Subscribe to Feed
Anonymous members in their blind rage they call “protest” engage increasingly in what I call “stalking Scientologists”.
The availability of cell phone cameras everywhere and miniature voice recorders already makes it easy to violate privacy but Anonymous adds a new dimension to it: propagation of such pictures and videos on the internet and merging this audio-visual material with name and address information of the victim.
Those “exposures” are usually done with the purpose to get as many as possible other Anonymous members to harass the victim by email, mail, fax or phone. In effect, such actions are not only an attack of Freedom of Religion but actively limit Freedom of Speech of Scientologists, as they are an attempt to punish Scientologists just for being there and communicating. In the least this behavior actively prevents dialog.
In cases not related to Scientology openly stated purposes for this activity vary from “driving him into suicide” to “scare the hell of of her”. In a recent case in California, a woman got indicted for using false names and credentials (that of a 16 year old boy) which had ended with this adult driving a 13-year old girl into suicide. Other cases, like the pinpointed harassment of alleged Scientologists “Ruthie” or John Lawson (see below) show the blind hate of Anonymous members when it comes to only “suspected” members of the Church of Scientology.
In my opinion it is time that the victims fight back, get out of their shells and get those Anonymous members who resort to intimidation and harassment properly reprimanded or prosecuted.
I am open for ideas and your opinion. Please check the link section for examples first.
- Louanne
PS: To define “stalking” a bit better I looked up the law for California. There are other laws in other States and countries which are quite similar, but I think this comment on laws in California summarizes it best:
California Law
In California, both criminal and civil laws address stalking. According to the criminal laws, a stalker is someone who willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another (victim) and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place the victim or victim’s immediate family in fear for their safety. The victim does not have to prove that the stalker had the intent to carry out the threat. (California Penal Code 646.9, www.leginfo.ca.gov)
The criminal penalty for stalking is imprisonment up to a year and/or a fine of up to $1,000. There are more severe penalties when the stalker pursues the same person in violation of a court restraining order, with a sentencing range of two to four years imprisonment. Persons convicted of felony stalking also face stricter penalties if they continue to stalk their victim(s). Courts may issue restraining orders to prohibit stalking. (California Family Code 6320)
Here are a handful of examples in no particular order
all information from public internet sites 2008
Project Chanology Operations – current illegal Anonymous agenda
screen copy, 5 June 2008, partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Portal
Flickr:
Amsterdam Anonymous photographing into windows, naming who is there (JPG / PDF Screenshot).
Youtube:
Plymouth Anonymous filming into windows, naming who is there (WMV (43MB, sorry!) / PDF Screenshot).
Youtube:
NYC Anonymous filming into windows (WMV / PDF Screenshot)
Website:
Anonymous “inspiration source” Encyclopedia Dramatica’s “rogues gallery” of Scientologists, with alleged names. (I blanked the names, false or not – PDF Screenshot)
Website:
Encyclopedia Dramatica on “Ruthievids”, digg.com promoting her address (I blanked the privacy issues – PDF screen copies of 5 June 08)
Website:
John Lawson, suspected of being a Scientologist, gets harassed (PDF)
Youtube:
Stalking of two alleged Scientologist girls (WMV / PDF)
Youtube:
Vandalism at the Ybor Mission of Scientology in Tampa, Florida (WMV / PDF)
Website:
Another photo and name collection of Scientologists (I blanked the names again, PDF)
Website:
Anonymous activities on a guy called “Tylor King”, to illustrate the normal behavior. (PDF)
Flickr:
Vandalism UK Anonymous (JPG / PDF)
YouTube:
“Message to Pam” by Anonymous. Personal threat message to a singled out member of the Church. (WMV / PDF)
Website:
Suicides due to cyberbullying (Case 1: PDF, Case 2: PDF)
and so on.
70 Comments
Leave a comment
Excellent summation of the threat posed by the internet based hate group/ misguided flash mob Anonymous.
LOL. Fail. When you can find any civil rights or human rights activists protesting against the Scientology crime syndicate’s cirmes and abuses who are “stalking,” do let the police and the FBI know, won’t you? They love to hear from people like you. }:-}
…I’ve gotta say, this is pretty rich.
First of all, the attempts to conflate the “cyberbullying” cases like that of the MySpace suicide with Anon actions against Scientology are pretty laughable; yes, I know you stated “in cases not related to Scientology”, but the very inclusion of those cases here without attribution to the actual guilty party is…rhetorically misleading, at best.
As for the rest:
I admit, I’m not a big fan of posting people’s personal info online.
However, for Scientology to complain about stalking and violation of privacy is hypocrisy of the -highest- order. We need not even look that far back to find definitive examples; Scientology admitted to posting the names and faces of individuals associated with Anonymous online AND insinuating that said people were involved with terrorist activities.
How about some accountability for that, hm?
@Comment by Fredric L. Rice on June 6, 2008 5:33 pm
Fred, an old fart like you trying to use my generation’s vocabulary feels like talking to a reanimated mummy, scary and dusty. Appreciated that you Skeptics read my blog but I am not willing to deal with blind fanatics. Get over it.
- Louanne
@ Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 6, 2008 9:46 pm
“…I’ve gotta say, this is pretty rich.”
EA, what do you want here? I mean, in your own words the discussion here “isn’t going to accomplish anything, but it’s all in good fun”. I must agree, sometimes it can be fun to talk to a machine but I decided recently I won’t waste more time with such. (your words)
- Louanne
“EA, what do you want here?”
Direct, honest answers to questions, for the most part. Failing that, further insight, I guess?
If you think you’re pulling some kind of “gotcha” by pointing out that post, well…If I didn’t at least intend for you to be ABLE to read it, I probably would’ve posted under a different username, yes?
My “I don’t expect it to accomplish anything” part is true, but that’s based largely on the behavior and answers I’ve already seen. It -is- entertaining, for me, because I find argument and debate to be an intellectual challenge. If you thought the “all in good fun” bit was referring to trolling or something, I’d be glad to correct that misconception right now.
Case in point, though, regarding my earlier “not accomplishing anything” bit: Note how you pull out that quote and, rather than addressing the point I made, go after me and my motives? That’s a pretty obvious evasion, a refusal to address the pertinent points by diverting the conversation to something else. That’s the kind of thing I’m talking about when I say it “won’t accomplish anything”; it’s -difficult- to accomplish anything when one party in the conversation refuses to act in good faith and operate under the same rules as everyone else.
So: Those points I made?
There’s a pretty obvious difference between “taking pictures through windows” and standing on the street photographing a guy in a window surreptitiously taking YOUR picture. That’s the opposite of stalking as are galleries for the identification of the people following protesters home, threatening minors, or, for example, grabbing a minor girl by the throat and trying to shove her into oncoming traffic…
Strangely, even though as far as anyone knows, no Scientologist has come home to find strange cars in his driveway, or had strangers call out their name and address on a public street, or had their neighborhood fliered with slanderous nonsense. Anonymous isn’t spending thousands of dollars a day on PIs to follow people home, or on lawyers to accuse innocent people of terrorism.
@Comment by Guy on June 7, 2008 3:45 am
“There’s a pretty obvious difference between “taking pictures through windows” and standing on the street photographing a guy in a window surreptitiously taking YOUR picture.”
Yeah, and who was there first… the egg or the hen? Anonymous is – per instructions from HQ on their two main websites – bringing video and photo cameras to their harassment party for the sole purpose of “documenting” the results of their provocation. As a measure not to be caught while doing their harassive actions they are wearing masks. A couple of them went as far as filming into windows and other private spaces and putting the pictures on the internet, again with the purpose to create more harassment for the people depicted. You are whining about the fact that the Scientologists are not turning the other cheek, which is just another indicator that you have no clue about what Scientology is and how much Scientologists despise discriminatory treatment. Look at the facts. No Scientologist decided to go after you or your “friends” (if you know them at all) but you decided to harass people who have done nothing to you. And now you are complaining about pictures taken of you while you are blocking public sidewalks?
- Louanne
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 6, 2008 9:46 pm
“First of all, the attempts to conflate the “cyberbullying” cases like that of the MySpace suicide with Anon actions against Scientology are pretty laughable; yes, I know you stated “in cases not related to Scientology”, but the very inclusion of those cases here without attribution to the actual guilty party is…rhetorically misleading, at best.”
Nope. The link here is that these are the same people, group, mores. You can predict what to expect from there, unless….
“However, for Scientology to complain about stalking and violation of privacy is hypocrisy of the -highest- order. We need not even look that far back to find definitive examples; Scientology admitted to posting the names and faces of individuals associated with Anonymous online AND insinuating that said people were involved with terrorist activities.”
…someone makes sure that they know that they are known. And in public, so no one can complain about sneaky information collection.
“How about some accountability for that, hm?”
You reverse the sequence of events here, so please reboot your logic circuits. First the Church and its members get harassed, followed, photographed, threatened etc. THEN Church members and the Church decide to take a good look who is doing this stuff. Hell, Anonymous is even spreading “nude pictures” of me on the web. Do do you justify that?
- Louanne
“Nope. The link here is that these are the same people, group, mores. You can predict what to expect from there, unless….”
Er, no. Not all of them. For instance, the MySpace suicide case you mention has -nothing to do- with the whole Anonymous thing. That was the case of a (clearly messed up) mother manipulating and harassing her daughter’s former friend. So they’re not the same “group, people”. You could argue the “mores”, but I’d say that A: That’s a pretty broad, often inaccurate, generalization, and B: The motives are vastly, vastly different.
“…someone makes sure that they know that they are known. And in public, so no one can complain about sneaky information collection. ”
So, wait…It’s not the -tactics- you’re disputing, but the motives? Is that it? Because what Scientology did, at least in terms of actions, is no different from someone posting a Scientologist’s name and info online.
…actually, I take that back. These people were masked, so Scientology had to -investigate- them first, despite any evidence directly linking them to any of the allegations made. At least Anons don’t typically follow people home, hire PIs, etc.
“You reverse the sequence of events here, so please reboot your logic circuits. First the Church and its members get harassed, followed, photographed, threatened etc. THEN Church members and the Church decide to take a good look who is doing this stuff. Hell, Anonymous is even spreading “nude pictures” of me on the web. Do do you justify that?”
Er, well, no. I mean, if you can cite some specific cases of “following” that were not provoked by the Scientologists in question (as with the Plymouth sign incident; good job, Vicki!), that would be appreciated. Likewise, I’m unable to recall significant instances of Scientologists being photographed -and- named online prior to the “Anonymous: Hate Crimes” nonsense. There were incidental photos/videos that occurred at the protests, certainly.
So, no, I don’t think I’ve reversed the sequence of events. However, even if I -have-, does the Church follow a “two wrongs make a right” policy? If those kinds of things are wrong, they’re wrong whether Anon does them or Scientology does them. That is, of course, unless it’s the motive -behind- it which is the important factor, which leads us to a whole different discussion.
