What's new
By:
Filters

Ohai Truthseeker!

MostlyLurker

MostlyLurker

Patron Meritorious
alex said:
Am I the only person uncomfortable with emma helping to OUT esmb members using information only available to her? [cut]
Click to expand...

No. I see your points Alex. I believe it has been a mistake by Emma to help out even indirectly an ESMB member to validate a personal info of another ESMB member. I believe she is aware of that and I believe it won't happen again.

It comes to mind how Co$ take over CAN. Won’t they try with ESMB at the slightest opportunity? :shark:

Emma should be (and never failed to be in my view) clean and white as snow, for the safety of the board and the safety of its members. I hope nothing will happen that may be used against her and against the board.

This board is a safe space for scientologists and it is safe for ex/not-scientologists. Their privacy will be protected by the administrators, no matter their opinion and beliefs, as long as they join to honestly communicate by the rules.

I feel safe on this board. Emma has my full support and admiration for creating and maintaining such a wonderful space. :cloud9:


That said, very well done to DC Anon for your hard work outing that troll !!! :happydance:
 
Feral

Feral

Rogue male
Blue Spirit wrote;

Isn't it amazing that the group with the SP tech can't identify the most
obvious SP right at the top for all to see. Simply amazing. :omg:

I believe the datum that applies is that the confront of evil is the
lowest confront of all, without quoting LRH exactly.

Personal Integrity has a lot to do with it to.

P.S.= Would somebody please tell me how to use the quote function so that
the part you want quoted comes up in a blue box. I keep trying to
figure it out by experimentation and can't make it happen. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Hey Blue,

To get a proper box you need to press the 'quote' button on the bottom right of the post. I just hilighted the part of your post I wanted to take up and copy pasta'd it then wrapped it by again hilighting it once it was in my text box and hitting the wrap function, forth from the right above.

Now to the other part I've been thinking about.
There are several flaws in the pts sp tech that actually prevent a scientologist from sorting all this out.

When you name someone arbitrarily designated a 'good hat' an SP it is an admission that YOU are 'somewhat suppressive', So, who in the church is going to put DM down on their PTS interview list of SPs? Also Ron pretty well ensured that the church or it's staff couldn't be named as suppressive through other arbitraries in policy and tech on the subject. You couldn't for example sat the CofS was your SP.

The PTS SP tech was rigged to prevent us from being anything other than effect to the CofS.

Also, you spoke of "confront of evil being the lowest level of confront, I know what you are referring to, though I can't recall the exact wording. This leads to a question for you; So, who was it that prevented PCs naming church execs as SPs and why?
 
clamicide

clamicide

Gold Meritorious Patron
Feral said:
Blue Spirit wrote;



Hey Blue,

To get a proper box you need to press the 'quote' button on the bottom right of the post. I just hilighted the part of your post I wanted to take up and copy pasta'd it then wrapped it by again hilighting it once it was in my text box and hitting the wrap function, forth from the right above.

Now to the other part I've been thinking about.
There are several flaws in the pts sp tech that actually prevent a scientologist from sorting all this out.

When you name someone arbitrarily designated a 'good hat' an SP it is an admission that YOU are 'somewhat suppressive', So, who in the church is going to put DM down on their PTS interview list of SPs? Also Ron pretty well ensured that the church or it's staff couldn't be named as suppressive through other arbitraries in policy and tech on the subject. You couldn't for example sat the CofS was your SP.

The PTS SP tech was rigged to prevent us from being anything other than effect to the CofS.

Also, you spoke of "confront of evil being the lowest level of confront, I know what you are referring to, though I can't recall the exact wording. This leads to a question for you; So, who was it that prevented PCs naming church execs as SPs and why?
Click to expand...

Dead on. I HATED when a pc would name a staff member when I would do PTS interviews on them. I just cringed, because I knew their next session would consist of me hounding them for withholds.
 
Carmel

Carmel

Crusader
MostlyLurker said:
No. I see your points Alex. I believe it has been a mistake by Emma to help out even indirectly an ESMB member to validate a personal info of another ESMB member. I believe she is aware of that and I believe it won't happen again.
<snip>
Click to expand...

:hmm:, When I was new to ESMB, I wouldn't have dared voice it, if I thought the Admin had made a mistake - But then I can grant that we all view things differently, and conduct ourselves in different ways.

In this unique circumstance, I don't believe that Emma confirming an IP address to an individual who was being 'attacked', was a mistake, nor that the information 'validated' was of a particularly 'personal' nature, given the data which DCAnon already had.

