Talk:Dianetics/Archive 11

message: I was just editing this article and for some reason the page came out blank when I hit save. Evidently I forgot to cut and paste the text for the revert I was doing. It would have only taken me five seconds to hit "back", cut and paste the text, and correct my mistake, but already in those five seconds the Tawkerbot had intervened and left a "vandalism from Wikipediatrix" edit summary in the history, which is really, really not cool and not fair. The bot needs to wait at least 60 seconds to see if the blanking-out is intentional, or if the user catches their mistake and quickly corrects it! wikipediatrix 15:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense taken Wikipediatrix. It was sudden and a surprise. Would you mind discussing your summary deletions of the Goal section w/o citations somewhere? Spirit of Man 17:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like I said in my edit summary, I thought it sounded like advertising copy. The article already explicitly spells out the purpose of Dianetics, which is essentially the same thing as the goal of Dianetics. Thus your lengthy "Goal of Dianetics" section was, I feel, redundant and not written in a NPOV. wikipediatrix 23:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tawkerbot needs a greater time lapse 

message: "This article is about the set of practices and ideas about those practices known as Dianetics. For the book by L. Ron Hubbard first published in 1950, see Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Dianetics is a practice which is based on ideas about the human mind."
:The reader reads that. In three sentences the reader is presented with two sentences which are almost exactly the same.  It is redundant. It is unnecessary.  It is poor writing.  I removed the first two sentences which form a "disambiguation".  Wikipedia readers come to this article to read this article.  The first thing such a reader is presented with should be this article.Terryeo 15:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true. I want it removed in both places. It is quadruply redundent and not needed at all. It represents a false importance. What is important? Reading what you came for or being told where to go to find something you didn't come for? Spirit of Man 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  The consensus opinion is that the disambiguity notice should remain at the top of the article as long as there exists an article about the book Dianetics that is seperate from the article about the subject of Dianetics. Vivaldi 04:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Now you're trying to second-guess what the reader is coming to this article for? Didn't you say that you didn't want to do that, earlier? In any case, it's totally ridiculous to assume that people will know exactly what they want when coming to this article, especially when people frequently wikilink this article when they mean to point to the book. The disambig is neccessary and stays. Tenebrous 03:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Are you and Davidstrauss on the same cheerleading team by any chance? (see next) "totally ridiculous"?? I suggest you take a look at what you wrote in the morning. Spirit of Man 06:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been fully explained to you and the consensus opinion is against your changes.  Further discussion of this same issue will get you a pointer to read the existing talk page. Vivaldi 04:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: For all Wikipedia-related affairs, I don't consider you and Terryeo separate people. You both spend many of your posts just cheerleading each other on. I honestly wonder some days whether you two users are the same person. --Davidstrauss 04:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said, "Nobody else wants to remove the disambiguation". I said it wasn't true. I just read the article on "ad hominem" error in logic. You might read it if you have a free moment. Spirit of Man 06:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless, redundant disambiguation 

message: Why is dianetics (Dianetics) capitalized?
:: Because proper nouns always are. wikipediatrix 19:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is dianetics (Dianetics) capitalized? 

