While I'm waiting, I've been looking for triggers that caused this argument between caroline and Dorothy. Here's another:
Dorothy wrote, Nov. 18, 2011*

Dorothy proceeded to disagree, in a way that mocked Gerry. She left out four points - step up your game, Dorothy!
(1) If CoS starts selling its real estate due to being dismantled, that's a lot of money to pay for victims' lawsuits.
(2) The creation of new victims within CoS stops
(3) The present victims will get immediate relief from further persecution.
(4) Prosecution against Miscavige and others is easier without vast CoS funds.

Another Reason Why I Like the Indies: Carisa Marion viewtopic.php?f=9&t=42566&start=45

I have read everything I could find about the Armstrong case. There are no beneficiaries mentioned in it. What’s the point of using the term "beneficiary" if it carries no legal meaning?
PS.
I checked Gerry’s website. He uses the term “beneficiary” liberally to convey certain meaning that I, frankly, do not understand. But this is not a legal usage of the term.

I believe Gerry himself thought up the theory that beneficiaries in the settlement mean he is "appointed executioner." He has quite an imagination.

To some questions, yes.



And you are saying that you don’t get it, right?



Here’s one for example. Let’s see how it works:



I was very offended by that. The right information would have been that you did not go into agreement with Don Carlo’s manipulation of facts and perversion of the truth in the direction of black PR that serves the Scientologists’ malevolent purposes towards Gerry and me.

You have been presenting until this moment as someone utterly ignorant about the Scientology v. Gerry Armstrong war or Scientology v. Letkeman, but you readily agree here with a black propaganda statement from someone whose semantic dishonesty and antisocial agenda have already been documented and indicated. And it is a black propaganda statement that serves the Scientologists’ purposes toward real live wogs. Don Carlo is a fake persona, in hiding, with no responsibility for his words or actions.

That is really offensive.

The correct information from you would be silence. Or, if you had to say something honest, something like, "I haven’t seen any evidence of this Don Carlo."



I trust this is simple enough for you. I made your offensive post the first one for trying out your idea of juxtaposing the correct information.

Now that I have shown by simple logic that your post is offensive, what do you do? Tell the truth, of course.



You have been told. And your denial that you have not been told is cruel.

Here’s one part of a post that says something about what’s wrong, that is based on an earlier post in this thread from Operatingwog.

Whooaaah, WHOOOAAAAAAHHH!!!!

Caroline, I am compelled to jump right in and completely disagree with you on this statement. By Don's own admission, he was sorta lost in transition and wanted to go back a little to see if he could see what was what and what was not.

Please, retract this unless in your heart of hearts it is what you believe.

You have been here long enough and surely read enough posts by Don to leave no doubt the statement of yours just does not fit. Like you, Don is one of a few whose posts I make sure to read. I estimate I have read every post Don has made since I got here, and subsequently a massive proportion of his posts pre-dating me arriving. At no point has there ever been any inclination that Don is just a fake persona.

I think you are so wrong on this, that if I do not speak up, then I am not being true to my 'self'

"Don Carlo" is not a real person. It is a user name. Please don't confuse these things. There is a difference between real people with real addresses and real lives and records and an pseudonymous person on a forum. I'm making that difference. How could it possible be otherwise? Don Carlo can disappear and never be heard from again. I cannot. That is a huge difference in responsibility.

I do understand what you are saying, really.
The same thing applies to moi. I remain anonymous by choice. But that does not mean I am just a "persona". It is entirely different for you and Gerry, because you do not hide behind a username. That does not mean Don is hiding, it means he has loved ones to protect. (I know this from reading Don over the years)


Whereas for me?.....yes, I do hide behind usernames because it has always allowed me to remain under the cult-radar of identifying who I am, where I am and what affiliations I have.
It enabled me to go hammer and tong over the Sydney Ideal Org bullshit and allowed me to get in thick with media sauces in Aus to spread information

People that identify themselves (like you and Gerry)are an easy target. Not only for the cult, but for the ilk that would dearly love you and Gerry to STFU and let scientology manifest into a not-so-easy to recognize tentacle of scientology or a "reformation" of the church itself.

Reformation of something rotten at the core does nothing to address the rotten core itself.

/preaching to the chior

I admitted my mistaken guesses about the sources of the arguments here, went back and fixed them; that wasn't something a fake persona would have done. I'm sorry I'mglib agreed with one of my wrong initial guesses (that the beneficiary issue was that everyone should be grateful). Part of my mistaken guesses were done because caroline wouldn't answer many of my questions, so I tossed out some trial balloons.

I am anonymous, since I have relatives in CoS. I appreciate that being a known critic is much, much more difficult than being an anonymous one.

