It’s xmas eve and still so many presents to wrap and prepare for tomorrow… so only a short pointer to an interesting article. Otherwise: Happy Holidays!
Source: http://www.scientologynews.org/press-releases/christmas-media-advisory.html
The Scientology Religion and the Holiday Season
At this time of year, media often ask how Scientologists observe the holiday season. To answer that question, the Church of Scientology International provides the following:
How do Scientologists celebrate the holiday season?
Observances of the holidays are as diverse as Scientologists are.
Because the Scientology religion is practiced in 165 countries and territories, Scientologists come from a wide variety of faiths and cultural traditions.
But no matter what their background, they, like most people, gather with loved ones to enjoy the warmth of friends and family and celebrate the joy of the season.
Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard honored the great religious leaders of the past for the wisdom they brought to the world, writing that Scientology shares “the goals set for Man by Christ, which are wisdom, good health and immortality.” It is in this spirit that Scientologists celebrate the holiday season, whether Christmas, Hanukah, Kwanzaa or any other religious or cultural tradition.
Scientologists live by a code which includes: “To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to help my family, friends, groups and the world.” During the holiday season, Scientologists are especially active in this respect, volunteering in a wide range of endeavors to improve the lives of individuals and the community and bring joy to those who may need assistance.
What do Churches of Scientology do during the holiday season?
In addition to regular Scientology religious services, Churches of Scientology provide many special holiday activities for Scientologists and open houses and tours for the community at large.
Scientology Churches and their parishioners also organize and support numerous charitable events during the holidays, such as toy drives, food and clothing collections, and parties for underprivileged children. Scientologists visit nursing homes, orphanages, hospitals and homeless shelters, bringing holiday cheer through gifts and entertainment.
With the opening of new Ideal Churches of Scientology, community and charity events sponsored by the Church and its members are held continuously throughout the holiday season. In Inglewood, California, with its new Church and the nearby Scientology Community Center, in Melbourne, Australia, Twin Cities, Minnesota, Moscow, Russia and Tampa, Florida, social campaigns have their own dedicated spaces to get together and work out support actions for the community.
Christmas Stories
The Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International in Hollywood produces Christmas Stories, an annual holiday benefit performance presented in the style of a 1930s radio show with traditional and original stories, songs and skits. (http://www.scientology.cc)
For nearly two decades, proceeds have benefited the Hollywood Police Activities League’s annual Christmas party for underprivileged children and PAL’s year-round inner city programs for at-risk youth.
Winter Wonderland
In an annual tradition beginning in 1983 when Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard provided a 60-foot Christmas tree as a gift to the people of Hollywood, Winter Wonderland holiday village is erected each year on Hollywood Boulevard as a service to the community. The opening of the village on the Sunday after Thanksgiving signals the start of the holiday season, when Santa arrives in his sleigh—always the final float in the famed Hollywood Christmas Parade—and lights the tree and village. Made possible by the Friends of L. Ron Hubbard Foundation, Winter Wonderland attracts more than 40,000 Los Angeles residents and tourists to daily live performances by community vocal and instrumental groups and snow banks imported for the season.
Winter Wonderland is also presented for three weeks each December in Clearwater, Florida, as a service to the community and to benefit needy children. The Church of Scientology and parishioners organize and sponsor the Christmas village, with ten of thousands of residents and tourists enjoying Santa, Mrs. Claus’s cookie decorating kitchen, live entertainment by local school, church and professional performing groups, a petting zoo and pony rides. (http://www.clearwatercommunityvolunteers.org)
83 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
I’m curious, how do you scientologists here feel about management suing Debbie Cook? She tried to keep her email from the media, and even asked news outlets to remove their coverage. The policy of disconnection ruined her business and the only negative things she said was under oath. I know that many scientologists are disgusted with management for their treatment of the situation- how do you all feel?
There is a new “what is scientology” video on Scientology.org by the way…
Watch it! Its great!
Hi luke… saw it!
Luke… you Luked at the video?
Shut up!
Lol…
HNY Scientologists!
You too, Luke. Flourish and prosper :)
Pat
Happy new year Luke!
The same to all of you!
Happy new year. Do as Pat says, Flourish and prosper!
May your future be one of freedom from tyranny and may you have the power to choose. Flourish and prosper.
“The first principle of my own philosophy is that wisdom is meant for anyone who wishes to reach for it. It is the servant of the commoner and king alike and should never be regarded with awe.
…”The second principle of my own philosophy is that it must be capable of being applied.
…”The third principle is that any philosophic knowledge is only valuable if it is true or if it works.”
…
- L. Ron Hubbard.
From Scientology: A New Slant on Life, “My Philosophy”
Happy new year and and enjoy the email from Debbie Cook!!!
Yes, happy new year to all! Another year, full of promise and potential.
And, whoever Debbie is, send my best :)
Oh, duh, never mind- I found it. You’re talking about Debbie Cook, the former captain of flag:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/article1208723.ece
she talks about it to her fellow scientologists here:
www(dot)facebook(dot)com/profile(dot)php?id=806833188&sk=wall#!/profile(dot)php?id=100000497924308&sk=wall
As we enter a new
year, it is hoped that 2012 can be a year of great dissemination and a year
of real progress up The Bridge for all Scientologists.
Although I am not in the Sea Org right now, I served in the Sea Org at Flag
for 29 years. 17 of those years were as Captain FSO. I am a trained auditor
and C/S as well as an OEC, FEBC and DSEC.
I am completely dedicated to the technology of Dianetics and Scientology and
the works of LRH. I have seen some of the most stunning and miraculous
results in the application of LRH technology and I absolutely know it is
worth fighting to keep it pure and unadulterated.
My husband and I are in good standing and we are not connected with anyone
who is not in good standing. We have steadfastly refused to speak to any
media, even though many have contacted us.
But I do have some very serious concerns about out-KSW that I see permeating
the Scientology religion.
I have the utmost respect for the thousands of dedicated Scientologists and
Sea Org members. Together, we have come through everything this world could
throw at us and have some real impingement on the world around us. I am
proud of our accomplishments and I know you are too.
However there is no question that this new age of continuous fundraising is
not our finest moment.
LRH says in HCO PL 9 Jan 51, An Essay on Management,
“drop no curtains between the organization and the public about anything.”
-LRH
Based on this policy I am communicating to you about some situations that we
need to do something about within our religion, within our group.
Actions that are either not covered in policy or directly violate LRH policy
and tech include the extreme over-regging and fund-raising activities that
have become so much a part of nearly every Sea Org org and Class V org as
well as every “OT Committee”. This fundraising is not covered anywhere in
LRH policy.
Hardworking Sea Org members and the dedicated staff of orgs around the world
aren’t choosing to do these actions. Nor are the OTs. I am sure they would
be more than happy if they could just get on with direct dissemination of
Scientology as they have done for so many years.
But the truth is that this is being driven from the very highest echelons
within the Scientology structure and clearly there is a lot of pressure to
make targets that are being set.
The IAS: The IAS was created unbeknownst to LRH in 1984 by Marc Yager and
David Miscavige. This was supposed to be based on LRH policies on the
subject of membership and the HASI, however the IAS is nothing like the
membership system described by LRH which only has two memberships and is
covered in HCO PL 22 March 1965 “Current Promotion and Org Program Summary,
Membership Rundown” and states:
“There are two memberships…”- LRH
LRH lists there the INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP and gives its cost at 10
pounds sterling or $30 US. He also lists a LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP which is
priced at $75 US. There are no other memberships or statuses approved or
known to LRH.
Furthermore, membership monies are supposed to go directly to the org where
the membership is signed up, and the money used for dissemination by that
org, in that area. This is covered in HCOPL 1 Sept 1965R Membership
Policies.
“It all goes into the HCO Book Account in the area where the membership is
brought and is not part of the organization’s weekly gross income.
