§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §

     
 
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Organization: Alphabetical
Message-ID: <5LMCDHEZ37917.4199768519@anonymous.poster>
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Cerridwen)
Subject: Re: kids
References: <PCAD2BS137915.7354976852@anonymous.poster> <bn5lo20n41@drn.newsguy.com>
Comments: This message probably did not originate at the above address.
X-Remailer-Contact: Anonymous Mailer <DingoAdmin@DingoRemailer.com>
content-length: 18343
Lines: 509
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:04:47 GMT
Path: news2.lightlink.com!news.lightlink.com!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1651468


"Warrior" <warrior@xenu.ca> wrote in message news:bn5lo20n41@drn.newsguy.com...
> >>On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 Cerridwen wrote:

>
> Do you have any evidence he does otherwise? Apparently not,
> or you could have posted it. That's why I say your argument
> is a strawman. You erect a false scenario so you can knock
> it down. Some of us see through your dishonest methods,
> which, by the way, also included an ad hominem attack on me.


I suppose I could spend hours and hours and hours
wading throught Gerry's stuff and find quotes that would
prove my point, but I am not interested enough.

If I was interested enough and did the work, you wouldn't
get it anyway. I say that because of how you neatly twist
what I say. I don't think that honest dialogue is possible
with you.

Add to that the fact that I have a bunch of old Celeb Mags
to OCR and I find that a better use of my time.


>
> I tell you what... You get snotty with me, and I'll get shotty
> right back if I feel so inclined. Dish out some of your snottiness,
> and I'll give it right back. Post what I perceive to be crap, and
> I'll call you on it, and tell you why.
>

Ditto


> But see? You're good at dishing out snide, snotty comments.
> But what goes around can come around sooner or later. some
> say.


Pot kettle black.

>
> >> In article <GCI03P7637914.8952430556@anonymous.poster>,
> >> Cerridwen says...
> >> >
> >> >I don't think that it's at all sane to then whine and cry about
> >> >being a victim.
>
> >Warrior wrote:
> >>
> >> Easy for you to say in the safety of your anonymity. _You_ are already
> >> a victim of the fear Scientology is able to instill people. And you know
> >> it.
>
> >I know nothing about you and you know even less about me. You
> >have no idea who I am, what I've done in Scn or what I am all about.
>
> So what? I don't have to know a lot about you. I know some things
> about you from posts you have made. And you yourself have made
> comments about the fear Scientology is able to instill in people,
> including yourself. I can re-post the URL to some of your comments
> if you missed it.


Go for it. I think this would be in keeping with your attack on critics
that actually do some work around here rather than sitting around
pontificating.

Maybe you could find some really stupid stuff I've said so if one day OSA
sets up a hate page on me they can use your work.

Neither you not the C of S can bully or make me afraid of
dumb stuff I've said or done. So by all means, post those URL's.


>
> Next, for some reason you reactively jumped into another one of
> your long-winded regurgitations about whether you should "out"
> yourself. I don't think you should. Only someone seeing things I
> never wrote would think and assert otherwise to me.

then why did you bring it up? Why did you say the following?


> >Warrior wrote:
> >>
> >> Easy for you to say in the safety of your anonymity. _You_ are already
> >> a victim of the fear Scientology is able to instill people. And you know
> >> it.


> Personally, I don't think you should out yourself, and I have no
> problem whatsoever that you wish to remain anonymous.
>
> > I've thought long and hard about outing myself. I could do it, but I
> >don't and I won't. I'll leave that honor to another critic here on ars
> >that mistakenly thinks it's in "my best interest"
>
> Is this just a hypothetical situation? Or do you have a particular
> person in mind? Can you answer the question? Or are you afraid
> to say?


I have no one in mind. It was completely hypothetical.
But I will tell you that If I were to ever communicate or talk
to other critics, it would not be with Exes.


