ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



For the record.

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by alex, Jan 24, 2008.

View Users: View Users
  1. Tanstaafl

    Tanstaafl Crusader

    Zinj - which is worse: a tricky bastard or a slippery sucker? :)
    (I never did get your PM on that) :eyeroll:
     
  2. George Glass

    George Glass Patron

    The visual occurring is one of a mouse ensnaring a tennis-ball-machine pummeled cat with the loose net of a racket slammed over his head. :thumbsup:
     
  3. George Glass

    George Glass Patron

    I had a room-mate with Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder. He was superb in luring one into lowering their defenses with accommodating behavior and then, Ooops! Another lie, hurtful slip of the tongue, or lop-sided argument. He had a habit of asking my opinion on something and then, when I gave it, insisting that he didn't want to get into an argument, in the first place.

    An argument?, I would think to myself. When did the discussion we were having start taking the form of an argument? I just got done answering the question he asked. If I ever needed to raise an issue with him, he'd always reply with the same recrimination. I, in turn, would stop talking to him, at all. As I did this, he would start being exceedingly nice, again, and I was always left questioning my perception, until I'd let down my defenses, again, and BAM!
     
  4. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    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.
     
  5. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    Well, maybe I'll have enough time to explain it now.:melodramatic:

    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
     
  6. Tanstaafl

    Tanstaafl Crusader

    Thanks Zinj. I liked that assessment - very enlightening. :)
    I'm still a long way off truly getting my shit together, plus my analytical chops ain't what they should be. :melodramatic: Still, I'll continue to call 'em as I see 'em and be willing to be wrong.

    I'll consider I've graduated the school of ESMB when I gain Zinji-approval! :D
     
  7. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    That's all we each have to do! I bow to your wisdom :notworthy:

    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.
     
  8. Tanstaafl

    Tanstaafl Crusader

    Amen! :)

    Oh, and you can get up now. :D
     
  9. George Glass

    George Glass Patron

    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=3269

    The thread above found me on a receiving end of just such a phenomena. I am a wog, BTW. I'll submit that part of the reason for such interrogation is the depth of deception some people are exposed to is so traumatic that, on an internet forum where the truth to one's person can be made subject to the scrutiny of a track-record, there is both an individual need to confront past trauma and a collective need to establish a common truth; a common truth often denied by the mechinations of the cult.

    It has been my experience that when prevarication is employed there is little value to a resolution. alex, who seemed to be open and accessible toward the beginning of this thread, seemed to follow a pattern towards questions he was either unwilling or unable to answer. Following a logical path, it seems contradictory to allow deception to go unnoticed in an effort to ascertain the truth. I'm not convinced that Veda's assertions in this thread are unfounded. That alex saw fit to reply to them with what looked to me like a statement concerning Veda's perception of self, when he simply didn't have to reply, at all, indicates, to me, that, in the least, alex was uncomfortable with some of the points she raised. (On the other side of that coin, if I may indulge in a little hyperbole, paths, logical or otherwise, are often tricky, long, and winding things, and to stop at every single rock, trying to dig it out and clean the bugs from underneath it, can be counter-productive opposing the option of simply moving around it.)

    Alternatively, I can look at alex's statement as an attempt to get Veda back into the discussion with Veda having announced a departure from the thread just prior to alex's reply. I would submit, however, that a more thoughtful reply, on alex's behalf, might have been more suited than one that appeared to be an outright taunt and one, again, oriented towards Veda's perception of self.

    While I understand how my strategy may be used to box someone into a corner, it is not my aim to do so. Instead, I am trying only to find the truth. You and I have been on the internet for a while now, and I think we're familiar with the bullying strategies employed, often to suit political ambitions, by a constancy of cross-posted, hectoring taunts. A poster who may have made an innocent mistake might be goaded into thinking there is an actual case that they have misrepresented themselves - and even those who have actually misrepresented themselves and have come clean in order to assuage their interrogator might still find themselves on the receiving end of a constancy of malicious replies, subsequent to every post they make, and without a recourse to stop their attacker due to the onus of their compromised position.

    I consider the nature of this forum in particular and that there are four main types of people here: 1. Ex-Scientologists who have a need to understand and commiserate their common suffering. 2. Wogs who come here with a helpful intention. 3. Active Scientologists who mean to disrupt the activity here with trolling, and 4. (perhaps the most important one of all) Active Scientologists who have found a reason to kick the church's tires. I have noticed that types 3 and 4 can be the same person.

