|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Narconon
Some of the first/second person usage could be removed, I think, without killing teh funny? ħuman
15:26, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
- Which bits? Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what you're referring to. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Why don't you quiet down? 15:31, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
- I forgot to say "singular" ;). Oh, just anywhere it says "I", says "you" in a way that seems directed to one person. There were only a few, and while it didn't make it "bad" writing, it's harder to build on things like that. Sometimes just changing "I" to "we" is enough; the "you"s can often be changed to "one". I noticed you cut at least one out, so you know what I mean, basically. Or did you get them all, and now you're just messing with me? Anyway, the trick is to do it with drying out the lolzies, of course. ħuman 16:54, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
- I think I weeded out the worst examples. I wasn't sure what you meant to begin with, so I might not have got them all. And there was a large gap between my question and my editing. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!Why don't you quiet down? 17:03, 24 August 2008 (EDT)
- I forgot to say "singular" ;). Oh, just anywhere it says "I", says "you" in a way that seems directed to one person. There were only a few, and while it didn't make it "bad" writing, it's harder to build on things like that. Sometimes just changing "I" to "we" is enough; the "you"s can often be changed to "one". I noticed you cut at least one out, so you know what I mean, basically. Or did you get them all, and now you're just messing with me? Anyway, the trick is to do it with drying out the lolzies, of course. ħuman
I suggest somewhere we clarify which Beck (Beck the musician?) it is. Mostly because we have someone called Glenn Beck within our list of Articles. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the musician. The easy clarification is to follow the link. ħuman 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Statistics[edit]
Is there any value in comparing these statistics to those of AA? They are remarkably similar. It's fucking hard to get off drugs or alcohol, and I'm curious if we are intimating that Narconon is worse than AA? 
GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 15:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- At the moment it's only about destroying the 70% claim - so on its own like that it's okay. But certainly putting them into context of other programs is beneficial, as 6.6% could be awesome if other programs are all 1%, or it could be appalling if other programs are at 50%. Then you could make a better statement about the program itself rather than "Scientology
liemislead about it".
moral 15:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
So basically[edit]
Their program is so awful that it causes people to do drugs/drink. Wow, that's bad. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also, dear Scientology, everything is chemicals. You are made of chemicals. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)