Don Carlo,
Several days ago I got a PM from Swift.. He did not say anything about leaving the board. I hope he will stay with us.
I had several PM exchanges with Karen prior to the creation of this thread. She did not say anything about leaving, either. Yesterday I PMed her and now I am waiting for the answer.

Thank you for clarifying this. I accept what you're saying.



OW sometimes I call things as I see them. Maybe you could try and reread this thread and think about what Caroline is doing and how it makes the people who she is attacking, feel. How would you like it if someone accused you (wrongly) of being a part of an ongoing campaign to Fair Game them and ruin their life utterly and completely (the sick war against Gerry)? How come you don't speak up about that? Not a peep? I dk Karen and will never meet her either. But I can understand how she must feel by repetitively being told she's lying. Caroline's attack against me was even worse than that. Not a peep from you about that, yet you can cry because "I'm smearing you". Please take a good look at who accused who first. You seem to fail to understand the underlying issues here that are being debated. How is that? If you genuinely do not see what the underlying issues are and how all this got started, how can I debate you? It becomes impossible.

I accept that you're not coming after me. I do think you assisted in a campaign (caroline's campaign) to smear Karen, though. I still think that, based on your quotes. I think you did this whether you did it intentionally or not, I cannot say. That is not s smear but a statement of fact, as I see the facts. If you disagree with that analysis, hey free speech and all- you're opinion is welcome! Just say, I disagree, and why !

I take back the "Top Gun OSA candidate, sec-checker, hangman, executor" hyperbole. The hangman and sec-checker comments do apply to caroline, though and you appeared to be with her 100%, to me. I do not take that part back. You have not disagreed with one thing caroline has said or done, so I would have no way of knowing that you have any disagreements with Gerry/caroline, would I? Maybe you could enlighten me a bit more on what it is that you do disagree with them on? You seem to have a set of double standards, ie, it's okay if caroline smears, but not ok when others do it?

I'm not trying to smear you. Can you accept that? I'm trying to thrash out what's really going on with you, which hasn't been easy. As I said, straightforwardness would go a long way. It sounds like you are beginning to get it. I'm listening to you now. Please continue.

I'm going to be more careful with how I address you from now on.

All these mutual accusations and incriminations could have been avoided right from the start if some members of this board, including myself, had known a bit more about human psychology before they jumped into this debate and other similar discussions. (I learned this psychology stuff just a month ago).

The first step in showing to the followers that a cult leader is a despot is not accusing him of being a tyrant but proving that the cult “doctrine” is false. You simply cannot take the second step without taking the first one. No matter what you say, a cultist would not be able to comprehend your criticism of his leader due to the reduced mental capacity. To increase his mental capacity to sufficient level, you must prove to him that the cult teachings are based on false premises.
Yes, this is much harder than accusing the Founder of being a monster, but this is the only way to achieve the objective.

I accept you don't have any particular interest in smearing me. Your interest is in smearing Gerry Armstrong and caroline. It's only necessary to smear me insofar as I draw attention to what you're doing in relation to GA and caroline.

I understand you to be saying: stop drawing attention to what I'm doing to GA and caroline and I won't smear you.

Thanks, but no thanks.

It is not ok if anyone smears. I don't complain about caroline smearing people because she doesn't smear people.

Have I picked up on any error caroline has made? No. Does this mean I think she never makes any errors? No. What does it mean? It means if someone's being victimised I'm not going to choose that moment and that context to take issue with something he/she says.

The chances of me trusting you or taking you at your word in future are less than 0 Dorothy. So I wouldn't waste your time pretending to be nice.

caroline seems to use "Black PR" as her version of the Scientology "Suppressive Person" (SP). Several people who laid out some facts and/or criticized her get this phrase as her reply. The similarities:
Like SP, the term has a built-in insult, unlike "opponent" or "critic."
Like SP, the term is used instead of factually debating the person. For example, it was used against me when I talked about the settlement, but with no explanation or proof of which of my facts or assumptions were wrong.
Like SP, there is an underlying assumption of good-versus-evil, with people who attack caroline or Gerry as "Black" while caroline talks about her "innocence."
Like SP, the phrase has been echoed as a lazy get-out-of-the-argument card by operatingwog. Similarly, people all over CoS echo the "SP" accusation.
Like SP, the phrase assumes if someone is defending themselves against an attack by caroline, by criticizing the attack, caroline can whip out the Black PR phrase instead of defending caroline's words in the original attack.
Like SP, there is not a reaching out to respectfully correct the critics if they are confused, using incorrect language, or over-generalizing.
Like SP, there is only a dim possibility that CoS or caroline/ Gerry could think of themselves as doing Black PR on others, just like CoS can't imagine themselves being SP's (because they interpret their own SP characteristics like negativity, and overgeneralizing as justified)

