|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Recent change in ClearBird page||6||04:14, June 18, 2017|
I suggest this latest change is inaccurate, as the material in Clear Bird represents a very good and non-copyright description of the materials of Scientology. I suggest it be removed. At least get an impartial tech person to look it over before leaving it there.
My attention has been drawn to the fact that the Clearbird.org page states on the front "New in 2012: The GPM processing that Ron never finished..." which would be an offshoot. I believe that's the only "offshoot". Probably we need a definition of offshoot.
I agree - this designation of "Offshoot" for the Clearbird materials is not warranted.
I've used some of the pages with PC's to give them a simpler way of understanding some concepts.
I think Clearbird is an admirable effort to make the basics of Scientology more accessible to people who don't have access to a proper course room and course supervision. (a major problem outside the church)
I'm going to remove the "Offshoot" designation but am open to continuing this discussion to see if there's some other aspect to all of this I may be missing.
Fine. I note that the following paragraph was also removed and am checking to see if it is still accurate and will replace it if I find it to be so. "Clearbird is recognized by the Association of Professional Independent Scientologists (APIS)  for giving a technically correct rendition of Standard Technology."
Have just checked with Rolf. The statement is accurate.
I pointed out to Ant but couldn't post here for some reason ... Clearbird materials feature "The GPM processing that Ron never finished..." How can that not be an Offshoot? Also, don't ask Rolf. Go to the APIS site and look for yourself. If ever there was a recognition, that has been removed.
Mike from APIS confirmed the findings from the APIS website. APIS does not endorse the Clearbird materials. Now if we could please kindly discuss why promoting to deliver "the GPM processing that Ron never finished" does not qualify as an offshoot. I claim it does qualify for the label of offshoot.