Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by MissWog, Feb 18, 2014.
Sheila (and now MissWog), what is it about my post above that you Disagree with? I don't get it.
I'm perfectly fine with this on the condition that people are not asking loaded questions, not making personal attacks, and not ganging up on me and then making and accusatory posts when I don't reply fast enough. When I first started posting here I had 4 people gang up on me gang-bang-sec-check-style with a barrage of questions which quickly turned into accusations when I couldn't answer them as quickly as the people thought I should be able to (ie as quickly as they were able to post them) and this has happened on a smaller scale several times since.
Good luck with that!
Kate isn't 'selling' anything here (as far as I can tell) or attempting to keep people in 'ye olde cultic mindset' (both of which make me a bit crabby) so I have to agree with you.
Thanks for asking. Panda, I don't see that Kate was pigeon-holed, she just hasn't stated her views or opinions clearly. In Scientology terms, her answers were "woffley".
And I also believe Misswog stated her questions very clearly.
If Kate has not formed an opinion or is unsure of her feelings on something, well, then she should say so.
Plenty of others on here are openly supportive of scn and Misswog has conversations with them without any troubles. I find Misswog to be very straightforward and easy to understand.
Well, I'm supportive of them both (just ask them).
I guess that's what makes me Panda Termint!
I have never tried to say that 'I know it all' I'm sorry if it comes across that way to you. I know some things and not others and I post about the things I know (and care) about and ask about the things I don't know about and ignore the things I don't care about. I think that's pretty reasonable.
The Bibles thing was not anything resembling an attempt to invalidate a discussion but IMHO its not unreasonable to point out a false assumption in someone's argument. Maybe I spend too much time on reddit's /r/religion where this is normal behavior and it doesn't translate here... it's not an attempt to 'bait' you, it's an attempt to get you to evaluate the assumptions you are making so that you can construct better arguments to support your position.
You seem to very emotional about your posts. I'm generally not. Perhaps that's where we are miscommunicating.
Regarding the actual topic, in the earlier 'derail' in this thread I said things that mirrored almost exactly what other people said, yet my posts were called derails and you 'disagreed' with them while 'liking' the same things said by others. It only makes sense if you are making assumptions about me and judging me based on those rather than on the contents of the individual posts. It's kind of messed up to 'disagree' with person A who say "foo" and like when person B says "foo" in the same thread because of some imagined agenda that you believe person A has.
I am struggling here to understand this fully so please come right back at me if I have gotten the wrong end of the stick.
I don't have a model of the "typical scientologist". The hundreds that I knew over 2x decades came in many sizes, shapes and colours, from various professions, etc. But...they did have great points of commonality, very much based around keeping scientology working #1 (and the rest of that series of policies). You are not a scientologist per the available contrast data I have. I suspect you enjoy playing with fire, perhaps enjoy a touch of the old controversy. Do you?
Just this...the rest I agreed with but I don't think I've seen this happen much and I definatly don't think it is happening in this case.
Lol, me too ... I guess that's why I'm so much trouble.
I suggest someone start a new ask kate thread then where everyone posts 1 question per message and i will give them 1 response per message.
I totally respect that because we know how much you appreciate people trying to sell something around here
Some good plain dialogue. Discussing ideas and not the person. It's not like we're all married to each other and gotta get inside each others heads so we can stay married. God knows where that last sentence came from. It's been a very hot day here and I am a bit frazzled.
Thank you for being the OT Ambassador handling this sector of ESMB.
Kate considers herself a scientologist, I guess. That's fine by me, I've got nothing against scientologists unless they're harming others. Then I have plenty against 'em.
MissWog, I've already told you that I like your posts. I'd suggest that you just ask, straight out, anything you want to know (I know that you've probably already done so but just give it a shot). Straight, unambiguous questions which even a scientologist should be quite willing to answer. The answers will either tell you what you want to know or leave you with more questions. Try to keep it simple, it's hard to teach scientology on a Message Board.
Kate, Answer honestly to the best of your ability. If you don't know or haven't decided, just say so.
I'm cold. My toes are freezing. Shouldn't have worn shorts & sandals today!
I like the original OP. Because it took me the better part of two years after leaving the SO to get the idea that there were ALTERNATIVE approaches to not becoming a solid object.
...and a few years beyond that to realise that the dwindling spiral thing was completely BS.
Well a lot of this depends on how one defines Scientologist. A lot of people here define it quite differently and are quick to say "well you are not a Scientologist then" based on some personal criteria or another. On here and on reddit I generally self-identify as a Scientologist though in real life questions about religion are usually met with "its complicated" as I engage in practice and study of a wide range of religions. Still, the mythological, mystical, and metaphysical frameworks of Scientology are some of the closest ones to my personal beliefs. That doesn't mean that I agree or disagree with any particular aspect or action of the church - I take each one individually and choose to agree or disagree with that particular policy, practice, etc.
I have no problem answering any questions at all - but when questions are interlaced with accusations of thread derails and such it becomes somewhat difficult, hence my suggestion for a new thread dedicated to that - or heck just PM me with any question if thats better. But when people say "you derailed the thread so shut up and answer question A and B and C" (which is contradictory as there are usually very tough questions with complex answers that go far beyond the thread topic) then I'm usually going to try to answer the ones I see as easier to answer so that I can get some of the requested answers in without going off on the larger more controversial topics that would further derail the thread.
Per my experience, a scientologist is someone who strictly adheres to the 10x points of keeping scientology working which is why this policy is at the beginning of all the division 4 training courses. I trained in the whole keeping scientology working series which broadens these concepts. When I was a hard-core scientologist I would not have considered you a true blue scientologist. I would have thought you needed a lot of training/work to get you on purpose and playing the only game in the universe where everyone wins.
Put another way, I would have crammed the hell out of ya (note: "cramming" is when a person is given a written study order to correct some error in their training) or not backed down until you were thoroughly enrolled for the duration of the universe.
Is my KSW training showing here?