Scientology Review by Steve Hall

by Steve Hall

Since our summit meeting at Casablanca 5 weeks ago, I’ve been working around the clock to make progress on some strategic marketing objectives for Independent Scientology. I broke up production into two phases, phase one was iScientology.org launched on October 12. And if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we received the loftiest compliment imaginable from the Church of Scientology who are now pretending to be us. The CoS purchased www.iscientology.com and pointed it to their website. Amazing! Like someone isn’t going to notice? It’s like Charles Manson meeting with the parole board and swearing he’s Brad Pitt.

Steve and folks at Casablanca

 

 

Now before I announce phase two, here’s a question addressed to everyone: before you buy something these days, do you not check consumerreviews first to bypass any false advertising?

 

Personally, I check consumer reviews before I buy anything — goods, services, movies, restaurants, cameras, cell phones, power tools, printers, computers, software, apps — you name it. These days there are consumer reviews for everything, except… Scientology (sound effect: cars crashing in the background).

 

The closest thing the Church has to honest consumer reviews are video testimonials and success stories that sound too good to be true. That isn’t what people want. What they want is authenticity, i.e. reality. One does not have to be a Scientologist to know that absolutes are unattainable. Not everyone likes chocolate; not everyone likes Scientology.

 

To a Scientologist the thought of presenting Scientology in the raw might seem alarming at first, but presenting things as they really are invokes the most powerful persuader of all: reality. There is really no trust until things get real. The Church can’t do raw consumer reviews because DM suckerfish smother everything with extortion and out tech.

 

For some reason in December 2009 having nothing to do with anything I’ve said yet (joke), probably was just a boyish whim after some auditing from Marty, I decided we needed a massive review and rating system “for everything Scientology” covering,

 

1. Every LRH book

2. Every LRH lecture series

3. Every auditing service on the Bridge

4. Every training service on the Bridge

5. Indie Scn auditors and centers

6. CoS service orgs

7. CoS management orgs (including OSA and RTC), and last but not least,

8. David Miscavige’s Greatest Hits…

 

(Cheesy Announcer, scroll titles:) “…featuring “Collectable” ASI Prints, Disconnection, Golden Age of Tech, The I-A-S, Ideal Orgs, the International Event Program, Library Donation Campaign, New Era of Management, 6-month checks, Super Power Project, Higher Production through forced abortions for Sea Org parents, and the Basics!”

 

A review system for all things Scientology was what I was originally alluding to when I said something big was coming in December 2009 for those who remember. I was originally going to put it into RediscoverScientology.com. Then I realized it was more appropriate for iScientology.org.

 

The system will be moderated to block OSA trolls, spammers, insincere people, etc. Reviewers must register before they can post a review. Registering enables the moderator to more quickly approve a review once he knows who the person is and trusts them. My secret moderators are already in place and they are people you know and trust.

 

What people want is unbiased and unvarnished user reviews. So that is what we are going to give them.

 

Reviews on orgs: 

 

A review/rating system will flank the effort to get in ethics by exposing abuses at curb level. I’ve even included management orgs so anyone who ever worked in an org can write a review on what it was like. I brought a new person into the Dallas org in 2008 and staff tried to badger her for a Ideal Org donation instead of having her read a book. My review on that event is going to leave a dark blotch in the eye of their reputation.

 

Churches are going to have to straighten up or get mummified. If someone had a good experience in an org, they can write that too. However, there’s an honesty check: each person who writes a review on an org has to answer this question, “The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is (a) a social personality or (b) a sociopath (suppressive person).” It’s a mandatory question and will show up in the person’s review. Kind of a Catch-22 (“a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions”).

 

Auditing and Training Services: 

 

The keynote of Scientology is understanding — but without reality there isn’t any understanding. The problem with Church mis-marketing is that it lacks reality, and is infused with DM’s trademark “effort to overwhelm” — which is the closest thing David Miscavige has ever gotten to marketing.  That’s why the Church floods out promo — DM’s effort to overwhelm. Since field auditors don’t have registrars to enlighten people on books or services, why not let consumers do it themselves? It will be more useable than what minions could ever write because our consumer reviews will incorporate reality, the most important element.

 

Standard Tech:

 

A barrier to leaving the CoS is finding standard auditing and training. There isn’t any in the Church any more. So by listing Indie auditors and training centers and enabling their public to review them just as people now days review doctors and lawyers and professionals of all types, it will be clear to others that standard tech IS available in the field.

 

Driving in public:

 

LRH said orgs were never successful at “pulling in public.” He said he always had to “drive public in on orgs.” So instead of putting the review and rating system into iScientology.org, I have built an entirely new website in the last 4 weeks to drive people in on iScientology.org.

 

This new website will feature unbiased consumer reviews from actual Scientologists and ex-Scientologists. And you will be able to see who is who and understand the viewpoint that the person is writing from.

 

Reviews are “unbiased” meaning we won’t be editing them. That doesn’t mean we have to let let the Church inject lies or black PR — that’s would be the most biased content of all.

 

People can read the reviews and decide where they want to receive services — Independent Scientology or the Church. The website provides links to both. What could be more fair? But we’re also fair to the public because we tell them what they can expect from the Church.

 

By survey about half of the population is actively looking for philosophic or spiritual answers. Every month, more than 1.2 million people Google the word “scientology” and each one of those is a reach. That’s a river of people reaching for answers, finding nothing, and washing on down stream. Since the Church is incapable of helping anyone, I propose diverting that river of people into our front door and on up the Bridge.

 

Even a tiny percentage of 1.2 million people/month is a mind-boggling volume. Just 1% of 1.2 million is 12,000 people per month. Imagine our ranks expanding by 12,000 people each month. That won’t happen tomorrow. But it could happen in the future. It needs to happen. The doors onto the Bridge have never really been opened, not even in LRH’s day because the Church let themselves go PTS and they got repositioned by the enemy as a cult — DEATH by marketing.

 

But how could we ever handle such volume? Here’s how: New people must first be qualified by reading a book. If they won’t read a book, LRH says don’t waste your time with them. So all those 12,000 people must be directed to a book. Which one?

 

In the late ‘80s, Phil Anderson and I were responsible for marketing a book that was always FAR more popular than Dianetics with new public. With NO advertising it sold like crazy. It was easy to understand, blew people’s minds, hit all the right buttons, and through its pages it also provided auditing too straight from LRH.

 

Self Analysis

 

Self Analysis IS the only book that is actual self help. Dianetics is self help because it requires someone else to do it — a huge deal breaker that gave most book buyers a loss! Phil and I knew that in 1987, but Kaboom McTinyfists would not have it. So the Church of Scientology could never be convinced to promote the actual LRH book that people want. That just ain’t right.

 

Phil Anderson and I wasted two years trying to figure out a solution, but we couldn’t. Maybe that was because the only real solution would have been for some people to leave the Sea Org, start over from scratch, rebuild their personal lives outside the Church, analyze what to do, join together in a withering campaign to expose DM for the fraud he is, then come up with an alternative structure to supply services, market the hell out of it with it’s own logo and website, gather even more support, rekindle the failed purpose to bring greater understanding across the world, and with virtually no money devise some way of grabbing the world’s attention to direct thousands of people to read the right book. Maybe some day some people will do that. I wouldn’t know.

 

Back to the thread: So the new website will direct people to Self Analysis where LRH audits them right from the pages of the book. Next, Handbook for Preclears. Same thing. The church should be happy because they get to sell lots of books. They’d better be nice to us or we’ll tell people where they can download those books for free.

 

Now our public will not only be book buyers, they will be preclears who have had great auditing wins direct from Ron from the pages of those books. And what do you offer preclears?

 

Training! So that’s where we get involved. And we will route them to our Independent Scientology centers for training. This is 1950 all over again, but a lot better because we will be making auditors wholesale.

 

Re-opening the Bridge

 

The Church is like a giant rock sitting in the middle of a Mississippi flowing 1.2 million people/month. Nothing can go in so it just washes on downstream.

 

To bypass the Church and diverting that river of 1.2 million people/month actually onto the Bridge through our own lines, we must accomplish one simple thing: be on page one when people Google “scientology.”

 

If you Google “Scientology” today you will see the search produces 18 million search results. But only 10 results are displayed on page one. So, we need to somehow get into the top ten. That’s like running a marathon against 18 million people and finishing in the top ten.

 

If we can do that, we can re-open the Bridge. It is that simple and that important.

 

And it can be done. So here’s how.

 

These days, before people buy stuff, they consult consumer reviews. Google “LG TVs” or “Samsung appliances” or “Nikon cameras” — Google inserts consumer reviews right into PAGE ONE.

 

Once people discover there is a review and rating system for everything Scientology, they are going to come back many times to learn about other services on the Bridge. Now “iScientology.org” is not too hard to remember, but online, people go super simple. When they want to read more reviews they will simply Google “scientology reviews.”

 

That is significant because whomever owns “scientologyreviews.com” will have a golden ticket onto page one of Google and that means a shot at all 1.2 million people/month looking for good-quality Scientology information.

 

Of course the Church buys up thousands of domain names so they can prevent anything like this from ever happening.

 

They got out-smarted in December 2007 when I found they had missed “scientology-cult.com.” I bought it because at the time, “scientology cult” was the second most popular search phrase on the subject of scientology. Today, scientology-cult.com is #1 website for the search phrase “scientology-cult” — why? It’s right in our name. And so lightning struck DM right in the forehead.

 

So when I checked to find out if anyone owned “scientologyreviews.com” I knew the odds were stacked against us. It would be like opening a box of Cracker Jacks and finding the Hope Diamond. OSA has a program specifically to prevent this. Could lightning strike twice on the same forehead?

 

Think about what this $9 domain name could mean for us. It won’t happen overnight, but soon it could help us accomplish the only reason we ever had for attacking DM in the first place: To reopen the Bridge.

 

Scientologyreviews.com is ours.

 

By hosting the world’s only “unbiased consumer reviews on everything Scientology” at scientologyreviews.com we will eventually help people move onto and up the Bridge. Imagine driving thousands or even millions of people into Independent Scientology? Can it be done? Yes.

 

Now, over the last four years many people have asked how they can help. Here’s your answer. I need as many people as possible to create reviews at scientologyreviews.com. I need you personally to write reviews on each service you’ve done, each book and lecture series, and every org you’ve had recent experience with. If you were on staff somewhere, even in RTC or OSA, you can a review regarding your experience in the org.

 

There are now 310 topics on scientologyreviews.com each one with a little introduction explaining what it’s all about written by myself or Dan Koon.

 

If we had 100 reviews on every topic that is a total of 31,000 reviews. And that is more doable than you think.

 

I put in 400 hours building scientologyreviews.com and 215 hours on iScientology.org. I didn’t make a penny from any of this, and even took 5 weeks off from work to make this happen, forfeiting five weeks of my own income. I did that because these projects matter. I’m not asking anyone to send me money. I’m asking you to log just a small fraction of the hours I put in. From the bottom of my heart, if you value Independent Scientology, would you please do that for me and for yourself and for the world?

 

There are at least 1000 people reading this website right now. How do I know? Because when I launched iScientology.org by announcing it on this website, within an hour there were 1034 people online at iScientology.org.

 

So, let’s say you were able to write 5 reviews per hour. If 500 of us put in 100 hours each, that would give us 250,000 Scientology reviews online.

 

If 500 of us put in just 10 hours this weekend, that would get us 25,000 reviews — by Monday. With that DM could never catch up.

 

We need scores of reviews on every course, every auditing level, every book, every lecture series and every org that you have personal experience with.

 

Online, content is king. The biggest gorilla is first in line.  Launching our review website is a project worth pushing along because it will help get ethics in on orgs, enlighten people on their next step, encourage standard tech, repopulate the world with auditors, and re-open the Bridge to Clear and OT starting with Self Analysis.

 

Please contribute some time to this — a pleasant way to help! What you will be contributing to is everything we have worked for: the re-opening of the Bridge after David Miscavige had it totally locked down. And that is a contribution that will earn you “the proud knowingness of OT.”

 

Every review will be read by moderators before it is approved, so spammers and OSA need not apply. That junk will never make it past the eagle eyes of our Data Series sharp shooters (moderators) who can spot a Miscavige troll at 3,000 miles.

 

There’s no need to overhype everything like DM does. Just be real — you can freely say what is true for you. If you didn’t like a book or a course that much, just be honest. This is YOUR review.

Design
Most of LRH’s books and lectures were authored in the ‘50s. So the website has a ‘50s retro vibe. The Church has itself become a caricature, comical, stranger than fiction. And so the site reflects elements of that too. Even the logo has a bit of pulps in it: the font is called, “True Lies.” Result: it resonates and is alive.

 

From a marketing perspective, here is your chance to deliver the coup de grâce (death blow) to the Miscavige Empire of Corruption that has destroyed so many lives. Yesterday, DM cut us to pieces. Now the axe is in YOUR hands, its blade sharp. Oh, and by the way, in case anyone is wondering, THIS is marketing. Coming out with a new “release” every 5 minutes is not marketing, it’s confusion. Marketing is coming out with the one plan — the RIGHT one — and staying with it until the job is done.

 

Please reciprocate with your time.

 

This has to be done immediately because a review system is such a good idea, DM will probably try to copy it with bogus reviews of everything. We need to cut him off at the pass.

 

I’m counting on you.

 

Steve Hall

452 responses to “Scientology Review by Steve Hall

  1. Pingback: Scientology Review by Steve Hall | Martyrathbun09's Blog

  2. Steve, I’m at a loss for words at what you are accomplishing. Maybe “breathtaking” and “brilliant” will do for now. Thank you for all that hard work.

    • Here are the steps to register:
      1. fill out the registration form and “Captcha”
      2. Look in your EMAIL and find the confirmation email that was sent to you
      3. Click on the link to CONFIRM your registration
      4. Now you can log in and start writing reviews.

    • Steve, even though we may not see eye-to-eye on everything, we have some common purpose. This is an extremely good idea, and I am so grateful for your hard work. I hope this idea includes acceptance on reviews of the original “by L. Ron Hubbard” books of LRH when he was alive, compared to the squirreled works published by Bridge Publications’ “L. Ron Hubbard Library” versions. I have plenty of solid evidence in this area showing otherwise, and proof how Scientologists have been defrauded by David Miscavige, believing in him that they were buying “the pure and perfect Scientology Scriptures as authored by Mr. Hubbard” in the 2007 squirreled editions. The 2007 Basic Books are a huge money scam on Scientologists.

      Finally, an honest “Fourth Estate” for Scientology. THANK YOU.

      http://www.scientology.org/david-miscavige/basic-books-and-lectures.html

      • Hi Safe, thanks very much. Right now I just have one title for each book, but I was hoping people would comment on the different versions and then vote them up. As for an over view like you are describing, perhaps we ought to publish that somewhere as it’s own article on the site, from you. Since this is a review on books, the website would be the perfect place for it. Also we could put it on iScientology.org. Someone has needed to collect up the evidence. Maybe it ought to be in a format that can be added to as new findings are made.

      • David Miscavige REALLY has it GOIN ON! It is a web site for Scientology and it has the name David Miscavige ALL OVER IT! NOT HUbbard’s. All the praise to Dave! What a narcissistic “Me! Me! Me!” SELF PROMOTER! His narcissism is REPELLING!

        • I just looked up all of the “bridge to total freedom” sites on godaddy and register.com…hmmm all taken….looks like we’re going to have some new interesting sites to discuss soon….

      • Hey Safe – You are totally right about the “Basics” fraud. Mr. David Miscavige’s assertion is that the “basics” are pure and true versions from the original manuscripts and dictations of Ron. They are absolutely not. They are dumbed-down and PC (politically correct) versions of what Ron wrote, and some (like 0-8) is a confusing hash. I guess I should review at least 0-8 on the site!

  3. Wow, thank you Steve, this is just the beginning.

    Paul

  4. Steve, this is quite an adventure and successful it will be. Kudos!

  5. Steve,

    You are a genius!

  6. Steve Hall !!!!

    Your incredible insouciance and spirt of play is equally matched by your competence.

    And just think, you get to play these games now without being bitch-slapped by miscavige.

    I’m going to be out of town over the weekend, but will get right onto my reviews starting Monday. I gotta lot to say!

    Thanks Steve, Marty and everyone involved.

    Les

  7. Watchful Navigator

    I thought I was alone in viewing Self-Analysis as the as-yet untapped-potential, best-gradient introduction to the subject that it is, and can be.

    What a correct indication!

    This is the correct starting point for a Scientology that really works and really reaches people.

    -Scott Gordon

    • Totally 100% agree. Self Analysis is the ultimate appetite-whetter in my opinion. Absolutely loved everything about it when I first read and drilled it (with a twin at the time).

    • I have long thought that “Self Analysis” could be what meditation is to Buddhism –  an accepted practice respected by people outside of the religion.
      Scientific studies have proven that there are beneficial, stress-reducing benefits to meditating. But that doesn’t mean the studies confirmed reincarnation, or any other Buddhist beliefs, just that the practice of meditation had a measurable effect.
      Even without a belief in “engrams”, or anything “supernatural”, the Self Analysis lists affords one with a way of exploring the world of remembering, recollection and reflection. I think that’s something many people would consider worth looking into.

    • I personally know at least 5 people that were introduced to Scientology by Self Analysis in the late 60′s and early 70′s that went on to become class IV, VII, senior management and successful public….

      Spot on discovery Steve!

      • I don’t know if anyone’s done (or tried) this yet, but Self Analysis seems to lend itself perfectly to being put entirely online. For example, each straightwire (memory) question could be stepped through on a website (perhaps a separate page for each question), with each of the perceptics coming up as one clicks through it.

        Just a thought. The “platens” were good for their day, but have long been surpassed by better methods (i.e. the web).

        • Interesting idea. I would think it would lend itself better to an iPad app. But, that said, the book is more than the SA lists.

        • Hehe, I made it such but on my comp with an Excel doc I’ve create for ;) But I still like the book when I have it around. But while traveling, it takes much less place and I near can’t forget it while on my Smartphone :)

  8. I think Steve just dropped the other shoe!

    I actually feel VERY excited, and I will post my reviews from the last 40+ years!

  9. Meraviglioso….
    Got no better words to describe it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    §§§§§§

    Tried to register but could not.
    The Captcha is not showing so I can’t enter it and it keeps putting me back at the register page without the password.
    Am I doing something wrong?

    • There is some problem with the Captcha on some browsers (shows up fine for me but three people have reported a problem)… I’m working to resolve it now and should have it fixed in a few minutes (it’s Friday morning).

  10. Steve Jobs, I mean HALL, you are a multi-talented man! DM could never pull off what you can. Thanks man!!!

  11. Dizzy Mizz Lizzy

    Steve Hall
    You are indeed a remarkable person!
    I admire your plans and ideas and your enthusiasm.
    Sounds like SUCCESS is on its way.
    May God bless you!

  12. Steve, you are a genius! And, on the right side of history. An unbeatable combination.

  13. Steve – awesome. Can’t wait to do my part.

  14. Steve, in a word: Brilliant. In two words: Extremely, brilliant.

    I have personally set aside time to work on this in the next few days AND I am going to actively recruit some friends to do the same.

    In the past we carried out a successful group effort to petition the government to investigate DM’s insanity, with little or no results.

    Lets put forth that effort again, but this time we will see real results! As Steve says: “Yesterday, DM cut us to pieces. Now the axe is in YOUR hands, its blade sharp.” and “Online, content is king. The biggest gorilla is first in line.”

    Please set aside time to work on this AND call friends and get them to do the same.

  15. I am reading the book, actually for the 4th time (I rarely read books a second time), “The Innovation Secrets of Steve Jobs”. In it he talks about innovation with a capital I, and with a small i, both different but very valuable. He talks about innovation mainly being the creation of connections between disparate things, ideas, technology to create an innovative combination, solution or improvement to a problem, or simply something just to make it better, or just give people something they want, but never knew they needed. Steve, you make some brilliant associations, you have a wonderfully creative mind.

    • Don’t forget bodies of written works, like Data Series, PR Series, Finance Series, and Perhaps some of the dark series to, such as OSA Series, even perhaps the old GOs. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

    • Steve, the brilliance of the Review site is that it covers the very issue that is most important in all relationships and in all decisions. TRUST. With reviews once evaluate the trustworthiness of the Org, entity, the subject matter.
      I think one of the big failures Scientology Inc faces right now is that TRUST is gone. There is no feeling of safety from vampire Reg cycles !
      The reviews will show at a glance what can be TRUSTED.
      TRUST ~~ the one thing that changes everything.

      • TRUE! When I see the last time I have accepted to be reged, I realized then that the Sea-Org who was reging me, didn’t take really responsibility for my own dynamics and so not really cared for what I will have to going through after my crazy donations. He was even agree to not follow basic policy letters of Ron on finances or Ethics! but just getting money, even there was at least an exchange in terms of materials. It was NOT about an “optimum solution”, as per LRH’s definition, my reg was reaching. So, how then trust indeed?!

  16. This is Thinking Big – capital B! Awesome!

  17. Thank you for your hard work and amazing wright up. I have attemted to register on Scientologyreview.com but the system keeps going back to asking for a password. I do not know what I’m doing wrong. please help. I have been in Scientology since 1976. I will do whatever it takes to make thing right.
    ARC,
    Mercy

  18. Is Bridge publications or new era publications connected to the Co$ ?
    Or are they independent publishing companys ?
    Anyone know !

    • Bridge is part of the Church. They print the books. You can look them up on the site if you want, under “Middle Management Orgs”

      • Thanks Thoughtful , I was wondering because on the iscientology.org website new era and bridge are mentioned to buy materials from . I wonder would they sell materials to independent scientologists if they are part of the Church !

        • ” I wonder would they sell materials to independent scientologists if they are part of the Church !” ealadha

          Indie Scientologists are not part of the Church of Scientology. If you are declared an SP or Independent… buy what you need off eBay – older original (unaltered) copies and far cheaper.

          If you are a (troll) member of Scientology, Inc. (ref; my newly coined name Sinc) – buy from Mistabig at Church retail and get his own improved latest version of LRH at any of their new and massively beyond compare ever this sector of the universe improved Idle Orgs… etc., etc.

  19. The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is (a) a social personality or (b) a sociopath (suppressive person).”

    The pursuit of ideological purity and uniformity of belief is a mistake. Especially if your purpose is a sense of reality that present and future publics can trust in your online reviews.

    That first question about David Miscavige is an ideologue’s “pass/fail” entrance exam, not an invitation to write a real review. If Independent Scientology is here to stay, why mention David Miscavige at all?

    The primary and fundamental weakness in the philosophy of Scientology, which led to the failure of the Church of Scientology, is its fanatical demand for ideological purity and uniformity of belief. No ideology can withstand the infinities of life, and the march of historical discovery. Even Marty has called the Church of Scientology a lifeless “cold war relic” because of its ideological fixedness to a long-past time and place.

    I would caution you to examine pleas for ideological purity and uniformity of belief, and to eradicate them from Independent Scientology, if you wish to avoid becoming relics yourselves, and to have a successful and lasting reformation.

    Tooky

    • David Miscavige – aka POB (Pope on a Box), Dear Leader (Korean brainwashing style) is the reason for, creator and inventor of alterations which resulted in Independent Scientology, why would he not be mentioned as that appropriate fact and truth? The omission would be like ignoring the gorilla in the room.

      Reviews on this sociopath would probably be quite lengthy and not so complimentary. In fact I totally disagree with your ideas in that it is the purity of the application of workable technology which makes Scientology work and gives good results experienced by practitioners, who now are independent for years and the alteration of such by David Miscavige which prompted the reformation.

    • Tooky,

      Hopefully our moderators can filter out the people (trolls) that work for DM that are trying to disrupt the Scientology review website….. maybe this can be done without everyone confirming DM is a psychopath.. maybe there should be a third choice, like “I don’t know”…. ?

      Someone in OSA that admits DM is a psychopath will probably be sent to the RPF or worse. So, knowing this, it makes it a little easier for me to bother to read something (negative or positive) about Scientology or Scientologists. I think it is only fair to know WHERE a communication is coming from. I don’t really care what the content is. I am an adult and can figure that out sooner or later.

      Anyway, I guess this is at least part of the theory for Steve’s litmus test for David’s well documented psychopathic history, but I am not sure what Steve had in mind.. maybe it’s just a basic IQ test. Ha. (joke).

      • Correct, Robert. It is an IQ test. (joke, lol). Tooky, — it is not a “pass/fail.” It’s a mechanism to block OSA trolls. It’s not a perfect world, so that’s the best I can do. Sorry if you don’t like it. Has nothing to do with “ideological purity.”

        • Let me ask you this: If a church member came to an Independent Auditor and got auditing from them, then went back to the Church for some training or something, how should that be viewed by Independents?

          What if someone received bad auditing from a prominent Independent Auditor and wrote a truthful review about it? How should that review be handled by Independents?

          If a Church member writes a review that is glowingly positive of Int Management or David Miscavige, or critical of an Independent, will that be disallowed?

          Just asking questions here. I understand how OSA works, but if your goal is reality in your reviews, why be on the lookout for “OSA Trolls” or anyone?

          Tooky

          • I can’t believe you are asking me such stupid questions. Here are the answers: (1) Who cares? That is his business. (2) Honestly, how else? I said the policy is honesty because we want REALITY. (3) Have you even LOOKED at the site? I already answered this. We print good, bad or indifferent, as long as it is sincere.

          • You are the answer to your question.

          • Good grief Tooky, are you from the sticks?
            Find your MU in Art of War. That post was must better

          • “Let me ask you this: If a church member came to an Independent Auditor and got auditing from them, then went back to the Church for some training or something, how should that be viewed by Independents?”

            As interesting.

            “What if someone received bad auditing from a prominent Independent Auditor and wrote a truthful review about it? How should that review be handled by Independents?”

            Trust me, it has been handled very well. Independents are very able at confronting inconvenient truths.

            “If a Church member writes a review that is glowingly positive of Int Management or David Miscavige, or critical of an Independent, will that be disallowed?”

            The site has already been described as unbiased. So that means, yes.

            “Just asking questions here. I understand how OSA works, but if your goal is reality in your reviews, why be on the lookout for “OSA Trolls” or anyone?”

            Even Yahoo and Google monitor the blogs and sites for hate, threats, slurs, etc etc. If you put up a site you take responsibility for the site and the effects that can be created with the site. This is planet wide not just here. That is standard Internet World social Intercourse.

          • I consider these to be very good questions. They make you think through one’s postulates as in the OP above and prevents certain situations from occurring.

            .

            • Different people have different avenues of interest, it does not mean anyone is more valuable than the other. I hobby horse on the CDEI scale and the awareness characteristics, so, enlightenment is not dev t for me. I like it when someone asks to be enlightened. That is reach! That is very positive! I love reach!

          • Tooky,
            Clearly you did not get the concept of Free Speech. I believe the answer to your question is in the Cred of the Church of Scientology as written by LRH. Or in the phrase they use to say during WW II:

            “I may not agree with what you say, but I feel fight to death for your right to say it.”

          • Tooky, are we there yet? Huh? Huh? Tooky are we there yet? Are we there yet? Huh? Huh? Are we there yet Tooky? Huh? Huh? When are we going to be there? Huh? Huh?

            Tooky Tooky Bang Bang Boom shakalaka

        • As a filter it’s actually brilliant in its simplicity. In the decades and centuries to come this question will become irrelevant but for right now unfortunately it’s needed – I can see that.

      • I understand the feeling that you must guard against, and weed out, those who are not TRUE independents.

        But the pursuit of ideological purity is a very bloody path historically, and a confirmed source of psycho-pathology itself. Absolutes are unobtainable, and no where is this most important to remember than in seeking purity of belief. All witch hunts, pogroms, declares – and even Fair Game – stem from this very costly human mistake.

        Scientology was supposed to be different.

        I understand what you are saying about the “IQ test” and I see the humor in it. But Independent Scientology is so much more than just a rebellion against David Miscavige, isn’t it?

        If he is not to become your Emmanuel Goldstein, why promote him or his name at all?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Goldstein

        Tooky

        • Please stop trying to protect the sociopath Tooky. Exposing criminal activity of the CO$ and shining the light of truth on Miscaviage helps humanity.

        • Tooky, You are reading way more into it than is right. I’m not guarding against everyone but true independents. Where are you even getting this stuff?

        • Tooky, you would get a lot more attention (and help) from this group if we knew who you were – 1. Second, you can stay unknown if you choose, but please reread what Steve Hall outlined above as well as clarified within the comments herein – as well as the scientologyreviews.com site itself.

          There is no such motive I am aware of as “pursuit of purity” anywhere in Scientology, only honesty – and Steve only means to curtail spam and OSA-bots, or otherwise fake zombies, thats it.

          No edit – thus simple. Be honest, be real.

        • “I understand the feeling that you must guard against, and weed out, those who are not TRUE independents.”

          I don’t have this feeling. I don’t know who “you” is. I am unguarded. I am not interested in weeding out. But I am not going to hassle with synthetic identities. I think it is more of a “keeping it real” purpose. Why have fake persona’s ? The Church is famous for synthetic personalities and fake personas. They can’t even admit their own employees or real selves to the world they live in.

          I agree about the witch hunts. That is nasty a business. I hate to smell myself, or anyone else, on fire.

          Scientology is different. There is nothing else like it.

          Rebelling against David Miscavige is just some side randomity. The Independent Movement is not about him. It is about the Scientology. He unmocks it, we mock it back up.

          I don’t think anyone here promotes him. I don’t think anyone anywhere promotes him. He promotes himself. He is generally despised by Scientologists and Sea Org members. People tolerate him because everything is temporary and he will drop the body sooner than later. Most Scientologists can think with eternities. Scientology is a universe.
          A cloud. That’s all. We just want him off the cloud. We use it to float and view. He is using it to rain all over the place. We want him off the cloud. Anything else you read into it has gotten too solid.

        • Yes. This is reality that may cut across the dream of independent Scientology, if the independents continues to think on the same pattern as Scientology.

          .

        • Since your ideological objectivity is so superior to everyone else, please set up your own web site to demonstrate it. I’m sure it will be popular to everyone. Let us know when you have it done.

          • LDW, I believe he has a site, but I’d rather not post here what I think it is, or what one of his previous screen names is. I’d rather just miss the withhold on him….. :-) He can ‘fess up himself if he chooses to.

    • Tooky, Tooky, Tooky, you have missed the forest for the trees. There is only ONE reason why Scientology Reviews was necessary and for that matter why this blog of Marty’s is necessary and even why the Independent Scientology movement is necessary. That ONE reason has a name and it is David Miscavige. You may be only an interested onlooker and thus do not have any skin in this fight beyond, perhaps, the desire to see and end to abuses being visited by the corporate church on families and individuals, for which you should be lauded. Half of everything you see in Independent Scientology is devoted to helping people with Scientology. The other half is devoted to laying a huge dose of whip ass on the bastard who has been working for 30 years to destroy the subject, its Founder and to deny those interested in it from receiving the gains possible. Target One for all of us here is David Miscavige. Hope that helps explain the reason for the question you raised.

      • “The other half is devoted to laying a huge dose of whip ass on the bastard who has been working for 30 years to destroy the subject,”

        Amen Dan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Steve, with respect, regarding:

      “The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is (a) a social personality or (b) a sociopath (suppressive person).”

      I have two concerns about the use of the above question as a gateway, test, or precondition to joining the website, posting reviews, or otherwise communicating to or through the website.

      First, assume a raw public, new not only to Independent Scientology, but to Scientology in any form (e.g., corporate) buys or borrows a LRH book, reads it, has wins, finds the website, and thinks, “Cool, I think I’ll join!” or “Cool, I think I’ll post a review!” He sees the question and, believe it or not, doesn’t know who David Miscavige is! (Honestly, not many people outside of Scientology do.) Also, while he may have an idea what a sociopath is, such a person could easily have MUs on both “social personality” and “suppressive person.” Basically, you are asking him a question as a litmus test, as a precondition to joining, writing a review, or more importantly as a litmus test to COMMUNICATING, that he can’t answer.

      Secondly, for such a new person (and perhaps others) such a question is off-putting. disagreeable, and, to be brutally honest, out-pr and out-manners. Particularly given (but perhaps not limited to a situation involving) lack of information, most good, social people are reluctant to label another person a “sociopath.” You may be scaring and deterring the very new, social, well-intentioned people you seek to attract. Even if a new or relatively new person CAN answer the question, or thinks he can guess the expected answer, he doesn’t want to.

      In summary, there are many people who may be reluctant to join a group whose first question, first originated communication to the individual, is to ask whether someone else is a sociopath. To be honest, it looks scary, antagonistic and creepy. Where does this question tend to place the group on the Tone Scale?

      • You raise an interesting point, CommunicatorIC, and perhaps after Steve gets some well deserved rest from the marathon of building TWO stunningly brilliant websites within the short span of five weeks, he’ll think of something less offensive or off-putting to newcomers.

        In the meantime, the ‘sociopath’ question about David Miscavige will do as a means to filter out OSAbots and other malefactors.

      • Well, as Mike Rinder would say, “Dave, is that you?”

        • Steve (Thoughtful) — Honestly, no, this most certainly is NOT Dave. I am ANYTHING but a corporate Church of Scientology Scientologist. I thought the observations and questions were legitimate. I guess I got my answer.

          • CommunicatorIC, are you Kassapa who posted Nov 30 2011 and got kicked off the blog by Marty? Your style and syntax sound just like Kassapa. To quote Mike Rinder from that time, “Sounds whiny and motivatorish”. No, I don’t think you are DM, but maybe you ought to consider the statement in your 5th paragraph “such a question is off-putting. disagreeable, and, to be brutally honest, out-pr and out-manners”. Please look in the mirror and see how this could apply to YOUR comment.

            You have the arrogance to criticize Steve Hall who has put together this fantastic website?

            What have you done to remove DM or to help independent Scientology?
            I’d really like to know, but strongly doubt that you can answer.

        • Steve (Thoughtful), I want to make a further response, if I may. I believe your reply to me was an example of an ad hominum attack. Instead of responding to the merits of my concerns and arguments, you impliedly accused me of being “Dave” (DM) in an effort to discredit me.

          From: http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html

          “Ad hominem is Latin for “to the man.” The ad hominem fallacy occurs when one asserts that somebody’s claim is wrong because of something about the person making the claim. The ad hominem fallacy is often confused with the legitimate provision of evidence that a person is not to be trusted. Calling into question the reliability of a witness is relevant when the issue is whether to trust the witness. It is irrelevant, however, to call into question the reliability or morality or anything else about a person when the issue is whether that person’s reasons for making a claim are good enough reasons to support the claim.

          Good refutations of arguments try to undermine the accuracy, relevance, fairness, completeness, and sufficiency of reasons given to support a conclusion. One of the more common tactics of those who can’t provide a good refutation of an argument is to divert attention away from the argument by calling attention to something about the person who made the argument. Rather than criticize a person’s premises or reasoning, one asserts something about the person’s character, associations, occupation, hobbies, motives, mental health, likes or dislikes.

          The fallacy in the ad hominem is due to the irrelevant nature of the appeal made, not to its falsity. If what is said about the person is false, in addition to being irrelevant, two fallacies are committed, false premise and irrelevant premise. ”

          I saw and experienced far too much of this in the corporate Church of Scientology — i.e., people who mistook a base ad hominum attack to be the same as “dead agenting” the person (it obviously isn’t). My motives and credibility are simply not relevant here. All that is relevant is the validity of my arguments.

          Even if my motives were relevant, I gave you my best possible advice for your website and your movement. Please consider, on the merits, whether the question at issue is good public relations? Does it demonstrate good manners? How will it effect the public YOU want to reach?

          • Your reasoning is totally flawed in that a “raw public” or non Scnist isn’t restricted in the use of the web in finding data or simply reading the news. David Miscavige is as infamous as his BFF Tom Cruise! His name comes up more than bad news of Scn or it’s related fronts.

            David Miscavige is responsible for the Bad PR documented in the legal system and reported in the media of his abuse, violence, gulag creation and creation of a Cult.

            Thus, Scn Inc and David Miscavige needs to be dissociated from and
            “The leader of the Church of Scientology, David Miscavige, is (b) a sociopath (suppressive person).” needs to be put out the in bold letters with a branding iron. By the way that’s not an Ad Hom

          • Speaking of courtesy and manners, CIC, if you had just taken a few minutes to peruse the new website, from the viewpoint of someone new to Scientology, or an “outsider”, you would have encountered several articles, like the Be Safe- Be Informed link, near the top, or the New to Scientology? article at the bottom right – each of which describe the cult of Miscabbage quite clearly.

            Browsing any of the reviews on the site, one would not encounter the “sociopath” question. But one would see lots of reviews detailing the cult’s abuses, by personal testimony.

            So by the time a relative newby tried to POST anything, they would not find the “sociopath” question at all surprising or shocking.

            Besides, what even vaguely internet savvy person who looks for online reviews – would NOT have seen about 40,000 stories about the infamous Pimp-On-A Box by now in the media – if they had even slightly looked into Scn online? DoesTomKat ring any bells?

            I also want to call BS on your arrogant, condescending quotation of the Ad Hominem defense – sure sign of a troll with hurt feelings.

          • Anonymous Confused Person

            I can see CIC’s points here. The thing about a website is this: unless you create it so that it acts more like an installation wizard, it’s extremely difficult to control how a user will use it. The scenario that CIC paints–a person completely new to Scientology comes across a book, finds the review site, then immediately wants to jump in to review it without having reviewed all of the helpful information there (such as “New to Scientology?” or any of the other items mentioned as built for newbies)–is plausible. The world is FILLED with people who do not “RTFM”; if it were not so, the Bastard Operators from Hell of the world would not be able to enjoy themselves so much bitching about it. : )

            One thing I have noticed in the comments here is that if anyone is critical in the main here, there is a tendency among regular users to “pile on”, often with (as CIC has noted) ad-hominem attack –calling them “trolls” and whatnot without actually answering the criticism. Not everyone does it: some people do take the time to make measured, considered responses, which is really nice to see.

            I would hazard to say that this is a byproduct of Scientology culture. Members of the organized version appear to be inculcated to believe that they are constantly under attack (and from what I’ve read, this was going on well before Hubbard died). Therefore, criticism is an attack, and must be met immediately with counter-attack — and the tactics invariably use an invalid (but generally effective) debate tactic such as ad-hominem. It is an aggressive victim mentality. I think that this is part of why DM has been so successful in his takeover and his hardcore control measures — it was already a feature of the culture, one that he was able to exploit.

            I don’t say this as an attack; it’s just an observation. It’s a vulnerability, though, and belies the idea that Scientology is about open-minded, free investigation of, well, everything. When I see that here, I see that even Independent Scientologists are not entirely free of such cultural baggage, and I worry that it will hold the movement back from true self-inspection, criticism/improvement, and expansion. Happily, as I mentioned before, not everyone does it. I have seen some useful (to my outsider mind) responses to, say, CIC or Tooky, and I am really pleased to see them, because it gives me hope that people /can/ be critical without automatically being accused of being an OSA-bot, DM, a troll, etc.

            • See other response to you.

            • Friend, I’ll tell you a little something. Scientology philosophy contains the bare bones woof and warp of real life. Those who have studied and applied it, know this, as they’ve had to confront the ugliness that boils just below the surface of the social veneer. These people don’t just talk the talk – they walk the walk. It’s an experiential thing. You’ll never know what a strawberry tastes like unless you bite into one.

              Forgive them, if they’re just slightly impatient with those armchair critics and spectators who feel offended because they refuse to genuflect to their theety weetie sensibilities.

    • I didn’t see that it said that answering the question by saying that Miscavige is not a psycho would preclude someone from posting, just that it would identify the viewpoint of that poster for others. People who believe that Miscavige is a psycho would also be identified for others. What is wrong with that? Each person gets to see what is the viewpoint of the poster is on this very important subject. Granted, ANSWERING the question IS required in order to post.
      “Churchies” tend to think that Miscavige is the “savior” of Scientology. “Indies” tend to think that he has been intentionally and systematically destroying the subject of Scientology for about 25 years.
      Let me know when the “church” allows indies (or anyone for that matter) to post on their web site and I will go and do so.
      I don’t see a “plea for ideological purity and uniformity of belief” on iscientology.org. It will just be asking you to stand up and say who you are on this important subject before speaking. Then speak.
      The religion of Scientology is not a “belief system”. “Believing” is not required.

  20. Dear Steve,
    Brilliant,all Brilliant, pure genious.
    Much to say and much more to do!
    Thankyou Steve Hall

    • You are quick with your words.

      Only you mis-apply, and mis-understand the import of the ad hominem fallacy.

      It is not true, and never has been, that a man’s, or woman’s argument stands or falls all b itself.

      It has always been, and always will be, that one must evaluate the utterer of the argument, as well as the substance of the premises, and the logical structure, to determine whether the argument is worth believing and acting upon.

      If LRH taught us nothing else, he taught us that “point of view”/”function” is senior to structure (such a logical validity or MEST consistency).

      Go into agreeement with evil, dishonest people — even if they happen to be reciting a “valid” argument, and, woe is you.

    • Thanks Tango 23 — I’m still beholden to you for getting me to read The Sociopath Next Door. Obviously Scooter intended his comm for CommunicatorIC.

  21. Steve… I tried to register to write a review at http://scientologyreviews.com/ but there seems to be a problem… I think the text box to type in the “image you see” is missing…

  22. Every month, more than 1.2 million people Google the word “scientology” and each one of those is a reach.

    Not true. I did my search, and eventually found Marty’s website while doing research for a long article about religions who have suffered an internal takeover by what appears to be a Psychopathic type personality. Scientology is not unique in that regard, do a search on the Fundemenalist Church of Jesus Christ (FLDS) and compare David Miscavige with Warren Jeffs.

    Wayne

    • Sorry Wayne, is true. I think you don’t understand what I mean by “reach.” If someone Googles “scientology” that is a “reach” no matter what it’s for. As for the rest, you are preaching to the choir.

      • Ah, you were using “reach” the same way I would have used “contact” when I was still working in sales.

        Wayne

        • Yes, exactly. I didn’t mean that the person already wants Scn. Some may be like you — investigating it as a criminal, corrupt corporation. However, look at what happened with you. You did that and now here you are continuing to reach among people who are using the good aspects of the philosophy to wipe out the bad. Any contact or lead is important, because you never know where it will go and everyone deserves a shot a help if they want it. That’s why we are here. That’s not to suggest you need do anymore than what you have done, but you’ve contributed to our discussion which is a good thing and I think you for it.

    • I have two major buttons in life, one is generalities, and the second misinterpretation of what was actually said.

  23. Obviously the wind and lightning have your back!! (and ours)

    Fantastic — I’ll be writing reviews.

    Thank you.

    Christine

  24. Richard Lloyd-Roberts

    Wow oh Wow. You are a genius. Thanks to Marty and Steve for keeping the truth alive. I’ll spend the weekend reviewing.

  25. The more I read your new website – the more in awe I am.

    Simply incredible the work you have obviously put into this. And just as soon as I can create a log in (the Capcha thing isn’t working) I’ll be posting reviews.

    Again — thank you

  26. Wonderful, powerful, spot-on target….just some of what comes to mind to describe this, Steve. Man, once again, what a service you are performing not only for Scientologists, but actually for all seekers of truth. My reviews are coming. Love the retro theme and layout!
    How does one add an Indie Auditor (like yours truly) for receiving reviews? I welcome this wholeheartedly – it will reveal who is and who isn’t worthy of trust, by user consensus. Fantastic job.
    And I just took a look at how many more Clears, OTs and flourishing delivery people we would have now, if the C of $ had allowed, much less implemented, something like this, years ago! But, no – Miscavige had to use orgs for his own protection and power trip, first and foremost.
    This website truly shows, to anyone, THE MONOPOLY IS BROKEN!

    • Hi Randy, yes great question — please send me what you’d like to have in there for you and I will get you added. You will note under Indie Centers I already have your LA center.

      • Thanks, Steve. I have sent some stuff over to you using the Contact form on the new Reviews website. Once again, brilliant job, and like you say, this is REAL marketing!

        • Hi Randy, I have to find it. I am momentarily buried in comm, lol. I have to run an errand this morning. When I get back I will put you there.

          • I see it there now, Steve. Thanks very much.

          • Okay, Randy you are now online. For info people, reviews on AUDITORs will only be accepted if someone has actually been audited by the person (actually a consumer) and critical comments about auditors are going to be verified within an inch of their lives before getting published because auditors are the most valuable people on earth.

            As a note, anyone can comment on any individual review. In this regard, each review can actually act like it’s own mini blog with a thread of comments and even comments on the comments. Cool right?

  27. What a great site. I love the whole 50′s vibe…brilliant!!!

  28. Fantastic Steve, love this idea and I am in. I will make time to write some things that I have wanted to write for a long time. It is part of the decompression.
    QUESTION: Is there a preferred review style that is more POWERFUL e.g. short and pithy, or more involved and detailed? Somewhere in between? I know it must be real and truthful. That’s a given. What I mean, can you make suggestions (or anyone else on this forum who is expert in this area) re: applying PR tech to your audience, so that our reviews man be more correctly taylored to that audience. When I read reviews that are too lengthy I skip them if I am short on time.

    • My stable datum is always “If it is truly real to me, it will communicate.” Just write a review from your OWN reality. That would include the length being as long as YOU would find useful. My 2 cents…..

    • Personally, I think most consumer reviews are just a few paragraphs. There are other platforms where one can record one’s thoughts or observations. For example, on Scientology-cult.com we have KRs, articles, resignations, etc. These are just consumer reviews.

    • In his “Talk to Letter Registrars” lecture, LRH emphasized that writing from your own reality will always communicate best.

  29. iRoger from Switzerland Thought

    :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)…………………………………………..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)……………………………………!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :):) :) :) :) :) :) :)

  30. Here is a review of Scientology Axiom #1

    This is a sincere and honest review. I invite rational criticism of it.

    .

  31. Here is a review of Factor #1.

    I invite an honest criticism of this too. It may end up being a part of my PhD thesis.

    .

  32. I think having a moderator on reviews of books/lectures is absolutely the wrong approach if you are interested in honestly and organically growing the independent movement. Any virtual community within the web 2.0 model to be truly successful has to have:
    a) the ability for the community to upload and create content …unmodified
    b) create conversation without any actual or even perceived moderation

    This isn’t to say you can’t delete comments that violate the expressed rules of the community — but to moderate, in my view, is a mistake.

    One of the big reasons the corporation is #failing other than the obvious (beatings, financial rape, orwellian thought control) is they are totally unable to function in the web 2.0 model. Can you imagine the church engaging in a real social media campaign where the content they provided could be freely commented upon? Anon’s, Indies, academics would have a field day!!!! Its unthinkable for the corporation and that is why seeing a 20 year old walking into a Scientology church without a parent “in” is nearly impossible!

    I think what you are doing is great but community building, whether it be virtual or ‘real’ has to be done with real and honest conversation that is spontaneous, fluid, and without prior constraint.

    This more than anything else is the church’s achilles heel. The Boston facebook page is hillarious!! You can’t comment on ANYTHING — the have like 65 likes, all of which are parishioners! It’s truly pathetic.

    Anyway … just a thought!

    • Brian, The Moderators are just there to catch SPAMMERs, TROLLs, etc. They are not editing anything. We are printing the real deal good, bad, or indifferent. I state that explicitly on the site. But without moderators it would take OSA about 5 seconds to totally fill this site with thousands and thousands and thousands of links to porn, shoes, bullshit, etc. Sorry, man, but there is no other way around it. I know what I’m talking about, already been there done that. “Moderators” does not equal “editors.” And these are reviews, it’s not a forum or a blog.

      • Just to be clear, if someone from OSA writes an actual review you will post it, but if they try and post spam links, copypasta, etc. you won’t. Is that correct? Ditto ex-members who are no longer Scientologists, critics who have read books, etc?

        • Yes, that is right. I thought that was what I already said. I guess it’s hard to believe? To recap: If ANYONE posts an honest review that is sincere, I’m going to post it. If it is bullshit — like the person hasn’t even read the book but they just have some other agenda for lutz or whatever, then no. I want quality reviews, pro or con. On the review forms, a person is asked to post their status: Indie, Churchie, ex or other. REALITY has more value than anything else. If some people hate a book and some love it — that’s reality, man. An unbiased actual rating is going to be more helpful than an unreal “5 stars.” These are unbiased reviews. I will post reviews pro or con but I will absolutely not post anything that is not sincere. We’ve already got some differences. I posted a review on What is Scientology. I think the book stinks. Someone else just posted they loved it. Everyone is different. Note, people can also comment on individual reviews.

          • Your filtering criteria includes very subjective terms like “honest” and “sincere” and you talk about wanting “quality” reviews. Robert A above talked of identifying people who worked for DM as part of the process.

            This is very different from filtering out spam and copypasta and could easily be abused.

            • Inspection before the fact.

              • Anonymous Confused Person

                I can sort of see some instances where the review might be borderline (as in, “hard to tell”). On the other hand, I really think such instances would be pretty darn rare. Steve’s stated goal: to ensure that the reviews that are posted are actual reviews, rather than “four wolf moon” reviews, or other kinds of (to quote Neal Stephenson) “crap”, is really doable. But it takes humans, so it looks like Steve and his fellow moderators have a lot of work to do, especially if the OSA gets volunteers to be aggressive. You all have a huge labor of love ahead of you!

                The rest of us can help out, not only by reviewing, but by linking to reviews when talking about specific Scientology items. If I am not mistaken (although I may well be), Google and other search services increase the perceived value of a link by looking at how many times it is cited in other places. So if every time you mention “Scientology” you turn it into a link to the review site, it can help increase the perceived value of the review site. Again, if this isn’t exactly how Google (etc.) works, please correct me, because this is important!

                • See other response to you.

                • ACP, that is a great post. YES, YES definitely people can help by linking to the website or to posts or pages on the website. Also, to go to the website (any of our websites including Marty’s) it’s always best to Google it. That involves the search engine directly and they note it’s in demand. Thanks so much for your help.
                  Paul Adams has posted a number of negative reviews — all sincere. He’s an ex-Scientologist, openly so and has a website where people can get his own brand of auditing via computer. He’s not hiding anything. His opinions are his and he is also experienced with the technology. He’s an example of a person who came through it all and still likes some parts but not others and is honest about it. To me, that is healthy. And I thank Paul for taking the time to post comments because it gives another perspective and some balance and grounding that not everything is perfect in everyone’s eyes. I think it helps to keep us all humble and most of all, tolerant. Scientology is not for everyone by any means. Never has been, never will be. They have a right to choose their path.

                  • I wish I could like this comment more than once, Steve. I am an ex-Scientologist too, and am happy to be able to finally contribute something to what you are doing in the spirit of freedom. (I am enjoying doing some reviews, too, it is fun). :)

      • Thank you Steve, many good ideas whose time has FINALLY come. Yes we do need moderators, and just as well when it comes to auditors, CSs and training centers..we DO need to verify that what was said is correct, so it does not become (and from what I have seen on this site over the last couple years I know most of you feel that we want it all straight and honest.) Thanks again. Wish something like this had been here when I left the RTC back in 1986! No trolls needed, no people needed to throw us off purpose. Each of us should contribute where we can.

    • I think you have completely that from of free communication you talk about, already here in this “Indy” blog, Brian :)

    • Culkin, are you serious, really?

      Tossing out gold out in favor of yet more river bottom is a costly mistake.

  33. Steve, your major posts are always genius!

  34. And if you are thinking why don’t I critique Marty for moderating … the answer is simple. Marty has a private blog … this is his personal page moderation is very common on blogs. The iScientology is a virtual community … very different parameters for success!

    • Brian, you have an MU — moderators do not edit anything. Do you really want to see this website filled with thousands of links to buy shoes in China?

    • Brian, the solution to your concern is rather simple.
      Just go ahead and spend hundreds of your own hours of labor and hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, or possibly even tens of thousands of your own money and create your very own Indie Scn review website.
      Then you can have the pleasure of watching those with malicious intent sink it within hours with thousands of crazy postings and links. But all will not be lost:
      I think Steve Hall would be your biggest fan. After disaster strikes he would counsel you on exactly how to fix it so this cant happen to your site again.
      Then we would have 2 kick as indie review sites, and that would be great.
      Brian, you have my vote of confidence–GO FOR IT.

      • Thanks Moonshot — you are really cool.

      • Gerhard Waterkamp

        Oh boy. That is the spirit. 
        Steve took the initiative to put something out there with lots of energy, great design and lots of HIS hard work. Kudos for him for doing that.
        That does not mean he is right in each and every aspect of his work.
        There is constructive criticism and there is nagging to pull somebody or something down. Brian was making some very good constructive points anybody familiar with the subject can see that. This is no reason to get all upset and protective.
        Let us not forget one thing. The thing DM hates and suppresses more than anything else is openness, free discussions, exchange of ideas and data and anything that is not of one single minded opinion. That is the culture of the COS.
        If independent Scientology wants to succeed we should counter the cult. We have to be open, we have to look at constructive criticism and learn from it. There are no more holy cows and things that cannot be said because it is politically incorrect or criticizes an “authority”. The day image of an authority or idea becomes more important for us than a struggle for the best workable truth, we will have become a mirror of the COS.
        I am sure the leaders of independent Scientologists have the greatness and altitude that allows them to embrace constructive criticism.
        So Moonshot, really?

  35. I suggest that all domain names with all possible suffixes containing “iScientology”, “independentscientology”, “independent scientology” and all other variants, be secured, so that COS cannot grab them.

    .

    • Hopefully, most people will know, when they are pointed to the COS site that it is not the Independent Scientology site. This may not be true, however, for people who do not know anything about Scientology.

      .

    • The focus of iScientology should be on clearing the planet and not on making money. I believe that it is the greed for money and control that corrupted the COS.

