Who is Dart Smohen?

[pomfritz]

Wife & I have neen reading the kindle version of Dart's post, great stuff, (thanks Paul for doing this).

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Who was that masked man?

Dartie has gone dark for the moment, gone underground while he works on a project, or does some real life stuff...he said when he came back here in the future he would come back as himself...

...so we are all eagerly awaiting his return!

We LOVE Dart Smohen!

The data he shared and Paul collated into a readable ebook form for us is invaluable to understanding the real hisotry of COS and SO! Thanks, Dart! And thanks, Paul!

 

[omnom]

I'm looking forward to his return as well. Dart's insight into the early days, along with the others' who have posted, are fascinating.

 

[pomfritz]

oops, I just saw that the rest of message was left off....

The posts give many clues as to who he is, for instance he says he is clear 8 and that seems like it could be Alan from what I read elsewhere but not sure that was correct. Oh well, fascinating stuff. Loved reading how others were gaining abilities but Hubbard was not. And he wsn't much for following his own advice on two rules for happy living was he?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

No, he sure wasn't.

 

[omnom]

Clear #8 was Alan. His commentary is interspersed through the book/posts, and when the Clear World Tour section was written, it was Alan's words.

In the PDF version, Alan's commentary is in blue text, and in the .mobi, it's in grey text, although kind of hard to differentiate between the two on a Kindle.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

oops, I just saw that the rest of message was left off....

The posts give many clues as to who he is, for instance he says he is clear 8 and that seems like it could be Alan from what I read elsewhere but not sure that was correct. Oh well, fascinating stuff. Loved reading how others were gaining abilities but Hubbard was not. And he wsn't much for following his own advice on two rules for happy living was he?

A. Dart is not Alan. They were old friends.

B. It is grossly reckless & irresponsible to speculate on a public board about the identity of any ex-scientologists who have only chosen to post anonymously. They often have excellent reasons for remaining anonymous. Premature identification can cause tremendous difficulties for individuals.

Rather than irresponsibly playing the game of 'guess who', myob and assist others in protecting their identities until such time as they feel comfortable in 'outing' themselves.


Mark A. Baker

 

[omnom]

A. Dart is not Alan. They were old friends.

B. It is grossly reckless & irresponsible to speculate on a public board about the identity of any ex-scientologists who have only chosen to post anonymously. They often have excellent reasons for remaining anonymous. Premature identification can cause tremendous difficulties for individuals.

Rather than irresponsibly playing the game of 'guess who', myob and assist others in protecting their identities until such time as they feel comfortable in 'outing' themselves.


Mark A. Baker

Rather than pointing out the same point I made (you may not have seen it, so no big whoop,) why go on the offensive?

Mr. Smohen made it abundantly clear who he was to any of those around at the time or anyone within the CoS management realm with historical information at their disposal. I wasn't there, nor am I in a position to cull old folders to find out who he is, so he's equally a mystery to me as the OP. That's said, I've wondered, for my own curiosity, who he was, but I'm content to wait.

Go be a traffic cop somewhere else.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Go be a traffic cop somewhere else.

Bermuda is a good place.

 

[AnonyMary]

I think Dart's last post speaks for itself on whether he wants to be outed or not.

Over the past few years it has been fun to post under the nom-de-plume of DART SMOHEN. Indeed I know for sure that things revealed have caused a lot of difficulties for the cult and their fanatics.

I have enjoyed exchanging views with all of the posters who have responded to what I have written and I thank them for their insights and comments. Indeed, some of them have been OSA trolls and I hope that they have gained some other perspective than the indoctrination blurb they have been spoon-fed.

However, it is time to retire Dart, at least for now. I will probably return later on using my real name, or at least, something close to it.

My thanks to Emma and her staff of moderators who have kept the discussions (relatively) open and I wish all of you well.

Miss you, Dart. For all we know, you are already posting under a new nic!

Love and respect,
Mary

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Rather than pointing out the same point I made (you may not have seen it, so no big whoop,) why go on the offensive?

That wasn't 'offensive' that was 'bluntly direct for those seemingly too simple-minded to comprehend the obvious. Of course such vapid inqueries could be a 'tactical ploy' by OSA or other 'black hats' to casually illicit information from the unwary. Personally I give the benefit of the doubt to those who ask inappropriate or intrusive questions on public boards. There are far more nosy people in the world than there are agent provocateurs.

As to 'offensive', there would have been no cause for doubt nor would you have much liked it had I chosen to be 'offensive' in my posting.

As to 'traffic cop', I see you have no objection to undertaking such a role for yourself. Yet, you do appear to be pained to see others undertaking responsibility for the civility & appropriateness of postings on the board.

Pot, kettle, black?


Mark A. Baker

 

[omnom]

That wasn't 'offensive' that was 'bluntly direct for those seemingly too simple-minded to comprehend the obvious. Of course such vapid inqueries could be a 'tactical ploy' by OSA or other 'black hats' to casually illicit information from the unwary. Personally I give the benefit of the doubt to those who ask inappropriate or intrusive questions on public boards. There are far more nosy people in the world than there are agent provocateurs.

