§  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §

   

    

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=FOJVDV4737660.4334259259%40anonymous.poster&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Date: 8 Feb 2003 16:24:08 -0000
Message-ID: <FOJVDV4737660.4334259259@anonymous.poster>
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen)
Subject: Re: Methods To Waking Up
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
References: <fq41a.26898$rq4.1996573@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Comments: This message probably did not originate at the above address.
It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous remailers.
Please use abuse@dingoremailer.com to report abuse
X-Remailer-Contact: Anonymous Mailer <DingoAdmin<AT>DingoRemailer<DOT>com>
X-Return-Path: dingobounce@dingoremailer.com
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: mail2news@anon.lcs.mit.edu
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Lines: 181


"Magoo" <magoo44@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fq41a.26898$rq4.1996573@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Cerri...
>
> I can see you have your "groupings"...and that's up to you to do
whatever
> you want.
> Here is my view of what you've said:
>
> OF COURSE there needs to be honest criticism. OF COURSE
> any of us who spent ANY time "In" Scientology had years of "never
criticize
> another...blah blah" until we nearly puked.

Agreed

>
> Believe me if you think you have had some criticism, if you followed
my
> exit.....I had almost the entire World (this one, at least) call me
on the
> carpet. Because I knew I was going to lose every single friend I had
in
> speaking out (and yes, because I said who I am, unlike you who has
not. I
> respect this....but please, it's a little different when your name and
face
> are out there)....I had to take up each one, and answer very long and
> detailed questions.
>
> The OSA 101 thing is well known now...but when I left, I was literally
> scared for my life, due to the significance ~they~had on the
project...as
> well at the secrecy.
>
> Anyways.....these questions turned out to bring some of THE most
healing
> times in my life. I admit it was super scarry at first, but answering
these
> very personal questions actually created not only knowledge for
others,
but
> great healing for me. As I always say, "every time I'd hit the 'Send'
> Button,
> I'd feel a HUGE release of locked up energy. It really was quite
amazing.


You and I chose different paths for our exit and healing. Mine is not
better than yours, they are just different.

I chose to leave quietly. There was little trauma and no drama. That
is the way I like it. You chose a different path. That is fine and
you seem to be doing well.

I could not have taken the road out as you did. I don't like all the
noise,the questions or the disruptions in my life. I can only imagine
how rough it was on you as I know how rough it was on me and I didn't
have one hundredth of all the crap you had to put up with.

But again, I am not saying your path is correct and mine is wrong. It
is just the path we both chose. If I was to do it again, I would do it
the exact same way, as that is what suits my personality the best.
Noisy, dramatic and traumatic outings are not something I recommend for
anyone.

The realization alone is bad enough without being hammered by external
forces.

The fact that you are still here and willing to fight is a testimony to
your strength and I admire you for that.


>
> However, there IS a difference in honest criticism, and nagging,
pounding,
> almost spreading of *crap*.....vs. honest criticism. One is true, one
is
> very definitely used by OSA.
> I know you and some others hate to hear the word OSA.
> Well, sorry about that. I hate some things here too, but guess what?
Whether
> you want to believe they are here on ARS or not, doesn't really matter
does
> it? It doesn't even really matter IF someone is OSA or not.

Here's how I see it.

I don't give a flying fuck what OSA thinks or does on ars. I don't care
if they slam critics or not. I don't give a shit if they have a
strategy or not. I do not care. I give them zero credence here. They
can come here and attack anyone, including me if they'd like. The
difference with me is I give them as little ammunition as possible.
The worst they can say about me is I manage to mangle the English
language quite effectively.

The concept that I am having difficulty communicating is that what they
say or think or plan here is NOT important. It is only important if
you let them be important.

OSA's plans and stats are NOT more important than the freedom to speak
freely.

If I think a critic is a loon or stating looney shit, I should be able
to say so without "fear of consequences" from other critics, telling me
to shut up or to stop doing OSA's work.

OK so they have the right to say that, and I am not denying that. But
it reeks of Scn thinking to do that.

That is what I am protesting. The Scn mindset behind the words
"doing OSA's work" .

Yes, yes, yes, it is all true that OSA is just a skanky organization
that does disgusting things to anyone that criticizes Scn. That is a
given. But to accuse anyone and everyone of doing OSA's work because
they dare to criticize another critic is something that I completely
disagree with.

One does not help OSA by criticizing another critic. Actually quite to
the contrary, it in the long run hurts OSA because the OSA ops that
read or participate in ars may eventually have a "cog" that criticism
is a good and healthy thing. People freely communicating without any
qualifiers hurts OSA and Scn in the long run because they can't stand
that type of open communication.


>
> However, there is a point where a poster...and always
anonymous.....will
> almost never post anything factual, or new or unknown here and will
just
be
> pounding on someone over and over. The person has answered, yet they
> continue to "criticize". You can say let it be...and that is your
choice.
> All I say is that IS a different thing than just plain honest
criticism.

I am not sure who exactly you are talking about.


>
> Who are these so called "Victim X-Scios"? You said it, so who are
they? To
> me that in itself is something OSA has been spreading since when I was
"in"
> and watching Yaude post.
> So whether you like it or not, or think it is "yours"....they started
it,
to
> slime the critics, long ago.

Gerry Armstrong and Caroline come to mind immediately. Both have
even posted about being "Scn fair game victims".

Scn did not coin the word victim. It's been around a long time. And
there are certain people that for whatever reason, seem to enjoy being
a victim. I know of non Scns with this same mentality. You can say
that my calling them victims is an example of the Scn mindset, but I
would disagree. Just because Scn uses the word victim in a derogatory
way doesn't mean, I am using it in the same context.

There are in fact people who are true victims of events and then
there are others who relish being a victims and milk it for all it's
worth.

I refuse to be a victim of Scientology. I personally think that it is
a lot better for one's mental health not to adopt a victim mindset,
especially a full time professional one.

--
Cerri

"Informing people doesn't involve trying to silence those who
disagree with you." --Prignillius

To lurking Scientologists-- Please read the following links:
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats.htm
http://holycows.org/articles/26unisksw.htm

 

 

Thread

 

§  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §