Hi there,
and thanks for visiting this blog! I put it up to give you the opportunity to ask questions, about Scientology, Scientologists, David Miscavige and whatever you feel is related to that. If you are here to make statements or raise a fuss, you are violating the only rule this blog has. So please, don’t to it.
– Louanne
186 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Scientology Myths Forum 
Boy, talk about a trip down memory lane!
Did we ever find any sort of official source outlining how Scientology defines a “scientologist”? It dounds like a very simple question, but the implications of a definition is huge.
Are there animals (other than humans), that are also thetans?
” Comment by Anon on January 8, 2010 7:13 am
What is the relationship between thetan and consciousness?”
Thetan: the person himself, the individual that is aware of being aware (conscious).
Consciousness: the state of being aware.
– L
What is the relationship between thetan and consciousness?
I think there might be open questions. Please bring them on!
– L
Reference: HCOPL 24 FEBRUARY 1964 – Urgent – Org Programming
If the Org slumps: Don’t engage in “fund raising” or “selling postcards” or borrowing money.
Just make more income with Scientology.
It’s a sign of very poor management to seek extraordinary solutions for finance outside Scientology. It has always failed.
For Orgs as for pcs “Solve it With Scientology”.
Every time I myself have sought to solve finance or personnel in other ways than Scientology I have lost out. So I can tell you from experience that Org solvency lies in More Scientology, not patented combs or fund raising Barbecues. — L. Ron Hubbard
Here is an unrelated question:
If someone reaches, for instance, the level of OTVIII, or VII, for that matter- any of the higher levels, and committed time and money, and surely by that time, had win after win, what would cause that person to leave?
In other words, after having seen and experienced these higher truths and amazing technologies- what would cause such a person to leave the church, specifically, or scientology in general?
This issue, sadly, is the natural result of the usage of a specialized form of language (in this case, often referred to as ‘scientologese’) and also systemic of a general lack of awareness of certain frequently used concepts. This isn’t just Pat, it’s very common in the world today. There are certain things that are widely believed that are not, technically, correct. For example, many people truly believe that Occam’s Razor actually says that, given two scenarios, the simplest is the correct one. Common misunderstanding, as is often done with the “ad hom” concept.
Louanne,
I can’t post under “Mark Tomles”, but can under my modified user name, with the exact same message. Have I been blocked?
Interesting note:
“Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument. For instance, the argument may depend on its presenter’s claim that he’s an expert. (That is, the Ad Hominem is undermining an Argument From Authority.) Trial judges allow this category of attacks. “
Pat- it looks, to me, that the only point is that, given the current position of current management, it is NOT possible for the new scientology dictionary to use the previous definition, which had been used by bridge publishing and at least one course pack. Regardless of accuracy, the decision to count anyone who has bought a book or taken a course as a scientologist has really locked in the necessary definition. Heck, by that standard, I’m a scientologist!
Pat- the term ad hominem refers to a logical fallacy, and is more correctly known as “argumentum ad hominem”, which means “argument to the person” or “argument against the person”.
Now, if you wanted to stick solely to the term “ad hominem”, the shortened version of the term, it would mean, literally, “against the person”, but just because it’s latin doesn’t make it a form of an argument.
In its proper form, “ad hom” is used as a form of an argument and needs to be linked to a premise. Here are some examples of proper usage:
en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org(slash)wiki(slash)Ad_hominem
nizkor(dot)org(slash)features(slash)fallacies(slash)ad-hominem(dot)html
Here is an example: “Von Daniken’s books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler.”
You note that, in this case, the premise is rejected because of the characteristics and perceived flaws of the man.
A particular example can be found, sometimes within scientology. For example, if you were to post, in your next post, that I am a criminal, that would be an insult and not an ad hom argument (note- without an argument, it’s not an ad hom argument). However, if you said that my definition can’t be correct because I’m a criminal, that would be ad hom.
Does this help?
@Comment by bigdaddy on November 20, 2009 9:03 am
“pat, the fact is, if there was a new dixtionary put it, it WILL use a different definition than the one in the bridge pub dictionary and the course pack. could you imagine the fallout if the old onw were used? the cos president would be incorrect, and the millons of scientologists that don’t consider themselves to be scientologists would no longer be counted as such.”
Sorry, I don’t get what you’re trying to say.
How is it relevant what anyone used in the past, when in the future, a new dictionary will be issued that is LRH only? If, and I say if, there is any change in the definition of Scientologist, then Scientologists will be happy to have it standardized. We like having stuff standard ;p. You’re asking me to argue about something that hasn’t happened yet aren’t you?
Pat
@Comment by bigdaddy on November 20, 2009 8:28 am
“pat, that part of the defnition as not left off, it was nderstood milper saw no meed to reiterate the part of the definition that yo already inderstood.
you do undersand that certain concpts may have more than one dependency, yes? in this casw, an ad hom is aganst the man and used to illogically refute their thesis.
otherwise, every schoolyard chant would be ad hom.
criticism, as well, is not the same thing as ad hom. do you see the difference, based on the above?”
bigdaddy,
how can you use only part of a definition? That’s illogical. More so because, by leaving out the “against man” which is what ad hominem is, not against the premise but against the person making it, to lessen him / her in some way to make the premise seem weak or wrong. Why don’t you look at that definition again?
“marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made” – Merriam Webster
My communication to Milper stands.
Pat
pat, the fact is, if there was a new dixtionary put it, it WILL use a different definition than the one in the bridge pub dictionary and the course pack. could you imagine the fallout if the old onw were used? the cos president would be incorrect, and the millons of scientologists that don’t consider themselves to be scientologists would no longer be counted as such.
pat, that part of the defnition as not left off, it was nderstood milper saw no meed to reiterate the part of the definition that yo already inderstood.
you do undersand that certain concpts may have more than one dependency, yes? in this casw, an ad hom is aganst the man and used to illogically refute their thesis.
otherwise, every schoolyard chant would be ad hom.
criticism, as well, is not the same thing as ad hom. do you see the difference, based on the above?
@Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 9:47 pm
“The tech dictionary was not written by LRH. It was compiled from various references including issues that were authored by others. The new dictionary coming soon (I hope) will be 100% lrh references (books and lectures, Flag Orders, etc.). The reason I said I’d get back to you guys on that, is because I needed to check if that was from LRH or another non-LRH author.”
“you won’t find many recent works written by Mr. Hubbard. ”
Why does it have to be recent? I just said that the Tech Dictionary is going to be LRH only and no definitions from issues since cancelled or written by others.
“I must also point out that Scientology Missions International (smi(dot)org) uses the same definition.”
“If I read what you say correctly, Freezoner’s are not scientologists, in your point of view? Even though they practice the tech and live by Hubbard’s guidance, you don’t find them to be freezoners? That would clearly not be in accordance with the previous definitions, so I can certainly understand your reluctance to accept them.”
There’s the rub. Freezoners by their own admission are not practicing Scientology, by the very fact that the administration policies that were written by LRH are held up to ridicule. Just the fact of it being free violates LRH policy on Exchange and the reason for fees, and HCOB The Criminal Mind re: everything free (Sorry, I don’t have the OEC volumes here. I’ll need to get the exact references next time I’m in the org).
“Suggest you word clear “Ad hominem”- as a neccesity of fallacial determination, an ad hom attack attempts to link the validity of a premise to in irrelivent belief or characteristic of the premise advocate. ”
You left out the part about “by attacking the person making the statements” is the Ad Hominem. Ad Hom is not a debate on the premise but on the person making it. “Against the man”
“The advice by bigdaddy was not linked to your premise (as such as it was), as he had already accepted and acknowledged the validity of your claim. As he made no attempt to refute your claim, it is not ad hom.”
