Adventures with scnforum.org-- I really would like to get some feedback from you guys

[Veda]

The arrogance of this post is unbelievable.

If you really think the OT levels are not necessary for intelligent scientology discussion, what the hell are you doing here discussing them for so many years? Or is this where you hang out when you want time out from your intellectual high horse? Patiently preaching to the unintelligent?

-snip-

Most who post at ESMB are Ex-Scientologists, not just ex-members of the CofS, but - doctrinally - Ex-Scientologsits. To a Scientologist, Ex-Scientologists are regarded as failed Scientologists.

Failed Scientologists require handling and, if they can't be handled, they are to be ignored, but sometimes they are subjected to exhibitions of the superior intelligence of M.A.B., a person who can be depended upon to use the least understood words with the most syllables, for example, rather than use the word "insert," the word "interpolate" is used. One has two syllables and is widely understood; one has four syllables and is not widely understood. No contest.

The long range objective is to cause to cease any discussion of the discreditable aspects of Hubbard ("Hubbard is dead," etc.), and to cause to cease discussion of the OT levels, especially OT 3 ("irrelevant to Scientology," etc.), in anything but the most general terms.

Since this is not possible, varying degrees of PR damage control - done out of desperation - are attempted. This PR damage control is sometimes mistaken for discussion.

It must be quite frustrating for M.A.B. However, recently, he has been assisted by "Atalantan" who, apparently, wants to be his helper, but in the role of a "Not a Scientologist, but," rather than a "Scientologist."

The smoke blowing and mirror tilting can become pretty tedious, especially since such people sometimes like to mimic the views of others for purposes of camouflage ("acceptable truths"). It's probably the last thing someone newly out of Scientology needs to encounter, but there's not much that can be done about it.

[Mark A. Baker]

... The long range objective is to cause to cease any discussion of the discreditable aspects of Hubbard ("Hubbard is dead," etc.), and to cause to cease discussion of the OT levels, especially OT 3 ("irrelevant to Scientology," etc.), in anything but the most general terms. ...

Your post is nonsense, V, and has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Scnforum allows for discussion of the full character of L. Ron Hubbard. None of that is 'confidential'. Only that which is deemed as 'confidential material' relating to the auditing tech of scientology is not allowed in direct discussions.

You really should stop trying to distort other's posts to support your own fraudulent theses.


Mark A. Baker

[Veda]

Your post is nonsense, V, and has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. Scnforum

-snip-

Mark A. Baker

I was describing your warped little agenda, only.

[Atalantan]

It must be quite frustrating for M.A.B. However, recently, he has been assisted by "Atalantan" who, apparently, wants to be his helper, but in the role of a "Not a Scientologist, but," rather than a "Scientologist."

The smoke blowing and mirror tilting can become pretty tedious, especially since such people sometimes like to mimic the views of others for purposes of camouflage ("acceptable truths"). It's probably the last thing someone newly out of Scientology needs to encounter, but there's not much that can be done about it.

I have made no secret of enjoying listening to Hubbard's lectures, and of never having been on staff or not very involved with any scientology organization. And of not having gone "up the Bridge".

You are so petulant with people who don't salute you all the time!

[Free to shine]

Scnforum was specifically created to allow for open discussions of topics on scientology without direct reference to any 'confidential materials'. Such materials are allowed to be indirectly referenced in posts on that board. This was done to promote its use as a 'safe space' for church scientologists who wished more data on scientology but did not wish to risk exposure to 'confidential data'.

Anyone seeking data on the ot levels can easily find them. What is not easy for church scientologists is to discover accurate information about the church where 'confidentiality' is respected. Most forums do not respect 'confidentiality' at all. Those that do most frequently do not permit otherwise open discussion. Scnforum in serving that need acts as an important 'way station' for many in search of the truth about scientology.

Anyone who posts to scnforum who feels a need to directly address confidential materials is certainly free to do so on some other board. All that scnforum allows is that they may post links to such information along with an indication that the link is to 'confidential data'. This allows the reader to read the material or not, at his choice.

Altering the policy negates the purpose of the board, makes it unattractive to those who do NOT want to be exposed to 'confidential materials', and serves to make the board entirely redundant. It becomes pointless to maintain scnforum as a separate forum for communication. It addresses no 'need' beyond the wish of certain individuals to post 'confidential data'. They can go somewhere else to do that.

Question for you: do you actually use scnforum, or are you simply advocating for the maximum exposure of 'confidential data' on the internet as your own pet preference?


Mark A. Baker

No I don't use scnforum to post as well you know and my 'pet preferences' are to expose the abuses of scientology. This includes what actually can happen to people - real experiences - who do the OT levels. Including such things as the apparently increased risk of cancer.

You have totally sidestepped the "conversationally & intellectually limited individuals" comments you made and I questioned. The way you have worded them the scorn in your post is almost palpable towards discussion which is well worth having.

And in case you didn't notice I suggested to Fluffy a protected area where such discussion can take place for those who wish to do so, rather than 'keeping it totally confidential', something that helps perpetuate the myth of eternal salvation via that route.

[Infinite]

. . . <snip> . . . To make along story short, I don't believe it's necessary to take this kind of material literally . . . <snip> . . .

Then you do not understand Scientology. As per the axioms, exact time, form, place and event is what duplicates the fourth dynamic engram and as-ises the charge. For Scientology, the time is 75 million years ago, the form is the spiritual debris of alien beings, the place is "prison planet" Earth, and the event is Xenu blowing up the aliens in volcanoes, etc. Without an exact duplication of the Xenu "incident", no fourth dynamic engrams can be as-ised. To suggest that its all a metaphor is to buy into the acceptable truth perpetrated by PR flunkies and ostensibly substantiated by paid-for cult apologist Gordon Melton.

