What the fuck is going on?

[Pooks]

I'm not sure where TG1 lives, Tory. She's just someone I'd like to catch up with if it is possible. Lori is a poster here that has posted on another thread about living in North Carolina where I will mainly be staying. So I am hoping to make it out to see her at some stage. Yes, back to regular transmission, but it sounds amazing.

When are you coming to the states?

You can meet up with lots of esmbers in August!

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?30947-ENTHETAcon-2013-SP-Party

 

[Veda]

In our context, which is the Old Guard of critics (or OG for short) are those critics, in my view, who started speaking out during the 1970s, '80's 90's ... well, until Tory. There were so few that were brave enough to break the chains and speak out, or write a book, or picket - there were so few that sacrificed so much, that my personal list includes Tory. Many since have been as widely heard as the OG, but to have been a pioneer and trail blazer, is highly significant.

Regular dictionary definition: Definition of OLD GUARD
1: the conservative and especially older members of an organization (as a political party)
2: a group of established prestige and influence

Sorry I didn't see your post before I made mine ... I type so slowly, I always have to look back after I post!

Two random things: I totally agree with Tory, that the critic OG are those that preceded Anonymous/Chanology.

-snip-

Relax, "Old Guard" is a term that's been around for a long time. It can mean just about anything that someone wants it to mean.

 

[Type4_PTS]

I love cryptic crosswords, Arnie. What's the answer to 2 across?

(Really, I'm just wondering how this post above fits in with the trend of the thread. Do you think of some here as enslaved and unseeing?)

I thought that his post fit in quite well with the trend of the thread.

I got that his post was in part responding to something that Emma just said an hour earlier:

We all made it. We are all courageous. It's bloody tough to walk away from your "religion", your career, your friends, your social life, your marriage (in a lot of cases) and your family (in some awful cases).

You lose everything that is important in life because you refuse to live a lie.

It is a brave thing we've all done. All of us.

Slave chains forged of lies
are stronger than fine steel

And those enslaved see
neither shackle nor lock.

The mission must be,
in order to set them free:
show them how their
chains were made

and where lies hid the key..

 

[Purple Rain]

When are you coming to the states?

You can meet up with lots of esmbers in August!

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?30947-ENTHETAcon-2013-SP-Party

June probably for a short visit. I have an immigration interview in July, so I could possibly be there in August. I just really don't know what I'll end up doing. But if I am there I would love to come!

 

[Veda]

-snip-

All I see is some people having a bit of fun at your expense because you wrote something that deserved to be poked at. After all the fuss recently over Karen writing KRs, it was pretty ironic that you would say something that closely resembles a Scientology ethics gradient.

-snip-

Only in your mind does my comment resemble a "KR."

To me, and to most people, the word "noted" means just that: that something was noticed.

At least understand that much.

 

[Caroline]

Caroline, Free to Shine asked you a question earlier, regarding your definition of a Scientologist, I saw Emma asked you some question too, as did I.

New question; What should we think or do about a person who comes along and performs long screeds indicating a high degree of criticism or condescension at some other peoples meeting place and that person refuses to define any of their terms or answer any awkward questions?

In fact if such a person just kept banging on being only half on subject, what should the reaction be?

Thanks in advance.

I saw that post by Free to Shine, asking me about my definition of a Scientologist. I have an answer but don't know how it applies to this thread, so I declined posting it. Perhaps s/he could expand on the relevance. Otherwise, it could appear like a bit of a derail. "Who or what is a Scientologist?" is a huge subject, so perhaps deserves its own thread.

There were some questions in the grudge match area that I also did not address. The grudge match area doesn't work for me, for reasons I've already given.

But here you have asked a question in the public area about what we should think and do about someone. I will assume for now that this is a question you seriously want me to address.

1. If you have not just formulated an impossible scenario or a straw scenario for some reason (maybe just to make me jump), please identify where this has happened. Please give me an example of where a person came along and performed long screeds indicating a high degree of criticism or condescension at some other peoples meeting place and that person refuses to define any of their terms or answer any awkward questions.

2. You imply that ESMB is other peoples' meeting place, and not for that person who allegedly performs long screeds indicating criticism or condescension. But how about if you are mistaken, or for that matter lying, and the person performs screeds of all sorts of lengths, as on subject as any other poster, really does define terms when necessary or prudent, and does answer awkward questions, wouldn't ESMB be a meeting place for that person too? Or would you still stay mistaken, and still project your disapproval of and non-support for this person?

3. You also imply that criticism is not wanted here, that less criticism is better than a high degree of criticism. Yet virtually everyone here calls himself or herself a critic. And critics all practice criticism. I've mentioned before at some length that I do not belong to the "critics," as they are often called. I considered myself part of the group briefly but left it many years ago.

Nevertheless, I still retain and use the ability to criticize, by which I mean I will evaluate or analyze the merits or faults of something. In addition, I might oppose, when such criticism, analysis or evaluation results in a conclusion that opposition is warranted. So one doesn't have to, for example, analyze or evaluate the merits of Scientology over and over, or the merits of victimizing people, to oppose Scientology and oppose victimizing people whenever they raise their meritless heads.

4. This brings up then the desirability or the undesirability of criticizing, that is analyzing and evaluating the merits or faults, of ESMB, and of course its operators, and for that matter its people. It's all being done, obviously, and I can see where ESMB will be an embarrassment to some people in the future; and consequently why some would want to suppress or attack criticism of all this. I actually think that if meeters here are afraid of criticism -- real analysis and evaluation of their meeting place's merits and faults, not the black PR some members here call criticism -- or if meeters are concerned about how their meeting place is viewed, they should welcome criticism of their meeting place, become transparent, and stop the embarrassing performances.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

I saw that post by Free to Shine, asking me about my definition of a Scientologist. I have an answer but don't know how it applies to this thread, so I declined posting it. Perhaps s/he could expand on the relevance. Otherwise, it could appear like a bit of a derail. "Who or what is a Scientologist?" is a huge subject, so perhaps deserves its own thread.