Hello Louanne. I’ve been reading the Scientologymyths.info articles these past few days. I found it quite refreshing that you provide neutral sources whenever available which, I think everyone agrees, is the right way to go about separating fact from myth.
Then I started reading the comments from people attacking you and Scientology. I noticed a couple of things: (a) many generalized statements with no real documentation are being made and (b) theses people approach the discussion with a cynical outlook and do not really have an open mind.
Keep up the great work!
I’m sorry, but:
“(b) theses people approach the discussion with a cynical outlook and do not really have an open mind.”
That’s what we in the writing biz call “irony”. Or, rather, it’s a bit like a cast iron cooking vessel calling another cast iron cooking vessel “darkly pigmented”, if you get my meaning.
I would also note that the “neutral sources” provided are A: Rarely neutral and B: Carefully selected to present a specific argument rather than to present the facts in anything resembling a neutral fashion. I know, I know, this is a “pro-Scientology” blog, but your claims of “neutral sources” falls down when there’s a conspicuous absence of any articles that might conflict with the argument you’re trying to make.
“[M]any generalized statements with no real documentation”. Oh, like here:
http://www.scientologymyths.info/guardians-office/
I have absolutely no idea why we would have to have neutral sources. You either find ours true for you or not true for you. We don’t have anything to prove to you. This is a Scientology blog. Is there something in the sources materials that you don’t understand?
As T said, Scientology is not taught or “clarified” or “explained”. It’s studied. I said this before in so many words. It’s not going to do any good unless you read the source in full context. You do that with the books. Don’t be lazy and try to get us to explain. That’s not vague, it’s trying to get you to look at the answers that are already written. It’s redundant to have to explain what LRH has already done for you.
Pat
Pat-
First of all, I was responding to someone else’s claim that your sources ARE neutral, which, in fact, they very rarely are.
More importantly, though, my understanding is that this site (and its associated blog) are not about explaining the tenets of Scientology; rather, they are about “dispelling myths” about Scientology. One does not dispel myths without neutral sources; it would be like Snopes citing “some guy who told me” as their proof that a given rumor or myth is true or false.
I don’t understand where you get the idea that all of this is purely about Scientology belief or writings. In fact, relatively few of the “myths” have anything to do with the core beliefs of Scientology. It has a lot more to do with the alleged practices of the organization and some of its members.
It’s irrelevant. The only reason you would think that they need to be other than what they are is if you yourself have presented slanted documentation. Don’t trust us? What did you do?
Pat
I kinda agree with Pat on the whole neutrality issue. There are never going to be any kind of neutral source on any of this when it comes to Scientology and it’s critics. It’s pretty much the same with any situation as critics have made up their mind already about scientology and vicea versa.
If you ask a scientologist about Anonymous they’re going to say “They’re terrorists” and if you try to say “but what about” they’re just gonna put their fingers in their ears and say “LALALALALALA CAN’T HEAR YOU”
If you ask anonymous about sciontologiy all they’re going to say is “They’re a cult” and if you try to say “but what about” they’re just gonna put their fingers in their ears and say “LALALALALALA CAN’T HEAR YOU”
One can’t try and fish out a neutral document from either side because they’re not going to exist really you’re gonna have to take what you hear from both sides and decide the truth for yourself. Neutrality isn’t gonna come in an argument like this or any argument like this for that matter. It’s as if both sides (scientology and it’s critics) have already said “THIS IS WAR PICK A SIDE” and everyone has to fall in. Anyone who is looking for a truly neutral source of information is going to be lost in a sea of fog for a looooong time.
Personally I think the key is trust. If you’re overly paranoid of either side you’ll never look at a single piece of information with an open mind. If an anonymous goes on Youtube and watches a video about an anonymous stalking a scientologist automatically he’s going to think that “OMG he’s a scientologist obviously they must have doctored the video to make us look bad” and it’s the other way around as well. A scientologist will never think an anonymous does any good with what he/she does.
The truth is, in a “war” of slander like this is no one really wins. Everyone just generates so much hate towards each other that the truth rarely even matters.
Pat-
I’ve really tried to be polite, here, but I don’t especially appreciate your insinuations.
I’ve got to ask this, in all seriousness: Do you -understand- how logic and argumentation work? I don’t mean that to be rude, though I’m sure it comes across that way; it’s just that a lot of what I see in “defense” of Scientology consists of logical fallacies (see: ad hominem, appeal to authority, etc.).
You say it’s irrelevant. I say that’s ludicrous for a site dedicated to “debunking myths”. You say that the only reason I’d want sources other than the ones you present is if I, myself, have presented slanted documentation.
…what?
Look, if I were researching the effects of smoking, and a tobacco company gave me a pamphlet that says, “Smoking is great! No harmful side-effects!”, should I (by your logic) accept that as fact? Or is questioning the validity of one’s sources ONLY bad when it’s Scientology that’s under scrutiny?
It’s…this weird circular logic thing you’ve got going on. This site exists to “debunk myths” about Scientology. Some, heck, -many- of these “myths” cast doubt on the trustworthiness of Scientology’s official line. You cannot honestly think, then, that saying “But Scientology says X” -actually- debunks those claims by itself, can you?
I’ll be honest. This is, perhaps, the thing I find most frustrating about Scientology (and the reactions of many Scientologists). It’s as if there’s an entirely different language being spoken, or the parties involved are operating under different sets of rules: one is operating by standard reasoning and logic, while the other is operating under…well, “Scientology”.
