Page 1 of 2

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:12 pm
by Smurf
Don Carlo wrote:Sorry to neglect your education, Tad; I was camping away from a computer. Next topic: skeptical sites. You're a techie guy, Tad, so you should appreciate science and reality. I recommend several sites which debunk the "woo" (anti-science) that is misleading and sometimes exploiting people.
You continue to post dribble to Tad. Tad ignores you. Google "unhealthy obsession".

You're the one coming across as a deluded crackpot on this thread.

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:53 am
by I'mglib
Smurf wrote:
Don Carlo wrote:Sorry to neglect your education, Tad; I was camping away from a computer. Next topic: skeptical sites. You're a techie guy, Tad, so you should appreciate science and reality. I recommend several sites which debunk the "woo" (anti-science) that is misleading and sometimes exploiting people.
You continue to post dribble to Tad. Tad ignores you. Google "unhealthy obsession".

You're the one coming across as a deluded crackpot on this thread.
Smurf, I wish you would consider not discouraging good posters from posting.

First off, Don Carlo is far from a deluded crackpot, with an unhealthy obsession. He tends to focus on a topic, and thoroughly researches it, which has been quite valuable in many cases. For instance, I often refer to his research on the Hubbard Family tree.

Second off, we're not here to psychoanalyze each other.

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:16 am
by Smurf
I'mglib wrote:Smurf, I wish you would consider not discouraging good posters from posting.

First off, Don Carlo is far from a deluded crackpot, with an unhealthy obsession. He tends to focus on a topic, and thoroughly researches it, which has been quite valuable in many cases. For instance, I often refer to his research on the Hubbard Family tree.

Second off, we're not here to psychoanalyze each other.
Niether it is your role as a mod to police people's opinions as you have a tendency to do. I'm entitled to mine, Don has his, and you have yours.

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:52 am
by I'mglib
Au contraire, you can have any opinion you want. As long as it is friendly etc as descibed in the board guidlines. Calling a very dilligent and gentlemanly poster a deluded crackpot skates on the edge, and maybe even over the edge.

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:41 am
by Smurf
I'mglib wrote:Au contraire, you can have any opinion you want. As long as it is friendly etc as descibed in the board guidlines. Calling a very dilligent and gentlemanly poster a deluded crackpot skates on the edge, and maybe even over the edge.
That's a load of bullshit, but not surprising coming from you, as this is not the first time that you've tried to police comments that you, personally, take exception, too.

My comments of Don had zero to do with what you call "very dilligent and gentlemanly" discourse. It was his targeting one individual & his family. I don't demonize individual Scientologists nor do I stalk them. I know Tad Reeves, personally, and irrespective of his current involvement in Scientology, does not deserve some of the accusations that have been made towards him or his integrity via what you refer to as "diligent and gentlemanly" discourse. I stand by what I said.

Anyone that uses an Internet board to stalk another indiividual is a deluded crackpot.

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:24 am
by Sponge
Smurf wrote:
I'mglib wrote:Au contraire, you can have any opinion you want. As long as it is friendly etc as descibed in the board guidlines. Calling a very dilligent and gentlemanly poster a deluded crackpot skates on the edge, and maybe even over the edge.
That's a load of bullshit, but not surprising coming from you, as this is not the first time that you've tried to police comments that you, personally, take exception, too.

My comments of Don had zero to do with what you call "very dilligent and gentlemanly" discourse. It was his targeting one individual & his family. I don't demonize individual Scientologists nor do I stalk them. I know Tad Reeves, personally, and irrespective of his current involvement in Scientology, does not deserve some of the accusations that have been made towards him or his integrity via what you refer to as "diligent and gentlemanly" discourse. I stand by what I said.

Anyone that uses an Internet board to stalk another indiividual is a deluded crackpot.
Take a seat over here.

From your friendly admin:
viewtopic.php?p=339428#p339428
Just listen: As this is not a board set up to point out who is stupid, ignorant, evil, mentally impaired or OSA, it is off topic here. The agenda here is to be friendly and give support!

