ending questions?

Question answered by honorarykid in Scientology

remiel asked this question on 10/6/2000:

why did I am the law end his question before I'd had the cance to address the comments he's made to my answer?

For the record, wht I was saying was that not everyone here is an american.

honorarykid gave this response on 10/7/2000:

I_Am_The_Law has problems dealing with criticism. He (or she, I'll assume he from now on) wants to control people, particularly those people who say unflattering things about the Church of Scientology. He cannot confront what we say, cannot be open to the merits of our answers, so instead, he justs wants to control the discussion and have his own way.

Ending the question is one way of trying to insure he gets to spew his hateful rants, and have them go unchallenged as the last word.

But it doesn't work, of course. For example, here's one thing he said to me in a rating comment, for a question he then ended. Since he ended it, I intend to address his hateful bile and paranoia right here in this message.

> I_Am_The_Law wrote the following:
> Your criticisms aren't peaceful,

Yes, my criticisms are peaceful. I advocate only through ideas, speech and the power of persuasion. I routinely criticise any fellow critics who use what I think are harassing, coercive tactics. I force my speech on no one. I only speak to those who want to listen of their own volition and free will.

> and other people have the freedom of speech.

Yes, they do. I'm not threatening those rights in any way. I'm inviting every person to speak with me in a calm, rational, productive way, so that problems inside the Church of Scientology can be corrected. Or don't listen. Do whatever you like.

> You need to clear up the word violent.

No, YOU need to word clear the word violent.

Sidebar topic:

===

For the non-Scientologists here, to "word clear" in Scientology means to look a word up and understand it's meaning. That's the official story, anyway. But Scientologists frequently use this concept coercively, insisting that until one is in full agreement with Scientology, one has a "misunderstood word" or M/U. This is precisely the way I_Am_The_Law means for me to "clear up" the word 'violent' in his statement above. Ironically, to him, I will not be correctly understanding the meaning of the word violent, until I agree with his bizarre, self-serving and wildly inaccurate interpretation of that word.

Scientology corrupts people through the corruption of language. Keep a good eye out for things like this, as you read the arguments of Scientology zealots in this forum and elsewhere.

===

End of Sidebar

> You probably are abusing everyone around
> you. And you are despicable to wrap
> yourself in MLK's mantle. You're a
> hatemonger.

I don't, I'm not, and I'm not. Your accusation are rude, and insulting.

> All you do is insane rantings and attacks.

My "attacks" use only words. Ergo, you must have realized all along that I've not been violent. So in trying to paint me as a violent person, you attempt to smear me. In the process you try to corrupt this debate.

> I have seen much good in Scientology.

I too have seen many people claim they received good things from Scientology. Does that mean Scientology cannot be criticized for the many bad things it does? No, of course not.

> But you never care to hear from the
> thousands of Scientologists you heard from
> (your words) how much they like Scientology
> because that would interrupt your
> delusions, wouldn't it?

That Scientologists feel they can run roughshod over others, BECAUSE THEY ARE TRAINED TO BELIEVE THEMSELVES TO BE SUPERIOR, is prima facia evidence that your group has become politically oppressive and corrupt. I'm glad if you feel good about yourselves. But all the good feelings of all those Scientologists who do and support these systematic oppressions, do not mitigate the corruption one bit. In fact, if anything, they strengthen the oppression. Please try to follow along with what I'm saying.

> Something in your
> mind set you up as an official but I will
> point out you are no-body, and have nothing
> to do with the Church of Scientology. You
> should try to reform Firestone or
> something. I reiterate, earth to honarykid,
> you don't have anything to do with the
> Church of Scientology. Try reforming
> Microsoft.

Since we're giving advice to each other, perhaps you should address the topic at hand, and try to avoid non sequitur arguments.

> You will never achieve your ugly
> Nazi goal. Who knows what in the heck
> you're talking about!

I have no Nazi goals. I abhor Nazis. You're not listening to me, are you? You're not hearing what I'm saying, because your prejudices against me are corrupting your ability to understand me.

> The sun never sets on Scientology. But
> what's really funny, is the sun will be
> setting on you.

The sun rises and sets on us all equally, I_Am_The_Law.

I'm so very glad that you are NOT the law.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.