Welcome & friendly reminder

Friendly reminder


This article is intended as a refresher to our regular blog supporters and a brief introduction for those who recently joined the BIC family.

This blog’s purpose is stated in its title – to get Scientolgists back in comm.

Initially our main purpose in establishing the blog was to provide a platform for discussion, debate and conversations about current Church mismanagement, violation and alterations of LRH’s policies and tech, indiscriminate declaring of OT’s and other top Scientologists and a growing number of issues we believe are plaguing official Scientology.

The slow slide of the church over at least the last decade has brought about major wrong-target attacks on LRH and SCN. Others who have had very little to no personal contact with the subject have jumped on the bandwagon and are fuelling the fire in an attempt to annihilate both LRH and the philosophy of Scientology.    This is a wrong-target. This is the “product” of official Scientology (or Radical Corporate Scientology as it has come to be known).

We hold the belief that the single biggest betrayal of the Church on its parishioners is the promise of “higher states of being” and “spiritual eternity” which cost a fortune and are never delivered. The “handling” for people who realize they have failed to reach the stated gains after completing the pinnacle the Church has to offer is to re-package and alter the technology and then announce in flashy events that everyone got the wrong version thanks to “some SP” and they have to pay and start again – and again – and again.

Added to this is the expectation that parishioner’s are to contribute towards off-purpose campaigns and activities in direct violation of LRH policy such as the IAS and Ideal Orgs. Failure to blindly support and donate towards these activities or “Command Intention”  is met with veiled threats of justice actions and/or refusal of being invited onto the upper levels.

Not only has the Church failed to deliver what they promise, but in many cases they have rendered previously good and able people in worse states than before they came into contact with Scientology –  financially, morally and spiritually. This is THE highest insult, degradation and betrayal of LRH and his tech.

If you are reading this, then you already know that these topics of discussion are “verboten” within the Church’s walls. Public are either lied to or warned off when trying to address these issues with Church staff and/or management.  As a result, numerous people have and are waking up to the fact that they have been hoodwinked and ripped off, and are seeking answers outside of the Church.

The BIC blog is the place for those who want their questions answered and are seeking the truth. It is a platform for people to engage with each other and contribute their own experiences, personal stories and articles to this forum.

In addition to exposing current Church affairs, this blog is also intended to provide a place where people can safely ask questions on the subject of Scientology philosophy as written by LRH (as opposed to the version currently being peddled by the Church). If we cannot immediately handle your query, we have the resources to get the answers you are seeking.

We are aware that many who have found this blog consider it an extremely valuable source of information and that after having found out more about the current state of affairs in the Church, may be asking themselves “what now”?

We want it clearly communicated that there are alternatives, and all is not lost.

There are real and sustainable gains readily available outside the Church. The tech is alive and flourishing and being correctly delivered to many people internationally and in South Africa. Previously disenchanted and upset cases have been salvaged and are once again winning, very happy and keenly continuing their Scientology journey. There are also new Scientologists being made outside the Church.

This blog does not promote any one particular independent group or alternative path, but we will oblige by providing information to those who are seeking alternatives and want to know more.

Likewise, we do not hold it against nor will we allow any make wrong, invalidation or attack of anybody announcing that they are permanently departing from Scientology. Perhaps one day such people may change their minds. If that happens (and it has in many cases), there are people ready, willing and able to help.

It is possible that there can be a “brotherhood of Scientologists” that allows us to talk, debate and interact without ever judging each other or feeling the need to label one another as “squirrels”; “off source” or whatever. It has now emerged that there are several ways and approaches to traveling the Scientology road. The workability of each rests firmly in the often quoted but seldom understood quote:

“What is true for you is what you have observed yourself.”

This brotherhood is achieved by communication with all its idealistic ingredients: Granting of beingness, acknowledgement, intention, attention.

Which brings us to the issue of our moderation policy which we wish to address in a little more detail.

