Sunday, August 17, 2008

More Rules for Comments and Questions

I welcome honestly interested questions and civilized comments.

I will reject any comments from someone called "Anonymous" or who uses "Anon" in their user name.

I prefer comments and questions from people with actual profiles. I won't reject a comment or question from someone just because they have a hidden profile, but if the question or comment is in the gray area of my rules then it is more likely to be rejected.

I do not discuss what is or is not on the Advanced Courses (also known as OT levels). So if you bring up anything that is actually on those courses or that is rumored to be on those courses (whether it is correct or not) I will reject your comment.

Other rules


Aligote said...


Just reading your rules on commenting and you mentioned you wouldn't talk about the advanced Scientology courses. Why is that?

Grahame said...

Hey aligote,

The reason is personal choice.

Mister Pete said...

Grahme, I've been reading some of these links posted in your blog and in responses.
I just wanted to say that these things are very understandable.
It does seem that those attacking the church have some sort of personal axe to grind but rarely doI hear what their association with the church is or was or what the true reason for their upset is.
It just seems that some people are negative and like to rant.
In regards to the internet, free speech and copyright laws; these people should be campaigning Congress to change the laws if they don't like them.
If the church has things copyrighted which people haven't bought the rights to then obviously they shouldn't be using them without authorization from the church.
There's a lot of hubbub about some supposed creation myth involving alien races from outer space which is getting really bent out of shape.
A great distortion of "facts" is taking place. I've studied some of this to find the facts and this just isn't the case. There is no creation myth and no aliens inhabiting anybody's own body.
This scene of attacks started because someone wanted to use copyrighted material, when obviously they can't legally, and then it became greatly maligned, and now there are people saying the church shouldn't copyright anything.
There are after all enough church books out there now that it shouldn't even be an issue.
The copyrighted material of some of these other books is just as likely to be misconstrued and lies made up and exaggerated that it's a mystery to me really that only this area about this alleged creation myth would get such press.
The only thing I figured out was that it started with one guy in the eighties wanting money when the church said he couldn't use the copyrighted works.
And now it's become this big he-said-she-said about what is actually a copyright dispute.
The other thing I found out was that the church was instrumental in getting a bill known as the Freedom of Information Act passed.
And now you can read that "the church is suppressing freedom of speech".
That charge is definitely ludicrous.
The way I see it, about this big issue of what can or should be posted on the internet, everything should conform to the law.
This would be done by referencing a work (like by using a link) when talking about it rather than by illegally plagerizing it, altering it, and saying that that's what was said when it wasn't.
This naming of the source of a quote sure would have helped my research.
To hold up a copyright issue as some evidence of wrongdoing by the church is highly illogical.
Likewise, to assail a religious belief of any church is simply barking up the wrong tree.
(I had written this a very long time ago and didn't have a blogger profile at the time so just saved it. I found it recently and now can't find the post it was written for. I hope you might be able to use some of it or find out which post it fits best. Danged if I can find it.)