nutrino:

Good point.

My concern is that durham not post the same thing over and over again.

Posting a comment or supposed response once is enough.

Posting the same verbiage over and over again serves no useful purpose and is boring.

Well guys you're certainly responding with an overtly hostile attitude.

Is that one of the ways you go about "rescuing" people from religions like mine? Seems to me you'd have more success if you weren't so hostile and tried to understand the other point of view.

I supect that if I was saying "Steer clear of Scientology - I spent half my life as a staff member washing toilets for $3 per day then they told me I was suppressive because I told my friends that none of it made sense" you could listen to me all day. :lol:

Here's the useful thing in allowing Durham and his Durhamesque pals to speak their mind here... the same applies to the ESTmarkians... the longer they ramble on the deeper they dig their hole... I have observed a consistent pattern with every organization that sends an apologist to "set us straight" ... the apologist, like "Alex Rush" of the ESTmark organization can repeat their scripted ideas only so many times before it becomes painfully obvious how scripted it is and how little of substance they actually have to say... they are alwys thrilled to engage in a spirited dialog... up to a point... which point ? Oh.... the point where one has to exhibit individual, independent thinking, the point where one has to go "off book" ... and at that point, they mysteriously evaporate... just you watch.

durham:

Nothing "hostile" about citing facts based upon information about Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard that has been widely published.

You seem to feel anything less than agreement with you about Scientology is somehow "hostile" and people that disagree with your opinions about that organization are not "understanding" or "interested in understanding."

Facts are facts.

And to "understand" any organization or its claims people seek facts that have been objectively proven.

We are going around and around here.

nutrino:

To a point allowing everyone their say is the right thing to do.

But on message boards some people stay on just to clog and bog the board down for their own purposes serving one group or another's agenda.

They want to undermine the board and draw people into tangents off topic, anything to obscure and/or obfuscate the facts.

Then there are the flamers.

To a point it's meaningful to see what group devotees have to say, but at a certain point it becomes redundant and can ruin the dialog on a thread.

There is a balance and the moderators try to keep the board going, fair and meaningful within reasonable parameters.

Quote
rrmoderator
Then there are the flamers.

I was attempting the socratic method of enquiry in this thread: trying to ellicit information from a Scientologist in order to be able to reject it. Turns out I did only half of the job: senior members and moderators can't be beat when it comes to rejecting the ramblings of a cult member.

nutrino:

There are simply practical concerns in moderating a message board.

This includes unwanted promotional posts, bots, ads, flamers and rambling devotees on this board.

If this isn't done the board would not be a very meaningful and difficult for people to find information and use as effectively.

Moderators do the best possible.

think what I am aiming at here is to let out interlocutor, in this case Durham, although I'm sure there will be many more... engage in discussion, even if that discussion appears to be circular rambling. He's playing the [b:8d7e684a83] bigotry [/b:8d7e684a83] card at the moment... shutting him down only serves to confirm what the Org has been preaching, that critical attitudes towards Scientology are nothing more than redneck bigtory against a new, courageous, forward thinking religion. That's one of their [b:8d7e684a83] self expalantory tropes [/b:8d7e684a83] ... and one does get the distinct impression that many of their creative energies are used to think up plausible counter arguments for negative things said out there in the [b:8d7e684a83] Wog World [/b:8d7e684a83] ... bad enough to be a Wog (this enchanting expression was borrowed by LRH from the British Colonials in 19th and early 20th century Egypt, where it was an extremely disparaging term the colonials used for Arabs, its precise derivation is an acronym for Worthy Oriental Gentelman... betcha they don't teach you that whilst they're stomping on the engrams...) ... far worse to be a [b:8d7e684a83] Squirrel [/b:8d7e684a83] ... someone who takes "their tech" and does it [i:8d7e684a83] ex cathedra [/i:8d7e684a83] ... in some weird sense they do share this feature with radical Islam, where the Infidel who never believed is not one thousandth the criminal as The Believer who rejects Islam after belonging to it.... the Scientologists are, in their semi-coherent fashon, sort of the Wahabbis of the Sci-Fi religions... now, no one ever averred that having a nice rational discussion with a Wahabbi would be an easy task...because everything outside of Pure Faith is Dar al-Harb, the "House of War" or "House of Chaos" ...

So Durham adopts the tone one uses when speaking in the Dar al-Harb and we're approaching him like a bunch of Alexandrian rationalist philosophers who are posing difficult questions that test the consistency of Scientology with its claims, does it succeed in living up to its claims, more, its most sacred tenets, that Scientology has discovered the "road to total freedom" that removes contaminating forces and releases the pure Theta force.....

If Durham has answers... and even if he doesn't.... I'd like to know how far he can venture into the Dar al-Harb while maintaining his composure... [b:8d7e684a83] can he explain the general mediocrity of the Scientology community, its glaring lack of world class talent with the exception of a handful of entertainers ? [/b:8d7e684a83]... well can anyone associated with the church do that ? [b:8d7e684a83] Can he explain the existence of Reed Slatkin ? [/b:8d7e684a83] ... can he explain [b:8d7e684a83] why LRH's own son thoroughly, publicly denounced him and Scientology from top to bottom [/b:8d7e684a83] ...

If Durham has solid answers, bring 'em on. If Durham can only resort to scripted [b:8d7e684a83] victimization dramas [/b:8d7e684a83] about the hostility of those who don't or won't get it... if that's his best shot, his ace card, his snuggly blanket... bring 'em on... I really would love to know what this person really thinks, is it a man or a woman, what brought him to Scientology, what he likes most about it, what he likes least, how his life has changed, sometimes the crucial facts are in the telling little details, the looping repetitions, and [b:8d7e684a83] the evasions [/b:8d7e684a83] ... what is this person evading ? How do they evade ? [b:8d7e684a83] What does the evasion say louder than words can ? [/b:8d7e684a83]

nutrino:

I have learned more about Scientology from you on this thread than durham.

He hasn't even reached clear yet.

Fairly redundant in his posts, not much substance.