User talk:BTfromLA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/archive

Contents 1 Calming Influence? 2 Clowns 3 Response to Kent 4 Hello 5 Your lawn 6 My RfC 7 WikiProject updates 8 Hi 9 Welcome back!? 10 Smee on ANI 11 David Gaiman 12 Civility Award for a Good Effort

[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)

Thanks for the kind wish. Same to you. The more I hang around here, the more I see what the problem is. IMO, there are very few editors here interested enough in developing NPOV and informative articles on Scn to actually work in that direction, you being one of exceptions. Most active editors on Scn are interested mainly in forwarding their POV which consists largely of upset against some, or even a pattern of, egregious activities on the part of Hubbard/CoS and of misunderstandings about what Scn really is and how it is practiced (not to mention rabid atheists and general religion-bashers). Since Scn is generally ridiculed and disliked among netizens, and since wikipedia editors and staff are a subset of netizens, the behavior of critics in perpetuating misinformation is tolerated, even protected. I do not know the history of Scientologists here but I would bet that not all of them have been OSA ringers. Many, I am sure, have just been people like myself that happened along and said, "Hmmmm, this is weird. Not true at all. No problem, I'll fix it" and ran up against the same wall of entrenched critics that I did. I imagine that most either found it too daunting or were driven to excesses that got them banned. Wikipediatrix is an interesting case study. I kinda wonder if she was really a doctoral student doing a paper on "Entrenched bias on wikipedia". As wikipediatrix, the seeming critic, she could import misinformation, copyright violation, unsourced and misinterpreted material with perfect impunity. As HighFructoseCornSyrup, the seeming Scientologist, she tried to simply remove a bit of what she says she realized had no place here and hit the wall. Of course that she was clearly a sockpuppet did not help. But she was agressive but not overagressive and did not violate other rules here. Her parting statement shows a depth of understanding that she never, to me at least, exhibited in her wikipediatrix identity. For myself, there is nothing true about Scientology that I have any trouble seeing here from those aforementioned egregious activities to our beliefs in the "supernatural" potentialities of the human spirit or the plausibilty of extra-terrestial pre-Earth past lives. I just want it true, not misrepresented and ridiculed. Happy Holidays! --Justanother 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I don't know you so I won't let register whatever it is you were saying if you were to just push your way into an argument and tell me something like that. 'wikinazi' like 'soup nazi' is just a way to describe someones behavior, and that being the basis for me using it. I have every right to use a word like that, it is not an insult but rather a title, and what really is the problem is someone's behavior and if someone is behaving a certain way I have every right to say something against it.. Johnpedia 09:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

All too often, or once? And who said ""you must be an insecure bozo with a shrivelled penis to make such a stupid edit.""? I would never say something like that24.69.67.173 11:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your lawn

Reminds me of the movie Monster House. Your comments are always welcome. --Justanother 14:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfC

Hi. Haven't seen you round. Would you please do me a favor and pop over to Talk:Scientology and celebrities#Request for Comment - Jesse Prince statement and let us know what you think? Thanks --Justanother 15:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject updates

• I have done some updating to the WP:SCN, added some new articles, added a "to do" list to the top of the project, and fixed up some categories and assessment stuff. I suggest we should all pick one article at a time, or at most two, to work on bringing up to Featured Article status. You could give input on the project's talk page... Smee 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Also, a Userbox for project members, {{User Scientology project}} Smee 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hi

Thanks for your comment. In my opinion the whole series on Scientology is a great example of a failure of the WP process. I will continue to try to improve the articles. I will try to treat everyone with respect and listen to what they have to say. Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 20:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guys! While I have you both here, please let me point out one thing I am addressing, especially as regards Smee. I posted the below to Smee at Talk:Clouds Blur the Rainbow:

• • For me, I will look at it if someone else AfD's the article. I do not lightly AfD things and only if I feel conversant with all sides of the issue. Smee, apropos of what we talking about over on the template page, let me take this opportunity to link Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox which specifically prohibits "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind". If I see such in the Scn articles I will take all action needed to remove it. It won't be hard to remove, just a waste of time. --Justanother 20:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I'm out of the loop these days, and I'm really not sure what your point is here: is this related to the discussion with Steve, or about the template, or a disruptive user, or what? Can you fill me in?... it'll be a while before I can sort through those talk page discussions. BTfromLA 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a good example User talk:Bishonen#A favor. BTW, if you want that 3rd party job mentioned there, it is open and I would be agreeable to your helping and would appreciate it. --Justanother 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying BT. He rejected your kind offer and promptly deleted my polite request that he reconsider. Unless he comes up with an acceptable alternative 3rd party soon then I am going to take your effort as a good faith effort to resolve. Would you second a User RfC on his behavior, assuming that I can show you diffs to prove a pattern. Since you spoke to him he continued his WP:DE at David Gaiman disputing a simple tag (see history). And now I see that another warrior has reverted it again so I am going to have to take it to ANI unless you care to replace the tag. Actually it needs an AfD but I am not going to start one, at least now. Thanks --Justanother 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly see the problem. I'd prefer not to become a sponsor of an RfC, partly because my experience has just been this one episode, mostly because I would feel obligated to follow up and I will almost certainly be backing off from Wikipedia again within the next few days—I think it would be bad form to launch a criticism and then disappear. But please do feel free to point to his abrupt rebuff of my attempt to address the problem (evidently I'm not welcome in those parts). Assuming this is in fact an ongoing pattern, I have to believe that you'll have plenty of company in an RfC. BTfromLA 04:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will try a few other options. Thanks. --Justanother 05:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back!?

Welcome back! But are you back? I always enjoyed our conversations and certainly felt that you were a fair (as in equitable) editor. But I am not the same Justanother that started here six months ago or even who I was 2 - 3 months ago. A awful lot has come together for me and gelled as far as the tactics employed here by "anti-Scientologists" and how to deal with them. But I really do hope you are back. I am curious, how much would you say the below describes your philosophy here?

There are plenty of negative things about Scientology that need to be mentioned in articles. There's no shortage of stuff, in fact. But tabloid tactics like constantly bringing up the Lisa McPherson case, horrible as it is, and stuff like Gorilla Goals, stupid as it is, aren't the best way to go about pursuing the case of showing the world the negative side of Scientology. We are hurting that case by making all the articles look like total lurid attack pieces, and hurting Wikipedia's credibility as well.

