Oh and BTW, this is such a blatant lie:

For the audience: I did not PM this poster. The truth- which IS on record, is this poster PM'd me the exact same syrupy and creepy vitriol which you see above. I now regret having responded to this person's PM, even though my response was civil (also on record), but the honesty was too much for them I suppose.

^^
You did not PM this poster? But you sent me a PM in response to mine, I think? So you, erm, did PM me?

It was civil certainly. Funny unintentionally. Sad ultimately.

And mine was vitriol? But sweet vitriol?

Try to get it straight Dorothy. It sounds more plausible that way. To "the audience". LOL.

Just so everyone knows, from the FAQ about this board:

"What are the rules on OCMB?"

This message board has very simple rules:
-You are to behave polite and friendly here (just adding a lot of smilies is not enough).
-Use netiquette.When writing your messages, please use the same courtesy that you would show when speaking face-to-face with someone.
-Flames, insults, and personal attacks will not be tolerated.
-It's fine to disagree strongly with opinions, ideas, and facts, but always with respect for the other person. Great minds do not always think alike.
-Don't publish private messages without approval from all involved.

Sorry. I went too far above. I meant the substantive points, but would like to withdraw the insults. I got the point about pms.

It was wrong by Karen to remove Hubbard’s part in the abusing of Mayo, but Karen’s Defense of David Mayo in the Marty land, in a land they want to "deconstructing the Mayo Myth"
she has something to lose there in example her good standing, I think that weighing over to her virtue!

Dorothy said:



Those discussions are valuable to me. I agree that there is no scientific study that I know of anyway that has examined scientology in this way. There seems to be a fair amount of anecdotal evidence from former members, however. In any event, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, FWIW to you, as I understand it the Stanford Prison Test conditions were not devoid of ideology, it was that the ideology was supported by the institutional system. It remains to be seen what the Indie scientologists will do with their ideology outside the institutional system of Cos. I wish them nothing but the best, but I believe the ideology itself is problematic.



A lazy person like me would have just answered yes. Seriously, I'm supposed to read all 1300+ posts you've made before I can ask you a question? Whoops, I did it again.



Agreed.



Yes, one is. I suppose that if you are used to dealing with people who routinely hide their true motivations, or are such a person yourself, you would think otherwise. But that reflects on your motivations, not mine. I am inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt until they show me it's undeserved. Sometimes that happens, most times not.



Demented LRH said:



No, no, no. Willfullness, deliberation and premeditation are not events. They are states of mind, that can be proven by or inferred from the events you mention. The events are EVIDENCE of the underlying state of mind.



Yes, you are correct. If you cannot prove the elements of premeditation, willfullness and deliberation you cannot get a first degree conviction. But that is a evidentiary problem, and as you recognize the mental state can be there even if it can't be proven.



OK. I only commented on this after you brought it up in the context of mental state not being admissible in court.



Can't comment on what the authors were aware of or not. It's not that complicated in a legal sense, however, and knowing what the "mind" is doesn't really matter. Using our degrees of homicide example the state of mind questions boil down to "did you kill intentionally (as opposed to accidentally); and if so, was it heat of the moment or did you have a plan? Obviously that is an oversimplification, but you see what I mean.



Well, I'm just a country boy not a logician, but in my world it's answers that are right or wrong, not questions. I will grant you that the original question posed in this thread could have been phrased more artfully, or tactfully, whatever. But I didn't find it meaningless, or wrong. Nor, I am sorry to say, did your logical analysis render it meaningless or wrong to me. I accept that this may mean I am incapable of following your analysis, but there it is.



That is too bad. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Nobody's ass need be kicked. I certainly applaud Karen and all the other Indie activists for their courage and work in opposing DM. I remain, as always, skeptical of scientology claims and practices.



I am interested in the views on the "tech". I find accounts of the "wins" etc. fascinating. I am always trying to figure out what it is that a person gets from scientology that allows the willing (maybe unwilling?) suspension of disbelief that has to occur to continue up the Bridge. I don't hate anyone, except my grade school music teacher, but that's another story.

Be well, have a good weekend all.


