One opened, more to come!
It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 8:23 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Just an observation
PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 11:19 pm
Posts: 4968
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Double G...good question. SM may have had her brain scrambled so much by this cult that she may not know who she is at times :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Just an observation
PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
Quote:
Dorothy, I think that the similarity in looks between Xenophon & Ness goes even beyond just the look in the eyes! They have similar faces all around too!

Thank You RWT!

On Oct 1, 2008, I postulated the invocation of the spirit of Eliot Ness, right here on Clambake!, on this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=29198&p=344120&hilit=Eliot%2C+Ness#p344120

Not to go all J.Swift on you, it is possible, that 'cause of my seekrit OT powerz, Eliot's spirit was invoked, and passed into Xenophon and is now being channeled through him! The resemblance IS remarkable, and I am glad someone else see's it. O frabjous day! Thank you!

I wonder when Xenophon first began his look-see into scientology?

_________________
“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: Just an observation
PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:17 pm 
Dorothy wrote:
All their "evidence" against psychiatry is anecdotal (individual stories) of abuse. If individual stories were to become cause for eradicating an entire group or practice, then scientology itself would easily be eradicated from the planet.

Nearly all of our social institutions have anecdotal evidence or instances of abuse in their histories. Historically, hardcore abuse has occurred in our hospitals, our prisons, in our families, our governments, our schools, in our military and especially in our religions. To say that psychiatry is the underlying cause of everything that goes wrong on planet earth and all institutional abuse is pure craziness. I guess there was no such evil prior to the 1800's and the birth of Wilhelm Wundt? No one was tortured or locked up, no women or children were raped, and there were no lives ruined prior to 1850? So then LRon invents the "whole track" and says psyches are reincarnated and they keep coming back here lifetime after lifetime to wreak havoc. Then what did a "psyche" look like prior to 1850?

So that guy in the red robe who tortured and burned me at the stake back in 1497 was really a psyche? Oh, right, he was a "priest". Psyches and priests, same thing according to LRon. How convenient. And the craziness goes on and on...

It is true that psychiatry has been used as a tool by people in power to harass, abuse and control. Then so have various systems of economics, organized crime, religion, political ideologies, etc. Okay, now I'm repeating myself. Anyway, there is no evidence that psychiatry is the overall underlying cause of ruined lives on planet earth, and that if it were eradicated, all evil would disappear. This idea is nothing but a belief that is accepted as part of a system of indoctrination.

Psychiatry was LRon's natural enemy because he was muscling in on their territory. He was solving the problems of the human mind which was their agenda, and he could never compete with them on their level. So he sidestepped the issue, started a psychotherapy based "religion" and waged a campaign against them. Now his followers are engaged in a forever-war against their evil Nemesis. SuzanneMarie is being a good foot-soldier, earning her medals so she can get a good seat at the right-hand of LRon in the Galactic Empire of the Future.
Damn! Sweet summation is sweeet!


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Just an observation
PostPosted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 11:19 pm
Posts: 4968
Location: Phoenix, AZ
I always thought that SM was Pitbull's sister


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Just an observation
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 2:23 am
Posts: 8106
Location: Cyberspace
I would suggest either ignoring her posts or responding to such post content (of hers) on which you want to say something to her, as post content.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Just an observation
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm
Posts: 513
^^^ Could you clarify that? I don't follow what you mean when you say respond to the post content "as post content". Do you mean avoiding personal remarks? (Apologies if I'm being especially dim.)

_________________
“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: Just an observation
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:23 am
Posts: 14692
Location: U.K.
operatingwog wrote:
^^^ Could you clarify that? I don't follow what you mean when you say respond to the post content "as post content". Do you mean avoiding personal remarks? (Apologies if I'm being especially dim.)


Another way of putting it is: It is often better to talk to a poster than talk about them.
I think that's what BoF means, and is a reasonable point of view.

_________________
WWW.XENU-DIRECTORY.NET Awesome document/media resources
Other Activism: Divided By Zero forum, Why We Protest forum
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Just an observation
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:32 pm
Posts: 513
Sponge wrote:
operatingwog wrote:
^^^ Could you clarify that? I don't follow what you mean when you say respond to the post content "as post content". Do you mean avoiding personal remarks? (Apologies if I'm being especially dim.)


Another way of putting it is: It is often better to talk to a poster than talk about them.
I think that's what BoF means, and is a reasonable point of view.

Thanks.

_________________
“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: Just an observation
PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
Thank you for translating for Ball of Fluff, Sponge.
Ball of Fluff wrote:
I would suggest either ignoring her posts or responding to such post content (of hers) on which you want to say something to her, as post content.

Did you read the OP? How can I "respond" to someone who has me on ignore? And, as I wrote, my message was intended for the "audience", like an "aside" in a play. I am sure you understand that Clambake does have an audience.

I appreciate your concern, and I always do respond to the posters here directly. However, when someone is derailing threads, responding to that person directly just derails the thread further: that is why I began a new thread. Some people here were debating her really well on those threads, and I did not want to interrupt them. If SuzanneMarie wants to turn a thread that is about Jan Eastgate being arrested, into a thread about "psychiatry is evil", I feel the need to point that out. I just hate to see this board devolve into another version of an ars.

Your suggestion is duly noted. Do you have any opinions or comments about the actual thread topic?

_________________
“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: Just an observation
PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 2:23 am
Posts: 8106
Location: Cyberspace
Hopefully, I've got this right. The thread topic is SM and her posting style. Also pertains to possibility and/or likelihood of SM candidly discussing Jan Eastgate.

Looks like she was just posting to xenu.net the other day. Maybe try jumping on that thread and asking her to please discuss this? Or send her a pm since she is evidently still posting here.

I see two factors or issues. One is the interest in getting her to discuss this subject AT ALL. Overall, not a bad idea. Some people want to know what she thinks or would say.

However, given the many comments about Suzanne Marie herself, well, *she* seems to be the other topic. Probably not as good an idea.

I remember her saying that she did not want to be expelled. Possibly this is still the case. I used to feel like that, too. So, IMO, any interest anyone possibly has in pushing her to say or think certain things will probably come to naught.

With that in mind, I guess if I were going to ask her anything, I'd ask SM if she is still concerned about staying in CofS and if so, why. Family still stuck in there? Hope for reform? None of the above?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Just an observation
PostPosted: Mon Jul 04, 2011 9:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:36 am
Posts: 2128
Location: California
Ball of Fluff wrote:
I would suggest either ignoring her posts or responding to such post content (of hers) on which you want to say something to her, as post content.

Often times with certain personalities "post content" (as you put it) amounts to nothing more than a huge fluffy pile of distractions that serve only to act in league with Scientology's aim to "distract, attack, Fair Game and undermine" it's critics. Millions of words have been keystroked which serve only to fluff up the apparency that Scientology is "just another religion."

One needs to look at both: the post content and who the author is.

If we only looked at the "post content" of what LRH wrote we would think Scientology is Man's greatest hope for sanity. But by examining the author AND what he is saying we have concluded that LRH was a lying charlatan.

_________________
“The failure to condemn an activity is indeed, an offer of tacit approval.
All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Just an observation
PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:53 am
Posts: 314
Location: Earth
OK folks,

What is it about the Suzanne Marie chick that makes her so gosh darned important?
Does she have an extremely hot bod with huge gazzenkas?
Does Anthony Wiener tweet her pictures of his crotch?

Instead of turning her into the next Charlie Sheen, let her say what she wants to say! No one needs to engage with her

Oy Gavault already!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Just an observation
PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Posts: 1950
Location: Kansas
Ball of Fluff wrote:
Quote:
Hopefully, I've got this right. The thread topic is SM and her posting style. Also pertains to possibility and/or likelihood of SM candidly discussing Jan Eastgate.

(sigh) It is not about someone's "posting style". I have never openly objected to someone's style here. Misdirecting, derailing threads, and DAing (dead agenting) negative information about scientology, is not a "posting style". Why do I always get the impression that you are simply not paying attention?

Quote:
Also pertains to possibility and/or likelihood of SM candidly discussing Jan Eastgate.

She did comment on the Jan Eastgate subject. She tried to get all of us black propagandists to accept the following ideas:

1) That the molestation that the child endured for years, was not really that bad, because it wasn't full-on rape. She tried to minimize the child's experiences. She wrote that the child and the rest of us are exaggerating the whole thing, and that all the "church lady" (Jan Eastgate) really did was give some "bad advice". So she minimizes the child's experience and minimizes Jan Eastgate's crime. This is the technique of "Dead Agent" and it is well covered in LRon's policies on how to handle "black propaganda" (any and all negative info on scientology).
2) That the only reason Jan Eastgate was arrested, is because she is being set-up and attacked in retaliation for all the humanitarian work she does to expose the evil psyches.
3) Psychiatrists are evil and we should leave Jan Eastgate alone.

I particularly object to #1 above. SuzanneMarie claims the child was not "raped" and she implied or perhaps even stated that there was no intercourse involved during the years the child was abused. I don't know how she has privy to very specific information about the exact sexual transgressions in this case. How does she know this? Because of what the perpetrator confessed to? Any scientologist must know that criminals do not always "tell all". Either way, it makes no difference to me, because years of fondling or inappropriate touching can mean many things. It is despoliation, which means to despoil. It is a synonym for rape. The child was robbed of her innocence. For years. She was wounded for life. Emotionally maimed. But to a scientologist, this is not true, because children are never innocent. They come into this life with all their past life crimes for which they must atone (see info on False Purpose Rundown, on Caroline's Interrogation thread). If something bad happens to a child, it is only because they did the same thing to someone in past life. That is scientology's overt-motivator sequence, where the bad thing that you pull in (the motivator) always comes after the overt (transgression) which you had to have committed first.

So in SuzanneMarie's mind, it is the child, Carmen Rainer, now an adult, who is evil for attacking scientology. It is the evil psyches who are behind Xenophon and Anonymous, us here, and even the courts who are all behind this vicious and unwarranted attack upon Jan Eastgate.