--Justanother 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not back with any serious involvement, at least not yet. Just passing through. But thanks for the welcome and the kind words! I enjoyed my exchanges with you, too, and regret that circumstances have not allowed me time to pursue the discussion. As to the above quote, I'm a little leery of responding... without more context, I don't know quite what I'd be agreeing to. What should I take "our own case" to refer to? Who's my client? And I confess to being unfamiliar with "Gorilla Goals." But of course I do agree that Wikipedia articles should not aspire to be "total lurid attack pieces," but who would agree to that? BTfromLA 20:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted it - try it now. I am just trying to get a feel for your position in light of whom I am now and in light of the fact that I have become a bit foggy on your position as a lot has happened. I am not trying to trick you into anything. This was a statement by someone (I will tell you in a sec) that I felt might echo your own sentiments; that the statement might, not the person. --Justanother 21:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't approach editing with the goal of showing the world the negative side of Scientology. (There seems to be an astonishing amount of credible material that problematizes or contradicts the way Scientology represents itself, so much so that I think "however..." will, quite rightly, turn up in the Scientology-related articles with a greater frequency and urgency than with most other topics. You may interpret that as an agenda to air "negatives," but I don't believe it is. I am equally committed to including lucid descriptions of the Scientologists' "case" in the articles.) Otherwise, I find your quote generally congenial. I have certainly seen Wikipedia articles that gratuitously lay on "juicy tidbits" and "dirty laundry" about Scientology--that's a problem. When I was more active editing the articles (before getting derailed by loopy discussions with and about Terryeo), I tried to edit that stuff down, in the interest of good encyclopedic writing. My motivation here, since that what you seem to be asking for, is twofold: About Scientology, I have no first-hand history with it, but find it a fascinating phenomenon--I'm curious about belief systems, about the labyrynthine nature of the organization, about its roots in the science-fiction subculture, and, naturally enough, about what the heck is going in that big blue complex down the street (I live in Los Angeles). About editing, I'm drawn to the challenge of describing contentious topics in a way that is both clear and fair. Before I got involved with Scientology articles, I spent some time wrangling with Intelligent Design, for exactly the same reason. Some time ago, when I had been quite involved editing these articles, a user created a page that listed the active editors in the Scientology articles according to their bias, pro or con. I was one of the few (maybe the only one) listed as "neutral." I liked that, and while I don't deny having personal opinions on the topics I address, my real goal, believe it or not, is to aim for prose that is concise, readable and fair. It pleases me when I see something I've written that has stood for months little changed by the non-stop partisan scuffling. Alas, contentious partisanship too often seems to overcome any shared goal about clear encyclopedic writing, and that has been made worse by the citation-mania that prevails here nowadays: the arguments tend to be about sourcing, not about the shape or utility of the articles. BTfromLA 22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. First things first. The quote, in case you have not already figured it out, is Wikipediatrix (here) after being outed for gaming. Sounds like you have the right attitude, BT. Glad to hear it. The problem with Scientology's representation here is complex. The main problem is that while negative misrepresentation and criticism is widely distributed on the net, truth about Scientology is often subjective and if one cannot observe how a Scientologist uses Scientology to the betterment of himself and others then it does not have much reality to the casual outsider. It is impossible to write about Scientology accurately, IMO, by comparing it to other things that one knows. Scientology has comparisons but very essential differences too that are not captured by comparison to "similar" subjects. Such comparison will always result in some misrepresentation. Obviously, philosophically, each thing is itself but Scientology is much more its own thing than most. Depending on what you compare it to, that misrepresentation can be kinda close or wildly off. This is not your problem, BT, this is our problem as Scientologists. You are, IMO, trying to make NPOV stew out of POV meat. Good for you but some other chefs are not so well-intentioned and are making hate pie. The good work of editors such as yourself ameliorates the situation somewhat. Hope you can come back to us soon. --Justanother 00:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smee on ANI

here - your comments are welcome. Thanks --Justanother 05:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see that Smee has started his grease machine. You would not believe how much crap he has skated on so far. Get your boots out! --Justanother 05:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Gaiman

Hi. Would you please take a look and see if you second my opinion that there are notability issues with this article given the strict requirements of WP:BLP. I placed a {{notability}} tag and opened a discussion but POV-warriors removed the tag. If you feel that discussion is warranted please replace the tag. I also happen to think that an AfD is in order or at least serious pruning in accordance with the non-public person requirements of WP:BLP. Thanks. And thanks for your help elsewhere. Unfortunalely that editor curries favor almost as relentlessly as he edit-wars. It is all smokescreen for his prolific propagandizing. --Justanother 14:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your notability tag should have been unceremoniously removed. Personally, I think Wikipedia has a lot of articles that don't deserve to be stand-alone articles, including ones that are Scientology-related (do Patter Drills really demand their own article?). Of course, that problem isn't limited to the Scientology sector... minor comic book characters get their own articles. Given the realities here, I think there's enough to justify David Gaiman as a subject: he was evidently a high-profile public spokesman for Scientology, owns an unusual store specializing in Scientology-prescribed vitamins, had some involvement in notorious criminal escapades, and has a famous son. A weak "keep," then, but I'd accept the article as a given, and work on improving the writing: the "operation snow white" bit seems over-weighted--a sentence or two acknowledging his involvement and linking to the relevant page would seem to be enough. BTfromLA 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. He is a private person and has no business having an article here. I object to the desire of Scientology critics to "out" Scientologists. Tilman maintains webpages with the sole purpose of "outing" private Scientologist with the assumed intention of harming their business or causing them problems with anti-Scientology bigots. The fact that Gaiman was a PR person for the Church does not convey the Church's notability ipso facto to him. Re my fury. Naw, not really. Just having too much fun with one propagandist, one "over-analyst" and one aspiring puppetmaster. But I am going to turn it off now (right after this edit, laff) as it makes it too easy for water-muddiers to hide the real offensive editing, which takes place in the articles, not on talk pages. Later. --Justanother 02:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Outing" non-public figures as Scientologists (or as gay, transsexual, Raelians, atheists, adulterers, porn afficionados, abortionists, admirers of GW Bush, or whatever category that they might prefer to keep to themselves) is certainly not something I approve of, and I presume Wikipedia has explicit policies against that (though I haven't checked). While I'm open to the idea that I'm missing something here, I don't see any evidence that Gaiman is being "outed." He was a public spokesperson for the CoS, for heaven's sake; he runs a shop catering to Scientologists, and he seems to have been named in the press in Scientology-related court actions. In other words, if I were persuaded that the function of this article is to expose a person to harrassment by "outing" him, I'd agree that it should be quickly deleted. But I don't see any evidence to support that interpretation of this article. BTfromLA 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Tilman's "outing pages"? There are other major Scientology "outing pages" on the net. I, personally, am on one for no reason other than my name was found in Scientology publications that list course completions and the like. So someone googling my name would come up that I am a Scientologist (I have an unusual name). Not a problem for me but not everyone is me and one's religion is private information. Gaiman runs a vitamin shop?? That counts as part of why he deserves to be here??? He was a PR person. Was, not is. Anyway, so what? --Justanother 05:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The only one I've seen is the list of celebrities that are or were allegedly involved with Scientology. Is that what you mean? Look, I'm not making a case for a David Gaiman article: I just have come to the conclusion that there's little to be gained by disputes over the existence of marginal articles at Wikipedia. There are lots of articles I would cut, were I editor-in-chief, but most of them have their fans here, which is enough to keep them from deletion. If I believed, as you are suggesting, this page exists only to harrass an individual, I'd be with you, emphatically so... but, sorry, I just don't see it. BTfromLA 05:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Tilman also has a more general outing page that he no doubt proud of. Gotta make sure everybody knows if they are dealing with one of those dirty Scientologists. Re Gaiman, I understand where you are coming from but there is only one reason that that page is on wikipedia. And it ain't notability. Really it needs to be cut way down as per WP:BLP non-public persons. A spokesperson is not, per se, a "public person". They deal with the public but if his notability is as the PR person then all that extraneous personal info should go, including his "famous" vitamin shop and his non-notable work in Russia. Maybe a line about the "Snow White" connection should stay as he is only mentioned in testimony/evidence. On a side note I have been to Big Blue a ton of times. It is not Big Blue to us, of course. It is ASHO or AOLA or PAC Base or the Complex. I usually rent a room south of Fountain though I have stayed at the Manor (Celebrity Center) too. --Justanother 06:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Manor" on Franklin would seem to offer superior digs to most of the south-of-Fountain lodging, though I'm aware there are a few motels there (on Vermont?); hotels and motels are in short supply in the nicer (let's say, north of Franklin) precincts of that neighborhood. I'm curious about how distinct those differently labelled sections of "Big Blue" are (isn't the whole thing called PAC base?). I mean, if you show up to do some work at ASHO, do you confine yourself to ASHO, and not have anything to do with the folks at AOLA or the LA org? BTfromLA 06:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC) PS: I've heard that the restaurant on the grounds of Celebrity Center is pretty good--have you any experience with it? BTfromLA 06:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean as staff or public? I assume public. Basically in Scn, you follow the Bridge. So what you have there are three separate organizations. LA Org is a normal Class V Org. ASHO exists mainly to train advanced Class VI auditors on the SHSBC and delivers no OT material. AOLA is to take you to OT V. Then you go to Flag for OT VI and VIII and to the Freewinds for OT VIII. Upper orgs can deliver lower material too but mostly do not. --Justanother 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for filling me in on this. So, if a "public" scientologist shows up to get "clear," do I assume they wouldn't even enter the other divisions? Or is there some built-in mechinism to bring Scientologists from all levels to come together (other than things like the LRH birthday party)? And do the staff members know the staff members who work across the street? And (one more, if you don't mind), how much of the Complex counts as "PAC base"? BTfromLA 06:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The three are completely separate organizations that just happen to be in the same complex. You can go Clear at any of them. It depends on how much reality Scientology has to you. Most people do the first part of their Bridge at a Class V org and go Clear there. But it is very real to me that someone that was raised in a Scientology family or for whom Scientology really struck a chord, that person might go over to ASHO and do the SHSBC and co-audit to Clear. That is a great way to do it and many do. AOLA is almost exclusively post-Clear but can deliver the lower materials so one could go Clear there. Other than the LA Org, all staff are SO so they know each other as much or more than any group of co-workers in a large organization. More because of communal dining, transportation, and the like. There are, I believe, some SO at the LA Org too. While PAC base is maybe used casually to refer to everything, I think it more covers the tall building and the other administrative outbuildings within a 1-2 block radius and not the three orgs. I take it you live north of Franklin? --Justanother 04:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I've often wondered about those subdivisions of the Scientology complex. I hope you won't think me rude if I decline to drop further clues about my street address in a Wikipedia post: like you, I prefer to preserve anonymity online, and you never know who's looking in. Suffice it to say that I've lived in LA for many years, and am pretty familiar with the whole Hollywood/Silverlake/Los Feliz area that we've been discussing, and with some other neighborhoods, too. When I described the blue complex as "down the street," I didn't mean it literally. I have indeed heard that the Celebrity Center restaurant is open to all comers--if I get over there at some point, I'll offer a report. Thanks again. BTfromLA 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, north of Franklin goes a long way (laff). Just based that on my knowledge of the area and your comments. No big deal. --Justanother 03:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re the restaurant, I may have eaten there once years ago but have no real memory of it. I usually eat at the places on Fountain. The cheapo Chinese near Vermont. A little Middle Eastern or Greek place where NY George's used to be and my favorite, that little Philippino (I think) restaurant on the north side of Fountain next to Bridge Pubs (Lilly's?). I love her breakfast with eggs, sausage, banana bread, fresh fruit. Makes me hungry! You should go to the restaurant at the CC. It is open to all, I am almost certain. Oh, House of Pies! I would walk up there for breakfast (can you guess what my favorite meal is?) Well, I have walked from the Complex to the CC too though that is a bit of a trek. --Justanother 06:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bed for me now, I will get your other question later. G'nite. --Justanother 06:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that House of Pies: Franklin and Vermont. That very intersection, looking very different, is featured in the great Billy Wilder movie Double Indemnity. (It's one of the pleasures of life in LA, seeing the cityscape in old films.) Good night. BTfromLA 06:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility Award for a Good Effort

Image	Name	Description
	BTfromLA	The Civility Award is intended to award users for civility. The aim is to award good civility, and not to just warn against bad civility. I saw your attempt to mediate a disagreement between Justanother and Smee, even though nothing came of it I feel the civil way you approached it deserves recognition. Anynobody 09:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• On a related note, thank you for your attempts at reaching out/mediating. Believe it or not, they were most appreciated. I hope you are doing well. Yours, Smee 05:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you both. BTfromLA 05:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)