Anonymouslynotanonymous-
But that’s not what Pat said. What Pat said is that it was “irrelevant” and, furthermore, that the only reason one might be skeptical of Scientology’s denials is if the individual himself had something to hide.
This is clearly an ad hominem argument and completely ridiculous. It’s no more valid than “If you question anything the government does, you’re a traitor and hate your country!”
As for neutral sources, I suppose you could argue that “neutrality” itself is an illusion; however, there ARE sources which are not directly linked to Scientology OR Anon. Examples include court records, legal records, articles from respected press outlets, etc. The thing is, whenever asked for third-party verification of many of its claims, the CoS will either:
1: Change the subject and obfuscate; or
2: Attack the person asking the question
All I’m asking for is the same level of intellectual honesty that I would ask of -any other group- making extraordinary claims. I would not undergo a medical procedure without any evidence greater than “some guy told me”. I would not give money to a charity if there were no record or evidence of said charity’s charitable activities aside from their word on the subject. Why, then, should we believe that a simple denial from Scientology amounts to “debunking” any more than a plea of “not guilty” absolves an alleged criminal of guilt?
Ah, my apologies I must have misunderstood
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 8, 2008 3:52 am
“So, no, I don’t think I’ve reversed the sequence of events. However, even if I -have-, does the Church follow a “two wrongs make a right” policy? If those kinds of things are wrong, they’re wrong whether Anon does them or Scientology does them. That is, of course, unless it’s the motive -behind- it which is the important factor, which leads us to a whole different discussion.”
Won’t work. You are putting the two actions in the same class of action. But this is not true. Anonymous came to destroy (they said that and still do so) and all they do is to create hatred. The purpose of whatever the Church is doing is to find out what is going on and who is attacking. This is typical for self-defense. May I trigger your recall that Anonymous’ first message to Scientologists was to a) take down their websites, b) send death, bomb and other threats and c) harass them with pranks of all kinds, thereby causing small to big damage. All while loudly promoting that their purpose is to destroy for fun (lulz). That determined a bit how welcome they would be, you understand. Organizations might react a bit slow due to their size but I think the path is set now. Anonymous’ behavior is unacceptable and won’t be tolerated.
- Louanne
@Comment by Ferenike on June 11, 2008 4:32 am
“Hello Louanne. I’ve been reading the Scientologymyths.info articles these past few days. I found it quite refreshing that you provide neutral sources whenever available which, I think everyone agrees, is the right way to go about separating fact from myth.”
Thanks! I am very open to suggestions. Shoot me an email scientologymyth_at_yahoo.com
- Louanne
@Comment by Anonymouslynotanonymous on June 13, 2008 5:06 am
…
Pretty well observed. So, what’s your idea how this can be solved? Go on for the next 2,000 years?
- Louanne
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 13, 2008 10:33 am
“All I’m asking for is the same level of intellectual honesty that I would ask of -any other group- making extraordinary claims. I would not undergo a medical procedure without any evidence greater than “some guy told me”. I would not give money to a charity if there were no record or evidence of said charity’s charitable activities aside from their word on the subject. Why, then, should we believe that a simple denial from Scientology amounts to “debunking” any more than a plea of “not guilty” absolves an alleged criminal of guilt?”
How about coming out of your box of intellectual significances and experience the real life? The proof of the pudding is in the eating…
- Louanne
Hm. Well:
“Won’t work. You are putting the two actions in the same class of action. But this is not true. Anonymous came to destroy (they said that and still do so) and all they do is to create hatred. The purpose of whatever the Church is doing is to find out what is going on and who is attacking. This is typical for self-defense.”
Right. So, in other words, you’re simply confirming that it’s the motive that’s important, rather than the action itself. You do not provide any reasoning as to why the actions -themselves- are different; you merely explain why the motives behind them supposedly vary between the two groups.
“May I trigger your recall that Anonymous’ first message to Scientologists was to a) take down their websites, ”
True enough.
“b) send death, bomb and other threats”
Allegedly.
” and c) harass them with pranks of all kinds, thereby causing small to big damage.”
Some true, some alleged.
“All while loudly promoting that their purpose is to destroy for fun (lulz).”
Partly true, for some, although humor and outrage are not mutually exclusive. I can, for instance, be amused by what I perceive to be Scientology’s utterly irrational, antisocial, obviously self-sabotaging behavior at the same time that I’m angry about the effect I perceive it to have on some people.
Regardless, this is tangential to the main point: You still seem to be arguing that it’s the motive behind the action rather than the action itself that makes the difference. If this is untrue, please explain to me how the actions -themselves- (Scientology posting people’s identities/pictures online vs. Anons doing the same) are substantially different.
“How about coming out of your box of intellectual significances and experience the real life? The proof of the pudding is in the eating…”
What does that even mean? It’s a false dilemma, implying that use of reason and logic is somehow contrary to experiencing life. This strikes me as…frighteningly anti-intellectual, an appeal to ignorance. If I’m wrong, perhaps you can explain what you meant. All the same, I think my argument about the types of rhetoric and tactics used by many Scientologists still stands.
@Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 13, 2008 10:27 am
>>Pat-
>>I’ve really tried to be polite, here, but I don’t especially appreciate your insinuations.
I don’t see that.
>I’ve got to ask this, in all seriousness: Do you -understand- how logic and argumentation work?
I’m not here to argue with anyone. Where did you get the idea that this was a place you could do that?
>I don’t mean that to be rude, though I’m sure it comes across that way; it’s just that a lot of what I see in “defense” of Scientology consists of logical fallacies (see: ad hominem, appeal to authority, etc.).
More generalities?
You say it’s irrelevant. I say that’s ludicrous for a site dedicated to “debunking myths”. You say that the only reason I’d want sources other than the ones you present is if I, myself, have presented slanted documentation.
…what?
Yep. The only reason a person is distrusting of another’s data is because he himself has committed the crimes he accuses others of.
The mechanics is described in HCOB Criminal Minds. (on the PTS/SP Course)
Look, if I were researching the effects of smoking, and a tobacco company gave me a pamphlet that says, “Smoking is great! No harmful side-effects!”, should I (by your logic) accept that as fact? Or is questioning the validity of one’s sources ONLY bad when it’s Scientology that’s under scrutiny?
Not the same thing is it? That’s where your “logic” fails. You are trying to find similarities where data isn’t comparable. The above example doesn’t show any source data. Only a comment or opinion.
It’s…this weird circular logic thing you’ve got going on. This site exists to “debunk myths” about Scientology. Some, heck, -many- of these “myths” cast doubt on the trustworthiness of Scientology’s official line. You cannot honestly think, then, that saying “But Scientology says X” -actually- debunks those claims by itself, can you?
Nope, we’re talking about
1. LRH references
2. Court documents
3. Affidavits etc.
4. Personal experience and first hand knowledge
In almost every case, attempts have been made to slur them as “bought”, “blackmailed”, “coerced”, “made up” etc. –
Even Lou’s backstories about the GO have been attacked which is a slur on her. They were put there to inform and whether you believe them or not is up to you.
>>I’ll be honest. This is, perhaps, the thing I find most frustrating about Scientology (and the reactions of many Scientologists). It’s as if there’s an entirely different language being spoken, or the parties involved are operating under different sets of rules: one is operating by standard reasoning and logic, while the other is operating under…well, “Scientology”.
Perhaps it’s the idea that Scientology is argueable, or that it’s wrong. With the idea fixed that whatever is said will be wrong somehow, it will be for you. Because that’s how you’ll see it every time. You’re into a “prove it to me” and that’s not how Scientology works. It either works for you or it doesn’t. If you were to view things from a “How could that be that way” and “How can that not be that way” working those back and forth, you would have at least used intelligence and some effort to understand. Instead, you want us to do all your work for you. Read the source data, and decide for yourself if it’s true or not. Don’t automatically assume it’s wrong through some fixed idea that it will be. I’m not even going to tell you which way to believe. That’s up to you. Your own personal integrity.
Pat
…ugh. No. Look:
“I’m not here to argue with anyone. Where did you get the idea that this was a place you could do that?”
I assumed you were here to “debunk” myths about Scientology. Apparently, I was wrong.
“More generalities?”
Oh, give it a rest. “Generalities” is just a word you trot out when you can’t think of a better response. Do you want me to go back and quote the numerous times you’ve done EXACTLY what I describe? I’d be more than happy to. Seriously, just give me the green light, and I’ll get right on it. Otherwise, please save the “generalities” nonsense, since you yourself speak in “generalities” (ie. “All people who oppose Scientology are criminals”) whenever it suits you.
“Not the same thing is it? That’s where your “logic” fails. You are trying to find similarities where data isn’t comparable. The above example doesn’t show any source data. Only a comment or opinion.”
Define “source data”. If you mean “Source” as in “Hubbard”, then…well, we’re kind of back to “It’s only bad if you’re questioning Scientology”. Otherwise, it -is- similar; a writing by Hubbard is from Scientology, and therefore operates under the -assumptions- of Scientology, and it does not constitute an appropriate source to “refute” anything except questions about Scientology -doctrine-. Likewise, I’m pretty sure the Bible frowns on child abuse, but I couldn’t use the Bible to prove that the Vatican never covered up child abuse within the Catholic church. It simply doesn’t work that way.
“In almost every case, attempts have been made to slur them as “bought”, “blackmailed”, “coerced”, “made up” etc. -
Even Lou’s backstories about the GO have been attacked which is a slur on her. They were put there to inform and whether you believe them or not is up to you. ”
That’s fine, but it’s not “debunking”. It’s a response, certainly, but it’s still essentially an unverified claim.
“Perhaps it’s the idea that Scientology is argueable, or that it’s wrong. With the idea fixed that whatever is said will be wrong somehow, it will be for you. Because that’s how you’ll see it every time. You’re into a “prove it to me” and that’s not how Scientology works. It either works for you or it doesn’t.”
Again, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that I’m talking about Scientology doctrine, or the core practices of Scientology. I am not, and therefore that issue is as irrelevant as “You seem to be acting like you can argue whether Jesus rose from the dead”. That has as little bearing on the controversial activities of the Catholic church as Scientology doctrine has on the accusations being made.
“If you were to view things from a “How could that be that way” and “How can that not be that way” working those back and forth, you would have at least used intelligence and some effort to understand. Instead, you want us to do all your work for you. Read the source data, and decide for yourself if it’s true or not. Don’t automatically assume it’s wrong through some fixed idea that it will be. I’m not even going to tell you which way to believe. That’s up to you. Your own personal integrity.”
No, I want you to do what the site claims. Likewise, I want you to show a little bit of intellectual honesty and respond like a rational, thinking person. Instead, I get ad hominem attacks, avoidance of the actual subject, and a dogmatic referral to Hubbard’s writings even when they are not the issue being questioned.
Here’s another example, from Anonymous’ Australian wiki site: http://wiki.auschanology.org/SciFag_Book
They’re (probably) remaining just within the limits of the law in this country, although their intention is clearly malicious. In another incident, they were planning to picket a garden centre whose owner is a prominent supporter of Narconon.
The model for all these stalkers’ pages was Tilman Hausherr’s plain text page “We Know Who You Are…” over ten years ago. He seemed to hope that just by naming someone as a Scientologist he could harm them in some mysterious way, and was nonplussed when I asked to be included. Dear old Tilman! It’s funny how he’s disappeared from Wikepedia since Project Chanology started, almost like he’s been too busy elsewhere…
Alael-
Would you care to address, then, the actions of Scientology with regards to “stalking” protesters, posting personal information online, picketing the homes of critics, passing out pamphlets containing personal allegations against them, etc.?
Or is this stuff only bad when someone other than Scientology does it?
Oh, by the way, that’s a delightfully misleading (and tasteless) bit about the bomb threats you posted there, Louanne. Of course, if you’d be interested in discussing WHY it’s both misleading and tasteless, I’d be more than happy to discuss it with you.
That’s assuming, of course, that you’re interested in the truth. You know me, forever the optimist.
Again, again and again……….
We, as Scientologists are here to answer questions, not debunk myths. That’s the myths.info site. This is the blog. It’s pretty easy to tell when someone’s motive is just to spread entheta and enturbulate. It’s easy because the tech on spotting SPs is extremely workable. If you continue time after time to continue the invalidation, all you’re doing is showing us that you are incapable of changing ethics wise, and are here to suppress.
No more generalities, invalidation, put downs, criticisms will be answered. If you do those, you labelled yourself.
Pat
Pat -
So in other words, “Only say what we want you to.”
You continually fail to address any of the issues I raise, falling back on the same tired generalizations. This blog is an extension of the site. You’ll note how it even has specific “comments” sections devoted to specific entries (like this one on “Stalking”). What “questions” do you expect people to answer in these sections? Is it logical to expect someone to come into the comments entry for “stalking” and ask, “Hey, what does Hubbard say about self-improvement?”
I’m not here to suppress. I’m here to get some actual -answers- instead of obfuscation. I know I’m tilting at windmills, here, but I hope some day that you’ll see this “attack the person asking the question” style of discussion is neither appropriate nor acceptable in society outside of Scientology.
@Comment by Alael on June 18, 2008 2:54 am
Hi Alael, welcome to Scientology Myths! Apologies if this forum currently looks like a rooster fight arena but I am sure we will return to a civilized exchange of facts soon.
- Louanne
Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 18, 2008 6:33 pm
>I’m not here to suppress. I’m here to get some actual -answers- instead of obfuscation. I know I’m tilting at windmills, here, but I hope some day that you’ll see this “attack the person asking the question” style of discussion is neither appropriate nor acceptable in society outside of Scientology.
Not true. Your actions speak for themselves. You attack the ones answering the questions. Everytime. That’s my experience with you. I like to have communication where there’s respect shown to each other. I can’t seem to get that across. Invalidation is a tool of the SP. Show me that you can communicate without using it. Also, the fact that you keep using the generalities “I’m here to get some actual -answers- instead of obfuscation”. Everytime you use them they obfuscate what you’re trying to say. Stop invalidating and we may get somewhere.
Pat
“Not true. Your actions speak for themselves. You attack the ones answering the questions. Everytime. That’s my experience with you. I like to have communication where there’s respect shown to each other. I can’t seem to get that across. Invalidation is a tool of the SP. Show me that you can communicate without using it. ”
…sigh.
Pat, you’ll note that when you provide -actual- answers to questions, I’m generally quite civil. It’s when your answers consist of personal attacks and logical fallacies that I get a little frustrated.
I would also point out that “invalidation” is also only negative in certain contexts; an attorney attempts to prove the opposing attorney’s case invalid. A scientist invalidates a faulty hypothesis. By debunking myths, you “invalidate” those statements or arguments. As always, words have multiple meanings, and it’s not as black and white as you seem to like to pretend.
“Also, the fact that you keep using the generalities “I’m here to get some actual -answers- instead of obfuscation”.”
…how is that a generality, exactly? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
You know, we could continue like this for ages, but it accomplishes nothing. I mean, if you want to, I’m game, but I figure we all have better things to do. I will, however, continue to point out logical fallacies when they occur; furthermore, you do not have sole authority over what constitutes an appropriate answer. Would you like me to go back and provide evidence of my claims that you frequently avoid answering the questions? Yes or no? Seriously, I will do it -right now-. If that will help relieve your concern about “generalities”, I would be more than happy to do so.
EA,
It’s a generality because you aren’t being specific about questions you don’t think have been answered, just a general statement that I don’t answer them. When you have the specific questions that I didn’t answer to your standards then I’ll understand more what you actually mean. You’ve created a situation here where you come across as hostile, because.based on your statement, it would appear that NO questions have been answered at all, whatsoever. That’s what generalities do. They create misunderstandings. Do you see that? Give me the specific questions that weren’t answered.
Pat
Pat-
Are you aware of the average rates of a dianetic session?
(and this is a question not an accusatory trip statement)
@Comment by veritas on June 20, 2008 6:57 am
>Pat-
>Are you aware of the average rates of a dianetic session?
Veritas,
As far as I know you can get an Intro Package in an org for around $250. Dianetic co-audits are free. That’s where you and another take turns doing the procedures from the book, for each other. If you want some guidance during a co-audit, there would be people at a Church or Mission near you that would be happy to help.