    In confronting someone's reply, that I have recognized as potentially disingenuous, it is never going to be my aim to alienate them from a group of people who would otherwise be willing to help them. I understand how my methods may appear to be harsh but I consider my words very carefully and try to ensure, above all, that they never deduce ad hominem and never underestimate the capacities of the individual(s) they apply to. In making notice of a deceptive argument strategy, it is hoped, by me, that the person who has made them will rethink the virtues of their position and be able to pose them in a more truthful fashion.

    Understand that I don't necessarily believe that my way of doing things is the only way to do things. I certainly have found some great advice in this thread. What I aim to achieve is explaining myself and getting to know those engaged in this conversation, at the same time.


    Your most recent reply in this thread, Zinj, is very enlightening - very well written.:thumbsup:
     
  10. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    Well said George. We need the perspective of people like you who have never been in Scientology! :thumbsup:

    I'll read the thread you referenced. I hope I didn't contribute to any badgering of you.:)
     
  11. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    Hi, George,

    I like your posts and look forward to reading them. Really, my commentary referred more to other exchanges I've seen over the years on OCMB, ARS and a couple other places.

    And, too, I do think there's sometimes too much dancing around - and not just by the critic in the given discussion.

    I'm drawing a bit from my own experience. When I came onto a.r.s. in 98, I received a lot of queries, commentary, etc. Likewise OCMB a few years later.

    There were times when people would say I was obfuscating or not answering questions on occasions where I'd spent a lot of time talking to them, only to have them either not like the answer and say I didn't answer, or to have them write some very personalized thing that I'd side step, to which their response would be negative. According to some, including a few people on ESMB, no matter what's been said, anyone with an interest in Scn is not allowed to talk back and must let those who "are trying to help" them have "the last word".

    I think that this is happening to Alex, too, at times, and to Vinaire and some others.

    The thread you've linked to looks like you were receiving a lot of very detailed responses. In the main, the most response you received there seems to have been from Olska who is not a Scn'ist.
     
  12. beyond_horizons

    beyond_horizons Patron Meritorious

    Not ironic really. The one's you have either get added to or swapped out with a different set!

    .
     
  13. alex

    alex Gold Meritorious Patron

    You are a wise one George.

    The truth is relative anyway.

    But I think I have successfully addressed your point?

    alex( having fun with george)
     
  14. alex

    alex Gold Meritorious Patron

    Veda's animosity is not a problem for me. It is fuel.

    I am not much concerned with being labeled. It shows me where people are in their thinking. I have nothing to lose by it. "Alex" is egoless. The joy of a puppet identity.

    The folks with some wisdom and insight usually respond to what I actually say, rather than the filtered version others perceive, and that is what I value.

    Posting under anothers name is a game I dont really want to play. I am perfectly willing to be wrong all by myself. Or at least puppet self!

    alex
     
  15. alex

    alex Gold Meritorious Patron

    In reality? Not that I know of.

    But in my fantasy? Yea they read and are influenced by me.

    I see myself as promoting the truth AS I SEE IT.

    If I happen to jog someones thought process by it, theta universe win for me.

    If not, at least an interesting intellectual exercise.

    alex
     
  16. alex

    alex Gold Meritorious Patron

    So I was out in LA for a few days, and at "big blue" yesterday.

    The building is in decent shape, the staff dressed better than in years, smiles, purposeful demeanor abounded.

    I didnt poll any rank and file to see if they were even aware of the cruise book or the anon attacks, (doubt they were), but it didnt seem to be seige mentality.

    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)

    Survival is inevitable. What form the church survives in is not.

    alex
     
  17. PirateAndBum

    PirateAndBum Gold Meritorious Patron

    WalMart of religion! WalMart is known for low prices, Scientology is anything but.
     
  18. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    Scientology is the sidewalk Rolex table of religions

    Zinj
     
  19. Alanzo

    Alanzo Bardo Tulpa

    Scientology is "The Crying Game Movie Ending" of religions.
     
  20. Tanstaafl

    Tanstaafl Crusader

    Wow, that's subtle for you Alanzo. I expected you to go with "the polyp on the anus of world religion". :)