Scientology pages index | Contact
| Scientology® in the media and on the Internet or How reliable is the information found? vs propaganda (1) |
 |
(to other Scientology pages) |
>> Do you want to help me with my research? << Consult my want list here !
Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are marked.
“Scientology is as sane as each of us are." Roadrunner |
Introduction & Internet news groups and forums (page 1, index page)
These overviews turned out much longer than I actually intended it to be. I guess that only those that are really interested in that what I address here will work their way through that what I have to tell. I have the choice to either shorten it and thus be concise or to maintain my detailness about matters. Few have shared a more detailed tale of their overall experiences, whereas many others tell rather brief overviews of isolated incidents out on the Internet . Therefore I chose to let it be as it turned out to be. Thus I present a fairly detailed but very accurate account together with argumentation about my personal experiences and observations.
Index:
 |
|
|||||
|
The ‘critics’ of Scientology | |||||
|
The propagandist (to be done) | |||||
|
The social and the anti-social personality | |||||
|
||||||
|
An overview | |||||
|
My experiences with the various groups | |||||
| - a) Introduction | ||||||
| - b) The various forums/groups discussed | ||||||
| (Includes: Forum #1 (Free Zone oriented); Forum #2 (Ron's org oriented); Forum #3 (anti-Scientology oriented, only for ex-Sea Org staff); Forum #4 (anti-Scientology oriented); Forum #5 (anti-Scientology oriented, originates from Norway)) | ||||||
| - c) Afterword | ||||||
| - Additional comments (1) - The matter of communication & The use of the ‘ignore button’ | ||||||
| - Additional comments (2) - Freedom of speech vs? Freedom of speech | ||||||
| - Additional comments (3) - Forums or counter ‘movements’ turning into cults themselves? | ||||||
|
A few additional relative notices | |||||
| - Seeing OSA everywhere and anywhere ... | ||||||
| - The anti- or ex-Scientology groups | ||||||
| - The no-Scientologist | ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
| - A general overview | ||||||
| - ‘Original research’ versus ‘authorities’ or Wikipedia's questionable foundation | ||||||
| (Includes: Core content policies: ‘No original research’, ‘Verifiability’ and ‘Neutral point of view’; A widely accepted standard: ‘Consensus’) | ||||||
|
(a) How are controversial subjects dealt with on Wikipedia? | |||||
| - ‘September 11, 2001 attacks’ | ||||||
| - ‘Creationism’ | ||||||
|
(b) The (in)correctness of the Scientology related articles | |||||
| - What you can expect while editing Scientology related articles | ||||||
| - Various examples of Scientology related articles with misrepresentations: | ||||||
| 1. The ‘Scientology belief system’ | ||||||
| 2. ‘Science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard’ | ||||||
| 3. ‘Mary Sue Hubbard’ versus ‘Guardian Office’ | ||||||
| 4. ‘Operation Snow White’ | ||||||
| 5. Adding links to referenced studies to Wikipedia | ||||||
|
The Swedish episode (my experiences editing on the Swedish Wiki) | |||||
| (Includes: Introduction & summary of edits; My arguments; Blocked & action taken by me; Reception of my write up; Having an ‘agenda’; My edits remain intact & Final notices) | ||||||
|
Afterword | |||||
Introduction
The reality is that one has to be very careful with the information that is found in particular on the Internet. A lot of the information out there is from private persons, and various may run some propaganda in order to influence how the readers are going to ‘take’ something. Often this may be rather unprofessionally done. Various may just have taken bits and pieces from elsewhere on the Internet, then they put something together that promotes their personal interpretation of something, after which it gets posted on the Internet on some site or some place. Indeed a lot of copying is being done on the Internet. You find little original research. There indeed is a lot of rumour, hearsay and propaganda on this Internet. The bulk of these may actually have failed to actually properly substantiate their compilation with verified data, referencing and all that. Much, very much is in fact just assumed. A problem in particular is how some information is being presented. Then data, even obviously being available, if it be contradictorily, purposely may also have been avoided to make mention of. This is what is referred to as running a propaganda. These that are involved with that miserably fail to use any kind of actual scientifically based research approach.
On that Internet regarding the subject of Scientology and Dianetics you generally find those that arduously defend it and on the other side those that attack it. Various of these sides attempt to convince the people that only they themselves have right. Attempts are being made to win the favour of the people. Among these you also find a variety of offshoots of Scientology, generally they refer to themselves as Free Zone orgs or Ron's orgs. Various of these have their own websites, and generally they are not related to eachother although there may be found a common agreement amongst these. The agreement being that developments released since the early 80's have been rejected.
| Where it concerns research performed into the subject of Scientology and Dianetics, this may be the history of the organization or its technology through time, you will find very few that have attempted to be truly objective and that do not actually run some sort of propaganda. There are 3 in particular that need separate mentioning. Which are: (links will open in separate window) |
|
‘An overview of Scientology’ (studies instigated between 2003-2007) (this site, you are already there!) |
|
‘Another look at Scientology’ (An ex-member takes a critical look at both sides of the controversy) |
|
‘Freie Scientologen’ (Research papers) (primarily in German language) |
| Mind that the information found at the last link provided may be very direct about its criticism towards the present approach of the Church of Scientology technical wise. These 3 seem to be the only ones that cover a rather broad view on the issue. There are sites that have provided for interesting studies/views on isolated subjects, various of these may be linked to from appropriate places on my site. |
| Anyway the message that I relate here is that one should be careful with that which one finds on the Internet. For example per various ‘reliable’ official looking sites I got as the year that Mary Sue Hubbard got married: 1950, March 1952, 30 October 1952 & October 1956. So, which is correct? This actual marriage date does bear some significance as it is often claimed that Mary Sue was already pregnant of their first child prior to marriage. I guess that someone will have to dig up the actual marriage certificate. And this is just a minor example. If pieces of the puzzle are missing one tends to assume how these pieces will look like. |
| For example I found this phrase in an article about L. Ron Hubbard on www.answers.com (a sort of Wikipedia off-shoot that you can not edit in). It said about L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard: (consult article here, external link, last checked 10 December 2007) |
“The couple had four children: Diana Meredith de Wolfe, Mary Suzette Rochelle, L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (changed name to Ronald DeWolf), and Arthur Ronald Conway.” |
| Indeed they had 4 children together, however the above very nicely confused that the fourth child Geoffrey Quentin McCaully Hubbard had died in 1976. Instead is listed L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (changed name to Ronald DeWolf) who in fact is a son of L. Ron Hubbard from a previous marriage, and thus not a child of Mary Sue. Note also that Mary Sue was born 1931, and Ronald DeWolf in 1934. Indeed this would make for a very young mother. This example is obviously quite an error. |
The ‘critics’ of Scientology
Who are actually these critics of Scientology? What determines what an actual critic is? These are relevant questions to ask. For many of those that generally are regarded or referred to as the critics of Scientology may in actual fact be no critics in the true sense of the meaning of the word at all, but rather be some individuals that are determined to find fault with.
| The ‘World Book dictionary’ (1974 edition) for example lists for ‘criticism’: | |
| “1. disapproval; faultfinding 2. the making of judgments; approving or disapproving; analysis of merits and faults” |
|
| Then the ‘Webster's Dictionary of Synonyms’ (1951 edition) says that ‘Criticism’ is “as preferred by the best writers and speakers and as carrying no derogatory connotations. The proper aim and the content of a criticism have never been definitely fixed, and are still subjects of controversy, but the term usually implies an author who is expected to have expert knowledge in his field, a clear definition of his standards of judgment, and an intent to evaluate the work under consideration”. |
| And further says: “Criticize, in its strict etymological sense, does not carry fault-finding as its invariable, or even major, implication: rather it suggests a discernment of the merits and faults of a person or thing”. (see page 210) |
The bulk of the sites that we find on the Internet that have an anti-Scientology approach can they be judged being critical in the right sense? Has some proper analysis been exercised? Do we see pro together with anti arguments? Appear things to actually have been evaluated from a neutral basis? Are there indications found that any of these confirm to “have expert knowledge in his field”?
| In fact many of them do not answer to this. Generally those that so to say are condemning towards of or are just relaying about the bad things have another aim with their personal presentation or display of their information. These sites only will fill you in on how bad it all appears to be, and must be. This in no way will provide you with an actual evaluation of the true reality of things. You will be fed with a preconceived presentation of the topic. You can not evaluate or distinguish as you are only given the bad side of things or rather an interpretation thereof. It is all about to just finding fault with. The majority of these anti sites will decide for ‘you’ how things are. Things are presented in such ways as to hook you up on how these site owners perceive things. In this sense these sites have no particular value. Many of these sites also do not either have their facts always in proper order. |
| An example: | |
| An interesting and persistent example of this is the argumentation that is found on various anti-Scientology websites when addressing the cancellation of Fair Game. It is then argued that in reality Fair Game as a practice is not cancelled but only the use of its name. Support for this argument is then provided while quoting from HCO PL 21 Oct 68 “Cancellation of Fair Game” that says: “This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP*.”. Interpreting then as if Fair Game was such a “treatment or handling”. The conclusion is then drawn that continued use of Fair Game is recommended, but to call it something else. With all this it is overlooked that the actual policy letter that lays out Fair Game had already been cancelled a whole 3 months earlier, and thus had already previously obliterated its practice or rather this “treatment or handling of an SP”. (The policy letter that defined Fair Game: HCO PL 18 Oct 67 IV “Penalties for Lower Conditions” was cancelled and replaced by HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. Consult for details about this my page “Scientology: The ‘Fair Game Law’ - A detailed study”) | |
| This argument also continues to rather arduously being defended on various discussion groups and newsgroups even when the existence of this cancelling policy letter is brought into the discussion. The argumentation that now lacks factual support simply is upheld nonetheless. | |
| The webmasters of as many as 4 of the main anti-Scientology websites that used this argument were repeatedly urged to include mention of the existence of HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”. Only one of them chose to answer to this and added A Second Opinion while linking to a discussion on a newsgroup where this was in detail discussed. This webmaster however did not alter the view as represented on his site itself. Be it noted that this is also obviously not a matter of opinion. The webmasters of the other 3 websites outright chose to completely ignore this and maintained their argumentation that ruled out the actual existence of this cancelling policy letter. Various of these sites still say that L. Ron Hubbard was “just playing a trick on them”. | |
| Either way one can not expect to find an honest or truthful presentation of the topic under these conditions. (please note that I do not provide for links to these 4 referred to websites as I do not wish to promote either of them). Be it noted here that some of the anti-Scientology sites actually do include listing of this HCO PL 21 Jul 68 “Penalties for Lower Conditions”, but they appear to be a minority. | |
Are these people that are maintaining various of these sites actual critics of Scientology? Per the definition of what a critic actually is or what he should be made of it does not appear so. Then what are these people? We may be can call them for propagandists running their agenda. A decision already has been made by them. It appears also that these ‘critics’ as a rule do not wish to be criticized themselves. Opposing information is frowned upon or simply ignored even if it adequately is put to their attention.
| It is one's right to promote one's views about things, however just be aware of the fact that the aim has been to deliberately present the information to convince you of how they themselves see things and how things should be interpreted. The anti Scientology sites nor the pro Scientology sites may necessarily provide for the actual status quo of things. Neither of these as a rule do present actual studies even if some of these sites attempt to present themselves as if having done that! So be careful .... as various are only interested in to win your allegiance to support their personal take of things. |
| For this reason you also see no such anti-Scientology site having links to my site. Anti-Scientology sites link to primarily other anti-Scientology sites and some may have a few links to official Scientology sites. Sites however that have attempted to tackle or analyze the controversy objectively are simply avoided. They don't want you to have access to these kind of studies that are actually digging into history more thoroughly. The very few anti-Scientology sites that in fact had links to my site, were urged by others to remove them, and they were removed. |
Leaves the question if there would be many actual critics to Scientology? In fact, I don't think that there are that many as has been claimed. On the overall it is persistently the very same voices that we hear in the media! We have these sites from these anti-Scientologists that seems to have taken it as their call in life to wipe out all of Scientology. There are about 6 or 7 large such sites. Then there appear a variety of smaller sites. On the various newsgroups we find a variety of followers that go around that like to discredit Scientology for whatever what reason. Some of them are Scientology old-timers that have either turned their back to Scientology or they may still believe there are at least some truths to be found witin Scientology. The bulk of them however appear to know little to nothing about even the subject of Scientology. Their knowledge goes as far as what they have been told by those that oppose to Scientology, or they may just have surfed on the Internet reading/adopting the arguments as you find them on the anti-Scientology sites. In formation that is one-sided and unevaluated. All you will get from there are generalities. They also usually decline to invitations for a more serious discussion. They seem to be just there to be able to create an effect onto people. Anyhow if you hear the usual critical voices that speak out against Scientology in the media, try to establish how few different voices you actually hear.
The propagandist
“Now, this know-how situation with regard to the mind is very, very hard to arrive at. There are so many suppositions that—just walking through a forest of favorite beliefs. And when you realize that every case and every practitioner in the field of the mind would be concentrated on one aspect of existence and then dedicated to not observing existence except through that one evaluation of existence, you see at once the tremendous limitations imposed upon the discovery of anything about the mind, and then, secondarily, getting any application of any truth known. Do you see that this, then, would be a self-defeating proposition? |
||
|
||
| Now, let's compound the randomity and realize that knowledge about the mind means freedom for life and beings in this universe. Once you recognize that as a principle, you will see that anyone who is dedicated to total enslavement or the dwindling spiral or caving anyone in and caving everyone in, and so forth, are immediately not in favor of total knowledge of the human mind, but quite on the contrary are in favor of great ignorance.” LRH (from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #308, renumbered 1991: #338 “Saint Hill Service Facsimile Handling”, given on 18 Sept 63) |
|
xxx
The social and the anti-social personality
“Next door to the ‘theetie-weetie’ case is the totally overwhelmed condition we call SP (suppressive person).” |
||
“The lowest confront there is is the Confront* of Evil. When a living being is out of his own valence* and in the valence of a thoroughly bad even if imaginary image you get an SP. An SP is a no-confront case because, not being in his own valence, he has no viewpoint from which to erase anything. That is all an SP is.” LRH (from HCO PL 20 Oct 67 “Conditions, How to Assign”) |
Some notices have to be made about the socalled social and anti-social personality. During the mid-60's 2 articles were especially written to appear in the Scientology periodical Ability. These were “The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist” & “The Social Personality”, they appeared respectively in ‘Ability 188’, [Jan 67] & ‘Ability 189’, [Feb 67]. They were then combined in one reference and issued as HCOB 27 Sept 66 “The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist”. As late as 21 August 2000 this got also issued as a policy letter as HCO PL 27 Sept 66 II “same title”. It appears that the Anti-Social Personality article had been extracted from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #78, renumbered 1991: #441“The Anti-Social Personality”, given on 25 Aug 66. It goes into these anti-social characteristics at length and great detail.
| Below the articles just as they appeared in Ability: (both links will open as pop-up windows) | |
| ‘Ability 188’, [Jan 67] “The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist” | |
| ‘Ability 189’, [Feb 67] “The Social Personality” | |
| These articles may speak for themselves. There could be said to exist a relevance with how Scientology generally is presented in the media and in public places. The information they relate is basically the foundation of how to determine with what kind of person you are dealing in regards to being social and being anti-social. In fact it lays out in rather great detail what to expect if you would be dealing with that what is referred to as the Suppressive Person. You however have to decide for yourself if there is any truth in what these articles have to say about these matters. |
| At the time of me adding this chapter and these articles I had already finished my chapter “The ‘critics’ of Scientology” and my overview of ‘Internet news groups’ and ‘Wikipedia’. It was not until I considered addressing and analyzing some of the renowned anti-Scientology sites that my attention actually got drawn to these articles. A particular Internet site that was claiming to expose various within Scientology put out various conclusions about Suppressive Persons (SP's), but it ‘blishfully’ failed to make reference to these articles here which could be seen as the foundation to and that lay open clearly the concept of the phenomena. Then I realized that there is also a rather clear resemblance with the general behaviour that I was subjected to on the various message groups/forums and in particular from those that opposed to Scientology as a whole. You may find that various of these persons rather forcefully wish to hold on to their argument and as a rule appear to ignore or unable to consider contrary arguments that fold out flaws in their reasoning. It is my experience that you actually seldom get into an actual discussion (as in exchanging viewpoints) with these people. Their mind appears already made up and only seem to have an eye open for that which acknowledges their conviction. I decided accordingly that this page should not be without this information. Indeed what these 2 articles relate about is interesting. Read them and then consider what they say. |
Internet news groups and forums (1) - An overview
| Please note that I have avoided to address any persons or the groups by their name. With this I have attempted to avoid to function as a means of free advertisements for these persons or groups. Therefore I provide for rather few words that can be used in an Internet search. Besides this I have a consideration about arousing too much commotion about this by directly and publicly targeting persons. I just aim to tell my personal experiences, nothing more. I have no business at present with any of these persons I have had a difference of opinion with, nor do I wish to have that in the future, not on any level. |
| I have no actual intent to prove anything in this particular chapter. Although I could support that what I relate about easily as I saved all my email discussions and interactions with various persons/groups as relayed in this chapter. I just share some of my personal experiences just as they happened and my views regarding. These accounts are faithful. They will just give you some insight in what you may expect if you get yourself involved in such forums and such. |
| Out there on the Internet there exist a variety of forums, yahoo groups, and newsgroups that are focusing on the subject of Scientology. Those people that are active or a member of such groups then can be divided in 2 different groups. |
| On one side we have those that wish to practice Scientology & Dianetics outside of the control of the Church of Scientology. They use these forums as a means to discuss various issues with eachother concerning the Scientology technology or share experiences, ideas, upcoming meetings and such. Some of these groups also provide materials for download. And yes I have also seen that socalled squirrel techniques (alteration of Scientology/Dianetics processing) at times are touched or discussed on these forums. These may however be disguised forwarded as extensions to Scientology technology. Don't get however caught in these things! |
| On the other side we have those that may have been active in Scientology but either received a bad treatment or finally figured for themselves (often after having been inside for quite a many years) that they have been had. For them these groups function as a means to utter their complaints. Then we have these various persons that although they have never set one foot in a Scientology church or actually looked into the subject more seriously, but here they are various of them claim nonetheless to know a lot about it (and may even be regarded as or promoted as supposed experts) on this subject of Scientology. I generally find out very quickly that they are missing many pieces of the puzzle. Often the discussion with me gets cut when they claim that we have different opinions. But then, it got nothing to do with shear opinion, in fact opinion does not bear much significance to me or the subject itself at all. It is funny to see that there are in fact these persons that, so they may claim, went on a crusade to save people from this evil of Scientology, without actually knowing what it is about and actually having performed a proper critical analysis. Often a search on the Internet suffices for them to get them going. |
For a while I have been going around on these groups. My curiosity urged me to do so. I simply wanted to know how they would go about things, and to forward relevant information. I experienced that you have to adjust or be faithful to the general agreement and opinions that are shared by the majority of the members of such a group (or may be rather the group moderator for that matter). If you do not then in the end it will result in that you will be kicked and/or your IP banned. As it appears to be the case anywhere and everywhere people do not like opposition to which they have no defense for. People simply do not wish to be made to feel uncomfortable. The members of these groups just want to be there on that group and be acknowledged and are generally quite unwilling to take an alternate view at things.
| For example at occasions on these groups I have been criticized for being some kind of mimeo* freak. This then is actually uttered by those that previously had claimed to want to look at the facts of things. This utterance then becomes contradictorily. On my scientology related pages on my site I maintain a strictly scientific and factual approach. Detailed study of the actual printed materials fold out the history of things. One can not perform such a research as mine without being rather strict and meticulous in relation to the printed materials. These materials actually make out the foundation that support my findings! These extensive reference materials that I use actually give credibility to my information. In fact my revelations disclose a variety of misconceptions that people have about the subject of Scientology on a variety of issues, these people either being anti or pro Scientology. |
| The problem is that my information or findings thereof may be perceived as being uncomfortable. Thus one resorts to giving names in order to discredit and therewith, or so they may believe or tell themselves, my actual findings. It appears always easier to resort to personal attacks rather then actually addressing the issues discussed. |
Be aware that generally on such forums you will find a very twisted interpretation of the subject of Scientology. The focus is put on what people within Scientology do or supposedly are doing.
Internet news groups and forums (2) - My experiences with the various groups
|
a) Introduction | ||
|
b) The various forums/groups discussed: | ||
| - Forum #1 (Free Zone oriented) | |||
| - Forum #2 (Ron's org oriented) | |||
| - Forum #3 (anti-Scientology oriented, only for ex-Sea Org staff) | |||
| - Forum #4 (anti-Scientology oriented) | |||
| - Forum #5 (anti-Scientology oriented, originates from Norway) | |||
|
c) Afterword | ||
|
Additional comments (1) - The matter of communication & The use of the ‘ignore button’ | ||
|
Additional comments (2) - Freedom of speech vs? Freedom of speech | ||
|
Additional comments (3) - Forums or counter ‘movements’ turning into cults themselves? | ||
 Roadrunner |
To cut it short, I have literally been kicked from 5 such Scientology related groups/forums (2 of them claim to be pro-Scientology, and the other 3 are sort of anti- or ex-Scientology). In addition to these there exist also various socalled open message boards and newsgroups. One can not be kicked from these, but some may wanted to have achieved that either way (one can complain to the Internet provider via one's IP). Why was I kicked from these privately managed forums? I simply chose to not adjust to the general agreements. I gave my opinion and I was straightforward. I also used my rather extensive knowledge of Scientology history per the printed materials and personal observations that I made through the years. I was flabbergasted by the unwillingness of the members of these groups to consider alternate options. It also appears that on either of these groups freedom of speech is most definitely not an option! Any of these groups claiming being pro-Scientology (Free Zone) or anti-Scientology do not appear to make much difference in essence on how they operate. You either adjust to the ‘mentality’ of the group or you are bound to get kicked out of there in the end. I found that there is no exception to this rule. If you are considered uncomfortable one will resort to any means to get rid of, or invalidate you, or in some way to silence you.