> >or to some OSA staff member whose job it is to find and out me.
> >I've stated my reasons before. And I will admit that fear was once
> >a very big part of it.
>
> I think there will come a time when you will see that fear is still
> a very big part of it. I understand. But I will point out again,
> as a way of giving you something to think about:


Sure, I also have a fear of swimming in a river full of Piranhas.
I think there is such a thing as rational fear.

>
> Do you go by Cerridwen away from a.r.s.? I doubt it. My bet is
> that you use your real name except on a.r.s. and perhaps through
> emails to certain trusted critics. This is why I say Scientology
> controls a piece of you; and I think the piece is larger than you
> can admit.

As long as I remain anon I am able to attend events, and receive
Scn email and talk with other which can be very informative.
Once I out myself, that source of information vanishes.
So to that degree, I control a piece of them.


>
> Another thing: You can't even talk here on a.r.s. about your
> level of training and/or "auditing" lest you give too many
> clues to OSA. You can't talk about which organization you
> were active with.

There is nothing in the telling of "my story" that has not
already been told by countless others.

My training and auditing level could easily be surmised from
the data I have posted.

The fact is, I do not have any horror stories to tell. In looking
back over my life with Scn, the most upsetting thing is the
indoc. I discuss the indoc. My training and auditing and which
org I belonged to is not a needed element in my discussion
of the indoc.

I am sure people are curious about me but my anonymity
and privacy are more important to me than their need
for juicy details about my past. And again, I would
have nothing new to add. Anything I can report about
has already been reported or webbed.


>
> I will point out that if you did any of the so-called upper levels,
> you were probably more indoctrinated than I ever was, since
> I was largely not a "techie", but an administrative student and
> employee in Scientology. That's just something for you to
> think about -- no need to comment here.


I agree with this.


>
> > You might think that I am just making up reasons to cover my
> >"fear",
>
> I don't think any of your reasons for wanting to remain anon
> are phony. But I think you are not being honest with yourself if
> you think fear is not a major factor in your decision to post with
> an anonymous remailer.
>
> You can't even discuss personal experiences with the so-called
> tech because you might "out" yourself by revealing your level
> of personal experience, opinions and/or observations. So you
> allow Scn to influence your actions here on a.r.s.

Just because this was your experience with Miss X does not make
it my experience.


>
> >but I tell you that it is no longer that way.
>
> I remain unconvinced. We can agree to disagree, but you will
> think about what I said.


I will.


>
> >I don't know if you are capable of understanding how I think,
> >because I don't "think" like most of Exes here and I thank my
> >lucky stars for that.
>
> I will point out that the exes on a.r.s. are in no way like most
> exes in that the overwhelming majority of exes don't post


>
> Now you've apparently jumped from talking about exes "here"
> (presumably on a.r.s.) to talking about exes in general. So I
> think you have made another error in logical thinking. Most
> exes don't post here. How many exes comprise your sample
> or group on which you base your opinion that "most exes
> are pretty much insane"? This is a serious question I'm
> asking. How big is your sample group?


I'm talking about the exes here on ars.

> >My problem is that with the exception of Lulu and Deo, and a couple
> >of others, I think the exes here are pretty much completely bonkers.
>
> I like Lulu and Deo very much too.


Good.

In fact, I miss Deo's posts, and I
> always read Lulu's. I am pretty sure I know/knew Lulu, but you
> won't see me speculate here. That's not part of my intent.


>
> So you think most exes on a.r.s. are bonkers, and you don't want to
> say you're an ex-Scn, majorly because you might start thinking like
> me and Gerry.
>

It's not the only reason why but as I said, it is one consideration.


> What a crock. Just a little while ago you said, "I know nothing about
> you". Now you imply that I say "all of Scientology (note your use of
> the word _all_) sucks from start to finish" (yet you admittedly know
> nothing about me), and then you say you're afraid you will start
> thinking like me. So, since you admittedly don't know me, what is it in
> my thinking that you are afraid of? You haven't made your train of
> thought clear.

Sorry about that.


OK I'm gonna get to snipping some of this I really hate long
threads.


