User talk:Cnjmorris

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! - CobaltBlueTony 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Scientology
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Scientology. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! - CobaltBlueTony 18:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If they charge large sums of money for auditing (which they do) it is not anuetral to state that the auditing is expensive. I think its importatnt to differentiate from other religions (which I assure you I am no more fond of) who offer 'counseling,' albeit free.Cnjmorris 18:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The word "expensive" is a patent point-of-view. Expensive to whom?  Certainly not to TomKat. ;-) the NPOV policy aims to present information in a perspective-neutral language.  Presnting the 'fact of how much they charge, in US$, and let the reader determine the attribute of personal cost. - CobaltBlueTony 19:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Auditing is not intrinsically expensive. The paragraph you keep changing is to describe auditing itself, not about how much the Church of Scientology organization specifically charges for it. Raymond Hill 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Scientology. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --InShaneee 19:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem, CNJ, is that "expensive" is not a fact, but a value judgement. You may think it's expensive, and in fact I think it's expensive. However, a Scientologist who regards auditing as the most beneficial thing on Earth would disagree that it's "expensive". It's an opinion statement, not a fact. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)



Every article includes point of views. When you quote a source in text you are showing the point of view that YOU believe it applies. Others may disagree. The average person would think $350,000 to reach OCVII is expensive. Consider for instance the statement in the 4th paragraph that states "cult status can be attributed to its unconventional creation", who decides what is unconventional? What the average person would view as conventional? So then the average person believing auditing is expensive doesn't count. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnjmorris (talk • contribs) 14:15, June 30, 2006


 * However, you did not present it as a point of view. some points of views are dominant because of how predominant they really are; others probably should be expressed more in terms of their opinionated origins, but not all are based on opinion, but on professional and acholarly examinations that attempt to express facts in relation to other related topics or fields.


 * Quite simply, you presented an unqualified opinion. If you had presented a verifiable source which says it's expensive, someone else could have presented a differing view.  The easiest way to address this is to either present an independent source which has surveyed the impression of the cost in relation to current and potential church members' opinion on that value, or more simply, as I had advised, present a dollar value that is easily assessed by any reader, and lets them form an opinion based solely on facts and not on the opinion of some random editor.


 * Also, I would recommend that you read the references in my welcome message as well as the reasoning behind the threee revert rule, which you have violated. It may seem trivial to get blocked for something like this, but the move is preventative, not punitive.  It seeks to prevent needless edit wars.  Best wishes in the future! - CobaltBlueTony 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's okay, keep me blocked, this site obviously isn't worth my time. Good luck editing out opinions by people who have even stronger opinions.Cnjmorris 19:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So you're just going to give up? Keeping mind the first point above:
 * [[Image:Be_bold.png]]
 * Be bold! You can do it!  The more the merrier!
 * - CobaltBlueTony 20:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)