Membership monies go to dissemination”.- LRH
Currently membership monies are held as Int reserves and have grown to well
in excess of a billion dollars. Only a tiny fraction has ever been spent, in
violation of the policy above. Only the interest earned from the holdings
have been used very sparingly to fund projects through grants. In fact many
of the activities you see at IAS events are not actually funded by the IAS,
but rather by the Scientologists involved.
Think about it, how many ads disseminating Scientology, Dianetics or any Scn
affiliated programs have you seen on TV? Heard on the radio? Seen in
newspapers? I haven’t seen one in the 4 years I have lived in San Antonio,
Texas, the 7th largest city in the US. How many have you seen?
Donating anything more than a lifetime membership to the IAS is not based on
LRH policy. The article “What Your Donations Buy” (The Auditor, The Monthly
Journal of Scientology No. 51, 1970) is clearly talking about how the church
uses your donations for Dianetics and Scientology services. Next time you
are asked to donate outside of services, realize that you are engaged in
fundraising and ask to see something in writing from L. Ron Hubbard that
this is something he expects from you as a Scientologist.
New Org Buildings: LRH also never directed the purchase of opulent buildings
or the posh renovations or furnishings for every org.
In fact, if you read HCO PL 12 March 75 Issue II, “The Ideal Org”, which is
what this program has been called, and nowhere in it will you find 20
million dollar buildings or even any reference to the poshness of org
premises at all as part of LRH’s description of an “Ideal Org”. Instead, an
Ideal Org was one that delivered and moved people up The Bridge – something
that is not part of this “Ideal Org” program.
LRH says in the PL that an Ideal Org:
“would be clean and attractive enough not to repel its public” – LRH.
This is all it says about the state of the building.
As a result of this off-policy alteration of the Ideal Org PL, we have the
majority of top OTs, now deemed “OT Ambassadors”, heavily engaged in
fund-raising activities that include “bingo”, “pirate dinners”, “knitting
classes”, “hay rides”, and many other activities strictly revolving around
raising funds for the required multi-millions of dollars to fund their
“Ideal Org”. As part of this, people around every org are now asked to
donate to their local “Ideal Org” instead of their own services or their own
Bridge.
LRH says in HCO PL Org Ethics and Tech:
“GET RID OF DISTRACTIONS FROM SCIENTOLOGY in your org. Baby-sitting or
raffle tickets and such nonsense.”-LRH
Yet these distractions are rampant as they are being used as fund-raisers to
get money for the huge quotas being issued to fund the “Ideal Org”.
“If the org slumps… don’t engage in ‘fund-raising’ or ‘selling postcards’
or borrowing money. Just make more income with Scientology.
It’s a sign of very poor management to seek extraordinary solutions for
finance outside Scientology. It has always failed.”
“For orgs as for pcs, ‘Solve It With Scientology’.
“Every time I myself have sought to solve financial or personnel in other
ways than Scientology I have lost out. So I can tell you from experience
that org solvency lies in more Scientology, not patented combs or
fund-raising barbeques.”
HCO PL 24 February 1964, Issue II, Org Programming, (OEC Vol. 7, p. 930)
The point is that Scientologists and OT’s need to be training, auditing and
disseminating to raw public- not regging each other or holding internal
fundraisers.
Out Tech: Over the last few years we have seen literally hundreds and
hundreds of people who were validated as clear using the CCRD as developed
by LRH now being told they are not Clear. This included hundreds of OTs who
were then put onto NED as a “handling”. LRH clearly forbid any Dianetics to
be run on OTs in HCOB “Dianetics Forbidden on OTs”. This is out tech. This
entire technical “handling” was directed personally by COB RTC and was done
on thousands of OTs. But it was based not on an LRH HCO Bulletin, but rather
based on a single C/S instruction where LRH C/Sed one pre-OT who had not
achieved the state of clear but was mid OT III and not making it. LRH
directed a solo handling that the pre-OT was to do to get himself to achieve
the state of Clear. This LRH C/S taken out of context was then used to
implement a technical handling that was in direct violation of an LRH HCOB.
This and other “technical handlings” done on Solo NOTs auditors created
great expense and hardship on Solo NOTs auditors around the world as they
were made to do these handlings to continue on the level.
Then there are the “fast grades at Flag” that no other org has. How can it
be that Flag has been delivering grades differently to the rest of the world
for the last 3 years? Whatever the problem is, the fact is that having “fast
Grades” at Flag creates a hidden data line and is a HIGH CRIME and the
subject of an entire policy letter called HCOPL “TECH DEGRADES” which LRH
has placed at the start of every Scientology course.
More recently the fad seems to be that nearly everyone needs to “re-do their
Purif and do a long objectives program”, including many OTs mid Solo NOTs.
There is nothing wrong with doing objectives, but it is a clear violation of
HCOB ‘MIXING RUNDOWNS AND REPAIRS” to have a person mid a rundown or OT
level be taken off it and placed on an objectives program.
Solo NOTs auditors are also being made to get their objectives from a Class
IX auditor at great expense as they are not being allowed to co-audit.
Flag has made many millions of dollars on the above listed out tech
handlings because OTs mid Solo NOTs are forced to get these out-tech actions
to be able to get back onto and stay on the level and complete it. Not to
mention the spiritual effects of the out tech that this has on each OT.
I myself was subject to these out tech “handlings”, including extensive FPRD
mid Solo NOTs. It took its toll in many ways, including physical situations
I am still dealing with today. So I have some reality of the hardship
caused.
LRH Command Structure: LRH left us with a complex and balanced command
structure, with our orgs led by the Office of ED International. This office
was considered so important that LRH created a special management group
called the Watch Dog Committee whose only purpose was to see that this
office and the other needed layers of management existed. LRH ED 339R speaks
of this extensively as the protection for our Church. But these people are
missing. And not just some. As of just a few years ago there were no members
of the office of ED Int on post, not to mention top execs throughout the
International Management structure.
You may have also wondered… where is Heber, the President of the Church?
What about Ray Mitthoff, Senior C/S International, the one that LRH
personally turned over the upper OT Levels to? How about Norman Starkey,
LRH’s Trustee? What happened to Guillaume – Executive Director
International? And Marc Yeager, the WDC Chairman? What happened to the other
International Management executives that you have seen at events over the
years?
The truth is that I spent weeks working in the empty International
Management building at Int. Empty because everyone had been removed from
post. When I first went up lines I was briefed extensively by David
Miscavige about how bad all of them were and how they had done many things
that were all very discreditable. This seemed to “explain” the fact that the
entirety of the Watchdog Committee no longer existed. The entirety of the
Executive Strata, which consisted of ED International and 11 other top
International executives that were the top executives in their particular
fields, no longer existed. That the Commodore’s Messenger Org International
no longer existed. All of these key command structures of Scientology
International, put there by LRH, had been removed.
There were hundreds and hundreds of unanswered letters and requests for help
from org staff, written based on LRH ED 339R where LRH says that staff can
write to these top executives in the Exec Strata for help. But this is not
possible if all these execs have been removed and no one is there to help
them or to get evaluations and programming done to expand Scientology.
Well, after that I got to spend some quality time with Heber, Ray Mithoff,
Norman Starkey, Guillaume, as well as the entirety of International
Management at the time, who were all off post and doing very long and harsh
ethics programs. These have gone on for years and to the only result of that
they are still off post. There is no denying that these top executives have
all gradually disappeared from the scene. You don’t see them at the big
events anymore or on the ship at Maiden Voyage.
David Miscavige has now become the “leader” of the Scientology religion. Yet
what LRH left behind was a huge structure to properly manage all aspects of
the Scientology religion. He put a complete and brilliant organizational
structure there, not one individual. There never was supposed to be a
“leader” other than LRH himself as the goal maker for our group.
There is a situation here and even if you have not been to the International
Management Base you should be able to see that over regging and frequent
tech changes are not OK and you have a responsibility to do something to
Keep Scientology Working. You should be able to find and read the
references on membership in OEC Volume 6. Find and read the HCO PL entitled
“The Ideal Org” (Data Series 40). Find and read the references on org
buildings, including HCO PL 24 Aug 65 II, Cleanliness of Quarters and Staff,
Improve our Image. Also, HCO PL 17 June 69, The Org Image.
