WOW - just when I thought I had finish with ars for today, I catch a
whole bunch of follow ups on this thread. For some reasons, the thread
un-watched itself, so I only caught it by chance, while scanning the
remaining thread.

OK - let's get down to business. I doubt I'll have time to answer
everybody today, don't even know if I will at all.

        :-)

<sigh> I thought that my 'see what I mean' would have tipped you off.
Now we'll have a whole rant on how you can't literally kill with
words, right :-)

OK - I understand how you understand my statement now. No, that's not
what I mean (that propaganda leads to violence). I mean: you make a
snide and hateful remark - you just kill the person figuratively (even
if the person is not emotionally hurt). Psychologically, you try to
kill the person, to get him out of your way, to shut him up... It's
figurative, not directly or indirectly literal.

But who does it consciously? People are usually convinced that they
are on the right side, and that the other is on the wrong side. Isn't
that the modus operandi of every war?

My comment is general, really. Not just for critics. We do it at every
level in life - through greed, jalousy, hurt, insecurity. It's just
the unfolding human drama.

His FOAD, and "do it soon" are extremely violent, for example. His
deliberate misreading in Margaret's intentions and his outing of her
was violent. I could go on and on. In my eyes, he is a violent man.
That doesn't necessarily make him a *bad* man. It's two different
things.

Good question. Now I am not sure. Maybe they effectively become two
different persons? Possible. But then, aren't we a different person in
different IRL situations too? Of course, the fact that you don't have
to put up with a face on the net maybe eases off communication? Or
does it hinder and reduces it? Does it allow more of the real person
to come out, or does it encourages the creation of a net personna, as
you say?

I have a very definite image of each poster - at least those I have
read for a long time, and even more so about those I have exchanged
ideas with. I tend to think that this is the real person - but maybe
that's just an illusion.

Would read it that way from the paragraph above.

Eh - I see we are on the same mind about that :-)

That has been my impression so far too - even though I disagree with
him on more than one point.

And that's the principle of non-violence? I don't think so.

I only know of Diane what I read on ars - since I don't usually irc.
out the fact he mentioned on irc that Minton mentioned about his
relation with Stacy and therefore he lied before (confused sentence
but what the heck, it's too late at night). Seems to me as yet another
cultie trying to protect a sacred cow, you know, like the Cooper
thing. I am doubtful about the "Diane just tries to be mean"
explanation type of things. I don't say it is or isn't the case, I am
just doubtful about it.

I guess no. You can't like everybody - and you can't force yourself to
like everybody just out of principle. But again, it isn't just a
matter of personality, you know - Keith is actively busy criticizing
critics. As far as I am concerned, it isn't a matter of "like" or
"dislike". It's a matter of pure intolerance to criticism - and that
makes the person ugly, in my eyes - especially when the same critics
blames CoS members for not being able to open up to criticism... That
makes them hypocrites, and I think it's a major fault for someone who
claims to be a critic.

Thanks. I'll do that sometime <sigh> I'll probably never will find the
time for it anyway, but it's good to know.

I wouldn't call what he did "healthy scepticism" - but that's very
subjective I guess. The lack of sensibility to other's feelings - the
lack of true understanding. Yes, I find that very violent.

I can't say. I guess it's her lack of understanding on certain issues
that makes me see her that way. That hurts too. Maybe it gives the
wrong impression that it's made on purpose while it may not be.

Yes - but they use his text on "introduction to Scientology" on their
web page, right? I also think that Roland is making himself be the
troll of ars - so they can say "it's just Roland, you know, it's not
us". I think that he is doing that out of embarassement for posts he
made early on and that came out to speak against him. So now that he
got so deep, he just exaggerates it: "See - I say a lot of silly
things, it's not serious, you know"... Just a wild theory, of course.

No I don't think I take that in consideration. I listed Ralph Hilton
with the lot, right? Ralph Hilton can be very violent at time, even at
other times he is rather high spirited. But it's amusing to note that
the rest do indeed have that in common. I didn't think about that.
Just coincidence (or maybe not, maybe that's just part of them being
violent).

Where do you get that from?

Yes - but all emotions don't come only from the reactive mind. In
fact, in Scientology, even anger is not considered a "bad" emotion,
just an emotion. Look at the tone scale.

An emotion is reactive only when it is inappropriate, when it comes
out of an irrational and unconscious reactions that finds its origin
in unconscious past trauma.

You really should do a bit of Scientology, Kady. Seriously. You would
at least have a better reality of what you are talking about. I think
it would do good for all critics to do at least do some basic courses
and some basic auditing, until they have a clear enough idea.
Seriously. They can still remain a critic if they like afterwards.

Reminds me of valerie - who was so cult phobic that she was even
afraid to watch a Tom Cruise film (supposedly she would be hypnotized
or what?) - then when she made the Hollander seminar, she was all
surprised to find that there were some good people in Scientology.

No - when it stems from a right understanding. Feeling outrage at
something that is really just a mock up is a bad thing. Lisa McPherson
wasn't "murdered" - feeling outrage thinking that Scientologists
actually had the intent to torture and kill her is plain stupid.
Saying it, like Erlich does, is misleading and manipulative, because
he knows very well that this wasn't the case.

Me too. But then I don't parade around boasting about my non-violence
(not to mean that you do so).

We differ indeed. I think they are. They just are blunt Scientologists
and react in a blunt way. If they ever come out of Scientology, they
would join up the ranks of the group above, and become blunt critics.
Nothing change.

You do have wild ideas about OSA, Kady :-)

You also are underestimating them. If they were to send someone from
OSA, they wouldn't send stupid jerks like wgert, RodF or Justin. They
have better material than that, you know - it's just that they use
them where it matters: court cases, public relations (not with
critics), auditing, management, promotion. Anyone who has ever been in
the CoS knows that there are an awful lot of bright individuals in it
- that they don't want to waste them in a.r.s. is the most plausible
explanation, IMO.

Does violence have to be personal? I don't think so. In fact, cold
violence, like the one of an arbitrary government is even worst.

All of that is a form of violence, IMO. Deluded persons are usually
violent, and so do meanspirited and egotistical ones. Ignorant and
stupid ones are usually violent too. Everything that comes in the way
of listening and trying to honestly understand another's viewpoint is
violent, IMO. But then, I maybe have a very wide definition of
violence.

Absolutely. Didn't you yourself just said in another thread that the
*way* to do things matter? That when you don't, the person becomes
defensive and closes himself up? Real criticism, in my book, would be
to bring someone to a greater understanding. Most of what passes off
as criticism in this ng is hardly more than a defense mechanism in
itself, a constant effort to make oneself right and the other wrong -
to prove oneself right by making the other wrong. That's not criticism
at all.

How you do things is what matters, not so much what you do.

Yes - but truth without love is cruelty - and that doesn't set free
anyone. I am afraid that the quotes that would apply most often around
here are the "blind leading the blind" and the "straw in the eye".