Is willful lying okay on OCMB?

Don Carlo · **Joined:** Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am **Posts:** 8098

caroline said,

Quote:

But more importantly, when someone, in a community or forum like this, is accused of lying, and the accusation is accurate, the lie is a statement of fact, a factual assertion. The person who made the factual assertion – the lie – is responsible, in most cases, for supporting that factual assertion. The burden of proof does not shift to the victim of the lie because the victim accuses the liar of lying.

When a lie is told, the victim of the lie may pursue it in every accessible medium, and may confront that liar until the end of time, or until the liar admits lying. If lies are not pursued and liars not confronted then they will bury the truth.*

Let's do an overview and then put you into this statement and use probabilities and the term false, because lying is such a judgmental and scornful term.

Overview: caroline said karen was negative about the e-meter while presently using it and caroline condemned this supposed action as dishonest ; caroline's claim was 100% false based on posts from this message board. This was proved by a search showing Karen only made six posts that mentioned the e-meter and all of them criticized the abusive personal actions done with the e-meter, and none criticized the e-meter itself.

caroline also said that karen talked about Miscavige-black-and-Hubbard-white, and caroline condemned this action as fraudulent. Based on a 10% sample, this statement is unproven. I saw one post positive about "the tech" by karen and nothing directly saying Hubbard was good.

Putting caroline into her own statement
when karen is accused of producing a falsehood, and the accusation is accurate, the falsehood is a statement of fact, a factual assertion. caroline, who made the factual assertion – the falsehood – is responsible, in most cases, for supporting that factual assertion. The burden of proof does not shift to don carlo, speaking for karen because don carlo accuses carolinel of producing a falsehood. (The last six words must change because karen quit posting on the board rather than accuse caroline about lying about Karen being dishonest/ fraudulent. I am standing in for Karen and saying that caroline has made one definitely false statement and one probably false statement, 10% of posts being a significant sample.)

I can imagine that Karen was deeply insulted, since her last post was the one immediately before the dishonest/fraudulent post. Maybe Karen but wasn't used to doing search skills, and it's harder to be dispassionate when the insults are so personal. She may have thought a defense like "that's not true" which would trigger a new round of "you're lying about that not being true" from caroline, and couldn't see a way to defend herself. I'm used to doing searches, so I was able to do a sufficient amount of research to make the above claim, that by caroline's own reasoning, caroline has to produce proof for the "dishonest" charge and the "fraudulent" charge, and if not, apologize to Karen.
*Is willful lying okay on OCMB? Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:27 pm , page 1 viewtopic.php?f=9&t=46288

peter · **Posted:** Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:11 pm

Soderqvist1: Karen implicitly whitewashing Hubbard by only talking about David Miscavige!
it seems odd to me that nothing what is going on today in Karen’s world have anything to do with the founder L. Ron Hubbard!
In the example below she implicitly accuses the tamasin-sp for telling lies!

Quote:

Soderqvist1: Operatingwog, Karen ignores everything you say about Hubbard just as she ignored Hubbard’s victimisation of children, and adults on the ship! Look how she refuses to answer the tamasin-sp's question!

Karen#1: I am sorry you endured what you did. It was very not OK.
But the truth of the matter is that I lived with LRH on the Flag ship Apollo for a lot longer than you did. I did not experience what you state. You are not going indoctrinate or persuade anyone to believe what you believe.

tamasin-sp: Tell me then Karen, When were you on the Apollo with LRH exactly? How long for? I'm not trying to indoctrinate anyone, but YOU are aren't you?
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42566&p=415242#p415242

Soderqvist1: Karen you are lying for Hubbard, just as you did when you doctored that David Mayo’s affidavit about David Miscavige abused him on Hubbard’s order!
viewtopic.php?p=418304#p418304

Soderqvist1: here is it explicit that Hubbard and the tech is fine but Miscavige is a squirrel

Quote:

