Date: 7 Feb 2003 20:29:47 -0000
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen)
Subject: Re: Methods To Waking Up
Comments: This message probably did not originate at the above address.
It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous remailers.
Please use firstname.lastname@example.org to report abuse
X-Remailer-Contact: Anonymous Mailer <DingoAdmin<AT>DingoRemailer<DOT>com>
"Lulu Belle" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> ExScn <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> > >However, I think you are over critical of the critics, too. Have
> > >any of them? Many of the ones I've met have very good lives also.
> > I am critical of *some* critics, in particular the obsessive, the
> > kooks, the conspiracy theorists, those who continuously cry 'OSA !!'
> > as a means of stifling discussion, the 'professional victims' and
> > probably most particularly those whose lives appear to be either a
> > total mess or at least devoid of any meaning outside of this
> > newsgroup, somehow seeing themselves as superior.
> Amen to that.
Agreed. I was thinking how just recently there seems to be a new
breed of Ex-Scn critics. I could be wrong about this as I have only
been reading the newsgroup for 3 years and this may not be anything new
Whether I am right or wrong, I tend to make groups or cliques while
playing this game called ars.
My groups consist of the Never Beens, the Ex Scns that don't like
criticism toward any other Ex Scns, and this new group of Ex-Scns that
think that criticism of critics is just fine. This new group of Ex-Scn
critics can't figure out why the Other Ex -Scn (I call them the Victim
Ex-Scns) are upset about criticism of other critics.
Not liking criticism and trying to stifle criticism is a trait of the
C of S and one of the worst of all their crap. One of the very first
things that tweaked my viewpoint and helped me to realize the truth,
happened when I first started reading ars as a fully indoc'd one.
I saw critics calling other critics on the carpet and demanding that
they prove or back up what they had to say. Opinions were obviously
allowed and other people could make comment about someone's point of
view, but when anyone would start stating facts, there were always
critics that would demand proof.
This was an entirely new concept for me. I know that is hard to
believe, but I had 30 years of thinking that all criticism was bad, not
just criticism of LRH and Scn, which of course was supposed to be the
worst kind of criticism, but that All criticism, except for the psychs,
So I arrive at ars and I see people being critical of LRH and Scn and
then all of a sudden someone would say something really stupid and then
would be hit with, "oh ya, prove it." Or maybe they would just post
something really nutty and it would be pointed out to them that they
were being really nutty.
I remember, thinking, geez, there are some really sane people
criticizing Scn and that of course gave me the tweak I needed to
say, "Damn, How could that be? I thought all critic were crazy SP's."
I hope you are digging the mind set here. I, as a fully indoc'd Scn,
was very impressed that there were critics criticizing other critics
and caused a huge crack in the indoc.
At that time, I really hadn't sorted out who was who on ars, but funny
enough, I could figure out which ones were OSA because of the level of
viciousness in those posts. I do know how indoc'd Scns think about
critics of Scn and I can usually tell the difference between a critic
being critical of another critic and an OSA creep being critical of a
critic. There is just this very distinct quality to OSA that is not
like anything else and it has to do with the indoc. I think maybe only
an Ex Scn could ever really appreciate what that quality
is. But maybe not.
Anyway, to get back on track to my point, I appreciate the Ex Scns that
are critical of or are willing to criticize other Ex Scns. I think
it's important. I don't think the Ex Scn Victims should be spared
if they say, do, or post something that is either untrue, looney, or
straight-out bullshit. I think one should be able to disagree with
them and be critical of them without being accused of aiding and
The Ex-Scns that don't want criticism of other critics need to have,
imo, ome sort of awakening that ALL CRITICISM IS GOOD, EVEN IF YOU
DISAGREE WITH IT.
It's good because we are free to do it, and people should always be
free to criticize. There should never be a man or woman above
criticism. Not LRH, not Gerry Armstrong, not anyone.
I may not agree with their criticism but I will defend their right to
criticize even if I disagree with the content.
Here on ars there is always this push to get others to not be critical
of the Ex's or of other critics and this to me is the very worst of the
I may not agree with some critics criticism of ptsc, but I would never
think of telling them that they really shouldn't criticize a critic.
Not in a "Billion Years".
The viewpoint of "Critics criticizing other critics helps OSA" is
something an indoc'd Scientologist would think, the rest of the world
thinks criticism is a good thing.
I avidly read your posts Lulu as well as Deo and Ex Scn (now Not A
Scn) and not just for the newsy notes you add to my posts, but for
your very sane criticism of both Scn and the critics of Scn.
It just occurred to me that the 3 of you post somewhat anonymously and
I post via remailers. I suppose someone will figure that out and claim
that as proof that we really are OSA after all. ;-)
"Informing people doesn't involve trying to silence those who
disagree with you." --Prignillius
To lurking Scientologists-- Please read the following links: