Talk:Thetan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:22, 17 March 2006 editTerryeo (talk \| contribs)7,752 edits That weight experiment← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:39, 17 March 2006 edit undoAntaeus Feldspar (talk \| contribs)17,763 edits Terryeo's third, perhaps fourth repetition of a sleazy tired lieNext edit →
Line 161:		Line 161:
	:::Have you ever considered that just ''possibly'' your idea that ''only'' devoted and convinced Scientologists like you and Spirit of Man and Nuview have "opinions" which "might put the slightest bit of meaning into an article" is what's incorrect here? Not to mention arrogant. -- ] 18:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)		:::Have you ever considered that just ''possibly'' your idea that ''only'' devoted and convinced Scientologists like you and Spirit of Man and Nuview have "opinions" which "might put the slightest bit of meaning into an article" is what's incorrect here? Not to mention arrogant. -- ] 18:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
	::::How have I not been clear with you Feldspar? I want these articles to present the information they are about. I want them to accurately present them as you might prefer some other faith accurately present the idea of "spirit". After the subject is presented, so that a reader can know what is being talked about, then I have no objection to controvery in the article. What is unclear to you about that? This goal is Misplaced Pages's goal and I would assume your goal too. But your statement implies that '''nothing''' in any of these articles should have the slightest bit of meaning. This is the second time you have made a statement like that. The first was in the ] talk page when you said something about the article should not have any of the information which is between the covers of the book, in the article. This word "Thetan" it is a symbol and it stands for an idea. The meaning of the idea needs to be presented to the reader, after which time, well, hey, fill that article right up with controversy if you wish to. As long as the citations are in good order. ] 19:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)		::::How have I not been clear with you Feldspar? I want these articles to present the information they are about. I want them to accurately present them as you might prefer some other faith accurately present the idea of "spirit". After the subject is presented, so that a reader can know what is being talked about, then I have no objection to controvery in the article. What is unclear to you about that? This goal is Misplaced Pages's goal and I would assume your goal too. But your statement implies that '''nothing''' in any of these articles should have the slightest bit of meaning. This is the second time you have made a statement like that. The first was in the ] talk page when you said something about the article should not have any of the information which is between the covers of the book, in the article. This word "Thetan" it is a symbol and it stands for an idea. The meaning of the idea needs to be presented to the reader, after which time, well, hey, fill that article right up with controversy if you wish to. As long as the citations are in good order. ] 19:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
			:::::''But your statement implies that '''nothing''' in any of these articles should have the slightest bit of meaning. This is the second time you have made a statement like that.'' What a tiresome liar you are, Terryeo. How is it that you lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and never stop to think "Gee, maybe there's something ''wrong'' with my crusade if I have to run like a scared rabbit from the truth any time I come anywhere near it?" As anyone can verify by going and reading ], what I said was not "the article should not have any of the information which is between the covers of the book, in the article" but that ''this'' article did not ''need to'' cover the subject of Dianetics because there was ''already'' an article that had been doing that for nearly five years! You're like the sleazy politician who tries to smear his opponent by saying "You know how little Mayor Jones cares about law and order in this city? He ''voted against'' the bill that I introduced which would have created a police department!" What Selectman Sleaze ''fails'' to mention is that the city ''already has'' a police department, which is why they voted against Sleaze's proposal that they create a ''second'' police department to which Sleaze's brother-in-law would automatically be appointed the chief of police. So this is, what, the third, fourth time you've trotted out that little trick? How is it that you pull sleazy stunts like this -- ''constantly'' -- and then you act ''surprised'' and blame other editors when they don't trust you? -- ] 18:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

	== contested paragraph placed here for citing ==		== contested paragraph placed here for citing ==

Revision as of 18:39, 17 March 2006

How the did you do that, Wikipediatrix? "Thetan" was a redirect and now it is an article. How did you do that? heh ! Terryeo 14:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with you that a separate article for "Thetan" is necessary, and that it's essential for the reader to understand Hubbard's core concept of "Thetan" before going on to "Operating Thetan". Just remember this the next time you claim I'm just out to "cause confusion" and "destroy any chance of understanding Dianetics" as you said on my talk page. *smile* wikipediatrix 18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Okee Dokee, I'll keep it in mind. BTW, would you mind spelling out more specifically what you meant when you said, "Dianetics Kills?" Or did I misunderstand and you didn't say that? Terryeo 04:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I said no such thing and you know it, assuming you can read. I've set you straight on this already, so why are you asking the same thing again? The way you sometimes know things and sometimes don't, makes it sound as if you're either schizophrenic, or more than one person is editing under your username. wikipediatrix 14:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As I trace your replies to my posts, I can see how it might appear to be that way. No, I am the only person who edits with this screen name. I sometimes have blocks of time and edit across several subjects. I was of the impression you had stated that in a reply and thought it was a quickie dismiss of a real question. I think I posted that question in several places and have seen you reply to it, eventually, as you came to it in several places. Sometimes it seems to me that your edits result in more confusion than good sense, but I suppose my edits look to you like I am pushing a point of view rather than allowing the normal inflammatory arguement? heh. Terryeo 02:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

is thetan to be dealt with as a theory

WP:NOR#How_to_deal_with_Wikipedia_entries_about_theories tells how to deal with theories. If "Thetan" is a theory then we would want to arrive at a concensus of opinion. But if it is an information intuitive in concept to a reader then we simply present it as we would apples or oranges, citing primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Which way do we go with this one? Terryeo 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I say we discuss it just like one would discuss the idea of alien abductions, a flat earth, the efficacy of blue laundry balls, and any such other topic. Point out which parts of the article are merely beliefs spouted out by some religious leader, and which parts have scientific validity. Vivaldi 07:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as you have the idea that "thetan" is the Scientology word for "spirit" (as in other religions and their use of the word "spirit" instead of "thetan") then we can probably arrive at concensus on presentation and content. Terryeo 19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If all there was to the word "thetan" was the implication of "spirit", then deluded cult members wouldn't need the word "thetan" at all. And if "thetan" means the same as other religions' "spirit", then this article would be sufficient as a redirect to the "spirit" article, or perhaps a one-line sentence: "Thetan is the word Scientologist's use when normal English speakers mean 'spirit'". Vivaldi 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In broad, general ways that is exactly and precisely correct. "Thetan" means "spirit". However, Scientology does not stop with the Christian or Islamic idea that an individual's spirit leaves their body and goes to some "heaven" but instead spells out further things about the behaviour of one's spirit, the things which have an effect on one's spirit and has stated its purpose (within the Church of Scientology) to be to "rehabilitate the spirit". So, yes, it is a very simple, "thetan" means "spirit". But there is more information that has been gleaned and published about an individual's spirit. That's the meaning though, basically, of "thetan".Terryeo 15:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your first sentence is OR, stating the use is exclusive to cult members. You are misinformed to so state because the word has appeared in many books and other publications for many years. Your second statement tells us, you don't know what the word means but suggests it might have similar meanings to "spirit". Terryeo 18:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

My second statement was a restatement of your statement, "...thetan is the Scientology word for "spirit"." I fully understand that thetan is completely different from what is conveyed by the word spirit. I also fully understand what it is that Hubbard says a Thetan is and what he said a Thetan was capable of. Vivaldi 18:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

removed sentence pasted here for discussion and citing

"Its existence is merely Hubbard's fanciful speculation." (refering to thetan). Since Christianity has, for more than 2000 years, postulated that man might exist as a sprit, and because Islam likewise has a belief that people might have a spiritual existence, the above sentence which attributes the idea of "spirit" to Hubbard alone, is completely silly. Can you provide any citation for that? HEH Terryeo 20:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The existance of a THETAN is merely Hubbard's fanciful speculation. Apparently you need to word clear that sentence. Even if Hubbard plagiarized his writings from the works of thousands of other people, doesn't change that fact. The existance of a THETAN is merely Hubbard's fanciful speculation. Said another way: The thetan is nothing more than Hubbard's fanciful speculation. The thetan is not proven beyond Hubbard's fanciful speculation. The thetan does not exist as anything more than Hubbard's speculation.

The concept of a thetan as Hubbard defines it (as an entity that is capable of exteriorization of the human body with full perceptics) is completely a fanciful notion. It has no basis in scientific fact whatsoever. Your claim that Christians or Muslims believe in the existence of a similar spirit is completely irrelevant. This article isn't about Islam or Christianity. I have never heard a priest or imam claim that a human spirit was capable of acting on earth outside of the living body (and then able to return to the living body), and if I did hear one make that claim, I would also point out that it was also a ridiculous and fanciful claim. Vivaldi 07:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vivaldi. Could you be really clear if you are attempting to present that "man could not possibly be a spirit" and that, "there is no scientific proof that man is a spirit" OR if you are attempting to present, "Hubbard is bunk?" I am unclear if you are stating that ALL occurances of the belief, "man has a spiritual manifestation" is bunk, or if you are particularly and singularly targeting Hubbard's clarifications (i.e. his descriptions of spirit). To put it another way, "are all occassions of spirit in every religion to be treated as a theory, or, alternatively, is there some portion of the thetan article that you wish to treat as theory?Terryeo 08:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about THETAN. I don't believe it is worthwhile or relevant to discuss other religions in an article about thetan. If you can demonstrate even one single person on the face of the earth with supernatural OT Powers, then I suggest you go claim the $1 Million prize offered by James Randi. There isn't anyone that can exteriorize their "thetan". NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON! EVER! Your criminal Church is actively promoting a lie and you are working as an agent for that church. You are a fraud and the Church of Scientology is a fraud. Someday, you will regret ever having wasted your life in this criminal cult. Mark my words. Even the Inspector General of the RTC, Mark Rathbun, and Warren McShane, finally smartened up and abandoned your cult. Someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, you too will "see the light".Vivaldi 07:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this article is titled and about the subject "Thetan" which is the term Scientology uses where other religions use the word "spirit" and means the same. Vivaldi, no one is argueing with what you know to be true. No one is trying to convince you that the article is fact or fallacy. What is being spoken of is what the Church of Scientology states. I would invite you to understand what is meant by this single word and would further invite further discussion toward your continued editing. This isn't some sort of personal thing, Vivaldi, this is about putting informations, pieces of information together in a sensible way so people can understand what those informations mean. And then do as they wish to with the informations they have learned. Have a nice day. Terryeo 08:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If "thetan" means the same thing as "spirit" then there is no need for the article at all. However in Scientology, "thetan" is much more than a spirit. According to the clueless moron that invented Scientology, a thetan can control MEST at will and a thetan can "exteriorize with full perceptics" from a living body and then reoccupy that body at will. Also, one type of thetan is the disembodied "souls" of aliens that were blown up by Galactic Overlord Xenu 75 million years ago, that currently inhabit the bodies of all human beings -- and only high-priced Scientology courses can extract these alien demons. Wait until you reach OTIII, Terryeo, I'm sure you'll have a great time congratulating yourself on what a wise purchase you made when you get to read it. Vivaldi 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen many Scientologists claim that Scientology is not a belief system, that it doesn't require that anyone "believe" anything. However, it is clear that if a Scientologist didn't "believe" that things like "engrams" and "thetans" were things that existed in reality -- they couldn't be Scientologists for long. A "thetan" is a Scientology belief. There is nothing in the scientific world that demonstrates that a "thetan" exists in reality. Vivaldi 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am another one who would tell you that there is no belief in Scientology. As a person can refuse to understand what the word "cell" means, so too a person may refuse to understand the meaning of "spirit". That's every individual's right. But, if a person should choose to understand the meaning of the word "cell" then they could study biology. And if a person chose to understand the meaning of the word "spirit", and made up a few sentences using the word "spirit" (no matter how silly that sounds), then they could study the subject and understand what is being said. Terryeo 00:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And any biologist that didn't accept the scientific meaning of the word "cell" would be ostracized. And any Scientologist that refused to accept that an "engram" or a "thetan" existed would not be allowed to continue through the courses required to become an OT. Vivaldi 08:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point something out, but I have no idea how to accomplish a communication with you becuase anything I mention is some kind of arguement with you. There is something which is meant by the term, "cell", right? And that idea, that is not an actual cell but a conception, an understanding, an idea. A biologist who understood the term could work with the term and communicate with others about ideas, ideas which included the idea (which is agreed on) of "cell" and a cell's actions as it lives. Do you see the direction I'm pointing to? The same use of an idea in communicating happens with "spirit". A person need not "accept" that a "spirit" exists at all, but a person could communicate about the idea anyway. We can understand what each other means to communicate, even if we don't agree the other person's is real. It would help here, though, if you confined yourself to producing a good article for the reader rather than challenging the reality of what I consider real. That would be helpful to readers of Misplaced Pages.Terryeo 17:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how to communicate with people as ignorant as you, Terryeo. Using your analogy about the word "cell". If there was considerable scientific doubt that such a thing as a cell existed, then the article at the word "cell" would also mention that the term "cell" is a concept that few scientists believed in. The same should apply to this article. There is nothing that demonstrates the existence of a thetan, nor can it be shown that Scientology techniques can provide "freedom" to a thetan. Vivaldi 20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"I have no idea how to communicate with people as ignorant as you, Terryeo."</small Yet most of the discussion on this page has been my pointing out, carefully, the meaning of the term which the article is about. This, contrary to your earlier statements on this talk page which spell out your uncertainty of the meaning of the term. Terryeo 18:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Body Thetan

A body thetan is a type of thetan and it should be mentioned here just as much as operating thetan should be mentioned. If Hubbard didn't think that the disembodied souls of space aliens weren't thetans, he would have called them something else when he came up with OT III. Vivaldi 07:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo has again removed the content about Body Thetan from this article discussing the scientology uses of the word thetan. It is important to include both Body Thetan and Operating Thetan here because both are common uses of the word. In Upper Level OT courses, one learns that all humans are infested with BTs, the disembodied souls of nuclear blasted aliens. Further Scientology courses and auditing are required to remove these body thetans. Vivaldi 23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This article's title is "thetan". There is a "body thetan" article, perhaps the section which seems umm, to you to be very similar to this article could be placed in the body thetan article and this article might point to it at "see other". Myself, I know the two terms to mean different things but I see your point. Both use a similar term, "thetan".Terryeo 17:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A body thetan is a type of thetan. Just as operating thetan is a type of thetan. What do you think a Body Thetan is? Is it not the spirit of a being also? Vivaldi 20:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Freedom

First of all the section that was previously titled "Freedom" is silly. Here is one sentence, "The Bridge to Total Freedom (The Bridge) leads to an individual having the freedom to live and operate in this way." Now, come on. That comes straight out of the Church of Scientology promotion pack.

There is no evidence that something like a thetan exists, let alone any evidence that one can "free" their thetan and make it do supernatural things like exist outside the human body.

Define the terms Thetan, Body Thetan, and Operating Thetan and leave the religious advertising and hullyballoo to the www.scientology.org website. Vivaldi 08:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll give this one more try. Misplaced Pages's purpose is not to present what is real and what is not real. I understand that you would strike from man's knowledge, strike all mention of "thetan", okay? And you would do that because it is so obviously not real, not real to you and obviously not real to anyone. I get it, you have said so. But, it is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to present what is real, what is actual, what is valid. Instead Misplaced Pages intends to present published information. The information of this article has been published for maybe 50 years. It is being published, read and used today. Its perfectly okay that you know "thetan" and "spirit" to be utterly false and untrue ideas. That's not the point of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages presents scientific theories which are unproven and other ideas, published ideas. That's the intent of Misplaced Pages. Terryeo 17:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't know what a "scientific theory" is. As far as your ideas on the purpose of Misplaced Pages, I'd have to disagree with you. As far as I can tell, Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a compedium of knowledge. In order for something to count as knowledge it must be justified, true, and believed. So a thetan does not qualify as knowledge because it is not justified, is not true, and probably not even believed by more than a minute percentage of people on Earth. It is knowledge, the fact that Scientology teaches that a Thetan can be disembodied and can control a body. It is also knowledge that numerous studies have demonstrated that such a thing as a Thetan has never been able to exteriorize from the body with full perceptics (or control MEST) as has been advertised by the church on many occasions. Vivaldi 18:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Justified - False. True - False. Believed - False. In order for an information to become part of Misplaced Pages it must be published. Period, that's it. It is up to you, if you wish to edit to understand the ground from which you work and the direction you work toward. WP:NPOV(prime, stable policy), expressed as WP:V and WP:NOR. Read them if you wish to, everyone else does who edits very much.Terryeo 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to word clear the following words: "Encyclopedia", "Knowledge", "Justified", "True", and "Believed". You also need to realize that Misplaced Pages does not, and will not ever, require that any particular piece of information remain just because it is published somewhere. The quality of the source is often an issue and when appropriate to do so, published information is removed if that "information" is deemed inappropriate. Some authorities are valued more than others. Despite what you have been taught in your Study Tech courses, L. Ron Hubbard is not a respected scientist, nor is LRH a respected authority on science, physics, engineering, psychiatry, medicine, psychology, pharmacology, nuclear engineering, calculus, or any of other pursuits that he has demonstrated his complete failure to grasp even the most basic concepts of. Don't worry Terryeo. There is still time for you to save yourself from your criminal cult. Once you are out, you won't have to worry about your stats being met again this week. Vivaldi 09:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is how Misplaced Pages treats another ludicrous proposition, the notion of a Flat Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/Flat_earth You notice that the article mentions that in reality the Earth is not flat, but rather holds a spherical shape? You notice that the article points out that besides in very remote rural places, people no longer believe in a flat earth? Just because you have an idea that a thetan exists or that a thetan can become "free" doesn't mean that an encyclopedia is under any obligation to hold that belief up as true or correct. Vivaldi 18:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The word which defines this article is "thetan". It is a specialized word and used in a specialized way by a specialized group. Physics too, has its specialized words. Even your own group, your own peers, have a few specialized words with specialized meanings, specialized to your activities and probably not understood by anyone else. The difference with Physics and Scientology is, those words have a published meaning. The public has been informed of their meaning. Such is the case here. The article exists to present to the reader what the term means, how it is used, and something about the context it is used in. If you wish to have the article removed as an article, Misplaced Pages has processes for you to follow. If you wish to remove all of the Scientology articles, Misplaced Pages has avenues of action you may persue. It is beyond my control. Is it beyond yours? Terryeo 23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish for it to be removed. I said define the terms and leave the advertising to the Church of Scientology's own webpages. You can't make the claim that Scientology can provide freedom to a thetan without providing evidence of that claim. If you want to say Scientology belief states that thetans can exteriorize from the body with full perceptics and then go back inside a living body, then thats okay. Just don't make the claim that Scientology really offers such abilities under the guise of "freedom". Vivaldi 23:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am writing an article. You said, "define ..." and you advised me. Your tone is challenging, your syntax convoluted and confused, your intent unclear, your edits uneducated and your manner repulsive. Have a nice day, bye :) Terryeo 00:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not writing an article. You are writing nonsense. There was a sentence in this article that said that "freedom" could be attained through the practice of Scientology. That particular statement is complete nonsense. There has been not one single shred of evidence ever produced by a Scientologist that indicates that a "thetan" can be "freed" through the practice of Scientology. As far as being uneducated, I would love to wager that my education background and intelligence far exceeds your deluded cult mind. Let's pick a neutral arbitrar and submit our Curriculum Vitae. I would wager that you have nothing more than a high school diploma, if that. In any case, this isn't about you or me, this is about the nature of true and verifiable information that was presented in the article. Scientology cannot show that a thetan even exists, let alone show that "freedom" can be attained. If you can provide even a shred of evidence of "freedom" of a "thetan" then you are eligible to recieve a $1 million prize from James Randi. Of course no Scientologist has even bothered to apply to collect the $1 million prize, because they know that Scientology isn't about truth or science, it is all about collecting money from unsuspecting victims. Vivaldi 08:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I say I am writing an article. You say I am not. I say I am editing per Wiki Policies and guidelines. You say I am writing nonsense. The middle portion of your post is a sort of personal challenge. The wiki guildelines spell out editor behavior. Were you able to understand and apply them your editing would be more productive. The last part of your posting has nothing to do with the article, instead it challenges the validity of published information. What's the point of communicating with you? Misplaced Pages isn't about the validity of the information in its articles, but about the quality of the information in its articles. If you didn't use an antagonistic tone with me, I would attempt to bring you to understanding of what Wiki's policies are and how they apply to informations but your communications fequently hold an edge that doesn't challenge the quality of information, but instead challenges the validity of it, or challenges me in some way. That simply isn't productive, it doesn't produce an article.Terryeo 15:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Wiki's policies. I am also aware that you like to tell others to follow wiki rules that you do not follow yourself. Information that is not truthful or valid is not quality information. Quality and truthfulness are inexorably intertwined. I realize that might take a long time to get through your head and perhaps you might have to go through some cult deprogramming to figure it out. Hopefully, some day, you can be free from your criminal cult and you can actually engage in productive truthful communication with other humans. Vivaldi 20:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edits and your talk page discussions say that you do not understand the term "thetan". That's plenty for me. Earlier you insisting that Hubbard had orgininated the idea "spirit" and therefore an article on Thetan was a distored, twisted lie. Now your arguements bring up the idea that "truth" should be extant in these articles. Misplaced Pages was not founded on any idea that "truth" should be the basis of any Misplaced Pages article. Until you understand the basis for building a Wikipeida, how can any other editor consider your convoluted lack of understanding to be educatable. "Truth". Ha ! Terryeo 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You pathetic liar. Were you this much of a liar before you joined the cult of Scientology? I never one time said that Hubbard originated the idea "spirit". You have been advised of this fact numerous times. You continue to lie. I can understand why a Scientologist would mock "Truth", because there is nothing more devasting to a dedicated Scientologist than the truth exposed for all to see. Vivaldi 09:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA Ronabop 11:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are unable to deliver communications without implications of attack. Unfortunately. That you do not understand the idea of "spirit", I can understand that. That you then, can not grasp the idea of "thetan" only follows. You invite discussion and proof that any person is more free than you are :) Terryeo 09:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Your attacks are just more subtle. I am just more forthright and honest because I haven't been deluded by a criminal cult that forces a person to twist their logic into pretzel-shaped forms. I fully understand the concept of the word "spirit". I also fully understand the concept of the word "thetan". The vast majority of the populace that believe in "spirit", do not believe in reincarnation as Scientology teaches that a "thetan" can do, nor do most people that use the word "spirit" think that they can extricate their own spirits from their body at will. Most people that believe in a "spirit" think that their spirit and body are intertwined inexorably until death where then it is judged by a Creator who can opt for the spirit to enter Heaven. This notion of a spirit is different from Scientology's notion of a thetan, which is why Hubbard chose the world thetan instead of using the preexisting word "spirit". If they were identical terms, then this article would be nothing more than a redirect to spririt. But you already knew that. Vivaldi 18:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand something, therefore you attempt to make an article present your misunderstanding. A = A = A. "There is no spirit" = "Thetan is a word for spirit" = "There is no thetan". I understand what you are saying. Your task however, is not to fool me, but to find a verification that "There is no thetan", quote it and cite it. That's what wikipeida is made of, not personal attacks, not judging the other editor "has been deluded by a criminal cult that forces a person to twist their logic into pretzel-shaped forms". Your judgement of another editor (and saying so) earns one thing. Guess what that is Mr. Vindictive? Terryeo 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You are a filthy liar. You have no comprehension skills. I never once wrote that there was not a "spirit". Nor did I ever write that Hubbard invented the idea of "spirit". Your pathetic and twisted mind is again resorting to outright lying in order to hide the fact that your cult promotes pseudoscientific bullshit on a regular basis. As far as judging another editor, at least when I make my judgements I don't lie, as you have deliberately done -- now on numerous occasions. Vivaldi 09:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA Ronabop 11:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I have not lied. at this difference:

What does that edit have to do with anything? I never once wrote that there was not a spirit and I never suggested that Hubbard invented the idea of "spirit". Hubbard did have some fanciful speculation about the existence of a thing called a thetan, but that isn't the same thing as a spirit, as we both well know. Vivaldi 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi edited to produce: ""There is no scientific evidence that indicates the existence of a thetan. Its existence is merely the fanciful speculation of science-fiction writer, ." (at which edit Vivaldi removed a quoted, cited piece of text). Then at this difference: Vivaldi corrrected the earlier edit to yield: ""There is no scientific evidence that indicates the existence of a thetan. Its existence is merely Hubbard's fanciful speculation." Which Vivaldi now states he never stated. In addition to these statements, on this page alone, Vivaldi has made these personal attacks to me:

You are a liar. I never said that Hubbard invented the idea of "spirit". Your continual repetition of the same lie does not turn it into the truth, despite what you may have learned in your Church of Scientology communication course. Vivaldi 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA Ronabop 11:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying something Ronabop.WP:NPA Terryeo 12:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you need to word clear that sentence
Your criminal Church is actively promoting a lie and you are working as an agent for that church
You are a fraud and the Church of Scientology is a fraud
I have no idea how to communicate with people as ignorant as you, Terryeo
Don't worry Terryeo. There is still time for you to save yourself from your criminal cult
You pathetic liar.
You are a filthy liar. You have no comprehension skills
Your pathetic and twisted mind is again resorting to outright lying in order to hide the fact that your cult promotes pseudoscientific bullshit on a regular basis.

There you go Vivaldi, it is easy enough to read and check on for anyone with the ability to click a mouse.

