Questions, questions, questions

Please feel free to ask anything. I’ll answer. But please also take a look at the FAQ and the website. It might be there already.

– Lou

March 6, 2008
Categories: Scientology myths . . Author: Louanne

323 Comments

  1. Comment by Louanne on March 24, 2008 5:42 pm

    @Comment by Anon on March 23, 2008 10:37 am

    >Sean, an anon who legally protested the church and had his information released, posted a picture of his guns saying that if the OSA broke into his house he’d shoot them, this was immediately after someone murdered his cat, and this was reported to the police as a death threat resulting in his arrest.

    False. Stop lying, or don’t you know better?

    As far as publically available information goes Sean Carasov (it is in THIS THREAD RIGHT HERE) has been arrested for a murder threat he did personally against a Scientologist, face to face, with plenty of witnesses, right after he had posted on ED that he would shoot any Scientologists on sight. How’s that for a murder threat?

    >I expect a public condemnation of this act, both from Scientologists posting on this forum and officially from the church.

    Come straight and honest and we can talk. Otherwise, get lost.

    – Louanne

  2. Comment by Louanne on March 24, 2008 5:12 pm

    Happy Easter everyone!

    I am closing this thread for acute unreadability and open a new one here

    Questions?

    – Louanne

  3. Comment by Anonanonanon on March 24, 2008 8:10 am

    “No, she believes it.”

    Right, but you know better than her when it comes down to whether or not her father committed suicide?

  4. Comment by Anonanonanon on March 24, 2008 8:07 am

    Have you found out who our seekrit leeders are yet?

  5. Comment by anmn on March 24, 2008 2:06 am

    @Pat:
    >The law allows for someone to work with parental consent. … Just because he or she is only 15, you won’t see “oh, you don’t have to work” from a boss. If he thought they would use their youth as an excuse to not do their work, he’d never have hired them.

    With parental consent, and restrictions on hours and schedules. And a boss certainly can and should send a minor home if he’s at the maximum allowed number of hours for the day or the week. Otherwise the law would serve no purpose.

    >Yes, Child Labor Laws have been in effect for about that long. Compare that to the increase of juvenile delinquency. Maybe it’s time for an independant study on this. Are you up to it?

    Not my area. And I can’t imagine trying to reduce the variables. Compare the rise in juvenile delinquency to the pervasiveness of mass media, or the general speed of life. Or, conversely, compare it to the impressive rise in GDP and quality of life in this country in the last 70 years.

    And this is still a tangent. I believe that minors can’t sign a contract that requires their lifelong loyalty. You disagree. You say this is because we can treat children as adults, since they have past lives. Is this an official policy of the Church, or from LRH?

    >That conclusion is based on the fact that you couldn’t find anything on the internet for these?
    >Wow. I guess one would expect that anyone writing studies for a religion should have a website so they can be valid, right? (Yes, that was sarcastic. I get impatient with people who use the internet as source, when reading a book at the library would be much more enlightening)

    In my experience, there’s nothing I’m going to find in the library’s card catalog that’s not on the internet. I’m not just looking for a personal website; many, maybe even most, academic papers and proceedings are published or referenced on the internet. I searched a few of my professors, and found their biographies and bibliographies and writings on sites that weren’t associated with my university.

    I just went and searched through my school’s journal database searcher. It runs searches through a few dozen commercial bibliographic databases. Nothing for Fumio Sawada, except one letter to the editor from The Observer in 1998 that parrots the CoS’s claims. I did find some on Mikhail Sivertsev, who might be the same person as Michael Sivertsev. He wrote one chapter of a paper on politics and religion in the former USSR. I can’t get the full text, but I did find the first page of that chapter, and it gives no credentials.

    The CoS claims Sawada is the leader of the oldest religion in Japan, among other offices. It claims Sivertsev is/was a special advisor to the Russian President. Further, it claims that these men are among the world’s most respected religious scholars. I spent a few hours looking for footnotes to back up any of these claims, and came up empty. If you can find some references, I would very much like to see them.

  6. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 23, 2008 11:59 pm

    Also, this is less of a question and more of a statement:

    Scientology, as presented here and elsewhere, has an extremely “us vs. them” attitude.

    That is to say, if you’re “against” Scientology, or you speak out against it, or you display really even a hint of negativity towards some of its practices, you are branded an enemy of the church.

    This is not something that other religions, except for the more extreme flavors, generally do. You’ll note that excommunication is not exactly a common practice of the Catholic church these days. Likewise, if I had a Catholic friend and I spoke out about certain practices of the Catholic church, the Vatican would not then demand that he cut off all contact with me. It would not put me on a list of “enemies”. If I had a Baptist friend, and I spoke out about the Southern Baptist Convention’s attitude towards homosexuality, that friend would not necessarily be forced to sever all ties with me and regard me as “one of the enemy”. If I had a Jewish friend and spoke out against the circumcision of infants (despite the practice’s roots in religious tradition), that Jewish friend wouldn’t necessarily disown me.

    Yet, for some reason, Scientology seems to adopt this siege mentality, where anyone who’s even the slightest bit critical is an enemy. I ask you, in all seriousness….Do you realize how that comes across to people who -aren’t- Scientologists? Do you understand the image that it gives the church? Do you understand how, in the end, it’s counter-productive, and it only ends up producing more “enemies” of the church, where a more tolerant approach might win over some people who are on the fence?

  7. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 23, 2008 11:54 pm

    “Wow. I guess one would expect that anyone writing studies for a religion should have a website so they can be valid, right? (Yes, that was sarcastic. I get impatient with people who use the internet as source, when reading a book at the library would be much more enlightening)”

    That’s not really a fair argument. Given the proliferation of scholarly resources on the internet, I think it’s generally unlikely that a reasonably thorough search would fail to turn up a reference to anything but the most -obscure- resources. Certainly, “reading a book at the library” would be no more likely to turn up those references, unless you have some specific suggestions. I do not believe anmn was using the internet as a source so much as a means to track down the credentials and writings of the aforementioned “experts”.

    “Let me help you get that started
    “You’re fired”
    Restraining orders”

    Also not a fair comparison. Being fired is simply the cessation of a particular contractual agreement between employer and employee. It does not prevent that employee from, say, socializing with ex-coworkers.

    A restraining order is a bit closer, but again, it is a legal agreement established to protect one party from the unwanted attention/advances of another party, purely of the first party’s own volition.

    The disconnection that people object to here isn’t one person saying to another person, “I don’t want to talk to you anymore.”
    What they object to is the CHURCH, or some ethics officer, or whatever, saying to some person, “We believe that your mother/father/brother/sister/friend is an SP, and therefore, unless you disconnect from them, we will no longer be providing services to you. Additionally, if you are in the Sea Org, you will be forced to leave (or go to the RPF, or whatever) unless you disconnect.”

    Can you not see the difference between that and the examples you gave above? In those examples, there was not external pressure to sever the relationship. For an organization that touts itself as a beacon of communication, I find it troubling that it has such a deeply-ingrained policy of -severing- communication, especially between loved ones.

  8. Comment by Pat on March 23, 2008 8:34 pm

    @Comment by anmn on March 23, 2008 5:43 am
    Addendum

    >Also, you didn’t answer most of my question. You posted an LRH quote that said, “The basic principal of ‘handle or disconnect’ exists in any group and ours is no different.” Can you tell me how this principle is expressed in non-religious groups?

    Is there a word there you didn’t fully understand?

    Give me some examples where that is true or where it isn’t true.

    Let me help you get that started
    “You’re fired”
    Restraining orders

    Pat

  9. Comment by Pat on March 23, 2008 8:18 pm

    @Comment by anmn on March 23, 2008 5:43 am
    @Pat:
    >And links to the findings of religious scholars around the world
    scientologytoday.org/experts/index.htm

    >I was immediately drawn to the paper written by Mr. Fumio Sawada. The paper claims he is the “Eighth Holder of the Secrets of Yu-Itsu Shinto” and a former director of “Sophis University.” From my searches, it appears the religion may actually be spelled “Yuiitsu” and the university may be Sophia University.

    >Besides these spelling differences, however, I can find no reference to Fumio Sawada, or Secrets of Yuiitsu, much less Holders thereof. In fact, a google search for ’shinto “holder of the secrets”‘ turns up only Scientology references. If this man actually exists, and is actually a very important man in the oldest religion in Japan, shouldn’t there be some more web sites talking about him? Maybe even a Wikipedia page? References in other scholarly papers? A mention in the discussion of the history of Shinto?

    >I next checked out the paper by Michael A. Sivertsev. Again, the same thing: his name, with or without the middle initial, only appears on pages about Scientology. I also find no non-Scientology results for his group, the “Board of Cooperation with Religious Organisations.”

    >I don’t mean to present overly narrow criticism, but I don’t have time to look up every author on that page. From the above, however, I must conclude that the Church of Scientology is using false experts, or at least false reputations, to inflate its reputation of being held in high regard by scholars of the world.

    Also, you didn’t answer most of my question. You posted an LRH quote that said, “The basic principal of ‘handle or disconnect’ exists in any group and ours is no different.” Can you tell me how this principle is expressed in non-religious groups?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning#Specific_practices_in_religious_organizations

    >Perhaps I am unclear on the meaning of “publicly departing Scientology.” In my mind, “public” is the opposite of “private” or “secret.” So if a person leaves Scientology without doing so secretly, that means they intend to harm (Scientology?)?

    >Even if it means “telling everyone you know that you left Scientology,” how does that show intent to harm the organization or the religion? You can’t deny that this is a restriction on free speech; how is this restriction justified? Does any other organization have such a policy, outside of perhaps those dealing in state secrets?

    ex-kids is a perfect example. They went public with disagreements as did a few other apostates.

    I think the statement from Frank Flinn that Lu has in the Scientology link is pretty clear that because Scientology was a new religion in the 20th century that it is still “news”.

    An example is that if a Christian man or Jewish man or Catholic man were to commit suicide the news would say “man commits suicide”. Because Scientology is news, it would say “Scientologist commits suicide”. How often are things happening with people in other religions linked to their religion in the news? People can point at a “news” story and say that 3 kids claim to have been made to work. Thus violation of Child Labor Laws. Which one?

    The law allows for someone to work with parental consent. This isn’t just Scientology. It’s any place that employs people. Do you see “Kids made to work long hours” in relation to any other place that employs kids? How many hours would they work if there was a rush order and people who are employees are asked to work an extra shift. Just because he or she is only 15, you won’t see “oh, you don’t have to work” from a boss. If he thought they would use their youth as an excuse to not do their work, he’d never have hired them.

    The Sea Org contract is a spiritual agreement that was signed by the person who agreed to the aims of his / her religion, and who knew the consequences the same as everyone else.

    >Can Suppressive People be changed? If a husband is declared suppressive, might his Scientologist wife try to bring him up the tone scale? Despite such positive behavior, would she be guilty of a high crime of Scientology?

    The reference is HCOPL 23 Dec 1965RB
    Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists. There are 5 steps one can do to be reconciled. This can also be found in the book “Introduction to Scientology Ethics”.

    I personally have first hand experience with this one. Due to the nature of the Suppressive Person who deals constantly in invalidation, these are very difficult to be around and still manage to retain any sense of self-worth. I’ll refer you back to my earlier link on the anti-social characteristics. As long as a person continues to commit present-time overts that are harmful to himself or others, he just won’t get better and will continue to invalidate in anyway he can.

    >Perhaps this is an unresolvable difference in beliefs. I do not believe in past lives, so I strongly disagree with your statement. I further disagree with the handbook link you posted. Child labor laws have been in effect in the US for about 70 years now, and generally enforced, and we have yet to see a nation full of the apathetic, uncomfortable, destructive people that the handbook implies to be the result of children not working.

    I won’t ask you to believe it, if it isn’t true for you. (Regarding one’s spiritual nature).

    Yes, Child Labor Laws have been in effect for about that long. Compare that to the increase of juvenile delinquency. Maybe it’s time for an independant study on this. Are you up to it? After all, LRH wrote that many years ago and since then conditions have worsened as far as I can see, so there may be more data now for comparison.

    >Further, the handbook doesn’t actually say that children should be treated as adults, and allowed to sign serious contracts as adults. It says only that children should be allowed to labor to a greater extent than they currently are. The two are very separate, and arguably conflicting, ideas.

    As for Child Labor, see above.

    My error. That was an incomplete sentence. It should have read “Here is the philosophy that is behind allowing children to contribute”

    >Slight correction:

    >I must conclude that the Church of Scientology is using [at least some] false experts,

    That conclusion is based on the fact that you couldn’t find anything on the internet for these?
    Wow. I guess one would expect that anyone writing studies for a religion should have a website so they can be valid, right? (Yes, that was sarcastic. I get impatient with people who use the internet as source, when reading a book at the library would be much more enlightening)

    Pat

  10. Comment by Anon on March 23, 2008 10:37 am

    Sean, an anon who legally protested the church and had his information released, posted a picture of his guns saying that if the OSA broke into his house he’d shoot them, this was immediately after someone murdered his cat, and this was reported to the police as a death threat resulting in his arrest.

    How can the authors of this blog, knowing this information, post a gloating message up there and expect any respect at all from anyone, let alone anons looking for the other side of the story?

    How can you say that fair game is no longer practiced, yet endorse this on this very site?

    I expect a public condemnation of this act, both from Scientologists posting on this forum and officially from the church.

  11. Comment by anmn on March 23, 2008 7:28 am

    Slight correction:

    I must conclude that the Church of Scientology is using [at least some] false experts,

  12. Comment by anmn on March 23, 2008 5:43 am

    @Pat:
    >And links to the findings of religious scholars around the world
    scientologytoday.org/experts/index.htm

    Lou, would it be possible to get a new thread concerning this link?

    I was immediately drawn to the paper written by Mr. Fumio Sawada. The paper claims he is the “Eighth Holder of the Secrets of Yu-Itsu Shinto” and a former director of “Sophis University.” From my searches, it appears the religion may actually be spelled “Yuiitsu” and the university may be Sophia University.

    Besides these spelling differences, however, I can find no reference to Fumio Sawada, or Secrets of Yuiitsu, much less Holders thereof. In fact, a google search for ‘shinto “holder of the secrets”‘ turns up only Scientology references. If this man actually exists, and is actually a very important man in the oldest religion in Japan, shouldn’t there be some more web sites talking about him? Maybe even a Wikipedia page? References in other scholarly papers? A mention in the discussion of the history of Shinto?

    I next checked out the paper by Michael A. Sivertsev. Again, the same thing: his name, with or without the middle initial, only appears on pages about Scientology. I also find no non-Scientology results for his group, the “Board of Cooperation with Religious Organisations.”

    I don’t mean to present overly narrow criticism, but I don’t have time to look up every author on that page. From the above, however, I must conclude that the Church of Scientology is using false experts, or at least false reputations, to inflate its reputation of being held in high regard by scholars of the world.

    Also, you didn’t answer most of my question. You posted an LRH quote that said, “The basic principal of ‘handle or disconnect’ exists in any group and ours is no different.” Can you tell me how this principle is expressed in non-religious groups?

    >Yep, those are high crimes, alright. Those show intent to harm.

    Perhaps I am unclear on the meaning of “publicly departing Scientology.” In my mind, “public” is the opposite of “private” or “secret.” So if a person leaves Scientology without doing so secretly, that means they intend to harm (Scientology?)?

    Even if it means “telling everyone you know that you left Scientology,” how does that show intent to harm the organization or the religion? You can’t deny that this is a restriction on free speech; how is this restriction justified? Does any other organization have such a policy, outside of perhaps those dealing in state secrets?

    Can Suppressive People be changed? If a husband is declared suppressive, might his Scientologist wife try to bring him up the tone scale? Despite such positive behavior, would she be guilty of a high crime of Scientology?

    >Yes, for sure! They are thetans, aren’t they? This isn’t their first time around after all.
    >It all comes down to trying to judge Scientology with materialistic views (that people are only bodies and only live one life), when our tenets are that we are spiritual beings whose experiences span many life times.

    >Here is the philosophy behind that
    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH14_3.HTM

    Perhaps this is an unresolvable difference in beliefs. I do not believe in past lives, so I strongly disagree with your statement. I further disagree with the handbook link you posted. Child labor laws have been in effect in the US for about 70 years now, and generally enforced, and we have yet to see a nation full of the apathetic, uncomfortable, destructive people that the handbook implies to be the result of children not working.

    Further, the handbook doesn’t actually say that children should be treated as adults, and allowed to sign serious contracts as adults. It says only that children should be allowed to labor to a greater extent than they currently are. The two are very separate, and arguably conflicting, ideas.

  13. Comment by Pat on March 22, 2008 4:12 pm

    Thanks! Another one for my 3rd party documentation files. :)

    Pat

  14. Comment by T on March 22, 2008 2:43 pm

    There has been some discussion above about man being more than a body and that fact seems to surprise brain surgeons as well:

    http://myscientology.blogspot.com/2008/03/are-you-more-than-body.html

  15. Comment by Pat on March 22, 2008 6:18 am

    @ Comment by GrandFalloon on March 22, 2008 2:48 am

    >I’d heard this is what Scientologist’s thought but… it’s sobering and chilling to hear it said by one (or typed).

    >This isn’t a common idea in any society. There are only a few groups of people who treat children like adults. I don’t like any of them.

    Here is the philosophy behind that
    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH14_3.HTM

    Pat

  16. Comment by GrandFalloon on March 22, 2008 2:48 am

    @Comment by Pat on March 21, 2008 1:59 am

    >>Do you believe people are able to understand and consent to the billion-year Sea Org contract at the age of 15 or 14 or 10 like some of the kids on exscientologykids.com ?

    >Yes, for sure! They are thetans, aren’t they? This isn’t their first time around after all.

    I’d heard this is what Scientologist’s thought but… it’s sobering and chilling to hear it said by one (or typed).

    This isn’t a common idea in any society. There are only a few groups of people who treat children like adults. I don’t like any of them.

  17. Comment by Pat on March 21, 2008 1:59 am

    @Comment by anmn on March 20, 2008 8:43 am
    >>>The basic principal of “handle or disconnect” exists in any group and ours is no different.

    >Do you have more on this? How is this principle expressed in Christianity? How about corporations? Political parties? Colleges? Health clubs?

    Here: About 1/3 down the page section starts with (a)
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/scientology/docs/frank-flinn.htm

    And links to the findings of religious scholars around the world
    http://www.scientologytoday.org/experts/index.htm

    >>If the ex-kids or others were disconnected from, who caused that? The Church or the ones that removed themselves from it?

    I’d say LRH caused it when he made a list of high crimes that include “publicly departing Scientology” and “continued adherence to a…Suppressive Person or Group.” I’d say the leadership of the CoS continued it by aggressively encouraging staff and Sea Org to disconnect from their family and friends on the outside.

    Yep, those are high crimes, alright. Those show intent to harm.

    I know the official word, I know many of the terms you word-cleared for us, but I also know that the actions of the CoS as an organization belie some of its tenets.

    >>These are tenets each member accepted when they joined Scientology and the Sea Organization in some cases, like exkids.

    >Do you believe people are able to understand and consent to the billion-year Sea Org contract at the age of 15 or 14 or 10 like some of the kids on exscientologykids.com ?

    Yes, for sure! They are thetans, aren’t they? This isn’t their first time around after all.
    It all comes down to trying to judge Scientology with materialistic views (that people are only bodies and only live one life), when our tenets are that we are spiritual beings whose experiences span many life times.

    >>To amnm: I thought you were trying to be moderate? What happened?

    >No, I said I had become more moderate. And it’s “anmn.”

    Yes, you’re right.

    @Pat:
    >>[Old crimes are] only being brought up again, as far as I can see to act as an attention getter for Anon because Scientology is a controversial religion because it’s new and scares the hell out of the SPs. That’s based on your own statements (to get attention)

    >This is one of my smaller problems with Scientology. Scientology characterizes its opposition as purely negative, antisocial people.

    Yes.

    >Am I suppressive?
    Possibly. I only have your attitudes here to go by.

    >Am I antisocial, and opposed to the betterment of mankind?
    Possibly. I only have your attitudes here to go by.

    >Am I hiding crimes?
    Are you?

    >Come on.
    Ditto

    Pat

  18. Comment by Pat on March 21, 2008 1:36 am

    Comment by Anonanonanon on March 20, 2008 3:54 pm
    Is this young woman a liar?

    No, she believes it.

    Pat

  19. Comment by Anonanonanon on March 20, 2008 3:54 pm

    Is this young woman a liar?

  20. Comment by anmn on March 20, 2008 8:43 am

    @Pat:
    >>The basic principal of “handle or disconnect” exists in any group and ours is no different.

    Do you have more on this? How is this principle expressed in Christianity? How about corporations? Political parties? Colleges? Health clubs?

    >If the ex-kids or others were disconnected from, who caused that? The Church or the ones that removed themselves from it?

    I’d say LRH caused it when he made a list of high crimes that include “publicly departing Scientology” and “continued adherence to a…Suppressive Person or Group.” I’d say the leadership of the CoS continued it by aggressively encouraging staff and Sea Org to disconnect from their family and friends on the outside.

    I know the official word, I know many of the terms you word-cleared for us, but I also know that the actions of the CoS as an organization belie some of its tenets.

    >These are tenets each member accepted when they joined Scientology and the Sea Organization in some cases, like exkids.

    Do you believe people are able to understand and consent to the billion-year Sea Org contract at the age of 15 or 14 or 10 like some of the kids on exscientologykids.com ?

    >To amnm: I thought you were trying to be moderate? What happened?

    No, I said I had become more moderate. And it’s “anmn.”

    @Pat:
    >[Old crimes are] only being brought up again, as far as I can see to act as an attention getter for Anon because Scientology is a controversial religion because it’s new and scares the hell out of the SPs. That’s based on your own statements (to get attention)

    This is one of my smaller problems with Scientology. Scientology characterizes its opposition as purely negative, antisocial people. Am I suppressive? Am I antisocial, and opposed to the betterment of mankind? Am I hiding crimes? Come on.

  21. Comment by Pat on March 19, 2008 7:24 pm

    @ Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 19, 2008 3:34 am
    >Pat –

    >First, I should apologize. I was…incensed by that story (and Carasov’s subsequent arrest for “making terrorist threats” which, if what I’ve heard of the case is true, is total B.S.). My reaction to instances of animal abuse and cruelty tend to be fairly extreme. If It seemed like my anger was directed at -you- (or even this site, specifically), I apologize. It wasn’t. It’s directed at whatever sub-human piece of garbage was responsible.

    >My point, though, was that iScientology claims Anonymous is to blame for the “harassment” by creating at atmosphere that makes it possible, even if it isn’t Anons themselves that are doing it. I just wanted some acknowledgment that, by posting his personal info online and insinuating his link to terrorist activities, the church did exactly the same thing. I would argue, in fact, that it was perhaps even WORSE, as it targeted a specific, identifiable individual.

    And Anonymous claims that Scientology murders and breaks the law. Kind of an impass isn’t it? Some of this stuff has already been through the legal system like freakout and snow white and the responsible persons handled in the legal system, with reorganization in Scientology all over 30 years ago. It’s only being brought up again, as far as I can see to act as an attention getter for Anon because Scientology is a controversial religion because it’s new and scares the hell out of the SPs. That’s based on your own statements (to get attention)

    >>“Not conducive to continuing dialog on this site, as it were. If that matters to you. Don’t know.

    >>Freedom of speech is protected in the US.”

    Referring to your “terrorist” comment, is all and that you are free to say it.

    I understand the emotion behind the statement, ok? I’m done with that if you are.

    >I’m not sure what you meant by that last part, but I should clarify that that was really more of a sarcastic jab at the charges being leveled against Carasov presently. In reality, I abhor violence, and as you said, it hasn’t been proven that it was a Scientologist that was responsible for the poisoning. Regardless of -who- it was, though, I’d love to see them caught and severely punished, but given the circumstances, that simply isn’t going to happen.

    If he was arrested then you can be sure there was enough evidence to get the warrant.
    A verbal report isn’t going to get him arrested. There was some evidence.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion, etc. I just wanted to clear that up.

    Ok. :)

  22. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 19, 2008 3:34 am

    Pat –

    First, I should apologize. I was…incensed by that story (and Carasov’s subsequent arrest for “making terrorist threats” which, if what I’ve heard of the case is true, is total B.S.). My reaction to instances of animal abuse and cruelty tend to be fairly extreme. If It seemed like my anger was directed at -you- (or even this site, specifically), I apologize. It wasn’t. It’s directed at whatever sub-human piece of garbage was responsible.

    My point, though, was that iScientology claims Anonymous is to blame for the “harassment” by creating at atmosphere that makes it possible, even if it isn’t Anons themselves that are doing it. I just wanted some acknowledgment that, by posting his personal info online and insinuating his link to terrorist activities, the church did exactly the same thing. I would argue, in fact, that it was perhaps even WORSE, as it targeted a specific, identifiable individual.

    “Not conducive to continuing dialog on this site, as it were. If that matters to you. Don’t know.

    Freedom of speech is protected in the US.”

    I’m not sure what you meant by that last part, but I should clarify that that was really more of a sarcastic jab at the charges being leveled against Carasov presently. In reality, I abhor violence, and as you said, it hasn’t been proven that it was a Scientologist that was responsible for the poisoning. Regardless of -who- it was, though, I’d love to see them caught and severely punished, but given the circumstances, that simply isn’t going to happen.

    Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion, etc. I just wanted to clear that up.

  23. Comment by Pat on March 19, 2008 1:34 am

    @Comment by John on March 19, 2008 1:08 am

    >No, I have not come hear to spread my opinions, or those of the aforementioned hate sites. I have come here for insight, it’s one of the few places that I can openly discuss aspects of this situation with scientologists.

    >Although I am aware of websites such as xenu.net and lermanet that is not where the information that I am acting on comes from. The information that I am personally acting on at this point in time comes from public records stored by my government and first hand accounts from the public.

    alright.

    >I do believe you are now starting on the right track in regards to false information. However, if one was after correct, unbiased information, where would I look?

    The texts of Scientology written by LRH. LOL – That’s why I try to include references for any statements I make. But I don’t expect you to know it all. It is still my understanding that with knowledge imparted we can build reality to restore amicability.

    >I have already stated why this site is not an unbiased source of information, nor do I expect you to point me to any scientology website, as in my opinion they are just as biased as xenu.net or lermanet.

    I don’t really agree with you on that. Prior to the release of the basic books courses and lectures there weren’t many Scientologists who were willing to take on a project like this and have to receive the sometimes antagonistic or invalidative communications and rants that Lu fields admirably. She has put in an incredible amount of work to get documentation independent of the hate sites and scientology sites. LRH books and the Policy letters of the Church are valid for handling false data because in many cases it’s the posting of incomplete excerpts and altered texts that have created misunderstandings. If I refer someone to a book with a page # so it can be read in context. I consider that should be enough to dispel the false data. In other cases, our policies get misquoted and it’s only by referring back to the original document that it will straighten out.

    Scientologists around the world have donated the basic books so that every public and government library on the planet has them so they are available now in almost all of them. If I give a reference, it’s in the hopes that it’s in a library near you. Do you see what I mean?

    Pat

  24. Comment by John on March 19, 2008 1:08 am

    No, I have not come hear to spread my opinions, or those of the aforementioned hate sites. I have come here for insight, it’s one of the few places that I can openly discuss aspects of this situation with scientologists.

    Although I am aware of websites such as xenu.net and lermanet that is not where the information that I am acting on comes from. The information that I am personally acting on at this point in time comes from public records stored by my government and first hand accounts from the public.

    I do believe you are now starting on the right track in regards to false information. However, if one was after correct, unbiased information, where would I look?

    I have already stated why this site is not an unbiased source of information, nor do I expect you to point me to any scientology website, as in my opinion they are just as biased as xenu.net or lermanet.

  25. Comment by Pat on March 19, 2008 12:50 am

    @Comment by John on March 18, 2008 11:26 pm

    Yes, I’ll answer your question about Scientology to the best of my ability because I want to end the conflicts. You may not like my answers if you have come here to spread your opinions or those of the hate sites. I think you might want to read the earlier posts in this thread.

    Here’s my answer to your question, John.

    The fact that the protests were peaceful are irrelevant in light of the fact that the protesters are protesting on data gotten from hate sites without ever getting it verified. xenu.net specifically. The hate sites couldn’t be happier that Anon is doing this and based on enturb are in there cheering you on (inciting). There is a “someone” behind this.

    xenu.net is where these false ideas were gotten from. Then there’s another 20 that copy them and lermanet.

    Please refer to my earlier posts where I give the references. There’s just a few.

    Pat

  26. Comment by John on March 18, 2008 11:28 pm

    My apologies, I would like to correct my above post;

    I am aware of the purpose of this site, to counter false claims and lies about the Church of Scientology [and scientology in general].

  27. Comment by John on March 18, 2008 11:26 pm

    > Well, for starters. This site has offered to answer questions about Scientology. To dispel myths with documentation. I wasn’t aware that we had the obligation to find positive aspects to the protest on our Churches.

    I believe you’re still missing the point I am trying to make. I am aware of the purpose of this site, to counter false claims and lies about the church of scientology. However you continue to claim that Anonymous protestors had been mislead by websites and information that is biased and misleading, if not ouright false. You then turn around and post information on Anonymous that is biased and misleading, if not outright false.

    Do you expect me to take everything else said on this site at face value?

    > I have read the sites and even acknowledged in earlier posts of the last 2 days that I have seen that Anonymous posters tell those advocating violence to STFU. I don’t understand, I guess, why Anonymous tries to claim that the religion and the Church are separate entities.

    Other members of Anonymous have tried to explain this using the recent cases of Catholic priests abusing children. On numerous other occasions I have seen scientologists state that I should read and understand scientology texts before I speak out against the Church of Scientology.

    Yes, I realise I am not providing proof of this. Do you disagree with my previous statement regarding understanding scientology before casting judgement?

    If not I would state that I do not believe that I have to read Mein Kampf to speak out against Hitler’s actions, I do not believe that I have to read and understand psychiatry texts before I object to over-medication of children, and I certainly do not have to read and understand the Koran before I express disgust at the actions of individuals on 911. Or do you disagree?

  28. Comment by Pat on March 18, 2008 10:55 pm

    @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 18, 2008 9:38 pm
    >Here’s a general question, and I ask this before responding to anything else, since I am -pissed off-:

    I see that.

    >Shortly after Sean Carasov’s name and photo was posted on Youtube by the the Church of Scientology, an unknown individual spiked the dry food he leaves out for two neighborhood cats with ammonia. Consequently, one of the cats ate it and died.

    That pisses me off too. I love Cats. Not so good with plants but cats are my favorite animal.

    Considering that the 5th Dynamic (or life Dynamic) is part of our urge to survive as or through all life forms and plants and animals are very much a part of that, I would find it very difficult to extrapolate that a Scientologist did that.

    http://www.scientology.org

    >Since some of you guys are so big on “guilt by association”, claiming that Anonymous’s actions and videos are responsible, at the very least, for creating an “atmosphere” where the threats against the church are more likely to occur, when will the church be taking responsibility for the deliberate poisoning of Sean’s cat?

    It could also have been someone who wanted to make it seem that way.

    When Anonymous takes responsibilty for the bomb and death threats, if it is found that someone affiliated with the Church did it. Certainly Scientology justice procedure could lead to ex-communication if it was, leaving the culprit to the law.

    >I have a few more choice words I’d say about people who would deliberately kill animals as a scare tactic or try to make a point, but I suspect they’d be taken out of context and I’d get hit with a nonsense charge of “making terrorist threats”.

    Not conducive to continuing dialog on this site, as it were. If that matters to you. Don’t know.

    Freedom of speech is protected in the US.

    Pat

    Pat

  29. Comment by Pat on March 18, 2008 10:35 pm

    @Comment by John on March 18, 2008 9:24 pm
    >I’m sorry, I believe you missed the point of my comment. Once again, I can only comment on my perspective, I cannot speak for all of Anonymous.

    >I did not say that you were lying at all. I was merely trying to point out that by not mentioning the peaceful aspects of Anonymous you are giving a biased opinion of Anonymous rather than attempting to dispel myths surrounding scientology.

    >I have never attacked the beliefs of scientologists, nor do I want to, but I have spoken with a member of the church who has accused me of being no different than the KKK. It is this sort of uninformed opinion of members of Anonymous that frustrates me.

    >As for the signs that say “Honk if you hate scientology”, if you took the time to read the Enturbulation forums you would see that these sorts of signs are actively discouraged by members of Anonymous.

    Regards,
    John

    Well, for starters. This site has offered to answer questions about Scientology. To dispel myths with documentation. I wasn’t aware that we had the obligation to find positive aspects to the protest on our Churches.

    I have read the sites and even acknowledged in earlier posts of the last 2 days that I have seen that Anonymous posters tell those advocating violence to STFU. I don’t understand, I guess, why Anonymous tries to claim that the religion and the Church are separate entities.

    They aren’t. Scientologists are required to live by the law of the land. If we broke the law and do nothing to rectify that then we should take the consequences. So far, I haven’t been able to get any answers to MY questions on how did Scientology break the law, that Anonymous is allegedly basing their protest on? Do you see my quandry? I’m not protesting your right to protest, just that your protest has false premises and wrong targets because you only had the hate sites to go off of for your data. The original premise for the attacks on our web site (acknowledged as being done by Anonymous) was because we had our stolen vid removed from YouTube. The message that Anonymous sent by doing that was that it wasn’t ok for us to protect our copyrights. So why does this keep going? It’s been months now and I still haven’t seen where this has resolved anything at all. Do you?

    Our 3D dynamic of survival is the urge to survive through or as one’s group. Scientology is my group. My Church is my group. So when Anonymous protests at my Church they are protesting my group, my religion, my Church, MY survival, MY group’s survival, etc. It’s all symbiotic.

  30. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 18, 2008 9:38 pm

    Here’s a general question, and I ask this before responding to anything else, since I am -pissed off-:

    Shortly after Sean Carasov’s name and photo was posted on Youtube by the the Church of Scientology, an unknown individual spiked the dry food he leaves out for two neighborhood cats with ammonia. Consequently, one of the cats ate it and died.

    Since some of you guys are so big on “guilt by association”, claiming that Anonymous’s actions and videos are responsible, at the very least, for creating an “atmosphere” where the threats against the church are more likely to occur, when will the church be taking responsibility for the deliberate poisoning of Sean’s cat?

    I have a few more choice words I’d say about people who would deliberately kill animals as a scare tactic or try to make a point, but I suspect they’d be taken out of context and I’d get hit with a nonsense charge of “making terrorist threats”.

  31. Comment by John on March 18, 2008 9:24 pm

    I’m sorry, I believe you missed the point of my comment. Once again, I can only comment on my perspective, I cannot speak for all of Anonymous.

    I did not say that you were lying at all. I was merely trying to point out that by not mentioning the peaceful aspects of Anonymous you are giving a biased opinion of Anonymous rather than attempting to dispel myths surrounding scientology.

    I have never attacked the beliefs of scientologists, nor do I want to, but I have spoken with a member of the church who has accused me of being no different than the KKK. It is this sort of uninformed opinion of members of Anonymous that frustrates me.

    As for the signs that say “Honk if you hate scientology”, if you took the time to read the Enturbulation forums you would see that these sorts of signs are actively discouraged by members of Anonymous.

    Regards,
    John

  32. Comment by Pat on March 18, 2008 8:58 pm

    @Comment by John on March 18, 2008 7:31 pm
    To Lu,

    If you want us to believe that this website provides a good perspective from which to view evidence supporting the Church of Scientology then the least you could do is attempt to make your information unbiased.

    Why is there no mention at all of the worldwide peaceful protests held by Anonymous on both the 10th February and the 15th of March 2008?

    Where did anyone say they weren’t peaceful? Why does someone keep bringing that up? It isn’t the point. The issue we’re having is the fact that Anonymous keeps saying they have nothing against the Church, while protesting the Church. It’s kind of conflicting data isn’t it?

    What about “honk if you hate Scientology”, if it’s the officers you’re protesting?

  33. Comment by Pat on March 18, 2008 8:48 pm

    Errata:

    1st paragraph:
    should read “principles of our”

    2nd paragraph:
    should read “material universe and the organisms”

  34. Comment by Pat on March 18, 2008 8:39 pm

    @Comment by anmn on March 18, 2008 6:02 am
    In order to understand the policies and practices of our scriptures (technology) you would need to understand a few basic principles our religious philosophy. I’m posting this as it appears that almost all of the issues by yourself and erroneous stem from missing data on our tenets.

    1. SELF-DETERMINISM (Advanced Procedures & Axioms)
    “SELF-DETERMINISM is that state of being wherein the individual can or cannot be controlled by his environment according to his own choice. In that state, the individual has self-confidence in his control of the material universe nad the organisms within it along every dynamic. He is confident about any and all abilities or talents he may possess. He reasons, but does not need to react. (pg 119)

    “THE GOAL OF THE AUDITOR WITH THE PRECLEAR IS THE REHABILITATION OF THE PRECLEAR’S SELF-DETERMINISM.” (pg 119)

    2. RESPONSIBILITY (Advanced Procedures & Axioms)
    “DEFINITION: RESPONSIBILITY IS THE ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS TO ASSUME THE STATUS OF FULL SOURCE AND CAUSE FOR ALL EFFORTS AND COUNTER-EFFORTS ON ALL DYNAMICS. “(page 127)

    3. FULL RESPONSIBILITY – CAUSE AND EFFECT (Introduction to Scientology Ethics)
    “Full responsibility is not “fault”, it is recognition of being cause”

    (Advanced Procedures & Axioms)
    Ordinarily people call the assignment of cause “blame”.

    If one assigns cause to something, he delivers to that entity power. This is not mystical. It is a new discovery.” (page 135)

    From the Definitions page at ScientologyMyths.info

    “overt act:
    1. an overt act is not just injuring someone or something; an overt act is an act of omission or
    commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics.
    2 . an intentionally committed harmful act committed in an effort to resolve a problem.
    3. that thing which you do which you aren’t willing to have happen to you.

    motivator:
    1. an aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics. It is called a motivator because it tends to prompt that one pays it back—it “motivates” a new overt.
    2 . something which the person feels has been done to him, which he is not willing to have happen.
    3 . an act received by the person or individual causing injury, reduction or degradation of his beingness, person, associations or dynamics. (HCOB 1 Nov 68 II) 4. an overt act against oneself by another. In other words, a motivator is a harmful action performed by somebody else against oneself.

    overt-motivator sequence:
    1. if a fellow does an overt, he will then believe he’s got to have a motivator or that he has had a motivator.
    2. the sequence wherein someone who has committed an overt has to claim the existence of motivators. The motivators are then likely to be used to justify committing further overt acts. ”

    Therefore, to restore a person to Full Self Determinism one would have to address his cause.
    This is why we ask what the “critics” have done.

    Suppressive Person: (Introduction to Scientology Ethics)
    “A person who suppresses other people in his vicinity. A Suppressive Person will goof up or vilify any effort to help anybody and particularly knife with violence anything calculated to make human beings more powerful or more intelligent.

    The whole rationale of the Suppressive Person (SP) is built on the belief that if anyone got better, the SP would be for it [in trouble] as the others could overcome him then.

    He is fighting a battle he once fought and never stopped fighting. He is in an incident. Present time people are mistaken by him for past, long-gone enemies. Therefore he never really knows what he is fighting in present time, so just fights.” (page 171)

    Suppress:
    “To squash, sit on, to make smaller, to refuse to let reach, to make uncertain about his reaching, to render or lessen in any way possible by any means possible to the harm of the individual and for the fancied protection of the SP” (page 172)

    Suppression:
    “A harmful intention or action against which one cannot fight back. Thus when one can do ‘anything’ (italics) about it, it is less suppressive.

    Suppression in its most fundamental sense is knocking out the beingness or location of another or others.” (page 172)

    Attributes of an SP (also known as an anti-social personaliy)
    Rather than take up space with the characteristics you can see them here:
    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH11_1.HTM

    Disconnection: (From section on “PTSness and Disconnection”)
    “The term ‘disconnection’ (italics) is defined as a self-determined decision made by an individual that he is not going to be connected to another. It is a ‘severing’ (italics) of a communication line.

    The basic principal of “handle or disconnect” exists in any group and ours is no different.”
    (page 206)

    “A Scientologist can become PTS by reason of being connected to someone that is antagonistic to Scientology or its tenets. In order to resolve the PTS condition, he either ‘handles’ (italics) the other person’s antagonism (as covered here and in full on the PTS/SP Course) or, as a last resort when all attempts to handle have failed, he disconnects from the person. He is simply exercising his right to communicate or not to communicate with a particular person.”
    —————–
    For a greater understanding of what is really going on between the Church and the ex-kids and other ex-Scientologists and those who’ve never been near a Church, the above covers the basics. There is much, much more in the book “Introduction to Scientology Ethics”.

    If the ex-kids or others were disconnected from, who caused that? The Church or the ones that removed themselves from it? These are tenets each member accepted when they joined Scientology and the Sea Organization in some cases, like exkids. The references regarding recourse are in the Ethics Policy timeline I gave to amnm a day or two ago. Just do a find for “timeline”in this topic.

    To amnm: I thought you were trying to be moderate? What happened?

    To Erroneous: I asked you those questions because I wanted YOU to find the specifics that backed your issues which are stated as fact. I’m hoping that you will be able to track those specifics down and not give any more generalities or perhaps discover that you accepted generalities as “facts”.

    Pat

  35. Comment by John on March 18, 2008 7:31 pm

    To Lu,

    If you want us to believe that this website provides a good perspective from which to view evidence supporting the Church of Scientology then the least you could do is attempt to make your information unbiased.

    Why is there no mention at all of the worldwide peaceful protests held by Anonymous on both the 10th February and the 15th of March 2008?

  36. Comment by anmn on March 18, 2008 6:02 am

    @Pat:
    >The DDOS can be tracked thru IP, the phone calls and faxes can be tracked through caller id. and phone company records. If anon didn’t do that then you have nothing to worry about.

    Unfortunately, that’s part of the problem. No one can really say, “that person is not part of Anonymous.” You have to look at the actions and attitude of the majority. I do my part to encourage only legal actions and welcome investigations of illegalities.

    >I didn’t see [Karin Pouw’s] statement. What’s the link?

    csmonitor.com/2008/0317/p03s02-ussc.html , in the third paragraph.

    >I wouldn’t be surprised if [Andrew Morton] was paid to do that.

    Do what? Leak the Tom Cruise vid? How would he have access to that?

    And paid by whom? Who has the funds to pay a millionaire author enough to risk his career? (Though I guess he’s no stranger to writing risky books)

    My point is that no one could have reasonably forseen the chain of consequences that followed from publication of the book.

    Did the Church of Scientology, or you yourself, take a stance on the Mohammed cartoons published in that Danish newspaper in 2005? What do you think of the response to that? I’m not trying to lead anywhere with this question; I’m just wondering how you react to other religious controversies.

    >Anonymous is being used. People have been pulled into it by someone or someone(s) feeding in a great deal of propaganda.

    Do you have any suspects? From what I know about the chans, I find this impossible to believe. Anonymous is no one’s army.

    The original Youtube declaration was not a great piece of speechwriting. The videos and the hubbub are not enough to attract this kind of attention and action. There’s more to it. Personally, I opposed the actions of the CoS long before the videos started coming out. I wouldn’t have joined a dozen protesters. But with the strength of anonymous thousands, I’ll stand up.

    >Understand that this is my opinion after exhaustive reading of the Anon vids and sites and see a great – no, VERY great similarity between Anon’s positions and what ex-scientologists post on the internet. I’ve seen the posts where you get instructed on good signs to use and arguments.

    Certainly. I haven’t discussed the ex-members here, because I learned the CoS’s policy of treating them as liars seeking only fame and money. I disagree, but I know I’m not going to change your opinion, so I spend my time on other arguments.

    But the ex-members’ stories are some of the most convincing material out there. They’re not famous, they’re not making a lot of money. They’re happier outside, and they’re telling their stories. Like me, they found strength in the support of Anonymous and are no longer afraid to speak out.

    And Anonymous listens to those with experience and good ideas. There have been a lot of good suggestions for signs, flyers, and talking points. They come from ex-members, members of the press, police officers, writers and artists. There are experts among Anon, and it would be foolish to ignore their advice.

    >when you say the Church is bad, you’re saying we’re bad. Maybe that isn’t particularly a reality because I don’t think there are many people out there in the world that are 24/7 being their religion like most Scientologists do.

    This is a very interesting point. But I don’t think I can allow it to affect my opinions.

    Suppose, for a minute, that Anonymous is right. That there are harmful policies in the CoS, and they should be brought to public light and legal scrutiny. How could Anonymous do that without attacking the members? If that’s not possible, then it seems like any organization could get away with a variety of illegal and unethical activities by putting the word “Church” in its title and claiming the same thing you are.

    >What would your reaction be if your Church had received bomb and death threats? I seriously think they would ask for help in that. Especially Atlanta – you know about their history of riots?

    What about LA, and their far grander history of riots and racism? They had no riot police, only a few barricades and a couple squads of regular patrols giving guidelines to Anonymous in order to keep them out of trouble. And they were expecting hundreds of protesters, while Atlanta was expecting dozens. In fact, LA is in the area that received the white powder. There’s something profoundly irrational about the Atlanta response.

    @Pat:
    >So when someone constantly complains, … it’s a red flag that he or she has done something he or she considers violated the group’s moral code in some way

    I strongly disagree with this assessment. Why should the ex-member seek redress through the policies of an organization he or she is no longer affiliated with? What if it’s the moral code itself that is the issue? Would you advise an assaulted psych patient to go through an APA-approved mediation process, or instead go to the courts and the public?

    @Pat:
    >>As for the “attacking the church” angle- It’s not, frankly, even the entire church. It’s the management …
    >Then stop protesting outside our Churches.

    And do what, instead? Write letters to Miscavige? Fly everyone to Flag for a protest? We do what we must, because we can. Anti-war protests aren’t held in Iraq; they’re held in city centers, closer to councilmen and mayors than senators and Presidents. But it’s a show of public disapproval, and it serves to show passersby that there is local opposition to a national problem.

  37. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 18, 2008 4:59 am

    Pat – That’s all well and good, but it does not change the fact that the IRS “erroneously” claimed that they were unable to disclose that information, -even to the Justice Department-.

    I mean, I know executive branch agencies sometimes like to be belligerent just for the heck of it when it comes to cooperation, but those are some documents that need to see the light of day. If there’s nothing wrong in there, then there’s nothing to fear from them being exposed.

  38. Comment by Pat on March 18, 2008 4:41 am

    @ Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 18, 2008 12:30 am

    “The IRS thing: My concern is less about the goal of the Sklar’s case, and more about the fact that the IRS is so reluctant to discuss the closing agreement. You’ll note that even the judge considers that inappropriate.”

    Let’s get that in context, ok?

    “Because the IRS erroneously asserted that it is prohibited from disclosing all or any part of the closing agreement, we assume, for purposes of resolving this case, the truthfulness of the Sklars’ allegations regarding the terms of that agreement. However, rather than concluding that the IRS’s pro-Scientology policy would require it to adopt similar provisions for all other religions, we would likely conclude, were we to reach the issue, that the policy must be invalidated on the ground that it violates either the Internal Revenue Code or the Establishment Clause. See Hernandez, 490 U.S. at 694; Lemon v. Kurtzmann, 403 U.S. at 612-13. ”

    Silverman then goes on to say:
    “We seriously doubt that the Sklars are similarly situated to the persons who benefit from the Scientology closing agreement because the religious education of the Sklars’ children does not appear to be similar to the “auditing”, “training” or other “qualified religious services” conducted by the Church of Scientology”

    I actually disagree with that because the Court is doing exactly what they said they didn’t want to do and that was determining that the Jewish school was different “religiously” than Scientology, entangling State and Church. The problem was that they tried to claim it without proof from their Church (donations statement) and didn’t apply for an exception before filing.

