User talk:Rolf dane
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Blanking the DEEP Clearing article | 5 | 17:08, September 5, 2015 |
| Welcome | 0 | 03:24, August 31, 2015 |
I reversed the blanking of the DEEP Clearing article because that is not the right way to edit or correct inaccuracies. (if there are some)
The better way to handle this is to postA position from which a terminal operates in an org, where one knows that somebody is at. (FO 2200)
a comment on the Discussion page associated with the article. You can find it in the upper left of the page as a tab, next to the "article" tab. http://scientolipedia.org/info/Talk:Deep_Clearing_by_Rolf_Dane
The editor/author of the page will be notified and see your comments and have the opportunity to respond so that the edits can be made with agreement.
If/when you reply to this message, I will be likewise notified and can followup.
Hi Scientolipedia Admin,
I asked Antony Phillips (the author) to delete the page on DEEPAbbreviation for Decisions, Emotions, Energies, Polarities. A definition coined by Clearbird, based on chapter 2 of "A History of Man".. The reason is that we want to market it to the general public and not specifically to ex-scientologists.
Since the SCN brand name is quickly becoming a burden we do not want DEEP to associated with it.
I do not see the need "to make my casethe whole sum of past by-passed charge. (HCOB 19 Aug 63)" on the public boards since both the author of the page, Antony, and myself agree to have it deleted.
Best,
Rolf Dane
I understand your wanting to distance yourself from what you see as a toxic brand, but the request compromises our integrity. If we alter or delete factual data about derivative practices of Scientology to appease people, we become less credible.
I have spoken with Antony and was waiting to hear from you before deciding about restoring the page.
We have to consider whether it is important to document ALL of the offshoots, SOME of the offshoots, or NONE of the offshoots. Do we postA position from which a terminal operates in an org, where one knows that somebody is at. (FO 2200) a disclaimer that SOME offshoots wish to remain anonymous due to the church's abuse of the brand? Maybe that is the solution...
Hi Scientolipedia Editor,
Obviously I have a SCN background as I have done scn training prior to 1992. But DEEP is not SCN. I have researched it and written the materials between 2008 and pt. Now I want the public to benefit from it and that takes of course some promotion. I have been associated with a health newsletter, that want to promote our services. For this arrangement to work, I cannot be associated closely with SCN or be called an "offshot".
I can appreciate that you work as a historian in the field. I am more concerned about getting my new technologyThe methods of application of an art or science as opposed to mere knowledge of the science or art itself. (HCOB 13 Sep 65) ''Abbr.'' tech out and applied. I want to promote it to new people who want the benefits and the training.
Usually boards like scientolipedia are edited by the public and maybe monitored by an editor. But to set it up as some sort of one way trap for information or exposee publication is highly controversial in my opinion.
So I kindly ask you not to use your board to stop the practical application of the DEEP techAbbreviation for technology. The methods of application of an art or science as opposed to mere knowledge of the science or art itself. (HCOB 13 Sep 65).
In my opinion, SCN is doomed due to the continued bad PRAbbreviation for public relations. The art of making good works well known. (HCO PL 21 Nov 72 I) and the abuses of the church.
I have learned my lessons dearly and have developed a new techAbbreviation for technology. The methods of application of an art or science as opposed to mere knowledge of the science or art itself. (HCOB 13 Sep 65) that takes care of the conflicts that SCN seems to have no cure for but rather create.
Best,
Rolf
Rolf,
"Boards like this..." are not a one way trap, we follow the wikipedia model where many can contribute content but ALL edits and new articles are subject to editorial overview and approval. (look into the controversy and fighting at wikipedia with church stooges trying to edit and slant articles about Scientology)
I don't like plagiarism and people failing to acknowledge L Ron Hubbard for his contributions.
We'll deal with documenting data about Scientology as best we can and take your concerns into consideration.
What does that mean?
Rolf
Welcome to Scientolipedia - I hope you enjoy using the site and find it helpful.
You probably found this message by clicking on the "New messages" notification at the top of the screen. This is one example of the many built-in features of the site's software and there are many such. (clicking "reply" to this message, and saving your response, will trigger an instant notification of your response to me as one example of the internal communications system) Although we have tried to make using this software as "user-friendly" as possible, it still takes a bit of effort on your part to get familiar with it.
There is a tutorial on how to create pages here as well as FAQ's to answer the most commonly asked questions. For anything not answered already, please add your question on the Technical Support page so anyone else with the same or similar issue can learn too.
Our Site Development page will also help keep you up-to-date with ongoing changes and challenges with the site.
ALL OF THESE HELP LINKS ARE AVAILABLE FROM ANY PAGE IN THE LEFT-HAND SIDEBAR.
Your participation and use of this site helps to make it grow and become more accessible to the millions of people who know nothing, or little, or have a skewed view of Scientology, Scientologists, LRHL. Ron Hubbard and the Tech.
Please read the "Disclaimers", "About Scientolipedia" and "Privacy policy" articles at the bottom of any page.
Thank you for your support and participation.
All The Best,
President
