I'd not suggest any moderation for this board because it's too hard to enforce it and it's a thankless job.

There are people on this forum who've been talked to again and again both by Merlin and by Andreas but who continue to write falsehoods and drivel about other contributors.

(Such as the allegation that I "bragged about having an unusual sexual lifestyle"-written just this week- which was, is and always will be false. Don't have one, and didn't "brag" or say I did.)

There are people here who fairgame others and then shriek about OSA ops.

I guess they ought to know 'bout them OSA ops, huh!

So far I make that 4 in favour, 3 against, 7 posts that didn't address the subject and 2 I didn't understand.

To clarify a couple of points:

I didn't mention active moderation, an obvious option but not the only one. Right now I'm only trying to find out if people are sufficiently irritated to want changes, not what changes they want.

No one put me up to this, and I didn't discuss it with anyone beforehand.

And to repeat, please read the Rules again.

"YOU MUST READ AND AGREE TO THIS BEFORE POSTING HERE!"

Yes, I do see that you aren't asking for moderation, specifically. I was more kind of discussing other people's posts, a bit, I guess.

I do think changes should be made, at least, ideally, because of the constant flouting of the ROCs. The example I gave was one of many that have occurred here.

I just don't think there's any hope for it, is all. The actions of those responsible both for the board and for their own posts have shown me that.

So that means a vast majority of 12 don't agree with the 4 in minority.

I suggest that the majority send those 4 to a type of "ethics" where they can either get their act together, or be seperated permantely.

This reflects the beauty of the Scientology system. You can keep a "majority" agreement, by just getting rid of anyone who doesn't agree.

Hi Hartley,

I, for one, would like to hear your solution. And if it doesn't include moderators, that's great.
Though, at this point, I can't imagine what the solution could be.

Tigger

P.S. Maybe if your survey were moved up to the top of the board, you would get more responses. There are too many distractions on the way to the bottom.

Hartley............I'm against moderation. I find message boards, and newsgroups, are places where people can communicate. I think we all learn from our ups and our downs. All of it is important...in the end.

I think Andreas has done an excellent job of writing out the FAQ
and clarifying what he himself sees as the purpose for Xenu.net:
"Undressing Scientology".

By the very nature of OSA....they ARE going to be here on the Net,
doing their thing, whether you believe it or not, and once one gets how utterly covert they are, you get how futile 'moderation' really is.

Let's all work at doing our best to get alone, share our stories, duke it out occassionally and have a good time, too.

That's my two cents....

Best!

Tory/Magoo~~

PS: I disagree Xenu.net is "At a all time low".

Please keep in mind, Scientology is at an all time low, so yes, there's less occurring, and thus less to debate.

We are impinging, and people ARE getting FREE.

Isn't that nice?

There's times to battle, and there are times to celebrate....and there are times to rest, in between.

You pick it, Wilson

Tory/Magoo~~

Of course it's not at an all time low. It's been like this at least three years.

So the "low" is there but not the "all time".

I lurked for about a year before my first post 2 and half years ago. Got tired of the standaed "subjective" scino “TR patter� bout how the entire catalog of Hubbard’s so-called goatee powers were due, and exclusive to the tech. You see I made it a point to hang close to a few big oatees whenever possible, off and on, just to get a glimps!

Outside the box, It has been interesting to observe how you and your scino choir have morphed your tunes over the years when the conversation swung and focused on the “objective�! Something that went unchallanged due to the fear factor while one was "in".

But one really needs to stop and focus from time to time on what it ain't relative to what else is out there in order to understand what it is. And for many unfortunately that may take the form of swinging that pendulum in the opposite direction.

So I can understand that in the process of “busting your own bubble� you are perceiving a “low�! But in the grand scheeme of things, I believe this to is only a process!

Anyways IMHO OCMB serves a valuable purpose as a half way house in and of itself on the road out of Hubbard's "evil Co$ trappings". But as a testament to Merlin, I’ll agree with you that he was the best at moderation.

Fluff, to understand the Hubbard trappings it's important and necessary for one to step completely and totally outside of it

No. My point is that any low people are perceiving has been extant for at least 3 years.

Pardon me all to hell, but I don't see that following people around screaming at them, writing ad homs, etc, does anything to help anyone step outside the trappings of Scn.

Sure, screaming at people is not the best approach...

