That`s an interesting quote.
Hubbard, through $cientology tries to make all clams have Hubbards viewpoint, and then he warnes all the clames about the dangers of fewer viewpoints.
The trick is of course that by warning against what he himself are doing, he makes the clames look away from $cientology when they think of fewer viewpoints.

Clam:"How can you say Hubbard/$cientology gives us fewer viewpoints, when Hubbard warned us against it? That`s preposterous!"

/em scans the area for a sign of EJ?

Shouts: EJ?.... EeeeeeJaaaaay!

aside: where could he have gone?

It's useless to try anything like communication with EJ......he just pops back in every now and then to bring up the thread with his name on it, so it doesn't fall into oblivion.

Folks, lets let this thread die, what say?

Why are so many $cientologists in such a poor condition?
Well, they have few and fixated viewpoints that are tricked and/or forced upon them.
RPF for instance is a way to force viewpoints upon the victim.
When a clam is faced with a truth that contradicts his fixated viewpoints, he will most of the time keep the fixated viewpoint and thus stay or become a little more stupid.
This can explain treads like the 'Jonkies' tread.

EJ's misguided procedure:
1) Post something he or she thinks will stop the critics from their quips and barbs about CoS,
2) Be astonished and speechless when the result is a loooong conversation where the critics get to make all kinds of smarty-pants remarks and snappy comebacks
3) Hide for six months until he or she thinks up a new idea,

AND REPEAT

Well, it's not time for my six month 'check in' yet but I was in the neighborhood, so...

I understand the complaint that I don't visit as often as I used to. Some of the old timers will recall when I was posting more than any of you so suggesting that I haven't engaged in communication or debate is preposterous. It became a rather consuming affair actually. Like it or not, I came to the conclusion that spending my time debating here was pointless. As I've said many times before, the critics are not interested in 'truth' or logic for that matter. I've proven it time and time again here.

That's why I put up my site at Bernie's. I found myself just repeating the same stuff over and over after a while. Boring.

See you in six months! And Happy New Year!

-E.J.

E J

I wouldn't say your efforts were a total waste of time. Your website is a real treat for one thing, and Bernie's site is very interesting, too.

It's also obvious that some of the folks who wanted to do some colorful things to you for holding an unpopular position have at the least adopted better public manners since you posted their reactions, so there's more actual debate taking place these days.

Looking forward to your return!

Lucy MacEvil

Goodbye and good riddance.

Reminder: This web site and this message board are about "The Fight Against Scientology on the Net."

"Against" is found in any dictionary.

E.J.
How can you sleep with yourself. You created a website that distorts the truth. Distorted truth is lying btw. Taking statements out of context, and such is lying.

I was a first disgusted at your obvious and infantil attempts to discredit this MB, then I remember the organization you support. I sat back and said to myself, what else should I expect from the most UNethical organization on earth.

Bernie's site is even worse and makes a complete mockery of not only himself but the Cult of $cientology.

To get an idea of how pathetic your efforts are I suggest you go here;
http://www.insolitology.com/organized/scientology.htm
and here;
http://www.insolitology.com/organized/scientology2.htm

Now don't get the idea that I don't like your site. Please keep up the good work, I do so need a good belly laugh every now and then.

Ltricha,

there is a brilliant thread here on he MB exposing Bernie's site, by Don_Carlo.

He takes the site apart, page-by-page, and I made a little contribution to the thread with regard to Bernie's page on Germany.

Don_Carlo made a great job of it, showing up the inconsistencies of the statements that Bernie makes.

I tried to do a search for the thread, but the search engine keeps on timing out, and I cannot remember exactly what the name of the thread was. It would be nice if Don_Carlo would post the title of the thread.

And if any of you are wondering why E.J. left, it was probably because she was getting nowhere hawking her wares to an intelligent and critically aware audience.

She came, saw and mainly went away with her tail between her legs. If you take a look back at the archive of this thread, then you will see what I mean.

She must be a glutton for punishment, because every time she mentions her website, people from OC go there and find even more inconsistencies.

Yes we old-timers do remember you E.J. and I had great fun satirising you.

I wonder if E.J. has ever gotten round to actually thinking about the answers, that she has never given to questions posed to her, here in this thread.

But as far as evasiveness and obfuscation on the part of a Scientologist goes, this is probably as "good" and as "subtle" as it gets from a Scientologist - pathetic as it is.

It is in a way a shame that she doesn't post here anymore. She does give the critics more entertainment than most other Scientologists who post here.

Her gluttony for punishment does border on masochism at times however. So E.J. keep posting, we need the laughs.

