One opened, more to come!
It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:47 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 16  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Posts: 10204
Location: Los Feliz, California
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! :proud:

/////

_________________
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm
Posts: 513
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).

Glib wrote:
And just to be clear, I have no idea either.


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.

_________________
“These guys are crazy. And all of this shit is straight out of the L. Ron Hubbard playbook. That’s their scriptures. They say they’re not a turn-the-other-cheek religion. No. They’re a knock-you-down-and-kick-you-in-the-balls religion.” Jason Beghe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:17 pm
Posts: 5145
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.

_________________
"A man may build himself a throne of bayonets, but he cannot sit on it." -William Ralph Inge

Watch the Los Angeles press conference here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScilonTV#p/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:44 am
Posts: 97
Dorothy wrote:
Curiosity:

Court-filed affidavits are not filed at LisaMcpherson.org
LisaMcpherson.org is not the source of the document, the creator of LisaMcpherson.org posted a document for which there is no source. I had already found that link in my own research of the document, but alas, LisaMcpherson.org's creator gave no source for their version of the document. So the mystery is still unsolved.

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
Karen#1 wrote:
I, David Mayo, declare as follows

14. ( David Miscavige ) threatened that if I ever escaped, he would personally see to it that the resources of the Church of Scientology would destroy my character and reputation internationally. During that six-month period of captivity, I was forced to run around a tree in the desert in temperatures of up to 110 degrees for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for 3 months I was under tremendous coercion and duress I was refused medical and dental treatment (after escaping captivity I lost six teeth and required thousands of dollars of dental work to save the rest of my teeth) I was not permitted to make or receive phone calls and all letters I wrote were read by Scientology security guards I was often awakened during the night and interrogated (mainly by Jesse Prince) In early February 1983, I was told by Rick Aznaran, Director of Security, RTC, (husband of Vicki Aznaran, President of RTC), to get the idea of leaving out of my head because I would never leave the property alive.
Click here to read more~~
http://www.freezone.org/reports/e_mayo02.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:17 am
Posts: 840
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Dorothy wrote:
operatingwog wrote:
The questions you are asking about the authenticity of the "everywhere" version are interesting (but not, imo, centrally relevant to the issue of intentional concealment of the truth, as I tried to indicate in previous postings to you).

I do not understand how any evidence of "truth concealed" exists when no evidence of "truth" has been established in the first place. I find it interesting that you think authenticating the "truth" is merely "interesting" when your entire (original) accusation is based upon a presumption of truth as opposed to an actual truth.


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.
Quote:
David Mayo on ARS
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile ... 4AZhN98BFg

Steve: In celebration of the arrival of David Mayo to alt.religion.scientology, here's one of his affidavits. Welcome David Mayo.

Copyright (C) 1994 David Mayo
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.reli ... a530?pli=1

David Mayo on ESMB
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.p ... onceptions

_________________
A simple explanation with few explanation grounds is to prefer, except when you need to hide your flaws! - Peter Soderqvist


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Posts: 2494
Location: New York City, NY, USA
curiosity wrote:
Demented LRH wrote:
My logic analysis shows that it does not matter whether Karen omitted a passage from the Mayo Affidavit on purpose or she used a version of it that says nothing about the Hubbard order. Since no one had proved that my analysis contains errors, Karen is at no obligation to reveal her source.
Curiosity, I suggest you to try to find mistakes in my logic analysis, and if you were able to find any, I would join your request to Karen to reveal her source.


Hi DLRH,

I think you might be missing the point being made here. Because of Karen's posting, a controversy has now arisen about whether David Mayo blamed Hubbard for his imprisonment at Int Base. It is understandable that people who study Scientology would want to know if Mayo did indeed make that accusation. The controversy arose because Karen posted a quote from Mayo that omits the reference to Hubbard that is found in earlier versions of the quote. It is OK to omit words and sentences from quotes on purpose--people do it all the time to focus on what is most important to them in the quotes--but good scholarship says that you make it clear when you do that. My assumption is that whoever is responsible for Karen's version of the quote simply omitted the earlier words about Hubbard but failed to adequately denote the omission with "...". Earlier-in-time is usually given greater weight, and so for now I believe the Hubbard-inclusive version to be the full and accurate quote of paragraph 14. I'm not demanding that Karen reveal her source; I'm saying that it would be courteous of her to do that to help the cause of Scientology scholarship.

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.

_________________
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Posts: 2494
Location: New York City, NY, USA
Dorothy wrote:
Quote:
Basically I don't think there needs to be a car for an act of intentional driving of the car to occur.

:lol:

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?

_________________
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Posts: 2494
Location: New York City, NY, USA
“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.

_________________
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:51 pm 
Dorothy wrote:
Gumby, I don't think you understand- you can post a thousand links to the same document on the Internet, none of which show where the original document came from.

