What's new

In defence of Hubbard

Winston Smith

Flunked Scientology
?????????????

why should an exscientologist not be allowed the same right to speak in defense of hubbard that an exscientologist has to be plaintiff against hubbard?

do not american exscientologists have american rights?


?????????????

For the same reason exCatholics don't defend the Pope, or exMoonies don't extoll the virtues of Rev Sung Young Moon, or exwives don't defend their abusive exhusbands.
 
Last edited:

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
Claire, I find it fascinating that you don't see what is happening in this thread as psychologically manipulative.

What else do you call it when someone comes to an "ex-Scientology" board and posts something called, In Defense of Hubbard? And the insanity begins.

I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. What you call my "psychoanalyzing other contributors", I call, "confronting people on their shit" and also," protecting myself from being mind-fucked".

Revising the truth can makes things very murky and can be contagious. Sometimes you can forget the truth completely or what really happened. To hear some people tell it, LRH was a folk hero of the old West, misunderstood and well intentioned. The line just get pushed further and further until you forget what you are fighting against.

This is especially important as there are two very public court cases pending against the church at the moment and lurkers come to just a place like this to get information. What does it mean for someone who really wants to know to come here and see a thread like this. Who would post it here? And why? Again, perhaps it isn't my place, but I feel I have every right to deconstruct the intention of why someone would do this. Perhaps that goes a little close to the bone at times.

I respect your criticism and viewpoint, but I do take issue with your use of "tiresome". I, at least, try to entertain. Haven't you found any of my posts funny? I consider my psychoanalysis of you to be one of my "classics". :coolwink:

Hope you're well.

It's just that it's not the first time you've done the psychoanalyzing thang. Or the second.

I think you don't know Bird's story or situation, though it has been alluded to here and in other places on ESMB.

This being the case, my proposed solution would be to discuss commentary not commentator.
 

Xenu's Boyfriend

Silver Meritorious Patron
?????????????

why should an exscientologist not be allowed the same right to speak in defense of hubbard that an exscientologist has to be plaintiff against hubbard?

do not american exscientologists have american rights?


?????????????


You make a good point here, and perhaps you are right, Birdsong. You and Claire definitely have more of a claim to be here than I do, and in that way I defer to both of you, seriously, based on your personal experience in CoS. I have no right to tell either of you what you should or should not express. You are absolutely free to say whatever you like, pro-Hubbard or not. It truly is none of my business and out of my control. That is free speech, and I respect your right.

However, there is another category of speech that is much more nebulous and hard to define. Morality is the wrong word, and decency is even worse, but it has something to do with the dignity of the human spirit, a way of not fucking with people spirituality because you feel like it or it entertains you. The fact is, I have found, as Claire has accused me in her last post of crossing a line, that both of you have crossed a different line for me, that I also find unacceptable. And it's not about having a differing opinion from my own.

It's the thing you do when you put out very obviously provocative, potentially hurtful posts about child-abuse to people who may have that in their history and then take no responsibility for the overall experience you have created based on your communication. Maybe you are just advocating for your right to communicate, I guess, no matter what effect it has. But that feels reckless to me. (This is the part where you write back, Birdsong, with some non-sequitur that keeps you from having to deal with what I'm saying, even though you are surprisingly coherent above.)

So yes, I may need to back off and check myself more often, but I feel that you and Claire play agent provocateur a little bit to easily with other people's feelings and experiences in the guise of "looking at both sides" and being partial or fair. In the end, I consider this to be the antithesis of real communication - like someone throwing garbage on a sports game from the stands. You'll make an impact, and maybe get people mad at all, but that doesn't mean you're contributing to the game.
 

Xenu's Boyfriend

Silver Meritorious Patron
live a little...

laugh a little...


he likes his writing

i like his writing

i like you

why not try to like his writing?


Thank you for complementing my writing, Birdsong. Now I really feel like a dick.

The truth is, I mean what I said before. I love you. But I stand by my recent thoughts.

Maybe this is really arrogant of me, and you are free to say,"who the hell do you think you are XB?", but I think you are better than a lot of your posts, CB. And I feel your heart, actually, and it's big - there is room for all of us. That's why you confuse me sometimes.
 

Xenu's Boyfriend

Silver Meritorious Patron
It's just that it's not the first time you've done the psychoanalyzing thang. Or the second.

I think you don't know Bird's story or situation, though it has been alluded to here and in other places on ESMB.

This being the case, my proposed solution would be to discuss commentary not commentator.


We've all got a story, Claire, including those of us on the other end of CB comments. I get your point, but it doesn't fly in the face of abuse, on either side.
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
I don't know how I managed to stumble into this old thread, but I wanted this message to show up here, so I'll just repost it:

ahem...

it's very clear you have little understanding of my nature or my writing on this board <snip>

WRONG. It's very clear that YOU failed to bring YOUR personality, YOUR writings, YOUR nature close to YOUR readers.

It's everybody's job to bring their works, their message their personality, their works, their whatever, to the intended recipients; and you are failing miserably in ALL of these jobs - which is especially sad and frustrating, since you claim to be a poet.

I surely love my moments of solitude and silence, but when I'm dealing with people, be it live on stage, or with customers in my workshop, or with people who found their way into my electronics lab or my programmers corner, whatever, even when I'm just chatting with some friends in some nice, friendly place, it's MY fucking job to deliver MY messages in a nice, easily understandable way. If I fail in that, people will lose interest in my ideas, my plans, my projects, and ultimately, they will lose interest in ME.

