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

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?

Damn! Sweet summation is sweeet!

I always thought that SM was Pitbull's sister

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.

^^^ 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.

Thank you for translating for Ball of Fluff, Sponge.

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?

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?

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.

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!

Ball of Fluff wrote:

(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?


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.

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.

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.



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.



Kind of a slippery slope there.



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.