More Questions?

I have closed the old thread (Post: “Questions”) when the comments exceeded 220 and it became rather impractical to read. Another impractical matter is the amount of statements made in the threads, rather than real questions. I shall monitor this more closely now.

But again, thank you for coming here! Scientology IS a hot topic these days but hardly any reliable information can be found on the internet. So here is a blog and a website which tries to achieve the seemingly impossible: answers to controversial questions about Scientology.

Please read the FAQ before you ask me personal questions. I am pretty busy in real life and if you grow impatient while waiting for an answer, please shoot me an email: louanne@scientologymyths.info/a>. I am happy that more people like me found their way to this blog and give their time to answer your questions. So you should not have to wait too long and I would really hate to miss your question. So, ask away!

– Louanne

Update 22 April: I closed this thread and opened a new one here:

https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/scientology-questions-go-here/

Advertisements

436 Comments

  1. Hi Anonybodies,

    sorry for disturbing the celebration but I am around and won’t go away…. If you have burning Qs send me an email (scientologymyths@yahoo.com). I am still on tour and not that often online.

    Ah, and I closed this threat (434 entries!) and opened a new one here:
    https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/scientology-questions-go-here/

    – Louanne

  2. great….so we have an organization here that teaches that the word faggot is okay, they assign a” number” to homosexuals, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with the “church” or who questions it is a baby rapist and a criminal??? That’s great, just great…..and they think Anonymous are terrorists?????
    The more I learn about $cientology the more the image of a guy with a funny moustache keeps popping into my head

    btw Pat, I’ve been referring to you as “he”….my bad

  3. @BradS:
    >So I guess it is safe to say the individual was bigoted to make such a statement.

    Here’s a partial transcript, just so we’re on the same page.

    —–

    Jason Beghe: I had this big car accident, in the middle of OT5. I nearly died. I was in a coma for three and a half weeks. … So, of course, we gotta find my PTS terminal. … “Are you sure it’s not that person? He’s gay.” That’s what somebody told me. I mean, that’s how naive some of these people– That’s an RTC terminal. Which is like the gold standard of technical perfection. … So they believe that homosexuals are all 1.1.

    Mark Bunker: They still believe that.

    JB: There are some that do. I never believed that, I interpreted it differently. But it was something where I had to do some mental gymnastics in order to make work.

    MB: Well, that’s what Hubbard wrote, though, that they were 1.1.

    JB: Well, it’s debatable. I know that he wrote, he said something like, “your homosexuals,” when he’s saying the 1.1s. So I don’t know if it’s all homosexuals or what. …

    MB: Yet the Church has said that they no longer think negatively of homosexuals.

    JB: I’ve never heard the word “faggot” more than when I hang around people at Gold. Til the point where I said I don’t like it. My brother’s gay, and he sure ain’t 1.1. …

    —–

    So it’s clearly not a belief stressed by the CoS nor believed by all members. It’s in LRH’s writings, but it’s worded weakly enough to be open to interpretation.

    Out of curiosity, how would a person go about clearing the passage in question? If multiple established, experienced Scientologists can draw different conclusions from the same sentence, there’s something ambiguous. Does someone have a MU?

    Further, if problems in understanding stem from the misunderstood word, how are ambiguous sentences handled? What do you picture if I tell you about the “pretty little girls school” down the street? No amount of word clearing is going to tell you what I really meant.

    The full interview is embedded here:

    blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/04/jason_beghe_on.php

  4. Pat-

    “It’s called expansion. People have statistics that reflect the product of their jobs. By adding personnel you can keep expansion going.”

    Right, but even so, constant, infinite growth is…completely unrealistic. I mean, maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like the whole system of stats is basically setting you up to fail, eventually, and keep you in fear of being downstat in the meantime.

    Also, what about the examples I mentioned of outside influences (weather, situations beyond your control, etc.)?

    “You mean the stuff on Child Porn? Cake etc?”

    …heh. You know, it’s funny that you fixate on the child porn thing, considering that’s one of the few -taboos- of /b/ and the like. It’s -joked- about, but I can guarantee you that that stuff will get you banned faster than you can blink.
    No, “cake” is not slang for anything but “cake”. It pretty much is what it sounds like. But, yeah, to list a few of the memes:
    cake
    mudkips
    image macros//the now extremely-overdone LOLcats stuff
    Rick Astley/”Never Gonna Give You Up”
    …the list goes on and on. There’s this entire…Dadaist, absurdist side to the whole thing, and that’s what I was curious if you were aware of. Hell, the entire “internet hate machine” thing (and the exploding van in the Fox News report, etc.) was a self-mocking, self-referential joke.

  5. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 22, 2008 12:32 am

    >>I don’t see your train of logic here. How did you arrive at this conclusion from what I said?

    >You say you refuse to let yourself be amused by Anonymous.

    False. I most certainly did not say that.

    Do you have a problem duplicating or at the very least repeating what was said exactly?

    You mean the stuff on Child Porn? Cake etc?

    Pat

  6. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 21, 2008 7:56 pm
    >Back to something I asked a day or two ago, RE: stats:

    >My question is…isn’t downstat -inevitable-, then? There’s no such thing as infinite, constant growth. If you’re doing a specific task, there will reach a point where you are doing it as efficiently as is humanly possible. What then? You’re -punished- because you’re doing your job as well as anyone possibly could?

    >Furthermore, isn’t the “you always look within your control for the cause of downstat” thing denying the basic nature of reality, to an extent? If there were, say, a hurricane, and that happened to be responsible for your downstat, would you honestly be considered to be “at effect to the weather”, and since the hurricane wasn’t in your area of control, you must have done something -else- wrong?

    >I have a couple of other questions in that area, but I want to make sure there’s not something I’m missing here, first.

    It’s called expansion. People have statistics that reflect the product of their jobs. By adding personnel you can keep expansion going.

    Pat

  7. @BradS:
    >LMAO!!!!!! If it falls under Jewish law, more than likely its debatable. OH YEA!!!!

    Well I’ve never been this close to Judaism before.

    Anyway, it’s clear to me that the Kabbalah is not secret in the same way the OT levels are. Perhaps the orthodoxy would like it to be so, but I have my doubts. Even if they did, I doubt they would sue and intimidate those who showed it to the world.

    If the orthodoxy came out with Kabbalah in the 60s, and held it like the CoS holds their texts, I guarantee you it would have been on the internet before Xenu. And, who knows, it might have brought us to the same situation.

    and I’m not EA

  8. Lol now that I know for sure, was not created lingo to go against COS, who said that????

    She didn’t say it outright, but Pat certainly acts like it’s the case.

    ErroneousAssumptions said:
    I’m still curious as to how much the Scientologists here are aware of regarding the humorous side of the whole Anonymous thing. I mean, I suspect at least a few Scientologists have seen a LOLcat or two, in their day.

    Pat said:
    You want us to be amused by a group that has a goal to take down our Church?
    Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

    Notice that Pat doesn’t even acknowledge that Anonymous is more than just “OMG EVIL HATE MONGERS!” She is singularly obsessed with our anti-CoS activism, and as a result she comes off as anti-social (in the Scientology sense). She’s a disgrace to your Church, a walking foot-bullet, and she is perhaps the last person who should be representing Scientology here.

  9. @EA

    “Also, from those links, it appears to be a matter of debate whether or not the texts of the Kabbalah are worth studying. Is that true?”

    LMAO!!!!!! If it falls under Jewish law, more than likely its debatable. OH YEA!!!!

  10. “Mudkips, delicious caek, Rickrolls, Caturday…”

    Lol now that I know for sure, was not created lingo to go against COS, who said that????

  11. “btw did Lou get “fired”?????”
    I really do not know where Lou went?????

    Hope all is well and thanks Libraesque for the comments :)

  12. I don’t see your train of logic here. How did you arrive at this conclusion from what I said?
    You say you refuse to let yourself be amused by Anonymous. That implies that you ignore even the memes that have no bearing on your Church. Mudkips, delicious caek, Rickrolls, Caturday… you shun them all as anti-religious propaganda. You emphasize (what you consider to be) the negative and downplay the positive. Ergo, you are an SP, and I claim my five pounds.

  13. brad, NO, you’re great, really appreciate your comments, and also the fact that you share your own personal experiences re: religion, etc..
    I was just going over the thread and it seems as though whenever faced with anything that “they ” dont want to talk about (here) it’s ignored.

    I’ll answer your post more in depth tomorrow, I’m out

    btw did Lou get “fired”?????
    I thought she was only going to be gone for a few days…hasn’t it been over a week?

  14. I have a few questions about suppressive persons.

    I read an illustrated document that went through the actions and behaviors of SPs. It appears to be this:

    scientologyhandbook.org/SH11_1.HTMM

    In one scene, a man derides a woman for attending night class, saying, “Quit wasting your time.” In another, the 20% number is wonderfully illustrated by eight smiling people standing in a meadow and two scowling scientists in front of a mushroom cloud.

    This brought a question to my mind: Do SPs go to college?

    The two scenes I mentioned seem to imply opposite answers to this question. I can’t think of a way that colleges and college students would not be considered a “betterment group.”

    If SPs go to college, do they oppose higher education for others? Do SPs participate in betterment groups, while opposing them? Or perhaps they go to college in order to be able to exert more negative power over others?

    Does anyone else use the 20% and 2.5% figures to describe such groups within any population? Are there any documents that delve into the methods or studies used to determine such numbers? Do they vary across populations, since it seems to be defined as having a cause, rather than being genetic? Do these figures apply to all age groups?

  15. @EA

    as for kabbalah, I am only speaking from an orthodox position, reform and the likes of madonna do what they want. If it were left to orthodox law it would be different. Such as the law where gemara is not meant to be taught to non-Jews. Withheld may have been the wrong word use but the actual class to sit down and learn from an orthodox rabbi is secretive and will not be taught without the proper foundation.

    Kabbalah has a lot of neat mystic stuff though.

    @ Libraesque

    I am not sure what you want as an answer then. It seems as if you want to blame the entire whole for those opinions of individuals. How is this different than the other faiths I cited in specifics to the homosexual question? Perhaps others here have not given you satisfactory answers but I have been honest and hope it comes off that way.

  16. that was a really nice try Brad…but I don’t think so. I’m obviously going to have to go somewhere else than this site for actual answers.

    It really seems as though (NOT by you, at all) this site is NOT about dispelling myths re: $cientology, it’s about having a forum that is deceptive in making it look as if thats the goal……when all I’ve seen are a lot of contradictions and lies

  17. @BradS:
    >The same principle goes for Judaism and Gemara learning to Kabbalah of which I already provided enough sources on that mimics withholding information.

    I admit I skipped over the links you posted the first time around. I went back and read them:

    jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kabbalah.html
    jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm

    and I have to disagree. Kabbalah teachings are outlined on those very pages. They caution the reader to approach their study slowly and with much prior Jewish education, but I see no sign of the documents or ideas being secret or withheld. My university offers events and non-credit courses dedicated to exploring the Kabbalah, though I’m not sure if they are about the texts or just the history.

    At the very least, it appears that ideas of the Kabbalah, such as the Tree of the Sefirot, reincarnation, and the power of certain names, are well-known and studied. At the very least, these appear to be on the same order of magnitude as the space opera and the idea of body thetans as I have read in OT3 documents and summaries. Even if the specifics are complex and even dangerous, why are the ideas secret? Am I using too broad a brush here?

    Also, from those links, it appears to be a matter of debate whether or not the texts of the Kabbalah are worth studying. Is that true?

    From the above, the Kabbalah appears to be similar to complex topics in science. You can read about string theory or the literal beginning of time, and ideas like a folded ten-dimensional universe or gravity particles might sound silly. Much more might just be competely over your head. It won’t make sense unless you have years and years of study in those fields. But you’re free to try.

    I do have a greater understanding of your position, though. I imagine it might be similar to your response to people handing out the Tree of the Sefirot and some purported names of G-d outside of a synagogue. The response to that might be, “These are ancient, esoteric teachings that are meaningless and confusing without proper study of Jewish faith and history.”

    Absent, however, would be the kicker: “And our organization is the only one that can administer such studies, and they cost tens of thousands of dollars.”

  18. @Libraesque

    “WHY WOULD HE HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS IF THE “CHURCH” IS NOT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY?”

    I would say this to that statement. My parents are very bigoted against homosexuality and they are Catholic does that mean it is Catholic policy???? I know Torah has specific statements against homosexuality but that does not mean they are stoned to death either and reform Jews have openly gay rabbi, however you will not find that in conservative or orthodox Judaism. I know tons of Christians who are bigoted against gays but I do not label their churches as such although again the old testament does have statements to that affect. I would say most of the west and islam have strict opinions on the subject.
    So I guess it is safe to say the individual was bigoted to make such a statement.

  19. I’d like to re-visit the homosexuality issue, since Jason B is saying he was told by the “church” that the reason he got in a near fatal car accident was because his passenger was gay.

    WHY WOULD HE HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS IF THE “CHURCH” IS NOT AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY?

  20. @EA

    That is just it, about withholding information Scientology is not doing that. Granted it is a different structure then what we are used to via Religions currently running. I said this before Scientology core is based on honest auditing to help improve a “thetan” or I will just say “you.” If you have a pre-determined response by being given data which is not
    belief but “stimuli” to remove “engrams” then telling any auditing material which is all secret, its just OTIII with the perceived Xenu bit gets fame, but all auditing data is withheld because having a predetermined response to a level essentially invalidates it.

    The same principle goes for Judaism and Gemara learning to Kabbalah of which I already provided enough sources on that mimics withholding information.

    If you read the Basics all the information is there as to what is Scientology.

    Thanks for the discussion :), if I did not have enough information about some of the abuses to know that many are not based on correct premises or are exaggerated as I have debated here, I would be pissed.
    It reminds me of the days of fighting Jews for Jesus when I was helping Jews for Judaism. Talk about deception, one day I will have to tell that story.

  21. Back to something I asked a day or two ago, RE: stats:

    My question is…isn’t downstat -inevitable-, then? There’s no such thing as infinite, constant growth. If you’re doing a specific task, there will reach a point where you are doing it as efficiently as is humanly possible. What then? You’re -punished- because you’re doing your job as well as anyone possibly could?

    Furthermore, isn’t the “you always look within your control for the cause of downstat” thing denying the basic nature of reality, to an extent? If there were, say, a hurricane, and that happened to be responsible for your downstat, would you honestly be considered to be “at effect to the weather”, and since the hurricane wasn’t in your area of control, you must have done something -else- wrong?

    I have a couple of other questions in that area, but I want to make sure there’s not something I’m missing here, first.

  22. bradS-

    Okay, cool. I can understand that. For what it’s worth, here’s my take on the inclusion of Scientology beliefs and the like (OT3, etc.) in the protests:

    There are a few core issues here. One is that people object to the idea that Scientology doesn’t tell you the whole story when you get in. I know, I know, you’ll say that the OT3 stuff isn’t important or whatever, but I would argue that it’s at -least- like, say, the Catholic church withholding the idea of Original Sin from you until you were deep enough into the organization. There’s certainly a feeling that many -within- the church don’t believe that all of this stuff is being withheld. Therefore, the use of those issues in protest media serves to make both the average Scientologist and, at LEAST as importantly, the general public, aware of that part of the Scientology doctrine.

    Two, it’s a kind of…vaccine.

    Three, they just find it funny, and the fact that Scientologists go to such great lengths to deny the stuff and keep it secret really only perpetuates that.

    Four, a lot of people are pretty angry at the abuses they perceive, but they channel that anger into humor instead of outrage.

    As for the other stuff: Some of the videos stating that you should “commit suicide” are, in fact, Scientology recruitment videos, which say, in so many words, “Sure, you can walk out today without joining Scientology. Of course, you might as well just shoot yourself in the head.” As for the rest, well…They’re pretty dumb. They do not, however, represent the vast majority of Anon sentiment as I have witnessed it.

    Regardless, thank you for answering. I can appreciate your view (especially given your involvement) that the pickets against Scientology are different than the hypothetical protests against the WBC. As long as we can agree that being a religion does not -automatically- shield one from criticism, like some kind of social “Get out of jail free” card, we have some basis for dialogue.

  23. EA wrote:
    “No, people are protesting against the specific -practices- of a church. cf. Catholic abuse scandal, blah blah blah.”
    I would disagree, as much of what I see is xenu this and that, Scientologists should burn or die or as the original vid stated Scientology be destroyed. I have downloaded anon vids showing Scientologists being shot or eaten via inside gaming mods or videos stating to commit suicide. A lot of what I see while for you it may be “just practices” but for many it is personal and comes off at least for me sounding like a lot of the same crap I get for being Jewish. As with Catholicism, I know many evangelicals that call it a cult as well and do not even consider Catholics to be Christian and so on. In the end it really has no difference than the already present differentiated bigotry for whatever reason across all faiths.

    It may not be the case for everyone but at least the protests I have seen “just practices” is not 100% the case. I can accept the premise that one can protest “abuses” and not be a bigot, but like I said, I do not see a whole lot of that.

  24. EA, speaking of having a sense of humor, you know what made me laugh, a $cientologist said that “eating cake” was code for raping a baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    SO bizarre.

    Pat, I like how you NEVER apologized for stating as IF it were fact….on a “myth busters” board AND as a “spokesperson” for $cientology on this board that Arnie was never even a $cientogist much less in the Sea Org. It REALLY shows your charactor, and that you’ll LIE to suit your own agend.

    Also, I said Brad wasn’t a $cientologist because he CAN’T be…he’s Jewish. Either your “group” is a RELIGION or it’s some kind of self help pyramid scheme….CHOSE ONE because youREALLY can’t expect people to believe it’s common practice for people to believe in two religions at once!!!!!

  25. >Regardless of what you think about ANY Church we all have a right to practice our own religion per the Constitution.

    This is a common misconception.

    The first amendment guarantees freedom of interference from the /government/. However, it has limitations; for example, you can’t claim religious freedom to do something which is otherwise illegal (say, child labor). Freedom of religion also doesn’t stop people from disagreeing with you, speaking out against you, holding protests, etc. That’s called freedom of speech.

    Note that, according to the 9th circuit, Scientology probably violated the establishment cause of the first amendment by having a special tax deal with the IRS.

  26. Pat – Could you clarify? What other choice is there? “Is or isn’t” seems like a pretty binary condition, unless “not answering” is considered a third condition.

    I promise you I’m not trying to be rude. I’m simply trying to make a logical point. Either it -is- acceptable under some circumstances (the WBC, etc.) or it’s not (which seemed to be your argument before). It’s not tricky or difficult. I mean, you could still say, “Well, in the case of the WBC, because of their very public hate activities, protests against those activities are okay. Scientology is different, though.” Or you could say, “No, it’s never okay to protest a religion, regardless of the circumstances.” Or, y’know, anything along that spectrum.

    I guess I just don’t understand why it’s a leading or difficult question. There’s no presumption of wrongdoing, no unspoken assumptions. It’s a fair and plainly-stated issue. Now, if you’d -prefer- not to answer it, that’s fair, and I can accept that, but I don’t appreciate it being twisted in such a way that it looks like I’m trying to “trick” you or something.

  27. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 21, 2008 1:10 am

    I did answer the question. You wanted it to be one way or the other and I didn’t see that I only had those two choices.

    Pat

  28. Pat-
    No, I don’t think that’s a leading question. I think it’s a perfectly legitimate one.
    No one is arguing that, for instance, the WBC shouldn’t be allowed to practice their religion. However, I also think people should be perfectly free to protest their actions (such as picketing funerals), even if those actions are cloaked in the beliefs of the WBC.

    How is that leading? Either it IS religious bigotry to picket ANY religion, regardless of context, or it isn’t, necessarily.

    I do understand why you don’t want to answer the question, though; it either puts you on the spot as saying people SHOULDN’T protest them, despite their pretty abhorrent actions, or it weakens the claim that the protests against Scientology are inherently religious bigotry. This is why I -asked- the question: to make a point.

    Calling it “leading” and trying to divert the subject to freedom of religious practice doesn’t change anything.

    (Also, no, it’s -not- really how the Crusades got started; granted, religion was used as a pretense to motivate the rank-and-file peasants who fought in the armies, but ultimately, political and economic factors were at -least- as culpable in starting the whole fiasco, including a boom in the number of young male nobles in Europe who would, without some sort of outlet, begin to fight each other and cause internal strife within Europe. So, instead, the Powers That Be send them off to fight and die somewhere else and profit in the process.)

    You said “This is my answer. Take it or leave it.” so I’m guessing you won’t address this, but it -is- kind of an uncomfortable pattern that when difficult issues come up that are hard to answer in a way that makes Scientology look good, straight answers start drying up.

  29. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 21, 2008 12:26 am

    More leading question type stuff, EA?

    Regardless of what you think about ANY Church we all have a right to practice our own religion per the Constitution. You don’t get to pick and choose which ones get to be accepted under that. Isn’t this how the Crusades got started?

    This is my answer. Take it or leave it.

    Pat

  30. Pat-

    “1. You are not protesting a war. You are protesting a Church, thus religion.”

    No, people are protesting against the specific -practices- of a church. cf. Catholic abuse scandal, blah blah blah.

    “When you protest one church, you have opened the door to protest them all, setting up religious bigotry and making hate crimes acceptable.

    When did you ask about WBC? ”

    I’ve mentioned the WBC a number of times now, back in some of the discussion about the CoS’s behavior towards its critics. My point was, essentially:
    1. The WBC carries out reprehensible acts by spreading anti-gay hate and picketing various funerals
    2. The WBC does this under the cloak of their “religious beliefs”, and the WBC is, in fact, a church.
    3. If one were to protest them for -their- actions, despite article 2, would that constitute “anti-religious bigotry”?