>
> >Imo, they are a brilliant group of critics that have made
> >major contributions to ars and the exposure of Scn.
>
> Very much agreed.
>
> >And they takes slings and arrows from Exes.
>
> I see it the other way around. Many of the never-beens dish
> out an enormous amount of crap to exes. I don't see very
> much compassion towards or attempts to understand exes.
> There are exceptions I realize. Not that never-beens have any
> obligation to show compassion, but a few never-beens almost
> exclusively dish out insults and hateful/hurtful crap to exes --
> so much so that virtually all of the exes felt a need to have
> their own irc channel to avoid all the ridicule and invective.

Ok, I really think I do understand your point. I have tried to anyway.

I understand the need for compassion for people who have been
put through the Scn Fair Game Machine. I understand the need for
compassion for people that have been adversely effected
by the Scn Indoc.

I understand that Exes have a unique experience unlike any other
and when leaving have to make the choice of quietly walking away
and getting on with their lives or staying and fighting and exposing
the cult

Once an Ex decides to stand up to them, and enter this forum
they then, imo, are now on equal ground with everyone else.
They are not special cases. They can not and shouldbe patted on the
head and treated like semi retarded kids because they are an ex.

They should be called on the carpet and held to the same standard
of criticism as everyone else.

Let's face it. There are a few ex's that everyone here PUTS UP
WITH. Don't play coy and ask me to name names, we all know
who they are. Naming names would just cause more flaming
and I'm not interested in that.

There are a few Exes get stroked and patted on the head or just ignored,
because they are an EX. If they were not an EX and posting the same
time of stuff they would be treated very differently.

I don't believe Exes should be held to a LOWER standard.
It does NOT help them. I don't think they have to be flamed
either but by letting a person continue on and on and on and on
and not pointing out their nutty behavior, well, you end up enabling
or assistng that person to become more and more of a nut.

It reminds me of the Org kids. Many Scios have the mistaken idea
that kids should be allowed to freely communicate and run wild
because to do anything else would be to somehow suppress them
The end result is you have a bunch of whacked out, rude, fucked
up kids that end up writing KR's on you and calling you suppressive
when you tell them to knock off being little creeps.

The only difference is that here on ars, you are told
you are "Doing OSA's work" if you criticize them.

How absolutely insane is that!


No matter how you slice and dice it. Gerry has an OSA
hate page. It includes anyone that has said anything critical
of him. This is completely insane and you know it.
You get attacked because you defend this lunacy.

If an indoc'd scio were here explaining away why
it's ok for religiousfreedomwatch have their hate pages and how
it was really OK, you would have a completely different point of view
about it Or at least I hope you would.

Loyalty is a very good thing But blind loyalty is NOT. It is what
got many of us indoc'd in the first place. You would serve
your friend Gerry in a much better way, if you could explain to
him that the OSA goon pages are EXACTLY EVERYTHING
THE REST OF US ARE FIGHTING AGAINST.

Christ, talk about doing OSA's work. Between Gerry's
OSA Goon pages and your cutting and pasting OSA's
slimey shit against PTS C, we don't need OSA anymore.
We have you two doing all their work.

>
> >Cracks are made about them being "smart" and "intellectual"
> >It's funny because most Scientologists I knew were very anti-
> >intellectual. I believe most narrow minded know-it-alls really
> >dislike "smart" people.
>
> Do you really mean smart? Or do you mean rude, offensive
> and insulting?

Welcome to the real world. Ars is dealing with a very tough
subject and the thin skinned should leave NOW.


I think exes (the ones I know) generally don't
> like the rudeness and phony superiority that some never-beens
> exhibit.

I consider allowing exes to make posts that contain
lies, inaccuraries or down right lunacies to be something
harmful to all of us.

I don't know if there is any way of telling anyone, including
an EX that what he is saying or doing is bullshit and he
needs to correct it.

I almost didn't stay and continue to read ars. I came very
close to not having anything to do with the anti scn critics.
You know what kept me here? It was the fact that I read
a few posts that very clearly stated that it was completely
OK to criticize other critics and that no one here was
above that.