      That means that the focus should not be on “control” either. Yes, the focus should be on keeping the Standard Tech standard. Those who want Standard Tech should be provided with the Standard Tech, because it has proven to be workable. But there should be another category of “Researched Tech”, which should be carefully whetted and reviewed before being published. This category should not be brushed off as “squirrel”. That would not be the correct usage of the word “squirrel”.

      .

      • The term “squirrel” is valid only within the context of Standard Tech. That is also the context of KSW.

        It doesn’t make Buddhism, Christianity and other religions squirrel.

        .

        • Squirrel is pretty easy to see when it comes up, at least I think so. But you are correct, the religions of the world or even psychiatry are hardly squirrel. They are what they are. LRH studied these subjects and so have I. But, independent Scientolgists are most interested in studying and applying Scientology. That’s pretty much the long and the short of it.

      • Vinaire, Anyone that is in control does not have to focus on the control.
        To suggest people have to choose between making money or clearing the planet is some kind implant from Sea Org recruiters I think. People should be able to have, create whatever they want while clearing the planet. “Researched tech” would be individual exploration and those that do can create their web sites / points of interest. Scientology is just simply Scientology. There is no such thing as “squirrel scientology”. Squirrel is a verb. Scientology is what is Scientology. If it is something else, it is not Scientology. Thank you for letting me in to your mind. I just stopped in to organize a few thoughts. Very interesting here!

        • Oracle, you are right. Scientology may now be considered a completed work like Christianity and Islam. I shall continue with search into knowing through KHTK (Knowing How to Know). There is lot of help. Look at Wikipedia.

          .

          .

    • Good idea. They already grabbed one! The good news is, the more they try to blend in the less people can see the difference between them and us!

  36. constant vigilance

    Steve Hall!!!!!! OMG!!!!!!! This is BRILLIANT! I got so excited reading this. I shot up tone scale like a rocket. This indicates. This is the right marketing to do and this is the death blow to DM for sure! Wow! You are so smart and brilliant to think of all this, and by the way I THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART for the hours of work and sacrifice you did to put up Iscientology.org and scientology_cult etc. We will beat DM at his own game and free the planet, which is something he wanted to prevent and stop the whole time, regardless of lip service otherwise. YES I will put in tons of hrs writing reviews. And THANK YOU to Dan Koon, Haydn James, Mike Rinder, Marty Rathbun and all others who attended the summit and came up with these great ideas. Phew! I’m speechless (almost) .

  37. I believe that the subject of Scientology should be alive and kept growing. Per LRH, Scientology is an extension of Buddhism. Thus, there may be a category of “Researched Tech”, which may contain Tech researched from Buddhism using Scientology approach.

    .

    • “Per LRH, Scientology is an extension of Buddhism. ”

      Can I get that reference?

      • It was in the promotional materials that attracted me to Scientology back in 1969. Later I remember the Hymn of Asia project initiated on Flag by LRH.

        I also remember a cover of Advance magazine that portrayed LRH as Mettaya. I remember being consulted on it by LRH PRO. There is no doubt in my mind that Buddhism has been used heavily in promoting LRH’s image.

        Now I do not see Scientology to be an extension of Buddhism. Scientology is more like an extension of Christianity under a scientific garb.

        .

        • I’m traveling so don’t have access to my library. But LRH said (very paraphrased), I believe it was in The Phoenix Lectures book, that Scientology is a culmination of the work first begun by the Buddha 2,500 years ago. And that what we are doing in Scientology was known about, and lost, 2,500 years ago; and that in Scientology our understanding is more exact than Buddhism, but has the same basic goals. The chapters “General Background of Scientology, parts I and II” (in the above mentioned book), should have the exact quotes.

          I think it was a wise man here on this blog that said that auditing can be described as “focused meditation”. I like and agree with that description.

          (I don’t see any direct relation to “Christianity” other than perhaps in a broad sense with certain organizational aspects, especially Catholicism.)

      • So, Oracle, you may be right, Buddhist tech may not have any place in Scientology. I misspoke.

        .

        • I think it has a great place in Scientology. As a beginning, Before electricity. Before science, Before discovery of the reactive mind. Next thing that will happen, someone will come up with a way to handle the analytical mind. We will be trusted to rise above the analytical mind. I know because I already went there.

  38. Absolutley brilliant Steve! Even DM is thinking that. All his money can’t buy brilliiance and talent.
    Thank you Steve for working so hard to help us out here!!!!!!!

    • No doubt Miscavige blew off Steve along with all the genuine talent cos he saw exactly that the result of keeping him would be Scientology expanding – and we can’t have that now. Ironic that DM wouldn’t qualify for a job cleaning Steve’s computer screen these days.

      • Thanks for the props Martin and Ingrid, DM invested great effort into continually black PRing me at the Int base so I could never get anything done. Now we are bypassing him and his whole mob of DBs (degraded begins). No need to even look back at this point. Just some dirty smoke on the horizon.

      • For some reason this came to mind: (substitute McFly with Steve and Biff with Miscavige)

        George McFly: Uh… now Biff, I want make sure that we get two coats of wax this time. Not just one.
        Biff Tannen: Just finishing up the second coat now.
        George McFly: Now Biff, don’t con me!
        Biff Tannen: I, I’m… I’m sorry, Mr. McFly. I, I meant I was just starting on the second coat.
        George McFly: Ahh… Biff. What a character. Always trying to get away with something.

      • >“Ironic that DM wouldn’t qualify for a job cleaning Steve’s computer screen these days.”
        He wouldn’t even qualify for cleaning Steve’s toilet these days.

  39. Steve, I can confirme the effect of just putting copies of satisfaction surveys on-line for my professional activity: demands for services had exploded and with even better quality of customers, I mean looking for quality themselves.

    About the reviews, I think it’s important to insist for the dates, periods of time involved with it. People, organizations, and even books(!) can change, so that would be fair to differenciate time factor in any (like year of edition for a book and if “L. Ron HUBBARD”, original ones, or “L. Ron Hubbard Library”, altered ones…).

    And for my sustain: you have it to participate for my own reviews.

    Thanks for your so brillant contribution… just like iRoger just have Very Well Said :)

  40. constant vigilance

    Yes, let’s secure all web site names similar to “Independent Sciengoloty.” Good idea.

  41. constant vigilance

    Steve, One thing I’m not clear on: will you have the public buy “Self Analysis” from the corporate church???! Why don’t we buy a bunch of them and sell them from our site so that we don’t give foot traffic to the corporate church? Cuz if they go in, they might never come out.

    • Yeah – why don’t you set yourself up for a copyright violation? Amazing how you can dish out such certain advice all around the planet when you haven’t even figured out how to assume your own beingness.

    • constant vigilance: visitors to the site are free to do services at the church and post reviews. the site is not about selling books. it is about letting people review everything scientology and help get the word out. you will notice that steve has included a link to the church website. if people want to go there, more power to them (a lot more power–they will need it). i wonder if the church site will return the favor and link to scientologyreviews. not holding my breath on this one, however.

    • Constant, I applaud your purposes for full control. But some things you can just let go of.

      However, I think it is a bright idea to set up an Independent bookstore on line. Scientology Independent Book Store. You could collect originals and resell them as a used book store. And most likely turn a very fine profit!

      • Actually, I would like to see the books in an eBook format. Such that can be used by a reader like kindle or iPad. They are available as PDF, but that is not as practical. I absolutely think that a review site should not sell the books. I believe this site is intended as impartial review, and selling books will hurt its credibility.

        I am actually working on converting some books. I am just not sure how to distribute them without the liabilities that Marty mentioned. Maybe by giving them away for free?

        • Well hey, David Miscavige himself declared Hubbard’s original works an overt product and ordered the books burned. Clearly he is on record with word and actions as asserting these things had no value and were in fact a liability. I don’t of anyone who was prosecuted for digging through trash.

          • I meant I don’t KNOW of anyone prosecuted for digging through trash, clearly the current C of S regards Hubbard’s originals as trash to be burned.

          • It could be interesting to bait dm into filing for copy right violation and then prove in court that he violated any copy right he may claim by an unauthorized modification of the original text.

            Just a thought.

        • It’s not a fight worth fighting. There are plenty – tons – of copies of the books out there, and copyright is the only tool Miscavige has left. So, screw it! Buy new or used copies from wherever, as long as they are legit. Downloading ANY of this material is a violation of copyright, and you really do not want to go there.

          • Very thanks Grasshopper having clarified this point on copyrights.

            Now, shouldn’t we ensure that the original LRH’s books could be available to any one for the future? Because as CoS doesn’t produce them any more, they will miss to new people who would want them in the future.

            Wouldn’t be the solution to make recognized that, in agreement to his own wills, the LRH’s books, doesn’t belong to a single person or organization, but to any public who want to use them, an inheritance of Humanity, not of a lobby? (Still would be the problem of the advanced materials supposed to be secured… :/)

      • I think the issue is simply obtaining the books, reading them, and reviewing them. The issue is not selling books, or turning Steve’s websites into book selling venues. Anyone intelligent enough, and curious enough, to find this blog, and Steve’s websites, has purchased books in the past and is fully capable of purchasing used books through Alibris, AbeBooks, Amazon, etc. In fact, Amazon is selling some of them for a penny! (I am paranoid about eBay, there is no privacy rules, to my knowledge, and I do not want any active members of the CoS, to have my name, address, and email address.)

  42. Steve, wow thanks for all of your dedication, talent, hard work and love for the tech!

  43. A tremendous piece of work Steve. I will post my reviews.

    Tim S

  44. Yahoo, I wrote a review; actually a few. More to come.

    • I read a couple already Bob – excellent !! :-)

      • Hi;

        Just reviewed the Class VIII course I did in ’88.

      • … and the SHSBC and Sr. SHSBC I did in ’75-’77!

        This is fun!

        • Damn, damn, damn; It didn’t arrive! Could be because the ‘ security code’ wasn’t visible, but I submitted it anyway.

          Too bad; it was an excellent review. Wish I kept a copy of it.

          • I think it’s subject to review Bob, thats all.

            • No, I think I screwed up. Too bad; it was the kind of review written in such a way that any who would have read it would have had tears in their eyes and joy in their hearts; would have run outside and gathered, and wore placards and signs, and blown trumpets, and made me rich.

              But, I had the chance, and blew it.

          • NOTICE: Here’s what I believe happened. You are logged in and eventually the system will log you out due to inaction. After that, nothing will happen when you submit a review. You simply need to log in again. To prevent your stuff from being lost in case it logged you off before you finished, if the page does not readily accept your review, copy it and paste it into a doc. Try to get the page to do something else. If it won’t, it’s because you are logged out. So then you just need to log in again and you can pull in your nice review and resubmit. Sorry, I don’t know any way around that. But when I get time I will look into it.

  45. Steve, the site is terrific and the idea is terrific. Thank you majorly for creating this!

    One thing I would like to see is in reference to “the Bridge”. There were, in the past, as time went on, several different Grade Charts released. The one I was most familiar with was the one from about 1970.

    Do “we” have a Grade Chart today, that accurately outlines the sequences of the Bridge? Do we need one? I feel we do.

    What do others think?

    • I think there might be a thread on this subject already on Scientology-cult.com. The grade chart as it stands is per Dan Koon, what LRH wanted. What you do is your business, of course, but I’m not going to start a dialog of people second guessing LRH. The only problem I know of with the current Bridge is the “routes” at the bottom are messed up, but that is really no problem.

      • Thanks Steve. I think I had forgotten this was on the Scientology-cult site, I’ll look it up there.

        I recall being intensely interested in the Grade Chart when I was introduced to it in1971. For me, it created a reality that “hey, these folks really do know what they are doing, and the route really has been mapped.”

        There was a lot of detailed info on it, processes, rundowns EPs etc that increased my confidence that it really was a Bridge.

        I think it’s a good marketing tool in itself.

      • Three preliminary observations. First, having given it some thought, I want to apologize if my comments above (below?) concerning the “sociopath question issue” were ridgy, ser-facy, or rude.

        Secondly, the Scientology Reviews website is excellent from a technical standpoint and from an aesthetic standpoint. I have not seen a better designed and implemented site on the web. The fact that your family of Independent Scientology websites far surpass the corporate Church of Scientology websites despite the money at the corporation’s disposal is a testament to your ability.

        Thirdly, and far more importantly, I couldn’t be more impressed with the objective substantive moderation policy concerning the reviews published to date. The fact that the review by “Daft” of A History of Man (a book I always had trouble with for the reasons stated in that review), the review by “Scientia” of Dianetics, and the review by “justme” of What is Scientology? were published is truly impressive and speaks volumes about the objectivity of your efforts. You are permitting the type of critical consumer feedback that would NEVER be allowed in a corporate Church of Scientology publication, forum or official comm line. Indeed, I am, to my ashamed surprise (ashamed because I prejudged your moderation policy), and to your credit, tempted to submit some reviews of my own.

        I do have one technical question. Above, you state:

        “The grade chart as it stands is per Dan Koon, what LRH wanted. What you do is your business, of course, but I’m not going to start a dialog of people second guessing LRH. The only problem I know of with the current Bridge is the “routes” at the bottom are messed up, but that is really no problem.”

        Given this view, may I ask what you think of the current appropriateness, validity, applicability, workability, etc., if any, of the Original OT Levels? I am particularly thinking of the observation in the post “Scientology is Working” that:

        “LRH’s original, never canceled, OT Levels are; OT I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII.

        One can do Audited NOTs (New OT V), Solo NOTs (New OT VII) and then can do the original OT levels and have it all, just as LRH intended.

        One could just do the original OT levels but, after starting on my NOTs, I see that it is best for me to do NOTs first.

        The original OT levels are only being delivered in the Independent field.”

        http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/11/02/scientology-is-working/

        Particularly given the, well, independent nature of Independent Scientology , I appreciate your above statement that, “What you do is your business,” but would appreciate your thoughts on the Original OT Levels. Your viewpoint on the Original OT Levels are important not only with respect to the particular topic of OT (as crucially important as it is), but also to larger issues of KSW and “standardness” vs. religious tolerance and acceptance of diversity.

        • By what means do we know that the current Bridge is what LRH wants. This sort of statement definitely warrants more data. Was the Bridge change moving away from the original OT Levels actually done by LRH…or WHO?
          What is wrong with using both (my opinion is nothing is wrong with that done at the correct place for the Pre-OT)?

  46. Wow!!!
    Now that’s what I call a plan. Spot on sanity Steve.
    Marvelous present time ideas you have.

  47. Silvia Lloréns

    Steve, thank you. You have all my back up and I will write as many Reviews in the shortest time possible. You have my respects in the use of your abilities to achieve a true boost in standard Scientology delivery. Thanks again – Silvia

  48. Im not trying to sound like im 6 over here, but I will

    dAvid mIscaviage has got to be shitting some pink twinkles over this.

    BMO.

    I am VERY VERY sorry, that I do not have anything more or anything better than that. I am just really busy this weekend, but had to check in.

    I can not wait to finish Steves posting

    —– If you were on staff somewhere, even in RTC or OSA, you can a review regarding your experience in the org:

    dM: NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    or when Steve Wrote: I need as many people as possible to create reviews at scientologyreviews.com. I need you personally to write reviews on each service you’ve done, each book and lecture series, and every org you’ve had recent experience with. If you were on staff somewhere, even in RTC or OSA, you can a review regarding your experience in the org.

    Again dM cried: NOOOOOOOOO — you are all SUPRESSIIIIIVVVEEEEESSSSSSSSSS !!!!!

    The internet SUCKS !!!!!!!!

    ——-

    ………………………. man i hate that little guy – BMO is out !

  49. Dear Steve,
    Regular wizkid, great innovation, great performance, great challenge, really well done.

    ML/A

    Ps. You have notice the date of COS registration of .com?

  50. Phil Anderson and I wasted two years trying to figure out a solution, but we couldn’t. Maybe that was because the only real solution would have been for some people to leave the Sea Org, start over from scratch, rebuild their personal lives outside the Church, analyze what to do, join together in a withering campaign to expose DM for the fraud he is, then come up with an alternative structure to supply services, market the hell out of it with it’s own logo and website, gather even more support, rekindle the failed purpose to bring greater understanding across the world, and with virtually no money devise some way of grabbing the world’s attention to direct thousands of people to read the right book. Maybe some day some people will do that. I wouldn’t know.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you!

    • Oops….The first paragraph above should be in quotations and credited to the brilliance of Steve Hall and his irrepressible insouciance.

  51. Standing Ovation Steve! You have a beautiful mind.

  52. Looking 4 Myself

    Steve your idea is brilliant and your goal is admirable. I think Ron would be impressed with this. I’ll definitely be adding some reviews over the week-end.

  53. Amazing Steve!! I love the 50′s feel of it and the spirit of play and unseriosness that it communicates! Thanks for doing that.

  54. Personal use of Self Analysis by new public will require the use of mindfulness (a concept in Buddhism) as outlined here:

    MORE ON MINDFULNESS

    Please understand that this is not squirreling. This is the technology from Buddhism. Scientology is an extension of Buddhism.

    .

    • Disagree. Self Analysis requires no explanation. It is fully self-contained.

      • Indeed… what Marty said. Self Analysis in fact required the least explanation after I read it and became convinced to promote it as a staff member [Bookstore Officer] to new public on early 80′s. Totally agree.

        It worked then, well, and I have no reason to believe it won’t work again as we haven’t come that far, Sooth it still sooth.

        And that is a fact.

    • Vinaire,
      I know you have tried Buddhism. That’s great. Now try doing Self Analysis by itself without adding or subtracting anything. See what happens. Ancient saying: when you add wings to a car it neither flies or drives well….

      • I used Self-Analysis back in 1969 with great benefit. I then applied to a girl on MIT campus, where I lived. She was simply blown out.

        Now I am applying Self-Analysis using mindfulness. The results are much faster and fabulous.

        .

        • vinaire
          Combining bits and pieces of disparate technologies into an intelligent thesis is a laudable if not common goal, but it is something you will get little help from here on this website. People here are trying deliver and receive Scientology Technology, not do research.

          • Robert, I have no expectations from anybody. I am happy in myself in what i do.. I simply gave a suggestion with an intention to help. It is OK with me.if nobody wants to follow that suggestion. I am not offended.