[Infinite]

. . . <snip> . . . Anyone who does not at some point get into discussions about ot3 will forever be left with both the mystery and the mind fuck. Not every post has to discuss it of course, you are twisting words. There should be the possibility of discussing it, no matter what board it is . . . <snip> . . .

Yep, quite right. Its insane to say knowledge of Xenu, tacit or not, is irrelevant to discussions on Scientology tech. Its a bit like saying a person should buy a car based entirely on what it looks like from a distance.

[Voltaire's Child]

Two key things to remember about so-called "Free Speech".

1. The so-called 'free speech' guarantee enshrined in the laws of the u.s. apply only as regards government imposed restrictions on speech.

2. There is no absolute right of 'free speech' allowed in any venue. All groups, social, civil, & commercial, have types of speech which they bar as inappropriate for that group.


Scnforum is not a branch of government nor was it intended as a conversational 'unbarred free for all'. Rather the original intent was to create a platform which facilitates the intelligent discussion of matters relating to scientology in a way which encouraged the maximum degree of participation through the barring of offensive speech and topics inappropriate for the intended membership. It was not intended as yet another board for trash talk.

If someone is of the mind that his speech has been egregiously limited simply because the board does not permit direct discussion of the ot iii narrative then clearly that person is of limited intelligence. By such a claim, he will have as much as admitted that he has little to contribute of a positive character to any public discussion on the subject of scientology. Scnforum is better off without the presence of such conversationally & intellectually limited individuals. Evidently the goal of such is merely wish to coopt yet another internet platform for mindless rantings on the least interesting or significant aspects of the subject of scientology.

The 'upper level materials' are not a fundamental component of the subject. Their details are in no wise necessary to a public discussion of the manifold abuses of the church. There is nothing in them which is necessary to a public discussion of the 'pros' or 'cons' of scientology. The board policy does not bar explicit references to available source materials, including internet links to those materials.

In short, the current policy does not 'hide anything' and it serves to facilitate broad general and intelligent discussions of the subject of scientology. Those who wish to see the 'upper level materials' can do their homework on the net. Those who feel they absolutely must discuss them are free to do so, elsewhere.

Let scnforum remain as a board which encourages intelligent discussions on matters relating to the subject of scientology and the church, Fluff. It ain't broke. Leave it be.


Mark A. Baker

Well, my stance on freedom of speech does not, in fact, only apply to governmental regulations. Just look at what I did on alt.religion.scientology when CofS tried to stifle my freedom of speech. Or what I did on OCMB when some people there tried it.

When I talk about a stance re freedom of speech, I'm not just talking about the constitution. The church tried that shit with me, they tried to tell me in a handling that they knew I had this constitutional right but that this was a church, blah blah. OSA had briefed the HCO guy to reply thus in case I mentioned my freedom of speech, but I didn't do it and then he had to kind of work it in anyway with absolutely no context. I just looked at him limpidly and said "Yes, I know this is a private organization. But you *do* have a creed that says you allow any freedom of communication and I expect you to abide by it."

I'm leaning toward having a sub forum created wherein anything at all can be mentioned. If so, I promise to plaster it with all sorts of neon signs and so on.

[Voltaire's Child]

I get that scnforum.org should accomodate reader's comfort level since some Scn'ists- rightly or wrongly or in betweenly- do "keep confidentiality". But, Mark (and anyone else who feels that way) what could possibly be the problem with making a sub forum? I mean, my druthers would be to go full tilt boogie and just have the names dropped anywhere, but I think Free to Shine and a couple others who've discussed this have some damn good points. A separate sub forum could be an excellent compromise. And I could have disclaimers and alerts and stuff...

[Mark A. Baker]

... But, Mark (and anyone else who feels that way) what could possibly be the problem with making a sub forum?. ...

The principle reason that Geir created the board was to have an online 'space' where people still 'in' would none the less feel it was 'safe' to discuss scientology honestly in an unthreatening environment. Part of that creation of a 'safe space' entails respect for the 'culture of confidentiality in which churchies are still enmeshed.

Moreover, addition of the 'confidential material' as topics for discussion does not add to the nature of intelligent discourse with regard to the nature of scientology or the practices of the church. Because of the way it is used by institutional scientology this material is a principle money maker for the church, but the 'confidential' content is no wise fundamental to discussions of scientology. What is important to discuss, is how this materials is used by the church for abusive & manipulative purposes. That is not a topic currently barred from discussion. The precise character of the material in question is not relevant to how it is used abusively.

Elimination of that practice places scnforum on the same level as other, more 'threatening', online fora. Scnforum becomes unnecessary as a separate entity. It might as well be replaced with a link to another board.

Scnforum promotes open discussion, but it does so on a gradient. It has a fixed policy with regard to this which those who are still 'in' have come to know and respect. Changing that policy changes the nature of the board, and not as an improvement.

Scnforum was established to serve an important niche which is not otherwise served. It was never intended to be another ESMB, or FreeZone America. What it does it does brilliantly. Changing its basic policy eliminates that purpose and not in a manner which genuinely serves to improve the board.

Once individuals are more comfortable with challenging the lies & impositions of the church they will naturally reach for data from other sources. When they wish to know more they can find the excluded material easily enough. Until then, scnforum is one place they know they can discuss scientology safely & anonymously.

Scnforum should remain with a focus on the mindset of those still 'in'. The emphasis should not be on creating yet another soapbox for those wishing to 'bring the heathen to the light'. The 'confidential materials' do not themselves add to that discussion. Leave them out.


Mark A. Baker