    If the answer is “no”, then we have confirmed that a protest against a church and/or its actions is not -automatically- an act of religious bigotry as you claim.

    So…Would you call a protest against -them-, for their indisputably disgusting behavior, to be religious bigotry?

  31. @ Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 20, 2008 5:48 pm

    1. You are not protesting a war. You are protesting a Church, thus religion.

    When you protest one church, you have opened the door to protest them all, setting up religious bigotry and making hate crimes acceptable.

    When did you ask about WBC?

    Pat

  32. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 20, 2008 7:04 pm
    >Here’s a totally unrelated question that any Scientologists can feel free to answer:

    >I’d like some clarifications on “Stats”, “upstat”, “downstat”, etc.

    >Here’s my understanding, somewhat simplified:

    >Your “stats” are directly related to whatever post you’re holding at the time. If you were, say, a registrar, it might be “letters sent per week”. Each weekly stat period ends at 2 PM on Thursday.

    >If your stats are higher than the previous week, you’re upstat. If they’re lower or roughly equal to the previous week, you’re (at best) on a danger curve and downstat.

    >So if you’re that registrar and you do 800 letters one week, then 1,000 the next, you’re upstat.
    If you only do 900 the next, you’re downstat and at risk of having an Ethics Officer come have a little chat with you.

    >Furthermore, your stats are always due to an area within your control. So, for instance, if that Tom Cruise video hurt recruitment, it wouldn’t matter to a recruiters’ stats, since that video was outside of their control. Instead, they should look to things within their area of control for why they’re suddenly downstat.

    >Is all of that roughly correct?

    Roughly. It’s true that one never looks outside of his own area for cause. In the case of the letter registrar, if the typewriter breaks, hand write the letters, etc.. There are actual condition formulas that when applied correctly do cause an up-statistic to occur. It’s been found to be extremely reliable. Example: Statistic is up slightly is a Normal (based on the slant of the line on a graph). First step of the formula is 1. Don’t change anything. (Continue what you did that caused the normal condition). It could be as simple as setting hourly targets and meeting them.

    Pat

  33. Here’s a totally unrelated question that any Scientologists can feel free to answer:

    I’d like some clarifications on “Stats”, “upstat”, “downstat”, etc.

    Here’s my understanding, somewhat simplified:

    Your “stats” are directly related to whatever post you’re holding at the time. If you were, say, a registrar, it might be “letters sent per week”. Each weekly stat period ends at 2 PM on Thursday.

    If your stats are higher than the previous week, you’re upstat. If they’re lower or roughly equal to the previous week, you’re (at best) on a danger curve and downstat.

    So if you’re that registrar and you do 800 letters one week, then 1,000 the next, you’re upstat.
    If you only do 900 the next, you’re downstat and at risk of having an Ethics Officer come have a little chat with you.

    Furthermore, your stats are always due to an area within your control. So, for instance, if that Tom Cruise video hurt recruitment, it wouldn’t matter to a recruiters’ stats, since that video was outside of their control. Instead, they should look to things within their area of control for why they’re suddenly downstat.

    Is all of that roughly correct?

  34. “What I find amusing is that Anon keeps trying to use the “peacefulness” of the protests, to throw people off of their behind the scenes negativity on the internet. The protests in themselves, just because no one gets violent, are still anti-religious in nature, and are being done to stir up antagonism.”

    Eh…no, not entirely.

    I mean, that’s a bit of a broad brush. You could say the same about any protest, RE: “antagonism”. “That peace protest is just meant to stir up antagonism against the government.”

    As for anti-religious…not especially. It’s certainly not against religion as a -concept-, or even in practice. It’s not even particularly against the beliefs of Scientology, except perhaps insofar as they possibly would support the -actions- people are protesting.

    I ask again, since this wasn’t entirely answered before…Would a protest against the WBC and their hate-filled rhetoric be an “anti-religious protest” simply because that group is a church and believes that their actions are justified by their religious beliefs? Yes or no?

  35. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 19, 2008 10:36 pm
    >>You want us to be amused by a group that has a goal to take down our Church?
    Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

    >So you only allow yourself to see the negative aspects of Anonymous and not the positive aspects? Isn’t that an anti-social behavior from a Scientology perspective?

    I don’t see your train of logic here. How did you arrive at this conclusion from what I said?

    Pat

  36. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 19, 2008 11:17 pm
    >“You want us to be amused by a group that has a goal to take down our Church?
    Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.”

    >Well, no, not exactly. I don’t really expect you to be amused by it; rather, I was curious if you were even AWARE that there’s more to it than alleged phone calls and scary Youtube videos with synthesized voices.

    >I ask partly just because I’m curious how much Scientologists are even aware of what the whole Anonymous thing -is-, and secondly because a lot of the humorous elements make the accusations by Scientology seem increasingly absurd, even to the press (My personal favorite was an article which ended with, paraphrased, “The Church claims that Anonymous is a group of ‘religious hate criminals responsible for acts of terrorism and bigotry’. After the protest, many protesters retired to a nearby park for pizza and cake.”

    What I find amusing is that Anon keeps trying to use the “peacefulness” of the protests, to throw people off of their behind the scenes negativity on the internet. The protests in themselves, just because no one gets violent, are still anti-religious in nature, and are being done to stir up antagonism.

    Pat

  37. “You want us to be amused by a group that has a goal to take down our Church?
    Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.”

    Well, no, not exactly. I don’t really expect you to be amused by it; rather, I was curious if you were even AWARE that there’s more to it than alleged phone calls and scary Youtube videos with synthesized voices.

    I ask partly just because I’m curious how much Scientologists are even aware of what the whole Anonymous thing -is-, and secondly because a lot of the humorous elements make the accusations by Scientology seem increasingly absurd, even to the press (My personal favorite was an article which ended with, paraphrased, “The Church claims that Anonymous is a group of ‘religious hate criminals responsible for acts of terrorism and bigotry’. After the protest, many protesters retired to a nearby park for pizza and cake.”)

  38. You want us to be amused by a group that has a goal to take down our Church?
    Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

    So you only allow yourself to see the negative aspects of Anonymous and not the positive aspects? Isn’t that an anti-social behavior from a Scientology perspective?

  39. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 19, 2008 8:02 am
    >I’m back! (sort of)

    >I’m still curious as to how much the Scientologists here are aware of regarding the humorous side of the whole Anonymous thing. I mean, I suspect at least a few Scientologists have seen a LOLcat or two, in their day.

    You want us to be amused by a group that has a goal to take down our Church?
    Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

    Pat

  40. @Comment by veritas on April 19, 2008 6:51 am
    >But theta(life-being alive) is distinct from a thetan correct? I think a thetan would be the equivalent when I mention a spirit in the shaman culture example, I mean so far I have not seen any indication that scientology says that animals are thetans.

    >Definition I pulled up
    >A thetan is an immortal spiritual being- the human soul

    The 5th Dynamic is the urge toward survival as or through life forms. I believe that whether thetans inhabit plants and animals bodies is a matter of individual consideration. What’s true for you is true for you.

    Pat

  41. I’m back! (sort of)

    I’m still curious as to how much the Scientologists here are aware of regarding the humorous side of the whole Anonymous thing. I mean, I suspect at least a few Scientologists have seen a LOLcat or two, in their day.

  42. But theta(life-being alive) is distinct from a thetan correct? I think a thetan would be the equivalent when I mention a spirit in the shaman culture example, I mean so far I have not seen any indication that scientology says that animals are thetans.

