User talk:BTfromLA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/archive

[edit] Calming Influence?

Perhaps I was a calming influence on him (laff) . . . --Justanother 15:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Re your question. I don't have a simple answer because I have mixed feelings about "dead-agenting". Certainly if someone is out to destroy you and will publicly use lies and misrepresentation to further that end it seems fair to me to publicly expose their character and their motivation. Don't you think? Isn't that exactly what they claim to be doing as regards Scientology; exposing its character and motivation?. And what if the dead-agenting site has more respect for the truth than the critics?

However, I think that the site makes no distinction between those that would use lies to damage Scientology and those that would not. I have said elsewhere that I too find objectionable actions like reverse picketing and leafleting. I think that Scientologists would be upset if, after picketing a "psych convention", they found themselves picketed and leafleted at their homes and businesses. So when OSA does that to critics they are doing something that they would not want to experience; the definition of an overt act (crime or misdemeanor).

I think it is important to distinquish between someone that claims to be an "expert" and someone that is a critic. I think experts should be fair game (oohhh, that term) for discrediting but that critics should not be attacked for criticizing. It is perhaps not a clear line between the two but I think that OSA does not think there is any line at all. --Justanother 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't agree that "publicly exposing their character and motivation" is an appropriate first response to the charges of critics (or "experts"). If their claims are false, the appropriate response is to rationally demonstrate their claims to be false. It may also be appropriate to offer information that provides a credible alternative interpretation of the same facts that the critics are citing, or to provide additional relevant information that the critical accounts omit. I think that the tendency of Scientology spokespeople to shift attention from the question at hand to ad hominem attacks on the critics is one of the chief reasons that Scientology is so widely viewed with suspicion. The fact that the personal attacks coming from Scientologists are often gross distortions of the truth (I think this is true of religiousfreedomwatch) makes matters worse still. The public is left with the overall impression that the critical claims are unanswerable and that Scientologists are some combination of dishonest and crazy. I don't really understand the distinction you are making between experts and critics--if somebody claims to be an expert and is not one, then their qualifications, or lack of them, would be an appropriate target of criticism. But, even assuming Dave Touretzky is in the "claimed expert" category, misrepresenting materials that he reproduces on his website that advocates free speech as his personal endorsement of terrorism, etc., is plainly dishonest, irresponsible, and off-point. I've seen no evidence of the dead-agenting sites having more respect for the truth than the critics, and considerable evidence to the contrary, if by "critics," you mean the investigative reporters for Time, LA Times, BBC, ABC, Rolling Stone, etc.. BTfromLA 00:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am sure that we are not in disagreement to a marked degree. I have already said there is stuff I am uncomfortable with. I am not a representative of Scientology nor an apologist. I do think that we should be careful of over-generalization. I very much like Hubbard's definition of sanity: the ability to recognize differences and similarities. And I very much agree with his n-valued logic (or gradient scales). One can be gradiently more sane or less sane on a given subject. I think that there is plenty of room for more sanity all around on this subject. Not all issues are the same; they do not all warrant response nor the same response. Not all critics are the same; they do not warrant response or the same response. Roteness, such as we might see in an inappropriate response or failure to respond, is simply that, roteness or unthinking response.