Yes it is now easy to see for everyone. You have clearly demonstrated that you are in fact an unrepentent liar. I never once said that Hubbard invented the idea of a "spirit" and I never once said that a "spirit" is something that does not exist. You have not and you cannot show otherwise. You have repeated the same lie numerous times now, and I fully expect your deluded cult mind to continue to push the exact same lie yet again. There is a cure for that, Terryeo, but more than likely you will have to leave your criminal cult to gain the skill sets necessary to learn that repetition of a lie does not turn it into the truth. Don't worry, there is still time for you to save yourself. You don't have to be a victim of your cult forever. Vivaldi 04:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA Ronabop 11:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, Terryeo 18:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please There is no excuse for your deliberate lying Terryeo. Please stop your deliberate and intentional lying! Terryeo, I consider your deliberate lies about me and my statements to be a personal attack on me. I would encourage you to quit repeating your vile lies in this forum. I never stated that Hubbard invented the idea for spirit, yet you continue to say that I did. That is a personal attack on me. Your lying is no different than if I stated, "Terryeo is a convicted pedophile that molests dead donkeys". You think you can make your subtle attacks on my character with impunity through the use of malicious and intentional deceit. Unfortunately for you, outside here in the real world, the Scientology communication tactic of repeating a lie does not turn it into the truth. Vivaldi 20:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Vivaldi, the policy does not say, "no personal attacks unless you are lied about" and it does not say, "no personal attacks unless you are called a bad name" and it does not say, "no personal attacks unless someone calls your relatives a bad name" and it does not say, "no personal attacks unless someone says you said something you didn't say". The policy says, no personal attacks. Period. That doesn't mean much really, it just means, no personal attacks under any conditions, ever. Period. Perhaps you see a difference between what the policy says and the things you have stated on this page. Terryeo 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I am also encouraging you to stop your personal attacks on me. You may think you are being clever with your subtle jibes, but nevertheless it is still an attack on me when you put words into my mouth or accuse me of non-comprehension. Perhaps you can see the difference between being an honest human being and a Scientologist? Vivaldi 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, perhaps you can also explain why this statement that you made is not a personal attack? "Whoever is writing this sucker could easily wear a nazi armband, there's hardly a straight sentence in it" from diff of Terryeo calling someone an editor a Nazi. Vivaldi 06:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you talk politely I am willing to reply politely. First of all you can notice that I did not direct that at a particular editor. It is a broad, general statement. At that time there were no, or almost no citations in it. It read as you would read a school book, without any reference about where the information comprising it came from. In addition to the "hardly a straight sentence in it" I made clear (I thought) the tone of the article was "nazi", suppressive, that it was written with an idea to present and invoke hostility, rather than to present dry, encyclopedic information. Terryeo 20:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to handle this

I want the article to accurately state Scientology's definition of "thetan" and tell of its context. When a reader gets that and understands what is meant by the term "thetan" then, after that, any controversy would be appropriate. Yet people edit the article, not to introduce controversy and make a better article. But edit the article to remove the meaning, the definition, the context of the term. Why wouldn't an editor want the subject introduced? Terryeo 23:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a mischaracterization to me. I'd love to see articles on all parts of Scientology, so that hopefully people will look it up here first and find out precisely what it is--dubious good mixed with great evil seems like an apt characterization. There's nothing against denouncing it as a ridiculous cult, provided we do it in a neutral and unbiased way, of course ^_^
On a more specific note, this article looks pretty good to me: the scope is precisely what it should be, it's not too long, and it is written in a neutral tone. However, Terryeo has some problems, which as usual he declines to specify. Hard to work on that kind of a basis. How about, Terry, you pick out sentances with which you have a problem, and tell us what the article doesn't say that it should. Hold off on your issues with the manner of presentation for a bit, unless you think that this article has all the information it needs in it. Tenebrous 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I specify. How can I be more clear. The articles should present the subject they are about. They should present the subject, introduce the subject, in a clear, easy to understand manner. This is only good sense, Mr. Tenebrous and I'm sure your articles do the same. The difference with controversial articles is that after the subject is understood by the reader, then he can read on and find out how the subject is controversial. Dubious good mixed with great evil? What are you talking about? I am talking about presenting the idea which stands behind the word, "thetan". It has been published and used for more than 50 years. It appears in a number of publications including the Scientology (red tech) dictionary. It is an idea. As "spirit" is an idea and not a physical object and not evil or good, it is an idea. I want the article to present the idea the symbol, the term, the word, "thetan" stands for. What is difficult about it? If you would like to see what the meaning of the term is, just click "history" of the article and pick an early one, before ChrisO and Feldspar begin to disperse the meanings. Terryeo 20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added some more info on the doctrinal aspects which hopefully should provide a bit more context. -- ChrisO 01:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion you have dispersed the meaning which the article presented by placing your "additional info" into the definitions of the term, before the term's meaning can be communicated to the reader. You confuse the meaning of "thetan" by placing the dispersive "theta being" (introducing the word theta, introducing the word theta being) into the intorduction. A reader doesn't even understand that "thetan" is and you are running him around the pole with "theta" which is an altogether different and individuated word with a different and individuated meaning. Terryeo 20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You want much more than that Terryeo, you have also been removing the explanation of the term Body Thetan BT from the bottom of the article, while simultaneously promoting the term Operating Thetan in most favorable glowing terms, at one point you even claimed that "freedom" could be attained for a thetan. Vivaldi 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been removing the "body thetan" section for reasons I spell out in my edit summaries. It is redundant, the same information is presented in the body thetan article and there is a link to it there. Why do you think it better to redundnatly present information?Terryeo 20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think its just fine for an encyclopedia to be redundant. Both the George Washington article and the Martha Washington article mention their marriage. Or an even better example, see Cat and one type of cat, the Tabby cat. Notice how the cat article talks a little about the tabby cat and also provides a link for more detailed information at the main article for tabby cat? Have you not noticed that this happens in thousands of articles on Misplaced Pages? We don't need to save paper or anything. It's not like anybody has to pick up Misplaced Pages and carry it home on their backs. Sometimes a small amount of redundancy is more convenient than flipping through all the articles to find the information you want. So perhaps someone looking for thetan will see Body Thetan and say to themselves, "Hey, this is what I was really looking for. I saw that show on TV where that guy talked about how Xenu blasted up aliens and their disembodied souls ended up as body thetans stuck to all humans and that Scientology had a cure, albeit a pricey one". Then our hero could then flip to the Body Thetan article and read more about it. Vivaldi 09:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's wrong for Terryeo to be deleting the short OT and BT precis sections - despite his claims in the edit summary, the information in the precis isn't redundant at all but leads quite naturally into the articles. His objection is plainly a cloak for his underlying POV reasons. -- ChrisO 01:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I read what you have said and again suggest that a reader goes to an article to learn the information whose title the article espouses. If you want to combine a bunch of articles into one article, you should have spoken up before the disambiguation of Operating Thetan and Thetan. Now we have 3 articles. You seem to oppose every possible meaning in any of them. Thetan means spirit, it is the equivalent of spirit in other religions. Why is such a simple, straightforeward idea so difficult to deal with that you want to disperse people with "body thetan" and "operating thetan", wasn't it your idea in the first place to create several articles?Terryeo 20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

thetan

I have tried to say. You don't own a thetan, you are a thetan. it is not, "my thetan is a glorious shining ball of energy" but, "I am a glorious shining ball of energy". The concept, the idea, the definition of thetan is, "that which you are". not "I am me and my body is over there and my thetan is over here." Whether you choose to believe, disbelieve, love or hate does not matter a whit to the defintion and use of the word. It does not matter what you believe, fill it up with controversy but it is not an accurate statement to say, "people's thetan's ....". What you are, that is what is meant by the word thetan. That of you which is aware that you are aware. Why do people edit articles they refuse to understand? You want to edit and don't know the subject? No Problem Misplaced Pages encourages you to. Just edit what you do know and understand, add controversy, etc. Please do not edit what you do not understand.Terryeo 23:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, though it doesn't really matter to the editing of the article, I'll try to explain this idea of "thetan". A person can look in the far distance and then look at something closer to them. A person can direct their attention to their toe or to their finger. A person can read, or not read. A person can recall someone they don't like, or recall someone they do like. The action of changing one's attention, that is done by an individual. Whether you call it "self" or "myself" or "all that I am" or by some other name, it is an indivudal doing an action. That is what Hubbard refered to, the individual who is (usually) capable of directing their attention. That is what is meant by the term thetan. The individual. The causative element which is usually thought of as "me" or "self" or refered to when someone says, "you". Terryeo 11:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and everyone already understood that. The only one here who isn't understanding something is you -- you don't understand that when we have used the phrase "my thetan", the "my" does not mean "something which I own, which is separate from me", any more than when one of us says "my self", they mean "something which I own, which is separate from me." See, in your eagerness to pretend that all the rest of us don't understand anything and that therefore all the editing should be left to those who "understand" (i.e., those who share your POV), you've created this whole fallacy that "my" designates separation and you've refused to comprehend the fact that counter-examples clearly show this not to be the case. And now, after your uncivil ravings about other editors "work as a team to destroy, defile, disperse and degrade an article's meaning" you start whining again about things that everyone already understands. The only person not understanding something here is you and what you are not understanding is that these articles need to be written so that people grasp the concepts, not to fulfill your paranoid fantasies about sinister plots to hide the truth through grammar. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

By definition, my "self" is all that I am, but I still call it "my self" to designate the particular incarnation of that concept which is in that relation to me, and "self" is a much more inclusive concept than "thetan" since "thetan" explicitly excludes the person's body and their mind. Are you under the impression that because I say "my self" then I must not understand what a self is? Your idea that "my" always indicates something you "own" is incorrect; it can indicate that relationship but does not always do so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar, please quit accosting me in an antagonistic manner. If you find a piece of Scientology work which has Hubbard saying "my thetan" then go right ahead and use the phrase. Until someone does it is Original Research. I'm fairly sure that if you search enough, you can find some secondary source, someone who has misunderstood enough Scientology so they use the phrase "my thetan" and you could then quote them and introduce the misunderstanding. BTW, "my self" is normally written without a space, "myself". Still, my basic question is unanswered. Why would anyone attempt to edit articles they don't know about and argue with the introduction of the article, argue with people who do know the subject? Would editors do the same with, say, "rocket fuel" or "pitching baseballs?" Terryeo 16:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If you find a piece of Scientology work which has Hubbard saying "my thetan" then go right ahead and use the phrase. Until someone does it is Original Research. No, it is common sense being opposed by an editor who simply wants to nitpick. There is no misunderstanding here, except for your willful understanding that people can use a phrase such as "my thetan" while being perfectly aware that the definition of thetan is such that "my thetan" is a synonym for "me; the portion of me that is actually me." Exactly as predicted, you go right on obliviously babbling about how the use of the phrase proves that we are editing what we don't know about and should of course leave it to you. The only misunderstanding here is yours. Hubbard's own definitions makes it very clear that the person's thetan is not that person's body or that person's mind. The mainstream reader who comes to this article to learn what a thetan is, however, if asked what constitutes his "self", would probably include both his body and his mind. Therefore, it must be made clear to such a reader that of those things which he believes constitutes himself, the one which would be called "the thetan" is not his body or his mind. Do you understand that part? Do you understand that the point of us doing this is to communicate the concept to the reader? Do you understand that insisting that the article never refer to the thetan which is associated with a particular person as that person's thetan because that suggests (in your mind) that the thetan is an owned possession rather than a synonym for the person, is really insisting that the article be written in your language rather than the reader's? If you dig up a quote from Hubbard where he claims it is incorrect grammatical usage in Scientologese to ever refer to a thetan as a thing which exists in a relationship with a person (even the relationship of equivalence, which is the part that you keep falsely insisting we must not understand) then fine, bring us the quote and it'll go into the article. But if the reader doesn't get the concept that the Scientology paradigm holds the thetan to be the person from everything else we say on the subject, they're not going to get it because you throw yourself to the floor and go into a writhing hissy fit every time someone says "the person's thetan" instead of "the portion of what the conventional paradigm thinks of as 'the person' which Scientology designates as the thetan." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

For God's Sake Feldspar, call yourself anything you want to. The article states its title. The article is not about convincing you about a word. How is it that you and ChrisO work as a team to destroy, defile, disperse and degrade an article's meaning together? You both begin doing that on the same day. You use different techniques toward a common result. I've told both of you that I don't care what controversy you present but I want the articles to contain and introduce the subject. A parallel with the Catholic Church would be to put "Priests rape choir boys" as the main ingredient of the article. I want the Scientology articles to present the subject. Your concept of what "self" means is does not matter to the reader of the Thetan article. You and ChrisO work together toward creating non-information in the Scientology arena. You have demonstrated your technique across a broad range of these articles. The two of you fight and refuse my opinion, Spirit of Man's opinion, Nuview's opinion, any opinion which might put the slightest bit of meaning into an article. When I try to talk with you, you refuse to get into communication.Terryeo 15:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that just possibly your idea that only devoted and convinced Scientologists like you and Spirit of Man and Nuview have "opinions" which "might put the slightest bit of meaning into an article" is what's incorrect here? Not to mention arrogant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How have I not been clear with you Feldspar? I want these articles to present the information they are about. I want them to accurately present them as you might prefer some other faith accurately present the idea of "spirit". After the subject is presented, so that a reader can know what is being talked about, then I have no objection to controvery in the article. What is unclear to you about that? This goal is Misplaced Pages's goal and I would assume your goal too. But your statement implies that nothing in any of these articles should have the slightest bit of meaning. This is the second time you have made a statement like that. The first was in the Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health talk page when you said something about the article should not have any of the information which is between the covers of the book, in the article. This word "Thetan" it is a symbol and it stands for an idea. The meaning of the idea needs to be presented to the reader, after which time, well, hey, fill that article right up with controversy if you wish to. As long as the citations are in good order. Terryeo 19:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

