More Questions?
I have closed the old thread (Post: “Questions”) when the comments exceeded 220 and it became rather impractical to read. Another impractical matter is the amount of statements made in the threads, rather than real questions. I shall monitor this more closely now.
But again, thank you for coming here! Scientology IS a hot topic these days but hardly any reliable information can be found on the internet. So here is a blog and a website which tries to achieve the seemingly impossible: answers to controversial questions about Scientology.
Please read the FAQ before you ask me personal questions. I am pretty busy in real life and if you grow impatient while waiting for an answer, please shoot me an email: scientologymyths@yahoo.com. I am happy that more people like me found their way to this blog and give their time to answer your questions. So you should not have to wait too long and I would really hate to miss your question. So, ask away!
- Louanne
Update 22 April: I closed this thread and opened a new one here:
http://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/scientology-questions-go-here/
436 Comments
@ Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 1, 2008 6:28 pm
>Okay, I’ve got another general question about Scientology belief/practice:
>It is stated on the site that the CoS’s anti-homosexual beliefs have been amended. While there are recent reports to the contrary, for the purposes of this question, we’ll accept that premise as true.
>What is the CoS’s policy towards the transgendered? Particularly in terms of those who end up seeking gender reassignment surgery, I can’t help but -guess- that it probably takes a somewhat dimmer view of these individuals. Again, I’m basing this on my admittedly limited knowledge, but it -seems- like the church would group such surgery under “psychiatric abuses” rather than a genuine medical treatment, and that the issue of gender identity disorder would be believed to be something to address/repair via auditing.
>However, it is -completely- possible that my reading of the situation is mistaken, and if so, I’d welcome clarification on the subject.
It’s a medical procedure. Since we deal in the spiritual it wouldn’t be a question of ok or not ok. If someone has spiritual issues with their identity and want to address this then we can. We have no policies about it.
Pat
Well, that last thread got closed, but I feel like we have an unfinished conversation so I hope it’s ok if we just transplant it over to this thread. Yes? Ok.
Pat- I’m sorry if it was rude to butt into your conversation earlier. I was just shocked at what you said. To be honest, your response sort of scared me. To me, it does sound paranoid. You don’t believe in psych terms, so I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.
My question, however, is do you think it’s ok that people are genuinely terrified of your church? I’m now one of them. My conversation with Brad was pretty decent. I didn’t feel scared. I respected his responses and actually enjoyed conversing with him (I hope our conversations can continue by the way). You, however, scare me quite a bit. Perhaps that’s not your intention, so I’m sorry if I’m over-reacting. Do the majority of Scientologists behave like you or like Brad? Or is it a mix of both? Just how diverse is the church? Does everyone or even just the majority think that the aforementioned behavior is ok? Or are you just speaking from personal experience? It sounds like the former, but I’ll let you answer to clear it up.
Do you think it’s ok that people like me are now scared of possibly getting stalked by a Scientologist? Or even getting “fair gamed” or whatever it is? Even people who aren’t affiliated with the protests have been stalked (see the coffee shop girl in Clearwater). I’m really quite terrified that I’m going to get targeted just for posting on this blog and that bothers me a lot. That won’t stop me from asking questions though, but I don’t think that this is the type of feeling I should have after talking about a church. If I criticized any other church, I don’t think I’d be met with such hostility and the possibility of being stalked and having my life ruined. Maybe I’m wrong on that, but when I talk to my uncle about his church he’s very accommodating and friendly about it. Most importantly, I have no fear of his church stalking me.
Hello,
There is so much going on about scientology now. Everybody seems to have an opinion. some say that it is a cult, others say it is a church. When I walk down the street the people try to give me little cardboard cards with lines, sometimes they smile and are nice, others they are a little bit overbearing.
There is all these famous people in Scientology saying good things about it, but then you read about their lives and they seem afraid, sad, suffering even! Like Katie Holmes, that is now a prisoner in her own house, with motion sensors and digital keylocks and CCTV even in the bathrooms!
And it is so expensive! It seems that Scientology is only for the super-rich, that it takes huge amounts of money before it actually helps you. And the people that have left scientology, even after all that money, say that it does not really help at all! Is this true?
And all these youtube videos lately… I saw this one with Tom Cruise and David Miscavige, and they had this wild look in the eyes, as if they were on drugs! They laughed and laughed, but it sounded empty, as if they were robots, or asleep, or hypnotized… it was VERY creepy.
And they say that Scientology makes you abandon your family! That if your family are catholics or christians and think scientology, you are not allowed to keep in contact! That they force you to be alone, so that you become sad and have no alternative but to do whatever you are told! They say that you are expected to obey, even if you are ordered to do things you do not want to do!
And they say that Scientology’s prohet, R L Hubbard, was a science fiction writer! That he made up the whole thing just to make money! And that he believed that everybody that is not a scientologist is insane, or deluded or something! And that the only way to be sane is to do all these very expensive courses!
My question is simple.
How is Scientology different from the Spanish Inquisition?
The Inquisition ruthlessly persecuted those who disagree with it, just as Scientology does now. And just as the pope has absolute power, so does David Miscavige have absolute control over the whole organization, to the point that if he rewrites the tech, everybody needs to accept it.
Carrying over from the previous thread…
“Scientology and Dianetics don’t address the body. Only the spiritual.”
Yet they claim that the vast majority of problems with the body, if not all of them, are caused by underlying spiritual problems and can therefore be resolved by addressing the spirit. From the Scientology Handbook:
Unhappiness, inability to heal and psychosomatic illnesses (which include some 70 percent of the illnesses of man) are best handled by immediate address of the thetan.
http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH6_1.HTM
Injury and illness are predisposed (made more likely to occur) by the spiritual state of the person. They are precipitated (brought on) by the being himself as a manifestation of his current spiritual condition. And they are prolonged (extended in time beyond normal limits) by any failure to fully handle the spiritual factors associated with them.
http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH6_2.HTM
Consequently, it should not be a surprise when Scientology promises a life free from injury and illness. After all, Scientology claims to remove the spiritual conditions that precipitate those things in the body. Unfortunately, modern medicine has a word for such claims: “quackery.”
“Is there someone you’re connected to that’s opposed to betterment groups?”
Frankly, yes. But to be fair, it looks like you can’t help it; your unthinking opposition to medical science is just one of the tenets of your so-called religion.
Carrying over from the previous thread…
“Scientology and Dianetics don’t address the body. Only the spiritual.”
Yet they claim that the vast majority of problems with the body, if not all of them, are caused by underlying spiritual problems and can therefore be resolved by addressing the spirit. From the Scientology Handbook:
Unhappiness, inability to heal and psychosomatic illnesses (which include some 70 percent of the illnesses of man) are best handled by immediate address of the thetan.
http :// http://www. scientologyhandbook .org/SH6_1.HTM
Injury and illness are predisposed (made more likely to occur) by the spiritual state of the person. They are precipitated (brought on) by the being himself as a manifestation of his current spiritual condition. And they are prolonged (extended in time beyond normal limits) by any failure to fully handle the spiritual factors associated with them.
http :// http://www. scientologyhandbook .org/SH6_2.HTM
Consequently, it should not be a surprise when Scientology promises a life free from injury and illness. After all, Scientology claims to remove the spiritual conditions that precipitate those things in the body. Unfortunately, modern medicine has a word for such claims: “quackery.”
