The *New Lurkers Guide* to ESMB


Patron Meritorious
I post on the internets just piss off lurkers. Doesn't everyone?
Last edited:


Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
According to the board definition, AM, and excepting the 'never been ins' & lurking 'currently in good standing', the rest of us are ALL ex's whatsoever may be our individual attitudes about specific aspects of the subject. Mark A. Baker

I know that but lurkers may not know that. Many of the lurkers are most likely 'currently in good standing', as are many who post here anonymously.
The OP could be confusing for a lurker reading it, so I thought it should clarify that rel exs are indeed here in abundance :D

oh. Can't really think with that definition.

I think the original poster should state his definition.

Lurkers are people who visit the forum and read posts without being a member; they are not yet willing to sign up for whatever reason but the most usual one being fear of stepping outside the fear inducing CoS boundries and joining in to communicate.

Many may not know they are considered 'lurkers' so perhaps you are correct that an explanation be included. That is, however, up to the original poster.


I guess I don't get it. I'm unaware of the problem the OP is talking about.

There are people here calling themselves scientologists even though they are no longer members, or are practicing scientology outside th church, or doing so with their own version of what they think Scientology is or one they created from Scientology. There are Freezoners, Independents, still-ins.... and there are conflicts between them and exs who have left all of scientology behind.

There is KSW, per scientology and Hubbard, and then there are versions of what that constitutes both in and outside the church. Sort of like a buffet of choices of what one wants to keep. Some like me believe that one is or is not a scientologist - nothing in between - and that the rest are pseudo scientologists who pick and choose what they want of the tech and policy yet still calling themselves scientologists while out of the church - independent, FZer or whatever.

I believe that it is the intent of the OP, to educate 'lurkers' so they know what the heck the differences are when responding to posts and posters here. I just feel that the OP needs to include info on real exs so that lurkers know the difference.

Hope this explains things better.

Last edited:


Gold Meritorious Patron
The "Guide" for Lurkers:

0. You have no 'rights' since you are only reading. Posters only have 'rights' as dictated by the moderators who apply rules set forth by the moderators.
1. You are reading posts from people all over the planet.
2. You have no idea if the poster is male or female, even if they declare their sex, nor do you know what the poster looks like regardless of any posted photos or videos.
3. You have no idea of the age of the poster.
4. You have no idea if the poster is lying or telling the truth.
5. You have no idea of the poster's affiliation with the cult.
6. Despite 1-5, you will learn more about the cult on this board than most other websites.
7. Read more and you will understand more about the cult.

The Great Zorg

Gold Meritorious Patron
I believe that it is the intent of the OP, to educate 'lurkers' so they know what the heck the differences are when responding to posts and posters here. Mary

If lurkers respond to posts here, then they're technically not lurkers, are they? :confused2:

me myself & i

Patron Meritorious
:idea: Can you add to your original post that there are Ex Scientologists here, too?
I, for one, don't want to feel left out :sadwave:

Fair enough AnonyMary.


Which are as follows:

#1. Real Scientologists that pretend to not exist, as being real Scientologists.
#2. Real Scientologists that are not yet aware, of being real Scientologists.
#3. Real Scientologists that wish, they were not real Scientologists.
#4. Real Scientologists that are real, Scientologists.

#5. Real Ex-Scientologists that pretend to not exist, as being real Ex-Scientologists. (think lingering fear, courtesy of implants)

#6. Real Ex-Scientologists that are not yet aware, of being real Ex-Scientologists. (think lingering doubt, of the scientology variety).

#7. Real Ex-Scientologists that wish they were not, real Ex-Scientologists. (think Marty's blog as a benevolent-desperate-support system, for these).

#8. Real Ex-Scientologists that are real Ex-Scientologists. (think ESMB, side by side with members of numbers 1 through 7 above).

When the verbal gymnastics and fun is over there is a deeper underlying issue here, that for me is one of valid concern.

For example, the introduction: "I am not a scientologist, but"....has already nearly gained a cult-like status of its very own, world wide. Being the literary equivalent of the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Not in the sense that it is admired however (like Rocky), but more so in the sense it is the epitome of deception to the point it generates sheer wonder & awe in the hearts and minds of the non-scientology beholders of it.

The conscious and repetitive employment of intellectual, emotional, scientific and verbal deceit in scientology doctrine is arguably epic, if not legendary. And has no religious, philosophical and or spiritual equal in history. Ok, so Paul (and his disciples) may have set the stage (circa a few hundred AD), but L. Ron Hubbard took over the production, hook, line and sinker.


ps .by the way, did I fail to mention, I am a real Ex-Scientologist? Lol.

me myself & i

Patron Meritorious
Rights? On the Internet? For lurkers?

Man, somebody has way TOO MUCH time on his or her hands. You actually daydream about such things?

Shall we form a committee and create a "constitution" and ENFORCE it on everyone (or else)?

Pretty soon the lawyers will jump on it and will be suing each other for "offending" top posters on some discussion board!

Discussion boards are free-for-alls, pretty much (except in crazy intensely monitored discussion areas, which it seems DO HAVE SOME SORT OF NUTTY ARBITRARY RULES).

Lawdy, it is liberalism gone insane! Rights for everybody about anything! :omg:


Lol! Very nicely done there G.

Nonetheless, the word 'lurkers' was/is a code-word for non-scientologists all the world over. Individuals that ought fairly presume some semblance of honesty, when reading or listening to a speaker speak, or a writer write, on things, well, scientology driven.

The fact there exists so many levels or layers of scientology driven self-definitions supports the (admittedly rough around the edges) post.

A seemingly simple (and more to the point) response would be something akin to: well, there exists many levels or layers of Christian/Buddha/Hindu self definitions also.

Which rebuttal is equally simple.


ps. when it comes to constitutional rights of the spiritual variety, the operative politically-correct platform is: payback is a mother fucker.

Last edited: