I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
I feel very naughty just now... and a little embarrassed
As well you should!
Not.
I feel very naughty just now... and a little embarrassed
As well you should!
Not.
Anyone who knows me here knows I don't do outbursts!
Hey, but someone's gotta get up your nose sometimes!
I never said that it was 'right' was was done to Paulette Cooper. What I did state was that Paulette started the whole thing. This is a fact which is, in my opinion, being tried to erase from collective consciousness by critics of Scientology.
I knew very well that this is an explosive and a particular hurtful subject due to the fact that a number of people on ESMB have been victim to application of fair game policies. That's the main reason our Veda started a 'Balthasar dead agent thread' (although the title is different). So I am going to cut him some slack on this one because I can see the other side.
I can agree with you that what Paulette did was legal, that's not the problem either. One can totally 'legally' destroy peoples reputation and lives. "Gloves off' could mean anything from bluntly speaking out the unpleasant truth to legally or illegally turning another persons life to hell. Equally, fair game is not necessarily 'illegal'. It is the intent of the person dealing with an adversary.
Hope that helps clarify
I would call it trolling but what do I know?
I never said that it was 'right' was was done to Paulette Cooper. What I did state was that Paulette started the whole thing. This is a fact which is, in my opinion, being tried to erase from collective consciousness by critics of Scientology.
I knew very well that this is an explosive and a particular hurtful subject due to the fact that a number of people on ESMB have been victim to application of fair game policies. That's the main reason our Veda started a 'Balthasar dead agent thread' (although the title is different). So I am going to cut him some slack on this one because I can see the other side.
I can agree with you that what Paulette did was legal, that's not the problem either. One can totally 'legally' destroy peoples reputation and lives. "Gloves off' could mean anything from bluntly speaking out the unpleasant truth to legally or illegally turning another persons life to hell. Equally, fair game is not necessarily 'illegal'. It is the intent of the person dealing with an adversary.
Hope that helps clarify
I've decided to contract out my outburst tech to those of you who are naturally calm and not prone to much anger. If you ever feel the need to rage, but just can't quite bring yourself to do it, just PM me with your topic of concern. complete with any points you'd like to highlight and I'll go nuclear on your behalf. That way you won't have to experience the after-rage shame. I guess I'm pretty flat on it myself. :wink2:
I find it awfully strange that you don't know that the "other side" has had free reign for half a century - and has been posting on ESMB since the very beginning.I am representing the other side and I think it was time somebody did.
When occasion warrants it, splurge on it!Anyone who knows me here knows I don't do outbursts!
Hey, but someone's gotta get up your nose sometimes!
So, after the "pseudo-poetic sniper with his rusty rifle" had been forced to temporarily leave the premises, "the wimp" has decided to leave his certainly gorgeous old lady and his oh-so-important projects to return and "fight the fight" himself. I kinda appreciate that.
Balthasar, I don't understand what you're saying and doing here. So, you're saying that Paulette Cooper "deserved" everything that was done to her, because "she started it"? Doesn't that mean that, although you might disagree with some (or all) that sick perverted stuff that was done to her, you still condone it? But then you say you don't condone it?
What kind of mindset is that and where's the logic in that?
Just because "someone has to speak for the other side"? OK, I can follow your train of thoughts that far - defense lawyers do this kind of job all the time and it's just bread-and-butter business for them.
The difference is: NO defense lawyer worth his salt would be stupid enough to come up with an argument as silly as "she deserved it". So why did you do it? Where's the beef in this for you?
I never said that it was 'right' was was done to Paulette Cooper. What I did state was that Paulette started the whole thing. This is a fact which is, in my opinion, being tried to erase from collective consciousness by critics of Scientology.
I knew very well that this is an explosive and a particular hurtful subject due to the fact that a number of people on ESMB have been victim to application of fair game policies. That's the main reason our Veda started a 'Balthasar dead agent thread' (although the title is different). So I am going to cut him some slack on this one because I can see the other side.
I can agree with you that what Paulette did was legal, that's not the problem either. One can totally 'legally' destroy peoples reputation and lives. "Gloves off' could mean anything from bluntly speaking out the unpleasant truth to legally or illegally turning another persons life to hell. Equally, fair game is not necessarily 'illegal'. It is the intent of the person dealing with an adversary.
Hope that helps clarify
In fact, if this board made a regulation tomorrow that no pro Scn stuff could ever be posted here, I'd be kewl with it. I'd say, hey, it's your board.
But absent such a decree, well, you know, if XB buys or takes over this board, please be sure to update the ROCs.
I hardly feel I have the power to take over this board. Leave it to you Claire to somehow find a way to twist this so you end the victim. I'm not trying to exclude anyone from free speech. But I feel like I'm allowed to experience outrage about a man and his policies that were so harmful and damaging to so many people.
It's easy to have theoretical conversations and put up provocative posts in defense of Hubbard. But I just read a post in the last 24 hours about a woman who's mother considered her to be an SP when she was five years old.
You can't have it both ways, Claire. When I first arrived here I put out my opinion, which was that the independent Scientology movement was problematic, to say the least, because it still perpetuated Scientology on any level. Your response was that I should get some "freaking facts". Why weren't you there defending my right to state my opinion even though you disagreed with it? Instead, you and Mark Baker tried to shut me down as a newbie. As I shared before, I experienced this as traumatic and bewildering and I almost left the site completely.
So please stop acting like this impartial voice of reason. Honestly, the mind fuck I got from you and Mark was the closest thing I've ever experienced to what Scientology might be like when someone is trying to get in your head. The truth is, you and I actually agree more than we disagree. But people like Balthazar who come to an Ex-Scientology message board and say they want to make sure the other side finally gets heard, is going to encounter some powerful opposition. The thing that bugs me is I don't feel that he is really trying to engage in an honest conversation looking at both sides. I feel like it's someone being provocative and pissing people off to get their jollies. And that really bugs me.
I've not presented myself as a victim or stated or implied that I am such. I said nothing like that and am not anything like that. So yet another example of the folly of publicly psychoanalyzing people you don't know. Plus it's ad hom.
You seem to still be angry about an exchange from, I believe, a year ago (if not more), and one that did not take place in this thread. If that exchange is still not sitting right with you, then either come to terms with it on your own or feel free to contact me to discuss it. Of course, I don't accept PMs from forum members (and have set my profile up so that it does not happen), but if you want to talk about our very first discussion on this board, I'm not that hard to find. Since you are bringing it up again on yet another unrelated thread after all this time...With you calling it a mindfuck, bringing it up a very long time later on an unrelated thread (again), it's obviously still a sore subject and seems to come to your mind whenever you read my posts.
Any concerns you have about Mark would best be addressed to him. Again, that thread was a long time ago and isn't this one.
And I don't see him posting on the thread, or being mentioned by any other contributor.
My only point in my post yesterday was that the rules of conduct here do not forbid pro Scn posts. If there were to change so that they did, I would support that. I'd be fine with it. Until that day dawns, well, it is what it is. And we're all free to counter and disagree with the postings of others. Just as I did with the posts I made on this thread disagreeing with Balthie's ideas about Paulette Cooper's book.
I'm as free to post my impartial whatever you said as anyone else is to post their commentary. So, no, I'm not going to stop posting what's in my heart. They don't break the rules of conduct and I find that for me, anyway, it's better to take a point counterpoint approach to - well, everything. Others can -and should- take their own approaches. I don't expect them to sound like me and I don't look to anyone to suggest I stop being myself.
And once again, Xenu's Boyfriend finds it necessary to psychoanalyze other contributors. So tiresome.
I would call it posting allowable commentary on ESMB in, perhaps, the wrong section. There are some sections for pro Scn type stuff...