I have no reason to smear Gerry or caroline. All I ask is that they stop accusing people of lying, attacking, Black PRing, engaging in a sick war against them, etc, etc., for which substantial evidence has been laid out before you, that they have indeed done this. I also ask that if they post here that they engage in actual, fair debate when people challenge the ideas and methods that they consistently use here.

Now you have made an insulting accusation against me and you offered zero to back it up. I at least had the decency to offer up clear evidence to you when I used hyperbole to describe what I thought I saw you were doing. Per your definition of ad hom above, I believe you are now accomplishing a whole new ad hom in an effort to bow out of this debate.

If you want to continue this debate, please offer up some evidence that "my interest is in smearing Gerry Armstrong and caroline." Evidence other than caroline's accusation, which she still has yet to substantiate. I asked Daisy give the same evidence for the same presumption, and got none.

If you no longer wish to continue debating me, then please say so, and then you can label your ad hom accusation your opinion, per your definition, above. You have asked me to substantiate everything I has said, and I have complied. Now I ask the same of you. Otherwise I consider your charges nothing more than a personal attack which goes against the spirit of dialogue and debate upon which this mb is founded. And otherwise you come across (to me- this is my opinion) as simply making an effort to shut me up and go away.

You want some substantiation Dorothy?

OK.

I asked you above why you couldn't (as caroline asked) simply withdraw your false claim that it was caroline who had come up with the "crazy" statement that indies and freezoners are beneficiaries of the "Gerry Armstrong lawsuit".

You know very well that some indies and freezoners are classified as beneficiaries by the 1995 injunction.

This injunction prohibits GA from
acting to assist people litigating against any entity or person classified as a beneficiary,
assisting people in defending themselves against legal claims made by the beneficiaries,
assisting with the making of any tv or radio programme (etc) which so much as mentions or refers to scientology,
discussing [sic] scientology or any beneficiary of the agreement with anyone except immediate family or legal counsel.

The injunction is crazy. (And obviously monstrous.)

caroline is not coming up with something crazy when she correctly states who is a beneficiary of the injunction: she is simply stating the truth about a crazy document.

It is -- entirely literally -- adding insult to injury to say that a person who is the victim of such a crazy and monstrous legal document (through her connection to GA) is herself in some way the one who came up with the craziness. It is presenting the victim as in some loose associative way responsible for her victimization.

I don't have any doubt of your capacity to see this. You are not stupid any more than Don Carlo is.

caroline requested you withdraw and apologise for your false claim. I have reminded you of her request twice (three times now).

How have you responded to this very reasonable request?

As follows



That is to say you have responded with fake incomprehension coupled with some smearing rubbish about how caroline is operating as a "mind guard". You refuse/fail to perform the minimal requirement of a decent human being, namely to withdraw your hurtful, smearing, false claim (a claim which you must know to be false, and which is therefore a lying claim).

Is that substantiated enough for you Dorothy?

You really sound just like caroline. I prefer to debate her on issues that concern her directly and not you, because you are not her. Unless you officially represent her in some way, please refrain from appearing to be debating for her on her behalf even using identical language as she does when you say "you present as..." to Don Carlo.

I will debate you strictly on issues that are between you and I. Do you have any more there or have you run out?

FYI- It is still my opinion that Indies are not beneficiaries in the Gerry Armstrong injunction and to say so without any explanation or logical argument or professional legal opinion, is not okay. I apologize for using the word "crazy", which I thought I already apologized for, in case I didn't there it is again. But you don't accept my apologies anyway, so why should I bother? I do not have to "withdraw my opinion" as you say or prove anything re: this opinion. Please do not undermine my free speech in that way. I challenged a factual claim she and Gerry make and she can back it up if she likes, or not. So far it appears she chooses NOT to back it up.

How can the Indies be benefiting when all of the things that GA is prohibited from doing have nothing to do with them? Answers from Caroline ONLY, please, as this is HER claim. Gerry winning his cases, having them overturned, reversed, whatever, HELPS Indies! I'm not playing Rosie/Posie with you on this. I will not debate you on caroline's claim unless you state "I represent her claim and debate on her behalf". Unless you state this, your answers are of no interest to me. I want to know what SHE says about it. This is HER thread, not yours.



If that is true, why are you bothering? You don't believe anything I say, right?

Whether or not the injunction is crazy is irrelevant. THE INJUNCTION SUCKS FOR GERRY, I DO NOT SUPPORT IT OR AGREE WITH IT, BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS DEBATE.




You are contradicting your own words:

I must withdraw my statement that she said Indies are beneficiaries.
Indies are beneficiaries and I should know this.
Caroline correctly says Indies are beneficiaries.

I have come to a conclusion about you operatingwog. You are trolling, or there is something else very wrong here. I no longer trust you either.

Standard Internet etiquette: DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

You asked me to substantiate. I substantiated. You don't like the substantiation. You don't want to talk about it with me any more.

Then you say, "Do you have any more there or have you run out?"

I haven't run out Dorothy. I have lots more. I have all the other instances of your smearing and black PRing that I can remember to outline in detail. But you won't want to hear those either. You'll go "la-la-la-la-no-no-i'm-not-talking-to-you-you-sound-just-like-caroline-la-la-la-la".

What he said ^.

When CoS lawyers drafted their injunction against Gerry they obviously did not intend beneficiaries to include Indies.

What hurts CoS helps Gerry. What hurts CoS helps Indies. IMO these two groups should be helping each other. Both are guilty of failing to help each other. Gerry/caroline destroy any possibility of ever getting help from Indies because they launch continuous blatant attacks on Indies beliefs and they have no evidence that Indies are doing any of the abusive things CoS does. Therefore, Gerry and caroline have made their bed, and so they must lie in it.

This is my opinion. operatingwog, you may disagree, but I am done arguing with you. You seem to be trolling this board, whether you realize it or not. I dk why, I have no proof, its just what it looks like to me. I won't be responding to any more of your posts unless I see evidence that you:

1. Are not a troll
2. Are not representing someone other than yourself and your own point of view.

I do not expect you to prove or disprove anything. It's just the way I see it.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Love,
Dorothy

Perhaps you are right. I think focusing on what scientologists DO helps expose them, but that focusing on what they BELIEVE helps OSA very much. Scieno-Corp has lots of resources: Money, connections, government support in some countries, etc. Why give them more ammunition? When they cry persecution for their beliefs, all they have to do is point to certain message boards and certain critics (who do that) for all the evidence they need to prove that it is true. Why help them?

I’m glad you brought this subject because this is one of my “beefs” with caroline/Gerry. They attack the ideology and the beliefs. I strenuously disagree with this. An Indie coming here, and the predicable attacks from caroline that ensued, brought this very issue to the fore and caroline’s actions are forcing the issue to be dealt with imo. I think it’s a good example of why critics should unite with Indies in an effort to bring down the unconscionable scientology apparatus that is scieno-corp (and many OG have done this very “uniting” which I speak of). I do not see Indies as part of the oppressive scientology apparatus which must be brought down. Some do, but their views are entirely based on speculation about what Indies will do in the future, as opposed to any evidence that they have done the things for which they are being “pre-accused” for doing (accused for doing something you will do in the future that you have not done yet).

I think critics + Gerry/caroline symphony + Indies = nightmarish results for OSA and scieno-corp.

The fact that there is in-fighting going on between various anti-CoS activists makes OSA’s job easy. All they have to do is sit back and watch while we tear each other apart.

I do not think that OSA’s laughter matters much -- a split board is of no consequence to them. But the troubling aspect of this never ending feud is that Karen might be leaving the board; she already has left ESMB
Where would Karen go? She could start her own website. But let’s be realistic about it -- how many hits per day her site will be getting? She could continue posting her material at Freezone websites, but how many people, except for the members, visit Scientology websites? Probably none.
This website has a tremendous advantage over the aforementioned websites because the general public know about it. Karen’s posts are the warnings to potential CoS members - be careful, you are stepping in DM’s shit.
Do we want to do as much harm to CoS as we can? Sure, we do. Then let’s create a tolerant atmosphere here to let Karen and others like her fight CoS.

^^ A downside of her thread being closed is that it can't be bumped (I think that's right, isn't it?).

Could it be stickied up at the top somehow -- if people feel it's an important thread?