If you don’t want to make waves or put yourself in danger of being taken off
the level or denied eligibility, then there are some simple things you can
do. First and foremost, withdraw your support from off policy actions. Stop
donating to anything other than your own services and actual Bridge
progress. Simply demand to see an LRH reference that says you are required
to make other such donations. No one will be able to produce any references
because there aren’t any.
Stop supporting any of the activities that are being done to forward
off-policy fund-raising in your area.
LRH says what he expects of a Scientologist – that is what he expects you to
do. In fact he put it in HCOB 10 June 1960 Issue I, Keeping Scientology
Working Series 33, WHAT WE EXPECT OF A SCIENTOLOGIST. Read it and follow it.
The other thing you can do is to send this email to as many others as you
can, even if you do it anonymously.
Please keep this email among us, the Scientologists. The media have no place
in this. You may wonder why I have not written a KR and gone about my
business. The answer is, I have. But there is no longer anyone to send that
KR to.
But you can and should write reports and bring off-policy to the attention
of local org executives and local Sea org members.
We are a strong and powerful group and we can affect a change. We have
weathered many storms. I am sorry that I am the one telling you, but a new
storm is upon us. It’s waves are already in the media and the world around
us.
The truth is that as a Scientologist you are more able, more perceptive and
have a higher integrity. Scientology is supposed to allow you to “think for
yourself” and never compromise your own integrity. And most certainly LRH
held every Scientologist responsible to KEEP SCIENTOLOGY WORKING.
I am not trying to do anything other than affect a change in serious off
policy actions occurring. My husband and I have most of our family and many
many good friends who are Scientologists. I have not been real interested in
sticking my neck out like this.
However, I also know that I dedicated my entire adult life to supporting LRH
and the application of LRH technology and if I ever had to look LRH in the
eye I wouldn’t be able to say I did everything I could to Keep Scientology
Working if I didn’t do something about it now.
We all have a stake in this. It is simply not possible to read the LRH
references and not see the alterations and violations that are currently
occurring.
You have a very simple obligation to LRH. Don’t participate in anything off
policy, and let others know they should not either. If every person who
reads this email does nothing more than step back from off-policy actions we
would have changed direction. If we took all that energy and directed it
into auditing, training and raw public dissemination, we would be winning.
And that is what I wish for you and all of us as we ring in this new year.
ARC,
Debbie Cook
Trolls hit even with good wishes! no surprise!
Thanks for that quote pat and may you flourish and prosper too!
Sigh, Luke- always the first to call names. I’ll take the high road and say, “I’m rubber, you’re glue- whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!”
Seriously, bud- the name calling is beneath you.
I’m curious, Luke- had you received the email from former Flag Captain Debbie Cook? If you didn’t receive it, have you read it? I would wager that the answer is no… If you haven’t, would you be able to confront the KSW concepts that she presents?
Call4… I am australian. It is my DUTY to tell you….
DRINK A CUP OF CONCRETE AND TOUGHN THE FUCK UP!
Complain again about name calling again and i will simply rewrite that same sentence…. seriously i know a 3 year old here who can tolerate more than you.
Quit prancing around like a faire queen with all this crying and just comment.
Not discussing debbie cook’s email or any of your questions here… start another thread and ask pat or someone and i might get involved, might not.
I’m under no obligation to answer any of your questions or even talk to you. If i dont reply to you for any strange logic you have to the contrary DEAL WITH IT.
Lol :)
No. I don’t accept that. I have always treated you with dignity and respect, you are insulting, rude and unable to effectively communicate. I think it’s reasonable to expect the “most ethical people on the planet” to be fairly respectful and decent, even online. The difference between you and me? I’m not a scientologist- you are, and you appear to be fairly insane. That’s not an insult, just an observation that you appear to be unstable. And you present that time and time again.
So I will take the high road, even if you, a scientologist, can’t control yourself online.
Oh, I might remind you that YOU came here to talk to ME! Saying that you have no obligation to reply to me is fairly obvious, since I didn’t direct anything to you nor ask you to join in on this conversation. You’re welcome to, of course, but there’s not much point in talking to me just to tell me that you’re not talking to me, is there? :)
And you don’t need to reply to Debbie Cook’s email- I would think, however, that any scientologist would rather follow Hubbard’s rules that the COBs.
Lol :)
No. I don’t accept that. I have always treated you with dignity and respect, you are insulting, rude and unable to effectively communicate. I think it’s reasonable to expect the “most ethical people on the planet” to be fairly respectful and decent, even online. The difference between you and me? I’m not a scientologist- you are, and you appear to be fairly insane. That’s not an insult, just an observation that you appear to be unstable. And you present that time and time again.
So I will take the high road, even if you, a scientologist, can’t control yourself online.
CUP OF CONCRETE PLEASE! If you said that in australia you’d be laughed at. Scientologist or not!
Comment by Callfourreform on January 8, 2012 10:39 am
Oh, I might remind you that YOU came here to talk to ME!
NO! I HAVENT! My first comment is on trolls… you agree you are a troll then?
Saying that you have no obligation to reply to me is fairly obvious, since I didn’t direct anything to you nor ask you to join in on this conversation. You’re welcome to, of course, but there’s not much point in talking to me just to tell me that you’re not talking to me, is there? :)
Yes so you dont waste more of your time….
And you don’t need to reply to Debbie Cook’s email- I would think, however, that any scientologist would rather follow Hubbard’s rules that the COBs.
Yes ron says to ignore… Read them again…
Like I said, you’re not hurting my feelings- you haven’t given me any reason to respect you enough to invest in what you have to say. But, you come across as angry, defensive, bitter and poorly controlled- why on earth would anyone want what you have to offer? Were you such a poor communicator BEFORE scientology, as well?
Your first comment was passive-agressive- who were you referencing, then? Please do tell. Regardless- my reply said as much. But you continued talking of other topics.
You misunderstand what I’m saying- I have no problem replying to you. But you seem compelled to reply to me. It’s flattering, really, I appreciate the atetntion :)
“Yes ron says to ignore… Read them again…”
Ignore what? The way that Ron said to do business? Did you actually read the email?
Like I said, you’re not hurting my feelings- you haven’t given me any reason to respect you enough to invest in what you have to say.
But your compelled to answer! Flattering! Damm i’m good!
But, you come across as angry, defensive, bitter and poorly controlled- why on earth would anyone want what you have to offer?
Read the books if you want what SCIENTOLOGY has to offer.
Go to scientology.org or go to your local library.
Listen to me if you want that AUSTRALIA has to offer!
People who swear like sailors yet have DEEP respect for all cultures. Its an amazing place to you yankie “dont want to hurt anyone but we will bomb thier country” bullshit.
Were you such a poor communicator BEFORE scientology, as well?
Its just Australian tone. You cry this much over so little gives me the shits. You remind me of my second grade school teacher. Not to mension crying babies of the second grade also!
Your first comment was passive-agressive- who were you referencing, then?
The trolls above. Trolls like you are here too i guess… Keep discussing debbie cook when the thread starts with “happy new year” and a quote. Even went so far as to put the whole email in the thread!
“Yes ron says to ignore… Read them again…”
Ignore what?
You
If you want to discuss debbie cook open a new thread with a question and i might answer it, might not. This thread isnt the place and its clear trolling to keep bringing it up.
“But your compelled to answer! Flattering! Damm i’m good!”
No- I enjoy answering :)
“Read the books if you want what SCIENTOLOGY has to offer.
Go to scientology.org or go to your local library.
Listen to me if you want that AUSTRALIA has to offer!
People who swear like sailors yet have DEEP respect for all cultures. Its an amazing place to you yankie “dont want to hurt anyone but we will bomb thier country” bullshit.”
LOL, I’ve read the scientology books. Some parts are actually well written. Now… who have I bombed exactly?
“Its just Australian tone. You cry this much over so little gives me the shits. You remind me of my second grade school teacher. Not to mension crying babies of the second grade also!”
I’m not talking about your tone any more, I’m talking about your inability to actually intelligently discuss a topic. You seem to prefer blanket insults and passive aggressive tones. That’s fine for you, but it makes you look… well… silly. Like I said, I’ve known too many aussies- they’re not all poor communicators. Most can actually form a compelling argument. I just think that you, personally, are so quick to jump to insults. You make my point for me better than I ever could.
“The trolls above. Trolls like you are here too i guess… Keep discussing debbie cook when the thread starts with “happy new year” and a quote. Even went so far as to put the whole email in the thread!”
Lol, it’s relevant. Someone brought her up, so we discussed it. Guess what? You don’t have to. But, then again, I really don’t think you’re read it, so you probably can’t. If you don’t want people to bring things up, or want to set rules, feel free to suggest them to the blog owner.
“You”
And yet… you can’t, can’t you?
“If you want to discuss debbie cook open a new thread with a question and i might answer it, might not. This thread isnt the place and its clear trolling to keep bringing it up.”
Now what would that get me? I wasn’t seeking your opinion, and I don’t think that you can discuss it. So, if you want to talk about it, feel free. If you want to start a thread, feel free. But I don’t think you have anything productive to add to the conversation. So far, history has proven me right. You won’t be any more able to construct a logical argument in a new thread than this one.
Sorry my bad…
On ignoring the question.
Ron does state quite clearly to ignore clear questions (and people) where “any answer is made into evidence of what they want to proove”. I dont have the reference here.
Ron states that you are also service facing as well.
LOL, I’ve read the scientology books. Some parts are actually well written.
You dont like what it has to offer? What did you get out of them?
Now… who have I bombed exactly?
You dont know who americans have bombed? HA! You really are in the second grade!
“Its just Australian tone. You cry this much over so little gives me the shits.——
me better than I ever could.
You sound like SUCH A DICKHEAD!
GROW SOME BALLS FOR FUCK SAKE! “your not talking intelligently!! WAAA WAAA!!” BABY!
Just TALK. FUCK the insults if you have any strength in you at all. Every Australian knows that!
Lol, it’s relevant. Someone brought her up,
Yes a troll. DERRRRRRRRRRR Thats my point. You seem unwiling to confront that.
so we discussed it. Guess what? You don’t have to.
And i’m not. I might in another thread though. Have you tried?
But, then again, I really don’t think you’re read it,
I have.
so you probably can’t. If you don’t want people to bring things up, or want to set rules, feel free to suggest them to the blog owner.
MY POINT is bringing it up in a thread like this IS TROLLING… ISNT THAT CLEAR? You seem unwilling to confront THAT FACT or even discuss it.
You bringing up the email over and over again further is YOU HELPING THE TROLLS!
You need thetan glasses or something to clear it up?
“You dont know who americans have bombed? HA! You really are in the second grade!”
Wow, good comeback potsie. No, ME, personally. In case you didn’t know, I’m not the whole of America.
“You sound like SUCH A DICKHEAD!
GROW SOME BALLS FOR FUCK SAKE! “your not talking intelligently!! WAAA WAAA!!” BABY!
Just TALK. FUCK the insults if you have any strength in you at all. Every Australian knows that!”
“The most ethical people on the planet”, ladies and gentlemen! A shining example of communication tech in action. For a non-scientologist, do you think that I want what you have to offer?
“Yes a troll. DERRRRRRRRRRR Thats my point. You seem unwiling to confront that.”
How are you defining troll? Anything off-topic of the approved post?
“And i’m not. I might in another thread though. Have you tried?”
Goof for you! You’re just talking about how you won’t talk about it. Acknowledged- anything useful to say
“I have.”
Okay- so do you follow hubbard tech or COB tech?
“MY POINT is bringing it up in a thread like this IS TROLLING… ISNT THAT CLEAR? You seem unwilling to confront THAT FACT or even discuss it.
You bringing up the email over and over again further is YOU HELPING THE TROLLS!
You need thetan glasses or something to clear it up?”
No, because there’s no proof that the thetan exists, so I don’t think it’ll do me too much good.
It’s off topic, I would like to talk about it. Am I not free to do so?
I’m off to enjoy my social life- enjoy yours :) See you later.
“You dont know who americans have bombed? HA! You really are in the second grade!”
Wow, good comeback potsie. No, ME, personally. In case you didn’t know, I’m not the whole of America.
I never said you personally. I said YOU AMERICANS… DERR…
“You sound like SUCH A DICKHEAD!
GROW SOME BALLS FOR FUCK SAKE! “your not talking intelligently!! WAAA WAAA!!” BABY!
Just TALK. FUCK the insults if you have any strength in you at all. Every Australian knows that!”
“The most ethical people on the planet”, ladies and gentlemen! A shining example of communication tech in action. For a non-scientologist, do you think that I want what you have to offer?
Read the books if you want what scientology has to offer! I’m only what AUSTRALAIAN BLUE COLAR people have to offer. I’m not here to convert you! DERRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Sorry all scientologists are unique and that is what scientology has to offer. YOU getting the chance to be MORE YOU.
“Yes a troll. DERRRRRRRRRRR Thats my point. You seem unwiling to confront that.”
How are you defining troll? Anything off-topic of the approved post?
You dont know what a troll is? Look it up! 4chan is full of them and they are even proud of it!
Basically a troll is one who goes on threads, knowing the sort of people that post on them, with the purpose of irritating them. Its an online term refering to nearly every comment made by “annonymous” on media article on Scientology.
“And i’m not. I might in another thread though. Have you tried?”
Goof for you! You’re just talking about how you won’t talk about it.
OPEN ANOTHER THREAD AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!
“I have.”
Okay- so do you follow hubbard tech or COB tech?
Not discussing in this thread open a new one please!
“MY POINT is bringing it up in a thread like this IS TROLLING… ISNT THAT CLEAR? You seem unwilling to confront THAT FACT or even discuss it.
You bringing up the email over and over again further is YOU HELPING THE TROLLS!
You need thetan glasses or something to clear it up?”
No, because there’s no proof that the thetan exists, so I don’t think it’ll do me too much good.
Typical troll statement…
It’s off topic, I would like to talk about it. Am I not free to do so?
OPEN A NEW THREAD! The topic of this thread is CLEAR… bringing up debbie cooks email when someone writes “happy new year” and a quote from Ron IS TROLLING!!!
I’m off to enjoy my social life- enjoy yours :) See you later.
You’ll be back….
“I never said you personally. I said YOU AMERICANS… DERR…”
Exactly my point- what does that have to do with me?
“Read the books if you want what scientology has to offer! I’m only what AUSTRALAIAN BLUE COLAR people have to offer. I’m not here to convert you! DERRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Sorry all scientologists are unique and that is what scientology has to offer. YOU getting the chance to be MORE YOU.”
I’ve read the books- I find that they’re poorly constructed, often rambling and without a shred of scientific method or capability. Is that what it has to offer? No thanks, I don’t want that. But YOU are a real life scientologist, aren’t you? Not black and white pages in a book- you’re an actual product of the tech; is this “more you”? Has scientology made you more able to “discuss” things like this? IF that’s the case… no thanks, I’ll keep my ability to discuss logically. Honestly, I find that a lot of scientologists are angry, prone to outbursts and unable to discuss certain topics. No thank you.
“You dont know what a troll is? Look it up! 4chan is full of them and they are even proud of it!
Basically a troll is one who goes on threads, knowing the sort of people that post on them, with the purpose of irritating them. Its an online term refering to nearly every comment made by “annonymous” on media article on Scientology.”
