This is an interesting thread. Why does there seem to be a problem with the op's question? S/He basically asked why Karen #1 used a redacted quote from David Mayo's affidavit, which omitted LRH, to make a point about DM's abuses in a different thread. Right? What's wrong with that question?
Does it matter whether or not the "original" affidavit is true? No, of course not. Why not? Because Karen#1 used part of it in her post as if it were true
to make her point about DM.
Does it matter whether or not Karen #1 believes what David Mayo purportedly said? No, of course not. Why not? Same reason as above.
There is nothing wrong with asking the question posed by the op. The question reflects, at least in my interpretation of it, the ops opinion that the Indie scientologists, just like their counterparts still in the church, continue to ignore any "entheta" concerning Hubbard, and believe that all scientology's problems stem from DM. I share this opinion, as well as the opinion that Indies are some of the most, if not the most, effective critics of the current church hierarchy. Those opinions are not contradictory.
That I believe Indies are very effective critics of DM does not mean that I will cease to be skeptical and critical of scientology and Hubbard.
Basically I don't think there needs to be a car for an act of intentional driving of the car to occur.
I got tongue-tied when I read the operatingwog's statement. I thought it was one of its misprints, too. But the situation is worse than I expected -- Hubbard was not the only imbecile within the realm of Scientology, some of his former followers got sick, too. Inability to clearly express one’s thoughts is unmistakable sign of idiocy.
operatingwog, have you ever driven a car?
operatingwog did not make that statement. Is misreading and misattribution an unmistakable sign of anything?
“People's intentions and other mental states are often visible or otherwise readily apparent.”
Of course they are visible to the people with superpowers such as telepathy, telekinesis, teleportation, etc. But they become invisible in the court when only facts but not inferences based on them are accepted. That is why it is not permissible to discuss mental states in the court system.
Prosecutor. Based on the evidence presented in the form of argument between you and your wife, you were so angry with her that you were contemplating her murder.
Defense lawyer. Objection, the prosecutor cannot have a knowledge about my client’s mental state.
It's permissible to discuss mental states in court, and sometimes necessary. A defendant's mental state is what separates manslaughter from murder, or first degree from second degree murder.
The question you posed is not objectionable, it's entirely ok to ask a witness about their mental state. It might be objectionable to ask the wife what the husband was thinking, but if the question was whether he was angry it probably wouldn't be.
Inferences are not prohibited, they are necessary. An inference, in a legal sense, is a conclusion or deduction drawn as a logical consequence from the facts proved or admitted in the case. For example, the inference that a person is intoxicated can be drawn from a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit. Nothing wrong with that, it's what the jury does in every case.
There are some here who would deny that Hubbard accomplished anything of value at all.
First of all, welcome. Always great to hear new voices. Some might think that way indeed. Some others, like me, think that he accomplished what he set out to do, increase his own pecuniary value.
I fear that if I state I find value in Hubbard's work, I'll get executed here, so let me put it this way: is the value of genetic engineering the liability that one day some idiot will advocate a perfect ... "mixed blood" ... human race? You see how any tinge of racism incites emotions and obfuscates the issues? Should we ban all genetic engineering? Or should we recognize that genetic engineering might lead new vaccines, perhaps against cancer? If one can accept that Hubbard made a contribution with a science, one that is very personal, if one finds benefit in it, then I think that explains the reluctance of those who claim personal benefits to slur the "personality" of Hubbard when considering the objective science.
I will not execute you, and while you may not believe me, my questions/challenges/remarks and what not are not persecution either. I cannot accept that Hubbard made a contribution with a science. Dianetics and scientology are not sciences as I understand them. There has been no testing of Hubbard's claims by the scientific method. There has not been one person, ever, who has exhibited the qualities/abilities that Hubbard attributed to the state of clear.
Something that is very personal and that works for you, but not for someone else, is the definition of subjective, not objective. Gravity is objective, it acts on you whether you believe in it or not. Does scientology? Scientology is the only "tech" I've ever heard of that blames userr error 100% of the time if it doesn't work.
Anyway, I'd love to hear more from you about what you have gained from the tech, how it's helped you, whether it's met your expectations, etc.
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
John Stuart Mill