    Definition I pulled up
    A thetan is an immortal spiritual being- the human soul

  43. Life (theta) is considered to animate all life forms. It’s our 5th Dynamic.

    This is discussed here in the beliefs section
    http://www.scientology.org

    Pat

  44. @any scientolgist who wants to answer

    Yesterday I was reading about the nature of spiritualism in celtic and various shamanistic cultures. One theme I noticed through a lot of them was that they considered not only man but animals to have spirits. This is based on the interconnected nature of earth and how mans larger brain and ability to express himself in more advanced ways does not mean that animals are mere flesh, then they go off into some examples, like spiritual manifestations of animals are spirit guides or guardians, and how animals superior senses in nature.
    Anyway I was curious what a scientologist view on that would be or what was hubbards opinion on man being exclusively spiritual vs sharing it with ‘lower’ life forms?

  45. Brad has every right to call himself a Scientologist if he wants. Where do you get off telling him that? You can also be disgusted with me if you want. I’m not here for your approval.

    Pat

  46. I was directing my comment at Pat, for this comment he made
    “Lerma was never a Scientologist, let alone Sea Org.”

    Brad, you’re not a scientologist, so you shouldn’t be offended. It’s Pat I’m disgusted with

  47. well I take offense to that statement as I have not lied at anytime and have tried to be very open.

    Since I did not know much about Mr. Lerma I did some reading on him. The statement
    presented is that he was threatened of being mutilated.
    If I were to take his word for it, then I would say those Scientologists are wrong and should be dealt with.

    As for the raid on his house, I had to dig that up and went to the source “The Washington Post” as wiki conveniently left out a lot
    While there were a few law suites the Washington post won their case but
    Arnie Lerma did not. I purchased a few archive prints to get this info and will have to wait for the final print copy as the Post does not offer internet print on this specific article below:

    Church of Scientology wins cyberspace copyright fight
    The Washington Post – Washington, D.C.
    Author: Hall, Charles W
    Date: Jan 20, 1996
    Start Page: B1

    US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ruled that Arlington County VA resident Arnaldo Lerma violated copyright laws when he dumped sacred texts of the Church of Scientology onto the Internet, saying words enjoy legal protection even in cyberspace.”

    http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/9199015.html?dids=9199015&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS&date=Jan+20%2C+1996&author=Hall%2C+Charles+W&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=B1&desc=Church+of+Scientology+wins+cyberspace+copyright+fight

    Here is another article
    You will have to pay to see the rest of this article as it is not free:
    ——————————————————————————-
    Man Ordered to Pay $2,500 to Scientology
    [FINAL Edition]
    The Washington Post – Washington, D.C.
    Date: Apr 30, 1997
    Start Page: B.09
    Section: METRO
    Text Word Count: 117

    ” An Arlington man who violated copyright laws by posting sacred texts of the Church of Scientology on the Internet must pay the church $2,500, a federal judge ruled.”

    In that same article it states that U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema did issue a permanent injunction on Arnaldo Lerma from ever again putting the texts in a computer database

    Ok so what is the point with Lerma?

  48. Pat, you make a statement as if it’s fact and when I go to a website and research your “facts” and realize they aren’t true, come back here and tell you…then I’m told where I went for the facts wasn’t good enough so I go out of my way to go straight to the actual source…..and all you can say is “oops guess I was thinking of someone else”
    are you fucking kidding? You SUCK, seriously.
    You know when I was talking to Arnie yesterday he said “you know how you can tell a scientologist is lying?”
    I said “how”
    He said “They’re TALKING”

    I believe him

  49. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 18, 2008 8:22 am
    >>As long as I have my own personal ethics in, I trust my Church.

    >>Personal Integrity and Honesty (clean hands) and my Code of Honor.

    >Pat, although I find most of your answers evasive, I can appreciate that you are doing your best to be ethical.

    >However, I’m not sure I see the connection here. If YOU are relating to the church which clean hands, this does not imply the CHURCH is relating to you with clean hands; it is even less implied that Scientology is relating to those it considers enemies with clean hands. Scientology doesn’t make people perfect any more then anything else does.

    Tony,

    I don’t find my answers evasive at all. You evidently aren’t getting the answers you want from me. As far as this communication goes, it was part of a discussion between EA and myself. I think he’ll understand it.

    Pat

  50. >As long as I have my own personal ethics in, I trust my Church.

    >Personal Integrity and Honesty (clean hands) and my Code of Honor.

    Pat, although I find most of your answers evasive, I can appreciate that you are doing your best to be ethical.

    However, I’m not sure I see the connection here. If YOU are relating to the church which clean hands, this does not imply the CHURCH is relating to you with clean hands; it is even less implied that Scientology is relating to those it considers enemies with clean hands. Scientology doesn’t make people perfect any more then anything else does.

  51. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 18, 2008 2:32 am

    EA, It comes down to something really simple. I hope this comes across.

    As long as I have my own personal ethics in, I trust my Church.

    Personal Integrity and Honesty (clean hands) and my Code of Honor.

    Pat

  52. Pat-
    Cool. Fair enough.

    “Please note that I do not go into the anti-Scientology sites. I find it pure entheta and non-productive in my life to put attention on bad news which is what I consider these sites to be.”

    Well, I can’t say I really blame you for that. I would ask, though: If people aren’t exposed to the bad news along with the good, how do they know to -do- something to address the bad and keep it from happening again?

    (Note that this is NOT an attempt to get you visiting those sites, but rather a broader philosophical question)

    “Just thinking about that explains a lot to me on why you guys sometimes tend to go from willing to discuss in a friendly tone to straight antago. You should go see some happy things in life once in a while. When all you look for is bad, that’s all you get.”

    It is unfortunate that there’s a lot of heated emotions caught up in all of this, but I guess that’s somewhat inevitable whenever faith is involved. Ad hominem arguments are also one of my “buttons”, so seeing some of the attempts to discredit people through unrelated allegations (“So-and-so says that the church does this.” “Oh yeah? Well, he cheated on his wife!”) kind of sets me on edge.

    (For instance, checking religiousfreedomwatch is…well, there’s some pretty unpleasant dead-agenting type of activity going on there)

    Actually, here’s one thing I am curious about. I’m sure you’ve heard a great deal about the antagonistic side of the whole Anonymous thing, but are you aware of the humorous, deeply absurdist side of the whole thing?

  53. I may have false data on Lerma and the SO. I’m still researching where I saw the data.

    Meantime, I withdraw my statement. It’s possible I’ve confused him with Fishman.

    Please note that I do not go into the anti-Scientology sites. I find it pure entheta and non-productive in my life to put attention on bad news which is what I consider these sites to be.

    Just thinking about that explains a lot to me on why you guys sometimes tend to go from willing to discuss in a friendly tone to straight antago. You should go see some happy things in life once in a while. When all you look for is bad, that’s all you get.

    Pat

  54. oy vey…well at least they came around

  55. @@Libraesque
    wrote
    “thats awesome! It’s nice that you found something that you’re comfortable with after so much searching, I really admire that”

    thank you, my parents whom are very catholic almost disconnected from me as also to the fact that I married a hispanic of which is a no no for my parents whom were very bigoted but have made a great change of acceptance. But I can tell you for a while there it was hectic. My mother always says “you were born a catholic, you are a catholic.” lol.