I never said that dead-agenting should be a first response. What I say is that if someone is publicly presenting something as "truth" as opposed to as their opinion then they are fair game for an evaluation of their credibility as a witness. I think Jesse Prince is a good example here; even the judge in the Lisa case considered him bogus. Should he be quoted as a Scientology "ex-insider" or "expert" with no caveat or challenge at all? If he would set himself up publicly as such then I think it appropriate that he be "dead-agented" publicly. Now would you say that instead the church should seriously respond to every claim he dreams up? That is wacky; all that would do is give him more forum and he would follow with another and another and another. What did you do with Terryeo? Did you continue to waste time with him ("rationally demonstrate [his] claims to be false") or did you get him banned (dead-agented)? I did not say that one should perform character assassination; one should address the person's credibility in the area they are claiming to speak the truth about. As I recall, that is what LRH defined dead-agenting to be; providing hard materials that prove that the person is wrong or lying and then they would not be believed on the subject. He did not define dead-agenting as character assassination. So my point here is that dead-agenting does not equal character assassination; that is something different and I don't know that to be LRH tech so when that is practiced it is "older technology" (i.e. humanoid). True dead-agenting is actually pretty much what you describe as the rational response; you just don't do it over and over and over. This by LRH is right here in wikipedia "The technique of proving utterances false is called "DEAD AGENTING". So, do I support character assassination - no. Do I support dead-agenting - yes, where appropriate. --Justanother 04:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the reply. I hope my response above didn't seem inflammatory--it came across a little more combative than I had intended. Anyway, I find parts of your latest post confusing... it may come down to my having a different understanding of "dead agenting" than you do. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the Jesse Prince situation, so I can't address that example in any depth: as I recall from reading a little about him, Prince was a Scientology higher-up, 2nd or 3rd on command in RTC, right? I also seem to recall reading that once he went public about his experiences inside the RTC, Scientology sent investigators after him who discovered he was growing one potted marijuana plant, and managed to get him brought up on drug charges. I've googled a bit for the judge who found him "bogus," but I didn't find it. Maybe there was some sound basis for impugning his credibility, but the fact that he planted a marijuana seed doesn't address that at all, in my view. And the fact--assuming it is a fact--that he was a top exec in the organization does make him a fairly powerful witness, whose claims deserve a serious response. As to my own behavior re: Terryeo--I did indeed spend a lot of time trying to demonstrate to Terryeo where he was acting in error, and to suggest ways that he could become a productive contributor. If need be, I could search through the archives and find you several long, patient, point-by-point messages of that nature which I posted in response to his edits and comments (as time went on, alas, my patience waned). There is a case to be made that I wasted my time by doing that--certainly, Terryeo wasn't very responsive to my education campaign. As to his ban, I did not "get him banned," though I did pipe up from time to time with my objections to what I saw as chronically disruptive and counter-productive behavior, and do I think the ban was ultimately correct. But I don't see how raising objections to his behavior on wikipedia constitutes "dead-agenting" in the slightest. Let's leave Terryeo behind and talk about a hypothetical wikipedian, editorX. If I can show that editorX is has been inserting false information in articles, disregarding established consensus that disagrees with his POV, engaging in personal attacks and other policy violations, all of these criticisms strike me as entirely pertinent to the question of whether editorX can be accepted as a member of the community who work on this project. Right? On the other hand, let's say I start looking for personal "dirt" on editorX: I find out his real name and where he works, I discover if he's ever been arrested, fired from a job, had troubles with the tax man, grown a marijuana plant, treated an ex-wife poorly, etc., and I start to bring that info in as a way to discredit his edits, I would be doing what I understand "dead-agenting" to be--finding a way to smear or shame the person, in the hopes that will somehow reduce the force of their statements or intimidate them into silence. While you are correct to say that each case is a bit different, and one must respond differently to different contexts, it is hard for me to imagine any situation in which presenting personal "skeletons" that do not have a direct relationship to the issues under discussion is called for (e.g., I say you stole my money, you respond that I was once a communist). Of course, if somebody is dreaming up fantastic false claims, they need not all be addressed, but is that really the case here? If somebody is consistently lying, it should be possible to demonstrate that some of what they are saying is baseless, and this will indeed show them to have little credibility on the subject. But from what I've gathered, Scientology often goes right to the attack on a percieved critic's character, completly jumping over the step of addressing the issue that the critic has raised. Have I got that wrong? I understand you are neither an apologist nor a spokessperson for the Church of Scientology, but I hope you understand why I'm putting these questions to you--personally, I would find it very difficult to reconcile the "attack the attacker" approach to criticism with my own well-intentioned commitment to an organization, and I'm trying to understand how a committed Scientologist thinks about this.BTfromLA 18:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the confusion about dead-agenting. This very much reminds me of the confusion over fair game. Character assassination is NOT dead-agenting just as harassment of critics is not "fair game policy". What happens here is that individual Scientologists or even groups of Scientologists or even management of Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard engages in objectionable "humanoid" activities and then critics try to paint those activities as being what Scientology is or part of the tech or whatever. But they are not; if anything they are violations of the tech. Certainly one can use a knowledge of Scientology to harm another just as one can use a knowledge of mechanical engineering to build a gun or of carpentry to build a gallows. A better illustration of my point would be using a knowledge of auto mechanics to sabotage a person's car so the brakes fail at high speed. It is a perversion. I am not talking about character assassination here or about harassment. That is not a perversion of Scientology, that is "good old humanoid behavior". I am talking about trying to introvert a critic by screaming "what are your crimes" at him. That is a perversion of Scientology. Black Scientology or Black Dianetics is what Hubbard termed it. The purpose of Dianetics and Scientology is more of the good stuff; more understanding, more intelligence, more communication, more ability, more life, you name it. If Scientology technology is deliberately perverted to cause less good stuff we would call that Black Scientology and it would be a bad thing. But character assassination is not Black Scientology. Nor is character assassination dead agenting. It simply is what it is, an objectionable (to me) tactic. Dead-agenting is exactly what you yourself might consider the appropriate response to someone telling lies about you. It is proving the lies to be lies and the person to be a liar; thus handling any future lies from the same source. What you are considering to be "dead-agenting" would perhaps be called "Black PR" in Scientology. Similar to Black Dianetics or Black Scientology, it would be a perversion of PR technology to evil ends. That Scientology has a name for it does not make it "Scientology"; if done using Scientology PR principles it would be a perversion.

