Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 151

Thread: Scientology Review Website

  1. #11
    Silver Meritorious Patron
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Here, now.
    Posts
    1,392

    Default Re: Scientology Review Website

    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

  2. Thanks PTS, WildKat, SpecialFrog, Smilla says "thank you" for this post
  3. #12
    Ordinary Human Smilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In the deep waters
    Posts
    7,893

    Default Re: Scientology Review Website

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

    -
    Steve Hall

    "It is true that the term FZ includes many varients of Scn, and some may be inadequate. Or even wrong headed."

    - Terril Park


  4. Likes PTS, Opter, Bill, Free to shine, WildKat liked this post
  5. #13

    Default Re: Scientology Review Website

    Quote Originally Posted by Sindy View Post
    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.

  6. Thanks Smilla says "thank you" for this post
    Likes PTS, Sindy, Smilla liked this post
  7. #14
    Patron with Honors
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    468

    Default Re: Scientology Review Website

    Quote Originally Posted by Sindy View Post
    Excellent comment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonycat View Post
    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/201...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?

  8. Thanks Smilla, Anonycat says "thank you" for this post
    Likes Smilla, Sindy liked this post
  9. #15

    Default Re: Scientology Review Website

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    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

  10. Thanks Smilla says "thank you" for this post
    Likes PTS, Free Being Me, Sindy, Smilla liked this post
  11. #16
    Ordinary Human Smilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In the deep waters
    Posts
    7,893

    Default Re: Scientology Review Website

    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.


    "Your Freezone stinks."

    -
    Steve Hall

    "It is true that the term FZ includes many varients of Scn, and some may be inadequate. Or even wrong headed."

    - Terril Park


  12. #17
    Crusader Sindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,131

    Default Re: Scientology Review Website

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    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.
    "Scientology: The only game in the universe where the rapist is your ethics officer." - HelluvaHoax

    "Yes Scientology at this point is nothing but its own funeral. You might as well leave early and beat the traffic. " - Thrak

  13. Thanks Smilla says "thank you" for this post
    Likes Free Being Me, Smilla liked this post
  14. #18
    Gold Meritorious Patron WildKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    None of your G-D- bid ness
    Posts
    3,155

    Default Re: Scientology Review Website

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilla View Post
    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.

  15. Thanks Smilla says "thank you" for this post
    Likes lurkanon, Smilla liked this post
  16. #19
    Patron with Honors
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    468

    Default Re: Scientology Review Website

    Quote Originally Posted by OperatingSP View Post
    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/201...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/201...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.

  17. Thanks Smilla says "thank you" for this post
    Likes Smilla, Sindy liked this post
  18. #20
    Patron with Honors
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    468

    Default Re: Scientology Review Website

    And a reply now awaiting moderation.

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/201...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?

  19. Likes Sindy liked this post
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Inside Scientology: a review of John Duignan’s The Complex
    By KnightVision in forum Miscellaneous Reports from Newspapers, Blogs, and TV
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18th May 2012, 08:21 AM
  2. Best book review on Janet's and Hugh Urban's new books on Scientology
    By chuckbeatty in forum Miscellaneous Reports from Newspapers, Blogs, and TV
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 24th October 2011, 10:34 PM
  3. Book Review: Inside Scientology
    By ILove2Lurk in forum Books and Essays About Scientology
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 6th July 2011, 04:54 AM
  4. Review: Laughing at Scientology
    By OHTEEATE in forum General Scientology Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 15th December 2010, 12:49 AM
  5. Warren Davies' review of the Church of Scientology
    By AnonKat in forum Miscellaneous Reports from Newspapers, Blogs, and TV
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 5th October 2010, 05:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •