There are many "Suzanne Marie" personas posting here. I think when one of them gets too enturbulated by the SPs here they send in another one. New registrations are closed on OCMB you know so they have to keep sending in new trooops on the same old SM account. It is interesting and amusing to see faulty cult logic at work. Thank you OSA for providing us the evidence and entertainment via "Suzanne Marie".
I've seen accusations about SM being more than one person... and honestly,
I used to think that THAT was a bit paranoid; critics seeing bogeymen
(boogie man?) where none exist.
But having read this thread, I'm becoming convinced of that. There's the
dispassionate fact-checking version, the snide/joking version, the hip
internet savvy version... could it be one person with multiple personalities?
In any case, this poster (or group) seems to demand overwhelming proof
of claims which are to the detriment of LRH, yet simultaneously ignores
overwhelming evidence or keeps open possibilities because of the tiniest
cracks in the evidence... the point being, "she" seems to have differing
thresholds for burden of proof, which vary based on which side of the
pro- vs. anti-Scientology debate they fall.
My former SCN friends suffered from the same faulty logic. They wanted
absolute proof of certain things ("I know lots of people who smoke and
don't have cancer, how do YOU know there's a link?" etc... actual quote
from some years ago)
... yet they were perfectly willing to accept the claims of SCN without any
such water-tight data. ("I know I was murdered in a previous lifetime
over a dispute involving money..." an actual quote from some years
Further, SM talks about these claims being OLD and thus no longer relevant;
that's noble and forgiving, but is SM ever so gracious with the past sins
of her adversaries? such as mis-statements made in the past by critics?
or the "crimes" of people she disagrees with? Hey SM, if someone were
a child molester, would you ever accept "hey that happened years ago,
they don't do it anymore"? as way of dismissing discussion about it? I'm
thinking most of you wouldn't... the point being, SM also exhibits varying
thresholds for forgiving past indiscretions, to the point of losing credibility.
Regardless of the tit-tat of these debates, SM's posts speak volumes. Read
them, folks, and learn. You too could join this "church" and acquire
similar logic "skill".