Posted by so on July 17, 2005, at 23:55:31
In reply to My mind is not a prisoner... » so, posted by gardenergirl on July 17, 2005, at 23:14:35
> But thanks for entitling your post, and I quote, "Free your mind," with what is grammatically known as a command.
As is the phrase "Be well". I would have to do some research to suggest a proper gramatical classification for commands commonly offered as cordial support.
>
> > The last sentence apparently refers to efforts interfere with a personal relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. This from a person who claims Scientologists "try to separate you from your family."
>
> Um, didn't you write the post?No. I was responding to questions about a post on the restricted but open-to-readers 2000 board that said something like "there's even a free Katie movement. They're that creepy."
I wrote a post explaining my impression of another post. I obtained the explanation by conducting a google search for the phrase "Free Katie" because two people had asked me to explain the phrase, possibly because they thought I might have unusual insight into terms used in reference to Scientology.
>>And you say your last sentence, which is this,
Back up a minute. You already quoted the full text of the "Free your mind" post, which was...
("The last sentence apparently refers to efforts [to] interfere with a personal relationship between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. This from a person who claims Scientologists 'try to separate you from your family.'")
... so this citation is from another post...
>>btw: "The ideas taught as Scientology might seem "weird" to some, but as a group, Scientologists have demonstrated considerable legal savy in protecting their ideas against libel" is "apparently" referring to something about two celebrities? Um, if I wrote something, unless I forgot what I meant, I think I would be certain of what something I wrote refers to.
>Reading your citation of my post, which I will stipulate as accurate, I seem to be citing a well-known fact that Scientologists as a group have long battled to defend what is widely recognized as a civil right to enjoy freedom of religion without being the subject of libelous statements. My purpose in citing this history is to explain that as a group, Scientologists - as have members of other religions -- have long struggled to enjoy their civil rights in free societies.
> Regardless, one way that last sentence might be interpreted is as a subtle threat to anyone who might "apparently" be engaging in libel regarding Scientologists.
But for anyone not engaging in potentially libelous statements, it could not be interpreted as any sort of threat to them, right?> But perhaps I am primed to interpret something you post in that way because of an earlier post you made ...
Perhaps. Are there other reasons unrelated to me that you might be primed to interpret a post that way?
>I couldn't help but interpret that statement based on my gut reaction that it felt like a subtle threat. I recall my reply to that post was flippant.
>The way I handle feelings like that is to downplay the value of my feelings in favor of more extensive review of available facts. My guts have a tendency to react based on how well I feed them.
> Well tie me up and call me Shirley, but is my interpretation correct?Shirley McClain?
Anyway, no the statement you quote was written solely as a reference to a particular group's long struggle for civil rights. I can see how a person who doesn't think black people should sit at the front of the bus would consider a discussion of civil rights struggles threatening, but you don't think anything like that, do you?
poster:so
thread:526844
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529361.html