As above
“I would, however, agree that you, in the position of defending the validity of your belief system, may do a disservice to your position when you are seen to use such biting and offputting words, phrases and positions. But note that I do not link that to your premise- it’s only a matter of perception.”
Ad Hominem, per definition. See, you just couldn’t help but put some criticism in there. You’re doing what you accuse me of doing.
Pat
Take your time. I need to get up very early and need to sleep soon.
Will be back soon.
– L
translated. response later.
That is not in english. :)
“Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 11:27 pm
That’s very interesting. How do you interpret article 10, given that information?”
There is nothing to interpret. Both article 10’s are so different that they stand on their own. And both are quite in alignment with the rest of the tech I know.
– L
disregard. It works- reading, then will be tender with the missus. Back later.
That link is broken, could you please provide another?
“Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 11:16 pm
Terrific, so we have a realistic example that we both agree would make them scientologists. If this person followed the tech to the letter, and called themselves “Freezone” (as well as calling themlseves scientologists), as they are not under the wing of the mother church, are they still scientologists?”
No. The moment they are calling themselves Freezone they are not scientologists anymore, because they are violating L. Ron Hubbard rules of the game, written up as Scientology technology. Specifically, the Freezone was founded by Bill Robertson, who broke with LRH personally and developed his own “style” and had a couple of absurd ideas covered elsewhere (here for example: http://freezone.najbjerg.info/ ).
– L
That’s very interesting. How do you interpret article 10, given that information?
I think I found a very good definition for the way that the church scientology currently counts membership statistics:
According to Wikipedia, Heber Jentzsch (Of course, the scientology church president) stated in a videotaped court deposition that membership statistics for the organization are based on the sum of all individuals that have ever taken any Scientology course since the organization’s foundation in 1954
” Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 11:14 pm
Understood- mine is a direct photocopy, in this case. I understand your concern.
Is the 2007 book considered to be authoritative? I ask only because it seems to differ from the wording on the CoS site.”
It’s part of the Basics (18 basic books and 280 basic lectures that comprise the core of Dianetics and Scientology technology). The Basics they were released in 2007 to correct earlier versions that were using not the full manuscripts, were incorrectly transcribed or misspelled. The 2007 editions are considered the closest we can get to what L. Ron Hubbard put in his original manuscripts and instructions for the production of the books. So the site seems to have the 1973 revision of the Code and the book the original, first Code of 1954. Looks like we got two of them.
– L
Terrific, so we have a realistic example that we both agree would make them scientologists.
If this person followed the tech to the letter, and called themselves “Freezone” (as well as calling themlseves scientologists), as they are not under the wing of the mother church, are they still scientologists?
“Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 11:10 pm
That’s not what I’m asking, I have been unclear- let’s say, for example, that a person moves to antartica. There are no scientologists around, but there is a well stocked library. They read all of hubbard’s works, and practice scientology in their daily lives. They attempt to help people and spread the good word. Are THEY scientologists now?”
Yes, that would make them scientologists.
– L
Understood- mine is a direct photocopy, in this case. I understand your concern.
Is the 2007 book considered to be authoritative? I ask only because it seems to differ from the wording on the CoS site.
” Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 11:08 pm
Very interesting- so the 2007 book uses the same #10 as the original PAB?”
Yes, page 17-19.
“I don’t remember where I got the PAB colection, it’s just in my library. I’ll try to find it on digits for you, if you would like.”
I don’t trust electronic versions. It’s a personal thing. I’ll look it up, but thanks.
– L
That’s not what I’m asking, I have been unclear- let’s say, for example, that a person moves to antartica. There are no scientologists around, but there is a well stocked library. They read all of hubbard’s works, and practice scientology in their daily lives. They attempt to help people and spread the good word.
Are THEY scientologists now?
““They would be studying Scientology in theory and are on their own when it comes to apply what they studied. ” Are they scientologists at this point?”
No. It takes doing to be a Scientologist. “Having read it” is not enough per either definition.
– L
Very interesting- so the 2007 book uses the same #10 as the original PAB?
I don’t remember where I got the PAB colection, it’s just in my library. I’ll try to find it on digits for you, if you would like.
The Code of a Scientologist as of 1954 has been published as well, in my “Creation of Human Abilities” book (2007). Which is identical with what you quoted.
The PABs are in the tech volumes. I don’t have those.
– L
re code 10: I saw that, on the same site. It would be interesting to see the changes with each alteration, and who it is that made the changes. Perhaps you could find that information, while you’re on course?
“Milper, you were not ever in a Church of Scientology, right? If you attend a course in a Church of Scientology, you are helping the other students to get through their courses, help them with exercises that are part of the course etc. You work with each other to learn Scientology. ”
So that goes back to Pat’s original question- what about when one finishes with courses, or is no longer able to attend? I’m not badgering- these are the questions that I’m sure, as an intelligent adherent, would like to know about your own faith.
“They would be studying Scientology in theory and are on their own when it comes to apply what they studied. ”
Are they scientologists at this point?
“The Code of a Scientologist was first issued as Professional Auditor’s Bulletin 41 in 1954. In this code, L. Ron Hubbard provides a Scientologist with guidelines for fighting for human rights and justice through social reform. It is a vital code for any Scientologist active in the community. The code was reissued in 1956 in the book, The Creation of Human Ability. Revised in 1969 and again in 1973, the code is given here in its final version.” http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part14/Chp40/pg0734.html
– L
“Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 10:51 pm
“If you attend a course in a Church of Scientology you to assist Scientologists all the time.”
If you consider financially, it’s passible. I would not believe that one can claim that it is true for all scientologists, other than by giving their money.”
Milper, you were not ever in a Church of Scientology, right? If you attend a course in a Church of Scientology, you are helping the other students to get through their courses, help them with exercises that are part of the course etc. You work with each other to learn Scientology.
“And of those that earnestly study at the local library?”
They would be studying Scientology in theory and are on their own when it comes to apply what they studied.
– L
RE: code #10:
That’s odd. Hubbard defined #10 as “To engage in no unseemly disputes with the uninformed on the subject of my profession”, and proceeds to go into great lengths about the folly of arguing about scientology, especially in public in PAB #41, 10 December 1954. When did THAT one change?
“If you attend a course in a Church of Scientology you to assist Scientologists all the time. ”
If you consider financially, it’s passible. I would not believe that one can claim that it is true for all scientologists, other than by giving their money.
And of those that earnestly study at the local library?
Actually do have a link: http://www.faqs.org/copyright/hco-policy-letter-of-24-december-1966-issue-ii-admin-know-2/
“Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 10:47 pm
As an unrelated question, is article 10 of the code of the scientologist still in effect?”
This one:
“10. To work for freedom of speech in the world.”
is very much in effect.
– L
“Actually, as I read it, your new definition is even more restrictive than the first! If they are to disseminate and assist scientologist, what does that mean for those that attend courses, but do neither?”
If you attend a course in a Church of Scientology you to assist Scientologists all the time.
” Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 10:41 pm
2. She died in 2002 here in Los Angeles. I saw he obituary but I was not at the funeral (I didn’t know her).
Right- but was she still trusted after the guardian office flap and her incarceration?”
I understand that she went off all administrative functions in 1980 or earlier. I don’t know about her being “trusted” or “not trusted” but heard older Scientologists talking positively about their personal contact with her.
You said the PL was copyrighted to Mary Sue Hubbbard. I have never seen one that was. Do you have link?
– L
As an unrelated question, is article 10 of the code of the scientologist still in effect?
1. To prevent abuse and unauthorized alterations.
That is an acceptable answer. However, I personally believe otherwise, but acknowledge that I am unable to determine the true motivations of others.
2. She died in 2002 here in Los Angeles. I saw he obituary but I was not at the funeral (I didn’t know her).
Right- but was she still trusted after the guardian office flap and her incarceration?
That would be wonderful, because the most specific definition that Hubbard seems to have given (versus the vague one in the pl) would exclude millions of scientologists, including those that no longer claim the belief system.
Please, do keep us updated.
Actually, as I read it, your new definition is even more restrictive than the first! If they are to disseminate and assist scientologist, what does that mean for those that attend courses, but do neither?
“Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 10:34 pm
A similar question, while I can’t find the actual document online (and there are so many already online, this seems to be a rarity!), I do notice that Mary Sue Hubbard is the copyright holder of that document”
Link?
“1. Why are policy letters copyrighted?”
To prevent abuse and unauthorized alterations.
“2. Is Mary Sue still trusted within scientology, after the G/O issue?”
She died in 2002 here in Los Angeles. I saw he obituary but I was not at the funeral (I didn’t know her).
– L
“Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 10:28 pm”
Such as with “Second Dynamic”, I would not be surprised if L. Ron Hubbard gave several definitions for “Scientologist”. As I said earlier, I’ll be on course tomorrow and check it out. They have a pretty good system to find stuff.
” Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 10:29 pm
Tech was a poor choice of words I suppose, but surely you would agree that this is a very important change, yes?”
No. I can’t claim that there was a change and I can’t say that there wasn’t one. We’ll see.
– L
A similar question, while I can’t find the actual document online (and there are so many already online, this seems to be a rarity!), I do notice that Mary Sue Hubbard is the copyright holder of that document.
That brings up a few questions.
1. Why are policy letters copyrighted?
2. Is Mary Sue still trusted within scientology, after the G/O issue?
Tech was a poor choice of words I suppose, but surely you would agree that this is a very important change, yes?
I am so very confused then! In 1988, a dictionary published by bridge publications gave the definition that I cited. You found the same definition in a course pack, certainly after 1988. Bridge publications published and owned the copyright on the dictionary, no clue who approved your course pack.
If the definition that you use is correct, then SOMEONE changed that very important definition in a very critical way. Is that not a problem for you? Becuase according to your course pack and bridge publications, after hubbard’s death (and based on his work), the defintion of scientolgist is far more rigid and would not allow for the large number claimed today. As your book was printed in 1991, well after the dictionary (and possibly your course pack) how can you hope to tell which def was actually hubbards?
Something ain’t right.
“Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 10:17 pm
Also, was not asking about OEC- was asking for a link to the actual P/L”
The OEC has not been published online. So no, there won’t be a valid link.
– L
“Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 10:17 pm”
“So you are planning on changing your previous definition?”
I think I managed. Check it out.
“Where did you find it in the first place?”
In the glossary of a course pack.
“Cannot confirm OEC- are you saying bridge publications squirred the tech?”
Well, then you can’t. I am not saying bridge publications changed any tech, no.
– L
Also, was not asking about OEC- was asking for a link to the actual P/L
So you are planning on changing your previous definition? Where did you find it in the first place?
Cannot confirm OEC- are you saying bridge publications squirred the tech?
“Comment by milper the duck on November 19, 2009 10:10 pm”
“Would appreciate a link, if you please.”
The OEC is on my shelf, not on the internet. Sorry, but I can’t scan it in and if I couldn’t I probably would not.
” Why does your other website use the other definition, then?”
Because I am still firing up Dreamweaver. Give me a minute.
– L
Again, in case the other is deleted automatically:
Would appreciate a link, if you please. Why does your other website use the other definition, then? For your convenience, a link: scientologymyths(dot)info definitions/dianetics-and-scientology-definitions(dot)html ?
I have a screenshot, if you need it.
Are you using the correct definition on this site, or on your other?
Would appreciate a link, if you please. Why does your other website use the other definition, then? For your convenience, a link: http://www.scientologymyths(dot)info definitions/dianetics-and-scientology-definitions(dot)html
I have a screenshot, if you need it.
Are you using the correct definition on this site, or on your other?
Found one already:
“SCIENTOLOGIST: an individual interested in Scientology. Disseminates and assists Scientologists.” HCO PL 21 October 1966, City Office System (OEC 7, page 271. Printed 1991.)
– L
“The tech dictionary was not written by LRH. It was compiled from various references including issues that were authored by others. The new dictionary coming soon (I hope) will be 100% lrh references (books and lectures, Flag Orders, etc.). The reason I said I’d get back to you guys on that, is because I needed to check if that was from LRH or another non-LRH author.”
you won’t find many recent works written by Mr. Hubbard. The version that I have agrees with the definition provided here, and was released in 1988, based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard and published by both Bridge and New Era Publications. What more do you expect to find? And what of Louanne’s defintion? (it’s on scientologymyths(dot)info, if you want to check.
I must also point out that Scientology Missions International (smi(dot)org) uses the same definition.
If I read what you say correctly, Freezoner’s are not scientologists, in your point of view? Even though they practice the tech and live by Hubbard’s guidance, you don’t find them to be freezoners? That would clearly not be in accordance with the previous definitions, so I can certainly understand your reluctance to accept them.
Suggest you word clear “Ad hominem”- as a neccesity of fallacial determination, an ad hom attack attempts to link the validity of a premise to in irrelivent belief or characteristic of the premise advocate. The advice by bigdaddy was not linked to your premise (as such as it was), as he had already accepted and acknowledged the validity of your claim. As he made no attempt to refute your claim, it is not ad hom.
I would, however, agree that you, in the position of defending the validity of your belief system, may do a disservice to your position when you are seen to use such biting and offputting words, phrases and positions. But note that I do not link that to your premise- it’s only a matter of perception.
@ Comment by bigdaddy on November 19, 2009 8:26 am
for starters, the definition. as was metioned twice now, that is from both hubbard’s dictionary
The tech dictionary was not written by LRH. It was compiled from various references including issues that were authored by others. The new dictionary coming soon (I hope) will be 100% lrh references (books and lectures, Flag Orders, etc.). The reason I said I’d get back to you guys on that, is because I needed to check if that was from LRH or another non-LRH author.
and louannes’s blog. it is, of course, not a definition from current cos sites.
regarding your allegations of a loaded question, it is a moot point, for you have clearly answered it.
the next logical question is, do you, personally, consider frezoners, who embrace the teachings of hubbard but reject the church, ti be scientologists? based on your experiences, do you find that your fellow adherents agree?
Amusing. No.
you are correct, that you said something different than milper read. however, your condescending tone was not necessary, and gives the perception of poor character. just friendly advice.
Ad hominem from you bigdaddy? I’m shocked!
Pat
I tell you what, Mark A. Baker: I’ll go to the course room in my Church tomorrow and get all definitions I can find. We will see. Understood it’s easy to natter without any resistance, nicely with your mutual out-ruds pals. Oh, these warm feelings when talking derogatorily about people who are trying to improve conditions on this planet, right? But here, Mr. Baker, is no such place. So either piss off or stop nattering.
– L
“Scientologist: one who knows
he has found the way to a better
life through Scientology and who,
through Scientology books, tapes,
training and processing, is actively
attaining it.”
And that is the same definition from Louanne’s other page. How do YOU define “scientologist”?”
For starters, what is the reference for that definition?
Second, he said “Actively on course”. Based on that definition, I would cease to be a Scientologist as soon as I’ve trained as far as I can go. I said No. I stand by that.
—–
No. The quote said “actively attaining it”. There was no reference to being on “course”. You failed in your basic duplication.
Here’s another, Scientologist: 1. one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others by using Scn technology. (Aud 73 UK)
[EDIT]
I might go on to add that that particular dictionary goes on to state: “… A Scientologist operates within the boundaries of the Auditor’s Code and the Code of a Scientologist. (PAB 137)”
[EDIT]
way to shatter that supression with a well thought out and respectful argument. good idea to stick to the high road and only attack his character and make baseless insinuations, rather than let him throw off the conversation with such things as “facts” and “questions”.
[retracted]
Bye
L
And that would conclude my participation on this site.
The amount of unnecessary emotional response (mockery, belittling and arrogance etc.) from those who run this site speaks for itself.
I will continue to explore free will and engage in free speech elsewhere in an effort to help people differentiate between Scientology and the Church of Scientology.
busy morning for you, pat.
for starters, the definition. as was metioned twice now, that is from both hubbard’s dictionary and louannes’s blog. it is, of course, not a definition from current cos sites.
regarding your allegations of a loaded question, it is a moot point, for you have clearly answered it.
the next logical question is, do you, personally, consider frezoners, who embrace the teachings of hubbard but reject the church, ti be scientologists? based on your experiences, do you find that your fellow adherents agree?
you are correct, that you said something different than milper read. however, your condescending tone was not necessary, and gives the perception of poor character. just friendly advice.
@ Comment by milper the duck on November 18, 2009 9:17 pm
” COB quotes from the reference and gives the date. I just don’t remember it off the top of my head. Maybe “The Future of Scientology” or something like that.”
That is remarkably helpful, especially off the top of your head.
Does that mean that you recall it to be a DM directive, not a Hubbard one?:”
No. Re-read what I wrote. Amusing.
Pat
@ Comment by milper the duck on November 18, 2009 9:17 pm
“Did she answer that question?”
You mean the “loaded question” that assumes the answer? She already pointed out that it’s not a simple yes or no answer that Geir wanted. If Geir wants to rephrase the question so it’s not assuming anything, that’s fine. As it stands, it’s not answerable.
Pat
@Comment by milper the duck on November 18, 2009 10:03 pm
“Funny thing?
“““My question was:Do you believe scientologists should be allowed to freely discuss Scientology and the church openly on the Internet without censor or repercussions from the church?””
Is only a problem to answer if the answer is no… If scientology supported the religious freedoms of freezone’ers, it would be a simple “yes””
It’s a “loaded question” that assumes the answer that Geir wants. Definitely not a simple yes or no. You’re doing now what Geir accused Louanne of doing.
Pat
@Comment by milper the duck on November 18, 2009 9:58 pm
“Are you kidding? Hubbard quote, from the Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology:
“Scientologist: one who knows
he has found the way to a better
life through Scientology and who,
through Scientology books, tapes,
training and processing, is actively
attaining it.”
And that is the same definition from Louanne’s other page. How do YOU define “scientologist”?”
For starters, what is the reference for that definition?
Second, he said “Actively on course”. Based on that definition, I would cease to be a Scientologist as soon as I’ve trained as far as I can go. I said No. I stand by that.
Pat
It seems harder than need be to get straight and honest questions answered on this blog without emotional bias on the hosts’ part.
There is an open question remaining. Answer it if you like.
Thank you for your attention.
Funny thing?
“““My question was:Do you believe scientologists should be allowed to freely discuss Scientology and the church openly on the Internet without censor or repercussions from the church?””
Is only a problem to answer if the answer is no… If scientology supported the religious freedoms of freezone’ers, it would be a simple “yes”
Are you kidding? Hubbard quote, from the Basic Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology:
“Scientologist: one who knows
he has found the way to a better
life through Scientology and who,
through Scientology books, tapes,
training and processing, is actively
attaining it.”
And that is the same definition from Louanne’s other page. How do YOU define “scientologist”?
@Comment by bigdaddy on November 17, 2009 5:13 pm
“but did not hubbard define a scientologist as one that is actively taking courses and applying scientology in their life?”
No. I don’t have the exact LRH definition right now, but I can get it later.
Pat
” COB quotes from the reference and gives the date. I just don’t remember it off the top of my head. Maybe “The Future of Scientology” or something like that.”
That is remarkably helpful, especially off the top of your head.
Does that mean that you recall it to be a DM directive, not a Hubbard one?
“Isene does it to Louanne and accuses Louanne of doing it. The overt doth speak loudly in accusation. Every post you’ve made, in response to an answer by Louanne, Isene, has had this response. No generality.”
I understand that you feel to be detecting overt hostility, but us wogs are not so fortunate. We’re bound by the measurable and detectible in most cases, and certainly bound by logical fallacy definitions. Could you please provide an example of what it is that you claim?
“That in itself is kind of funny considering that Scientologists are here answering your loaded questions.”
Did she answer that question?
Some terms are being used and I thought now would be a really good time to get them defined for all who post here.
“Ad hominem:”
Latin for “against the man or against the person”.
Isene does it to Louanne and accuses Louanne of doing it. The overt doth speak loudly in accusation. Every post you’ve made, in response to an answer by Louanne, Isene, has had this response. No generality.
“Straw Man”
Same as above with the variation that one changes the subject or goes off topic
Again, Isene, you’re doing just this to Louanne.
“Loaded question – also known as leading question”
Isene again, as pointed out to you by Louanne here:
““My question was:Do you believe scientologists should be allowed to freely discuss Scientology and the church openly on the Internet without censor or repercussions from the church?”
You are insinuating that scientologists are not “allowed to freely discuss Scientology and the church openly on the Internet without censor or repercussions from the church”. But there is no one allowing/disallowing such things. So why are you continuously posing rhetorical questions?”
That in itself is kind of funny considering that Scientologists are here answering your loaded questions.
Pat
@Comment by Louanne on November 18, 2009 4:29 pm
“No, it is not. My position is that I am not discussing the Ideal Org programs and that I do not have any reason to believe that anything is wrong with them. I do have points of disagreement but I know where and how to sort them out effectively.
– L”
Check out the 2006 Maiden Voyage, Louanne. COB quotes from the reference and gives the date. I just don’t remember it off the top of my head. Maybe “The Future of Scientology” or something like that.
Pat
given the nature of this site, if I fail to understand, I ask only that you will educate me.
Louanne: My question is an honest and straight one and I believe it deserves more than mockery. I know several scientologists who have been told to not engage in open discussions about Scientology on the Internet. This is not at all uncommon. There are Scientologists who believe one should engage freely in such open discussions and there are Scientologists who believe the church should discourage this. My question is not rhetoric. Why would you imply that it is?
I would still like to know your personal viewpoint. Would you be ok with answering the question?
I am hoping for an opportunity to ask you more honest and straight questions without unnecessary mockery, insinuations about ill intent or assumptions about my reasons for asking the questions. A rational exchange without any negative emotions will be appreciated.
BTW: I have no need to be right. I would be happy to admit I was wrong in any corner of my life. You are more than welcome to participate at scnforum(dot)org and challenge anything I say or utter in order broaden and deepen my understanding about anything related to Scientology, life, the universe and most everything.
Also; I would define “in good standing” as the church itself defines it.
“Comment by bigdaddy on November 18, 2009 5:03 pm”
bigdaddy, I don’t expect you to understand this. I don’t even expect you to understand what an Ideal Org is. But Geir does have the history and resources to answer the question he poses. Being right by all means seems to blind him though. Or the intent of the question is other than he says. I assume the latter.
This is really turning into a useless discussion (though I notice that the audience’s ranks are filling).
– L
“I can’t imagine that you have less access to policy, EDs etc than I do. So what is the purpose for your question? Debating tech? Sorry, dude, look it up.”
you had said the above, and he and I both attempted to do so. and if you have the same access to policy as the rest of us, it is surely not available. is that one of the secret policies?
” Comment by isene on November 18, 2009 4:46 pm
Louanne; Why do you keep on with such tactics as Argumentum ad Hominem, Loaded Questions and Straw Man (like your last reply)? Why is this necessary?”
