Mog and other Scio-promoters have no clue what goes on in my head and yet Mog purports to think she knows what makes me tick (or tocked), what I think, and what I have or have not taken responsibility for.
She's stuck on the Scio-idea that if one says something bad about someone or something, then one MUST have overts against him, her or it. That Scio-idea is false
Newclear, you're right that no one has the right to tell someone they "need to take responsibility", because how does one know if a body has already taken responsibility or not. One doesn't, of course.
Mog acts like an OSA bot. Keeping the thread just barely alive, but waiting a few days so as to analyse the previous post, make plans for how to attack, draft a reply, and get permission to post it. SuzanneMarie was doing the same exact thing earlier. Mog hasn't a clue what I said because it's obvious by her replies that she had entirely misconstrued what I wrote. But as an OSA-bot, it's not necessary and not part of the plan to understand and answer anything sanely.
The courts make people responsible every day for decisions.
Incorrect. Courts make decisions about who should be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for ACTIONS. There's a mighty big difference between HELD ACCOUNTABLE and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.
A Scientologist can't really understand what "taking responsibility" is, because the meaning has been twisted by L. Ron Hubbard and various staff members along the way.
To "take responsibility" is like an estranged father deciding that his newborn left behind with its now single mother needs a father, decides to clean up his act and earn some money to send support, makes time to go see the child, swallows his pride when the mother harangues him and bears it so as to rise above it and "be a father" to the child. That is taking responsibility FOR the child.
Noticing a loose and terrified dog racing alongside the road, stopping and taking it in to the local SPCA instead of driving on without doing anything -- THAT is taking responsibility FOR the dog (and the other drivers in the area who might hit it or have an accident while trying to avoid hitting it).
Seeing that there is a dangerous cult preying upon one's neighbors and deciding to do something about it, and doing it -- THAT is taking responsibility FOR one's community.
Just compare the language used. Mog (and Scientologists) uses the term "take responsibility for (something in the past)", accompanied by feeling bad or having your anchor points shoved in (for you Scios and ex-Scios who understand that phrase). But notice the language of the wog -- you "take responsibility for (something of the future)", accompanied by ongoing actions.
There have been two meanings in Scientology for "take responsibility". One means that one should "feel" responsible and have some "cognition" about how things came to be the way they are and how one had something to do about it (one usually feels bad about this). The other meaning is that one should propitiate about it -- to make amends that one caused it to happen (here, one is made to feel degraded). These are false meanings for "take responsibility" but it is exactly these meanings that are used by Scio-believers, including Mog.
In Scientology the phrase "take responsibility" means you should feel bad about something, either something you did or something that happened to you (it doesn't matter which). There is no "take responsibility FOR" something in the accusations. The closest thing Scientology has is "take responsibility FOR the planet" by spreading Scientology far and wide. Even then it's used to INDUCE the feeling DUTY or OBLIGATION.
Never in Scientology is the phrase "take responsibility" used in the honorable sense of the word that the rest of the world uses.