  • There are numerous blogs, Facebook pages and other forums on the internet which contain stories about LRH’s foibles or failings and the non-workability or failure of the Scientology tech. 
  • The BIC blog is not such a forum.
  • Submission of articles and comments containing first-person eye-witness experiences of stories about LRH from years gone by are ok as long as these are communicated in context, without malice and not intended purely to malign LRH.
  • Taking “snippets” of information from LRH policy, articles and lectures out of context and then using this as a basis for outright condemnation of him and the tech is misleading to our readers and does no-one any good. 
  • We reserve the right to redact and/or moderate comments or links to articles or videos and other internet sites which contain content solely intended to attack or denigrate LRH & his tech.
  • If one does not agree with a particular issue or comment, we are happy to allow debate or engagement with each other as long this is done in a courteous fashion and willingness to grant beingness. Give acknowledgement where due and allow the right of other points of view.  Please refrain from carping comments, make wrong or personal invalidation of fellow blog visitors.
  • We have always tried to err on the side of open communication but we cannot allow our platform of open communication to serve an agenda of hate. Democracy and open communication are, by their nature, noisy affairs and often involves robust debate. This is good. This is healthy. It is encouraged but the parameters are important.
  • We do not allow any comments or links referring to upper-levels or confidential materials.
  • For those new to this blog, please read our Moderation Policy page for further information.

In closing, we encourage people to contribute stories and articles that conform to and are in alignment with our aims and intentions as stated above.

A special thanks to all our regular visitors and contributors for their ongoing and valued support.






50 thoughts on “Welcome & friendly reminder

  1. The intention of this blog as regards the subject of Scientology is unique and praiseworthy in every respect. I was especially happy to read this:

    “In addition to exposing current Church affairs, this blog is also intended to provide a place where people can safely ask questions on the subject of Scientology philosophy as written by LRH (as opposed to the version currently being peddled by the Church). If we cannot immediately handle your query, we have the resources to get the answers you are seeking…This blog does not promote any one particular independent group or alternative path…”

    The above is the very thing that has been entirely missing on the internet, as far as I know. Rather, there are many blogs and forums that continuously pass on misunderstandings of the tech and false data (while, in some cases, claiming to do the opposite). Or, at best, they promote one particular group or path – which is fine, but a broader perspective is also needed.

    The entire blog post was heartening and inspiring to read. What a grand purpose you have BIC blog!

  2. Thank you for posting this article which I agree with. In my younger years before Scientology I was always looking for something in the spiritual realm, such as Buddhism, Confusionism and other esoteric religions. Then I was introduced to Scientology in 1964 and joined staff in 1965 after having purchased and completed the HPA course. It was exactly what I was looking for. Basically it was an introduction to a New Spirituality.

    Sadly the original “church” has changed its purpose of a “study of spirituality” to the creation of wealth. This purpose is what the materialist world is doing at this very moment and in so doing are harming our world irreparably . Nearly all of humanity are seeking ways of enriching themselves in the physical world. There is of course nothing wrong with that except when it becomes an obsession to create physical wealth at all costs, even if when it means harming their fellow man.

    It is a crying shame what the current management are up to.

    It is now up to the independent Scientologists to take over the reigns.

  3. First thing on my screen with the morning coffee…
    How nice, a fresh morning breeze. Words of wisdom, sanity, tolerance, theta.
    Couldn’t have a better breakfast…:)
    On my way to a full Indie auditing day (NOTS, Dror Center, Israel), and already late…
    Will comment more later. There is much to say.
    Love to all,

  4. Thank you for your welcome and timely reminder.I for one value your blog and appreciate the standards applied and the sanity thereof.Yours has been an accessible and safe place to go in this crazy period,long may it remain so……

  5. This is great BIC, there is so much good that Scn can do, personally I dont think we have scratched the surface of that, that to allow the denigration of LRH or the philosophy is just nuts. At the same time I think we need to be very understanding to those who no longer wish to engage in it. Many have gone through horrendous out tech, admin and ethics actions and are understandably gun shy and upset about the subject.
    Congratulations on this line you are taking, it must be hard moderating, and I thank you for putting this blog here!

  6. This friendly reminder is very needed and wanted!
    It brings some of our readers back to the purpose of our communication.

    This blog is for those who support L.R.H 100 percent!

    This blog has held my interest from day one and I have blown
    so much charge with out paying a cent!
    Good old fashioned Validation and acknowledgement of
    indicating the truth!

    This communication line is very important to me and a big thank you
    to all who contribute to keeping it on Line.

  7. BIC! I salute you as a team! I am in thorough agreement with each and every facet expressed in this Opening Post.

    One only needs to superficially glance through the article, to glean an enormous degree of ARC is evident. If however, one is really keen to peruse (thoroughly examine) the content, one may behold the somewhat less common presentation of APPLIED Scientology, in action and used to communicate your message in a manner that can and does bridge divides that exist/have occurred.