Troll: (Noun) Anyone that disagrees with “Aussie Luke”
Seriously, you have a pretty wide definition, and it’s not really tied in reality. I’m not here to irritate anybody, but that seems to happen once in a while. You just seem a little more sensitive than most others. You feel “trolled” because you don’t like the topic. So… feel free to not discuss them. It’s amazing, but you can do that.
“OPEN ANOTHER THREAD AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!”
No.
“Not discussing in this thread open a new one please!”
No. I’m fine here. If you can’t form a logical argument here, you won’t get any more capable in another thread.
“Typical troll statement…”
Nope- an observation. Hubbard made certain promises, but they’re not observable nor based in any scientific reality. I don’t need thetan glasses because there’s no proof such a thing would work; I appreaciate the suggestion, though. Most people base their decisions on logical, scientific information, and can seperate what they “believe” versus what they can scientifically trust. Maybe not you, but most of us can tell the difference.
“OPEN A NEW THREAD! The topic of this thread is CLEAR… bringing up debbie cooks email when someone writes “happy new year” and a quote from Ron IS TROLLING!!!”
Then tell louanne- you can ask her to delete it so it’s more pleasing to you. But someone brought it up; you don’t have to discuss it nor discuss people discussing it. That’s all you’re doing- you’re not talking about the topic, you’re talking about pepole talking about it. You’re meta-talking. I have every right to talk about something that I, and others, would like to discuss. If you don’t like it, sorry. But I’m not going to do something just because you tell me to. Maybe you live your life that way, but I tend to be a little more self-sufficient than that.
I respect scientology, as a whole, and the many high-level OT’s that are leaving in droves are doing so because COB squirreled the tech. He’s out-ethics and anti-KSW. That’s why there’s so few people like you- so very few that are on the net to say anything positive about scientology, while the number of vocal critics are growing. And people like you? with your inability to form a logical argument and ad hom attacks? You just keep pulling it in. That’s why the critics are growing so rapidly, that’s why the independant movement is flourishing.
“You’ll be back….”
Yeah… that’s what I meant by “see you later”. Wasn’t that clear?
Of course I was back, I enjoy being here. Isn’t that why you’re here?
You never did answer my question- have you ever met a clear, as defined by hubbard?
“I never said you personally. I said YOU AMERICANS… DERR…”
Exactly my point- what does that have to do with me?
AMERICANS:
1. Must be SENSITIVE and NOT OFFENSIVE. And cry whenever someone insults you.
2. Must bomb numerous countries
1+2 dont make sense. You are going on in the way of #1… that was my point. Typical of Americans… if your going to bomb countries you may as well insult them at the same time. Hell atleast that way you have some kind of consistancy!
Any way… you’ve appeared to improved, you’ve atleast stopped crying!
I’ve read the books- I find that they’re poorly constructed, often rambling and without a shred of scientific method or capability. Is that what it has to offer?
Wow one minute your like “they are well written” next minute like this? STOP TROLLING! It is what it is to offer… don’t like it? FINE, don’t talk to Scientologists about Scientology then! Why are you here then given you disagree?
Let me answer… to generate arguements and annoy people: what a troll IS!
–
Can’t look up the word troll?
OK… here fuckhead…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
“OPEN ANOTHER THREAD AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!”
No.
Then im not talking about it! This thread is about the troll above.
“Not discussing in this thread open a new one please!”
No. I’m fine here. If you can’t form a logical argument here, you won’t get any more capable in another thread.
Keep my posts in a logical sequence and keep threads on topic.
I am demanding logical flow of discussion from YOU. My demand isnt much. Irrelevance is key to trolling. And politics for that matter! Especially in America!
“OPEN A NEW THREAD! The topic of this thread is CLEAR… bringing up debbie cooks email when someone writes “happy new year” and a quote from Ron IS TROLLING!!!”
Then tell louanne- you can ask her to delete it so it’s more pleasing to you. But someone brought it up; you don’t have to discuss it nor discuss people discussing it.
I am discussing the fact that the statement is trolling. You have yet to answer or express an opinion as to weather it is or it is not, you have only brought up “how i feel about the email” which is irrelevant to this thread I have started. IT IS YOU that is being illogical.
As scientology improves logic, that is why i can stay on topic and you cannot!
“You’ll be back….”
Yeah… that’s what I meant by “see you later”. Wasn’t that clear?
Wow didn’t take you long. You must have one heck of a small social life…
New thread to get an answer to this question please… STAY ON TOPIC… i may as well have that on my clipboard i keep asking you to do the same fucking thing
”
You never did answer my question- have you ever met a clear, as defined by hubbard?
”
Hey fuckhead! Here is a question to YOU that is ON TOPIC OF THIS THREAD…
Is bringing up debbie cook’s email while someone says “happy new year” and brings up a quote trolling?
Thanks for expressing your opinion on scientology books by the way. I understand you dont like them but understand I DO and havent found any flaw in logic to them as you seem to have.
“1+2 dont make sense. You are going on in the way of #1… that was my point. Typical of Americans… if your going to bomb countries you may as well insult them at the same time. Hell atleast that way you have some kind of consistancy!”
Ah, so it’s the whole country, too? You’re loony.
“Any way… you’ve appeared to improved, you’ve atleast stopped crying!”
Yeah, I proved my point.
“Wow one minute your like “they are well written” next minute like this? STOP TROLLING! It is what it is to offer… don’t like it? FINE, don’t talk to Scientologists about Scientology then! Why are you here then given you disagree?
Let me answer… to generate arguements and annoy people: what a troll IS!”
When did I say they’re well written? I would think that most people would disagree. They’re insane ramblings- mostly unproven but demonstrating a clear lack of scientific knowledge. That’s why scientology remains unable to be proven.
–
“Can’t look up the word troll?
OK… here fuckhead…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)”
My intent is not to elicit an emotional response. Just because you’re you’re feeling all emotional about it doesn’t alter my intent. A lot of people feel emotional about things- that doesn’t mean they’re all being trolled. But, boy, if you’re that easy to troll… you must really get worked up. I wish I was trolling you, you’d be a piece of cake!
“OPEN ANOTHER THREAD AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!”
No.
Then im not talking about it! This thread is about the troll above.”
gee- my loss, isn’t it? I’ll miss your brilliant insights and intelligent comments.
“Keep my posts in a logical sequence and keep threads on topic.
I am demanding logical flow of discussion from YOU. My demand isnt much. Irrelevance is key to trolling. And politics for that matter! Especially in America!”
You’ve only talked about one thing- the number of “suicides” (forgetting that it’s about deaths). That’s not my claim. You’re not very able to handle many things at once.
“OPEN A NEW THREAD! The topic of this thread is CLEAR… bringing up debbie cooks email when someone writes “happy new year” and a quote from Ron IS TROLLING!!!”
No- that’s YOUR topic. I don’t acknowledge it, nor may I be forced into participating in YOUR thread. I choose to talk about different things. If you don’t want to, that’s okay.
“I am discussing the fact that the statement is trolling. You have yet to answer or express an opinion as to weather it is or it is not, you have only brought up “how i feel about the email” which is irrelevant to this thread I have started. IT IS YOU that is being illogical.
As scientology improves logic, that is why i can stay on topic and you cannot!”
Yeah, clearly- you’re a perfect example of scientology “logic”. You can’t even see that, can you? Only being able to focus on minute details without being able to handle a real-world conversation is hardly something to brag about.
“You’ll be back….”
Yeah… that’s what I meant by “see you later”. Wasn’t that clear?
Wow didn’t take you long. You must have one heck of a small social life…
lol, buuuuurn. Believe me, I’m fine. But… you’re still here aren’t you? Isn’t it monday over there?
New thread to get an answer to this question please… STAY ON TOPIC… i may as well have that on my clipboard i keep asking you to do the same fucking thing
Where did I deviate from the topic? You’re the only one here trying to define the topic. Are you a controlling person?
“Hey fuckhead! Here is a question to YOU that is ON TOPIC OF THIS THREAD…
Is bringing up debbie cook’s email while someone says “happy new year” and brings up a quote trolling?”
How can I know? I don’t know their intent, which is a critical part of your own definition. You should ask the person that posted it. But since it was already posted, I discussed it. Thus, no changing of the topic.
“Thanks for expressing your opinion on scientology books by the way. I understand you dont like them but understand I DO and havent found any flaw in logic to them as you seem to have.”
Really? I’d talk about them, but I don’t think you’d follow :)
One last thing, for your own knowledge…
logical =/= focused.
logical: “reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic”
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation
Now, enjoy your day! I plan to enjoy my night :)
Aussie Luke-
You might be Australian, but you also claim to be a Scientologist. Please don’t announce your affiliation until you can represent it well. LRH taught effective communication and ethical behavior; while I sought that you have ever taken any of LRH’s communications courses, people will assume that you represent what Scientology is- to be blunt, you make the us look incapable and foolish.
You can be Australian, and you can be a Scientologist- just remember which one you’re here representing. If it’s more important to you to be an Aussie than a Scientologist, then you might want to reconsider your priorities.
I read the Siberian Bill. Nowhere in the bill did it say it passed. I’ll accede with your reference that it did, but data I’ve read also indicate that the intention was (whether written or not) to use it on all Americans. There was so much out-cry that the unwilling incarceration part was removed in the final passage. It didn’t fully get implemented until it was restored in 1980.
As for Agenda 21, yes, I’ve read it and concur with the viewpoint that it will and is being used to herd us into camps (with resultant loss of private land ownership), crash the value of the $ so we can be taken to a global currency and that we will be told what we can and cannot eat with the sustainable food supply (can anyone say Monsanto?)
That’s all I have to say on this. We’re off topic.
I think we did get a little bit off-topic with Agenda 21- as I recall, you had brought up the document in support of Mr Hubbard’s claim of 12 men that are forming a one-world government. Is that accurate? Reading the doc, I just don’t see anything that leads me to believe that I’ll ever find myself in a concentration camp. But, of course, I’m certainly not going to say it’s impossible.
Now the Siberia bill is very related, as Scientology today still makes certain claims about the bill and it’s role in it. Freedom magazine, for instance, says that the bill would create a large mental health facility on the trust, a claim that was dissected as illogical in the bill itself! FM also claims that the bill was rejected by the senate. Which is a half-truth at best.
Now, despite hubbards and miscavige’s claims, I can’t find a single shred of evidence that indicates that the bill was ever designed to or could even be used to support involuntary commitment, which was already in place at time under existing law. But certainly, it couldn’t have applied to other states- it was written for the Alaskan territory, which was not a state. But more that anything, recall that one aim of the bill was to reduce transportation costs, not increase them. In fact, the only reference that I can find anywhere is in a telegram to Hubbard from his son, while the bill itself complains about the way that the federal law treats the insane, which is with something akin to a criminal trial; the proponents of the bill aimed to change that. Now there were title 1 elements covering commitment, including voluptuary, but that was removed prior to the senate vote in favor of existing law. The stayed goal of the bill was to make commitment processes more equitable and with die consideration to the patient.
There may be confusion over the reciprocity provisions, which allow citizens of the 48 states to be treated in Alaska if they were already there and required treatment prior to returning to their state. Likewise, Alaskan citizens could be treated in other states if needed. The 48 states had similar agreements at the time- funding was the primary issue.
Even the scope of scientology’s actions must be considered. As you are probably aware, Scientology was not the first to send letters or lobby congress, but you may not have seen that the congressional record does not list Scientology as one of the groups that was significantly in opposition of the bill. Despite the opposition, it did pass in the 50′s, although much of the land was pulled from the trust in the 60′s and 70′s for various reasons. What you’re thinking of, with the 80′s was when that land was returned.
I think this just highlights the importance of personally validating what one is being told. As we’ve seen here, the information provided to you was incomplete and inaccurate; it could be disastrous if one were to act on such information. Yet, Scientology sources continue to propagate the faulty information in support of its position.
Michael
My viewpoints had nothing to do with an LRH article. You have a very strange idea that we as Scientologists accept everything quid pro quo. That’s just the opposite and tells me that you yourself have seemingly accepted something as true about us that you didn’t look for yourself. A basic truth for us is that it isn’t true unless we ourselves see it work in application. LRH could say the moon is purple and that wouldn’t make it true for me unless I could see it for myself when I examined the moon.
A Scientologist gains by becoming more self-determined, not less.
Now, Pat- where on earth am I talking about what “scientologists” accept? I’m talking about you, not some generalization about other people that I’ve never spoken to. Nor did I say that your viewpoints had anything to do with an LRH article.
What I -did- say is that you clearly had not read the bill before you formed an opinion. If you hadn’t considered the actual, factual information, on what did you base your belief as to the content? The information that you DID have was incorrect, and claimed ONLY by scientology sources. If not from scientology, how did you get that information? What I said is true- if you looked for yourself, you would have already had the information, and based your opinion on self-collected facts, rather than what others said to be true.
What I said was that the siberia bill discussion is relevant, because it contains mis-information claimed to be true by scientology. As you would surely agree, one must seek truth and correct falsehoods.
That’s not the only example, however. And I say that to generate discussion relevant to this conversation- it’s not an insult or attack on your fine character. You, for instance, once made the claim that scientology has, what, 8? 10? million members. On what do you base that statement that you present as fact? Another example is when you made certain claims regarding the effectiveness of criminon- if you had considered the actual verifiable data, you would have had accurate information going into the conversation. This is a similar situation.
So, LRH has nothing to do with this; and, really, neither does your willingness or lack thereof to validate the things that you regard as factual. The main point is that scientology has made a claim and we can clearly see that certain elements are non-factual. We have accomplished what this site claims to embrace- the truth about scientology myths.
I did read the bill (reiterated). I also said that it, in itself, says nothing about whether it was passed or not.
I am talking about a basic tenet of Scientology. We as students and followers are asked NOT to accept anything LRH says without first “validating” it, to use your term, empirically. In other words, it isn’t true unless we personally see it work. That’s not a generality. It’s a statement of perceived truth.
What’s with the diatribes? Keep it short and simple so your message doesn’t get lost in endless sentences. (Use paragraphs, white areas etc. for easier reading and thus duplication)
Yes, I’m aware that you said that you read it- but only at a certain point. If you had read it BEFORE you rendered an opinion, you would have known certain things about the bill that you did not. But that’s not even what I’m referring to. You believed certain things ABOUT the bill- my question to you is very simple (and I’ll keep it short, per your direction): why did you believe that the bill died if you never actually looked into it? Why did you believe that people would be shipped to alaska for treatment under the bill? I don’t think that you actually read the bill before this conversation, nor took time to to validate what you had come to believe.
How did you validate your statements about criminon? How did you validate your statements regarding the number of scientologists?
But, again, even that’s not the point; my point is that scientology has made claims about the siberia bill that are untrue. Is that a concern, or is that acceptable?
also, maybe I’m mistaken, but I don’t think that most laws say whether or not they’ve been passed in the text itself. Unless you know otherwise?
You can believe anything you want. Nothing I say will change that.
Not so, Pat! I believe nothing, I can only categorize what I observe and create a hypothesis as to the reason for them. Isn’t it correct to ask you for your input?
Now, Pat, asking you to have more facts and less reliance on your word is hardly bias. I’m merely asking that you try to back up your claims once in a while with more than just “because I said so”- what’s wrong with that?
Disconnect if you’d like, and follow whichever policy makes you do so, but all I’m asking for is a little bit of honesty and full discussion. Louanne deleted your identity, and I’m not going to bring it up again nor the reason(s) that it is known. I respect your wish to remain anonymous.
I wish that you had chosen to be honest, rather than continue to deception, but that is your choice and, as louanne pointed out, you have the right to be anonymous just as much as the online collective does, unless you or they choose to commit crimes. I celebrate your wish to remain anonymous, just as if you were wearing a physical mask, instead of a digital one.
Not sure what you’re reading in my comment above, but you took it as hostile- I think you may have wanted to see it as such and interpreted it that way; that’s okay, it’s entirely my loss :)
Anywho, have a great christmas, fellow anonymous person, I wish you the best for a new year!
Happy holidays to you and yours! And you, too, “Pat”- hope there’s no hard feelings. In the spirit of the holidays, I’m sorry for sharing information that you weren’t ready to share. I feel badly about that, and hope that we can continue to have our lively, spirited discussions.
“Freedom is for honest men. Individual liberty exists only for those who have the ability to be free.
Today, In Scientology, we know the jailer – the person himself. And we can restore the right to stand in the sun by eradicating the evil men do to themselves.
Who would punish when he could salvage? Only a madman would break a wanted object when he could repair it – and we are not mad.
…
The individual must not die in this machine age – rights or no rights. The criminal and madman must not triumph with their newfound tools of destruction.
The least free person is the person who cannot reveal his own acts and who protests the revelation of the improper acts of others. On such people will be built a future political slavery where we all have numbers – and our guilt – unless we act.
It is fascinating that blackmail and punishment are the keynotes of all dark operations. What would happen if these two commodities no longer existed? What would happen if all men were free enough to speak? Then and only then would you have freedom.
On the day when we can fully trust each other, there will be peace on Earth.”
-L. Ron Hubbard.
Scientology: A New Slant on Life
(Pg. 229; Honest People Have Rights, Too)
That quote wasn’t meant to be there but under the topic, itself. Oh, well, it’s there and I hope all flourish and prosper in the new year and that you achieve your heart’s desire.
Call, I have communicated to you many times. For whatever reasons, you have chosen to stalk a Scientologist and your note above doesn’t really handle for me the fact that you can’t or won’t accept anything I say, due to your own confirmation bias. I did not post as “Thetaworks” or “Theta Works” or whatever that persons online store calls it. I’m not going to talk to you about this anymore. Your stalking proved to me once and for all that you intentionally tried to create conflict and trouble for me, assuming I’m this other person. Cloaking a covertly hostile comment inside an apology is so classic 1.1, it’s funny. I hadn’t disconnected from you before (just chose to ignore you per the policy), but now I am because I sincerely believe that you’ll never change.
Pat, surely you must realize that you belong to a group that, for various reasons, makes People angry. Many people have a very deep emotional reaction to even the name of Scientology. And it’s not just critics! It’s a growing list of thousands of ex-members, public officials, etc. Some people feel that their loved ones were “taken away” by Scientology, while some were impacted by bankruptcy, suicide, fraud or murder.
I think that people reason, at least it’s my impression, that distancing your real identity from your vocal pro-Scientology one means that you don’t stand by what you say- that you’re not willing to accept responsibility for what you say. It just makes it look like you have something to hide.
Anywaaaaays… Its the public people that can make Scientology look good. People that post from behind a mask just make Scientology look that much more secretive and sketchy.
Also, too, kinda seems like your posts lack any sort of validation. People would wonder, why should they believe it if you won’t back it up with facts and won’t even attach your name to it? I mean, without facts or accountability, what is there?
Amusing, Limited. What’s your name? What authority or “validity” gives you the right to question mine when you come in with an anonymous name as do ALL here?
Ah, but I’ve never asked anyone up take my word without facts or verifiable evidence, have I? Apples n’ oranges.
See, pat, I notice that when critical people post a claim, they tend to include the information needed to validate it independently- studies, polls, etc. Yet you tend to rely on your word alone, expecting people to believe “you” while trying to hide who “you” are. It only means that you’d be more pusuasive if you tried more facts and verifiable information, since you font want your name attached to your statements.
Nor have I. So the fact that you’re demanding that I give my true name is completely irrelevant to the thread and more stalking.
Something you should read
http://freedom.lronhubbard.org/page084.htm
Anyways, take or leave the advice. No difference to me. But then I must wonder why you spend your time here? If you’re not going to effectively reach people, what on earth compells you to post? All you’re accomplishing is furthering the negative perception that sooooooome people have about the way scientologists work and behave. I assume you want to help Scientology’s image…. Unless you just like to argue.
Like I said, take or leave it, I don’t care. But talking about your identity is rather boring.
Just out of curiosity, ewhy didn’t you deny call’s post noting the connection between thetaworks and your post when he first noted the connection MONTHS ago? I’m just curious about that, because you deny it now, but not then…
Oh, well, see you around!
The problem is, Limited, that the verifiable information generally doesn’t agree with her claims. Take, for example, her claim that scientology has millions of members and is growing… what information could she possibly provide that could support it? All polls and surveys disagree with her claim, and show it to be shrinking. True, more buildings are being opened- but go look at one. Most of the time, it’s empty. Seriously, look for yourself, despite what “some” here might claim.
That’s why you won’t see validation, leaving her with only her word to rely on. And, since she won’t even attach her name to that, there’s really no reason to believe her over facts and figures. Instead, you’re more likely to see unverifiable claims followed by a desperate attempt to turn your claims around in a “sort of” tough guy attack. Like you said, apples and oranges.
“nor have I”
Seriously, pat?? What of your criminon discussion? Number of members? Etc. You do that alllll the time. In fact, Ive rarely seen any “validation” from you aside from links to Scientology sources, including a magazine used to smear enemies.
What do psychiatrists have to do with this thread?
By the way, pat- are you aware that the “Siberia bill” actually passed?
How incredibly funny! Since when do Scientologists have to defend anything? We don’t have to. I have repeatedly posted the basic tenet of Scientology by LRH on Personal Integrity. If it isn’t true for you it isn’t true. It’s true for me because I’ve observed it to work when applied. Finis. End of discussion.
http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/eng/wis3_4.htm
And that proves the point. You favor Scientology references while failing to actually verify their accuracy. So when you do provide “validation”, it’s far from accurate and unbiased. And since you choose to be “anonymous”, we can’t count on your reputation.
You can see the problem here.
“Since when do Scientologists have to defend anything?”
Well, you’re certainly not :)
But, you must see that criticism is growing, and your stated pOsition only fosters that. In short, it’s harming Scientology by encouraging it’s critics.
Again, (and again and again) you keep missing the point. I get that you don’t see it. That’s ok since you haven’t personally observed what I have observed to be true, so it’s not true for you. It’s true for me, because I’ve seen it work for over 41 years.
I don’t have to prove anything to you. It’s not even open to debate. It’s just what is true for me. If I give a reference, then it’s because it’s true for me. You can doubt everything til the cows come home. Makes no difference. What is true for me is true for me.
This is not a forum for debating my observations in life. At least I’ve taken the time to observe for myself. You reading about it isn’t going to make it true for you, unless what you read is something you have observed for yourself. I can’t be in your head to be your eyes on this. You have to LOOK.
Then why are you even here? If you can’t bring facts to the table (something that non-scientologists understand and trust), then what are you doing here? If you only have one real point… then why bother? All you’re doing is making scientology look ill-informed. I don’t think that you’re intentionally trying to harm the image of scientology, but look what you’ve done here with me- I was on the fence and came here for facts and perspectives on scientology. After talking to you, I really don’t see why anyone would want what scientology has to offer. Isn’t that harming scientology? Isn’t that against the code of a scientologist?(numbers 18 and 19)
(Sorry for getting involved pat)
Limited
If you want to learn what scientology has to offer buy a book and read it!
Available on scientology.org and they go very cheap. If you dont have the income, go to library and read up!
How is it you know about code of a scientologist and not about what scientology has to offer? Like, they are both so close to one another in the books!
Small point of order, many libraries do not carry Hubbard’s books. You can verify this on county library websites, but there is no hubbard book in any library within 50 miles of me. They receive it, but discard them.