Sometimes decisions have to be made, and I personally would disagree if the Admin of this board put all common sense and the purpose of the board aside, to pander to those who clearly are only out to "enturbulate", or to those who just want to use whatever they can get their hands on to kick up a stink.
 
CornPie

CornPie

Patron Meritorious
MostlyLurker said:
...It comes to mind how Co$ take over CAN. Won’t they try with ESMB at the slightest opportunity?...
Click to expand...
Good point. Given that scientology took over the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), they could take over ESMB sometime. And if they did, as the new owners, could they bury the ESMB content?

I CornPie hereby place all of my ESMB posts and messages, past, present and future, into the public domain.
 
Last edited:
Emma

Emma

Con te partirò
Administrator
CornPie said:
Good point. Given that scientology took over the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), they could take over ESMB sometime. And if they did, as the new owners, could they bury the ESMB content?

I CornPie hereby place all of my ESMB posts and messages, past, present and future, into the public domain.
Click to expand...

ESMB is a privately owned website. It doesn't have a physical location or staff or an address.

Only I have access to the database.

How could Scientology take over?
 
Free to shine

Free to shine

Shiny & Free
CornPie said:
Good point. Given that scientology took over the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), they could take over ESMB sometime. And if they did, as the new owners, could they bury the ESMB content?

I CornPie hereby place all of my ESMB posts and messages, past, present and future, into the public domain.
Click to expand...

You really like to stir up paranoia don't you?
 
Alanzo

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
CornPie said:
Good point. Given that scientology took over the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), they could take over ESMB sometime. And if they did, as the new owners, could they bury the ESMB content?

I CornPie hereby place all of my ESMB posts and messages, past, present and future, into the public domain.
Click to expand...

Cornpie.

I vouch for Emma.

You can trust her.
 
MostlyLurker

MostlyLurker

Patron Meritorious
Emma said:
ESMB is a privately owned website. It doesn't have a physical location or staff or an address.

Only I have access to the database.

How could Scientology take over?
Click to expand...

Forcing you into bankruptcy? By investigating your past and digging up all the dirty they can? By giving intelligence and financial support to any kind of enemy you may have?

Your strength is that you are clean, but mistakes may happen and they will make sure you will have to pay for them more than others.

Well, I see myself as a bit paranoid now, and I don't want to. Just wanted to make my point about why you should avoid actions that may be interpreted as a violation of privacy or rules.
 
scooter

scooter

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hell, Rathbun, Rinder & Co. are currently nailing DM's tiny arse to the floor and there's people complaining about DCA and Emma doing a public service?

To them I say - beware the big billygoat gruff ! :D
 
Ted

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
It's called "PTS."

alex said:
I am in a vulnerable position myself here. I trust emma with information about me. To know that someone could go "fishing" and get confirmations or denyals from her is disturbing to me.

There are people who would like to know who I am. The Church for one, some anons for others. And all the people I have played with in a manner they didnt find amusing.

What if truthseeker was someone like me playing their own game, outside the church? He has just been turned over to osa now.

I dont that much care about truthseeker or who ever being outed as much as I care about the principle and how it applies to me. I have operated based on a certain trust as stated by emma, and now am uncertain as to my own risks. I have always thought that since emma doesnt care much for me, but has been so kind as to have protected by identity that the trust was warranted.

This sets a bad precedent.
Click to expand...


Vulnerable? I don't get it.

You are concerned about your connection with the church? Anons? What Emma might do?

Anons would probably welcome you with no strings attached should you decide to move in that direction. A Guy Fawkes mask will set you back about the price of a good Philly cheesesteak samich.

The church would welcome you after an appropriate groveling period of self-degradation. How much money can you come up with before 2:00 p.m. Thursday?

Who you gonna call?

:nervous:



:yes:
 
Doom

Doom

Lurking.
Back to KSW 1

OMG once again the pr machine is going to be kicked in to high gear because some ones attacking the CofS if they just turn to the front page of most courses the answer would stare them in the face "No or bad results" cant apply that well what else can they apply if not KSW 1. Maybe they are trying to keep on persisting by alter-ising yep thats also in a lecture.

nuf said
 
ChronicEnturbulator

ChronicEnturbulator

Patron with Honors
Carmel said:
Sometimes decisions have to be made, and I personally would disagree if the Admin of this board put all common sense and the purpose of the board aside, to pander to those who clearly are only out to "enturbulate", or to those who just want to use whatever they can get their hands on to kick up a stink.
Click to expand...

hmmm... Hey Emma, can you pander to me please? (even just a little bit.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top