“Is there someone you’re connected to that’s opposed to betterment groups?”
Frankly, yes. But to be fair, it looks like you can’t help it; your unthinking opposition to medical science is just one of the tenets of your so-called religion.
Carrying over from the previous thread…
“Scientology and Dianetics don’t address the body. Only the spiritual.”
Yet they claim that the vast majority of problems with the body, if not all of them, are caused by underlying spiritual problems and can therefore be resolved by addressing the spirit. From the Scientology Handbook:
Unhappiness, inability to heal and psychosomatic illnesses (which include some 70 percent of the illnesses of man) are best handled by immediate address of the thetan.
h t t p : / / w w w . s c i e n t o l o g y h a n d b o o k . o r g / S H 6 _ 1 . H T M
Injury and illness are predisposed (made more likely to occur) by the spiritual state of the person. They are precipitated (brought on) by the being himself as a manifestation of his current spiritual condition. And they are prolonged (extended in time beyond normal limits) by any failure to fully handle the spiritual factors associated with them.
h t t p : / / w w w . s c i e n t o l o g y h a n d b o o k . o r g / S H 6 _ 2 . H T M
Consequently, it should not be a surprise when Scientology promises a life free from injury and illness. After all, Scientology claims to remove the spiritual conditions that precipitate those things in the body. Unfortunately, modern medicine has a word for such claims: “quackery.”
“Is there someone you’re connected to that’s opposed to betterment groups?”
Frankly, yes. But to be fair, it looks like you can’t help it; your unthinking opposition to medical science is just one of the tenets of your so-called religion.
P.S.: Can someone remind me what I have to do to get around the spam filter? I know it was mentioned at some point; I just forget where.
@E
First off thanks for starting off with a rather insulting and ludicrous line. If you have a serious question, please ask it.
As for the Myth rewritten tech, the new basic releases are not rewritten but lost writings and faulty publishings by former publishers and editors. David has nothing to do with authoring anything.
@nobody
I do not honestly think you are fearful but rather trying to make a point in that of the perception of tactics used by COS. I will let Pat answer that as I have given my opinion numerous times.
As for diversity, COS is very diverse, very… that goes for anything from ethnicity to language to opinions.
Hi Louanne,
I saw a post on some blog recently by someone who said he’d been a Scientologist for years but had never been audited. He said he was an active Scientologist simply by owning and studying all the LRH books, and by attending Sunday Services and helping out sometimes at the local Org. So my question is: is that really possible? I was under the impression that undergoing auditing and working your way up the Bridge was the whole point really.
Heck, if it’s not absolutely required to do the Purif or be audited, then I guess that makes me a Scientologist too, albeit a low-level one. I’ve read all the Basics books and plenty of others as well, and use Scientology concepts in my everyday life.
(Great work you’re doing by the way! I can’t believe you have the patience to sift through so many rude and insulting comments.)
Sorry to interrupt BradS, but I repeat Karin Pouws rather insulting and rediculous statement, paraphrased.
“Anonymous are cyber/domestic communist terrorists who read Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto for inspiration.”
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so to say.
Pat-
Thanks for clarifying that issue. So, just to make sure I’m understanding, a transgendered person would be treated the same as any other, if they were getting into Scientology? If that is the case, well, I’m glad to hear it.
I also have one general question, this time relating to current practices and events.
It has been claimed here that the private detectives and investigation of people operating under the label “Anonymous” are in place as a result of the bomb threats and whatnot.
My question is, exactly what do those investigations -possibly- accomplish? You get the name and address of some person. That leaves, oh…8-10,000, if we count just the people at the protests. There is, additionally, no guarantee whatsoever that the threats came from anyone who actually attended the protests; rather, they could have come from -anyone-.
Even on the off chance that one of the few people you identified WAS related, how would your PI find that out? How would having the person’s name, face, and address be useful information in tracking down the culprits?
It seems to me that if there were actual threats made, the authorities should be more than able to track them down via phone records, IP addresses, etc., and that the use of private detectives can serve only to intimidate.
@john
for the context of this forum I would expect different. For one, you have come here in offer to discuss likewise with this site in offer to answer the best it can via myself and Lou and Pat and others of which I would hope is outside of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
LOU-
Can you speak to the allegations that Hubbard mixed drugs with booze and this contributed to his ‘illusions of grandeur’ as one put it, as an example I read that in a letter to one of his wifes he allegedly admitted to being an opium addict?
thanks
My apologies BradS, I can see on re-reading that my comment sounded harsher than I actually meant. I also realise it was not particuarly appropriate for this forum, nor does it further the conversation in any meaningful way, so I apologise again.
I only meant to point out that if the Church of Scientology, though its spokespeople, wishes to be critical of Anonymous it must accept criticism from Anonymous or it risks loosing the moral high ground in regards to that issue.
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 1, 2008 10:17 pm
>Pat-
>Thanks for clarifying that issue. So, just to make sure I’m understanding, a transgendered person would be treated the same as any other, if they were getting into Scientology? If that is the case, well, I’m glad to hear it.
It is the case. There is no policy regarding sexual preferences.
Pat
@Comment by veritas on April 1, 2008 11:35 pm
>LOU-
>Can you speak to the allegations that Hubbard mixed drugs with booze and this contributed to his ‘illusions of grandeur’ as one put it, as an example I read that in a letter to one of his wifes he allegedly admitted to being an opium addict?
thanks
An excellent example of propaganda spread in the form of a question. This violates the FAQ.
Pat
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 1, 2008 10:21 pm
>I also have one general question, this time relating to current practices and events.
>It has been claimed here that the private detectives and investigation of people operating under the label “Anonymous” are in place as a result of the bomb threats and whatnot.
Not exactly. Just those who did the threats. Broke the law. Took down websites (cybercrime, which puts it in FBI territory).
The data I have, you have also. It’s in the hands of the FBI and law enforcement. We’ll all just have to wait and see how that plays out.
Pat
Its a question Pat & I dont know what your talking about?
@Comment by Carrie on April 1, 2008 9:14 pm
>Hi Louanne,
>I saw a post on some blog recently by someone who said he’d been a Scientologist for years but had never been audited. He said he was an active Scientologist simply by owning and studying all the LRH books, and by attending Sunday Services and helping out sometimes at the local Org. So my question is: is that really possible? I was under the impression that undergoing auditing and working your way up the Bridge was the whole point really.
>Heck, if it’s not absolutely required to do the Purif or be audited, then I guess that makes me a Scientologist too, albeit a low-level one. I’ve read all the Basics books and plenty of others as well, and use Scientology concepts in my everyday life.
>(Great work you’re doing by the way! I can’t believe you have the patience to sift through so many rude and insulting comments.)
Carrie,
In case Lu doesn’t see this, I can confirm that one does not have to have had auditing to be a Scientologist. In the tech dictionary Scientologist is defined as one who applies Scientology technology in his/her life. There are many out in the world today that even audit Dianetics but have never been in a Church or Mission. I am glad to hear that there were things you could use in your life. Good job! Thanks for this.
I found the Basic Books incredibly useful for helping my family and people around me.
Pat
@Comment by E on April 1, 2008 8:12 pm
>My question is simple.
How is Scientology different from the Spanish Inquisition?
Bleep. Not a question. Propaganda disguised as a “question”. Read the FAQ.
Pat
@Comment by Nobody on April 1, 2008 7:08 pm
Well, that last thread got closed, but I feel like we have an unfinished conversation so I hope it’s ok if we just transplant it over to this thread. Yes?
There was no “conversation”, so No.
When you have a real question and not a statement you can ask. Read the FAQ.
Pat
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 1, 2008 8:21 pm
>Carrying over from the previous thread…
Nope. You didn’t have a question. Just more insults.
Pat
Excuse me, Pat, but is this your blog? (Hint: no.)
“In the tech dictionary Scientologist is defined as one who applies Scientology technology in his/her life.”
I guess that explains why your Church(TM)’s official membership statistics look so inflated. See, to outsiders like myself, “Scientologist” = “member of the Church of Scientology.” But to you, “Scientologist” = “anyone who has ever applied any part of LRH tech.” (Oddly, by that definition you’re conceding that the Free Zoners are “real” Scientologists.)
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 2, 2008 3:10 am
>Excuse me, Pat, but is this your blog? (Hint: no.)
>“In the tech dictionary Scientologist is defined as one who applies Scientology technology in his/her life.”
>I guess that explains why your Church(TM)’s official membership statistics look so inflated. See, to outsiders like myself, “Scientologist” = “member of the Church of Scientology.” But to you, “Scientologist” = “anyone who has ever applied any part of LRH tech.” (Oddly, by that definition you’re conceding that the Free Zoners are “real” Scientologists.)
Maybe you should clear up the words “official membership”. Bye Bye
Pat
There was no “conversation”, so No.
Um… Pat? Sweetie? Do you understand what a “conversation” is? Like… English is your first language, right? Because… I don’t know if the Church(TM) has its own definition of “conversation,” but in the English language I learned growing up, it means something like:
2 a (1): oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas (2): an instance of such exchange : talk b: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups c: an exchange similar to conversation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conversation
And it seems to me like you and Nobody were exchanging sentiments, observations, opinions, and/or ideas, so… yeah, there was a conversation. A rather lively one, too. (In this case, what is true for you is just plain silly.)
There was no “conversation”, so No.
Um… Pat? Sweetie? Do you understand what a “conversation” is? Like… English is your first language, right? Because… I don’t know if the Church(TM) has its own definition of “conversation,” but in the English language I learned growing up, it means something like:
2 a (1): oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas (2): an instance of such exchange : talk b: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups c: an exchange similar to conversation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conversation
And it seems to me like you and Nobody were exchanging sentiments, observations, opinions, and/or ideas, so… yeah, there was a conversation. A rather lively one, too. (In this case, what is true for you is just plain silly.)
There was no “conversation”, so No.
Um… Pat? Sweetie? Do you understand what a “conversation” is? Like… English is your first language, right? Because… I don’t know if the Church(TM) has its own definition of “conversation,” but in the English language I learned growing up, it means something like:
2 a (1): oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas (2): an instance of such exchange : talk b: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups c: an exchange similar to conversation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conversation
And it seems to me like you and Nobody were exchanging sentiments, observations, opinions, and/or ideas, so… yeah, there was a conversation. A rather lively one, too. (In this case, what is true for you is just plain silly.)
There was no “conversation”, so No.
Um… Pat? Sweetie? Do you understand what a “conversation” is? Like… English is your first language, right? Because… I don’t know if the Church(TM) has its own definition of “conversation,” but in the English language I learned growing up, it means something like:
2 a (1): oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas (2): an instance of such exchange : talk b: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups c: an exchange similar to conversation
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conversation
And it seems to me like you and Nobody were exchanging sentiments, observations, opinions, and/or ideas, so… yeah, there was a conversation. A rather lively one, too. (In this case, what is true for you is just plain silly.)
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 2, 2008 3:10 am
>Excuse me, Pat, but is this your blog?
Yes, for Scientologists to come and answer questions.
Hint. FAQ
Pat
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 2, 2008 3:19 am
Hint: FAQ
Pat
Holy crap, quadruple post. Thank you WordPress.
Maybe you should clear up the words “official membership”. Bye Bye
Ohhh, okay. So that 10 million figure actually counts official members of the incorporated Church(TM) of Scientology. Thanks for clearing that up. Now I can say, without any doubt, that the Church(TM)’s statistics are filthy god-damned lies, since unbiased sources indicate that it has fewer than even one million official members.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
Hint. FAQ
Yeah. Have you read it? This is Lou’s place to answer questions, not yours.
This “forum” is actually a blog. Here you can ask questions about Scientology, no matter what type of questions or how stupid they may sound. I’ll answer them.
Regarding an earlier post by “Okay I’m Anonymous Now”, just for the record, I am NOT a “free zone” person. Unlike freezoners, I have no complaint with the current administration of the Church of Scientology. I most emphatically do NOT oppose the actual Church, unlike the freezoners.
As of tonight, I offiically declare myself a Scientologist. Hurray!
Comment by Carrie on April 2, 2008 4:18 am
Regarding an earlier post by “Okay I’m Anonymous Now”, just for the record, I am NOT a “free zone” person. Unlike freezoners, I have no complaint with the current administration of the Church of Scientology. I most emphatically do NOT oppose the actual Church, unlike the freezoners.
As of tonight, I offiically declare myself a Scientologist. Hurray!
Pat
Just going back over the previous comments thread Pat, I was wondering if you could clarify something.
First, BradS responded to me:
>With all due respect, no you can’t. I’m not questioning whether or not the infamous OT3 story is the core belief of scientologists. I was attempting to confirm whether or not the infamous OT3 story is correct, from a scientologist.
And then Pat said:
>The “infamous OT3 story” didn’t come from Scientologists (It’s hard to know which version you mean since there seem to be quite a few different interpretations out there, and it changes with every telling). It’s not the OT 3 I did at the actual Church.
Would you please answer the original question Pat? Because removing the word ‘infamous’ the meaning is quite different.
Do the contents of OT3 have anything to do with, or even imply, aliens, volcanoes, hydrogen bombs and/or an intergalactic ruler? Just a yes or no will suffice, but feel free to elaborate.
John,
That’s the problem with altered data of an upper level being posted on the internet. It was done to create harm to anyone reading it. You try to put me on the spot by answering yes or no. I can’t do that and not say something that could cause harm to you and anyone else. I have a responsibility to make sure that people are brought properly up the gradients so that OT 3 can be viewed in full by those who will be auditing it.
You’re curious and I understand that. What I can say is that Aliens are not part of it and that it was a great catastrophe that happened on this planet 75 million years ago. This is how LRH introduced us to it in 1967 on Ron’s Journal 67. (Not verbatim because I don’t have a copy here at the moment to get an exact quote)
Pat
No aliens, gotcha. I’m happy now.
Oh, one further quick question though… I note that ‘Aliens’ is capitalised, are you referring to Giger’s work by any chance?
@Comment by John on April 2, 2008 12:11 pm
>Oh, one further quick question though… I note that ‘Aliens’ is capitalised, are you referring to Giger’s work by any chance?
LOL. I didn’t realize I’d done that. Funny.