But, many scientologists HAVE been screamed at and
they still leave CoS.
Including you....lol

Most people do wake up and smell the B.S. sooner or later.

Dream on, Fluff Muffin! Any one who wants to can read your posts, and mine. I don't follow you around, I merely tell the truth when you LIE like the scientologist you are...and admit to and brag about being a "scientologist" and how scientology "works".

Tell us another story about how scientology cured your heart problems, Fluffy.

Read all of BallofFluff'/Clawed Waterbucks/John and Claire Swazey's posts. Here is a classic to go along with her slimy bearded clam/oyster pic:

From: "Ball of Fluff" <getoffmy...@fluffentology.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: LRH and his FOs on sex toys
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 21:24:10 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <122mqrrnt3s...@corp.supernews.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Complaints-To: a...@supernews.com
Lines: 35


Flag Order 360812RB 30
March 1976
MC's Hat


Proper Use of a Clitoral Stimulator


1) Put batteries in


2) The "patient" is to be naked and ready for loooove.


3) turn it on and start. Follow the little nub of the man in the boat.
(Get a Gray's Anatomy or Luckman & Sorenson nursing text for exact
position fo the clit.).


4) As you're doing this make sure you use circular motions, pressing
hard when patient requests it.


5) When an area produces a reacton from your patient, continue to go
over and over and over it...oooohhhh ahhhhh -- what's that Diana? Who's
yer daddy! C'mon now!


6) Continue till you hit the EP of the patient and she comes like a ton
of bricks. Don't overrun it and get her clit sort.


Expected treatment, 5 to 50 minutes, depending on the woman.


L. Ron Hubbard
Commodore and Swordsman


LRH:DRH:dhh -byClaire Swazey/BallofFluff/Voltaires Child/Scientology EXPERT...etc...

Claire has bragged how she and her husband John have an "unusual" sexual relationship.

Well how special. Especially having seen your pictures, Fluffy Cochon.

Keep it to yourself and no one will comment on it.

Keep on sharing your sad sordid personal life and lies and I will keep on commenting on them.

Put a lid on it Claire. It's offensive.

Ladybird

Sorry all, but here is some of what Fluffer writes that she accuses me of objecting to.

Huh?????????????????????

I missed all that!
Hmmmm...
Is it really fluffy?

Yes Sir! My Dear HM!!! This is our own untouchable Ball of Fluff .She wrote it, she owns it and she is offended that I quote it.

Actually, I am offended to have to quote it, but we all gotta do what needs to be done.

Ladybird

Of course I admit to being a Scn'ist. You want me to LIE and say I'm not something that I am? I post on forums. I say who I am, where I live and what my interests are. So what.



Can't oblige you. I never said anything about having "heart problems" to begin with.

American Buddha and I were having a discussion as to whether Scn might have certain effects and if so, why. So I related an anecdote, and in that anecdote I never ever said I had a heart problem or condition.

If you want to complain about advertising or whatsit, well, you've put far more emphasis on that conversation than I ever had. The bulk of the references to it came from you, not me. So you've yourself to blame for that.





No.

You are a liar.




Wow. How vicious and sick.



Keep WHAT to myself? Something I didn't write about John and myself?

A spoof of an a.r.s. post which, too, was posted on ARS?

Boy, that really makes no sense, at all. Except that you're obsessed.




1) You've posted nothing about my personal life. You've posted a spoof of an ARS post. And it's obviously a spoof since it's formatted like a Flag Order and "signed by" Hubbard. Nowhere does it say "Me and my husband like to".

2) It's an a.r.s post.

3) you haven't found or posted any lies. Because there aren't any, except from you.



You're the one who's offensive. You've posted something false about me and that even if it were true- which it certainly is not (I didn't say it and I don't HAVE an "unusual sexual lifestyle" in any respect) would have no bearing on a forum about criticizing Scientology.


[/size][/quote]

God, how stupid can you be, Ladybird.

My post was a spoof of a post someone posted that was from an FO about how to use a vibrator. The whole thread is about the fact that there was such an FO.

So I wrote a spoof. You can tell it's a spoof. It's set up like a Flag order and is purportedly signed by L Ron Hubbard.

How stupid can this be.

Jesus Christ, imagine being fair gamed by a critic who thinks she should behave like an OSA op.