Dr. Sonia - chimes in and it's ..

Conrad · Subject: Re: Dr. Sonia - chimes in and it's .. Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:58 pm

oh, this statement 'And I finish my answer with a question: why is that you help young adults in the process of their emancipation ? Normal young adults who don't have psychological vulnerability don't need help in this process' is too strong in my opinion, but of course it hinges on the definition of 'normal'

also, 'You are a real cult personality because your followers are fiercely protective of you, of a person who claim to be free and independant and thinking for others.' doesn't follow I think.

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

Conrad wrote:

oh, this statement 'And I finish my answer with a question: why is that you help young adults in the process of their emancipation ? Normal young adults who don't have psychological vulnerability don't need help in this process' is too strong in my opinion, but of course it hinges on the definition of 'normal'

I think this is a good question. She is asking him what his motives are.
Why does he pray on the meek?

Conrad wrote:

'You are a real cult personality because your followers are fiercely protective of you, of a person who claim to be free and independant and thinking for others."

I thought this was rather elegantly put. She called him a cult personality (not cult leader) equating him to some kind of ~~arrogant rock star~~ celebrity. Where followers are more interested in being seen in popular favor than expressing independent thought.

Conrad · Subject: Re: Dr. Sonia - chimes in and it's .. Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:10 pm

also, see my post prev to the last one.

yeah, if 'cult personality' is meant in that way, okay. I just assumed it was meant in the 'cult leader' way. and then the statement would not have followed (which doesnt mean it is untrue)

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

Conrad wrote:

Although it should also be said that had she actually said this then there is *some* justification in Stef's asking her to back it up.

Sure, but she has a doctorate- Wink

and I don't think she needs to pull things out of her butt to make a point.

she says here

Doc Sonia wrote:

My judgement is based on what is available on this site and your role in inciting young adults to cut ties with their families.

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

Conrad wrote:

also, see my post prev to the last one.

yeah, if 'cult personality' is meant in that way, okay. I just assumed it was meant in the 'cult leader' way. and then the statement would not have followed (which doesnt mean it is untrue)

true

Deep Purple · Number of posts: 127 Registration date: 2008-05-10

A great exchange followed when Sonia made her first post. She made a few statements in a post about how Tom should leave FDR, and dave bockman replies with a dismissive "In what field do you hold a Doctorate, Sonia?" To which Cooper replies, "She holds several it seems" with a link to Dr Sonia's blog. And then the thread degenerates into bashing academia.

Are Graeme and Nash the only two active members who have been allowed to stay with their families unharassed, and only because their FOOs have passed Stef's inspection?

wilheldp · Number of posts: 191 Registration date: 2007-10-12

Deep Purple wrote:

A great exchange followed when Sonia made her first post. She made a few statements in a post about how Tom should leave FDR, and dave bockman replies with a dismissive "In what field do you hold a Doctorate, Sonia?" To which Cooper replies, "She holds several it seems" with a link to Dr Sonia's blog. And then the thread degenerates into bashing academia.

Are Graeme and Nash the only two active members who have been allowed to stay with their families unharassed, and only because their FOOs have passed Stef's inspection?

I made a post about that in another thread here...but you left out the best part. When it comes out that she DOES have doctorate degrees, they make some comment about the punctuation in her posts. That place is so desperate to not look bad it's pathetic.

_________________
I philosophize, therefore I evangelize

Static4367 · Subject: Re: Dr. Sonia - chimes in and it's .. Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:40 pm

Being one of the few people who is not yet banned, I was very tempted to chime in with: and in what subject is Stef's PhD?

But I will save my final post for something less petty.

Deep Purple · Number of posts: 127 Registration date: 2008-05-10

wilheldp wrote:

Deep Purple wrote:

A great exchange followed when Sonia made her first post. She made a few statements in a post about how Tom should leave FDR, and dave bockman replies with a dismissive "In what field do you hold a Doctorate, Sonia?" To which Cooper replies, "She holds several it seems" with a link to Dr Sonia's blog. And then the thread degenerates into bashing academia.

Are Graeme and Nash the only two active members who have been allowed to stay with their families unharassed, and only because their FOOs have passed Stef's inspection?

I made a post about that in another thread here...but you left out the best part. When it comes out that she DOES have doctorate degrees, they make some comment about the punctuation in her posts. That place is so desperate to not look bad it's pathetic.

Sorry I missed that post of yours Smile

Yeah, correcting the punctuation of someone with two Ph.D.s in an effort to dismiss her is pretty desperate. So was dismissing her comments on psychology because the title of a course she taught sounded like it might have involved providing her students with positive arguments for statism. But it's such an FDR thing to do: only the person with perfect morals (Stef) may have meaningful thoughts. Any other thoughts are subject to Stef's rejection.

wilheldp · Number of posts: 191 Registration date: 2007-10-12

Deep Purple wrote:

Sorry I missed that post of yours Smile

Yeah, correcting the punctuation of someone with two Ph.D.s in an effort to dismiss her is pretty desperate. So was dismissing her comments on psychology because the title of a course she taught sounded like it might have involved providing her students with positive arguments for statism. But it's such an FDR thing to do: only the person with perfect morals (Stef) may have meaningful thoughts. Any other thoughts are subject to Stef's rejection.