Look kid (I don't care about your age, because right now you're just being an uneducated, stubborn little brat, living in it's fantasy world), this is where you fail: I can't even say if you have any message or personality, because it all gets choked and drowned in an undefinable and undigestable salad of letters, words without meaning, strange references most readers couldn't follow even if they wanted to, and other literary No-Nos.

Being a taxi driver can certainly teach one some basic lessons about how to deal with (sometimes strange) human beings - I can tell, because I've been one for a few years, but that does not make one a poet.

Look, even such a nice and intelligent person as Face shook his head, gave up and walked away - and that's not his fault, it's fucking yours.

There are so many wonderful people in this world, many probably just waiting to get to know you, but if you demand that they wade through hundreds of pages of trolling, undecypherable gibberish, childish "I am the judge and jury" games, "MY work is under pfrrrrtt lishnssss" statements and whatnot, I can perfectly understand why they turn around and walk away.

tl;dr
My prediction: If you don't change your ways, you'll end up not only alone but also very lonely, and it's your own fault.
 

Balthasar

Patron Meritorious
And my point is that we live in the United states. And if you don't like what someone writes about you and you feel that it was untrue you sue them for defamation. And if you're wronged like Carol Burnett was with the National Enquirer then you win. That's what the law is for.

You all keep trying to find crafty ways to blame Paulette. But she didn't start a war, she wrote a book. And no matter whether you thought it was badly or well-written, she didn't deserve what she got.

For you to write "If somebody would write a book attacking my life's work, and insulting and disparaging what I do and it could have consequences like driving me out of business, then it's gloves off" is basically the Fair Game policly in different words. What's the difference between "fair game" and "gloves off." Why don't you just admit that you feel what Hubbard did was right?

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
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
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
So, all reporters who expose fraud and criminal behavior should be destroyed by the bad guys. Got it! All neighbors who call the police to report suspicious behavior should be attacked for it.

Report bad behavior and you deserve to be destroyed because "you started it".

Yeah. That's totally sane. :duh:

Bill
 

Balthasar

Patron Meritorious
Re: Re Paulette Cooper: Relaunch of request for evidence

The book was pretty pointed, yes. It could be seen as a hatchet job. I should probably reread it as it's been years-and a cult- ago since I'd read it. But the way it seems to me now is that Cooper felt that this was a bad organization. And whaddaya know- it was and is one. I don't know that every argument she used was valid or correct, but I believe she was sincere and was trying to draw the public's attention to a very bad situation. And it did turn out to be a fucked up situation, a very fucked up group.

I think it was early days in Scn criticism, too.

So even if mistakes were made in the research and writing (and I don't know this to be or not be the case) can we honestly call it "Heinous" if it's against a predatory group like CofS? I know it was written a long time ago, but if memory serves, Hubbard had already started a lot of shenanigans and illegal activities and mistreatment of staff.

I realize you aren't condoning Op Freakout, but think about it-- if the cult was not nasty and was undeserving of the treatment meted out in that book- don't you think, perhaps, that by their very reaction to the Scandal of Scn and subsequent op against Cooper that they were confirming her concerns about Scn in a way?

It would be like if I said "Jane's a predatory bitch. She did this and that and she is a sociopath who hurts people." If Jane then went on to firebomb my house in answer to this, well, lo and behold, Jane has just confirmed that I was right about her being a sociopath even if I had a bunch of lousy research and incorrect statements in what I'd said about Jane.

On another note, I will tell you that I found that some of the arguments by critics struck me as lack of understanding of Scn, ologywise. I remember Bob Minton's oft reposted a.r.s. posts about Scn's beliefs, about spirits "Flying through the air" and I remember thinking now that guy just doesn't get it. But he was revered by many so people weren't really wanting to hear that. I've seen this in a lot of writings about Scn. But all the same, if such are answered by a fair game action such as Operation Freakout then the writer (in this case Ms. Cooper) has proved her main point against them.

I actually agree in many points what you say especially what has been highlighted in bold by myself. Absolutely!
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
snipped.

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.

Rubbish ... critics are more likely to be very proud of her for 'starting the whole thing'.

It needed to be started by someone.

:confused2:
 

Balthasar

Patron Meritorious
Claire, I find it fascinating that you don't see what is happening in this thread as psychologically manipulative.

What else do you call it when someone comes to an "ex-Scientology" board and posts something called, In Defense of Hubbard? And the insanity begins.

---snip---

I am representing the other side and I think it was time somebody did.
 

Balthasar

Patron Meritorious
I notice Commander Birdsong is banned - thin ice here, isn't it Birdy?:). I've got to be careful, they are closing in on us hahaha:biggrin:

Have a nice few days off
 

The_Fixer

Class Clown
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

You are right in what you say. It's true. Paulette did start it.

The rest is utter shit.

Would you have stuck up for Kim Ill II or Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mugabe? What about Hitler or the Stalinist purges.

Total bullshit stance. Stand up for Satan and make him look like a misunderstood rose? Get real.

These are silly little stances that attempt to humanize evil on the basis of pedants (yes, Emma, I heard you, lol)... but it's still bullshit, even if someone stuck a rose in the middle of the cowlick.

I could just imagine you witnessing some poor little kiddie being flogged to death by some baddie and you saying "If the child hadn't started it....."

fucking crap.

EDIT: I've just taken a couple of breaths.
Am I now an angry troll?
Hands up those who have seen me display such behavior before???
 
Top