Sorry it got like this but to be fair even your comm with this chap got the reply

“You, Mike, seem to believe in some parts of Scientology”

This is 1.1 and should be treated as such.

It is like a marriage you have to put some effort in to get some wins out.

All right, Mike.

Thanks.

Alanzo

Alan. I am somewhat random in my moderating depending on how much time I have, whether I am doing it on my computer or phone and my mood.

You and Hiatus are welcome to carry on with your Kumbaya efforts between you. I think after a while it becomes a distraction to everyone else.

So, sorry, I cannot tell you when I will and won’t cut things off. But I do always try to make it known and not simply trash comments without mention.

That’s the best I can do to explain my “policy”.

Mike wrote:

“No point in continuing to blow your horns. You are looking in different directions.

It sounds like we’re gonna crash! (:>)

I’ve been thinking about your post here since you made it because I want to understand why you cut things off at some times and not at others. I figure that if I can understand this better I can work within your rules of moderation.

It seems to me that you feel there is an impossibility here of communication, that it is impossible for me to understand hiatus’ point, and for hiatus to understand mine.

I do think that I understand Hiatus’ point: He believes that I am an SP who is trying to stop people from “going free” using Scientology. He believes that is my purpose here.

The question is, is this a correct understanding?

And is it possible to improve the understanding between me and hiatus?

You, Mike, seem to believe in some parts of Scientology, and so I would think that you have some form of attitude that communication is the universal solvent.

If Hiatus and I refrain from personal attacks, and stay on the subject, don’t you think that it is possible to eventually create a glory-filled KUMBAYA moment where Hiatus and I embrace in the light of new understanding?

I do.

I’ve seen it happen many many times.

In fact some of my best friends on the Internet started out thinking that I was an SP whose purpose was to stop people from “going free” with Scientology auditing and training.

Jus sayin.

Alanzo

This is the end of this conversation.

Two ships passing in the night.

No point in continuing to blow your horns. You are looking in different directions.

Yep.

Actually Hiatus, I really did answer your question.

I stated my specific purpose for the post and even my wider purpose for posting generally on the Internet on the subject of Scientology.

“He worked for “free” for 16 years for the Org?

So now he is going to spend the next 16 years spewing his arc broken case on Mike’s blog.”

Labeling someone’s statements as “ARC Broken case” is what L Ron Hubbard told you to do so that you would not think about or evaluate ideas that countered what he wanted you to think.

This is a mistake.

This is L Ron Hubbard telling you what you should think about and what you should not think about.

Did you really sign up for that as a Scientologist?

I know I did not.

Go back and re-read my response to you with your TRs in.

Respond exactly to what I wrote.

Let’s graduate from knee-jerk reactive make-wrongs and have real communication.

Shall we?

Alanzo

Hiatus, yes I noticed he didn’t answer you. I agree.

If someone is ARCXen, get it fixed instead of running your out ruds on others forever and just move on. But I’ve read Tony O’s comments and there are some commentors there that comment with great pride about how they love to go to Mike Rinder’s site to bait and denigrate the poor sods who still think the tech works. They shake their heads at what stupidity these poor misguided people have and they take it on themselves to disabuse us of our horrid ideas.

Well in my book when you try to take someone’s stable datum from them and thus pull the rug out from under them, it is nothing more than invalidation. And I would also question the person’s intentions on it too, which you did. And as you so correctly pointed out, no matter how vociferous his arguments, he will not get one convert here at all. Not one. I think he should leave and go somewhere where he can get lots of agreement with his mutual out ruds. But than that’s no fun! What kind of game would that be?

Thank you Haitus for saying what I’ve been thinking a long time!

thank you Cindy,

You notice he did not answer the question but I did get the reason anyway.

He worked for “free” for 16 years for the Org?

Well if he did not make it go right to get up the bridge on both sides that’s his problem.

So now he is going to spend the next 16 years spewing his arc broken case on Mike’s blog.

The poor sod.

I would think that Mike will have long moved on with his life and on to better things by this time
eh Mike?