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

Discussion in 'Great Web Sites and Links' started by Voltaire's Child, May 18, 2011.

View Users: View Users
  1. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

    So I became admin (after starting as moderator) of scnforum.org several months or so ago. I had a systems guy (Jeff/Batman) who knows how to do a lot of the things I don't know how to do. But he's become inactive. I may end up replacing him, I think. I'm trying to learn to do more admin stuff, too, but I don't know as much as Geir and Jeff/Batman do. Though the other day, I actually put a board announcement on the forum all by myself! Progress!

    Anyway, I was also going to say that for anyone who does go to scnforum.org but who may not have checked in lately, here's what my announcement pertained to:

    I want to have no moar censorship re Xenu. Now, I was thinking of having a separate section of the board for talking about that, but, I don't know if I even want to do it that way. I've yet to see a churchie on there. And by the time a churchie googles Scn at all anywhere, or even opens an issue of Radar Magazine, he's going to already have encountered The Holy Name of Xenu! And, see, that was the whole idea. That scnforum.org would be a safe place for churchies to go and that their eligibility or whatever wouldn't be fucked with.

    But, as I said, they've probably already been whapped in the face with the Xenu thang. Another thing is a lot of them may already have done OTIII.

    I want to make quite clear: I do not in any way believe that it hurts anyone to read OT stuff. I do think that if it does become "restimulative" (I actually think this can happen) that it's eminently fixable, even if that were to happen. The main thing I think is that we didn't really want people who were still in the cult who might wander onto scnforum.org to have a problem with their eligibility to do the OT levels later if they ended up staying in CofS.

    But consider this: Just by going to critical sites and so on, that can get a person sec checked. Would that not come up on OT eligibility? Also, if they go to those sites and message boards- ESMB being a prominent case in point and my own forum less so but it's still applicable-really, how long are they going to be inclined to stay in the cult?

    I believe that there are many many people who are nominally in CofS but who are dissenting secretly. Secretly cuz maybe they have family in the cult or business partners, etc. But so many of them are like I was my first two years on a.r.s., where, privately, they are really critical of the organization. Eventually just about all those people leave.

    So I'm feeling my way here.
     
  2. Ted

    Ted Gold Meritorious Patron

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

    Comic book characters are endowed by their creators with Super Powers. The rest of us are plugging along trying to make the best of things, and on occasion some super thing manifests that can be labeled Super Power. But that is not the usual.

    Xenu (Xemu) is a comic book character. Nothing to brag about there. The Incident I & II stories are so farfetched that they lack credibility. This makes it easy for the person to dismiss. Back in the olden days the OT-3 story was published in a cheap magazine. I read it. I was OT-1 at the time. The story was so off-the-wall and so not mainstream Scientology that I did not believe it at all. (Veda has written much on the tech reversal that occurs when Hubbard moves from asking you what you think your difficulties are to telling you what your difficulties are.)

    There's more to stimulate a person in History of Man than there is in OT-3. It's all the hush-hush talk and attitude about OT-3 that makes it a big deal. If that same attitude and confidentiality were given to HOM you would see a similar affect.

    I say discuss openly. If such exposure stops a person from receiving OT levels in the church then so be it. Not everyone benefits from the levels. Just look at the surveys on the subject. You would be doing some people good. The others can get their OT levels in the FZ if that's what they really want.

    Howzat?
     
  3. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

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

    Don't change the policy, Fluff. :no:

    It was put in place for a good reason, to allow lurkers a 'safe place' to get data about scientology, the church, lrh, and the history of scientology.

    There are already many places on the net where people openly discuss III. They are often avoided by the 'sensitive' because of that fact. There has never been a ban on posting links to OT III related data on the scnforum. Geir's original policy was an excellent compromise in that it allowed for open discussions on topics relating to scientology and the provision of links to relevant data on the internet without shoving 'violations of confidentiality' down the throats of those still too timid to confront them.

    With any board the active membership is not an accurate reflection of all who examine the board postings. Based on my observations of viewing patterns vs postings, it seems clear to me that many more view the board than just those who post.The majority of viewers do so only intermittently. But the existing policies of the board are what give them the sense that it is a 'safe space' to look for current data. I happen to know that there are individuals who do go to scnforum in part because they know that discussions about 'confidential data' are limited by policy. Change to the 'xenu policy' would alter that dynamic.

    If people need to discuss xenu they can do it here or elsewhere. They can always also post a link to such discussions on the scnforum. Changing the policy obviates any real need for scnforum as a separate discussion board. It simply becomes "Yet Another ....".


    Mark A. Baker
     
  4. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

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

    +1
     
  5. Atalantan

    Atalantan Patron with Honors

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

    Or, set up a separate section for discussion of upper level material and clearly mark it as such. That is what John Nunez did on his site, the ProLRHTech forum.

    That way each visitor can decide for himself whether or not to venture there.
     
  6. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

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

    I'm with Mark on this, Fluff. I haven't been there for a while but I do sometimes send people there when they still have that indoctrinated fear of "exposure to Upper Level materials". They get over it soon enough, of course, but it is a deeply ingrained phobia and scnforum.org allows them a bit of breathing space whilst they're first getting their feet wet in the forbidden puddle of scientology criticism.
     
  7. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

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

    Much as I have personally moved beyond it, I think having a 'safe' board is needed for some people who are scared of OT3. Once you get your feet wet with knowing how to post, it really isn't that far a stretch to seeking other info and getting over that particular idioctic idea you will die if you read it.
     
  8. Infinite

    Infinite Crusader

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

    I find it difficult to reconcile your position on freedom of speech with your role as an Admin on a site which prohibits freedom of speech. Perhaps you see a "greater good" in the possibility that the site is a "baby step" towards freedom? However, knowledge of Xenu, even if tacit, is relevant to any discussion concerning Scientology. Allowing someone to persist in moving on up the Bridge while withholding the Xenu story is a deliberate denial of informed consent. Countering this, of course, is the nature of Scientology itself and the manufactured fear its adherents have in pre-mature exposure to Xenu. In an ideal world, tentative Scientologists will be exposed to sufficient data at scnforum so as to spur greater curiosity and further investigation on other sites. I would hate to think it is just another FreeZone marketing opportunity and referral service.

    Ultimately, I see this as a decision for the forum members to make themselves and for you, as an Admin, to either live with or move on from. What sort of response have you had to this matter over there?
     
  9. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

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

    I agree, Blippie. It has to be more up to the readership. I personally don't want ANY restrictions there but I also don't want people to start thinking that scnforum.org used to be a nice place for them to be but now isn't because of such a change.

    So far over there, I rec'd one pm and the idea was let's talk about OTIII stuff but we should probably have a separate section. I'm kind of leaning that way. I really want to open things up a bit but I don't want to make forum regulars unhappy. (FreeToShine, your comment is noted and I really agree.)

    Right now, people have begun using a loophole referring to Xenu as Xena. Interesting.
     
  10. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

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

    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
     
  11. MrNobody

    MrNobody Who needs merits?

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

    Well, I'm not an avid reader of scnforum.org, but why no make a separate section titled e.g. "OTIII and above" and then people know what to expect. If they go there, and if they click on that link, they do it deliberately. Whoever goes there, does it for one reason: to discuss some "OTIII and above" stuff.

    So I honestly don't see what your question, problem, whatever is. Do it or don't do it. It's your forum and your decision.

    If I were an aspiring Scilon, I probably wouldn't lick that ling, because of fear of dieing from pneumonia, but if I had a few working braincells left, then maybe I might - . and I might even learn something from that, so I don't see what could possibly go wrong.

    :cheers:, MrN
     
  12. Voltaire's Child

    Voltaire's Child Fool on the Hill

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

    Thanks much, Mr. N. That makes sense to me.
     
  13. Atalantan

    Atalantan Patron with Honors

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

    I second Mark's point about 'free speech' vis-a-vis the government, but aside from that, I think the whole OTIII - Xemu think is way overblown.

    Hubbard talked freely about 'wholetrack - spaceopera' type stuff in dozens or hundreds of his lectures, and wrote a whole book listing, describing or mentioning dozens of those kind of space-opera incidents, titled "The History o fMan".

    Additionally, there is a book titled "Have You Lived Before This Life" which is mostly a collection of one or two page descriptions of whole-track incidents as described by preclears from their recalls in auditing sessions.

    I don't understand what the big deal is about 'upper level material', when these books are freely available to anyone including 'raw public'.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2011
  14. Infinite

    Infinite Crusader

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

    Agreed. Of course there is no absolute right of freedom of speech otherwise anyone could walk into a crowded theatre and yell "fire". Further, it is not individual sites which provide freedom of speech but the internet as a whole.There are things that cannot be said on scnforum but which can be said elsewhere. Same here. Where freedom of speech principles do apply at scnforum is that essential information is being denied -information without which there cannot be any intelligent discussion of the subject.

    Remember, all Bridge progress leads to Xenu. Banning discussion on this is like requiring a person to hire a taxi without knowing the destination.
     
  15. Infinite

    Infinite Crusader

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

    Agreed. There are plenty of indicators extant throughout L Ron Hubbard scripture. However, these indicators only become apparent *after* knowledge of Xenu. The "big deal" about the OT material is that it is promoted as information required to become more Godlike when, in fact, it is idiocy. How many people do you think would have suffered at the hands of Scientology had they been informed from the outset that once they have cleared their engrams the next phase is to free body thetans brought to Earth 75 million years ago by evil intergalactic overlord Xenu in DC8-shaped rocket ships as part of his solving an over population problem? How many people are suffering now as they cower in unnecessary fear?
     
  16. Atalantan

    Atalantan Patron with Honors

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

    I don't know about your last question, but I had History of Man before I ever got intro auditing, and I had no problem with the content because I was already quite familiar with Carl Jung's ideas about the Archetypes and the 'collective unconscious', as well as various writings by Joseph Campbell and others about mythic imagery kinda 'living' in the depths of the mind as 'complexes' of events, personae, and scenarios.

    It was just another theory and it has long since been validated that using "imagery" in therapy works for some people, whether it is regarded as factual memories or total imagination. It doesn't really matter, except to the most literal-minded 'conformists to reality' who view any imagination as 'crazy'.

    The fact that Hubbard thought the Xemu incident was factual history does seem odd to me. But apart from that it may well be an 'archetype' in the human psyche as far as I'm concerned.

    The fact that 'working through it' has helped some people according to them, doesn't surprise me.

    All the pioneers of psychoanalysis viewed 'psychic energy' as real energy. Brewer, Freud, Reich, Jung, Groddeck et al.

    To them it was not a metaphor. It was real, at least partly biological, literal 'energy' that could get blocked, misdirected, 'frozen', etc. Freud's concept of 'libido' referred to a real living energy. Thus they viewed psychic content as in some sense real also, and tried various methods to work with the psyche and get this energy 'straightened out' and flowing productively and healthily for the individual. Rather than letting it just sit there blocked or twisted and causing neurosis or worse.

    This could be in very various ways, from bodywork to memory work and abreaction to working with mythic images and the imagination etc. A contemporary example is Transactional Analysis which uses the language of fairy tales and myth to a large extent as it's "technical terminology".

    Or look at the enormous Hindu pantheon of gods and beings, each of whom can also be interpreted as a symbol representing various states and principles of philosophy and psychology. But of course some people do take them literally.

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

    I mean, have you actually read History of Man or the other book? It's all plenty apparent right there. The described incidents are pure sci-fi.
     
  17. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

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

    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? :duh:

    Oh and Fluffy - a special section that requires agreement to read or something would work. :)
     
  18. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

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

    :bow:

    1. The topic under discussion is NOT esmb, it is scnforum.

    2. Scnforum has a different set of policies and promotes a different type of scientology discussion.

    3. Personally, I'm not terribly interested in the 'official upper level materials'. I have only discussed them on the board when specifically asked my views relating to them. There are other aspects which interest me far more.

    4. Think about it. Proportionately few posts on this board deal with the ot levels in any sense. Even fewer deal with the 'orthodox' interpretation of iii. Anyone who can not frame an intelligent post relating to the the subject of scientology without reference to the ot iii narrative really has NOT got much to contribute to any public discussion of the subject. So, no loss there. :eyeroll:

    Thems the facts. Like 'em or lump 'em.


    Mark A. Baker
    p.s. And I don't know the lyrics to 'Kumbaya' either.
     
  19. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

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

    OK, you are talking about Scnforum. So is ESMB "yet another board for trash talk" because OT3 can be and is discussed?

    Why?

    Yes it is.


    They are your facts and you are a scientologist. 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.

    Poor you.:eyeroll:
     
  20. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

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

    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
     

Share This Page