Scientology Review Website

[Daisy]

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/scientology-review-by-steve-hall/

Watch out for the eagle-eyed data series sharp-shooters.

 

[OperatingSP]

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/scientology-review-by-steve-hall/

Watch out for the eagle-eyed data series sharp-shooters.

Interesting:

Scientology Review by Steve Hall

Posted on November 9, 2012 by martyrathbun09 | 107 Comments

by Steve Hall

Since our summit meeting at Casablanca 5 weeks ago, I’ve been working around the clock to make progress on some strategic marketing objectives for Independent Scientology. I broke up production into two phases, phase one was iScientology.org launched on October 12. And if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we received the loftiest compliment imaginable from the Church of Scientology who are now pretending to be us. The CoS purchased www.iscientology.com and pointed it to their website. Amazing! Like someone isn’t going to notice? It’s like Charles Manson meeting with the parole board and swearing he’s Brad Pitt.



Steve and folks at Casablanca

Now before I announce phase two, here’s a question addressed to everyone: before you buy something these days, do you not check consumerreviews first to bypass any false advertising?

Personally, I check consumer reviews before I buy anything — goods, services, movies, restaurants, cameras, cell phones, power tools, printers, computers, software, apps — you name it. These days there are consumer reviews for everything, except… Scientology (sound effect: cars crashing in the background).

The closest thing the Church has to honest consumer reviews are video testimonials and success stories that sound too good to be true. That isn’t what people want. What they want is authenticity, i.e. reality. One does not have to be a Scientologist to know that absolutes are unattainable. Not everyone likes chocolate; not everyone likes Scientology.

To a Scientologist the thought of presenting Scientology in the raw might seem alarming at first, but presenting things as they really are invokes the most powerful persuader of all: reality. There is really no trust until things get real. The Church can’t do raw consumer reviews because DM suckerfish smother everything with extortion and out tech.

For some reason in December 2009 having nothing to do with anything I’ve said yet (joke), probably was just a boyish whim after some auditing from Marty, I decided we needed a massive review and rating system “for everything Scientology” covering,

1. Every LRH book
2. Every LRH lecture series
3. Every auditing service on the Bridge
4. Every training service on the Bridge
5. Indie Scn auditors and centers
6. CoS service orgs
7. CoS management orgs (including OSA and RTC), and last but not least,
8. David Miscavige’s Greatest Hits…

(Cheesy Announcer, scroll titles “…featuring “Collectable” ASI Prints, Disconnection, Golden Age of Tech, The I-A-S, Ideal Orgs, the International Event Program, Library Donation Campaign, New Era of Management, 6-month checks, Super Power Project, Higher Production through forced abortions for Sea Org parents, and the Basics!”

A review system for all things Scientology was what I was originally alluding to when I said something big was coming in December 2009 for those who remember. I was originally going to put it into RediscoverScientology.com. Then I realized it was more appropriate for iScientology.org.

The system will be moderated to block OSA trolls, spammers, insincere people, etc. Reviewers must register before they can post a review. Registering enables the moderator to more quickly approve a review once he knows who the person is and trusts them. My secret moderators are already in place and they are people you know and trust.

What people want is unbiased and unvarnished user reviews. So that is what we are going to give them.

Reviews on orgs:

A review/rating system will flank the effort to get in ethics by exposing abuses at curb level. I’ve even included management orgs so anyone who ever worked in an org can write a review on what it was like. I brought a new person into the Dallas org in 2008 and staff tried to badger her for a Ideal Org donation instead of having her read a book. My review on that event is going to leave a dark blotch in the eye of their reputation.

Churches are going to have to straighten up or get mummified. If someone had a good experience in an org, they can write that too. However, there’s an honesty check: each person who writes a review on an org has to answer this question, “The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is (a) a social personality or (b) a sociopath (suppressive person).” It’s a mandatory question and will show up in the person’s review. Kind of a Catch-22 (“a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions”).

Auditing and Training Services:

The keynote of Scientology is understanding — but without reality there isn’t any understanding. The problem with Church mis-marketing is that it lacks reality, and is infused with DM’s trademark “effort to overwhelm” — which is the closest thing David Miscavige has ever gotten to marketing. That’s why the Church floods out promo — DM’s effort to overwhelm. Since field auditors don’t have registrars to enlighten people on books or services, why not let consumers do it themselves? It will be more useable than what minions could ever write because our consumer reviews will incorporate reality, the most important element.

Standard Tech:

A barrier to leaving the CoS is finding standard auditing and training. There isn’t any in the Church any more. So by listing Indie auditors and training centers and enabling their public to review them just as people now days review doctors and lawyers and professionals of all types, it will be clear to others that standard tech IS available in the field.

Driving in public:

LRH said orgs were never successful at “pulling in public.” He said he always had to “drive public in on orgs.” So instead of putting the review and rating system into iScientology.org, I have built an entirely new website in the last 4 weeks to drive people in on iScientology.org.

This new website will feature unbiased consumer reviews from actual Scientologists and ex-Scientologists. And you will be able to see who is who and understand the viewpoint that the person is writing from.

Reviews are “unbiased” meaning we won’t be editing them. That doesn’t mean we have to let let the Church inject lies or black PR — that’s would be the most biased content of all.

People can read the reviews and decide where they want to receive services — Independent Scientology or the Church. The website provides links to both. What could be more fair? But we’re also fair to the public because we tell them what they can expect from the Church.

By survey about half of the population is actively looking for philosophic or spiritual answers. Every month, more than 1.2 million people Google the word “scientology” and each one of those is a reach. That’s a river of people reaching for answers, finding nothing, and washing on down stream. Since the Church is incapable of helping anyone, I propose diverting that river of people into our front door and on up the Bridge.

Even a tiny percentage of 1.2 million people/month is a mind-boggling volume. Just 1% of 1.2 million is 12,000 people per month. Imagine our ranks expanding by 12,000 people each month. That won’t happen tomorrow. But it could happen in the future. It needs to happen. The doors onto the Bridge have never really been opened, not even in LRH’s day because the Church let themselves go PTS and they got repositioned by the enemy as a cult — DEATH by marketing.

But how could we ever handle such volume? Here’s how: New people must first be qualified by reading a book. If they won’t read a book, LRH says don’t waste your time with them. So all those 12,000 people must be directed to a book. Which one?

In the late ‘80s, Phil Anderson and I were responsible for marketing a book that was always FAR more popular than Dianetics with new public. With NO advertising it sold like crazy. It was easy to understand, blew people’s minds, hit all the right buttons, and through its pages it also provided auditing too straight from LRH.

Self Analysis

Self Analysis IS the only book that is actual self help. Dianetics is self help because it requires someone else to do it — a huge deal breaker that gave most book buyers a loss! Phil and I knew that in 1987, but Kaboom McTinyfists would not have it. So the Church of Scientology could never be convinced to promote the actual LRH book that people want. That just ain’t right.

Phil Anderson and I wasted two years trying to figure out a solution, but we couldn’t. Maybe that was because the only real solution would have been for some people to leave the Sea Org, start over from scratch, rebuild their personal lives outside the Church, analyze what to do, join together in a withering campaign to expose DM for the fraud he is, then come up with an alternative structure to supply services, market the hell out of it with it’s own logo and website, gather even more support, rekindle the failed purpose to bring greater understanding across the world, and with virtually no money devise some way of grabbing the world’s attention to direct thousands of people to read the right book. Maybe some day some people will do that. I wouldn’t know.

Back to the thread: So the new website will direct people to Self Analysis where LRH audits them right from the pages of the book. Next, Handbook for Preclears. Same thing. The church should be happy because they get to sell lots of books. They’d better be nice to us or we’ll tell people where they can download those books for free.

Now our public will not only be book buyers, they will be preclears who have had great auditing wins direct from Ron from the pages of those books. And what do you offer preclears?

Training! So that’s where we get involved. And we will route them to our Independent Scientology centers for training. This is 1950 all over again, but a lot better because we will be making auditors wholesale.

Re-opening the Bridge

The Church is like a giant rock sitting in the middle of a Mississippi flowing 1.2 million people/month. Nothing can go in so it just washes on downstream.

To bypass the Church and diverting that river of 1.2 million people/month actually onto the Bridge through our own lines, we must accomplish one simple thing: be on page one when people Google “scientology.”

If you Google “Scientology” today you will see the search produces 18 million search results. But only 10 results are displayed on page one. So, we need to somehow get into the top ten. That’s like running a marathon against 18 million people and finishing in the top ten.

If we can do that, we can re-open the Bridge. It is that simple and that important.

And it can be done. So here’s how.

These days, before people buy stuff, they consult consumer reviews. Google “LG TVs” or “Samsung appliances” or “Nikon cameras” — Google inserts consumer reviews right into PAGE ONE.

Once people discover there is a review and rating system for everything Scientology, they are going to come back many times to learn about other services on the Bridge. Now “iScientology.org” is not too hard to remember, but online, people go super simple. When they want to read more reviews they will simply Google “scientology reviews.”

That is significant because whomever owns “scientologyreviews.com” will have a golden ticket onto page one of Google and that means a shot at all 1.2 million people/month looking for good-quality Scientology information.

Of course the Church buys up thousands of domain names so they can prevent anything like this from ever happening.

They got out-smarted in December 2007 when I found they had missed “scientology-cult.com.” I bought it because at the time, “scientology cult” was the second most popular search phrase on the subject of scientology. Today, scientology-cult.com is #1 website for the search phrase “scientology-cult” — why? It’s right in our name. And so lightning struck DM right in the forehead.

So when I checked to find out if anyone owned “scientologyreviews.com” I knew the odds were stacked against us. It would be like opening a box of Cracker Jacks and finding the Hope Diamond. OSA has a program specifically to prevent this. Could lightning strike twice on the same forehead?

Think about what this $9 domain name could mean for us. It won’t happen overnight, but soon it could help us accomplish the only reason we ever had for attacking DM in the first place: To reopen the Bridge.

Scientologyreviews.com is ours.

By hosting the world’s only “unbiased consumer reviews on everything Scientology” at scientologyreviews.com we will eventually help people move onto and up the Bridge. Imagine driving thousands or even millions of people into Independent Scientology? Can it be done? Yes.

Now, over the last four years many people have asked how they can help. Here’s your answer. I need as many people as possible to create reviews at scientologyreviews.com. I need you personally to write reviews on each service you’ve done, each book and lecture series, and every org you’ve had recent experience with. If you were on staff somewhere, even in RTC or OSA, you can a review regarding your experience in the org.

There are now 310 topics on scientologyreviews.com each one with a little introduction explaining what it’s all about written by myself or Dan Koon.

If we had 100 reviews on every topic that is a total of 31,000 reviews. And that is more doable than you think.

I put in 400 hours building scientologyreviews.com and 215 hours on iScientology.org. I didn’t make a penny from any of this, and even took 5 weeks off from work to make this happen, forfeiting five weeks of my own income. I did that because these projects matter. I’m not asking anyone to send me money. I’m asking you to log just a small fraction of the hours I put in. From the bottom of my heart, if you value Independent Scientology, would you please do that for me and for yourself and for the world?

There are at least 1000 people reading this website right now. How do I know? Because when I launched iScientology.org by announcing it on this website, within an hour there were 1034 people online at iScientology.org.

So, let’s say you were able to write 5 reviews per hour. If 500 of us put in 100 hours each, that would give us 250,000 Scientology reviews online.

If 500 of us put in just 10 hours this weekend, that would get us 25,000 reviews — by Monday. With that DM could never catch up.

We need scores of reviews on every course, every auditing level, every book, every lecture series and every org that you have personal experience with.

Online, content is king. The biggest gorilla is first in line. Launching our review website is a project worth pushing along because it will help get ethics in on orgs, enlighten people on their next step, encourage standard tech, repopulate the world with auditors, and re-open the Bridge to Clear and OT starting with Self Analysis.

Please contribute some time to this — a pleasant way to help! What you will be contributing to is everything we have worked for: the re-opening of the Bridge after David Miscavige had it totally locked down. And that is a contribution that will earn you “the proud knowingness of OT.”

Every review will be read by moderators before it is approved, so spammers and OSA need not apply. That junk will never make it past the eagle eyes of our Data Series sharp shooters (moderators) who can spot a Miscavige troll at 3,000 miles.

There’s no need to overhype everything like DM does. Just be real — you can freely say what is true for you. If you didn’t like a book or a course that much, just be honest. This is YOUR review.
Design



Most of LRH’s books and lectures were authored in the ‘50s. So the website has a ‘50s retro vibe. The Church has itself become a caricature, comical, stranger than fiction. And so the site reflects elements of that too. Even the logo has a bit of pulps in it: the font is called, “True Lies.” Result: it resonates and is alive.

From a marketing perspective, here is your chance to deliver the coup de grâce (death blow) to the Miscavige Empire of Corruption that has destroyed so many lives. Yesterday, DM cut us to pieces. Now the axe is in YOUR hands, its blade sharp. Oh, and by the way, in case anyone is wondering, THIS is marketing. Coming out with a new “release” every 5 minutes is not marketing, it’s confusion. Marketing is coming out with the one plan — the RIGHT one — and staying with it until the job is done.

Please reciprocate with your time.

This has to be done immediately because a review system is such a good idea, DM will probably try to copy it with bogus reviews of everything. We need to cut him off at the pass.

I’m counting on you.

Steve Hall

 

[Free to shine]

by Steve Hall
Since our summit meeting at Casablanca 5 weeks ago, I’ve been working around the clock to make progress on some strategic marketing objectives for Independent Scientology. I broke up production into two phases, phase one was iScientology.org launched on October 12. And if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we received the loftiest compliment imaginable from the Church of Scientology who are now pretending to be us. The CoS purchased iscientology .com (edited to take out hyperlink) and pointed it to their website. Amazing! Like someone isn’t going to notice? It’s like Charles Manson meeting with the parole board and swearing he’s Brad Pitt.

Well duh! I guess they thought iscientology. org was more user friendly to scientologists and didn't know .com should have been obtained as a priority.

The system will be moderated to block OSA trolls, spammers, insincere people, etc. Reviewers must register before they can post a review. Registering enables the moderator to more quickly approve a review once he knows who the person is and trusts them. My secret moderators are already in place and they are people you know and trust

 

[Infinite]

..

Heh! They've got their own "say Xenu" test . . .

“The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is

(_) a social personality or
(_) a sociopath (suppressive person).

Click to submit review.”

. . . apparently, ". . . someone in OSA that admits DM is a psychopath will probably be sent to the RPF or worse. So, knowing this, it makes it a little easier for me to bother to read something (negative or positive) about Scientology or Scientologists . . . "

Knowing how to know, in action. Classic.

 

[OperatingSP]

The following comment was posted in response to the blog post on Marty's website. As of this writing, it awaits moderation.

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/scientology-review-by-steve-hall/#comment-238772

CommunicatorIC | November 9, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Reply Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Steve, with respect, regarding:

“The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is (a) a social personality or (b) a sociopath (suppressive person).”

I have two concerns about the use of the above question as a gateway, test, or precondition to joining the website, posting reviews, or otherwise communicating to or through the website.

First, assume a raw public, new not only to Independent Scientology, but to Scientology in any form (e.g., corporate) buys or borrows a LRH book, reads it, has wins, finds the website, and thinks, “Cool, I think I’ll join!” or “Cool, I think I’ll post a review!” He sees the question and, believe it or not, doesn’t know who David Miscavige is! (Honestly, not many people outside of Scientology do.) Also, while he may have an idea what a sociopath is, such a person could easily have MUs on both “social personality” and “suppressive person.” Basically, you are asking him a question as a litmus test, as a precondition to joining, writing a review, or more importantly as a litmus test to COMMUNICATING, that he can’t answer.

Secondly, for such a new person (and perhaps others) such a question is off-putting. disagreeable, and, to be brutally honest, out-pr and out-manners. Particularly given (but perhaps not limited to a situation involving) lack of information, most good, social people are reluctant to label another person a “sociopath.” You may be scaring and deterring the very new, social, well-intentioned people you seek to attract. Even if a new or relatively new person CAN answer the question, or thinks he can guess the expected answer, he doesn’t want to.

In summary, there are many people who may be reluctant to join a group whose first question, first originated communication to the individual, is to ask whether someone else is a sociopath. To be honest, it looks scary, antagonistic and creepy. Where does this question tend to place the group on the Tone Scale?

 

[Sindy]

The following comment was posted in response to the blog post on Marty's website. As of this writing, it awaits moderation.

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/scientology-review-by-steve-hall/#comment-238772

Excellent comment.

It's funny how he talks about Miscavige being overwhelming as I see much of the Indie communication to be quite overwhelming at times.

In regards to the rating system, I truly wonder how "real" and free they are willing to be with that.

What if someone off the street ends up getting service from an Indie and writes a lackluster review. Will that go through? Will it be justified? Will the person be considered a "flat ball bearing", "trouble", "DB", "Open-Minded", "SP"?

Built into the "system" of Scientology are myriad excuses why the tech didn't work, none of which involves the tech not working!

I'll be curious to see how that goes. Can it really be done without censorship or is Steve writing this piece with the presupposition that all services from an Indie will be inherently great and in no need of criticism?

 

[Anonycat]

The following comment was posted in response to the blog post on Marty's website. As of this writing, it awaits moderation.

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/scientology-review-by-steve-hall/#comment-238772

Good job.

 

[Anonycat]

Excellent comment.

It's funny how he talks about Miscavige being overwhelming as I see much of the Indie communication to be quite overwhelming at times.

In regards to the rating system, I truly wonder how "real" and free they are willing to be with that.

What if someone off the street ends up getting service from an Indie and writes a lackluster review. Will that go through? Will it be justified? Will the person be considered a "flat ball bearing", "trouble", "DB", "Open-Minded", "SP"?

Built into the "system" of Scientology are myriad excuses why the tech didn't work, none of which involves the tech not working!

I'll be curious to see how that goes. Can it really be done without censorship or is Steve writing this piece with the presupposition that all services from an Indie will be inherently great and in no need of criticism?

Well thought ahead. I guess this goes on the list of possible calamity or schadenfreude events coming soon.

- SP and various other declares or tone assignments.

- Squirreling accusations or "most pure" deathmatch between rival tribes.

- Refunds.

- Skype.

- List of guaranteed results.

 

[Sindy]

Well thought ahead. I guess this goes on the list of possible calamity or schadenfreude events coming soon.

- SP and various other declares or tone assignments.

- Squirreling accusations or "most pure" deathmatch between rival tribes.

- Refunds.

- Skype.

- List of guaranteed results.

Right. So, how much of a review is it, really? He's certainly not talking allowing for Scientology Yelp Reviews.

 

[Lermanet_com]

That is a great question:

“The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is (a) a social personality or (b) a sociopath (suppressive person).”



To me
he will always be
the asthmatic dwarf.*(note)







* the phrase asthmatic dwarf is (c) Suzette Hubbard

 

[Bill]

I read this and simply shook my head in disbelief. He talks about having a review/rating system that should have the appearance of "reality" while also talking about how any and all negative reviews and bad ratings must be carefully suppressed.

So, Steve and Marty, how are you going to fake that appearance of reality while carefully suppressing that very reality? You think you can fool enough people to drag Scientology back from all the negative facts that are already well known?

Unbelievable. They know what's wrong: Lies, failed promises, abuses and just plain cult behavior and without changing any of that, they want to get the public to "accept and want Scientology".

Oooh! Tricky!

But they have Hubbard's magnificent PR series to tell them how!!

Bill

 

[Smilla]

I wonder how long it will take for Steve Hall and Marty to go for each others throats.

 

[Anonycat]

Right. So, how much of a review is it, really? He's certainly not talking allowing for Scientology Yelp Reviews.

The system will be moderated to block OSA trolls, spammers, insincere people, etc.

So much for my account.

 

[OperatingSP]

Excellent comment.

Good job.

Interestingly, and to give credit where credit is due, a moderator on Marty's blog approved the comment, and the comment has been posted:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/scientology-review-by-steve-hall/#comment-238772

CommunicatorIC | November 9, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Reply

Steve, with respect, regarding:

“The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is (a) a social personality or (b) a sociopath (suppressive person).”

I have two concerns about the use of the above question as a gateway, test, or precondition to joining the website, posting reviews, or otherwise communicating to or through the website.

