Excusing Mike Rinder

CommunicatorIC;1125734: I never suggested that Gerry should stop wanting Mike Rinder to “tell the truth.” On the contrary, what I said was completely consistent with Gerry continuing to want Mike Rinder to “tell the truth.”  I said, “If Gerry didn’t like that, I would completely understand.”

I simply explained why it was unlikely to happen, and why I would advise Mike not to disclose details that would put his family, wife and child at risk.

I do not appreciate the implication that I am a psychopath (“psychopathic logic’), particularly based on a false and misleading premise.

There is no implication that you’re a psychopath. You should appreciate that I did not imply you’re a psychopath. Your non-appreciation is easily erased because you generated it for something unimplied.

Please also observe that I never said or implied that you suggested that I should stop wanting Mike Rinder to “tell the truth.”  What I said was:

I understand that there are many people who, like Communicator IC, do not want Rinder to do what I have asked him to do, and even, like this poster, advise him not to do.

What I have consistently asked Rinder for is to tell the truth. What I have consistently, in many public communications, said I wanted from Rinder is the truth.  I simply want him to tell the truth.1

What I wrote about psychopathic logic is the following:

In psychopathic logic, I am supposed to stop wanting him to tell the truth because he won’t, or hasn’t, or refuses. That isn’t the way such wanting works. One doesn’t want peace in the world, and then stop wanting it because there isn’t peace. In the choice between war and peace, I choose peace. In the choice between Rinder telling the truth or not telling the truth, I want the truth.

If you have any evidence that this is not an example of psychopathic logic, please post it. You misread or misparsed what I wrote. You do not identify any actual false or misleading premise. I have, however.

If despite your advice to him not to tell the truth, you actually, as I do, want Rinder to tell the truth, please say it. “Mike Rinder, tell the truth.”

Even if you include your excuse for him as a condition, say it. “Mike Rinder, unless it puts your family, wife and child at risk, tell the truth.”

If Rinder is not using his family, wife and child as human shields or human excuses to not tell the truth, then your excuse for him isn’t necessary or relevant and you can say to him unequivocally, “Mike Rinder, tell the truth.”

Obviously it is very important to determine if Rinder is indeed using imagined or mocked-up risk to his family, wife and child as his excuse for not telling the truth, and even for why he still black PRs good people for Scientology and in other ways participates in its criminal conspiracy against his victims. I will consider writing an open letter to him to find out if there is any actual nexus between his actions or inactions that serve the Scientologists malign purposes and risk to his family, wife and child.

I think this “risk” or threat from the wogs Rinder victimized to his family, wife and child is faked and pathetic. If there is a risk or threat from his victims should he ever tell the truth about his victims’ victimizing, then there must be the same risk or threat from his victims without his ever telling the truth. That is faked and pathetic. It is just the sort of scenario the Scientologists have gimmicked for decades to double-curve their victims.

The truth that Rinder can tell, and which I’ve been asking him to tell, is clearly important enough that so many people, you included, for perhaps untold reasons, don’t want him to tell it. Rinder telling the truth is important and dramatic enough that HelluvaHoax proposed making a movie event out of the first time it happens. Even though it’s the victim having to spend the time while the victimizer does nothing, I am grateful that Rinder’s relationship with me, and through me with his other victims, is being considered.