But your statement implies that nothing in any of these articles should have the slightest bit of meaning. This is the second time you have made a statement like that. What a tiresome liar you are, Terryeo. How is it that you lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and never stop to think "Gee, maybe there's something wrong with my crusade if I have to run like a scared rabbit from the truth any time I come anywhere near it?" As anyone can verify by going and reading Talk:Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, what I said was not "the article should not have any of the information which is between the covers of the book, in the article" but that this article did not need to cover the subject of Dianetics because there was already an article that had been doing that for nearly five years! You're like the sleazy politician who tries to smear his opponent by saying "You know how little Mayor Jones cares about law and order in this city? He voted against the bill that I introduced which would have created a police department!" What Selectman Sleaze fails to mention is that the city already has a police department, which is why they voted against Sleaze's proposal that they create a second police department to which Sleaze's brother-in-law would automatically be appointed the chief of police. So this is, what, the third, fourth time you've trotted out that little trick? How is it that you pull sleazy stunts like this -- constantly -- and then you act surprised and blame other editors when they don't trust you? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

contested paragraph placed here for citing

"According to Hubbard, thetans are immortal and perpetual, having willed themselves into existence at some point several quadrillion years ago. After they originated, thetans generated "points to view," or "dimension points" which caused space to come into existence. They agreed that other thetans' dimension points existed, thus bringing into existence the entire universe. All matter, energy, space and time exists solely because thetans agree that it exists." Hubbard doesn't say that. Terryeo 14:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The four paras I added are all under the same citation - Atack, A Piece of Blue Sky, chapter 9.2. As for "Hubbard doesn't say that," as usual this is your own personal assertion which you haven't bothered to reference. It's your responsibility to produce a counter-claim. -- ChrisO 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you have made an error, ChrisO. That your Blue Sky author says that Hubbard says it, that is quite a different statement than "Hubbard said it". Do you see the difference? If you don't, I'll spell it out for you. John Smith might say, "Bob said that ChrisO is mistaken", but since you know Bob, you know he would never say that. What you have created here is that the Blue Sky author has said that Hubbard said something. Fine, good. So your task is to present that information that he said that Hubbard said (something) in the article. However, should you ever arrive at a quote that says that Hubbard himself said that, a quote from a refutable source which attributes that statement to Hubbard, then you could cite it appropriately. This is just good editing ChrisO and not a criticsm of your editing latitude. Terryeo 19:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"The state of Operating Thetan", at About.com > Experts > Scientology by Laurie Hamilton, a "Clear" and an "OT": «Physical "reality" as we know it is postulated by Scientology philosophy as being the product of agreement between all beings participating in it.» Raymond Hill 17:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raymond. I won't dispute that Hubbard said something very similar to what you just stated, that the physical universe (as we know it) exists because of agreements between beings. Nor am I trying to deny that it does exist ! heh. The statement I am pretty sure Hubbard did not make is: "thetans willed themselves into existence". Also, the statement above says "immortal and perpetual" and that seems redundant, unless ChrisO is implying something in addition to immortality when he says "perpetual". Terryeo 18:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The actual problem with the thing which you state that the Blue Sky bood (hundreds of pages long, where does one look?) is that Hubbard never said that "Thetans willed themselves into existence". I don't believe Hubbard said that. The Blue Sky author, in his bumble brained misunderstanding might think Hubbard said that and he's perfectly quoteable as a source of published information, but that statement is not what Hubbard said and can not be pinned to Hubbard when he didn't say it. The Blue Sky author, that's another story. Of Course he should be quoted as saying that Hubbard said that.Terryeo 17:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Thetans are also said to be omnicogniscent". Is likewise a false statement. Hubbard didn't say that either. "imnicogniscent" could mean, "aware of all things, all of the time" (godlike), I'm pretty sure Hubbard did not use that word. But, if he did (I could be mistaken) then the source of that information needs be cited. The basic problem should be very clear. The article is presenting totally unblieveable information as Hubbard's words. We should follow Misplaced Pages Policy and Guidelines. We should not do Original Research. If there is a source of information, then cite it. But please don't cite a whole book for one sentence. We can not expect a reader to tediously read through 300+ pages to find the section which talks about the meaning of one word. Terryeo 17:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh ! "omnicogniscent" ! This has been here nearly a day and no one has commented. I don't believe it is cited and shouldn't be in the article. Terryeo 21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You know how to request a citation. You certainly had no problem doing it here. Why are you suddenly so hesitant to mark it as needing a citation? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, because my hands have been slapped at by so many people, so many times. Becuase I would rather tread lightly than rouse the evil spirits. heh. Terryeo 08:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

removed my opinion?

I cited several sources, quoted them verbatim, placed them so they made sense together. What opinion? Those were verified statements, widely published. Terryeo 02:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Terryedo, I don't object to the change in the introduction that you wrote in (Revision as of 13:32, 14 March 2006). Perhaps it was taken out as a expedient means to remove other content that you wrote that they objected to? Vivaldi 10:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please check the edit history before suggesting something like that. I removed eight words. Tenebrous 15:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Something odd seems to have happened to the edit history. After Terryeo first made the change to the first paragraph in ( Revision as of 11:50, 14 March 2006 ), somebody went back and reverted it removing his additions. My comment to Terryeo was that I thought his changes to the 1st paragraph were acceptable. Apparently some sort of super-editor moderator type is also able to remove their changes from the edit history, because I see now that no revert of the (Revision as of 11:50, 14 March 2006) is listed. Oh well. All is well. The intro that Terryeo wrote is still in the article as I write this Vivaldi 06:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That kind of thing happens here and there. I'm only guessing but it clearly happened in an article recently when the database was locked, temporarily locked while the administrater handled something. A portion of an article disappeared, in that case and Feldspar restored it by going back to earlier verisions, find the sections which had disappeared, copied and pasted into the current article. In the database locked discussion that was going on at the time, someone said the articles are actually held on several servers which apparently are connected together, acting as a whole unit.Terryeo 08:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Anybody know what hubbard meant to say by "consideration or postulate"? Was he stating that thetans had no mass, unless they were postulated to have mass, in which case they might have mass? Ronabop 06:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Both terms are from common dictionarys. A "postulate" is a decision. An example would be, "I'll have breakfast in bed this morning". A postulate might be considered slightly differently than a normal, everday decision in the sense that a person might postulate they increase their salary and persist with it and eventually then, increase their salary. stated briefly, a postulate is a persistant decision. And with "consideration" similarly, it is the common, dictionary definition. A consideration might be, "I'll have cherry jam on my toast". An individual has mass only by consideration or postulate, only because he decides that he has mass. This is the meaning of the quote in the article. No, I am not asking you to accept that as being valid, but am spelling out as best I can, what is meant. And providing anyone interested with sources, common dictionarys, to check it out. I hope this is helpful. Terryeo 07:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed one possible explanation for what he might have meant. That it is the correct one is your opinion. That he was referencing his earlier quote is also your opinion---it's possible that he may have just simply been contradicting himself. As is the article does not state either opinion. This is a good thing. Tenebrous 08:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The policys and guidelines tell us to present the information and let the reader understand it as they will, for reader to decide for themselves. I'm prefectly willing to keep my opinion out of it if other editors are willing to keep thier opinion out of it. "Hubbard contradicted himself" is an opinion or claim. Mine likewise is an opinion or claim. Would editing by policy and guidelines in this one example, keeping opinion and claim out of the article seem appropriate? Terryeo 16:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This Original Research Statement

Is discussed here already. It is OR to say, "Hubbard was somewhat inconsistent about the physical properties of a thetan." because it is not a cited statement but is a conclusion on the part of an editors. The editor states his conclusion and states it. This is discussed here already. Feldspar reverted the statement back into the article after some discussion above. Why don't we just keep that statement out, let a reader draw that conclusion for himself? Another alternative would be for me to spell out more clearly (in my own words) how a theatan can "weigh" 1.5 ounces, how Hubbard's statement covers and spells out that possibility. I mean, if one editor is going to push his OR, then by golly, it is only appropriate an editor who understands what Hubbard meant, put his own knowledge. The statement shouldn't be there. WP:V denys it should be there. Yet Feldspar reverted it, put it back (probably because he saw I had made an edit, right?) Terryeo 08:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research to say that water is wet and it's not original research to say that Hubbard was inconsistent about the physical properties of the thetan. Neither is it going to give you leave to insert your own original research on "what Hubbard meant". Thanks also for yet again repeating your assumption of bad faith on why another editor reverted your attempt to stretch and misapply policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar. If you will notice in the above discussion, I responded to an editor's question, carefully spelled it out as my opinion and stated (common dictionarys) where anyone could explore the meanings of Hubbard's statements further. Yet your statement again hopes to put my perfectly friendly reply into some bible-thumping catagory. There is more too, the measurement of "soul" or "spirit" or "self" or "thetan", whatever you want to call it, the measurement just before and just after death was very poorly done. 1942, six bodies measure just before and after death. That's a very very poor study. Even the doctor who did the study admits to difficulties. To bring that 60 year old study into this article would be dubious at best, don't you think? But why haven't further studies been made? With modern technology such studies might be possible. Terryeo 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar, please quit accosting me in an antagonistic manner. I have explained what Hubbard meant. I understand that what he meant is not immediately clear and obvious. Yes, it is a subject which can be understood. Of course. No one is forcing anyone to understand anything, especially. But the article says, "Hubbard was somewhat inconsistant..." and that is not a cited statement. I have presented what Hubbard meant, in an attempt to forstall an edit war. Because an individual might postulate or consider they weigh "1.5 ounces" then, they might actually weigh that, according to the cited statement that Hubbard made. Terryeo 01:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You aren't allowed to postulate "what Hubbard meant" as that is OR and its only your opinion. The article no longer states that Hubbard was inconsistent. It merely presents the two inconsistent statements that Hubbard wrote. There is no reason why the cited statements from Hubbard should be removed. Vivaldi 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Uncited statements

This idea is you know, understandable isn't it? "willed themselves into existence" is uncited. "Omnicognizant" is uncited. The tone of the article says clearly, "I refuse to understand the concept and am going to disperse the article all I can". I'm not making anyone right or anyone wrong, but by golly, Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines. If a statement is uncited then it shouldn't be in the article. "Thetans willed themselves into existence?" Nah, that's uncited. I know you guys don't understand this idea or you wouldn't put stuff like that in the article. So what can I do? Well, I can remove uncited statements and, eventually, hope the article presents the subject as Scientology states it to be. Then, maybe, possibly, some reader can understand what is meant by "thetan" even if editors here refuse to understand the meaning of the term. Terryeo 11:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

They're cited, just not from a work of L. Ron's. That makes it a secondary source, which is acceptable, unless you can prove that Hubbard did not ever make similar statements. Why don't you take a look at the source and find out where those phrases come from? Tenebrous 14:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay.Terryeo 16:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, there is nothing in the article that tells me Hubbard said that. And there is nothing in the article that say that the Church of Scientology has the position that "Thetans or Omnicognizant". Why is this an issue at all? If you want to present your great evil of Scientology by bringing someone's published opinion into the article, your duty is to find where, "John Smith says that Hubbard said (in a secret converstation in 1942) "Thetans are omnicognizant". Hey, go for it. I'll stick with the widely published, easily available publications which Hubbard is verified to have said and you go ahead and stick with your hidden, secret, hard to find things. No problem. Terryeo 16:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That weight experiment

The article says, "However, in a lecture series later published as a book, he claimed that a thetan had a small but measurable amount of mass:"From some experiments conducted about fifteen or twenty years ago--a thetan weighed about 1.5 ounces! Who made these experiments.." And quotes a study that measures 6 bodies before and after death. I have that book, it does not actually document that is the study which Hubbard meant. And the study, if you read the link to it, it is not very well done either. 1940s stuff. 6 bodies. And even in that context the results are not uniform. The doctor speaks of weight gain and loss over a period of time. Its like trivial, man. It doesn't actually make Hubbard wrong, it doesn't make him right. Measuring the weight of 6 bodies at death in the 1940s with a balance scale? Its not a very good study, you have to admit that. Why put this kind of thing in the article. It doesn't make anything right and it doesn't make anything wrong. It adds nothing but a dispersive element to the article. Is that why you people keep sticking it back in, even though it is a very very poor study and done long years before good measurement techniques were developed? What's the point? Why fill the article with trivia? Terryeo 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)