dsm, Oerlikon is not a spammer and I am not a troll. It is extremely offensive for you to throw those terms around in this most inappropriate fashion.
Oerlikon posts interesting links in many threads; I find that very helpful, and from the feedback he gets, so do many other people. People who don't like his links don't have to click on them.
It is also common practice on these boards to post information in the body of the post, as well as to provide the link, as I did when I posted this forum's rules. I did so for the sake of convenience, and I don't feel my post is overly long. Whether or not it is, my point is correct: it is a violation of this forum's rules for you to try to restrict who can post in a thread.
As to your accusation that I attacked you in another thread, here is the interaction you refer to:
Unfortunately, most cult damage does include relapse at a future time, but fortunately, you can be better prepared to keep the relapse brief and minimize the harm if you have a written record in journal or letter form that can remind you of the path you already have trodden.
Do you have evidence to support the statement above? I haven't seen any, and I can't think of any reason why it would necessarily be true.
People relapse (or cult-hop), especially those who don't get effective counseling or who don't have access to the resources on this site. But it doesn't have to happen.
You are right, Christa, it doesn't have to happen, but it often does. It is part of human nature, after all, that we are vulnerable to cults and the recovery from one cult experience does not include a cure of our human nature.
But as I said, getting good therapy can leave you with the tools so that the next time your "cult buttons" get pushed, you don't fall as hard or as far.
Asking for evidence is not attacking, and from your response to me, "You are right, Christa..." I conclude that you both agreed with me and didn't feel attacked at the time. So I'm not sure why you're now claiming that I attacked you.
I'm also not sure why you continue to defend your attempts to limit participation in this thread. This is a public forum guided by the rules the forum owner established. Those rules do not state that only ex-members of a group, or co-religionists of an OP, can post in a thread. If that's what you want, this is not the place. You are not the owner of this forum, and you do not make the rules.
I am looking for a troll-free discussion. It is not at all unreasonable or against the rules to ask that people do not post unless they are actually concerned with the topic.
The rules clearly show that it is not up to you to decide who is concerned with a topic. Your comments also indicate that your understanding of the words "troll" and "spammer" is hazy at best. Unless you are deliberately and disingenuously misusing these terms.
You have both worked hard to derail this thread. PLEASE STOP! What kind of person would ignore such a request? You both have no purpose in any of your posts other than to disrupt the topic
My initial purpose in posting was to point out that you cannot limit this thread in the way that you want. It is not derailing a thread to point out that the OP has violated board rules. I was also unpleasantly surprised that you asked another board member his religion, and that you are setting up a religious litmus test.
My purpose now is to show that what you are saying about my posts is not true, and to note that I find what you say offensive. You cannot just say whatever you want on a public message board and expect it to go unchallenged. If you want total control over the parameters of a discussion, check out a place like Yahoo Groups.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2010 11:44AM by Christa.