  39. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 18, 2008 4:19 am

    “A. How did David Miscavige or “higher-ups” violate the RPF?
    B. How did David Miscavige or “higher-ups” harass critics?
    C. How did David Miscavige or “higher-ups” violate Child Labor Laws?
    D. How did David Miscavige or “higher-ups” do dirty tricks?
    E. How did David Miscavige or “higher-ups” violate disconnection policy?
    F. Who did David Miscavige allegedly physically abuse?
    G. Who did David Miscavige or “higher-ups” do dangerous medical practices on?”

    I honestly feel like, if you cannot find the answers to some of these, you are not looking. Of course, these accounts, practically by definition, come from critics or ex-Scientologists, so the church as a whole tends to dismiss them.

    A: There are numerous stories of horrible, practically third-world conditions within the RPF, including sleep deprivation, improper living conditions, malnutrition, etc. Even worse is the inclusion of children in these situations.
    B: I don’t think this one even NEEDS explanation. Hiring private detectives to stalk critics, following the “noisy investigation” policy? Picketing individual critics’ homes while handing out flyers accusing them of religious bigotry or, better yet, child molestation? Approaching friends, business partners, and employers of critics in an attempt to isolate them or scare them into silence? Regardless of what other claims the church may refute, this one DOES happen, and the courts have found -several times- that this is true.
    C: Read the stories of Jenna Miscavige, Kendra Wiseman, and Astra Woodcraft. Read, for instance, how Jenna was allowed to go to school on Saturday for a few hours, and yet was forced to work (sometimes through the night) doing hard labor like laying bricks, hauling large rocks, and pouring cement.
    D: See B, though I’d group part of their smear campaign against Anon (and, in particular, the public disclosure of the names and faces of individual members along with vague allegations).
    E: Here, you may have me. They probably didn’t violate disconnection policy. Instead, they seem to be all for it. I personally consider disconnection policy, as currently practiced by the church, to be reprehensible. A situation that essentially requires that one choose between their religion and their loved ones is, frankly, unacceptable.
    F: Jeff Hawkins, Mike Rinder, Lymon Spurlock, and Marc Yager, among others. You might want to listen to Hawkins’ recent radio interview, though it really just corroborates what others have already said.
    G: Lisa McPherson, for one. I know, I know, I’ve already heard the church’s official line on it. That’s one I’m not buying, especially given descriptions of the “introspection rundown”, the unsubstantiated claims of Narconon, and recent high-profile failures of the church’s own policy regarding mental illness like the case of Ellie Perkins.

    Granted, some of these things may well be in line with church policy, in which case I can understand how you wouldn’t write up a report on them. Understand, though, that to people -outside- the church, these things are…not generally seen as appropriate.

    Also, if you -did- submit a report about DM…Do you genuinely think anything would come of it?

  40. Comment by Veritas on March 18, 2008 3:19 am

    Hi, kind of stumbled upon this place and think it will be interesting to have a free exchange of ideas on LRH/scientology.
    Just to preface from where I’m coming on the subject, I first really took notice of scientology after watching a CCHR video, from there I went and studied lrh a bit and while theres things that he says that personally resonate w/ me(such as his geopolitical outlook, belief in the infinite possibility of man for example) and yet there seems to be some some disconcerting evidence on lrh and the COS. I look forward to hammering out the details.

    Questions for LOU- I’ll just start with a couple(I have quite a biit)
    First off the quote ‘Make money. Make more money. Make others produce so as to make money . . . However you get them in or why, just do it.” and “Make sure that lots of bodies move through the shop”
    What your position on that allagedly hubbard saw how much he sold through dianetics and based on that created an org, to further cash in, I heard he was worth over 190 mill on his death.

    Would I be denied OT levels and auditing because I’m fairly limited on funds, through the COS?

    Lastly for now, what do you think of people saying that the xenu OT bit(I have not read it myself) being very similar to a sci-fi screenplay written earlier by LRH?
    thanks

  41. Comment by Pat on March 18, 2008 2:09 am

    @Comment by Mu on March 18, 2008 12:58 am

    So I was skimming through and saw you put a ? by “1984 orwell”. there was another classic literary reference you also failed to get earlier that i do not at present recall. anyway, this leads to my question: what books *not* written by hubbard or other scientologists have you read?

    It would help if you could put the topic where you saw this so we can see what context it was in. By the way, who are you addressing this to?

  42. Comment by Pat on March 18, 2008 2:02 am

    @ Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 18, 2008 12:30 am

    >Pat-

    >You know the accusations that have been leveled against the church, regarding the RPF, child labor, harassment of critics, dirty tricks, disconnection, dangerous medical practices, etc. I mean, the list goes on and on, and I expect you’ve heard most of it a hundred times by now.

    >My contention is simply that I do not believe -most- Scientologists are to blame for that stuff, and that much of it is driven by the upper management. A lot of this appears to be corroborated by other reports of Miscavige, including his alleged physical abuse towards his subordinates.

    I’ve seen these words used before, yes. A

    A. How did David Miscavige or “higher-ups” violate the RPF?
    B. How did David Miscavige or “higher-ups” harass critics?
    C. How did David Miscavige or “higher-ups” violate Child Labor Laws?
    D. How did David Miscavige or “higher-ups” do dirty tricks?
    E. How did David Miscavige or “higher-ups” violate disconnection policy?
    F. Who did David Miscavige allegedly physically abuse?
    G. Who did David Miscavige or “higher-ups” do dangerous medical practices on?

    If I have knowledge of violations or abuse of our policies or scriptures of course I can report it, and have where it was warranted. It’s actually required that I do so. And I would make damned sure I had exact time, place form and event. If I only think there might be I can report that too, but state it as opinion. If I report generalities then I could expect to be given minimally an ethics hearing to handle the fact I didn’t get the facts. So, now I need the facts.

    Reference HCO PL 22 July 1982 “Knowledge Reports” (OEC Vol 0 pg 555)

  43. Comment by Mu on March 18, 2008 12:59 am

    i remember, it was the “ides of march” you didn’t recognize, which isn’t a big deal – most americans would fail that – but you seriously have never heard of 1984?

  44. Comment by Mu on March 18, 2008 12:58 am

    So I was skimming through and saw you put a ? by “1984 orwell”. there was another classic literary reference you also failed to get earlier that i do not at present recall. anyway, this leads to my question: what books *not* written by hubbard or other scientologists have you read?

  45. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 18, 2008 12:34 am

    I would also point to this open letter, which I actually thought was pretty well-written:

    http://askthescientologist.blogspot.com/2008/03/open-letter-to-all-scientologists.html

  46. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 18, 2008 12:30 am

    Pat-

    You know the accusations that have been leveled against the church, regarding the RPF, child labor, harassment of critics, dirty tricks, disconnection, dangerous medical practices, etc. I mean, the list goes on and on, and I expect you’ve heard most of it a hundred times by now.

    My contention is simply that I do not believe -most- Scientologists are to blame for that stuff, and that much of it is driven by the upper management. A lot of this appears to be corroborated by other reports of Miscavige, including his alleged physical abuse towards his subordinates. Not a healthy atmosphere, that.

    The IRS stuff: It’s not necessarily the church’s -fault- that it’s sealed. It’s merely -suspicious- that it remains sealed. The “it contains taxpayer info” argument was already shot down by the courts, and even if it were true, I find it difficult to believe that the IRS could not simply redact that identifying info while leaving the rest intact.

    Look, if the unsealed documents showed unfair practices from the IRS -against- the CoS, great. Those people should be held responsible. I’m not of the opinion that the church should be punished for any wrongdoing while the government should be held to a different standard. However, the reported “investigation” of numerous IRS employees during that entire process leaves me feeling uneasy. Can you think of another church that behaves like that?

    “I see. What’s that term that our government uses.. oh, yes Collateral damage. Oh, sorry but we were aiming at Miscavige who’s at every org on the planet at the same time. Right?”

    Look, you know how protests work. Protests are primarily about getting the attention of the public and the media. There’s a reason that anti-war protests occur at places OTHER than just in front of the centers of government. They are making a statement and drawing attention. That attention leads to public awareness and, if appropriate, investigation. It’s not about walking up to Miscavige personally and putting a sign in his face (though I’d personally love to have a conversation with the guy).

    From everything I’ve seen, Miscavige is not a particularly nice guy. You know the saying “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire?” In this case, there’s enough smoke to indicate the great Chicago fire. My question remains: -If- you felt that he were out-ethics, do you believe that you could file a report on him and reasonably expect something to come of it, or does he seem “above the law”?

  47. Comment by Pat on March 17, 2008 11:56 pm

    @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 17, 2008 11:12 pm

    >>Pat-
    >>“Then stop protesting outside our Churches. It doesn’t make sense that you do that because you think David Miscavige is doing something wrong. It’s not an “angle”. It’s a wrong target. You can’t do that and continue to say that you’re not attacking the religion. Auditing sessions are being disrupted and students are being distracted. That’s attacking my religion and the practice of it. Is that what you want? I don’t mean the generic you there, but YOU currently known as Erroneous Assumption.”

    >I disagree. The issue here is that, even though in many cases it’s the upper management responsible for a lot of this stuff, nobody else in the organization -does- anything about it. There’s a lot of talk about how the church is great at handling these things internally, and yet they apparently persist.

    Responsible for what exactly?

    >If you felt that Dave Miscavige was out-ethics, do you genuinely think you could report him and something would be done about it? If, back when Mike Rinder was still around, you’d done the same for him, do you think anything would have come of it?

    >To answer your question, though, no, I do not personally have the desire to harm anyone’s religion. I do, however, want to see people take notice and for the message to get across by whatever peaceful means are available.

    And that message is …?

    >“A similar example might have been, hundreds of years ago, “I’m glad so many Catholics find solace in the Catholic Church, but that whole Inquisition thing is really just…inappropriate.””

    >To clarify, I do not mean that the CoS is carrying out actions equivalent to those of the Inquisition. It is, however, a prime example of a religious institution with -members- who are largely innocent while a part of the institution itself carries out reprehensible acts. You could look to the tired old Catholic priest example again, if you prefer, though less in terms of the actual priests and more in terms of the institutionalized practice of covering it up.

    RE: The Dekalb/Atlanta protest: Regardless of the content of a few message board posts, the police actions there were heavy-handed and grossly disproportionate to what every other police department in the -world- did. Granted, I don’t think this is necessarily the CoS’s fault, since the Dekalb PD’s chief, who was fired from his last job for scandal and corruption, has a bit of a…reputation for that kind of thing.

    I’m kind of biased because they were guarding one of our Churches. Whatever their justification was for the number, I’m glad they were there.

    >The IRS thing: My concern is less about the goal of the Sklar’s case, and more about the fact that the IRS is so reluctant to discuss the closing agreement. You’ll note that even the judge considers that inappropriate.

    Why is that Scientology’s fault or David Miscaviges’? The IRS claim (not Miscavige’s or the Church’s) is that the agreement contains tax payer info. By the IRS, not Scientology. Maybe the IRS doesn’t want the public to know something about what it did to the Church? Did you ever consider that? It took 40 years of constant battle with them in the courts and when Mr Miscavige went to talk in person, it still took two more years to get the exemption back. Some think it’s an error because it was so “fast”. LOL

    My point is, is that someone is trying to twist that into something wrong when it helps all religions.

    >>“My RELIGION is being attacked. Can you see that even tho you say it’s not your intent, that it’s happening or has increased exponentially as a result?”

    >I don’t believe that all of the “Scientology is stupid hurr hurr hurr!” stupidity accomplishes anything. It’s unfortunate that some people see the current activism as a license to act like morons, but…on the other hand, it’s the internet, so I’m not sure they really need an excuse. “Forget it, Joe. It’s Chinatown.”

    >It’s the unfortunate potential side-effect of any movement. While individual members can do what they can to limit it, it’s not really realistic or fair to say, “You should stop protesting so that these other people will stop.”

    I see. What’s that term that our government uses.. oh, yes Collateral damage. Oh, sorry but we were aiming at Miscavige who’s at every org on the planet at the same time. Right?

    I really don’t get what you think David Miscavige has done, that we are supposed to handle him on. Do you?

    If so, please enlighten me.

    Pat

  48. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 17, 2008 11:12 pm

    Pat-
    “Then stop protesting outside our Churches. It doesn’t make sense that you do that because you think David Miscavige is doing something wrong. It’s not an “angle”. It’s a wrong target. You can’t do that and continue to say that you’re not attacking the religion. Auditing sessions are being disrupted and students are being distracted. That’s attacking my religion and the practice of it. Is that what you want? I don’t mean the generic you there, but YOU currently known as Erroneous Assumption.”

    I disagree. The issue here is that, even though in many cases it’s the upper management responsible for a lot of this stuff, nobody else in the organization -does- anything about it. There’s a lot of talk about how the church is great at handling these things internally, and yet they apparently persist.

    If you felt that Dave Miscavige was out-ethics, do you genuinely think you could report him and something would be done about it? If, back when Mike Rinder was still around, you’d done the same for him, do you think anything would have come of it?

    To answer your question, though, no, I do not personally have the desire to harm anyone’s religion. I do, however, want to see people take notice and for the message to get across by whatever peaceful means are available.

    “A similar example might have been, hundreds of years ago, “I’m glad so many Catholics find solace in the Catholic Church, but that whole Inquisition thing is really just…inappropriate.””

    To clarify, I do not mean that the CoS is carrying out actions equivalent to those of the Inquisition. It is, however, a prime example of a religious institution with -members- who are largely innocent while a part of the institution itself carries out reprehensible acts. You could look to the tired old Catholic priest example again, if you prefer, though less in terms of the actual priests and more in terms of the institutionalized practice of covering it up.

    RE: The Dekalb/Atlanta protest: Regardless of the content of a few message board posts, the police actions there were heavy-handed and grossly disproportionate to what every other police department in the -world- did. Granted, I don’t think this is necessarily the CoS’s fault, since the Dekalb PD’s chief, who was fired from his last job for scandal and corruption, has a bit of a…reputation for that kind of thing.

    The IRS thing: My concern is less about the goal of the Sklar’s case, and more about the fact that the IRS is so reluctant to discuss the closing agreement. You’ll note that even the judge considers that inappropriate.

    “My RELIGION is being attacked. Can you see that even tho you say it’s not your intent, that it’s happening or has increased exponentially as a result?”

    I don’t believe that all of the “Scientology is stupid hurr hurr hurr!” stupidity accomplishes anything. It’s unfortunate that some people see the current activism as a license to act like morons, but…on the other hand, it’s the internet, so I’m not sure they really need an excuse. “Forget it, Joe. It’s Chinatown.”
    It’s the unfortunate potential side-effect of any movement. While individual members can do what they can to limit it, it’s not really realistic or fair to say, “You should stop protesting so that these other people will stop.”

  49. Comment by Pat on March 17, 2008 9:06 pm

    @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 17, 2008 9:22 am

    >Pat-
    >I don’t doubt that the police would take measures to protect the church. However, (I know this will sound all tinfoil-hattish, but bear with me), I have yet to see any actual PROOF of these alleged threats, outside of the white powder mailings, which the authorities said had no apparent connection to the Anon stuff.

    >Furthermore, the Feb. 10th protest was peaceful in the -extreme-, which is why I find it somewhat disappointing that not only were the riot cops out again (the only location, I might add, to have that, -including- other southern states), but they utilized some pretty heavy-handed tactics, apparently at the behest of the people at the top of the food chain.

    Erroneous,

    I think the key word in all of this is apparently. I’m already having this discussion with amnm and my last post gives my conjecture (that’s all I can give). I’ve seen people at enturb using “kill” and “destroy” in relation to the church. This type does exist in the confines of the loose organization of Anonymous. These are “apparently” anonymous members who get carried away and I also see them told to STFU. If you could read the last discussion with amnm that would save me from having to go over it all again.

    >As for the “attacking the church” angle- It’s not, frankly, even the entire church. It’s the management and those individuals who enable the emergence of destructive patterns. From the vast preponderance of evidence I’ve seen, a lot of that falls on the shoulders of David Miscavige.

    Then stop protesting outside our Churches. It doesn’t make sense that you do that because you think David Miscavige is doing something wrong. It’s not an “angle”. It’s a wrong target. You can’t do that and continue to say that you’re not attacking the religion. Auditing sessions are being disrupted and students are being distracted. That’s attacking my religion and the practice of it. Is that what you want? I don’t mean the generic you there, but YOU currently known as Erroneous Assumption.

    >A similar example might have been, hundreds of years ago, “I’m glad so many Catholics find solace in the Catholic Church, but that whole Inquisition thing is really just…inappropriate.”

    I think a meaningful discussion would require that you not liken us to the inquisition.

    >I could go on forever, but I don’t want to bury you (and the thread) with a load of points to respond to.

    I appreciate that.

    OK. IRS. I read the decision on Sklar. The only reason they got denied that I can see is that they tried to claim it on the basis of religious education when only a small portion was religious. The rest was for primary and secondary education. Because of the dual nature there it didn’t fit the requirement of SR 1603. The judge even states that Scientology’s agreement had nothing to do with the decision.

    I think that this keeps getting looked at negatively. Scientology opened the door for religions to be able to claim religious education (the cost of being educated in the religion rather than by a religion in primary or secondary grades). I wonder why people don’t see that? If the Sklars were to go at a different statute, I think they could get more help. Regretfully, I don’t have the wherewithal to let me do a course in tax law so I can tell you which statute to use.

    I would love for all religions to be included in this. With religions stronger we can raise moral values again around the world. The IRS is making a weak argument that it will embroil Church and State in entanglements. I saw an objection that taxpayers have to subsidize Scientology because of our uniqueness (All of our training and auditing is recognized as religious just because of what we study about the spirit).

    If we were to use a different system for taxation like Ron Paul proposes then we wouldn’t have this problem. Again, Scientology didn’t make the Sklars lose their case, yet we’re being blamed for them losing. Is that rational?

    If you don’t believe me about the attacks, go look at the Religion & Spirituality forum on Yahoo Answers. That’s just one place. People claiming to be anonymous are being pretty nasty over there. (Search “scientology scientologists”). There’s over 4000 questions. if you don’t put any limiters on the search. Then try “anonymous scientology”. There the religion is being attacked. Anonymous feeds that. Is that Anonymous’ goal? It feels like it due to the result.

    My RELIGION is being attacked. Can you see that even tho you say it’s not your intent, that it’s happening or has increased exponentially as a result?

  50. Comment by Scientologistforlife on March 17, 2008 10:02 am

    Luanne,

    I loved this website! It is very informative , and I have to say it is great to get the other side of the story for once. My partner and I are Australian Scientologists and we are extremley happy with the courses and auditing we have done – I just started the Dianetics course .
    Keep up the good work !

  51. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 17, 2008 9:22 am

    Pat-
    I don’t doubt that the police would take measures to protect the church. However, (I know this will sound all tinfoil-hattish, but bear with me), I have yet to see any actual PROOF of these alleged threats, outside of the white powder mailings, which the authorities said had no apparent connection to the Anon stuff.

    Furthermore, the Feb. 10th protest was peaceful in the -extreme-, which is why I find it somewhat disappointing that not only were the riot cops out again (the only location, I might add, to have that, -including- other southern states), but they utilized some pretty heavy-handed tactics, apparently at the behest of the people at the top of the food chain.

    As for the “attacking the church” angle- It’s not, frankly, even the entire church. It’s the management and those individuals who enable the emergence of destructive patterns. From the vast preponderance of evidence I’ve seen, a lot of that falls on the shoulders of David Miscavige.

    A similar example might have been, hundreds of years ago, “I’m glad so many Catholics find solace in the Catholic Church, but that whole Inquisition thing is really just…inappropriate.”

    I could go on forever, but I don’t want to bury you (and the thread) with a load of points to respond to.

  52. Comment by Pat on March 17, 2008 9:18 am

    @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 17, 2008 4:28 am
    >Phew! Okay, round two!

    LOL

    >Harassment of the IRS-
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E7DE1639F93AA35750C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

    >“Well, I think if I were easily persuaded I wouldn’t be ethical or moral. That’s what you’re going to run into with Scientologists. It’s called the Code of Honor. That may be hard for people to believe who felt it was necessay to leave after persuasion or influence from others or even their own inability to face those who they were committing overt acts against. It isn’t always easy to admit you did something wrong. I know that because I’ve been there.”

    >Here’s where I run into a bit of a problem. The church, from my experience, tends to paint anyone who speaks out against it as a criminal, or the very least someone with something to hide. That sort of rhetoric…doesn’t sit well with me, and only partly because of its totalitarian undertones. Is it honestly that impossible for someone to have been in the church, to disagree with its policies on a core level, and to be so suspicious of the upper-level management that they feel the need to speak publicly about it?

    >Wow, that was surprisingly short.

    I do get what you’re saying here. The principle comes from the eastern concept of Karma. Basically, what goes around comes around. Not preaching but Scientology was formed through researching the eastern religions of 2500 years ago. The concept of Cause and Effect goes WAY back. It’s not a matter of policy but scriptures. The Technology itself. So when someone constantly complains, such as ex-member who not only started but maintain and expand anti-scientology sites, the only thing the Church has done is talke legal recourse for the copyright violations. This was done without ever using the policies laid out for that (query of orders, knowledge reports, etc) it’s a red flag that he or she has done something he or she considers violated the group’s moral code in some way and tries to justify it by saying something was done to them. Called Overt and Motivator. That’s defined on page 36 of the Introduction to Scientology Ethics. Some of the actions by ex-members were so destructive that they were ex-communicated.

    If that isn’t true for you, so be it. I have to get back to you on the IRS thing. I did look at your link and did some more research on it. Will do that tomorrow (West Coast US here)

  53. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 17, 2008 9:07 am

    Pat- Just a brief apology. I erred earlier when I made that “greatest good for the greatest number” comment. I actually already understood the concept of the dynamics, but for some reason when I wrote that, I had been parsing it in my head as “…for the greatest number of individuals”, and not “the greatest number of dynamics”.

    That isn’t to say that I don’t still find the system somewhat suspect, but don’t let it be said that I won’t admit my mistakes when they do inevitably occur.

  54. Comment by Pat on March 17, 2008 8:46 am

    @Comment by anmn on March 17, 2008 6:39 am
    >Pat, would you mind adopting a more consistent quoting style? It’s often hard to tell what text you’re quoting and where your own words start. I adopted the > at the beginning of each quoted paragraph, and more >> for each double-quoted part, when I saw how effective it was in others’ posts.

    I’ll try. If you would respond to each person individually that would help me to that too.

    >Yes, I say he was unaffiliated with the protest. I could be wrong about that; he didn’t formally introduce himself to me. But he really didn’t seem to be a part of us.

    ok. I didn’t say he was affiliatied, tho’. Just that the protests bring out the crazies. If anon can control that it’s better for all. I’m even going to concede that the majority are trying to have protests with no physical violence in them. Still there’s those threats. The DDOS can be tracked thru IP, the phone calls and faxes can be tracked through caller id. and phone company records. If anon didn’t do that then you have nothing to worry about.

    >Your questions remind me of a statement made by Karen Pouw from an article in the Christian Science Monitor today. Is this part of an official internal statement?

    Nope, I’m just a public person who felt a very strong need to do something about the situation with anti-scientology rhetoric on the internet. I’m just trying to do something to fix it, along with others here. I didn’t see her statement. What’s the link?

    >I don’t know if our actions are inciting threats, but since that is no part of our intentions, and not an obvious consequence of a peaceful protest, I can’t see why we should be held responsible for it. By that logic, it would appear that you could prosecute Andrew Morton for the bomb threats. Morton published a book in mid-January, which appeared to inspire the leak of the Tom Cruise video, the removal of which galvanized Anonymous to action, and this action might have been used as justification by extremists to physically threaten the Church.

    LOL. I wouldn’t mind doing that. He’s such a sleaze. The Tom Cruise vid came out B4 the book. Just in time in fact. I don’t think that was coincidence at all. Especially since he was really trying to attack the Church. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was paid to do that.

    >Unless you can prove that there is an undercurrent of a desire for violence in Anonymous, I don’t believe the movement can be held responsible in any way for the violence that has occurred. That would be like arresting MLK for violence associated with the Black Panthers because of his I Have A Dream speech. Or, for that matter, jailing LRH for the actions of the Guardian’s Office, if he was as uninvolved as the CoS claims.

    I don’t know if I said this here or elsewhere. Anonymous is being used. People have been pulled into it by someone or someone(s) feeding in a great deal of propaganda. For all I know, it started out as a video from just one person and people started jumping on the “bandwagon”. Time will tell. Understand that this is my opinion after exhaustive reading of the Anon vids and sites and see a great – no, VERY great similarity between Anon’s positions and what ex-scientologists post on the internet. I’ve seen the posts where you get instructed on good signs to use and arguments. And yeah, I have also seen some tell those advocating violence to STFU.

    >However, this does also tie in with the reasons behind the bomb threats and other violent threats being sent in the first place. Here is an incomplete list of possible reasons:

    1. Anonymous sent them, and they are a key, planned part of Anonymous’ strategy. Thus, Anonymous is a terrorist group, and Anonymous members are accessories to terrorism. (Lou’s POV)

    ok. Accessory is a legal viewpoint. The authorities are going to look at that. That’s not something we caused.

    2. Fringe members of Anonymous, out of sync with the prevailing attitude of Anonymous, sent them. (My old POV)
    ok. Pretty much the same as #1.

    3. Those wishing harm against the CoS, outside of Anonymous, used the current movement as an excuse to send them. (Relates to your question)

    And yes, I am much more inclined, personally, to believe that. See my note above.

    4. People who oppose Anonymous sent them, with the intent of damaging Anonymous’ image. (Channer cynicist POV)

    That would be something the GO would have done but they’ve been gone 30 years. It’s a matter of differentiating rather than association. Being in present time and seeing what IS rather than what was. Same problem you’re running into with the wild aspect in Anon right now, isn’t it?

    >5. The CoS sent them, rehashing Operation Freakout tactics. (Conspiracy theorist POV)

    Again, I was around when she started her campaign. She was used and that was sad.

    >Ditto, my friend. It’s actually why I stopped arguing politics and religion on the internet years ago. This may be something intrinsic with arguing on the internet.

    LOL

    >Believe it or not, I have become more moderate since I started posting on this site. When I found Vicki Aznaran’s second set of affidavits, I saw that a lot of the opposition to the CoS was rather fanatic. I already knew some of this, after reading about the aftermath of the LMT lawsuits and what happened to Bob Minton, but that caused me to reexamine it. I admit that Arnie Lerma comes off as a conspiracy theorist, and I do disagree with many of his technical views. This site also led me to explore the page of an ex-Scientologist named Bernie at bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm . I would strongly encourage you to check it out. It’s a much more moderate viewpoint than you’ll find from either your side or mine.

    I’ll consider it.

    >Lou, T, other Scientologists, you too: bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm

    >I do still disagree with many of the actions of the CoS. I don’t believe that a religion should be allowed to act as the CoS does in several ways. My actual involved beliefs are relatively minor; most of my arguments here have actually been attempting to correct matters of fact, and discover why stories differ.

    >However, I am finding more and more actions to take issue with in the CoS’s responses to Anonymous.

    >I don’t believe I have insulted anyone on this site beyond a tit for a tat, and I plan to continue that. I have been personally insulted a few times and I have let it slide in the interest of discouraging drama.

    When you attack our religion or our sanity (comparison bias is a psych term), we tend to object ;P. (I know that the line is that you’re not attacking the religion, just the Church, but we are the Church). We support it with every nickel, dime and dollar that goes in and we support the officers and it’s our group and our 3rd dynamic that we survive as and through. Our group, our religion, our church, ok? when you say the Church is bad, you’re saying we’re bad. Maybe that isn’t particularly a reality because I don’t think there are many people out there in the world that are 24/7 being their religion like most Scientologists do.

    @ErroneousAssumptions:
    >>Indirectly, from the arrested individuals themselves. The two charges against them are supposedly “protesting without a permit” and “creating a dangerous environment”. Both are pretty silly charges, especially in the context of the remarkably peaceful Feb. 10th protest in the same location.

    >It’s important to note that the Atlanta org also had 20-30 riot cops at the Feb 10th protests. They may have a very fearful or convincing leader to get that kind of response from the police. And in the wake of the recent videos from the CoS, the police were probably convinced to be even more paranoid and inclined toward preemptive action to diffuse violent tendencies in the protesters. Hopefully this declines in the future, now that Anonymous has a pattern of staying on target with peaceful protests.

    What would your reaction be if your Church had received bomb and death threats? I seriously think they would ask for help in that. Especially Atlanta – you know about their history of riots? That’s why they crack down on anything that could stir people up in my view. The apparency of bigotry is an issue any future protests may want to take into consideration there. It’s still heavily racsist. That’s something that the Atlanta Churches and Missions try hard to fix.

  55. Comment by anmn on March 17, 2008 6:39 am

    Pat, would you mind adopting a more consistent quoting style? It’s often hard to tell what text you’re quoting and where your own words start. I adopted the > at the beginning of each quoted paragraph, and more >> for each double-quoted part, when I saw how effective it was in others’ posts.

    @Pat:
    >You say the violence was done by an “unaffiliated passerby”. You don’t think your protest is going to bring these out? That your protest isn’t inciting the threats?

    Yes, I say he was unaffiliated with the protest. I could be wrong about that; he didn’t formally introduce himself to me. But he really didn’t seem to be a part of us.

    Your questions remind me of a statement made by Karen Pouw from an article in the Christian Science Monitor today. Is this part of an official internal statement?

    I don’t know if our actions are inciting threats, but since that is no part of our intentions, and not an obvious consequence of a peaceful protest, I can’t see why we should be held responsible for it. By that logic, it would appear that you could prosecute Andrew Morton for the bomb threats. Morton published a book in mid-January, which appeared to inspire the leak of the Tom Cruise video, the removal of which galvanized Anonymous to action, and this action might have been used as justification by extremists to physically threaten the Church.

    Unless you can prove that there is an undercurrent of a desire for violence in Anonymous, I don’t believe the movement can be held responsible in any way for the violence that has occurred. That would be like arresting MLK for violence associated with the Black Panthers because of his I Have A Dream speech. Or, for that matter, jailing LRH for the actions of the Guardian’s Office, if he was as uninvolved as the CoS claims.

    However, this does also tie in with the reasons behind the bomb threats and other violent threats being sent in the first place. Here is an incomplete list of possible reasons:
    1. Anonymous sent them, and they are a key, planned part of Anonymous’ strategy. Thus, Anonymous is a terrorist group, and Anonymous members are accessories to terrorism. (Lou’s POV)
    2. Fringe members of Anonymous, out of sync with the prevailing attitude of Anonymous, sent them. (My old POV)
    3. Those wishing harm against the CoS, outside of Anonymous, used the current movement as an excuse to send them. (Relates to your question)
    4. People who oppose Anonymous sent them, with the intent of damaging Anonymous’ image. (Channer cynicist POV)
    5. The CoS sent them, rehashing Operation Freakout tactics. (Conspiracy theorist POV)

    >Is there any reason why your questions should get answered if you’re going to disagree with everything? (Yes, I mean just that) because I don’t see one instance where anything we have said here resolved any problems between us. It’s like there’s a 3rd party out there keeping it going.

    Ditto, my friend. It’s actually why I stopped arguing politics and religion on the internet years ago. This may be something intrinsic with arguing on the internet.

    Believe it or not, I have become more moderate since I started posting on this site. When I found Vicki Aznaran’s second set of affidavits, I saw that a lot of the opposition to the CoS was rather fanatic. I already knew some of this, after reading about the aftermath of the LMT lawsuits and what happened to Bob Minton, but that caused me to reexamine it. I admit that Arnie Lerma comes off as a conspiracy theorist, and I do disagree with many of his technical views. This site also led me to explore the page of an ex-Scientologist named Bernie at bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm . I would strongly encourage you to check it out. It’s a much more moderate viewpoint than you’ll find from either your side or mine.

    Lou, T, other Scientologists, you too: bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm

    I do still disagree with many of the actions of the CoS. I don’t believe that a religion should be allowed to act as the CoS does in several ways. My actual involved beliefs are relatively minor; most of my arguments here have actually been attempting to correct matters of fact, and discover why stories differ.

    However, I am finding more and more actions to take issue with in the CoS’s responses to Anonymous.

    I don’t believe I have insulted anyone on this site beyond a tit for a tat, and I plan to continue that. I have been personally insulted a few times and I have let it slide in the interest of discouraging drama.

    @ErroneousAssumptions:
    >Indirectly, from the arrested individuals themselves. The two charges against them are supposedly “protesting without a permit” and “creating a dangerous environment”. Both are pretty silly charges, especially in the context of the remarkably peaceful Feb. 10th protest in the same location.

    It’s important to note that the Atlanta org also had 20-30 riot cops at the Feb 10th protests. They may have a very fearful or convincing leader to get that kind of response from the police. And in the wake of the recent videos from the CoS, the police were probably convinced to be even more paranoid and inclined toward preemptive action to diffuse violent tendencies in the protesters. Hopefully this declines in the future, now that Anonymous has a pattern of staying on target with peaceful protests.

  56. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 17, 2008 4:28 am

    Phew! Okay, round two!

    Harassment of the IRS-
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E7DE1639F93AA35750C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

    “Well, I think if I were easily persuaded I wouldn’t be ethical or moral. That’s what you’re going to run into with Scientologists. It’s called the Code of Honor. That may be hard for people to believe who felt it was necessay to leave after persuasion or influence from others or even their own inability to face those who they were committing overt acts against. It isn’t always easy to admit you did something wrong. I know that because I’ve been there.”

    Here’s where I run into a bit of a problem. The church, from my experience, tends to paint anyone who speaks out against it as a criminal, or the very least someone with something to hide. That sort of rhetoric…doesn’t sit well with me, and only partly because of its totalitarian undertones. Is it honestly that impossible for someone to have been in the church, to disagree with its policies on a core level, and to be so suspicious of the upper-level management that they feel the need to speak publicly about it?

    Wow, that was surprisingly short.

  57. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 17, 2008 4:20 am

    Pat- Thanks for the thorough, well-considered response! I appreciate it.

    I’m going to address these issues a bit out of order:
    First, the IRS thing. Here’s a link to a case involving, indirectly, the CoS’s tax-exempt status. Note that the judge indicates that the closing agreement is still sealed, and the IRS will not even reveal its contents to the Justice Department, despite its reasons for doing so having been overturned in similar cases already:
    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/27B565D1754D4E5E88256B50005F20CE/$file/0070753.pdf?openelement

    I think, at the very least, that it’s unusual that the CoS enjoys a -greater- degree of tax exemption than any other established church in the country. Furthermore, I think the IRS’s very reluctance to discuss the issue should, in itself, raise some warning flags and prompt further investigation.

    RE: Ethics- I apologize, as that term does get a little complicated in this situation. I was referring to the general definition, not Scientology’s definition, per se…Something more along the lines of “conforming to accepted standards of conduct”, as you might see in any college philosophy/ethics class. To me, something could benefit “the greatest number of dynamics” and still be “unethical”. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is an interesting idea in theory, but the flip side of that is that if you are somehow not part of that “greatest number”, you are susceptible to being steamrolled for the “greater good”. I realize that I may be operating under some misconceptions regarding the CoS’s use of the term, however.

    “ok. You stumped me on that last sentence. Can you give me a specific, please?”

    I’ll have to see if I can find another copy of the court docs. I understand and respect your desire not to be exposed to upper-level materials (and thus your hesitation about visiting Arnie Lerma’s site), so I’ll see if I can find another source. The gist, however, is that in the same Wallersheim case, the judge states that the church had argued (and the court had disagreed) that fair game should be considered a protected “core practice” of the church. This was in 1985.

    More on that case: I’m simply going by the court documents, here, but they state pretty unequivocally that the church members were instructed to renege on their debts to him as a way of further damaging him. I agree to the church’s -right- to disconnection (though I have to admit that the practice doesn’t sit right with me, -personally-, and I find myself uncomfortable with the thought of people being forced to disconnect by upper management). I also understand that there are channels he could supposedly go through. However, try to see things from his perspective: I can personally understand how someone who has fled the organization because of a perceived pattern of abuse and mistreatment might be hesitant to trust that same organization again.

    “Where did you get that data. I can’t find the charges. Only what Wiki is guessing at (”assumed” is the word used in the article”) as protesting without a permit.”

    Indirectly, from the arrested individuals themselves. The two charges against them are supposedly “protesting without a permit” and “creating a dangerous environment”. Both are pretty silly charges, especially in the context of the remarkably peaceful Feb. 10th protest in the same location.

    …you know, I should probably put the rest in a new post, lest this entire thread fall over like some overly-verbose Jenga tower.

  58. Comment by Pat on March 17, 2008 3:44 am

    dammit. Forgot to ask you something, Erroneous. What harassment on agents and where’s the “well-documented” ?

    Pat

  59. Comment by Pat on March 17, 2008 3:41 am

    Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 17, 2008 1:19 am

    “I don’t have any evidence beyond what I was told. I’ll try to get a copy of the arrests that get posted in the Post there. As far as the honking, weren’t they cited for disturbing the peace?”

    Nope. “Improper use of horn”, which is a nonsense charge and, again, not supported by either ordinances within the city OR the aforementioned federal decision.

    Where did you get that data. I can’t find the charges. Only what Wiki is guessing at (“assumed” is the word used in the article”) as protesting without a permit.

    “Is it wrong that we wish to handle perceived injustice? Is it wrong that we fight for our rights to be? To communicate? To Flourish and Prosper?”

    Absolutely not. I’m sorry if it seemed like I was challenging that. You have every right to state your side of things and address what you perceive to be injustices and false data. I merely think it’s important that people reading the church’s responses to those claims are not left -solely- with the church’s answer before making up their own minds; it’s sort of an “equal time” arrangement, if you will. Does that make sense?

    Sorry, but it appeared that people had already made up their minds. I’m basing this on the apparency of “charges” being leveled in the posts. Not that you are, to be fair, nor ARC_Break for the most part.

    “The Policy that cancels the PL you quoted regarding the Lower Condition Penalties is HCO PL 8 Sept 1983. It’s there in the time line I gave you the link for. Did you see it?”

    Sorry, my mistake. I was thinking of the other “cancellation” that’s so frequently cited. That would explain why fair game activities (again, as understood by the critics, not as explained by the church) would have continued after 1979, but not why the church attempted to defend such activities as constitutionally-protected well after 1983.

    ok. You stumped me on that last sentence. Can you give me a specific, please?

    “I don’t deny that he believed this. If you can quote exactly what he said the Church did to him that broke any law that would be helpful in this situation.”

    I’ll be glad to provide those quotes shortly; the gist of it is, in addition to other questionable-but-legal activities, they also encouraged any Scientologists with outstanding debts to Wallersheim’s company to renege on them and not pay.

    ok. I definitely knew about this situation, since I was around at the time, but not as you present it. Larry W was a declared Suppressive and by Ethics Order his only terminal was IJC or a CJC etc. In other words, an Ethics terminal. Public and Staff were not allowed to communicate and to disconnect. I don’t exactly approve of not discharging one’s debts but if he had petitioned IJC, I think he could have gotten his money through standard lines. He didn’t and chose to go legal instead. Do you understand why Scientology has these declares? And that there is recourse if one feels there’s injustice?

    It’s worth noting, though, that “legal” does not necessarily equal “ethical”.

    Since Ethics is defined as those choices made by the individual on himself and “out-ethics” is defined as a situation a person is in or actions that he does that is contra-survival for the greatest number of his dynamics. Per this individuals made decisions that were considered ethical. By “they” I’m assuming you mean the Church? What did they do to encourage Scientologists to not pay their debts? (Again, please don’t refer me to Lerma’s site. He had a great propensity of plastering upper level data on his site)

    I think you mean moral codes here which are the codes set down by the society that may become laws when not doing them creates non-survival for some part of that society.

    “For proof, you’d have to prove that someone in the IRS or government accepted bribes or committed crimes for which we blackmailed them. It’s our belief that if you truly understood who and what we do for the world, you wouldn’t be making these claims or believing the anti-sites. For all I know you could even be one of the creators of the sites.”

    “First of all, for what it’s worth, I promise you I’m not the creator of any such site. I know that’s not much, but it’s something you probably -could- disprove if I were lying (given that you could probably, with sufficient effort, track down my identity from my postings here, and the church has already proven willing to utilize such tactics) .”

    Understood. I’ll have to go with that for now. As far as the IRS thing goes, I saw the campaign online where anon has people writing to Senators asking for new investigations into our tax exempt status, and whatever other venue they can think of. What do you think of this?

    http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/03/latest-salvo-lobbed-in-anonymous-war-on-scientology.php

    “I understand what you believe, and on some level, I really do sympathize. I honestly believe that many members of the church, -especially- the public parishioners, do not understand why these protests are occurring. I also do not deny that Scientology has positive effects for some people, especially at the lower levels. Understand, however, that bias is a two-way street: At the same time you claim that if we -truly understood- the church, we wouldn’t believe these complaints, we argue that if your perspective were -not- colored by your involvement in the church, you could see the various claims against it in a different light. It’s a difficult situation, to be sure.”

    Well, I think if I were easily persuaded I wouldn’t be ethical or moral. That’s what you’re going to run into with Scientologists. It’s called the Code of Honor. That may be hard for people to believe who felt it was necessay to leave after persuasion or influence from others or even their own inability to face those who they were committing overt acts against. It isn’t always easy to admit you did something wrong. I know that because I’ve been there.

    Ok. I’m done preaching. ;p Can you get that data for me?

    The IRS deal…well, I won’t get too far into that, since it’s probably a whole -topic- unto itself. I will say this:
    The lawsuits against the IRS are not even in question. The harassment against the IRS agents has been well-documented. The church’s exemption was given to them in a closed-door meeting under a sealed agreement. The New York Times reported that the church had hired private investigators to investigate the IRS commissioner prior to the agreement being reached.

    I’m certain you will say that these are merely unsubstantiated claims, but if they -were- true, can we agree that these actions sound, at the very least, a little sketchy and worthy of further investigation?

    LOL. Sorry Lu for the length but I need to see all the text so I don’t forget something

  60. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 17, 2008 1:19 am

    “I don’t have any evidence beyond what I was told. I’ll try to get a copy of the arrests that get posted in the Post there. As far as the honking, weren’t they cited for disturbing the peace?”

    Nope. “Improper use of horn”, which is a nonsense charge and, again, not supported by either ordinances within the city OR the aforementioned federal decision.

    “Is it wrong that we wish to handle perceived injustice? Is it wrong that we fight for our rights to be? To communicate? To Flourish and Prosper?”

    Absolutely not. I’m sorry if it seemed like I was challenging that. You have every right to state your side of things and address what you perceive to be injustices and false data. I merely think it’s important that people reading the church’s responses to those claims are not left -solely- with the church’s answer before making up their own minds; it’s sort of an “equal time” arrangement, if you will. Does that make sense?

    “The Policy that cancels the PL you quoted regarding the Lower Condition Penalties is HCO PL 8 Sept 1983. It’s there in the time line I gave you the link for. Did you see it?”

    Sorry, my mistake. I was thinking of the other “cancellation” that’s so frequently cited. That would explain why fair game activities (again, as understood by the critics, not as explained by the church) would have continued after 1979, but not why the church attempted to defend such activities as constitutionally-protected well after 1983.

    “I don’t deny that he believed this. If you can quote exactly what he said the Church did to him that broke any law that would be helpful in this situation.”

    I’ll be glad to provide those quotes shortly; the gist of it is, in addition to other questionable-but-legal activities, they also encouraged any Scientologists with outstanding debts to Wallersheim’s company to renege on them and not pay.
    It’s worth noting, though, that “legal” does not necessarily equal “ethical”.

    “For proof, you’d have to prove that someone in the IRS or government accepted bribes or committed crimes for which we blackmailed them. It’s our belief that if you truly understood who and what we do for the world, you wouldn’t be making these claims or believing the anti-sites. For all I know you could even be one of the creators of the sites.”

    First of all, for what it’s worth, I promise you I’m not the creator of any such site. I know that’s not much, but it’s something you probably -could- disprove if I were lying (given that you could probably, with sufficient effort, track down my identity from my postings here, and the church has already proven willing to utilize such tactics) .

    I understand what you believe, and on some level, I really do sympathize. I honestly believe that many members of the church, -especially- the public parishioners, do not understand why these protests are occurring. I also do not deny that Scientology has positive effects for some people, especially at the lower levels. Understand, however, that bias is a two-way street: At the same time you claim that if we -truly understood- the church, we wouldn’t believe these complaints, we argue that if your perspective were -not- colored by your involvement in the church, you could see the various claims against it in a different light. It’s a difficult situation, to be sure.

    The IRS deal…well, I won’t get too far into that, since it’s probably a whole -topic- unto itself. I will say this:
    The lawsuits against the IRS are not even in question. The harassment against the IRS agents has been well-documented. The church’s exemption was given to them in a closed-door meeting under a sealed agreement. The New York Times reported that the church had hired private investigators to investigate the IRS commissioner prior to the agreement being reached.

    I’m certain you will say that these are merely unsubstantiated claims, but if they -were- true, can we agree that these actions sound, at the very least, a little sketchy and worthy of further investigation?

  61. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 10:38 pm

    Try again

    Where it shows Pat Erroneous should be:

    Erroneous agrees with Pat or Pat agrees with Erroneous.

  62. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 10:36 pm

    Pat Erroneous

    For some reason this didn’t go thru with the last message.

  63. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 10:34 pm

    @ Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 9:52 pm

    “Pat – I’m here for two reasons:

    1: I genuinely would like to find some common ground or understanding, but it’s hard to do when there are clear logical contradictions with the answers that are offered. I continue to ask questions in the hopes that, through that exchange, some kind of common truth might emerge.”

    ok. Bear with me for a moment, while I work out my logic for you.
    At the moment, we appear to have two diametrically opposed data pools. In order for any common ground to be reached the “flows” are going to have to stop hitting each other forming a ridge or non-moving energy that we both put out. like this Pat —–>|||<—– Erroneous = impasse

    If I completely agree with you it goes like this Pat Erroneous.

    I don’t think I’m ever going to accept anything that is posted on the sites that you quote because too much was slanted. Like the “bribery” or “blackmail” claims which we can’t prove didn’t happen because they are negatives. For proof, you’d have to prove that someone in the IRS or government accepted bribes or committed crimes for which we blackmailed them. It’s our belief that if you truly understood who and what we do for the world, you wouldn’t be making these claims or believing the anti-sites. For all I know you could even be one of the creators of the sites.

    “2: I also feel a responsibility to not let the claims of Scientology go uncontested, since people are commonly referred to this site to “debunk” the claims against the church. In my mind, that debunking is either insufficient or inaccurate, in most cases, and I feel that the evidence supports this. ”

    Is it wrong that we wish to handle perceived injustice? Is it wrong that we fight for our rights to be? To communicate? To Flourish and Prosper?

    “Additionally, there’s no evidence of 2 protesters being arrested in D.C. There -were-, however, 2 arrested in Atlanta on bogus charges, and it’s worth noting that the cops present were also pulling over passing cars for honking in support, which a federal court ruled just recently is a constitutionally-protected form of speech.”

    I don’t have any evidence beyond what I was told. I’ll try to get a copy of the arrests that get posted in the Post there. As far as the honking, weren’t they cited for disturbing the peace?

    That has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, but does apply to pursuit of happiness.

  64. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 10:04 pm

    @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 7:36 pm
    “Pat- Ah, sorry. Looks like I was the one who missed the Fair Game response.”

    Fair enough.

    “You say it’s canceled, but the evidence doesn’t bear that out. For instance, as late as 1985 in “Larry Wollersheim v. The Church of Scientology of California”, the courts disagreed. From the decision:”

    I gave you the references and the time line. I don’t know why the Court didn’t see that. Your guess is as good as mine at this point. Not gonna go to the site because I don’t want to see any upper level data. I don’t deny that they had upper level data, because it’s already known that they stole it from the Church.

    ““Ultimately Wollersheim became so convinced auditing was
    causing him psychiatric problems he was willing to risk becoming
    a target of “freeloader debt” and “fair game.” Evidence was
    introduced that, at least during the time relevant to
    Wollersheim’s case, “fair game” was a practice of retribution
    Scientology threatened to inflict on “suppressives,” which
    included people who left the organization or anyone who could
    pose a threat to the organization. Once someone was identified as a “suppressive,”
    all Scientologists were authorized to do anything to “neutralize”
    that individual — economically, politically, and
    psychologically.””

    I don’t deny that he believed this. If you can quote exactly what he said the Church did to him that broke any law that would be helpful in this situation.

    “Note that Wollersheim left in 1979, well after the alleged cancellation. ”

    The Policy that cancels the PL you quoted regarding the Lower Condition Penalties is HCO PL 8 Sept 1983. It’s there in the time line I gave you the link for. Did you see it?

    Pat

  65. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 9:54 pm

    Also:

    I’m here because Scientologists often like to claim “You just listen to the critics, but you never give the other side a chance to respond.”

    I would like the other side to get a chance to respond. That does not, however, obligate me to take their responses completely at face value or to believe everything I’m told. I am well within my rights to evaluate these claims critically, in the same way that I do not believe every claim made AGAINST the CoS.

  66. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 9:52 pm

    Pat – I’m here for two reasons:

    1: I genuinely would like to find some common ground or understanding, but it’s hard to do when there are clear logical contradictions with the answers that are offered. I continue to ask questions in the hopes that, through that exchange, some kind of common truth might emerge.

    2: I also feel a responsibility to not let the claims of Scientology go uncontested, since people are commonly referred to this site to “debunk” the claims against the church. In my mind, that debunking is either insufficient or inaccurate, in most cases, and I feel that the evidence supports this.

    Additionally, there’s no evidence of 2 protesters being arrested in D.C. There -were-, however, 2 arrested in Atlanta on bogus charges, and it’s worth noting that the cops present were also pulling over passing cars for honking in support, which a federal court ruled just recently is a constitutionally-protected form of speech.

  67. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 9:43 pm

    @Comment by anmn on March 16, 2008 9:01 pm

    Nope, I said YOU admit that there are people IN the Anonymous group that are doing it, while at the same time claiming that you can’t control Anonymous because they are “anonymous”
    You say the violence was done by an “unaffiliated passerby”. You don’t think your protest is going to bring these out? That your protest isn’t inciting the threats?

    I was told by someone who was there at the Church, that 2 anon from the DC protest were arrested yesterday.

    Look up Confirmation bias. I see this happening. Is there any reason why your questions should get answered if you’re going to disagree with everything? (Yes, I mean just that) because I don’t see one instance where anything we have said here resolved any problems between us. It’s like there’s a 3rd party out there keeping it going. This doesn’t feel like constructive dialog to me. I saw on Digg that someone was counting “points” like brownie points for every post that bashes someone. Do you see that as constructive? Has anything at all been resolved that changes any bias that you had previously? Is there a reason I should continue to try to bring about understanding?

    Are you here asking questions because you want to learn or to find fault? If you’re going to sling, be willing to be slung at.

    Pat

  68. Comment by anmn on March 16, 2008 9:01 pm

    @Pat:
    >I didn’t say ANON admits to being responsible.
    >Just go back in this thread to see amnm say that anon is anon and they can’t control what some people in anon do. That to me is an admission that the threats were done by people in anon.

    I have a hard time resolving these two statements. You didn’t say Anon admits responsibility, but then you say Anon admits responsibility?

    To elaborate on the issue: Who guides a school of fish? Who tells a swarm of bees where to go? Who leads a flock of birds? There are no individual leads. The group moves by general consensus and tends to stick together for protection and impact.

    Anonymous has no entrance test, no annual fees, no database, no headquarters. How would you propose we keep criminals and extremists out of our ranks?

    What happens if a single fish leaves the school, and moves in a direction orthogonal to that of the group? He is abandoned, and left. So it is with Anonymous. Those who make physical threats are alone and unsupported. Those who threaten the movement are on their own.

    I was at a protest yesterday. One unaffiliated passerby kicked the org’s window as he walked by. We booed! We told him to respect their property. Why would we do that while we’re anonymous? We did that because we know violent actions threaten the cause, and we want deeply to not support any of that.

    February 10th and March 15th succeeded because one member of the group suggested it, and others agreed and spread it to others who were then convinced. The bomb threats were revealed to be pure fail when no Anon supported them.

    Let me repeat that. No one supported the bomb threats except the person who made them.

    I, for one, welcome a full investigation of criminal acts associated with this movement. I support law enforcement fully in their efforts. If I had any information that would lead to the discovery or conviction of those responsible, I would give it up. I have seen several Anon post very similar opinions to this. I have seen no Anon post an opposing opinion.

    Hell, I personally flagged the bomb threat video and filled out a complete FBI tip form about it. Many others did as well, and the video was removed within hours. To me, that shows the true, positive attitude of Anonymous.

    >Did you honestly think we would sit back and let Anon “take us down”?

    Do you honestly think you have anything to fear, if all accusations presented are false?

    >So far all ANON can do is make accusations. Why don’t you go file criminal complaints for all this “proof” you have?

    Patience. Step 1 is the unconstitutional tax exemption for auditing. Specifically, the Sklar vs IRS case, which has, unfortunately, been in the court system for years now.

    The problem is that most of this is, by nature, hearsay. Ex-members’ stories are denied by the glossy PR front of the CoS and its current members and staff, who are directed to KSW and prohibited from speaking negatively by LRH’s Ethics writings. Affidavits on both sides have been shown to be false and driven by agendas. Who do you trust?

    Also, personally, I’m still waiting to see a police report for the shots fired at the LA church, claimed by Lou over two weeks ago.

    >Next, you’ll be saying … When you do that, …

    That is the definition of a strawman. You’ve got it bad.

  69. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 7:47 pm

    Pat – Now to the other points!
    “Reread what I said. I didn’t say ANON admits to being responsible. Heaven forbid they would do that! Just go back in this thread to see amnm say that anon is anon and they can’t control what some people in anon do. That to me is an admission that the threats were done by people in anon.”

    Those statements are true. I cannot control what another Anon does any more than I can control what anyone else in the world does. I can encourage them not to, and I can file a police report if I have evidence of illegal action. That’s it.

    You are attempting to paint an entire group of people as criminals and terrorists because of the -alleged-, unproven actions of a few. Yet, oddly enough, you claim that very same thing is being done to -your- church, and there it’s unfair. Do you see the problem here?

    “What’s to defend? The count of emails? The bomb threats? The FBI has the actual evidence, now. Glad you’re laughing”

    Great. I look forward to the individuals being caught and prosecuted, if such threats actually did exist. Note that I’m still skeptical of this fact, as there’s not been any proof available to the “public” to judge this. It’s worth noting, though, that the FBI stated (as quoted in the LA Times) that there was no evidence linking Anon to any of the white powder mailings. If people calling themselves Anon WERE responsible for some of the things you claim, and they actually did occur, I think other Anons would be all too happy to see them punished for it. That’s not what this whole thing is about.

    “Did you honestly think we would sit back and let Anon “take us down”?”

    That’s not what I asked. I asked whether you thought it was appropriate to post the real names and faces of individuals online, along with insinuations about their involvement with criminal acts when there’s no proof of their involvement. Again, it would be the same as if I claimed everyone in the CoS were responsible for, say, the actions of the Guardian’s Office, or the bull-baiting of various critics, or the harassment, or the French kidnapping case, or…

    “So far all ANON can do is make accusations. Why don’t you go file criminal complaints for all this “proof” you have? Next, you’ll be saying we “bribed” or “bullied” or “intimidated” or “blackmailed” the authorities to get them to “look the other way”. When you do that, it’s not Scientology you are attacking but the authorities, by saying they’re weak, intimidatable, gullible, bribable and have committed crimes for which they could be blackmailed. What was that term again? Oh yes, confirmation bias. You’ve got it bad. Should see someone for that.”

    First of all, I’m disappointed. Here I thought we were having a fairly civil conversation, and you have to go and start tossing out personal attacks. I want you to understand that I have nothing against you personally, and I would like -nothing better- than to reach a sort of understanding. I really would.

    Considering the harassment of the IRS by the church, as well as their -documented- campaigns against reporters who investigated them, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that people are, at the very least, -wary- of investigating the church. If you’d like, I’d suggest watching the videos of the Clearwater Hearings, in which one councilman admits that he’s received oblique threats against his family, to understand why.

    As for your statement about accusations: What has the church done, exactly? Where are these criminal charges? Where are the -complaints- to the police about the threats? Why do we have nothing but the church’s word on this stuff? That argument is a two-way street, you know.

  70. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 7:36 pm

    Pat- Ah, sorry. Looks like I was the one who missed the Fair Game response.

    You say it’s canceled, but the evidence doesn’t bear that out. For instance, as late as 1985 in “Larry Wollersheim v. The Church of Scientology of California”, the courts disagreed. From the decision:

    “Ultimately Wollersheim became so convinced auditing was
    causing him psychiatric problems he was willing to risk becoming
    a target of “freeloader debt” and “fair game.” Evidence was
    introduced that, at least during the time relevant to
    Wollersheim’s case, “fair game” was a practice of retribution
    Scientology threatened to inflict on “suppressives,” which
    included people who left the organization or anyone who could
    pose a threat to the organization. Once someone was identified as a “suppressive,”
    all Scientologists were authorized to do anything to “neutralize”
    that individual — economically, politically, and
    psychologically.”

    Note that Wollersheim left in 1979, well after the alleged cancellation.

    Furthermore, in that same case, the church attempted to argue that “fair game”, among other practices, were constitutionally-protected exercises of their freedom of religion. Why, pray tell, would they be arguing in defense of fair game (and I’m talking about the “wog”/critic definition here, not the toned-down official church line) if they A: No longer practiced it and B: Never practiced it that way in the first place?

    Here’s a link to the text of the decision on a critic’s site, though I’m sure you could verify its contents to be correct if you truly wanted to:
    http://www.lermanet2.com/reference/wollersheim.htm

  71. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 6:16 pm

    Comment by ARC_Break on March 16, 2008 5:18 pm
    > No, he did not. That’s more of Fishman’s insanity.
    Fishman is a convicted Felon with a history of institutionalization. Here’s a link to the FBI affidavits on him and other testimony.

    This is what we call ad hominem. Fishman is a felon and insane, so therefore the documents that Arnie Lerma had are invalid? How does that make any sense at all?

    I’ll quote to you from the actual court testimony. It’s actually on the first page of Fisherman’s page.

    page 81
    What Mr. Cooley represented was a very highly placed Scientology attorney, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Moxin (phonetic), an attorney from Los Angeles, who we were told had obtained the requisite spiritual level to review these materials.

    Now, we got back 58 disks that allegedly contained the infringing materials. We went through those disks. We went through three of those disks. We printed out some of the shorter ones and went through them in the 30(b)6 deposition that we conducted, and the plaintiffs designated Mr. McShane, the President of the RTC, as its 30(b)6
    witness. We went through three of these documents, presented to him in their entirety. What did we find out?

    One that they designated as an infringement was this OT 8 document that Mr. Cooley speaks of with great passion, that it’s a forgery. ‘It’s an outrageous slander against Jesus Christ.’ They designated that and impounded it, Your Honor. They seized it from Mr. Lerma and they impounded it, the same document this they lambast the Washington Post for printing excerpts of.

    Now, what’s the explanation that we are offered in response when we questioned them at the deposition? Well, we are told that obviously Mr. Moxin does not know which documents are which.

    Page 82
    We submit to this Court that if Mr. Moxin, a highly placed church attorney, could not make the distinction between which is which, how can Mr. Lerma be expected to act at his peril?

    The TL:DR version. Scientology assigned someone who was familiar to the material to pick out what was and wasn’t actual materials from the CoS. He fingered that OTVIII document as being copyright (ie, accurate to the original OTVIII document that Hubbard wrote).

    Was he mistaken? Or is scientology trying to cover it’s tracks. Furthermore, why did scientology not provide the real OTVIII documents to prove that this wasn’t the case. That part of the trial could have been easily sealed to prevent anyone from knowing what was in the OTVIII materials.

    Thoughts?

    I see you posting a quote that a Church official says is a slander of Jesus Christ. Where does this thing come from that you say LRH said then if Lerma didn’t get it from Fishman? Gawd, all this squirrely stuff must have everyone spinning.

  72. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 6:05 pm

    Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 8:09 am
    “Pat –
    “I don’t get what point you’re trying to make. We put up the expose, describing Anon’s terrorism. No one tried to hide that fact. So? What’s your point? I’ve already seen posts in different areas today where Anon admits that it’s people that are part of the “group that isn’t a group” that are doing the threats. This is being openly discussed on enturb and Digg, that I’ve seen that at least 10 times today alone.”

    Please, by all means, supply links to the areas where Anon admits to being responsible for the threats. I’d love to see it, since I’ve seen nothing of the sort (except from obvious trolls on Digg who are, as always, roundly denounced and voted down for being giant idiots)”

    Reread what I said. I didn’t say ANON admits to being responsible. Heaven forbid they would do that! Just go back in this thread to see amnm say that anon is anon and they can’t control what some people in anon do. That to me is an admission that the threats were done by people in anon.
    http://www.enturbulation.org/

    “As for your “expose”…Give me a break. It’s laughable, especially given that the video makes a ton of claims with NO evidence to support it, and the injunction filed in Florida deceptively cited two instances of violence against the CoS that -not only- happened years ago, but were carried out -by other Scientologists-. Of course, it didn’t mention these facts, and it deceptively attempted to associate those acts with the actions of Anonymous. How do you defend that?”

    What’s to defend? The count of emails? The bomb threats? The FBI has the actual evidence, now. Glad you’re laughing

    “Also: Posting specific names and faces online, on Youtube? That’s pretty obviously crossing a line. Would you think it appropriate if I somehow gathered the names and faces of every pro-Scientology poster on here and put up a Youtube video including them, claiming that you support a criminal organization that is responsible for child labor, wrongful death, harassment, and other unethical acts? I suspect not, but what the church has done here is pretty much exactly the same thing.”

    Did you honestly think we would sit back and let Anon “take us down”?

    So far all ANON can do is make accusations. Why don’t you go file criminal complaints for all this “proof” you have? Next, you’ll be saying we “bribed” or “bullied” or “intimidated” or “blackmailed” the authorities to get them to “look the other way”. When you do that, it’s not Scientology you are attacking but the authorities, by saying they’re weak, intimidatable, gullible, bribable and have committed crimes for which they could be blackmailed. What was that term again? Oh yes, confirmation bias. You’ve got it bad. Should see someone for that.

    I also eagerly await your reply about Fair Game (though, to be fair, I understand that my posts on the subject pretty quickly got buried in this unwieldy single-thread environment)

    See the links I put up last nite/ this AM re: fair game.

  73. Comment by ARC_Break on March 16, 2008 5:21 pm

    @ Anmn
    Just read your post. Dammnit. :(

    I’ll bow out to the general consensus that the documents are invalid. Part of the reason why I bring documents here to face the test from Scientologists and more informed Anons.

  74. Comment by ARC_Break on March 16, 2008 5:18 pm

    > No, he did not. That’s more of Fishman’s insanity.
    Fishman is a convicted Felon with a history of institutionalization. Here’s a link to the FBI affidavits on him and other testimony.

    This is what we call ad hominem. Fishman is a felon and insane, so therefore the documents that Arnie Lerma had are invalid? How does that make any sense at all?

    I’ll quote to you from the actual court testimony. It’s actually on the first page of Fisherman’s page.

    page 81
    What Mr. Cooley represented was a very highly placed Scientology attorney, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Moxin (phonetic), an attorney from Los Angeles, who we were told had obtained the requisite spiritual level to review these materials.

    Now, we got back 58 disks that allegedly contained the infringing materials. We went through those disks. We went through three of those disks. We printed out some of the shorter ones and went through them in the 30(b)6 deposition that we conducted, and the plaintiffs designated Mr. McShane, the President of the RTC, as its 30(b)6
    witness. We went through three of these documents, presented to him in their entirety. What did we find out?

    One that they designated as an infringement was this OT 8 document that Mr. Cooley speaks of with great passion, that it’s a forgery. ‘It’s an outrageous slander against Jesus Christ.’ They designated that and impounded it, Your Honor. They seized it from Mr. Lerma and they impounded it, the same document this they lambast the Washington Post for printing excerpts of.

    Now, what’s the explanation that we are offered in response when we questioned them at the deposition? Well, we are told that obviously Mr. Moxin does not know which documents are which.

    Page 82
    We submit to this Court that if Mr. Moxin, a highly placed church attorney, could not make the distinction between which is which, how can Mr. Lerma be expected to act at his peril?

    The TL:DR version. Scientology assigned someone who was familiar to the material to pick out what was and wasn’t actual materials from the CoS. He fingered that OTVIII document as being copyright (ie, accurate to the original OTVIII document that Hubbard wrote).

    Was he mistaken? Or is scientology trying to cover it’s tracks. Furthermore, why did scientology not provide the real OTVIII documents to prove that this wasn’t the case. That part of the trial could have been easily sealed to prevent anyone from knowing what was in the OTVIII materials.

    Thoughts?

  75. Comment by anmn on March 16, 2008 5:09 pm

    @Pat:
    >You make my point.
    >What’s true for me is true for me. I didn’t ask you to believe it on faith. It was my personal observation.

    But you made a statement of fact: the OT3 materials are so powerful that they make people sick if they are unprepared. That is a testable statement. I would love to see a test of it, no matter what the results are.

    Couching a statement of fact in “this is what I believe” is a weak way to shield it from scrutiny. Do the OT levels make observable changes or not? Do they prevent people from getting sick; can they make people sick? Do they improve recall? These could be tested, and it would be in the interests of Scientology to have them tested and confirmed.

    @Pat:
    >No, it’s not just material costs. … How do you propose to pay the staff and for materials for those who want the real thing & not just burnt CDs and costs of shipping and all that? Your solution creates a problem. Right?

    I’m proposing an alternative way to get the materials. You could pay for hard copies, or you could download them for free.

    What do you mean “not just burnt CDs”? A CD is burned, or it is blank. And in the other post, I linked a company that can duplicate CDs for well under a dollar each – burned, printed, sleeved, and shipped. Given a materials cost of under $1 per CD, how does a lecture series cost $10 per CD? That’s up to $200 or more for shipping and handling. Is that reasonable?

    But this is getting derailed; we should either ask Lou to open that other post or stop discussing it here.

    @ARC_Break:
    >Is this accurate. Is L Ron claiming that Jesus Christ was a pedophile?

    Many believe that the OT8 stuff in the Fishman affidavit is false.

  76. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 4:58 pm

    @Comment by ARC_Break on March 16, 2008 4:31 pm

    It’s common knowledge that the Chruch of Scientology represents itself as a religon that is compatible with all other religons. According to that statement, Christians could be scientologists, same with muslims and jewish people.

    I’d like to quote you something. I’d like you to tell me if Hubbard actually wrote it, and if so, what implication does it have on the above statement.

    “snipped” you can see the snipped text in message above

    Is this accurate. Is L Ron claiming that Jesus Christ was a pedophile?”

    No, he did not. That’s more of Fishman’s insanity.
    Fishman is a convicted Felon with a history of institutionalization. Here’s a link to the FBI affidavits on him and other testimony.

    http://www.theta.com/Fishman/

  77. Comment by ARC_Break on March 16, 2008 4:32 pm

    My apologies, link for above…

    http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/fishman/ot8b.html

  78. Comment by ARC_Break on March 16, 2008 4:31 pm

    It’s common knowledge that the Chruch of Scientology represents itself as a religon that is compatible with all other religons. According to that statement, Christians could be scientologists, same with muslims and jewish people.

    I’d like to quote you something. I’d like you to tell me if Hubbard actually wrote it, and if so, what implication does it have on the above statement.

    “For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me take the
    opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance, the historic
    Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure has been made out to be. In addition
    to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to uncontrollable bursts of
    temper and hatred that belied the general message of love, understanding and
    other typical Marcab PR. You have only to look at the history his teachings
    inspired to see where it all inevitably leads. It is historic fact and yet man
    still clings to the ideal, so deep and insidious is the biologic implanting.”

    Is this accurate. Is L Ron claiming that Jesus Christ was a pedophile?

  79. Comment by ARC_Break on March 16, 2008 1:34 pm

    So much to comment on. But you’re right Erroneous. This thread has become to difficult to read. I’ll scale back my replies. We don’t need 8000 comments on “what does the word subvert mean”. I’ll keep my posts to one question only. Probably for the best and we can actually get some answers.

    It’s just difficult not to reply when the people answering my questions are being evasive. But that’s to be expected I guess.

    Ok, I’d like to refocus all my comments to this question.

    > It’s f**king powerful stuff and people have been known to get ill from it, when it was seen without being at the right level for it. That’s personal observation. You don’t have to believe me. What’s true for you is true for you by personal observation, not because I say so, and it shouldn’t be by anything xenu.net says either. You seem very intelligent and I think that you could read some of LRH’s books and see some truth there, and maybe see what other’s can’t. I don’t know. I believe that man is basically good. I believe that when people are given false data it can ruin lives. I believe that is the intent behind xenu.net.

    I want to be completely and totally honest with you for a second. I sincerely hope you can sit back and read what I’m saying to you without being tinted by bias. We’re all biased, but I’m asking you to sit back and really think about what I’m saying here.

    I believe you when you say that you’ve seen or believe people have gotten ill from reading OTIII to early. I believe it. Because I happen to know that mentally people can handle only so much. For example, a death of a family member, which can make people feel ill. Cause them to lose sleep and generally be miserable.

    What if this “illness” wasn’t caused because of the tech they had read, but rather, the sudden realization that scientology, the foundation of their life, had signifigantly changed. Much like the death of a family member, the “brain is full” if you will. This can explain why people feel ill.

    I want to talk in hypotheticals here. Nothing concrete, nothing real. I want you to entertain an the thought here and really pay it some attention before either accepting it or rejecting it.

    Let’s say that the process of going along the Bridge, including the auditing did something to the human brain. It’s obvious something happens because pre-clears think a whole lot differently then OT’s don’t they? :D

    Because you view scientology in a positive light, you naturally assume that the change is for the better. To shore up your assumption, when scientology doesn’t work, it’s because you don’t understand scientology. When it works, it’s because scientology is great. You start to only remember the good that scientology has done for you, because mentally, you are rejecting the negative that is in conflict with your viewpoint.

    So, when someone isn’t fully ready for the text, they feel ill. The brain is full. In my opinion, based on solely my own observations of human nature, the person is not fully indoctrinated enough to accept the text. As such, the glaring reality of the situation cannot be explained. The person’s viewpoint on reality is shaken and that can manifest physically.

    I believe this is what causes scientologists to be so avid in their defense of their faith, and why they take everything personally. Because when you attack the church, you attack their hold on reality.

    A couple of videos for you to watch…


    and the fallout…

    Do these seem like rational people?

    PS: Can we get a text toolbar on this site so we can colour or bold specific instances so we can in essence “break up” posts?

  80. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 8:09 am

    Pat –
    “I don’t get what point you’re trying to make. We put up the expose, describing Anon’s terrorism. No one tried to hide that fact. So? What’s your point? I’ve already seen posts in different areas today where Anon admits that it’s people that are part of the “group that isn’t a group” that are doing the threats. This is being openly discussed on enturb and Digg, that I’ve seen that at least 10 times today alone.”

    Please, by all means, supply links to the areas where Anon admits to being responsible for the threats. I’d love to see it, since I’ve seen nothing of the sort (except from obvious trolls on Digg who are, as always, roundly denounced and voted down for being giant idiots)

    As for your “expose”…Give me a break. It’s laughable, especially given that the video makes a ton of claims with NO evidence to support it, and the injunction filed in Florida deceptively cited two instances of violence against the CoS that -not only- happened years ago, but were carried out -by other Scientologists-. Of course, it didn’t mention these facts, and it deceptively attempted to associate those acts with the actions of Anonymous. How do you defend that?

    Also: Posting specific names and faces online, on Youtube? That’s pretty obviously crossing a line. Would you think it appropriate if I somehow gathered the names and faces of every pro-Scientology poster on here and put up a Youtube video including them, claiming that you support a criminal organization that is responsible for child labor, wrongful death, harassment, and other unethical acts? I suspect not, but what the church has done here is pretty much exactly the same thing.

    I also eagerly await your reply about Fair Game (though, to be fair, I understand that my posts on the subject pretty quickly got buried in this unwieldy single-thread environment)

  81. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 8:04 am

    Rev- “Is it accurate to say that Anonymous is a flash mob, or a bandwagon with a rotten core? They exhibit the harshest behavior online and their rationalizations don’t really explain the hate rhetoric. It seems too—–emotionally driven.”

    No. It’s a collective of people from all different backgrounds with two things in common:
    1: They use the internet
    2: They are deeply disturbed by the abusive and criminal practices of the Church of Scientology.

  82. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 7:10 am

    I understand that auditing and one-on-one courses and instruction incurs costs. But the Basics, the $3500 package at the first toll gate on the Bridge, could be distributed for free. As far as I understand, that $3500 is for material costs only. This could be reduced to $0, or close enough to be covered by a few donations. With a few hours of startup, everything could be available on Bittorrent. Secure, fast, and nearly load-free on the Church’s part. Publish the torrent links, seed the first batch, publish SHA values for each to ensure integrity, and you will spread the Basics to hundreds of millions of new members.

    No, it’s not just material costs. As much as I love your idea of getting these out into the hands of millions, this is not the way to do it. Scientologists all over the world have already donated full sets to the libraries. Some of the bigger ones have 2. These are full sets including the 76 Lectures of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course. How do you propose to pay the staff and for materials for those who want the real thing & not just burnt CDs and costs of shipping and all that? Your solution creates a problem. Right?

  83. Comment by Rev. Jacob K Reist on March 16, 2008 7:08 am

    Is it accurate to say that Anonymous is a flash mob, or a bandwagon with a rotten core? They exhibit the harshest behavior online and their rationalizations don’t really explain the hate rhetoric. It seems too—–emotionally driven.

  84. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 6:50 am

    @Comment by anmn on March 16, 2008 5:35 am

    “That sounds ridiculous. And your personal observation sounds like confirmation bias at best. If a group was willing to prove that attempting OT3 material out of order causes sickness, they should be able to win the million-dollar Randi prize and earn the eager attention of the scientific community.”

    You make my point.

    What’s true for me is true for me. I didn’t ask you to believe it on faith. It was my personal observation.

    This has nothing to do with looking for data that would prove a preconceived idea, since having done OT III and seeing the data and seeing the results of someone exposed who was not ready get sick was empirically gotten. You can believe whatever you want. You also proved that you aren’t here to get questions answered, since you already have preconceived ideas and my data didn’t conform to those. Gee, that sounds like confirmation bias. Fancy that!

  85. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 6:21 am

    @Comment by anmn on March 16, 2008 5:35 am

    “Docs or dox means stuff a person doesn’t want released. In this case, name, hometown, picture, and implied association with acts declared terrorism.

    I’m more interested in your defense of the “anonymous exposed” actions taken by the CoS in the last few days. This ties in with Lou’s comments-off post recently:

    @Lou:
    >Whoever puts up those clips (and certainly I got my own ideas on that) feeds Anonymous their own medicine. Time to step back and think instead of indicating further murder threats.

    It’s the Church of Scientology putting up those clips. This was confirmed by Mike Delaware, of the Battle Creek, MI org, and a CoS spokesperson quoted in an official blog of the LA Times called Web Scout. Search Google News for “anonymousfacts” to find the articles.”

    I don’t get what point you’re trying to make. We put up the expose, describing Anon’s terrorism. No one tried to hide that fact. So? What’s your point? I’ve already seen posts in different areas today where Anon admits that it’s people that are part of the “group that isn’t a group” that are doing the threats. This is being openly discussed on enturb and Digg, that I’ve seen that at least 10 times today alone.

  86. Comment by bradS on March 16, 2008 5:40 am

    Comment by ARC_Break wrote:
    “The CoS does abuse it’s copyright litigations. To see this you only need to look at the history of Operation Clambake (www.xenu.net). I expect you can do the research for yourself if you’re interested. I doubt you will read it, so you’ll understand my not going out and spending time researching it for you.”

    Yep, I have been to all the internet sites but also looked up all the documents where available from the actual source and not just xenu.net or heavily slanted sources, I do my best to find all the arguments I do have issues with COS, but Copyright litigation is not one of them.

    Comment by ARC_Break wrote:
    “To keep it short, the Church of Scientology through it’s own actions shows it does not want UNALTERED and AUTHENTIC documents posted on the internet. Why do you think this is?”

    As far as I know all the documents in the world are out there, you said it yourself via xenu.net, what is the issue? That COS does not like to be smeared, ok. I am sure the Catholic church was not to pleased about the molestation accounts and tried to also have gag orders and in some cases did successfully.

    Comment by ARC_Break wrote:
    “My personal belief is that the CoS does not want to release all of it’s information because if it does, the more advanced documents will turn off the public. And they can’t have that.”

    Key words “My personal belief is”
    Fair enough, I can respect that.

    Comment by ARC_Break wrote:
    “Why is it that the CoS can’t come clean about it’s dogma to the public. Can the works of L Ron not stand public scrutiny?”

    The COS dogma is out for the public it is in the “Basics” books. Courses are educational context which in any institution is really only learned at the respective place.
    Point 2, who stands to public scrutiny? I have yet to see that anywhere where rebuttals are not made and so on.

    Comment by ARC_Break wrote:
    “A better question yet. If OTVII actually worked, would there be any critics on this planet?”

    Uh, if that were the case for all religions no conversion program would exist, or maybe we would all be catholic, hard to say as there are too many critics of each religion respectively.

  87. Comment by anmn on March 16, 2008 5:35 am

    I have to say that this single-thread format is extremely difficult to follow. Is there any way it could be opened up again, to individual posts focusing on different topics? Or perhaps reopening old topics? There are a few which I have additional questions for.

    @Pat:
    >I don’t know who Sean Carasov is and what docs? Did he release some?

    Docs or dox means stuff a person doesn’t want released. In this case, name, hometown, picture, and implied association with acts declared terrorism.

    I’m more interested in your defense of the “anonymous exposed” actions taken by the CoS in the last few days. This ties in with Lou’s comments-off post recently:

    @Lou:
    >Whoever puts up those clips (and certainly I got my own ideas on that) feeds Anonymous their own medicine. Time to step back and think instead of indicating further murder threats.

    It’s the Church of Scientology putting up those clips. This was confirmed by Mike Delaware, of the Battle Creek, MI org, and a CoS spokesperson quoted in an official blog of the LA Times called Web Scout. Search Google News for “anonymousfacts” to find the articles.

    How can you justify sinking to the level of people you declare terrorists and bigots?

    I notice you link to a pdf of an article originally from a freely-editable web site, EncyclopediaDramatica. Congratulations. That’s an admirable source of proof, especially since the original post was not a murder threat at all.

    I would also like to note that similar articles were posted on Wikipedia by a person with the same screen name; these articles were quickly deleted and the poster was blocked indefinitely. The poster’s name is Partyhard2008 , and you can find information on his blocking here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Partyhard2008

    Further, the original videos were quickly removed from Youtube, and their poster’s account was suspended. Another reposted them, and the same thing happened. The two users are AnonymousFacts and something like AnonExposed.

    If there was really a threat, and these people really were dangerous, shouldn’t there be legal opportunities for information and punishment? Instead, it seems to me that these videos are manifestations of the current state of Fair Game, or a threat of harassment. There is no danger; as everyone except the Church of Scientology itself predicted, March 15th came and went without violence.

    The Florida judge that denied the injunction against Anonymous protesting noted that none of the 26 named people had actually been linked to Anonymous, and that Anonymous had not been shown to be a danger, or even a group, for that matter. Can you explain why you disagree with his well-stated point of view?

    @T:
    >They are about people getting trained in the precise application of an exact technology, in addition to studying and understanding how that technology works. The key words here is “training”.

    The whole argument has been partially covered here: scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/how-much-does-scientology-cost/ , and although it ends with a misunderstanding on my part, it also ends with L(o)u avoiding several main questions about the issue.

    I understand that auditing and one-on-one courses and instruction incurs costs. But the Basics, the $3500 package at the first toll gate on the Bridge, could be distributed for free. As far as I understand, that $3500 is for material costs only. This could be reduced to $0, or close enough to be covered by a few donations. With a few hours of startup, everything could be available on Bittorrent. Secure, fast, and nearly load-free on the Church’s part. Publish the torrent links, seed the first batch, publish SHA values for each to ensure integrity, and you will spread the Basics to hundreds of millions of new members.

    @Pat:
    >I’ve seen the result of those who were exposed to the data at the wrong time. It’s f**king powerful stuff and people have been known to get ill from it, when it was seen without being at the right level for it. That’s personal observation.

    That sounds ridiculous. And your personal observation sounds like confirmation bias at best. If a group was willing to prove that attempting OT3 material out of order causes sickness, they should be able to win the million-dollar Randi prize and earn the eager attention of the scientific community.

  88. Comment by bradS on March 16, 2008 5:26 am

    Comment by ARC_Break wrote:
    “Scientology’s goal is to make the world clear. We know this because it’s a stated goal. We also know that that scientology’s goal is to have these clear people progress along the bridge, finally ending their trip at OT XV.”

    Right, just as the Churches who tried to recruit me for Christianity whether it was Church of Christ, Zion Church, Nazareth Church, Baptist Unity and the list goes on. May favorite are the Christian Churches who dress up like Jews to say they are Jews.
    But that is another story. Anyway, inherently Christianity’s mission is to have all saved. Now Catholicism has a different twist so granted I will give you that.

    Comment by ARC_Break wrote:
    “What the poster above is saying, is that if getting people clear and across the bridge is so important, why are the documents like OTIX and up still locked away.”

    Well as stated before in Judaism, many texts under Talmud are guarded as in terms to teach it. One can buy the books in its very large series but will not get anything out of it. COS has a structure that is somewhat similar, but instead go further to protect it all though the “Basics” have most of the information but the “educational context” I have no issue to preserve context and ensure one understand the foundation before moving on. If only Christianity could of done it that way, we would not have so many flavors of it.

    Comment by ARC_Break wrote:
    “Secondly, he’s asking why all your beliefs are not in the public domain. For example, as a Roman Catholic I reference my faith to the bible. There are no additional and secret texts that I have yet to see. I’m given everything I need to be a member in good standing for nothing (Or close to nothing, $13 for the bible). Service is free, activities are usually free as well.”

    Well I have Torah and Mishna that are a bit more than $13. Dianetics I have seen given away and I think costs $26. Other books if you want are cheaper or slightly more expensive. Thus read them, and attend the free Sunday service and member free services and leave it at that. The program for a Christian church I converted to a while back had to save me in their words. Ok fair enough it cost a annual membership and costs for the classes. I did not attend many and paid partial membership and I was in sin. However while the goal of being saved may have only been partial or after baptism was step one “being saved” is a life long process. So while a Scientologist may never get clear does not mean they are not a Scientologist. Thus both goals in context never reached but life went on.

    But there is another point, as a Scientologist takes courses and reaches the next level they can then teach the level they just learned to a new student thus in essence being a minister of sorts. To do this in say a baptist church for example, one goes to for example “Baptist Bible Graduate School” they have their fees for their courses respectively.

    Comment by ARC_Break wrote:
    “What would the cost be for converting the tapes of LRH onto a computer and providing those to members? A DVD would cost literally $1 to produce (nice graphic on the cover a jewel case) and is available from many sites. The conversion of the tapes would be a one time fee, and I bet you could convert all verbal documentation for little to no money. It’s so easy, a staffer could do it.”

    The lectures are already on digital media.
    BUT why for example “Catholic Adult Education” does St. Joesph Communications charge anywhere from $19 to $67??? Can’t they have a one time fee and produce it for a dollar??? Why is the “Catholic Adult Education Series” cost $599.00

  89. Comment by bradS on March 16, 2008 4:50 am

    Comment by ARC_Break wrote:
    “From my experience, every single private school, regardless of it being Catholic, Jewish or non-secular does in fact cost money. Representing this cost as a fee for the church instead of the service is misleading and wrong.”

    Not the cost of the school education, the cost of Sunday School, basically to educate me more in Catholicism. Like any other Sunday School or religious school via Baptist, “Methodist what have, it just so happened that my parish at the time had a regular elementary school, but that is not the cost I am stating.

    Comment by ARC_Break wrote:
    “What sort of statements? I find it highly suspicious that the parish would involve you in their financial situation. I’ve been in several parishes and this simply hasn’t occured.”

    Many Catholics are not members of their parish, they can go for free. But I was automatically a member as I went to its school and when I became of age received invoice statements as to the member fee. I did not pay it, but still attended services for a little while but could not go to study groups and what not that I had benefit to prior.

    Comment by ARC_Break wrote:
    “I have absolutely no idea what you’re saying here. Being a Roman Catholic doesn’t require a card, tithe or even 100% adherance to the bible. Scientology requires payment to advance to the next level. I think you were trying to show that all religons do what scientology does, but this simply isn’t true. I don’t believe at ANY time the church charged for membership.”

    Ok, most Synagogues are free all year to attend and not even be a member. However, to get its revenue, Jews have what is called High Holy days via Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Those services are not free and really as with most religious everyone shows up who has not for the entire year. These specific services require a ticket to attend, but there are exceptions. Thus to have a ticket you must be a member or invited by one. Thus being a member requires an annual fee based on your gross income but usually a much lower % than many Christian churches that are @ 10%. This % however goes up as you get older than drops off when retired.
    Now what I am saying is that every religion i have visited had a mandatory fee schedule to be a member. Sometimes the membership did not include extra classes to learn more, than just attending services. These fees are almost always based on annual gross income and a % of it thereof.
    Ok so we have Scientology, it does have a slightly different structure but not by much as in. Protection of “more advanced scripture.” Judaism at least orthodox levels also charge for advanced education like Mishna cost money, these materials are also protected, as in Judaism especially when it comes to mysticism frowns upon jumping into it with out the foundation as one will not understand the context.
    1. All COS services are free
    2. COS has member free services as well in context to learning.
    3. COS charges for its courses just as a Sunday School does.

    End result, you can be a Scientologist and just go to Sunday services. Or you can also go to its “Sunday School” I.E. courses and pay for them.
    One difference is that COS has no annual member fee based on gross income, so the revenue is offset in the courses, giving off the notion of pay as you go, but in the end I see on difference, just different logistics.

  90. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 4:22 am

    @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 1:51 am

    That has been cancelled.

    Here’s a link to the time line that looks to be pretty accurate. You are welcome to verify the references in OEC Vol 1. All the HCO PLs are listed on this page and what they cancel and when.

    http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/hubbard_policy-letter_history_fair-game.html

    also look at this link: i believe it covers the rest of your post. If not, I’ll be around.
    http://www(dot)algonet(dot)se/~tourtel/interests/hubbard_policy-letter_history(dot)html#1_march_65

    Fair Game has been cancelled. LOL

  91. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 1:51 am

    Done and done.

  92. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 1:39 am

    Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 12:57 am

    reposted to show who I was replying to.

    Yes, a scan please? Don’t quote it. I’ll get back to you on the rest of your communication in a little bit. It’s my dinner time and I’m starving to death here ;p

  93. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 1:32 am

    Yes, a scan please? Don’t quote it. I’ll get back to you on the rest of your communication in a little bit. It’s my dinner time and I’m starving to death here ;p

  94. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 1:24 am

    Comment by ARC_Break on March 16, 2008 12:24 am

    “You haven’t read the history have you? Let me put it to you this way. Various countries have different laws. In Germany, Scientology is banned, in the US, Scientology is a bona fide religion. I don’t judge who is right and who is wrong, I’m merely stating a fact to illustrate a point.”

    Scientology isn’t banned in Germany. That’s kind of proving my point again how false data creeps in depending how many times it gets “passed along”.

    “Likewise, different countries have different views on what is and isn’t copyright infringement. What the Church of Scientology did was it decided to threaten xenu.net’s ISP (internet service provider) with a lawsuit because of the content on xenu.net. Normally this would be acceptable EXCEPT that the Church KNEW that they had NO LEGAL BASIS TO DO SO. They found this out when a judge refused to order the removal of documents from xenu.net’s website according to the law earlier.”

    Wait. Now you’re saying that the Church does NOT have a right to pursue Legal Recourse to protect it’s copyrights? The reason that action failed was because the Church had integrity and refused to produce the original OT III materials for the court so the judge could confirm it was copyright violation. But that was a long long time ago. Pretty soon people who thought they have the real thing up there now will realize it’s not it because they don’t get the effect of what is supposed to happen if it’s see out of sequence on the bridge.

    “Subverting the law is WRONG. No one can pick and choose which laws to obey and which ones not to. This is why I say Church of Scientology harasses it’s critics with copyright laws. They intimidate those who are not aware of the law to achieve their goals. That is WRONG.”

    Let’s look at the definition of subverted.
    From American Heritage Dictionary

    tr.v. sub·vert·ed, sub·vert·ing, sub·verts

    1. To destroy completely; ruin: “schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community” (Alexander Hamilton).
    2. To undermine the character, morals, or allegiance of; corrupt.
    3. To overthrow completely: “Economic assistance … must subvert the existing … feudal or tribal order” (Henry A. Kissinger). See Synonyms at overthrow.

    How was the law subverted?

    ——————————————————————–

    “Ok, maybe we’re getting our lines crossed. You’re implying that if there was in fact a copy available on the internet, that it would some how be changed. I understand what you’re saying. I’m telling you that it doesn’t make any sense. And I’ll try to explain why.

    In all the video’s I’ve seen, scientology members advise critics to “go to the source” to learn about LRH and the tech. However, on the web, there is no “one source”. There are many, many sources, each with varying levels of bias. Think of it as a viewpoint rainbow. As colours blend, so do viewpoints and author bias. Internet users tend to visit multiple sites and see different viewpoints about a subject. Still with me?

    So, we have this rainbow. We have red, blue, purple, yellow… but wait. There is no green. Why isn’t there green? Have you guessed who the colour green is? Right! It’s the Church of Scientology. And this is because there is no accurate information about the dogma of Scientology provided by the Church of Scientology.

    So, when people form their viewpoint, they do so without (in this case) the colour green. So, buy NOT having documents online, people DO NOT get your side of the story, your frame of reference. As such, people can make modifications to your tech and pass it off as legitimate.

    However, if there were documents online, the colour green would be present. So when someone says “Xenu was a mashed potato mixer who had plans of world domination and knitting.” someone could say “Well, according to the CoS website, that’s not accurate. Here’s the original document.””

    So, essentially, this whole thing is about OT III being posted for all to see. According to the anti-sites it’s already there, so why do you want the original documents? And I’ve already answered that. For your protection, because you’re not ready for it. When you’re ready for it you can have it. There’s no “hidden” data. You know it’s there. That’s never been “hidden”.

    Have you observed the reactions to the data that has been posted? Ridicule, disbelief, calling Scientologists wierd and crazy etc etc. Jokes, altered stories of it that change from day to day. That’s what I’m talking about. I’m actually willing to believe that that wasn’t your intent, but it was sure someone’s intent.

    “Thoughts? (More to come in my next post. :D)

    PS: I really do enjoy our discussions. It’s refreshing to actually be able to have a “Comm Cycle”, albeit of sorts. Unfortunately I feel both our bias on the subject is contributing to some of the problems. ”

    I’m not biased. Just telling you what’s what. There’s a difference. I base my data on facts rather than opinion. I’ve seen the result of those who were exposed to the data at the wrong time. It’s f**king powerful stuff and people have been known to get ill from it, when it was seen without being at the right level for it. That’s personal observation. You don’t have to believe me. What’s true for you is true for you by personal observation, not because I say so, and it shouldn’t be by anything xenu.net says either. You seem very intelligent and I think that you could read some of LRH’s books and see some truth there, and maybe see what other’s can’t. I don’t know. I believe that man is basically good. I believe that when people are given false data it can ruin lives. I believe that is the intent behind xenu.net.

  95. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 1:04 am

    Also, sorry, one other point that just occurred to me:

    On the one hand, you say that the policy was intended only to make it clear that ex-members no longer enjoy the benefits of membership.

    Then you say the policy was “canceled’ in 1968.

    If that’s true, then what you’re saying is that the policy that said ex-members no longer enjoy those benefits was canceled. Are they, then, given those benefits now, since the policy was supposedly canceled?

    However, please don’t use this question as an excuse to avoid the other, harder ones.

  96. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 12:59 am

    Also, note my earlier statement (which the courts have generally upheld, in regards to the fair game doctrine; I would be glad to provide documentation for that, too, if you wish) that fair game -itself- was never canceled. The -term- was merely removed from use as it caused “bad PR” (as stated by Hubbard himself in the second policy letter). The actual handling is explicitly left unchanged.

  97. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 12:57 am

    My pleasure. Here’s the policy letter in full:

    HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
    Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex Remimeo
    HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967
    Issue IV

    PENALTIES FOR LOWER CONDITIONS (Applies both Orgs and Sea Org)

    LIABILITY Suspension of pay and a dirty grey rag on left arm and day and night confinement to org premises.

    TREASON Suspension of pay and deprivation of all uniforms and insignia, a black mark on left cheek and confinement on org premises or dismissal from post and debarment from premises.

    DOUBT Debarment from premises. Not to be employed. Payment of fine amounting to any sum may have cost org. Not to be trained or processed. Not to be communicated or argued with.

    ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.

    LRH:jp L. RON HUBBARD
    Copyright (c) 1967 Founder
    by L. Ron Hubbard

    Any questions?

  98. Comment by ARC_Break on March 16, 2008 12:41 am

    I’d like to know if Children of Scientology are given an opportunity to look outside their religion and make their own choices about their life.

    Virtually every church does so. For example, roman catholics have confirmation, the Amish let their children go out into the real world for a year. Does scientology allow this?

  99. Comment by Pat on March 16, 2008 12:38 am

    Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 12:27 am
    Let’s talk about “fair game” for a second, since that’s on the front page of the main site.