            .

            • Good. No offense intended. Just trying to orient you to where you are…the Indies are only out here because there is no standard application of Scientology inside the Church of Scientology Inc. so we are doing it out here.

      • Mindfulness is very natural. Maybe LRH intended it and thought everybody knew it. But I find that letting these points known explicitly improves the results.

        .

    • Vinaire my darling, that is an arbitrary. You are pushing Budda all over the place. I realize you have interests here with the Budda thing. But it is not the same thing as Scientology. If it is any consolation, there are hundreds of thousands of buddhists all over the world, only a few thousand Scientologists and we are an endangered species. You do not have to cloak the few of us remaining in Budda garb. You are a mathematician. Buddhism is safe.

    • My 2 cents:
      A) This IS squirreling if it is to be used as an additive to the practice of auditing of Self Analysis.
      B) Scientology is a culmination and refinement of the principles of Buddhism and practical applications of those refined principles. It is not an “extension” of Buddhism. There’s a difference.

      • I don’t think Hubbard really understood Buddhism. He rejected “Nirvana” which is the core of Buddhism, and promoted ‘individualty’ (egotism), which is just the opposite. Please see:

        Identity versus Individuality

        So, in my opinion, Hubbard did not refine Buddhism. But he did refine an approach to philosophy.

        .

  55. Please also get the domain names “scientologyreviews.org”, “scientologyreviews.net”, etc. before COS grabs them.

    .

  56. Truly Brilliant Steve!

  57. WOW !
    Brilliant.
    Very big thanks to all who helped!
    Very big thanks!
    Very big ones!
    Will certainly contribute.

  58. Steve,
    You have definately delivered in spades today what Dan so aptly outlined in his post above:

    “The other half is devoted to laying a huge dose of whip ass on the bastard who has been working for 30 years to destroy the subject,”

    I’ll get busy on the registration and reviews now. Thanks for a stellar job in delivering those five gallon pails of ‘whip ass’ out to the Hemet minefield!

  59. Hi steve;

    I am curious about one thing; given the alterations in the basic books, and the alterations in the Academy, should reviews note which issue they are reviewing?

    I realize in many cases the alterations of books may appear minor, and so to some not of much consequence given the overall text, but the courses have been completely screwed up. The Levels 0-4 that I did back in ’72 are not the same as the ones today, as everyone knows. The SHSBC I did back in 76 is not the same, and the Class VIII course I did, a duplicate of the one LRH gave back in ’68, has been sabotaged, the tapes and HCOBs edited, and so forth.

    The trouble with reviewing the original books and courses is that they no longer really exist, except privately or on Ebay, so for ‘new’ persons the review would be irrelevant.

    Is this of any consequence to reviewing?

    • I think it will get too complicated to have multiple versions, but you can simply make a note of that in your review so others can see it and be warned.

    • In my reviews, from now on I’m going to indicate the date or issue so anyone who reads them know exactly what book or course I’m reviewing.

  60. constant vigilance

    Steve, HELP! I can’t write reviews. I successfully did a few, but now when I try,there is nothing in the secure box to type in. So I can’t do that. Also when I have seen the letters to type in and did that, the round and round thing just goes on forever and my review hangs fire that way. Should I wait until I try again and maybe the glitches will be fixed? I’m willing but unable to do it with the way it is now.

    • Hi CV;

      I had the same experience, but I found that even though there is no indication your review is actually ‘sent’, it seems to have been sent. That little thing that goes round and round forever … well … I left the site, and then immediately came back, and in a little while my review appeared.

    • You have timed out. You have to re-log in again. Save your review in a doc before you do and then resubmit.

  61. Bravo, Steve, and very well done. 10 out of 10 for initiative and intelligent creativity. I plan to support your site, and have registered. The registration went fine. The site is still a bit buggy, though – I wrote a review, and then clicked “submit”, but it just would not go through, so had to can it. It may have been my browser, not sure, but I will try again in a day or so.

  62. I’m lost for adequate words Steve, excellent work – big time imo !! I’m registered and looking forward to writing the first of some reviews this weekend.

  63. Hey Steve,

    Oh this is good; in fact very, very good.

    All bugs seemed handled as I joined as a member and was able to easily donate to help support the effort.

    Great start Steve.

    We’ll all be thanking you for a long time.

    Vic Krohn

  64. Steve and Dan, this is cussing AWESOME. Really, really, really awesome. It is just so cussing cool! Wow. I mean, it is just so freaking beautiful. I mean, I just smile just looking at it!

    I love the look, and I love the feel. But, what really strikes me is that you have listed what is available in Scientology, with a description of each, and it really puts the scope of Scientology in context. 30 books. 40 auditing services. 33 courses. The practitioners (17 and counting!). Really, just awesome. And the marketing aspect – very, very cool.

    Brilliant!

  65. Excellent work and positioning, Steve. This will open up a lot of lines! And it changes the face of Scientology forever. :-)

    • I’ve drilled down even deeper into the site and ripped through more pages and links and all I gotta say now is, “Jeepers, Steve! What a gorgeous site! Truly aesthetic and theta.” And that, of course, doesn’t include what it’s gonna do, but I said that in my first post.

  66. “The system will be moderated to block OSA trolls, spammers, insincere people, etc. Reviewers must register before they can post a review. Registering enables the moderator to more quickly approve a review once he knows who the person is and trusts them. My secret moderators are already in place and they are people you know and trust.”

    You’re going to block people that you judge to be “insincere” and only allow people that “he knows who the person is and trusts them” to post?

    I don’t think you can get real fair “consumer” reviews of Scientology if those who have “consumed” Scientology are not allowed to post their honest opinions because they are not “known and trusted” individuals.

    Granted it will be better quality than the nameless, but occasionally initialed, Church reviews, but still. If you want to create an honest review system it should be open to those who do not like Scientology as well as those who did.

    For example, I do not like Scientology. I can post an honest opinion and give an honest reason why I do not, but because I am not part of the Independent movement you will not know who I am and therefore I will not be trusted or allowed to post my personal reviews.

    If you want to call it what it is, it should be a “testimonial”. Even though I know the Church has tainted the meaning of that word, without negative as well as positive reviews that is basically all they are.

    It’s a difficult thing to allow people to post negative ratings of Scientology and it’s materials, just like it would be for anyone selling any product or service to allow others post negative reviews on it’s materials. That is why most companies relegate the “unbiased” review system to third parties.

    • Are some of these folks complaining about the moderator filter really this dense, or are they trolls?
      Steve has made it clear that anyone may post a review, GOOD, BAD OR INDEFFERENT, as long as it is a real review of a real book or service read or done.
      Trusted in this context does not mean that the reviewer must walk in some pre-concieved ideological lock-step.
      Trusted simply means the moderator knows this individual is not prone to posting insane gibberish, links to porn, or buying trinkets in timbuktu. Perhaps this is the real nature of this “concern”: the inablitiy to do the above.

      • Guys like Steve know how Miscavige, INt, and OSA operate. One way they operate is to start attempting to drive his anchor points in on his utilizing that experience to forward Scientology. I know, received a lot of it myself.

        • Well, the fact of the matter is, OSA et al and their Stalinist tactics aside, any online venue (forum, blog, webstie, online community, etc.) that allows public postings or commentary that has no Moderator fuction that i’ve ever come across rapidily devolves.
          Typically what happens is one or two asocial pricks sit on the site and viciously snipe at any regular person who posts on the site and the whole thing becomes very unpleasant. They drive the good folks away.
          The only places i find myself coming back to again and again are those sites moderated by well intentioned individuals who care about the subject or purpose of the site.
          Personally, I find it a testament and indicator to the validity and health of the online group that there are good folks willing to volunteer their time to being a Moderator.
          In life, everyone (even if they are one themselves) knows an A-hole or two. The anonymous nature of the web seems to draw these types like moths to a flame where they can excrete their bile to their hearts content without threat of just retribution or censure (i.e. someone pounding their face in or sueing their sorry ass).
          Personally, i appreciate and thank those folks willing to sensibly Moderate to make a safe and sociable place where I can communicate, wether the subject be Scn or underwater basket-weaving.
          I thank you Marty and Steve, and all those like you, wthin and without Scn. who set up such sites and those who help out. Thank you all.

      • Thanks, you said it better than me! Love it.

    • Come on man, I’m trying to be patient, but stop looking a gift horse in the mouth. How is it I can write something, you read it and then apparently you didn’t understand a single word?

      Okay, let me walk you through this. “I will print positive or negative reviews as long as they are real.” What does that mean? Exactly what I said. If you want to put in links to sell shoes, that is not sincere. If you want to write a review on a book you haven’t even read, that is not sincere. But if you read a book, and you didn’t actually like it, but you really want to write a review — do it!

      Did I say I was going to block everyone I didn’t know and trust? NO. So where did you get it from? You imagination! I said if the moderator knows who you are it will be FASTER for HIM to approve your comments because he will already know you. The others we will have to read to make sure you aren’t just inserting links to your favorite porn websites because we are not going to approve that because we have a word for that and that word is spelled i-n-s-i-n-s-e-r-e.

      This is what we call in Scientology “inspection before the fact.” Before you’ve even run into a problem you imagine there is a problem and then start to try to solve the problem that doesn’t exist.

      If you write a review and you aren’t an Independent Scientologist, you can just check the box that applies to you and then we will know what you are.

      Your only challenge is these reviews are on specific things — books, lectures, courses. If you haven’t actually consumed any of those, you aren’t going to be able to write a review. But if you have consumed one of them go for it. You can say your piece. If you have only read half the book, save us all some trouble and say so. Or say why you read the book in the first place so people can understand where you’re coming from.

      • Steve,

        My sincere advice to you is to carry on doing what YOU are doing and don’t waste time and effort responding to those (invariably pseudonymous) who offer as their first response not a “thankyou” or “good job” or “we appreciate your work”, but criticisms and “suggestions.” You will NEVER satisfy them. They are not posting because they care about anything other than attempting to belittle or invalidate you and your work.

        If they don’t like what you did they can build their own site.

        Ignore the barking dogs at the wheels of the fire truck — you know where you are heading and what you are working to accomplish.

        You have done everyone a great service. You asked for nothing. Many appreciate it and many more will into the future. Don’t waste a second on trying to explain the unexplainable to those who have no interest in any explanation — had they it wouldnt have been “unclear” to them in the first place.

        • Thanks Mike, good call.

        • BTW Mike, I forgot to mention, anyone can comment on any particular review. So if someone craps all over something you thought was great, you can tear them limb from limb and let the birds eat the rest. Enjoy! Or, if someone seems to be in love with Frankenstein’s Monster and you want to straighten her out, go ahead and tell her about the bolts in his neck in a follow up comment on her review. Just click on “Comment” (log in) at the bottom of any review and let the skin flay. Luckily, there are only 4% sociopaths in the US. So I’m not anticipating too much of a blood bath. The products of Scientology are for the most part spectacular. It’s the organization that is the rub, especially a vein popping little runt that needs to be ground into sausage. Still, if someone want to mount an uphill battle knock yourself out. But don’t say you weren’t warned.

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          Mike,
          Well said! In fact there is a consistent bunch of needlers
          on this site, that I think need needling themselves. As in
          pricking the prick-ability out of the pricks! Nothing like a
          deflated “member” to spoil performance expectations, yes?
          So…..fellow Indies, next time you sense it is a phallus
          talking, throw some proverbial ice at it,(at least) and if that
          doesn’t deflate it, then just give it the cold shoulder!
          Probably the most effective handling of all though, is that
          tried and tested tool, (used on over-inflated tools,of course)
          that guaranteed instant shrinker— humiliation! ( And boy,
          do our “fairer sex” know how to use THAT one!)
          Then again, I recognize that it’s not for me to speak for
          the “fairer sex,” here, rather to let them do that themselves!
          TO, you or any other ladies reading this?
          Calvin.

      • Anonymous Confused Person

        Hi, Steve,

        The OP here did provide a quote:

        “The system will be moderated to block OSA trolls, spammers, insincere people, etc. Reviewers must register before they can post a review. Registering enables the moderator to more quickly approve a review once he knows who the person is and trusts them. My secret moderators are already in place and they are people you know and trust.”

        Provided that the quote is accurate, that’s the part that the OP was talking about: how, in particular, would your moderators know someone (and trust them). For example, if I post something and say that I’m an “other” (that is, non-Scientologist), but you (or any other moderator) don’t know me as a person, how will you then decide whether or not to trust me?

        If, then, I post a review that is negatively critical of Scientology, will you post it? Again, it’s not a question of whether you will post negatively critical reviews — you’ve already established that you will — but how will you judge my review as “sincere” if you do not really know who I am?

        So: to recap, the question is not whether you will or will not post negative reviews. I think that’s been established. The question is: how will your moderators determine that they know and trust a reviewer?

        You’ve mentioned before that you’d (and, by extension, your moderators would) look at everything as a whole (is the review consistent with the content of what’s being reviewed, etc), so I’m assuming that’s the way you’d go: the “sociopath” question + an internally-consistent review, meaning one that makes sense and relates to the content, regardless of the slant of its criticism. Is that about right?

        • You are classic dev-t. Instead of posting endless hypotheticals about what may or may not be the “intent” of Steve — try READING the website. If you are dissatisfied with it, you are entitled to a full, money back guarantee. Whatever money you invested in it you get back. And you can make a self-determined decision never to read it again. Or, you can start your OWN website and do it however you wish. You are wasting people’s time.

          • Anonymous Confused Person

            Hi, Mark,

            I had to go look up “dev-t” on Ex-Scientology Kids: ” Developed Traffic. Annoying, frivolous actions or activities that cause hassle.”

            If I’m not mistaken (correctly me if I am), this is your response to all of my recent posts, and even with the definition, I don’t follow it. I’ve spent quite some time thinking about and writing my responses, so don’t think they’re frivolous. You are dismissing all of my points with a single label — which, actually, kind of proves my point with regard to sensitivity-to-criticism.

            In regards to what I’ve said immediately above: I can’t speak for the OP, so I don’t know whether he/she is actually dissatisfied with the website. I know I’m not: so far, I like the idea a lot and I’ve gotten a lot out of reading what I’ve read so far (there’s a LOT of content, so I’m not through all of it yet). Much of it’s posted all kinds of new questions that I think I will get a lot out of in terms of the search for answers.

            But the website doesn’t contain enough data yet to answer the question: how do the moderators decide to trust a reviewer? The quote, as given, implies that the moderators will somehow have to know and trust a person /before/ his or her review will be posted. If the person is not an established member of a Scientology community of some kind, how will that occur? Again, my interpretation of what Steve has said throughout the comments so far is that it will be based on the response to the DM-as-sociopath question /in addition to/ the actual content of the review: e.g., is it a “four wolf moon” type of review, a link to spam or porn, or does it actually logically and consistently relate to the content it’s reviewing?

            You’re right in that this is me hypothesizing. Which is why, at the end, I ask Steve whether my interpretation is correct.

            I don’t believe this is a waste of time, since it answers the OP’s question (if, that is, my answer is correct). No body else has actually answered the question, other than to essentially accuse the OP of being stupid or a troll, or to answer a different question (the other question being: will you post content that is negatively critical of Scientology and/or the Independent movement, which has been answered over and over and over as “yes, of course”).

            Sorry if I’m a bit wordy in my reply. It’s my nature; I’m trying to be precise, and I know I’m setting up a tl;dr situation here, but it’s just not in me to be pithy. Maybe _Self-Analysis_ will help that. ; )

            • TroubleShooter, Gayle

              A. Confused Person,
              blah blah blah blah blah
              what is in a name: …??? lol I crack myself up sometimes.

              Steve, you are most amazing to have put all this time, effort and sacrifice toward furthering the philosophy which bonds so many of us. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for it and thank your wife too as I know she minimumly gave you the time and space you needed to do it.

  67. Incredible site! Thanks Steve and whoever else is on the lines!!

    I’ve written 5 (or is it 6) reviews. This is really fun and tends to rehab the wins/gains of the time.

    To anyone who runs into “the timer thingy” mentioned earlier in the comments, it actually means your review is done. Just move on to whatever you are going to do next. The security code is in a box below the review that is written. You must enter the security code before you get “the timer thingy.”

    Have fun because this IS a fun site and it IS fun to write reviews …

    • If the timer thingy sticks, it may also mean you’ve timed out which can happen if you stay on the same page like for an hour. In that case, copy your review and then try to go to a new page. If nothing happens, log in again and resubmit your review.

  68. This is truly a new beginning for Scientology. You have done a stellar Job Steve and all those who have created to these truly wonderful websites. I am very excited again about the future. Sincere admiration to all those who contributed. I have started writing my first auditing success story and many more to come along with my course wins and books and tapes wins. I have some fun ahead of me writing all my wonderful wins of the last 40 years as a Scientologist.
    Tom Brown

  69. Li'll bit of stuff

    Getting this news release from Steve, is profound indeed!
    Conceptualizing and then taking this extraordinary product of
    Steve’s into realization , is what LRH referred to, when he spoke
    of “The Dreamer Of Dreams” and this also describes the artist that Steve proves to be!

    It used to be HATE! HATE! HATE—-(The product of DM & CO$!!)

    Now it’s CREATE! CREATE! CREATE! ( product of Steve & Indies)

    More creative power to you Steve, my bro.
    Calvin.
    .

  70. Great work, Dynamite Steve, thank you.

    Thanks especially for devising a way we can all help in one common push to forward true Scientology. Together, we can restore credibility and vitality to the best thing that ever happened to earth’s civilization. I don’t think that’s overstating it.

    The little grey one has held up play for too long.

    Happy days!

    Love,
    Richard Kaminski

  71. Steve Hall… YOU are amazingly bright !!!

  72. Would you recommend it
    Yes No

    I need a Maybe choice.

    • Spectacular review on What is Scientology that blows down the TA big time.
      http://www.scientologyreviews.com/scientology-books/discussions/review?id=85

      • Holy shit, Richard, That is some review of WIS? And I wrote the first third of the book in 1991 along with Dan Sherman and Trevor Meldal-Johnsen (RIP, T-Man). DM had just shattered his leg in a basketball game at Dustin Hoffman’s house and was laid up all summer so he decided to get the WIS? project done. If the writing was not over the top DM style uber-hype, it came back in tatters to be redone. Mike Rinder can verify, since he was the Project I/C and he took all the heat for our crappy writing. What a nightmare that summer was. What a nightmare.

        • Dan — of course you speak sooth. I think in spite of the insanity of the approval line, a lot of what is written in that first section (as I noted in my review of the book) is some of the best summations of fundamental Scientology concepts and this could have been used far more to answer people’s questions. Just think if the people in Div 6 could read and understand what is in those chapters rather than reading and understanding the manual to a video player and flat screen tv — they may actually have a chance of disseminating to new public. Yes, Trevor was a great loss and I miss him. So too Dan Sherman — not the pathetic shell of a man he is now — but the man we knew twenty years ago before he became an appendage hanging between Dear Leader’s legs.

        • Dan, I have to disagree with one aspect — you mentioned your crappy writing. Every single piece of writing DM ever approved had ALWAYS to satisfy an unspoken hidden standard — it had to overwhelm the reader. Fact. If it didn’t, it would never get approved. He never said, “It has to overwhelm the reader” but he would endlessly reject it until it did and by a process of elimination, you either went in that direction and finally got the engram off your plate, or you eventually got flushed down the toilet.

          But stand back, the effort to overwhelm — you actually have to spot it as an effort — is a comm cycle additive and an utter perversion of the communication.

          I listened to the “Thought, Emotion and Effort” lecture series on the way down to Marty’s 5 weeks ago and he really talks a lot about effort. Incredible and deep subject. Consider any of DM’s promo, videos or speeches and spot the effort to overwhelm. Enlightening little drill. My point: your writing and Trevors writing were worsened by DM. Your writing and also Trevor’s writing, certainly, was in the correct beingness for Scientology before it hit DM. It was too good for him and so he injected it with a suppressive effort.

    • Hilarious! That is one hell of a review.

  73. Steve, Dan, and all who contributed to this wonderful project – thank you!

    I am among giants.

    ( P.S. I wrote my first review, and others to follow asap. I’ve got a Pre OT arriving this afternoon so I’ll get back and get in more when I can.)

  74. Anonymous Confused Person

    I have only just taken a look at the site — so far, very interesting, but I need to do more exploring. Two notes:

    1) Sorry, I know anti-grammar-Nazis will hate me for this, but “it’s” is /always/ a contraction between “it” and “is”. Always. The possessive form of “it” is “its”, no apostrophe. I mention this because the first thing I did, as a non-Scientologist, was go to “New to Scientology” to see what you had there, and the heading “A Discovery Ahead of It’s Time” jumped out at me. It just makes me grit my teeth to read “A Discovery Ahead of It is Time”. Now, I’m strong enough to not let this bother me overly, but it /is/ a little distracting. I know you’ve put a lot of time into this site, but could you fix this?

    2) I am interested in _Self-Analysis_. I’d be interested in knowing if there is a Kindle or PDF edition (so far, it seems like there is not). I don’t want any money going to the Co$, you see. I think I /may/ be relatively assured of not sending money to them if I buy a used edition, which of course would be my preference — my preference would be to buy a pre-1986 edition so I can be a little bit more sure that DM did not alter the text. I see that there’s only one review at this time, so if there’s anyone who’s in the know — who can compare editions and note if the text has been altered — would you please add a review that gives an idea of what’s changed?

    If a reviewer knows that the text changed between subsequent editions, that would be a good thing to put in the “cons” line, such as “the text of this book was substantially altered between the 1985 edition and editions released from 2000 on.”

    I think I will enjoy looking through the site. I love the look of it — great job!

    • ACP — typos happen. I am sure Steve will be happy to correct it when he has a few minutes.

      As for Self Analysis, it doesnt suit well to Kindle or PDF as it has a “platen” that you use to work with the pages of the book.

      As for the latest edition of the book, I am unaware of a single change in the processes. They are far better laid out on the pages and the spiral binding makes it much easier to use. I don’t know of any changes in the text of the book chapters, though there may have been one or two typos corrected. You will get perfectly good results with any edition.

      Should be copies in every library on earth if you believe what the C of S tells the clubbed seals.

      You can always find plenty of LRH books on Ebay. It’s one result of force feeding every new edition to every person who ever walked into an org — often more than one set.

      • Alibris.com also seems to be a great place to buy used books cheap. Fixed the typo. Thx.

        • Steve, you have created an astonishing website, and I do not understand the flack you are getting over simply filtering out the trolls, OSA crap etc.
          Frankly, I do not understand any of the flack the indies are receiving from non-CoS sources. You are saving your religion, and in the process it is being re-born, so to speak, so that it may accomplish good things by helping people. I am not a Scientologist, but I get that I am watching an incredibly important historical event. Thank you Steve and Marty and Mike and others. What you are doing is important because you are not only building independent Scientology, you are bringing down a corrupt, self-canibalizing institution that has harmed, and is continuing to harm many people.

          • Thank you kindly Anon-onyourside. I think most of the flack is probably coming from OSA trolls pretending to be various people. Anytime media comes out like E! with some bad story, they are all over the comments section nearly instantly posting positive comments about the CoS and taking the media to task. What do all those people do in the mean time? I’m sure they are on here. Marty could tell by an analysis of IP Addresses. But their crap, though sometimes taxing, is also a good opportunity for putting some good answers out there. So even in their demented way, I think they are helping. Getting very Zen now, there must have been something in my coffee. Thank you again and great to have you here.

        • Anonymous Confused Person

          Awesome – my thanks to you both. : ) And thanks for the confirmation re: no appreciable changes. I’ll see what I can do about finding a copy and giving it a look-see, and spending some more time on the site as well!

      • I agree, the spiral binding version of SA is the best ever.

      • An application in a Spreadsheet like Excel can be done, I’ve made one to have it on my web-phone or work on it on my laptop. Each question can be isolated to be read alone at the screen and the “perceptics” are changed one after on other.

        • Wonderful — perhaps you could put this together and make it available to those who want to do Self Analysis, I am sure they would be grateful. Or are you merely suggesting that “someone else could do it”?

          • I’ve done already indeed for the lists I worked one.

            If it’s about to spread it, it would have some work to type all the lists, and then, they will need to be rechecked by different people to avoid any error.

            But if I do this, what about the copyrights? I mean the risk to be prosecuted? I should have the agreement of the owners of the copyrights and even pay some, isn’t it? And if yes, wouldn’t it be fair to get an little exchange with users for?

            Otherwise, I can send you the pattern and each people fill up the lists, but would be sad enough if everyone had to do that while it could be done one time and be used directly anywhere!

    • http://bit.ly/TjrJag will take you to a free .pdf download. Enjoy!

  75. Steve, you are a constant pleasant surprise and inspiration. Thank you so much for all your hard work to make this happen. I left my first review and will be doing as many a day as I can. This is soooo brilliant!!!

  76. I’d love to do this. I attempted to register with my user name as danlocke. I was very certain to get all the fields right. I completed the registration and clicked submit and the form reloads with my name and user name and email filled out and the remaining fields empty.

    I’ve checked my email and don’t find a confirmation.

    My registration email is oohandaah@gmail.com.

    The site looks smart and the purpose you have for it is very good. I would love to contribute.

  77. Steve-O!

    Excellent product brother! This is another fantastic resource that will truly help Independent Scientology Flourish and Prosper.

    With free market concepts honoring the sovereign nature of the individual, we must also then validate a being’s ability to make his own choices.

    Your new website is a great resource for scientology service providers and consumers alike. By recognizing the Four Conditions of Exchange, one can now choose to go somewhere else if he feels he’s getting anything less than Standard Tech of Fair Exchange – something heavily discouraged and made near impossible in the Corporate Church of Scientology.

    This free market mechanism in itself will hold scientology service providers to a higher standard in order to prosper in a highly competitive field.

    By breaking the monopoly on the free use of scientology long held by the church, we can get on with the business of using Standard LRH Tech to clear the planet. Your new site is an important tool in this evolution.

    Thank you for all of your hard work, Steve. As Marty has said, you truly are the hardest working man in the Independent Movement.

  78. constant vigilance

    Marty, I think you were too hard on me in your answer to my comment about re-selling books. I just meant we could buy a bunch of the books and then re-sell them on the site. Is that against the law? Seems like people sell used books all the time. I don’t claim to know everything, quite the contrary. I just want to help the movement even if I am “under the radar” as are many people on your site. I guess my crime was being here and communicating because you just shot me down.

    • You are right – didn’t thoroughly read your proposal. Now that I have, it is worse than I thought. To promote buying anything from corporate Scientology is rather bizarre. The materials are available aplenty on the open market (and in free downloads) – used, and will be some time given the forced book sales perpetrated by Miscavige over the past five years.

      • For info, as far as I can tell incontinent vigilance is 150% troll. She says “Why don’t we buy a bunch of them and sell them from our site…” Our site? She didn’t do anything but blanketed me in 35 emails in 30 days then asked Steve Poor and Haydn if I had third partied her, while asking me if they had third partied her. Now besides getting caught red handed setting up a 3P campaign by doing OSA’s favorite dirty trick of alleging 3P where there was none (ala, cleaning a clean) — she has the temerity to suggest “we” start selling books “from our site.” She didn’t do a thing except create dev-t for me while I was working on this site over the last month. But it’s better than that: by selling books — by selling ANYTHING on this site… WOOPS! suddenly it’s no longer “non-commercial.” Aww. This is the 3rd or 4th OSA attempt to get me selling books — William Harper (Bunkai) — proven plant — actually sent me a starter kit with price tags of used books. He did lots more and we all knew he was a troll long before Marty blew him out of the water and he vanished. Candace’s mom (forget her name) tried to ensnare me into printing LRH books. If I’d done that, can anyone guess what would have happened? In my last email to incontinent vigilance I told her patiently and at length with zero HE&R that whether intentional or not, her actions were all consistent with an OSA plant. You’d think some people could take a hint and maybe look at what they are doing. She followed that up with her 3P attempt. HOW DARE THIS BITCH ASK ME IF HAYDN JAMES THIRD PARTIED HER? HOW DARE THIS BITCH ASK HAYDN JAMES IF I THIRD PARTIED HER? Now she is suggesting “we” sell books on the website when it says right on front, “This non-commercial website is not affiliated with the CoS.” “Incontinent” is the correct word because she will not stop urinating and defecating all over the lines. There is strategic positioning virtue in advising people of all means to get LRH books and harder for the Church to complain. What are they going to say. Get it: DM says “Steve Hall is mean to us.” I counter with, “I provide a link to the CoS on ever page of the website and even tell people they can buy books there.”

        • Steve,
          I think you have pretty well summed up incontinent vigilance. I expect she will fade away to return another day as a pretentious osabot poster child with a new name.
          Wash, rinse, repeat …….. life in the seal pack…….waitin for more whacko orders from der Furer.

        • That’s one of the things I like about you, Steve. When you get angry, it’s always righteous. Never snarly, mean, or vindictive. Justified wrath, delivered by a silver tongue, can be a beautiful thing to witness.

        • Steve,
          I have just been warned about her by an Indie that she -as “Cindy”- tried to get all kinds of information from about other Indies.
          The case is clear cut and no doubts as to her intentions.
          It is obvious you are doing a hell of lot of right actions to get that kind of comm overwhelm to try to distract you.
          Greta

    • Interestingly enough, certain interests are trying to make it illegal to re-sell virtually anything, books, records, tapes, underwear, anything.

      It used to be the law, and common sense, that when you bought a record, you bought the record, the underwear, the refrigerator. Nefarious groups, have, however, started to attempt to change copyright and other laws to state that when you buy a record, a tape, a CD, a download, that all you have done is buy a personal license to use, listen to, look at, tear up if you like, the “intellectual property” involved. Thus, if you were to buy a book, all you’d get is the right to read it … NOT to loan it, NOT to sell it used at a yard sale … eventually these SP’s will try to make it such that you cannot even talk about it.

      You need to be aware of these attempts … they are actually winding themselves through Congress at this time, and put the responsibility for them where it actually lays … David Miscavige.

      Don’t scoff. It is not for nothing that Sonny Bono (A David Miscavige Scientologist) was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1994 to represent California’s 44th congressional district, and was one of twelve co-sponsors of a House bill extending copyright. Although that bill was never voted on in the Senate, a similar Senate bill was passed after his death and named the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in his memory. The consequence of this bill was to extend copyrights to “life” plus approximately 75 years … making it possible for David Miscavige to effect his ambition to take LRH’s original and unalterned works out of the public domain by controlling LRH’s copyrights long past LRH’s death as part of his suppressive goals to silence and destroy Scientology as a whole. This also allowed David Miscavige to further pervert LRH’s works, by ‘re-issuing’ them, altered for the worse, under the psuedonym “Based Upon the Works of L. Ron Hubbard”. If you think this is all too fantastic, think again.

      While defending the right to read the LRH works we purchased, we need to also defend the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the land from the perversions visited upon us by Miscavige and his corporate cronies who, possibly unwittingly, played into the hand of the most suppressive and most evil man on Earth at this juncture: David Miscavige.

  79. Let me flag this post so that I can get responses in my email.

  80. Steve, great Big idea into application now… Awesome and kudos. I have a problem with registration, too though! I sent an email, please let me know what I can do.

    • Theo, Okay, I deleted your old account. Re-do your registration, then look for the confirmation email to come, and CLICK on the link to activate your registration. Then you can log in and start making reviews. If anyone else gets bugged, email me.

  81. constant vigilance

    STEVE, I try to post a review and the box with the cryptic letters does not have that in it so I can’t type what is in the box and thus get it posted. Yikes!

  82. Steve, I have one suggestion. As to Org Reviews it would be good to have the writer give the time period he is writing about. A review of an Org of 1975 would be quite different of what it would be today. If omitted this could be misleading. This may apply to other points as well, like books, auditors, courses.

    • Additional to the time, for the training section, the location would be of value. One course given in one location could be delivered badly in another superbly.

    • Hi Worsel, I’m hoping people will make that clear in their reviews. I saw one person do exactly that. I mean almost ALL orgs used to be fun at one time, except for some of the management orgs which were bs from the start.

  83. Jean-François Genest

    Steve,
    State-of-the-Art !!! Thank you for all your work, time, dedication and effort. It is highly appreciated.
    For those of you who always wonder, “what is an Operating Thetan?”
    Here is one true example: Steve Hall is an Operating Thetan ! Θ

    • :D Very Well Done And Thanks For Those Who Made That Song! VERY LIKE IT! :D

    • InYouTube

      “Scientology is my religion too, but if a Sea-Org Member, who is supposed to be dedicated to the cause that L. Ron Hubbard gave in inheritance, accepts at his head a man who has qualified The Source of Scientology as “blind” (DM said that about many auditors directly trained and checked by LRH himself, like Karen de la Carrière, one of the only 7 Class XII auditor never made, or the 50 SO Member of Saint-Hill England thrown out) and makes the 2 true Scientology FVPs downstat, he betrayals Source.

      Khwartz en réponse à : toryluvsrlh2″

      “Yes, I recognize that this fact is in itself a good reason to worry but, if the Sea-Org itself can solve its own problem, its own errors, so has finally the capacity to correct itself, leaving DM alone and refusing to complain with his orders, so could be there will be a future for this organization originally full of very dedicated people for the Good of any being. Hubbard in its science fiction dekalogy “Mission Earth, talk about how devil soul can take control even very secured organizations.

      Khwartz en réponse à : bogglerful”

  84. Steve,
    Brilliant job! Simply brilliant application of basic Marketing policies.
    My hat is off to you, your vision, and the follow through to produce this fantastic website.
    I have done my first 3 reviews, and more will follow.
    I will also have all those I am in contact with, do the same.
    Again, well done!
    Lana

    • Thanks Lana — For info, Lana and Jim Logan both helped me not only with advice on various aspects of the site last week, but they also helped write some descriptions of the management orgs — like RTC and CMOI.

    • Hey Lana, I’ve enjoyed your blog but is your full “story” out there somewhere? Would love to read it.

      BTW – who would “rate down” – the thumb down icon – such an innocuous comment as yours above? Sure is some strange folk prowling around…

      • Hey Martin, My full “story” has been put out in bits and pieces on this blog, back in 2010 and then gets added to over time, as the adventure continues. Never a dull moment in this household! There are also some articles on Scientology-cult.com. I have done a 6 hour oral history for the National Library of Australia if you want the long version (ha ha!) and they can send that to you if you request it. Can’t imagine why anyone would want to spend 6 hours listening to my story — but that was a lot easier than putting together a book (particularly when there are two young children under foot).
        BTW – yes, there is one person who gives a thumbs down to myself and Jim Logan on a continual basis. It is meant to enturbulate, but it actually gives me a chuckle every time. Some people have games conditions, but it is difficult to continue them for very long when the others are simply not interested in playing the game. My game at this time is moving up The Bridge and helping others to do the same — a much higher toned and more rewarding game. Down under won’t be that for much longer. Much is happening at this end…. so stay tuned.
        :) :) :)

  85. I always loved Self Analysis and would often look through the questions and read them and laugh at the ingeniousness of the questions. I’d ask myself, “How did he think of all these hundreds of questions?”

    It’s not everywhere in the book, but there are places where you can read and get the idea of a “tool” that he might have used to keep things flowing.

    List VII, Survival Factors, is one such example. Look at this excerpt and study all the ‘bigger words” (not the articles) that are beginning with the letter “A” and watch the progression: it’s alphabetical! Evidently, Ron kept a dictionary at his side as he wrote this list (perhaps another list or two in SA, I don’t recall) to help keep things moving along:

    21. You found somebody amiable.
    22. A person amused you.
    23. You finally didn’t have to be anxious.
    24. A person you liked appeared suddenly.
    25. You had a good appetite.
    26. You approached somebody you honored.
    27. Somebody approved of you.
    28. A person you liked arose.
    29. You were arrested by somebody’s beauty.
    30. You enjoyed an arrival.
    31. You found out you didn’t have to be ashamed.
    32. Somebody you liked was asleep.
    33. You assailed an enemy successfully.
    34. A person you honored assisted you.
    35. You enjoyed an associate.
    36. You felt assured by a person you liked.

    and it follows that way all through list VII; a few hundred questions!

    it’s not “perfectly” alphabetical, but it’s there enough that you can see that it was an aid that Ron used in construing his questions.