|
b) The various forums/groups discussed: |
|
|||
|
|
||
| One of the claimed pro-Scientology groups at one point started to badmouth a person on the group that was not a member. It got incited when various comments were made by some female person. Then 4 additional persons joined and supported the slander. This even included the group moderator that turned very strong-voiced about the person being smeared. He wrote amongst other that “she was nuts”. As it happened to be, the person being demolished by use of just words, I considered to be a friend of mine. I opposed on the group and privately to the group moderator without much response. Shortly after I then got accused by the moderator to have copied contents from his private group and to have published it elsewhere. All that I actually did was contacting my friend and informing her that she was seriously being badmouthed on this so and so yahoo group (providing the Internet address of the group). It should be told here as well that the lady that actually instigated the initial smearing demanded from me on the forum to promise that I would not violate the group rules again. A rule that in fact never got violated. This lady rather actively acted to have me kicked from the group if I did not promise this. It is interesting that these demands came from the very person that found it alright to start a smearing campaign on a person that was absent. It was me that pointed out to her that this was totally not alright to do. I wrote on the forum that she should refrain from doing so. This appears to have been the reason for her vendetta against me. The moderator I would perceive was put under quite some pressure by this lady as well. She kept on battering about this on the forum. Either way in the end I got kicked for reason that I had threatened the moderator (so he himself claimed). The reality was that he actually set an ultimatum to me that I opposed and I instead quoted freedom of speech. He basically ordered me to conform, and I refused under these conditions (I had done nothing wrong). I was of the opinion that I was the wrong target, he should correct the lady that started the smearing of my friend, which I told this moderator. Instead he was submitting to this lady's demands and continued to primarily act against me. He demanded: “I need your promise that you'll no longer communicate matters on this forum elsewhere.”. I perceived this as if I was not allowed to have informed my friend about her being smeared. It seemed to promote that private smearing on the group is actually alright! In fact the group rules only address that one is not allowed to post texts from the groupmessages publicly, which I never did. As it appeared I was found guilty solely by suspicion. Ironically this moderator wrote to me when I had applied for membership for his forum: “Your website has been much admired . :)”. Indeed this of course is all very nice ... |
|
|||
|
|
||
| Another pro-Scientology group I was kicked out of is still sort of shrouded in mystery. This group hosts 2 message boards, a general board for information and the other for discussions. I have never been given a reason why I was kicked. I also received no unsubscribe message(s). I knew I had been kicked as I was unable to log on to the group, then I discovered that my username had disappeared from the list of members for both these forums. Repeated messages send to the moderator requesting clarification remained unanswered. Obviously some people must have misunderstood something about the subject of Scientology. Scientology's main means is just this of being in communication. At least you would expect to receive a reason why some action was taken against someone. I have had 2 issues with this particular group. Firstly I acted rather strongly about the commendation and merchandising of a particular non-LRH technology that was promoted as an extension to Scientology. The latter issue was concerning some claims that were made about the Office of Special Affairs (OSA), the legal section of the Church of Scientology. I wrote that I would ask the local DSA about that (Director of Special Affairs). It was not so long after this that I got (silently) kicked. One may(?) have thought that I was an OSA infiltrator of some sort. Some messages that got posted by the moderator a few months later on the forum indicated that those that have connections with the Church of Scientology or OSA are requested to go elsewhere. Well, which Martians did we not uncover as yet I may wonder ... ? |
|
|||
|
|
||
| A big problem seems to be the moderators themselves. What they actually do is they moderate! This means that they can reject your message so that it does not get posted on the groups forum. And there I was on this rather anti-Scientology oriented group. Here there are 2 instances in particular I can relate about. |
| I had written this short essay entitled: “Where is LRH?”. It was asking questions and raising the issue if L. Ron Hubbard had not left the scene already at a much earlier date than generally is assumed/believed. It was supported with various factual observations. It never got posted. I also did not receive a reject message from the moderator for which reason I inquired several times what had happened with it. The moderator had already earlier reasoned to me as follows: “You may not be sure whether one should attempt to keep conflicts out of the list or not - I am totally sure that it is necessary, though not always possible. The fact that it is not a 100% proposition does not mean that it should not be done.”. In regards to my not posted essay he finally responded as follows by explaining to me why he had created his group: “It is a way for people who, by the very nature of the organization we left, have been kept apart to get back in touch with each other.”. Thus he considered his group to be a means to reconnect with people one had lost sight of. He did not see what my essay (referred to by him as yet not approved) got to do with that? It be noted though that the general tone of his group is going towards finding fault with L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology in various ways. These things can be discussed at large as I found in many past discussions on his group. Then apparently postings or responses that in some way may oppose to or question the validity of various particular statements made on the group are simply rejected by the moderator as I personally experienced. |
The other noted incident occurred when I was opposing to some claims made about some persons that had, or so was claimed, exposed the fraud of Scientology. I made some serious critical although factually supported comments in regards to the credibility of these persons. My message did not get posted. When I inquired with the moderator he basically implied that I had no support for my utterances. Which in fact I had and also laid out to him. Then this moderator further wrote to me that he personally knew one of these persons and confided in so many words that he would not accept my take of things. We got into an argue. I was seriously questioning his objectiveness regarding moderating the messages of what gets posted and what not. The final outcome of all this was that none of my messages regarding got posted and that I got kicked from the group. |
| My experience with this group is quite clearly that minute control is exercised in guiding the flow of information that is allowed to appear on its forum. In the way it is exercised on this particular group it is quite clear that it seriously violates freedom of speech. It simply appears to present the likes and dislikes of its moderator. Messages that invalidate L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology that may get support by opinion only are freely posted. On the other hand messages that go against the general agreement, be it supported with documentation or not, get rejected. This is the heaviest moderated Scientology-related group that I have come across. |
| This moderator actually was one of the persons that later on another forum called me for being a mimeo freak (discussed earlier in this chapter). It may be rather hard to envision for some that this very person once (for a short while at least) was acting as the CO (Commanding Officer) of one of the AO's (Advanced Organization). |
|
|||
|
|
||
|
| An interesting side note is though that one of the members (with whom I had an email exchange about this), he now received a message from this very forum owner asking to receive the emails that I had send to her, as she claimed she had not received any of them. Her email address however was openly posted on the forum, and I did not receive any of my messages to her back because of them being undeliverable. Also my email address and site address were known to her. To date she has never communicated with me directly. Also previous private messages that I had send to her via the groupmailsystem (prior to her banning my IP) remained unresponded to. Then a few weeks later after my official ban from the group I noticed that she started to post her old Scientology certificates on her forum (a Class IV auditor). One may wonder how much she had understood about the tool of simple communication. |
| It is interesting to see though to what measures one may resort to if one aims to prevent a person from speaking one's mind or even defend oneself. That is if it is already clearly established that the person does not submit to the general agreement and thus it is judged not desirable to have this person freely posting messages and responding. The simple reality here is that no grouprules had been violated. Therefore, and only therefore, other actions had to be taken to prevent the person from expressing oneself, or (as in the end also has been done) that one just fabricates some supposed ‘breaking of the rules’ story, and then you just go ahead and kick the person. |
The tale of how another member of this forum was subjected to similar unfair treatment
As a matter of comparison it is interesting to make mention here that at a rather recent date (late June 2008) another member got banned from this same forum. In regards to comparability to my own ban it can be noted that it was pretty much for the same claimed reasons. The forum owner writes in the message banning this person: “offers nothing to the board, is not here to learn or discuss and just creates noise.”. In addition the person frequently was referred to as a troll, and even by some for being a spy for OSA. The forum owner adds to say: “Some might disagree with this decision. Sorry but its just one of those decisions that won't please everyone.”. Indeed this is rather applicable here, as it was met with opposition. Noted is that this was the only other member (beside myself) that actually could go in effective opposition on this forum about matters. Now, we have this thread that was started by the forum owner in where she announced this banning (quoted in the above). Only just over 36 hours later this very thread counted 23 pages and 226 posts. A final post on this thread, #227 (following #226 with just 10 minutes) a forum moderator puts out the message: “Thread closed.” (apparently indicating that it was forcefully ended). See, the banning obviously attracted a bit of attention, and more importantly the banning was met with resistence from some particular members that had some steady repute on the forum. Now, the person banned had been a member there since July 2007 (a bit longer than me), and posted messages that urged people to consider various things, gently opposing the common agreement. This member thus did not adjust to the general opinion found on this forum and uttered opposition whenever he found it deemed suitable or necessary. Nonetheless this member was moderate in his wordings and considerate, and as time passed he earned appreciation from various other members. It was these other members (3 in particular) that now gave their opinion (protest) in that thread about this ban that was put on this member, it stirred up things a bit. |