[...]

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 5:48 pm
by I'mglib
this is not the first time that you've tried to police comments...
Say what ever you want to say...nicely. It can be done. Don Carlo does it all the time.

Search his posts for some really excellent, in depth research about Hubbard, the corporate structure, the Freewinds, and now about barley formula.

If someone wants to start a thread about how to treat Sea Org, that would be and appropriate and interesting topic.

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:56 pm
by Smurf
I'mglib wrote:
this is not the first time that you've tried to police comments...
Say what ever you want to say...nicely.
Like Marty's blog, where comments only get posted if it stroke's Marty's ego, OCMB has become your personal fiefdom. This has noting to do with the admin's rules. I won't opine according to the whims of you or anyone else. You want to ban me for it, because I don't meet your standards of what defines "playing nice", go right ahead. OSA will thank for you it.

This has nothing to do with Don Carlo's postings of the cult, in general. They have been excellent & well-researched. It's about calling out specific Scientologists on OCMB and constantly demonizing them.

I learned the danger & consequences of expressing "approved" opinions when I was in Scientology. I'm not going back there.

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:18 pm
by Sponge
Smurf wrote:
I'mglib wrote:
this is not the first time that you've tried to police comments...
Say what ever you want to say...nicely.
Like Marty's blog, where comments only get posted if it stroke's Marty's ego, OCMB has become your personal fiefdom. This has noting to do with the admin's rules. I won't opine according to the whims of you or anyone else. You want to ban me for it, because I don't meet your standards of what defines "playing nice", go right ahead. OSA will thank for you it.

This has nothing to do with Don Carlo's postings of the cult, in general. They have been excellent & well-researched. It's about calling out specific Scientologists on OCMB and constantly demonizing them.

I learned the danger & consequences of expressing "approved" opinions when I was in Scientology. I'm not going back there.
Hyperbole much?

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:26 pm
by Smurf
Sponge wrote:
Smurf wrote:Like Marty's blog, where comments only get posted if it stroke's Marty's ego, OCMB has become your personal fiefdom. This has noting to do with the admin's rules. I won't opine according to the whims of you or anyone else. You want to ban me for it, because I don't meet your standards of what defines "playing nice", go right ahead. OSA will thank for you it.

This has nothing to do with Don Carlo's postings of the cult, in general. They have been excellent & well-researched. It's about calling out specific Scientologists on OCMB and constantly demonizing them.

I learned the danger & consequences of expressing "approved" opinions when I was in Scientology. I'm not going back there.
Hyperbole much?
Kiss ass much?

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:32 pm
by Sponge
Smurf wrote:
Sponge wrote:
Smurf wrote:Like Marty's blog, where comments only get posted if it stroke's Marty's ego, OCMB has become your personal fiefdom. This has noting to do with the admin's rules. I won't opine according to the whims of you or anyone else. You want to ban me for it, because I don't meet your standards of what defines "playing nice", go right ahead. OSA will thank for you it.

This has nothing to do with Don Carlo's postings of the cult, in general. They have been excellent & well-researched. It's about calling out specific Scientologists on OCMB and constantly demonizing them.

I learned the danger & consequences of expressing "approved" opinions when I was in Scientology. I'm not going back there.
Hyperbole much?
Kiss ass much?
Hyperbole much?

Hyperbole and insults

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:35 pm
by Smurf
Sponge wrote:Hyperbole much?
Kiss ass much?

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:47 pm
by Sponge
Smurf wrote:
Sponge wrote:Hyperbole much?
Kiss ass much?
Hyperbole much?

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:50 pm
by Smurf
Sponge wrote:
Smurf wrote:
Sponge wrote:Hyperbole much?
Kiss ass much?
Hyperbole much?
Asshole, much?

Re: Tad, the "outspoken" scientologist, from D.C.

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:56 pm
by Sponge
Thank you for the offer but no thanks, it's not my cup of tea.