    (Not a major discovery, but still an amusing little glimpse at a factor in Ron’s genius; put it in your “Tech Trivia” file!)

    Hope this brings a smile!

    • Dan, it does bring a smile. And considering your question, how did he think of all these questions, they really all stemmed from one discovery: the ARC triangle. The whole of Self Analysis, the best way we have of introducing people to the Bridge, all was solved by the discovery of what constituted understanding. LRH called it I believe the greatest discovery in the universe. And yet the Church doesn’t use it and those at the Int base are total strangers to it. They think and act like it’s “theetie weetie” — the top guys in Scientology don’t value ARC? They should burn in hell. Oh wait… they are.

      • “Dan, it does bring a smile. And considering your question, how did he think of all these questions, they really all stemmed from one discovery: the ARC triangle. The whole of Self Analysis, the best way we have of introducing people to the Bridge, all was solved by the discovery of what constituted understanding. LRH called it I believe the greatest discovery in the universe. And yet the Church doesn’t use it and those at the Int base are total strangers to it. They think and act like it’s “theetie weetie” — the top guys in Scientology don’t value ARC? They should burn in hell. Oh wait… they are.”

        Steve, What a BRILLIANT IDEA!
        The Double Triangle of ARC/KRC is Alive and Well in the Indie Movement thanks to not only your brilliant mind but also your hard work and persistent follow through to make this idea into a reality.
        Your review site of all things Scientology so much aligns with “The Information Age.” and at the same time capitalizes on natural laws of FREE MARKET – while combining ARC/KRC.
        This is truly what LRH meant when he said: “The Work was Free. Keep it so.”

        Thank you Steve for KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING!

        Steve

        “A true group must have a management which deals in affinity, reality and communication, and any group is totally within its rights, when a full and reasonable examination discloses management in fault of perverting or cutting ARC, of slaughtering, exiling or suspending that management. ARC is sacred.” -LRH, Essay on Management

        “There is no slightest advantage in getting somebody to believe some fundamental truth uninspected. …and when he can inspect without fear, he can know the truth of things. And the odd part of it is that once you know the truth of something, it can’t bite…”, excerpt from London Congress,-LRH, TRUTH AND FREEDOM 23 June 1960

  86. Steve Hall.
    What a great idea this site is.
    Very very well done!

  87. Impressive!!!

  88. Steve and Dan,

    You rock!

  89. Hi Steve;

    As a suggestion, maybe the subject of co-audits should be on the site. Co-audits are a major route up the Bridge and my inspire many reviews.

    Also, i didnt notice the original Comm Course on the list … or i missed it.

    • Okay Bob, DONE! Check out “Co-auditing to Clear” in the auditing section and “Communications Course” in the training section. Good suggestions.

      • Hi Steve;

        Cool!

        Didn’t staff to a lot of ‘read it, drill it, do it?” I seem to recall that was being pushed in the PAC area for quite some time … could be considered part of co-audits I suppose … but it is a bit different. That route may become a major route for Indies these days, those who aren’t near any academy to get professional training.

        Also, maybe ‘rev ethics’ should be on there, as it seemed to be a major part of every checksheet I ever did! :-)

        • Bob a lot of good ideas have come from you and are good. But I hope it never devolves to the point that anyone would consider doing Read It Drill It do It. Who out here has a shortage of materials for this? These people need to network more, get theirselves known and hookup with FZers or Indies who can help them wih this. The data is out there with many folk and there should be no excuse for not finding the correct material. Dan Koon and other4s have done work towards this. IFA has and there are many more.

      • Maybe the old HSDC … ?

  90. What a brilliant idea well executed! I tried to register last night and gave up, am at it again this morning, what a little sleep will to do to make it easier! Busy today, but will write some reviews Sunday.

  91. “It’s like Charles Manson meeting with the parole board and swearing he’s Brad Pitt.”

    Steve you are a STAR!!!
    http://www.charliemanson.com/process.htm

  92. And for any and all, please do not concern yourselves with this “sanity” standard. I love crazy. Do not try to prove how “sane” you are. Get crazy! Get very very crazy! I am very very crazy and I don’t give a damn!

  93. I am surviving as a crazy mother fucker while you are categorized as a sociopath. You think I feel bad? Keep tripping!

  94. Question:
    When registering it asks for a name. I have very valid and unbiased reviews to give but prefer not to use my name. That’s not to say I wouldn’t give it to you Steve in some other fashion, but I’d prefer no “written” trace of my name on any website, due to complicated circumstances. Is there a way around it?
    Thanks

    • The site will not show your name, but your “User Name.” Just put in FOS as your User Name and Jane or John Doe for your actual name with a number after. We will know who you are.

  95. Of course, Dianetics and Scientology belongs to the people, the site beautifully communicates and demonstrates just that. Honest feedback of a service or book….. unpalatable in a suppressive corporate world of Scientology. Bravo, bravo Steve and Dan!

  96. Wonderful design and wonderful idea.
    I love the 1950 style that is quite alive, the spirit of Dianetics is back.

    I did not find a section dedicated to assists.
    I have had wins with “Hello and OK” or the nerves assist, that could be a good thing to have a place for it.

  97. I cannot access your website, despite the fact that I am using IE9, because I keep getting this:

    Unsupported Browser
    We have detected that you are using Internet Explorer 7, a browser version that is not supported by this website. Internet Explorer 7 was released in October of 2006, and the latest version of IE7 was released in October of 2007. It is no longer supported by Microsoft.

    Continuing to run IE7 leaves you open to any and all security vulnerabilities discovered since that date. In March of 2011, Microsoft released version 9 of Internet Explorer that, in addition to providing greater security, is faster and more standards compliant than versions 6, 7, and 8 that came before it.

    We suggest installing the latest version of Internet Explorer, or the latest version of these other popular browsers: Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, Opera

    ——- so, either you may have been hacked/re-directed.

  98. Steve, I would like to give you an acknowledgement for everything you have done and are continuing to do for the Indie movement. It is important and appreciated.

  99. Here’s my feedback:

    1. Overall concept and set up — awesome. Totally.

    2. Clip art resonates with some of the thoughts elsewhere (like, it’s the 50s all over again), but here’s a concern. First, the art I saw was exclusively Caucasian. I recommend the clip art include people of color in positive roles. Second, the women in the clip art seem to be in typical 50s roles — that is to say, visually secondary if not subservient to the males in the art who appear to be in charge. I recommend that women and men be shown in comparable proportions as in charge or leading. People will notice both of those things and some people will be put off. Third, would you want to have some special pages aimed at specific populations like blacks or Latinos, whom CoS, Inc. may be pushing on?

    3. Of course as a savvy marketer you will know to protect your domain name by prompt renewals whenever those come up. I have had situations where a competitor has snatched a domain out from under an organization when given the slightest opportunity, such as a lag in renewing with the registrar.

    4. I have mixed feelings about reviewers being required to answer a binary question on Miscavige, if I understood that part of the post correctly. If the review is about a book or service, why not leave it at that? I think that requiring such a position on every review may actually hinder what you are trying to achieve. As a different approach, why not have a totally separate rating area where leadership and management and staff of CoS, Inc. and Independent Scientology can be rated by people with direct experience? And instead of social/sociopath, which could read in terms of a false dichotomy in terms of research design, why not let people rate on a Likert scale? For example, on a scale of 1-10 that ranges from anti-social/sociopathic to highly social personality supporting and validating others, where would you rank say David Miscavige and then a follow up question of “Is your opinion based on first-hand experience, second-hand experience from someone you personally know and trust, or from the Internet or other sources?

    5. To me, this approach will put in place a fundamental and crucial missing stat — quality, authentic customer satisfaction ratings. Some stats are quantitative, but the ones that are qualitative matter just as much, maybe even more.

    So bravo on this quality piece of work!

    • …the art I saw was exclusively Caucasian. I recommend the clip art include people of color in positive roles.

      I’m black, and I’ve been a Scientologist for nearly 40 years. I’m not in the least offended by the clip art imagery that Steve used on the site. Frankly, I hadn’t even noticed the lack of people of color (in positive roles, no less), until you pointed it out. And for what it’s worth, I haven’t seen anything but positive reviews from the Scientologist women commenting here, so what’s your beef? Are you really that PTS to political correctness?

      • Thanks Ronnie. While lack of diversity imagery may not matter to the population segment / sample you describe, the target population is broader per Steve’s description: the site is a place anyone can go to get a product review / honest consumer report. Having visuals where a visitor can see “people who look like me doing things I’d like to be doing” can be one more “brush stroke” to make a site resonate with people subliminally (and not in a negative way) if not consciously.

        That broadly used visual strategy aims to connect the consumer with the product at a visceral level. I remember once on a trip noticing the very different pictures of people in grocery store aisle ads between Washington, Oregon, California, and Arizona. By the time you get to northern Arizona, the ethnic mix of pictures suddenly includes a high number of Native American faces and families, for example. That’s not done by accident of course. It is done because it matters. It connects people with products.

        My other thought is that while many American and other viewers may like the 50s clip art, I’m not sure that it will work world-wide. If someone was born in the 80s or 90s in USA or born anytime in another country, what would their connection with the art be?

        Disclosure: I have worked many years with some aspects of advertising, diversity and multicultural work, and some professional website design.

        Emphasis: I may sound like I’m being critical. Please know that my intent is simply to give feedback that I hope may be of help, and if no one else agrees, that’s fine — not my call.

        • Friend, I’ve been an American (this lifetime) for nearly 60 years. I grew up in a country, that in large measure, really believed in this nation’s motto: E Pluribus Unum (from many, one). I believe in that.

          The recent push towards so-called ‘multi-culturalism’ in this country advocates for exactly the reverse, that is, defining people by their racial or ancient cultural origins. It encourages our people to celebrate and reinforce their ancient differences, rather than stand together on our shared national principles.

          My parents raised me to be proud of my family and our ancient historical roots, but it was understood that that was the distant past, and that our identity as Americans was first. I refuse to be hyphenated, or allow anyone to compartmentalize and separate me from my fellow Americans. It’s a suppressive act, as far as I’m concerned, and I won’t abide by it.

          One of the things I loved about Scientology from the very start, is that all people were assumed to be spirits, not bodies defined by differences of race, language, or culture. I was entirely equal with every other person in my local org, and no one ever defined me by what I looked like, or where I came from. I was accepted as a member because I saw the truth in the tech, and that’s all that ever mattered.

          Just as my ancient family origins matter less to me than my membership in the American community, so does my being an American take a back seat to my membership in the community of free thetans. Please don’t reduce me to physical definitions.

          • Thanks Ronnie. I share your values, but have a different perspective on multiculturalism. It may mean different things to different people. To me it means nothing at all having to do with labeling people or suppressing anyone. It’s the opposite of that — it is a commitment to saying that images, stereotypes, supposed identities do not matter — that everyone has a place at the table, so to speak. That everyone can lead, direct, succeed, etc. We are far past the stereotypes of the 1950s American Ozzie & Harriet / Leave it to Beaver era where the woman’s role was in the house and kitchen, and Father Knows Best.

            Amongst the group of us here, these issues may not matter, and we (probably most of us) hold an identity that we are spiritual beings, that we are “that which is aware of being aware.” But that’s not where a lot of the world is at, and if the world is the broader audience, then a proper gradient and sense of inclusiveness needs to be explicit.

            But I’m just repeating myself and I don’t want to grind on it. Eventually, dollar-to-a-dime bet, this issue will re-emerge from various angles. I’ve given my good faith, well-intentioned input — ’nuff said, and I am fine with the differing views. I get your viewpoints and do not invalidate them.

        • I got your point.
          However, I don’t think that foreign people will have problems with those illustrations.
          They are way better that artificial photograph as you’ll find at the “official” church website.
          The illustration make it fun to browse the site. I don’t think there will be anyone offended by them.
          Please see the site trough the eyes of people not your viewpoint as professional (bound to strict rules to be matched).
          I think Steve has done a good job. And the theme/template can be changed easily if he finds one day that it will serve the purpose of the site.
          For now it’s better than anything before. It communicates. It’s accepted and used. I like the theme. It gives Scientology the touch of fun and simplicity.

          • I’m foreigner and I have no problem with the design, I found it even funny! lol Like not take taking too seriously too, even if it looks to me to communicate “there is something here essentially useful for you here” :)

    • FOTF2012 –

      “Second, the women in the clip art seem to be in typical 50s roles — that is to say, visually secondary if not subservient to the males in the art who appear to be in charge.”

      I didn’t notice this and I’m a woman.

      • Let me ask the question another way. Would it have _bothered_ anyone to see art that showed women leading, that showed diversity, etc.? And if including certain kinds of diversity would (a) avoid a negative / neutral perception by some and (b) might add positive appeal for others, would marketing oppose doing that?

        In an American advertising mix that usually builds on multiculturalism, not addressing the broad base may stand out in an undesired way.

        I want the site to be very successful and I believe it will be. My intent is just to share that one perspective for consideration if it is of help.

        • Thanks FOTF. I have no issue with your perspective. I like the clip art Steve chose. I’ve studied quite a bit about the pulp era when LRH wrote and published his stories. I like the positioning, but that’s just my opinion. I have no problem with clip art from the era.

          • Dear All, I chose the clip art motif because that WAS the ’50s, like it or not — stereotypical, racially polarized, positioning women as objects in a man’s world. What you don’t get FOTF2012 is that this is humor. It’s poking fun at the era in which Scientology was created. This IS the backdrop to the arrival of Scientology in the world. And if you are a real techie, you might realize that era was very R6. The elder man smoking the pipe, the advice givers in suits, their dumb hats, couples living the “dream” of a new house. In 1950s, that stuff SOLVED everything. And in 1950 that stuff SOLVED nothing. These illustrations are very like mental image pictures in that I’ve carefully floated each one off the page to emphasize that they are pictures. Notice the subtle shadows.

            Fasten your safety belt.

            Part of the brilliance of Dianetics was the recognition that all of people’s angst, all their inhibitions, all their regrets, their grief, their losses, their pains, their insanities, their horrors… were all just pictures. ALL the horrible things that happened in the past from which people still suffered were actually merely pictures of what had occurred.

            If you want to boil down the whole of Dianetics to one simple concept, it is this: what you are looking at is just a picture. It can’t actually hurt you.

            And that is why all this works. It works in American and it works anywhere. And I’m not changing it because it’s PERFECT. It’s creative genius if I do say so myself.

            It works for people who understand and love Scientology, and it also works for people who hate Scientology. The lovers see the insight in it. The haters see the shallow irony. When a marketing man can put up a mock up on something as incendiary as Scientology and satisfy damn near everyone, that’s pretty good. If you are really a marketing person, you ought to be taking notes. Maybe you will learn something.

            I’m not promoting racism or inequality. I’m holding it up to scorn. Which is also why it works. Thanks Ronnie, TheWidowDenk, SKM and Ideal Goal.

            • “It works for people who understand and love Scientology, and it also works for people who hate Scientology. The lovers see the insight in it. The haters see the shallow irony. When a marketing man can put up a mock up on something as incendiary as Scientology and satisfy damn near everyone, that’s pretty good. If you are really a marketing person, you

              ought to be taking notes. Maybe you will learn something.”

              Steve, I’m taking notes and can totally see what you mean. It’s so true, the way I saw my dad treated my mom, and for that matter all my uncles and grandfathers, etc, thier attitudes toward women – all this rings soo true.

  100. Steve – you are phenomenal! LRH would be proud of you….and grateful….and relieved. The site is comprehensive and easy to follow – you have ensured the continuity of the subject more than any other. A couple of the reviews have me wanting to go back and re-read the books ! Wow !

  101. Just one comment on the whole “moderation” thing (although it looks like it has been beaten back, but, anyway):

    The man who created the website “Scientology-cult.com” created this site. Do you really think he would selectively edit out opinions or reviews that would go against Scientology?

    Also, at the end of the day, the whole success of the site depends on honestly. The whole premise of the site is honesty and honest opinions. Why would Steve want to do anything else than allow this to happen?

    • Thanks Grasshopper. As I said in the article introducing the entire thing, there is not only a virtue in honesty (reality) it’s the greatest virtue of all and can do more for us all than ANY thing else. Telling “acceptable truths” is bullshit. Scientology is the road to TRUTH. It’s about time someone resurrected it. And that someone is us — every person who posts on the site is truly doing just that. Love to you.

      • Steve, love to you to. Man, this is such an accomplishment – this and the iScientology site. This is the vector I can get behind. I love the “management” section of iScientology (http://www.iscientology.org/about-us/management). This is exactly how I got in. Scientology Delaware Valley in New Jersey was founded by two Class VIIIs who did their VI in St. Hill (and their VIII’s on the flagship, I believe). They were asked to join the SO by Ron, and turned him down, preferring to be independent. SDV had very good stats of people coming into Scientology and moving through the ranks.

        The mission/org that DM came up in was Ardmore – it seems always pretty squirrelly. When it became the Philly org back in the ’70s, we still went to New York for our exams on the Student Hat and HSDC courses.

        The missions/franchises were indeed vibrant, and that is the de facto model for the Indies, so how can we lose?

  102. Superb job Steve, many thanks to all those involved!!! I think you just took their queen, no actually, I think you have just started another game in 3d and left them still trying to figure out how to make fire. They don’t get the simplest Scientology basics, such as ARC, and compassion for your fellow man that comes with that. You guys (and gals) are way out there in front, please just keep doing what you are doing!!!

  103. Steve, I started counting the times “brilliant” was used to describe your work on Scientology Reviews, meaning “distinguished by unusual mental keenness or alertness” but I lost count and gave up.

    For those who have not yet posted a comment, here are some alternate thesaurus words for “brilliant” (NOT the Informal British “brilliant” = lovely, pleasant) but the American use as in “brilliant scientist”.

    We don’t want to get the word too worn out..

