A bold statement.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I think most of the arugments against Scientology on this board would not win a debate.

Most of the arguments against Scientology seem to me to be just "ought not" statements or insults.

The board used to have more sound criticisms of Scientology on it.

Now it just seems the points being made are "Look how terrible they are!" statements.

There is nothing wrong with this, but it used to be better.

I think we may have become less effective at winning over doubters or convincing lurkers about what is wrong with Scientology.

It seems to me that the targets are mostly Marty Rathbun and David Miscavige instead of Scientology itself.

Where are the trolls when you really need one?

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Panda Termint]

I'm guessing that much of what had to be said has already been said, TAJ.

I'd like to see our criticism/discussion/debate of scientology-related matters be more exact and truthful but you just can't find good help these days!

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I think we may have become less effective at winning over doubters or convincing lurkers about what is wrong with Scientology.

I am wondering how you determined this...

I don't know the numbers, but how does today's ESMB compare (in terms of number of members and lurkers ) to the Golden Age you speak of?

If it turns out that more people are reading ESMB, wouldn't that be more effective?

Anybody know the numbers?

 

[gerry]

I think most of the arugments against Scientology on this board would not win a debate.

Most of the arguments against Scientology seem to me to be just "ought not" statements or insults.

The board used to have more sound criticisms of Scientology on it.

Now it just seems the points being made are "Look how terrible they are!" statements.

There is nothing wrong with this, but it used to be better.

I think we may have become less effective at winning over doubters or convincing lurkers about what is wrong with Scientology.

Very Bold & Real Statement

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I am wondering how you determined this...

I don't know the numbers, but how does today's ESMB compare (in terms of number of members and lurkers ) to the Golden Age you speak of?

If it turns out that more people are reading ESMB, wouldn't that be more effective?

Anybody know the numbers?

I don't know the numbers.

But the numbers only say how many people look at the board; it doesn't say anything about what the reader concludes about what he has read.

The effectiveness depends on the effectiveness of the arguments I would think.

Snideness and name calling isn't a sufficient argument.

It may be that no one defends Scientology on this board, and that can be considered a good thing if there are fewer defenders of it.

But it could also mean they are not going to defend it here simply because of the insults they get. We simply can not know the answer to this.

But I think it is obvious that discussions in the past were generally more about deconstructing Scientology than what appears now.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[anonomog]

I think most of the arugments against Scientology on this board would not win a debate.

Most of the arguments against Scientology seem to me to be just "ought not" statements or insults.

The board used to have more sound criticisms of Scientology on it.

Now it just seems the points being made are "Look how terrible they are!" statements.

There is nothing wrong with this, but it used to be better.

I think we may have become less effective at winning over doubters or convincing lurkers about what is wrong with Scientology.

It seems to me that the targets are mostly Marty Rathbun and David Miscavige instead of Scientology itself.

Where are the trolls when you really need one?

The Anabaptist Jacques

You could write step by step instructions to help those of us who struggle with the finer points of debate.
A little quality control moderation and bob's your aunt, you will have a nice quiet forum that will intellectually strike effective blows against Scientology.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Nah.. That's not a bold statement.. This is a bold statement:

Scientology is bullshit !
This may sound flippant, but fact is that I'm right and Hubbard is wrong!

It that simple.. Dublicate it!

 

[Panda Termint]

You could write step by step instructions to help those of us who struggle with the finer points of debate.
A little quality control moderation and bob's your aunt, you will have a nice quiet forum that will intellectually strike effective blows against Scientology.

Argggghhh! We don't want THAT!!!!

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I'll tell anyone who ask that Scientology is bullshit.. This may sound flippant, but fact is that I'm right and Hubbard is wrong!

It that simple.. Dublicate it!

And, of course, they only take your word and agree with you.

At least to your face they might.

I am making this point because Scientology is still around.

It is self-destructive yet it still persists.

Somebody still isn't convinced.

If I was still in but lingering, and I visited a board like this, if the argument against Scientology is "it's bullshit" I might be inclined to believe the Church in what it says about us.

I used to tell people I know that had their doubts to visit this board. I would not do that of late.

What is the opposition to making a good solid and valid argument against Scientology itself?

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Purple Rain]

And, of course, they only take your word and agree with you.

At least to your face they might.

I am making this point because Scientology is still around.

It is self-destructive yet it still persists.

Somebody still isn't convinced.

If I was still in but lingering, and I visited a board like this, if the argument against Scientology is "it's bullshit" I might be inclined to believe the Church in what it says about us.

I used to tell people I know that had their doubts to visit this board. I would not do that of late.

What is the opposition to making a good solid and valid argument against Scientology itself?

The Anabaptist Jacques

I agree. The stuff that will really make Scientologists think, like the stories of the little kid locked in the chain locker, are kind of lost amongst the stuff that would only convince them that everything they were ever told about us was right. Some of them still seem to lurk here anyway, which is good.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

I think perhaps it is time I retire from ESMB and let the formal rules of High School debate take over and dictate what is a proper post.

Go for a forum of that kind of debate folks and I thi nk I'll go somewhere and have some fun.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I think perhaps it is time I retire from ESMB and let the formal rules of High School debate take over and dictate what is a proper post.

Go for a forum of that kind of debate folks and I thi nk I'll go somewhere and have some fun.

And this is an example of the snideness I was talking about as opposed to a persuasive argument.