    Thank you for your refusal to be dragged into the fire-fights, of those with spurious agendas. (they have their own demons to contend with!) IMHO, this is a first class example, of what the PROPER, INTENDED use of Scientology, in the CORRECT hands, can accomplish.

    Thank you all, and every single one of those who support the goodwill you stand for.

    —Calvin. 🙂

  8. BIC
    Thanks so much for creating this blog. You are a valuable asset to the subject of Scientology and I think your moderation rules are excellent.

  9. BIC, You have created a lovely blog that is informative and highly beneficial to the readers. Unfortunate that your mission, beliefs, purposes and special interest can not always be respected by everyone.

    It is your blog and you have been more than accommodating. But you do not owe it to anyone to be verbally abused, heckled or ridiculed or prosecuted for creating a platform for conversation along an specific interest line.

    There are people that have gotten involved in Scientology, that never really were able to think with the ten commandments. Or were never taught them. Especially bearing false witness. Treat others as they would like be treated themselves, the golden rule. These are very simple social polices and in truth, all of our laws in society are based on the ten commandments.

    No need to apologize for drawing lines in the sand when someone who did not establish this blog or this interest wants to convert your forum into a purpose line that is different or disrespects you or becomes a barrier to your goals and purposes with your blog.

    If someone will not grant you beingness, yet demands that you grant them beingness, it can be annoying, the mere injustice. But you have been very generous and diplomatic. Thank you for permitting me to be a part of the conversations. You have a great crowd here and I have a new appreciation for South Africa!

  10. This is an excellent post , BIC Admin !

    Your moderation policy is a testimony of what tolerance and understanding are really capable of accomplishing. Your emphasis on inclusion as opposed to exclusion , is a new and quite refreshing viewpoint to adopt as Scientologists. Very well done. I particularly liked this part :

    BIC Admin : ” It is possible that there can be a “brotherhood of Scientologists” that allows us to talk, debate and interact without ever judging each other or feeling the need to label one another as “squirrels”; “off source” or whatever. It has now emerged that there are several ways and approaches to traveling the Scientology road. The workability of each rests firmly in the often quoted but seldom understood quote:

    “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself.”

    Religions of all denominations , are frequently filled with attitudes of exclusion and segregation from parishioners who think differently or change from denomination. They are either overtly or covertly made to individuate from the group by the mechanism of “W/Hs of nothingness”. They are prompted to believe that they are doing “something very wrong” by being different or by having divergent viewpoints. This is a dramatization from the group of an insanity LRH covers in HCOPL 1970 , Group Sanity” on pag 268 of MS1, section “11.MORALE” : “INSANITY IS A REFUSAL TO ALLOW OTHERS TO BE , DO OR HAVE”. LRH

    I’ve got to confess, that I had myself, this tendencytocriticize and immediately condemn any person departing Scientology and/or thinking different than the agreed (or bank-agreed ) way to look at things. In the first place, no otherLRHquote can explain this better : “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself.” LRH.

    Things are only true to the degree that YOU have observed them by YOURSELVES and only according to your own observation. Scientology is not a religious practice to be imposed on anyone ; it is a personal road of sef-revelation. It is unique to each individual. It teaches anyone “how to know” and understand almost anything. But it got to be you own road and not anybody else’s.

    This planet is so full of “religious mania” and implanted right-wrong dichotomies , that it is no wonder that even Scientologists are affected by it heavily too ; so insidious are these implants. This planet is not a madhouse out of the doing of some Earthly SPs. This intolerance and fixation are the doings of highly trained beings who make Earth PT society looks as an “Australopithecus society”in terms oftechnology, specially implanting technology.

    So many of us, Scientologists, use this philosophy as if it were a religious practice or dogma ; it is neither. We have raised LRH to a God-like position; something he never wanted. We shrink and react to any kind of mention of any possible failing that he might have had , pretending he was a perfect being , totally unfallible. That is an unjust viewpoint in the extreme ; totally unjust to him. Why do humans expect their leaders to be perfect ? That is just non-sense ; a big outpoint in itselfofan altered importance.