The Top 25 People Crippling Scientology, No. 10: Lisa McPherson by Tony Ortega
Karen de la Carriere: It was on the Flag ship Apollo when LRH devised the 1st Introspection Rundown. We had to study the case histories in depth as part of our training. This was because Bruce Welch had a mental breakdown and threatened to grab a carving knife from the Galley of the ship and stab LRH 133x. He also wanted badly to stab Stuart Moreau the MAA. He was explosively screaming his threats in a rage and was put in lockdown. The only thing you can do on a ship is lockdown someone intending to kill others. It is for protection of others. LRH devised the Introspection Rundown and ran Bruce Welch on the procedures and Welch returned to Sanity. My forever friend Mike Rinder was the bodyguard outside Welch's cabin. There was no chloral hydrate and no drugs. Bruce flipped right back to sanity with the 1st version of this rundown.

IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN EXPORTED AS A HANDLING !
It was ship REMEDY for an emergency. I was struck with the fact that Lisa had a $20,000 “L-11? A series of procedures done in confessional format~~~3 weeks prior to her mental breakdown. I studied on line accounts, subpoened records, her “baby watch” records and the Interviews by the Florida State attorneys ~~ the internet is a plethora of information. Much of Lisa’s insane babble is right out of a misrun contorted L-11 Church of Scientology service which could have been repaired to good result FAST way before deterioration. The giving off of Sins and Transgressions (confessing/confessional) is common in many religions. In Radical, Taliban Scientology, Miscavige has taken it to whole new level. Sea Org, Staff and Public alike are ordered to write up their CRIMES (overts, transgressions) for hours and hours a day for weeks, if not months. And so it was with Lisa Mcpherson. After a messed up L-11, Lisa was ordered to “write up” her Crimes in O/W write up. In the 1970s and 1980s this was an action that took a few hours. In the Church of Miscavology this can go on with weeks, if not months, you write and write and write and dig “deeper” to find more CRIMES.

If you Google Lisa's Final O/W Write up You will find pages and pages of Lisa trying to extract CRIMES out of the depths of her soul. It is shocking. She writes and writes and writes and is told to find more CRIMES Lisa Mcpherson was made to write up Overts, Witholds, Crimes under direct supervision of Miscavige in collusion with her senior Bennetta Slaughter. These actions were enforced on her, making her introvert, making her have excessive feelings of guilt and evil and this was done unbeknownst to the Prosecutors and Clearwater PD who do not understand that spiritual distress occurs prior to a Type III (mental breakdown) occurrence. These actions to drive her insane were fully instigated by the "Church of Scientology" and David Miscavige and they have blood on their hands that will never wash off.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninsca ... -306430507

Don Carlo · **Joined:** Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am **Posts:** 8098

Thanks, peter:
The first quote - I already said if Karen were a "teacher's pet" she indeed would have been treated better, or she might have been trained to interpret what she saw as positive. Karen was rude telling Tamasin "you are not going to indoctrinate anyone" but she was not absolving Hubbard of his crimes. She didn't say "Hubbard was a good man"

Thanks for the second quote; it's new to me. Karen is describing a screaming psychopath trying to grab knives and stab people, and that Hubbard made up the Introspection Rundown on the spot. It's quite likely the man was, behind closed doors, given secret doses of chloral hydrate or some "psych drug" even though Karen was told there were no drugs. It's possible Karen wasn't an eyewitness, but was told this story by her trusted friend Rinder who was outside, not inside, the room. If you were a young person (Rinder or Karen) and didn't know Hubbard was drugging the man, you would be amazed by the wonderful quiet as the man went from "explosive screaming" to (likely) a quiet drugged state behind the door. You might think Hubbard had some miraculous cure for insanity, when Hubbard was just doing what someone in a mental hospital might have done to a dangerous screaming patient. He might have LEARNED this drugging trick from observation when he was hospitalized. So, Rinder and/or Karen were FOOLED by this situation. Notice that she still doesn't say "Hubbard was good" rather, it was one of those colorful tales from the ship.

operatingwog · **Joined:** Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm **Posts:** 500

Don Carlo wrote:

As promised, I have searched and present here 25 out of all of Karen#1's 247 posts , over 10%, which is statistically significant. In none does she imply that Hubbard tech, or Scientology tech, is "white." I challenge operatingwog, who doubted me, to do his own search and find that post that caroline claims Karen is making. Or, if caroline can remember, she can help out by finding it herself. If neither of you can do this, operatingwog owes me an apology for blindly believing caroline and being insulting to me, and caroline owes Karen#1 an apology for falsely accusing her of "dishonesty."

