ScientologyMyths.info is a lively site, it changes a lot and has stuff going on and off of it. Going through it you maybe see something you miss or want changed. Here is the place to talk about it. Give me your suggestions, I am open for anything related to “Scientology Myths”.
Send me an email with your suggestions: louannenet at gmail dot com
- Louanne
73 Comments
And, no, not in my library, or any near me. They don’t carry them. In fact, if you look at online library databases, you’d be surprised at how few do.
I could understand his thought process, though, Given the huge gaps between replies.
Read the basics, still see changes.
Comment by Anon2 on December 2, 2010 10:11 pm
Huh?! You wish. LOL
Pat
Comment by BigDaddy on December 2, 2010 5:26 pm
You need to study the basics. Then you’ll understand. You’ll find the books in the library.
Pat
This site is just as dead as Scientology.
Wow, nice to meet you too.
I would say that the definitions have changed quite a bit after Hubbard’s death. For example, look at Louanne’s other site (link in on this page), where she lists definitions obtained from Scientology websites and dictionaries.
Clear: the name of a state achieved through auditing or an individual who has achieved this state. A Clear is a being who no longer has his own reactive mind. A Clear is an unaberrated person and is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. The Clear has no engrams which can be restimulated to throw out the correctness of computation by entering hidden and false data.
Operating Thetan (OT): it is a state of beingness. It is a being “at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life.” Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things,” and Thetan is the Greek letter Theta (), which the Greeks used to represent thought or perhaps spirit, to which an n is added to make a noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. It is also n or “theta to the nth degree,” meaning unlimited or vast. Abbreviation: OT.
Theta Clear: a person who operates exterior to the body without need of a body.
So we have some promises remaining , that’s true. But what exactly is being promised? What of any substance is actually SAID in those statements?. Perhaps a promise that you can be at cause over “matter, energy space, time, form and life”, but I have never heard that to be used in the same context in which Hubbard used it. Currently, it’s more of a self-empowerment kind of thing. I invite any scientologist to correct my misunderstanding. Similar to the ability to operate exterior to their body. “The Amazing Randi” has offered one million dollars to any scientologist that can demonstrate this in a controlled environment. None has.
Hubbard himself, however, made some very specific claims which are no longer evident within scientology. For example:
“A clear, for instance, has complete recall of everything which has ever happened to him or anything he has ever studied. He does mental computations, such as those of chess, for example, which a normal would do in a half an hour, in ten or fifteen seconds. He does not think “vocally” but spontaneously. There are no demon circuits in his mind except those which it might amuse him to set up — and break down again — to care for various approaches to living. He is entirely self-determined. And his creative imagination is high. He can do a swift study of anything within his intellectual capacity, which is inherent, and the study would be the equivalent to him of a year or two of training when he was “normal.” His vigor, persistence and tenacity to life are very much higher than anyone has thought possible.”
L. Ron Hubbard
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (1950)
Have you ever, even once, seen these promises kept? Does scientology still accept Hubbard’s definition?
In his 1952 lectures, Hubbard promised that an OT could leave the body at will and travel anywhere in the universe instantaneously. He promised that an OT could view any portion of the time track clearly and precisely. That he or she could create or destroy MEST (Matter, energy, space, time). That’s a lot more specific than “beingness”. Has that ever been accomplished by any scientologist? Why is scientology not standing by Hubbard’s promises?
Hubbard also defined a “Cleared Theta Clear” in Scientology 8-8008. He said, “”A thetan who is completely rehabilitated and can do everything a thetan should do, such as move MEST and control others from a distance, or create his own universe; a person who is able to create his own universe or, living in the MEST universe is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the MEST universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence”.
So those are some pretty significant changes, made after Hubbard’s death. I would wonder why scientologists are no longer holding the church to Hubbard’s standards?
Big (fat?) daddy,
You sound like a paranoid lunatic. The promises made by Scientology today are exactly the same as the ones LRH made. You want to be a more capable person? Scientology helps you achieve that, just like source promised.
Just to clarify- I’m talking about the claims lrh himself made- NOT the claims officially made by Scientology to day. They are very different, and I just want to avoid confusion.
I think they’re referencing, tongue in cheek, the promises lrh made about becoming clear or ot.
Comment by Sharlie Williams on November 29, 2010 3:09 pm
“Thetan power” ? What are you talking about?
