Unofficial Official statement of Anon's stance on Tory.

[Alanzo]

That is the second time you have talked about me talking about "bringing down the religion of Scientology". It doesn't chime in with what I think, maybe I mis-expressed myself somehwere. If you can say where I have said such a thing - I'll look at it and try to clarify my position.

Otherwise if you can't be specific about where I said such a thing, let me clarify what you have said is your impression about me.

I think the CofS is abusive and will self-impllode due to the exposure of it's abuses.

I think the subject of Scientology is a manifestation of LRH's evil intentions to make a slave-cult and obtain "material things" and the abusive nature of the subject that the CofS manifests is probably too deeply woven into the subject to extrcate it out of it and leave anything worthwhile.

I think the "workable" aspects of the subject which certainly "worked" on me are largely due to suggestion and left-hand-path magic.

I am not interested in "bringing down or eliminating" anyone's religion except where any such beliefs involve abusing children and others. People can believe whatever they wish unless such beliefs abuse others, in which case I will speak out against those beliefs.

I request that you cease saying that I advocate "bringing down or eliminating anyone's religious beliefs" as it is a misrepresentation of my position and if I have given you such an impression, that was not what I intended.

Thanks.

All right.

It was on the other thread where we were discussing "outlawing" the religion when you said that I was the one to use that word - even though you used it twice yourself.

Remember that one?

I will go get a quote for you later, but right now I have to take off.

Chin up!

I am not attacking you personally. I have immense respect for you, Asagai, even though it may not appear to be so when we disagree.

 

[asagai]

See, now here we have an example of SP actually taking up Alex's points and debating them.

There's no ad hom. He's not called a liar for having his viewpoints, and yet SP is not agreeing with Alex.

See this Zinj and Asagai and FTS?

How about having the ESMB Militant Majority get together and PMing SP and asking him how he does it?

I try to dabate Alex's points with him too - but he ignores me! (irony)

 

[nozeno]

Evidence?

Evidence on a bulletin board? Now that's funny.

 

[feline]

See, now here we have an example of SP actually taking up Alex's points and debating them.

There's no ad hom. He's not called a liar for having his viewpoints, and yet SP is not agreeing with Alex.

See this Zinj and Asagai and FTS?

How about having the ESMB Militant Majority get together and PMing SP and asking him how he does it?

Kay, Alanzo. I get you now. And thank you to SP for a well made post.

To be truthful, I never know how to take Alex. I personally question why someone who is active would want to be here. Certainly if I were in Alex's shoes (or at his keyboard) I would prefer to not be here. But he IS here just the same.

But Alanzo- is your issue that there are people who simply don't care for Alex? Is the core issue that you don't like people being rude to one another? Is it that you feel very strongly that there needs to be an acceptance of opposing view points? I guess what I am questioning is what resolution you would find acceptable.

Certainly if I have these questions, isn't it possible- even probable that others would as well?

 

[gomorrhan]

Religion sucks. People that think it's a good idea are essentially trying to hide behind protections for religion for their inability to verify or prove ridiculous assertions, absurd claims, etc. This doesn't mean there is no god, or that there is no power of intention, only that "religion" is a cop-out for weak reasoning.

 

[Escalus]

Wait. Wait. we need to get something straightened out here... I'M the one who is trying to take down the beliefs around here! Me. Remember!??

 

[feline]

Wait. Wait. we need to get something straightened out here... I'M the one who is trying to take down the beliefs around here! Me. Remember!??

Sorry Escalus. Must have forgotten that you own that "hat".

 

[asagai]

All right.

It was on the other thread where we were discussing "outlawing" the religion when you said that I was the one to use that word - even though you used it twice yourself.

Remember that one?

I will go get a quote for you later, but right now I have to take off.

Chin up!

I am not attacking you personally. I have immense respect for you, Asagai, even though it may not appear to be so when we disagree.

From memory you used the word "outlawing" first and I just carried on your use of it in the dabate - I did not intend to imply I advocated it - I believe I was pointing out on that thread that your two options were not a complete description of all options.

Anyway I have clarified my position now haven't I? so please don't misrepresent my opinions now that I have explained them. Thanks. and Thanks for your respect.

Actually I don't think we disagree particularly. We are both in favour of free speech on ESMB. It's just a bit hard to protect when we are dealing with a free-speech-hating cult!

 

[Zinjifar]

Wow.

Interesting.

I wonder if Alex's "shore story" might still be true. I certainly have evidence that it might be, despite Zinj's and Asagai's and FTS' fervent certainties that it is not.

He says he lives in SoCal. That's where I lived, too, as a public while on ARS.

I've said for years that it's practically impossible to *know* with certainty who's OSA and who's not. In some very rare cases, information gets out, such as with Bill Yaude or Keith Wyatt, but, other than that, there's just no way.

However, there's also no way to *disprove* an official hat, and, such silliness as 'Say Xenu' or 'Say something bad about Current Management (or Davey)' is exactly the kind of 'test' that OSA would love.

In fact, one of the most common disguises OSA seems to have taken on in the past 10 years is the 'Independent Scientologist' role, because real ones exist. That's the whole point to 'protective coloration'.

But, whether Alex is 'OSA' or not, the 'Scientology With a Human Face' he peddles is a charade. It doesn't exist, and, Alex knows enough to know that. Which makes him dishonest. For the 'cause', but no less so.

I appreciate that he's dropped some of his other, more directly offensive behaviors, but, if that *was* an official job, it's an unnecessary one, for him, because the 'Church' has plenty of other people to pursue the 'smear the critic' role. If it was a job, it was always a waste of his talents.


Zinj

P.S. - I *like* Alex, whatever his role. At least most of the time.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

You walk away for 30 years and get back to me.

If Alex has family in CofS then I don't think it's a good idea for people here to be prodding and poking him about leaving.

I think CofS could use more questioning members. I'd like to see a huge dissension from within that would blow things sky high there. I don't think it will happen, but I'd have loved to see it.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I've said for years that it's practically impossible to *know* with certainty who's OSA and who's not. In some very rare cases, information gets out, such as with Bill Yaude or Keith Wyatt, but, other than that, there's just no way.

However, there's also no way to *disprove* an official hat, and, such silliness as 'Say Xenu' or 'Say something bad about Current Management (or Davey)' is exactly the kind of 'test' that OSA would love.

In fact, one of the most common disguises OSA seems to have taken on in the past 10 years is the 'Independent Scientologist' role, because real ones exist. That's the whole point to 'protective coloration'.

But, whether Alex is 'OSA' or not, the 'Scientology With a Human Face' he peddles is a charade. It doesn't exist, and, Alex knows enough to know that. Which makes him dishonest. For the 'cause', but no less so.

I appreciate that he's dropped some of his other, more directly offensive behaviors, but, if that *was* an official job, it's an unnecessary one, for him, because the 'Church' has plenty of other people to pursue the 'smear the critic' role. If it was a job, it was always a waste of his talents.


Zinj

P.S. - I *like* Alex, whatever his role. At least most of the time.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's possible to know who's OSA or not. The way some discussions go on message boards, people could know everything about a contributor and still accuse him or her of being OSA. OSA' (and accusations of being OSA) has become not only the ultimate bogeyman but also the ultimate threat on forums, if one doesn't say what others want.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

No we are not Alanzo. We are dealing with the Church of Scientology and its abuses. Not the Scientology religion.

Dunno which "we" you mean, but I see lots of posts on this forum about people's beliefs and adherence to Scn concepts, as beliefs, and why they shouldn'thave them. Lots and lots and lots and lots. Ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Thank you for correcting me on that.

In my experience that would never had been allowed, but clearly from what you are telling me there are examples of this not always being the case.

Would the reason for this be that in your situation, it was still early days for the internet?

Neo

I had the same experience as Alex relates re posting to the net but only at first. I even wrote posts very much like the one he wrote about his experiences with CofS vis a vis posting on critical forums. Since I was using my real name, eventually, OSA got around to interfering repeatedly. They monitor critical forums.

But unless and until OSA actually does take an interest, local staff couldn't care less.

 

[FinallyMe]

Chapter Two of Here-We-Go-Again

Alanzo, in my opinion, you missed one -- post #326 by Neo starts out with "you're loving this, aren't you" directed to Alex, after Alex made a valid comment about Tory's conduct. Alex, kudos to you for ignoring Neo, rather than taking up his bait.

Are we missing the irony here? Alex is not the one causing the dissension -- he's only the subject of it. The whole discussion was going fine until people NOT Alex started talking about Alex's "real" intentions. Some taunt Alex by daring him to go ahead and ignore them -- you think it would be better to start the "are too" "am not" script???

We are all entitled to our opinions, and we are entitled to have them not even be based on fact. You are also entitled to continue to harp on something that is completely pointless on this board -- SO WHAT if YOU can't conceive of how Alex can be in Scn and still read the Internet? I can't conceive of how any of you can be in Idenics, in the Freezone, into Christianity, or any other group at all, after Scn. Just because YOU can't figure it out doesn't mean it can't be true.

My entire objection here is that once again an interesting discussion has gotten completely derailed by "I don't like it and therefore you can't do it." Who's the REAL OSA here, Neo, Zinj, Asagai, FTS? Take a look at the effect of your actions - we were fine until you changed the subject -- again!

 

[Neo]

If Alex has family in CofS then I don't think it's a good idea for people here to be prodding and poking him about leaving.

I think CofS could use more questioning members. I'd like to see a huge dissension from within that would blow things sky high there. I don't think it will happen, but I'd have loved to see it.

If Alex has family in Co$ then one would have thought he'd even have to be careful about posting here on this board. He is here, communicating with all us SPs, and WE need to be careful about poking and prodding him.

Remember, it is the Church that has the power to potentially hurt Alex, through its disconnection policy. NOT this board, or its members.

Oh, the irony.

Neo

 

[Voltaire's Child]

If Alex has family in Co$ then one would have thought he'd even have to be careful about posting here on this board. He is here, communicating with all us SPs, and WE need to be careful about poking and prodding him.

Remember, it is the Church that has the power to potentially hurt Alex, through its disconnection policy. NOT this board, or its members.

Oh, the irony.

Neo

But it's his life, not ours.

 

[Neo]

My entire objection here is that once again an interesting discussion has gotten completely derailed by "I don't like it and therefore you can't do it." Who's the REAL OSA here, Neo, Zinj, Asagai, FTS? Take a look at the effect of your actions - we were fine until you changed the subject -- again!

Wow, I got listed first, Moving up the hierarchy.

And you gotta love it when discussion gets frowned upon on a discussion board.

Neo

 

[Neo]

But it's his life, not ours.

Reread my post fluffy.

 

[Free to shine]

I wonder if Alex's "shore story" might still be true. I certainly have evidence that it might be, despite Zinj's and Asagai's and FTS' fervent certainties that it is not.

I don't give a fig what Alex's story is, if he is an OSA op or if he has a shore story. I read what he posts on ESMB as they come up and sometimes I don't like what I see. I think I am entitled to my opinion Alanzo and I don't appreciate you telling me what I think.

 

[Pitbull]

This thread isn't really about this Alex character anyhow.

Let's get back to the bruhaha between Tory and Anonymous. Its much more fun.