    First, an excerpt from the actual policy letter:
    “ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured
    by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the
    Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”

    Post a copy please. Not a quote. I want to see it. Especially a PL that was cancelled 40 years ago. Should be interesting

  100. Comment by ARC_Break on March 16, 2008 12:34 am

    > I believe the above is not an accurate approximation of what Scientology courses are about because the courses we’re looking at are about training and not about reading some text or watching a DVD. They are about people getting trained in the precise application of an exact technology, in addition to studying and understanding how that technology works. The key words here is “training”.

    I understand what you’re saying. Obviously when people take courses that involve training by people the price shoots through the roof. Do all scientology courses require some sort of human input? If not, why aren’t those “self help” courses done this way.

    > Keeping these organizations in place, including the physical form, the buildings, equipments, etc. and the staff, has certain recurring costs that are way beyond the production costs of the training materials.

    I’d ask you to model your donations after the catholic church. It’s working well for them. You do have to admit however that the CoS spends more money then it really needs to. It could very easily cut it’s operating budget and require less income from members. Downtown storefront is very expensive and everyone who walks in knows that they’ll have to end up paying for it some way. That is very discouraging to people. :(

    > The same goes with auditor training and Scientology organizations and their structure. Maybe not the best analogy but I hope it gives you an idea.

    You and I are in complete agreement on this point. I know things cost money. I also know the CoS pays quite a bit of cash on dealing with it’s critics. I assume they had to pay a few people to get the names that appeared on the restraining orders that were filed against Anonymous. Maybe if they cut spending in what people see as “unchurchly” actions, maybe they wouldn’t need to get as much from people. And maybe, just maybe, the critics wouldn’t have ammunition to fire off every so often. :D

    Thoughts?

  101. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 16, 2008 12:27 am

    Let’s talk about “fair game” for a second, since that’s on the front page of the main site.

    First, an excerpt from the actual policy letter:
    “ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured
    by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the
    Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”

    Please explain to me how this could be “misinterpreted”. The afadavit from Hubbard claims that the purpose of that policy letter was merely to make it clear that “enemies” of the church would not enjoy the benefits of being a Scientologist RE: protection from litigation by other members.

    This simply -does not hold up- based on the wording of the order. “Tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.” “Deprived of property or injured by any means.”

    I’m sorry, but you’re stretching credibility past the breaking point when you say that that order was never intended to authorize “dirty tricks” against people who were declared “SP”. The document itself just doesn’t support your argument.

    On to your next claim: That it was “cancelled”. Let’s look at the actual text of that, shall we?

    ” The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.

    This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP.”

    Note that he does not say the TACTICS involved with fair game will cease. He merely states that you will no longer -declare- people “fair game” (in those words), and that that term will no longer appear in ethics orders, -because it causes bad PR-.

    Yes, the issue isn’t with any ethical ramifications; it’s just that it’s “bad PR”.

    Note also that last line: It does not cancel any policy on treatment or handling of an SP. In other words, the -actual- policy remains completely intact. The only thing that’s changed is that you won’t be calling it “fair game” anymore, because people got wise to the term.

    Finally, I’d like to point out a line from the main site’s defense of fair game:
    “The Church does use the same tools that other litigants use, such as lawful information gathering and evidence collection, to defend themselves from meritless suits, to enforce a legal right or to guard against infiltration.”

    “to guard against infiltration”. That part stood out to me. How many other religions are actively worried about -infiltration-? Couching things in terms like that makes it sound much less like a genuine religious enterprise and much more shadowy, dontcha think?

    I look forward to seeing you refute these points.

  102. Comment by ARC_Break on March 16, 2008 12:24 am

    > I don’t see legally protecting one’s copyrights as harassment. That’s your spin and how the anti-sites have chosen to spin it, to try to get the Church to back off on protecting it’s copyrights. It didn’t have to go to legal. They could have just respected the Church’s right to have it removed and remove it. They didn’t. So the Church now takes it’s next recourse step in protecting the technology. Is that wrong?

    > If the Church tried to shut xenu.net down it’s because xenu.net is violating our copyrights.

    > Again, I have to ask you. Why is that wrong?

    You haven’t read the history have you? Let me put it to you this way. Various countries have different laws. In Germany, Scientology is banned, in the US, Scientology is a bona fide religion. I don’t judge who is right and who is wrong, I’m merely stating a fact to illustrate a point.

    Likewise, different countries have different views on what is and isn’t copyright infringement. What the Church of Scientology did was it decided to threaten xenu.net’s ISP (internet service provider) with a lawsuit because of the content on xenu.net. Normally this would be acceptable EXCEPT that the Church KNEW that they had NO LEGAL BASIS TO DO SO. They found this out when a judge refused to order the removal of documents from xenu.net’s website according to the law earlier.

    Subverting the law is WRONG. No one can pick and choose which laws to obey and which ones not to. This is why I say Church of Scientology harasses it’s critics with copyright laws. They intimidate those who are not aware of the law to achieve their goals. That is WRONG.

    ——————————————————————–

    “Well, I did answer that. We don’t want it on the internet unless it’s been approved to be there by the copyright holders, Religious Technology Center. To put it there without getting that permission is a violation of copyright, and is criminally minded as I mentioned before. It breaks the law.”

    Ok, maybe we’re getting our lines crossed. You’re implying that if there was in fact a copy available on the internet, that it would some how be changed. I understand what you’re saying. I’m telling you that it doesn’t make any sense. And I’ll try to explain why.

    In all the video’s I’ve seen, scientology members advise critics to “go to the source” to learn about LRH and the tech. However, on the web, there is no “one source”. There are many, many sources, each with varying levels of bias. Think of it as a viewpoint rainbow. As colours blend, so do viewpoints and author bias. Internet users tend to visit multiple sites and see different viewpoints about a subject. Still with me?

    So, we have this rainbow. We have red, blue, purple, yellow… but wait. There is no green. Why isn’t there green? Have you guessed who the colour green is? Right! It’s the Church of Scientology. And this is because there is no accurate information about the dogma of Scientology provided by the Church of Scientology.

    So, when people form their viewpoint, they do so without (in this case) the colour green. So, buy NOT having documents online, people DO NOT get your side of the story, your frame of reference. As such, people can make modifications to your tech and pass it off as legitimate.

    However, if there were documents online, the colour green would be present. So when someone says “Xenu was a mashed potato mixer who had plans of world domination and knitting.” someone could say “Well, according to the CoS website, that’s not accurate. Here’s the original document.”

    Do you see my point. Having official documents PREVENTS the misrepresentation of the tech. Unquestionably. It’s what we call PROOF.

    Thoughts? (More to come in my next post. :D)

    PS: I really do enjoy our discussions. It’s refreshing to actually be able to have a “Comm Cycle”, albeit of sorts. Unfortunately I feel both our bias on the subject is contributing to some of the problems. :D

  103. Comment by T on March 15, 2008 11:43 pm

    @Comment by ARC_Break on March 15, 2008 10:16 pm

    “The Church could in fact produce courses for literally dollars. This would include the cost of production. All the L Ron tapes could be transcribed and put into a repository. When someone needs to take a course, or several courses, the files are then thrown onto a DVD and burnt. The church member gets the DVD for all of $2.”

    I believe the above is not an accurate approximation of what Scientology courses are about because the courses we’re looking at are about training and not about reading some text or watching a DVD. They are about people getting trained in the precise application of an exact technology, in addition to studying and understanding how that technology works. The key words here is “training”.

    Training requires much more than materials to read or watch.

    By way of an analogy, you can certainly read a book about gymnastics and even watch a few DVDs for very little cost but that won’t make you a gymnast. You will perhaps be able to *talk* about gymnastics but that’s not the same thing.

    To be a gymnast you have to regularly visit over a longer period a place that has the various equipments needed to train gymnasts. You also need a coach to be there that helps and guides you to acquire the skills expected of a gymnast and also to protect you from getting seriously injured. That coach himself has to be trained and he has to demonstrate his skills against certain criteria before being certified as coach and allowed to train gymnasts. Those criteria had to be defined and there have to be people who maintain those criteria and deliver the certification program for coaches.

    So you see there are several cooperating organizations involved in training gymnasts. The gym has to be there and functioning (organization 1), certification criteria have to be defined and maintained (organization 2), coaches have to be trained and certified (organization 3), etc.

    Keeping these organizations in place, including the physical form, the buildings, equipments, etc. and the staff, has certain recurring costs that are way beyond the production costs of the training materials.

    The same goes with auditor training and Scientology organizations and their structure. Maybe not the best analogy but I hope it gives you an idea.

  104. Comment by Pat on March 15, 2008 10:39 pm

    Comment by ARC_Break on March 15, 2008 10:00 pm

    “A) I didn’t say it was wrong to protect your copyright. I said it’s wrong to use copyright laws to harass people who don’t have anything copyrighted. You can read about http://www.xenu.net and how the CoS attempted to have it shut down. You’ll note when reading that when they didn’t have legal footing, they bullied ISP’s into shutting down the site. That’s not protecting your copyright to the letter of the law, that’s being vindictive. Do you agree with me?”

    I’m glad that you see it’s ok to protect our copyright.

    I don’t see legally protecting one’s copyrights as harassment. That’s your spin and how the anti-sites have chosen to spin it, to try to get the Church to back off on protecting it’s copyrights. It didn’t have to go to legal. They could have just respected the Church’s right to have it removed and remove it. They didn’t. So the Church now takes it’s next recourse step in protecting the technology. Is that wrong?

    If the Church tried to shut xenu.net down it’s because xenu.net is violating our copyrights.

    Again, I have to ask you. Why is that wrong?

    The only ones protesting are the one’s violating the copyrights. It still comes down to trying to protest legal recourse as bad for vested interests. Who benefits if we were to allow this to happen? How does that Clear the planet?

    “B) Actually, CoS’ documents are on the internet and fairly easily searched for. They haven’t been altered, as most of them are still in LRH’s original handwriting. So, in essence, what has actually happened with the internet is the exact opposite of what you postulated would occur.

    I asked you why you thought that the CoS would not want UNALTERED documents on the internet. Not if the people who posted them are right or wrong. Let me phrase the question so there can be NO misunderstanding of what the question actually is:

    “Why would the CoS object to having a photo quality image of L Ron’s OTIII document on the internet for all to see?”

    That’s my question. I look forward to your answer, as I do actually strive to understand BOTH sides of an argument.

    And of course, any other additional thoughts that will move the discussion forward. ”

    Well, I did answer that. We don’t want it on the internet unless it’s been approved to be there by the copyright holders, Religious Technology Center. To put it there without getting that permission is a violation of copyright, and is criminally minded as I mentioned before. It breaks the law.

    I’m all for moving this discussion forward. Did you take a look at the xenu answers on scientoloymyths.info? It doesn’t matter if it’s photo quality copies or not. It’s altered. Not hard to do from what I understand. You see, David Mayo had this problem. He wanted to be source so he decided to “improve” OT III, the same way he did with quite a few LRH Technical Bulletins. No one will acheive the true EP of OT III with what is being posted. It’s ALTERED and completely proves my point that when the technology gets into the public domain it gets ALTERED.

    If people want the “real mccoy” they are going to have to do the Bridge the right way.
    Again, this is covered in scientologymyths.info.

  105. Comment by ARC_Break on March 15, 2008 10:16 pm

    > I didn’t say what “near death experience” was. I asked if you had ever heard of someone describing it as being outside looking at their body. Right?

    I misunderstood what you were saying. My fault. I don’t know what I was thinking. :D

    > Everyone I know has gotten there by reaching the required results of the previous levels. So OT III has been true for them. The End Phenomenon of OT III is Freedom from Overwhelm per the Grade Chart. If someone gains abilities on these that’s true for him or her. Other than the EP of OT III (End Phenomenon) there is no other requirement for being considered a completion. I have done this Level so I can tell you that is true from first hand experience.

    Everyone you know doesn’t answer my question. Let me restate the question so that there is no misinterpretation again.

    “For courses where acceptance of a specific concept of faith is required, is the statement LRH made “That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true.” contradictory. That is to say, are these in conflict?”

    I’ll point out that many faiths have conflicts such as this, no shame in it. Just want to learn both sides (as I said before).

    >See my last answer. I seriously have trouble understanding why it’s an issue that you disagree that people have to complete one level before they can go to the next. That’s why it’s called a Bridge. These steps are done in sequence. LRH himself set the target of 10000 people on OT VII before IX and X and be released.

    This question has been answered many times and Lu has the link for it on the web site. What you are advocating is giving upper level data to people who are not ready for it. To put it out for everyone to use or misuse with no oversight or correction possible because it’s “out there”.

    You’ve misinterpreted my question, not uncommon, so let me restate it.

    “Why is the church withholding information that would invariably help with the goal of getting the world “clear”. Surely the more scientologists that actually cross the bridge, the better it would be for scientology. Is it not?”

    > I’m not sure that’s really even the issue here to be honest. These all seem to come back to the fact that people want the technology but don’t think they can afford it due to all of the false data being put out that it’s too costly. The real issue is that it isn’t real to most that you can make it go right using the technology LRH gave us. The tools to fix that are free to read in the libraries and on-line (www(dot)ScientologyHandbook(dot)org).

    Here’s where you lose me. It’s not that I don’t understand your statement, I don’t understand the logic behind the Church’s Actions. Let me go through a thought process with you and you can tell me if there are any flaws in my logic.

    – CoS’ goal is to make the world clear.
    – Some people do not take courses because they are afraid it is too expensive.
    – Therefore, if CoS makes courses cheaper, more people will be receptive to joining.
    – Because more people are receptive to joining, more people will actually join.

    The Church could in fact produce courses for literally dollars. This would include the cost of production. All the L Ron tapes could be transcribed and put into a repository. When someone needs to take a course, or several courses, the files are then thrown onto a DVD and burnt. The church member gets the DVD for all of $2.

    Why do you think the church isn’t doing this?

    Looking forward to your response. :D

  106. Comment by ARC_Break on March 15, 2008 10:00 pm

    Sigh, so much to sort through. This is what I get because I decide to ask questions I guess. Silly me.

    > You think that is wrong? It’s real simple. It’s copyrighted. It doesn’t belong to you. It belongs to RTC who license the orgs to deliver it. When you post it on the internet you’re stealing, breaking the law. As far as I can see only the criminally minded who don’t think anyone has a right to own anything would object to copyright insistence.

    >What I’m getting here is that you object to CoS protecting the Technology from Alteration. Is that right? You find fault with the Church for insisting on it’s rights? That we should just give you the whole package and let you run with it and train auditors to deliver it so it will work 100% and get the standard results without any insistance by the Church that it stay pure? How do you think that will work? I’ve seen quotes from people that are nowhere near the original documents, then those get picked up and quoted etc.. It wouldn’t be long before it’s completely destroyed. And now we come to why I think there is so much fuss over CoS using the legal system to protect this. It’s because there are vested interests to do just that (destroy). Why? You tell me.

    A) I didn’t say it was wrong to protect your copyright. I said it’s wrong to use copyright laws to harass people who don’t have anything copyrighted. You can read about http://www.xenu.net and how the CoS attempted to have it shut down. You’ll note when reading that when they didn’t have legal footing, they bullied ISP’s into shutting down the site. That’s not protecting your copyright to the letter of the law, that’s being vindictive. Do you agree with me?

    >What I’m getting here is that you object to CoS protecting the Technology from Alteration. Is that right? You find fault with the Church for insisting on it’s rights?

    B) Actually, CoS’ documents are on the internet and fairly easily searched for. They haven’t been altered, as most of them are still in LRH’s original handwriting. So, in essence, what has actually happened with the internet is the exact opposite of what you postulated would occur.

    I asked you why you thought that the CoS would not want UNALTERED documents on the internet. Not if the people who posted them are right or wrong. Let me phrase the question so there can be NO misunderstanding of what the question actually is:

    “Why would the CoS object to having a photo quality image of L Ron’s OTIII document on the internet for all to see?”

    That’s my question. I look forward to your answer, as I do actually strive to understand BOTH sides of an argument.

    And of course, any other additional thoughts that will move the discussion forward. :D

  107. Comment by Pat on March 15, 2008 9:44 pm

    Comment by anonymous on March 15, 2008 7:59 pm

    Scientologists, here’s a serious question-

    What do you think about someone killing Sean Carasov’s cat after his docs were released?

    Here’s a serious answer:

    I don’t know who Sean Carasov is and what docs? Did he release some?

  108. Comment by anonymous on March 15, 2008 7:59 pm

    Scientologists, here’s a serious question-
    What do you think about someone killing Sean Carasov’s cat after his docs were released?

  109. Comment by Pat on March 15, 2008 7:11 pm

    @ Comment by ARC_Break on March 15, 2008 1:49 pm

    “I’ll admit the thought from one of the posters isn’t as articulate as it should be. Allow me to attempt to interpret his statement and explain.

    Scientology’s goal is to make the world clear. We know this because it’s a stated goal. We also know that that scientology’s goal is to have these clear people progress along the bridge, finally ending their trip at OT XV.

    What the poster above is saying, is that if getting people clear and across the bridge is so important, why are the documents like OTIX and up still locked away.”

    See my last answer. I seriously have trouble understanding why it’s an issue that you disagree that people have to complete one level before they can go to the next. That’s why it’s called a Bridge. These steps are done in sequence. LRH himself set the target of 10000 people on OT VII before IX and X and be released.

    This question has been answered many times and Lu has the link for it on the web site. What you are advocating is giving upper level data to people who are not ready for it. To put it out for everyone to use or misuse with no oversight or correction possible because it’s “out there”.

    I’m sorry if that’s unacceptable to you.

    I’m not sure that’s really even the issue here to be honest. These all seem to come back to the fact that people want the technology but don’t think they can afford it due to all of the false data being put out that it’s too costly. The real issue is that it isn’t real to most that you can make it go right using the technology LRH gave us. The tools to fix that are free to read in the libraries and on-line (www(dot)ScientologyHandbook(dot)org).

    Scientologists all over the world are donating these libraries so you can have the data.

  110. Comment by Pat on March 15, 2008 6:50 pm

    @Comment by ARC_Break on March 15, 2008 2:16 pm

    “I have visited a Psychiatric Hospital when my great aunt had a stroke and was sent in for evaluation. It was virtually the complete opposite of what the above says.”

    That’s good. There are some good ones, as far as cleanliness and caring goes.

    If you think there are NO abusive treatments going on in these hospitals, then you need to do more research.

    “What you didn’t take into account is that all hospitals (Psychiatric, geriatric, general or specialized (cancer or cardiac)) have guidelines they must follow. They have always been in place. The hospital administration staff would have known about these government regulated standards.”

    True. There are guidelines. But are they being followed? Can you say that with certainty that there are no hospitals that are abusing patients and their rights?

  111. Comment by Pat on March 15, 2008 6:34 pm

    Comment by ARC_Break on March 15, 2008 1:58 pm

    “The CoS does abuse it’s copyright litigations. To see this you only need to look at the history of Operation Clambake (www.xenu.net). I expect you can do the research for yourself if you’re interested. I doubt you will read it, so you’ll understand my not going out and spending time researching it for you.

    To keep it short, the Church of Scientology through it’s own actions shows it does not want UNALTERED and AUTHENTIC documents posted on the internet. Why do you think this is?”

    You think that is wrong? It’s real simple. It’s copyrighted. It doesn’t belong to you. It belongs to RTC who license the orgs to deliver it. When you post it on the internet you’re stealing, breaking the law. As far as I can see only the criminally minded who don’t think anyone has a right to own anything would object to copyright insistence.

    What I’m getting here is that you object to CoS protecting the Technology from Alteration. Is that right? You find fault with the Church for insisting on it’s rights? That we should just give you the whole package and let you run with it and train auditors to deliver it so it will work 100% and get the standard results without any insistance by the Church that it stay pure? How do you think that will work? I’ve seen quotes from people that are nowhere near the original documents, then those get picked up and quoted etc.. It wouldn’t be long before it’s completely destroyed. And now we come to why I think there is so much fuss over CoS using the legal system to protect this. It’s because there are vested interests to do just that (destroy). Why? You tell me.

  112. Comment by Pat on March 15, 2008 6:16 pm

    @Comment by ARC_Break on March 15, 2008 1:35 pm

    “It’s not that we don’t accept your data. It’s that your term for “data” means something completely different to regular folks. To us, data is numbers or bits of information that can be considered as fact. When looking at many data points, you can start to see a trend and base a conclusion or hypothesis on it.”

    From Random House Unabridged Dictionary
    —Usage note Data is a plural of datum, which is originally a Latin noun meaning “something given.” Today, data is used in English both as a plural noun meaning “facts or pieces of information” (These data are described more fully elsewhere) and as a singular mass noun meaning “information”: Not much data is available on flood control in Brazil. It is almost always treated as a plural in scientific and academic writing. In other types of writing it is either singular or plural. The singular datum meaning “a piece of information” is now rare in all types of writing. In surveying and civil engineering, where datum has specialized senses, the plural form is datums.

    “No one knows what a “near death” experience is. One could argue that you see the light and move on to whatever step awaited you on your journey. One could also argue that brain cells are dying and releasing neurotransmitters that cause other brain cells to recieve “false” information. There’s the religious and the biochemical explanation of the death experience.”

    I didn’t say what “near death experience” was. I asked if you had ever heard of someone describing it as being outside looking at their body. Right?

    “I don’t understand this point. So, could a scientologist in fact pass OTIII if he doesn’t fully accept the Xenu story? From what I hear (and I admit, it’s from biased sources), that when you learn about this, you’re supposed to have psychic powers and that if you don’t, you have to retake the course. Assuming this is correct, does this not in fact prove that LRH’s statement quoted above is in fact not the case? Or at least, not consistent for all scientology beliefs?”

    Everyone I know has gotten there by reaching the required results of the previous levels. So OT III has been true for them. The End Phenomenon of OT III is Freedom from Overwhelm per the Grade Chart. If someone gains abilities on these that’s true for him or her. Other than the EP of OT III (End Phenomenon) there is no other requirement for being considered a completion. I have done this Level so I can tell you that is true from first hand experience.

  113. Comment by ARC_Break on March 15, 2008 2:16 pm

    > I didn’t say that. Proper medication, even a pain killer, has its place. However I wish you would go and visit a psychiatric hospital, check nutrition and sleep and general living conditions. I did this once (it was a bet) and the most scary thing, aside from the drugged, absent-minded patients, was the absence of a friendly and healthy atmosphere. It stank, food looked unbearable and it was extremely noisy and sticky. A patient who is not depressive when dumped there for sure will become so after only a few days. He might be even craving for happy pills, but what does that tell us about their effectiveness? Nothing.

    I have visited a Psychiatric Hospital when my great aunt had a stroke and was sent in for evaluation. It was virtually the complete opposite of what the above says.

    As an aside, I’m deeply skeptical about your story. Not because you’re a scientologist, but because of the description you gave.

    What you didn’t take into account is that all hospitals (Psychiatric, geriatric, general or specialized (cancer or cardiac)) have guidelines they must follow. They have always been in place. The hospital administration staff would have known about these government regulated standards.

    Based on this, you further explain that you went into the hospital on a bet, not to visit someone. I’m deeply skeptical that they’d let just you into the hospital given the obvious violations. They’d probably want to bring a visitor out to see you instead.

    But then add in the fact that you didn’t know anyone (you went in for a bet remember), and basically had no valid reason to be there. They would have asked you who you’re going to see. This happens in REGULAR hospitals, let alone psychiatric hospitals where some patients can be violent.

    I find your entire story suspect. Given that the place was, according to your story, a horrible place to live, I’m assuming as member of “the most ethical group on the planet” you were so outraged you went to the authorities and reported the place. If not, I’m going to call BS on your entire story.

    I have my own hypothesis. I don’t believe you actually went to a psych hospital. I believe you watched a video where they showed a psych hospital in horrible condition. You then took that biased information and came up with a story to help back up your arguement.

    Proof or it didn’t happen. And if it did happen and you don’t have proof that you reported it to the authorities, you are one emotionless, callous and uncaring SOB.

  114. Comment by ARC_Break on March 15, 2008 1:58 pm

    > Back to topic as does COS abuse its Copyright litigations, no not IMO. I have other issues with COS but not the copyright issue. There was a disputes back for copyright on authoring Talmud and Torah publishers as well as catholic bibles and agreed to copyright enforcement then.

    The CoS does abuse it’s copyright litigations. To see this you only need to look at the history of Operation Clambake (www.xenu.net). I expect you can do the research for yourself if you’re interested. I doubt you will read it, so you’ll understand my not going out and spending time researching it for you.

    To keep it short, the Church of Scientology through it’s own actions shows it does not want UNALTERED and AUTHENTIC documents posted on the internet. Why do you think this is?

    My personal belief is that the CoS does not want to release all of it’s information because if it does, the more advanced documents will turn off the public. And they can’t have that.

    Why is it that the CoS can’t come clean about it’s dogma to the public. Can the works of L Ron not stand public scrutiny?

    A better question yet. If OTVII actually worked, would there be any critics on this planet?

  115. Comment by ARC_Break on March 15, 2008 1:49 pm

    > “If Scientology truly wanted to save the world, they would set aside copyright law and offer their wisdom for free.”

    >I know, if only everything were free than it could be so.

    I’ll admit the thought from one of the posters isn’t as articulate as it should be. Allow me to attempt to interpret his statement and explain.

    Scientology’s goal is to make the world clear. We know this because it’s a stated goal. We also know that that scientology’s goal is to have these clear people progress along the bridge, finally ending their trip at OT XV.

    What the poster above is saying, is that if getting people clear and across the bridge is so important, why are the documents like OTIX and up still locked away.

    Secondly, he’s asking why all your beliefs are not in the public domain. For example, as a Roman Catholic I reference my faith to the bible. There are no additional and secret texts that I have yet to see. I’m given everything I need to be a member in good standing for nothing (Or close to nothing, $13 for the bible). Service is free, activities are usually free as well.

    What would the cost be for converting the tapes of LRH onto a computer and providing those to members? A DVD would cost literally $1 to produce (nice graphic on the cover a jewel case) and is available from many sites. The conversion of the tapes would be a one time fee, and I bet you could convert all verbal documentation for little to no money. It’s so easy, a staffer could do it.

    The posters question is on point and valid. Why doesn’t scientology take steps to provide the documentation and lectures at a signifigantly cheaper price by using current technology?

  116. Comment by ARC_Break on March 15, 2008 1:35 pm

    > Since I’m a Scientologist you probably wouldn’t accept my data, but what about people that have described near death experiences and being outside looking at their bodies? These weren’t Scientologists.

    It’s not that we don’t accept your data. It’s that your term for “data” means something completely different to regular folks. To us, data is numbers or bits of information that can be considered as fact. When looking at many data points, you can start to see a trend and base a conclusion or hypothesis on it.

    No one knows what a “near death” experience is. One could argue that you see the light and move on to whatever step awaited you on your journey. One could also argue that brain cells are dying and releasing neurotransmitters that cause other brain cells to recieve “false” information. There’s the religious and the biochemical explanation of the death experience.

    Thoughts and or comments?

    > Also, something else. I see that Lu and Lou have both mentioned LRH’s policy “Personal Integrity (link is in an earlier post) that what is true for you is what you have personally observed. No one has demanded, that I can see, that you have to believe this if you haven’t experienced it for yourself. Same thing with past lives. Same thing with any belief. What’s true for me isn’t necessarily true for you. That’s what the philosophy is. It’s all a matter of belief and personal truth.

    I don’t understand this point. So, could a scientologist in fact pass OTIII if he doesn’t fully accept the Xenu story? From what I hear (and I admit, it’s from biased sources), that when you learn about this, you’re supposed to have psychic powers and that if you don’t, you have to retake the course. Assuming this is correct, does this not in fact prove that LRH’s statement quoted above is in fact not the case? Or at least, not consistent for all scientology beliefs?

  117. Comment by ARC_Break on March 15, 2008 1:27 pm

    “NO?? I went to a private catholic school and my folks paid a lot for religious school part. I automatically was put as membership in the parish and would get statements every quarter. Many of the attendees were not members of the parish and likely gave via donation. However if there is not a sufficient pool of donors I would put money down that Easter and Christmas would require tickets. I went to a Synagogue where Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur required a ticket with some exceptions but the rest of the year nothing. That ticket however is a member fee of a lower % but also has a scale as you get older to pay more.education.”

    I have absolutely no idea what you just said. But let me try and tackle each of your points.

    > “NO?? I went to a private catholic school and my folks paid a lot for religious school part.”

    From my experience, every single private school, regardless of it being Catholic, Jewish or non-secular does in fact cost money. Representing this cost as a fee for the church instead of the service is misleading and wrong.

    “I automatically was put as membership in the parish and would get statements every quarter. ”

    What sort of statements? I find it highly suspicious that the parish would involve you in their financial situation. I’ve been in several parishes and this simply hasn’t occured.

    >”However if there is not a sufficient pool of donors I would put money down that Easter and Christmas would require tickets. I went to a Synagogue where Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur required a ticket with some exceptions but the rest of the year nothing. That ticket however is a member fee of a lower % but also has a scale as you get older to pay more.education.””

    I have absolutely no idea what you’re saying here. Being a Roman Catholic doesn’t require a card, tithe or even 100% adherance to the bible. Scientology requires payment to advance to the next level. I think you were trying to show that all religons do what scientology does, but this simply isn’t true. I don’t believe at ANY time the church charged for membership.

    Thoughts and or comments?

  118. Comment by Pat on March 15, 2008 12:23 am

    @Comment by Anonymous on March 11, 2008 11:21 am

    Since I’m a Scientologist you probably wouldn’t accept my data, but what about people that have described near death experiences and being outside looking at their bodies? These weren’t Scientologists.

    Also, something else. I see that Lu and Lou have both mentioned LRH’s policy “Personal Integrity (link is in an earlier post) that what is true for you is what you have personally observed. No one has demanded, that I can see, that you have to believe this if you haven’t experienced it for yourself. Same thing with past lives. Same thing with any belief. What’s true for me isn’t necessarily true for you. That’s what the philosophy is. It’s all a matter of belief and personal truth.

  119. Comment by concernedcitizen on March 14, 2008 9:11 pm

    Now I’ve seen the information on this site I’m joining the protests too
    I’m really offended by the misinformation

  120. Comment by bradS on March 14, 2008 8:08 pm

    “Funny, my church doesn’t ask me to do that. But then again I’m Roman Catholic”

    NO?? I went to a private catholic school and my folks paid a lot for religious school part. I automatically was put as membership in the parish and would get statements every quarter. Many of the attendees were not members of the parish and likely gave via donation. However if there is not a sufficient pool of donors I would put money down that Easter and Christmas would require tickets. I went to a Synagogue where Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur required a ticket with some exceptions but the rest of the year nothing. That ticket however is a member fee of a lower % but also has a scale as you get older to pay more.
    That said COS has free services on Sunday and periodically has free offers for basic books and helps with those that cannot afford the full price. This was no different from my Catholic church when I was a kid that helped out others who could not afford the full price of Sunday School religious education.

  121. Comment by bradS on March 14, 2008 8:00 pm

    anonymous wrote
    “So you learned everything you know in school”

    no but enough to get a job and learn more from there.
    You will not get an argument from me as to bad practices of individual rights, take Microsoft for example when the dumped prices to kill Mandriva via Nigeria deal. Part of me says “Linux play hardball!” OLPC is a great movement, and shouldn’t be muddled by MS. I know where you are coming from on OS theory I have had many debates on this, but the world is not that place. I fight for intellectual property but will punish its abusers as in those that abuse the position is creates.

    Back to topic as does COS abuse its Copyright litigations, no not IMO. I have other issues with COS but not the copyright issue. There was a disputes back for copyright on authoring Talmud and Torah publishers as well as catholic bibles and agreed to copyright enforcement then.

  122. Comment by ARC_Break on March 14, 2008 7:50 pm

    > to bring it back I set forth my examples as to religion where all require money whether it be annual @ 10% of gross pay what have you via most Christian churches or pay as you go in COS, Sunday School and so on.

    Funny, my church doesn’t ask me to do that. But then again I’m Roman Catholic

  123. Comment by anonymous on March 14, 2008 7:28 pm

    “funny it worked for me and many I know who came from low income families. I also do not understand the world of which you live every public school I attended had current software and products to use, program and so on.”
    So you learned everything you know in school, and couldn’t afford software products at home so you refrained from using committing “software piracy” because you were suckered in by the “don’t copy that floppy” FUD?
    Back in school we had 2 windows 3.11 PCs in the library, IT consisted of 2 hours a week on Amstrad word processors. I built an 8086 PC (with the help of family) from handed down components, and used an array of copied software to educate myself in a large number of programming languages before finally taking software engineering in college. If I were an Internet tough guy I’d challenge you to a geek-off, but I’m not so I won’t.

    “where I live individual rights and property are the foundation of laws”
    Intellectual property is not real property, it is constructed monopoly invented to maximize creativity in the era of the printing press. That time is long gone, copyright is now used mostly to promote personal greed and keep the status quo, furthermore it stifles creativity. As a software engineer, writer, artist and musician, I would embrace a donation system to replace copyright legislation.
    It disgusts me how one type of sharing is demonized (file sharing) while another is made mandatory (patrons putting money in the hats of content creators), both should be optional imo. I won’t bang on about this subject because it’s a philosophical debate that’s the subject of many holy wars, and mostly off-topic in this forum.

  124. Comment by bradS on March 14, 2008 7:08 pm

    anonymous wrote
    “s two hours a week in school does not make a master.”

    I do not care how many hours spent, the idea of some one coming out of school to be a master of anything is absurd. Thus the whole idea of actual work experience incrementally obtained to create the job experience as what is the normal practice.

    anonymous wrote
    That’s a similar argument to “If only land, food and water were free then we could abolish slavery”

    Incorrect, raw materials and labor are not the same; moreover, labor has far more flexible variables to choose versus limited resources and their distribution. Moreover, my statement had to do with your sweeping lack of the concept of “footing the bill”

    Loanne I apologize for going off topic.
    to bring it back I set forth my examples as to religion where all require money whether it be annual @ 10% of gross pay what have you via most Christian churches or pay as you go in COS, Sunday School and so on.

    One argument I will make is that the case of the Jewish family, all religious courses and material should be tax exempt. Instead of taking it away from COS, it should be granted to the others as well.

  125. Comment by bradS on March 14, 2008 6:44 pm

    anonymous wrote
    “Que? Is that an attempt to poo-poo my argument because I am self-educated by means that offends your morality?”

    >>again nuff said, you could take any position you wish, it does not change the fact of breaking the law.

    anonymous wrote
    “Not in commercial software it isn’t. A child couldn’t become an expert in any digital arts without their parents investing heavily in commercial software, as two hours a week in school does not make a master. The world having more Mozarts is vastly more important to society than the owners of Cubase getting paid.”

    >>funny it worked for me and many I know who came from low income families. I also do not understand the world of which you live every public school I attended had current software and products to use, program and so on.

    anonymous wrote
    “commandment, and violation of this agreement may upset small minded and greedy people but they are the minority and are not as important as the educational and cultural enrichment of society as a whole.”

    wow again nuff said, there is no minority in copyright litigation or intellectual property protection. Also I have no idea what society you live in but where I live individual rights and property are the foundation of laws overriding any “direct democracy” or socialistic action.

  126. Comment by anonymous on March 14, 2008 6:16 pm

    “I know, if only everything were free than it could be so.”
    That’s a similar argument to “If only land, food and water were free then we could abolish slavery”

    “lol i hereby CP this CP to a CP spot on the spac reserved for my CP….”
    I hope you’re talking about copypasta not pedobear.png.
    Copypasta my rhetoric all you like, I forfeit my right of prima nocte on the grounds that I am anonymous and accept that everything is a repost of a repost of a repost, no thought is original, and all original content becomes stale at the moment the first person presses CTRL+C.

  127. Comment by anonymous on March 14, 2008 6:05 pm

    “wow, nuff said…”
    Que? Is that an attempt to poo-poo my argument because I am self-educated by means that offends your morality?

    “education is sanctioned under the law and thus funded by our taxes (public)”
    Not in commercial software it isn’t. A child couldn’t become an expert in any digital arts without their parents investing heavily in commercial software, as two hours a week in school does not make a master. The world having more Mozarts is vastly more important to society than the owners of Cubase getting paid.

    “religion is separate from the government…”
    It is not separate from society, copyright law is a contract between society and content creators. It is not a commandment, and violation of this agreement may upset small minded and greedy people but they are the minority and are not as important as the educational and cultural enrichment of society as a whole.

    “It is dangerous to transfer opportunity to rights as the results never equate as in to achieve equal outcome over equal opportunity which results in less opportunities.”
    Please clarify your argument.

  128. Comment by BLOOM! on March 14, 2008 12:04 am

    anon wrote:
    Comment by anonymous on March 13, 2008 10:08 pm

    bradS wrote
    “Many feel it is their right if they do not agree with the pricing of a product.”
    I too am a programmer, but I sit in the opposite camp to you regarding copyright. I’ve been programming since I was a small child (over 20 years, 10 in the industry) and harbour no malice toward people who violate copyright law for personal use. In fact, the majority of my education was gained illegally through the use of “pirated” software. Nowadays I’m an IT professional who can afford to buy such media, I don’t violate copyright law anymore because I cannot ethically justify it given my income.
    However, I’m a firm believer that people shouldn’t be denied opportunities simply because they don’t have money. Would you deny a child the right to read because their parents cannot afford books? In the words of Gene Roddenberry, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”, or in the words of Richard Stallman-
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

    If Scientology truly wanted to save the world, they would set aside copyright law and offer their wisdom for free.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    lol i hereby CP this CP to a CP spot on the spac reserved for my CP…. btw no proxy on me….. but theres hardly a law about spamming the internet and IM NOT ANON!!! THIS IS MY REAL NAME!!!!

  129. Comment by bradS on March 13, 2008 10:54 pm

    anonymous wrote: “If Scientology truly wanted to save the world, they would set aside copyright law and offer their wisdom for free.”

    I know, if only everything were free than it could be so.

  130. Comment by bradS on March 13, 2008 10:52 pm

    anonymous wrote: “and harbour no malice toward people who violate copyright law for personal use. In fact, the majority of my education was gained illegally through the use of “pirated” software.”

    wow, nuff said…

    anonymous wrote: “However, I’m a firm believer that people shouldn’t be denied opportunities simply because they don’t have money. Would you deny a child the right to read because their parents cannot afford books?”

    Item 1: there is a difference between a right and an opportunity.
    item 2: education is sanctioned under the law and thus funded by our taxes (public)
    item 3. religion is separate from the government. Scientology has fund raisers and other means to help others get the books and courses. This is no different than my in-laws paying for Sunday school a big expense but that church as well has fund raising to help with those that could not afford the full amount.

    as for denied opportunities, then do not deny them the opportunity “not right” to earn the money. It is dangerous to transfer opportunity to rights as the results never equate as in to achieve equal outcome over equal opportunity which results in less opportunities.

  131. Comment by anonymous on March 13, 2008 10:26 pm

    “I’ve created a group on facebook – Scientology – Video’s to watch on You-tube.”
    Most anonymi are aware of Facebook’s slack data protection policies ie the fact that they sell data to the highest bidder (and all other bidders), and along with the tracking image in the background of the youtube video there’s a good risk of exposure.
    Good luck on your dox gathering exercise, but I guess you’ll only get information on those who don’t take their online anonimity seriously.

  132. Comment by anonymous on March 13, 2008 10:08 pm

    bradS wrote
    “Many feel it is their right if they do not agree with the pricing of a product.”
    I too am a programmer, but I sit in the opposite camp to you regarding copyright. I’ve been programming since I was a small child (over 20 years, 10 in the industry) and harbour no malice toward people who violate copyright law for personal use. In fact, the majority of my education was gained illegally through the use of “pirated” software. Nowadays I’m an IT professional who can afford to buy such media, I don’t violate copyright law anymore because I cannot ethically justify it given my income.
    However, I’m a firm believer that people shouldn’t be denied opportunities simply because they don’t have money. Would you deny a child the right to read because their parents cannot afford books? In the words of Gene Roddenberry, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”, or in the words of Richard Stallman-
    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

    If Scientology truly wanted to save the world, they would set aside copyright law and offer their wisdom for free.

  133. Comment by Richard on March 13, 2008 10:07 pm

    Hi ,

    I’ve created a group on facebook – Scientology – Video’s to watch on You-tube.
    Take a look.

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8635613249

    ARC…RIchard

  134. Comment by GrandFalloon on March 13, 2008 9:47 pm

    @Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 8:59 pm

    Couldn’t it be that you go through the cycle of life and death until Judgement Day comes or the Second Coming of Christ?

    But that’s not what Christian’s believe. They believe you don’t come back. (although resurrection zombie style is suggested as a possibility in some groups…)

  135. Comment by anonymous on March 13, 2008 9:38 pm

    “The key point here is those 50 or so Anons who are nuts enough to blow up buildings. Get them under control. Or do you expect ME to do it?”
    lol wut?
    According to that video there’s about 1% of anons who are prepared to make funny phone calls, a very small percentage of which think its funny to make threats of violence, and a smaller number of those think its funny to make threats of terrorism.

    Actually committing an act of violence is something completely different from issuing an anonymous threat from behind seven proxies. It’s a statement of “I can say whatever I like to upset you because I’m completely untraceable”, it’s bare faced Internet cheek not real world hatred.

    What do you think they’re gonna do, send spam emails until your PC explodes? Overheat your fax machines until your buildings burn down? If you can’t see how preposterous this notion is, then you have fallen victim to your own propaganda and need to take your head out of the clouds and look at the situation in the real world.

  136. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 8:59 pm

    @Comment by GrandFalloon on March 13, 2008 7:00 pm

    >>@Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 6:13 pm
    >>I see. Do you have some theological background data for that? Like a Bible reference or Convent decree or so? I don’t doubt what you say but there must be something in writing about that somewhere in the Christian books, catechisms, decrees etc.

    >No, sorry, but the beliefs of Christians is that when you die your soul either goes to Heaven if you’re good, or Hell if you’re bad (really simply).

    Yeah, I remember that. But it doesn’t say WHEN you go to Heaven or Hell, or did I miss it? Couldn’t it be that you go through the cycle of life and death until Judgement Day comes or the Second Coming of Christ? Might take some lives to get there.

    – Louanne

  137. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 8:55 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 13, 2008 7:28 pm

    >>“The key point here is those 50 or so Anons who are nuts enough to blow up buildings. Get them under control. Or do you expect ME to do it?”
    >We’ve repeated that there is no way for us to know who those people are. They could be anonymous. They could be some random jerk. It could be the CoS trying to frame anonymous (again, it’s happened in the past). In any of those three cases, the individuals should be held accountable. It doesn’t matter which of those three it is, it’s a horrible thing regardless. However, we cannot know! We don’t know each other. If anyone is going to figure it out it’s going to be the FBI. Let them do their work, yeah?

    No, I think we should help them get the guys, fast. Anonymous has not done anything to help law enforcement do their job, as far as I know, and is obviously trying to prevent transparency. Get going.

    – Louanne

  138. Comment by anonymous on March 13, 2008 7:28 pm

    “The key point here is those 50 or so Anons who are nuts enough to blow up buildings. Get them under control. Or do you expect ME to do it?”

    We’ve repeated that there is no way for us to know who those people are. They could be anonymous. They could be some random jerk. It could be the CoS trying to frame anonymous (again, it’s happened in the past). In any of those three cases, the individuals should be held accountable. It doesn’t matter which of those three it is, it’s a horrible thing regardless. However, we cannot know! We don’t know each other. If anyone is going to figure it out it’s going to be the FBI. Let them do their work, yeah?

    And regardless of who it is, this will not affect the thousands of law abiding anons who still want their message heard.

  139. Comment by GrandFalloon on March 13, 2008 7:00 pm

    @Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 6:13 pm

    I see. Do you have some theological background data for that? Like a Bible reference or Convent decree or so? I don’t doubt what you say but there must be something in writing about that somewhere in the Christian books, catechisms, decrees etc.

    No, sorry, but the beliefs of Christians is that when you die your soul either goes to Heaven if you’re good, or Hell if you’re bad (really simply). That’s the belief. You’d have to change those beliefs to accept rebirth. Scientology has a completely different idea of what happens after you’re dead than Christians.

    Maybe you should just read the Bible chapters that deal with how Christians can get into Heaven and what is sinful. (I think the relevant chapters are between Genesis and Revelations)

  140. Comment by GrandFalloon on March 13, 2008 6:58 pm

    @Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 6:13 pm

    I see. Do you have some theological background data for that? Like a Bible reference or Convent decree or so? I don’t doubt what you say but there must be something in writing about that somewhere in the Christian books, catechisms, decrees etc.

    No, sorry, but the beliefs of Christians is that when you die your soul either goes to Heaven if you’re good, or Hell if you’re bad (really simply). That’s the belief. You’d have to change those beliefs to accept rebirth. Scientology has a completely different idea of what happens after you’re dead than Christians.

    Maybe you should just read the Bible chapters that deal with how Christians can get into Heaven and what is sinful. (I think the relevant chapters are between Genesis and Revelations)

  141. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 6:13 pm

    @Comment by GrandFalloon on March 13, 2008 3:30 am

    “Past lives are in the way of Christian beliefs. Just so you know, next time someone asks.”

    I see. Do you have some theological background data for that? Like a Bible reference or Convent decree or so? I don’t doubt what you say but there must be something in writing about that somewhere in the Christian books, catechisms, decrees etc.

    – Louanne

  142. Comment by bradS on March 13, 2008 6:11 pm

    As for copyright, one thing I cannot stand is the argument that COS is wrong in protecting its work. The internet is filled with free-loaders. I have been programming for 12 years and constantly battle pirating. Many feel it is their right if they do not agree with the pricing of a product. COS has every right to protect intellectual property. What would be the point to have any product or service if you could not protect your own creation?

    I can tell you artscroll protects its published books as well as bibles of new release with added notes and such.

    Then there the argument of price of COS. COS is more like pay as you go, IMO far better than a church asking for my paystub to garnish 10% of my gross year after year. The scale for the churches I attended seemed to go higher as you get older as well moving higher from 10%.
    So do the math I hear all these high numbers from people paying COS over the years well my in-laws (Baptist) have been for 30 years and have paid more than this number: but say they made only 50k a year and were garnished 5k over 30 years you have 150k donation. I see no difference other than via COS you can be a Scientologist and choose to pay so much where my in-laws have no choice in their church. Bu they are happy to give it, do not get me wrong as I suspect many Scientologist are.

  143. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 6:11 pm

    @Comment by bradS on March 13, 2008 8:51 am

    “statistics page seems to be down, just FYI.”

    Thanks! I corrected it.

    “I am also to the point even reading other critic sites that Lisa died from meningitis or would have if not for the embolism.”

    Didn’t I just answer an email of yours..? Well, yes, the death cert said embolism and I guess they did not look any further once one cause of death was established.

    – Louanne

  144. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 6:03 pm

    @Comment by Tony Meman on March 13, 2008 9:00 am

    “I have the 2003 edition of Dianetics. In the back, under “Where to Find an Auditor”, it lists Orgs world wide. I did a quick count; there were about 150 listed.
    Let’s assume that Scientology has undergone explosive growth and now has 1000 Orgs. Each of these Orgs would service an average of 8,000 parishioners. This means
    that EVERY ORG would rival the size of extremely well-known megachurches.”

