By the same logic should aerial photos of Int Base be censored in case they drive Miscavige to create a subterranean base and locate the sp hole there? I mean are you seriously proposing that your own guesstimate of probable or improbable consequences (and your own assessment of the desirability or otherwise of these consequences) should govern what can be posted on OCMB? You're proposing to moderate OCMB in such a way as to reduce the risk of someone saying something nasty to someone about that person's wife? Seriously?

I'm talking about all the issues and consequences; no one of my arguments is intended to be a full defense. The consequences have already arrived as Tim has made his Facebook page inaccessible (to me at least). Now snoopy but discreet critics can't ever check his page. Info is cut off from us. CoS may have distorted this thread into "coming after his baby." He looked like he was having doubts at the January picket - but now who knows if he will trust any critic.

This issue isn't as pure a free speech issue as the poets in the old Soviet Union, bravely and secretly distributing their own anti-Stalinist poetry. This is about the privilege to copy someone else's creative work, on a private website.

OK well I've voiced my protest. I'll leave it at that as you appear to be impervious to reason, or perhaps just reluctant to climb down off your high horse. You can basically do wtf you want and there's realistically nothing that I or tamasin-sp or RP or Smurf or AGP or Roan or TEoS or any other non-mod commoner can do about it. Just please, please, please try not to fuck OCMB up too badly. Try to remember that it's a resource for a diverse community of people who don't all think exactly the same things you think.

I learned a long time ago that it wasn't worth my time to argue with you, Dorothy. kitty and RP clearly gets it. You don't.

A board is useful when there is a healthy exchange of ideas, perceptions & debate on issues. It can, and usually does, get contentious on issues that are controversial, i.e. Scientology. If I were a mod, I would monitor the comments to insure they don't violate the guidelines & TOS set down by Andreas for OCMB. If there is no violation, I would step back and watch the "catfight". It is not my role to police people's comments based on what I consider to be appropriate. There are 1-2 mods on OCMB that have proven they cannot be objective & should not be mods. They should create their own personal blogs, whereby, they would have the complete freedom to edit & delete comments whenever they like, just as Marty does.

What has happened on OCMB is no different than what has happened with the LAPD's relationship with Scientology, as it pertains to critics who protest. When there is a special permit granted to the cult, it is the LAPD's role to enforce the rules & guidelines of the permit, not to invoke their own discretion & beliefs on where critics can protest outside the realm of the permit. This is a battle that Doug Owens & others have been fighting for years.

Don Carlo spoke of "complaints". People will complain about anything & everything that doesn't meet their definition of acceptability. Let them complain until they're blue in the face. It is not the mod's role to entertain complaints that don't involve OCMB rules.

I recently received a warning from the "YouTube Team" that a couple of my videos on protests by the Westboro Baptist Church could be deleted due to incendiary comments, i.e. sexually lewd, death threats, or calling for the murder of Shirley Phelps & her family, being made on my channel. Shirley Phelps-Roper & her husband had had filed a written complaint. Since I did not make these comments myself, and they were made by others who had seen my videos & were reacting to them, I contacted an attorney at the EFF. https://www.eff.org/.

The attorney I spoke with said it would be totally irresponsible of me to edit or delete people's comments because that violates their free speech. Making angry comments and using profanity is "protected free speech" under the U.S. Constitution. I was told to post a disclaimer on my YouTube channel, which I posted yesterday.

"I have been notified by YouTube that my videos can be deleted due to lewd & incendiary comments, i.e., death threats, implied threats, to individuals in my videos. Yes, folks, these twits have filed complaints to YouTube. If you continue to post them, they will be deleted and you will be blocked. Sorry, I don't want my videos deleted because of twits who think that the First Amendment only applies to them."

Here, again, you're making unfounded assumptions, and interjecting your own personal opines.

How do you know what Tim's knowledge of Facebook & the Internet is? Have you spoken with him? Have you had this discussion with him? You claimed in an earlier post that Scientologists are not allowed to read newspapers. Excuse me? Obviously, with the numerous Facebook pages by active Scilons, and comments they are posting on their Walls about something they've read in the newspaper or seen on TV, clearly contradicts what you THINK are the facts.

You "worry that a picketer will continue the Facebook-makes-it-okay theory by naming and possibly mocking the guys' wife during pickets". That is fine to think that way, but to impose your will on others, as a mod, is totally unacceptable. You should not be a mod. You are invoking your will and opinions on others and violating free speech.