    The real important thing should be the legacy that such leaders left for us. Did they developed ideas that we can use to help others and ourselves lead a happier and more causative life? Did they left behind ideas and procedures that are really useful in getting closer to the ideal scene of : “A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights” ?

    Those are really the important things, not if they had any failings or made any mistakes ; of course they had and did , who hasn’t ? It was the Church who tried to make LRH perfect and god-like , not him. He couldn’t care less about those things.

    There is this tendency from us Scientologists,to look at EVERYTHING in life based on whether or not LRH wrote about it. And if he did talked about it , we immediately adopt his viewpoint w/out any regard for our own personal observation and integrity. Chee , some of us even want to brush our teeth the “LRH way”. That’s why I finally routed out of the SO. Too little self-determinism , too much “religious mania” and cult-ish approach for me.

    Many of us expect to find an LRH ref for everything no matter how petty the detail. We expect LRH to solve everything for us and refuse to “create knowledge” for ourselves. I was heavily stuck on it myself till 12 years ago when I decided that I would be my own authority on everything.

    My conviction with Scn comes from my scientific training and my application of it followed with my own independent observations of whether it worked or not. I found it to be workable every time if and only if it was applied per the book.

    No chemist would ever mix two sustances in the wrong proportion (no matter how minute) and expect to have the same product. It is a precision science. Same with electricity. Scientology is no different. It is a precision science. I have found out, in all cases that I researched, that the ones who got upset or dissatisfied with Scn had it wrongly applied to them every time, either by others or by themselves out of M/Us and/or false data.

    But in spite of my own observations about it and my own conviction , I can’t expect others to feel the same way. It has to be their own path and experience. Scn is not to be imposed on anyone. It is not something to believe in ; it is something to apply and see for yourself, whether it worked or not according to your own independent and self-dtermined observations. Whether it is real for you or not , I am perfectly ok with either. Use and apply whatever part of it you find workable and real for you. Don’t just brush it off out of biased observations or the influence of others. Test it for yourself , exactly as written, with a totally objective frame of mind , and be true to your own observations.

    BIC Admin : ” We have always tried to err on the side of open communication but we cannot allow our platform of open communication to serve an agenda of hate. Democracy and open communication are, by their nature, noisy affairs and often involves robust debate. This is good. This is healthy. It is encouraged but the parameters are important. ”

    Excellent point, BIC Admin, excellent indeed. Friendly debates tend to be noisy and many times even get heated. Nothing wrong with that as long as respect and tolerance be the guiding principle. If all of us were always fully in agreement on everything, what a dull and uninteresting life it would be indeed.

    Keep those points in as exactly delineated in your post, and you’ll win every time. My hat off to you for your courage and integrity. My blessings to you and all posters here, Scientologists ,non-scientologists ,and ex-Scientologists alike.


      • And I feel compelled to add, Peter, that you have spoken as a true journeyman, wizened in his craft. And appreciative of the great teacher, who set the examples for not only you, but for all of us to follow, were we only willing to grasp the hard won lessons HE earnestly tried to pass on!

        ARC, — Calvin.

      • Thanks for the validation Calvin ,

        You communicate like a true poet, I really like that. Quoting Eric Ludy : “A true poet writes poetry with his very life.”

        ARC ,


      • Thanks for your validation Shelley !

        I really appreciate it.

        I am glad to offer some common points of agreements. I think we all seek the same things here : a better life, to help our fellows and ourselves , to expand our spritual horizons , peace for this Earth , mutual understandings , a happy and united family, freedom of speech and religion , an honest job where we can exchange with society, a right to our own mind and sanity, respect and admiration from others , to be loved, proper justice free from bank dramatizations , rehabilitation , recovering our self-esteem for some ; and other large array of great things.

        That’s a common denominator no matter what denomination one practices ; Scientology , Buddhism , Spiritism , and other -ism(s) . That’s what makes us equal and special ; all of us. We seek the same freedoms. Our similararies ; our common purposes, are a lot more important and powerful than our divergences. We are a race, a great species. We are the 4th dynamic. We can work together as brothers and sisters to save this dying world. We can make it : united.

        ARC PETER

      • Nice article Peter. However, the way you describe scn makes it sound like any other religion. Scn claims to have a Bridge to Total Freedom, and to this end I think the character of LRH does become highly important. If scn has such a Bridge, should the Founder himself not demonstrate what that total freedom looks like? I don’t think he did. LRH may have been a great guy, and from what I hear I’m sure he was. He may have left a great legacy of knowledge bundled in an accessible manner – but a route out he did not leave.

      • Thanks for the comm Maven,

        And thanks for your validation of my comments.

        As I said before, Scn is an individual road to self-revelation. I wouldn’t try to impose on you or on anybody else that it is a road out ; that would be presumptuous from me in the extreme.

        I am glad that you are willing to observe and find out about the usefulness of the subject and very much validate your friendly approach to it.

        I make no claims that Scn has all the answers to all problems of life and existence and that no additional works besides it is invalid or unworkable. I make no such claims. What is true is what is true for yourself and only according to your own observations. Truth is a personal thing. It is unique to each individual. Truth can’t be imposed nor can’t it be “sold” to anyone. It is YOU as an indiviadual , who would determine the validity or lack of, of any road to freedom. I can’t “sell” anyone to you.

        It has to be your own path. In my case particularly, I found Scn to be such route to freedom, such a road out. Out of the misery of being human with all its obvious limitations, out of the endless “birth and death” cycle ; out of the intolerance and neglect of the well beingness of others. That has been (and is) my own personal conviction, my own personal truth.

        However, I can’t properly communicate and make real to you my own experiences if you yourself has not travel the road. How can a Christian comm to others, with any reality, that he got into more connection with the 8th dynamic ? I am afraid he couldn’t. It was his own personal experience and anyone not fully participating in the procedures and having the same experience happening to them, would just not be able to have any reality with it.

        And if he did participated fully and in spite of that, didn’t experience such connection, then it is not real as far as he is concerned and there is nothing absolutely wrong with that. Should Christiany stop promoting them, then as a road out, just because there are others who can’t establish that connection with what they considers the 8th dynamic? Of course the shouldn’t. It is their duty to continue to promote it if they really believe in it, and more so if they believe that following such a road represent salvation for others. That’s expected.

        There is no convincing in matters of religion, there is only full participation and revelations or lack of them.No different with Scn. It is either going to be real for you or not as a road out. If it is, then welcome aboard. If it isn’t, then welcome aboard too. We are still your friends and very much respect your reality. We welcome you as a friend and grant you full beingness to your own criteria and discernment.

        As I said, I make no claims whatsoever. Why should I ?

        Thanks again for your comments Maven, and success in your own path.

        ARC PETER

  11. Peter are you in commune with the angels of reason?

    Your speech felt like a fresh breeze that impinged from dynamic 1 and then right on up to the 8th! 3 cheers for that! Thank you!

    To BIC I cogged earlier on just what a collossal goal you set about to achieve. Basically to get South Africans who were expelled and left back into direct exchange of ideas.

    You have done that and much, much more. People planet wide are listening and the impact is greater than the magazine which bares the title “impact”! It took guts, steel nerve and a belief in your ideals to create a movement that has saved many indeed. You make me proud to call myself a Seffeffrikan!

    Thank you and thanks to all the able bodies out there sayin their bit too! It helps.. A LOT

    • Thanks for your validation Sheeplebane , most kind of you.

      I am glad my comm had good effect on others. I think it is time for a big push from all of us : Scientologists , non-Scientologists, and ex-scientologists alike ; to start making things go right for this planet in a big, united and coordinated effort. The tools are there, we have them. Let’s start using them now. We share a lot more common purposes , goals, ideals , and ethics than it is generaly realized. Let’s focus on what makes us equal and yet specific individualities at the same time.

      The time to act is now. Look at the indicators. I see them, do you ?


  12. BIC Admins,

    One possible outcome with your moderation policy refusal to criticize LRH as well as to discuss the nature and content of the OT levels, might be as follows:

    It will put you in the same untenable position as the two great monotheistic religions had claimed for themselves for thousands of years.

    It would be like Christianity forbidding to publicly examine and discuss the Gospels and the Old Testament, not only as to the value and truthfulness of the scriptures, but also as to the sources of those scriptures.

    It would be like the Islamic faith refusing to discuss the Koran or criticize its imputed source, that of the Prophet Mohammed.

    Note that both religions refusal to permit an analytical study of their faith, created two of the most vicious religious cults in history, which paved the way for mass persecution, wars and genocide all over the world for thousands of years.