    Scientology does not have 1,000 orgs. The official statement is: “There are presently 7,731 churches, missions and groups in 164 countries worldwide. Membership has increased from 6.1 million in 2000 to approximately 10 million at the end of 2007.” That would be an average of 1,034 parishioners per group/mission/org, for 8 million members or 1,293 parishioners per group for 10 million members. That’s not much. But I think and got that confirmed that the membership count includes seminar participants of e.g. huge Dianetics or Scientology basics seminars (I remember one in India, with 9,000 people), whose attendees continue to audit in their home. In some areas like India or Africa this is the only way to continue because there are no groups, missions or orgs around. In Morroco for example, anybody not a Sunni Muslim is not allowed to build a group.

    “Assuming each parishioner did one hour of auditing per week, that would be 8000 hours of one-on-one time; if each member of staff did 40 hours per week, there would be an average of 200 staff per Org, for a total of 200, 000 worldwide. This would make the Scientology staff equal to about half the number of Catholic priests in the world.”

    Illogic and unfounded. I tell you why: The average staff per org is much less, just from having visited a lot of them I would say this figure ranges around 50-80 and only in some cases up to 200. Then an average org has probably 4-5 auditors working fulltime. But your main flaw in calculating amount of auditing hours is this: Most auditing gets done by parishioners, not staff, in co-auditing settings (that is to give and receive auditing equally with a training partner) or as part of their auditor training. I do not have a figure for this but the average orgs I have been to had at least half of all parishioners active in auditing (as an auditor).

    “How come I’ve never heard of Scientology before this if they were this big?”

    You must be living in a hole… No, seriously, I don’t know. Probably because it is only 60 years old and not 2,000?

    “If you’re going to say something that’s untrue, at least make sure it isn’t so very, very, obviously untrue.”

    I am trying to be truthful in anything I say or put online. There is no good reason to lie. But as for membership figures and auditing hours the Church is the only source available, so a good thing would be to get a full breakdown from there.

    – Louanne

  145. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 5:25 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 12, 2008 3:51 am

    “Here is another great link:
    http://xe nu.net/archive/CourtFiles/
    Thoughts?”

    Proves my point that the Church of Scientology had to fight for their rights each inch of the way (you notice that most of the cases name the church as the plaintiff, right?). But I don’t want to jump the gun here and promise to skim through them a bit more.

    – Louanne

  146. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 5:19 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 12, 2008 3:48 am
    “http://www.scientology-lies .com/investigation.html
    Is that enough documentation for you?”

    Not that bad. Any indictments or convictions on this list? I see a lot of newspaper articles, “undated website”, “a.r.s. posting” and some such things as “references”. I am not saying that this is made up, but to be of value for a “crime” accusation it is better to have some firm evidence or conviction at hand. I’ll go through it and see for myself but if you have a shortcut please let me know.

    – Louanne

  147. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 4:10 pm

    @Comment by Tony Meman on March 12, 2008 7:04 am

    @Comment by Tony Meman on March 11, 2008 9:36 am
    >>> I’m still in the dark as to what engram could cause tens of thousands of people to develop tonic-clonic seizures. Help me out?
    >>“My head feels like a beehive”, as an engram command (spoken words received during a time of unconsciousness).
    >Mmm… I don’t think so. I’ve had my head feel like a beehive, and I didn’t lose conscious control of my body…

    Stop joking with me, man, you either have not read this book or you are unable to theoretically think it through. It’s kinda rough to talk about something if you don’t try to get a grasp, a least theoretically, how an engram works. The above command, an example only, wouldn’t “feel” anything. The reactive mind would get over you and have your brain behaving like a beehive. As a brain can’t move like hundreds of bees that would manifest itself in, for example, uncontrolled firing of sznapses. And you would not have any control over it nor being conscious about it. Unconsciousness is always part of an engram. Again, this is just an example, and for the practical application of Dianetics it is much more important to deal with what actually is there and not what “could be”.

    >As with psychosurgery, this type of procedure isn’t (maybe just a little) painful and requires the patient to be conscious. No lasting damage. Just so you know.

    Except for the missing part of brain tissue. But I get the concept, thanks.

    >> Whatever, we somehow left the subject, didn’t we?
    >Yes, but my point was, some hospitals are bad, and some are very helpful. Goes both ways.

    Common ground here. I also agree that there are psychiatric institutions set up to help patients. I just doubt that they actually do. It must be frustrating to do all kinds of therapies and then resort to giving drugs to silence the patients because there seems to be no other way. I am sure there is and with enough pressure on psychiatry they might even come up with something.

    >However, David Miscaviage (the COB) has called for the “global obliteration” of psychology.

    Miscavige. And psychiatry, not psychology.

    >Scientology does not want to “come up with something that actually helps”. Check it:
    http://www.exscientologykids.com/kendra3.html

    This may sound “the usual” to you: I think that this statement is one person’s opinion who has set out to discredit her former friends. The testimonies of all three show that they have not even remotely tried the internal ways to get their problems straightened out and the people they were dealing with. She is right saying that CCHR has no program to built new and better psychiatries. But also AI has no program to implement more human ways of torture. Yet they demand better treatment of people.

    >(Warning: There’s some OT stuff after the bolded “Straw Number One”, so you might want to stop reading there.)

    Thanks.

    >COB says he wants to “clear the planet”, which presumably means that they do want to take over the world.

    Nonsense. Clearing the planet is the concept to remove abberations (irrational and harmful behavior) from “this planet”, for the better survival of all. And it does not mean that everyone had to become “Clear” (in the Scientology sense[1]), it means that worldwide conditions are pro-survival for everyone. No wars, no criminality. The aims of Scientology are written here http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part12/Chp37/pg0684.html

    And what “clearing the planet” means is here: “It means that Scientologists want to rid the planet of insanity, war and crime, and in its place create a civilization in which sanity and peace exist. In order to do this, they must help individuals become free of their own individual insanities and regain awareness that they are basically good.”

    This “clearing the planet” accusation has been a common misconception held up by “critics” to justify their hostile behavior. That does not make it true.

    >Clears don’t have perfect memory and do get colds; OTs get cancer; and noone has superpowers (note the optimistically named “Superpower Building” at Flag).

    Sure, this however is not a promise made by Scientology. And religion and your personal salvation is very much subjective. I can easily compare myself before and after Scientology. And I am better off now due to Scientology, nothing else changed.

    >I can’t see any option but to call these claims lies; and I don’t tolerate lies in the name of religion any more then I would elsewhere.

    Makes me laugh, sorry. The Knight (with a capital K) on his horse, is the picture I get here. What if there were no such claims? What if you were listening to people with an agenda? What if you found out that noone ever talks to real Scientologists to find out how they think about this?

    >One huge problem I with is the willful inability of most Scientologists to look at these things, acknowledge their organization has some serious problems, and advocate for reform.

    This is actually happening every day. And as in every group it is up to its members to correct wrongs and get problems straightened out. No member would accept your call for reform, because it reads – or is at least presented – like giving up what works instead of actually doing it.

    >It doesn’t make for a good attitude for reaching out to Scientologists, either.

    That is a justification for not doing it but instead participating in a hostile campaign which will back off Scientologists further, strengthen prejudice on both sides and widen the gap. I have seen that a lot, not with you, but with “critics”. Nothing will change to the better that way.

    >>>There’s all kinds of statistics available on the destructive effects of mental illnesses. I’ve seen the whole range of them first hand. I’ve seen drugs fail to help. I’ve also seen drugs succeed. People like one of my students, Jeremy, for whom medicine turned school from a place of intolerable distractions into a place where he could learn. My nephew Matthew, who is autistic, who only started to speak after a lot of hard work and regular doses of medicine.
    >>I miss those observations but couldn’t be happier for them.
    >I have a misunderstood here… you “miss” those observations? You doubt I’m being honest? You think the drugs didn’t have much to do with the stories?

    No, it means that I can’t say anything about your experiences and that I don’t have the same ones, or any such experiences, for that matter.

    >>>Will you deny that many hundreds of thousands of people are helped every day by medication for their mental illnesses?
    >>I am still sceptical. One person helped somewhat while another one runs amok from the same drug and kills 23? I would need to see psychoactive drugs actually working to change my mind (just to be clear, with “drugs” here we are talking about psychoactive prescription drugs, not Aspirine or cough drops).
    >The wonders of the media. That’s several hundred thousand people helped out to one who gets a lot of media attention for killing 23 peopole. Another thing; school shootings are rare. The safest place a child can be is in school. The media gives it a lot of attention, so you think it’s a lot more common then it really is.

    I am not counting school shootings, but it seems there have been a lot more in the past years than before. Still, how “high tech” is this in the pharmaceutical scene if they are still not able to produce psychoactive drugs without murderous side effects? After so many billion and billions of dollars and at least 200 years of testing? Something is wrong with this picture.

    >I’m still not sure if you’re a true believer defending her faith or a volunteer OSA media agent seeking to influence perception of Scientology. Probably both. Either way, I have to commend you for showing great dedication to a very difficult enterprise.

    Thanks. I am not here to convince you about what or who I am.

    – Louanne

  148. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 3:53 pm

    @Comment by Anonymous on March 12, 2008 3:34 pm

    >>>@Comment by Anonymous on March 12, 2008 1:21 am
    I see you’ve started deleting comments with points you can’t successfully argue.
    >>No, I don’t. I am deleting comments that are violating the only rule this blog has. Look up the FAQ for that. I don’t know what you are referring to but the only two comments I deleted in the past two days were a weirdo statement lacking a question posted in the section “Questions” (this one here) and some insulting statements, again without a question. Sorry if that was yours but what exactly did you want to know?
    – Louanne

    >Those posts both had questions, questions you can’t answer because Scientology refuses to answer to them.

    I tell you, I have not seen them and so far I have not seen any question “Scientology refuses to answer”.

    >It had a comment about the fact that you suggest that Anonymous will be taken care of by the authorities is ironic, given the fact that there have been police reports falsified by Scientology and the fact that Scientology illegally persecutes anyone who opposes them with frivolous lawsuits and baseless criminal charges.

    Lots of heavy weight words and not the slightest trace of substance, or evidence. We won’t get anywhere, like this.

    >While you speak lies without base, I, and other like-minded individuals, are armed with truth. Well-documented truth, with the documentation to prove that what we say is true.

    Can you stop talking like a fanatic? Please, get your wits together. It’s not that hard.

    >Given what the British government found in this case http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp861.htm will you continue to deny that Scientology is a cult?

    Thank you. The British government did not say anything in the case you point out here (and as for the case itself, see here: https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/bonnie-and-richard-woods/ ).

    As for the British Government, here is how that stands:
    The Church’s application for charity status in England and Wales was rejected in 1999 and is currently pending, though in 2006 the Charity Commission issued that they lean to recognize the church as a charitable organization. However, already in 2001, the Church of Scientology was exempted from value added tax on the basis that it is a religious organization. Also in 2001, Church employees who are also part of what is described as its religious order were declared not subject to the ordinary wage laws. The Royal Navy recognized Scientology as one of the religions that sailors must be allowed to practice.” (from Wikipedia)

    >Will you continue to say that the cult’s actions are right and just?

    In general, yes, I would continue to say that, even in face the threat of being burned at the stake.

    In specific cases I am more than willing to say that things went wrong and that something needs to be done to correct them.

    – Louanne

  149. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 3:44 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 12, 2008 11:06 am

    >>“I see you don’t understand why Scientology uses copyright laws to protect its scriptures. The main reason – believe it or not – is to protect the material from being altered.”
    >Sorry but I (along with the rest of the Internet) don’t believe that. A more fitting explanation is to keep it profitable, mysterious and deniable. Besides, we have cryptographic hashes to prevent documents from being altered.

    You think too geeky… With “altered” I mean that the scriptures are used in a way they are not intended to be used, practices changed in sequence or amended with “bright ideas” which in truth made them ineffective.

    I have heard the idea “to keep it profitable, mysterious and deniable” before and it has no ground in reality. The tiny bit of confidential material in Scientology is not used as a sales pitch for Scientologists. Scientology is not a Linux manual but a training and practice route to spiritual salvation (I am aware that this might be alien to you). The bare costs for materials on the whole route in Scientology is most likely less that what one needs for a college degree.

    >With regard to the Tom Cruise video, the sensible way would have been to publish the whole video in retaliation, along with annotations to explain things to non-scientologists.

    I had that thought. It went differently and then it was too late.

    – Louanne

  150. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 3:44 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 12, 2008 10:41 am

    >For anyone in the dark, along with “at least 100? (a big number nobody can prove) and “last thursday” (some time ago), “IT’S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNDD!!!!!!!” (a very high power level) is a chan meme.
    So all /b/tards will agree that over 9000 protesters turned out in in least 100 cities last thursday, regardless of real dates or numbers.

    Yeah, “virtual reality”, right? It doesn’t matter, the result is the same, with 100 or 9,000 people waving nonsense signs.

    – Louanne

  151. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 3:43 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 12, 2008 6:53 am

    >>“Hm. Every time I read numbers about this 10th Feb they seem to grow.”
    >lol… right over your head.
    >The actual number is between 7000-8000. You can see threads on enturb that break down those exact numbers per city/country/etc.

    Saw that, but also compared it to the vids on YouTube. Seems to be some PR person counting here, ha. But it doesn’t matter anyway. The key point here is those 50 or so Anons who are nuts enough to blow up buildings. Get them under control. Or do you expect ME to do it?

    – Louanne

  152. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 3:43 pm

    @Comment by CHZ BRGR on March 12, 2008 4:07 am

    “lol i like how you’ve been warming up to us like putting more of your name up, behavioral modification much?”

    Cheeseburger, are you sober now and can make a senseful statement? It’s really weird to deal with you.

    – Louanne

  153. Comment by Tony Meman on March 13, 2008 9:00 am

    Ok, since I’m up, a quick note one why it’s incredibly obvious there are not anywhere near 8 million Scientologists.

    I have the 2003 edition of Dianetics. In the back, under “Where to Find an Auditor”, it lists Orgs world wide. I did a quick count; there were about 150 listed.

    Let’s assume that Scientology has undergone explosive growth and now has 1000 Orgs.

    Each of these Orgs would service an average of 8,000 parishioners. This means that EVERY ORG would rival the size of extremely well-known megachurches.

    Assuming each parishioner did one hour of auditing per week, that would be 8000 hours of one-on-one time; if each member of staff did 40 hours per week, there would be an average of 200 staff per Org, for a total of 200, 000 worldwide. This would make the Scientology staff equal to about half the number of Catholic priests in the world.

    How come I’ve never heard of Scientology before this if they were this big?

    Another exercise:

    There are about 8 million Jehovah’s witnesses in the world, and about 10 million Jews.

    Check the number of Scientology Orgs near you.

    Then, open the phone book and check the number of churches for Jehovah’s witnesses and the number of synagogues.

    Hint: There will be far more of the latter; probably ten times more in any place except Clearwater.

    If you’re going to say something that’s untrue, at least make sure it isn’t so very, very, obviously untrue.

  154. Comment by bradS on March 13, 2008 8:51 am

    statistics page seems to be down, just FYI.

    I am also to the point even reading other critic sites that Lisa died from meningitis or would have if not for the embolism. Her skin or descriptions from the note diary on critic sites if true point to this. I cannot be certain from the back in forth of Davis and Wood in determining the original cause to the change of death cert, but I am very sure she had meningitis as she was given antibiotics at the hospital as well according to the notes I read and of course if true.
    This probably caused mental instability as well as the rashes on her neck and hands, diarrhea, seizures and so on. Moreover the symptoms reveal themselves too late as meningitis takes on cold or flu like symptoms early on. Contrary to the critics, I find it hard to say Scientology was deliberate or negligent again basing my statements on the notes from critic sites.
    I realize this does not change anything, but the debate seems to be framed in just dehydration vs the second death cert ignoring other information.

  155. Comment by GrandFalloon on March 13, 2008 3:30 am

    Past lives are in the way of Christian beliefs. Just so you know, next time someone asks.

  156. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 3:05 am

    @Comment by GrandFalloon on March 13, 2008 2:35 am

    “@Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 1:37 am
    I would have to ask a Christian Scientologist for that. And I am not that familiar with Christian belief anymore (I dropped out of Catholicism and floated around for a while until I found Scientology) but I would think that past lives and future lives are not in the way of Christian belief

    I’m afraid L. Ron Hubbard would disagree with you. This is from that website T posted.”

    Just read up on it. This is where the quote is from:
    http://www.ronthephilosopher.org/phlspher/page54.htm

    The brochure (not LRH personally) says about the Catholic Church organization formally expunged reincarnation in 553 AD. So what? Past and future lives are not reincarnation (rebirth in anything, like an ant or poodle, is also not Scientology doctrine).

    – Louanne

  157. Comment by Louanne on March 13, 2008 3:04 am

    @Comment by Elial on March 12, 2008 2:51 pm

    “What is your opinion on http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/anti-religious-extremists/ ?”

    Too extreme. This is the way they treat Scientologists and that does not mean they should be treated the same. My opinion. The documentation there seems to be ok.

    – Louanne

  158. Comment by GrandFalloon on March 13, 2008 2:35 am

    @Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 1:37 am
    I would have to ask a Christian Scientologist for that. And I am not that familiar with Christian belief anymore (I dropped out of Catholicism and floated around for a while until I found Scientology) but I would think that past lives and future lives are not in the way of Christian belief

    I’m afraid L. Ron Hubbard would disagree with you. This is from that website T posted.
    “Yet from a strictly ecumenical standpoint, a doctrine of reincarnation tended to undermine Church authority as the sole means of salvation and everlasting life through the grace of Christ. Moreover, it tended to undermine key sources of Church revenue, very much including the sale of indulgences. Consequently, came the formal expunging of all such doctrine with the Second Synod of Constantinople in 553 AD.” page 54

    Ok, I have a question. Does this make you a liar? A Squirrel? or just misinformed.

  159. Comment by Anonymous on March 12, 2008 3:34 pm

    @Comment by Anonymous on March 12, 2008 1:21 am

    “I see you’ve started deleting comments with points you can’t successfully argue.”

    No, I don’t. I am deleting comments that are violating the only rule this blog has. Look up the FAQ for that. I don’t know what you are referring to but the only two comments I deleted in the past two days were a weirdo statement lacking a question posted in the section “Questions” (this one here) and some insulting statements, again without a question. Sorry if that was yours but what exactly did you want to know?

    – Louanne

    Those posts both had questions, questions you can’t answer because Scientology refuses to answer to them. They had points you cannot refute because they are undeniable truths. It had a comment about the fact that you suggest that Anonymous will be taken care of by the authorities is ironic, given the fact that there have been police reports falsified by Scientology and the fact that Scientology illegally persecutes anyone who opposes them with frivolous lawsuits and baseless criminal charges.

    Oh, and it made mention of the black faxes you will continue to receive, showing you one illegal police report in question. You will also continue to receive faxes demonstrating that Scientology is hypocritical, shunning psychiatry despite the fact that its founder was schizophrenic (the document you have received is a copy of Hubbard’s request for psychiatric help, in which he notes he has already been taking medication).

    In short, the posted comments spoke truth. They’re likely the only truth to be found here, besides what others calling themselves Anonymous and who are not your own plants say. While you speak lies without base, I, and other like-minded individuals, are armed with truth. Well-documented truth, with the documentation to prove that what we say is true.

    So, to follow with the “Questions, Questions, Questions” theme, I will ask you a question. Given what the British government found in this case http://www.solitarytrees.net/pickets/sp861.htm will you continue to deny that Scientology is a cult? Will you continue to say that the cult’s actions are right and just?

  160. Comment by Elial on March 12, 2008 2:51 pm

    Louanne –

    What is your opinion on http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/anti-religious-extremists/ ?

  161. Comment by anonymous on March 12, 2008 11:06 am

    “I see you don’t understand why Scientology uses copyright laws to protect its scriptures. The main reason – believe it or not – is to protect the material from being altered.”
    Sorry but I (along with the rest of the Internet) don’t believe that. A more fitting explanation is to keep it profitable, mysterious and deniable. Besides, we have cryptographic hashes to prevent documents from being altered.

    With regard to the Tom Cruise video, the sensible way would have been to publish the whole video in retaliation, along with annotations to explain things to non-scientologists. Copyright law doesn’t offer any protection at all against the Internet; computers are machines that process bits, while the Internet is a machine for transfering very large numbers of bits.

    The “Tom Cruise missile” thing looks incredibly bad for Scientology too, even more than trying to censor the video.

  162. Comment by anonymous on March 12, 2008 10:41 am

    For anyone in the dark, along with “at least 100” (a big number nobody can prove) and “last thursday” (some time ago), “IT’S OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNDD!!!!!!!” (a very high power level) is a chan meme.
    So all /b/tards will agree that over 9000 protesters turned out in in least 100 cities last thursday, regardless of real dates or numbers.

  163. Comment by Tony Meman on March 12, 2008 7:04 am

    @Comment by Tony Meman on March 11, 2008 9:36 am
    >> I’m still in the dark as to what engram could cause tens of thousands of people to develop tonic-clonic seizures. Help me out?

    >“My head feels like a beehive”, as an engram command (spoken words received during a time of unconsciousness).

    Mmm… I don’t think so. I’ve had my head feel like a beehive, and I didn’t lose conscious control of my body and collapse into a series of uncontrolled muscle contractions. Also, generally, one doesn’t “feel” brain activity; brain activity is feelings. Interesting fact: people receiving small amounts of electrical stimulation to their visual cortex can experience visual “hallucinations” (seeing things that aren’t really there) of things like shapes, faces, trees, etc. They aren’t “seeing” the object; the electrical patterns of their brain are creating them.

    As with psychosurgery, this type of procedure isn’t (maybe just a little) painful and requires the patient to be conscious. No lasting damage. Just so you know.

    Any other ideas? I toyed with the somatic (painful memory, to wogs) being vibration, but this just seems to be way too common.

    > Whatever, we somehow left the subject, didn’t we?

    Yes, but my point was, some hospitals are bad, and some are very helpful. Goes both ways.

    >Be that as it may. I am not aware of any plans of “Scientologists” to establish another system. Scientologists supporting CCHR demand a reform of psychiatry and the end of abuses. I am sure with enough demand they come up with something that actually helps and does not destroy or only halt destruction of individuals.

    If that’s actually what they did, I’d have less objection to them.

    However, David Miscaviage (the COB) has called for the “global obliteration” of psychology. He bragged about ruining eight years of work by getting 21 licenses revoked. The CCHR has worked to discredit and destroy psychologists while simultaneously ignoring the victims they allege to represent. Scientology does not want to “come up with something that actually helps”. Check it:

    http://www.exscientologykids.com/kendra3.html

    (Warning: There’s some OT stuff after the bolded “Straw Number One”, so you might want to stop reading there.)

    >Ok. You will have to see the side of other Scientologists too. What has been said about them is very insulting. You know, if you believe anti-Scientology campaigners they are either brainwashed fools who have given every available cent to an evil organization longing for “world power” or they are at least to be ridiculed for allegedly believing in space aliens or something like that. Knowing that neither of this is true can make you outright aggressive (a state of mind which does not allow very much to look for fine details or honest intentions of others).

    Again, the COB says he wants to “clear the planet”, which presumably means that they do want to take over the world. You get a pass on this, though, since this is the implicit goal of just about every religion.

    However, you don’t get a pass when you say things that can be demonstrated to be incorrect. Clears don’t have perfect memory and do get colds; OTs get cancer; and noone has superpowers (note the optimistically named “Superpower Building” at Flag). I’ve personally outsmarted a Clear; there was no evidence of the huge IQ boost that is mentioned several times in Dianetics. I can’t see any option but to call these claims lies; and I don’t tolerate lies in the name of religion any more then I would elsewhere.

    Other have linked to evidence of crimes and abuses by the church hierarchy.

    One huge problem I with is the willful inability of most Scientologists to look at these things, acknowledge their organization has some serious problems, and advocate for reform. This gets frustrating very quickly. It doesn’t make for a good attitude for reaching out to Scientologists, either. Really, I’m on the side of the parent who doesn’t want a Sea Org recruiter hanging around after school and giving their teenager a hard sell on a billion years of manual labor.

    >I think drugs are covering up the derangedness of the mind but do not help at all. Like getting drunk to push the solution of a problem over to tomorrow. It will still be there then and most likely it will be worse.

    This is extremely divergent from my experience. Also, as I’ve said, from a boatload of double-blind studies I’ve seen. I don’t think you’ll budge on this one, but again, I’ve personally seen a lot of people helped by meds. There’s a difference between covering up a problem and reducing its impact.

    >>There’s all kinds of statistics available on the destructive effects of mental illnesses. I’ve seen the whole range of them first hand. I’ve seen drugs fail to help. I’ve also seen drugs succeed. People like one of my students, Jeremy, for whom medicine turned school from a place of intolerable distractions into a place where he could learn. My nephew Matthew, who is autistic, who only started to speak after a lot of hard work and regular doses of medicine.

    >I miss those observations but couldn’t be happier for them.

    I have a misunderstood here… you “miss” those observations? You doubt I’m being honest? You think the drugs didn’t have much to do with the stories?

    >>Will you deny that many hundreds of thousands of people are helped every day by medication for their mental illnesses?

    >I am still sceptical. One person helped somewhat while another one runs amok from the same drug and kills 23? I would need to see psychoactive drugs actually working to change my mind (just to be clear, with “drugs” here we are talking about psychoactive prescription drugs, not Aspirine or cough drops).

    The wonders of the media. That’s several hundred thousand people helped out to one who gets a lot of media attention for killing 23 peopole. Another thing; school shootings are rare. The safest place a child can be is in school. The media gives it a lot of attention, so you think it’s a lot more common then it really is.

    Anyway, evidence on this would be hard for a Scientolgist to obtain, since you would need to have extensive contact with someone with a prescription for psychiatric meds to get this type of confirmation. Scientologists of course do not use them, and as they tend to be insular, they wouldn’t have contact with someone on prescription psychiatric meds. You don’t see it, so you think it’s less common then it really is.

    Studies performed by psychiatrists are suspect since Scientologists believe that psychiatrists are evil; and since psychiatrists are invariably involved in this kind of study, all such studies are suspect to a Scientologist.

    You see the difficulty here?

    I’m still not sure if you’re a true believer defending her faith or a volunteer OSA media agent seeking to influence perception of Scientology. Probably both. Either way, I have to commend you for showing great dedication to a very difficult enterprise.

  164. Comment by anonymous on March 12, 2008 6:53 am

    “Hm. Every time I read numbers about this 10th Feb they seem to grow.”

    lol… right over your head.

    The actual number is between 7000-8000. You can see threads on enturb that break down those exact numbers per city/country/etc.

  165. Comment by CHZ BRGR on March 12, 2008 4:07 am

    lol where did you learn maths?

    >I am still sceptical. One person helped somewhat while another one runs amok from the same drug and kills 23? I would need to see psychoactive drugs actually working to change my mind (just to be clear, with “drugs” here we are talking about psychoactive prescription drugs, not Aspirine or cough drops).

    thats a 1:1 ratio lol its not like that cause if it was we would ALL be dead by th other .5X>9000 (lol maths humor) people on these (not common cold medicine) medicines
    (lol im stoned)

    STOP SLIPPING UP LOUANNE!!!!

    lol i like how you’ve been warming up to us like putting more of your name up, behavioral modification much?

  166. Comment by anonymous on March 12, 2008 3:51 am

    Here is another great link:
    http://xe nu.net/archive/CourtFiles/

    Thoughts?

  167. Comment by anonymous on March 12, 2008 3:48 am

    http://www.scientology-lies.com/investigation.html

    Is that enough documentation for you?

  168. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 2:48 am

    @Comment by Anonymous on March 12, 2008 1:21 am

    “I see you’ve started deleting comments with points you can’t successfully argue.”

    No, I don’t. I am deleting comments that are violating the only rule this blog has. Look up the FAQ for that. I don’t know what you are referring to but the only two comments I deleted in the past two days were a weirdo statement lacking a question posted in the section “Questions” (this one here) and some insulting statements, again without a question. Sorry if that was yours but what exactly did you want to know?

    – Louanne

  169. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 2:44 am

    @Comment by anonymous on March 11, 2008 8:09 pm

    “Why is there a volcano on the cover of Dianetics?”

    A marketing decision, I guess, symbolizing the rapid increase of lots of energy (which Dianetics does). I am aware of this story that the cover would somehow hypnotically get people to buy the book. Hm, well, not sure. There might be better covers for that purpose.

    – Louanne

  170. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 2:42 am

    @Comment by anonymous on March 11, 2008 7:39 pm

    “Perhaps corruption is the wrong word. I rather like the word “insidious” or “immoral.””

    Ok, I can accept that. A matter of viewpoint, training and what mama said is right and wrong.

    “There is also the possibility with many of the links presented that the word “illegal” would even apply.”

    This is becoming rapidly boring. What effing links are you talking about?

    – Louanne

  171. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 2:40 am

    @Comment by anonymous on March 11, 2008 7:35 pm

    “We’ve posted many links about the crimes of the CoS and you just shout “it isn’t true!!!””

    Stop lying. Who is “we”? And where are those links?

    “The David Miscavige link was ONE link (due to the fact that you only allow one link per post) to illustrate a very broad view of crimes by individuals.”

    Is that right?! And why did this link then not show any crimes? Dude, get your head straight, and send something sensible.

    – Louanne

  172. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 2:37 am

    @Comment by Anonymous on March 11, 2008 6:53 pm

    “Here’s a good one..
    How compatible are Scientology’s beliefs with the free information movements, such as the FSF, Wikipedia, and the copyleft philosophies?”

    Scientology does not say anyhing about “free information movements”, so I give you what I think: fully compatible. Scientologists LOVE information. I also like Wikipedia but I think there is no protection against gang banging there. But in principle I support it.

    “Are there any examples of Scientologists within the open source software movement?”

    Yes, quite a lot, especially in the Linux community. But most of them choose not to get their hands dirty with discussions about their religion. I understand and accept that in view of the more hostile climate against Scientologists on the internet.

    “I would guess that the philosophy and political views of the anti-intellectual property movement would be in direct opposition to a religion that has non-disclosure agreements as a central policy, but if proven wrong I would have a lot more respect for Scientology”

    I see you don’t understand why Scientology uses copyright laws to protect its scriptures. The main reason – believe it or not – is to protect the material from being altered. Scientologists are horrified by the thought that the Scientology system could be altered in any way as this can make it fail or render ineffective (or even dangerous). And the never ending nonsense discussion about “upper level materials of Scientology” only proves this point.

    – Louanne

    References here:
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/scriptures/
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/aliens/what-is-the-damage-of-knowing-about-or-using-this-data.php

  173. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 2:37 am

    @Comment by Anonymous on March 11, 2008 6:18 pm

    >>“Also, I heard you got 100,000 page views from people interested in scientology yesterday.”
    >”srsly guise, 100,000 hits without some high profile news report is clearly a DDoS attack. A popular story on slashdot or parezhilton only delivers about 30,000 visitors.
    Delivering 100,000 hits over the space of a few hours is about 5 hits a second, which probably equates to around 10 hosts; sounds to me like a single skript kid testing out their new toy after infecting a small number of people with a trojan. If that kid happens to be an anon, then where better to test their new weapons of war than a pro-Scientology website?
    By denying it’s a DDoS attack you sound either ignorant or like you condone these actions. Stand up for what you believe in, if you think infecting peoples computers with viruses and using those machines to attack websites is funny then come out and say it. If, like myself, you don’t, then have the balls speak against it.”

    I would chime in here, if it would increase my expenses for bandwidth and transfer volume (i.e. material damage) but those few gigabytes additional volume the attack caused were in the hosting plan. Just don’t give anyone ideas here.

    – Louanne

  174. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 2:20 am

    @Comment by Anonymous on March 11, 2008 4:54 pm

    “And yet over 9000 Anons felt it right and just to do that very thing on Feb 10th, and look at how many Anons are coming here to discuss with you on this board, where you have other Scientologists putting in info.”

    Hm. Every time I read numbers about this 10th Feb they seem to grow. Where I was that day (L.A.) I counted less than 100 (reported as 250 and 300 online). Inflation?

    “Also, I heard you got 100,000 page views from people interested in scientology yesterday. Very impressive, i must admit! It would seem that your cause is being seen by a lot of people and that you have many folks on your side.”

    Unlikely. I get a couple of thousands a day on that site but 104,699 in one night (in less than 8 hours), that’s someone manipulating the system. Who cares, it does not seem to be a situation now.

    – Louanne

  175. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 2:14 am

    @Comment by anonymous on March 11, 2008 4:01 pm

    “Do you think that the information in those emails can be construed as illegal lobbying?”

    “Illegal lobbying?” What would that be? If that means some real illegal acts like bribes, then no. None of them indicate anything like that.

    – Louanne

  176. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 2:07 am

    @Comment by Tony Meman on March 11, 2008 9:36 am

    >>>Can you think of one?
    >>Sure, several. But you were saying that you are reading the Dianetics book. Maybe you finish reading first.
    >Finished. I hadn’t waded through the last two chapters, but I’ve read those now. They were all about auditing technique, and didn’t have a lot on engram formation. However, I’m still in the dark as to what engram could cause tens of thousands of people to develop tonic-clonic seizures. Help me out?

    “My head feels like a beehive”, as an engram command (spoken words received during a time of unconsciousness).

    >>>I know the murder rate in persons with mental illness is not any higher then the murder rate of the whole >population.
    >>Is there a link you could send me about this?
    >Well, I was partly wrong. People with psychosis (a very serious disorder) are about three times more likely to commit murder. But people with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violent crimes then the perpetrators: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/40/17/16

    Thanks for the link!

    >> However I wish you would go and visit a psychiatric hospital, check nutrition and sleep and general living conditions. I did this once (it was a bet) and the most scary thing, aside from the drugged, absent-minded patients, was the absence of a friendly and healthy atmosphere. It stank, food looked unbearable and it was extremely noisy and sticky.
    >I’ll do you one better. I’ve volunteered in a psychiatric hospital before. I’ve had an elderly German lady tell me a dozen times I should go on a date with her daughter (three times my age and dead for the last five years). I’ve spoon-fed a boy with severe brain damage very carefully so he didn’t accidentally choke. He sang to me; wordless and primal. The conditions were sanitary, the staff was friendly, and the atmosphere, while heavily regimented, was generally congenial.

    Well, if we are exchanging war stories, I got called a Nazi whore by one of the inmates (I was dyed blonde at the time) which was not as pleasant as to be sung at… Whatever, we somehow left the subject, didn’t we?

    >I won’t deny that hospitals such as the one you describe exist. Reform is needed in many sectors. However, from several sources I’ve seen about Scientology, the people I cared for would fare much, much worse under any system run by Scientologists.

    Be that as it may. I am not aware of any plans of “Scientologists” to establish another system. Scientologists supporting CCHR demand a reform of psychiatry and the end of abuses. I am sure with enough demand they come up with something that actually helps and does not destroy or only halt destruction of individuals.

    >>>What’s this now? If you know of evidence for chemical balances, let me know. Registering a lack of evidence for something – the “existence of chemical imbalance” – which is used to drug millions of people is not exclusive for Scientologists.
    >>I know my tone has been a bit adversarial. I hope you don’t take this the wrong way; in my opinion, the best way to gain knowledge is through vigorous conversation between people who don’t agree. While I find your responses a bit slippery at times, I still must thank you for responding.
    >In case you’re curious, one of the largest reasons I oppose Scientology at the moment is its own followers. You are one of the few Scientologists I’ve talked to who hasn’t responded with insults. Really, thank you.

    Ok. You will have to see the side of other Scientologists too. What has been said about them is very insulting. You know, if you believe anti-Scientology campaigners they are either brainwashed fools who have given every available cent to an evil organization longing for “world power” or they are at least to be ridiculed for allegedly believing in space aliens or something like that. Knowing that neither of this is true can make you outright aggressive (a state of mind which does not allow very much to look for fine details or honest intentions of others).

    >For example, here, you’re made me research and realized that my information was out of date. Imbalance of chemicals is a simplistic and dated explanation for mental illness. >You are quite correct.
    >However, you’re diverting again. Even if chemical imbalances aren’t the right explanation, people do still have mental illnesses, and many say that drugs are effective in helping them deal with their illness.

    I think drugs are covering up the derangedness of the mind but do not help at all. Like getting drunk to push the solution of a problem over to tomorrow. It will still be there then and most likely it will be worse.

    >There’s all kinds of statistics available on the destructive effects of mental illnesses. I’ve seen the whole range of them first hand. I’ve seen drugs fail to help. I’ve also seen drugs succeed. People like one of my students, Jeremy, for whom medicine turned school from a place of intolerable distractions into a place where he could learn. My nephew Matthew, who is autistic, who only started to speak after a lot of hard work and regular doses of medicine.

    I miss those observations but couldn’t be happier for them.

    >Will you deny that many hundreds of thousands of people are helped every day by medication for their mental illnesses?

    I am still sceptical. One person helped somewhat while another one runs amok from the same drug and kills 23? I would need to see psychoactive drugs actually working to change my mind (just to be clear, with “drugs” here we are talking about psychoactive prescription drugs, not Aspirine or cough drops).

    >Wordclear: arrest
    >If you were stuck in the back of a squad car for a while, then you were detained. This is a legally distinct process; detainment is not a punishment and doesn’t result in any kind of criminal record, whereas arrest does.

    Thanks. Detained it is then.

    – Louanne

  177. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 1:40 am

    @Comment by Uncle-Anon on March 11, 2008 1:21 am

    “Go to www(dot)wikileaks(dot)org and click on the Citizens Commission on Human Rights link. I am wondering if in your opinion are these emails genuine and if you have any comments about them.”

    I got this link a couple of times now. Well, how do I know? CCHR is active in the areas covered in those emails and they are loosely organized enough so that it would make sense to have a mailing list going, to organize readers letters, meetings etc.

    What’s your point?

    – Louanne

  178. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 1:37 am

    @Comment by SomeoneNotQuiteAnonymouse on March 11, 2008 12:05 am

    “I don’t appreciate how my sincere and deep questions so far have been ignored.”

    Sorry, I must have missed them. Would you mind to formulate it again?

    “It has been stated repeated that you can be a Scientologist and a Christian. If Scientology believes in past lives, how does this work when it is does not hold with the Christian belief of eternal salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?”

    I would have to ask a Christian Scientologist for that. And I am not that familiar with Christian belief anymore (I dropped out of Catholicism and floated around for a while until I found Scientology) but I would think that past lives and future lives are not in the way of Christian belief. As far as I remember it would be possible to live a couple of times until the second coming of Christ.

    – Louanne

  179. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 1:32 am

    @Comment by Eric on March 10, 2008 9:01 pm

    >Lou – I did miss that obvious like to the homosexuality question. However I prefer neither “lady” or “girl” – just Eric will do, nor am I a member of “you guys” – I’m an individual, not a stereotyped lump of pop culture.

    Got it, Eric. The “lady” or “girl” was referring to myself. Sorry for not being clear enough about that.

    – Louanne

  180. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 1:31 am

    @Comment by soruwV2 on March 10, 2008 8:50 pm

    >>I had already looked into “Have you lived before this life?” but thought it was just personal accounts of past lives and Hubbard’s thoughts on the afterlife. Do you think Dianetic Processing: A Brief Survey of Research Projects is a good text to track down?

    Sure, why not. I think they came to the conclusion that there was no pattern to be found or something but the individual case stories might be interesting.

    >Are these the case studies that were included in Dynamics of Life? And are these also anecdotal?

    Could be. I never saw them.

    >I did confuse Dianetics with Scientology. So is -Dianetics- a good alternative to psychiatry for dealing with some mental illnesses?

    Dianetics is directed and written up for “normal” people and there is no organization or plan set up to replace psychiatry by using Dianetics. It might be possible but unless someone tests it for this purpose we will not know.

    >Is that what the religion of Scientology suggests?

    Not at all.

    >Do you think Dianetics, with its close ties to the religion of Scientology, shouldn’t have to prove its basis in science? Should anecdotal evidence and “It Works!” be enough for the general population?

    Yes, it is. General population tends to look for results and not a lot of theory.

    – Louanne

  181. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 1:25 am

    @Comment by Anonymous on March 10, 2008 7:50 pm

    >>“The goal of auditing is to rehabilitate self-determinism and not to plant suggestions.”
    >NLP is more about manipulating the subconscious, or as you say, the reactive mind than planting suggestions, suggestion is also used (it works, so it is used) but it’s more about exploration. I am very much interested in how auditing differs from NLP techniques.

    Sorry, I am not familiar with NLP.

    >>“…and that practicing Scientology the way it is laid out will result in spiritual salvation.”
    >As a materialist, I understand spiritual salvation as another term for personal happiness and fulfilment.

    Everyone as he wants. Spiritual salvation is a lot more than personal happiness and fulfilment. It’s something to do to make this world a better place.

    >I struggle to comprehend why people would need a particular set of beliefs or practices (outside common sense) to achieve this, as it is the promise of every belief system throughout the history of mankind, including my own, and all of them seem to deliver!

    Maybe they are. I am convinced that most religions contribute to common goals, even if it is “just” better survival for everyone.

    – Louanne

  182. Comment by Anonymous on March 12, 2008 1:23 am

    Don’t forget, protesting is entirely legal, as is handing out flyers. So your “I’ll let the authorities handle Anonymous” comment is not valid!

  183. Comment by Anonymous on March 12, 2008 1:21 am

    I see you’ve started deleting comments with points you can’t successfully argue.

    Typical Scientologist attitude. Suppress, lie, cheat- do whatever you have to to make your point.

    Cults ruin lives. Don’t let yourself fall any deeper.

  184. Comment by Louanne on March 12, 2008 1:17 am

    @Comment by Anonymous on March 10, 2008 7:15 pm

    >>As to neuroscience, which is the scientific study of the nervous system, the system of communication lines in the body that perish with the body when it dies, I fail to see how that can possibly pronounce, much less prove, anything about something that is claimed to have exist independent of the body. Do you not?
    >Claiming that consciousness is non-material is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the dualist to provide evidence that such a thing as an external soul exists, while the default stance is to look for the simplest explanation given the available evidence. See Occam’s razor.

    You might have fun with this extraordinary discussion about philosophy and so on. I (that Louanne, not T) might throw in that I don’t care much about the theory. The hypothesis that man is a spiritual being in a meat body works good enough to work with and change things to the better. You can get all grumpy and dusty in the Tower of Theory but I won’t be there with you. But as I said, feel free to continue the discussion with T.

    >> I have no comment on NLP or the e-meter other than a response to your sneaky statement that Scientology is somehow based on hypnotherapy: it is not.
    >I apologise if I’m wrong on this point, maybe I need some enlightenment as to what auditing actually is, if not a form of hypnotherapy then what is it?

    Covered in the Dianetics book and in Science of Survival in more detail than I could ever bring up here. Both are freely available in some 100,000s of libraries.
    I can add from experience from both sides of the auditing table that the preclear – the one being audited – is fully aware of what happens during the whole time.
    There is no period of unconsciousness and to make sure that the preclear stays awake and “with it” it is mandatory that he/she is not hungry, had good nutrition and enough sleep (at least 7-8 hours) and that the auditing does not take place outside of the normal hours during which the preclear is awake (a nightwatch for example would need to be audited at least in the evening, but not in the morning, if he normally sleeps during these hours). Apart from that Hubbard is very adamant that no hypnosis is being used in auditing because it is a state of being “wherein the ‘I’ is not in control but the operator is the ‘I'” (Dianetics, p115). The “I” here is the individual aware of himself.
    The goal of auditing is to rehabilitate full self-determinism of the preclear, so someone telling him what to think and do (the “operator”, later “auditor”) is detrimental to that. When in doubt, grab a Dianetics book and a good friend, read it and do exactly what the book says. I think personal experience is better than all theory.

    – Louanne

  185. Comment by Anonymous on March 12, 2008 12:25 am

    “Also, I heard you got 100,000 page views from people interested in scientology yesterday.”
    srsly guise, 100,000 hits without some high profile news report is clearly a DDoS attack. A popular story on slashdot or parezhilton only delivers about 30,000 visitors.
    Delivering 100,000 hits over the space of a few hours is about 5 hits a second, which probably equates to around 10 hosts; sounds to me like a single skript kid testing out their new toy after infecting a small number of people with a trojan. If that kid happens to be an anon, then where better to test their new weapons of war than a pro-Scientology website?
    By denying it’s a DDoS attack you sound either ignorant or like you condone these actions. Stand up for what you believe in, if you think infecting peoples computers with viruses and using those machines to attack websites is funny then come out and say it. If, like myself, you don’t, then have the balls speak against it.

    I condone speaking out with proof. I see no proof of any claims made anywhere on this site. I see the Lisa McPherson article where he claims she died of a blood clot, that the death wasn’t scientology’s fault. I hold pictures that show the cockroach bites. He claims that the “Fair Game” policy was cancelled shortly after it was created. I have documents from the British Government, and from within Scientology itself, that show otherwise.

    In short, our gracious host fails on numerous occasions to prove the claims he makes. That I do not condone. He claims to have been DDoSed. 100,000 hits is weak compared to a real DDoS attack. At the most, i would say a single individual DoSed him, and even then the following two factors apply:

    1) The peaceful sect of Anonymous, the protesters, the flyer-passer-outers, do not acknowledge the sect that would DDoS. They are not part of our group. We do not even recognize their efforts, although as someone extremely wise once said, “The enemy of our enemy is our friend.” We do not condone their actions, but we would be stupid not to acknowledge that those efforts help our cause.

    2) Given history, the fact that our host is surprised that he is being attacked shocks me, even as a peaceful protester. If you already know your opponents’ tactics, you shouldn’t be surprised when they use them. That’s called common sense. Now, I’ve read through many of the Scientology documents. I know they try to teach their members to block out anything distasteful. But get real- not expecting an attack that’s already been made numerous times against other sites representing the cult you believe in? Get real. That’s just another sign of what Scientology does to you. And unlike our host, I can prove that claim.

    Also, host, i note that you mention letting the authorities handle Anonymous on the front page. I don’t know if you’ve heard of something called the Constitution, or if Scientology considers it a mere inconvenience that will be dealt with in time, but peaceful protests are not against the law. Sending you faxes proving what you refuse to believe, along with a police report made by a Scientologist (illegally, i might add), is not illegal. Handing out flyers outside your local cult’s location is not against the law. But your cult’s habit of persecuting SPs with frivolous lawsuits and libel IS against the law. So before you talk about “the authorities”, take a look at who really deserves to go to jail.

  186. Comment by anonymous on March 11, 2008 8:09 pm

    Why is there a volcano on the cover of Dianetics?

  187. Comment by anonymous on March 11, 2008 7:39 pm

    Perhaps corruption is the wrong word. I rather like the word “insidious” or “immoral.” There is also the possibility with many of the links presented that the word “illegal” would even apply.

  188. Comment by anonymous on March 11, 2008 7:35 pm

    We’ve posted many links about the crimes of the CoS and you just shout “it isn’t true!!!” The David Miscavige link was ONE link (due to the fact that you only allow one link per post) to illustrate a very broad view of crimes by individuals. Do you still think that those emails aren’t considered as illegal lobbying? There is another crime right there. If it’s not “illegal” it is certainly insidious or, at the very least, unethical.

  189. Comment by Anonymous on March 11, 2008 6:53 pm

    Here’s a good one..
    How compatible are Scientology’s beliefs with the free information movements, such as the FSF, Wikipedia, and the copyleft philosophies? Are there any examples of Scientologists within the open source software movement?
    I would guess that the philosophy and political views of the anti-intellectual property movement would be in direct opposition to a religion that has non-disclosure agreements as a central policy, but if proven wrong I would have a lot more respect for Scientology

  190. Comment by Breaking News on March 11, 2008 6:45 pm

    Are all tap water drinking Scientologists out ethics?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080309/ap_on_re_us/pharmawater_i

    “A vast array of pharmaceuticals – including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones – have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows.”

    would this mean any claims your being OT or Clear must be false?

  191. Comment by Louanne on March 11, 2008 6:32 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 10, 2008 6:59 pm

    >>”Dianetics as a science works and was taken into the Scientology belief system as such.”
    >I’m having trouble finding a study proving that Dianetics is a science. Mind hooking me up with a link?

    “science: systemized knowledge derived through experimentation, observation, and study. Also, the methodology used to acquire this knowledge.” (http://www.carm.org/evolution/evoterms.htm)

    All three Dianetics books should give you a good track for that.

    >>E-meter: “Try to trick it. You won’t manage.”
    >”Actually, I know someone who managed to trick it. He tried one of the free ones down in LA and was able to figure out how to control it.”

    “Free ones”. What is a “free e-meter”? Anyway, you can’t trick the e-meter. It’s a physical instrument which shows what is there. You might be able to influence a badly trained auditor to misread it.

    – Louanne

  192. Comment by Anonymous on March 11, 2008 6:18 pm

    “Also, I heard you got 100,000 page views from people interested in scientology yesterday.”
    srsly guise, 100,000 hits without some high profile news report is clearly a DDoS attack. A popular story on slashdot or parezhilton only delivers about 30,000 visitors.
    Delivering 100,000 hits over the space of a few hours is about 5 hits a second, which probably equates to around 10 hosts; sounds to me like a single skript kid testing out their new toy after infecting a small number of people with a trojan. If that kid happens to be an anon, then where better to test their new weapons of war than a pro-Scientology website?
    By denying it’s a DDoS attack you sound either ignorant or like you condone these actions. Stand up for what you believe in, if you think infecting peoples computers with viruses and using those machines to attack websites is funny then come out and say it. If, like myself, you don’t, then have the balls speak against it.

  193. Comment by Louanne on March 11, 2008 6:18 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 10, 2008 6:44 pm

    “Lou, it makes me sad that you can look the evidence in the face and simply state that it isn’t true.”

    Stop whining and give me a link that works. You loosely talk about “crimes”. That’s a defined thing, dude, it means “violation of the law” at least. So if you promise to send links with evidence for crimes, then I am expecting that you send links with evidence for crimes. Otherwise your claims are just bloated and unfounded.

    “Now seriously, go do some research.”

    No. You go and do some research and meanwhile stop spreading lies, generalities or unfounded data.

    “And to look at those emails and say that that isn’t corrupt saddens me even more.”

    Sorry that I didn’t fall for it.

    “Take a good hard look at them. I doubt you could have read through them all.”

    Read this:

    Questions, questions, questions

    – Louanne

  194. Comment by Louanne on March 11, 2008 6:12 pm

    @Comment by SomeoneNotQuiteAnonymouse on March 10, 2008 5:57 pm

    “How dod you substantiate the claims of Scientology when they stated that LRH did not died but “discarded the body that bound him to the physical universe and was off to the next phase of his spiritual exploration”

    Scientologists belief is that you are going to live again in another body. Maybe at the end of this road there will be Heaven or Hell. Who knows?

    Sources:
    http://www.forf.org/news/2004/scientology.html
    http://www.scientology.org/religion/catechism/pg011.html

  195. Comment by Louanne on March 11, 2008 6:00 pm

    @Comment by SomeoneNotQuiteAnonymouse on March 10, 2008 5:44 pm

    here’s another:

    ““A Clear is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint.” Why can’t I achieve this through psychotherapy? How is Scientology defiferent?”

    I don’t know if you can achieve this through psychotherapy. But as psychotherapy exists longer that Dianetics and nobody ever heard of them getting such I results, it might well be that psychotherapy is just not capable in achieving it. You are mixing Dianetics therapy with Scientology. Dianetics was called a therapy in the 1950s and still is. Scientology is a religious route of spiritual salvation exceeding the goals of Dianetics.

    – Louanne

  196. Comment by Lou on March 11, 2008 5:54 pm

    @Comment by SomeoneNotQuiteAnonymouse on March 10, 2008 5:42 pm

    “Why does Scielotogy hide its beliefs from the outside world and some if its members?”

    It doesn’t. Never did. Almost all of Scientology is publically available, in libraries or at least Churches of Scientology. Where did you get this strange concept from?

    “no other religion does this. Example: The Bible is availbale for anyone to buy or ready online for free, but OT level documents are considered “confidential”?”

    Ah, OT Levels. Right. You know there are ten thousands of pages of texts or lecture transcripts in Scientology (the basic data being in 18 books and 280 lectures)? A handful of pages of text are not available until you reached a certain level of salvation called the OT Levels. Scientologists accept that Scientology should be studied in chronological order to ensure best understanding of it and practiced one step after the other. It’s the rule of the game called Scientology. Scientologists follow it, others don’t have to but they won’t understand much either. By the way did you see my site? Most of this is on there:

    http://www.scientologymyths.info/scriptures/

    And here:

    Questions, questions, questions

    “Why does Scientology charge for its teachings when every other religion is free (not counting actually dvinity school)?”

    First of all I don´t know any other religion which provides so much information in such an inexpensive way. And then, how to other religions survive? In some countries with taking taxes or by requesting a percentage of the member´s income. Or they inherit huge sums from their members, since decades or even centuries. Face it, money is needed to keep any organization going. Nobody profits from donations going to the Church of Scientology but any cent goes into costs for heat, water, electricity, running costs or in expansion activities. The Church spends millions a year for its social programs so that ten thousands can be helped to get off drugs or taught about human rights. You are missing the big picture here. In the US Scientology is a non-profit organization, which means that any money is spend on charitable activities. If you want to learn about Scientology, get the material from a public library. That takes you a long way.

    “Why is Scientology considered a religion when it seems to be more or less a self help philosophy?”

    Because Scientology is a religion. Don´t mix it with Dianetics, which began as a self-help activity and was later embraced by Scientology. There is a long list of third party observers, scholars, experts, courts, which have done extensive research in the Church, its activities and doctrine and compared it to older religions. And all them came out saying Scientology is clearly a religion. Scientologist believe that they have lived before and will live again. And they believe to BE a spirit in a body. All Scientology activity is directed to spritual salvation of the spirit. I don´t know of any “self-help group” doing that.

    “Is auditing a type of psychotherapy, or something else entirely?”

    No. Auditing mostly is a method of spritual salvation. Dianetics auditing – in the 1950s, before Scientology – was compared with elements of psychotherapy to help the individual in his current life. But Dianetics and Scientology evolved into something entirely different then. I believe this is your next question.

    “How did “Dianetics” turn into a religion?”

    Per L. Ron Hubbard it started with the discovery of past lives and the observation (for a Scientologist) that man is not a body but a spirit inhabiting a body. As a spirit (called thetan in Scientology) he had numerous past lives and will live again. Scientology then was created as a path for spiritual salvation of the thetan, to regain past abilities and to give self-determinism back to the individual as a spiritual being. This route to spiriual freedom is called “The Bridge” in Scientology. At the end of the first Dianetics book (in 1950) Hubbard was writing that “someone” should build a “better bridge”. That “someone” was him in the end and the “better bridge” became the Bridge in Scientology.

    “Why does Scientology try to attract members by offering them a free personality test?”

    To show them how they stand and to give them hope that something can be done about that. Which is always the case.

    “Why does Scientology misrepresent L. Ron Hubbard?”

    I don´t think that is the case.

    “How do you explain the incongruities between Scientology’s biography and historical fact?”

    You will need to give me some examples for that. I am aware that there is a lot of noise about whether L. Ron Hubbard was a type of saint or is glorified in some way or that he is not presented in the best way possible. Hubbard was a very active man who found out and wrote down the teachings of Scientology, now followed and praised by millions of people worldwide. I can understand that many see him as a great man who must have had a remarkable and “spotless” past. He himself would probably disagree to that. He went through good and bad times and describes them very lively in his recorded lectures.

    “Why did LRH and Scientology itself have a fascination with the ocean?”

    Tough one. LRH loved the sea and found it a place of spiritual calmness and a good place to do research and write. He was a Navy officer, a master mariner and had licenses to command vessels on all oceans (and did so). There is no specific teaching in Scientology however which would show “fascination with the ocean”.

    “Why does the website not actually answer the question “who is xe nu?””

    This material is deemed confidential (see above, at your first question) and not something Scientologists debate about. All I want to say about this is on the website and elsewhere on this blog.

    “Is it true that Scientology claims that its members cannot get sick, and can perform superhamn feets?”

    No. Scientology says that a healthy spirit is less receptive for illnesses or injuries. That does not mean that a Scientologist can´t get a cold or break a bone. I guess “superhamn feets” is meant to be “superhuman feats”? No again on this one. Scientology does not claim that Scientologists become Superman or some such person. Scientology says that man has a lot of unused abilities and can get in a state much more worthwhile than he currently is. Happier, more able, more conscious about himself and others.

    “What did Tom Cruise mean when he said in the COS video that when passing by a car acciently, it’s nice to feel that only a COS member can help?”

    As far as I remember he did not say that. He said that he believes that seeing a car accident he knows that he can help for real. A Scientologist can be trained as volunteer minister (VM) who is able to help much better at an accident than someone who is not (and tends to go into a hysteric fit or gets nervous and messes things up). VM training includes to create a calm scene around an accident and help the injured person not to lose it. This does not replace the ambulance though.

    “On the website, you mention going to Sunday service. What consists of a Scientology Sunday service?”

    Go and visit one. Each church has them and usually they create them differently. For sure there will be a sermon, there might be a choir, and always part o fit is a reading of Scientology teachings and its application.

    “If Scientology still allows you to keep your other religion, why does it have service on Sunday? If Scientology is “all denominational” and includes non-Christians, why does it use Sunday for it’s day of service?”

    In the tradition of religion, the Sunday is usually when you go to church. Sunday service lasts an hour or two. You could also go to a Christian mess before or after, if that is what you want. Or do you expect the Sunday to be a “day off”?

    “On the website, you mention “squirrell” Bill Robertson and how he died of throat cancer. Are you saying this misuse of “technology” caused his throat cancer? How?”

    No, I could not say that as I was not there. I know however that incorrect application of Scientology can backfire and give you a miserable time, a time in which you are more susceptible to illness and misery. Scientology helps the spirit to better control the environment and the body as part of it. Robertson claimed to have a “better Scientology” (one he invented and mixed together from Hubbards teachings). Obviously it did not work.

    – Louanne

  197. Comment by Anonymous on March 11, 2008 4:54 pm

    Comment by Lu on February 25, 2008 12:15 am

    @Comment by I can Haz Chezbrgr on February 24, 2008 1:46 pm

    “You are welcome to join enturbulation.org to discuss there…”

    Thanks, but “rabbit in snake pit” is not my style. 1:1, sure, 3:1, ok, 5:1, why not, but 50:1, no way.

    – Lu

    And yet over 9000 Anons felt it right and just to do that very thing on Feb 10th, and look at how many Anons are coming here to discuss with you on this board, where you have other Scientologists putting in info.

    Also, I heard you got 100,000 page views from people interested in scientology yesterday. Very impressive, i must admit! It would seem that your cause is being seen by a lot of people and that you have many folks on your side.

  198. Comment by anonymous on March 11, 2008 4:01 pm

    Do you think that the information in those emails can be construed as illegal lobbying? There is a different between a letter writing campaign and a lobbying campaign aimed at deceiving the media. The deception here is not the information against psychiatry (you can hold the opinion that it’s harmful, I don’t care), but rather the artificial inflation of numbers for the group. Giving specific instructions like “if your last name begins with A talk about X in your email” is not a letter writing campaign. That’s deception.

    Thoughts?

  199. Comment by T on March 11, 2008 3:11 pm

    Comment by Anonymous on March 11, 2008 11:21 am

    “Thanks for your replies, I found them rather educational.”

    Thank you.

    Regarding the experiments you described, while they are interesting indeed, what I see is a failure to escape the original premises on which the experiments are based.

    When you define “awareness” in terms of electrical signals in the brain, when you define “perception of time” and “memory” in terms of observable phenomena in the human body, you cannot help but arrive at conclusions about electrical signals and other observable phenomena in the body.

    That’s quite expected but relating those conclusions to the existence of the spirit is preposterous.

    “So you admit it’s wishful thinking, and without this mental prop your life would be dry and devoid of life?”

    No, that’s not what I said. I said I only have subjective evidence and since I do not wish to debate my subjective evidence with you, what we’re left with is viewpoint. Having a viewpoint that is different than yours is not wishful thinking.

    One uses a viewpoint to look at data and come to conclusions about the data that are logical and consistent and satisfy one’s personal impulse to understand the world.

    You believe materialism to be a beautiful and wonderful thing, and I’m happy for you. You have chosen a viewpoint from where the world seems consistent and logical to you.

    > “We can both be right without proving the other wrong.”
    “No, we can’t.”

    I’m not going to argue about being right :)

    “However, ‘The man who mistook his wife for a hat’ by Sacks did give me goosebumps and made it rather difficult for me to sleep at night.”

    Yeah, books can do that. I had goosebumps while reading some of the stories in “Have you lived before this life?”

  200. Comment by Anonymous on March 11, 2008 11:21 am

    Thanks for your replies, I found them rather educational.

    “This is like stating that cars are not driven by people but go around all by themselves and proving that statement by opening the hood and pointing at the various motions around the engine resulting from the driver’s actions of turning the steering wheel, pressing the gas and brake pedals, turning on the wind screen wiper, the head lights, etc.”

    Like I said, there’s strong evidence for the “driver” being the brain. The experiment goes like this. You watch a rotating line on a screen while electrodes are attached to your head, you make a decision *in your own time* to press the button, and make a note of when you made the decision. It turns out that the machine is aware of your spontaneous, random decision before you are even aware of it! This goes some way to show that there is no external “driver” and that it’s the meat of the brain that made the decision.

    “What we’re left with is viewpoint. The way I look at it, everything worth living for, everything that lasts is beyond what the material universe can give me. Love, passion, excitement, joy, challenges, the laughter of children, happiness… these are non-material to me and no matter what theory you come up with to prove otherwise, to me that theory will be dry and devoid of life.”

    So you admit it’s wishful thinking, and without this mental prop your life would be dry and devoid of life? I believe materialism, and I think it’s a beautiful and wonderful thing, that matter itself generates consciousness. Like I said in an earlier post, most systems of belief claim to have the monopoly of spiritual fulfilment, but it turns out that they all deliver. This includes materialism.

    “How about personally experiencing past life memories. Would that do?”
    I personally experience the color red, does this mean that the color red actually exists, or is it a figment of my imagination? Consider a circle, you see them every day, does this mean they actually exist? No. They are a generalisation, what actually exists is a pattern of atoms while our brain makes us think it’s a circle.
    One good experiment is where you put electrodes on your wrist, elbow and shoulder. The electrodes spark twice at the wrist, twice at the elbow, then twice at the shoulder. The subject claims to feel something walking up their arm, the second wrist shock feels like it’s somewhere directly between the wrist and elbow. This is strange, how would the mind know that the elbow shock is about to take place, so that the second wrist shock can feel like its between the wrist and elbow? This along with other experiments show that perception of time is not real time at all, the mind guesses when signals don’t quite make sense and makes it up as it goes along. If the memory of an event that happened 1 second ago is a scientifically proven fraud, then how can you trust memories at all? Scary, I know, but very interesting nonetheless.

    “We can both be right without proving the other wrong.”
    No, we can’t. only one point of view can be “right” and I seriously doubt it’s either of us! This is for the simple fact that library space (the mathematical domain of all ideas) is infinite, while truths are finite. This makes the chance of any one idea or philosophy actually being the truth far smaller than winning the lottery every week for the next million years. Science allows us to throw away a lot of L-space based on observation, so maybe in a few thousand years science will be closer to the actual truth. Scientology, like all other theology will not, because its chances of being the truth don’t change through time.

    “you won’t get goose bumps”
    No, unfortunately ghost stories, past lives whatnot don’t work on me because of my materialistic nature. However, “The man who mistook his wife for a hat” by Sacks did give me goosebumps and made it rather difficult for me to sleep at night.

  201. Comment by SomeoneNotQuiteAnonymouse on March 11, 2008 11:02 am

    @Tony Meman

    I’m not sure what that was supposed to be in answer to, but I don’t find it an acceptable answer to any of my questions on clashes between the two religions. Christianity is more than “Wouldn’t it be nice if anyone were nice?”. And if becoming a Scientologist makes you think that is all there is to Christianity, then you can’t really be both at the same time.

  202. Comment by T on March 11, 2008 10:25 am

    I think I used the wrong phrase when I wrote “you won’t find your hair standing on end” in my last post. I meant to say something along the lines of “you won’t get goose bumps” or something like that. So much about thinking clearly a few hours after midnight…

  203. Comment by Tony Meman on March 11, 2008 9:43 am

    @SomeoneNotQuiteAnonymouse

    I’ll paraphrase one of Lou’s earlier answers for you on this.

    Scientology and Christianity both say “Wouldn’t it be nice if anyone were nice?” So if Scientology creates a world with nice people, then the goal of Christianity would be fulfilled. There would no need for God or Christ or anybody to step in to fix the world, since it would already be nice.

    In other words, Scientology has the same thematic elements as other religions; the dogmatic elements aren’t really that important.

  204. Comment by Tony Meman on March 11, 2008 9:36 am

    @Lou

    >>Can you think of one?
    >Sure, several. But you were saying that you are reading the Dianetics book. Maybe you finish reading first.

    Finished. I hadn’t waded through the last two chapters, but I’ve read those now. They were all about auditing technique, and didn’t have a lot on engram formation. However, I’m still in the dark as to what engram could cause tens of thousands of people to develop tonic-clonic seizures. Help me out?

    >>I know the murder rate in persons with mental illness is not any higher then the murder rate of the whole >population.

    >Is there a link you could send me about this?

    Well, I was partly wrong. People with psychosis (a very serious disorder) are about three times more likely to commit murder. But people with mental illness are more likely to be victims of violent crimes then the perpetrators:

    http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/40/17/16

    >I indeed read one. Somewhere around the black box warning discussion (the black box warning on psychoactive medication that says that drug xy can cause suicide or aggresssions).

    A few people having an adverse reaction isn’t sufficient in itself; there has to be a higher risk then just being a member of the average population.

    > However I wish you would go and visit a psychiatric hospital, check nutrition and sleep and general living conditions. I did this once (it was a bet) and the most scary thing, aside from the drugged, absent-minded patients, was the absence of a friendly and healthy atmosphere. It stank, food looked unbearable and it was extremely noisy and sticky.

    I’ll do you one better. I’ve volunteered in a psychiatric hospital before. I’ve had an elderly German lady tell me a dozen times I should go on a date with her daughter (three times my age and dead for the last five years). I’ve spoon-fed a boy with severe brain damage very carefully so he didn’t accidentally choke. He sang to me; wordless and primal. The conditions were sanitary, the staff was friendly, and the atmosphere, while heavily regimented, was generally congenial.

    I won’t deny that hospitals such as the one you describe exist. Reform is needed in many sectors. However, from several sources I’ve seen about Scientology, the people I cared for would fare much, much worse under any system run by Scientologists.

    >What’s this now? If you know of evidence for chemical balances, let me know. Registering a lack of evidence for something – the “existence of chemical imbalance” – which is used to drug millions of people is not exclusive for Scientologists.

    I know my tone has been a bit adversarial. I hope you don’t take this the wrong way; in my opinion, the best way to gain knowledge is through vigorous conversation between people who don’t agree. While I find your responses a bit slippery at times, I still must thank you for responding.

    In case you’re curious, one of the largest reasons I oppose Scientology at the moment is its own followers. You are one of the few Scientologists I’ve talked to who hasn’t responded with insults. Really, thank you.

    For example, here, you’re made me research and realized that my information was out of date. Imbalance of chemicals is a simplistic and dated explanation for mental illness. You are quite correct.

    However, you’re diverting again. Even if chemical imbalances aren’t the right explanation, people do still have mental illnesses, and many say that drugs are effective in helping them deal with their illness.

    >>No, finish reading the book. A Scientologist would just demand a good explanation as to why we need mood-altering drugs.

    Finished.

    There’s all kinds of statistics available on the destructive effects of mental illnesses. I’ve seen the whole range of them first hand. I’ve seen drugs fail to help. I’ve also seen drugs succeed. People like one of my students, Jeremy, for whom medicine turned school from a place of intolerable distractions into a place where he could learn. My nephew Matthew, who is autistic, who only started to speak after a lot of hard work and regular doses of medicine.

    Drugs, like any other tool, can fail; they can even harm people trying to use them. We do not abandon cars because of car crashes; we do not stop using knives even if they are used to harm. Drugs hurt some; but they also help many.

    Will you deny that many hundreds of thousands of people are helped every day by medication for their mental illnesses?

    Also:

    Wordclear: arrest

    If you were stuck in the back of a squad car for a while, then you were detained. This is a legally distinct process; detainment is not a punishment and doesn’t result in any kind of criminal record, whereas arrest does.

  205. Comment by Uncle-Anon on March 11, 2008 1:21 am

    Lou –

    Go to www(dot)wikileaks(dot)org and click on the Citizens Commission on Human Rights link.

    I am wondering if in your opinion are these emails genuine and if you have any comments about them.

  206. Comment by SomeoneNotQuiteAnonymouse on March 11, 2008 12:05 am

    I don’t appreciate how my sincere and deep questions so far have been ignored.

    I have another:

    It has been stated repeated that you can be a Scientologist and a Christian. If Scientology believes in past lives, how does this work when it is does not hold with the Christian belief of eternal salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

  207. Comment by T on March 10, 2008 10:41 pm

    @Comment by Anonymous on March 10, 2008 7:15 pm

    Thanks for your detailed response.

    “> What solid evidence do you have that proves man *not* to be a spiritual being?

    “The discovery of the regions of the brain that deal with memory, vision, attention system, personality, music, language, movement, spatial perception, facial and object recognition, plus emotion (to name a few). […]”

    This is like stating that cars are not driven by people but go around all by themselves and proving that statement by opening the hood and pointing at the various motions around the engine resulting from the driver’s actions of turning the steering wheel, pressing the gas and brake pedals, turning on the wind screen wiper, the head lights, etc.

    Obviously, there must be relay points between the spiritual being and the body and it should not come as a surprise that those relay points are in the body’s control center and that you can observe motion in those relay points, just as there must be relay points between the driver and the car and that you can observe motion in those relay points in the car’s control center.

    Measuring and studying the observable motions in the control center can certainly yield theories about its “consciousness” but I don’t think any one of those can disprove the existence of the driver.

    “Claiming that consciousness is non-material is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence.”

    Well, I would venture to say that the claim that man is not a spiritual being is the extraordinary one requiring extraordinary evidence. As to Occam’s razor, try explaining past life memories without assuming something that carries those memories from one life to the next and see how complicated that explanation becomes, as opposed to the simple assumption that there is a spirit that survives the death of the body.

    Sure, you can dismiss past life memories as illusions but then what we’re left with is subjective reality, like me telling you I have memories form a few thousands of years back and you telling me that’s impossible because I’m just a body. That wouldn’t help anybody, would it?

    I only have subjective evidence on being a spiritual being, evidence that I wish not to put up for debate.

    What we’re left with is viewpoint. The way I look at it, everything worth living for, everything that lasts is beyond what the material universe can give me. Love, passion, excitement, joy, challenges, the laughter of children, happiness… these are non-material to me and no matter what theory you come up with to prove otherwise, to me that theory will be dry and devoid of life.

    “> But to be a little more constructive: what evidence would you accept to prove that man is a spiritual being? Give an example.

    “A clear definition of the responsibilities of this spirit/soul/theta, one that is testable. Then […] I would reconsider dualism. I do have an open mind, I accept materialism because it’s the most sensible explanation, not because I’m a blind follower.”

    I see. How about personally experiencing past life memories. Would that do?

    To be honest with you, I see absolutely no point in trying to prove the existence of the spirit to someone who needs scientific evidence that his own life is anything more than mechanics. No offense, if you are happy being a body and having all your thoughts, your emotions, your dreams and hopes explained away to your complete satisfaction in terms of mechanics only, then I am happy for you and I have no intention to convince you otherwise. I chose to live my life knowing to my complete satisfaction that I am a spirit and I respect your choice of believing the opposite.

    We can both be right without proving the other wrong.

    But hey, if you’re convinced that you’re no more than mechanics, I’m sure you won’t find your hair standing on end while reading some parts of the following essay from Ron. I’m linking it here not as evidence but as an interesting reading for anyone who, behind the mask (pun intended), is still looking for answers.

    http://www(dot)ronthephilosopher(dot)org/phlspher/page56.htm

  208. Comment by Eric on March 10, 2008 9:01 pm

    Lou – I did miss that obvious like to the homosexuality question. However I prefer neither “lady” or “girl” – just Eric will do, nor am I a member of “you guys” – I’m an individual, not a stereotyped lump of pop culture.

  209. Comment by soruwV2 on March 10, 2008 8:50 pm

    I had already looked into “Have you lived before this life?” but thought it was just personal accounts of past lives and Hubbard’s thoughts on the afterlife. Do you think Dianetic Processing: A Brief Survey of Research Projects is a good text to track down? Are these the case studies that were included in Dynamics of Life? And are these also anecdotal?

    Maybe I should have started before my questions that also anecdotal evidence can be moving, it is not scientific proof. I mean, if that were true, we’d all be getting colon cleansing and rubbing crystals on our bellies.

    I did confuse Dianetics with Scientology. So is -Dianetics- a good alternative to psychiatry for dealing with some mental illnesses? Is that what the religion of Scientology suggests? Do you think Dianetics, with its close ties to the religion of Scientology, shouldn’t have to prove its basis in science? Should anecdotal evidence and “It Works!” be enough for the general population?

  210. Comment by Anonymous on March 10, 2008 7:50 pm

    “None that I am aware of. Except that anyone can experience it for himself. And it works as a basic theory for Scientology practices.”
    Hmm but I thought it was supposed to be the study of truth, all religions and belief systems “just work”, but only one of them can be the actual truth.

    “Dianetics as a science works and was taken into the Scientology belief system as such.”
    Dianetics isn’t a science because it isn’t open to ammendment, the cornerstone of science is progress, while Dianetics is more like docterine. It kind of makes me sad that people are bored by philosophical discussion, as philosophy is the study of wisdom. To reject science is to reject knowledge and progress, while to reject philosophy is to embrace ignorance.

    “The goal of auditing is to rehabilitate self-determinism and not to plant suggestions.”
    NLP is more about manipulating the subconscious, or as you say, the reactive mind than planting suggestions, suggestion is also used (it works, so it is used) but it’s more about exploration. I am very much interested in how auditing differs from NLP techniques.

    “…and that practicing Scientology the way it is laid out will result in spiritual salvation.”
    As a materialist, I understand spiritual salvation as another term for personal happiness and fulfilment. I struggle to comprehend why people would need a particular set of beliefs or practices (outside common sense) to achieve this, as it is the promise of every belief system throughout the history of mankind, including my own, and all of them seem to deliver!

  211. Comment by Anonymous on March 10, 2008 7:15 pm

    > What solid evidence do you have that proves man *not* to be a spiritual being?

    The discovery of the regions of the brain that deal with memory, vision, attention system, personality, music, language, movement, spatial perception, facial and object recognition, plus emotion (to name a few). Many, many studies have been done on stroke patients and brain disorders and the overwhelming evidence points to the meat of the mind causing the experience of consciousness. Brain scanning technology is at a high enough resolution to show a spontaneous thought forming in the brain before the person is consciously is aware of it. Professor Susan Greenfield’s BBC documentary is a good place to start for the layman, Dennett’s Consciousness Explained is an eye opener if you’re into philosophy.

    > As to philosophy, how can it possibly prove or disprove anything…? I mean, I have a hard time picturing an empirical philosophical experiment. Do you not?

    Okay, it’s impossible to prove or disprove anything outside of mathematics, but we can use experimentation to gather evidence and build theories based on the evidence using logic and thought experiment. The strongest argument for us being spiritual beings is still Descartes, while the arguments against are pretty much all modern neuroscience.

    >As to neuroscience, which is the scientific study of the nervous system, the system of communication lines in the body that perish with the body when it dies, I fail to see how that can possibly pronounce, much less prove, anything about something that is claimed to have exist independent of the body. Do you not?

    Claiming that consciousness is non-material is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies with the dualist to provide evidence that such a thing as an external soul exists, while the default stance is to look for the simplest explanation given the available evidence. See Occam’s razor.

    > I have no comment on NLP or the e-meter other than a response to your sneaky statement that Scientology is somehow based on hypnotherapy: it is not.

    I apologise if I’m wrong on this point, maybe I need some enlightenment as to what auditing actually is, if not a form of hypnotherapy then what is it?

    > But to be a little more constructive: what evidence would you accept to prove that man is a spiritual being? Give an example.

    A clear definition of the responsibilities of this spirit/soul/theta, one that is testable. Then a single experiment that disproves Dennett’s multiple drafts theory of consciousness would open my eyes. Follow this with any experiment that rules out current materialistic explanations of consciousness (including the evolution of consciousness) and I would reconsider dualism. I do have an open mind, I accept materialism because it’s the most sensible explanation, not because I’m a blind follower.

  212. Comment by anonymous on March 10, 2008 6:59 pm

    ” Dianetics as a science works and was taken into the Scientology belief system as such.”

    I’m having trouble finding a study proving that Dianetics is a science. Mind hooking me up with a link?

    “Try to trick it. You won’t manage.”

    Actually, I know someone who managed to trick it. He tried one of the free ones down in LA and was able to figure out how to control it. For more stories like that, go visit the ex scientology kids website. They talk about it at length there. Anecdotal, yes, but since I’ve witnessed it being tricked it holds a lot more weight for me than your anecdotal evidence.

  213. Comment by Lou on March 10, 2008 6:54 pm

    @Comment by Anonymous on March 10, 2008 2:44 pm

    “First I’d like to know what solid evidence Scientology has for people being spiritual beings.”

    None that I am aware of. Except that anyone can experience it for himself. And it works as a basic theory for Scientology practices.

    “Modern neuroscience and philosophy of mind has disproved cartesian dualism beyond any shadow of a doubt, with the only believers in dualism are uninformed about the brain sciences, evolution of mind, phenomenology. As a belief system which directly translates to the study of truth, I would like to know what empirical evidence Scientology has to contribute to the philosophies of mind, and how it could possibly trump Dennett’s multiple drafts theory of consciousness.”

    Sounds impressive…yawn. Sorry, I intent to be arrogant but theological discussions are not my thing at all. So cartesian wells have dried out, or what? Anyway, religion and science are not compatible. Dianetics as a science works and was taken into the Scientology belief system as such. The goal of Scientology is spiritual salvation of individuals and rehabilitation of abilities. My standpoint is that Scientology a system that works, not matter how many ivory tower discussions have gone in this or that direction.

    “I would also like to know where Scientologists stand on Neuro-Linguistic Programming, which is the modern form of the hypnotherapy that Scientology’s auditing is based on.”

    Says someone who does not know what auditing is. Hubbard is adamant that auditing has nothing to do with hypnosis/hypnotherapy in any way, shape or form, and – having experienced both myself – I can say that they are different like day and night. The goal of auditing is to rehabilitate self-determinism and not to plant suggestions.

    “Do Scientologists believe that no significant progress has been made in the study of the mind since Hubbard’s day?”

    No. But Scientologists believe that Scientology is a workable system, that many shortcuts have been tried and given up, and that practicing Scientology the way it is laid out will result in spiritual salvation. There is no reason to fiddle around with other things which – taking the ones you listed above – do not even have the same goal.

    “Finally, I would like to know how an e-meter differs from a simple polygraph, and what evidence there is for these two machines being fundamentally different.”

    Wow, that’s really a theoretical question, isn’t it? I mean, look what a polygraph does and how it looks like:

    http://www.alabamapolygraph.com/polygraph.html

    Then look at an e-meter and read what it does:

    http://www.e-meter.org.uk/index.htm

    Here is the relevant part: “When the person holding the E-Meter electrodes thinks a thought, looks at a picture, reexperiences an incident or shifts some part of the reactive mind, he is moving and changing actual mental mass and energy. These changes in the mind influence the tiny flow of electrical energy generated by the E-Meter, causing the needle on its dial to move. The needle reactions on the E-Meter tell the auditor where the charge lies, and that it should be addressed by a process.”

    “Different needle movements have exact meanings and the skill of an auditor includes a complete understanding of all meter reactions.”

    As a trained auditor I can tell you that it is impossible to simulate meter reactions with changes of skin resistance. For example a meter reaction called “Floating Needle” (a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of the needle) is too smooth and too regular for that. Also, auditor training includes to recognize physical changes (like pressing hands together, shuffling one’s feet, discharge of static electricity and many others) on the emeter so that real mental changes don’t get lost. Go to a church and ask for a e-meter demonstration. Try to trick it. You won’t manage.

    – Lou

  214. Comment by anonymous on March 10, 2008 6:44 pm

    Lou, it makes me sad that you can look the evidence in the face and simply state that it isn’t true. I posted the wikipedia link as “a start.” The citations were what I wanted you to look at. Since you only let one link per post, that’s all that you can get. Now seriously, go do some research.

    And to look at those emails and say that that isn’t corrupt saddens me even more. Take a good hard look at them. I doubt you could have read through them all. Spend some time on it. Read the thread over at entrub if you want specific links to specific emails that show just how underhanded those they are. A link to that thread is in the original link that I posted.

    You like to simply click the links posted and stop your research there. Do some more digging. You might be surprised.

  215. Comment by Lou on March 10, 2008 6:21 pm

    @Comment by soruwV2 on March 10, 2008 1:03 pm

    “Hey, I’d just like to say that I did get the impression (like ErroneousAssumptions) that Scientology’s tech tries to help people with the same problems that psychiatry does. That’s what I meant by ‘alternative’. I’m reading Dianetics and Hubbard seems to think this too.”

    Dianetics was before Scientology (which came two years later and embraced Dianetics) and is not exactly the same. You see, Scientology is a religious philosophy addressing the spirit (called thetan). Psychiatry addresses meat, i.e. the body, chemicals etc. and some schools of psychiatry even clearly state that man is just another animal. There can’t be a bigger gap between what psychiatry does and what Scientology does.

    “Unfortunately, the Research and Discovery series seems to be only a collection of Hubbard’s lectures, not his actual research (correct me if I’m wrong).”

    Nope, there are charts and case studies in those volumes as well. I don’t have any of them but this is what I remember going through them in a church library. It just strikes me that the book “Have you lived before this life?” has a lot of case studies in it. Do you know it?

    “I did come across a mention to seven case studies that was one of the first things Hubbard published, but I can’t seem to find the actual studies. RIng a bell?”

    Yes, the original publication of “Dianetics – the original thesis” (also “Dianetics – Dynamics of Life”) had those case studies attached. When the new edition of the basic books was presented in July 2007, David Miscavige talked about it. The case studies are not attached anymore since the book went on the broad market (it was written for the medical profession originally). Check your closest university library, they might have it.

    – Lou

  216. Comment by Lou on March 10, 2008 6:00 pm

    @Comment by Eric on March 10, 2008 12:59 pm

    “hey guy… just curious about a couple of things, first, I have read in quite a few places that Scientology views gay folks as being less evolved and therefore less worthy than straight folks.”

    Lady, please. Or girl, if you wish. I have a statement on homosexuality on my website, here:
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/homosexuality/

    If this does not fully answer your question, please let me know.

    “Being gay, this makes me feel about as welcome in Scientology as I would feel visiting the Vatican (that is to say not welcome at all).”

    Did you try?

    I personally have no prejudice towards gay folks (though I don’t understand the noise you guys make about it sometimes). But to be honest, there might be Scientologists who have prejudices or are sneering about gays. The thing is, Scientologists come from all “walks of life”, dependent on their background they might be more or less tolerant (or more or less bright, for that matter).

    “Second as someone who is under psychiatric care and has been on medication for many many years, I wonder just how I would be able to approach Scientology without being asked to end drug treatments that would result in chaotic upheaval emotionally.”

    There is no general rule on this. If you need your medication to stay stable, no one will ask you to take it away from you. Most likely you will be asked to find out exactly if and how you could come off drugs but if this is medically not possible, there won’t be anybody demanding it. If you wanted to approach Scientology – as you say – you might want to read basic books first, as part of an extension course. A lot of what Scientology is and does is covered on several huge websites online (not exactly modern-looking ones, but still with a lot of information), like scientology.org, scientologyhandbook.org, scientologyreligion.org, dianetics-theevolutionofascience.org (seems to be down right now) and others.

    “I’ve read a lot of terrible things about the church, but I am still strangely curious. So regardless of your interests and purposes with this site I am interested in your perspective of the above issues.”

    Here you go.

    – Lou

  217. Comment by SomeoneNotQuiteAnonymouse on March 10, 2008 5:57 pm

    How dod you substantiate the claims of Scientology when they stated that LRH did not died but “discarded the body that bound him to the physical universe and was off to the next phase of his spiritual exploration” Is this a accurate representation, as stated in the June 24, 1990 article “The Making of L. Ron Hubbard” in the Los Angeles Times? If so, how do Christians account for this blasphemy and continue to be members? If not, was the Times sued?

  218. Comment by Lou on March 10, 2008 5:47 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 10, 2008 3:00 am

    “Here is another link about the general corruption that many of us are referring to:
    http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights_exposed_as”

    You confused me. I mean, did you know that CCHR was established by the Church of Scientology in 1969? It’s right on their letter head and their website (the first you see on the home page of cchr.org is “CCHR was co-founded in 1969 by Professor Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus, and the Church of Scientology, dedicated solely to eradicate mental health abuse.”).

    So I went to see if I did not understand what “corruption” is. Wikipedia says: “Corruption is a general concept describing any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system’s original purpose.”

    Then I went back and skimmed through those emails from 2006 you linked to. Campaign mails, some circulars, all about CCHR actions against psychiatric abuse. Seems to me they are doing what they say they are doing.

    So where exactly is this corruption you are talking about?

    – Lou

  219. Comment by SomeoneNotQuiteAnonymouse on March 10, 2008 5:44 pm

    here’s another:

    “A Clear is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint.” Why can’t I achieve this through psychotherapy? How is Scientology defiferent?

  220. Comment by SomeoneNotQuiteAnonymouse on March 10, 2008 5:42 pm

    Please answer for me the following questions:

    Why does Scielotogy hide its beliefs from the outside world and some if its members? no other religion does this. Example: The Bible is availbale for anyone to buy or ready online for free, but OT level documents are considered “confidential”?

    Why does Scientology charge for its teachings when every other religion is free (not counting actually dvinity school)?

    Why is Scientology considered a religion when it seems to be more or less a self help philosophy?

    Is auditing a type of psychotherapy, or something else entirely?

    How did “Dianetics” turn into a religion?

    Why does Scientology try to attract members by offering them a free personality test?

    Why does Scientology misrepresent L. Ron Hubbard? How do you explain the incongruities between Scientology’s biography and historical fact?

    Why did LRH and Scientology itself have a fascination with the ocean?

    Why does the website not actually answer the question “who is Xe nu?” Is the answer that there is no Xe nu and the OT level 3 documents available online are forged? If that is true, why doesn’t the church make the real OT 3 documents available to disprove the forgery?

    Is it true that Scientology claims that its members cannot get sick, and can perform superhamn feets?

    What did Tom Cruise mean when he said in the COS video that when passing by a car acciently, it’s nice to feel that only a COS member can help?

    On the website, you mention going to Sunday service. What consists of a Scientology Sunday service?

    If Scientology still allows you to keep your other religion, why does it have service on Sunday? If Scientology is “all denominational” and includes non-Christians, why does it use Sunday for it’s day of service?

    On the website, you mention “squirrell” Bill Robertson and how he died of throat cancer. Are you saying this misuse of “technology” caused his throat cancer? How?

  221. Comment by Lou on March 10, 2008 5:39 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 10, 2008 2:57 am

    >Since you asked for me to move my comment, here is reposted. I think a good place to start when discussing the crimes of the CoS is David Miscavige himself. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/David_Miscavige

    There ain’t no crimes on this page, dude.

    >Read the criticism and controversy section. All of those are cited sources. There are varying degrees of legitimacy, from personal statements to larger texts. Overall, well cited.

    I read the page. The criticism and controversy section is very much “Wikipedia”. A bit wishy, a bit washy… But yeah, cited it is. Now what?

    – Lou

  222. Comment by T on March 10, 2008 3:57 pm

    @Comment by Anonymous on March 10, 2008 2:44 pm

    What solid evidence do you have that proves man *not* to be a spiritual being?

    You said “neuroscience and philosophy has disproved cartesian duality beyond any shadow of doubt”.

    As to philosophy, how can it possibly prove or disprove anything…? I mean, I have a hard time picturing an empirical philosophical experiment. Do you not?

    As to neuroscience, which is the scientific study of the nervous system, the system of communication lines in the body that perish with the body when it dies, I fail to see how that can possibly pronounce, much less prove, anything about something that is claimed to have exist independent of the body. Do you not?

    I have no comment on NLP or the e-meter other than a response to your sneaky statement that Scientology is somehow based on hypnotherapy: it is not.

    But to be a little more constructive: what evidence would you accept to prove that man is a spiritual being? Give an example.

  223. Comment by soruwV2 on March 10, 2008 3:38 pm

    I found what I would like to read! It’s a 1951 publication of Dianetic Processing: A Brief Survey of Research Projects and Preliminary Results. From wiki “a booklet providing the results of psychometric tests conducted on 88 people undergoing Dianetics therapy”. I would like to see for myself the evidence that supports Hubbard’s claims to cure “manic depression, asthma, arthritis, colitis and “overt homosexuality”. I know the scientific community had already dismissed Dianetics theories because they were not supported by empirical evidence, but I want to see what they saw.

  224. Comment by Anonymous on March 10, 2008 2:44 pm

    Some hard questions that I don’t expect you to answer-

    First I’d like to know what solid evidence Scientology has for people being spiritual beings.
    Modern neuroscience and philosophy of mind has disproved cartesian dualism beyond any shadow of a doubt, with the only believers in dualism are uninformed about the brain sciences, evolution of mind, phenomenology. As a belief system which directly translates to the study of truth, I would like to know what empirical evidence Scientology has to contribute to the philosophies of mind, and how it could possibly trump Dennett’s multiple drafts theory of consciousness.

    I would also like to know where Scientologists stand on Neuro-Linguistic Programming, which is the modern form of the hypnotherapy that Scientology’s auditing is based on. Do Scientologists believe that no significant progress has been made in the study of the mind since Hubbard’s day?

    Finally, I would like to know how an e-meter differs from a simple polygraph, and what evidence there is for these two machines being fundamentally different.

  225. Comment by soruwV2 on March 10, 2008 1:03 pm

    Hey, I’d just like to say that I did get the impression (like ErroneousAssumptions) that Scientology’s tech tries to help people with the same problems that psychiatry does. That’s what I meant by ‘alternative’. I’m reading Dianetics and Hubbard seems to think this too.

    Unfortunately, the Research and Discovery series seems to be only a collection of Hubbard’s lectures, not his actual research (correct me if I’m wronf). So I’m still looking. I did come across a mention to seven case studies that was one of the first things Hubbard published, but I can’t seem to find the actual studies. RIng a bell?

    Any help would be great.

  226. Comment by Eric on March 10, 2008 12:59 pm

    hey guy… just curious about a couple of things, first, I have read in quite a few places that Scientology views gay folks as being less evolved and therefore less worthy than straight folks. Being gay, this makes me feel about as welcome in Scientology as I would feel visiting the Vatican (that is to say not welcome at all). Second as someone who is under psychiatric care and has been on medication for many many years, I wonder just how I would be able to approach Scientology without being asked to end drug treatments that would result in chaotic upheaval emotionally.

    I’ve read a lot of terrible things about the church, but I am still strangely curious. So regardless of your interests and purposes with this site I am interested in your perspective of the above issues.

  227. Comment by soruwV2 on March 10, 2008 3:11 am

    (It was my browser that wasn’t letting me post before)

    Hey, I’d just like to say that I did get the impression (like ErroneousAssumptions) that Scientology’s tech tries to help people with the same problems that psychiatry does. That’s what I meant by ‘alternative’. I’m reading Dianetics and Hubbard seems to think this too.

    Unfortunately, the Research and Discovery series is only a collection of Hubbard’s lectures, not his actual research. So I’m still looking. I did come across a mention to seven case studies that was one of the first things Hubbard published, but I can’t seem to find the actual studies.

    Any help would be great.

  228. Comment by anonymous on March 10, 2008 3:00 am

    Here is another link about the general corruption that many of us are referring to:
    http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights_exposed_as_a_Scientology_front

  229. Comment by anonymous on March 10, 2008 2:57 am

    Since you asked for me to move my comment, here is reposted. I think a good place to start when discussing the crimes of the CoS is David Miscavige himself.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miscavige

    Read the criticism and controversy section. All of those are cited sources. There are varying degrees of legitimacy, from personal statements to larger texts. Overall, well cited.

    Again, that’s just a start. There are many many things that are already being discussed at length at various places online.

  230. Comment by Lou on March 10, 2008 1:56 am

    @Comment by Tony Meman on March 10, 2008 12:46 am

    >Can you think of one?

    Sure, several. But you were saying that you are reading the Dianetics book. Maybe you finish reading first.

    >I know the murder rate in persons with mental illness is not any higher then the murder rate of the whole >population.

    Is there a link you could send me about this?

    >I’m not quite sure how it breaks down with medicated vs undedicated within the group of mentally ill >people. Got a study or something to show there’s a higher incidence of murder of people on medication?

    I indeed read one. Somewhere around the black box warning discussion (the black box warning on psychoactive medication that says that drug xy can cause suicide or aggresssions). I’ll have to dig for that. Psychiatry is not a preferred subject for me so my data is spread all over the place.

    >”I think that appropriate rest, good nutrition and healthy social contacts can do more for a “depressed” person than any drug could simulate.”
    >All those thing can certainly help. However, people with good diets, good sleep, and good friends can still have severe depression. Drugs certainly shouldn’t be used in isolation, but neither should they be ruled out completely.

    I didn’t say that. Proper medication, even a pain killer, has its place. However I wish you would go and visit a psychiatric hospital, check nutrition and sleep and general living conditions. I did this once (it was a bet) and the most scary thing, aside from the drugged, absent-minded patients, was the absence of a friendly and healthy atmosphere. It stank, food looked unbearable and it was extremely noisy and sticky. A patient who is not depressive when dumped there for sure will become so after only a few days. He might be even craving for happy pills, but what does that tell us about their effectiveness? Nothing.

    >>“There is no evidence for “chemical imbalances” in the brain which could be fixed with drugs.” “You see, the use of psychoactive drugs is based on the completely unscientific belief that mood or mental illnesses are caused by chemicals or genes.”
    >I know Scientologists use their own words for a lot of concepts; for example, using “tech” to describe what others might call theocratic laws. I’m wondering here if we have the same idea of what “science” means.

    What’s this now? If you know of evidence for chemical balances, let me know. Registering a lack of evidence for something – the “existence of chemical imbalance” – which is used to drug millions of people is not exclusive for Scientologists.