Pat
I hope you get more critics posting. I know that you will never agree with them and will just dig your heels in further. Therefore your resolve to stay in Scientology will become stubbornly stronger. It is a fit punishment and you deserve it if you are so stupid to stay in it in the first place. Chances are, you will never know. So go on the Freewinds, increase your thetan power, have your OT wins. It must be so sparkly and linecharging.
I wonder why you choose to allow discussion on some threads, but you close off others? For instance, you allow people to discuss gene simmons, but not silent birth. Why?
If I may sincerely ask a question about that locked thread, perhaps you could help me understand.
All of the press releases released by scientology, addressing kelly preston’s pregnancy, say that silent brith is a matter for the mother to decide. Is that accurate, when Hubbard said that it is the “right” way to give birth. Would a sicentologist really say that they know more than hubbard, that he was wrong about something.
On a similar note, not to be crude, by why do scientologists take family and relationship advice from a bigamist with three failed marriages (one former wife said, she endured “systematic torture, beatings, strangulations and scientific torture experiments.” and is not mentioned in any official scientology literature, one called him “insane”, one commited a major felony ), who’s children (some, not all) disowned him? How on earth is this person seen as a family expert?
Question:
I live in San Francisco. Here, in the city, there are three scientology centers. Why is it that the two “missions” are gone (You go to the address listed, and there’s no sign saying anything about scientology- one of them, ironically, is some psychiatric center) and the main scientology center is ALWAYS empty, except for a few staff members. What’s going on in San Fran?
And… I hate to say it, but I wouldn’t say “us”- I really don’t see Louanne here agreeing with you or supporting what you’re saying. She’s got a good head on her shoulders- she’s sharp, and I’d bet my bottom space credit that she can understand the difference between a single example and the overall concept.
I’m just saying.
Oh, but I do “get it”, Pat. Although it’s becoming increasingly obvious that you do not.
For one, I withdrew one single example because you couldn’t understand the concept. You could see the single tree, but not the forest for the rest of them. While slightly myopic of you, my one single example was a very apt example of SOMEONE (I never said you, nor did I even say it was a scientologist) making a claim that has actually factually been made before without proof. An example can be found in the website link near my name in this posting. LIke I said, before you reply and deny this person is a scientologist- I don’t care. It doesn’t matter. It is an example, and one that remains accurate. I still withdraw it, and invite you to address the rest of the comments, if you are able or willing.
But, as I said, I withdrew that example because you were unable to see it for what it was. That’s okay, I had plenty more examples to support the concept that I did lay out. My concept is very simple and remains: “no one (scientologist or anonymous specifically) should make a dramatic claim without having facts or substance with which to support them”. That’s my point, and it seems very clear. You even briefly understood my point, saying yourself, “I’ll agree that it’s wrong to make claims about anything without firsthand knowledge.”
Of course, ironically, you then ruin it by making another accusation (twofold, actually, that I have “cronies” and that I have made insinuations that were unsubstantiated), while with the former you have no firsthand knowledge, and the latter, you were unable to support.
Because you couldn’t understand one of my examples, I even went back and came up with four examples of things that YOU yourself had said, in which cases you made accusations and failed to back them up due to your lack of first hand knowledge. We can make it about math, if it’s easier to understand. Are you familiar with the substitution property of equality? We may use it here. You say:
“I’ll agree that it’s wrong to make claims about anything without firsthand knowledge”
We can plug in an example of a claim that you made (editor’s note: I am no longer quoting, as I am altering your comment):
it’s wrong to make claims about terrorist activities without firsthand knowledge
Did you have firsthand knowledge when you accused others of terrorism? Or crimes?
So, try to look at the big picture. If you don’t want to talk about it, fine.
Like I said- you’ve offered to take a look at points that I may have failed to support- I invite you to do it. If I missed anything, I will humbly admit to it. Can you do the same?
@Comment by Big daddy on November 3, 2010 8:26 am
“I’ll agree that it’s wrong to make claims about anything without firsthand knowledge. This goes for all statements made by you and your cronies here as well, if you’re going to push this point. We can go back and look at all the insinuations that you didn’t make and make a big deal out of it.”
“”Well, Pat, I’d certainly appreciate it if you could take a ook at that and find us a couple, much like I did for you, and could continue to do, if you’d like.