“This Bill received scant public attention, and passed unanimously in the House of Representatives in January 1956. (The Daily Alaska Empire, Feb 20, 1956)
It now called for psychiatric facilities to be built in what was then the relatively unpopulated territory of Alaska. The measure included provisions for a national commitment procedure which would have empowered any peace officer to involuntarily commit any individual to psychiatric care – without recourse. The person would then be shipped off to Alaska for confinement and “treatment.” (H.R. 6376, 1956)
A coalition of citizen advocacy groups and members of the Church of Scientology, lead by L. Ron Hubbard, brought the clear and present dangers of the Bill to public attention. (“On Psychiatric Subversion”, article by L. Ron Hubbard)
In late 1956, the bill was defeated. (“Bats in the Belfry”, Chapter 10 “Alaska Forever”, p. 159, by Ellen McClay, 1964).”
You may have a misunderstanding on the architecture of Congress. It consists of 2 legislative bodies. A bill has to be passed in both and in some cases be signed by the President to become law. It wasn’t and therefore did not pass.
I assume you actually read the bill?
Sweetcakes, you can read it for yourself. The cites are there.
We come full circle. Louanne’s article:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5205-scientology-kills-siberia-usa.html
cites at the end
The bill is in the first cite, down past Rees / Chisolm docs for taking over America through this bill.
Ah, then I assume that you haven’t actually read it for yourself.
Nice scientology source, and I appreciate the attempt to post non-scientology sources- that’s a good thing, and progress, I believe.
But you left out some information- you don’t seem to be aware that the bill passed the senate on July 20, 1956> Now, if you had read the bill that passed and established the alaska mental health trust legislature, you would know that its goal was to create a mental health system for alaska, which didn’t have one at the time. Currently, there’s 500,000 acres dedicated to the trust because of the bill. It achieved its goals. However, it’s clear that you never actually read the bill, so I don’t think that you’d know what the goals actually were. There was no need to include involuntary commitment procedures, since those have existed on the federal level for many years prior to that point- however, as Alaska was only a territory, it echoed the federal mandates and policies.
I’m curious, were you aware that Hubbard wasn’t the first to oppose the bill? The only change that hubbard made to the already-lively opposition was his one-world government type conspiracy theory:
“less than twelve men. They are members of the Bank of England and other higher financial circles. They own and control newspaper chains, and they are, oddly enough, directors in all the mental health groups in the world which have sprung up. Now these chaps are very interesting fellows: They have fantastically corrupt backgrounds; illegitimate children; government graft; a very unsavory lot. And they apparently, sometime in the rather distant past, had determined on a course of action. Being in control of most of the gold supplies of the planet, they entered upon a program of bringing every government to bankruptcy and under their thumb, so that no government would be able to act politically without their permission”
How disappointing- I thought you actually did the research yourself, rather than just copypasta from the nolanchart article.
Again- did you every read the bill yourself, or are you just relying on what you’ve been told?
Anyways, it’s a moot point anymore, since Alaska is now a state and has access to the same mental health resources and funding as the other states. But, at the time, the mentally ill of alaska had few options and had to be “shipped” to the continental US for care.
Heck, don’t take my word for it- contact the people that administer the trust even today
http://www.mhtrust.org/
you can ask them if they exist or not
I suggest you read up on Bilderberg Group, United Nation’s Agenda 21. They are very real.
The Siberia Bill passed in the House, but not in the Senate. Do your research. Not my job to educate you.
I am pro-Scientology, pro-LRH and it’s hilarious to me that you cry about me giving Scientology references. I’m a commenter on this blog just like you. It’s not my job to put you on the fence or take you off. You have to do that on your own, once you have looked at all the data, and it’s not my job to provide it. You have gone ad hom, so at this point I say adieu.
“POLICIES ON
PHYSICAL HEALING
INSANITY AND “SOURCES OF TROUBLE” page 216 Introduction to Scientology Ethics
Type H
“h. Persons who “have an open mind” but no personal hopes
or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored,
as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of
ability to decide about things, and are seldom found to be very
responsible and waste anyone’s efforts to convince them.”
heh heh heh, me thinks that if she had ever actually read the bill, that she’d feel a tad silly right now.
For anyone inclined, here’s the bill from a neutral source:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/1956_Alaska_Mental_Health_Enabling_Act_legislative_history.pdf
interestingly, it specifically says that its important to get away from the then-current method of committing the mentally ill, which likened it to a criminal trial. Other than that, it’s most about funding. I see NO provision that would effect anyone aside from a citizen of the alaska territory. Nothing saying that people from other states could or would be treated there. Why would they? The whole goal of the bill was to create a mental health system in alaska comparable to that in the other states. As the bill stated, it’s ineffective and cruel to send the mentally ill of alaska to oregon for treatment, away from their families and familiar surroundings. I’m sure that the ill and their families at the time were quite surprised that so many people were trying to oppose the bill! (and, as te bill pointed out, the cost was unreasonable for transportation, etc).
Actually, Pat, if you take a moment to read section 3640, you’d see that the bill itself addresses the “siberia usa” concerns, and deconstructs them quite well. It says in there that it’s illogical to assume that a mental health facility would be built on the land trust, so far away from population centers. It would be inefficient, to say the least. Check it out for yourself, it’s all there in the actual bill.
The whole purpose was to allow alaska to treat its own mentally ill and to fund it through a land trust. Both of those goals were achieved.
“I suggest you read up on Bilderberg Group, United Nation’s Agenda 21. They are very real.”
Seriously? Did you ever read THAT ONE, at least, or are you just repeating what you’ve been told there as well?
“The Siberia Bill passed in the House, but not in the Senate. Do your research. Not my job to educate you.”
Clearly it’s not! :) Look it up, it did pass the senate- that’s how the trust that still exists today was formed.
“I am pro-Scientology, pro-LRH and it’s hilarious to me that you cry about me giving Scientology references. I’m a commenter on this blog just like you. It’s not my job to put you on the fence or take you off. You have to do that on your own, once you have looked at all the data, and it’s not my job to provide it. You have gone ad hom, so at this point I say adieu.”
I don’t think that you know what that word means… where did I “ad hom” you? By pointing out that you’ve damaged the reputation of scientology to me and, most likely, others? I think that’s very relevant to your style of conversation. I’ve seen the data, but if you’ve been doing scientology for 41 years, well… Like I said, if all you can provide is scientology (biased) references but won’t actually read the material that you complain about, what’s the point?
Seriously, here’s the document:
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_01.shtml
I’d be very interested in where you find a one-world order in this voluntary agenda that encourages developed nations to work together to help developing ones while maintaining the environment.
I think you’ve been disconnected from, Limited. ;) Your loss, to be sure.
But, yeah, I’m not saying that Pat here is a nut- surely she’s very sane and intelligent, but there are some nuts out there that point to the UN as proof of some global conspiracy to control the world; including misinterpretations of things like agenda 21. It takes all kinds, I suppose. The only addition is that scientologists also believe that evil psychs control the world, too. That must be confusing for pat- who actually runs the world? the psychiatrists or the UN? Now I’M confused!
LOL, yeah, no kidding. I’ve seriously never heard “open minded” in the negative sense before. How would she know that I’m “not interested” in auditing or other services? Hell, I’ll try it. Am I still a potential trouble source for her even though I don’t fit the definition?
Seriously, if you read the PTS categories (A-J), and add psychiatrists and journalists (who they also consider to be trouble, and type J), the only real way to avoid being trouble for a scientologist, and thus subject to the disconnection policy, is to approach it with a closed mind and a positive opinion of scientology! That’s a lot of people that they’re told not to associate with!
http://abigailadamsteapartypatriots.com/?page_id=661
And I assume that you’ve actually READ agenda 21, rather than just going off of what you’re being told? Seriously- read it for yourself, what are YOUR actual concerns? The agenda has been in place for nine years, and it’s predecessor for almost 20 years. If that’s the “one world government” that’s up and coming, it’s sure coming slowly.
Out of curiosity, what’s your opinion on fluoridation of our drinking water?