message: I've been made a fool by being drawn into an insane debate about "credible thrid party sources" with Spirit of Man, above, but I did turn up a tidbit in the course of that discussion that is chilling, if I'm interpreting it correctly.  Third parties, of course, are valued for their relative objectivity in matters that are under dispute.  Hubbard, though, doesn't seem to share that view.  Check out this definition from the Official Scientology and Dianetics Glossary:
third party: one who by false reports creates trouble between two people, a person and a group, or a group and another group.
Sounds like he's saying that "outside observers" are deliberate liars.  Hard to imagine a more perverse re-definition of a term.  BTfromLA 16:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, within Scientology tech, "third party" has a specific use as you have quoted above.  It has a specialized and specific meaning.  But you will find that specific meaning to be "hostile third party" where the "hostile" is implied by the context.  Here on Wikipedia we want "third party opinions" (disinterested evaluations by persons separated and able to offer even-handed evaluations).  The use of the term you have quoted above is specific to an area of Scientology Technology and has the unstated (hostile) "third party".  You find it in the area of "suppressive person technology."  And please don't get the idea that no Scientologist ever uses the term "third party" in ordinary english.  That use is only within "suppressive person technology" and isn't used broadly, isn't used elsewhere. That's Suppressive Person (hostile) "third party" as you have quoted above. Terryeo 05:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This quote is out of context. It has nothing to do with editing policies and guidelines here on Wikipedia. It has to do with resolving disputes between two parties in life. Spirit of Man 03:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As you said third parties are valued for their "relative objectivity" and that is true in Scientology as well as here on Wiki. Spirit of Man 03:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, this is the one and only definition of "third party" in the official Scientology and Dianetics glossary.  If it is "out of context" and the part about valuing third party objectivity was omitted, the fault is with whomever put that glossary together.  BTfromLA 02:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't agree. The one about objectivity is in standard english dictionaries. This policy letter uses this special technical meaning, as it is defined and used in that policy. The glossaries don't include all english words or meanings, just the special ones that relate to specific issues. You should be able to find words to this effect at the beginning of whatever glossary you found the specialized definition in. I understand this to be true of any glossary. Do you agree? Spirit of Man 03:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find no such disclaimers at the Official Scientology and Dianetics Glossary, do you?  I agree that it would be a good idea to specify that these definitions are only intended to apply to a narrow set of particular circumstances.BTfromLA 04:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no disclaimer.  The use of "third party law" is within a narrow area of Scientology with its own jargon and applies to Scientology technology.  What's the title of the page, "General use english created by Scientology?"  no, its something like "Scientology Glossary."  Its likely some mention is made in that definition to say what it applies to. No one is tryign to mislead you. Terryeo 03:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't find what I was looking for there either, just that it was a Scientology glossary. I have a glossary from the Freedom Congress Lectures, 6 July 1957, it reads as follows: "Words often have several meanings. The definitions used only give the meaning that the word has as it is used in these lectures. This glossary is not meant to take the place of a standard language or Dianetics and Scientology dictionaries, which should be referred to for any words, terms or phrases that do not appear below." Spirit of Man 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In Scientology logic, illogical things are identified and removed. This is the idea that reason doesn't exist in the presence of illogical things. When the illogical things are identified and removed then reason can prevail. The main illogical thing relative to our disucussion is false reports. The relation between the two parties doesn't resolve because false reports are continually added by the "third party" delibrately to cause trouble. If a person conducting a Scientology justice action accepted reports with known false information in it, he would be in deep trouble for doing so. I understand in your view, a credible third party would not allow false things to be published. Spirit of Man 03:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If I have claried the issue with the glossary, I ask that you recind your comments about "The Ministry of Truth" and anything else that amounts to a false report of what you understand to be true. Spirit of Man 03:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've removed the section title: assuming that this is as you've explained it, it's excessive to attribute this to Big Brother.  Still strikes me as a potentially creepy bit of "tech"--blame the outsiders--but I'll leave such conclusions to those who have first-hand experience with the policy.  BTfromLA 04:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Your quote comes from a CoS policy on The Third Party Law, HCO PL 26 Dec 68 I. It applies to resolving disputes between two parties that is not resolving over a period of time. A third party that was giving true reports to both parties may resolve the issue quickly. That is a primary tool here on Wiki. But when the dispute is not resolving and both parties are willing to communicate, then you look for the third party that is submitting "false" reports to one or both sides. Example: we have a husband and wife having a continuing dispute. My parents had exactly this same dispute. The mother in-law is not happy that daughter-in-law had to get married and felt her son was trapped. So she told the son how bad the wife was and shunned the wife at all times so she always felt suppressed. So in this case the third party is not objective and truthful, but delibrately false and not objective. This worsens a condition rather than improves it. When the law is made known to both parties and they recognize the source of the conflict it collapses very quickly. The marriage can be revitalized. Spirit of Man 23:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, from the "creates false report" and "continually causes trouble" the (hostile) portion of "third party" is apparent.  Obviously a third party could create good reports, could calm the waters, could work toward resolution.  That quote has a specific meaning about a hostile person or group creating trouble.  Let me give you an example.  Newspapers can act as a (hostile) "third party" when they excerbate a minor squabble between two movie stars (just an example that pops into mind).Terryeo 06:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LRH's definition of "third party" 