I consider it appropriate as a response to your attempts to get me into your natter-fest. Maybe you are so deep in your know-best attitude that you don’t even notice anymore the rhetorical slant of your questions. Like this one:
“My question was:Do you believe scientologists should be allowed to freely discuss Scientology and the church openly on the Internet without censor or repercussions from the church?”
You are insinuating that scientologists are not “allowed to freely discuss Scientology and the church openly on the Internet without censor or repercussions from the church”. But there is no one allowing/disallowing such things. So why are you continuously posing rhetorical questions?
“A simple yes or no will do.”
It won’t .
“BTW: scnforum(dot)org has several scientologists in good standing with the church as regular posters. Also it is a forum and not a “forum”.”
How do you define “in good standing”?
– L
” Comment by bigdaddy on November 18, 2009 4:41 pm
it wasn’t a joke. I don’t think that any of us can find such a reference.”
It’s a joke for me. You saying that is like me saying I can’t find the Vatican’s planning for 2010. Sure, because I have no access to it and I am not familiar with it either. I wouldn’t even know where to look.
– L
Louanne; Why do you keep on with such tactics as Argumentum ad Hominem, Loaded Questions and Straw Man (like your last reply)? Why is this necessary?
My question was:
Do you believe scientologists should be allowed to freely discuss Scientology and the church openly on the Internet without censor or repercussions from the church?
A simple yes or no will do.
BTW: scnforum(dot)org has several scientologists in good standing with the church as regular posters. Also it is a forum and not a “forum”.
“Comment by isene on November 18, 2009 4:34 pm
Thank you for answering my question. Do you believe scientologists should be allowed to freely discuss Scientology and the church openly on the Internet without censor or repercussions from the church?”
Actually they do, just not on the internet, or, just not on the open internet. What you are talking about – if I take your “forum” as a measure – translates to “should former Scientology members be allowed to freely natter about the things they did not confront while they were in the Church and now they have to whine about them with no hope of changing anything”. Is that what you mean?
– L
it wasn’t a joke. I don’t think that any of us can find such a reference.
” Comment by bigdaddy on November 18, 2009 4:33 pm
isene, I can’t find any reference, and can only agree with your assessment.”
Very funny, bigdaddy.
– L
Thank you for answering my question.
Do you believe scientologists should be allowed to freely discuss Scientology and the church openly on the Internet without censor or repercussions from the church?
isene, I can’t find any reference, and can only agree with your assessment.
” Comment by isene on November 18, 2009 4:22 pm
Louanne: I seriously cannot find any references supporting the Ideal Org programs. And believe me, I have tried. Hard. So in all due respect I cannot answer that question myself other than “No, there are no such references”. Is that your position as well, then?”
No, it is not. My position is that I am not discussing the Ideal Org programs and that I do not have any reason to believe that anything is wrong with them. I do have points of disagreement but I know where and how to sort them out effectively.
– L
Louanne: I seriously cannot find any references supporting the Ideal Org programs. And believe me, I have tried. Hard. So in all due respect I cannot answer that question myself other than “No, there are no such references”. Is that your position as well, then?
“Comment by isene on November 18, 2009 4:01 pm
This is not an attempt at any “discussion”.
I have straight and honest questions and you asked them to be posted here.”
Thanks for that.
“You still haven’t answered my question about references supporting the Ideal Org programs. Should I interpret it so that you refuse to answer?”
Yes, I am refusing to answer a question that you can answer yourself.
“Also, I am wondering about the people in some of the most important management positions. Would it be ok with you to answer my earlier questions regarding this?”
I am not aware of any open questions. But I have no information about “important management positions” either.
– L
bigdaddy, they are in two different Church corporations, one in CSI, the other one in RTC, both on top of their respective organizations. I don’t know their ranks.
– L
just as a question out of curiousity, isn’t jentsch, the president of the church, only a lieutenant in the sea org, while dm is a captain? or do I have those backwards?
This is not an attempt at any “discussion”.
I have straight and honest questions and you asked them to be posted here.
You still haven’t answered my question about references supporting the Ideal Org programs. Should I interpret it so that you refuse to answer?
Also, I am wondering about the people in some of the most important management positions. Would it be ok with you to answer my earlier questions regarding this?
” Comment by bigdaddy on November 18, 2009 3:58 pm
to whom are you speaking? because both discussion threads seem rather interesting and clear to me. but what do I know?”
That was for you. Anyway, I won’t waste anymore time on this.
– L
“Do you know who is the current president of the Church of Scientology?”
Still Heber Jentzsch. I saw him some months ago at an event (as a guest, maybe just checking in or visiting his kids here in L.A.).
“Do you know who is the current chairman of the WDC/CO CMO Int?”
No. I only have rumors. But how is this relevant for anything?
“Do you know who is the current head of IASA?”
No.
– L
to whom are you speaking? because both discussion threads seem rather interesting and clear to me. but what do I know?
I believe you did not answer my question, Louanne.
I have a few more questions:
Do you know who is the current president of the Church of Scientology?
Do you know who is the current chairman of the WDC/CO CMO Int?
Do you know who is the current head of IASA?
you don’t. but I, with my powerful wog mind, am able to draw inferences.
what could you have possibly meant? your description is certainly a drastic alteration from hubbard’s very simple definition.
here’s where it would get complicated: you say “this figure includes everyone who took a session or a course.”
I have read a book- am I a scientologist? not by hubbard’s definition. geir has taken courses and read the books, if I recall, but left the cos. is he a scientologist? yes, by hubbard’s definition.
That’s a little boring now. Can you let me in on the relevance of this “discussion”?
– L
“Comment by isene on November 18, 2009 3:38 pm”
“The problem is that I have not found any policy or other references that support donations without /direct/ exchange back to the person donating.”
I guess you have a problem with exchange then. So you don’t pay taxes, insurance and rent either, right?
“Can you point me to an LRH reference that justifies the Ideal Org programs?”
I can’t imagine that you have less access to policy, EDs etc than I do. So what is the purpose for your question? Debating tech? Sorry, dude, look it up.
– L
“Comment by bigdaddy on November 18, 2009 3:33 pm
source? you. read upwards.
“The Church says it is millions and I believe that because this figure includes everyone who took a session or a course.””
You claim that this represents a change of the membership counting definition by Church management. Where do I say that?
– L
Louanne; The problem is that I have not found any policy or other references that support donations without /direct/ exchange back to the person donating. Neither have I found any reference supporting the Ideal Org programs. You may indeed have read more policies and references on this than I have. This is why I am asking. I have been asking lots of people and nobody seem to be able to find any such references. So, since you didn’t answer my last question, I ask again:
Can you point me to an LRH reference that justifies the Ideal Org programs?
“Sorry, dude, look it up.”
yeah… I couldn’t find one either.
source? you. read upwards.
“The Church says it is millions and I believe that because this figure includes everyone who took a session or a course.”
“When do you think OT IX and X will be released?”
No idea.
“Can you point me to an LRH reference that mandates donations for no exchange directly to the person making the donation?”
No. But I also see no donations requested without an exchange being provided.
“Can you point me to an LRH reference that justifies the Ideal Org programs?”
I can’t imagine that you have less access to policy, EDs etc than I do. So what is the purpose for your question? Debating tech? Sorry, dude, look it up.
– L
“how is it that the current management has changed the definition?”
Did they? I didn’t notice. Link?
– L
if I may add a question (almost a repeat of a previous one), lrh had a specific definition of a “scientologist”, as does the glossary of you dot info site- how is it that the current management has changed the definition?
@L
I simply asked for your opinion on the membership – no need for Argumentum ad Hominem.
