Caroline/Operatingwog: You two are Karen#1 Stalkerazis.

Karen#1: Congratulations on getting your own stalkers/handlers here at OCMB!

It took me a lot longer to get SuzanneMarie as my personal stalker/handler.

Good job Karen#1: You got inside their heads!

/////

When I say 'may be wrong' my point was that it while it may or may not be true (like 99.999% of claims) it doesn't require any special justification (as a claim of mind-reading would).



I didn't understand this bit ^^.

Have to go now. Morning time in dreary old England.

I watched a vid of you having a merry time protesting in OC. What I wouldn't give to have that sun.

What? You have something else to do besides explain how someone can be concealing the truth without knowing it's the truth. How is that possible? I hope it's not because you haven't gone to bed yet.

Also, we had some big winds in this neck of the woods today. Bunch of trees blown over and power lines knocked out.

More sources:
http://www.spaink.net/cos/mpoulter/worst/mayo1.html
http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents ... 01.html#14
http://www.holysmoke.org/dm/dmayo005.htm

Here is David Mayo's affidavit cited:
http://the-scientologist.com/davidmiscaviage.shtml
http://www.lermanet.com/scientology/gul ... nofRPF.htm
http://www.solitarytrees.net/pubs/skent/brain.htm

On other hand, the following quoted text does ___not___ exist anywhere on internets. It does __not__ exist even on the link where , supposedly, was taken from. http://www.freezone.org/reports/e_mayo02.htm

Soderqvist1: David Mayo showed up at ARS in 1996 and did some postings and disappeared for fifteen years from the world and reappeared on ESMB 2011.

Curiosity,
Karen is not the one who stirred controversy because she did not make any logical mistakes in her presentation of the Mayo data, I said that I would have done the same presentation although I see Hubbard as the ultimate abuser and mentally retarded person (see my thread Clay Demos & Hubbard’s Dementia, it gives pretty good idea of what I think of him).
There one or two persons on this board who create controversy out of nothing (You are not one of them). Operatingwog got whipped by Karen in several arguments and now it embarked on a personal mission of destroying her. Poor kitty is butt hurt and now looking for revenge. The kitty knows that it would get burned if it continues to argue with me, so it tries to ignore me. That is not going to happen, operatingwog -- I am a voice in your head, you cannot get rid of me.

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?

“People's intentions and other mental states are often visible or otherwise readily apparent.”
Operatingwog.
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.
Judge. Sustained.

Hello Dorothy. Hope you are doing well today. I really do not desire to take a side in this whole affair. I am just looking for various examples of this David Mayo affidavit. I personally do not have an axe to grind with either Karen#1,Operatingwog or for that matter you. I just want to share what I am finding. In my humble opinion I do feel Karen#1 is helping with the sharing of information she has. Hope that aids you in understanding where I am coming from.

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.


Demented LRH:



operatingwog did not make that statement. Is misreading and misattribution an unmistakable sign of anything?



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.


Tenor:



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 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.

HS

Might be helpful to know David Mayo's position in 1996:

Hi, I'mglib,

Thank you for your very kind welcome to the board. I'm happy to be here, appreciative of this forum and of the guys and girls, like yourself, who read and post their info and news and thoughts. (I'm new, and I guess qualify as a Freezoner, so understandably there may be a delay in getting my posts up. Looks like a lot of new people have signed on recently. I'm willing to share my inner thoughts, even if some individuals do occasionally question the "thought" part).

Yes, you got what I was saying. Also, Shakespeare's observation (in Hamlet), ~~ The bad men do lives after them, the good lies oft interred with their bones. ~~ (I think I quoted that right).

Tenor.

Dorothy,

Thank you very much for your very warm welcome and very thoughtful reply! (I was sure I posted a reply to you a day ago, but I guess I messed up, or the software picked up an objectionable word, or it got lost in cyber-Heaven.) I thought you put your finger on a resolution, when you pointed out that neither of the two versions of the Mayo affidavit has been certified as the original. The lack of verifiable information seems to plague both sides of many blog sites, and as much as I hate to say it, lends an aura of sanity to the boxes-full of court documents.

The personal tragedies of those who placed their trust in a beneficent church are really heartbreaking. Sometimes I feel as if I were trying to look through a fog to make out others' lives. Little mistakes can be fixed, but I definitely agree that the abuses (of all kinds) of the Co$ in the present as it is now, however it got that way, are a bit beyond mere "abuses". When an organization purporting to be "a help" invades and pillages another's life leaving only destruction and screams behind, that is an outrage that calls for action putting information out there, raising awareness, and expressing outrage. In this fight, it seems to me that sins of the past and alleged imperfections of those who have information to get out can be overlooked at present. It would be nice to have a peaceful future ... someday.

Tenor.

Thank you, Tenor.

The imperfections and past sins, alleged or obvious, don't even have to be overlooked. If they were addressed with civility, logic & rationality, empathy and a respect for individual narratives and perspectives, I think it would be fine. I myself have failed this standard many times, but I constantly work on improving. As far as a peaceful future goes, in our world of possibility, anything is possible.

Healthyskeptic,
I am going to go over some of your statements, I will put them in quotations marks.

“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“.

This is something new to me. What separates manslaughter from murder is not the defendant’s mental state but the manner in which the loss of life occurred -- if it was a car accident as opposed to shooting someone in the head, then this is a manslaughter.
If it is a premeditated murder meaning that defendant gave clear indications that he was going to kill the victim by discussing the murder with a witness, then it is first degree. If no such indication is given, then it is second degree. As you can see, the defendant’s mental state is irrelevant to the verdict.

“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“.

You, as a prosecutor, could ask a witness if a defendant was angry --this is your choice. But then the defense lawyer, on cross-examination, would ask the witness to describe the signs of anger in the defendant, it is not enough just to refer to his mental state. If there were no visible signs of anger, then the conclusion of him being angry is deemed false. How this relates to the OP’s case? Very simple -- he did not see any PHYSICAL signs of Karen that would led to conclude that she was trying to whitewash Hubbard; his speculation about her mental state means nothing because it is not backed up by any physical actions on her part.

“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.”

Perhaps, I should clarify myself. Inferences are prohibited during cross-examination. In a closing argument you can infer anything you like, there are no restrictions on your inferences. But in this Karen/operatingwog “trial” we have not reached the closing argument stage.

“operatingwog did not make that statement. Is misreading and misattribution an unmistakable sign of anything?”

I was referring to the same statement by operatingwog that Dorothy mentioned in her post. I thought that this statement will appear in my post, but it did not. Sorry for the error.

“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.”

The OP may post any question it likes. I, in turn, have proved that its question is null and void as far as the formal logic is concerned. Moreover, I said that I would have posted the same question under the same circumstances. Why no one is accusing me of trying to present Hubbard in a favorable light? Because that would make no sense -- I was dropping shit on Hubbard for almost a year now starting from the day I joined WWP. But this is a selective treatment -- two people made the same presentation, but only one of them is getting hammered.