No. I think it’s just my frustration in how that’s being plastered all over the internet and embellished with every telling. Makes it stand out.
I have to do this, sorry. Can’t resist. This has nothing to do with Scientology or it’s beliefs.
Do you believe there is life on other planets, right now, as we speak?
Pat
There’s some minor evidence for, and none against. But there is not enough evidence to push me in either direction so I don’t believe one way or the other. I do believe it is possible that there is life on other planets.
Is there any element of truth in any of the versions of the story floating around the internet when compared to the version that you’ve heard?
OT3, that is.
I apologize for not noticing this earlier, but…
“You’re not operating on current data. Hernandez was 1989. Congress changed the Code in 1993 regarding intangibles. That overrides the Supreme Court opinion of 1989.”
Not according to the Ninth Circuit. Again, from Sklar v. Commissioner Round One, which was decided in 2002, quite a few years after 1993:
Despite the clear statutory holding of Hernandez, the Sklars contend that recent changes to the Internal Revenue Code have clarified Congressional intent with respect to the deductibility of these payments. We seriously doubt the validity of this argument. The amendments to the Code appear not to have changed the substantive definition of a deductible charitable contribution, but only to have enacted additional documentation requirements for claimed deductions. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (”OBRA’93″), P.L. No. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C.). Section 170(f) of the Code adds a new requirement that taxpayers claiming a charitable contribution deduction obtain from the donee an estimate of the value of any goods and services received in return for the donation, and exempts from that new estimate requirement contributions for which solely intangible religious benefits are received.2 I.R.C. § 170(f)(8)(A) & (B)(ii). Similarly, § 6115 requires that tax-exempt organizations inform taxpayer-donors that they will receive a tax deduction only for the amount of their donation above the value of any goods or services received in return for the donation and requires donee organizations to give donors an estimate of this value, exempting from this estimate requirement contributions for which solely intangible religious benefits are received.
Given the clear holding of Hernandez and the absence of any direct evidence of Congressional intent to overrule the Supreme Court on this issue, we would be extremely reluctant to read an additional and significant substantive deduction into the statute based on what are clearly procedural provisions regarding the documentation of tax return information, particularly where the deduction would be of doubtful constitutional validity
Emphasis in the original.
You see, Pat, this is what I like to call “You’re wrong and you should feel shame.” As for Sklar Round Two, I see no reason to suppose that it will end differently from Round One, unless you can point me to a law passed between 2002 and now that would make quid pro quo payments deductible. (Hint: you can’t.) Unfortunately, the Sklars appear to be relentless, and will most likely file one lawsuit for each year their deduction was rejected, no matter how successful they are. It’s like that old saying: “the purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win.”
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 3, 2008 1:50 am
You seemed to have missed the rest of it too.
It’s in the 9th Circuit Court right now and it looks like they may lean toward granting the Sklar’s their appeal. We’ll see. We aren’t done yet.
Pat
@Comment by John on April 2, 2008 8:47 pm
>There’s some minor evidence for, and none against. But there is not enough evidence to push me in either direction so I don’t believe one way or the other. I do believe it is possible that there is life on other planets.
>Is there any element of truth in any of the versions of the story floating around the internet when compared to the version that you’ve heard?
As I said, that question has nothing to do with Scientology. I was curious about your attitude since people seem to think the idea of extraterrestials in this universe is so funny.
I disagree, I think there are a lot of people who do not think that the idea of extraterrestrials is funny, merely that the interpretation presented in the leaked OT3 documents is absurd.
That being said there is nothing wrong if that, or even part of it, is what scientologists choose to believe. And I am in no way presenting that this is the core of scientologists beliefs. Anonymous have stated numerous times that we are not against the the right of scientologists to believe whatever they want. Please stop trying to imply that we are.
Once again you danced and did not answer my question. Not only that but you have further tried to twist it into a question of beliefs. That is what, at times, frustrates me when speaking to scientologists, including yourself.
You seemed to have missed the rest of it too.
It’s in the 9th Circuit Court right now and it looks like they may lean toward granting the Sklar’s their appeal. We’ll see. We aren’t done yet.
I missed nothing. I will explain this very slowly and very carefully.
THAT IS A DIFFERENT LAWSUIT, YOU THUNDERING MORON!
The original Sklar v. Commissioner was in regard to the Sklars’ 1994 tax return. The United States Tax Court ruled against them in 2000, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling in 2002. That is the decision from which I have taken my quotes.
The current Sklar v. Commissioner is in regard to the Sklars’ 1995 tax return. The United States Tax Court ruled against them in 2005, and the Ninth Circuit is currently deliberating on this case. The principle of stare decisis, however, suggests that the Sklars probably will not win this one either.
@Comment by John on April 3, 2008 3:24 am
>I disagree, I think there are a lot of people who do not think that the idea of extraterrestrials is funny, merely that the interpretation presented in the leaked OT3 documents is absurd.
Your right.
That being said there is nothing wrong if that, or even part of it, is what scientologists choose to believe. And I am in no way presenting that this is the core of scientologists beliefs. Anonymous have stated numerous times that we are not against the the right of scientologists to believe whatever they want. Please stop trying to imply that we are.
Re-read what I wrote. Where the hell did I say anything about you implying anything?
>Once again you danced and did not answer my question. Not only that but you have further tried to twist it into a question of beliefs. That is what, at times, frustrates me when speaking to scientologists, including yourself
You invite me to ask you a question, and when I do I get accused of dancing? Give me a break.
You’re the one trying to make more out of something that I was curious about.
Pat
I will not respond to any communication where folks can’t be courteous. You’re coming here, supposedly because you have questions about Scientology. If you have already decided that there is nothing to resolve and only wish to attack, you’d probably be happier over on xenutv where you have mutual anti-scientology friends.
Pat
Although I appreciate the open dialogue about Scientology on here, I do think there comes a point that if someone becomes as openly antagonistic and insulting as some of these guests, then it becomes trolling, not communication, and shouldn’t be tolerated. Just my two cents.
Okay, I accept your point Pat. I still believe you may be telling me a ’shore story’ and it is that belief that caused me to ask the same question in a myriad of different ways, but I also agree that it is not conducive to conversation to press the point so I will refrain from that path of questioning.
I apologise if it seemed like I was attacking you, or your fellow scientologists, I was trying my hardest not to.
…whoops… *facepalm*… I just re-read to doublecheck…
>I have to do this, sorry. Can’t resist. This has nothing to do with Scientology or it’s beliefs.
Sorry, I skipped right over that sentence the last time I read it. I do owe you an apology, I’m sorry.
@Comment by John on April 3, 2008 10:11 am
>Okay, I accept your point Pat. I still believe you may be telling me a ’shore story’ and it is that belief that caused me to ask the same question in a myriad of different ways, but I also agree that it is not conducive to conversation to press the point so I will refrain from that path of questioning.
>I apologise if it seemed like I was attacking you, or your fellow scientologists, I was trying my hardest not to.
>…whoops… *facepalm*… I just re-read to doublecheck…
>>I have to do this, sorry. Can’t resist. This has nothing to do with Scientology or it’s beliefs.
>Sorry, I skipped right over that sentence the last time I read it. I do owe you an apology, I’m sorry.
I know how that happens. Thanks.