First, assume a raw public, new not only to Independent Scientology, but to Scientology in any form (e.g., corporate) buys or borrows a LRH book, reads it, has wins, finds the website, and thinks, “Cool, I think I’ll join!” or “Cool, I think I’ll post a review!” He sees the question and, believe it or not, doesn’t know who David Miscavige is! (Honestly, not many people outside of Scientology do.) Also, while he may have an idea what a sociopath is, such a person could easily have MUs on both “social personality” and “suppressive person.” Basically, you are asking him a question as a litmus test, as a precondition to joining, writing a review, or more importantly as a litmus test to COMMUNICATING, that he can’t answer.

Secondly, for such a new person (and perhaps others) such a question is off-putting. disagreeable, and, to be brutally honest, out-pr and out-manners. Particularly given (but perhaps not limited to a situation involving) lack of information, most good, social people are reluctant to label another person a “sociopath.” You may be scaring and deterring the very new, social, well-intentioned people you seek to attract. Even if a new or relatively new person CAN answer the question, or thinks he can guess the expected answer, he doesn’t want to.

In summary, there are many people who may be reluctant to join a group whose first question, first originated communication to the individual, is to ask whether someone else is a sociopath. To be honest, it looks scary, antagonistic and creepy. Where does this question tend to place the group on the Tone Scale?

 

[Anonycat]

I read this and simply shook my head in disbelief. He talks about having a review/rating system that should have the appearance of "reality" while also talking about how any and all negative reviews and bad ratings must be carefully suppressed.

So, Steve and Marty, how are you going to fake that appearance of reality while carefully suppressing that very reality? You think you can fool enough people to drag Scientology back from all the negative facts that are already well known?

Unbelievable. They know what's wrong: Lies, failed promises, abuses and just plain cult behavior and without changing any of that, they want to get the public to "accept and want Scientology".

Oooh! Tricky!

But they have Hubbard's magnificent PR series to tell them how!!

Bill

I know, REALITY? That? One does not simply mix scientology and reality. What, and promise willful control over MEST, exteriorization with full blah blah, perfect memory to incident one or four quadrillion years ago -- hold it, partner. Scientology don't roll like that no more.

You will be assured improved:

Knowingness
Beingness
Expansion
Wins
Walking on air (metaphor this time folks)
Postulating
Wins
Communication like never before
Changing weather and remote viewing, separately or simultaneously
Wins
Best prices on e-meters

 

[Smilla]

There should be given a section where people can review themselves. It would be most exciting to read Michael A. Hobson Independent Scientologist Indie 500 #99's self-review, for example.

 

[Sindy]

I read this and simply shook my head in disbelief. He talks about having a review/rating system that should have the appearance of "reality" while also talking about how any and all negative reviews and bad ratings must be carefully suppressed.

So, Steve and Marty, how are you going to fake that appearance of reality while carefully suppressing that very reality? You think you can fool enough people to drag Scientology back from all the negative facts that are already well known?

Unbelievable. They know what's wrong: Lies, failed promises, abuses and just plain cult behavior and without changing any of that, they want to get the public to "accept and want Scientology".

Oooh! Tricky!

But they have Hubbard's magnificent PR series to tell them how!!

Bill

Hey, salvation of this sector of the gah-laxie is a rough go without a good rating system and, frankly, I think it will bring the kind of clarity the Loyal Officers have been begging for, for years.

 

[WildKat]

I wonder how long it will take for Steve Hall and Marty to go for each others throats.

Bingo! That's what I see coming too. But if they do have a falling out, they will probably take care to keep it under wraps. They are both marketing and PR "experts", so appearances are more important than truth.

One stat that will be interesting to watch is if Steve's website starts getting more hits than Marty's.

 

[OperatingSP]

Interestingly, and to give credit where credit is due, a moderator on Marty's blog approved the comment, and the comment has been posted:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/scientology-review-by-steve-hall/#comment-238772

CommunicatorIC | November 9, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Reply

Steve, with respect, regarding:

“The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is (a) a social personality or (b) a sociopath (suppressive person).”

I have two concerns about the use of the above question as a gateway, test, or precondition to joining the website, posting reviews, or otherwise communicating to or through the website.

