Answering an unanswered question about my OSA Operatives thread on ESMB v1.0.

Panda Termint

Cabal of One
CaliMule asked an unanswered question about Hubbard's "Reject Buttons", something I'd mentioned in the OSA How To thread on ESMB. I'm pretty sure that I already answered that question somewhere on the thread itself but, just to save you diving back into the swamp, I'm logging in here to answer the question.
The "Reject Buttons List" was (as far as I remember) a list of things to say (and assert annoyingly) whilst "pretending to be a critic of scientology". They were hyperbolic words such as "biggest, baddest, meanest, worstest (lol)" etc words that painted the speaker/writer as hysterical and prone to exaggeration, the purpose of using them was to make the listener/reader reject the rest of what was said in "criticism of scientology" and (hopefully) make them reject other instances of the same/similar criticism of Hubbard and/or scientology. You might have noticed plenty of that sort of thing on ESMB (if you were looking for it) over the last few months. Best Wishes for ESMB Redux, I wish you well. :)
 

Panda Termint

Cabal of One
Yes, but did it work? I'll bet it didn't. No matter who tried it.
It did work often at the time but you'd have to remember that the world was a very different place in the 1970s. These days people are, for the most part, desensitized about hyperbole, exagerration and such, it's become something of a cultural norm in western society thanks to advertising, media, and social media.
In any event, I'm not here to argue as to its effectiveness or lack thereof, I'm just answering a question that was asked. :)
 

PirateAndBum

Administrator
Staff member
While OSA types might well do that, quite a large number of posters on Rinder's and Tony's blog make hyperbolic statements and I'm pretty sure they're not agents. It is understandable that people are upset about the bad things done.

Sorry to agree with Alanzo, but it goes over the top way too much and makes those against scientology abuses look like fanatics.
 

guanoloco

As-Wased
While OSA types might well do that, quite a large number of posters on Rinder's and Tony's blog make hyperbolic statements and I'm pretty sure they're not agents. It is understandable that people are upset about the bad things done.

Sorry to agree with Alanzo, but it goes over the top way too much and makes those against scientology abuses look like fanatics.
One of the things I liked about ESMB was Veda's balanced posts acknowledging good things in Scientology.

The reverse of that is the embellished stories. Reading those actually kept me in longer as I would think Hu666ard was right - it was SP crazy bank natter from overts.

HIP! HIP!
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
.
While OSA types might well do that, quite a large number of posters on Rinder's and Tony's blog make hyperbolic statements and I'm pretty sure they're not agents. It is understandable that people are upset about the bad things done.

Sorry to agree with Alanzo, but it goes over the top way too much and makes those against scientology abuses look like fanatics.
I don't read enough of the comments section of either of those blogs to get a good feel for what you're referring to.
But somehow I doubt that you're actually agreeing with Alanzo's postition on this. The way in which he portrayed the ESMB forum was absurd, making it look like all were members of the Borg, with a hive mind, all accepting the same belief system of the "anti-scientologist tribe" and all behaving in the same way.
 
Last edited:

Pseudonym

Well-known member
While OSA types might well do that, quite a large number of posters on Rinder's and Tony's blog make hyperbolic statements and I'm pretty sure they're not agents. It is understandable that people are upset about the bad things done.

Sorry to agree with Alanzo, but it goes over the top way too much and makes those against scientology abuses look like fanatics.
I think people can extrapolate for themselves contextually distinguishing well reasoned informative posts from knee jerk hyperbolic reaction posts regardless of the venue.

Poster A occasionally posts over the top statements.
Thus everyone posts over the top statements.
Conclusion: Ex-scio's are over the top fanatics.

That is a deductive fallacy based on a misleading generality to discredit people speaking out against scientology. Instead of weighing the content of individual comments ex's as a whole were portrayed as unbelievable and unreliable which is another fallacy commonly known as poisoning the well.

I know you don't do that. I'm pointing out the illogical reasoning recently used against ex's.

:)
 

Aerial

Member
Not to mention, the use of the words “admitted / admit”.

So and so admitted....
Do you admit that.......

This heavily implies that the person had been dishonest or deceptive. Using the words “stated, said, responded” etc” would be more appropriate and accurate.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal of One
...

Poster A occasionally posts over the top statements.
Thus everyone posts over the top statements.
Conclusion: Ex-scio's are over the top fanatics.

...
... and that's, more or less, the thinking behind the Hubbard instructions on using the "Reject Buttons". By using exaggeration and hyperbole in "criticism" the caper is meant to convince people that critics of scientology are "over the top fanatics".
I chose to answer the question here because I didn't want to leave readers (of the OSA Operatives How To thread) with the idea that the Reject Buttons were some mysterious concatenation of magic words, they're everyday English words which convey extremism. :)
 

Glenda

Well-known member
I think people can extrapolate for themselves contextually distinguishing well reasoned informative posts from knee jerk hyperbolic reaction posts regardless of the venue.

Poster A occasionally posts over the top statements.
Thus everyone posts over the top statements.
Conclusion: Ex-scio's are over the top fanatics.

That is a deductive fallacy based on a misleading generality to discredit people speaking out against scientology. Instead of weighing the content of individual comments ex's as a whole were portrayed as unbelievable and unreliable which is another fallacy commonly known as poisoning the well.

I know you don't do that. I'm pointing out the illogical reasoning recently used against ex's.

:)
Partly I agree with you and partly I don't. Whether "others" can ..."contextually distinguish well reasoned informative posts from knee jerk..." is imo a very grey area of human behaviour/thinking. When a lot of highly emotive language is being used it is not easy to retain a broad view of the context of a subject. The focus of the issue at hand can get lost in the noise and diversions often enter the discussion. Reasoning, logic, is all good but there is something else which tends to be over-looked. Emotional intelligence. The capacity to remain alert, retain impulse control under pressure as well as remain connected to others in a decent compassionate honest fair manner.

The emotionally unintelligent tend to have a separation from their thought processing and emotional experiences. Therefore there is a tendency to follow any party line, any idea, that suits their own thought patterning and brings a bit of comfort to their own emotional experience(s). Black and white thinking and the consequent language and behaviour seems to derive from here.

This is a big subject. I have learned a bit over the years just observing the dialogue of former scientologists (usually on-line but not limited to). Many ex's have been really hurt by their scientology experiences. Ghastly stuff has happened and the consequences post-scn life is often difficult to reconcile/make peace with. This is a vulnerability and can shape people if they allow it to. There are people with agendas that "enjoy" exploiting others vulnerabilities i.e. those using the policies of Hubbard's in the intelligence branch (OSA); those with limited impulse control/emotional intelligence that enjoy watching others hurt/suffer because it distracts them from their own inner crap.

Reasoning may not always been the driving factor with unexplored vulnerabilities. Just my opinion. I remain a student of life. :)
 

Pseudonym

Well-known member
Partly I agree with you and partly I don't. Whether "others" can ..."contextually distinguish well reasoned informative posts from knee jerk..." is imo a very grey area of human behaviour/thinking. When a lot of highly emotive language is being used it is not easy to retain a broad view of the context of a subject. The focus of the issue at hand can get lost in the noise and diversions often enter the discussion. Reasoning, logic, is all good but there is something else which tends to be over-looked. Emotional intelligence. The capacity to remain alert, retain impulse control under pressure as well as remain connected to others in a decent compassionate honest fair manner.

The emotionally unintelligent tend to have a separation from their thought processing and emotional experiences. Therefore there is a tendency to follow any party line, any idea, that suits their own thought patterning and brings a bit of comfort to their own emotional experience(s). Black and white thinking and the consequent language and behaviour seems to derive from here.

This is a big subject. I have learned a bit over the years just observing the dialogue of former scientologists (usually on-line but not limited to). Many ex's have been really hurt by their scientology experiences. Ghastly stuff has happened and the consequences post-scn life is often difficult to reconcile/make peace with. This is a vulnerability and can shape people if they allow it to. There are people with agendas that "enjoy" exploiting others vulnerabilities i.e. those using the policies of Hubbard's in the intelligence branch (OSA); those with limited impulse control/emotional intelligence that enjoy watching others hurt/suffer because it distracts them from their own inner crap.

Reasoning may not always been the driving factor with unexplored vulnerabilities. Just my opinion. I remain a student of life. :)
My post was strictly in the sphere of formal and impromptu illogical debating errors refuting the slanderous conclusions made about ex's recently. On a wider scope you make some excellent valid points since people are obviously more complicated behaviorally than a set of fallacies.
 

PirateAndBum

Administrator
Staff member
.


I don't read enough of the comments section of either of those blogs to get a good feel for what you're referring to.
But somehow I doubt that you're actually agreeing with Alanzo's postition on this. The way in which he portrayed the ESMB forum was absurd, making it look like all were members of the Borg, with a hive mind, all accepting the same belief system of the "anti-scientologist tribe" and all behaving in the same way.
No, I don't agree with Alanzo's position. I will say that there are definitely allegiances that arise on these internet fora and dissenting views are often unwelcome. Alanzo is a whole different animal. His tactics earned him the derision he got in the last weeks of ESMB. Making blanket statements about the members of ESMB was way off base. Whatever "truth" he might have been trying to get across was lost in his nasty approach. He didn't come to discuss, he came to chastise, label and assert his superior rightness.

As you may have noticed. I took Alanzo to task at every turn. He failed to respond in any meaningful way to my posts and to answer any questions I (or anyone else) put to him.
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
No, I don't agree with Alanzo's position. I will say that there are definitely allegiances that arise on these internet fora and dissenting views are often unwelcome. Alanzo is a whole different animal. His tactics earned him the derision he got in the last weeks of ESMB. Making blanket statements about the members of ESMB was way off base. Whatever "truth" he might have been trying to get across was lost in his nasty approach. He didn't come to discuss, he came to chastise, label and assert his superior rightness.

As you may have noticed. I took Alanzo to task at every turn. He failed to respond in any meaningful way to my posts and to answer any questions I (or anyone else) put to him.
Surely there is truth to this, not just within the Ex-Scientologist community, but across many different types of forums, both online and off.

But the manner in which one puts forth his views and interacts with others is a major factor in how others respond. Any person, no matter how reasonable his views are, will not be well received in any community if he insults 90% of the individual members and the community as a whole and is generally abusive. It's not so much that his views are unwelcome, but the person himself is unwelcome.
 
Last edited:

PirateAndBum

Administrator
Staff member
Surely there is truth to this, not just within the Ex-Scientologist community, but across many different times of forums, both online and off.

But the manner in which one puts forth his views and interacts with others is a major factor in how others respond. Any person, no matter how reasonable his views are, will not be well received in any community if he insults 90% of the individual members and the community as a whole and is generally abusive. It's not so much that his views are unwelcome, but the person himself is unwelcome.
Exactly!
 
Top