S'alright...it got buried in a long thread pretty quick. I'm enjoying the hell out of watching the damage control in the aftermath of this article. They are tipping their hand and showing all their tricks at once. And what really cracks me up is that Stef keeps saying that this is good publicity.

_________________
I philosophize, therefore I evangelize

Laird · Subject: Re: Dr. Sonia - chimes in and it's .. Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:14 am

Haha, those enlightened arbiters have laid waste to this phony doctor!!!

Awesome Philosophical Genius! wrote:

Ignoring your baseless assertions about Stef, perhaps you should direct your efforts to greater concerns based on the same principles by which you concern yourself with Stef. Talk with priests and politicians first, their manipulation of people who want answers to get their money is of a much more widespread, violent and exploitive scale

Ha ha HA!!! Go and lift this 30 ton weight before you even try and lift this cup!

Note: This is in no way similar to the analogy Stef uses to dismiss Ron Paul's supporters trying to diminish the state's power even though the state increases more throughout history.

Seriously, though, I hope you don't mind the sarcasm, Sonia. I'm kind of on a roll here. I think that Stef was right about one thing, however. It is far better to go after enemies that you can fight on the philosophical battlefield rather than try to battle the purveyors of big-time violence. Don't get me wrong, it is a good thing to go after the big guys, too. But I think that going after the petty little guys is a far better plan and yields far more satisfying results. afro

_________________
[INSERT MEME HERE]

Sonia Mansour Robaey · Number of posts: 24 Registration date: 2008-11-17

Thanks to all of you on this forum who reproduced the exchange between me and the FDR cult members and their 'leader'. I cannot access the forum anymore. But I will be visiting this one.
FDR cultists were boasting about having some publicity from the Guardian article, let's use this publicity to let people know the truth about Molyneux and his cult.

Free Radical · Number of posts: 170 Registration date: 2007-09-27

Sonia Mansour Robaey wrote:

Thanks to all of you on this forum who reproduced the exchange between me and the FDR cult members and their 'leader'. I cannot access the forum anymore. But I will be visiting this one.
FDR cultists were boasting about having some publicity from the Guardian article, let's use this publicity to let people know the truth about Molyneux and his cult.

ANCAPS second your motion! Smile

_________________
Links:
Freedomainers Cult (Excommunicated) Google Map!
MolyneuxCultWatch

Libby · Number of posts: 65 Registration date: 2008-10-14

A poster is now speculating that by her apparent age (I guess pulled from the year she earned a PhD) that she is a mother, which must negate anything she has said to this point because mothers are bad.

They do hate mothers over there. Women in general, but specifically mothers. So it doesn't matter if she has a doctorate in anything or not.

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

Another thought provoking post:

travis touchdown wrote:

I'm not sure why Barbara's words should be taken as hearsay because
she is under grievence, and yet Tom's words should be automatically be
assumed to be true. The guy was clearly upset about the evils that were
being discussed (Iraq war, etc.).
His father seemed like a mean guy, if we are to take what Tom says
at face value. But evil? I dunno about all that. Someone that kills or
steals on a regular basis seems evil to me. But a guy who breaks his
own property and yells (even if it is at someone)? Not so much.
And the accusations against his mother in the podcast? They do not
have any proof behind them. It is admitted that no proof is needed that
Barbara knew Tom's father was a mean guy right off the bat. I know
you've got your theories, but they need actual proof to hold up.
Austrian economists don't just say "Hey, the government is responsible
for the recession! This theory proves it!" They actually point out the
proof of government meddling in the economy and a valid explanation of
why it would affect it negatively. I am quite puzzled as to why Tom
would accept such a theory without such proof.
The only scrap of evidence that you have is what Tom tells you about
how his father is now. Not only is that hearsay by your definition, but
it is by no means proof that he was always like that. People's
personalities are not static. I know plenty of people who are very
different than when I met them. And she had kids because she wanted him
to abuse them? I always thought that people had kids because they have
a biological urge to reproduce, but I could be wrong...
How would you expect someone to act if you make awful accusations
against them without any proof? I'm sure that many a socialist has made
horrible personal attacks against you. They don't make you upset even a
little? How was Barbara supposed to feel? Was she supposed to be happy
that you and her son thinks that she takes pleasure in her son's
emotional pain? It is pretty obvious to me why she feels that the
conversation was chilling.
Getting back to the article; why is it assumed that Barbara thinks
that her son is stupid because she disapproves of his voluntary
activities? Is she stupid or mistaken about her husband (who was also
voluntarily chosen)? No, you think she is purposely complacent to fuel
her emotional blood lust. Is Tom the same way? I hope not!
And why was it not suggested that the reason that Barbara contacted
Kate and got the article printed was because she wanted to be with her
son again? This conclusion is also quite obvious to most anyone who
reads the article. She wants to see her son again and this is her only
way of calling out to him.
I'm not on the whole "Stef is the devil" thing. But I don't think
that this Barbara woman is the devil, either. I don't think you're all
evil or stupid for thinking she is. I think you may be mistaken.