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:
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
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
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
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
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
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.
> Your criticisms aren't peaceful,
> you. And you are despicable to wrap
> yourself in MLK's mantle. You're a
> hatemonger.
> thousands of Scientologists you heard from
> (your words) how much they like Scientology
> because that would interrupt your
> delusions, wouldn't it?
> 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.
> Nazi goal. Who knows what in the heck
> you're talking about!
> what's really funny, is the sun will be
> setting on you.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.