That fact that it's not done "nicely" or is somehow
sugar coated is just too fucking bad. No one
criticizes the cult nicely either. Criticism is rarely
nice, especially when you are the target of it.


Away from a.r.s. never-beens act very different towards
> exes from what I have seen. I've been told by a couple of
> never-beens that people who believe in God are insane. That's
> certainly not being smart. It's completely rude, offensive,
> bigoted and nothing but an example of pretended superiority.

Is that anything like pretended stupidity?

>
> >By that I mean people who never were influenced by the Scn
> >indoc and suffer no ill effects from it.
>
> Understood. But how do you explain all the ill will towards some
> exes? I have my answer, but I'm interested in yours, if you have
> one you'd care to share.

I hope I have explained it above. I don't think the ill will is directed
only at the exes. I think the ill will is directed at those exes that
continue to behave in a cult like fashion.

I applaud the critics for not only having the courage to take on
and expose the cult, but for having the courage to take on
and expose those with continued cultic thinking and behavior.


Not only do these critics have the cult attacking them for speaking
their minds, they also have the exes attacking them for pointing
out cultic behavior. Witness Ptsc. You call him a hater and a bigot
yet you are the one responsible for driving him off this newsgroup with your
insane osa tactics. My guess is he can take it from OSA but is appalled
that it comes from some like you.

I hope people like you don't drive us all away. If so ars will
be reduced to a new type of BORG thinking.

In Scn it's ok to criticize the psychs and the anti Scnist but never
another Scnist.

On ars, it's apparently OK to criticize the cult but never an
Ex Scnist. That kind of thinking is downright spooky.

I will never allow anyone ever again to tell me what is the right
and wrong way to criticize another.


>
> >> >>But let me assure you, you are not. NO ONE is.
>
> >> How's it going with shedding the Scieno indoc, Cerri? Is there a date
> >> when you predict you'll be able to break free from their control over
> >> you?
>
> >What a shitty, snotty, pussy way to act. As if you really give a
> >shit how my shedding the Scieno indoc was going.
>
> It's a couple of questions which obviously touched a raw nerve
> in you. And actually I do care, but I think you should take
> your own advice about no one being above criticism. After all,
> if a couple of simple questions set you off like a firecracker,
> it must be a hot subject for you. And I can well imagine your
> fear plays a big part in your inability to talk here on a.r.s.
> about some of your personal experiences, lest you drop too
> many clues to OSA. In that regard, I hope you don't depend
> solely on a.r.s. denizens for your recovery.


Hmm. I think the above is a good example of
pretended superiority with an added does of
pretended stupidity.


>
> >I only discuss my unindocing with people who actually care
> >about me. Not with someone like you who uses my work
> >on the indoc to some how take a stab at me.
>
> It was a couple of questions. Now you reactively attempt
> to paint questions as if they were a knife. That's reactive.
> They are words, for crying out loud. I'd hate to imagine how
> you'd have reacted had I actually made some declaratory
> statements. Apparently you're in a fragile state.

As I started reading this post I was thinking
Oh great, maybe Warrior and I could actually have
an honest dialogue. But you showed your true
colors with this last paragraph.


>
> >However I hope you are able to stop and look at any
> >indoc you still may hold on to. Especially in the area
> >of people critical of your leader.
>
> And who would that be? Or is this yet another of your
> strawmen? I have no leader. You have seriously misjudged
> me, Cerridwen.


I don't think so. Guys like you are a dime a dozen

--

Cerridwen

"Critical thinking demands we question the unproven, not that
we meekly accept it." Diane Richardson


For Stats on Scn go to: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/
For News on Scientology go to: http://www.scientologywatch.org

 

 
 

Thread

 

 

§  What's New  ||  Search   ||  Legal Archive  ||  Wog Media  ||  Cult Media  ||  CoW ® ||  Writings  ||  Fun  ||  Disclaimer  ||  Contact  §