    >There’s also these things called double-blind studies in which neither the subject nor the doctor knows whether or not a person has received an active drug. There’s also the many more home-brew situations of spiked punch or “special brownies”. In both cases, a person ingesting a chemical has his mood altered by that chemical whether he knows he ingested it or not. This would rule out the medication being effective due to what most would call the placebo effect or a Scientologist (I think) refers to as an “interference engram”.

    No, finish reading the book. A Scientologist would just demand a good explanation as to why we need mood-altering drugs.

    – Lou

  231. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 10, 2008 1:50 am

    Lou-

    Okay, fair enough. There is a -possibility- that, in a protest situation, the wrong people can get arrested in the heat of the moment.

    Note that this is the case with ANY protest (or gathering of people, for that matter), so the fact that it COULD hypothetically occur at one of these protests is a bit like saying, “When there are lots of people gathered together, it is possible that one of them may act like an idiot.”

    “How did you get the idea that Hubbard technologies are an “alternative” for psychiatry? They are not.”

    I don’t think that’s true, strictly speaking. Look at the following sentences, presented from the perspective of a hypothetical Scientologist:

    1: “Psychiatry is a pseudo-science that does not work”
    2: “Scientology provides effective tools for improving one’s mental health, mood, and overall well-being”

    Here, we see that Scientology may not be an “alternative” to psychiatry in the same sense that Aspirin is an alternative to Tylenol, or Coke is an alternative to Pepsi, but it -is- an alternative method of dealing with the same issues. You believe that the root causes of these issues have to do with engrams and other things that Scientology teaches, while psychiatry believes that they have to do with (among other things) chemical imbalances in the brain. So…in the same way that a Christian Scientist might believe that prayer is an “alternative” to modern medicine, practices within Scientology certainly -are- an “alternative” to psychiatry. Thus, it would be -nice- if there were, y’know, independent studies we could read to back up Scientology’s claims that these methods are workable and provide verifiable results.

    Of course, you -could- claim that, as with the Christian Scientists, it’s a matter of faith rather than scientific evidence. While that might be a valid claim, it casts the whole thing in rather a different light.

  232. Comment by Lou on March 10, 2008 1:33 am

    @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 10, 2008 12:18 am

    >>“I don’t think you would (though that depends what country you are in). But you would be arrested together with you brother Anon who just threw a stone, because you are just as Anon as he is.”
    >…uh, no. That’s not how these things work. Unless you were directly facilitating the crime, or you were party to it in some fashion other than -being nearby for the same protest-, that is…complete and utter nonsense.

    I am talking about being arrested, not about being prosecuted. I have been at demonstrations and got arrested because some idiot threw a stone. Nothing happened to me, except for some hours of stay in – what Anon calls a – party van. Maybe I made it into a government computer that way but sure I never got indicted for anything. But that really depends on what country or state you are in.

    – Lou

  233. Comment by Lou on March 10, 2008 1:27 am

    @Comment by soruwV2 on March 10, 2008 12:09 am

    >(Third try posting, why isn’t it working? I didn’t put any links in)

    I did not see the other posts in the spam filter, could be your browser.

    >Hello again, I was hoping to get my questions answered, especially about the research Hubbard did. I see you have a pretty strong stance on psychiatry being unscientific and unproven. From this I hope that you can show that your suggested alternative, the technologies of Hubbard, are as well researched and scientifically proven as you require of the psychiatric profession.

    How did you get the idea that Hubbard technologies are an “alternative” for psychiatry? They are not.
    If you want me to put Psychiatry and Scientology in the same sentence, it would be: Scientology works, Psychiatry does not. That’s about all the relation there is.

    The research track of L. Ron Hubbard is delineated in 18 books and 280 lectures (called the “Basics”) and more groundwork details are in a book series called “Research & Discovery Series” which cover case studies and other details in chronological sequence. The latter is hardly of interest for a Scientologist who is more interested in workable practices than in lengthy theory. But if you want to dig in very deeply and theoretically, the R&D Series would be your bet (warning: we are talking about several thousand pages per year).

    – Lou

  234. Comment by Tony Meman on March 10, 2008 1:04 am

    ” But you would be arrested together with you brother Anon who just threw a stone, because you are just as Anon as he is.”

    …

    Do you live in the US, Lou?

    The first amendment gives us something called “freedom of association”. That means that you can associate with whomever you want without being arrested. You can’t be arrested just for being a member of a gang, for instance. You have to commit a crime. To be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime you have to commit an overt act in furtherance of that crime. You could not be arrested for standing next to a person who threw a rock; or for that matter standing next to a person who commits a murder; unless you did something specific to help them.

    Your position is extremely incorrect; it is incorrect to the point I have difficulty believing that you’re being honest. Granted, I have seen people say things which were more obviously incorrect, but not many.

  235. Comment by Tony Meman on March 10, 2008 12:46 am

    I’ll turn this into a question. I still can’t think of an engram that would cause epilepsy in tens of thousands of people. Perhaps it would explain a simple seizure (where a person merely is unresponsive for about 30 seconds); but not a tonic-clonic seizure which has a complex series of events which occur in a specific order. Can you think of one?

    “Because they are not safe. And it is not only suicides but also murder triggered off by such drugs which makes them unsafe.”

    Well, I know the murder rate in persons with mental illness is not any higher then the murder rate of the whole population. I’m not quite sure how it breaks down with medicated vs undedicated within the group of mentally ill people. Got a study or something to show there’s a higher incidence of murder of people on medication?

    ” I think that appropriate rest, good nutrition and healthy social contacts can do more for a “depressed” person than any drug could simulate.”

    All those thing can certainly help. However, people with good diets, good sleep, and good friends can still have severe depression. Drugs certainly shouldn’t be used in isolation, but neither should they be ruled out completely.

    “Like getting drunk to “postpone” a problem until tomorrow. ”

    The crux of it. A little alcohol on a daily basis has proven health effects; a lot of alcohol a day or all at once has proven detriments. It’s a matter of degrees, not absolutes.

    “There is no evidence for “chemical imbalances” in the brain which could be fixed with drugs.” “You see, the use of psychoactive drugs is based on the completely unscientific belief that mood or mental illnesses are caused by chemicals or genes.”

    I know Scientologists use their own words for a lot of concepts; for example, using “tech” to describe what others might call theocratic laws. I’m wondering here if we have the same idea of what “science” means.

    First of all there’s the studies which show a correspondence between certain genetic markers and depression. Then there’s the fact that depression tends to run in families. This includes a subset of studies that shows this still holds out in the case of children who are adopted and raised by other families.

    There’s also your own words. You acknowledge that drugs (which are chemicals) can alter the mood of a person. The psychical effects of these drugs in altering the chemistry of neurons is well studied and measured. Thus, you already acknowledge that altering the chemistry of the brain by introducing drugs can alter mood. The chemistry of the brain /is/ a person’s mood.

    There’s also these things called double-blind studies in which neither the subject nor the doctor knows whether or not a person has received an active drug. There’s also the many more home-brew situations of spiked punch or “special brownies”. In both cases, a person ingesting a chemical has his mood altered by that chemical whether he knows he ingested it or not. This would rule out the medication being effective due to what most would call the placebo effect or a Scientologist (I think) refers to as an “interference engram”.

  236. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 10, 2008 12:18 am

    “I don’t think you would (though that depends what country you are in). But you would be arrested together with you brother Anon who just threw a stone, because you are just as Anon as he is.”

    …uh, no. That’s not how these things work. Unless you were directly facilitating the crime, or you were party to it in some fashion other than -being nearby for the same protest-, that is…complete and utter nonsense.

  237. Comment by soruwV2 on March 10, 2008 12:09 am

    (Third try posting, why isn’t it working? I didn’t put any links in)

    Hello again, I was hoping to get my questions answered, especially about the research Hubbard did. I see you have a pretty strong stance on psychiatry being unscientific and unproven. From this I hope that you can show that your suggested alternative, the technologies of Hubbard, are as well researched and scientifically proven as you require of the psychiatric profession.

  238. Comment by anonymous on March 10, 2008 12:00 am

    I would point at the anon who threw the stone and say “he did it.” Then I would call that anon an idiot.

  239. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 11:52 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 11:37 pm

    >>“Rather arrested and rightfully so.”
    >Why would I get arrested if I am obeying the law?

    I don’t think you would (though that depends what country you are in). But you would be arrested together with you brother Anon who just threw a stone, because you are just as Anon as he is.

    > I’m going to make my little sign and pass out flyers. That’s perfectly legal.

    Depends again on what you put on your little sign and the flyer, isn’t it. “Kill George W. Bush” would probably give you trouble.

    – Lou

  240. Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 11:37 pm

    “Rather arrested and rightfully so.”

    Why would I get arrested if I am obeying the law? Isn’t that the point of being arrested? Because you broke the law? I’m not going to threaten anyone. I’m not going to harm anyone. I’m going to make my little sign and pass out flyers. That’s perfectly legal.

  241. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 10:52 pm

    @Comment by chz brgr on March 9, 2008 10:42 pm

    >lol this: I am not convinced, just for the absence of any evidence. The next “protest” is planned for the day of L. Ron Hubbards birthday. Listen to me carefully: there can’t be a bigger insult to any Scientology member than spoiling the symbolic birthday party for the founder of their religion. This is like pissing in the “blood of Christ”. DO YOU GET ME?

    >sounds like anon might get attacked?

    Rather arrested and rightfully so.

    >lol it also means that OTHER people are working in a team with you and feed you information from enturbulation

    I wish I had been “fed information”, that would make understanding this thing much easier. Though Anons send me emails pretty regularly now. Some good, some bad and you never know if it’s true or a fake.

    How do I know about the “Ides of March” raid? You fool, it’s right in the “What’s your take on Anonymous?” thread!

    – Lou

  242. Comment by chz brgr on March 9, 2008 10:42 pm

    god i love Sun-Tzu!

    lol this:
    I am not convinced, just for the absence of any evidence. The next “protest” is planned for the day of L. Ron Hubbards birthday. Listen to me carefully: there can’t be a bigger insult to any Scientology member than spoiling the symbolic birthday party for the founder of their religion. This is like pissing in the “blood of Christ”. DO YOU GET ME?

    sounds like anon might get attacked?

    lol it also means that OTHER people are working in a team with you and feed you information from enturbulation and other sources (as evidenced by the other pro scientology posters)…. how else would you have found that (unless they are working you like a dog)

    yet you will inevitably attribute this to paranoia, although you are in an organization wih a very sophisticated structure, secular behavior, and proven hostile stance on criticism.

  243. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 10:38 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 10:25 pm

    >>“Is that right. Anonymous lulz hunters got in to actual reading and opinion building? Wow. And why then do attacks continue against Scientology parishioners?”
    >How many times do we have to repeat ourselves? This question has been answered.
    >As a group, we do not attack individual parishioners. We are not against all Scientologists. Just the ones who are committing the crimes and doing the harm. And we aren’t physically attacking them. We are protesting them.

    I am not convinced, just for the absence of any evidence and observations to the contrary. The next “protest” is planned for the day of L. Ron Hubbards birthday. Listen to me carefully: there can’t be a bigger insult to any Scientology member than spoiling the symbolic birthday party for the founder of their religion. This is like pissing in the “blood of Christ”. DO YOU GET ME?

    – Lou

  244. Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 10:25 pm

    “Is that right. Anonymous lulz hunters got in to actual reading and opinion building? Wow. And why then do attacks continue against Scientology parishioners?”

    How many times do we have to repeat ourselves? This question has been answered.

    As a group, we do not attack individual parishioners. We are not against all Scientologists. Just the ones who are committing the crimes and doing the harm. And we aren’t physically attacking them. We are protesting them.

  245. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 10:21 pm

    @Comment by Nu on March 9, 2008 9:00 pm

    “Show me what you think of free speech. ”

    I am reading this declaration about a pretty f***ed up life (not that she has anything to do with it, does she) but the question arises, what do you mean by “show me what you think of free speech” in relation to this?

    – Lou

  246. Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 10:17 pm

    “That’s good, but then you left Anonymous at the same time. Congrats!”

    Nope, I’m still anonymous. I refuse to reveal my identity out of fear that the fair game policy may still be in place. You say it isn’t, but I’d rather be safe than sorry.

    “Nobody is truly anonymous, especially not on the internet where all is 1s and 0s. If you wanted you could reach your fellow group members. And if you went to IRL meetings you met some people in person and could make sure that none of those got into criminal actions (or corrects them, if it already happened). But that’s just not “cool” enough, is it.”

    Actually, we do that. If somebody tries to do something illegal at a protest we will stop it. That has been talked about at length on the enturublation boards. Go check it out! We have details on how to keep it peaceful and legal. If you want all those details, just visit the site. Check out the announcements board.

    “If that is true how did the DDOS actions happen in the first place? The first I ever heard of Anonymous was a call to all members to create maximum damage to the Church of Scientology, by bringing down its information websites, infiltrating networks, doing harassing phone calls and a long list of damaging activities. The main project site has or had detailed instructions on how and where to do harassment and threatening calls, to churches, missions and even the private homes of Scientologists. Lists of phone numbers were circulated for weeks. Some Anonymous members went much further and threatened the life of Scientologists. Some Anonymous members PROUDLY claimed that they could steal “confidential materials” from internal Scientology networks. Others still announce PROUDLY how effective they were in intimidating Scientologists. THAT is the game plan, THAT is what is happening, not the “peaceful protest” stuff you are trying to sell me. Get real.”

    I was not part of it when the DDoS was happening. Things changed dramatically after that. The original members of Anonymous did that to get attention. Then people stepped in (Mark Bunker included) and said hey, maybe we shouldn’t do things like that anymore. It’ll get us into trouble and detract from our message. Then they stopped. Since then, everything has been legal and peaceful and that’s all that has been advocated in all of our online communications and IRL protests. Seriously, go check out enturb! You are the one that needs to “get real.”

    “>In a group whose only form of contact is through the internet, that’s all that can be done.
    I am sure you can think of more.”

    No, advocating legal and peaceful protests is all you can do in a group without leaders and names. We are all anonymous. We don’t know each other. I don’t know who did those illegal acts that you are against. It could have been somebody under the anonymous banner. It could have been a random person. It could have even been a Scientologist trying to frame anonymous. All of these are possibilities. There is no way for any of us to know. The only way to control this is the advocate peace and for each one of us to take responsibility for ourselves. I have done nothing but legal protesting and I will continue to do so.

  247. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 10:13 pm

    Moved off-topic comment over here:

    @Comment by Nu on March 9, 2008 9:00 pm

    Show me what you think of free speech. The Declaration of Astra Woodcraft:
    http://www(dot)holysmoke(dot)org/cos/declaration-astra-woodcraft.htm

  248. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 10:02 pm

    @Comment by chz brgr on March 9, 2008 9:26 pm

    “im sorry but all that was when it was still a raid project…… now its a protest.
    get the difference now? RAID vs PROTEST?”

    In theory, yes, but it appears to me that not all Anons have heard about it.

    “as we uncovered more about the “church” as you call it, we found things we did not like. that got people thinking more about getting rid of the leadership and NOT THE FOLLOWERS.”

    Is that right. Anonymous lulz hunters got in to actual reading and opinion building? Wow. And why then do attacks continue against Scientology parishioners?

    >>Some Anonymous members PROUDLY claimed that they could steal “confidential materials” from internal Scientology networks. Others still announce PROUDLY how effective they were in intimidating Scientologists. THAT is the game plan
    >and yeah, we CAN do that, and that WAS th game plan (notice i said WAS, thats the past tense of IS)

    I am not convinced, just for the absence of any evidence. The next “protest” is planned for the day of L. Ron Hubbards birthday. Listen to me carefully: there can’t be a bigger insult to any Scientology member than spoiling the symbolic birthday party for the founder of their religion. This is like pissing in the “blood of Christ”. DO YOU GET ME?

    – Lou

  249. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 9:45 pm

    @Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 5:42 am

    >This is another thing I’m curious about. Scientology claims that most (about 70%, according to Dianetics) of illnesses are psychosomatic. However, if an illness can be traced to a mechanical cause and treated by mechanical means… does it really matter? I mean, if psychoactive drugs have a net positive effect (they do), then why oppose them?

    Correction: It is Dianetics that claims that most illnesses are psychosomatic, not Scientology. That means Dianetics teaches that a lot of illnesses are caused by the mind and go away at least more easily once that cause is properly dealt with. The basis of Dianetics is that function monitors structure (“mind over matter”). You might be able to get rid of back pain with surgery or excercises but if your crooked back was caused by something mental (like an engram) you will most likely get it again because the actual cause for the back pain was not addressed at all. AS for illnesses and injuries, like a cut, infections or a broken bone, there are proper medical means to treat them. Addressing the cause of it – like a Scientology assist or Dianetics does – would be supplementary to that.

    In regards to psychoactive drugs, there is the issue of side effects. Psychoactive drugs tend to change the mood of people in an inappropriate way, making them falsely cheerful about “anything”, making them aggressive or depressive or almost unsconscious. Making people more apatheic is more convenient than having a screaming maniac at your hand but it’s also less living and not real help for the patient. There is no evidence for “chemical imbalances” in the brain which could be fixed with drugs.

    >Similarly, people on medication commit suicide, but people with untreated depression also commit suicide. People on medication commit suicide at a lower rate.”

    Yeah, but they tend to kill others instead… (ok, this was not a scientific statement).

    >Why, then, use drug suicides as a reason to ban them completely?

    Because they are not safe. And it is not only suicides but also murder triggered off by such drugs which makes them unsafe. And because drugs “drug” away the actual cause of the problem. You see, the use of psychoactive drugs is based on the completely unscientific belief that mood or mental illnesses are caused by chemicals or genes. I think that appropriate rest, good nutrition and healthy social contacts can do more for a “depressed” person than any drug could simulate. And I think that real science could provide therapies which actually work and help the patient instead of inventing one drug after the other which does nothing but painting over the problem.

    Like getting drunk to “postpone” a problem until tomorrow. It won’t go away but you don’t see it for a while. To me, someone on permanent medication (and psychoactive drugs are prescribed for years and years) is no getting rid of the real problem.

    >“Hm. What’s your theory then why you had symptoms at all?”
    >Reflecting back on my own life, it seems to me the periods of unresponsiveness which were attributed to seizures were caused by me thinking about something that was far more interesting to me then what was happening around me. The importance of the people around me to my life is something I had to learn; this is perhaps why I take it so seriously now.

    Thanks. I know exactly what you mean.

    – Lou

  250. Comment by chz brgr on March 9, 2008 9:26 pm

    im sorry but all that was when it was still a raid project…… now its a protest.

    get the difference now? RAID vs PROTEST?

    as we uncovered more about the “church” as you call it, we found things we did not like. that got people thinking more about getting rid of the leadership and NOT THE FOLLOWERS.

    >Some Anonymous members PROUDLY claimed that they could steal “confidential materials” from internal Scientology networks. Others still announce PROUDLY how effective they were in intimidating Scientologists. THAT is the game plan

    and yeah, we CAN do that, and that WAS th game plan (notice i said WAS, thats the past tense of IS)

  251. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 9:10 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 9:32 am

    >>“As an Anonymous you are supporting incitement and commitment of crime.”
    >No, I’m not actually. I have stated many times that I will only support peaceful and legal protesting.

    That’s good, but then you left Anonymous at the same time. Congrats!

    >>“And I will stick to this until Anonymous shows some responsibility to get their criminal members under control. I have not seen any such thing. At all.”
    >How are we suppose to “get our criminal members” under control when we are all anonymous?

    Nobody is truly anonymous, especially not on the internet where all is 1s and 0s. If you wanted you could reach your fellow group members. And if you went to IRL meetings you met some people in person and could make sure that none of those got into criminal actions (or corrects them, if it already happened). But that’s just not “cool” enough, is it.

    >In all of our communication with each other online we advocate only legal and peaceful protesting. If somebody brings up something illegal we shoot it down and it won’t be done.

    If that is true how did the DDOS actions happen in the first place? The first I ever heard of Anonymous was a call to all members to create maximum damage to the Church of Scientology, by bringing down its information websites, infiltrating networks, doing harassing phone calls and a long list of damaging activities. The main project site has or had detailed instructions on how and where to do harassment and threatening calls, to churches, missions and even the private homes of Scientologists. Lists of phone numbers were circulated for weeks. Some Anonymous members went much further and threatened the life of Scientologists. Some Anonymous members PROUDLY claimed that they could steal “confidential materials” from internal Scientology networks. Others still announce PROUDLY how effective they were in intimidating Scientologists. THAT is the game plan, THAT is what is happening, not the “peaceful protest” stuff you are trying to sell me. Get real.

    >In a group whose only form of contact is through the internet, that’s all that can be done.

    I am sure you can think of more.

    – Lou

  252. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 8:51 pm

    @Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 8:26 pm

    “What I want to know is can you talk about it amongst yourselves?”

    Absolutely you can.

    ” I’ve heard a rumor that even if two people have read the same material they can’t talk about it to each other. Is that true? Why?”

    Not true. Ideally you have the text available if you are talking about it (Scientology is relatively strict when it comes to “interpretations”) but there is no rule not to talk about Scientology texts.

    – Lou

  253. Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 8:26 pm

    I have a question. I know that you can’t talk about certain beliefs (OTIII etc) until you’ve actually reached that point so I’m not asking you to discuss it. What I want to know is can you talk about it amongst yourselves? I’ve heard a rumor that even if two people have read the same material they can’t talk about it to each other. Is that true? Why?

  254. Comment by anonymous on March 9, 2008 9:32 am

    “As an Anonymous you are supporting incitement and commitment of crime.”

    No, I’m not actually. I have stated many times that I will only support peaceful and legal protesting. That’s all that I have done, and I’m sure that’s what most others have done as well.

    “And I will stick to this until Anonymous shows some responsibility to get their criminal members under control. I have not seen any such thing. At all.”

    How are we suppose to “get our criminal members” under control when we are all anonymous? We don’t know each other. In all of our communication with each other online we advocate only legal and peaceful protesting. If somebody brings up something illegal we shoot it down and it won’t be done. In a group whose only form of contact is through the internet, that’s all that can be done. Until you understand what Anonymous really is, I don’t think you can understand that concept either.

  255. Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 5:42 am

    “My opinion here is that your version and my version are possible, i.e. hardware defect and software problem. ”

    Perhaps I’m questioning one of your articles of faith here. I really have difficulty imagining an engram that would result in epilepsy. I have even more trouble in coming up with one that is common enough that it would result in such similar symptoms experienced by tens of thousands of people. However, I’ve seen malfunctioning electronic circuits, and it’s very easy to make an analogy between epilepsy and, say, a TV with a distorted picture.

    “This is another thing I’m curious about. Scientology claims that most (about 70%, according to Dianetics) of illnesses are psychosomatic. However, if an illness can be traced to a mechanical cause and treated by mechanical means… does it really matter? I mean, if psychoactive drugs have a net positive effect (they do), then why oppose them?

    As an analogy: A vaccination for polio can cause a child to develop polio. However, children can also develop polio if noone is vaccinated. Far more children develop polio without vaccinations then with vaccinations. Thus, we vaccinate children for polio, even though we know that some will become ill as a result.

    Similarly, people on medication commit suicide, but people with untreated depression also commit suicide. People on medication commit suicide at a lower rate. Granted, this is an excellent reason to be careful and well educated about drug use. I very much agree with Scientologists at least that far. Why, then, use drug suicides as a reason to ban them completely?

    “I think that it should not be necessary in the 21st Century to open somebody’s head to clip off parts of the brain.”

    I agree with you that it is a very disturbing thought, and one that should be taken with extreme gravity. I can only say that I’ve worked with and cared for a number of people with very serious illnesses, both physical and mental, who would be willing to take very serious steps, including psychosurgery, to help alleviate their suffering.

    “Hm. What’s your theory then why you had symptoms at all?”

    Reflecting back on my own life, it seems to me the periods of unresponsiveness which were attributed to seizures were caused by me thinking about something that was far more interesting to me then what was happening around me. The importance of the people around me to my life is something I had to learn; this is perhaps why I take it so seriously now.

  256. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 4:57 am

    @Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 4:34 am

    “I am aware that Scientologists believe that that nearly all conditions are “software” defects caused by the reactive mind. However, epilepsy can be tracked by EEG and MRI and the defective segment localized; so this condition is legitimately an issue of the physical tissue of the brain. (Thus, Magoo isn’t mentally ill, she is /neurologically/ ill.)”

    Any psychosomatic illness can be registered one way or the other. Per Dianetics, someone with an engram demanding him to break his bones shows a very obvious and measurable “hardware damage”. But the cause still was a mental, unconscious command to hurt himself. The latter is what Dianetics addresses, not the hardware part… Same with epilepsy. IF caused by mental problems, the cause for epileptic fits would not be in the brain but only happening there, triggered off by a mental problem. My opinion here is that your version and my version are possible, i.e. hardware defect and software problem.

    “Regarding the drugs used:
    The only painkiller used is a topical disinfectant and analgesic which numbs the skin of the scalp. The only sensation that reaches the brain is one of pressure. No alteration of consciousness as there is with an injection.”

    One could take a patient and use Dianetics to determine whether this procedure is stored as an engram or not. But it does not matter much. If such surgery would be in the way of someone trying to reach Clear the engram would show up and can be moved out of the way. If not, it would not become an issue. Somehow, but this is an emotional thing, I think that it should not be necessary in the 21st Century to open somebody’s head to clip off parts of the brain. Anyway, just opinion.

    “As to the effectiveness of psychosurgery, there are plenty of studies that have been published on various methods. I read a few when I was investigating my own condition; as a younger child I was (incorrectly) diagnosed with mild epilepsy. I wasn’t given any drugs, and the symptoms disappeared on their own as I entered puberty.”

    Hm. What’s your theory then why you had symptoms at all?

    – Lou

  257. Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 4:34 am

    “If there is a proven area in the brain which can be identified as the CAUSE for epileptic fits then I would think there are methods to heal or “switch off” this section. Are there?”

    Epilepsy is a “hardware” defect, wherein a small segment of the brain becomes hyperactive and disrupts the functionality of the rest of the brain. This segment varies from patient to patient, so there is no one area which generically causes epilepsy. You can’t exactly go in there and sort out the neurons mechanically without damaging the surrounding tissue, or shut them off (short of removal) without shutting off the rest of the brain.

    I am aware that Scientologists believe that that nearly all conditions are “software” defects caused by the reactive mind. However, epilepsy can be tracked by EEG and MRI and the defective segment localized; so this condition is legitimately an issue of the physical tissue of the brain. (Thus, Magoo isn’t mentally ill, she is /neurologically/ ill.)

    Regarding the drugs used:
    The only painkiller used is a topical disinfectant and analgesic which numbs the skin of the scalp. The only sensation that reaches the brain is one of pressure. No alteration of consciousness as there is with an injection.

    As to the effectiveness of psychosurgery, there are plenty of studies that have been published on various methods. I read a few when I was investigating my own condition; as a younger child I was (incorrectly) diagnosed with mild epilepsy. I wasn’t given any drugs, and the symptoms disappeared on their own as I entered puberty.

  258. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 4:16 am

    @Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 3:59 am

    >>“I am asking for tolerance here, because discussing … the beliefs of Scientologists is religious intolerance.”
    >I do hope that you phrased this incorrectly.

    No, but incomplete. Some of the scriptures of Scientology are confidential. Insisting on discussing them with Scientologists who do not know them (yet) because they agreed to follow the belief system of Scientology is religious intolerance. It is an attempt to make them violate their agreement with the Church and their religion. Anti-Scientology critics know that and that is the sole reason why they print this stuff on flyers, on caps, T-shirts etc.

    There are Catholic monasteries whose members have vowed not to talk (vow of silence). Would you go there and make it a game to get them to talk? There are section in the Kabbalah which are not meant to be discussed, confidential and kept that way by religious agreement. Would you go and read these scriptures on a PA system?

    “Although I may disagree with the tenets of your church, I can fully tolerate your right to believe them.”

    Thank you.

    – Lou

  259. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 4:04 am

    @Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 3:40 am

    “However, I’m curious of your opinion of modern psychosurgery.”

    If there are results I support it. If there is a lot of PR and marketing and no results, like with treatments such as electric shocks, I don’t. I am not familiar though with the treatment of epilepsy by surgery. If there is a proven area in the brain which can be identified as the CAUSE for epileptic fits then I would think there are methods to heal or “switch off” this section. Are there?

    “(Not interested in a dead agent file on Magoo, unless you have three doctors reports that she doesn’t actually have epilepsy.)”

    Got it. I am not giving out “dead agent files” and attacking critics is not my game. But I think she would reject being called mentally ill (as “psychosurgery” suggests).

    “Additionally, the procedure requires the patient to be conscious and generally in a good mood (thus, ‘conscious’ within the Hubbard definition as well) so the patient can give accurate feedback to the sensations of the probe. Thus (again according to Dianetics) the procedure would not cause the formation of an engram.”

    Hard to believe that no pain killers would be used for this type of surgery. I took pain killers once and felt very “conscious” and “in good mood” watching my wound bleeding along. Dianetics defines an engram as “a memory recording of an experience containing pain, unconsciousness and a real or fancied threat to survival.”. Killing the pain with drugs does not mean that it is not there. The pain sensation is just chemically suppressed.

    “What do you think of this kind of procedure?”

    I have not enough information to support or reject it. From what you say and from what I looked up by now I would say – my opinion – that such procedure results in an engram for sure (which is not a problem as it can be run out with Dianetics afterwards). On its value I am pretty sceptical, just because it is very hard to find any results from psychosurgery/neurosurgey.

    – Lou

  260. Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 3:59 am

    “I am asking for tolerance here, because discussing … the beliefs of Scientologists is religious intolerance.”

    I do hope that you phrased this incorrectly. I am Catholic and thus I disagree with Scientology (the notion of reincarnation is enough to ensure that), but I do not agree that discussing religious beliefs is in itself intolerant. Although I may disagree with the tenets of your church, I can fully tolerate your right to believe them.

  261. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 3:47 am

    @Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 3:28 am

    You comment on my “Alien” page. I chose the wording like this to truthfully show that this and other “galactic” stories do not have as much importance to Scientologists as is given to them by Scientology critics. I am asking for tolerance here, because discussing or worse – ridiculing and distorting – the beliefs of Scientologists is religious intolerance.

    Honestly, I think the only reason this whole story is so widespread on the internet and cooked up by the same critics over and over is to introvert and back off Scientologists. And those who have not reached a certain level in Scientology might introvert and back off because they agree that Scientology scriptures have to be studied in the right sequence. Certainly this is practical for those who have nothing to discuss and are just parrots of anti-Scientology propaganda without any understanding of Scientology.

    – Lou

  262. Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 3:40 am

    Sorry, another question…

    I’ve been reading Dianetics. It’s interesting. LRH loved to go into graphic detail about the pre-frontal lobotomy, which of course is a grotesque surgery which has been rightfully discontinued.

    However, I’m curious of your opinion of modern psychosurgery. In particular, one method that uses a metal needle to burn away a small region (a few millimeters across) to prevent epilepsy. Hubbard never denied (in Dianetics) that the brain wasn’t some kind of electrical circuit. Therefore, it seems like the removal of a non-functioning mechanism would not violate the spirit of Dianetics. This is reinforced by the church allowing Magoo to take medication for her epilepsy.

    (Not interested in a dead agent file on Magoo, unless you have three doctors reports that she doesn’t actually have epilepsy.)

    Additionally, the procedure requires the patient to be conscious and generally in a good mood (thus, ‘conscious’ within the Hubbard definition as well) so the patient can give accurate feedback to the sensations of the probe. Thus (again according to Dianetics) the procedure would not cause the formation of an engram.

    What do you think of this kind of procedure?

  263. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 3:39 am

    @@Comment by CHZ BRGR on March 9, 2008 2:59 am

    “the reason you have not heard from me is because you insulted my integrity with the slander known “whats your take on anonymous”.”

    ORLY? You expect me to like your opinions and at the same time you go whining for mama if my own ones don’t suit you? C’mon, you must be kidding.

    “how dare you assert that im consorting with terrorists simply by protesting against a midget with control issues (david miscavige)?”

    As an Anonymous you are supporting incitement and commitment of crime. And I will stick to this until Anonymous shows some responsibility to get their criminal members under control. I have not seen any such thing. At all.

    “oh, thats right, they only teach you how to get lied to so you don’t believe the truth when its put in your face…..”

    WTF?

    “1984 bitch, orwell.”

    WTF?

    – Lou

  264. Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 3:28 am

    One thing I’m curious about is your page about Xe nu.

    You state that Scientologists don’t worship Xe nu. I haven’t seen any claims that they do; he seems to be more analogous to the Christian serpent and OT III seems to be thematically similar to Genesis (how evil entered the world). Of course Christians don’t worship the serpent/Devil any more then Scientologists worship Xe nu, but they are both key figures in the religious histories of the two churches.

    I suppose I’m curious why you chose to phrase that the way you did.

  265. Comment by CHZ BRGR on March 9, 2008 2:59 am

    the reason you have not heard from me is because you insulted my integrity with the slander known “whats your take on anonymous”.

    how dare you assert that im consorting with terrorists simply by protesting against a midget with control issues (david miscavige)?

    you have terms offered by an upstanding Anon on the table… take them cause your earlier argument as reminded by ARC break (which you deleted) is false, and im honestly surprised you did not realize that even making the argument was folly this is on the internet without posting restrictions…. what made you think it would NOT get flooded….

    oh, thats right, they only teach you how to get lied to so you don’t believe the truth when its put in your face…..

    1984 bitch, orwell.

    read, do

  266. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 2:52 am

    @Comment by ARC_Break on March 7, 2008 10:01 pm

    “It’s been recorded on videos numerous times that Scientology recruiters claim that Scientology is compatible with all major religons. Is that the church’s offical stance?”

    “Scientology recruiters”, eh? So your question is whether one has to leave his/her denomination once he/she becomes a member of the Church of Scientology.

    The official answer is this:
    “Nearly all religions share a belief in helping man live a better life. In Scientology, this concept is expressed as one of the aims of the Church, which is to achieve a world without insanity, war and crime.

    While Scientology has much in common with other religions in this regard, particularly in terms of its basic religious concepts and its outreach into the community with social reform programs, the most valuable asset that Scientology has to offer is a wealth of technology which brings about greater spiritual awareness.

    Unlike some religions which believe that man is intrinsically evil, Scientology believes man is basically good. The Scientology religion offers practical tools one can use to better oneself and others. Some religions offer salvation in the hereafter, while Scientology offers certainty of eternal salvation now.
    Scientology makes it possible for any religion to attain its goals and is therefore a religion of religions.”

    So I wouldn’t call this “compatible” but certainly Scientology helps to understand one’s first religion better. What’s being said to “show” incompatibility however is false. Here is what I usually read as an argument why one cannot be active in another religion at the same time:

    “HCO Policy Letter 15 December 1965R Issue I revised 25 July 1987, STUDENT’S GUIDE TO ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR. Guideline “#14. Do not engage in any rite, ceremony, or any similar religious treatment or mental therapy while on course without the express permission of the Director of Training.”

    What this means is obvious (to me at least): Participation in rites, ceremonies, religious treatment change the body and spiritual condition of people, Scientology practices also change spiritual conditions. To archive maximum (and pleasant) results from Scientology it cannot be mixed with something else. So while being trained in Scientology practices (“while on course”, above) the one overseeing the training (Director of Training) should know what else you are doing and go over with you whether this can prolong or sabotage your Scientology training. Simple. An extreme example would be someone on a fasting period trying to get through auditor training. Almost impossible. So fast first, train later or vice versa, to get the most out of both.

    – Lou

    PS: There is a whole study about “The Relationship Between Scientology
    and Other Religions”, by a Japanese scholar, here: http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Append/08/index.htm .

  267. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 2:26 am

    @Comment by Con on March 7, 2008 7:27 pm

    “Is it true that Mike Rinder has left Scientology?”

    That would be hard to believe but I honestly don’t know.

    – Lou

  268. Comment by Lou on March 9, 2008 2:25 am

    @Comment by ARC_Break on March 7, 2008 5:57 pm

    “What if it was only one person and it was a Q&A session? For example, you ask a question, we supply an answer, then you get to follow up question to which we answer.”

    Sounds fun, though I would have to think hard what to ask you guys. I haven’t heard back from either cheeseburger (chz brg) or anyone else who wanted to check with the entubulation.org. What’s the deal now?

    – Lou

  269. Comment by ARC_Break on March 7, 2008 10:01 pm

    Lou, a bit of a different question for you.

    It’s been recorded on videos numerous times that Scientology recruiters claim that Scientology is compatible with all major religons. Is that the church’s offical stance?

  270. Comment by Con on March 7, 2008 7:27 pm

    Is it true that Mike Rinder has left Scientology?
    Thanks!

  271. Comment by ARC_Break on March 7, 2008 5:57 pm

    Apologies, finger slipped on the enter key.

    What if it was only one person and it was a Q&A session? For example, you ask a question, we supply an answer, then you get to follow up question to which we answer.

    Then we switch. Four posts per question, two from each side.

    I think the enturbulation.org admins would be up for something like this, and limiting to one poster. It’d be up to you and the other person to follow the rules.

  272. Comment by Lou on March 7, 2008 5:01 pm

    @Comment by Puddintame on March 7, 2008 6:20 am

    “I’m talking about the pressure to divorce a declared mate.”

    Nice theory, sounds horrible. But let’s check the details. Give me an example?

    I mean, you know that Scientology is pretty easy, except if you are trying to destroy it. Then and only then you find yourself in trouble. Or if you are engaged in criminal acts AND not wanting to correct the wrong.

    – Lou

  273. Comment by Puddintame on March 7, 2008 6:20 am

    No… it’s a company

    Too harsh? just my opinion.

    People get their SP cancelled? I did know that. That’s as long as people still want in the org. I’m talking about people who want nothing more to do with the org, but still want to be in contact with their family. I’m talking about the pressure to divorce a declared mate.

  274. Comment by Lou on March 7, 2008 4:35 am

    @Comment by Puddintame on March 7, 2008 1:25 am

    “I’d like to hear your responses to other EX-Scientologists views about Scientology and specifically Disconnection. Please don’t reply with the standard “Disconnection is not enforced” company line. That schtick’s got whiskers. It’s implied right in the churchs list of high crimes.”

    Just answered it elsewhere. I should do an article on ScientologyMyths.info. Until then, here is the list:

    Open questions

    Hey there.


    http://www.scientologymyths.info/scientology/docs/frank-flinn.htm (Apple/CTRL-F “disconnection”).

    The “company line” (I think it’s “party line”) is here:
    http://faq.scientology.org/page40.htm

    – Lou

  275. Comment by Puddintame on March 7, 2008 1:25 am

    Alright,

    I’d like to hear your responses to other EX-Scientologists views about Scientology and specifically Disconnection. Please don’t reply with the standard “Disconnection is not enforced” company line. That schtick’s got whiskers. It’s implied right in the churchs list of high crimes.

    – Leaving is a crime (marking you an SP)
    – Associating with SPs is a crime

    And thanks for talking
    http://www.exscientologykids.com/

  276. Comment by excusemeprincess on March 4, 2008 2:12 am

    You are very brave to make a website like this. While I disagree with some of your views, I do respect that you give “the other side of the story,” so to speak.

  277. Comment by anmn on March 3, 2008 6:01 am

    >There are. Testimonies galore of those who got rehabilitated, off drugs or who got rid of their learning problems by a program which uses Hubbard’s technology. And there are studies as well in the various areas. I remember having read or glanced through a couple of them. That will be quite some digging. What program are you into? Criminon, Narconon, Applied Scholastics?

    Any of them. Testimonies are inherently unscientific, and from what I’ve seen, they tend to read like press releases. I’m looking for independent surveys of the results.

    Narconon claims to have a 70% success rate, but I can’t back that up. I found a Swedish study from 1983 that shows a 23% graduation rate and a 7% success rate. I found a Spanish study from the mid-80s that the CoS uses to claim a 78% success rate, but closer evaluation shows a success rate of 33% to 43%, with many very questionable numbers all over. Other surveys have similar numbers and similarly questionable math and methods of obtaining a final success percentage. The sampling method and sample size is also not enough to extrapolate to program results, as far as I’ve seen.

    I can’t find as much information about Criminon, and Applied Scholastics is a different field altogether, so let’s focus on Narconon for now.

  278. Comment by McBeef on March 3, 2008 4:11 am

    I checked the website & FAQ, not very thuroughly I confess, but I was wondering what the official explanation was for L Ron having gained all of this divine info?
    Was it that he was inspired, son of god, genius, or what?

    Thanks!

    PS – also why does everything cost so dang much? Even yoga classes cost only 12 pounds/class (source: very hasty googling)

  279. Comment by simiia on March 2, 2008 10:15 am

    Hi, I have a similar question as soruw.

    I asked an OTVII about the resemblance of the Scientology cross and the Christian one. She told me about the 8 dynamics and that the cross was a much older symbol, than Christianity. To my knowledge, the Latin Cross was first used as a Christian symbol. Only crosses with equal length of the 4 sides were used before.

    If this is indeed the stance on the Scientology symbol(latin cross around for much longer), do you know of any cultures or groups who used it?

    If you disagree with this, do you believe that the Scientology cross was influenced by the OTO crossed out cross(Aleister Crowleys) or the Rosy cross, since Hubbard was briefly involved with both the Rosicrucians and OTO?

  280. Comment by soruw on March 1, 2008 12:23 am

    Thanks for the speedy reply. But I have more! Always more, unfortunately.

    Does the unevenness of the 8 points represent anything? Why did Hubbard choose a modified Christian cross?

    How have Christians dealt with the idea of reincarnation? Do many just stop on the bridge?

    I have read some of the Basics, but I haven’t been able to find Hubbard’s actual research. From what I’ve read, these are just his conclusions based on the research. I want the actual research. It is very important for me to be able to look at the hard numbers that support Hubbard’s claims. I am always skeptical of news articles that conclude such and such study proves this or that, and so I always try to read the research reports with which the article supports its claim.
    So I know it’s probably been over 50 years since Hubbard did this research, and his experiments may be hard to come by, but I’d really appreciate some more information.

    If you don’t mind I’d like to ask a personal question, I think it may answer my question better. What parts of your religion do you accept on faith alone, and what parts do you feel are general truth that should be accepted by everyone, no matter what faith?

  281. Comment by Lu on February 29, 2008 11:41 pm

    @Comment by soruw on February 29, 2008 11:11 pm

    “What does the eight pointed Scientology cross represent?”

    Eight dynamics, that is urges to survive. I have updated the definition for it on the ScientologyMyths.info website, so you can get the complete picture and I just added a definition for the Scientology Cross on the page.

    “In order to practice Scientology, does one have to believe in reincarnation?”

    Reincarnation is a definite system and is not part of Scientology. It is a fact that unless one begins to handle problems built up in past lives, he doesn’t progress. Past lives is not a dogma in Scientology, but generally Scientologists, during their auditing, experience a past life and then know for themselves that they have lived before.
    (more details here: http://www.scientology.org/religion/catechism/pg011.html)

    “Could two people interested in Scientology practice the religion in their own home, without the support of a congregation?”

    To an extent. You need to be trained in Scientology to properly practice all of it. The training is done in Churches of Scientology or Scientology Missions. Sure you can practice at home. If you however practice auditing outside of a Church (which is possible) it however is smart to hook up with professional auditors in a church or other group to make sure that any mistakes are caught and corrected.

    “What parts of Scientology must be accepted on faith, and what parts were found through scientific research by Hubbard? Are Hubbard’s studies released anywhere that I can access?”

    Wow, on the first part: It is possible to sort this out but quite some work. You can however find out yourself by studying what is called the “Basics” in Scientology. That is the research track of L. Ron Hubbard, his lectures and books which led to Scientology in its final form. The “Basics” cover 18 books and 280 lectures in chronological order (more here: http://www.goldenageofknowledge.net). If you don’t want to buy them: Ask your local public or university library. There are regular library donation drives to make these materials available to everyone. Each Church of Scientology also has a library with all those materials available for study in a reading room.

    – Lu

  282. Comment by soruw on February 29, 2008 11:11 pm

    Hello! I have a couple pretty simple questions, I hope you can answer them.

    What does the eight pointed Scientology cross represent?

    In order to practice Scientology, does one have to believe in reincarnation?

    Could two people interested in Scientology practice the religion in their own home, without the support of a congregation?

    What parts of Scientology must be accepted on faith, and what parts were found through scientific research by Hubbard? Are Hubbard’s studies released anywhere that I can access?

    Thanks in advance!

  283. Comment by Lu on February 29, 2008 7:32 pm

    @Comment by Ed on February 27, 2008 3:29 am

    Sorry it took me so long to come back to your question on Hubbard’s contact to Aleister Crowley. Your statement is basically a long list of allegations so I had some trouble actually finding a question, and then it turned out to be a rhetorical one. Anyway, here we go:

    The statement of Hubbard you quote is made in 1952. It is ironical and you understand it that way if you actually listen to the tape and then not only to that one half-sentence but actually to the whole section. I thought I had seen the full quote in Wikipedia but when I checked today someone had taken it out, too much truth, you know (I LOVE Wikipedia, playground of propagandists of all kinds).

    Aside from that, take the time in which he makes this statement. He is doing a public lecture in a time when Crowley was persona non grata in most British circles and in a time when the US Government would consider someone a security threat if he would be “a friend” of Crowley. Why would Hubbard put himself in such a position? He wouldn’t. But even if that would be the case. In the remaining lecture that day Hubbard discards a lot of what Crowley had to say, to prove him wrong. As you yourself point out, Hubbard and Crowley most likely never met and if so, wouldn’t be fond of each other because Hubbard damaged Crowleys group. Again, as so often with this allegations, it is only based on fragmentary quotes nicely misinterpreted. That’s called propaganda.

    – Lu

  284. Comment by Lu on February 29, 2008 7:22 pm

    Comment by anmn on February 27, 2008 12:57 am

    “Certainly some aspects of Criminon, Narconon, and Applied Scholastics can be scientifically tested. They profess to get people off drugs or increase their learning ability. Are there any non-first-party references showing such things?”

    There are. Testimonies galore of those who got rehabilitated, off drugs or who got rid of their learning problems by a program which uses Hubbard’s technology. And there are studies as well in the various areas. I remember having read or glanced through a couple of them. That will be quite some digging. What program are you into? Criminon, Narconon, Applied Scholastics?

    – Lu

  285. Comment by Lu on February 29, 2008 7:20 pm

    @Comment by anmn on February 27, 2008 12:24 am

    On CoS “legal tactics” you said: Source is Exhibit G from the Fishman Declaration, a magazine article written by Hubbard.

    A magazine article by Hubbard, exactly. I dug a bit and I actually found it. Here is what this is about: In 1955 Dianetics and Scientology went in full swing and there were several groups building up practicing their “own brew” of Scientology practices. Which, as you will remember, can be harmful of done the wrong way or mixed with
    screwed up ideas. Hubbard was confronted with this and for this specific circumstances instructed his lawyers to stop this wildfire of idiocy with injunctions. No word about “critics” and nothing in the full article mentions anything do be done to “critics”. The article’s main issue is to present a new (and first) membership organization for Scientologists (called HASI). Also, being a magazine article in 1955 it never became policy of the Church nor a guideline for any other situation later on. The link you provided goes to an outright anti-Scientology page whose creator – nicely in alignment with the rest of the propaganda there – has left out the correct time and circumstances of the quote. Sorry, but you have been mislead.

