Karen #1 was subjected to triangulated ad hom attacks from caroline/Gerry and their good friend operatingwog the moment she set foot in the door. (I will gladly provide evidence of this if anyone would like to demand I do so.)
Dorothy I would like to see your evidence.
(This is not a "demand" -- I'm merely taking you up on your offer to present evidence.)
Please then do present your evidence. Or if you are unable to do so, please withdraw your offensive claims and apologise.
What is your evidence ...
(1) For claiming I am a good friend of caroline/Gerry.
[I do assure you, and have assured you, that I am not.]
(2) For claiming that Karen "was subjected to triangulated ad hom attacks from caroline/Gerry and ... operatingwog".
[I assure you that I have not attacked Karen in an ad hominem manner or otherwise. I also assure you that I have not acted in a triangulated manner with anyone else on this board for any purpose.]
From the search feature: ad hom "Liar" "Lying" using your handle:
One view would be that she's simply lying
. What she presents as true PTS/SP doctrine has no real resemblance to the application of that doctrine under LRH. There's no recognition in what she says that people/organisations outside the church can be SP, no mention of the idea of PTS and disconnection, no mention of fair gaming. There's also, obviously, no recognition that declares were issued to people who weren't (by any generally accepted standard) "really evil". So maybe she's just trying to cover the truth.
Another view would be that she's lying to herself
in order to square the circle.viewtopic.php?f=9&t=43812
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:
You don't simply ask her the difficult question: "Here's the evidence I have, did you alter the affidavit?" Instead you accuse her of "concealing the truth" not once, but repeatedly, a total of six times, in six different ways! This is extreme overkill and an obvious and desperate effort to Fair Game this woman.
I assure you that I have not attacked Karen in an ad hominem manner
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!
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.
Surely a scientologist will never say an unequivocal "No" to something that's recognised as part of the "tech"? Isn't it basic that LRH is source, and that anything except full application of the "tech" as it has been received from source is ultra naughty?
What Karen said about the suppressive person doctrine was quite minimal and vague and leaves loads of room for different interpretations.
One view would be that she's simply lying. What she presents as true PTS/SP doctrine has no real resemblance to the application of that doctrine under LRH. There's no recognition in what she says that people/organisations outside the church can be SP, no mention of the idea of PTS and disconnection, no mention of fair gaming. There's also, obviously, no recognition that declares were issued to people who weren't (by any generally accepted standard) "really evil". So maybe she's just trying to cover the truth.
Another view would be that she's lying to herself in order to square the circle.
Another view would be that she does reject standard tech, but cannot explicitly say that this is what she is doing. An equivocal 'No', rather than the unequivocal 'No' that you think is needed. A few days ago on Marty's blog she said:
Karen#1 on Marty's blog wrote:
David Mayo was ahead of his time when he stated (paraphrased)
“No one Entity should have the POWER to control or THREATEN one’s Spiritual future and “Eternity”.
That's rejecting even a view of the suppressive person doctrine as akin to Catholic excommunication (justified by reference to Matthew 16:19, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.")
Part of me wants to know exactly which precise one of the many things she could be doing she actually is doing. To pin it down. Ignore all the stuff she says about the horrors of PTS/SP under Miscavige (which is misdirection, in effect if not in intention) and just try to get a straight answer on her view of the actual content of genuine, on-source PTS/SP doctrine.
But I sort of think trying to do that might be missing the point (and anyway, I know it'd be a waste of time). One way of dealing with a question to which one can find no satisfactory answer is to ignore it, or half-ignore it -- and it may be that that's the best way to understand her stance (or lack of stance). If the choice you think you face is between embracing evil (embracing PTS/SP) or being a squirrel (rejecting PTS/SP), the best thing may be simply to refuse to choose. (And if you do that long enough, you hopefully get to realise that you shouldn't be facing that choice in the first place.)
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?
^^ I don't at all mind being called "kitty". I like kitties.
Dorothy: If it's a choice between you calling me "kitty" and you calling me "OSA", "fair-gamer", "sec-checker", "executor" [sic], "public hangman", etc. then please go with "kitty".
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:
Perhaps you've read some posts carelessly and have added up 2+2 and come up with 22. Or perhaps you are not being entirely straightforward and honest, and you think it might somehow serve your purposes to present me as other than I am. (Rather like all the black PR about me being plural, OSA, a sec-checker, very "close" to Gerry Armstrong, and so forth.)
What I had in mind was this passage
This is extreme overkill and an obvious and desperate effort to Fair Game this woman. This kind of repetitive process interrogation method is quite familiar to me. Your adept skill at "varying the question" makes you a Top Gun OSA candidate. I guess that Hubbard Senior Sec Checker Course training really took on you. And you must be thrilled your thread turned into the gang bang sec check that it did.
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.
There has been the agenda of portraying Gerry Armstrong as crazy, don't believe anything he writes. I have heard bits of that since first arriving here. And now it is going on again. Why?
EDIT to correct spelling mistake