anti_ses wrote:You missed the point. The "accusation" to which I refer is the suggestion (OK, perhaps "accusation" was too strong a word: in any case, I was not talking about any accusation against myself) that there might be people from the SES hierarchy posting on these message boards. This point of view is based on no evidence whatsoever.
Hang on... OK, lets start again, I'm usually dog-tired by the time I have the luxury of spending time on an internet forum so might not be getting the plot here. I've had to blink a few times at the above quote and must confess it leaves my quite flabbergasted, so even though its a very simple paragraph and I don't think I could possibly have misunderstood, please may I just go over it in slow motion?
rewindSo... you're saying that you think there are no people from the SES hierarchy (for want of a better definition, Tutor upwards) who are active posters on this message board? A board to which Boddy himself has posted on? And you are saying there is no "evidence whatsoever" to support that supposition? From what authority are you writing?? Why would you make such an assertion?
How are you so sure? Has everyone in the organisation been instructed not to partake?
Either way, that's an opinion. I think many people would find it pretty safe to assume that members read and have posted in the past, and that there may be some who still do. Even if there has been a blanket command from the top to stay away, surely there might be at least one free-thinker who might try and put the organisation's case anonymously??
Either way, this is all getting a little irrelevant. I don't quite understand why you would be saying that there are absolutley no people from the SES posting here, unless you yourself are an active member and are party to such information. Note, this isn't flaming, I'm examining the evidence and drawing a conclusion.
you wrote
anti_ses wrote: Those who have suffered due to their association with the SES have a trump card in this respect: they have a "right" to be angry and therefore can be forgiven for any unfounded abuse or illogical deductions. And, of course, those who do not see the SES as a purely evil organisation must be in some way indoctrinated, brainwashed or blind.
I disagree with the premise of that paragraph. No. People who have suffered don't have a "right" to be angry, they have a
RIGHT to be.
To your second assertion (if that's the correct term, sorry, I'm not going to read up on the theories and semantics of debating just to write on here), that people posting here denying the SES is purely evil are brainwashed. I think you are being a bit disingenuous there... perhaps a poster who is extremely riled or has seriously suffered in one way or another might lash out verbally at someone who seems to be defending the SES.. given the levels of suffering and recollections of abuse on many levels and the messes made of people's families that we read on here and experienced first hand, is it any wonder? And there will be others who are not quite so on-the-edge who might probe a pro-SES stance in a more cool manner... so what. Your generalisation on such polarised views seems to me to be pushing its own agenda.
The original post here was for people to stop making personal attacks, but your post seems to want to expand on that by making a couple of assertions I do not agree with and had to challenge.
A tactic for those wishing to excuse the SES or discredit the stories of those who have suffered might be to highlight the emotional state of the detractors.
That is why I accused you of writing a post that seemed to display a complete lack of empathy with those who have suffered.