HS

Looks like the claws came out… I dream of meeting the kitty at the basement (Thunderdome) of the WWP website.
Healthyskeptic is an example of a polite opponent, I wish that kitty would learn to behave from him.
I would like to say more to healthysceptic to clarify my position.
We could have differences about philosophical definitions of the word “mind”, I would be glad to discuss them at some other thread. But right now I am going to say that the thing you call “mental state” must have physical manifestations to be acceptable in the court. Therefore, I am going to paraphrase myself by saying this: Inferences that are not based on physical manifestations are not allowable in the court (examples of physical manifestations are written statements, verbal statements, chemical tests, DNA tests, etc.)
Now I am going to recap the nature of my argument with the OP. Based on the Mayo affidavit data, the OP posted a question. I have proved that its question is meaningless from logical standpoint. A property of a meaningless question is that it does not refer to any events, although it might have been inspired by certain events. Therefore, the OPs question has no relation to the Mayo affidavit (I would be happy to discuss the concept of meaningless questions with anyone interested in it). Because the initial question is meaningless, all OP’s statements related to it are also meaningless.
Somewhere down the line the OP made a logical deduction of a different kind that is not related to the original question, I will present its position in my own words: The Indies are trying to whitewash Hubbard-- Karen is an Indy -- she is trying to whitewash Hubbard.
There are several things in this deduction that are wrong. First of all, not all Scientologists not associated with CoS think that Hubbard should be presented in a favorable light. For example, I saw a post at Emma’s website whose initiator thinks that Hubbard was a horrific person, but the large portions of his Tech are valid.
Then there is a more serious flaw in the OP deduction -- what a concealment of the truth about Hubbard actually constitutes? There are tons of extremely negative Hubbard data on the Internet, the Indies have no control of it, they cannot hide it. From whom the Indies are trying to hide this data? Maybe, from the OP, but not from me -- I saw plenty of it, and even used the portions of it in my threads (see the thread, Hubbard’s Dirty Laundry, for example).
There is only one way of concealment of negative Hubbard data -- a person who has it does not want to share it with the world. I do not think that Karen is doing this. But if anyone accuses her of using this tactics of concealment, he/she should provide a material proof of his/her assertion.

Concerning this thread. Would it not be of value to all concerned if we actually asked Karen#1 if in fact this question has not already been asked, about a possible typo or redacted line within the Mayo online affidavit if indeed this happened? Karen#1 may or may not have had her reasons as to the hows and why,s if a change in the affidavit did occur. Please remember this is an individual whom has only been out for 2 years!

Karen#1. If you possibly changed the quote from Mayo,s affidavit, I kind of understand. You have dedicated a large portion of your life towards what YOU believe was the best for you. You are knowledgeable and from what I understand an upper level auditor. I do not take umbrage if you feel Hubbard was of benefit to you. Though many of us here have our own slant on Hubbard, if you gained something positive from those experiences and you rose above the din of abuse, then I see why you may want to somewhat protect something that is dear and close to your heart and being.

I think a lot of people here are going to be surprised by my about face on OCMB as to my thought processes and how I now feel about the indie,s or anyone whom is interested in scientology outside of the current organization. It is actually none of my concern! I can no longer attack,attack,attack the individual. That makes us no better than that which we rail against!

This ongoing negativity solves nothing. One of the reasons I am here is to GROW, to UNDERSTAND and show COMPASSION towards all my fellow men. This is what separates us from the darker side of the human condition.

The path of compassion and acceptance is in fact the only one to follow if those in which we extend our hand of friendship are open to both dialogue and reason. Soooooo, lets attempt to take that higher ground and try to understand the reasoning behind why Karen#1 posted in the fashion she did.

If a hardline critic like myself can, I am sure the rest of you good people can too!

Gambythetruth:
Sorry, I missed your responses to some parts of my post. I am going to go over them now.
“No, no, no. Willfullness, deliberation and premeditation are not events. They are states of mind, that can be proven by or inferred from the events you mention. The events are EVIDENCE of the underlying state of mind.”

I did not say that willfulness, deliberation and premeditation are events, I said that they are references to events. A reference is nothing more than a written or a verbal sentence, not an event itself.
If you accept the idea that the mind is not an artificial construct but something real, you may be tempted to consider events as evidence of the underlying state of mind. But this concept is faulty because things like mind, spirit, soul, ghost, thetan, etc, cannot be detected by an experiment conducted in a material world. I, along with other positivists, use the word “mind” as a reference to specific events, not as reality in itself. Anyway, I said in my previous post that what is called by some “state of mind” is always accompanied with physical manifestations, these manifestations and deductions based on them are the only type of evidence that is allowed in the court system.

“Yes, you are correct. If you cannot prove the elements of premeditation, willfullness and deliberation you cannot get a first degree conviction. But that is a evidentiary problem, and as you recognize the mental state can be there even if it can't be proven“.

To me this is not a mental state itself, but the absence of certain physical manifestations. But this discussion is getting too scholastic. It would be simpler to say that OP did not provide any material evidence showing that Karen made a decision to conceal the truth about Hubbard’s crimes; such evidence would be, for example, a written statement from Karen saying that it is her duty to cover-up Hubbard’s crimes.

“Can't comment on what the authors were aware of or not. It's not that complicated in a legal sense, however, and knowing what the "mind" is doesn't really matter. Using our degrees of homicide example the state of mind questions boil down to "did you kill intentionally (as opposed to accidentally); and if so, was it heat of the moment or did you have a plan? Obviously that is an oversimplification, but you see what I mean“

I was just explaining the positivist views on the subject of mind. From legal standpoint, my comments do not change anything.

“Well, I'm just a country boy not a logician, but in my world it's answers that are right or wrong, not questions. I will grant you that the original question posed in this thread could have been phrased more artfully, or tactfully, whatever. But I didn't find it meaningless, or wrong. Nor, I am sorry to say, did your logical analysis render it meaningless or wrong to me. I accept that this may mean I am incapable of following your analysis, but there it is.”

I was using more general term, “proposition”, which includes both question and answer to it. Propositions could be right or wrong or meaningless. If a proposition contains logical errors, then it is meaningless and refers to nothing. I have proved that OP’s question contains logical errors and, therefore, it is meaningless. On emotional level you may accept the OP’s question as valid, which is fine with me -- not all people have studied deductive logic, and I do not see the reason why I should look down at them. But you are not the person who started this thread to attack Karen for no apparent reason; I decided to use my knowledge of deductive logic to show it that everything it says has no logical meaning.

Finally, let’s talk about the ass -- you saw my posts the WWP. I am not the first one to insult my opponents, except, maybe in the case of the anti-psychotic drug crusader, ShinAkuma. But when I get insulted, I reply in kind. I have the same history here with the kitty -- it was the first one to hurl insults at me. But when it realized that I can humiliate it, it slowed down although did not abandon its practice altogether.

But Gumbythetruth, Karen has not been "out" for 2 years. Supposedly switching cult leaders within Scientology is not relevant to the issue of concealing the truth or not.



Keep in mind that Scientologists never seek to communicate to wogs for their personal betterment, healing, etc. That's what they depend on Scientology auditing for, the very auditing that Karen promotes and delivers. Please don't make the mistake of associating her presence here with the usual wog reasons. Karen #1 represents Scientology on OCMB. Yes, it's a rough job, but she has the best TRs on the planet, and is demonstrating the very best Scientology has to offer. She's also quite apparently under orders to "focus the troops," a job that requires technical skills that Karen possesses. OCMB is obviously a target of such focusing efforts.

Karen is dedicated to delivering Scientology, as she has been doing for the better part of her life. As one of Hubbard's top trained technical delivery personnel, it would be a serious error for her to admit to concealing the truth if that's what she did. Scientologists seek to live by the auditor's code which prohibits admitting such behavior.

"I promise not to explain, justify or make excuses for any auditor mistakes, whether real or imagined." (Ref. Auditor's Code.)



I don't agree. I think Karen's participation on this board has been incredibly helpful for wogs.



Acceptance of lies and/or concealments of truth is a very bad idea, and in my view would be an unfriendly act toward the liars and concealers. But just as importantly, it would undermine the efforts of the rest of us who do try and live with the truth.

Caroline, why did you redact my quote by cutting off the end of my sentence?

Here is my actual quote:


Additionally, I'm not sure what you mean by "...and with respect for the right to justice for the victims...".

