Geir Isene has a new Natterboard!

[He-man]

Comments on this is appreciated: Rules for moderators.

Geir, I read your moderation post, are you sure it will work? I´m afraid alot of people would post references to Xenu and all, if not to mock, but also when feeling runs high in scientology tech posts... Especially as theres a bit of public fighting going on.

 

[Isene]

As I wrote, posts do get pruned for references to upper level material before they are approved.

 

[He-man]

As I wrote, posts do get pruned for references to upper level material before they are approved.

***
All posts are approved as a default. The moderator can edit a post to prune it for reference to upper level confidential material. In doing so, the moderator removes parts of the message and leaves the reason in square brackets [ ]
***

Ok I misunderstood this part of it. It does imply you skipped the idea of pre moderation.

 

[Panda Termint]

Comments on this is appreciated: Rules for moderators.

I like the rules.

 

[Vinaire]

As I wrote, posts do get pruned for references to upper level material before they are approved.

I have always wondered why the confidentiality for Upper Level materials is such a big deal.

I had this created block to look at confidential materials. But when, at first, I looked at them very gingerly I didn't get sick or anything drastic happen. Since then I have been studying them carefully, and even experimenting with them Vipassana meditation style, and have found some benefit. It is the same level of benefit as I got from engram running using R3R in 1969.

I do not recommend using the e-meter as it creates a dependency and one doesn't know what is really happening.

.

 

[Isene]

I take it for granted that it is understood by now that my personal opinion of whether the materials should remain confidential has nothing to do with the rules as laid out on TSF.

 

[degraded being]

I take it for granted that it is understood by now that my personal opinion of whether the materials should remain confidential has nothing to do with the rules as laid out on TSF.

Are you serious? Can't you see the contradiction in that?

 

[Pooks]

Comments on this is appreciated: Rules for moderators.

Looks fine to me. And thanks for setting up that board. It's a lot of work but you are providing a good service to people who need it.

There's a game I used to play as a kid called "Mother May I" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_May_I?

where kids take different sized steps to the goal.

Imo, TSF is a baby step, ESMB is a giant step and WWP is a huge honking Godzilla step. First steps are great and lead to someone running like hell to their own personal freedom.

 

[Veda]

This is similar to some Freezone forums, were discussion of "upper level" materials is forbidden. The big step - for a Scientological "baby" - is simply being able to talk about Scientology at all.

The next "baby step" is being able to criticize Scientology Inc. management, notably Miscavige.

Then there is just enough enough wiggle room to allow for other possibilities, such as making little jumps and hops.

"Wiggle room" is important, and if that is permitted, then, despite the prevalence of folks who actually believe the various Hubbard-PR lines, and have not grokked that these are only PR lines ("lip service" as it's called. And we all know about Ron's powerful lips - tremendous lip endowment, to be technical ), then there will be enough other folks to present slightly different views (wiggle), and maybe even mention other places on the Net to look.

And that is good.

 

[Isene]

Are you serious? Can't you see the contradiction in that?

Of course I am serious. What contradictions do you see?

 

[Vinaire]

I take it for granted that it is understood by now that my personal opinion of whether the materials should remain confidential has nothing to do with the rules as laid out on TSF.

Alright... so it is a part of the platform to make it appeal to certain potential participants.

So, it becomes a rule, which defines the board and creates an environment where the intended participants may feel comfortable.

.

 

[Zinjifar]

Shouldn't there be a proscription against 'Verbal Tech' and 'Tech Degrade' too?

Zinj

 

[Vinaire]

This is similar to some Freezone forums, were discussion of "upper level" materials is forbidden. The big step - for a Scientological "baby" - is simply being able to talk about Scientology at all.

The next "baby step" is being able to criticize Scientology Inc. management, notably Miscavige.

Then there is just enough enough wiggle room to allow for other possibilities, such as making little jumps and hops.

"Wiggle room" is important, and if that is permitted, then, despite the prevalence of folks who actually believe the various Hubbard-PR lines, and have not grokked that these are only PR lines ("lip service" as it's called. And we all know about Ron's powerful lips - tremendous lip endowment, to be technical ), then there will be enough other folks to present slightly different views (wiggle), and maybe even mention other places on the Net to look.

And that is good.

And, yes, that is good.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Shouldn't there be a proscription against 'Verbal Tech' and 'Tech Degrade' too?

Zinj

No! The first step is to encourage discussion.

.

 

[Vinaire]

I would like to discuss "Scientology and God" on Isene's board once I get around to it... something similar to the BIBLE thread here.

 

[Zinjifar]

No! The first step is to encourage discussion.

.

But, Scientology is not about discussion. And, discussion about Scientology *is* 'Verbal Tech', or, if it runs to the 'What Hubbard Really Meant Was...' direction, it's 'Tech Degrade', which are both no less forbidden by *Ron* than revelation of 'confidential materials'.

Zinj

 

[Isene]

I would like to discuss "Scientology and God" on Isene's board once I get around to it... something similar to the BIBLE thread here.

Please do open that topic.

 

[Isene]

But, Scientology is not about discussion. And, discussion about Scientology *is* 'Verbal Tech', or, if it runs to the 'What Hubbard Really Meant Was...' direction, it's 'Tech Degrade', which are both no less forbidden by *Ron* than revelation of 'confidential materials'.

Zinj

Discussions about Scientology need not be verbal tech. Logic does not hold.

 

[Vinaire]

But, Scientology is not about discussion. And, discussion about Scientology *is* 'Verbal Tech', or, if it runs to the 'What Hubbard Really Meant Was...' direction, it's 'Tech Degrade', which are both no less forbidden by *Ron* than revelation of 'confidential materials'.

Zinj

Discussion is the first step toward helping one THINK FOR ONESELF, as Scientology claims it to be one of its basic purposes.

Discussion is something very different from an aberrated "game."

All participants in a discussion are on the same side if one wants to describe it as a game. On the other side is "ignorance."

.

 

[Zinjifar]

Discussions about Scientology need not be verbal tech. Logic does not hold.

I'm pulling your leg a bit Geir, but, discussion of *Scientology Tech* is 'Verbal Tech', unless you're gonna do 'dueling quotes'. And, my question would be at what point does diversion from Scientology rules into Scientology crimes become 'not scientology'?

God knows I've seen a hell of a lot of squirrely 'Tech Degrade' around where somebody says 'Well, Ron *meant* to say this...' or 'What Ron Meant Was...'



Zinj