Auditor's Toad--what is your opposition to making a good solid and valid argument against Scientology?

You appear to have an objection to this.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Auditor's Toad]

And this is an example of the snideness I was talking about as opposed to a persuasive argument.

Auditor's Toad--what is your opposition to making a good solid and valid argument against Scientology?

You appear to have one.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Only that you, dear Sir, do not get to dictate how or what I post until you become a board moderator, so, meanwhile you remain just another in a long boring line of self appointed board nannies with an agenda.

But, hey, maybe you can sell your program to some.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Only that you, dear Sir, do not get to dictate how or what I post until you become a board moderator, so, meanwhile you remain just another in a long boring line of self appointed board nannies with an agenda.

But, hey, maybe you can sell your program to some.

Nice dodge of the question by shifting the attention to me.

So I'll ask it again as you appear to have an objection to using a sound a valid argument against Scientology.

Auditor's Toad--what is your opposition to making a good solid and valid argument against Scientology?

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I think most of the arugments against Scientology on this board would not win a debate.

Most of the arguments against Scientology seem to me to be just "ought not" statements or insults.

The board used to have more sound criticisms of Scientology on it.

Now it just seems the points being made are "Look how terrible they are!" statements.

There is nothing wrong with this, but it used to be better.

I think we may have become less effective at winning over doubters or convincing lurkers about what is wrong with Scientology.

It seems to me that the targets are mostly Marty Rathbun and David Miscavige instead of Scientology itself.

Where are the trolls when you really need one?

The Anabaptist Jacques

Very good point.

Good luck getting it across to others.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Freeminds]

Good point. I have attempted to get some good old-fashioned debate rolling.

However, one reason why debate has devolved into simply poking fun at Scientology may be that Dianetics and Scientology are continuing their downward spiral. Hubbardism is very out of date, now. How can we expect lively debate when there are so few people left who might be prepared to defend the indefensible? The evidence against Hubbard, Miscavige and the Scientology cult is mounting.

There seems to be new evidence of abuses every couple of weeks at the moment. Not so long ago, we'd have been given a news story to chew over every couple of months or so. By the time each member has had their two cents' worth on each of the revelations coming out of Australia (for example) it's bound to appear that this board is a hostile environment for the Hubbard apologist. But in this, we simply reflect the wider world. Scientology has lost its cloak of respectability.

 

[gerry]

Scientology is bullshit !

That is so true

 

[WildKat]

I think perhaps it is time I retire from ESMB and let the formal rules of High School debate take over and dictate what is a proper post.

Go for a forum of that kind of debate folks and I thi nk I'll go somewhere and have some fun.

Maybe it's time for you to graduate and move on. You're bitter and jaded.

Seriously, this board has reached a level of stagnation. Everything that needed to be said has already been said, and it's all buried under piles of threads like this one. What we need is a newbie with a good story to tell. New blood to stir things up.

I only come here looking for news or entertainment and there hasn't been much of that lately. I go to Marty's site for laughs.

OK, I'm bitter and jaded. Do'h!

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

And, of course, they only take your word and agree with you. <snip>

The hell they will.. Not as long as they're applying Hubbard's doctrine.. You said it in your first post:

I think most of the arugments against Scientology on this board would not win a debate. <snip>

I think this is true.. And we both know why that is. At least with Scientologists who are 'convinced', or 'deluded' as we might also call it.

Well, we got all kinds on this messageboard. I see lots of the kind of thougtful and clever debate that you seem to miss.. Really!

Hmm.. Just a stray thought: Scientologists could be said to be afraid of being 'mind manipulated', if not outright having their mental 'engrams' restimulated by crazy and irresponsible WOG's, not to mention us vile and evil Supressive Persons who oppose Scientology... They're afraid that, instead of becoming an OT with godlike powers, they will experience eternal damnation by having to die countless times, over and over again in this miserable WOG world..

To avoid this cruel fate they have agreed and decided with great spiritual effort.. To ONLY be mind manipulated by Hubbard!

But of course, scientologists will NOT agree that Hubbard is mind manipulating them.. Perish the thought!

I'm not opposed at all to sensible debate and good valid arguments against Scientology.. I even try to do that myself occasionally.. (Not often!)

But I'm somewhat opposed to 'mind manipulating' scientologists.. Well, I did say 'somewhat'! - I don't pretend to be accepting of Hubbard and Scientology at all. I will not agree that I had any 'wins' from it.. This is truth btw.. The 'wins' I had at the start of my delusion was.. Delusional!

WTF am I trying to say here!?

Scientology is bullshit!

 

[Oneflewover]

And, of course, they only take your word and agree with you.

At least to your face they might.

I am making this point because Scientology is still around.

It is self-destructive yet it still persists.

Somebody still isn't convinced.

If I was still in but lingering, and I visited a board like this, if the argument against Scientology is "it's bullshit" I might be inclined to believe the Church in what it says about us.

I used to tell people I know that had their doubts to visit this board. I would not do that of late.

What is the opposition to making a good solid and valid argument against Scientology itself?

The Anabaptist Jacques

People sitting primarily in their mental body, would like to see everyone logic things out and be rational and consistent.

People sitting in their emotional body, would like to see everyone get mad as hell and yell and scream and deride and chew out and knock some heads together.

It comes down to a matter of choice, and people would be best served, as would the board in general, by tending to the choice they've made, and doing the best within that chosen framework.