Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Re: There is no group, cult or church called "Scientology" (snipped from another thre
Aw, I was gonna not-say that!
There is no group, cult or church called "Scientology" (snipped from another thread)
- Thread starter Claire Swazey
- Start date
apocalyptic
Patron with Honors
Re: There is no group, cult or church called "Scientology" (snipped from another thre
Lol. Good one. While in silence you already did.
Apoc
note to self: Scientology doctrine cannot touch the silence that precedes it. In terms of Love & Truth and of Power.
All else being merely (delightful) commentary. As it were.
Lol. Good one. While in silence you already did.
Apoc
note to self: Scientology doctrine cannot touch the silence that precedes it. In terms of Love & Truth and of Power.
All else being merely (delightful) commentary. As it were.
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
Re: There is no group, cult or church called "Scientology" (snipped from another thre
There was a comedy troupe called Firesign Theatre who used to say "we are all bozos on this bus".
We both are pretty passionate. And I certainly sometimes feel like a nut, though I prefer Mounds bars to Almond Joys.
I have noticed that when people tell me these things about what they think I'm doing or whatever "evaluation" they want to convey to me, that they really want me to pay attention to them. I conclude, therefore, that it is supposed to matter to me.
So when it does matter, then a lot of 'em get really upset over the fact that it mattered to me.
The only conclusion that can courteously and charitably be drawn from this is that the problem is that they don't want to be called on the shit they fling and they think I should agree with them at all times, while exempting themselves from that.
I did have fun mocking Dr. Oz but didn't get nearly enough takers. There's somethin' about a pundit that tends to really chap my ass.
The stuff going on on one front is still in the midst of it but we think we know where we're going with it. The other thing that got me really upset and crying- I've adjusted to it, I learned from it, I've changed procedures and am actually glad it happened.
I had a friend who used to say that there is no such thing as a bad experience because we learn from everything. There is no way that's true. Things like we discuss here all the time, things like abuse of women and others- you can't always turn those lemons into lemonade and there are things that are innately wrong. But the stuff that came up the other week, I've been able to turn those lemons into lemonade.
And for those who may, in future, have occasion to wonder just what the fuck is my point and am I trying to defend something or what did I have in mind- well, just ask me. That's a whole lot better than making something up and telling me that's what I thought or did.
No you're not, you're passionate and alive (and a tiny bit nuts) like many others here (not me though, obviously).
There was a comedy troupe called Firesign Theatre who used to say "we are all bozos on this bus".
We both are pretty passionate. And I certainly sometimes feel like a nut, though I prefer Mounds bars to Almond Joys.
I have noticed that when people tell me these things about what they think I'm doing or whatever "evaluation" they want to convey to me, that they really want me to pay attention to them. I conclude, therefore, that it is supposed to matter to me.
So when it does matter, then a lot of 'em get really upset over the fact that it mattered to me.
The only conclusion that can courteously and charitably be drawn from this is that the problem is that they don't want to be called on the shit they fling and they think I should agree with them at all times, while exempting themselves from that.
I did have fun mocking Dr. Oz but didn't get nearly enough takers. There's somethin' about a pundit that tends to really chap my ass.
The stuff going on on one front is still in the midst of it but we think we know where we're going with it. The other thing that got me really upset and crying- I've adjusted to it, I learned from it, I've changed procedures and am actually glad it happened.
I had a friend who used to say that there is no such thing as a bad experience because we learn from everything. There is no way that's true. Things like we discuss here all the time, things like abuse of women and others- you can't always turn those lemons into lemonade and there are things that are innately wrong. But the stuff that came up the other week, I've been able to turn those lemons into lemonade.
And for those who may, in future, have occasion to wonder just what the fuck is my point and am I trying to defend something or what did I have in mind- well, just ask me. That's a whole lot better than making something up and telling me that's what I thought or did.
I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
Re: There is no group, cult or church called "Scientology" (snipped from another thre
Well, you know what Claire ... I'm just happy that you sound happier about whatever was going on.
We are unlikely to ever agree on a 'certain subject' (lol) and you and I have certainly had our moments, but I've never once stopped liking and appreciating you and there has to be a reason for that.
I love your honesty, even when it annoys the living whatsits outa me.
We are unlikely to ever agree on a 'certain subject' (lol) and you and I have certainly had our moments, but I've never once stopped liking and appreciating you and there has to be a reason for that.
I love your honesty, even when it annoys the living whatsits outa me.
Ogsonofgroo
Crusader
Re: There is no group, cult or church called "Scientology" (snipped from another thre
Claire, I use ta love Firesign Theater, great material!
For to enjoy>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmWFrMq3qNY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCzgdF_WjOg&feature=related
Claire, I use ta love Firesign Theater, great material!
For to enjoy>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmWFrMq3qNY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCzgdF_WjOg&feature=related
Roan
Patron with Honors
Washing Claire's mouth out with soap!
Has somebody (OSA?) hacked Fluffy's account and taken it over?!?
In this thread the impostor is faithfully duplicating Fluffy's message-board "discussion style": pointlessly splitting the hairs that grow on the ass of Scientology; parsing words and fluffing up the "subject" of Scientology until one can't see the forrest for the trees, etc., etc.
But the dead give-away that this is an Op is all the cussing and swearing in "her" posts!
"Why the fuck should I?" "Really don't give a shit."
"That's just fucking lametarded."
"Yah, I fucking CAN, actually. I mean, how many goddamn years..." "I get all this fucking bullshit about..." "..and I saw this a lot on OCMB- where people go absolutely bugfuck if someone calls it a philosophy or does anything but scream about Hubturd or the sucking dick.." etc., etc.
This Fluffy sounds like a drunken sailor on shore leave!!
Methinks Voltaire needs to spank his Child!! lol
.
Has somebody (OSA?) hacked Fluffy's account and taken it over?!?
In this thread the impostor is faithfully duplicating Fluffy's message-board "discussion style": pointlessly splitting the hairs that grow on the ass of Scientology; parsing words and fluffing up the "subject" of Scientology until one can't see the forrest for the trees, etc., etc.
But the dead give-away that this is an Op is all the cussing and swearing in "her" posts!
"Why the fuck should I?" "Really don't give a shit."
"That's just fucking lametarded.""Yah, I fucking CAN, actually. I mean, how many goddamn years..." "I get all this fucking bullshit about..." "..and I saw this a lot on OCMB- where people go absolutely bugfuck if someone calls it a philosophy or does anything but scream about Hubturd or the sucking dick.." etc., etc.
This Fluffy sounds like a drunken sailor on shore leave!!
Methinks Voltaire needs to spank his Child!! lol
.
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
My fucking name isn't Fluffy.
I can and do split hairs if I'm in a situation where I feel like I'm getting slammed since I do not give cyberstrangers the right to do that. I'd say IRL people, too, but I don't really run into that sort of thing IRL.
Though, I will also point out that saying someone is a Scientologist when they aren't and that the person is trying to do things they aren't- that's pretty clear cut and rebuttals to that aren't hair splitting. But, yes, on other occasions, I can and have and will continue to hair split, if things are flamey and icky. It's deserved, then.
Umm...you've been reading my posts for years. If you didn't know by now that I swore, well, I'd have to say you'd have a rather bad memory.
I swear all the time. I always have. Everyone knows this. A lot of the Aussie contingent also swears. And a lot of other people. Lots of posts here like that. I never see you chide any of those people for that. That's because you don't really care about the swearing.
And if you've read this thread as avidly as your quotes seem to suggest, you'll have seen that I've said I was going through an incredibly stressful time and have been just about heartbroken. I also explained that the stuff said on this thread hit me wronger than usual and that this was a definite factor.
So I applaud your understanding, compassion and decency.
Has somebody (OSA?) hacked Fluffy's account and taken it over?!?
In this thread the impostor is faithfully duplicating Fluffy's message-board "discussion style": pointlessly splitting the hairs that grow on the ass of Scientology; parsing words and fluffing up the "subject" of Scientology until one can't see the forrest for the trees, etc., etc.
But the dead give-away that this is an Op is all the cussing and swearing in "her" posts!
"Why the fuck should I?" "Really don't give a shit."
"Yah, I fucking CAN, actually. I mean, how many goddamn years..." "I get all this fucking bullshit about..." "..and I saw this a lot on OCMB- where people go absolutely bugfuck if someone calls it a philosophy or does anything but scream about Hubturd or the sucking dick.." etc., etc.
This Fluffy sounds like a drunken sailor on shore leave!!
Methinks Voltaire needs to spank his Child!! lol
.
I can and do split hairs if I'm in a situation where I feel like I'm getting slammed since I do not give cyberstrangers the right to do that. I'd say IRL people, too, but I don't really run into that sort of thing IRL.
Though, I will also point out that saying someone is a Scientologist when they aren't and that the person is trying to do things they aren't- that's pretty clear cut and rebuttals to that aren't hair splitting. But, yes, on other occasions, I can and have and will continue to hair split, if things are flamey and icky. It's deserved, then.
Umm...you've been reading my posts for years. If you didn't know by now that I swore, well, I'd have to say you'd have a rather bad memory.
I swear all the time. I always have. Everyone knows this. A lot of the Aussie contingent also swears. And a lot of other people. Lots of posts here like that. I never see you chide any of those people for that. That's because you don't really care about the swearing.
And if you've read this thread as avidly as your quotes seem to suggest, you'll have seen that I've said I was going through an incredibly stressful time and have been just about heartbroken. I also explained that the stuff said on this thread hit me wronger than usual and that this was a definite factor.
So I applaud your understanding, compassion and decency.
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
I bet there's a lot on which we agree
I actually think we'd agree on many things. I've not been into praising Hubbard as such (some have thought I did but most were mistaken and the rest were drooling imbeciles) but I have to admit that I have a worse opinion of him than I used to have. Not that it was all that positive for the past ten years. It really wasn't.
I think you and I both think there are pitfalls in having a Hubbardite mindset. I think that this is a very strong concern that you have. I get it.
An allegory occurs to me. I personally believe that when a person dies and gets subsequently reincarnated (which is just my persomal ideology) that it's not really the losing the body thing that's the crux- it's that we lose our identities. I think I knew who I was last life (and for those who think it's my imagination- sure. It well could be. This is only how it seems to me.) and I'm quite dissimilar from that person. It's identities. Not just bodies.
I think it's like that with churches/cults/religions. So many exes I know- Dad, when he was alive, too- and other people I know often inveigh against organized religion, that it's what causes so many problems, not necessarily spiritual ideas. Well, it's similar to the identity thing. It's not just the organization (though we all know that's a biggie.) it's the identity of being an ...ian or a ...ologist. Identity of being a Claire, being a Hal (Dad's name) or whomever...Identity of being a Scn'ist, a Christian, and so on.
I've been saying for YEARS (and yes, back when the lovely people - like the one who posted a couple posts ago - were just screamin' blue murder at my publicly identifying myself as a non cofS Scn'ist) that we don't need to be Scn'ists, ..ists, ...ians..we should be ourselves. Janeologists. Claireologists. Hal-ologists.
But I do want people to be able to freely air those thoughts.
But, OTOH, if tomorrow Ems prohibited any such expression here, I'd back her to the hilt. I'm very consistent.
I appreciate your niceness. It does mean a lot to me.
A constant in my life is that other people matter. Family, friends, coworkers and others. This includes people I've met on fora such as yourself.Well, you know what Claire ... I'm just happy that you sound happier about whatever was going on.
We are unlikely to ever agree on a 'certain subject' (lol) and you and I have certainly had our moments, but I've never once stopped liking and appreciating you and there has to be a reason for that.
I love your honesty, even when it annoys the living whatsits outa me.
I actually think we'd agree on many things. I've not been into praising Hubbard as such (some have thought I did but most were mistaken and the rest were drooling imbeciles) but I have to admit that I have a worse opinion of him than I used to have. Not that it was all that positive for the past ten years. It really wasn't.
I think you and I both think there are pitfalls in having a Hubbardite mindset. I think that this is a very strong concern that you have. I get it.
An allegory occurs to me. I personally believe that when a person dies and gets subsequently reincarnated (which is just my persomal ideology) that it's not really the losing the body thing that's the crux- it's that we lose our identities. I think I knew who I was last life (and for those who think it's my imagination- sure. It well could be. This is only how it seems to me.) and I'm quite dissimilar from that person. It's identities. Not just bodies.
I think it's like that with churches/cults/religions. So many exes I know- Dad, when he was alive, too- and other people I know often inveigh against organized religion, that it's what causes so many problems, not necessarily spiritual ideas. Well, it's similar to the identity thing. It's not just the organization (though we all know that's a biggie.) it's the identity of being an ...ian or a ...ologist. Identity of being a Claire, being a Hal (Dad's name) or whomever...Identity of being a Scn'ist, a Christian, and so on.
I've been saying for YEARS (and yes, back when the lovely people - like the one who posted a couple posts ago - were just screamin' blue murder at my publicly identifying myself as a non cofS Scn'ist) that we don't need to be Scn'ists, ..ists, ...ians..we should be ourselves. Janeologists. Claireologists. Hal-ologists.
But I do want people to be able to freely air those thoughts.
But, OTOH, if tomorrow Ems prohibited any such expression here, I'd back her to the hilt. I'm very consistent.
I appreciate your niceness. It does mean a lot to me.
I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
Re: I bet there's a lot on which we agree
Emphasis mine
That's exactly it Claire, and it's mainly the scientology mindset and culture (and the subsequent identity that 'invades' the personality) that I have an issue with.
Like most of us I have watched beautiful, imperfect but 'real' people turn into carbon copies of each other (at a core level) as scientology took hold, and to my eternal embarrassment I did the same thing for a few years and then pretended I was 'one of them' for decades after that.
I watched my own gorgeous children gradually take on the various parts of the mindset, which they were being indoctrinated into by their Father who absolutely believed he was being a good and caring parent ... I saw them struggling with the opposing ways of handling things ('normal vs cultic') and I desperately hoped they would choose what I am calling 'normal' here (for the sake of ease) ... but they didn't and eventually became strangers that I no longer recognised and no longer felt able to relax with, as adults.
A long time ago one of my little ones said to me quietly that when it was time to marry he wanted to find someone that was loving and caring and accepting of faults and was not 'like a scientologist' ... (he had met a few by then and didn't like them at all) ... children are very perceptive.
I find the blatant obscenities of the cult and its treatment of people repugnant but it is the subtle conditioning that does the real damage IMO and it is that that I rail against when I see people indulging and re-enforcing it here.
There's no doubt that we all had a different experience in scio, and I believe that males would have experienced it very differently to females, but the mindset is the same ... that awful, soulless, cold, calculating, know best attitude that many scientologists are known for can be diluted or hidden but it is still there until the final layers are removed and the person is free again ... at which point they may or may not choose to put some layers back in place.
I knew and lived with some seriously hard core scientologists but I know that they are not all like that ... the pushy ones (here) are certainly similar though in the attack stance they immediately assume when even slightly opposed or questioned, and that tells me all I need to know about the tenacity with which they still hang onto the mindset and (importantly) the energy they are willing to put into 'encouraging' others to do the same.
I've said far too much now ... your niceness warms me too though and makes me talk too much.
Emphasis mine
That's exactly it Claire, and it's mainly the scientology mindset and culture (and the subsequent identity that 'invades' the personality) that I have an issue with.
Like most of us I have watched beautiful, imperfect but 'real' people turn into carbon copies of each other (at a core level) as scientology took hold, and to my eternal embarrassment I did the same thing for a few years and then pretended I was 'one of them' for decades after that.
I watched my own gorgeous children gradually take on the various parts of the mindset, which they were being indoctrinated into by their Father who absolutely believed he was being a good and caring parent ... I saw them struggling with the opposing ways of handling things ('normal vs cultic') and I desperately hoped they would choose what I am calling 'normal' here (for the sake of ease) ... but they didn't and eventually became strangers that I no longer recognised and no longer felt able to relax with, as adults.
A long time ago one of my little ones said to me quietly that when it was time to marry he wanted to find someone that was loving and caring and accepting of faults and was not 'like a scientologist' ... (he had met a few by then and didn't like them at all) ... children are very perceptive.
I find the blatant obscenities of the cult and its treatment of people repugnant but it is the subtle conditioning that does the real damage IMO and it is that that I rail against when I see people indulging and re-enforcing it here.
There's no doubt that we all had a different experience in scio, and I believe that males would have experienced it very differently to females, but the mindset is the same ... that awful, soulless, cold, calculating, know best attitude that many scientologists are known for can be diluted or hidden but it is still there until the final layers are removed and the person is free again ... at which point they may or may not choose to put some layers back in place.
I knew and lived with some seriously hard core scientologists but I know that they are not all like that ... the pushy ones (here) are certainly similar though in the attack stance they immediately assume when even slightly opposed or questioned, and that tells me all I need to know about the tenacity with which they still hang onto the mindset and (importantly) the energy they are willing to put into 'encouraging' others to do the same.
I've said far too much now ... your niceness warms me too though and makes me talk too much.
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
Re: There is no group, cult or church called "Scientology" (snipped from another thre
Yes, I remember the hard core mindset. I mainly saw it in CofS but I have seen it amongst some FZers. I'm particularly thinking of when a certain batshit crazy bitch married to a Class XII Freezoner threatened Emma and the thought among some in the FZ was that it was ok cuz Emma says baaaaaad thingies about Scn. Ok, that attitude ain't different than CofS'.
As far as ideology goes, well, I still there there's a grey area. But one thing that may help people who are sorting through the Scn laundry after having left CofS, is -- I may like this particular idea and it may be going in the "keep" pile, but does it have to be labelled Scn?
This may be easier said than done, hon. But I think we probably both feel that religious/ideological hardliners do a lot of damage- and not just to others.
It really should be about spirituality. And I think if one really gets into true spirituality, the labels start to get dropped and are left behind.
Yes, I remember the hard core mindset. I mainly saw it in CofS but I have seen it amongst some FZers. I'm particularly thinking of when a certain batshit crazy bitch married to a Class XII Freezoner threatened Emma and the thought among some in the FZ was that it was ok cuz Emma says baaaaaad thingies about Scn. Ok, that attitude ain't different than CofS'.
As far as ideology goes, well, I still there there's a grey area. But one thing that may help people who are sorting through the Scn laundry after having left CofS, is -- I may like this particular idea and it may be going in the "keep" pile, but does it have to be labelled Scn?
This may be easier said than done, hon. But I think we probably both feel that religious/ideological hardliners do a lot of damage- and not just to others.
It really should be about spirituality. And I think if one really gets into true spirituality, the labels start to get dropped and are left behind.
Roan
Patron with Honors
Re: My fucking name isn't Fluffy.
I hope things get better for you and your troubles lesson. I wish you all the very best in your personal life and despite (or perhaps because of) our many years of on-line "rivalry" I would never want to hear of you suffering in anyway, in real life.
.
I did not know that you are going through a rough time IRL. I'm sorry if my "pestering" you exasperated that.
I hope things get better for you and your troubles lesson. I wish you all the very best in your personal life and despite (or perhaps because of) our many years of on-line "rivalry" I would never want to hear of you suffering in anyway, in real life.
.
Ogsonofgroo
Crusader
Re: There is no group, cult or church called "Scientology" (snipped from another thre
Ditto on the above, I too feel a tad guilty for getting on Claire's case over nit-picking definitions/aspects on how she was expressing herself to folks who I figured were being pretty decent, I had no idea at the time that there was heavy IRL stuff going on. ( *sad for anyone dealing with crap*)
That given, it may do people well to remember that on forums it is sometime best to just walk away for a while and deal with your stuff if you find it is reflecting into the conversations going on, rather than spread the pain around and de-rail threads with dozens of post defending what may have been best passed over.
If Claire hasn't put me on ignore then she'll read this~ Sorry fer causing more grief Fluffy, good luck with your IRL issues
& 
Ogs
Ditto on the above, I too feel a tad guilty for getting on Claire's case over nit-picking definitions/aspects on how she was expressing herself to folks who I figured were being pretty decent, I had no idea at the time that there was heavy IRL stuff going on. ( *sad for anyone dealing with crap*)
That given, it may do people well to remember that on forums it is sometime best to just walk away for a while and deal with your stuff if you find it is reflecting into the conversations going on, rather than spread the pain around and de-rail threads with dozens of post defending what may have been best passed over.
If Claire hasn't put me on ignore then she'll read this~ Sorry fer causing more grief Fluffy, good luck with your IRL issues
& Ogs
I told you I was trouble
Suspended animation
Re: There is no group, cult or church called "Scientology" (snipped from another thre
Yes, a light and feathery touch is all I ever wanted.
Any sign of that gluey, pushy, shovey stuff just makes me recoil and want to shove back ... only harder, sometimes for my own amusement.
Yes, a light and feathery touch is all I ever wanted.
Any sign of that gluey, pushy, shovey stuff just makes me recoil and want to shove back ... only harder, sometimes for my own amusement.
Claire Swazey
Spokeshole, fence sitter
Re: There is no group, cult or church called "Scientology" (snipped from another thre
I very much appreciate the nice comments and thoughts, truly.
I think what exacerbated the difficulty for me- and that time is past and has passed- was that my thoughts were being misrepresented. They weren't being sorta kinda misrepresented like, oh, hey, there was a grey area. In actual thought, things that aren't my stance and haven't been my stance and which I'd not said or even implied were attributed to me.
That'd not sit well with me at the best of times- and it wasn't the best of times. But, really, whom, exactly, would be pleased with that?
I've spent years distancing myself from Scn. Even when I was an indie, I criticized Hubbard again and again. But people wanted to see Hubbard's cheerleader (as one guy put it...). I posted again and again and again that I did not feel that the problem is only with current midgetment (I'm very sure I didn't invent that term but it did occur to me and I think it's a goodie!) and not with Hubbard- in fact, I felt even back after I first left CofS- a decade ago- that Hubbard's policies and actions set the stage for what we see in the cult under DM. I personally think DM's even worse, but he couldn't have done what he did and is doing without Hubbard. And as far as being worse goes, what was in place before DM was not just slightly bad. It was quite bad for many people. I just think that a very bad situation got exponentially worse, is all.
I've spent years defending criticism. I defended it to the OSA chick (Gwen Mayfield Barnard) who was sent to handle me when Ann Pearce could not. I defended it on the fora, too. And, while I did so, people were saying that I could not stand crticism of Scn. That I defended the undefendable. That I thought Ron was AOK but not DM.
Then, some guy I don't recall having ever talked to but who's been here almost a year doesn't ASK me if I'm like defending Scn/CofS/LRH when I point out that an organization and an underlying ology aren't the same things- no, he tells me all about what I can't stand and what I'm trying to do.
Then I explain again. And again. And again. And again. And again. In this thread.
Only to get a comment about how is anyone supposed to read through my "thousands of posts" to know that I'm blah blah. Well, gawd, they can ask, then, yah? And if that's the case, then it would be ok if someone explained to Helluvahoax, to FreetoShine, to Ogs, to anyone else, that they really like Scn and they are trying to defend it. Right? Cuz you would be pleased to have that said. After all, how is anyone supposed to read your hundreds or thousands of posts to know what you really think.
