Scientology Review Website

Discussion in 'MartyWorld' started by Daisy, Nov 9, 2012.

View Users: View Users
  1. Sindy

    Sindy Crusader

    It's the language you are using, I'm sure.

    If you were to say that you were once very intrigued and a believer until you watched Ron, in his own words, explain how that what he originally attested to, regarding Dianetics and the state of Clear was untrue, then posted the video, the curiosity would lead people to see for themselves.

    The loaded language ("fraud") will lead him (or whomever is reviewing the reviews) to believe that you are insincere or only have the purpose of being critical and unhelpful, that you have an "agenda".

    You can call that censorship, I suppose. I think you could get the same thing posted in a different way and let the fraud speak for itself.

    and... I love ya! :cheers: (I have to disagree with you once a year or people will think you pay me or something - lol)
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2012
  2. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    I see them as truly excellent reviews. No reason why others shouldn't.
  3. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Ah. Maybe this answers my question. It's from a comment by Steve Hall ("Thoughtful") on Marty's blog, the page announcing the Scientology Reviews site.

    Thoughtful | November 10, 2012 at 7:33 pm | Reply

    Paul Adams has posted a number of negative reviews — all sincere. He’s an ex-Scientologist, openly so and has a website where people can get his own brand of auditing via computer. He’s not hiding anything. His opinions are his and he is also experienced with the technology. He’s an example of a person who came through it all and still likes some parts but not others and is honest about it. To me, that is healthy. And I thank Paul for taking the time to post comments because it gives another perspective and some balance and grounding that not everything is perfect in everyone’s eyes. I think it helps to keep us all humble and most of all, tolerant. Scientology is not for everyone by any means. Never has been, never will be. They have a right to choose their path.

    [Thumbs up]10 [Thumbs down]0 Rate This

    I read that whole page. The impression I got is that Steve has been very open regarding his intentions for that site. My view is that means:

    1. He really wants to have thousands of genuine consumer reviews from people who have personally "consumed" a Scientology service or product, giving their opinions on that particular item.

    2. He believes that the awesomeness of Hubbard's works will come shining through as people pick up on the sincerity of genuine reviews.

    3. Hubbard's work is so awesome that in a free market it will simply blow away the competition.

    4. As a result, floods of people will be interested in trying out Hubbard stuff for themselves.

    I think the Indies as a group haven't quite got used to the idea of allowing <gasp> negative comments about Scientology on a prime Indie website, but maybe they will.

  4. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    This is amusing. It's from that same page I quoted Steve Hall from just now.

    Margaret | November 10, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Reply
    I don’t know if anyone’s done (or tried) this yet, but Self Analysis seems to lend itself perfectly to being put entirely online. For example, each straightwire (memory) question could be stepped through on a website (perhaps a separate page for each question), with each of the perceptics coming up as one clicks through it.

    Just a thought. The “platens” were good for their day, but have long been surpassed by better methods (i.e. the web).

    [Thumbs up]5 [Thumbs down]0 Rate This

    Do you think I should give them a link to my PaulsRobot Self Analysis pages? It starts at

    To do it properly in that format would involve a separate 3 pages for each question (with audio), and multiplied by all the questions would be thousands of pages. I wasn't willing to do all that work for what is, after all, one process of one grade.

    But someone more webpage-savvy than me could throw together a site that generates dynamic pages on the fly instead of the static pages I use that does actually create a new page for each question.

  5. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Would reading them encourage people to do Scientology?
  6. This is NOT OK !!!!

    This is NOT OK !!!! Gold Meritorious Patron

    Thanks for the good work and reporting Paul. :thumbsup:

    Please keep it coming!
  7. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    Steve Hall enjoyed Ms Brennan's review of "What is Scientology". In
    fact so much so he linked to it on Marty's blog.
  8. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

    It doesn't matter what clever promo strategy Steve Hall comes up with, the public in general don't want Scientology, and see it as being only slightly preferable to a case of Rabies. As regards attracting new customers, Scientology is over and done with.
  9. This is NOT OK !!!!

    This is NOT OK !!!! Gold Meritorious Patron

    Because it wasn't a review of the Teeeeeech.

  10. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Well, the public in general has never wanted Scientology - ever. It was always something that only a small fraction of the public wanted. To the Scientologists, this was an indication of their being the elite of the elite of Earth.

    I'll take Steve Hall's word for it that he considers Scientology's problems - aside from "tech" being "out in orgs," etc. - to be the manner in which it is marketed, and now he is marketing it.

    The 'Unbiased Consumer Reviews' site is part of an over-all Scientology marketing program.
  11. JustMe

    JustMe Patron Meritorious

    Hiya Terril

    I would have been surprised that Steve would have linked to mine as I had nothing about DM in it and instead had less than favorable things to say about Hubbard and scientology in general.

    So I looked and, unless I missed it, I think he just linked to some other review, not mine. I post as "justme" on that review site.
  12. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire


    Thoughtful | November 10, 2012 at 2:27 am | Reply
    Spectacular review on What is Scientology that blows down the TA big time.

    That's the link (to Richard Kaminski's review).

    Here's the link to Denise's review:

    Last edited: Nov 13, 2012
  13. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    And the Kaminski review appears to be of the 1990s edition, not the 1978 edition.

    For us troglodytes that are still using out of date browsers, if you'd care to reproduce that review, here, that would be cool.

    I'd like to see what blew their TAs down big time.
  14. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Reviewed by Richard Kaminski November 10, 2012
    Top 50 Reviewer - View all my reviews
    What Scientology is not.

    An appalling vanity production. Don't waste your money.

    I am a...
    Independent Scientologist
    Useful to schools of publishing and advertising studying promotional howlers.
    Image-building at its very worst.

    No obvious point to the book. Who would you give it to, in all honesty?
    This 'brochure' marked the beginning of 'The Scientology Religion' corporation nonsense.

    The book marked the way for unknown others to start gassing on about Scientology in an attempt to position it in a world market of beliefs and practices. The language is both smug and hectoring, the illustrations clichéd, garish and without any apparent editorial cohesion. Too heavy and clumsy to use, not in hardback for easy shelving, far too much information crammed into one publication meaning you had to pick it all up in order to find one thing out, no dissemination value, and no target readership. More of a coffee-table sort of thing. Overall Tone Level -3.5 Controlling Bodies/Effort. Not one scrap of fun, humour, lightness of touch, or pleasure to be found on any page. A really hard slog to get through.

    It doesn't address an individual in a comm cycle like virtually every LRH book does, it's talking at you in torrents, flooding you with pictures. The book represents an entity bigger than any one individual in it.

    Recommend it to a friend?
    Was this review helpful to you? 8 [yes] 0[no]


  15. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Thanks, much appreciated. :)

    Gee, that "blows the TA down big time"?

    And JustMe's review of the 1978 edition, does what? I guess it gives them a stuck needle, or perhaps a steadily rising TA.

    I hope JustMe writes some more reviews, and you do too. And others also.

    Steve Hall's marketing Hubbard's gnarly "Bridge" that is no bridge, and Hubbard's gnarly "philosophy," and he is on very shaky ground.

    Something has to give.
  16. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Gold Meritorious Sponsor

    Your pay has been docked for that post.

    Libs canceled too.

    Please submit suitable amends, inclusive of delivering an effective blow to the enemies of the group (communists) despite personal danger.

  17. anonomog

    anonomog Gold Meritorious Patron

    Whatever my personal views on all things Indie, I feel it is good to see Paul's and JustMe's posts get published according to the stated spirit of the site.
  18. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

    The review site is rubbish. I wanted to write a review of my Obscene Dog Incident and they don't even have a section for it.
  19. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Gold Meritorious Sponsor



  20. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    If it came up in a Book One session, mention it in a Book One auditing review.

    I imagine it never came up in your auditing, though, so you're out of luck there. If you just want to bitch about Hubbard somewhere, there are plenty of opportunities for anyone. Easiest would be to read a Hubbard book and toss it in there.


Share This Page