More questions:
When do you think OT IX and X will be released?
Can you point me to an LRH reference that mandates donations for no exchange directly to the person making the donation?
Can you point me to an LRH reference that justifies the Ideal Org programs?
” Comment by bigdaddy on November 18, 2009 3:05 pm
could you please efine trolling for us”
He asked a question. I said I can’t and don’t want to answer it. He asks the same question again. Equals: arrogant asshole, troll.
In a broader sense, here is the regular definition of troll:
“Someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” (Wikipedia)
More: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html
– L
could you please efine trolling for us, so we know what is acceptablr to you? i’ve read you previous posts, and online definitions, and cannot find how geir’s posts could be interpreted as such.
louanne, what is geir doing that’s so terrible? he does disagree with you, but he’s veing polite, factual and respectful. out of the two, he’s the one that hasn’t resorted to name calling.
Isn`t finding out the truth a purpose that is good enough for you?
” Comment by Anon on November 18, 2009 2:02 pm
Bitza”
Good point. Unless “my” locator is outdated I guess then it’s a Mission with quite a lot of staff members (which means they don’t deliver certain services that only Churches can deliver because they have the trained personal). I’ll check with the Church.
– L
Geir. I am not having extrapolations or guesses or wishes or anything else about Church membership. I said this twice and that’s it. I understand that you find it ok to be an arrogant ass but let me tell you that I will from now on ban or ignore any of your posts unless they are lead by a higher purpose than trolling.
– L
Bitza
Church of Scientology Mission of Bitza
ul. Zemlyanoy val d. 27 str. 2 Off. 818
Moscow, 117403
Russia
(495) 315-55-39 or (495) 772-65-18
That’s a mission and not an org according to your own church locator.
I could only locate one org in moscow via the church locater on scientology.org.
Where is the other?
Absolutely. I saw both places within the same week.
– L
Moscow org moved. Are you sure you didn’t count both the old and the new address?
“Is it not contradicting that you use two different definitions of a Scientologist in the same discussion only a few posts apart?”
Did you read this: “There is no official statistics or breakdown and I don’t think there will be soon. I also do see no point in wild guesses.”?
There is no discussion happening here. Obviously several million people is not a minority for you. For me it is.
“Where did you find the other org in Moscow?”
There are two Churches of Scientology and several Missions in Moscow. There two Churches are here (or have been in 2007):
Altufievskoye 37, Building 12
Moscow, 127410
(more industrial area but huge)
ul. Zemlyanoy val d. 27 Str., 2 Off. 818
Moscow, 117403
(more office/shopping area and a little smaller)
and I think there are four or five Missions now but I only have two in my address book:
Pl. Zuravliova 1., dk Melz
Moscow, 107023
ul. Gvardeyskaya 6/106
Chernogolovka
Moscow, 121471
– L
Is it not contradicting that you use two different definitions of a Scientologist in the same discussion only a few posts apart?
Last time I was in Moscow and held an Admin Scale seminar to 80 public in Moscow Org (2007), there was but one org in Moscow and it had less than 300 staff. Where did you find the other org in Moscow?
” Comment by isene on November 18, 2009 12:17 am
You: “The Church says it is millions and I believe that because this figure includes everyone who took a session or a course. ”
You: “Scientologists are members of a world-wide active but minority religion. ”
Do you see the contradiction?”
No, I see two classes of things. Not comparable, not “contradictable”.
“Also, please answer my question: When did you visit two churches in Moscow with 600 staff total?”
In 2007.
– L
Specific definition, from Hubbard’s “Basic dictionary of scientology and Dianetics”
Scientologist: one who knows
he has found the way to a better
life through Scientology and who,
through Scientology books, tapes,
training and processing, is actively
attaining it.
Note the phrase “Actively attaining it”. So hubbard had one definition, and the CoS has decided to use another.
You: “The Church says it is millions and I believe that because this figure includes everyone who took a session or a course. ”
You: “Scientologists are members of a world-wide active but minority religion. ”
Do you see the contradiction?
Also, please answer my question: When did you visit two churches in Moscow with 600 staff total?
well, there is survey data…
I am not arguing this. There is no official statistics or breakdown and I don’t think there will be soon. I also do see no point in wild guesses. Scientologists are members of a world-wide active but minority religion.
“Would it not be fair to count the number of Scientologists the same way as the other religions count their members?”
Like: not?
– L
Two Moscow churches, 300 staff each. When did you visit two churches in Moscow with 600 staff total?
If you take 170 orgs (including the surrounding missions), you would have to have some 50000 Scientologists in each org area to come to 8 million. Flag area (Tampa) should at least have 200000 to make the total anything near believable. You see, Norway has 200 Scientologists (one Org) and I believe the official number in Sweden is 2500 (three orgs). Even counting anyone who ever took any service would not bring the total in Scandinavia above 10000 still living. Flag (or other places) must take our statistical burden then.
Also, if the definition for a Scientologist is anyone that has ever taken a service (even if they are now dead or pronounce themselves anti-scientologists), then the number of Christians must be many times the numbers officially counted. Would it not be fair to count the number of Scientologists the same way as the other religions count their members?
“Comment by isene on November 17, 2009 5:17 pm
You “The Church says it is millions and I believe that because this figure includes everyone who took a session or a course. ”
Then how come there are less than 10000 Scientologists in the Tampa Bay area )including the staff). How would you extrapolate that and get to millions (I believe the official figure is 8 or 10 million). Are there extraordinary few Scientologists around Flag?”
I am missing your logic. Freedom Magazine states something like 9,523 Scientologists in the Tampa Bay area. That’s one number for one area. The other figure is 8,079 Churches, Missions and groups. Another one is that both Moscow Churches have more than 300 staff each (confirmed by personal observation). Another one is the Shrine auditorium in Los Angeles fits about 10,000 people and it usually is full at events. Etc., etc. I think there is too much random data to properly extrapolate anything.
– L
To your point, if I may, you’ll find that census data does not line up, historically, with cos claims.
Either the cos claims are innacurate, or many people are not admitting affiliation.
Either way, allowance of a free practice would certainly increase the actual number.
You “The Church says it is millions and I believe that because this figure includes everyone who took a session or a course. ”
Then how come there are less than 10000 Scientologists in the Tampa Bay area )including the staff). How would you extrapolate that and get to millions (I believe the official figure is 8 or 10 million). Are there extraordinary few Scientologists around Flag?
but did not hubbard define a scientologist as one that is actively taking courses and applying scientology in their life?
Do you see any obvious outpoints in the CoS as it is run today?
Sure. Some take some guts and noise but in the end they get handled.
How many Scientologists do you believe there are in the world and by what definition?
I have no data. And the only true source would be internal. The Church says it is millions and I believe that because this figure includes everyone who took a session or a course.
– L
@L
Another logical fallacy as bigdaddy points out (argumentum ad Hominem).
I do not know best. Neither of us do. That is why it can be fruitful to engage in exchange of viewpoints without resorting to logical fallacies to make self right and the other wrong.
Do you see any obvious outpoints in the CoS as it is run today?
How many Scientologists do you believe there are in the world and by what definition?
surprised that the comments are not closed by now.
but, isene, you got a strawman and an ad hom- hope you’re okay.
I agree that scientology is worth saving (if only for the fact that people choose to follow it), and the cos, in its current form cannot do it.
” Comment by isene on November 17, 2009 4:44 pm
Question: Do you recognize that there are systematic human rights abuses in the church?”
No.
– L
Did anyone ever point out to you that you are extremely know-best?
Ok, strike that, I don’t want to know.
Yes, got it on your goals.
Bye.
– L
Question: Do you recognize that there are systematic human rights abuses in the church?
@bigdaddy
I want to save Scientology
@L
Another logical fallacy (straw man).
I do not have the goal of destroying the Church of Scientology.
I have only three goals for what I do as a Scientologist now:
1. To help the general public differentiate between Scientology and the Church of Scientology
2. To stop the human rights abuses within and by the Church of Scientology
3. To ensure the Scientology technology is free for everyone to study, use and benefit from
That is all. Please no straw man tactics.
>Are you staff?
Former.
>Are you SO?
No.
>Did you initiate this site yourself?
Together with some others (you did NOT read the Updates Log, damned).
>Were you asked by the CoS to run this site?
No, to the contrary. It ended with me keeping the domain name.
>Did you have to get permission from the CoS to run this site?
No, but I was always open about us doing this. By now it is tacitly supported by some individuals.
Given your obvious goal of destroying the Church of Scientology please understand that this conversation is now ended.
Unless you have a question in alignment with the purpose of this blog.
– L
isene, do you advocate the destruction of scientology? it always seemed to me that you advocated reform, not destruction.
You “Please answer these questions:
– Did you read the Blog FAQ and the Updates Log on ScientologyMyths.info? Is there anything you don’t believe or understand?”
Me: Read it. All is clear.
You: “- Did you read my earlier response to your pretty much identical question?”
Me: Yes. It is “pretty much identical – but not quite”.
You: “- Do you feel that something is missing on this blog or the website?”
Me: Yes. See my blog and my forum for answers to this: elysianchakorta(dot)wordpress(dot)com and scnforum(dot)org
Let me rephrase my questions to make them clearer and very specific. Please answer them with Yes or No:
Are you staff?
Are you SO?
Did you initiate this site yourself?
Were you asked by the CoS to run this site?
Did you have to get permission from the CoS to run this site?
” Comment by bigdaddy on November 17, 2009 4:07 pm
louanne, what do you dislike abut isene,”
I do not dislike Isene (I think it’s “Geir”). But I do think that he tries to solve a problem in a way that will leave “no Scientology” at the end. Which I certainly dislike. I do oppose the destruction of the Scientology religion.
– L
louanne,
what do you dislike abut isene, that you would accuse him of certain things (…”against individual Scientologists (something you help to stir up, btw)…)?
I mean, he’s a scientologist, and the anons love him. not because he’s on their side, but because he’s opposed to abuses within the church structure. his personal beliefs are his own, and I, personally, support his goals.
I will have to arrest that question as a logical fallacy: plurium interrogationum.
I will address it nevertheless: I didn’t feel any such need. And it wasn’t meant as 1.1. I asked a question about your identity that you didn’t answer. It later disappeared from the postings as you have explained. I then determined a gradient approach would be better and asked if this site was run by an official group in the CoS.
It is still not completely clear to me whether this site is purely a private initiative or if it is initiated by the church and/or maintained by the church. Is it?
Funny, that you feel a need to maintain that you post “vanished” (it’s not true). Anyway, I understand what you are saying.
Please answer these questions:
– Did you read the Blog FAQ and the Updates Log on ScientologyMyths.info? Is there anything you don’t believe or understand?
– Did you read my earlier response to your pretty much identical question?
– Do you feel that something is missing on this blog or the website?
– L
– L
hey, l, if you feel that you have a valid reason to stay anon… do you allow that belief to others as well?
” Comment by isene on November 17, 2009 3:41 pm
Which question do you feel I did not answer?”
” Comment by Louanne on November 17, 2009 3:01 pm
Why do you feel that you have to put a 1.1 slant in your communications to Pat (“Let me approach this on a gradient:”)?
– L
Which question do you feel I did not answer?
PS: Feel free to answer my questions as well.
“Comment by isene on November 17, 2009 3:15 pm
It seemed you were not ready to tell me your identity.”
Strange. We did not have any conversation before this one. So when did you get this impression?
“Are you ready to reveal your identity?”
In view of the fanaticism going on here and elsewhere against individual Scientologists (something you help to stir up, btw) I stick to give my first name and parts of my life. I am not willing to share anything more personal.
– L
“Comment by Milper the duck on November 17, 2009 2:26 am
Isene:
“You didn’t read my earlier question, then. I asked a question further up this page.”
You probably did, but it looks like it was deleted. That’s why Pat didn’t reference it.”
No, he posted two links in his comment and it went straight to the spam dump. WordPress works this way now. It used to be that such posts went into a moderation cue after some Anons abused this with automated spamming I changed it to directly route to spamming. Anyway, just post with links that look like this scientologymyths(dot)info.
– L
good luck, sir, good luck.
It seemed you were not ready to tell me your identity. The gradient was to ask what group, if any, is running this site. You answer that this is not an official CoS site run by any Org, correct?
Are you ready to reveal your identity?
“Comment by isene on November 16, 2009 11:34 pm”
““Let me approach this on a gradient: Is this an official Church of Scientology site? If yes, who runs it (OSA, CMU, a special group)?””
No. This blog and its website ScientologyMyths.info are using information received from the Church of Scientology (and elsewhere, e.g. court records or other websites. Usually I state the source somewhere).
Why do you feel that you have to put a 1.1 slant in your communications to Pat (“Let me approach this on a gradient:”)?
– L
here’s a thought…
if cos scientologists are unable / unwilling to reach ot to critics, or those covered under the before-mentioned policy, how can they hope to clear the planet?
or, do they just consider all critics to be surpressive, to be dealt wth later?
or, possibly, will they be left to the freezoners? I really don’t se thosw guys feling that they “have to” or “should” disconnect from critics, based solely on the fact tat they are critical.
I mean, surely one shouldn’t have to agree with even their spouse on EVERY matter, should they?
Isene:
“You didn’t read my earlier question, then. I asked a question further up this page.”
You probably did, but it looks like it was deleted. That’s why Pat didn’t reference it.
Noticed that Louanne kept comments “off” on her latest blog post. Good choice.
“Yes, I believe it is important – in the name of openness and honesty. Is it so that you do not want your visitors to know who you are? If so, for what reason?”
I’ve always been curious. But Louanne and Pat (or, some believe, Loupat, claiming that they are actually the same person) persist in posting anonymously. Which is ironic, given the outrage that they claim over similar inflammatory comments posted anonymously by others.
That, of course, leads to speculation that they are not individuals, but teams, and other theories that arise from the mystery.
@ Comment by Pat on November 16, 2009 11:06 pm
Yoe: “You say no answer and then ask the question. Out sequence, isn’t it?”
You didn’t read my earlier question, then. I asked a question further up this page.
Me: “Let me approach this on a gradient: Is this an official Church of Scientology site? If yes, who runs it (OSA, CMU, a special group)?”
You: “Is that important? People are willing to talk to you. Here is where Louanne tells you what this site is for
http://www.scientologymyths.info/
Anything else being stated is speculation.”
Yes, I believe it is important – in the name of openness and honesty. Is it so that you do not want your visitors to know who you are? If so, for what reason?
I would be curious to see if you would answer bigdaddy’s last question… Have you ever seen a relationship, as such as he mentioned, in the CoS? I’ll give you a hint- I first saw it in the FZ.
My, Pat, you were certainly busy tonight, weren’t you? I suppose I should get started, then:
1. “What policy is it that gives me no choice? I’ve studied quite a few and don’t recall any that state anything like that. What’s the page number on that reference that you’re talking about?”
So when Laurie said that it is policy, and you said “That’s what she meant. That seems fairly clear to me, as far as words go. I’m not sure what part of this exactly that you’re not getting”… you meant to say that it’s not a policy? What is it? Was Laurie right or wrong? What was it that you said, before, was clear, in reference to my question about her statement?
2. “As for posting something here, Louanne has been very upfront with y’all many times now. This is not a forum for anyone to use for their party lines. This is very specifically for those who have questions.”
Yes, but does she post anything that is contrary to her own party lines? Surely you would agree that this site is biased, and hardly neutral.
3. “Would you please explain why I personally would want to stay connected to that person if he’s basically saying that Scientology should be destroyed?”
That doesn’t address the question. The question asked was “What would happen if a member of CoS decided for himself, that he didn`t want to disconnect from a group, that the CoS declared suppressive?” For that matter, who is that wants to destroy scientology? Do you think that I do? bigdaddy? mark? anon?
4. “It’s going to be my choice. What am I telling my fellows what I think of my religion and everything it means to them, just to stay hooked up with someone who has become antagonistic to me?”
Can you, at least, see a difference between someone that is antagonistic to YOU and someone that is antagonistic to SCIENTOLOGY?
5. “Of course. And now you’re bitter about the fact that Scientologists won’t have anything to do with you. You’re out of agreement with their aims. The Church doesn’t do that to you. The ones who won’t have anything to do with you did that. Their choice.”
Huh? Says who? That’s quite a guess, and pretty far off. I’m freezone, and love it. The people here are loving and kind, and it’s a very different word from the CoS. I don’t miss it at all. Yes, I’m out of agreement with the “church’s” aims- not scientology. And I’m not bitter, I just couldn’t tolerate abuse any more. Did you notice the tone you took once you found out a was a scientologist? Doesn’t that seem a LITTLE BIT odd to you?
I’m with Isene- he’s not in the CoS anymore, but still a scientologist. What does that make him, in your eyes?
@ Comment by isene on November 16, 2009 12:28 am
“No answer to my question.”
You say no answer and then ask the question. Out sequence, isn’t it?
“Let me approach this on a gradient: Is this an official Church of Scientology site? If yes, who runs it (OSA, CMU, a special group)?”
Is that important? People are willing to talk to you. Here is where Louanne tells you what this site is for
http://www.scientologymyths.info/
Anything else being stated is speculation.
Pat
@Comment by Milper the duck on November 15, 2009 10:52 pm
“Speaking of choices, I have them- and I realized that when I blew. It wasn’t until then that I knew what freedom was.
But that’s my personal truth, of course.”
Of course. And now you’re bitter about the fact that Scientologists won’t have anything to do with you. You’re out of agreement with their aims. The Church doesn’t do that to you. The ones who won’t have anything to do with you did that. Their choice.
Pat
@Comment by Anon on November 16, 2009 9:41 am
“Hey Pat,
What would happen if a member of CoS decided for himself, that he didn`t want to disconnect from a group, that the CoS declared suppressive?”
Would you please explain why I personally would want to stay connected to that person if he’s basically saying that Scientology should be destroyed?
Or — why would I stay connected to someone that’s abusive of my beliefs?
It’s going to be my choice. What am I telling my fellows what I think of my religion and everything it means to them, just to stay hooked up with someone who has become antagonistic to me?
Pat
@Comment by MIlper the duck on November 15, 2009 7:37 pm
“Pat- his point is that he has information that would support his point, and Louanne is not posting it. She is, of course, posting information that she selects and is supporting of her point, but has not posted contrary information. It is one sided.”
I am denying that anything is mandatory. I have always had a choice. That’s the critic’s spin that you’re either buying or intentionally attempting to spread.
As for posting something here, Louanne has been very upfront with y’all many times now. This is not a forum for anyone to use for their party lines. This is very specifically for those who have questions. If you want to make statements, go play with the critics. they love that stuff! Don’t try and treat someone who deliberately tries to break the only rule she has as tho’ he / she is a poor victim. Rules is Rules.
Pat
@Comment by Milper the duck on November 15, 2009 10:49 pm
Pat- I have choices… what you have is policy.
What policy is it that gives me no choice? I’ve studied quite a few and don’t recall any that state anything like that. What’s the page number on that reference that you’re talking about?
Pat
or, similar question, what if a close friend, or any scientologist, left the flock to become freezone? or became critical of you church?
I am a christian, a very good friend of mine is a satanist, and very critical of the christian church. have you observed such a relationship within scientology?
Hey Pat,
What would happen if a member of CoS decided for himself, that he didn`t want to disconnect from a group, that the CoS declared suppressive?
isene,
big fan, really love your work.
some feel this is a personal site; some feel louanne is assigned to it, a la tory magoo.
I don’t believe that the answer is known.
No answer to my question.
Let me approach this on a gradient: Is this an official Church of Scientology site? If yes, who runs it (OSA, CMU, a special group)?
Speaking of choices, I have them- and I realized that when I blew. It wasn’t until then that I knew what freedom was.
But that’s my personal truth, of course.
Pat- I have choices… what you have is policy.
And I am not a member of any group, with reference to scientology. I have my own mind, and choose to use it.
What if I was? Would you continue to be in contact with me?
Oh, and Milper, since you seem to have attention on it, are you an avowed member of a group that is hostile to my Church?
Pat
I’m glad you get the point of her statement. You missed one thing though.
I personally would never knowingly contact someone who is an avowed member of a group hostile to my church. It’s my choice. It always has been. It always comes down to that. Our choice. That’s what is so awesome about Scientology.
Pat
Pat- his point is that he has information that would support his point, and Louanne is not posting it. She is, of course, posting information that she selects and is supporting of her point, but has not posted contrary information. It is one sided.
Now I get the point, I just thought that we were still denying mandatory disconnection. I appreciate your honesty.
@Comment by MIlper the duck on November 15, 2009 9:08 am
This is what I said
That’s what she meant. That seems fairly clear to me, as far as words go. I’m not sure what part of this exactly that you’re not getting. Please clarify.
Pat
Definition of irony? Pat telling someone that asking for clarification is the same as asking someone to do your thinking for you, while forgetting that she asked my for clarification here. Why do you want me to do your thinking for you, Pat?
@Comment by Anon on November 13, 2009 6:01 pm
I’m going to assume that you missed this or are just trying to make a statement. I don’t see the question.
http://www.scientologymyths.info/fair-game/docs/aznaran-fair-game-declarations-1994.htm
So you’re saying that it is indeed policy that scientologists are not to have contact with certain individuals or groups?
@Comment by MIlper the duck on November 14, 2009 7:01 pm
“Could you please explain what Laurie Hamilton, scientology expert, and an OT who was personally trained by Hubbard, meant when she said:
it is “Policy is we should not knowingly or purposely have contact with persons who are avowed members of groups hostile to the success of the church, such as the freezone.””
That’s what she meant. That seems fairly clear to me, as far as words go. I’m not sure what part of this exactly that you’re not getting. Please clarify.
Pat
Anon- please feel free to post them on my blog, which can be reached by clicking on my name. I choose not to censor such documents, and will post them, as well as an quality documents submitted by pro-scientology posters.
Could you please explain what Laurie Hamilton, scientology expert, and an OT who was personally trained by Hubbard, meant when she said:
it is “Policy is we should not knowingly or purposely have contact with persons who are avowed members of groups hostile to the success of the church, such as the freezone.”
Let’s be straightout honest, ok?
I have asked or stated this already several times, but whenever i bring it up, you just delete my comment.
Why do you do this?
The question concerns “fair game” and specifically your entry about it on your main site scientologymyths.info
I have found documents, which show that fair game was not intented to be just a way to make it known to all Scientologists, that a person, who had left Scientology had lost all the privileges and righs of a Scientologist.
The document i have found, which i won’t link, unless you say it is ok to do so, shows that Hubbard meant exactly what he wrote: “Can be sued, lied to, tricked or destroyed”.
I ask you, why can’t you be so honest to include the document on your website, so that the reader gets a broader and more honest perspective on the issue?