    “Einstein, accomplished, acute, astute, brainy, bright, clever, discerning, eggheaded, expert, genius, gifted, ingenious, intellectual, inventive, knowing, knowledgeable, masterly, penetrating, profound, quick, quick-witted, sharp, smart, talented, whip, whiz kid…”

    Glad you are back to marketing LRH’s works. Somewhere LRH is smiling.

    • Thanks Robert, very kind of you. Does everyone know that Robert Amblad once hired a PI to investigate David Miscavige in the early 1980s? This man has walked the walk.

    • Steve, this is accomplished, astute, bright, clever, GENIUS, incredible, amazing, dazzling, stupendous, insanely great, intense, forward-thinking, monumental, top-drawer, bully, professional, competent, and stellar!

      All these superlatives apply. Thanks, Robert, for pointing that out!

      • Well, heck STEVE, I’d even venture to say that amongst all of the other complimentary adjectives, what you did was/is a great way to execute AXIOM 10: The highest purpose in the Universe is the creation of an effect.
        Greta

  104. LRH books are very essential, as you know surely very well, Steve.

    Having them altered by DM, and knowing now what a suppressive person he is, I suppose that when he did, he made made it to satisfy his devil purposes at maximum.

    So, looks to me it is very important that anyone be aware of the changes, and that these changes been provided with each presentation of the book in the web site, if still directed towards CoS book store web sites.

    What about the copyrights for the original ones? What about to allow downloading e-copies of?

    • If there are places where people can download books for free, just let me know. Maybe Wikileaks? They have some odd stuff on there and I’m not sure it’s worth wading through the crap to find a book that can be gotten for a dollar on Amazon.

  105. Steve,
    You did it again! Awesome websites, I’ll be posting my reviews soon.

    Thank you for all you have done for us!!!

    Conrad

  106. Steve,
    I wanted to suggest to the neophyte what Scientology book to read first, but the Scientology books are listed in alphabetical order. As a totally new person to the subject, I would like you to list them in the order of suggested reading. Or sections like introduction, intermediate and advanced. Something like that…. nothing is perfect, but Admin dictionary as the first book is out-gradient or unreality. And, since I am giving advice, the last book, “What is Scientology” should have it’s own section: Books for Scientologists that can’t understand the subject and so need a pat on the back to feel better about the group they belong to…

    • I hear you Robert. Unfortunately I cannot put listings into a custom sequence without getting into complicated custom programming. However it is easy to change the name from “Admin Dictionary” to “Modern Management Dictionary” so now it’s down in the M’s and not the first one you see.

      I never liked WIS since its got DM’s “effort to overwhelm” in it instead of the effort to help people. One is an effort to back people off. The other, an effort to help them up. But it was an LRH ordered compilation.

      • Thanks Steve
        Understood on the re-do of categories. Maybe where it says “Details” at the top of the list of books you could put a guide of some sort, like * indicates this is an intro book and then put an * after each of those books. Something like that.

        I know when I bought my first books I needed some advice of where to start. Once I had read the books Dianetics: Evolution of a Science and Fundamentals of Thought then I was educated enough to be pretty much on my own.

        “What is Scientology” book, OK, I didn’t know LRH ordered the compilation of the 1993 book. Non-the-less, it does not belong in the same category as “book” because it can compete in the consumer’s mind with “LRH books” like Science of Survival and 8-8008 etc…. Maybe it could be called a compilation… but, no big deal… the new public can now read “Scientology Reviews” and avoid buying the “compilation”.

        For anyone who has not done this, Google “Scientology Reviews” with the quotes in place and look at all the well organized hits. It’s a sight to behold!!

        • I just googled scientologyreviews (no quotes) and got the following:

          Independent Scientology home
          scientologyreviews.com/

          It was the number 1 result and came up right under the corp church ads.

          Other Independent-oriented listings followed.

      • An easy solution may be to add to each book description a classification: E.g. Introductory, intermediate, advanced. In this way, to get a listing of all e.g. introductory books, people may search for “introductory”.

        • Yes, that’s a good idea. I’ll mark that one down. Someone else suggested putting dates in front — YYYY, MM — so that they would come up in chrono order. What do you think of that idea?

          • My suggestion for an easy solution was to add a classification word in each book “listing description” field, (but it looks like the classification word should be added in the “listing summary” field – not in the “listing description” field – ), so people could search for a classification word.

            However, the order of the books listing is based on the option selected in the “Ordering” (combo) box. It looks like each option of this box is composed by a (visible) caption, an ordering field, and an ordering sequence. So, to be able to order by dates, the date (YYYY MM) of each book should be put in an ordering field.

            Maybe the suggestion was to put the date (YYYY, MM) in front in the Title field, which is the default option in the “Ordering” (combo) box. However this idea does not look to be compatible with the alphabetic index used in http://www.scientologyreviews.com/component/jreviews/books_d6 because it looks like it is based on the Title field.

            Based on my reading of JReviews, it looks like to be able to have a chrono order, a possible solution may be to add a custom date field to your database, and add it as an option to the “Ordering” (combo) box.
            http://www.reviewsforjoomla.com/jreviews
            Custom Fields – Content Construction Kit (CCK)
            ◦ List pages can be sorted using custom fields (i.e. price)

          • Great idea, it would allow people who want to to read books in chronological order, which, as we know is very therapeutic.I am not thinking of DM’s ‘Basics’ but along the lines of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.
            Greta

  107. This is an EXCELLENT idea. I do hope we can get people within Corporate Scientology involved as well. And have a fair and open discussion.

    Also, I think it would be a very good idea to encourage people here to use WOT (Web of Trust) to rate all of these sites (Marty’s, iScientology.org, scientology-cult.com, and scientologyreviews.com) themselves. This is a very popular tool to share with others the reliability of websites. Even search engines like DuckDuckGo.com are using this tool to give people information on searches about site reliability.

    Corporate Scientology sites have been demolished with this tool as people surf those sites. But if we get a positive (Green) WOT status soon on these sites, we can get people to see that “our” sites are different.

    WOT is an available add-on for Firefox, Chrome/Chromium, Opera, Safari and Internet Explorer web browsers. It works on Linux, Mac and Windows. It can be found at mywot.com. It’s a good tool to have for your own internet protection as it helps prevent phishing. But it also influences whether others will trust sites. You don’t need to get an account to use it.

  108. Question: Can 2 people register with the same email address?

  109. I only ever post on huge the stuff………………………this is huge

  110. Note: Several people registered buy never checked their email for the confirmation email. After you register, you have to click the link in that email to activate your own account. So, I just went through and activated everyone so there’s no stops. In the future I will try to find a system that notifies you better.

    • Maybe, the confirmation e-mails ended up in the spam folder, it happens frequently. People need to check their spam folder.
      The confirmation e-mail is the best way to avoid people registering with fake e-mail or with somebody else e-mail.

  111. Outstanding work, Steve.

  112. This is such a great idea! I’ve long thought it was a curious outpoint that you couldn’t find any honest discussions from active Scientologists online. For a group that supposedly prided itself on communication skills it’s own online attempts at communication were oddly stilted and disingenuous – take their cookie-cutter pages for individual members for example.

    That’s kind of funny about iscientology.com. They’ve really elected the independents as cause haven’t they?

  113. Off topic alert. The O.S.A. staff and volunteers seem to be crawling all over the Internet Forums and blogs. There is some kind of “all hands’ to enturbulate and generate conflict and stir up the sociopaths. I sense that David Miscavige is stressed out about something approaching or really pissed off about something that just happened. I’ve seen it before on the net but never like this. It’s like a rain storm! It must be an all hands!

    • Dear Oracle,
      To much,To Little, To Late.
      The ” Hole”is getting another double wide and fresh paint
      Purple walls and black ceiling.

      Col. Kurtz ( Miscavige ) has flipped out,
      the show is over

    • TO, yeah, they’ve been crawling like cockroaches on crack down here. I believe the cause and effect of it is quite patent if you take a slightly broader view – the cummulative effect of the events of the year 2012 (compounded by those of 09, 10, and 11). It is a rather predictable regression, imho.

    • And this, promoted already on Amazon and available in 2 months and written by his own nice, for sure doesn’t cheer up DM neither.

      “Beyond Belief: My Secret Life Inside Scientology and My Harrowing Escape by Jenna Miscavige Hill (Jan 29, 2013)”

    • I noticed recently that the Medusa site doesn’t have comments anymore – they can’t even fake a Greek Chorus!

    • The operating basis changed. You used to be able to spot them right away. Now it seems they connect and form into some kind of harmony over weeks or months and one forum, years. They are popping up like soldiers that have been buried under the sands. On one forum the membership climbed recently from 532 members to well over 600 and the posts dropped from over 1000 to a little over 50 per month from the suppression. I think David has swung from making ethics particles to a body count. I am wondering if their stat is a body count of people out here silenced. The latest tactic is not to attack or challenge the Scientologist directly, but to get two Scientologists pitted against one another, or groups of Scientologists pitted against one another to take each other out. They are pushing for a blood bath. I caution every one here to resist turning on a fellow Scientologist that is out of the Church.

  114. Looking at David Miscavige Programs, I noticed there are some genuine SO DM Programs missing …
    ¤ Musical chairs.
    ¤ Public (gang-bang style) sec checking and confession.
    ¤ RPF Miscavige style.
    ¤ The Hole.
    I wonder if they may be included in David Miscavige Programs …

  115. Steve, All I can save is BRAVO!!!

  116. Just another thought, to leave a place for just reviewing auditing as a whole as a subject, auditor training as a subject and also administrative training as two separate subjects. In other words, to review these general subjects.

  117. Steve,

    You got my first review!

  118. What a great idea and implementation of it. Thanks Steve!!! And the
    little think tank pictured above. Not only will this be so beneficial to
    the Indies but what a nice way to rehab wins and such tribute to LRH.
    Brilliant! or marked by unusual impressive intellectual acuteness. Just
    love it!!!

  119. How do you register? I don’t see a link that says “Register” or anything like it. I try to login, and it tells me that I need to first register, but it doesn’t provide a link for it (very frustrating). When I click on the PayPal Donate button, it provides a form made out to “Steve Hall Creative”. So, do I need to pay Steve Hall first before registering? Is this kind of a Scientology business model, i.e. no service until paid in full or “Free Service Equals Free Fall”?

    • Maybe Steve should change the “Login/Out” to “Register/Login/Out”

      1) Go to: http://scientologyreviews.com/
      2) Click: Login/Out (top, right).
      3) Click: >Don’t have an account? (bottom, left).
      4) Fill the User Registration form.
      5) Click: Register (bottom,left).
      6) Wait until you get your confirmation e-mail. Check your spam (or junk mail, etc.) folder if you don’t get it.
      7) Click the link in that email to activate your own account.

    • I got it, I got it.

      Go to the site called scientologyreviews. The link is above or you can google it exactly as I have written it here and then access it. It’s the first listing under the corp church ads.

      Under the section called WRITE A REVIEW! is a smaller box of a yellow/green color that says: “Register and get started now.”

      Click on that and you have a registration form to fill out. Do that and submit it. Then check your email and you will find an email confirming your registration. Click on the link in the email and you are done.

      LOL – No, you don’t need to pay Steve Hall first before registering.

      Good luck!

    • Bob,
      click on: scientologyreviews.com

      - in the middle is the following text:
      “WRITE A REVIEW!
      Just navigate to a listing (top), click “Write review.”
      We accept the good with the bad as long as it’s REAL.”

      - right UNDER it is written (gold-brown colored)
      “REGISTER AND GET STARTED NOW”
      click on it (stay on it, it can take a while) till the following side shows up:

      - “User Registration”.

      Good luck!

  120. I read the review on INCOMM. It doesn’t give the name of the person who wrote it. There are a couple of problems with it. First, it only talks about the TNT program of INCOMM. The person called it idiotic and ridiculous and it would seem the person writing the review has a lot of BPC on it. However, TNT was based on specific set of LRH advices. The review should be a little more objective and say what was good and bad about it. It also claims the program’s faults were due to Miscavige, when in actual fact he had little to do with the design and implementation of it. I think the reviews should be written more matter-of-factly like the Wikipedia articles. Save the BPC and HE&R for your ethics and auditing sessions.

    • The only thing to do about this is write your OWN review.

    • It is possible there isn’t Wikipedia HE and R because they don’t really have a clue about HEandR. Go make them aware of the things we have become aware of and then toss them out on the street unhandled and ask for a review. Standards are well and good but not superior to mercy and empathy.

    • When I see a staff member getting beaten or a woman forced to abort her own children, or the entire Flag-FOLO-Org line literally buried under a snow storm of dev-t personified from an unthinking computer program squawking hundreds of pages of paper a day with the result of staff no longer doing their jobs, but instead being forced to deal with the dev-t full time, maybe that isn’t “BPC” or “HE&R.” That’s called caring, caring about the right things and not giving a damn about the rest. That program undermined the Flag-FOLO-Org line and torpedoed thousands of innocent staff. I.e., the most colossal fail in Incomm history: it torpedoed orgs, torpedoed Flag management, and torpedoed Int management. It sounded great on paper. Maybe LRH’s idea was great. But that greatness did not make it into 1s and 0s. Didn’t happen to work AT ALL as implemented. I know, I was there. It was the greatest DEV-T factory in history.

      • I can confirm. I was there too. TNT was the greatest dev-t ever. LRH advices are just that, advices. To consider them policy it’s one of the greatest mistake that was ever done. See HCOPL THE STRUCTURE OF ORGANIZATION, WHAT IS POLICY and SAINT HILL PROGRAMS, HOW TO PROGRAM AN ORG. TNT should have been piloted, its bugs ironed out and then, if successful, implemented. Instead it was just implemented.

      • Thank you Steve for keeping it REAL! David’s curriculum vitae speaks for itself! His experience and qualifications to be leading anyone anywhere in the Scientology Arena is a nightmare. A messenger and a camera man succeeds Hubbard! Declares a “Golden Age” of tech! Establishes beggar units to run the Church! Turns the Int Base into a prison camp and becomes a pimp for a movie star. How appropriate.

        • Anon.on.your.side

          Is it possible that Miscavige was “placed” in his position, and is being “run” by a third party? His job appears to have been to remove anyone who is smart enough to see what he is doing, and courageous enough to object. If you look at this situation objectively, there is a billion dollar enterprise (maybe more), tax-free, able to operate with no outside governmental oversight. Add to that the purchase of unused, expensive buildings globally, and what do you have? If I was a cynic, I would say it was the perfect set up for money laundering.

      • Well, I didn’t work on TNT and am not here to defend it, however your post contains several exaggerations and generalities such as “torpedoed thousands of staff”. It just didn’t happen. More problems with TNT occured in areas where there was a lot of CI and non-compliance and false reports, which what is was supposed to do, i.e. hilite areas of non-compliance and off-policy. However, TNT had no way to tell if the problem was with the staff member or with the program itself. Yes, it could generate huge amounts of traffic as the result of duplicate order/nudges/chits, but that sort of bug could easily be solved by using modern databases and networks so that it’s decisions could be better coordinated. TNT was a little ahead of if it’s time. However, TNT was only ONE of many programs at the time, some of which were quite popular with the management level staff. As I recall, INCOMM had a pretty easy to use Word Processor, which was considered atypical given the other comple WPs of the time. INCOMM does not equal TNT (A = A = A). I think one of the problems with TNT is that the bar for what it should do was set too high given the limitations of computer technology circa 1983. Perhaps the first version should have just tracked status of program targets; that would have been doable and somewhat useful.

        LRH’s vision was to bypass middle management completely, as it had broken down so many times in the past, by setting up an international network of computer systems that could run completely autonomously and manage all the orgs on the planet. The computer advices were some of the most mind-blowing stuff ever written. So, don’t let one overt product get in the way of the bigger picture. Although Miscavige would make J&D comments about INCOMM staff, most of them were quite intelligent and hardworking, and many of them had lots of indsutry experience and/or advanced computer science degrees (OT 5 Chuck Prenner even had a Harvard PhD in Computer Science, but unfortunately he had to be routed out of the org due to a psychotic break).

        The real problem with INCOMM was it’s waste and mismanagement of good staff members. Would you judge Gold based on one overt product or judge CMU based on one failed marketing campaign??? THAT’s the real story to tell. INCOMM acomplished a lot in it’s first few years (1982-1985), bu the main reason INCOMM never achieved it’s larger purpose is that it’s top staff were constantly ripped off or FB’ed out of the Sea Org. The final nail in the coffin was the raid of INCOMM in 1995 by RTC and CMOI – the Valentine’s Day Massacre, and THAT was directly caused by Miscavige. INCOMM these days is nothing but a shell of it former self.

  121. About the sociopath question, an OSA troll couldn’t answer “DM is a sociopath.”?
    If he is a spy, he’ll be forgiven, no? Or what kind of a shit spy is that? Fearing sec check that he would really have meant it? Even in WW2 a russian spy in Germany could say “heil Hitler”, yeah, but maybe he would wind up in gulag. Totalitarian logic…

  122. Moderator – sorry I posted the above on the wrong thread. I reposted it on the correct one – please delete it since it is not appropriate here. Thanks – Mimsey

  123. Steve I don’t seem to be able to register for scientologyreviews.com. I use Firefox as a browser and believe that I am following the directions exactly. Is there a delay in getting OKed?

  124. Steve Hall,
    Very well done on the website. I shall write a review of my OT8 experience in 1988 aboard the Freewinds.
    George M. White

  125. Steve is Very Talented

  126. Steve, this is brilliant! You are a genius! You are helping to do with Independent Scientology that which LRH originally envisioned, which means hope and help for us all. I appreciate this more than words can express.

    “Christmas comes early!!” :-)

  127. Steve, you are a genius.

  128. Terril park gave me a 1974 reprint of Self analysis as a gift. With the 1966 text.

  129. Pingback: Scientology Bewertungen | Der Treffpunkt

  130. It means that each time we interact with another person, we are directly or indirectly teaching them
    that it is easier to avoid talking about money then
    deal with it. She had been faithful to him for 35 years; now it
    was his turn to give the system the opportunity to learn from
    each difficult interaction. But our thirst for desire, romance and
    life-changing get your husband back is more prominent than ever before, the experts say.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s