I was reading your comment on the two sides of the discussion about Scientology. Your comment made me think that is what makes the truth or un-truths about the church/ cult so polarizing. For me it comes down to after Years of heartache and pain and numbness to the world I at first and for many years blamed on myself for blowing the Sea Org constantly. Now I see the whole expanse that it was never my fault Ron/dm built their religion wink! on Lies and they both knew that. So the see-saw arguments will go on. I will walk my path and continue to speak out against what was done to me and so many more especially those married when in or with children when in. Disconnection is unspeakable. The Church/ Cult is cruel, cold ,calculating,crafty and Crazy. ❤️?❤️?

As I noted earlier….a NO WIN SITUATION………

As In:
“Why do YOU answer a Question with another Question????”

“”Do I really DO THAT???”

T.J., You Found me!! I was lost & thought I could never get back to Mike’s and then I could not find you!! My breadcrumb Tech failed because the OSA sent flying monkeys to keep me in circles. Yet here I am and want to know how you are and what good posts I can read again from you. Love you Sweetheart Always Hugs Hugs and Love. I can’t get lost in Gulf Breeze the Internet will go straight to your heart from me. ???❤️❤️

Hi Ann B! 🙂 It’s so very nice to see you here again! Congrats on your relocation to a sunnier location, hope it’s a wonderful, fun move for you. Bookmark Mike Rinder’s site, so you never get lost again! Love, T.J.

The people who don’t think Scientology has any worth or redeeming qualities and the people who do believe in the benefits of Scientology are not going to agree on what is “the truth” about Scientology. That’s why there keeps being this back-and-forth arguing between the two sides which never ceases or ends….

If two people can’t look at the same thing, see it for what it is and agree on that, then we must logically conclude that no one has the ability to observe anything accurately. And if that’s the case, then we are in deep, deep trouble.

OK, here’s a meta-analysis-of-anecdotes argument. Since I’ve been pushing the idea of preserving the good whle throwing out the bad, more and more “it’s bad” commenters have been admiting to getting valuable wins initially in Scientology. This includes such enthusiastic critics as Brian. This lifts the “there’s some good there, too” argument out of the “isolated anecdote” level, and establishes it as being worthy of further consideration.

Our hypothesis would be that there was a lot of workability in the early lower level tech, but not as consistently at higher levels, and that the organization was an unworkable and destructive additive. So if we eliminated the organization, and let auditors do their own research to advance and perfect the tech, we might end up with something very good. And, in actual fact this has been happening in the non-KSW-fanatic independent field.

One side or the other isn’t to blame, both sides keep going way past the time it should have ended. For some reason they cannot seem to let it go. And if you think they will “come to an agreement on the truth” you are in for a disappointment – that’s never going to happen.

M2C, I don’t think it’s easy to say that one side or the other is necessarily more faulty in their writing and argumentation; the “good” side typically resorts to the rhetoric of experiential anecdotes (a logical fallacy).

I’ve been thinking about the point about multiple arguments. I don’t think there is a deliberate rhetorical strategy to overwhelm, as such. I know that for my part, I do sometimes want to make a number of points just to try to communicate how I think there is a preponderance of evidence, or at least too many unanswered serious questions. It’s partly a limit of the format, that it doesn’t really work to go through an argument point-by-point in the way that would be ideal. I’m not sure yet if there’s really a better way, though I think some simplification is in order.

I’d like to see the critical side develop better arguments and approaches, if only to be more effective with those interested in information and who have open minds.