Don Carlo I think you have misinterpreted me.

I was replying to your supposed example of caroline exhibiting "competitiveness and emotionality". In my response I stated that I regarded the content of what caroline was saying to consist of true factual claims.

You may dispute (are disputing) the truth of those claims. I think you're wrong in your judgement about that, but it's not really to the point.

The point is that caroline's claims were straightforward factual claims, whether true or not. They weren't -- in any way apparent to me -- an expression of "competitiveness and emotionality".

Factual claims can certainly be expressive of emotions, but in this case I can't see that being the case. I certainly can't see any justification for your claim about caroline being motivated by competitiveness (due to Karen's Miscavige expertise challenging Gerry Armstrong's Hubbard expertise). That claim still appears to me utterly unfounded. Nothing you have adduced in support of the claim seems to me to make it any less implausible.

You ask that I should apologise for blindly believing caroline. I don't blindly believe caroline; but if I did I wouldn't see that as a reason to apologise to you.

You also ask that I should apologise for insulting you. If I have insulted you I do apologise. It was not my intention to insult. My intention was to draw attention to the manner in which you are -- for whatever reason -- attributing base motivations to caroline without anything remotely resembling an adequate evidential basis for your attributions.

Don Carlo · **Joined:** Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am **Posts:** 8098

Do you regard intention as justification for bad behavior - so that a person can accuse another without proof of being fraudulent and dishonest as long as her intentions are good?

When you say you REGARD " the content of what caroline was saying to consist of true factual claims." do you mean you have given up on the two specific cases where caroline very likely is disproven, but you now are relying on a general feeling that caroline is right? Is emotional loyalty affecting you? Or, are you relying on a general memory that caroline seemed right and karen wrong, and precision is so pesky, quibbling over whether karen said exactly that Hubbard was good.
May I ask if you think caroline is quibbling over liar being a noun and lying being a verb? She spent PAGES hammering karen over that. Shouldn't karen demand the same precision?

So, what's your choice. I can accept any, as long as you're consistent:
1. Belief in caroline's good intentions so caroline can be wrong and still good
2. Loyalty to caroline so precision isn't important for caroline (if so is this now a general rule?)
3. Vague memories of caroline's rightness are good enough for you.
or,
4. OK then, ask anyone accusing someone of being dishonest and fraudulent to prove it precisely.

operatingwog · **Joined:** Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm **Posts:** 500

Don Carlo wrote:

Do you regard intention as justification for bad behavior - so that a person can accuse another without proof of being fraudulent and dishonest as long as her intentions are good?

I don't really understand the relevance of the question. A person obviously can accuse another person of being fraudulent without proof with good or with bad intentions. How you'd evaluate that action would depend upon your view of the motivation. (But I think you have some concrete example in mind and are trying to make some particular point?)

Don Carlo wrote:

When you say you REGARD " the content of what caroline was saying to consist of true factual claims." do you mean you have given up on the two specific cases where caroline very likely is disproven, but you now are relying on a general feeling that caroline is right?

No I don't mean that.

Don Carlo wrote:

is emotional loyalty affecting you? Or, are you relying on a general memory that caroline seemed right and karen wrong, and precision is so pesky, quibbling over whether karen said exactly that Hubbard was good.

You appear to prefer to speculate about people's emotional motivations rather than engaging in a rational manner with what they actually say. This is what I was objecting to in your characterisation of caroline as being motivated by petty competitiveness.

