Pro Tip: Effective Front Line Critics Who Keep DM in Power Are Not Effective Frontline Critics.

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Alanzo, Aug 12, 2019.

View Users: View Users
  1. Alanzo

    Alanzo Screeching Harpy

    The title is pretty much the point.

    Effective Front Line Critics Who Keep DM in Power Are Not Effective Frontline Critics.

    Thank you.

    Alanzo
     
  2. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    Now you see, you can't just say they haven't been effective from removing him from power, you have perverted it to they assist him in staying in power.

    If that is the case then you are also assisting DM to remain in power.

    Does that sound absurd to you?
     
  3. Alanzo

    Alanzo Screeching Harpy

    I've always said that moral hand-waving and civil lawsuits will never get rid of DM from power.

    Do you disagree with that?
     
  4. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    No I don't disagree with that but I don't agree with your approach. Do you have the money and resources to take on the church even if you had the criminal evidence?

    How long do you think you would last? They don't play fair, remember that.

    Do you think they will play more fair and get all intimidated because now they are in a criminal case. Look at what happened to all those who were involved in the Lisa McPherson trial, how did they fair in the end?
     
  5. Alanzo

    Alanzo Screeching Harpy

    So now you are arguing against seeking criminal convictions?

    Because they don't play fair?

    What are you doing? You are simply opposing every point I make - whether it is in your own interests or not - because I'm not the right critic to be making these points.

    If an "effective front-line critic" made these same points would you fuck around with them like this?

    No.

    It's not the idea for you. It's who expresses it.

    That's called Tribal Ninnieism. And you're in it.
     
  6. lotus

    lotus autonomous rebellous

    Generalization without
    • Facts
    • Who
    • What
    • When
    • Proofs to support
    Not credible!
    What are you talking about?
     
  7. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    Here you go again.

    Your conclusion that I am against seeking criminal convictions is without merit, it is a presumption.

    If you are going to go after someone for a criminal conviction you better be prepared to go all the way and endure all that will be thrown at you in order for you to prevail.

    You don't have that.

    As for the rest of it, grow up.

    If you really want to do something about the church then work with people. Instead you attack them because they haven't done it.

    You're in the same boat and berating others for not doing it is a waste of time. Your approach to Mike Rinder is not going to encourage him to give you what you seek because you attack with wild abandon and are unpredictable in your course.

    I wouldn't give you the evidence either because you would make a dogs breakfast out of it.

    What are you really out to accomplish because it appears you are more interested in chastising others for what they don't do rather than look at what should be done effectively.
     
  8. Alanzo

    Alanzo Screeching Harpy

    Your <deleted> loyalty to critics who avoid focusing on criminal prosecution should at least be questioned.

    Don't you think?

    Why create a bubble world where no one questions it?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2019
  9. freethinker

    freethinker Sponsor

    Do you seriously believe what you wrote here?

    If you think I am being a slave then that is your opinion, it isn't who I am.Ii can back that up with evidence but you would have to sign an NDO to see it.:cool:

    I don't mind if you question things but your questions are often directed at shaming someone.

    That isn't a good approach.

    Emma just posted that you were able to have a heart to heart and become friends of a sort. Why not do that with all exes, or at least the ones who aren't being arseholes?

    You make accusations without having all the facts and direct people to have the same conclusion. That's bias.

    You could probably make friends with Mike but when you criticize people without having the whole story you damage your own efforts.

    Why do that?
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • List