OW, that's not muck at all.

DC is trying to sort out the anger. Nothing wrong with that.

You're right, Glibby. None of that ^^ is muck.

The muck was this:



Gerry's crazy, caroline's crazy, they're weird, noone undertands what they write, and ... oh yes, they're just pissed off because Karen is an expert on Miscavige and Gerry's Hubbard expertise is out of date.

Seriously? If that's not utter shit I don't know what is.

I'm not saying they're petty; I'm saying they're competitors. Fighting to keep your story going, when many ex-Scienetologists and the media are focussing on the present, is a worthy motivation. I don't see why caroline feels entitled to demand Karen to talk about Gerry, and about the tech, and about Hubbard; nobody is ordering caroline to talk about, say Hubbard and the first clear, which was a sad story and shows some of the foundation of lying within the tech. I don't see why caroline is so emotional about Karen, if there isn't some competition going on there; the media does chase after current or recent stories, and ignore underlying causes. I welcome caroline telling me NOT what's wrong with Karen, but what Karen is triggering within her, that creates so much anger.

It was a trial balloon to see what caroline would say, but she ignored it.

I didn't say anything about crazy or out of date.

DC never uses the words "crazy" or "weird" so please, let's don't use hyperbole.

DC suggests that the extreme animosity against Karen is due to Karen having expertise about Miscavige that competes with Gerry's expertise about LRH. Please don't throw kerosine out there.

Don Carlo

Making caroline's motivation competition with Karen is making her appear petty to my view. In any case if you actually seriously mean it you should be able to supply some evidence (no sign of any yet).

Couldn't it just be that caroline thinks that discussion of scientology abuse should be truthful? Or would that be too simple, and not reflect badly enough on caroline?

I don't know where you got the idea that caroline is emotional about Karen. This is another claim with no evidence which tends to reflect badly on caroline's motivations.

[Glibby I didn't mean to suggest DC used the words 'crazy' or 'weird'. Those are words that have been and are being used. That is the context in which DC's words are being written.]

From the search feature: ad hom "Liar" "Lying" using your handle:

IMO you are misrepresenting three "different views" that are actually the same ad hom: that she's lying. IMO you are working extra hard to convince people that she lies.

This thread is your best example:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=43812
I explain in the thread what you did thar:


I was actually quite easily assured by these examples that you did do what you said you did not do. By "Fair Game", I mean "character assassinate". It's my opinion, but it is based on ample evidence.

When I wrote that you are good friends with caroline it is my conclusion from using "search" and looking at the patterns in your posts from the day you arrived. You and caroline got along great from day one, often chat back and forth and always agree on everything. You always come to her defense whenever she is challenged. You guys are definitely what one might call "cyber buddies". I think anyone using the search feature would likely see this. Now this is my own personal conclusion mind you- take it or leave it. There is nothing wrong with being cyber buddies. I have them. Take J.Swift for example. We're kind of like cyber buddies here on ocmb, same as you and caroline. Never met the guy, and I wasn't claiming to know whether you have met caroline IRL. There's nothing wrong with being friends with caroline. In fact, I encourage it!

I don't think I've ever called anyone OSA, especially you. I did accuse suzannemarie of being an OSA volunteer, but that's probably it. Can you please show me where I called you or anyone else OSA? You ask for evidence and quotes for everything I say. How about you?

Any way, this is a Pot/Kettle/Black situation:

If I had a choice I'd rather not be called careless, stupid, dishonest, Black-PRing, as you did here, to me:

There's nothing petty about competition; religions, political parties, philosophers, websites and celebrities compete openly to reach new people. It doesn't make the Baha'i church petty to put an ad in the paper, or Mormons to put ads on busses. Nobody wants to speak to an empty room.

Operatingwog, you said I disagree; she has too much scorn in her words to just be fact-finding and fact-correcting. There is an agenda there beyond "truth" which I don't fully understand.
You're implying that those caroline was arguing with weren't truthful, but rather ignorant and/or evil, and caroline was bringing the light of truth to them. This is an insult to many of those she was arguing with, whose "offenses" are (1) they have different opinions, (2) they have different goals, and (3) they can get confused, annoyed, and sloppy. These "offenses" caroline pounces on and hammers at, repeatedly, and manages to tar every opponent with her trump-card slur, "lying" and variant of that word. However, cleverly, she avoids saying the word "liar" so if complained against that she is calling someone a liar, she can turn around and play the liar-is-a-noun-and-lying-is-a-verb-so-you're-lying-about THAT.

She labeled something I said, when I was laying out facts about her liar-is-a-noun-and-lying-is-a-verb trick, as "a wrongly included lie." I didn't lie or wrongly include(???) a lie. I am not buying her self-image as solely a fighter for truth, when my direct experience was an insult on my integrity, and when I asked for an explanation, she wouldn't even give it.

Dorothy this is so lame.

First you try to substantiate your claim that I have conducted 'triangulated ad hom attacks'.

You drop the triangulate bit straight away. Probably wisest. You'd really struggle not to look silly trying to back that one up.

OK, so no evidence for triangulated ad hom attacks. But maybe there's some evidence for ad hom attacks?

What's an ad hominem attack? It's an attack on the person which functions, or is intended to function, as a substitute for rational engagement with their argument or point of view.

Did you find any of that? Erm ... no.

You referred to a response I made to Karen's defence of the SP doctrine. And you provided an incorrect link, which was wise, because you really travestied that response. (Clever of you to refer to only two of the three options I set out. Or maybe not very clever.)

Anyway, if I simply paste what I actually said (and the correct link) it'll be clear enough that there was no ad hominem attack.



Then you bring up again my asking Karen why she redacted David Mayo's affadavit to remove Mayo's assertion that Hubbard ordered his kidnapping and detention. Again, this is not an ad hominem attack. It's a series of questions. Pushy questions. Rude questions, perhaps. Not an ad hominem attack though.

So no triangulation, no ad hominem attacks. So ... that just leaves the close friends with caroline/Gerry bit.

Well of course "close friends" becomes "cyberbuddies". OK. Maybe that really is what you meant, even if it's not what you said. So am I cyberbuddies with caroline and/or Gerry? Is there any evidence of this?

Erm ... no.

Straight away you drop the idea of me being close friends or cyberbuddies with Gerry! Good call, Dorothy. That would've been a bit tricky to find evidence for!

Oh, but hang on, you don't have any evidence for me being cyberbuddies with caroline either. Just some untruths (I won't say 'lies' as that's verboten) about how we've always got on. From day one! Chatting back and forth! And not the merest hint of a shadow of a whisper of an echo of anything that might possibly in a dim light look like actual evidence of this! Just a bare-faced pork pie.

Aha. Then another posting! If you fail at first then try again, eh, Dorothy?



What I had in mind was this passage


You didn't call me OSA. My mistake. You merely complimented me by saying I was a Top Gun OSA candidate, which is much nicer. And asserted that I'd done a Senior Sec Checker Course.

Oh and you brought up the error I made in thinking you'd either been careless or had invented DLRH's claim that he knew me from WWP (a claim he's now withdrawn).

I was mistaken in this claim. (I didn't know that DLRH had posted that because I had him on ignore at the time.) I'm sorry about that.

Funny thing is, though, Dorothy: I've already apologised to you about that haven't I, and explained how my error occurred? I wonder why you thought it was appropriate to bring it up again?

------

daisy asked an interesting question on the "indie debate x" thread. Maybe you know the answer.



EDIT to correct spelling mistake

You're right that competition per se is not petty. I never did or would suggest that. Some competitive motives are petty, others are not. You attributed a petty motive to caroline.


Concern for truth is not the same as fact-finding or fact-correcting. More to the point: You are again attributing an emotional attitude (scorn) to caroline without supplying any evidence. Are you deliberately inventing derogatory explananda to serve as a pretext for coming up with derogatory explanations? Or do you just have a very active imagination?


I'm not implying that anyone was/is not truthful or was/is ignorant and/or evil. That's frankly just ridiculous. It's in no way an implication of what I said.


If you have an issue with what caroline said to you then raise it with her, please, not me. I don't know who was in the right or the wrong about that. It's not remotely relevant to your discussion with me. What is relevant is that you've taken the opportunity again to attribute an emotional attitude to caroline without any supporting evidence. You don't buy into "her self-image as solely a fighter for truth". Good for you. Do you have anything that remotely looks like evidence that she buys into this self-image? Or did you just make it up?

Here was my response:

(apparently she's afraid Indies might be advertising here)

^^^ Oh look. Dorothy's signature. 'When referring to myself as a “prophet” I have always used the theological definition: one who speaks for God. I am technically a Prophet to Scientologists (PtS) because I speak for Him in certain communications to Scientologists -Gerry Armstrong'

Did you have an answer for daisy's question about the derogatory campaign against Gerry Armstrong? Why has it stepped up a gear?

I've had that sig for a while now, you just now noticed it.

Why would quoting Gerry be considered derogatory? Usually quoting someone is considered flattering. If you find something "wrong" with what Gerry wrote there, then you have a problem with Gerry, not me.

Daisy is entitled to her opinion. I'm not going to badger her to death about providing me evidence for her opinion, as you generally do to people. If she is getting some impression based on what she reads here, I think that's normal for people to do. Not everyone will read every word and agree on everything. The point of my response was, that I did not come to the same conclusion she did.

^^ He he. I knew you'd say that.

Even after you said that stuff about it being funny-weird. Oh yes of course: You didn't say you thought it was funny-weird. You asked me if I thought it was funny-weird. Silly me, thinking that you were insinuating that Gerry Armstrong is weird. Of course you didn't mean to insinuate that.

You're just expressing your admiration for Gerry aren't you Dorothy? It used to be Sartre, now it's Armstrong. Of course it is. I believe you.

There is no campaign to smear Gerry Armstrong and caroline is there? Silly me thinking there is.

operatingwog, I think Don Carlo has the right to come to his own conclusions, based on his own research, and express them. He owns the right to do this same as you me, and everyone else here. This is not a court of law, no one is "on trial" (really). Censuring Don Carlo, me, or anyone else with constant demands for proof and evidence is IMO an effort to shut them up. We all come to our own conclusions and express them, even you. That's why it's an opinions and debates forum.

Not all negative conclusions about someone or something is an ad hom. Don Carlo is not running any campaign to destroy anyone. He is doing his own research and trying to get to the bottom of various loud disputes that have been going on. If you don't like a conclusion he made, I think you should state why you don't like it, and move on.

Caroline launched an extremely energetic ad hom campaign against Don Carlo, which I meticulously documented, above with multiple ad homs. Yet you never once asked her for any evidence for her claims issued in her serial attack against Don Carlo. Why not? Did you agree with all the things caroline wrote about Don Carlo? I have to assume you did. I have to conclude, based on what you challenge, and what you do not challenge, to figure out what you REALLY think. It would be helpful if you could try to be more forthcoming.