User talk:Justallofthem/Archive1

March 2008
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

Unblock

 * Hello FisherQueen. Please see the AN thread. Blueboy arbitrary blocked all my accounts which are all legitimate alternate accounts under WP:SOCK. His blocking was without cause or consensus in support of same on the thread. IMO, all of Blueboy's recent blocks on my accounts should be undone as premature if not unwarranted. By way of explanation, both Justanother, my main account, and JustaHulk, a joke alternate account, have been disabled by me for some time as a semi-retirement. Alfadog was blocked at the beginning of this dispute by another admin and I am addressing that separately and not asking for unblock of that account here, just asking for unblock of Blueboy's work. This account was started at the request of admins at the AN thread that I choose one voice and stick to that. That request has been withdrawn but I am fine with sticking to this account pending resolution of the AN issue. However, I feel that Blueboy's blocks were premature and perhaps punitive and all three should be undone pending any resolution at AN. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: FisherQueen, I welcome your interest in this case as I would think that someone that can appreciate the "Friends of Gays" essay might also appreciate the manifestations of this case and of my recent treatment here in general which rises nearly to the level of kafkaesque. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Justanother
 * Edit counts

run at Sat Mar 29 06:49:24 2008 GMT

Category talk: 20

Category: 25

Image: 11

Mainspace 2061

Talk: 1874

Template talk: 19

Template: 11

User talk: 1835

User: 313

Wikipedia talk: 640

Wikipedia: 1809

avg edits per page 8.56

earliest 17:17, 21 August 2006

number of unique pages 1007

total 8618

User:JustaHulk

run at Sat Mar 29 06:51:28 2008 GMT

Category talk: 1

Image: 2

Mainspace 209

Talk: 133

Template talk: 6

Template: 3

User talk: 176

User: 34

Wikipedia talk: 4

Wikipedia: 122

avg edits per page 4.34

earliest 13:49, 8 March 2007

number of unique pages 159

total 690

User:Alfadog

run at Sat Mar 29 06:52:31 2008 GMT

Category: 2

Image: 1

Mainspace 268

Talk: 21

User talk: 86

User: 68

Wikipedia talk: 17

Wikipedia: 75

avg edits per page 2.16

earliest 17:25, 28 October 2007

number of unique pages 249

total 538

Hi Daniel. The block is extremely odd. IMO, there is no real discussion of my activity in that AN thread in connection with a siteban. Jehochman, whom I have some history with, floated the idea of a siteban. Durova, who has been on my case steady for months on behalf of Cirt, generally bad-mouths me about abusive sockpuppetry, etc but does not ask for a siteban and a few admins float some ideas and come up with this account restriction idea by Ryulong. I agree to it. Then Ryulong backs away from his idea and from the whole thing. Blueboy, a new admin that improperly blocked me, an established editor, as his very first admin action three weeks ago and whom I blew up at and insulted decides to siteban me. He is supported by, guess who, Jehochman, Durova, and Athaenara, whom I also have history with and whose WP:RFA I made a bit difficult and embarrassing by bringing up her past actions with me. I can provide diffs for all of this but I want to show you one thread now, over at Wikinews. Durova comes over there to badmouth and lie about me and a neutral admin, luckily, takes the time to look at the diffs and see who is really harassing whom, here. I invite a neutral admin to do the same here. I have to run now. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For Daniel Case

Hi. But the Justanother siteban is basically what I am requesting a review of. That is a new thing and everything I say here applies to the Justanother ban. I would like a fair hearing at AN at the very least and not buried in the bottom of a long thread. I know this is a bit unusual as regards the alternate accounts but I disabled Justanother months ago and just made this one newly at the request of admins on the AN thread. Would you at least start a new thread re sitebanning Justanother - that was just done by Blueboy in an arbitrary manner and without much evidence of anything. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wizardman

On appealing your siteban
It is general practice to require ban appeals to be made from the primary account. User talk:Justanother is not protected. —Random832 (contribs) 03:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Random832. The problem is that I disabled the Justanother account by removing my e-mail and scrambling the password. My reasons for that are here. It was my intent to not edit Scientology series articles from a logged-in account as I needed a break from the drama. I did maintain another account, Alfadog, that I had been using for non-Scientology editing. I inadvertently made a Scn edit or two from that account and even though the edits were entirely aboveboard an editor that I have a lot of history with requested and received a checkuser. I would simply like a fair hearing under a fresh thread as I do not think that neutral and experienced admins will see grounds for sanctioning me. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Unban
Hi, Justanother. I'm going to ask User:Bishzilla to unban you, please see WP:AN for rationale. You will be blocked for 48 hours for block evasion (see AN again), which has already been served; in other words you will be unblocked as soon as I have given an hour or so for replies on AN. You are hereby urged in the strongest terms to use one account, for all wikipedia editing whatsoever. Please let me know what account name you would like to use. Best regards, Bishonen | talk 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Thank you very very much, Bishonen. I do not know what makes me deserving of such an undertaking on your part as attempting to untangle and make sense of all this but your effort is most definitely appreciated. I will do what I can to make the effort worthwhile. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as choosing an account, I will write and see if I can reactivate Justanother. If not then I will create another as this one was never intended for any purpose other than addressing the AN thread. Until I sort out the account I will refrain from editing anywhere other than my respective user pages. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I never followed the edits and topics that got Justanother's in trouble. You created WP:RDAC. Though it's still stalling and starting, it has helped bundle and produce a number of new articles on relevant topics or improvements and expansions in article space, all based on questions asked at the reference desk. I remember you as a very helpful force at the desks and mediating voice of reason in heated talk page discussions. How about some time off from the contentious and stressful topics, and some levity and leisure at the desks? ---Sluzzelin talk  18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I may well take you up on that. Look for me once I get the account issue sorted out. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Refactor request
Please refactor your reply. Durova Charge! 01:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please discuss this on your page under my thread. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
Justallofthem, may I make a suggestion? Right now, it looks like communication has broken down between you and Durova. I don't know the situation (coming off a long wiki-break here), but I don't think there's going to be anything gained from further discussion on talk pages. If you really must bring it forward, may I suggest a user conduct Request For Comment? Otherwise, I suggest that you agree to disagree and leave the situation alone. SirFozzie (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, if Durova will not agree to mediation then User RfC or Arbcom are my alternatives. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally do not think you will get far with it, but I can certainly not stop you from doing it. I'd think you'd be best served just to let it drop, but it's my (*and ONLY mine*) opinion. SirFozzie (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Durova only has to agree to mediation - not either of the other alternitives. But thus far I haven't seen any kind of behaviour that warrants any of the above DR methods. Viridae Talk 07:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Durova has wikistalked me on behalf of User:Cirt both here and on Wikinews and misrepresented my edits and my history including an arbcom case here in which I was the victim of another obsessive editor (and former associate of Smee/Cirt). Here is a good example in which she misrepresents my good-faith edits as "a harassment campaign", misrepresents the arbcom on CofS (which found in my favor) and brings up old issues to malign me. Here are some comments by uninvolved editors that took the time to review the actual diffs and not just react in a knee-jerk manner to Durova's claims. And that is what Durova elicits with her accusations and misrepresentation, "knee-jerk" reactions."In no instance, did I find JustaHulk to be harassing anybody as was alleged. In fact, I am concerned that this may look like a concerted effort to silence certain voices. -- SVTCobra 01:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)""I do believe that JustaHulk has been unfairly treated . . . -- Anonymous101 07:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)"While I do acknowledge that I am no fan of Cirt and our mutual ill-will goes back to when Cirt was, I do not stalk or harass Cirt and if there is any stalking or harassing going on then I am the recipient of it. I do not know if Durova does it intentionally or if she is just careless and given to misjudgment. Durova and I go way back also and I think it is the latter; she seems to be lacking in some judgment. I really do not think that she thinks: "If I misrepresent boldly then some admin will sanction him without bothering to go through the diffs closely." I think she does it from a self-righteous viewpoint and her own version of "good faith". Durova points to a WP:AN thread and I will point to the same thread and specifically Bishonen's comments here which speaks of what happens when respected editors start tossing around "cheaply-bought accusations of disruptiveness":"talk 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)"I need Durova to see that she is harming me here and I need her to stop. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Larson AFB Image
Re: Image:Larson afb gate.jpg. I wasn't the original uploader of the image, however I recall seeing it on a website (not the identical image, a different scan of it however) which said it came from a USAF postcard from the base in the early 1960s. That's why I wrote the caption as such. As far as it being a copyright violation, the image certainly looks like a postcard, however as I don't have an origional, so I can't be 100% sure. It's an illustration more than anything else so whatever it is decided, that's fine with me.. Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. Let's see what the image gurus do with it. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Curiosity
Do you mind if I ask you a few questions regarding your faith? On or off-wiki is fine by me. Best, Chaotic  Reality  00:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can ask me here. Please be patient as I am spending as little time on the 'net these days as I can manage as I am way busy IRL. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you get bored please feel free to read my page from back when I was a lot wordier. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will copy the most relevant wordiness below. Perhaps it will answer some of your questions. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Scientology
Scientology is a philosophy. In its broadest sense as envisioned by L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology would be essentially the same thing as metaphysics, the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of Life, the Universe and Everything. Since it deals with man as a spirit, comprises a community of "like-thinkers", and has shared morals codes and practices, it is what is commonly termed a religion, at least for members of the formal Church of Scientology. Many rational and intelligent people subscribe to the beliefs of Scientology. The core belief being that you are a spiritual being called a thetan that inhabits a body and has and uses a mind. No-one says that Hubbard invented this idea, what Hubbard did was attempt to determine if there were underlying laws to the nature and behavior of spiritual beings, akin to the laws of the physical universe, for example the laws that control bodies in motion. He came up with sets of basic laws that he termed the "Factors" and the "Axioms". Hubbard also attempted to develop techniques based on these laws that would improve the state of the thetan. He termed this entire body of work, Scientology. No-one claims that Hubbard created Scientology in a vacuum, out of whole cloth as it were. He researched many, many previous philosophies and took what he could from them. People should not point at some similarity between Scientology and some earlier philosophy and say "Hubbard copied this". That is like pointing at Einstein and saying "Oh look, he copied Newton".