Then suddenly, 15 days later (mid-July 2008), we see that apparently the ban on this person had been lifted! This person himself told me that he never was informed about his ban being lifted by the forum owner or other. He writes to me: “Then I attempted to view a thread one day and suddenly, I could log in.”. The onofficially reinstated member, to that effect, started a thread on the forum discussing and clarifying the matter and summarize the happenings. There was just one very short message from the forum owner that appears in this thread (#23), that some member had “PMed” her “ASKING to have his account banned”. And this is all she got to say about the matter (as far as I could see), this after the reinstatement of the member. No reinstatement notice, apology, explanation, or announcement of some sort, I could find, nothing. Which would have been proper as evidently her evaluation of this member was highly incorrect. Well, at least in this case she has failed to get rid of a to her uncomfortable member, and make the accusations stick or at least get them accepted by the majority without too much protests. The attempt simply failed. Unfortunately I apparently wasn't long enough on the forum to earn more appreciation from already reputed members of the forum. Either way, the recorded happenings as they folded out sum up rather nicely how this forum owner goes about things, or at least attempts to. |
| This onofficially reinstated member wrote to me: “Your write up was quite succinct and to the point. My personal opinion is that the forum owner has an axe to grind with anyone who doesn't toe the line re: Scientology and even sent me a couple of rather nasty private messages because I am, as she claims, a Scientologist.”. Be it noted here that this person in reality is not a Scientologist. He however promotes a genuine interest to a fair approach. Rather obviously the forum owner does not. |
|
|||
|
|
||
|
FAQ and trolls
On its FAQ page we are informed that “This message board was created to offer a friendly and safe place to meet others and discuss subjects related to the Church of Scientology.”. This forum was advocated to be “neutral ground”. Further it is explained that it was meant to be a means to help people that someway had been wronged and actually wanted to leave the Church of Scientology (“trying to get out of the cult”). It has different sections in where you could tell your personal experiences, and so on. Then it is said that “The cult and individual cult apologists will always try to distract or disturb any critical debate.”, thus are promoting off topic subjects, or derailing threads (discussions). It is further urged to guard oneself against that and to not feed such persons. A reference is then made to Internet Trolls, which is defined in Wikipedia as: |
“An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.” (see further here, external link) |
| It is obvious here that one should also be on guard for that prior to labelling a particular person with this, that one should have verifiable means to effectively determine that you are really dealing with such a person that is doing these things with the sole intent to disrupt. This is rather important, because, equally as easy you can actually label a person with this stamp, when the only guilt may be that the person did not adjust him/herself to the general agreement that is present on some forum. Incorrectly labelling (thus on false grounds) a person as such can be just an effort to get rid of an uncomfortable poster for the sole reason that he/she is of a different opinion. |
| Thus mind that the article on Wikipedia also relates: |
“The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem. |
||
Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities.” |
Introduction of my person and approach
| I made some introduction of my person and my approach towards the matter of Scientology on this forum in a first post. Some additional discussion threads that I created extended upon this. I did propose some issues and my view on things. I provided for my argumentation and adequately supported it with reference to relevant documents. Various responses that I received were of a rather exceedingly unappreciative nature. I however simply stated my case with communication in a gentle manner and nonetheless at some point things turned sort of hectic. By now I was receiving repeated personal attacks and crude invalidations of various nature. Some members finally then started to confess that they actually wanted me out of there. The site administrator of this forum however interfered and urged “If someone is breaking the rules ... I expect you to notify me with links so I can look into it.”. He further urged to be sensible about matters. I found that the various members that frequently posted on this forum are as I encountered them on all the other forums. The only reason apparently why I remained an active registrant on this forum is because its administrator did seem to appear to live up to the freedom of speech that he so actively promotes and advocates. Well, at least for a little while. |
A member of this forum even started a thread (discussion) in the section “Feedback & Help”. It was aimed to be the place where all complaints about me could be forwarded. On that thread I urged that people would ensure that they would follow the forum rule “The complaint must contain proper reference and/or link to the text it refers to.”. I also urged that if some discussion got “derailed by this or that poster”, to then be “specific” and also “explain why” some person would “consider it being derailed”. This thread counts 42 messages, but not a single exact incident had been reported. Nonetheless it was simply claimed that I had disrupted many a thread. Be it noted that I time after time after time had urged on this forum to be specific about any of the accusations at my address. They could not ever be delivered. It remained being a general finding-fault-with as in plain opinion. |
The Jason Beghe incident and getting kicked
| Then I made some comments in regards to this Hollywood star named Jason Beghe that had defected in early April 2008. For a period of about 12-14 years or so he had been involved with the Scientology organization, and now he was speaking out against it. The story goes that he had contacted the site admin of this forum, he in turn redirected him to another fellow that was making video interviews and posting them on the Internet. There was this thread (discussion) apparently started by Jason Beghe himself in where he expressed his appreciation for the “kind words and support”. At first I uttered some distrust if this really was this person. Shortly after I was able to pretty much confirm that it was him. On another thread (discussion) someone put out some links to pages on the Internet (that had now been taken down) in where I found the following quotation from Jason Beghe: |
|
| My query was simple as I asked if “this was true once or not” for him. After all he was today calling Scientology a con. So I wondered “what he has been doing all those 14 years” he had been involved with it. Forcefully believing something? Continued hoping for something? My inquiry was frowned upon by various members of this forum. It was even interpreted as if I was “bullying” Jason Beghe with my “demands”?? As ever people wish to interpret as it fits them. A very simple inquiry now was seen as bullying and a demand. (no kidding!) Either way I defended myself and simply reiterated that it was a simple inquiry. I urged for sanity in the matter. Then I started to be harassed by this member uttering phrases such as: “interrogate Jason Beghe” & “repeated demands ... amount to bullying” and directing his attention to the site admin and a site moderator with the question: “Is this really going to be tolerated?”. When all I actually did was trying to establish that it was a simple inquiry, and not some demand. I did not actually repeatedly put forward this inquiry, in fact it was my pursuer that continued accusing me and lit the fire on this. By now this pursuer was accusing me of a variety of things. A site moderator then participated and wrote about this “narcissistic poodle” (referring to me) that “hump his leg in our living room”. Then 3 additional members joined supporting the find-wrong-with messages. Finally we see a message from the site moderator: “The problem is not the provocateurs, we know about and expect them, the biggest problem is the ones who feed them. Those who let them push their buttons. They are IMHO a bigger ruin to the message board.”. It was followed with a link that lead to a first post in a newly created thread (discussion) in where the information was relayed that my “Posting privileges” had “for now been paused.”. It seems though that I was judged by the site admin being a provoker when the actual situation was that I was the one that persistently was being provoked! The site admin simply could have approached my initial harasser, instead he made me being the target for disciplinary actions. Thus it does seem that he fell for the absurd arguments of my harasser. Or rather he found it easier to target me. After all I was not adjusting to the general agreement on this forum. |
The approach of the forum owner/site admin
It may also be noted that I was not being warned about anything either, I simply got kicked without any prior message send to me. With this the site admin was actually violating his own forum rules. I received a message from a member that has been for quite a while active on the forum. She writes me that it was usual for the site admin “to warn people before he bans them”, and that she is “not sure what prompted the change”. Odd enough I did also receive 3 info emails that a pm (private message) had arrived at my mailbox on the forum, which I am thus unable to even collect. Either way the sudden ban robbed me from all these communication lines rather abruptly. This site admin did send me a separate email message in where he informed me about this ban. Translated from Norwegian it reads: “For a while you been allowed to walk around on OCMB, at this time however it starts to become more of an annoyance than of usefulness and for this reason your rights to post messages has been restricted (pauzed). Most of the things you relate about have already been discussed at other places and are easy accessible.”. It appears also fact that the site admin did know about my query in regards to Jason Beghe as he urged me in another message, that if I really wanted an answer to my query, to then visit his site for updates when they would be released. The reason for banning me given by him simply stated a general evaluation without any specifics which rules I had been breaking and exactly where. This is sort of contradictive as his own forum rules tell that in case of a complaint that it “must contain proper reference and/or link to the text it refers to.”. Then the member being banned may “After two weeks ... apply for the account to be opened again”. Now, this becomes sort of troublesome as the person that was actually being harassed (being me) was kicked and not the harasser. A return message send to this site admin asking for clarification remains unresponded to. This site admin also has failed at any time to interfere when various threads (discussions) were created that contained tirades of rude invalidations, personal attacks, ridicule, and foul language that were directly targeting me. Ironically this site admin writes on his FAQ: “You are to behave polite and friendly here (just adding a lot of smilies is not enough). Use netiquette.”, “Flames, insults, and personal attacks will not be tolerated.” & “If you can't hold back on personal attacks then do so somewhere else.”. Remember this one site moderator on this same forum that called me for “narcissistic poodle”? This moderator had expressed similar things about me in other messages on the forum, now do we see this moderator disciplined by the site admin? The site admin further rules in his FAQ: “It's fine to disagree strongly with opinions, ideas, and facts, but always with respect for the other person.”. Well, all these guide rules appear being rather empty words. So, I am just not sure how an application for reopening of my account on this particular forum would work? Either way it appears herewith that this site admin, this supposed renowned advocate of freedom of speech is after all not so very much for this freedom of speech, when the person being subjected to various things seems to stand on some other side than the own. This myth too has finally and effectively been put to rest! This site admin justifies himself as follows (posted on the forum as an addition to his FAQ page): |
“I'll say this: I have my way of treating the ones you say I should ban and I've seen some good effects of that. Not perfect, not better than others, but I don't believe there is one Miracle Cure or one Messiah here. I believe if many did their little thing the way they do best then the results - added up - will be amazing. I'm doing my little thing my way. Not to get any prizes or approvals, but because I believe it is the right thing for me to do. I have my own personal perspective I act from and don't expect you or anybody else to see or call it as I do.” |
| It seems that the message related here is that he simply does as he pleases and doesn't put himself in the position that he even has to clarify himself either. |
| As an anecdote and interesting comparison I quote here from one of these socalled Anti-Social Personality characteristics as listed in HCOB 27 Sept 66 “The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist”. It may speak for itself. Attribute #6 reads: |
“The anti-social personality habitually selects the wrong
target. |
||
| If a tyre is flat from driving over nails, he or she curses a
companion or a non-causative source of the trouble. If the radio
next door is too loud, he or she kicks the cat. |
||
| If A is the obvious cause, the anti-social personality inevitably
blames B, or C or D.” LRH |
| It may be considered that I was disciplined (kicked) and not my harrasser for provoking. It is obvious though that this site admin adjudicated abiding to his own personal motives and goals. |
| His FAQ on the forum also tells the following interesting claim that these socalled “cult and individual cult apologists” may “make pretend they are critics”. Indeed I did say that I was a critic, and in fact that can be easily verified. My site can hardly be called a run of the mill defense for some ‘cult’, it simply examines information in depth. Nonetheless it has persistently be so claimed by a variety of its members as if I would be working in favour of or for the Church of Scientology or even OSA. All that I actually ever asked for was perspective and differentiation in matters. The FAQ further relates: “Be truly sceptical and measure people on what they actually contribute and not only on what they write or claim. Be extra cautious if you see people trying to distract the debate by soliciting ad hominem attacks or promote off topic subjects.”. I guess that various members had not been scrutinous enough in regards to me. I never made a single unsupported claim or statement. For this reason we are lacking any instances linked to in where I could have been made answerable to various of the suspicions I was persistently subjected to. |
Last comments
| An additional consideration could be made in regards to Jason Beghe. May there have been a fear that I would get to Jason or scare him away from this forum? I had been posting on that thread that he started. Still, I just don't see a valid reason for kicking me. Then, about one hour later the complete video interview (2 hours) that was made with Jason Beghe got released (a message appeared on this forum). Was it feared that I would comment on it? I don't know really about this. Although the time coincidence may be interesting for which reason I mention it. And noting that I was not been given any warning prior to kicking me. It may also just have been that I had been attracting too much attention thus far. On the forum statistics one could see that the threads (discussions) where I had been posting messages attracted many visitors. My opponents on the overall however responded rather childish and quite unintelligently, and it may have been found necessary to also put a stop to exactly that. I appear to have been the obvious choice. Let's say that this site admin rather than keeping control of the behaviour of those in his own cohorts, that he finds it easier to kick the other person. A contributing factor, which has to be mentioned here, will also have been those members that have been complaining about me. It makes you think how dependent this site admin then actually would turn out to be. |
On the overall I really can not regard this forum as a very sane or “friendly and safe place” and although its original purpose may just have been to expose bad things going on in the Church of Scientology, its purpose today appears to have turned to prevent Scientology all together and it's not really interested in either facts or improvement. Regarding “discuss subjects” relating to this Scientology, that does not work out very well either. Everything is judged through this filter that has been put up and is answering to ‘Scientology is bad’. Thus matters are not discussed, they are viewed through this filter, one simply finds-wrong-with and/or acknowledges how bad and evil every little tiny bit of it actually is and must be. Matters usually turn exceedingly subjective. The general language used on the forum by its members is also rather crude and of a condemning and generalizing nature. Ironically enough the Church of Scientology is on this forum persistently referred to as the ‘cult’, in that respect it can be said that this forum itself created its own ‘cult’ to counteract it. But these forum members do not see it that way, in the same way as a variety of the socalled Scientologists do not see that they may have submitted themselves to cult like behaviour. |
Well, this is how things may go on such groups of you do not conform to the general opinion. Things may turn very rude. I have received tirades of all kinds of invalidations and opinions from various of its members just when I proposed a different view on things. I also received repeated accusations of various nature but that were never supported with exact verifiable incidences. I would not advice anyone to go around on these forums and participate, i.e. if you are not made of solid material yourself. If you are not it may turn into a rather negative and devastating experience. All will be fine as long as you agree, if you however propose something different which is considered controversial on the particular group you easily will become a target yourself. Generally I find that the most regular posters are also not members of any acceptable level of intelligence. The misduplications that I have encountered are rather astounding. There is a significant problem regarding the ability to view exact pieces of data without any bias. Interpretations are being made, and this they will they you is what you said. Thus a rather significant level of actual misduplication. Thus you will not be able to have a sensible conversation with various of its members because of this.
Be it noted though that you can in fact find good people on these groups as well. Because of my running around on these groups I did get some good contacts and sources of information. Some of these actually also quit the group after seeing that the standard was not as hoped for. Further I found interesting historical information in the databases (old discussions) of these groups. You may also find a variety of Scientology old-timers on these groups chatting about these early days. Mind though that one has to scrutinize these personal interpretations of happenings as you come across them.
Additional comments (1) - The matter of communication & The use of the ‘ignore button’
These forums are a means of communication or at least they aim to be that. Although in practice it often appears to be used as a means to only converse with those that share the own opinion. Then those that are of a different opinion, and that may have good arguments that do not get overthrown that easily, these are thus perceived as uncomfortable by those that oppose them, now this may create a particular situation. The communication towards these members that do not submit to the generally accepted status quo may start to get unpleasant, ridicule may enter, it can become very personal indeed, sometimes it may turn plain nasty. Significant in such quarrels may often be that the issues where there exists a difference of opinion about, they appear seldom further addressed. The argument gets simply ignored. Thus the actual discussion stops right there. Usually then one tries to overthrow with just plain opinion and one tries to convince the others of the rightness of the own opinion. Of course this will not do, but what else is there left to do if you can not show the incorrectness in various arguments proposed. I experienced so very often that various people on these forums will not admit that may have been in error about something. Some members will continue to persist them being right about matters. One should watch for this typical behaviour on the various forums, and it should be seen as an indicator. An indicator that may point in the direction of that these people that are going around on these forums may not be so knowledgeable at all about the matters they try to defame.
| Various of these forums may have this feature that is called an ‘ignore button’. If you for some reason do not wish to read messages of some particular person you can put him/her on ‘ignore’. When activated you can still see that the person that you've put on ignore placed a message, however you will not see the text of this message. On some other forums you don't even see that this person has placed a message. This way you can sort of select the messages that you do wish to read. It may be promoted on forums to put some person on ignore, and this may be just because some have the opinion that it is not worthwhile to read the messages of some person. It is interesting to see that various members of some forum may promote it as a “liberating experience”. I wonder actually about this. What is so liberating about it? Even if you have not put some person on ignore, you still are not obliged to read the message if you do not wish to do so? So, are some people compelled to read a text when they see it? |
| More interesting though may be that I have personally experienced that it is heavily promoted by a variety of members of some forums to put in particular me on ignore. It is then claimed that I have nothing worthwhile to say, are repeating myself, don't contribute with anything, and more such supposed reasons. But why promoting this so heavily to others? It looks even like as if one intends to prevent that any person actually would read my messages. A sort of not allowing people to actually find out for themselves if it is any worthwhile or not. This is where the oddity starts. So is this rather a situation in where one attempts to prevent that other person listens to some person? May be because they indeed do have something to say? Is it because some don't want a voice heard that opposes or may expose those that try to silence this member in this manner? My experiences with this does appear to confirm this possibility. In some way this may even class with freedom of speech as questionable efforts are being exerted to let a voice not being heard. |
| On one of these forums there was this site moderator (forum #5) that suddenly started to flamboyantly recommend other members to put me on ‘ignore’ (thus using this button). Per him I was just a nuisance, that “spout his nonsense”, and was only there to disrupt. A total of 6 messages did appear from this moderator on this forum with these kind of valuations, without him ever been able to address me personally!! I did actually send him a pm (personal message) via the internal message system on the forum inquiring where I exactly had gone awry and what his counter arguments were. He failed to ever answer me or provide for any clarification. Nonetheless he wrote this message on the forum that amongst other said: “I only rarely take him off Ignore in order to take a look at what's going on when someone sends me a PM of complaint about him. He soon thereafter goes *plonk* as there is not much I can do about him ... .”. This actually would have said it all, doesn't it! Nonetheless it is directly followed by a quotation from a response he had send to some member that had complained about me. |
“I would partially ‘quarantine’ [him] to one thread somewhere on the message board. Call it the ‘Converse With [...] Thread.’ There, he could spout his nonsense till Kingdom Come. |
||
I would then set up his account so that outside of that special thread, [he] gets only one post per day. One post per day in the greater remainder of the message board. Further, I would put a maximum word limit on that one post of the day at about 500 words or whatever a medium sized post might be. |
||
This would allow [him] the right to speak, but would also serve to eliminate him as a major distraction, as a royal pain in the ass and as a major keystroke waster on this message board.” |
| It appears that one is ready to go at length to control some person. The simplicity however here is that message boards have rules, but what to do if some uncomfortable poster does not violate the rules? Then you do the above I guess for damage control. But why could the forum rules not take care of that all by itself? This would be the question to ask. A question that will not be answered though. |
| This moderator ended of his message with: |
“Of course, the above situation would not have to be permanent and [he] could ‘earn the right’ for a return to greater access to the message board.” |
| Now is this not all very nice and gentle? |
There was another forum owner (forum #4) that also was utterly unable to converse with me directly. She made claims that she had received none of my messages that were send to her personal email address (which was openly posted on her forum), but communicated through another forum member expressing the wish that she wanted to see them. (She had in private approached another forum member to get that message to me, which I received). Well, why not sending me a message directly?? She had the email address! Anyway she made up a story and kicked me from her forum. Later she then appeared on this forum #5, and I actually laid out a bit about my experiences with her, and questioned her reliability because of my experiences (some claims were made about her honesty about other matters by some member on this forum #5, which naturally I questioned). Anyhow then for the first time she actually started to address me directly. She did that 2 times and then she disappeared saying that she had put me on ‘ignore’. She again failed however to explain anything, just plain opinion about how much at fault I was.
| I shortly after found out that this one site moderator from forum #5 was the boyfriend of this forum #4 owner. This may very well explain some of the happenings and the joined prejudiced approach from this person. |
| Either way I actually perceive here that there is some problem about actually having the courage to directly facing the opposition. Which in itself is rather interesting. Then there is the repeated lack of explanation and answers to queries. |
Additional comments (2) - Freedom of speech vs? Freedom of speech
A usual claim made by those forums that oppose to Scientology is that they themselves would be about freedom of speech, this as opposed to the Church of Scientology that supposedly limits freedom of speech. I can confirm that a certain pressure may be put on you from various people within the Scientology organization. Mind though that this may or may not be ordained by the actual original writings however (see for some details my page “A word about Criticism - ‘Critical responses received’ vs ‘My defense’”). Either way you most certainly do have the right to your own opinion and to actually disagree as various codes with the organization clearly lay out. Various of them are listed in full in the book ‘What Is Scientology?’.
Now what about those that oppose to Scientology, are they really about freedom of speech? My conclusive personal experiences about that are rather excruciating. Freedom of speech is allowed as long as it follows a certain pattern, the pattern being that one has to adjust oneself to the general agreement that one finds on a particular forum or group.
| I received an interesting response from a person that was harassing me on such a forum (forum #5): |
“If [the site admin] were to kick your sorry bottom to the curb he would NOT be denying you free speech. He would simply be exerting his right to freedom of association (or freedom to not associate), and his property rights. |
||
Censorship is something that governments do to stop individuals from speaking. Kicking out a rude guest who is badgering other people at a dinner party (for example demanding that somebody speak to you, or justify their reasons for leaving the cult) is NOT censorship.” |
| I responded on the forum with: |
“The bottomline is that you use an poor excuse to actively attempt to deny someone the right to ask questions. That is the simplicity of it. You appear to have no sense of what freedom of speech involves. You actually do accuse me of what you are doing, which is putting demands. Governments always have done like you through times. You deny free speech, but call it something else.” |
| The matter was actually that I posted a simple inquiry which was then interpreted as a demand which shortly after then was perceived as bullying. |
Anything one may do on such a forum may get twisted by another member simply to make you look bad, and give them a reason (justification) to get rid of some other member who's only crime may be that he or she is of a different opinion.
| Another response that I received on this forum reads: |
“Free speech does not include the right to crap all over a privately run board. [He] has been kicked off other boards for the same behaviour it is practicing here. In addition to the ignore key, I wish we had a ‘report’ key, and a mod would be good, too. But lacking those, please PM [the site admin] and express your opinions regarding [him].” |
| It clearly urges to “express your opinions”, thus not actual incidents, just opinions. This very member actually did create shortly after this thread (discussion) where complaints about me could be collected. This thread however maintained being conspicuous by the absence of links to any specific incidents whatsoever. |
| This same member also claimed about me: “... trolls like [him] interfere with everyones free speech.”. So, it not being enough that my freedom of speech was interfered with, I was in addition being accused that I interfered with other persons' their freedom of speech. I am not sure how this all would work though. When asked for specifications about all these accusations I only received replies like: “your posts speak for themselves, no further proof is needed”. And I was thinking, ain't that all swell! |
| When it finally comes down to it, the right for freedom of speech bears no relevance on such forums. It is simply not being respected. Matters persistently are being regulated per the likes/dislikes or purposes/agenda of the person(s) managing the rulings! |
| Even if you may not have violated any rules, but if you just attract too much attention for whatever the reason, you simply will be stripped of your rights. Other actual offenders that did violate the rules of decency, foul language, personal attacks, ruthless invalidation lacking any ground will not so quickly be disciplined by a site admin or moderator as long as these are directed toward the person that does not share the general agreement of any given forum or group. In fact it appears from my experiences that forum owners or moderators may even join the attempts for persecution. |
Additional comments (3) - Forums or counter ‘movements’ turning into cults themselves?
This actually would be an interesting subject for discussion. Could there though be found any truth within this particular concept?
| This following response was posted on an open message board out on the Internet. (This is actually the site admin of forum #5, anti-Scientology oriented.) |
“I don't understand how you can claim a cult has been built up around
me. I thought I would have noticed it. I experience everything but
that, thank you very much. I work alone and live thousands of miles
from all other critics, I get no gain from this - only hassle and lots
of real risks to my personal life, I get a lot of pepper. I have
however got to know a lot of interesting and great people all around
the world, a few I also consider friends. If getting to know people
now is getting a cult then words and debate is getting meaningless...” |
| I responded to this as follows: |
“A cult is a creation of man. Often a some sort of distorted response to
some phenomena or person. One only has to regard how your site is
being used and the way it is promoted. What people do may not directly
effect you personally in that respect. It is the behaviour of people.” |
Various of these noted forums were a counter reaction to the phenomena of Scientology. There would not be an anti-Scientology movement or sorts today if there was no Scientology in the first place. That what should be considered is if the anti-Scientology movement is actually displaying cult behaviour amongst its members. Are the ‘debates’ found on the established forums meaningful? In the previous chapters I have noted my experiences on various forums that relate about Scientology. These may speak for themselves.
