........
I don't think it would be incorrect or even unfair to characterize a lot of Alex input as 'obfuscation' or 'deflection', but, I think most of us here are adults and at least the *assumption* is that everyone's at least capable of seeing past such machinations, whether we choose to or not.
So, Alex gets to obfuscate and deflect (and not, since he doesn't *always* do it; tricky bastard ) and, others are free to point it out. Or not.
Zinj
Deflection noted! :wink2:
Zinj - which is worse: a tricky bastard or a slippery sucker?
(I never did get your PM on that)
Well, maybe I'll have enough time to explain it now.
Blame Emma for never getting the 'draft' mode running; in fact, let's blame Emma for *everything* while we're at it!
But, back to your question; 'worse' is a very judgmental position, so, I'd say a 'Tricky Bastard' and a 'Slippery Sucker' are just different
A 'Tricky Bastard' knows full well the end of his sophistry, even before he begins the game. The 'final result' and 'conclusion' are pre-ordained, but, he's got lots of clever twists and turns he can throw in to make it look like a linear (and communicative) path.
A 'Slipper Sucker' may also be a 'Tricky Bastard', if he's *aware* of his slipperyness and using it deliberately to manipulate the supposed 'conversation' or 'discussion' to the acceptable 'conclusion', but, not necessarily.
The difference can be difficult to discern with Scientologists, or, even just the Scientology 'trained', because conscious manipulation and 'handling' are not necessary when the Training is Talking.
Anyway, I called you a 'Slippery Sucker' because you *do* seem to follow along in logical trains of thought and presentations of evidence and even to accept arguments and adopt them when you get to the point of agreeing with them. So; not pure sophistry, or even sophistry at all. Your 'stable data' are *not* so stable as to preclude honest discussion.
However, the 'Training' is strong in you grasshopper, and there are still places where the meandering path of logic leads from the start gate past enlightening vistas and arrives at revolutionary goal posts, yet, 10 minutes later, a similar discussion *must return to the original starting gate*
It was only meant as a light and jovial jab; and, I don't think it's a result of any dishonesty on *your* part, but, it's a common experience when talking with Scientologists (or even ex-scientologists).
And, you *do* change and learn, which is all to your credit. While a 'Tricky Bastard' is only interested in defending the original 'stable datum' by any means necessary...
Zinj
Still, I'll continue to call 'em as I see 'em and be willing to be wrong.
That's all we each have to do! I bow to your wisdom
Being an ex-scn is a continuous education process.
What is really great about ESMB is that we are given the space to do the above.
Funny!
But seriously, seems to me that some people- and I'm not saying that's you- but something I've seen over the years- people try to box some CofS member or other Scn'ist into a corner, then they comment on the deflection when the Scn'ist doesn't go along with it.
Well, people don't tend to like having others try to back them into a corner.
It's a shame. Too much time gets spent on word games and word dancing- both by the Scn'ist in question and by others talking to that person- and not enough really gets resolved.
Not ironic really. The one's you have either get added to or swapped out with a different set!Filters are something we all have installed. Scientology was supposed to remove them......
Ironic.
alex
The uncomfortable truth, alex, is that when one says phrases like the one above, one is dedicated, not to addressing any points that were raised when the other presented their viewpoint, but appealing to their sense of self in relation to what they perceive as the truth.
In essence, with your very left-handed compliment, you tried to discount Veda's assertions by maintaining the only merit they hold is her tenacity in holding them.
This looks like you are playing mind games, to me, and therefore not really interested in a truthful exchange.
I don't think so. Veda is not shy in making caustic remarks that go beyond the usual board banter. Alex is entitled to give a little back and seems quite restrained in his/her responses. I don't have a problem with Veda or Alex.
Alex seems to have got off to a bad start on ESMB, whether through a lack of clarity in stating his viewpoint or others being too much on the qui vive - I don't know. But it seems that once you are labelled as OSA then all your posts get read through that filter and are scrutinised more rigorously.
Perhaps Alex could find a volunteer to make some of his posts under their own username to see if he gets the same kind of responses.
Can Alex influence OSA activities to move in a more rational and ethical direction?
It will be nice if he can.
.
Maybe scientology is the walmart of religion, but in a hundred years, walmart or something like it is where we are going to be shopping. (in vr space perhaps)
WalMart of religion! WalMart is known for low prices, Scientology is anything but.
Scientology is the sidewalk Rolex table of religions
Zinj
Scientology is "The Crying Game Movie Ending" of religions.