Pat
If you have already decided that there is nothing to resolve and only wish to attack, you’d probably be happier over on xenutv where you have mutual anti-scientology friends.
Again, I am not attacking; I am being emphatic. I have stated repeatedly that the Sklar case I cite has already been decided and that the Sklar case you cite is an entirely new one. You have repeatedly refused to process this simple fact. Therefore I am forced to rely on boldface, CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL, and personal insults to draw attention to the statement. You pulled this one in, buddy.
Eleven: your name has a bad link. The correct URL is –
http://www.anonymous-exposed.org/
Somehow my post got edited. Here’s the correct URL:
http://www.anonymousexposed.org/
@Okay I’m Anonymous Now:
>P.S.: Can someone remind me what I have to do to get around the spam filter? I know it was mentioned at some point; I just forget where.
Stripping off http through www gets past the filter, and should still make the link work on a copy/paste.
In other news, Sean Carasov is free and clear.
http://glosslip.com/2008/04/03/scientology-case-against-los-angeles-member-of-anonymous-dropped/
Apparently the charges had nothing to do with the guns picture, but from a report that a Scientology member accused Carasov of making a death threat. This is old news, but I wasn’t clear on it until recently.
Anyway, the conversation in question was recorded, but the LAPD stopped pursuing charges before they even knew that. Further, the door is open for Carasov to pursue damages, and the CoS member in question may be in trouble for filing a false police report.
I bring this up as closure to the topic in a previous thread. Does the CoS have any official word on this decision? Lou, do you have any explanation for why “a murder threat…face to face, with plenty of witnesses” [Lou, Questions questions questions] failed to stick?
@Pat:
>Maybe you should clear up the words “official membership”.
Maybe we should clear up where these numbers are coming from. Here are the official numbers I’ve heard:
The CoS’s current press release boilerplate makes a claim of 10 million members. I can’t find this number on any CoS website except as a boilerplate or a passing mention.
The statistics page on this site makes the same claim, and also claims the number was 6.1 million in 2000.
I don’t have a source right now, but I recall that same boilerplate reading 8 million within the last few years. I believe that this number was claimed consistently back to the early 1990s, when Heber Jentzsch said in an interview that it included everyone who had taken even one course since 1954.
Now, this could all make sense: the old 8 million figure could have been all of the one-course people, and the new 6 and 10 million figures could be the official claim of active members.
Are there any more concrete numbers to be found on a CoS website?
The statistics page also claims there are 7,731 churches, missions and groups in 164 countries. The most complete official list I can find is at
http://www.scientologytoday.org/around-the-world/index.htm
which lists roughly 450 missions and organizations.
Are there many more missions than on that list? (I did find one missing, but most of Anonymous’ protest sites seem to be there.) Or does each mission average 16 or so “groups”? What is a “group” anyway?
Further, if the total membership is 10 million, that means each mission handles 22,000 members. Does that sound right? How many members go to a mission regularly for auditing or other services? If it’s more than one percent, it sounds a bit high for most of the missions I’ve seen.
@Pat:
>That’s the problem with altered data of an upper level being posted on the internet. It was done to create harm to anyone reading it.
It’s interesting how difficult it has become to counter such a ridiculous statement after learning what Scientologists believe. The tech works. Since the tech works so well, it’s powerful. Since it’s so powerful, it can cause harm. SPs seek to cause harm. SPs would steal the tech and present it to the unprepared in order to cause harm and then, I don’t know, they laugh evilly. That’s what I’ve picked up in my time here. Is that basically correct?
When I question any part of that logic, I get told to read what LRH wrote (circular), or I get told “what is true is what is true for you” (dodging the question).
Has the tech been shown to cause harm, or is it only spiritual harm? Has the tech been shown to cause physical benefit, or is it only spiritual benefit?
Also, how can it be claimed that the version of OT III on the Internet is an “altered” copy when we have scans of the original manuscript in LRH’s own handwriting?
Here is the data on Churches, Missions and groups (what they do, who they minister to, etc.)
http://www.scientology.org/religion/groups/index.html
Pat
>It’s interesting how difficult it has become to counter such a ridiculous statement after learning what Scientologists believe. The tech works. Since the tech works so well, it’s powerful. Since it’s so powerful, it can cause harm. SPs seek to cause harm. SPs would steal the tech and present it to the unprepared in order to cause harm and then, I don’t know, they laugh evilly. That’s what I’ve picked up in my time here. Is that basically correct?
No. The “Since it’s so powerful, it can cause harm” is your words not mine. As John would say “A dance”. The rest is true. SPs do cause harm. That tech is applicable to all of man, not just Scientology. Yes, they would steal it in order to harm. Evil laugh included
Pat
Have both real and altered OT documents been leaked/distributed?
@Pat:
>Here is the data on Churches, Missions and groups (what they do, who they minister to, etc.)
> scientology.org/religion/groups/index.html
No, that has the barest mention of what “groups” are. Is each field auditor a group? How many field auditors are there? How many “Dianetics Counseling Groups” are there? Does the word “groups” in this context include any other gatherings of people?
I’m looking for official numbers. What I’ve seen so far is contradictory. “10 million members” on Lou’s page; “millions introduced” on the page you linked. 164 countries on Lou’s page; 125 on the one you linked. 7700 establishments on Lou’s page; 450 on scientology dot org.
@Pat:
>No. The “Since it’s so powerful, it can cause harm” is your words not mine. As John would say “A dance”. The rest is true.
I admit that wording was awkward. But you do believe that the tech can cause harm, right? I know some people on this forum do. Can you tell me why you believe that?
Do you understand why that logic seems ridiculous and circular to me? Does anyone else quote a 20% figure for any group of people that resemble Scientology’s definition of SP? Can the benefits of Scientology be quantified, or are they spiritual and defiant of analysis? Can the tech cause harm, and if so, can this harm be noticed by people and methods outside of Scientology?
I believe that reading the tech cannot cause harm to raw meat. I know of many others who believe the same. I don’t believe that 20% of the world seeks to restrain the rest. I believe there are many other reasons for people wanting to publish the tech. For example: freedom of information advocates distributing information freely; critics who want people to know what they are getting into; resentful apostates seeking to harm the CoS’s profits; those who want to know why the CoS is so protective of these documents.
While I don’t agree with the core points of your logic, I understand how it develops and supports itself. Can you see the same in my beliefs?
@GrandFalloon:
>Have both real and altered OT documents been leaked/distributed?
Here’s a site about the Fishman Affidavit, with summaries and excerpts: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/fishman/home.html
The CoS has basically confirmed that OT1-OT8 presented there are real by claiming copyright. It later retracted its claim on the OT8 part.
Do any of the TRs contain an example that references ‘wife beating’?
>I admit that wording was awkward. But you do believe that the tech can cause harm, right?
No. Out-tech can cause upset. Not Standard Tech correctly applied at the right gradient.
An example of this is if someone has a problem in life such as a guy is on the verge of being fired, and is audited over this he can lose gains. Just an example. So problems are checked for at the beginning of most auditing sessions.
Standard tech that isn’t altered works.
That’s why we fight so hard to keep it being taught correctly per LRH study tech.
>I know some people on this forum do.
I realize that. What personal experience led to that, I wonder? Auditing by an inexperienced auditor? Given auditing far above his/her ability? No reality with what auditing does for someone, but has an opinion anyway?
