Ball of Fluff wrote:
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?
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.