Don Carlo wrote:

May I ask if you think caroline is quibbling over liar being a noun and lying being a verb? She spent PAGES hammering karen over that. Shouldn't karen demand the same precision?

I think there's a significant difference between calling someone a liar and saying that someone is lying. The former is a statement about the person's character and implies (something like) an ongoing and enduring tendency to lie. The latter is a statement regarding a particular instance of conduct. It may in some circumstances be an important distinction to draw. I don't remember caroline spending pages hammering karen over that or anything else. I don't know what you mean when you ask whether karen should demand the same precision.

operatingwog · **Joined:** Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm **Posts:** 500

duplicate deleted

operatingwog · **Joined:** Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm **Posts:** 500

Don Carlo wrote:

So, what's your choice. I can accept any, as long as you're consistent:
1. Belief in caroline's good intentions so caroline can be wrong and still good
2. Loyalty to caroline so precision isn't important for caroline (if so is this now a general rule?)
3. Vague memories of caroline's rightness are good enough for you.
or,
4. OK then, ask anyone accusing someone of being dishonest and fraudulent to prove it precisely.

Oh I didn't see this bit. I don't know if you added it while I was writing or maybe I just missed it somehow.

But anyway I frankly don't know what you're talking about.

I have to choose an option -- or a number of options? And you'll accept what I choose as long as it's consistent?

I don't understand what is supposed to be at issue here. Why do I have to choose one or more of these options?

Maybe you can explain more clearly what you mean.

Don Carlo · **Joined:** Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am **Posts:** 8098

I'm testing you for consistency, operatingwog

When you instead talk about "intentions" and what you "regard" I am trying to understand if you are backing off from facts and going into loyalties, or feelings, or vague memories, and avoiding the hard work on proving your belief in caroline is justified.

I am revising my liar-is-a-noun-and-lying-is-a-verb;although I'm surprised that you didn't read the first page of this thread where caroline was hammering karen for the difference. You're right that "liar" is more a statement of a person's character. So, let's add caroline's insults just from the first page of this thread:

Quote:

Dorothy was lying

Quote:

it’s her function here to fool people

Quote:

you have a known habit of lying

Quote:

general manifestation of semantic dishonesty.

Quote:

She does lie so much, and shows no remorse nor the slightest regard for the victims of her lying, that it would be proper to call her a liar publicly and loudly. I very well could have called her a liar over the years, because her lies hurt people and everyone should be defended and protected from her lies.

Quote:

Dorothy also wrote quite a bit about lying, including more lies and black propaganda.

Quote:

I did not call Dorothy a liar over and over, and I think it’s damaging in many circumstances, this one included, to accept a reprimand for something I'm innocent of. In this case, the negative evaluation made, that what didn’t happen (nobody was called a liar over and over) was boring and annoying, is black propaganda.

caroline is attacking Dorothy's character, even saying it would be proper to call her a liar. It's nit-picking about the lying-liar difference; she can't pretend she cares about the character issue when her other words are so virulent.

So, where's pro-nit-picking caroline now, when I ask her to exactly prove she was wrong to insult karen, so far without facts to back her up?

operatingwog · **Joined:** Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm **Posts:** 500

Sorry Don Carlo.

I don't want to say anything about your proofs. You say I asked for these proofs but I didn't.

I can see that if I had asked you to supply proofs and you had done so it would be rude not to reply in some way. But I really didn't ask you for any proofs and would prefer not to comment on what you have written in that regard.

I still don't understand a lot of what you're saying. I did read the first page of the thread (and I've just skimmed it again). I don't though know what you mean about caroline hammering Karen for the difference (between lying and liar, I assume). You said she spent "PAGES" hammering Karen for this difference -- so presumably if I'm just looking at the first page of the thread I'm not looking in the right place? Is this just one of the pages?

Supposing caroline did indeed hammer Karen for the difference between liar and lying (whatever exactly that means). What is the relevance of this? I just don't get it.

As far as I can see our discussion started quite simply with me asking you to supply some evidence for your attribution of a particular motive (which I saw as a petty motive) to caroline. You've presented what you regard as evidence and I've questioned its evidentiary value. You've gone on to provide some purported proofs that things caroline has said are false. And I just don't see the relevance of these proofs. I don't see why you think (if I've got this right) that I requested these proofs and are therefore expecting me to address them.

As far as I can see it just isn't relevant to the issue between us whether caroline was or was not correct in her claims relating to Karen. If you think she was wrong that's fine by me: I have no desire whatever to debate that with you. The only thing I was seeking to take issue with was your attribution of a particular emotional motive -- and the lack of apparent evidence for that motive. I still feel we're no further along on that question -- I can't see that you've supplied anything that looks remotely like evidence.

EDIT. I think your post changed quite a lot while I was writing mine. I looked once and it appeared to have changed. And then again and it appeared to have changed again. So I don't know how well what I've written will relate to what you are writing about. Perhaps if you feel there is still some outstanding issue you could try to state this as clearly as possible. I'll leave it a while before answering (to give you time to make any amendments) and then try to answer as clearly as possible.

Don Carlo · **Joined:** Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:20 am **Posts:** 8098

Sorry, I phrased that wrong; I was talking about caroline's two nasty insults against Karen, dishonest and fraudulent, and i have just spent a lot of time proving she's got no case. This is part of the proof you were asking for. So, what is the motivation for caroline to pick at straws against karen? Her motivations are unknkown; you think they are not so "petty" as to be competition; I actually think caroline's a fighter, for her turf, her followers and her ideas. Fighters aren't guilty of bad motivation, they're fighting for something. What matters is what they DO. caroline claims it's getting to the "truth" but she's got no case with her claims against karen that karen is "dishonest" and "fraudulent." So, she loses this fight; she'll find another fight and maybe she'll win that. I just wish it wasn't driving people off the message board.

Demented LRH · **Posted:** Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:57 am

Sometimes people change their points of view in lieu of new information; that happened to me on several occasions.

I used to be extremely intolerant of the Indies and Freezoners, so I was in the same boat with Gerry. My motivation was different that his -- I did not care much about their refusal to name Hubbard as the source of CoS abuses, but they used to drive me up the wall with their refusal to acknowledge that the Tech is completely unworkable. I tried hard to make them see the error of their ways, but they did not listen. I tried more, but with zero success. You see, it was an ego trip on my part -- I saw myself as intellectually superior to them, and wanted them to accept it. But they stubbornly ignored my anti-Scientology arguments.

Gerry is on the same ego trip with a different angle -- he sees himself as morally superior to his Indy opponents. Being a man of weak morals, I cannot emulate Gerry’s trip, but I understand him better than anyone else.

Neither Gerry nor I have a background in psychology; otherwise, none of us would have embarked on this ego-journey to nowhere.

My ego- boat sunk when I learned from my psychologist cousin that some cult members suffer from mental disorders that cannot be cured via the criticism of their idea. These people were so deeply involved with a cult that their grasp on reality is very tenuous at best. Telling a mentally ill person that he is suffering from mental disorder serves no purpose; such approach is not going to put him on a road to recovery. Once I realized this, my outlook on the Freezone begun changing. My intolerance of them gave way to a desire to understand what these people are going through. Still, I cannot understand them on emotional level because I do not have a similar experience. But at least I am trying to understand them on rational level.

Then I read Karen’s posts and saw that it was very brave of her to openly go against CoS; I really admire her for the courage that she has. It does not matter to me whether she sees Hubbard as the source of the Scientology evils or not; she does her job of weakening the Church’ position, which is much more important than seeing Hubbard’s role in creating the Scientology monster.

Gerry sees himself as God’s hand (Dorothy quoted him in her signature) or something like that; I saw myself as a sort of God’s brain. But my vanity evaporated when I realized my limitations. Hopefully, Gerry will learn from my example that he should be paying more attention to human psychology, which would prevent him from having unrealistic expectations.