Internet news groups and forums (3) - A few additional relative notices
Seeing OSA everywhere and anywhere ...
A note can also be made about that any of these groups (the anti- or ex-Scientology or the various Free Zone), that either of them (as I experienced) have an eye open for as they call them OSA agents or OSA ops (operators). This Office of Special Affairs (OSA) is the legal section of the Church of Scientology. It is considered, and probably with good reason, that they wish to somehow infiltrate the various Scientology offshoot groups and the anti-Scientology groups. All this in an effort to make them disappear or disband. Then I repeatedly had the experience that as soon as one does not agree on certain issues that one instantly may be considered as some sort of OSA operator. Some appear outright delusional about this. Indeed I have been subjected to this myself at a variety of occasions. In fact me having this website has at times been claimed to be my disguise to win credibility when I defended certain issues. It is quite interesting to see how various on these groups may discuss some person that is somehow suspected to be such an OSA operator. It even has, because of that, been questioned if I was really this person having this website. These people when reading these lines may be convinced now that I actually am that person.
The anti- or ex-Scientology groups
We have some technology or knowledge of data and we have people that do something with it. The former does not necessarily come with the right application by the latter. I find that these so very easily get mixed up. Application does not represent Scientology technology. It represent a person or persons that did something. It is quite vital to separate this as very much can have gone awry from original technology to actual application.
| The general tone found on the anti- or ex-Scientology forums and groups is that the people there could be said to pat eachother on the shoulders and acknowledge eachother about their misfortunes in regards to Scientology. Frequently I may find that they themselves may not have had the courage, at the time they were put through various ordeals, to keep in track their own integrity. Be it understood though that various persons that I have spoken had been put through some really bad experiences. It is not my intent here to invalidate anyone. Nonetheless I wish to comment that in whatever situation one may have been, one still has a personal responsibility. In particular then various don't want someone in their midst that in various ways may make them aware of this. Thus it is here also a matter of know-how and actual understanding. It is always easier to blame someone or something else for what has occurred to oneself. The sadness lies in that fairly many of them (after sometimes many years) still can't let go of and take a different perspective. A problem also comes along with that various of them are of the opinion that they know things better. They then simply don't want to be questioned in what they have assumed or believed was true to them for may be many years. Some however are only there to just be able to talk about the old days and refresh their memories. Unfortunately the general tone on these groups is pretty much as like I describe here. |
| When you go about such groups you'll find that its members generally appear quite pleased with themselves as if they know it all. They appear fully convinced they have right and it is interesting to see how they actually may respond to flatter. And then to see how they affectionately pat eachother on the shoulder. They appear living in their personally created reality which has little to do with the factual world outside of that. At least in where it concerns the subject of Scientology, but may be not with its organization. You see, 2 different things they are. But they usually get mixed up and are considered and presented as if one and the same. It is also interesting to see that various after having been pro Scientology for quite some time, today may heavily speak out against it. For some reason Scientology still appears to occupy their life at present. It seems hard to let go and move on. |
Even sadder though is the tale of the no-Scientologist. Somehow various people got hooked up on the subject of Scientology and talk against it although they are lacking any (or little) personal experience with it. You will find such persons on especially the anti- and ex-Scientology forums and groups. There they may be spending a lot of their leisure time discussing (or rather finding wrong with) the subject they never really were able to get a grip of, or know very much about. They just figure that Scientology must be gotten rid of. For them it appears all bad. I experienced that it is also quite useless to debate with such individuals. Pertinent questions to situations, if hard to provide an answer to that actually acknowledges their conviction or views, are avoided. They may either simply ignore or utter some generalities. After which they go elsewhere and make the same claims. But then, why spending so much time with something you do not approve of? In essence this could be looked upon as rather insane as others simply move on. Why can't some let go of? Occupy yourself instead with something you do believe in and promote that. If one listens to them it also appears that they don't believe that there are many Scientologists around anyway. Then why consider it a threat? So, there they are, on these forums, newsgroups whatever, passing time, ready to spout their quirks and twists.
Either way, my running around on these various groups and posting on them at this time are done and over with. I have no intention nor motivation to involve myself with that ever again. I received my answers, I know what these groups and the people active on them are like. I know how one goes about things over there. And as it appears the far majority of the people there don't want to listen, hear or learn anyway. There is simply no willingness to consider alternate options or reflect upon another perspective. It remains undoubtedly true that you can not make people see if there is no intention to actually look. Insight is in direct relation to knowledge of self. That means that one has to be able to be critical of oneself, it again appears that indeed very few are willing to do so. On the overall I experience that the majority of these discussions found on these groups are either presumptuous or of a rather silly (useless or unintelligent) nature. Don't people have something more constructive things to do? For many of its members it may appear that they are just there to pass time. It be noted also that most appear anonymous, providing for no contact information or even a valid email address. Any that wishes so may get themselves involved with these petty mindgames that are played about on these forums. For me it was interesting for a while to learn about them. Today however I have no business with that anymore. I permanently moved past that.
Vocabulary:
bank:
The mental image picture collection collection of a person. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a 'bank'.
See also at reactive mind in vocabulary.
CBO:
'Central Bureaux Order'. An issue-type mainly distributed to Sea Org sections and executives.
confront:
1. to stand facing or opposing, especially in challenge, defiance or accusation. (OODs 27 Apr 72) 2. to face without flinching or avoiding. (OODs 27 Apr 72) 3. to be able to see what is or isn't before one. (CBO 190) 4. direct observation. (HCO PL 18 Sept 67).
Free Zone:
Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (link will open in separate window).
LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
Mimeo:
Mimeograph section. The section within the Scientology organization that takes care of all the printed references, printing, storing, organizing, filing etc. Since the 80's however the printing is not done anymore with a mimeograph machine (or ‘Roneo’), it became off-set printing. However the name Mimeo is still the name used to address this section.
OOD's:
‘Orders Of the Day’. A type of ship's “newspaper” containing an item from the Commodore, the daily schedule for that day, news and notices, as well as orders necessary to administration of the ship's business. A copy of the OODs is delivered every morning to each in-basket on the ship. It should be read each day carefully so that you keep informed of what is going on around the ship and in the various divisions. (FO 2674)
OSA:
‘Office of Special Affairs’. A network within the Church of Scientology International which plans and supervises the legal affairs of the church, under the board of directors. (from ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 Edition), page 649).
reactive mind:
1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary) 2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11) 3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary) 4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Though, p. 58)
Sea Org, SO:
Abbreviation for ‘Sea Org(anization)’. This is the senior organization within Scientology that run the Advance Organizations and also see to it that Class IV organizations (lower level services) do function well. If needed they may send out missions to correct if things don't run smoothly.
SP:
A usual abbreviation for Suppressive Person.
thetan:
1. The living unit we call, in Scientology, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scientology to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Ability Magazine 1) 2. The person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Auditor 25 UK)
valence:
1. what we usually mean by valence is somebody else's identity assumed by a person unknowingly. (17ACC-10, 5703C10) 2. the valence mechanism produces whole people for the preclear to be and will include habits and mannerisms which are not mentioned in engrams but are a result of the preclear's compulsion to copy certain people. (Science of Survival, Bk. 2, p. 202) 3. a valence is a false or true identity. The preclear has his own valence. Then there are available to him the valences of all persons who appear in his engrams. (Science of Survival, p. 106) 4. a valence is a substitute for self taken on after the fact of lost confidence in self. (SH Spec 68, 6110C18) 5. the combined package of a personality which one assumes as does an actor on a stage except in life one doesn't usually assume them knowingly. (5707C17) 6. there are many valences in everyone. By a valence is meant an actual or a shadow personality, one's own valence is his actual personality. (Self Analysis, p. 159).
| Copyright © 2007, 2008
Michel
Snoeck. All rights reserved. This page revised: 6 July, 2010 |