I agree. I recently posted some information about Alexis Hubbard (Hollister) Connolly on the "Hubbard Family Tree" thread, and had some consideration about naming living individuals who AFAIK, do not have anything do do with $cientology, they just happen to be descendants of LRH. I did post a link to Alexis' Ancestry.com site, but have removed it. It doesn't work anyway, I found out, unless you have an Ancestry.com membership. Like you say, If anyone wants to look up the information themselves, that's fine. Just my opinion based on the fact that I haven't seen or heard of Alexis "going public" in any way as the daughter of LRH since after her father's death 1986, she probably doesn't want to be bothered. There is some dispute over whether or not she received a settlement. Hypothetically if she did, then it probably came with a gag agreement as did the settlement for Nibs. Some of LRH's descendants may not want to be "outed" as his descendants, and understandably.

You're making assumptions not based on fact. Alexis was a featured speaker at one of the annual CAN conferences in the early 90s. She has a Facebook page as does her adult children.

You're simply avoiding my direct question with that "response". Here are my simple questions again:

You can't even clarify your very own accusations and demands. Until you answer the above 2 questions you're FOS on this topic as far as I'm concerned. You remind me of CoS saying they were harmed by Debbie Cook's email yet they cannot show any proof of harm. So your free speech rights were apparently damaged by Don Carlo's mod-action yet you cannot write one word about HOW your rights were damaged.

Mods are not inhuman robots that mechanically enforce rules. They have to use reasoning and judgement. They cannot be expected to completely disassociate from their own perspective. Don Carlo has explained his reasoning behind his action and the response to that was predictable. I think he is showing empathy towards the other side and some people can't accept that. I admire him for it. I think he is doing what's best for ocmb and not just exercising his ego as he's being accused of doing.

As usual, you don't get it.

If you were hired at a company that had an Employee's Handbook of the rules & policies of the company, and you were fired by a manager for reasons contrary to company policy & rules, i.e., the manager didn't like your taste in clothes, I think you'd be pretty unhappy. A mod's role is to enforce the rules & guidelines of the board; not to personally inject their personal perceptions in doing so.

Well I'd given up, but this has lured me out of retirement. I mean, what an argument!

No human being is an "inhuman robot". Many human beings nevertheless do a competent job of applying rules and seeing to it that others abide by those rules (or are appropriately treated if they fail to do so). School teachers, police officers, sports referees, message board moderators. They use reasoning and judgment: reasoning and judgment are necessary to determine how the rules apply to the situations presented and to guide their responses to those situations. They do not "completely dissociate from their own perspective". They simply recognize that their professional role requires them to put aside their personal opinions and preferences.

This happens all the time. There's nothing mysterious about it. It's an pretty central part of our civilized way of life. (Though of course there are also school teachers who show favoritism, police officers who let their prejudices get in the way of fair policing, sports referees who let the crowd sway their judgment, and message board moderators who censor posts they personally disapprove of. Etc.)

I can't believe you don't understand this. Actually I don't believe you don't understand this. Only a total idiot could fail to understand it and you aren't a total idiot, I think.

From the FAQ:




Posting a picture of a family member who is not in Scientology is not polite, friendly, constructive, positive or on topic. Using foul/insulting language against people is clearly not allowed.








Finally, to set the record straight, the last time some people were banned (not suspended) was when Roan was moderator--for posting gore and porn, which isn't specifically in the FAQ. There has been one suspension since.

Thanks for the info. I didn't know about the CAN conference, etc., if I did, I wouldn't mind posting already public info. I made assumptions based on what I was aware of (which is limited as you pointed out). I don't believe I made any assumptions based on false information. That said, I wouldn't post Alexis' facebook page address here. But that's just me. I don't see what the problem is if someone else does unless it could get OC into legal trouble, and I don't see how that could happen.

As far as Alexis goes, I know of a son, two daughters, and one granddaughter, by name anyway.

Hubbard's children are something of a special case because the suspicious thumbprint will had small legacies for the loyal ones but kept them away from the massive Scienology fortune. I agree their exact locations and details, and especially those of their children, aren't relevant. I did talk a lot about Diana's daughter Roanne, but that is because Diana and Roanne,th in Sea Org, are the most loyal, and most vulnerable, of all the descendants.

The sudden banning-for-doxing that happened at whyweprotest was excessive, and I have no intention of being that extreme. I snoop and blab myself concerning CoS members, staff, and children-in-distress, and I want to be able to keep doing that.

So you're going to moderate OCMB in such a way as to allow yourself to carry on doing the things you want to be able to keep on doing? Great. Your priorities are clearly 100% in order.

Please tell me this is an April Fool's joke.

Yeah except no one's been fired. DUH. That's my whole point. You were not banned Smurf. So again I ask, exactly HOW were your free speech rights here at ocmb damaged? What was it you wanted to discuss about the scilon's family member that you never got to discuss, etc. Until you answer that you are (still) FOS on this particular issue imo.