Bluntly direct is of no issue to me. A tone of condescension sets me on edge. And that's what I read. I'm not claiming anyone is or isn't OSA; let's not devolve into that pointless argument here yet again (in reference to the threads in recent past that follow that same argument off into the weeds.)

As to 'offensive', there would have been no cause for doubt nor would you have much liked it had I chosen to be 'offensive' in my posting.

I get it; if you *really* wanted to be offensive, you could. Wrong use of the word "offensive," I think, though. I meant offensive as in "attack," not offensive in that you sounded like a jerk. I say attack in the connotation of your wording that by simply asking the question, one is "irresponsible" and "grossly reckless." On the other hand, if someone had answered "Yeah sure, Dart was John Q. Public and he lives at 123 Fake St.", go ahead and slap that guy - *that* would be irresponsible, not the question.

As to 'traffic cop', I see you have no objection to undertaking such a role for yourself. Yet, you do appear to be pained to see others undertaking responsibility for the civility & appropriateness of postings on the board.

Well, I admittedly had an emotional reaction to your response. You'll see my response to the OP was not in any way a speculation of their intent. I simply answered in a non-caustic manner. Your post, not so non-caustic a response.

Pot, kettle, black?

I suppose you could call it that if you misunderstand my intent. I wouldn't even blame you for it.

 

[RogerB]

oops, I just saw that the rest of message was left off....

The posts give many clues as to who he is, for instance he says he is clear 8 and that seems like it could be Alan from what I read elsewhere but not sure that was correct. Oh well, fascinating stuff. Loved reading how others were gaining abilities but Hubbard was not. And he wsn't much for following his own advice on two rules for happy living was he?

Nah, Dart was a bigger number than Clear #8 And Dart is as sure as hell not Alan

R

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Bluntly direct is of no issue to me. A tone of condescension sets me on edge. And that's what I read. ...

The problem of misperception of emotional intent due to dependence on electronic communication is well known. The smart choice: don't assume you understand another's intent based solely on written communications. What you believe you 'read' doesn't necessarily conform to what was in fact written. Restrict interpretation to the clear meaning of the text.

Frankly, it always amazes me how much this repeatedly comes up as problematic among persons who have been scientologists since drilling the basics of communication & understanding is absolutely FUNDAMENTAL to all things scientology. If a person doesn't understand this then they quite simply never understood anything else about the subject of scientology whatever degree of participation they may have had within the cult of the Co$.

Nonetheless scientologists & ex-scientologists seem to commit such errors as commonly as any other group, although their failure to recognize it as consistently problematic in retrospect is rather mysterious in light of their background. :confused2:


Mark A. Baker

 

[AnonyMary]

Bluntly direct is of no issue to me. A tone of condescension sets me on edge. And that's what I read. I'm not claiming anyone is or isn't OSA; let's not devolve into that pointless argument here yet again (in reference to the threads in recent past that follow that same argument off into the weeds.)

I get it; if you *really* wanted to be offensive, you could. Wrong use of the word "offensive," I think, though. I meant offensive as in "attack," not offensive in that you sounded like a jerk. I say attack in the connotation of your wording that by simply asking the question, one is "irresponsible" and "grossly reckless." On the other hand, if someone had answered "Yeah sure, Dart was John Q. Public and he lives at 123 Fake St.", go ahead and slap that guy - *that* would be irresponsible, not the question.

Well, I admittedly had an emotional reaction to your response. You'll see my response to the OP was not in any way a speculation of their intent. I simply answered in a non-caustic manner. Your post, not so non-caustic a response.

I suppose you could call it that if you misunderstand my intent. I wouldn't even blame you for it.

om, there is the unspoken rule here that we don't try to out anyone. To actually do so is against the rules. So, it's preventative when someone points out that an outing may be occuring or to occur. Nip it in the bud, so to speak. I think that is what Mark's intent was.


I, myself and without thinking first, erred in a post asking a question that would have put the person on the spot to name themself. It was pointed out and I accepted it and posted and apology agreeing. It was the right thing to do. Certainly I did not want readers to think their anonymity and right to privacy are not respected here. Mary

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Rather than pointing out the same point I made (you may not have seen it, so no big whoop,) why go on the offensive?

Mr. Smohen made it abundantly clear who he was to any of those around at the time or anyone within the CoS management realm with historical information at their disposal. I wasn't there, nor am I in a position to cull old folders to find out who he is, so he's equally a mystery to me as the OP. That's said, I've wondered, for my own curiosity, who he was, but I'm content to wait.

Go be a traffic cop somewhere else.

Honey,

We all play traffic cop here on occasion. That includes you.

 

[Mystic]

Dart is cool. I wish we had a dozen of 'im.

 

[SchwimmelPuckel]

Dart is cool. I wish we had a dozen of 'im.

Yeh..

 

[MostlyLurker]

Dart is cool. I wish we had a dozen of 'im.

 

[pomfritz]

I agree Dart is cool and what he wrote was eye-opening even to for old timers. I guess I wasn't trying to out him but find out if this info was already "out" there and I just missed it.

Anyway, loved the book and gave me the genus for the madness that has become this cult.