If one wants to approach Scientology intelligently as an editor of articles describing the philosophy and practice of Scientology (as opposed to articles describing the controversies associated with the Church of Scientology, which require a different knowledge-set), it is important to understand something about metaphysics or religion and science. Science, as commonly described, is a subset of metaphysics. Science, especially natural science (which includes physics and biology), deals with things that can be measured with physical instruments. Things that cannot be measured, love for instance (as distinct from the effects of love on the physical body which can be measured), are beyond the scope of science. Those individuals that understand science best, men like Newton, Einstein and Schrödinger, understand this point and know the limitations of science. If there is an "ultimate reality", that reality likely lies at the intersection of the physical and the spiritual; The Tao of Physics explores that idea and the author found agreement from two more giants of the physical sciences, Heisenberg and Bohr. People that do not have that depth of understanding sometime mistakenly believe that science describes or addresses everything, "observable" or not, in the entire universe of human experience and that if something is not explained by science then it is "wrong". Such people may not know it but they subscribe to a philosophy termed Scientism, a philosophy that I doubt many scientists themselves follow. They perhaps forget that that very concept (i.e. that "thought") cannot be measured or explained by science. Attempts to "measure" a spiritual thing such as a concept amount to nothing more than attempting to measure their influence or effects on the human body. Hubbard, in addition to taking a few stabs at that "ultimate reality" previously mentioned, attempted to bring an understanding to the spiritual universe akin to that brought to physics by physical scientists. That does not make Scientology a "physical science"; it might be termed a "spiritual science" if one were to term it a science at all; it is better termed "an applied religious philosophy" which is what Hubbard termed it. However, it works and it is reproducible. If I apply the principle of the ARC triangle to my relationship with another person, I get the uniform result of improved understanding between us and a more harmonious relationship. The fact that people can "naturally" do this does not invalidate the "law of ARC" no more than the fact that people can "naturally" fall down invalidates the law of gravity. Hubbard's genius was in describing what "laws" underlie human experience and when you look at human experience using Scientology it makes much more sense and you can be more effective in life. You don't need to understand Hubbard's "Axioms" and "Factors" to be effective with Scientology, you can just learn the techniques mechanically. Just like you don't need to understand aerodynamics, metallurgy, and mechanical engineering to be an effective pilot, you just learn the techniques of flying.

It is interesting that the recent lecture by Pope Benedict XVI that started such a stir was not so much about Islam as it was about this very point; what is reason and what is science in relation to religion. The lecture was entitled Faith, Reason and the University; Memories and Reflections and is a "critique of modern reason". The lecture makes interesting reading for those interested in the intersection of science and religion.

In the lecture, the Pope discusses the "modern [i.e. limited - Justanother] concept of reason [...] based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology." and makes the following observation:

"This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned."

He continues, "it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology's claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science", so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective."

The Pope concludes that there is a need for "broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity [i.e. the technological fruits of "modern scientific reason" - Justanother], we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons".

While Hubbard may have, at some point, had the intention that Scientology be an attempt to expand the limited definition of reason and science beyond the merely measurable, it has, for better or worse, become something else altogether. Early on in the history of Scientology, Hubbard "gave" it freely to the world and, at that point, Scientology might have been described as a protoscience. Later, it seems, he reconsidered that "gift" and, in one of Scientology's most important Policy Letters, Keeping Scientology Working, he claimed that contributions from others had been of no real value, had in fact been almost uniformily destructive, and that Scientology would not entertain contributions by anyone other than himself. With that stroke, Scientology moved from protoscience to dogma. Hubbard believed that it was more important that the "workable path" that he had developed remain unaltered than that Scientology be developed further by a community. History will perhaps prove him right or wrong in that but that viewpoint does not detract from the value of what he created.

I know I didn't ask, but...
Hi, Justa* (heh). I know it's been a while since we talked, and I know I'm not the one who asked the question that led you to post this, but there's something in it that I keep coming back to that's absolutely driving me batty, and I have to mention it.

L. Ron Hubbard was very big on understanding the meaning of a word, even going so far as to say that students could do worse than having a dictionary on every table (something I heartily agree with). With that in mind, here is the definition of "science" according to our good friends at American Heritage:
 * . The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
 * . Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
 * . Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

There are other meanings, of course. But these are the pertinent ones for what we generally regard as the "scientific method."

Above, you speak repeatedly about "limitations" in regard to science and reason. You say "limited definition of reason and science" as if that's a bad thing.

I want the definitions of reason and science to be limited, because anything beyond the scopes of those definitions aren't reason and science. That's not to invalidate things that are beyond their scope; love is a great example, because only the chemical aspects of love can be studied scientifically. All else to do with love is the purview of religion, spirituality, and philosophy. But that doesn't mean we should expand the definition of biochemical science to include those other aspects of love, any more than we should expand the definition of "car" to include the road it's driven on.

Science is, at its core, concerned only with that which can be studied with scientific principles. Spirituality, including Hubbard's spiritual studies, are inherently unscientific, and trying to jam the two together does disservice to both.

And that, I think, is something that Scientology as a whole needs to come to grips with. Scientology isn't science. It isn't even close. Nothing in it can be scientifically validated. Again, that isn't to say Scientology isn't valid, it's just not scientific -- just like passion and poetry. Its methods and beliefs aren't scientifically falsifiable, and that's OK. They don't need to be. Science doesn't need to be expanded to incorporate spirituality, spirituality and science both need to accept that they aren't each other. Let science deal with the mechanics of the universe, and let spirituality deal with the questions of why.

OK, I'll get off my soapbox now. :) -- Good Damon 18:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are limiting "reason" to science. You are lumping them together as "reason and science" as if they were the same thing or of the same magnitude. I think you are misreading me if you think that I say "reason" should be limited. Reason is whatever man can envision, whether "scientific" or not. That is what the Pope is talking about also, reread what he is saying there. We reduce man when we consider that that which is not "scientific" is not "reason". Science is a useful tool, it is not the be all and end all of reason. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I never call Scientology a "science". Again, reread what I wrote. I say it had a shot at being a protoscience but became dogma instead. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and lastly, I am pretty sure that we agree on the definition of "science" if not on the definition of "reason". I do not consider a discussion of art or love (or thetans) to be beyond the realms of reason though such a conversation would almost certainly not be about science (though it could certainly be about Scientology). --Justallofthem (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, OK, I think I see where you're coming from, at least on that topic. I focused in on science, while your focus was really more on reason. I completely agree with you here, actually.


 * In this context, reason has the following meanings:
 * . The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
 * . Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.
 * Those can certainly be applied to subjects beyond science, like art and love.


 * But I still can't shake the sense from your essay that you regard Scientology as proven fact, rather than faith. You say, "...it works and it is reproducible," a claim that's awfully scientific-sounding. The truth is, it seems to work for you and it appears to be reproducible to you, but there's nothing beyond your experiential evidence to back it up.


 * In the end, matters of faith can't be proven to anyone, because they are -- as we both agree -- beyond the realm of science. No fact-sheet or presentation, no matter how well-made, can prove an inherently unprovable subject, such as the existence of the soul (or thetan, if you will). Faith can only be proven true to an individual by that individual, through a religious experience. -- Good Damon 19:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "proof" quite limits your ability to reason. Luckily I know that you do not really act that way, it is simply how you have been taught to express ideas. It is how most Westerners are taught to think and express ideas in our materialistic society. Example, can we "prove" that giving a lady friend flowers is a good idea? Does the inability to "prove" it render the idea any less valid and useful. The validity of Scientology techniques is in your own application and experience of them. Happens that that validity has been shared by many thousands of people. It is "reasonable" to apply techniques that have worked for thousands and see if they work for you. It is not "science" but as I say repeatedly, "science" is just a handy tool. It is not senior to life and the spirit. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm intentionally using the word in the scientific sense, since you appeared, at least to me, to be using the language of science. I'm well aware that the word can have an expanded meaning, because it's quite possible to "prove" things to oneself without rigorous scientific study. Your example of flowers is fine. But you're not revealing anything particularly unique to Scientology, here. The validity of any technique is in your own application and experience of it. Scientologists, like adherents to any religion, think they've found the answers. I don't have any problem with that, but the trappings of science don't belong there. Like I said, in the scientific sense it cannot be proven that Scientology works, and that's true no matter how many people use it. Heck, billions of people find that Islam works for them, but I'm never heard an Imam use scientific language to back up any assertions about what Allah wants us to do.
 * Oh, and as an aside, the flowers thing? Actually, behavioral science probably can "prove" that giving a lady friend flowers is a good idea. I'm sure there's also some communication science study somewhere about it, too. Just sayin'. -- Good Damon 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Those soft sciences are no more falsifiable than Scientology yet you don't seem to object to their use of the "language of science". I really don't know what your beef is with Scientology in that regard.  Can you give me a specific example other than the word Scientology itself or that Dianetics said in 1950 that it is the "Modern Science of Mental Heath".  Those are trivial.  And in actual fact Scientology does not represent itself as a science, it is "an applied religious philosophy".  I do not know if you are objecting to the actuality of Scientology or to a construct of your mind that you call "Scientology".  That is not meant to be insulting nor is it trivial. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with your categorization of behavioral science as a "soft science." Behavioral studies start with a set of conditions, predict results, and study actual results quantitatively as well as qualitatively. It makes no claims to be able to predict any given individual's behaviors, but it's got a pretty good track record of finding out common responses through controlled experimentation. In any event, my "beef" (I don't really have one, more an academic interest, but you say tomato, I say tomahto...) is in how Scientology is presented as a religion and as a science, depending on circumstance. The language of science seems to be used to bring Hubbard's untested, unproven (in the scientific sense) teachings into secular settings. A specific example would be Applied Scholastics. That is -- let's not mince words here -- an organization of Scientologists devoted to bringing Hubbard's "study tech" into public schools, in a manner that, frankly, doesn't go out of its way to reveal the religious nature of that "tech." Personally, I find it fascinating that a religion's adherents feel so strongly that their methods are proven and work that they want to share it secularly... but that doesn't mean their methods really are proven and really do work. I guess in the end, my objection -- more of a concern, really -- is in the unnecessary blurring of the line between science and religion. If study tech works, it should be a simple matter to prove that scientifically, at which point it's no longer religion, it's proven fact. -- Good Damon 15:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Behavioral "science" does a study of the preference for peas amongst preteens and then publishes that 37% percent of preteens prefer peas and that is not a "soft science"? If you have an example that is not on that order of precision then let's see it. I don't pretend to be an expert in soft science, I am an engineer. Anyway your objection to Scientology seem to be that you object to Scientology saying that it "works"? But you perhaps have no objection to our behavioral "scientists" coming up with an unproven and unworkable theory such as whole language and implementing that in the school system, such as in California where it led to a state-wide decline in literacy (just a quick search came up with that link). --Justallofthem (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa, whoa, hold your horses, Change-The-Subject Man! I didn't say behavioral science was perfect, either. Whole language was a silly, stupid idea, did not have a scientific foundation, and was pushed by so-called "scientists" who have deservedly been discredited. But there's no need to paint an entire discipline with that brush. And that's all beside the point. You're using a "but they do it too" argument. Sure, other people -- generally biblical creationists, lately -- try to introduce unproven methods into school curricula, and a lot of them are very stupid. That doesn't let Applied Scholastics off the hook just because they're pretty sure their (similarly unproven) method works. Let me make something clear: My objection isn't over saying that it "works." My objection is two-fold and very specific:
 * ) Saying it works is fine. Saying it's proven scientifically to work is not fine.
 * ) Getting it into public schools without revealing its religious basis is not fine.
 * That's it. That's the whole sum of my objection to Applied Scholastics. And those same objections would apply to any religious or otherwise non-scientific group trying to get its methods into public schools.
 * Truth be told, Applied Scholastics is a wonderful microcosm of my overall concern with Scientology. I have no problem with the beliefs, or with the assertions that Scientology works. But it's not science, and science shouldn't be expanded to include it, or any other religion. -- Good Damon 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not off-topic. You seem to be coming from a viewpoint that Study Tech is this non-scientific thing that is seeking to replace the "science" of education with religion. There is no "science" of education. All there is are theories and practices and ideas of what works and what doesn't. There are theories; lots of theories. And Hubbard's theories, as theories, are no better or worse than anyone else's. All that really matters is "does it work". People that try it say it does. Those that stand aside say "well, it doesn't agree with our theories and our theories have widespread acceptance". Well, the theory that the Earth is flat once had widespread acceptance too. In other words, the "widespread theories" have no more scientific basis than Scientology. They just happen to be widespread. It really comes down to that difference between science and reason that we were talking about. All of theories have some degree of "reason" behind them, none have "science". I find it interesting that I can find examples where someone did try study tech and lo it worked but I can't find any examples where someone tried it and said it did not work; all I can find are instances where "experts" said that it did not agree with their theories or where someone objected to Scientology in the classroom or the workplace. Regarding your specific points, 1) can you show me were anyone says it is "proven scientifically to work"? 2) Study tech is not religion and the only religious basis is the underlying belief that the student is not a deterministic automaton but a spiritual being, a belief widespread throughout peoples and history and one that hardly bears pointing out. Study tech is not religion. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're talking as if there haven't been studies of what does and does not work in the classroom. There have been. Lots of them, even. There's the TIMSS study, the Dental Education study, the University of Knottingham's Effective Classroom Practice study... There are studies on the Waldorf methods, studies on law classrooms, studies to the left of me, studies to the right... I don't claim they're all flawless, and I don't claim they're all correct. But there are plenty of rigorous studies of classroom methods conducted by and for educators. It may be "soft" science, but it's there. Education has improved by leaps and bounds over the last 100 years because instructors got interested in studying how we study. So they do, absolutely, have more scientific basis than Scientology. It's not just that they're widespread.
 * I'm not surprised that you can find examples of study tech working. I can find examples of whole language working. Doesn't mean I'm for replacing phonetics. I am surprised that you can't find examples of it not working, since from my reading that's one of the complaints of people who have left Scientology.
 * Now to your responses to my specific points:
 * ) All over the Applied Scholastics website, they refer to their techniques as "proven." I suppose they don't use the word "scientifically" explicitly, but based on context it is definitely implied. There's also the fact that the word "technology" itself is indicative of a scientific undertaking. Repurposing the word for religious reasons is fine, but "study tech" is presented to schools as a secular concept, which brings us to...
 * ) Study tech is religion. It is used specifically in religious practices, and was developed for those practices. It's only in relatively recent years that it's made a secular appearance, and it still uses Scientology jargon (like "MASS" and "Gradient"). And I'm sorry, but if the "underlying belief that the student is not a deterministic automaton but a spiritual being" is part of study tech, that is absolutely, positively religious, and has no place in secular classrooms. I don't want my daughter's teachers imposing their ideas of what a "spiritual being" is on her.
 * So does that invalidate study tech in my eyes? Not necessarily, but it would need to be studied before secular use, outside of Scientology, by the same education boards and educators that set curriculum standards for other methods of teaching, and all religious -- i.e., Scientology -- aspects of it would need to be expunged. I would of course have no problem with it in a religious school as long as the students using it meet standards for literacy and other basic skills. -- Good Damon 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Education has improved by leaps and bounds over the last 100 years . . ." What did you base that on? Now don't go opening Google - you are on your honor. I did not ask you how would you defend that claim; I asked what you based making it on. What data do you have now, without opening Google (or anywhere else for that matter). What is in your head right now that supports that statement. Or is it just an idea you have? Please be honest. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, cross my heart and so forth, I have not touched, as Bush would say, the Google. I find the improvements in education to be self-evident. In the last 100 years, we've gotten smart enough to go to the moon, turn sunlight into electricity, and build a certain series of tubes through which you and I can communicate. We've figured out that hitting children in classrooms doesn't help them learn, and that getting them access to computers does. Our teachers now have to take classes themselves before they can teach, because we figured out that non-credentialed teachers will tell kids just about anything, One big thing we learned in the last century was that education itself is important; before that, kids were just as likely to be put to work as put to schooling. These are just the things off the top of my head. As far as education is concerned, the good old days weren't. -- Good Damon 05:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Technological progress is not an indicator of the quality of education in general. And the other things you mention have little to do with any "science" of education, they are more societal considerations. Now go ahead and open the Google and enter just two words "decline" and "literacy" and see just how much of a grasp our "scientists of education" have on things. My whole point again is that there is no "science" of education. There are just theories and methods and as theories and methods study tech works as well as any and likely much better than most and is as "proven" as any of them. I think your first point is a non-issue. It is up to study tech to prove its worth in the classroom - just as any of these theories and methods must do, and, if the Louisiana case is any indicator, that will not be too difficult. Regarding your second point, study tech is no more religion than an organic tomato is environmentalism. They just happen to come from people with a certain viewpoint but you are not eating the viewpoint, you are eating the tomato. Again look at the Louisiana case, even the critical "experts" found no "religion" in the tomato. It boils down, in my mind, to little more than bigotry. We don't want this because it comes from Scientology. We can't put our finger on what we don't like about but we know it comes from Scientology and that is good enough for us. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to tackle this one point-by-point if you don't mind.

Technological progress and education

 * What do you base that claim on? If your country is producing quality engineers and scientists capable of startling technological innovation, that's not an indicator that your educational methods are any good? Come on.

Education and societal concerns

 * You asked me to tell you what I base my perception of improvements to education on. I listed some improvements for you off the top of my head. You and I already disagree on whether there's any "science" behind any of those improvements, so I just did what you asked and told you what I based my statement on. Now that I have the power of Google at my fingertips again, I'd also like to add that there have been studies regarding each change I mentioned in education, and unless statistical analysis is somehow not a science, I think you're going to have to yield this point to me.

The "decline" of literacy

 * Oh sure, I can Google that, and find all sorts of moaning and groaning about how literacy is going down the tubes, the internet is making us stupid, games are turning us into violent, poo-flinging monkeys, and so on. Problem is, none of that is true. The alarmism surrounding literacy and education in this country is actually a pet peeve of mine. Instead of focusing on the real problems with schooling in the United States -- class sizes, for instance -- we spend so much time focused on non-problems. So I decided against using Google, and instead went straight to one of my literacy bookmarks, the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, which was a study done in 2003 by the National Center for Education Statistics. Literacy has improved, not declined, no matter how much the media screams otherwise and focuses on the literacy horror stories.


 * Funny, this article Literacy of College Graduates Is on Decline seems to be referencing that exact study:"Only 41 percent of graduate students tested in 2003 could be classified as 'proficient' in prose -- reading and understanding information in short texts -- down 10 percentage points since 1992. Of college graduates, only 31 percent were classified as proficient -- compared with 40 percent in 1992."Perhaps you should have searched the Google after all?--Justallofthem (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, errr, here is what the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics said:"'The declining impact of education on our adult population was the biggest surprise for us, and we just don't have a good explanation'"So if that is your gold standard then you have to give that point to me. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is one of those "literacy horror stories" I was talking about. The Washington Post did a focused story on literacy among graduate students, and barely mentioned near the end of the article that "On average, adult literacy is virtually unchanged since 1992, with 30 million people struggling with basic reading tasks. While adults made some progress in quantitative literacy, such as the ability to calculate taxes, the study showed that from 1992 to 2003 adults made no improvement in their ability read newspapers or books, or comprehend basic forms." I read that as, "Sure, overall literacy rates among adults have gone up, but don't pay attention to that. Look! A specific group not doing as well as the general population! Let's focus on that as if it invalidates everything else in the study, and ignore any other factors that may be involved." That's not to say it doesn't need to be worked on... On the contrary, there are a few relatively recent changes to education that really do have me concerned, such as the absurdly unhelpful No Child Left Behind Act and awful cuts to education funding that have drastically increased class sizes. But that doesn't mean literacy in the United States is falling to pieces. -- Good Damon 21:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I read it as "Yes, we are reaching more people with education so there is some slight upward motion as a whole or on average but all that means is that the center of the bell curve has moved incrementally up while the width of the bell curve is less, meaning that more people can read at a mediocre level." I think the Commission agrees with my take, not yours. The study site sums up the results as below:"* Fewer adults with Below Basic document and quantitative literacy in 2003 than in 1992""* Fewer adults with Proficient prose and document literacy in 2003 than in 1992"In other words, we are doing a piss-poor job on more people now that 10 years ago. That ain't how "science" works. I'll take this point and we can move on. I think you have a point or two coming up. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Louisiana case

 * That might work. I'm happy to withhold judgment on that until -- and, frankly, if -- it remains in place long enough to see if there is a statistical bump in the quality of education. Frankly, I don't think it's going to last that long, though. There is a lot of pressure in Baton Rouge to remove Applied Scholastics because of the ties to Scientology. If I recall correctly, there's at least one First Amendment lawsuit going through the courts right now about it. I'll see if I can turn it up. I also understand, from the article you linked, that the smaller student/teacher ratio (5:1) is just as likely the cause of the program's apparent success. If that's the class ratio, then this absolutely can't be used as a case study for the efficacy of the program, because it isn't in line with regular class sizes. Let me know when a major public school is using study tech in regular classrooms with 40 students per teacher.