message: :: Not to literally compare Scientology to Ted Bundy, but sometimes it takes an extreme example to show the fallacy of the "equal time" idea: if there were a highly vocal group of people editing these articles who expressed the viewpoint that being a serial killer is okay and that Bundy was perfectly justified in doing so, would we even consider giving them equal space in the article? Of course not. Are we ready to give Jim Jones' cult equal space for rebuttal that mass suicide is a good thing?  The issue here only seems about fairness when you think of it as Scientologists versus Anti-Scientologists, which it is not. I, for one, am only interested in reporting facts. (That there are so many facts unflattering to Scientology is no one's fault but the Church's). wikipediatrix 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish to dispute your "logic" in saying you only wish to report  facts. You just deleted the balancing facts I presented in the pseudoscience section exactly as Buster recommended. You don't seem to cherish facts, you seem to cherish the sensation of your extreme examples like "serial killer", and "mass suicide". Isn't this true, Wikipediatrix? We have discussed this before in mediation and DMSMH. Do you intend this to be more than an ad hominum logical error? Spirit of Man 21:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, could you notch up the drama just a little more? I knew you'd blow the comparison out of proportion without actually addressing my point (even though I was careful to preface it with a disclaimer). I think the communication barrier between us is so vast here that if you don't get what I'm trying to say yet (and believe me, you aren't even close), I don't think you ever will. I've already explained all this many times in the simplest English possible, but you and Terryeo insist on talking it to death, and talking in circles. wikipediatrix 22:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point is you feel Dianetics should not be given "equal time". You haven't shown why this is, nor have you allowed any time. You have merely discussed how it should be eliminated. Spirit of Man 03:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone else is going to have explain it to you, because I give up trying. wikipediatrix 03:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And more circles and more circles. I really don't think that gap will ever be breached: you can talk to Spirit, and he'll respond, but then you get to talking about something that he doesn't want to believe, and then you're talking to a brick wall. And apparently now he's decided to cry "ad hominum (sic)" anytime anyone criticizes him. What fun! Tenebrous 23:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tenebrous, give me an example something I don't want to believe, where I hit a brick wall, if you please? Spirit of Man 03:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "deconstruct me, I dare you" road goes nowhere, and I hope Tenebrous doesn't take your bait and waste his time typing something that you'll pretend not to understand even if you do. wikipediatrix 03:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to debate it; the evidence is pretty clear: here is Spirit once again disputing the characterization of Dianetics as pseudoscience, despite all evidence and despite consensus. I don't have anything to say to him on the matter; it's his own issue. Tenebrous 05:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The top of page template, though completely unnecessary, at least looks better than it did, concentrating on a neutral point of view.  A parallel to the point you guys are missing! Is pitching baseballs a science?  People have characterized it in that direction, specifying speed, spin on the ball, where in the strike zone it arrives, etc.  You could talk about the "science of pitching baseball" and there is science to it.  Certainly there is logical thought to it.  On the other hand it is going to be pretty rare to find a scientist who is a great baseball pitcher.  It needs atheletic ability to pitch baseball and perhaps some additional attributes also.  Well, so too with Dianetics.  There is some thought and science to it, it follows logical thought  and isn't magic.  What abilities does a person need to deliver Dianetics?  Well, he needs to have good sense and needs to be willing to help people.  He needs to be willing to listen to the other person and grant the other person has experiences unique to them, a unique and other point of view.Terryeo 16:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC Redux