Pat
Can you tell me why you believe that?
Because I’ve seen it correctly applied and misapplied. The most awesome thing about it is that the Tech has applications that repair any misapplied tech.
@Comment by John on April 6, 2008 6:15 am
>Do any of the TRs contain an example that references ‘wife beating’?
Not that I know of. I’ve done TRs and don’t recall ever seeing that.
Pat
Comment by anmn on April 6, 2008 5:01 am
@GrandFalloon:
>Have both real and altered OT documents been leaked/distributed?
>Here’s a site about the Fishman Affidavit, with summaries and excerpts:
Try this one too:
http://www.theta.com/fishman
There’s more affidavits there.
Pat
So, your Church(TM) claims Fishman was a compulsive liar. I suppose there might be some merit to that; after all, he was trained by the best.
http://xenu.net/archive/go/trs/tr-l.htm
Unfortunately, while Fishman may be unreliable, his dox are not. As your own link states:
But in 1993 he wrote a declaration to which he attached as exhibits copies of copyrighted and unpublished scriptures belonging to the Church of Scientology, the originals of which had been stolen from the Church. When the exhibits were repeatedly posted on the Internet, the Church filed suit against the posters for violation of intellectual property rights.
That sounds like an admission that his versions of the OTs are legitimate (or were; David Miscavige has a nasty habit of squirreling the tech).
You know what I find interesting Pat, I just confirmed with an ex-scientologist that the OT3 documents available on the internet are, baring minor changes between retellings, correct.
That is the aliens, hydrogen bombs etc… (I don’t want to retell the whole thing, I’m trying not to be insensitive to your beliefs that learning this information too early may be detrimental to a persons enlightenment)
Do you think he is lying? Why? Should I ask him about the Three Bears story?
@Pat:
>No. Out-tech can cause upset. Not Standard Tech correctly applied at the right gradient.
That’s not what I asked. I asked if the tech could cause harm. This would be an example of correct tech applied incorrectly, right? Remember that these documents have been confirmed as correct by ex-members and by the CoS itself.
What do you mean by “upset”?
As to copyright, I want to state as I have before in other debates that because COS or Bridge Pub declares copyright does not equate to material: being used in Scientology or belief of Scientology.
Quite simply most if not all writings of LRH, whether it is fiction, non-fiction, Dianetics, Scientology, diaries, notes, logs are all owned by bridge Pub, I.E. COS and therefore can and will fall under copyright law.
Again with these arguments of not knowing “study knowledge” not “actual beliefs” puzzles me. In Judaism all Gemara classes are study knowledge and protected via the class itself. Non-Jews via orthodox law are not allowed to learn this. It also is considered dangerous to attempt to learn kabbalah without so many years study of Torah and Gemara because you need the foundation.
Auditing is not belief knowledge it is study knowledge even more so than Judaism as an analogy because auditing is very personal and knowing any study knowledge before the audit creates a bias or predetermined response thus invalidating the desired result of helping the individual.
Moreover, in auditing just for the for the sake of argument, let us say Xenu is true and I get to that level and use that data to reveal whatever xyz is in my life. Perhaps I get up and refuse to accept that data.
1. It does not invalidate my prior auditing as by logic I kept going on the bridge because it was obviously working.
2. It does not change my belief in G_d as that Dynamic as clearly stated is not intruded upon by Scientology.
The major difference that many do not understand about Scientology is that they project what they know or have been brought up to know as religion simply defining a god and the dogma thereof. Granted Scientology is not that, it instead of defining G_D and dogma thereof helps one find and understand themselves as a spiritual being. It is hard to explain in that context as Christian dogma puts one as having a soul where for contextual purposes in Scientology you by defining you are the soul and the body just an apparatus. Thus that is what Scientology addresses.
So to answer the arguments that state “Scientology hides its real truth from you until OT III” is bunk. Quite simply Scientology does not know “you” the soul nor does it pretend to create a template to. Scientology gives you tools to find out for yourself as “you” are the only one who can, it would be an impossible task otherwise for that person would have to be G_d I.E. all knowing. So again as a message all Scientology can tell you is that “we have the tools to help you” because we are all different and all have different needs and wants and problems and no one is going to pretend to know otherwise.
> It also is considered dangerous to attempt to learn kabbalah without so many years study of Torah and Gemara because you need the foundation.
Source?
@Comment by anmn on April 6, 2008 8:05 am
>No. Out-tech can cause upset. Not Standard Tech correctly applied at the right gradient.
That’s not what I asked. I asked if the tech could cause harm.
I answered that. See above. What does “No” mean, besides no?
>This would be an example of correct tech applied incorrectly, right?
>Remember that these documents have been confirmed as correct by ex-members and by the CoS itself.
What documents? We’re talking about tech. Do you mean the Tech Volumes?
What do you mean by “upset”?
What does “upset” mean? It’s in the dictionary. That’s what I mean.
To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: “I meant what I said and I said what I meant”
THE TECH DOES NOT HARM. “OUT-TECH” IS ALTERING THE TECHNOLOGY.
Pat
@Comment by John on April 6, 2008 7:15 am
>You know what I find interesting Pat, I just confirmed with an ex-scientologist that the OT3 documents available on the internet are, baring minor changes between retellings, correct.
>That is the aliens, hydrogen bombs etc… (I don’t want to retell the whole thing, I’m trying not to be insensitive to your beliefs that learning this information too early may be detrimental to a persons enlightenment)
>Do you think he is lying? Why? Should I ask him about the Three Bears story?
No, he just confirmed what I said. It’s altered.
http://www.scientologymyths.info/aliens/what-is-the-damage-of-knowing-about-or-using-this-data.php
Since you have this great source to use, why bother asking me?
Pat
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 6, 2008 7:01 am
>Unfortunately, while Fishman may be unreliable, his dox are not. As your own link states:
>But in 1993 he wrote a declaration to which he attached as exhibits copies of copyrighted and unpublished scriptures belonging to the Church of Scientology, the originals of which had been stolen from the Church. When the exhibits were repeatedly posted on the Internet, the Church filed suit against the posters for violation of intellectual property rights.
>That sounds like an admission that his versions of the OTs are legitimate (or were; David Miscavige has a nasty habit of squirreling the tech).
How did DM squirrel the tech? He hasn’t written anything or published anything. What tech did he alter?
Pat
test post, if you see this for some reason the post is not showing up.
@John
For source there are quite a few, but i will use the following
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kabbalah.html
“the rabbis of the Talmud regarded the mystical study of God as important yet dangerous”
http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm
“There are a number of stories that discourage the pursuit of such knowledge and power as dangerous and irresponsible. If you see any books on the subject of “practical kabbalah,” you can safely dismiss them as not authentic Jewish tradition because, as these stories demonstrate, this kind of knowledge was traditionally thought to be far too dangerous to be distributed blindly to the masses.”
I am also Jewish. That said reform really do whatever they want disregarding orthodox tradition and law but that is an internal Jewish debate.
@John
For source there are quite a few, but i will use the following:
“the rabbis of the Talmud regarded the mystical study of God as important yet dangerous”
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kabbalah.html
I am sorry for some reason my posts are not showing up.