    On ex-members. “Also, objectively, just because they seem to be fanatics is not a reason to disbelieve them. So why should I believe either side over the other?”

    I would expect nobody to blindly believe either side. Any heated discussion has lies or at leaste exaggerations in it. That is inherent of emotional talks. But I expect you to make up your mind equally and that means that you can’t just concentrate of evaluating
    one sided data. In this sense, welcome to this blog again, and I am happy that you are here.

    A thought on critics who are neither ex-members nor in any profession dealing with religion, theology etc: Mark Bunker for example is a provocateur and has never been anything else but that, hiding being his camera. I don’t know what his beef if and when
    it comes to his personal motivation he gets pretty vague. Well, whatever he thinks is in for him, I doubt he will get it that way. But as mentioned earlier I am not into “criticising the critics” but into allegations about Scientology. I just want to give you an idea to chew on.

    – Lu

  286. Comment by Marge on February 29, 2008 6:17 am

    “C. Dave Miscavige and other top tier CoS execs do not live the squalid lives detailed in the allegations. Much the opposite and far from humble.”

    Please provide your source. According to the IRS’s intensive investigation into Scientology and its leadership, Miscavige’s quarters are very humble. And just as Richard Gere is friends with and has spent much publicized time with the Dalai Lama, I see nothing wrong with Tom Cruise being friends with and spending time with David Miscavige.

    “D. It really goes unspoken that, if a foreign child in America who either doesn’t or can’t speak English, doesn’t have papers identifying them, is under 24/7 surveillance, and has no one to turn to cannot leave the CoS of their own volition.”

    “Has no one to turn to?” Who says? It is every parent’s responsibility (and right) to choose and provide the childcare and guardianship of their choosing.

    This whole thing is bordering on the ridiculous.

  287. Comment by Marge on February 29, 2008 5:57 am

    [From repost from NotQuiteAnonymous]
    OtB wrote: “She did make one valid point. The point about other faiths and children and it made me think about monks in China.”
    Well, then you should also have thought about the children of devoutly Catholic parents. And the children of devoutly religious Amish. And the children of devoutly religious Christian Scientists. And the children of devoutly religious Orthodox Jews.
    Every single religion out there could be sensationalized and made to look horrible against children. It is especially easy to do to the newer ones, as their unfamiliarity makes them easy targets.
    “if Chinese monks brought that system to America would we attack it the same way?”
    They have been brought to the US. They are called Buddhist monasteries. They exist all over the US.
    “Now, the big difference as I see it…in China, those kids can leave at any second of the day.”

    In the US, it’s called “running away”. When the kids get caught, they get sent back to their parents. If their parents run a devoutly Catholic household or live in an Amish community or are in the Sea Org or are in a Buddhist monastery, then the kids still get returned to the parents. And if the parents are “out of town” for religious purposes, then it’s the parents job to pre-arrange for childcare and/or guardianship for their children.
    “Accusations is the stage it is in now.”
    No, sensationalism and FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) is the stage that it’s in right now. When we get beyond the point where an “Anonymous” person gives a generalized “tip”, then we’ll be at the point where actual accusations can be followed up on and taken seriously.

    “I have to differ with her though. They have security to provide public safety, it seems CoS has it to keep people in, and to attack”

    That’s kinda funny because Scientology has been literally under attack by “Anonymous” for a few weeks now, against their websites, phone and fax systems. And phone threats have been made. And “white powder” mysteriously showed up at Scientology churches shortly after Anonymous attacks began. In recent years past, people have gone to jail for making bomb threats against Scientology churches.

    And you really think that Scientologists don’t feel the need for security for safety reasons?

    “She also claimed that the video of the kid on inquiry was told to do it as a covert operation against the church to destroy or take it over.”

    You threw me on this one. I think you better go back and re-read my response. I didn’t say anything even remotely similar to this.

    “Scientology has to open its doors”

    Doors are always open. Policies are broadly published. You need to simply refuse to believe the FUD, hook.line.sinker.

  288. Comment by Ed on February 28, 2008 11:22 pm

    “Whoa”

  289. Comment by NotQuiteAnonymous on February 28, 2008 10:15 pm

    “If OtB or you would like to respond to my comments above, I’d be happy to engage in a rational conversation here.”

    In other words, you refuse to respond unless I post the copypasta here. Don’t make me do this. I *hate* copypasta. But if you insist, and with my apologies to Lu, here goes.

    From Off the Bridge, at 8:57 PM 27 Feb 2008:

    “well, maybe I threw caution to the wind, I went and saw Marge’s response on that site, did not post so I dunno if they got my address from a hit or not. I want to be completely unbiased.

    Over there she was much more open and willing with information and I am very thankful for that. She did make one valid point. The point about other faiths and children and it made me think about monks in China. The kids live a tough life….saw it on Fight Quest, no chairs when they eat, and they only eat rice. Rigorous training all day, meager quarters. Removing time the religion has existed from the equation is it so different? I am saying she makes a good point. What it really does is make me wonder…if Chinese monks brought that system to America would we attack it the same way?

    Now, the big difference as I see it…in China, those kids can leave at any second of the day. From the report, your children cannot. And sorry, I think thats when this goes into the realm of abuse. Also, the Chinese monks are transparent…like I said, I saw this on Fight Quest. If your religion ever wants to make it, you have to have transparency, which leads back to the ‘what are you hiding?’ question.

    Her answer to my first question however was a throw away. I know we are innocent until proven guilty, but accusations lead to trial where that is put to the test. Accusations is the stage it is in now.

    She also compares Catholic security to that of CoS. I have to differ with her though. They have security to provide public safety, it seems CoS has it to keep people in, and to attack, I’m sorry Marge, there are just too many cases. She also claimed that the video of the kid on inquiry was told to do it as a covert operation against the church to destroy or take it over. So that takes the argument back to I say this they say that. The point is, the audio tape speaks for itself. She also goes on to say she would deff report abuses to the authorities.

    Marge, I know you’ve gotten slack here, but thank you for answering questions in a responsible way, even if not here. Yes, I’m afraid to post anything there. I’ve heard to many horror stories.

    Honestly Marge, with this much accusation against your church, I have to say, Scientology has to open its doors and just show the world this is what we’ve been hiding! If the church doesn’t, then it just looks worse and worse and worse.

    Like I said Anons, please don’t hate on me or Marge and co. I was trying to be unbiased with those questions and how I handled them….I hope it worked, and yes, thanks to both sides of the argument I get it more now.”

    And, because I’m feeling generous, here’s a two-for-one deal on responses.

    From Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend’s Back!, at 10:50 PM 28 Feb 2008:

    “OTB in regards to the valid point Marge made, some counterpoints:

    A. China is mostly a third world country where a large majority live in similar conditions. This would be more the rule than the exception in China when compared to the populace as a whole.

    B. Chinese monastic orders have been around for centuries and thus have a very rich histories and traditions that date back to before Tang/Song dynasty when chairs were first introduced. Chinese, much like the Japanese, used to sit on the floor while they ate.

    C. Monks live a humble life devoid of the creature comforts western society takes for granted. The treatment is essentially the same across the board in those Monastic orders. For example, you won’t see the head of the order going on vacations with celebrities and making their homes in mansions.

    D. Yes, they are subject to extensive training and study that many would consider grueling, however, this is a personal journey of discipline and enlightenment that, as you said, any young monk-in-training can depart from of his own volition.

    How these points translate into arguments against the CoS are as follows:

    A. The country where these allegations stem from (the US) is not a third world country but is, in fact, by definition, a first world country and the conditions described in these allegations are and exception and not the rule.

    B. The CoS does not have this history of tradition where these allegations are concerned. Even if they did, the laws governing the land in which it operates criminalizes them.

    C. Dave Miscavige and other top tier CoS execs do not live the squalid lives detailed in the allegations. Much the opposite and far from humble.

    D. It really goes unspoken that, if a foreign child in America who either doesn’t or can’t speak English, doesn’t have papers identifying them, is under 24/7 surveillance, and has no one to turn to cannot leave the CoS of their own volition.

    This could go on forever, but, in my opinion, comparing the children of a Chinese Monastic order and the children of an American CoS is more like apples and oranges.”

  290. Comment by Lake on February 28, 2008 10:11 pm

    Ed wrote: “I’ve read both sides and both are to the extreme.”

    Well, the only way to get to the bottom of all this is to put aside what either side says, and just go to the horse’s mouth. LRH was more than willing to admit mistakes throughout his life. He freely brings up his horrible grades at GWU, various run-ins in the Navy, and many other things that are painted as “discovered by the critics”.

    And in the end, most Scientologists don’t really care about LRH’s life, etc. I mean its fascinating and a curiosa, but to most Scientologists, it’s whether Scientology works. And thats the test of whether they join and/or stay in Scientology or not.

  291. Comment by Ed on February 28, 2008 9:36 pm

    I doubt he did either. or he’d perhaps stayed within that circle a little longer.
    And I must apologies for my earlier post and its spelling errors, lol Was about 10 mins out of bed and having coffee not yet awake. I cannott see too well and in the mornings it is worse.So please forgive.
    As far as the checkered past it is I that describes it that way. The man went to and did alot of strange things . It is not everyday that one sets out to assist in bringing fourth an avatar of the apocalypse. Ever read up on the babalyon working and what was involved?
    very interesting ritual that Ron participated in. He was Jack’s right hand man,,his scribe (not the leading role as in my earlier post) and nor was it w/ Betty at all
    Marjorie Cammeron was the “vessel” for this moonchild that they were attempting to create.
    Either way Ron was a facinating man . The good and bad things he had done. But now in the present day his legacy lives on under severe controversy. To understand the man one must know where he comes from . The church seems to not want to admit that he did anything wrong in his life and paintsd him as a saint (more or less) When anyone brings fourth his colorful past they are met w/ extreme oppisition… Sometimes people make bad choices while learning about life and in the thick of it.That does not make one a total nutjob by any means.
    I have never read anything about Ron’s state of mind upon leaving the OTO and Jack. Could it be that it just creeped him out that bad? And if the Navy did send him there to break up a “black magic” ring ,, why the Navy ??in the first place.I’d think that the F.B.I or some other agency would be more apt to take on that task. Plus there is no evidence to support this at all. No FOIA docs? Plenty on Ron himself,, and Jack for that matter. But surely there would be “somthing” to credit that story.
    If LRH were alive today would he praise the way things are or shake his head in disbelief that so many got him wrong,, missed his point
    “hey,I’m just trying to help”
    I’ve read both sides and both are to the extreme . And further more I do try looking at the big picture w/ alot of empathy. Robert Plant said it best
    “and it makes me wonder”
    But I no more believe the Zenu story than those freaky Raelians and Rael who proclaims himself a prophet.
    For a laugh or two go over to their main site and look at the vid for their seminars.
    He says…
    “If you were wanting to meet w/ Jesus or Budda,, I am sorry but it is too late. But w/ me ,,you still can”. I just want one of those cool white jumpsuits that he wears ,lol
    Back to my point though
    Scientology seems to be built on a shakey foundation at best and now will forever have to play clean-up for this I’m afraid. .Sucessful? surely but w/ a price. Do you think that this will ever go away for them?Will Scientology ever stabalize itself ? There is alot of good that comes from helping people.But at the price that they are asking for that help I must go the “self help” route.
    BTW body thetens are no more than your conscience mind in my POV and mine has saved me from doing some really stupid thing in the past ,, and hopefully in the future too.

  292. Comment by Lake on February 28, 2008 4:30 pm

    Ed wrote: “The main thing I observe is that the guy had a checkered past all through his years but is reveared as some sort of savior.”

    Oddly, his “past” was not described as checkered by anyone, until he developed Dianetics and Scientology. In fact, he was a well-known, popular author.

    For whatever bizarre reason, history has shown us time and time again that some people really really hate it when someone starts a religion. And suddenly we see all sorts of “stories” appear, when before there were none.

    I doubt Ron saw much value in “black magick”. I think it is entirely feasible that Ron was sent in to break it up. He had been an intelligence officer, and the fact that he was a well-known sci-fi author in that crowd (along with Heinlein and van Vogt) made him fit right in.

    Further, the court didn’t “side with Parsons”. The assets were split. Ron ended up with the boat, and Parson’s ended up with the cash.

  293. Comment by Ed on February 28, 2008 2:00 pm

    Then why the story about LRH being on a mission to break up the OTO ? Paints him as some sort of hero or liberator.
    The courts findings on Allied ent were that LRH left town w/ $$ from the business the he and JWP shared. (and Betty too) Jack was awarded damages in a court of law but recovered little of his money back. Perhaps participating in the Babalyon working was too weird even for LRH and he felt the need to leave. But when you are found guilty in court for taking that which is not yours ,that earns you the title if a theif.
    The main thing I observe is that the guy had a checkered past all through his years but is reveared as some sort of savior. Blows me away how some of the vids show homage to his image as almost God-like.
    But would also not want to discount that a person such as this could write and ogrinize something that could enlighten so many. Diainetics seems to be lodgical and one could use it for self help. But the stories,secrets, bullshit? cmon ,,it was all unessary.
    I was going to make a point here but have to go on call now . Surely this argument over this guy and his past will never settle or die ,, just a little scary as to what it has become.
    more later…

  294. Comment by Marge on February 28, 2008 4:05 am

    Thanks for the heads-up, NotQuiteAnonymous. As I said, I’m done with glosslip. If OtB or you would like to respond to my comments above, I’d be happy to engage in a rational conversation here.

  295. Comment by NotQuiteAnonymous on February 28, 2008 3:36 am

    Marge: not sure if you’ve stopped READING GlossLip as opposed to just COMMENTING there, but Off The Bridge did see your response to his/her three questions and has posted his/her thoughts about it.

    http://glosslip.com/2008/02/26/children-of-scientology-have-history-of-abuse/#comment-26613

  296. Comment by Lake on February 28, 2008 2:15 am

    Ed wrote: “but we have plenty of very reliable evidence which supports what he says about LRH being into black magic”

    LRH was into all areas of human knowledge, Ed. In his 1951 book “Science of Survival” he acknowledges “fifty thousand years of thinking men, without whose work Dianetics could never have been formulated.”

    In his 1954 book “The Creation of Human Ability”, LRH says “Subjects which were consulted in the organization and development of Scientology include the Veda; the Tao, by Lao-Tzu; the Dharma and the discourses of Gautama Buddha; the general knowingness about life extant in the lamaseries of the Western Hills of China; the technologies and beliefs of various barbaric cultures; the various materials of Christianity, including St. Luke; the mathematical and technical methodologies of the early Greeks, Romans and Arabians; the physical sciences, including what is now known as nuclear physics; the various speculations of Western philosophers such as Kant, Nietzche, Shopenhauer, Herbert Spencer and Dewey; and the various technologies extant in the civilizations of both the Orient and Occident in the first half of the twentieth century.”

    With regard to Aleister Crowley and “magick”, I don’t really see the connection to the subject. Magick involves “rituals”, “spells”, “incantations” and general symbology and superstition. Scientology is really the opposite of all this. I guess there are some ideas about “causation” and some philosophical similarities, but in effect, these appear to have been borrowed from eastern philosophy by Crowley anyway.

    The quote by LRH that you provide “my good friend Aleister Crowley” — if you listen to the audio tape — is made as a joke, particularly the “friend” part. The Church and Ron acknowledge Ron’s “association” in 1947 with the Parson’s group and Crowley, as the ScientologyMyth site notes. Perhaps the article was written by Ron. So it came from the horse’s mouth. Even better.

    But I think in the end, so what? LRH studied many many subjects in his development of Dianetics and Scientology. If Scientology is indeed “an organization of the pertinencies which are mutually held true by all men in all times”, then it surely would have been a lack of research on Ron’s part not to have at least investigated “magick” and taken from it, if anything, what he found useful and workable. In my view, at least from a cursory view of “magick”, I just don’t see that he took that much, that wasn’t already in eastern philosophy.

  297. Comment by Lake on February 28, 2008 1:20 am

    anmn wrote: “I don’t think the critics are unreasonable. I watched Mark Bunker get harassed by a trio of Scientologists on a public street just for holding a camera.”

    And I watched a group of Scientologists and their families, gathering peacefully on the street outside their Church, being harassed by Mark Bunker with a camera and offensive anti-Scientology rants.

  298. Comment by Lake on February 28, 2008 1:11 am

    anmn said: “science is dynamic. It doesn’t profess to have all of the answers. Science changes, it advances, it throws out untenable conclusions and adopts more correct ones. It’s critically reviewed and logically supported.”

    anmn, I believe that you are confusing “science” with the “scientific method”. The former changes, the latter does not. The latter, like Scientology, is seen as an imperfect, workable “applied philosophy” that is expected to be followed precisely by its practitioners – scientists.

    Further, the “scientific method” is an approach that helps society find “objective truths” to help them understand and master the physical universe around us. The “scientology method” is an approach that helps an *individual* find “subjective truths” in order to help him understand and master his own internal universe. The results of both of these approaches never end, and continually change. They are dynamic, as you say.

    The results of the “scientific method” is science — a set of objective truths that can be observed by all of us.

    The result of Scientology is personal truth — observable first and foremost by the individual.

    You will also notice that Scientologists do not generally object to the science of neurology or neuroscience … or even neurosurgery. It is when you get into the fields of “psychosurgery” that Scientologists object.

    The brain is an actual organ. It can have real diseases. When these diseases are indeed REAL (as opposed to the pretend “diseases” like ADHD, bipolar disorder, depression, etc.), a physical, sometimes surgical approach, may in fact be warranted.

    There are of course gray areas (no pun intended). But I for one, as a Scientologist of over 25 years, am all in favor of brain research.

    I’m just not in favor of drugging, shocking or cutting up healthy brains in the name of “mental health” simply because the brain and body are going through a chemical change as a result of changes in emotions.

    It is in fact a naturopathic approach. Scientologists are not the only ones who hold these views.
    http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/
    http://www.naturopathic.org/

  299. Comment by Marge on February 28, 2008 12:23 am

    OntheBridge wrote: “People saying child abuses going on in Scientology. [For the] people who are defending Scientology:
    “1. What proof do you have it is not happening today?”

    You are asking Scientologists to defend a negative. Isn’t it up to those making the accusations to actually provide the proof?

    Anyone can throw around accusations all day. Scientologists live by the Hubbard credo “Love and help children.” As evidence, you will note that the “Youth for Human Rights” campaign (which promotes the teaching of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to youth) is fully supported by Scientologists and mainstream media.

    OntheBridge wrote: “2. Do you deny the history as claimed in [the glossip anti-Scientology site] piece?”

    Which history? Please be specific. The first video at the site appears to be a German media anti-Scientology propaganda piece. You will note that the recently reported “Germans Shutting down a Scientology kindergarten” was done for no other reason than that it was being run by people who used the educational methods developed by L. Ron Hubbard. Germany is annually criticized by the US Government for its human rights abuses against Scientologists, and literally anyone who might see some benefit in what L. Ron Hubbard had to say is “considered a cult member”. It’s extreme bigotry.

    With regard to the content, it’s out of context and sort of slapped together to make Scientology look evil. This could be done with any religion. The video points out Scientology’s use of security to keep themselves out of harm’s way. This is not news — it is done by everyone, including other churches. One current example: the Catholic Church uses security for themselves, well published when the Pope was forced to ride in a bullet-proof car that rode through the public streets. The Vatican has an extensive security detail around their building(s).

    If there are other specific questions from that video, please post them. (I provide additional information on issues facing those wanting to join the Sea Org at the end of this article.)

    One note: the former Scientologist “Gerry Armstrong” who is interviewed in this first video, was literally exposed on an audio-tape in the early 80s as saying “just f*cking allege wrongdoing” against the Church of Scientology, when no wrong-doing could be found. This whole thing was documented by a former Scientologist, Vicki Aznaran, who was sickened by the lengths of deceit that some of her fellow former Scientologists were going to to attack the new Church leadership (many were part of an unsuccessful attempt to take over church management, and have never forgiven the new church management since that time):
    http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/Aznaran.htm

    The above statements will of course be attacked as “attack the attacker” strategy. But sorry — if someone is going around saying “just f*cking allege wrongdoing”, then this needs to be exposed. And further, if there is a single accusation made by Armstrong or the German propaganda machine, that has not already been addressed thoroughly at this or the Church’s site, then please let me know. And if it’s been addressed, but inadequately, then please provide follow-up questions here.

    OntheBridge wrote: “If so how do you answer for the video of the kid that seems to be on some kind of inquiry?”

    Looks like a deposition or a witness account in a court case to me, in some US Court of Law, from about 13 years ago. What in particular would you like an answer to? The Church (and this site) have taken up the actual definition of an SP, “fair game”, “disconnection”. Do you have follow-up questions? Are there additional points you would like responses to?

    OntheBridge wrote: “3. Hypothetically: ‘You see abuses that the author and others are talking about going on at your church’ What do you do? Would you tell authorities?”

    Of course I would tell authorities. But let’s be specific. What “abuses” are we talking about. If the above Germany “kindergarten story” is true, then according to them, just teaching people a study method developed by Hubbard is an “abuse”. Sorry, but this is clearly bigotry. The supporters of L. Ron Hubbard’s study methods were not doing anything illegal. They were simply exercising their right to teach in a way that they felt was best.

    So I suspect that the anti-Scientologists are simply trying to bamboozle people into thinking that “just using Scientology” is “abuse”.

    With regard to children and the Sea Org. If an individual of ANY religion decides they want to dedicate their lives to their Church — and they are married or have children — then they clearly have some difficult decisions to make. If any devoutly religious individual (with children and/or a spouse) decides to become a nun or a priest or a Buddhist monk etc. in the middle of life, isn’t this quite similar (other than the celibacy part) to what an individual Scientologist faces if s/he decides to join the Sea Org?

    These same questions and issues are common to all faiths.

    The fact of the matter is, most Scientologists with young children don’t join the Sea Org — the Sea Org is simply too time-consuming. I have also heard recently that as of the late 80s or early 90s, it is no longer allowed to join the Sea Org if you have young children.

    Scientologists have an overriding belief that “Today’s children will become tomorrow’s civilization” and “the way to happiness has on its route the loving and the helping of children from babyhood to the brink of adult life.” (both LRH, Way to Happiness booklet.)

  300. Comment by Lu on February 27, 2008 10:43 pm

    @Comment by YetAnotherAnon on February 27, 2008 10:18 am

    Deleted. Read the FAQ. No spamming allowed.

    – Lu

  301. Comment by Ed on February 27, 2008 3:29 am

    Thanks Lu but I’ll just post this for now as it say about what I was going to bring up .
    I’ve studied The whole OTO,Crowley, Jack Parsons,Babalyon working and what became of it quite a bit. Have even found strange relationships to many in the entertainment industry to this day. Surely there must be some bigger connection to all of it ( I keep digging ) But did find a post about LRH and documents to back alot of what is being said .. Here it is … sorry for the lenth of the read,, but my question remains .

    This is actually the Penthouse interview with L. Ron Hubbard JR. — not the L. Ron Hubbard who founded Scientology, but his son. Scientologists will claim that LRH Jr. is not a reliable source of information, but we have plenty of very reliable evidence which supports what he says about LRH being into black magic. It is of course well-known that Hubbard spent a period of time living in Pasadena with Jack Parsons, a follower of Aleister Crowley’s Ordo Templi Orientis, and performing magickal rituals with him and with Sara “Betty” Northrup, who would become Hubbard’s second wife (albeit by a bigamous marriage). Parsons documented the rituals, including Hubbard’s leading role, in his diaries and his correspondence to Crowley.

    Now, Scientologists, if they know of that portion of Hubbard’s past at all, may believe Hubbard’s misrepresentation that as “an officer of the U.S. Navy”, he was “was sent in to handle” the situation of Jack Parsons, a rocket scientist, and other rocket scientists supposedly residing with Parsons, being involved with “the infamous English black magician Aleister Crowley who called himself ‘The Beast 666′” and that “Hubbard’s mission was successful far beyond anyone’s expectations. The house was torn down. Hubbard rescued a girl they were using. The black magic group was dispersed and destroyed and has never recovered. The physicists included many of the sixty-four top U .S. scientists who were later declared insecure and dismissed from government service with so much publicity.” (The quotes in this paragraph are all from a paragraph printed in the Sunday Times in 1969. Scientologists have been known to claim that these are the claims of the Sunday Times itself, but the Sunday Times made it clear that they were only reprinting, verbatim, a statement originating from the Church of Scientology. Later, the original of the statement was submitted as evidence in a trial; the original was found to be in Hubbard’s handwriting.)

    The statement is of course, self-serving, but that is not the sole reason it should be discounted. It should be discounted for a number of other reasons, starting with the claims in it which are contrary to known fact. For starters, the house was not torn down. Hubbard did run away with Parsons’ girlfriend Sara Northrup and with much of Parsons’ money, but this hardly caused the “black magic group” to be “dispersed”, much less “destroyed”: Parsons continued his black magic activities until he died in a laboratory accident in 1952 — six years after Hubbard’s departure. There is no evidence that any physicists, other than Parsons, lived at the house; there is no evidence that any physicist, not even Parsons, lost their security clearance due to any action of Hubbard’s.

    But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Hubbard actually did go on a mission to break up Parsons’ black magic group, and merely misreported on a huge scale the success of his mission. This is not at all plausible, but let us just suppose it for the sake of argument. Hubbard might have misheard what happened to the house; what happened to Parsons; what happened to “the other physicists” — but is it plausible that he would have forgotten that “the infamous English black magician Aleister Crowley” was so bad that those physicists needed to be rescued from their association with him? In Hubbard’s 1952 “Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures” he referred to “Aleister Crowley, the late Aleister Crowley, my very good friend.” So, IF Hubbard’s accounts were honest — then in 1946 Aleister Crowley was an “infamous English black magician” from whom Hubbard was rescuing people, in 1952 Crowley was Hubbard’s “very good friend”, and then in 1969 Crowley was an “infamous black magician” again. Can anyone find this plausible? Isn’t it obvious instead that Hubbard was instead participating in black magic in 1946 with Parsons, name-dropping Crowley in 1952 in front of an audience that would be impressed by such a connection, and then disavowing all that in 1969 when the audience he was trying to attract were the kind of people who would look askance at experimenting with black magic? Crowley was not Hubbard’s “very good friend” at any point, by the way — there’s no evidence that the two men ever met, and Crowley’s only known correspondence on the subject of Hubbard calls him a “lout” playing “the ordinary confidence trick” on Parsons

  302. Comment by Lu on February 27, 2008 1:43 am

    @Comment by Ed on February 27, 2008 1:03 am

    “I would like to address a few questions to you concerning J.W Parsons and LRH but would prefer to off of here. My understanding of the history the two men share is very different from what you have here. Is there anyway of posting these questions to you away from this board?”

    There is. Send me an email at scientologymyths(at)yahoo.com .

    – Lu

  303. Comment by Ed on February 27, 2008 1:03 am

    I would like to address a few questions to you concerning J.W Parsons and LRH but would prefer to off of here.
    My understanding of the history the two men share is very different from what you have here. Is there anyway of posting these questions to you away from this board?
    Thank You

  304. Comment by anmn on February 27, 2008 12:57 am

    >I think the bottom line here is that psychiatry has failed to show results but eats up a lot of funding for that.

    I notice now that my attitude here is becoming similar to a creation vs evolution argument. You have the tech; creationists have the Bible; I have science. But, in both cases, science is dynamic. It doesn’t profess to have all of the answers. Science changes, it advances, it throws out untenable conclusions and adopts more correct ones. It’s critically reviewed and logically supported.

    The World Psychiatric Association has a code of ethics here: http://www.wpanet.org/generalinfo/ethic1.html Whether you agree with it or not, it is about as official as you’ll find, and it specifically prohibits certain acts you allege to be inherent in psychiatry today.

    Certainly some aspects of Criminon, Narconon, and Applied Scholastics can be scientifically tested. They profess to get people off drugs or increase their learning ability. Are there any non-first-party references showing such things?

    >Happy pills?

    No. Science.

  305. Comment by anmn on February 27, 2008 12:24 am

    >Source? I think that the law can be used to harass and that there are numerous legal tactics which can feel very harassing to the person at the other end. Churches of Scientology have been subject to such harassment and sure the Church has done the same.

    Source is Exhibit G from the Fishman Declaration, a magazine article written by Hubbard. Reprinted, in part, here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Declaration/exhibg.html

    It’s one thing to acknowledge that certain legal tactics may be perceived as harassment, but it’s another to see LRH’s written order to harass and ruin critics.

    >Did you find the answer? The problem with ex-members is that they seem to be so fanatic and overreacting.

    I found your answer, yes, and replied to it in the other post.

    I’ll admit that some ex-scientologists do sound like conspiracy theorists. Others are much more reasonable.

    Also, objectively, just because they seem to be fanatics is not a reason to disbelieve them.

    So why should I believe either side over the other?

    I don’t think the critics are unreasonable. I watched Mark Bunker get harassed by a trio of Scientologists on a public street just for holding a camera. I watched Tory Christman talk about several good friends of hers, young and smart people, who committed suicide. She blames the CoS. I watched Jenna Miscavige talk about going to school one day a week as a teenager. I watched Lawrence Wollersheim talk about getting paid millions for the physical and psychological suffering he endured while in the Church.

    Are all of these people lying? If they’re telling the truth, what would be a more reasonable way to say it?

  306. Comment by Lu on February 27, 2008 12:01 am

    @Comment by HeartAnon on February 26, 2008 11:42 pm

    “Delete this if you want I’m just venting.”

    Ok.

    – Lu

  307. Comment by Lu on February 27, 2008 12:00 am

    @Comment by anmn on February 26, 2008 11:35 pm

    >>Psychiatry will have to explain why they have no results, or why their “results” are apathetic people who “suddenly” turn from good guys for example into mass murders, like some of the recent school shooters.
    >I think you will have to first show that this is not simply correlation, like the dihydrogen monoxide scare. For example, an alternate hypothesis may read: Depression is on the rise in the last few decades. Depression causes people to seek psychological treatment. Depression can also lead to violent acts.

    I think the bottom line here is that psychiatry has failed to show results but eats up a lot of funding for that.

    >For particularly violent surgical methods, look up split-brain surgery and hemispherectomy. Both are terribly invasive
    >but serve to reduce the effect of harmful seizures in a person, with few or no negative effects.

    Butchers… Listen, though I could go a long way debating psychiatry, this blog is about Scientology. Let’s stick to that.

    >Now that I think about it, I’m having a hard time separating psychology and psychiatry. Both aim to improve lives through >thorough understanding of the brain and the mind. Do you draw the line at drugs, or do you oppose psychology as well?

    Psychology is sure smarter than psychiatry ever was and can show some of the promised results without drugs and harmful treatements. So I guess you could say I do not oppose psychology as long as it is not used for mind control.

    >>You can’t compare Scientology practices with psychiatric practices.
    >Can you compare Scientology practices with science in general? The scientific method is applied broadly across the hard and soft sciences.

    Probably not. Scientology works for me and others. It is a religion with religious principles and background and very workable, down to earth practices. A mix between belief and knowledge.

    >I have several close friends who were depressed and listless until they started psychological therapy. A few went on antidepressants. I won’t say I was overjoyed when I heard this, but I trust the doctors and scientists behind it. And guess what: now they are normal, happy, independent people. So, psychiatry works. Take it as anmn’s empirical data.

    Happy pills? I am happy to hear that your friends are doing good.

    – Lu

  308. Comment by anmn on February 26, 2008 11:35 pm

    >I assume you are refering to the Guardian’s Office once more?

    I think he’s referring to the quotes on the psychiatry page, almost all of which are from between 1940 and 1951. Sciences of all types have come a long way in the last sixty years.

    Also, I fail to see how psychiatry’s plans to infiltrate many parts of society are terrible things, when Scientology does the same with Narconon, Criminon, Applied Scholastics, and so on. Perhaps the language used in that 1940 speech was overly aggressive, but all areas of study seek to increase their breadth and impact.

    >Psychiatry will have to explain why they have no results, or why their “results” are apathetic people who “suddenly” turn from good guys for example into mass murders, like some of the recent school shooters.

    I think you will have to first show that this is not simply correlation, like the dihydrogen monoxide scare. For example, an alternate hypothesis may read: Depression is on the rise in the last few decades. Depression causes people to seek psychological treatment. Depression can also lead to violent acts.

    For particularly violent surgical methods, look up split-brain surgery and hemispherectomy. Both are terribly invasive but serve to reduce the effect of harmful seizures in a person, with few or no negative effects.

    Now that I think about it, I’m having a hard time separating psychology and psychiatry. Both aim to improve lives through thorough understanding of the brain and the mind. Do you draw the line at drugs, or do you oppose psychology as well?

    >You can’t compare Scientology practices with psychiatric practices.

    Can you compare Scientology practices with science in general? The scientific method is applied broadly across the hard and soft sciences.

    >Scientology technology works if applied in the required setting and by people honestly trained in it. Take it as “Lu’s empirical data”…

    I have several close friends who were depressed and listless until they started psychological therapy. A few went on antidepressants. I won’t say I was overjoyed when I heard this, but I trust the doctors and scientists behind it. And guess what: now they are normal, happy, independent people. So, psychiatry works. Take it as anmn’s empirical data.

  309. Comment by Lu on February 26, 2008 10:19 pm

    @Comment by i can haz chz brgr on February 25, 2008 1:02 am

    >http://www.scientologymyths.info/psychiatry/

    Ah, well, I give you that this is a very critical article about psychiatry but the sources are real and the story is true.

    “Anon: on another note… I noticed in your tirade upon psychiatry, that most of the dates mentioned are about 60 to 70 years ago….and in other parts of this site…well, you propose as a counterpoint to our arguments (in regards to actions and policies that have the same time frame) that the world changes after such long times. As well, the fact that psychiatry is a “proven science” makes your arguments seem false. How do counter this?
    (if you choose to reply do not go off on a tangent {this space reserved for you reply})”

    (I always reply. It’s a promise I made when establishing this blog.)

    I assume you are refering to the Guardian’s Office once more? Ok, how do I counter this? The nature of these two sets of information, chief organizers of worldwide psychiatry and a handful of Scientologists, is different. Psychiatric head organizations setting out to and making detailed plans about how to coax every citizen in harmful “psychiatric care” are not comparable to a group of criminal members of Scientology who have been violating Scientology administrative policies some 30 or 40 years ago and got jailed for their crimes. It’s just not comparable, neither in magnitude nor in principle.

    “Anon: Bear in mind that by discrediting the process psychiatrists use to verify their results is to discredit the whole of the scientific community as there is a universal system in which all data is processed known as the “Scientific method”.”

    Sure I do. Psychiatry will have to explain why they have no results, or why their “results” are apathetic people who “suddenly” turn from good guys for example into mass murders, like some of the recent school shooters.

    “Is the scientific method used in any of the auditing processes and “proven facts” of Scientology tech?”

    Again, don’t try to compare things which are not comparable. You can’t compare Scientology practices with psychiatric practices. Aside from the offense felt maybe even by both sides one is a religious practice concentrating on the spirit while the other is about the treatment of man as a chemical machine which turns a lot of people into vegetables.

    In anything I do and even before I knew what Scientology is I always was interested in results and the quality of those results. Scientology technology works if applied in the required setting and by people honestly trained in it. Take it as “Lu’s empirical data”…

    – Lu

  310. Comment by Lu on February 26, 2008 9:55 pm

    @Comment by anmn on February 25, 2008 2:55 am

    “You also called out my lack of evidence in one post, but I’m not sure how I’m supposed to back up my statements when you say I’m starting a link farm for posting 2-3 links per comment. For that matter, you haven’t been posting very many primary sources yourself, though the top of your page says you are only interested in them.”

    Just put a space in the URL and the spam filter won’t catch it.

    “What do you think of the RPF, the RPF’s RPF, and the Purification Rundown? Do you have any first- or second-hand experience with them?”

    Yes, no, yes. I updated the page on the RPF yesterday, so that should answer this part of your question. I think the most misunderstood part about the RPF is that it is ONLY for members of the Sea Organization. No member or Church staff can participate in this program, only Sea Org members, the fraternal order of Scientology whose members signed up to serve their religion for “a billion years” (which logically requires that you are born again after this life). For what the Sea Org is, see here. There are more sources on the net and also on the ScientologyMyths site in the RPF section.

    Purification Rundown. I did this detox program some years ago. It helped me to see colors again (before the program I saw more or less black/white or some faint colors). But that is not what the program is for. Scientologists do the Purification Rundown to get rid of chemical residues which block “clear thinking” and keep you down moodwise. For me it worked and I know quite a bunch of people with the same experience (the official description is here. A secular version of the program (that is, the fitness training parts of it, without parallel study of Scientology literature) exists as well, for example with the New York Detoxification Program, in Narconon, Criminon and other secular areas which took teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. The major difference here is the purpose: A Purification Rundown is done to get it of spiritual barriers based in the body. A secular detox program is done to regain health or to get rid of drug addiction.

    “What do you think of Miscavige’s recent reissuing of the basics?”

    You are asking for my opinion, so here it is: This was very well presented in a 3-hour long briefing last year and the books I took the time to compare with the old ones are in much better shape now. Not only the change to modern typesetting but also the inclusion of missing parts make them a better reading and gave me better comprehension of the material. I join the ranks of those who say that their understanding of basic Scientology principles grew a lot after re-reading the reissued books.

    “Did LRH really not notice his words being distorted for thirty years?”

    Watch the event. His words weren’t distorted, the books were incomplete or chapters in the wrong sequence. Yes, I believe that LRH did not read his own books.

    “What do you think of Hubbard’s policy of using the law to harass? The famous quote is: “The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win.”

    Source? I think that the law can be used to harass and that there are numerous legal tactics which can feel very harassing to the person at the other end. Churches of Scientology have been subject to such harassment and sure the Church has done the same. It’s dirty and it is not good. The right way to go about it is to talk more and get the parties together to sort it out, not to overuse the court system. Again my opinion, as you asked for it.

    “I also want to hear more about your thoughts on apostates, but I see someone else already asked that.”

    Did you find the answer? The problem with ex-members is that they seem to be so fanatic and overreacting. A cool, calm presentation of the facts would invite to sort things out. Aggression just produces counter-aggression and nobody wins in the end (and yes, I violate that rule occasionally if someone really pisses me off).

    – Lu

  311. Comment by Lu on February 26, 2008 9:22 pm

    @Comment by lu bu on February 25, 2008 6:28 pm

    “space opera: of or relating to time periods on the whole track millions of years ago which concerned activities in this and other galaxies. Space opera has space travel, spaceships, spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It is not fiction and concerns actual incidents and things that occurred on the track.”

    You can believe this or not. The overriding Scientology principle is “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself and when you lose that you have lost everything.” (Source, full text here).

    “So, yes, my question is “what importance does Space Opera hold in Scientology?” or something along those lines. I just want to learn the context in which a definition like that is used.”

    None at all. L. Ron Hubbard usually sprinkles his lectures with stories about Space Opera, which is very interesting and entertaining but the practice and technology of Scientology are very much down to earth and not at all require a belief in “space opera” or Xe nu etc. On the latter, this comes from a few materials which are deemed confidential by the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard. It’s part of the game rules that these sections are kept that way and you can’t expect Scientologists to discuss them. That would invalidate their belief and what they have accepted as their faith. As I state on the page, this space stuff is a very small portion of the whole of Scientology and has its place in the sequence called The Bridge. Its existence is not an invitation to ridicule the whole of Scientology and doing so just shows the lack of knowledge (or a lot of dumb arrogance) of what Scientology is and how it is being applied.

    – Lu

  312. Comment by Lu on February 26, 2008 9:06 pm

    @Comment by chz brgr on February 25, 2008 10:05 pm

    “I have suggested to the enturbulation moderators, A subforum in which only mods and admins and a select few intelligent members of anon may participate. If you wish to discuss in a more organized manner in which you choose from a que of questions just say yes.”

    Sounds fun. Don’t you have another forum for this? I tell you what my reservation is and I don’t mind if you laugh about it: the term “enturbulation” is a Scientology term with a specific definition. Most of the guys on that board don’t even know its meaning, but it marks a condition of a human being in extremely bad shape and the exact opposite of what Scientology wants to achieve. Enturbulation means to harm people. Take is as a religious point: I would not like to push such an idea. I agree to the setting and yes, a forum is what I wanted to do at some point. Is there a different place where we can go? Let me know.

    – Lu

  313. Comment by chz brgr on February 25, 2008 10:05 pm

    I have suggested to the enturbulation moderators, A subforum in which only mods and admins and a select few intelligent members of anon may participate. If you wish to discuss in a more organized manner in which you choose from a que of questions just say yes.

    but your earlier statement of “rabbit in a snake pit” is slightly off

    I believe its more like “foriegn diplomat in a forum of magistrates”

    yes, unwittingly you have now become the spokesperson for Scientology… enjoy your influence.

  314. Comment by lu bu on February 25, 2008 6:28 pm

    I understand that you are perhaps unable to answer my question, but your section upon “Aliens” was a bit vague and I would like clarification. I’ve gone through the list of definitions and I stumbled across the entry for “Space Opera”, which I’ll copy and paste so you don’t have to look it up:

    space opera: of or relating to time periods on the whole track millions of years ago which concerned activities in this and other galaxies. Space opera has space travel, spaceships, spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It is not fiction and concerns actual incidents and things that occurred on the track. See also whole track.

    My question may be stupid thinking about it, but the above definition kind of contradicts the vague “it could be said” that “some” Scientologists believe in life on other planets because it states it as “not fiction”, meaning factual. So, yes, my question is “what importance does Space Opera hold in Scientology?” or something along those lines. I just want to learn the context in which a definition like that is used.

    And another quick thing is that the “Xe nu/Xe mu/Ze nu” page seems to skim over mentioning it, refering to the worshipping side of it as a myth. I understand that Scientologists do not worship this entity called Xe nu, but he does play some part, even if it is small, in Scientology somewhere, right? In the ” Wall of Fire”, I believe.

    I hope this question is in the right place and you can understand it. It’s late in my timezone so my head’s a bit murky right now so excuse the wording in some places…

    Thank you for having this forum for open discussion and questioning, and thank you for reading this question.

  315. Comment by anmn on February 25, 2008 2:55 am

    First, I should apologize to you. My last comments in the Guardian’s Office, Cost A Lot, and E-Meter posts misinterpreted your statements.

    You also called out my lack of evidence in one post, but I’m not sure how I’m supposed to back up my statements when you say I’m starting a link farm for posting 2-3 links per comment. For that matter, you haven’t been posting very many primary sources yourself, though the top of your page says you are only interested in them.

    Also, I like this name.

    I do have a few questions:

    What do you think of the RPF, the RPF’s RPF, and the Purification Rundown? Do you have any first- or second-hand experience with them?

    What do you think of Miscavige’s recent reissuing of the basics? Did LRH really not notice his words being distorted for thirty years?

    What do you think of Hubbard’s policy of using the law to harass? The famous quote is:
    “The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win.

    “The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”

    I also want to hear more about your thoughts on apostates, but I see someone else already asked that.

  316. Comment by i can haz chz brgr on February 25, 2008 1:02 am

    http://www.scientologymyths.info/psychiatry/

    also…

    Anon: on another note… I noticed in your tirade upon psychiatry, that most of the dates mentioned are about 60 to 70 years ago….and in other parts of this site…well, you propose as a counterpoint to our arguments (in regards to actions and policies that have the same time frame) that the world changes after such long times. As well, the fact that psychiatry is a “proven science” makes your arguments seem false. How do counter this?

    (if you choose to reply do not go off on a tangent {this space reserved for you reply})

    Anon: Bear in mind that by discrediting the process psychiatrists use to verify their results is to discredit the whole of the scientific community as there is a universal system in which all data is processed known as the “Scientific method”. Is the scientific method used in any of the auditing processes and “proven facts” of Scientology tech? If you are unfamiliar with the “scientific method” here is a link that may help… if you do not trust this source you may look in your “encyclopedia Brittanica” it is WELL documented in there as well. (yes it is a google search)
    http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=scientific+method

    this is a more accurate representation of the method as it was intended to have no end .

    (if you choose to reply do not go off on a tangent {this space reserved for you reply})

  317. Comment by Lu on February 25, 2008 12:18 am

    @Comment by I can Haz Chezbrgr on February 24, 2008 3:33 pm

    “Anon: on another note… I noticed in your tirade upon psychiatry”

    Where? I usually don’t rant about psychiatry and haven’t here for sure.

    “please bear in mind that this will be posted on enturbulation.org in the “Media and Press” subforum it will be viewable by all the journalists that visit the site.”

    Alright, what exactly did you want to know?

    – Lu

  318. Comment by Lu on February 25, 2008 12:15 am

    @Comment by I can Haz Chezbrgr on February 24, 2008 1:46 pm

    “You are welcome to join enturbulation.org to discuss there…”

    Thanks, but “rabbit in snake pit” is not my style. 1:1, sure, 3:1, ok, 5:1, why not, but 50:1, no way.

    – Lu

  319. Comment by Lu on February 25, 2008 12:14 am

    @Comment by Capt Jack on February 24, 2008 6:50 am

    “Nice to see you are not censoring posters, that does seem to be rare in the Scientology World.”

    The funny part is that there is no online Scientology World. It’s censored by some other groups, one of them calling itself “Anonymous”.

    – Lu

  320. Comment by I can Haz Chezbrgr on February 24, 2008 3:44 pm

    im sorry to post multiple times but as I am unable to edit my post I feel I must do so.

    please bear in mind that this will be posted on enturbulation.org in the “Media and Press” subforum it will be viewable by all the journalists that visit the site.

  321. Comment by I can Haz Chezbrgr on February 24, 2008 3:33 pm

    Anon: on another note… I noticed in your tirade upon psychiatry, that most of the dates mentioned are about 60 to 70 years ago….and in other parts of this site…well, you propose as a counterpoint to our arguments (in regards to actions and policies that have the same time frame) that the world changes after such long times. As well, the fact that psychiatry is a “proven science” makes your arguments seem false. How do counter this?

    (if you choose to reply do not go off on a tangent {this space reserved for you reply})

    Anon: Bear in mind that by discrediting the process psychiatrists use to verify their results is to discredit the whole of the scientific community as there is a universal system in which all data is processed known as the “Scientific method”. Is the scientific method used in any of the auditing processes and “proven facts” of Scientology tech? If you are unfamiliar with the “scientific method” here is a link that may help… if you do not trust this source you may look in your “encyclopedia Brittanica” it is WELL documented in there as well. (yes it is a google search)
    http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=scientific+method

    this is a more accurate representation of the method as it was intended to have no end .

    (if you choose to reply do not go off on a tangent {this space reserved for you reply})

  322. Comment by I can Haz Chezbrgr on February 24, 2008 1:46 pm

    You are welcome to join enturbulation.org to discuss there….I’n fact I am reposting some of your….well I can only call it propaganda from MY biased viewpoint, just as you can call it TRUTH from yours…which is why I guess why I’m inviting you to discuss ….anything really…i promise you wont get cooties :P

  323. Comment by Capt Jack on February 24, 2008 6:50 am

    Nice to see you are not censoring posters, that does seem to be rare in the Scientology World.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.

  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    Sainte-Angélique Catholic ChurchCatholic Church, Cebu, PHFormer Saint-Ludger Catholic Church
    More Photos