Is it religious?

 * Until it's been peer-reviewed and accepted as a secular academic program, study tech is just the theories and ideas of L. Ron Hubbard, and has previously only been used in Scientology. It's part of Scientology, which either is a religion or isn't. There's no gray area here, and your tomato analogy is facetious, because unlike tomatoes, there has previously been no other use for study tech, and no one else producing it. And I don't want my taxpayer dollars funding, or my daughter being taught, religious methods and systems in school -- of any variety. Teaching her things like how she's a spiritual being is my job, and no one else's.


 * And as an aside, now that I've read up a little more on study tech, I seriously doubt it's ever going to be accepted into public schools, purely on its merits. 'Misunderstood' isn't a noun, and no public school vocabulary teacher worth a hill of beans is going to accept redefining the word "mass" for students. It's factually incorrect on other counts, too -- the lack of a physical representation of an idea does not cause eye irritation, for example. And there are a lot more causes for boredom than a misunderstood word. I think all this is fine for a religious belief -- there are plenty of outwardly strange beliefs in other religions, such as Transubstantiation in Catholicism]] -- but what kind of a secular study system is this?


 * And... now that I've read further, there are clay demos. That's a major part of Scientology right there. How can you claim this isn't religious in nature, without claiming that Scientology itself isn't religious?


 * Clay demos are not religion and no-one is teaching anyone that they are a spiritual being in study tech. Study tech has been looked at time and again and no-one of any repute says it is religious or teaches the Scientology religion. And you saying it is or is not "factually correct" is no more than your opinion. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, please explain to me how a major component of auditing and Scientology training is not religious in nature. Could you entirely divest Scientology of clay demos -- stop using them, stop referencing them in any way? Or is it integral to the belief system? Where is the line between the religion and the things used by the religion that aren't part of it? I guess what I'm saying is, you can't have it both ways. It can't be both a religion and a collection of non-religious behaviors that are suitable for legally secular environments. As for the "spiritual being" thing, you're the one who brought it up in conjunction with study tech. You said: "Study tech is not religion and the only religious basis is the underlying belief that the student is not a deterministic automaton but a spiritual being..." I guess I don't know what you were referring to there. -- Good Damon 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I can explain to you how study tech is not religious in nature. Clay demos. That is simply making a representation of something in clay. If a child makes a car out of Play-Doh, is that religious? How about if an instructor in auto mechanics asks a student to make a crankshaft and connecting rod out of clay to help him grasp the concept of how a car engine converts linear motion to rotary motion. Surely not religion, right? Right? Well, that is part of study tech, the idea that you try, where possible, to work with real things in the real universe and if the real thing (the engine) is not available then you use clay. What if the student uses clay to build a sentence out of nouns, verbs, objects, modifiers? He might get a better grasp of how you build a sentence. no? Religious? I don't think so. It's study tech. Let's stop here and make sure we are in agreement and then I will tell you how the clay is used in an auditing session. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For learning a language, you'd do better with those little word magnets grouped into verbs, nouns, adjectives, and so on, and even better with a pencil and paper. But setting that aside for the moment, I can partially agree with you in that what you're describing sounds like pretty typical exercises for learning-disadvantaged kids. Hubbard certainly isn't the first to come up with the idea. But I still don't get why all the Scientology jargon's mixed in, including -- I'm sorry, but you just have to accept that it is factually incorrect, and it's not my opinion -- all the physical ill effects of a misunderstood word? Yes, you can pull out individual examples, like certain instances of using clay demonstrations, that also appear in inarguably secular programs, but that's like pointing towards singing in an evangelical church and calling that non-religious because it also exists in secular society. It disregards context.
 * Please note: I would have no problem with evangelicals coming to a public school to teach singing, as long as the curriculum was based around solid, peer-reviewed singing instruction, and not around the idea that good voices come from Jesus. By the way, that's how study tech could make the grade, in my mind. Peer-review takes theories and ideas out of the realm of religion and into the realm of secular practice, where they can be tried, tested, and proved right or wrong. -- Good Damon 20:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So then I think we agree that study tech may well be non-religious. You object to jargon? OK, but that still ain't religion. And as to whether it works or not, do you think if I have a low opinion of so-called experts passing judgment on it without trying it that I would think a non-expert's similar opinion means much? Sorry to be blunt but I think you are a bit too full of your own opinions based on, what, vague suppositions? and cannot perhaps see clearly what you do not know. You do not know if study tech is effective or not. You only know that I cannot show you a peer-reviewed study. I think that if you were honest about what you know and don't know you might say "well Justa perhaps you are right about it not being religious in nature. That Louisiana case looks interesting and if study tech can truly turn around the worst of the worst as the principal there claimed then it is worth a look." --Justallofthem (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Let's phrase it a little more precisely, because there are specific things that have to happen for it to pass muster. I agree that if study tech: ...then it won't be part of Scientology anymore, it will be a reasonable method of instruction in secular environments. In that circumstance, I would definitely find it acceptable. But I really doubt it will turn out that way. Study tech is only advanced by Scientologists working for Applied Scholastics, which pays license fees for Hubbard's works to ABLE, which in turn is classified by the IRS as a "Scientology-related entity" (per the notes in the ABLE article). Applied Scholastics in turn charges schools to use their methods, and I don't see that changing. In order for these teaching methods to gain wide acceptance and become standardized, they would need to be freely adoptable by anyone who wants to use them (presumably with Applied Scholastics happy to sell classroom materials to any who need them). That's how it's done with other teaching methods, and that's how it would need to be with study tech.
 * Passes peer-review
 * Drops factually incorrect ideas, like Hubbard's notion that a lack of a physical representation of an idea causes eye irritation and dizziness
 * Stops using verbs as nouns in secular settings
 * Demonstrates more than anecdotal evidence of effectiveness

Now, on the topic of jargon, yes. I object to Scientology jargon in secular classroom instruction, for much the same reason I would object to Catholic jargon in secular classroom instruction. I don't know how to say this any more clearly: Scientology is either a religion, or it's not. I'm of the opinion that it's a religion, and it deserves to be treated as such, with all the benefits and drawbacks thereof. The separation of church and state is one of those drawbacks.

And frankly, the fact that I'm a non-expert is moot. You're right that I don't know if study tech is effective or not, but it's not my job to prove that it isn't, it's study tech's job to prove that it is. And so far, with the lack of peer-review despite years of availability, it's not doing a very good job of that. I mean, perhaps you are right about it not being religious in nature. That Louisiana case looks interesting and if study tech can truly turn around the worst of the worst as the principal there claimed then it is worth a look. But it's not my job to look. It's up to Applied Scholastics to open up their methods for review, and it's up to teacher organizations, school boards, and other peers to look at those methods and give them the thumbs-up or the thumbs-down. Until that happens, I just can't support it. -- Good Damon 23:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Study tech will always be part of Scientology. You are forgetting that Scientology basically considers itself metaphysics. So your conclusion does not follow. Your points one and four are basically the same point. Your idea that anything about study tech is "factually incorrect" is just your opinion formed without experience. Lots of things cause dizziness; I have no problem with "lack of mass" being one of them - why do you have a problem based again only on your own opinion formed without experience? And what is your problem with a few extra terms or usages. Every system or activity is entitled to coin those terms and usages that it finds useful and if others find them useful in that context then they stick. As far as I can see, other than stuff that is purely your opinion, the only concrete problem you have is that you want to see study tech proven. Works for me. I think we are in agreement! --Justallofthem (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By "won't be part of Scientology anymore," I mean that study tech, by itself, used secularly, would in that circumstance be just another generally accepted educational method, and the fact that it came from Scientology wouldn't mean the use of it was in any way religious in secular schools. Of course it would still be part of Scientology, when used in Scientology.


 * And I think disregarding my points based solely on the fact that Scientology considers itself to be a form of metaphysics is very strange and a non-sequitor. It doesn't matter what Scientology considers itself to be. In a non-religious setting, study tech has no business teaching students things that are held to be truth for religious reasons. Seriously, look at the point you're arguing, here. You're saying my "opinion" about facts like what does and does not cause dizziness is formed without experience. That's simply not true. I can say, with absolute certainty, that a lack of a physical representation of a concept has never made me dizzy or caused me eye irritation, and anyone who has experienced those symptoms as a direct result of a "lack of mass" has other and more worrisome medical issues. You are free to believe religiously that what Hubbard wrote on the matter is true, but you must accept that it has absolutely no scientific or medical validity whatsoever. It's a matter, therefore, of faith. That's fine, but it doesn't belong in the secular classroom. -- Good Damon 07:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bigotry

 * Oh, come on. First off, I've gone out of my way to make it clear that my only beef is with religion in any form impinging on what should remain secular parts of society. I've got nothing against Scientology as a belief system, even if I personally find parts of it weird. Hell, I find Christianity weird, too, and there's an entire world of weirdness available in, for example, Japanese myths. But as I believe I've mentioned, I'm agnostic; I don't believe I have the spiritual answers, so as far as I'm concerned, whatever works for you is fine, as long as it's not imposed on anyone else. And as for not being able to put my finger on why I don't want Applied Scholastics in schools? I thought I'd covered it pretty well, but I'll summarize it: It's religious in nature, which violates the First Amendment, and it's untested. Like the whole language fiasco, it's a system based on someone's theories without any research to back it up, and public school students shouldn't be used as test subjects that way. Applied Scholastics should open its methods up to peer-review, drop the Scientology jargon, and open its board and membership up to non-Scientologists if it wants to become a legitimate scholastics organization.


 * I did not say that your bigotry was specific against Scientology. Poo-pooing something mainly because it was developed in a religious setting is bigotry against religion, pure and simple. It is as if the Franciscan monks came up with an improved method of brewing beer but you wouldn't teach that method in secular schools because it came from a religious environment. Study tech is not religion. You seem afraid that your daughter will get the Scientology cooties if she does a clay demo. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's really fallacious thinking, and I'm disappointed. I am not poo-pooing anything. Have I denigrated religion in any way? No. I've said, repeatedly, that one has the right to believe anything, and that -- being agnostic -- I have no lock on any sort of truth. It's not my place to judge the "quality" of any belief system. I don't want the trappings of any religion in public schools, and if that makes me a religious bigot, then you'd better take that up with the framers of the Constitution. Religion does not belong in public schools.


 * And I'm afraid your beer example doesn't equate at all. 1) Beer brewing is a secular activity already, which they 2) don't use in religious ceremonies. If they come up with a better method that is 3) peer-reviewed by other brewers, the world of 4) beer schools -- which are presumably filled with beer devotees, not 5) public school students -- would no doubt rejoice, as would I because I like a good beer now and then. That it came from monks would matter not a whit, because involvement in such "religious brewing" would be entirely voluntary for everyone, and presumably wouldn't involve 6) minors who can't choose not to be involved. -- Good Damon 22:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See, you still put what I call the anti-religious bigotry in there. How in God's name does "minors' choice" fit into a technique of beer brewing. I have no problem with your concept that the method would need to be proven, even peer-reviewed, so if you just came up with "3", then we would be fine. Unless their "improved method" is sacrificing Clydesdales to the God of Beer it ain't religion. Even if, and this is important, even if beer is a holy sacrament to them and used in all their religious ceremonies (rastamonks), it ain't religion. Beer ain't, the method of brewing ain't. An "improved method of brewing beer" would have to do with ingredients and temperatures, mixing vessels, etc. And if it works then it can be used anywhere even in a public technical school that teaches minors the brewing business (no tasting!). And the minors get no choice in curricula. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. I said beer-brewing is a bad analogy, because anyone involved in the non-church practice of Franciscan-style brewing would be a fully consenting adult. And presumably, their brewing methods would be replicated, taste-tested, and otherwise peer-reviewed (see a theme, here?), at which point it's no longer religion, it's established fact, even if the Franciscans maintain a religious component in their own brewing practices. (Heh... Drunk monks...) -- Good Damon 20:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And now, a request

 * I've brought up lots of points about educational methods that I feel you haven't really answered. To put it bluntly, the methods used in secular schools are peer-reviewed, studied, and analyzed all the time. As theories, they are superior to Hubbard's in this regard: They have been tested. That doesn't mean they're right, just that there's an unbelievably huge amount of research on the topic. There is zero research on Hubbard's educational theories outside of Scientology. None of this is to denigrate Scientology or "Study Tech" in any way. It's just a statement of fact: The methods haven't been peer-reviewed. In that sense, they're more akin to Whole Language than other methods in use today.


 * My request is that you try looking at this from my perspective: Imagine for a moment that you didn't believe in Study Tech and had no experience, positive or negative, with it; would you want untested, unproven methods of teaching, invented by one man who wasn't a teacher, but was a religious leader, methods used in the practice of that religion, brought into public schools? If the answer is yes, I think you need to try harder to put yourself in my shoes. I have no experience with Study Tech. I have no way of knowing, when you tell me it works, that it really does. I must rely on the results of peer-reviews, or on my own personal experience. Since I have neither, how can I possibly accept something I have so little reason to trust into my schools?

On a related note
You might enjoy this by Larry Sanger. The problem here is I am talking from a knowledge of study tech and you are talking from an opinion formed from scant information. Sorry, but that is just how it is. Give me something that you are intimately familiar with and see how it sounds when I play the devil's advocate with scant information. On the subject of education in general we are both blowing smoke out our asses (as my dear departed dad would say) with different opinions based on scant information and limited knowledge. My understanding of Scientology is quite another animal. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My lack of knowledge is a perspective you really need to take into account. I'm the first to admit I don't know Scientology backwards and forwards; I'm a complete layman and academic information junkie, and that's about it. But that perspective is, in itself, valuable, because I'm versed enough on the topic to tell you what it looks like to outsiders. Let me be very, very blunt here: With things like Applied Scholastics, it looks like Scientologists are picking and choosing when to call components of their belief system religious and when to promote those same components as non-religious. I'm not saying that this is what's actually happening, but this is what it looks like, from the outside, to a non-Scientologist who otherwise has no bone to pick with any religion.


 * Scientology either is or is not a religion. There's no gray area, any more than there is gray area with Christianity. Whether the techniques and rituals of Scientology, Christianity, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, or whatever religion you prefer work for their members or not is beside the point; they are founded on belief and faith, not on any evidence a non-believer can witness. That is what doesn't belong in public schools. -- Good Damon 00:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Drew Pinsky

 * Yes, perhaps being brief is better, though while Drew did apologize, he doesn't actually retract anything he said. But again let me explain:  To Dr. Pinsky as well as any other medical or psychological professional, phrases such as "mental illness," "emptiness," "emotional problems" and other related words have no pejorative or negative connotations.  They're no more significant than "Tom Cruise may suffer from high blood pressure/influenza/fractured ulna," and so no insult or implication of being "insane" is intended.  It actually interesting how both sides collide in that way, neither realizing the popular societal view of their remarks.
 * Though in fairness, Drew was being essentially "stalked" for 72 hours by a journalist noting his every word and only writing down the ones that would stir up trouble. Imagine if Playboy did that to Tom!Legitimus (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well this is off-topic but since you brought it up . . . How would you feel if someone that did not know you or your wife (assuming you are male and married) told a third party; a friend, relative, coworker; that the fact that your wife chose you indicates "deep emptiness" and "serious neglect in childhood". Kinda insulting to both of you, ain't it. But no, that would only be "the popular societal view of their remarks". Laff. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider it insulting if I'd already declared my background and reasons to everyone. And I still would not call that person a nazi.Legitimus (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, the Nazi reference has to do with Nazi eugenics and the complicity of German psychiatrists in that (ex. Hadamar Clinic). The objection is to the implication that all Scientologists are in some way "ill" simply by virtue of their being Scientologists. That is offensive. That is why a Scientologist would say such a thing, the nazi thing. Long story short, Drew crossed a line that he should not have crossed and rather than issue a real apology for crossing that line, he issues a non-apology apology. This is off-topic. Feel free to have take last word here if you like but if you want to continue the discussion please do so at my talk page. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what Fields meant by nazi, and I did after somebody explained it to me. But nobody else did who wasn't a Scientologist or familiar with their beliefs.  That's the problem.Legitimus (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment at the RfC
I replied at Talk:Reaction to Tim Russert's death to your comment regarding the merge. S. Dean Jameson 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have it. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandal checkusered
Regards, Bishonen | talk 22:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks Bish. And thanks to all involved. And anyone who know me knows I hate gum. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

For AN/I
Hi. The Anonymous anti-Scientology crew is currently "harpooning" to include Scientology as an "alien-based" and "supremacist" religion. Please see their thread "Wikipedia Entry on New Religious movements equals lulz". Both those claims are OR, biased, and based on a selective interpretation of primary material. At first I was reverting both but I decided to stop fighting the "alien" one and just hold the line on the "supremacist" claim as that is very clearly OR (in addition to not being true). Problem with this is that it is leaning toward a content dispute but with the problem being that these editors are not acting in good faith but are seeking to promote their POV and there are more of them then there are of me. Any ideas? Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've protected the page since you all are edit warring. I wouldn't oppose an unblock, let's see what the blocking admin says. John Reaves 19:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I said in my last edit that I was not going to fight over it anymore so there was little "protective" value in blocking me - esp. as I was just trying to protect the project against an off-wiki bad-faith attack. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the unblock. Please unblock my IP as I still cannot edit. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You should be unblocked now. John Reaves 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works. Thanks for your help. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Been a long time
I've been watching your recent conflicts from afar--really spending most of my time on other things these days--but the right thing to do is extend an olive branch. A year ago I stated that I oppose all offsite campaigns to skew the neutrality of Wikipedia articles. Having walked that walk for several months at a dispute that related to your area of primary interest (and no doubt having been a thorn in your side at the time), fairness demands that I offer to step forward now. You may not want my help, and if so I'll step aside, but I can see when somebody is getting it rougher than they deserve. Would you like a hand with this problem? Regards, Durova Charge! 19:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, Durova. I accept your olive branch and any assistance. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks like Bishonen has taken care of the user space vandalism. Requesting a semi would have been my first action.  Most of the articles where you edit aren't on my watchlist; would you suggest where attention is needed most?  Durova Charge! 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I am very semi-retired. I just edit when something catches my eye and mostly in the area of BLP issues. I have an issue going now on AN/I re a pretty minor attempt to skew that one list article. Of course some of the Anons are blowing it out of proportion as they usually do with this lastest thread on their site - WAR ON WIKIPEDIA!!. Yawn. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Protect little page
Semiprotect Justanother userpage, scold little IP. Any more pages in trouble?   bishzilla    ROA R R! !     19:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks BIG /zilla! --Justallofthem (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

List of New Religious Movements
I wish you hadn't removed the listing. The RfC was running it's course, and I can only presume another edit war, followed by locking of the page will occur. This isn't conducive to the quality of WP. The RfC was running it's course, but alas. I can't tell you what to do here, as I have not re-established a reputation here. Unless we can get a partial protection of the page? Groupsisxty (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is normal to remove disputed material pending an RfC. That is the fair thing to do and Wikipedia takes a long view. I am perfectly willing to have it back in there if the RfC goes against me. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with that, you were at the time the only one disputing it. A number of people (To include at least one WikiAdmin) had weighed in saying "yes, but we need to find secondary source".  This is rather unforunate, since the listing which is very useful as it was, will no devolve into a useless alphabetic list. :( Groupsisxty (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was the only one because, to be honest, most people here have little interest in Scientology aside from a few neutral editors and a lot of critics. That was inserted by a critic with little concern for the rules here and I removed it in accordance with the rules here. And my removal is supported by every experienced Wikipedian that has commented. Sure, some say, go find a secondary source but none support its inclusion until you do. And regarding your removal as "not a religion" or "US-centric"; that just shows me that you are coming straight out of a POV and biased stance and not even taking the time to do basic research. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I say let's call a WikiTruce (lol). I will revert (If you haven't already) my changes, to inlcude addition of the Supremacist section back (Not including Scientology in there).  We both stay hands off this article for a period of 7 days.  And to say I don't do my research, I have culled numerous scriptures from Scientology stating racist and homophobic connotations.  I heavily researched it.  But, that aside, sound cool?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groupsisxty (talk • contribs) 19:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is fine. You just need to put the supremacy section back without Scn if you care to; the "US-centric" bit is already taken care of. And listen, many religions are anti-gay - that is not "supremacism". And my take on the current view in Scn is that being professed gay is not an issue provided one is not promiscuous. There is nothing in Scn that I know of that considers being gay in and of itself as "out-ethics" and "out-ethics" is the only thing you get in trouble for in Scientology. The alleged racist bits are not central to anything but if someone wants to make a case that Hubbard as an individual exhibited some racism that still does not make Scientology "racist". Scientology, as practiced, is not the least bit racist. It is far more anti-gay than it is racist and it is not very anti-gay. By which I mean that many individual Scientologists probably consider being gay as an aberration, i.e. something to be fixed (which I know is considered an anti-gay viewpoint) but I have never heard racism from any Scientologist. My point is simply this - if you have legit complaints about the way Scientology is run then make them but don't go trying to smear them with every brush that fits your hand. Cheers. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, an apology from myself. I, being a member of a minority group take the racism harshly (Scientology having special auditing for Zulus, support of Apartheid).  Also, case in point with M. Pattinson.  He was sent to ethics for being gay, and Jason Beghe's car accident was blamed on being associated with an SP (SP only b/c he was gay).  And yes, any religion that smears homosexuality is a supremacists group.  I take a hard line on that one.  Christianity states "hate the sin, love the person", whereas Scientology for example labels a homosexual to be of "1.1 - Covert Hostility" and "Physically Ill".  To dodge that this is doctrinal, would be absurd at a minimum, since Scientology still publishes the Books, with those comments and rulings un-abridged.Groupsisxty (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ps. On one hand you offer truce and on the other you imply I am gaming the system. what's up with that? If I were gaming the system don't you think that one of the experienced admins/editors would have said as much? --Justallofthem (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I stated "scientology" not you, but I still apologize. Still a bit heated over it, but willing to step back. Groupsisxty (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no "scientology" here, there is only one lonely crap Scientologist. If you characterize my edits then you are characterizing my edits. I'm sure you get that. What I am not sure you get is that searching diligently for some line, any line, that supports your preconceived notion is neither "research" nor intellectual honesty. Nor is trying to twist the notion of what constitutes a "supremacist" group so that you can tar Scientology with that brush. If Scientology displayed abhorrent tendencies in that direction I don't think it would require a week of diligent research to scrape up some statement that can be taken out-of-context and give undue importance to support some idea that you and your friends might have dreamed up. I think you are a more honest person than that. Please review Asch conformity experiments and realize that few on that forum can speak honestly about Scientology and the human tendency toward conformation with the group is at play there as much as anywhere in Scientology. Hopefully you have just 1/10 the intellectual fortitude that y'all ask Scientologists to exhibit (what'll happen to you if you speak a "truth" different from your group's "truth" - they gonna flame your anonymous user account? Wow! Don't wanna risk that!!). --Justallofthem (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had said previously, I was heated at the time, and now am willing to take a step away from it. As I can see you are not (After I suggest a 7-day hands off for both of us, you decided to edit anyways).  It was to see that consensus, and not 1 or two people hammer at it (Yourself and I).  I don't think the HCO policy letter after policy letter, book after book, stating certain groups (racial/sexual orientation/gender/handicap) are inferior to others is Undue Importance.  The Undo Importance here is what we (You and I) are holding here.  This is also known as Unwarranted Self Importance.  And if I disagree with members of my forums (Happens quite often), yes I get flamed, but no I don't back down.  I still hold my opinion, and state is as such.  Because the internet is not serious business.  Do I think Scientology is a supremacist religion?  Yes, the evidence is there and plain.  Does it act as so?  Yes, especially with it's Conversion Therapy for homosexuals, or their instantaneous labeling of people as "Undesirables" aka "Supressive Persons".  Only a few groups use that ideology, and only two that call themselves a religion.  Think about it.  Also, reconsider the 7-day hands off the article.  I know I'm stepping away from it for the full seven days. Groupsisxty (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(left) Hey, I am not heated. Laff, you will know when I get heated. I am not also User:JustaHulk for nothing. You have not shown me "HCO policy letter after policy letter, book after book" showing that any race or group is inferior. That is your twist on what you have read. And yeah, you can disagree over the best way to attack Scientology. But let's see you go over there and say that Scientology should not be attacked on this point or that point. Let's see you go over there and say that Justallofthem seems to be a pretty straight shooter and all-round nice guy (aw shucks). Let's really put you to the test. I guess I was not sure what you meant by truce if you meant that I would not edit the article on unrelated issues which I think is all I did. I even missed some of your gang's vandalism and left it in. Another removed it. Let's not worry about truce - I do not think we are at war, you and I. I happen to think you are an all-round nice guy too though I really think you need to read or reread the quote at the top of this page before you start arguing with a 30-year Scientologist about what is or is not "squirreling" or what is or is not Scientology "doctrine". But no matter, what I really am looking forward to is you testing just how much your group allows basic disagreement. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I, at this point in time don't even want to bring it up on that forum, due to we finally getting it off the radar (To avoid canvassing issues). I do think you're a straight shooter.  States what you believe and doesn't afraid of anything.  I think you may be a little mis-guided, but who am I to say.
 * And I am (almost) never for personal attacks against members of Scientology. I am against the management of it.  I in fact have a number of friends who are Scientologist, and I see what kind of things they are going through due to the Church.  A married couple seeing each other for less than 2 hours per day (The wife is on staff, and works from 7AM until 11PM), the children being dropped off at the Org daily, not seeing their parents enough at all, medical issues being over looked (Paranoid Schizophrenia, I personally know Jeremy Perkins), and a DSA head lying to the public.
 * So, what are your thoughts of discarding parts of Doctrinal Policy (ie South African Rundown policy letter, "Science of Survial" and "Dianetics:MSOMH")? This is not squireling the tech if you were to skip doing the S. African Rundown on a S. African native?  I would like to be enlightened as to what and how far you can change things before squirreling?Groupsisxty (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment. I can see that you have observed one downside to being a Scientology staff member. I have a lot of experience with that particular downside. If these are truly your friends then talk to them about it. Not to dissuade them (that is prolly a no-no) but to see if you can find an understanding. Why they do it, how the kids take it, etc. You might be surprised. Or not. There are plenty of latch-key kids that are such for much less reason (if you grant that the reasons have validity to your friends if not to you). And "dropped of at the org" usually means that they are near their parents and with their friends. On your other point, it is important to understand the difference between tech and editorializing and rambling. The difference is easy to see for a Scientologist but critics seem to struggle with it. Tech is laid out in very clear step-by-step fashion like an auto repair manual. Editorial comments and rambling by Hubbard are not tech. They are opinion. Take it or leave it. Squirreling is altering the tech; it is not disagreeing with some opinion by LRH. The critics' oft-mentioned case of RTC/Miscavige calling everything Ron wrote or said "scripture" was done, IMHO, for some legalistic reason like copyright or religious protection and had absolutely nothing to do with defining what is tech and what is not. That said, I will give you my opinions on particular issues on a case by case basis if you like but please take them one at a time and tell me what you find objectionable. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Drop me line at anonymusicz at gmail dot com, I'd like to take this off your talk page to avoid clutter and public discussion (as it is not needed nor related to WP).Groupsisxty (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I realize what I put previously sounded stupid, the clutter isn't needed on your talk page, not just out not needed :) Groupsisxty (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, because I do have some concerns that I have been battling for some time in this regards, so when you can, drop me a line. Thanks :) Groupsisxty (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

E-mail
Would you mind activating your email account? It's in the preferences.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Peephole TV
Peephole TV is a U.S. television network with similar content like Playboy TV or Hustler TV, serving approx. 40 million households within its footprint with content. Like other adult broadcasters it deserves notability and the page on wikipedia has been available for about one year, edited by several members and constantly updated and refined. --Oschaper (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to establish notability per the guidelines in the note I put on the page. Actually not you; you are really not supposed to be editing an article about your company at all, see WP:COI but I do not think there would be a problem with you establishing notability. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is sufficient coverage on the network available online and you should have no problem finding independent sources and make the correction. Don't get me wrong but I would hate if your actions are related to the vandalism that happened in the last couple of days by religious bigots. You're the first to have a problem with this article especially after several editors have worked on the text after reviewing the article. --Oschaper (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not really that interested in the article. I just saw mention of it, took a look, and noticed that it did not meet some basic requirements. Please review the policies in the welcome that mango left on your user talk page. My main concern is misuse of this project to promote a commercial venture. If your firm does not meet notability guidelines then the article does not belong here. The burden of showing notability is on interested editors; again I do not think there would be a problem with you doing that. I will not but will put the article up for a review if notability is not established in a few days or so. Best. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would actually postpone any actions until the wave of vandalism has past (30 days) before we make the reference notations. Could you please state where you saw the notice about this article?--Oschaper (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to wait, we have other means of handling vandalism - try WP:RFPP and ask for semi-protection. All due respect, your other question is irrelevant - I am acting purely in my capacity as a Wikipedia editor. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I question your motives as it seems that you have not checked other listings for any related TV networks and it seems you have an alternative motivation as you don't care about this field. Why don't you let the Wiki editor for TV networks handle this issue because they seem to know a lot more about the topic and even care (per your own statement).--Oschaper (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am simply asking that you provide a source(s) that asserts notability as per the guidelines here. I am not about to defend myself, please see WP:AGF. Or you can check with the TV people and see what they say. The burden is on you to show that the article belongs here one way or another. If you do not want to make the effort then that is on you too. I removed the article from my watchlist and will check it again in a few days and if no improvement then I will ask for comments regading deleting it - you will have your opportunity again to make your case. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cirt's RFA
Repetition of your question looks like you are assuming bad faith, particularly when the initial answer was unambiguous. Axl ¤  [Talk]  20:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Stricken. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

 * Fair enough, Cirt. Good luck to you. I really do hope that the more hopeful possibilities that I outlined in my RfA comments are more reflective of the reality than the negative ones. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you like to work on an article together? I have been doing some work recently on Final Blackout by L. Ron Hubbard, but I haven't been able to find much in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources on what appears to have been plans to make the book into a movie version. Cirt (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, though I am not aware of any plan to make a movie but what do I know. However please realize that I am devoting very little time to Wikipedia and have mainly been motivated by BLP issues which are a big "button" with me. Anyway, all I can promise is that I will look at the article and see what I can find out though you are very good at finding sources yourself. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the positive comments about me, I truly appreciate it. From what I have found in research so far it appears that there was at one point plans to make a movie but that did not take off. I haven't found much else about that in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I will let you know if I find something. That is a pretty good read, BTW. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I have some other fictional works by Hubbard both on my list of things to read, as well as to research for possible future article projects, just haven't gotten to it yet. Cirt (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)