This is a discussion board, not a Court. No one is on trial here, except maybe in the minds of a few. Justice is an illusive and socially constructed concept. I believe in justice for all of the victims of scientology. But I can't define what exactly that would be. Can you? Justice for one individual may not constitute Justice for another. When the ATF attacked the Koresh compound with tanks, snipers, firebombs and teargas*, do you think the victims who's children were murdered in those attacks feel that Justice was served upon them, just because they were released from the bonds of the Koresh Cult, and Koresh and his cult were anihilated? My point is not to take a stand on the ATF's actions, but rather to point out the elusive nature of Justice.

I'd also like to point out that you are not the representative of the "victims of scientology". I point that out because you speak as though you are. You represent yourself, and Gerry only, unless you have a list of people who have appointed you and Gerry their representatives. And on that note I want you to know I sincerely hope that some day Gerry does get the Justice that he believes he deserves, that has been so elusive to him. I mean whatever HIS concept of that Justice would be- I hope he gets it. I'm not sure what that is but I guess it would be a reversal of all Court decisions that have not been in Gerry's favor.

Back to the topic of the thread and regarding the OP:

"Varying the question" is a Sec Checking (scientology's interrogation procedure done on the e-meter) term that describes a technique the interrogator uses when he is trying to get the preclear to confess to a crime. If the interrogator does not get a confession on the Sec Check question (example: "Did you personally redact this doc?"), he is instructed to use the technique of varying the question in as many different ways as his creative intelligence can think of to vary the question. Operatingwog's OP was a stunning example of such talent. Rather than simply asking Karen the question, he/she re-worded it repeatedly (six different ways), I guess, to try to get a "read" on Karen. I don't know if operatingwog was/is a trained Sec Checker, or even if operatingwog has any personal experience with scientology (he/she has implied he has no personal experience with it), I just can't help but notice these things. I am very familiar with scientology technology having worked closely with it for many, many years. It just seems like a strange coincidence to me and I'm a bit disturbed by it. Operatingwog keeps repeating that he/she is merely guilty of "asking a simple question" while offering up no explanation for why he/she did not in fact "simply ask a question" but rather badgered Karen with six different variations of the exact same accusation. Perhaps operatingwog was intending to convince the audience that Karen is a person who "conceals the truth". Caroline, I know this is very much in alignment with your mantra that Indies are all about intentionally "concealing the truth", so it wouldn't bother you.

I know Indies are very controversial with some critics, and so these kinds of general accusations are destined to fly about. I'm disappointed because this has always been the most diverse board (imo) and I appreciate the diverse posters and views expressed here. The fact that Karen came here was refreshing and her thread has been truly enlightening. She made it clear from the beginning (as soon as the first inevitable attack was launched) that she is here to publish an account of abuse, not discuss her beliefs or get into ideological discussions with critics. We already know that Indies will make every opportunity to present LRon in a positive light and I also understand that this goes back to Gerry's BASIC-BASIC of exposing LRon's lies and the ronbot's attempt to cover them up. I don't have a problem with pointing something out. What I have a problem is, is placing a head on a pike, making an example of a person and harassing and badgering them about it. Whitewashing a Leader, Founder, Messiah, Prophet, Guru etc. will always be a duty-bound practice of followers. My disappointment is not that this has been pointed out, but that operatingwog's methods come across as trolling:


Caroline, I know you don't want me to "trust" Karen#1 because you have branded her a "concealer of the truth". Too bad. I "trust" Karen to do exactly as she is doing.

* Bradley Fighting Vehicles carrying M651 CS tear gas grenades and Ferret rounds, as well as five M-60 combat engineering vehicles (CEVs) obtained from the US Army began patrolling.[18] The armored vehicles were used to destroy perimeter fencing and outbuildings and crush cars belonging to the Davidians. The tanks repeatedly drove over the grave of Davidian Peter Gent despite protests by the Davidians and the negotiators. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

This is pure hypocrisy on your part. Your whole gig here on Clambake is all about "troop focusing". Please, convince me otherwise.

You speak about this person (Karen) as if they aren't even human. Wogs are human beings. Scientologists are human beings. We all have that in common. Karen is perfectly capable of wog sensibility, just as you are perfectly capable of scientology sensibility, something I see demonstrated in your actions here quite often.

Marty'll keep saying this until he's blue in the face.

Hey look everybody. A giant bug!



Sorry to derail, but a little humor is good for the soul. And yes it is a real photo of an aussie weta grasshopper!