Dorothy · **Posted:** Sat Dec 24, 2011 3:03 am

I know this is not a trial, but it feels like it! In a trial the lawyer will attempt to character assassinate an important witness by bringing evidence of them having told lies. The whole point is to plant the idea in the heads of the jury that they are a liar, that they "have a known habit of lying", for the express purpose of making them look like a liar, and therefore unbelievable, thereby canceling out any idea that their testimony should be believed.

Caroline repeatedly accused me of having lied, only she did not supply evidence that I actually lied (it was really only her opinion). This is why I'mGlib kept asking "what was the lie?" To which caroline has yet to respond. IMO the whole point was to character assassinate me, except without any evidence.

There must have been some "testimony" I gave that made her feel it was necessary to do so, aside from actually having told a lie. So what was my "testimony" that made it necessary to assassinate my character? Personally I don't even consider that what I said was anything more than my opinion, though I believed it to be true, which is why I said it.

I know one thing I said that upset her was that "I consider the Indies dissenters [within the scientology aparatus]" and "for that reason I cannot come down as hard on them as she does" and "her saying Indies are beneficiaries in the Armstrong injunction is crazy" (all paraphrased). So I suspect that this was the important testimony that led to the assassination attempt. At least I hope it was only an attempt, I do not think I have actually been assassinated, though I am not sure. I had a bad nightmare about being assassinated last night, but it was only a dream.

operatingwog · **Joined:** Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm **Posts:** 500

Don Carlo wrote:

Sorry, I phrased that wrong; I was talking about caroline's two nasty insults against Karen, dishonest and fraudulent, and i have just spent a lot of time proving she's got no case. This is part of the proof you were asking for. So, what is the motivation for caroline to pick at straws against karen? Her motivations are unknkown; you think they are not so "petty" as to be competition; I actually think caroline's a fighter, for her turf, her followers and her ideas. Fighters aren't guilty of bad motivation, they're fighting for something. What matters is what they DO. caroline claims it's getting to the "truth" but she's got no case with her claims against karen that karen is "dishonest" and "fraudulent." So, she loses this fight; she'll find another fight and maybe she'll win that. I just wish it wasn't driving people off the message board.

I haven't (as I said I would) left any time before replying. I want to get off and do something else (the world beyond OCMB beckons). I really didn't ask for any proofs regarding the truth of caroline's claims. I'm sorry if you've spent time supplying such proofs on the understanding that I'd requested them.

You now say caroline's motivations are 'unknown', which I understand to be a retraction of your previous claims to knowledge regarding those motivations -- so I'm very happy about that

(BTW: If you believe caroline's claims are untrue I don't think you should therefore draw the conclusion that concern for truth is not a part of her motivation. Many people who are motivated by concern for truth believe false things.)

You may be privy to information (through 'back channels' as they say) that I don't have access to -- but if you're not I think it'd probably be better not to say that caroline is "driving people off the message board".

The only evidence I have that's at all relevant to this is that the number of people using the board has been at record levels recently. ("Most users ever online was 112 on Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:17 pm")

If you do have evidence that people are being driven away by caroline then fine, but if you don't I really don't think you should speculate that this is happening. It's quite offensive.

Dorothy · **Posted:** Sat Dec 24, 2011 3:42 am

operatingwog wrote:

I don't want to say anything about your proofs. You say I asked for these proofs but I didn't.

operatingwog wrote:

There's a lot of evidence/argumentation needed, surely, before you get to the question, "What does caroline get out of silencing Karen by driving her away?"

operatingwog wrote:

Contentious assertions require some evidential basis, surely. Especially when they're as offensive as your contentious assertions.

Don Carlo's main assertion is that Caroline launched a vicious attack on Karen#1, etc. That a vicious attack has a motive, such as, to silence or to drive away is not "offensive", it is logical.

I think it really shows very poor character to make a stream of demands for "evidence" from people (Don Carlo, me) and when hard work produces it, you deny that you asked for it, say you "don't have the time", and then walk away. It's very rude.

Is willful lying okay on OCMB?

Who is online