It is not nitpicking to state that in my one point- which was a throwaway quickie post to begin with and which then, like Topsy, "Growed and growed", was not in any way a defense of Hubbard and Scn. It would be a rather big deal to want to defend something or someone when I feel the opposite.
And as far as an ology not being the same as the group and that's nitpicking, well, I see it like this. They are like circles that overlap but which aren't drawn right over each other. There're common areas. But they aren't identical.
Because, if they were, then when the Catholic church sold indulgences, that would mean that Christianity did it and that Jesus did it. Same with their present day scandal with all the buggering priests.
So obviously there's a difference. But I'd be quite stupid (which I'm not) to say there's no overlap or similarity or that the problems in CofS are mainly right out of LRH policy.
I'll close this by saying that if you ask me a question and I answer it several times, then I think those answers should have provided the elucidation sought. But then again, I've been reiterating my position for years and this kind of thing still happens. And there are inescapable conclusions to be drawn from that.
I very much appreciate the nice comments and thoughts, truly.
I think what exacerbated the difficulty for me- and that time is past and has passed- was that my thoughts were being misrepresented. They weren't being sorta kinda misrepresented like, oh, hey, there was a grey area. In actual thought, things that aren't my stance and haven't been my stance and which I'd not said or even implied were attributed to me.
That'd not sit well with me at the best of times- and it wasn't the best of times. But, really, whom, exactly, would be pleased with that?
I've spent years distancing myself from Scn. Even when I was an indie, I criticized Hubbard again and again. But people wanted to see Hubbard's cheerleader (as one guy put it...). I posted again and again and again that I did not feel that the problem is only with current midgetment (I'm very sure I didn't invent that term but it did occur to me and I think it's a goodie!) and not with Hubbard- in fact, I felt even back after I first left CofS- a decade ago- that Hubbard's policies and actions set the stage for what we see in the cult under DM. I personally think DM's even worse, but he couldn't have done what he did and is doing without Hubbard. And as far as being worse goes, what was in place before DM was not just slightly bad. It was quite bad for many people. I just think that a very bad situation got exponentially worse, is all.
I've spent years defending criticism. I defended it to the OSA chick (Gwen Mayfield Barnard) who was sent to handle me when Ann Pearce could not. I defended it on the fora, too. And, while I did so, people were saying that I could not stand crticism of Scn. That I defended the undefendable. That I thought Ron was AOK but not DM.
Then, some guy I don't recall having ever talked to but who's been here almost a year doesn't ASK me if I'm like defending Scn/CofS/LRH when I point out that an organization and an underlying ology aren't the same things- no, he tells me all about what I can't stand and what I'm trying to do.
Then I explain again. And again. And again. And again. And again. In this thread.
Only to get a comment about how is anyone supposed to read through my "thousands of posts" to know that I'm blah blah. Well, gawd, they can ask, then, yah? And if that's the case, then it would be ok if someone explained to Helluvahoax, to FreetoShine, to Ogs, to anyone else, that they really like Scn and they are trying to defend it. Right? Cuz you would be pleased to have that said. After all, how is anyone supposed to read your hundreds or thousands of posts to know what you really think.
It is not nitpicking to state that in my one point- which was a throwaway quickie post to begin with and which then, like Topsy, "Growed and growed", was not in any way a defense of Hubbard and Scn. It would be a rather big deal to want to defend something or someone when I feel the opposite.
And as far as an ology not being the same as the group and that's nitpicking, well, I see it like this. They are like circles that overlap but which aren't drawn right over each other. There're common areas. But they aren't identical.
Because, if they were, then when the Catholic church sold indulgences, that would mean that Christianity did it and that Jesus did it. Same with their present day scandal with all the buggering priests.
So obviously there's a difference. But I'd be quite stupid (which I'm not) to say there's no overlap or similarity or that the problems in CofS are mainly right out of LRH policy.
I'll close this by saying that if you ask me a question and I answer it several times, then I think those answers should have provided the elucidation sought. But then again, I've been reiterating my position for years and this kind of thing still happens. And there are inescapable conclusions to be drawn from that.
Similar threads