@John
For source there are quite a few, but i will use the following “the rabbis of the Talmud regarded the mystical study of God as important yet dangerous”
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kabbalah.html
jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm
“There are a number of stories that discourage the pursuit of such knowledge and power as dangerous and irresponsible. If you see any books on the subject of “practical kabbalah,” you can safely dismiss them as not authentic Jewish tradition because, as these stories demonstrate, this kind of knowledge was traditionally thought to be far too dangerous to be distributed blindly to the masses.”
I am also Jewish. That said reform really do whatever they want disregarding orthodox tradition and law but that is an internal Jewish debate.
No, he just confirmed what I said. It’s altered.
Which is, of course, why Steven Fishman was convicted of perjury shortly after filing his affidavit. After all, entering something into a court of law that purports to be the official OT levels but isn’t… well, that’s a crime.
Oh, wait. That’s not what happened at all. In fact, the Church(TM) acted very much like an organization that was trying to cover up a genuinely leaked secret. Heck, they didn’t even press perjury charges over his bizarre version of OT VIII.
How did DM squirrel the tech? He hasn’t written anything or published anything. What tech did he alter?
Obviously, the ex-Church(TM)ies could answer this better than I, but I can give you two little words: “New Basics.” Miscavige is hawking them like they’re the second coming of LRH, and he admits that they’ve been changed from the books Scientologists are used to. Now, either those changes are substantive or they are not. If they are not, his enthusiasm is phony; he’s just selling Scientologists something they already have, the money-grubbing bastard. If they are, his enthusiasm is phonier; he’s replacing the very foundations of the Bridge with an out-tech version, the suppressive bastard. Since you’re the Scientologist, I’ll ask you: which is he? A greedy liar, or a greedy SP liar?
(To quote a particularly famous Scientologist: “Well, you’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t.”
I am sorry for some reason my posts are not showing up.
Louanne has a spam filter enabled. If you try to post two or more hyperlinks in the same post, it’ll kick you out. Someone above mentioned that you could get around it by omitting the “http://www.” . I don’t know if you tried that before or after getting blocked, but you may want to remember that for the future.
I guess Miscavige is getting the blame since he’s in charge of keeping Hubbard’s writings from being changed. I don’t know if he’s the one who’s directly chopping off parts of the recorded lectures that are racist or applaud the Guardian Office, but maybe he thinks that’s ok because they’re not written. Some of the changes are not publishing policies that were canceled. And Hubbard did change his mind about some things, like the second dynamic. In 1979 he decided it wasn’t just sex and family, but first and foremost ‘creativity’. Unfortunately that change really doesn’t make sense with the rest of his writings. But Hubbard can be wrong, he’s not infallible.
I’d suggest reading Gene Zimmer’s take on the changes made, “Alteration of Scientology Materials Report”.
Anyway, in keeping with the questions topic of this ‘board’: According to Hubbard, how do anti-depressants and other drugs prescribed by psychiatrists affect the spirit, thetan, you?
The new basics actually took a lot of work to correct errors made by prior editors and publishers. Also much of the tech has been put in order to better understand it. DM is not altering anything really but correct past mistakes in publishing, making it easier to read and follow and adding glossaries and the like. They are also accompanied by the LRH lectures a benefit that many who studied before did not have.
Thanks for the spam filter advice, it is noted
Regarding the Basics:
As Brad said, it was only transcription errors, and publishers/editor additives and omissions that were corrected in the books. I can send you the DVD where the details are laid out on each book if you’d like. It actually shows the transcripts used to confirm the books against.
If you want, I’m sure that the LRH Archives would be willing to let you see the originals and change logs. Every change was documented.
Having read the originals too, I know they didn’t alter any tech. As for edits on the lectures - what TECH was altered? LRH himself ordered edits from time to time. Can you honestly say that TECH was altered in any of these? LRH was constantly evolving as he continued his research. The study being done chronologically shows this a great deal. Even Clear is defined differently in places. I loved the basics because it let me follow the path he took in arriving at the tech we have today. It’s pure LRH from the original trranscripts and his typed manuscripts.
As I said it’s all documented and that is available to view if you wish.
Pat
> Since you have this great source to use, why bother asking me?
Because I wanted to hear you say it. Because I wasn’t happy listening to just a singular, anti-scientology source.
But when you say ‘altered’, I can accept that within scientology even a single misplaced word can change the understanding of scripture. However, a single misplaced word does not change the content of such.
I have tried and tried to get a straight answer out of scientologists regarding the content of OT III, I have never argued the understanding.
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 6, 2008 8:25 pm
>>No, he just confirmed what I said. It’s altered.
>Which is, of course, why Steven Fishman was convicted of perjury shortly after filing his affidavit. After all, entering something into a court of law that purports to be the official OT levels but isn’t… well, that’s a crime.
>Oh, wait. That’s not what happened at all. In fact, the Church(TM) acted very much like an organization that was trying to cover up a genuinely leaked secret. Heck, they didn’t even press perjury charges over his bizarre version of OT VIII.
What would perjury have to do with anything? There’s a lot of years going on here. What’s up is part of a second theft that was “improved” by Mayo as far as I can tell. You must be pretty sure it’s the real thing to keep bringing it up here. Just keep telling yourself that you’ve got the “real stuff” and then you can go audit this “real stuff” and see how you do. Don’t take my word for it. Go with your current source.
Pat
@Comment by John on April 6, 2008 10:35 pm
>> Since you have this great source to use, why bother asking me?
>Because I wanted to hear you say it.
Thanks for that admission. I never will say yay or nay on it. I have explained that to you. If you trust it so much, have fun with it.
Pat
What would perjury have to do with anything?
Steven Fishman filed a sworn affidavit in a court of law which, according to him, contained authentic copies of the Church(TM)’s Operating Thetan levels. Hence the name, “the Fishman affidavit.” If the documents thus filed had in fact been altered from their original form, Fishman should have been immediately indicted on criminal charges of filing a false affidavit, i.e. perjury. But no such indictment occurred or, to my knowledge, was even sought. Rather than argue authenticity, the Church(TM) argued copyright and trade secrecy. Alas, their lawyers speak louder than their words when it comes to the OTs.
As Brad said, it was only transcription errors, and publishers/editor additives and omissions that were corrected in the books.
So just “greedy liar,” then. Thanks for clearing that up. But one wonders whatever happened to KSW if such “errors” were allowed to go unchecked for so long.
If you want, I’m sure that the LRH Archives would be willing to let you see the originals and change logs.
How gracious of them. You know, they have this thing called “the Internet” now. It’s great; you can actually publish anything you want on it. The Church(TM), for example, can publish the entire LRH Archives, with obvious exceptions for the really high-level stuff. I wouldn’t have to rely on outside sources, you wouldn’t have to rely on verbal tech; it’s a win-win. And they could even keep selling the books, for people who want a hard copy for when they’re away from their computers, so it’s a win-win-win. But I suppose some things would just make too much sense.
Just keep telling yourself that you’ve got the “real stuff” and then you can go audit this “real stuff” and see how you do.
Yeah, no thanks. Worst case scenario: it’s out-tech and I die from pneumonia. Best case scenario: it’s standard tech and I end up like you. I’m not sure which is the more horrible fate. (Nothing personal, Pat, but if Scientology is a religion, you are its fundie.)
@Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 7, 2008 2:52 am
You think I’d be insulted to be called a fundie? LOL I am proud to be a Scientologist. I think being called one is a validation of all that I am doing to keep what is still right in this world. I don’t need to prove myself or my religion to you. This site was set up so you could ask your questions. Obviously, time and time again you have shown that you only want to use it for your own propaganda, and have been unable to have a dialog without tossing insults at those trying to answer you.
I have a question about the gay/transgender issue. If Scientologists are all good with the gays, then why do they have a special group that claims it can “clear” you of your homosexuality, and that John Travolta sometimes spoke to these groups (about 10+ years ago)????????
More questions
Why did Jenna Elfman say AIDS was a “state of mind” when it clearly is not.
Do Scientologists believe AIDS is a state of mind, is this something that they’re taught?
Why do Scientologists commonly mention “baby raping” to non-Scientologists? Are Scientologists taught that people who oppose them are all baby rapists?
@Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 10:11 pm
>I have a question about the gay/transgender issue. If Scientologists are all good with the gays, then why do they have a special group that claims it can “clear” you of your homosexuality, and that John Travolta sometimes spoke to these groups (about 10+ years ago)????????
Wow!
I think that this is the best neutral site I can find on this. It’s true in my experience as well.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_scie.htm
@Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 10:21 pm
>More questions
>Why did Jenna Elfman say AIDS was a “state of mind” when it clearly is not.
>Do Scientologists believe AIDS is a state of mind, is this something that they’re taught?
In Scientology, what is true for you is what you have personally observed to be true.
Jenna obviously has that truth for herself. I am only guessing at this point that Jenna may feel that it’s psychosomatic. (Caused by the mind). I personally have no data on it being one way or the other. Since some forms are terminal, we aren’t able to audit those who have it. (That is petitionable).
There’s another door open if someone were to try handling it through Dianetics in case it is psychosomatic.
Here’s a link for you:
http://www.dianetics.org
You don’t have to be a Scientologist to use the techniques in the book.
Pat
Why do Scientologists commonly mention “baby raping” to non-Scientologists? Are Scientologists taught that people who oppose them are all baby rapists?
So you’re saying you’re not aware of a group within the COS Celebrity Centre that specifically claims to “clear” people of homosexuality, that at one point John Travolta was the head of? Because my brother tried to buy his way into that group so he could meet Travolta after a friend of his told him that he was in the group and Travolta spoke frequently.
@Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 10:21 pm
Why do Scientologists commonly mention “baby raping” to non-Scientologists? Are Scientologists taught that people who oppose them are all baby rapists?
Wow, again!
Interesting choice of words. “commonly” You’re gonna have to give me some specifics to work with here. I’ve never heard of this, so I guess not it couldn’t be as common as you have been led to believe. I’ve been a Scientologist for over 36 years.
Pat
psychosomatic AIDS????????????
@Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 11:11 pm
>So you’re saying you’re not aware of a group within the COS Celebrity Centre that specifically claims to “clear” people of homosexuality, that at one point John Travolta was the head of?
That’s news to me. I’ve never heard of such a group and besides it would go against policy on no rules etc for sexual preferences. Did you read the link I gave you?
>Because my brother tried to buy his way into that group so he could meet Travolta after a friend of his told him that he was in the group and Travolta spoke frequently.
Interesting. What happened?
Pat
@Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 11:15 pm
>psychosomatic AIDS????????????
Is that a question? I thought I already answered it.
Pat
well…fellow scientologist Jenna Elfman to begin with…you MUST be aware of her tirade against a man, strolling with his family, that had a t-shirt on that said Scientology is Gay
Roecker quickly recognized the couple as actor Bodhi Elfman and his wife, ‘Dharma and Greg’ star Jenna Elfman. Mr. Elfman’s ire was apparently drawn by Roecker’s self-made t-shirt, which had a picture of Tom Cruise on the front under the caption “Scientology is Gay!” and a ‘Stayin’-Alive’-era John Travolta on the back with the words “Very Gay!” For the record, both Cruise and Travolta have said repeatedly they are not gay.
According to Roecker, who first recounted the incident on LA’s KROQ-FM’s Kevin and Bean Show, the invective started to fly after he made several references to Scientology theology and its reported central tenant, the story of Xenu. Roecker says Jenna repeatedly said “What crimes have you committed?” and began screaming at Roecker, “Have you raped a baby?” as motorists on Los Feliz Boulevard drove by in snarled traffic.
@ Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 11:21 pm
So… from a report that one person did this, you have it as “commonly”?
Who is Roecker?
Pat
I think you’re being just a little coy about the connection between the VERY common statements “what are your crimes” and references to opponents of the COS as being baby rapists……….if you’re going to deny it, thats cool.
Who is Roecker? He’s a dude that was verbally assaulted by Jenna and her husband on a sreet in LA because they didn’t like his t-shirt
youtube.com/watch?v=8U_wIpibRNk
@Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 11:31 pm
Roecker et al.
So what? He went there to provoke them with a damn shirt denigrating their religion and start babbling about ufos and whatever else his crooked brain finds in the emptiness of his head. Provocation, nothing else, was his target. Or did the photographer show up “accidentally”? No. It went as planned, celebs come, they get pissed and scream back at him. And then he goes whiny, the poor guy, feeling soooo insulted. Poor show, what a wimp.
Now, did you have a question or is this your favorite ranting place?
- Louanne
He went there? He went WHERE? And what photographer? I’ve never seen a single photo of the incident….what are you talking about?
And YES if you look above I had a question…Pat didn’t know what I was talking about so I provided him with two examples………..and since I’ve never posted here before this IS NOT my “favorite ranting place”
Pat, what happened is my brother paid about 350.00, called me, told me he wanted to borrow money so he could keep going to get to the Travolta “class” I said forget it. He quit. Granted, he only wanted to do it so he could be in the same room with Travolta……but so did every single other gay circuit boy who paid thousands to take courses, etc….because he spoke at the gay meetings or whatever……it sounded like a crock to me….to sucker people in under false pretenses….show me someone who has ACTUALLY been “cleared” of their gayness and I’ll eat my computer. It’s just like those religious “retreats” to try to cure young people , etc of being gay….they’re like kids in a candy store at those things, it’s all about fucking not being cured of anything.
Tone it down(or up?) Libraesque, you’re not really helping things by ranting, no offense.
Firstly, welcome back Louanne, good to see you again.
> Thanks for that admission. I never will say yay or nay on it. I have explained that to you. If you trust it so much, have fun with it.
And here in lies the problem. Person A says something, and person B says ‘I won’t say yes or no’. It’s not that I inherently believe person A over person B, but person B doesn’t give me much to work with.
Perhaps you can clear up something for me though, can you please wordclear(?) thetan, operating thetan and body thetan? I know these terms mean different things but I think I may be confusing them.
@Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 11:53 pm
>He went there? He went WHERE? And what photographer? I’ve never seen a single photo of the incident….what are you talking about?
You didn’t like my answer that this “incident” was so minor that I’d never heard of it before.
Going by what Lu said, it was a setup complete with photographer to catch the reaction to the t-shirt. Then he runs and complains about it. Don’t you find that sick? Jenna and Danny are great humanitarians.
Pat