    This is your blog, so of course you have the right to moderate its content, and I do agree with you that David Miscavige crimes should be fully exposed and he should be made legally responsible for the assault on your civil liberties.

    But by discouraging the analytical evaluation of Scientology and LRH, you are now tacitly ascribing to Hubbard the status of inerrant, semi divine being and turning Scientology’s technology into sacred and undisputable religious texts.

    Isn’t that sort of counter to the objectives of an Applied Religious Philosophy, who purports to increase the rationality and self-determinism of its students?

    • Conan: Thank you for your comment. You are entitled to your own opinions, however our standpoint on this issue remains firm.
      As stated we do encourage debate and engagement with each other, however it is expected that this occurs within the parameters as set out in the article and our moderation policy. Bearing in mind that the primary definition of criticism is “the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes”, we are not a platform for such criticism on the technology of SCN, it’s founder LRH nor any other religion for that matter. There are many blogs already engaged in criticisms and discussions regarding the failings and foibles of LRH and SCN. There are also many sites that have freely exposed upper-level materials. We see no need to enter this already heavily populated arena, nor do we deny anyone the right to explore these sites if they choose to do so.

      • scnafrica,
        Thanks for your consideration. I really don’t have anything else to add to your blog, as I have thoroughly explored Scientology elsewhere, and I’m pretty much done with it, other than to help Mike & Marty reform this cult.

        I thought that over the long range, a wider view will benefit those still working through it, I think particularly that a good understanding of religion and its history would help scientologists on their spiritual evolution.
        Happy travel.

  13. “The BIC blog is the place for those who want their questions answered and are seeking the truth.”

    With all due respect, BICers, if you are going to censor viewpoints with which you disagree, is this really a fair and honest description? We all know LRH’s definition of “truth”. If some have come to the conclusion that Scientology is false, if that is what is true for them, then they will not find “the truth” here.

    I’m not trying to cause trouble, it’s just that statements like the one you make in this blog post are very much like the Church’s use of KSW: Only certain viewpoints are tolerated. The Co$ has a very limited tolerance for criticism of DM; BiC has a very limited tolerance for criticism of LRH. Ask yourself: Are the two viewpoints really all that different? Or better yet, ask yourself: Why is any organization so afraid of criticism? What do they have to fear from open discussion?

    Whether or not you choose to moderate this comment, I hope you will consider carefully what I am saying. What is the *true* source of the idea that negative information must be suppressed, rather than have the light of truth shone upon it?

    With much love from someone who has bathed in the light.

    • Thank you Bathed. As you stated, if people visit this blog looking for “truth” after they have already come to the conclusion that “we all know LRH’s definition of truth” then it stands to reason they will not find the “truth” on this blog. Open discussion and criticism are different things. One infers a healthy and respectful two way communication cycle between people and the other infers one person attempting to find fault and communicate disapproval of others’ viewpoints and reality. Please see our response to Conan which is applicable in this case. If this blog does not suit those who land up here or if anyone finds the data on this blog to be contrary or not aligned with the “truth” they are seeking, we are more than happy for them to continue their journey by investigating other sources until they find something that is true for them.

      • Good on you for posting my comment. In that alone, you have differentiated yourself from the Co$.

        I do disagree that there is a difference between open discussion and criticism. Criticism is a necessary part of many open discussions; to close one’s ears to criticism is to deny oneself the benefit of others’ wisdom. Just because we hear criticism, doesn’t mean we have to be changed by it; we may well decide to consider it and throw it away.

        I warn anyone who will listen to beware of ANY belief system that instructs one to be closed to criticism. Another question to ask: What are you afraid to hear?

        But perhaps I am pushing too far. By posting my comment, you are clearly willing to hear some criticism. I hope you will continue to be open to other forms of objection. It’s the way through, and you know where that leads! 🙂

        Peace and love,
        Bathed In The Light

      • Thanks Bathed. Let’s see where we are going on this. You are welcome on this blog anytime as long as you agree to the parameters set out – with this in mind, debate, discussion and two-way communication is welcomed and encouraged.

  14. Sound ideals, workable principles, great attitude. This sort of thing sustains and reinvigorates your excellent and beneficial blog.
    Thank you!