Tory has tried to clarify the difference between Black PR and dead-agenting here. She claims that the dead agent packs are full of lies. If so that would be another perversion. They are supposed to be full of truth that disproves lies. Most Scientologists would never see a "dead-agent pack"; at least before the internet (laff). They would be managed by the local GO, now OSA, rep and shown to a person that was being badly affected by lies about Scientology. I think I saw some many years ago and they seemed OK to me. --Justanother 00:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So would you say that that the following, from the Scientology controversy article, is false or misleading?: "In the 1970s, Hubbard continued to codify the policy of "attacking the attacker" and assigned a term to it that is used frequently within Scientology: "dead agenting." Used as a verb, "dead agenting" is described by Hubbard as a technique for countering negative accusations against Scientology by diverting the critical statements and making counter-accusations against the accuser (in other words, "attack the attacker")." In my (admittedly limited) experience looking into Scientology, it sure rings true: "diverting the critical statements and making counter-accusations against the accuser" is a consistent pattern from those who speak for Scientology, and to an extent rarely seen from any other organization. BTfromLA 15:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, it is false and misleading. What is being described there is not "Scientology", not "dead-agenting". The term is not even "used frequently within Scientology"; Scientology is about improvement amd almost all Scientologists concern themselves solely with improving conditions across their dynamics. The term "dead-agent" has a very specialized meaning that most Scientologists have no intersection with and many, if not most, probably do not even know what it means for simply having never encountered it. Another thing to understand about Scientologists is they are VERY careful about using the terms of Scientology correctly, word-clearing each one. Only the critics bastardize the terms of Scientology and try to apply them to activites that they do not define; thus attaching a clearly objectionable activity to a valid Scientology concept. It is quite a neat little trick. Quite a neat little trick.

Dead-agent means to supply TRUTH to counter LIES. That is its only meaning in Scientology. That is how it should be defined here. If character assassination and ad hominem attacks are used then that is not Scientology; at best stretch I guess it could be someone's misunderstanding of Scientology but why bother. It simply is what it is, an activity that was invented long before L. Ron Hubbard. Go ahead and report the Church's history there too; just don't call it Scientology because it is not. --Justanother 17:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clowns

Just to mention that my edit summary was an attempt at a joke. Not aimed at anyone at all, no-how, especially you. I am often at a lose for what to put in talk page edit summaries but I know that it is good to put something or else you look bad here. --Justanother 05:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, no insult taken, but I do appreciate your effort to make sure that there was no misunderstanding. BTfromLA 06:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Kent

Just found this. You may find it interesting as a well-written piece in the same Marburg Journal of Religion. I like the line: "Kent's bias is betrayed by his refusal to differentiate." It is a point about critics that I have also made in different words. I should also mention that it seems to be a correct application of "dead-agent" policy. Do you find it objectionable on that basis? --Justanother 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are asking me--what basis? I'm not prepared to critically analyze Leisa Goodman's claims (though I suspect a number of ex-Sea Org members would take exception to her characterization of the RPF as "a voluntary programme"), nor do I have time at the moment to read through Kent's entire piece, which appears to present a great deal of material that Goodman allows to pass without comment. To the extent that Goodman's response is factually credible and that her response confines itself to issues directly relevant to Kent's claims, I have no objection at all. If you are saying that is what "correct" dead-agenting is, then you're still left with the consistent pattern of "incorrect" responses to critics, whatever you want to call it. Even if the term "dead agent" is being mis-applied, the larger issue is that history of systematically "countering negative accusations against Scientology by diverting the critical statements and making counter-accusations against the accuser." Responding to perceived "enemies" with threats, intimidation, harrassing lawsuits, name-calling, investigations of their personal lives, publicising long past "crimes" or embarrassing episodes, making wild counter-charges, etc. is one of the most conspicious (and, to me, troubling) aspects of Scientology--even if it has nothing to do with the way Scientology is experienced by most Scientologists. That smarmy stuff continues today, at least to the extent of the "religiousfreedomwatch" website, and it strikes me, as an outside observer, as dishonest, antisocial behavior that appears to be deeply embedded in Scientology as an organization. I hope I haven't digressed too far from the area you were hoping I'd address. BTfromLA 07:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I offered the piece as 1) a good counter to Kent and just a well-written counter by Scn in general; 2) a rewording of some of the more general points about critics and about Scientology that I often make; and 3) an example of the proper application of "dead-agent" technology. I offered it for the first reasons and then realized that it was quite fortuitous as we have been discussing the mis-naming of objectionable actions as dead-agenting. I realized that it was very specifically written to "dead-agent" Kent and exactly follows the dead-agent format including the inclusion of "true data about Scientology" to fill the void left after discrediting the false data. I realized that it may be helpful for you to see that actual instance of dead-agenting. We are very much in agreement, I think, about objectionable actions; I would like to see the CoS publicly renounce some of the more egregious activities such as intimidation by hired PI's, counter-picketing critics' homes, etc. Miscavige publicly renounced the action's of Mary Sue's GO, now it is time for him to take responsiblity for OSA. Regarding embedded; it may be; but I do not think it has to be. The general idea here is that if OSA and others see Scientology's situation as a "game" (i.e. an uptone version of a battle) then they may gleefully throw themselves into the spirit of the game and go overboard with "capers" (SO/OSA-speak for something roughly analogous to what a black-hat hacker would call an exploit in the computer world, a really cool and somewhat naughty thing that you managed to pull off, counting coup in a sense). Scientology is "supposed" to be above all that; it is supposed to be "senior" to the game; it is supposed to be pan-determined (taking responsibility for all parties involved with ultimate ARC - the "Love Thy Enemy" thing). LRH makes the point that the only times that Scn has gotten into trouble, it has been through a failure to employ its own technology. To the degree that Scn is in trouble now, I see that as the case. Scientology has NOT been acting the auditor, it has been acting the combatant. --Justanother 14:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. You are a better man than I; I have been neglecting my responsibilities more than a bit. --Justanother 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)