Talk:List of Scientology Rundowns
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
[edit] Do we really need a 'list of rundowns'
Any list of rundowns is going to be extensive, vast really. I mean the tech volumes which contain them is 17 large volumes and an index, about 4 feet of shelf. Yes a lot of rundowns are sub-rundowns used within the context of other rundowns, but still, it is a pretty extensive sort of thing to list about. And while some of them are understood from the their title, some of them use Scientology jargon. Terryeo 02:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- It isn't supposed to be a complete list, obviously. wikipediatrix 07:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I disagree that a list of Scientology rundowns is going to be "vast". Terryeo's mention of the Tech volumes is a completely different body of data and is very irrelevant in this discussion. I think that he does not like this article. There was no such thing as sub-rundowns when Hubbard was running the organization. Perhaps things have gotten very complicated now that David Miscavige is trying to run the cofs and he wants sub-rundowns.--Fahrenheit451 07:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I created the term "sub-rundowns" in an attempt to state a complex situation in a simple manner. I have not seen the term used before. Terryeo 08:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Again, Fahrenheit451, I don't have an opposition to you, do not work for the Church, have no connection with any organization of the Church, don't know you, don't know of you, don't care, personally, about you more than anyone else, etc. I'll give you an example of what I mean. Today there is a process that is often called, "running rudiments" which is a first process that starts many auditing sessions. Sometimes this is called "flying ruds". Those are the top level of individual rundowns which (in some situations, I believe) are expanded into their full rundown. But in a Life Repair, most of the action (which the article falsely insists is a 25 hour purchased action which every individual must undergo) is nothing but "running rudiments". Several of the rundowns which I have explored in the Tech volumes consist of or reference to (when needed) other rundowns. All of those are in the Tech Volumes. All of that existed previous to Hubbard's demise. My stated opinion has nothing to do with "liking" or "disliking" this article, but has to do with the complexity on the horizon for this article. To really understand all of the rundowns (not including the OT levels) requires about 2 to 4 years of full time study. What I actually find bothersome is the mispresentation of information where it appears. And my "bother" is completely addressed by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Terryeo 08:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Where in this Wikipedia article does it say anything remotely like what you're saying? "25 hour purchased action"? Huh? wikipediatrix 08:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- [1] Life Repair, 2 X 12.5 hours = 25 hours. Terryeo 08:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Um, we are not talking about that article. We are talking about this article. It makes zero sense for you to say "which the article falsely insists..." on the talk page for this article. There's those amazing Hubbardian communication skills at work again. wikipediatrix 08:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- [1] Life Repair, 2 X 12.5 hours = 25 hours. Terryeo 08:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Where in this Wikipedia article does it say anything remotely like what you're saying? "25 hour purchased action"? Huh? wikipediatrix 08:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Again, Fahrenheit451, I don't have an opposition to you, do not work for the Church, have no connection with any organization of the Church, don't know you, don't know of you, don't care, personally, about you more than anyone else, etc. I'll give you an example of what I mean. Today there is a process that is often called, "running rudiments" which is a first process that starts many auditing sessions. Sometimes this is called "flying ruds". Those are the top level of individual rundowns which (in some situations, I believe) are expanded into their full rundown. But in a Life Repair, most of the action (which the article falsely insists is a 25 hour purchased action which every individual must undergo) is nothing but "running rudiments". Several of the rundowns which I have explored in the Tech volumes consist of or reference to (when needed) other rundowns. All of those are in the Tech Volumes. All of that existed previous to Hubbard's demise. My stated opinion has nothing to do with "liking" or "disliking" this article, but has to do with the complexity on the horizon for this article. To really understand all of the rundowns (not including the OT levels) requires about 2 to 4 years of full time study. What I actually find bothersome is the mispresentation of information where it appears. And my "bother" is completely addressed by WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Terryeo 08:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- O.K. Terryeo. Does that mean that when you invented the term "sub-rundown" you were doing WP:OR? Or are you trying to tell us that the cofs has gotten very complicated?--Fahrenheit451 08:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can only assume at this point that he's trolling again. I'm through feeding him. wikipediatrix 08:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've placed my opinion and explained my opinion. I guess I could get into a back and forth about what Fahrenheit is saying but I don't think it would be productive. Terryeo 09:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can only assume at this point that he's trolling again. I'm through feeding him. wikipediatrix 08:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- O.K. Terryeo. Does that mean that when you invented the term "sub-rundown" you were doing WP:OR? Or are you trying to tell us that the cofs has gotten very complicated?--Fahrenheit451 08:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Flunk!--Fahrenheit451 09:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clear Certainty Rundown, unsourced information
The article states: '"One part of the Clear Certainty Rundown that has caused some controversy inside and outside the Church is that you cannot get past the question "Do you believe in demons, ghosts...", unless you agree that they do not exist. This contradicts reports that the reality of demons is an important part of Scientology's higher Operating Thetan levels,[1]"
- That says there is controversy inside the Church about a question which is purported to be part of the Clear Certainty Rundown. Yet the rundown is not presented. How can a reader know that is an actual question, actually used today ? The only reference doesn't even talk about CLEAR, but talks about other things. And, if we do learn that, then how can the reader know that that particular question is controversial inside the Church? No source of information is provided by the editor who presented that information. And piled high on top of this unreferenced claim of controversy is the undefined series of mystery words: Demons, ghosts (and who knows what else). What is being asked by that question? I can give you definitions for Demon from, "restimulation of engrams" to "living breathing servants of Satan". Terryeo 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The Clear Certainty Rundown does not have any questions about demons or ghosts on it. I did it in 1986. It is not a confidential course, or was not back then. If you can find the details of it webbed somewhere, it should be OK to use it to put this 'controversy' to bed. I will try to find a link with the CCRD on it.
S. M. Sullivan 07:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)S. M. Sullivan
- I'm deleting it. This has been questioned here for a long time, no source has been brought, and does not sound like scientology. What we really need now is a RS for the cognition. I'll paraphrase from the "state of clear" policy at a later time. --Tilman 17:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