Do you think this can be "discussed" with SuzanneMarie? If so, I'd like to see you discuss it with her.

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


Last edited by Dorothy on Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Just an observation
PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 2:23 am
Posts: 8106
Location: Cyberspace
Dorothy wrote:
Ball of Fluff wrote:
Quote:
Hopefully, I've got this right. The thread topic is SM and her posting style. Also pertains to possibility and/or likelihood of SM candidly discussing Jan Eastgate.

(sigh) It is not about someone's "posting style". I have never openly objected to someone's style here. Misdirecting, derailing threads, and DAing (dead agenting) negative information about scientology, is not a "posting style". Why do I always get the impression that you are simply not paying attention?

Quote:
Also pertains to possibility and/or likelihood of SM candidly discussing Jan Eastgate.

She did comment on the Jan Eastgate subject. She tried to get all of us black propagandists to accept the following ideas:

1) That the molestation that the child endured for years, was not really that bad, because it wasn't full-on rape. She tried to minimize the child's experiences. She wrote that the child and the rest of us are exaggerating the whole thing, and that all the "church lady" (Jan Eastgate) really did was give some "bad advice". So she minimizes the child's experience and minimizes Jan Eastgate's crime. This is the technique of "Dead Agent" and it is well covered in LRon's policies on how to handle "black propaganda" (any and all negative info on scientology).
2) That the only reason Jan Eastgate was arrested, is because she is being set-up and attacked in retaliation for all the humanitarian work she does to expose the evil psyches.
3) Psychiatrists are evil and we should leave Jan Eastgate alone.

I particularly object to #1 above. SuzanneMarie claims the child was not "raped" and she implied or perhaps even stated that there was no intercourse involved during the years the child was abused. I don't know how she has privy to very specific information about the exact sexual transgressions in this case. How does she know this? Because of what the perpetrator confessed to? Any scientologist must know that criminals do not always "tell all". Either way, it makes no difference to me, because years of fondling or inappropriate touching can mean many things. It is despoliation, which means to despoil. It is a synonym for rape. The child was robbed of her innocence. For years. She was wounded for life. Emotionally maimed. But to a scientologist, this is not true, because children are never innocent. They come into this life with all their past life crimes for which they must atone (see info on False Purpose Rundown, on Caroline's Interrogation thread). If something bad happens to a child, it is only because they did it to someone in past life.

So in SuzanneMarie's mind, it is the child, Carmen Rainer, now an adult, who is evil for attacking scientology. It is the evil psyches who are behind Xenophon and Anonymous, us here, and even the courts who are all behind this vicious and unwarranted attack upon Jan Eastgate.

Do you think this can be "discussed" with SuzanneMarie? If so, I'd like to see you discuss it with her.


Re the first, Oh I dunno. Maybe I sometimes make mistakes. That's the only way I can explain it.

Re the second- yes, I'm happy to try to discuss it with her.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Just an observation
PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 2:23 am
Posts: 8106
Location: Cyberspace
Roan wrote:
Ball of Fluff wrote:
I would suggest either ignoring her posts or responding to such post content (of hers) on which you want to say something to her, as post content.

Often times with certain personalities "post content" (as you put it) amounts to nothing more than a huge fluffy pile of distractions that serve only to act in league with Scientology's aim to "distract, attack, Fair Game and undermine" it's critics.


How awful. Speaking for myself, I know how irritating it can be when one is trying to discuss Scn, CofS, Hubbard, etc, and the threads get derailed and crapped up. It really doesn't help anything. I can see we agree on this.

Quote:
Millions of words have been keystroked which serve only to fluff up the apparency that Scientology is "just another religion."


That would indeed be irritating. Anyone who thought Scn was just another religion would have to be ignoring the many abuses in the cult and also that are inherent in Scn tech and policy. I know I certainly have been trying to shed a spotlight on both points for years. Never appreciated it when people try to whitewash it. It clearly is NOT just another religion. I lost that illusion a few years before, I believe, you and I met.

Quote:
One needs to look at both: the post content and who the author is.


Kind of a slippery slope there.

Quote:
If we only looked at the "post content" of what LRH wrote we would think Scientology is Man's greatest hope for sanity. But by examining the author AND what he is saying we have concluded that LRH was a lying charlatan.


Not the best analogy. He's dead, he doesn't post to message boards and never did. When reviewing CofS' outrages, we look at what it does. It's an organization. When reviewing Hubbard's deeds, we look at Hubbard's deeds. He is a public figure and, what's more, the one who started the whole mess. I said the other day that my guesstimate is that at least 90% of people who get into CofS leave it. (Actually, I said "run screaming out the door"). The deeds are more than relevant.

But if someone's posting on a forum and people are making up motives and speculating on the person's job, personal life, etc- sorry, but that just imports problems into the forum and derails everything. When ppl are forum contributors, that's all they are to each other unless there's an IRL relationship somewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 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