>(and this is a question not an accusatory trip statement)
I haven’t had that experience with you and I thank you for that.
Pat
Oh yea I read about co-auditing but I’m more thinking along the lines of someone who wants to try out dianetics(not necessarily to join scientology but as an alt. to pyschiatry/counselling) professionally with the e-meter and the auditor what that would run someone, do they have a sliding scale for lower-income/unemployed or is the fee for a professional session static?
From what I;ve seen the average cost of a general qualified counselor is about 90-$100 a session and for comparison purposes is why I pose the question.
@Comment by veritas on June 21, 2008 2:28 am
>Oh yea I read about co-auditing but I’m more thinking along the lines of someone who wants to try out dianetics(not necessarily to join scientology but as an alt. to pyschiatry/counselling) professionally with the e-meter and the auditor what that would run someone, do they have a sliding scale for lower-income/unemployed or is the fee for a professional session static?
From what I;ve seen the average cost of a general qualified counselor is about 90-$100 a session and for comparison purposes is why I pose the question.
If you are looking at getting Dianetics right off the bat, you’d be looking at the procedures that are done straight out of the book Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health. (Also known as Book1). Book 1 is done without the e-meter. I know only that my org charges around $250 for the Intro package and that’s about 5 hours or so, depending on what you get into that needs to be addressed (you aren’t left in the middle of something).
No, there is no income-based scale. If you can’t afford the package, the best thing would be to team up with a friend and audit each other. That’s free. There is also a place in the orgs where you can go in and co-audit for weeks (to a Release state) at $10 per week. It’s called the HAS Co-Audit. I don’t know the details on that right now as to whether Dianetics is part of that but it very likely is.
Have you seen the Dianetic video site? It’s more specific on what Dianetics does.
http://www.dianetics.org
Pat
EA,
>I would also point out that “invalidation” is also only negative in certain contexts; an attorney attempts to prove the opposing attorney’s case invalid. A scientist invalidates a faulty hypothesis. By debunking myths, you “invalidate” those statements or arguments. As always, words have multiple meanings, and it’s not as black and white as you seem to like to pretend.
Interesting that you would you invalidate in the sense of a lawyer trying to discredit testimony.
The definition I’m using when I say you’re trying to invalidate me is:
To make nothing of. Note that I didn’t say invalidate data. I have been talking about the put-downs, slurs on intelligence and general hostility. Those are attempts to invalidate.
errata First sentence, replace second “you” with “use”
Pat
@Comment by veritas on June 21, 2008 2:28 am
OK. I talked to someone at my org. Dianetics is being charged at $200 per 12 !/2 hour block.
That comes out to about $16/ hour
And the rest regarding co-audit still stands.
Pat
Thanks a bunch for taking the time to look it up pat,
One more thing though-
Is the $200 block meaning one must pay that amount upfront then receive the corresponding time of therapy or can one pay as one receives auditing by the hour(a session lasts about 2.5 hours you pay $40 after then for however long subsequent sessions take?)
@Comment by veritas on June 24, 2008 4:05 am
>Thanks a bunch for taking the time to look it up pat,
Sure :)
>One more thing though-
Is the $200 block meaning one must pay that amount upfront then receive the corresponding time of therapy or can one pay as one receives auditing by the hour(a session lasts about 2.5 hours you pay $40 after then for however long subsequent sessions take?)
It’s sold as a 12 1/2 hour block called an intensive. I think it would need to be paid in advance.
There is another factor in that too. I don’t know how far into Dianetics you are, but there might be times when something is run into that requires more time than 2.5 hours to erase or release. No one is ever going to leave you in the middle of that but to avoid your having to worry about it while handling something in the reactive mind (it will keep you from getting thru it) it’s better to get the block.
Pat
EA,
I’m sorry, but its just too obvious.
Re-read whatever you have on dianetics and scientology and look up in the dictionary any words you didnt fully understand.
Cheers
Luke
Great Compilation of data!
On this “Anonymous” who by the way hide behind masks. Dont’ they have better things to do?
Apparently not.
Louanne
Like it – you don’t like the content of Freds message so you attack his vocabulary – classy! Are you a politician?
T
Nope, my tolerance level towards fanatics who should know better is just a little low.
- L
How is this at all different than the CoS Sponsored “Religious Freedom Watch”? In the cases that you brought forth, they stuck to the issue- they were identifying them as scientologists. Now, I would agree that those individuals went to far in some cases, but that was their individual choice.
Compare that to the INSTITUTIONALLY-sanctioned RFW, which does whatever it can to post unflattering pictures of critics, and stalks them, in the sense of using whatever information they can find to malign their character.
Would you say that this is okay for the CoS to do? How can you reconcile this?
Thank you,
_FR
Wow- it takes a whole new turn when they start offering bounties.
“Religious Freedom Watch offers a $5,000 reward for information leading to the identification and criminal or civil prosecution of persons making threats against RFW and/or persons associated with it. ” (from the site)
Notice that they’re not asking people to report it. They’re not leaving it in the hands of the authorities. They are asking visitors of the hate group’s site to to send THEM information to an anonymous email account.
That’s much more intrusive, and far more frightening, then taking pictures through windows. Compare the two.
_FR
#Comment by Fallroot on August 2, 2009 11:17 am
“Wow- it takes a whole new turn when they start offering bounties.
“Religious Freedom Watch offers a $5,000 reward for information leading to the identification and criminal or civil prosecution of persons making threats against RFW and/or persons associated with it. ” (from the site)
Notice that they’re not asking people to report it. They’re not leaving it in the hands of the authorities. They are asking visitors of the hate group’s site to to send THEM information to an anonymous email account.”
Cool! Those Feds need every help they can get it. Believe me, I talked to them on something similar.
“That’s much more intrusive, and far more frightening, then taking pictures through windows. Compare the two.”
Don’t make threats then.
- Louanne
are u saying u (a) agree that its a bounty and (b) think that’s a good idea?
@Comment by bigdaddy on September 3, 2009 2:41 am
“BOUNTY. A sum of money or other thing, given, generally by’ the government, to certain persons, for some service they have done or are about to do to the public. As bounty upon the culture of silk; the bounty given to an enlisted soldier; and the like. It differs from a reward, which is generally applied to particular cases; and from a payment, as there is no contract on the part of the receiver of the bounty.”
– Dictionary.net
Reward is what was offered. There’s no contract.
Obviously, the authorities would have to be part of this since there would need to be an arrest and prosecution. Are you saying that it’s wrong to ask for help? That we don’t have a right of defense? That’s what I’m getting, anyway. Anonymouse likes to complain that we ask authorities for help in dealing with these situations. Trying to get us to think it’s bad or wrong somehow to defend ourselves from malicious damage. That’s pretty telling. It zones the radar right in on the ones complaining loudest as participants in the damages, or at least cheerleading the ones doing the damage.
Thanks for that information.
Pat
right, the poor cos… harmless and helpless against 14 year old kids everywhere!
pat, apply some common sense here. recall that u are posting anonymously, and u defamed others while wearing ur mask. do I have the right, then, to offer money for ur id? would u trust me with that info if so?
we are talking of the most litegous ‘church’ in history, relative to age. if there was a crime, they wouldn’t waste time with rewards… there would be no need.
again… how would u feel if someone tried to take off ur mask?
pat, plz consider the following more specific definition of bounty:
‘A bounty (from Latin bonitas, goodness) is a payment or reward often offered by a group as an incentive for the accomplishment of a task by someone usually not associated with the group. Bounties are most commonly issued for the capture or retrieval of a person or object. They are typically in the form of money. Two modern examples of bounties are the bounty placed for the capture of Saddam Hussein and his sons by the United States[1] and Microsoft’s bounty for computer virus creator’
even microsoft called thiers a bounty… what is the difference?
pat, please consider this more specific definition:
‘A bounty (from Latin bonitas, goodness) is a payment or reward often offered by a group as an incentive for the accomplishment of a task by someone usually not associated with the group. Bounties are most commonly issued for the capture or retrieval of a person or object. They are typically in the form of money. Two modern examples of bounties are the bounty placed for the capture of Saddam Hussein and his sons by the United States[1] and Microsoft’s bounty for computer virus creator’
even ms calls theirs a bounty… what is the difference?
apologies for dbl post
You mean this isn’t stalking?
http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=HsNRHoRYowQ
No, it is not. a) if it would be you would not see this video (the guy in the brown jacket was obviously filmed by multiple cameras) and b) the video does not show how this story began. Typically it begins with some masked idiots chanting and harassing individual Scientology members in an attempt to provoke them (which sometimes works and then is nicely put on video, thus increasing the violation of human dignity against the victim).
- L
@Comment by bigdaddy on September 3, 2009 7:48 am
BOUNTY. A sum of money or other thing, given, generally by’ the government, to certain persons, for some service they have done or are about to do to the public. As bounty upon the culture of silk; the bounty given to an enlisted soldier; and the like. It differs from a reward, which is generally applied to particular cases; and from a payment, as there is no contract on the part of the receiver of the bounty.
Note the “by the government” part here? And the “particular cases” part? That’s the difference. Religious Freedom Watch is not the government and clearly stated it was a reward. Again, we’re looking at a situation here where the only one’s complaining about a word (versus caring about human rights) are those who have caused damage and want to thwart the investigation any way possible. That’s how I see it. You have the oddest things to criticize.
Imagine what good you could do the world if you could actually go out and help the firemen in California or victims of the earthquakes. That’s what good is.
Pat
Pat…
This is almost embarrassing… But note the word “generally”. You glossed over that. Generally does not mean the same as “always”.
Consider the irony here. You, too, are here arguing about a word- what are you doing to put out the fires or help earthquake victims? Does he have less of a right than you do?
But, you still have not responded to the irony that you are remaining anonymous… so perhaps this irony is lost as well.
Mark
pat,
how can u imply that I care not about human rights? or that I am not helping?
I will have u know that I lost a cabin in the fire. and I could have saved my possessions, but I spent my time helping a crippled neighbor and her family move.
what have u done for them, pat?
Update on Anonymous spying churches:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zhent/with/3914758960/
a**holes.
- L
“Renderings of what the Sydney Ideal Org is going to look like.
Note: These were on display INSIDE the org, I had to use some tricky long distance photography to snap these through glass, so the quality sucks. ”
- L
Do you hate these people, Louanne?
Scientologists know all about surveillance and telephoto lenses, maybe you could bury the hatchet and give them some pointers?
Mark: No. I feel it my duty to restrain them from breaking laws and restricting freedoms. I hate arrogance and selfishness, and I hate mosquitoes, but not people. Is that bad?
- L
louanne- that sounds like a vigilante. how do u want to restrain them?
u say horrible things about these men and women. u call the a-holes, criminals, jerks… some horrible things. im sorry, but cannot believe that u do not hate them. if not, the name calling is very overcoard.