Semantic dishonesty? I spent at least an hour summarizing my three attempts to answer caroline's request for the "series of events" which about the word "lying" versus the word "liars." Each time, I made it clearer, and then she wouldn't reply to the third attempt, or to the summary of the three attempts. Is "semantic dishonesty" caroline's answer to my "series of events" or.. what? Please explain.

caroline is uses ad hominem* accusations frequently, and it seems to be when she is uncomfortable - when asked to explain something touchy, or if the conversation turns to the settlement. Someone gets the "black PR" accusation or various dishonesty accusations - Karen, Dorothy, Swift, I'mglib, me. Thanks for sticking up for me, Alert; jump in and you'll get your very own accusation.

* criticism of the person rather than using facts and logic in the argument

Never mind.

Our legal relationship with Scientology absolutely prohibits us from hiding or being anonymous in this war, some of which war occurs online as is obvious here.

Scientology outed me on a.r.s. after I wrote the Soul Hackers essay. I have not been able to be anonymous ever since. We have had PIs stake us out in Canada and Germany.

Gerry will doubtlessly be hauled in to more depositions. He has already testified over 70 days in trials or depositions. He cannot hide anything he has ever done anonymously, which he has not. Also, virtually everything he writes or I write can become evidence in some future court proceeding. I realize that the Scientologists' collaborators here black PR this concept. But it is only black PR.

The point I was making concerned I'mglib's declaration of agreement with Don Carlo's essentially black PR view of the Scientology v. Armstrong war. And he is pseudonymous. That was just one factor that was present and obvious for I'mglib to consider when evaluating whether to throw her weight behind the Don Carlo theory. From a moderator, in this circumstance, that's offensive.

Never mind.

Don, you have showed me so much over the years(you too Caroline and Gerry) that has enabled me to become a better debater on scientology. I was once a very brash and confrontational poster that was likely detrimental to OCMB.

But alas, over time (and reading current and archived posts) my own ego deservedly had to have it's head metaphorically kicked in before it realized objectivity will always be the key to understanding.

My main motivation for coming to your defense was not about me liking you, your posts or some other thing...it was more about me being true to my 'self'.

I have a lot of time for Caroline and Gerry simply because of who they are and the level of involvement and understanding in the absolute core of scientology tenet/doctrine.

I also have a lot of time for posters like yourself. I will always remember the thread you created about Bernie's site. It is one of the solidifying factors for me, that outlines you are not just some persona on the internetz. People like Squirrel/Galileo inspired me from day one. People like you and Gerry and Caroline continue to inspire me.

Caroline, you and Gerry have paid a heavy price for speaking out, and no amount of money would give you back what you have lost because you decided to do what was right. It is way easy for someone like me, as I can just completely disappear from MB's etc and then manifest in another form. Short of someone knowing my syntax that well, no one would ever really know I was a previous poster.
Am I an anonymous coward? Yes in a sense. Why? Look at what the cult and its apologists (leik Martyr Ratbutt) are still doing to this very day to you and Gerry.

I don't want to argue on the issue of anonymity, because it makes me sort of a hypocrite.

I just cannot come to your conclusion that Don Carlo is just a persona. Although, I do understand where you are coming from

It's because you whipped up a huge feud with all your accusations of lying, with Dorothy who I now believe was merely baffled about beneficiaries, that made me look for the underlying fight, and it looks like I've succeeded - it's the settlement. Why, if you don't like a person talking about this issue, do you draw attention to yourself and Gerry by talking about the beneficiaries and the agreement? I haven't stated opinions about what happened in the agreement; merely the facts that Gerry took money and then violated the agreement, and the State of California (right or wrong, I commented earlier) sided against him. Are any of these statement not fact? I haven't stated an opinion on whether Gerry was coerced (he might have been; I don't know); I said "right or wrong" meaning I'm not siding with the State; I'm not expert enough. I'm just trying to sort out a confusing argument. How can fact be "Black PR?"

If you don't like the attention, why do you also draw attention to yourself by arguing in such a repetitious and confrontational style ?

Okay, let’s try to clear this up. What don’t you get?



What exactly is it?



Yes, what lie are you talking about?



I don’t know. I have identified lies, and now you want me to identify more.

Here’s one that developed to a point.



This was in a black PR attack of a number of posts from J. Swift. I challenged his lie:



J. Swift avoided the sincere challenge and tried to shift the burden of proof onto Gerry:



J. Swift continued in that thread with black PR, but refused to address the lie he had told that I had challenged.

He added more lies:



The issue that this thread undertook to clarify is whether or not lying is fine on OCMB. It is already known that telling a person that he has told a lie is against board rules. I know Operatingwog said something about you recently creating this as a new rule. And you have not confirmed if it's an old rule or a new rule.

As I've stated, I believe that this rule, whether it is new or old, encourages lying. And that leads to the conclusion that lying here is better than fine.

But with these sample lies that Swift told, considering that they are not told in isolation but are part of a black campaign by Swift and others that it stretches over time, to multiple forums, and over back channels, it seems to me that simply indicating the lies must be an acceptable practice because lying has been so encouraged here.

Please address this issue, rather than the game you're playing.