  56. @Libraesque

    I think the WSJ report is very telling.

    @Libraesque
    so Brad you’re saying “services” at the COS are free. Since scientology has basically its own language, wouldn’t I be totally lost is ALL I did was attend “services”????

    Well as a convert to each faith I purchased their version of the bible and a few other books, no big deal.

    To attend COS Sunday services which = going to church on Sunday is free. I do not think you would be that lost accept for the lexicon maybe which they would likely explain. You can buy a couple of “the basics” books or any other that you feel suit your interests and that would be your cost.
    Basically look at it this way in each church I attended I went to “Sunday School” and paid for that education. I could sit in a church and not take any classes and maybe have a grasp of it, but I wanted to know and so I paid to learn more, just as you would do in COS of your own volunteering choice that is.

  57. As an evangelical minister, I can weigh in 04/17 14:09:28

    I have, in my 52 years been associated with the Southern Baptist Church, and the Assemblies of God. I also have commercial lending experience, obtaining mortgages for churches and other non-profit organizations. With this said, I bring a bit more practical perspective.

    What is church membership, in the religious sense? It is nothing more than stating that you have common beliefs with the church, and that you intend to become an active part in its ministries and activities. Some churches will, on their membership application, have a statement included that you agree, as you are able, to financially support the church. However, that does not obligate one to any fixed amount of money; it is voluntary. Church membership is simply identifying with the beliefs and practices of the organization.

    From the practical standpoint, most churches today are incorporated. This helps them from a legal standpoint, to insulate individual members from liability or other legal ramifications in the event of lawsuit or other legal actions. Incorporation identifies the church as a legal entity, which helps in contractual issues. It also helps when obtaining loans for buildings or other needs.

    On the subject of loans, understand that a lender has to go after a legal entity in the case of a default. So they are EXTREMELY reluctant to lend to a church that is not incorporated.
    So why all this talk of incorporation? Simple. In order to incorporate, there has to be people that will “sign on the dotted line” as board members etc. In the case of a church, the number of “official members” will have a proportional affect on the ability to get loans. If a church’s membership is growing, a bank is more likely to consider them. If the membership is stagnant or declining, the chance of obtaining loans is much less likely. Without an official membership list, lenders are most likely not going to consider a church for a mortgage. (There are some exceptions, but not many.)
    Then there is the sticky issue of tax-exempt status. Although incorporation is not an absolute necessity, Section 501c3 of the Internal Revenue Code requires incorporation to be listed with the IRS as a tax-exempt organization. Once again, that has a bearing on the ability to obtain funds. It also has an effect on people’s willingness to donate toward the ministry

  58. so Brad you’re saying “services” at the COS are free. Since scientology has basically its own language, wouldn’t I be totally lost is ALL I did was attend “services”????

  59. From

    http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119576921737201375-U0uME2aiog_E3kgvpo4JWkqfJBE_20071222.html

    “Muslims are obligated to give a zakat to charity, usually 2.5% of the market value of a believer’s assets each year. Most Jewish synagogues request an annual membership fee, often based on family income.”

    “Tithing ranges from a requirement to a suggestion, depending on the denomination and the church. Mormons must give 10% to the church or they may be barred from temples where ceremonies take place. Some evangelical Protestant churches require new members to sign covenants, promising to tithe or give generously. Those who openly refuse to tithe might be denied leadership roles or asked to leave the congregation. The tithe has been the Episcopal Church’s “minimum standard” since 1982, although the average annual gift from its 2.3 million members in 2006 reached only $1,718, less than the 10% requirement, according to its own figures.”

  60. here’s the link

    http://sfbay.craigslist.org/forums/?forumID=59

  61. you know what as I read “require membership.” should say “require membership fee as to be a member”

  62. Joel Osteen similar to Jewish practices sells tickets for his major events.

    http://au.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20070807154155AAmO6lD

  63. The only church I know of that to be a member of but not necessarily get benefits = free is the Catholic Church.

    can you send the link to the post on craigslist?

  64. Ok I can tell you this to convert to each I had to pay
    and to be a member I had to pay
    to receive the church benefits I had to pay
    sure anyone can show up and attend services AND the exact same thing applies to COS, exactly. It is free for services but you pay for membership via classes instead of a % of gross income. Go on sunday, it is free.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080415144329AAIF6a5

  65. and more

    If you read the law on income tax 04/17 13:30:39

    it was supposed to be “voluntary” too.

  66. and more

    membership does not cost anything 04/17 13:28:32

    it’s just paperwork.
    my org has members, but no fees or dues.

    Because we are a non-profit school we are required to keep certain info, membership being one item.

  67. here’s my post on craigslist:

    I’m having a …..disagreement with someone online and was hoping some of you kind people here could clear this up……as I haven’t been to church in ages.

    He posted the following
    Actually almost all Christian and Jewish churches/Synagogues require membership.
    Of those that I have participated.
    Methodist
    Baptist
    Pentecostal
    Deliverance
    Church of Christ
    Church of Nazareth
    except I think the Anglican church did not and of course Catholics
    but hey what a great history of acquiring wealth to offset it all.

    That sounds like utter shit to me…..as far as I know any money given to a church is voluntary, and there isn’t a membership fee , like at a gym

    here are the responses so far:

    That’s crap 04/17 13:11:52

    you could go to a church your entire life and never “join”. Nor does anyone ever force you to give a dime, and if you are ostricized for not donating you need a different church.

    The :membership” that person is speaking of 04/17 13:15:04

    probably does NOT mean paying a fee, rather it means that in order to be counted in that Church’s membership, you are asked to attend classes, and be baptized.

    Any Church that requires a paid membership would be in danger of losing it’s tax exempt status.

    You don’t have to be a member to attend the 04/17 13:15:47

    Methodist Church.

    Heck I have a un-converted Catholic cousin who’s been attending the Methodist Church for 9 years and serves on the church’s Board of Trustees.

  68. thats awesome! It’s nice that you found something that you’re comfortable with after so much searching, I really admire that

  69. @Libraesque

    Yes it took 2 years of study to get fully converted. It was a lot of time. You basically have to redo the circumcision process where if you have been you get pricked to draw a drop of blood.
    Then comes the mikvah where you you go into a body of water connected to a natural source and do that ritual.
    Then come the Jewish court part where you go before 3 Rabbi and state why you want to be Jewish and they approve or deny you.

    So yes it was a long time but a great experience that changed my life forever, obviously ;).

    Thanks for asking.

  70. @Libraesque

    I do not know if the photo is him, and I like I said I do not know the guy nor his story and he may be right, my point again was as to the context you framed the question using wiki as source.

  71. I feel what you’re saying
    SO you converted to Judaism? Was that difficult? DId it take long? I mean I remember that episode of Sex & the City, and it didn’t seem like any cake walk

  72. @Libraesque

    “I just have to ask….WHAT is it you’re searching for by “joining” so many churches?”

    I was born Catholic and never agreed with it. I then became atheist for a short time but had life events that swayed me to seek truth as to G_d. Thus my quest began, starting in the military I was exposed to many of which are on the list. I got out of the military and continued on as I dabbled a bit in Hinduism but that was very short lived and settled on being a deist but made a friend who happened to be Jewish and as I always do talk philosophy and religion but found Judaism to be the closest fit for me and have been for many, many years and do not plan to change.

    I found Scientology via the critics before anon started. I am one that goes to the source to find out. I admit I was freaked out and scared but I walked in and found it to be the opposite thus far. So far it is compatible with my faith but perhaps it will have a conflict with Judaism in the future of which that will be my point I cannot go past but will not go on youtube nor join the critics to say “the tech is crap, all of it” as that would be a lie. I would rather be honest and say I feel everyone can get something out of Scientology and one does not have to be OT or Clear there is simply so much there to get from it.

  73. just got off the phone with Arnie. WHen I told him I was on a site where people were stating as fact that he wasn’t a scientologist OR in the Sea Org, he laughed, then said “I wish”.

    He sent this picture, from when he WAS in the Sea Org.

  74. @Libraesque

    I am glad you find it amusing that you missed the point.

    You stated wiki as source of which many can post whatever and link it to wherever it does have credibility issues.

    I have tracked the source down as it was not news but an editorial based one a person’s word. The validity can be taken only so far as to the so assertive context you framed the question.

    If you use that angle, you have been dismissing everything Pat has said and likely every other Scientologist as somebody’s word.

    Obviously you have not followed my posts here, I also have some criticsm and agree with some points the critics have just ask John or EA.

  75. @EA and Libraesque

    EA wrote
    “Well, see, there’s a few issues here. One, talking about the actions of an organization is significantly different from spreading information”

    agreed, but my point was on bias and where it leads in misunderstanding criticism.
    It does make what he says as how he currently feels invalid but it does not make the statement that Scientology does not work valid either. I cannot tell how many pissed off converts to other faiths have to say about their former faith or even those that just quit.

    What I was getting at as well is a flaw I see in the critics one view of that usually they hit a ceiling of where the tech does not work and so be it I am not one to say “YES IT DOES!” But I do not accept the argument that all prior tech that was obviously sought after as you have to sign up for each course to proceed further has to have merit and basis that the previous tech worked but only to say it was all bunk. No that is not valid.

    That is what I mean by credibility of the criticism, many times emotion consumes reason.

  76. I have work to do so will be in and out.

    EA, I suggest you do some research into Lerma, beyond wiki and his own websites.

    Time track some of his statements, and when he said he was in Scientology or Sea Org. You might be surprised.

    Pat

  77. I’m going to have to post something on Craigslist about membership fees to those churches, because that does not sound right to me.
    brb

  78. brad S I just have to ask….WHAT is it you’re searching for by “joining” so many churches?

  79. HAHAHAHAHA……..”basically not really fact but Lerma’s word.” so if someone speaks something that doesn’t jive with your agenda, it’s not fact, only their WORD?
    Tell ya what, Arnie has a phone number on his website. I’ll tell him about this site and he can maybe clear things up.
    SO basically what you are saying is that wiki is nothing but lies and arnie speaking is lies. SO EVERY SINGLE person that has a bad experience with scientology is lying, and a website like wiki was created to spread lies????

  80. @EA

    Actually almost all Christian and Jewish churches/Synagogues require membership.
    Of those that I have participated.
    Methodist
    Baptist
    Pentecostal
    Deliverance
    Church of Christ
    Church of Nazareth
    except I think the Anglican church did not and of course Catholics
    but hey what a great history of acquiring wealth to offset it all.

    That said I am Jewish and can personally vouch for the Synagogues I attend.

  81. @EA wrote: “tithe is voluntary.”

    nope it is not, I am sure there are a few whom are very large congregations that let people slide but not my experience and the Christians I know except for Catholics. Moreover almost all Synagogues I have been to allow you to attend for free all year except the important high holy days where to get in, you need a ticket which a ticket = annual membership.

    But for the sake of argument let say it is voluntary as for COS tithe is voluntary as well, no one forces you to take the courses and you do not have to take the courses to be a scientologist. Buy Dianetics and or a basics book and use some of its principles and attend Sunday service and it will only cost you the book which may or may not be as expensive as a bible.

    Granted it does cost money to take classes but it also cost me money to take Sunday school, so what is the difference…. perhaps the amount of $$??? But that is a value question. I would ask the same of people who pay $150.00 for a Luis Vitton hair clip.

  82. @Libraesque

    Even though your question if for Pat, I love it when people use Wiki…. I have been in debates where Wiki is not allowed as a truce source. But I followed the “Wiki” source to The Toledo Blade on a report done by David Yonke The Blade’s religion editor
    there are no facts is the article only Lerma’s word as reported:

    “One of the more diligent and informed critics is Arnie Lerma, a self-described “old hippie” living near Washington.

    Mr. Lerma, now 54, had been a Scientologist until the church broke his heart and, he says, threatened to break even more.”

    The article is filled with “he says, he said and etc…” basically not really fact but Lerma’s word.

    I do not know who the guy is and he may have been in the Sea Org, I do not know, but your source either way does not validate it.

  83. @Comment by Libraesque on April 17, 2008 5:46 pm
    >Pat, you’re saying Arnie Lerma WASN’T in the Sea Org??? I found this on wiki

    >He joined Scientology’s Sea Org and was assigned in 1976 to a post working alongside Hubbard’s daughter Suzette. They became romantically involved and planned to elope. Other Sea Org officers discovered their plans and, according to Lerma, threatened to mutilate him if he did not cancel the marriage. Lerma quit Scientology soon afterward

    can you explain???

    Yes. One Word. Wikipedia

    Pat

  84. 10 percent annual “membership”? Membership to what? A baptist church???? never heard of such a thing, churches (actual churches) aren’t like gyms as far as I know, there isn’t a membership fee.

    Here’s the thing about people like Jason, he had an experience in his life and it’s his right to tell it, it’s HIS story. I mean you’re free to make a YouTube video of your experiences in the Baptist church.

    Who cares if people watch Jasons video and think “ooh ooh look at that, Scientology is crap!” ??????

    “This then invalidates credibility ” ……..whose credibility????

  85. Pat-

    “Yes, there are exposès of them. The thing that LRH stresses in doing such exposès is TRUTH.

    “Say, here we’ve got this person claiming such and such. Well here’s the facts from us”

    Do you consider it’s bad to get the other side out there? ALL of the data? TRUTH.”

    Well, that depends. First of all, I have yet to see -proof- of most of the allegations leveled against the critics that the church has tried to defame. Instead, it turns into “He said, she said”, and…

    Okay. That brings me to another point. Let’s look at the nature of the allegations on both sides:

    Critics:
    1. “It’s a scam.”
    2. “There are abuses in the Sea Org/RPF/whatever.”
    3. “Disconnection is a harmful policy.”
    4. “The church goes after anyone who criticizes it with private detectives, smear campaigns, legal actions, etc.”

    Scientology:
    1. “Critic X is a sexual deviant.”
    2. “Critic X is a religious bigot.”
    3. “Critic X is a horrible person because X, Y, and Z.
    4. “Critic X once admitted to smoking pot when they were 15.”

    That’s…not “getting all the data out there”. That’s smearing someone.

    I mean, when Stacy Brooks left, the organization apparently had a private detective go around speaking to her friends and neighbors in order to say horrible things about her, visited her family to say things about her, and distributed a multi-page pamphlet full of salacious “information” about her sex life and other highly personal details.

    Do you think that’s -okay-? Do you think it would be appropriate for them to start doing the same to individual Scientologists?

    “Lerma was never a Scientologist, let alone Sea Org. Touretsky works for the Psychs and has never interacted with Scientologists or Scientology. Right now he’s researching mind control for the government, using Rat brains. Gets millions in grants from government to do that. That’s verifiable. The techniques of Dianetics and Scientology can undo mind control. Is it too much of a stretch to see what is behind his attacks?”