I remember EJ from the old days also, way back in 98... I posted under a diffent name. I just wanted to point out to EJ that she is still as ineffective as ever.

Don Carlo and Mouth Breather Mousefight

was the thread where I critiqued Bernie's website. E.J. you suddenly had "no time" to answer my critique. But you apparently had time to read Bernie's website. If you are going to promote Bernie as "balanced," you should look at both sides.

Back then I tried to create links with a simple copy and paste. About half the time it worked. Sorry for the many links that didn't "work" directly, but if you copy them to the address box at the top of the page they should still work "indirectly." The poster called "Anonymous" was rightly annoyed at me, but I really wasn't deliberately screwing up. Now I know to use \ topurl or \ link.

I sure wish E.J. or Bernie would go over ANY of my points and attempt a defense of Bernie's site. I did all that work, trying to get a debate going, and I got no communication back. Aren't Scientologists supposed to "get in comm" and know how to communicate?

Don Carlo,

Thanks for bringng the "Mousefight" thread back to my attention. I've been meaning to thank you for some time for posting a link where the 5 Nov 1985 L.A. Times article was available that did not have a price tag on it!

Did this ever bring back memories -- of protesting the very worst lie about the religious practice that I ever saw in print, anywhere!!


I was so pleased to learn the writer denied vehemently that he had ever expressed himself that way!

Seeing how the article was presented in another paper was likewise interesting. I have been meaning for years to check the major dailies across the country for that ...

Again, thanks!!

Lucy

Don:

I apologize for the comm.-lag in getting back to you on your criticisms. While I can't even begin to take up every issue youÕve brought up in this other thread, I did san though and a few thing caught my eyeÉ

DON: "Bernie's main problem is that she blurs the line from forcible kidnappers in (A), all the way through (D) critics like me. She needs to clarify this. Until then, any blanket calumny heaped on "critics" and "anti-cultists" implies that I personally am a threat to society."

Ahh, I see! You take issue with being lumped into one generalized group. That never happens to Scientologists here! (sarcasm)

DON: "There is one little corner of her website with "good little critics" that aren't bigots, but it's near the bottom of the links and hard to find."

Hmm, you draw an interesting comparison to the Xenu site. Have you noticed you biased the treatment of Scientology is here? You don't find a bunch of positive Scientology propaganda right at the top of the Xenu page either. Give me a break, Don.

DON: "Why is that okay for you but not for Andreas to say "Operation Clambake?" "

Well Don, I'll change mine if Andres changes his. How about that?

DON: "If you're going to become a "Cafeteria Scientologist" who picks and chooses what is "true" Scientology, you'd better start sharpening your teeth and fluffing out your tail, because it's going to be a long winter up in the tree!"

This is totally false, Don. In fact, unlike Christianity, "faith" is not asked for or required in Scientology. You can't really suggest otherwise can you? Please post an LRH reference instead of referring to verbal tech from ex-Scientologists.

Now, I will concede that if one isn't finding the tech compelling they probably should find a set of beliefs that resonates more for them. It's really quite simple, if it doesn't work for you, don't participate. It's a big world out there and no one's making you stick with Scientology. Heck, go get a high colonic instead if that suits you.

DON: "Bernie just WON'T bring up the cockroach bites, which are irrefutable."

Don, are you really still bring up this ridiculous BS? Let it go, brother. I've been a Scientologist for quite some time now, and I've somehow managed to avoid getting even ONE cockroach bite. To suggest that this is some sort of systemic Scientological issue is absurd. Perhaps we should dredge up some lone person who's had difficulty while involved with some other world religions, eh? Are you actually suggesting that we couldn't find some?

---

My overall impression of your so-called critique is that you haven't really brought up anything new or compelling. It's really a pretty weak attempt at dead-agenting Bernie. But whatever. At least you got people looking at the site.

Everyone seems to assume that I don't visit much because I'm avoiding the "tough" questions or debate. I'm consistently confused by this assertion as I never seem to see an issue I haven't already debated to death here or on my site. I suppose it's just that I don't agree with the common critical conclusions and thus I must not "understand" or I must be brainwashed or stupid.

The critics are not particularly interested in resolving anything. Logic is not of much use because neither side can agree on any common facts. So, OC can stay the little Scientology hate group that it is. I can't think of a major religion that doesn't have it's detractors, be it Jews, Christians, Muslims - even Buddhists. But call a spade a spade. Don't take a high and mighty stance about it. You guys hate Scientology for a variety of reasons. Hate. Read Xenu if you disagree. Your precious distorted facts are comparable to the "facts" used by any other hate group out there.

But, don't mind me. Remember, I'm brainwashed.

All the best,

E.J.