It would seem you are stuck in Hubbard's com formulae, expectating an ack from Mike as proof he has received your com.
No. Nothing could be further from that.
I would be happy if Mike would respond to
anyone and just share the damn information in public with us former SO members, ex-scn members, victims, scientology watchers and scientology critics.
1. I'd be happy if he would have had several episodes of the podcast dedicated to OSA operations and tactics.
2. I'd be happy if he would have written about this at lenght in his book rather than just skim over it entirely.
3. I'd be happy if he would have had a long-format episode on youtube about it with Chris
4... or with Aaron
5.... or with Leah
6.... or with Joe Rogan, John Dehlin or with whichever youtuber he feels like it.
7. I would be happy if Mike would have just written a whole series of long posts about this on his blog without even mentioning anyone by name of the many people who asked this stuff over the years.
8. I'd be happy if even today he would have had a youtube live with Miriam and talked about it with her live.
I do not care if Mike acks me or not. I couldn't care less if he mentions me or anyone else who asked him that over the years (To be honest, I would prefer if he didn't mention me). I just care if he shares the information or not. The only reason this annoys me is because he keeps his zipped-lips-policy even in the face of an angry 2nd-gen victim of child sex abuse.
This isn't about me.
It never was.
I also wonder what you would do in his position (...)
The same thing I've done with my own knowledge about inv.
Share his info about OSA in public, without holding things back or hiding behind the "I shared stuff with the police, so I do not have to talk with any of you guys" claim.
Mike has a right not to share that info. And I have the right to say I am dissapointed with his decision.
He did say he could have handled the Miriam situation better.
Well, he still can handle it better! That's the point!
He can go on and answer the OSA related question in a format he chooses. But he isn't doing that. That's what bugs me: He sticks to his zipped-lips-policy even now. If a chid sex abuse victim can't make him answer these questions, I do not know who can. It seems he'd rather take it to his grave, burn his whole reputation and drag the foundation down with him rather than just talk about OSA. It boggles my mind.
I hate this whole situation. There is a specific person who has said a specific thing. Not "they". And that specific person can be challenged on the specific statement. Not strawman "statements". No "they".
There's many more than just one person. I've received communication through otehr channels, not just this forum. My ex-scn contacts are not limited to just the forum. I'm receiving emails and communication across other social media. And not all of those people want me to reveal their identities. I respect that.