I am both surprised and impressed that you can admit that what you’re doing is wrong, and I certainly hope that we can move past it and press on.”
Then as usual you didn’t get it. You really should do something about that inability to duplicate (or is it deliberate?… hmm… ).
I have nothing to admit to since I wasn’t the one protesting what you, yourself brought into the dialog. Since I didn’t make the accusation (you brought up Big Pharma funding for Anonymouse, not us), I’m not the one that needs to admit to anything. Nuff said.
Pat
“I’ll agree that it’s wrong to make claims about anything without firsthand knowledge. This goes for all statements made by you and your cronies here as well, if you’re going to push this point. We can go back and look at all the insinuations that you didn’t make and make a big deal out of it.”
Well, Pat, I’d certainly appreciate it if you could take a ook at that and find us a couple, much like I did for you, and could continue to do, if you’d like.
I am both surprised and impressed that you can admit that what you’re doing is wrong, and I certainly hope that we can move past it and press on.
@Comment by Sharlie Williams on November 2, 2010 7:17 pm
“I suggest you go breastfeed yourself if that is possible Pat.”
^^
Pat
@Comment by Big daddy on November 1, 2010 11:25 pm
“Pat,
Try to keep up here. It doesn’t matter WHO made the claim- my point is that the claim has been made, and it was made without proof. Do youagree that’s wrong to do?”
I’ll agree that it’s wrong to make claims about anything without firsthand knowledge. This goes for all statements made by you and your cronies here as well, if you’re going to push this point. We can go back and look at all the insinuations that you didn’t make and make a big deal out of it.
Pat
I suggest you go breastfeed yourself if that is possible Pat.
And, by the way, by “repeat such claims”, I was referring to the ones that you, yourself, made. Such as the four that you, a scientologist made, with no proof, evidence or backing.
And I hold myself to my own standard, which is why I patiently indulge your efforts to avoid the sctual issue in favor of a trivial example.
I’ll tell you what, I formally withdraw that single example. It’s gone, poof, no more. I have at least five more listed in this thread, anyways.
Pat,
Try to keep up here. It doesn’t matter WHO made the claim- my point is that the claim has been made, and it was made without proof. Do youagree that’s wrong to do?
Comment by Big daddy on October 29, 2010 12:36 pm
“So, in closing, I would ask any scientologist who repeats such claims, in all sincerity, why do you make them? Why do you believe them? Is it because you have some knowledge, some evidence that they are true? Or is it merely because you were told that they were so?”
I have no idea why you would even be bringing this up since no Scientologist here made such a claim. That’s why you were asked where it came from. The one that did bring that into myths (as previously quoted) was not a Scientologist.
Pat
So, in closing, I would ask any scientologist who repeats such claims, in all sincerity, why do you make them? Why do you believe them? Is it because you have some knowledge, some evidence that they are true? Or is it merely because you were told that they were so?
Why? Because I’ve posted just four examples of her doing the very thing that my original point talks about: putting forth a statement without having anything to back it up. As such, I don’t expect that to ever be addressed.
You’re much too kind, Big Daddy, in your efforts to facilitate good communication.
But, I don’t think that she’ll move on, because pat is merely avoiding the much larger subjects.
She asked for a source (surely realizing that the specific example was trivial, and could have been replaced by any of the random examples that this site has provided, and multiple sources for the myth were provided. The IAS story was provided, as was the way to find ample information on terryeo on nolanchart. Then, you even provided a way to see where that very myth was addressed HERE, in a thread that she herself later posted in. But, she just can’t accept that someone has heard such a myth before, just because two scientologists (her and louanne) weren’t the ones to make the claim.
Pat, no one is saying that THAT is the issue- he’s saying, accurately, that you can’t make a claim or accusation without something to back it up. Terryeo, for one example, made the claim without backing it up. It is a good example. But, it could easily be replaced by your own baseless assertations, like anons are criminals.
So, you asked for sources, you got them. Now, you’re just avoiding the questions that you don’t want to confront. Why?
A light! Lawdy, lawdy, I have seen the error of my ways! I was blind and now I see! Oh how wring I was! I withrdraw that one, single, very minor example, even though I provided your references and pointed out where louanne heard the myth herself! How foolish I was! I was so wrong and beg your forgiveness!
There- can we move on?
BD, your attempts at misdirections are amusing.