First, assume a raw public, new not only to Independent Scientology, but to Scientology in any form (e.g., corporate) buys or borrows a LRH book, reads it, has wins, finds the website, and thinks, “Cool, I think I’ll join!” or “Cool, I think I’ll post a review!” He sees the question and, believe it or not, doesn’t know who David Miscavige is! (Honestly, not many people outside of Scientology do.) Also, while he may have an idea what a sociopath is, such a person could easily have MUs on both “social personality” and “suppressive person.” Basically, you are asking him a question as a litmus test, as a precondition to joining, writing a review, or more importantly as a litmus test to COMMUNICATING, that he can’t answer.

Secondly, for such a new person (and perhaps others) such a question is off-putting. disagreeable, and, to be brutally honest, out-pr and out-manners. Particularly given (but perhaps not limited to a situation involving) lack of information, most good, social people are reluctant to label another person a “sociopath.” You may be scaring and deterring the very new, social, well-intentioned people you seek to attract. Even if a new or relatively new person CAN answer the question, or thinks he can guess the expected answer, he doesn’t want to.

In summary, there are many people who may be reluctant to join a group whose first question, first originated communication to the individual, is to ask whether someone else is a sociopath. To be honest, it looks scary, antagonistic and creepy. Where does this question tend to place the group on the Tone Scale?

At this point, Steve "Thoughtfull" Hall and one other person have responded to the above concerns:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/scientology-review-by-steve-hall/#comment-238793

Ronnie Bell | November 9, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Reply

You raise an interesting point, CommunicatorIC, and perhaps after Steve gets some well deserved rest from the marathon of building TWO stunningly brilliant websites within the short span of five weeks, he’ll think of something less offensive or off-putting to newcomers.

In the meantime, the ‘sociopath’ question about David Miscavige will do as a means to filter out OSAbots and other malefactors.

Thoughtful | November 9, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Reply

Well, as Mike Rinder would say, “Dave, is that you?”

CommunicatorIC | November 9, 2012 at 11:30 pm | Reply

Steve (Thoughtful) — Honestly, no, this most certainly is NOT Dave. I am ANYTHING but a corporate Church of Scientology Scientologist. I thought the observations and questions were legitimate. I guess I got my answer.

 

[OperatingSP]

And a reply now awaiting moderation.

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/scientology-review-by-steve-hall/#comment-238825

CommunicatorIC | November 10, 2012 at 1:31 am | Reply

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Steve (Thoughtful), I want to make a further response, if I may. I believe your reply to me was an example of an ad hominum attack. Instead of responding to the merits of my concerns and arguments, you impliedly accused me of being “Dave” (DM) in an effort to discredit me.

From: http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html

“Ad hominem is Latin for “to the man.” The ad hominem fallacy occurs when one asserts that somebody’s claim is wrong because of something about the person making the claim. The ad hominem fallacy is often confused with the legitimate provision of evidence that a person is not to be trusted. Calling into question the reliability of a witness is relevant when the issue is whether to trust the witness. It is irrelevant, however, to call into question the reliability or morality or anything else about a person when the issue is whether that person’s reasons for making a claim are good enough reasons to support the claim.

Good refutations of arguments try to undermine the accuracy, relevance, fairness, completeness, and sufficiency of reasons given to support a conclusion. One of the more common tactics of those who can’t provide a good refutation of an argument is to divert attention away from the argument by calling attention to something about the person who made the argument. Rather than criticize a person’s premises or reasoning, one asserts something about the person’s character, associations, occupation, hobbies, motives, mental health, likes or dislikes.

The fallacy in the ad hominem is due to the irrelevant nature of the appeal made, not to its falsity. If what is said about the person is false, in addition to being irrelevant, two fallacies are committed, false premise and irrelevant premise. ”

I saw and experienced far too much of this in the corporate Church of Scientology — i.e., people who mistook a base ad hominum attack to be the same as “dead agenting” the person (it obviously isn’t). My motives and credibility are simply not relevant here. All that is relevant is the validity of my arguments.

Even if my motives were relevant, I gave you my best possible advice for your website and your movement. Please consider, on the merits, whether the question at issue is good public relations? Does it demonstrate good manners? How will it effect the public YOU want to reach?