Resolution of conflicts in Independent Scientology

[Zinjifar]

The correct thing would be to name each area as its own name.

Alan

It'd be simpler to dismantle the 'Mother Church' and salt the earth...

Then nobody will care about the 'names'; they will be irrelevant.

Zinj

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Olska,

If someone continues to assume something about someone else when that other person has explained what's going on,then that's a problem.

Period.

I enlarged one word and one word only. That was for emphasis.

My other text quoted was in red italic normal size font to differentiate it from the other text. If there is a quote button on ESMB as there is on OCMB I've not found it yet. So this is what I did.

I quoted some- not all- of what I'd written before because you were misquoting me amidst all the other things you were saying about me. So I posted some of (not all) of what I actually had said.

 

[Alanzo]

Ooh! Were there any red curtains? Sounds like a Lynch movie - where do I get a bottle?

Absinthe has never been banned in Britain, but it has now been un-banned in both the European Union and the United States.

I guess The Limeys never minded the hallucinations.

 

[Emma]

Olska,

If someone continues to assume something about someone else when that other person has explained what's going on,then that's a problem.

Period.

I enlarged one word and one word only. That was for emphasis.

My other text quoted was in red italic normal size font to differentiate it from the other text. If there is a quote button on ESMB as there is on OCMB I've not found it yet. So this is what I did.

I quoted some- not all- of what I'd written before because you were misquoting me amidst all the other things you were saying about me. So I posted some of (not all) of what I actually had said.

Hey Fluff,

At the bottom of every post is a button that says "quote". Click on that and you will be taken to a reply screen with the quote already formatted for you.

If you want to multi quote you can click on the multi quote button in up to 5 different posts and when you hit reply, those posts, already formatted, will appear in your reply.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Absinthe has never been banned in Britain, but it has now been un-banned in both the European Union and the United States.

I guess The Limeys never minded the hallucinations.

I've got my bottle of La Fee!

It's funny, but I always thought Green Fairy was a gay environmentalist? :confused2:

 

[The Oracle]

Absinthe has never been banned in Britain, but it has now been un-banned in both the European Union and the United States.

I guess The Limeys never minded the hallucinations.

You are so fuckin funny.

 

[lionheart]

Absinthe has never been banned in Britain, but it has now been un-banned in both the European Union and the United States.

I guess The Limeys never minded the hallucinations.

Many years ago I knew a playwright who drank a bottle a day! He used to joke "absinthe makes the heart grow fonder" probably not original, but rather amusing!

 

[Voltaire's Child]

deleted--

see next post...

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Here's the problem.

I've seen the quote function but it only seemed to work for me to quote whole posts.

I only get the button when I'm about to reply. Then it does all the text, though you can edit from there and I certainly have done that.

I don't get it as an option once I have already hit reply and am typing in the dialogue box.

What I was looking for was a thing where you could have your dialogue box open, typing typing typing, and then highlight selected text,hit the quote button and then that text is now in a little white quotebox that does NOT say Olsa wrote or Fluffy wrote.

I still cannot find it here.

 

[namaste]

What I was looking for was a thing where you could have your dialogue box open, typing typing typing, and then highlight selected text,hit the quote button and then that text is now in a little white quotebox that does NOT say Olsa wrote or Fluffy wrote.

I still cannot find it here.

I found it.

On the reply window the second row of icons starts with B I U . . .

The fourth icon from the right (before the #) looks like a little square piece of paper with writing on it and has a dialog arrow at the bottom right like a comic strip dialog balloon would have.

Select your text and hit that icon -- you'll get your QUOTE tags.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Yay!

 

[Voltaire's Child]

So here's this thread called Resolution of conflicts in independent Scn.

And there was an exchange that evidenced a bit of a conflict.

I really think all the more after having had that particular exchange, that when one has the opportunity to ask the other party what his or her stance or affiliation is, that if one does not do so or does not care to listen to the answer and prefers one which is not true and was pre-selected, that this is one of the reasons why there are such conflicts.

IOW, it's irresponsible.

One can have a conflict where it's not due to irresponsibility, but that is an example of one that is due to irresponsibility.

 

[Zinjifar]

So here's this thread called Resolution of conflicts in independent Scn.

And there was an exchange that evidenced a bit of a conflict.

I really think all the more after having had that particular exchange, that when one has the opportunity to ask the other party what his or her stance or affiliation is, that if one does not do so or does not care to listen to the answer and prefers one which is not true and was pre-selected, that this is one of the reasons why there are such conflicts.

IOW, it's irresponsible.

One can have a conflict where it's not due to irresponsibility, but that is an example of one that is due to irresponsibility.

Any system that glorifies 'absolutes', and Scientology, with it's 'Knowing How to Know' is one, will inevitably create unreconcileable conflict *unless* there is an 'absolute' Source to proclaim 'truth'.

See Karel Capek's 'The Absolute at Large'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Absolute_at_Large

Zinj

 

[Voltaire's Child]

If person A does not ask Person B if he is or is not a CofS member or what his or her stance is re Scn (or anything else) -but actually did have the opportunity to do so-and then proceeds to make stuff up about Person B-then there's something wrong with person A.

If person A is told by Person B what the stance or affiliation status was but person A still chooses to ignore what they were told and proceeds to make stuff up about person B, then, again, there's a problem with Person A, or at least, his or her actions.

It comes down to irresponsibility.

I don't care if you guys like Scn or think people shouldn't do it. Fact remains that if a person invents things about someone when there's information to the contrary, then that is not constructive.

 

[Zinjifar]

If person A does not ask Person B if he is or is not a CofS member or what his or her stance is re Scn (or anything else) -but actually did have the opportunity to do so-and then proceeds to make stuff up about Person B-then there's something wrong with person A.

If person A is told by Person B what the stance or affiliation status was but person A still chooses to ignore what they were told and proceeds to make stuff up about person B, then, again, there's a problem with Person A, or at least, his or her actions.

It comes down to irresponsibility.

I don't care if you guys like Scn or think people shouldn't do it. Fact remains that if a person invents things about someone when there's information to the contrary, then that is not constructive.

If this is addressed to me, all I can say is, there's no conflict, except in your own mind, based on a confusion of your own making.

There's no 'making stuff up' or, as you've called it before, 'lying'; it's simply a case of your insisting on calling yourself a Scientologist, but rejecting core elements of Scientology in the process. Then you 'correct' people that 'you mean the Church of Scientology, when, no, in my case, I mean *Scientology*.

As in; 'Scientology is an absolutist system'. I don't mean the 'Church' of Scientology, I don't mean Fluffy Scientology; I mean Scientology as 'sourced' by Hubbard.

What *you* mean is that Fluffy Scientology is not an absolutist system, which may or may not be true, but is also irrelevant, because I'm not addressing Fluffy Scientology, nor do I care what Fluffy Scientology's tenets are.

The confusion is yours.

Zinj

 

[uniquemand]

OP: Ralph, I think your best bet, if you want to communicate to a wider audience, would be Protestant or Reformed Scientology. Anything less than that will probably be rejected out of hand: there must be an acknowledgment that what is commonly understood as Scientology has been abusive, corrupt and dangerous to those practicing, and definitely to their environment.