  15. I think it is important to say that BIC is a vital ‘decompression chamber’ for many people. Let’s remember no comm at all is allowed in corporate Scientology! Anger, frustration and resentment have sadly become a routine part of the Scientology journey. Some may move on entirely some may try to keep Scientology working in their lives. I’m just so glad that we are all here! We must debate, we must talk and we must laugh but we,of all people, should know that we must never simply disconnect from others!

  16. Lols, BIC seems you are damned if you do, damned if you dont! Pro LRH and Scn are loving you presently while the camp that has “graduated” Scn are in mild protest, haha! I laugh only because it echos life itself. Gouvernments must feel the same as you do – interesting no?

    To the graduated folk I appreciate your viewpoints too. It makes me obnose and really take note for myself and not just say its so cause the ole man said. Thats lazy and dangerous! Naysayers also keep me alert as to what I may become should I fail or loose at too often (no offense). Discussing OT levels with others who have not completed them is cruel. Allow them to be the judge once they have gradiently done so I say. Its all to easy to dismiss something if you were out reality on it, or if it failed due to the many reasons it can fail. Why then try to expose ones personal failure with the subject and project and expect it on others? The church is stuck on making people have only their reality. I think BIC does a stirling job of keeping people in the ring and talking whatever our differences.

    Lets take a steps back now and reestablish the one other point. We are a loosely held alliance. Despite varing views on LRH, tech and life, we all want the midget strung up and reformation if not destruction of the RCS! If we all stand together right here, it is a matter of surety I believe.

  17. ScnAfrica –

    I read all your responses to the commenters you posted who questioned your more robust moderation policies, and I have to say that I very much appreciate your patience and willingness to “defend” and flesh out your policies.

    I think they are very constructive and clear.

    I do however want to clarify one of the points that you made to the commenter “bathed”.

    scnafrica wrote:

    Open discussion and criticism are different things. One infers a healthy and respectful two way communication cycle between people and the other infers one person attempting to find fault and communicate disapproval of others’ viewpoints and reality.”

    What if the criticism contains both the good and the bad of the subject under discussion? All constructive and legitimate criticism addresses both the good and the bad as perceived by the critic.

    Further, I would say that open discussion is the larger set under which criticism is a subset: they are not different at all but very much related. Open discussion allows for and recognizes the value of legitimate criticism, as you have done with Bathed and Conan above.

    I can see that you are merely saying that the discussion of both the good and the bad of L Ron Hubbard and Scientology will not be allowed here. But it also seems that you encourage people to go elsewhere for that.

    This seems like you are saying that there is value in legitimate criticism of L Ron Hubbard and Scientology tech which weighs both the good and the bad. It just won’t be allowed here.

    Do I understand your viewpoint correctly?


    • The words referred to here are criticism and discussion.
      Definitions (Websters) Criticism: 1. The forming of judgments, especially about books, music etc. 2.A piece of writing by a critic; review 3. The act of finding fault; disapproval. Discuss: To talk or write about with various opinions and ideas being given (orig. Latin – “to scatter”).

      Our focus naturally is on the issue of the 3rd definition as none of the others apply in this case. As we have said, we encourage open discussion and healthy debate – is this not good enough?

      Regarding “Constructive Criticism” – here is a reference (LRH – The Art Book). “Constructive criticism” is a term which is often used but seldom defined. But it has use. It could probably be best defined as criticism which “indicates a better way to do,” at least in the opinion of the critic. Those who simply find fault and never suggest a practical means of doing it better rather forfeit their right to criticize.”

      So the answer is no, we are not interested in criticism when it’s sole purpose is to find fault or disapprove. If someone feels they have the right to “constructive criticism” in relation to the technology of SCN, then they should be able to prove or demonstrate that they have a “better way to do” than LRH did. If not, then it stands to reason that the person acting as the “critic” is merely trying to “find fault”. Our contention is that the Technology of Scientology as founded by LRH, when properly applied as he intended it to be, produces good results. This is evidenced by the 1000’s of people who have testified as having benefited greatly from correct application of HIS technology. When misapplied, it is a disaster (witness what “products” are being produced by the RCS). We are perfectly happy for anyone to criticize the current situation prevailing in RCS, the overt products being produced and crimes being committed.

      Hope this clarifies things for you now.

      • It does.

        If I understand correctly, per the LRH reference you provided above, you would allow direct criticism of LRH and/or Scientology technology if the commenter was not just finding fault, but also presented a better way or alternative.

        Is that correct?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s