Here are a few of the problems I have with the doc:

The LisaMcpherson.org posting is by "Homer Wilson Smith"

At the top of the document is this:
Quote:
((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))


Who is Homer Wilson Smith? See:
http://www.freezoneearth.org/littlepurpleno

Affidavits do not have “editors”, and when they do, we must assume the document was indeed edited- by Homer, because he posted it as a document which was edited by him, according to him. But there are no double parentheses, so we do not know which parts of the doc were edited by Homer, or why he would need to edit it.

Also, if it was filed in 1987, why does it appear as a “copyright” in 1994?

The doc is also posted here at Clambake:

Clambake:

http://www.xenu-directory.net/accounts/ ... David_Mayo

Quote:
The Ref given is: Julie Mayo's posting on Newsgroup.
(but no link to her post and I could not find it in a search)

The doc is also given as a reference for this Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_ ... ogy_Center
this link under "critical sources"

Quote:
"David Mayo affidavit"

When you click on it, you get:
Quote:
The page cannot be found

The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit wrote:
Affidavits may be written in the first or third person, depending on who drafted the document. If in the first person, the document's component parts are:

1) a commencement which identifies the affiant;

2) the individual averments, almost always numbered as mandated by law, each one making a separate claim;

3) a statement of truth[1] generally stating that everything is true, under penalty of perjury, fine, or imprisonment;

4) an attestation clause, usually a jurat, at the end certifying the affiant made oath and the date; and

5) signatures of the author and witness.

If an affidavit is notarized or authenticated, it will also include a caption with a venue and title in reference to judicial proceedings. In some cases, an introductory clause, called a preamble, is added attesting that the affiant personally appeared before the authenticating authority.

(I numbered the items for clarity)

The David Mayo “affidavit” does not contain even half of what constitutes an affidavit.

David Mayo has never refuted it. Can he verify it or is he under a gag order?


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.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:56 pm
Posts: 284
Location: Vermont, USA
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:

Quote:
Dorothy wrote:
Quote:
Basically I don't think there needs to be a car for an act of intentional driving of the car to occur.

:lol:

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? :)

Quote:
“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.


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:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

HS


Quote:
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

_________________
We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are. - The Talmud


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Posts: 2315
Location: Canada
Might be helpful to know David Mayo's position in 1996:

David Mayo <mayo@lightlink.com> wrote:
From: David Mayo <mayo@lightlink.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: My position on a.r.s
Date: 12 May 1996 20:55:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4n61aq$pcv@light.lightlink.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I did not come to a.r.s to convince anyone of my beliefs nor did I come to a.r.s to proselytize nor to win friends and influence people.

I came to give information.

I have information that I think will be of interest and/or assistance in regard to Scientology(tm) both by those who want to know more about it than is available in promo and by those who may have an interest in it sociologically. I spent about 25 years in Scientology(tm) beginning at around the age of 17 years.

I am not here as an "anti", a "meatball", a "dreamball", a "basher", a "fluffball" or even as a squirrel, though having been accused of being a squirrel seems, perhaps out of perversity, I have acquired an affinity for that identity.

I am not a Scientologist now and have not been for many years -- at the moment there is no precise point when I ceased to be one -- if pressed for that point of departure, it seems as fuzzy as my logic.

Retrieved from http://holysmoke.org/dm/dmayo000.htm on 2 December 2011.

_________________
INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST TRAINING ROUTINE – TR L
Purpose: To train the student to give a false statement with good TR-1. To train the student to outflow false data effectively.
Commands: Part l “Tell me a lie”.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:23 pm
Posts: 227
I'mglib wrote:
Hi, Tenor.

Welcome to the board. Your post got lost way back in the thread, so I thought I would bump it for you.

I think you're saying that nothing is all good or all bad, and that good things can be used for bad purposes.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:23 pm
Posts: 227
Dorothy wrote:
What I do have a problem with is their lack of empathy for the victims of the scientology experience. Not all are victims, but those who suffered abuse are. And that abuse comes in the form of mind control and extreme authoritarian control, mind control being the intellectual form of authoritarian control. When a victim is released from the scientology system and its control, the last thing they want is someone forcefully telling them how and what to think, or insinuating they must still be "messed up" from scientology because they still aren't thinking right. It's also hard to tell if this extremely evaluative treatment comes from a place of ignorance, hatred, or personal angst that seeks a target for its release.

Oh and welcome to the board, Tenor! I like how you were able to pick out the more subtle and salient aspect of this thread. You are definitely a cut above!


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
Thank you, Tenor.
Tenor wrote:
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.

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.

_________________
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is it helpful to conceal the truth? Who does it help? &
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Posts: 2494
Location: New York City, NY, USA
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.

_________________
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group