@Comment by Louanne on October 24, 2010 7:19 pm
Where did you get the idea about “pharma funding”?
- L
—————————————————-
@Comment by question on May 28, 2008 9:45 pm
“Let me tie up the loop holes: Answering using only the words “yes” or “no” within 24 hours of reposting of the question, is it true hat anonymous is paid by the Pharmaceutical Companies and the German Government? (explanation after said yes or no would be appreciated).”
No. If that would be true Anonymous would not be that broke and unsupported.
- L
—————————————
This is still unanswered, and Louanne hasn’t written anything since asking the question listed at the top here, so that doesn’t mean that she’s accepted your non-answer. I’ve read what you wrote. I still don’t see where you answered the question. You refer to a statement that “question” makes and Louanne answers, in 2008. The point isn’t being made by Louanne or myself. BD brought it up again, as though it were an issue and still hasn’t answered her question or mine.
So, where does the idea come from, originally? Is BD saying that it’s from some obscure source by some entity “Terryeo”? Why couldn’t he just say that when Louanne asked? (Of course, then I’d have to ask why he brought it up here in myths)
Pat
Pat,
As we’ve now established that it was not -I- that made the mistake (versus, of course, your charge as to my character and when you said, ” that he added that in or where he saw that statement being made about Anonymous”), I think that we may be able to move on. Can we?
On a similar note (different than my previous questions to you), I noticed that you said, “I’m for truth, not rumor. It’s why I ask for sources”. I admire that in a person. However, it appears that you may have inadvertantly posted some information, surely in error, without providing any facts or reputable sources! Since you have stated a preference for truth, and since you have an obvious passion for sources (so much so that you ignored the bulk, and the overall point, of my post to chase one), I wonder if you wouldn’t mind providing some sources for some of your previous comments on this board? I had asked for them before, but you were no longer posting and the time and seem to have forgotten. I’ll post just a few here, if you wouldn’t mind addressing them, as I took the time to address your requests.
1. Comment by Pat on May 14, 2008 6:01 am
This is not “peaceful” nor is Anonymous. You’re terrorists.
(you did not establish that “we” are terrorists)
2. Comment by Pat on June 14, 2008 11:57 pm
You have crimes. That’s all I need to know.
(what crimes?)
3. Comment by Pat on July 17, 2010 1:00 am
At least then he’d know what it really was instead the propaganda being spewed to incite him to commit criminal acts.
(What is it, and how do you know, that “incited” him to commit criminal acts?)
4. Comment by Pat on July 16, 2010 11:13 am
Personally, I don’t believe that jail / prison is the only answer to criminal rehabilitation. That is statistically backed up with recidvism rates. In my own research, what is and has been proven is the Criminon program, by statistics world-wide. I would like to ask Big Daddy and any one else to find (for themselves) any and all actual statistics — befores and afters for these, before going into the snide comments and attacks that usually follow this kind of post. I won’t respond to those. I am asking for actual stats, fair and balanced. I am interested to see if you are able to be objective or if you continue the bias.
I will present my own research once I see what you’ve been able to come up.
Yes, this is a test.
(you did not respond to the facts that I presented, as you said you would)
So, this is an apt example of what I was saying originally- making claims, spreading information, maligning groups and individuals, without having facts, data… anything really, with which to back them up. Is this any different than your cartoon?
“it’s a cult” “why?” “it’s a cult”
isn’t really all that far from:
“you have crimes that’s all I need to know” “what are they?” “you’re critical, what are your crimes?”
Thank you for your time.
Pat,
I will tell you again, this HAS been addressed. This has been dealt with. Why do you think Louanne isn’t asking any more? She accepted my answer. I’ll be more specific:
in th “Anonymous” thread there was a comment by Louanne on May 29, 2008 4:11 pm. IN that comment, she addressed the myth. She heard it, and acknowledged it. She also provided an answer. You commented later in that thread. Is it my fault that you didn’t read the rest? Also, as I said before as well, do a google search for the words “terryeo” and “pharma”- you’ll find a scientologist making this claim.
So you really can’t say that it’s “been avoided”. I’ve answered you several times, and have now done so again.
Since it has been addressed here, and since the scientologist terryeo has made the claim, it falls in the category of a stated myth. Is it widespread? No. Has it been claimed and debunked? Yes. Did Terryeo make the claim without anything further to back it up? Yes. That’s my point. That people shouldn’t do such things regardless of their claim. Do you agree with that?