There were some questions in the grudge match area that I also did not address. The grudge match area doesn't work for me, for reasons I've already given.

But here you have asked a question in the public area about what we should think and do about someone. I will assume for now that this is a question you seriously want me to address.

1. If you have not just formulated an impossible scenario or a straw scenario for some reason (maybe just to make me jump), please identify where this has happened. Please give me an example of where a person came along and performed long screeds indicating a high degree of criticism or condescension at some other peoples meeting place and that person refuses to define any of their terms or answer any awkward questions.

2. You imply that ESMB is other peoples' meeting place, and not for that person who allegedly performs long screeds indicating criticism or condescension. But how about if you are mistaken, or for that matter lying, and the person performs screeds of all sorts of lengths, as on subject as any other poster, really does define terms when necessary or prudent, and does answer awkward questions, wouldn't ESMB be a meeting place for that person too? Or would you still stay mistaken, and still project your disapproval of and non-support for this person?

3. You also imply that criticism is not wanted here, that less criticism is better than a high degree of criticism. Yet virtually everyone here calls himself or herself a critic. And critics all practice criticism. I've mentioned before at some length that I do not belong to the "critics," as they are often called. I considered myself part of the group briefly but left it many years ago.

Nevertheless, I still retain and use the ability to criticize, by which I mean I will evaluate or analyze the merits or faults of something. In addition, I might oppose, when such criticism, analysis or evaluation results in a conclusion that opposition is warranted. So one doesn't have to, for example, analyze or evaluate the merits of Scientology over and over, or the merits of victimizing people, to oppose Scientology and oppose victimizing people whenever they raise their meritless heads.

4. This brings up then the desirability or the undesirability of criticizing, that is analyzing and evaluating the merits or faults, of ESMB, and of course its operators, and for that matter its people. It's all being done, obviously, and I can see where ESMB will be an embarrassment to some people in the future; and consequently why some would want to suppress or attack criticism of all this. I actually think that if meeters here are afraid of criticism -- real analysis and evaluation of their meeting place's merits and faults, not the black PR some members here call criticism -- or if meeters are concerned about how their meeting place is viewed, they should welcome criticism of their meeting place, become transparent, and stop the embarrassing performances.

If we're embarrassing you ... just stop coming here.

Problem solved.

It really isn't that serious.

:confused2:

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

http://youtu.be/1vhFnTjia_I

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Lermanet_com]

Re: $cientology I$ $lavery..

Ugliness sees ugliness; beauty sees beauty.

and this one, $cientology I$ $lavery..

Slaves were chattel property like a mule; beasts of burden. The new slavery is consumerism and every race is property of corporate profit.

same url as prior

 

[Lermanet_com]

Re Who is a Scientologist?

Anyone who is still fooled
by even ONE of their lies!

 

[Purple Rain]

Re Who is a Scientologist?

Anyone who is still fooled
by even ONE of their lies!

And here I was thinking there were only 2,163 of them in Australia. Maybe they are right about their membership figures!

 

[degraded being]

Re Who is a Scientologist?

Anyone who is still fooled
by even ONE of their lies!

I have thought of a question closely related to the "Who is a Scientologist" question.


It is: Who is a sucker?

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Re Who is a Scientologist?

Anyone who is still fooled
by even ONE of their lies!

A Scientologist is someone who follows the teachings of Scientology

A Citric of Scientology is someone who understands the teachings of Scientology

 

[Purple Rain]

I have thought of a question closely related to the "Who is a Scientologist" question.


It is: Who is a sucker?

That's just as related to the Who is a Jehovah's Witness, Who is a Mormon question though, isn't it? Or who was sold anything that turns out to be a lemon.

 

[clamicide]

I have thought of a question closely related to the "Who is a Scientologist" question.


It is: Who is a sucker?

Wait... I'm a sucker, but not a Scio...
dang, I've got a dirty mind

yeah, hopefully I'll finally fall asleep soon...

 

[Purple Rain]

A Scientologist is someone who follows the teachings of Scientology

A Citric of Scientology is someone who understands the teachings of Scientology

I don't think that logically follows at all. It sounds good, but there are plenty of critics who criticise without the slightest understanding of the teachings. What about someone who just says, "Oh, that is bad. I knew someone who got into that and they lost their marriage and their home. I blame their involvement with Scientology."

So, yeah.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

I don't think that logically follows at all. It sounds good, but there are plenty of critics who criticise without the slightest understanding of the teachings. What about someone who just says, "Oh, that is bad. I knew someone who got into that and they lost their marriage and their home. I blame their involvement with Scientology."

So, yeah.

you're right, it should read,

Someone who understands the teachings of Scientology is a critic of Scientology

 

[degraded being]

That's just as related to the Who is a Jehovah's Witness, Who is a Mormon question though, isn't it? Or who was sold anything that turns out to be a lemon.

How about this.

It could be just as related to those, and it could be related to those who bought the lemon, ate it, and spat it out but still don't recognise lemon juice when they see it.

Suckerism welcomes people of all faiths nonfaiths and exfaiths.

 

[degraded being]

Wait... I'm a sucker, but not a Scio...
dang, I've got a dirty mind

yeah, hopefully I'll finally fall asleep soon...

That's filthy.

 

[Feral]

I saw that post by Free to Shine, asking me about my definition of a Scientologist. I have an answer but don't know how it applies to this thread, so I declined posting it. Perhaps s/he could expand on the relevance. <SNIP>

That was 572 words without a single answer.

Amazing!