So, what do you want? Are you able to have a discussion now that your very minor point has been cleared up?
@Comment by Seeker on October 26, 2010 12:49 pm
“Dear pat, now you know. If you don’t intend to address the overall concept, please say so, so that I can stop hoping. Louanne adressed this myth before, and it’s an apt example of a myth with no substance.
Are you able to move on now?”
No, I’m not. Louanne has not addressed the point that BD made about Anonymous being funded by Big Pharma. In fact, she specifically asked where he got that data and it’s been avoided ever since. Why can’t BD just come out and admit that he added that in or where he saw that statement being made about Anonymous? It’s when such statements are made and some sheeple comes along, sees it then runs around saying “Anonymous is being run by Big Pharma”. It’s how rumors get started. If that’s what he wants, then I’m willing to let it stand and possibly act as a myth for Anonymous to deal with. I’m for truth, not rumor. It’s why I ask for sources. So far, I’ve tried to track a number of these down. Seems almost impossible to get anyone to admit they made a mistake or made it up, or where data came from.
Pat
Thanks, seeker, but somehow I don’t expect it will help too much. Besides, what I posted wasn’t even a question, merely a statement as to the importance of fully exploring one’s beliefs and positions. That is something that I stand by.
On a lighter note, maybe you guys are on to something…
http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson486.html
pat, in order to allow for better, more effective communication, I’m re-posting this previous point with the item that was causing you confusion removed. Hopefully, we can discuss the actual point, rather than getting tied up on a single example. May we?
Repost:
“My last post, of course, was referring to an ad nauseum argument as those mounted with a sensational claim, but no substance. For example, some feel that scientology is a cult, but are unable to articulate their arguments (which I will not outline here). Similarly, some claim that anonymous is an organized group with leaders and , but are unable or unwilling to provide any evidence to their claims.
Both individuals are equally wrong in their approach.”
Dear pat, now you know. If you don’t intend to address the overall concept, please say so, so that I can stop hoping. Louanne adressed this myth before, and it’s an apt example of a myth with no substance.
Are you able to move on now?
You guys really are amusing.
You say the IAS talked about Anonymous and psychiatry. That’s no secret. :)
That wasn’t what BD said, though, and what Louanne and I both are trying to track down is where does “big pharma funding” come in to the myth (BD used that phrase specifically and I just wanna know where it comes from)? It can’t get any more simple than that.
Pat
Pat, did you, um,… Not understand big daddys post? I only ask because you really seem to haves missed the point completely.
This myth comes from an IAS briefing about Anonymous in early march 2008, that one of our spies infiltrated :)
“I was able to get into an IAS briefing that was talking about Anonymous. It was quite interesting, they have some strange views on you guys.
First, they are telling their followers that you are little more than gnats, “That we are currently swatting away”
He started off letting everyone know where Anonymous attacks are coming from. He said that because they have delivered such a big blow to psychiatry with all the lawsuits that they have done and/or help create. Psychiatry is fighting back, and is that the source of Anonymous attacks. That Anonymous, the computer geeks that have to much time on their hand, are so low on the tone scale that they are being hypnotized into doing everything for psychiatry.
”
source:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=4704
Also, I had made the assumption that you had read the “anonymous” thread on this site, on which you left a comment. I’m also surprised that louanne seemed somewhat unaware, as she herself addressed the myth concluding that anonymous is not actually paid by big pharma or the German government.
Do you recall reading that thread, pat? Perhaps you missed it. But it’s a small matter. Point is that it’s a myth that surfaces once in a while with no evidence or further argument with which to support it.
Well now you know about a false myth. Do you have any thoughts on the rest of the message, now that we’ve established that you’ve missed that rumor?
#
I ask you again, have you ever heard that myth before?
#
Comment by Pat on October 25, 2010 11:36 am
Comment by Bigdaddy on October 25, 2010 5:23 am
If I knew where that came from I wouldn’t be asking you.
Copy/pasta
Pat
Shucks
Vein=being
Correction, name was terryeo.
Pat,
I can’t help but note the irony that you, of all people, would imply that I’m vein evasive, given our past conversations. I merely called you out for what you’re doing, either intentionally or unwittingly. You’re ignoring the overall point, instead focusing on a minute detail with no other diecernable purpose other to detail the conversation and derail useful communication. While I will provide a source, since you’re unable to discuss the larger point without clearing up the unimportant details, but whatever works for you. My point I’d, and remains, that anyone, scientologist or anon, that makes a claim should be prepared to back it up to some degree. Can you at least agree on that larger concept?
A quick google search finds the scientologist terry making that claim at least once. You may reply that a single scientologist making that claim means nothing, bug I again direct you to my larger point, where you will see that volume is not a factor,
I ask you again, have you ever heard that myth before?
Comment by Bigdaddy on October 25, 2010 5:23 am
If I knew where that came from I wouldn’t be asking you.
That’s twice now that you’ve evaded the request for source.
Where did this idea come from that Anonymous has Big Pharma funding. It’s fascinating really. I’d like to know!
Pat
*are
*or
Pat, ate you just trying to derail communication by focusing on a single component of a very narrow example, rather than the overall concept, or “big picture”, of have you actually seriously never heard that myth before?
Comment by Bigdaddy on October 24, 2010 9:04 am
“Similarly, some claim that anonymous is an organized group with leaders and big pharma funding”
Who claims, BD?
Pat
You’re not saying this is the first that you’ve heard of that myth, are you?
Where did you get the idea about “pharma funding”?
- L
My last post, of course, was referring to an ad nauseum argument as those mounted with a sensational claim, but no substance. For example, some feel that svcientologyis a cult, but are unable to articulate their arguments (which I will not outline here). Similarly, some claim that anonymous is an organized group with leaders and big pharma funding, but are unable or unwilling to provide any evidence to their claims.
Both individuals are equally wrong in their approach.
It is a funny one :)
As a rational, sane person that’s able to mount multifaceted and complete arguments, I find the ad nauseum argument to be ineffective and, frankly, annoying.
Withe the exception of your “anonymous is a terrorist organization” argument, which I find endearing :)
“Comment by Pat on October 23, 2010 3:09 am
Cute
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7419981/
Pat”
:))
I copied it on my youtube channel (youtube.com/scientologymyths)!
“Comment by DMSTCC on October 22, 2010 9:41 pm
Where is Tommy Davis?”
I saw him in the LA Church last Monday or Tuesday evening, touring someone through the exhibition. He’s around quite often. Why?
- L
Cute
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7419981/
Pat
Where is Tommy Davis?
Thanks, I took that to heart and made a new page on ScientologyMyths.info:
http://www.scientologymyths.info/babies/abortion.php
Any other suggestions are welcome!
- L
Hello!
I found your website really usefull, I would add some information about ABORTION, maybe some LRH quotes from DIANETICS like this one “Once the child is conceived, no matter how “shameful” the circumstances, no matter the mores, no matter the income, that man or woman who would attempt an abortion on an unborn child is attempting a murder which will seldom succeed and is laying the foundation of a childhood ofillness and heartache. Anyone attempting an abortion is committing an act against the whole society and the future; any judge or doctor recommending an abortion should be instantly deprived of position and practice, whatever his “reason.”
Some bigots are making absurd claims about abortions and the Church of Scientology, and this may harm the image of DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY particularly among people with a Christian backround.
(Sorry about my English)
Keep up the good work!
Matias.
Oh, well, no worries. Thanks!
BD, not that I am aware of. This blog runs on WordPress.com, they don’t allow a lot of changes. Sorry.
- L
Is it possible to allow posters to edit their comments, should they make an error?
(Sorry, I opened the comments again now! – L 09/16/2010)
Hi Lu,
i found your site by accident, Its great.
May I suggest you change the red font on black, I found it very har to read.
> It might be good to open up a forum for some of the Anons who don’t want to hurt people anymore to come forward and provide some of the real stories about Anonymous. This is probably outside the scope of your site tho.
Don’t want to hurt people anymore? That denotes that all anonymous have hurt someone in the past. This shows nothing but ignorance about what anonymous is or how it’s built.
I have a suggestion for your site Lou. Please ensure all posts are accurate and well thought out, not just the ones promoting or defending scientology and/or defaming anti-scientology sites or critics.
By doing this you lend what we call “credibility” to your arguements. You’ll note that I’m doing this, refuting both pro and anti-scientology posts on this board.
@Comment by Lake on February 29, 2008 8:28 pm
Thanks, I thought of something like that but found it extremely hard to keep track of all the questions. I found a forum software and maybe I’ll manage to install it in the next days on the ScientologyMyths.info server. I will know by tomorrow.
- Lu
Lu,
One suggestion I think would be great for the site down the road, would be to have a link at the end of the answer to each question which says “Followup questions”. In there, you could create a sub-page which has the various followup Q&A (in your own words) based on these answers that you like at wordpress.com. And at the end of that sub-page, you could create a link which goes to scientologymyths.wordpress.com which would allow further Q&A. There will be those that continually try to trash up the Q&A unfortunately (as we’ve already seen), but it sounds like you have the tools to properly moderate it.
As well-formed questions & answers start to fill out in these pages, it will be a great resource to use to point people to answers to various questions and/or accusations that are tossed around out there about Scientologists, the Church and Ron.
To “just a suggestion” (apparently a member of “Anonymous”):
There was a formal video from Anonymous in July-2007, which made their views and goals pretty clear:
“We are the face of chaos… We ruin the lives of other people simply because we can … Hundreds die in a plane crash. We laugh. The nation mourns over school shooting, we laugh. We’re the embodiment of humanity with no remorse, no caring, no love, or no sense of morality.”
Do you support not caring? Not loving? Ruining the lives of others? Laughing when hundreds die in plane crashes? Laughing when murderers kill their fellow students in school shootings?
first…. please stop trying to use our lingo…. urdoinitwrong
second… there is a place for anon to speak… It’s http://www.Enturbulation.org
I understand how tempting it is to say THAT HAVE CRIMINALS IN THEIR “RANKS” (which by the way there ARE NO RANKS) the fact of the matter is……. the very nature of anon is that ANYONE CAN BE A MEMBER!!!!! we are chaotic neutral, remember that essay i posted? when need calls for it those VERY FEW criminals follow the law lest they be ostracized from the group and attacked in the future for being idiots…. its not our job as citizens of the internet to care about what they do in their personal life…. only whats relevant to our interests…. btw… this is a suggestion board not a slander board, and FOX NEWS IS SENSATIONALISTIC AND INTENTIONALLY BIASED
(and those people probably made a mistake of pissing off someone with mean friends, with a population of every person ages 8 to whatever with internet access there are bound to be people on here that are scum…….)
oh… if you can give us PROOF of being harassed i wont shoot that down and PROBABLY give shit to enturb admins…
@Comment by MikeBert on February 29, 2008 2:39 am
Hi Mike,
I agree with you that Anonymous should not be played down as “just a bunch of college kids with nothing better to do”. They have some hardened criminals in their ranks. I don’t know why they stick to these guys, I really don’t. Anyway. in the beginning I wanted to avoid any discussion about Anonymous, just for the same reason. But now, with the personal experience of a threat from Anonymous, I should not hold back on any longer. I started it with what my take is on Anonymous.
I bet this section will be swamped with nonsense but who cares, this is teh interwebs after all.
- Lu
Some of the stuff that gets spread on the Net is pretty wild, so its good there is a place where people can come and get some facts.
I think you might want to open up a section for some of the people who want to give the other side of Anonymous. All you see when you check it on YouTube is a bunch of computer generated voices making various threats and dire pronouncements. If you checked out some of the FOX News shows about Anonymous, including the Cyber Bullies segment and the one that was on the other night, some of these Anon guys are hiding behind the masks are into some serious criminality. Hopefully it will catch up with them one day and they’ll find themselves having to explain their hate crimes to a judge, who I doubt will see little lulz in it.
It might be good to open up a forum for some of the Anons who don’t want to hurt people anymore to come forward and provide some of the real stories about Anonymous. This is probably outside the scope of your site tho.
At any rate, I enjoy reading the questions and answers. Keep it up Lu.
@Comment by Marge on February 27, 2008 10:16 pm
Thanks!
There is a link to ScientologyMyths.info in the text box (right side) but red-on-red is hard to see….
I put another one on top of the Flickr Channel photos.
- Lu
Oh, you know what would be useful? A link to the scientologymyths.info page from this scientologymyths.wordpress.com page. Or did I miss it?
Thanks.
You’re doing a great job.
Thanks for doing it!
Excellent site, Lu!
Keep up the good work.