    Okay, well, I’d be interested to see where your info that Lerma was never in comes from, because the info I have directly contradicts that. As for Touretsky, I’m aware of his credentials, but the assertion that he’s “researching mind control for the government” and that his antipathy towards Scientology is because he’s afraid Dianetics will undo his work…stretches credibility. Do his grants say “research mind control”? Or is his area of research -related- to human cognition and decision-making, and its intent has simply been…skewed by Scientology to fit its own world view?

    “Black PR? Black PR is propaganda against the Church. It’s not something the Church does but what the critics do.”

    Hey, what’s good for the goose…I use that term specifically to make a point. If it’s propaganda against the church, it’s black PR, but if it’s propaganda against individual critics and their personal lives, it’s a-okay?

    “Yes, we use the court systems. Why not? The only ones who are complaining are the ones who are on the receiving end of lawsuits. “Let’s attack that the Church is litigous and maybe we can get them to back off of us” That’s how I see this.”

    That’s not really true. A lot of people (especially in the media) are afraid to even cover Scientology because of the potential for lawsuits (see: Time Magazine).

  86. Brad-

    “In my opinion that statement has inherent bias, while stating COS is unfair in principle to discredit critics you do not apply the same rule to the critics.”

    “Take Jason Beghe for example many have watched the teaser and go “ooh ooh look at that, Scientology is crap!” and in doing so what they fail to grasp is that COS worked for him up until a point. However how it comes off is that everything prior is bunk and why “because I was brainwashed” right sure you were.”

    Well, see, there’s a few issues here. One, talking about the actions of an organization is significantly different from spreading information about an individual (which I believe, in many cases, is untrue anyway; of course, I’m sure the church would claim otherwise). Two, it’s irrelevant whether it worked for Beghe up to a point or not. It does not make the criticisms he levels against the organization any less valid. I mean, if your argument is, “Well, he liked the lower levels, but as he got to the higher levels he realized it was a scam and the management was abusive and manipulative”, my answer would be….”Okay? And?”

    “I could say the same things about the Baptist church I tried out, I left and felt that it was not for me. I could make the same claims as to why I stuck with it as long as I did and can say “mind control” is the culprit. I mean Jason will say Scientology says this and that and it does not deliver, I can also say neither did the other faiths I have tried out. The only thing is I wish I could get the 10% annual donation for membership refunded.”

    Right, but let’s be honest. Comparing Scientology and the Baptist Church isn’t entirely accurate. Also, the “10% annual donation” isn’t really fair either, since in virtually all Christian churches, the tithe is voluntary. Encouraged, yes, but they are not going to refuse you entry if you don’t put money in the collection plate. (Note: I am not a Baptist, so I’ve got no particular stake in defending them)

  87. @Tony

    Tony wrote: “However, one has to wonder why more then half of people polled have such a negative opinion.”

    Well it is something we can work to improve; but, I find the statement a bit callow. When has popular opinion been against Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons and etc at one time or another?

  88. @EA

    just my opinion here

    EA wrote: “So even if, for instance, Jenna Miscavige Hill, Tory, Kendra, and so on haven’t been -sued-, there have been efforts to…discredit them or cast them in a bad light.”

    In my opinion that statement has inherent bias, while stating COS is unfair in principle to discredit critics you do not apply the same rule to the critics.

    Do not get me wrong the critics do have some points but most people have bias and thus many take Xenu.net info and others as all facts and do not attempt to research the other side with present company excluded and those that visit sites like http://www.bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm

    Take Jason Beghe for example many have watched the teaser and go “ooh ooh look at that, Scientology is crap!” and in doing so what they fail to grasp is that COS worked for him up until a point. However how it comes off is that everything prior is bunk and why “because I was brainwashed” right sure you were.

    This then invalidates credibility and why because it is subjective, today I can believe in concept A and tomorrow concept B having said at one point in time or another that A was right and B wrong and vice-versa. There is no line as to say what is mind control and not and is the very reason why in the 70’s when many tried forcible kidnapping the courts backed the individual right for one to choose a faith or group… what have you over the will of the parents or friends.

    I could say the same things about the Baptist church I tried out, I left and felt that it was not for me. I could make the same claims as to why I stuck with it as long as I did and can say “mind control” is the culprit. I mean Jason will say Scientology says this and that and it does not deliver, I can also say neither did the other faiths I have tried out. The only thing is I wish I could get the 10% annual donation for membership refunded.

    Please do not take offense to anything I am saying to one particular faith or another, it is just I find it amusing that so many assign criticism on another with out self-reflection upon their own faith. However in the irony of it all isn’t this reflective in the grand scheme of things where LRH says “what is true for you…?”

  89. Pat, you’re saying Arnie Lerma WASN’T in the Sea Org??? I found this on wiki

    He joined Scientology’s Sea Org and was assigned in 1976 to a post working alongside Hubbard’s daughter Suzette. They became romantically involved and planned to elope. Other Sea Org officers discovered their plans and, according to Lerma, threatened to mutilate him if he did not cancel the marriage. Lerma quit Scientology soon afterward

    can you explain???

  90. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 17, 2008 4:11 am

    Yes, there are exposès of them. The thing that LRH stresses in doing such exposès is TRUTH.

    “Say, here we’ve got this person claiming such and such. Well here’s the facts from us”

    Do you consider it’s bad to get the other side out there? ALL of the data? TRUTH

    >I was under the impression that Lerma is ex-Sea Org. As for Touretsky, I know he’s never been a Scientologist, but I’m unaware of to what degree he’s interacted with the organization.

    Lerma was never a Scientologist, let alone Sea Org. Touretsky works for the Psychs and has never interacted with Scientologists or Scientology. Right now he’s researching mind control for the government, using Rat brains. Gets millions in grants from government to do that. That’s verifiable. The techniques of Dianetics and Scientology can undo mind control. Is it too much of a stretch to see what is behind his attacks?

    Black PR? Black PR is propaganda against the Church. It’s not something the Church does but what the critics do.

    Yes, we use the court systems. Why not? The only ones who are complaining are the ones who are on the receiving end of lawsuits. “Let’s attack that the Church is litigous and maybe we can get them to back off of us” That’s how I see this.

    Pat

  91. >The court of public opinion, however…

    Anonymous Delivers!

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/106516/Americans-NetPositive-View-US-Catholics.aspx

    The court of public opinion is pretty clear on this one. Granted, public opinion is not necessarily truth. However, one has to wonder why more then half of people polled have such a negative opinion.

  92. Pat –
    Hah. Point well taken about the length. I’ll try to just hit the main points:

    “Do you have the dates on those? Might be a good habit to get into if you want data here.”

    Sure. The Wallersheim case finally came to a close with the church’s payment of over 8 million dollars on the 9th of May, 2002. However, the case had obviously been going on for -years- before that.

    The Bonnie Woods case ended on June 8, 1999, with Scientology publicly apologizing to her for having libeled her as a “religious bigot”.

    “True. They did speak out. If they expected to be attacked for that then they accepted a false party line that we attack critics, so I question your use of “dare”. I only know of lawsuits for copyright violations and only on those who have posted copyrighted material to the internet. Not because someone was critical.”

    But see, there are attacks -other- than legal action. The claims being made against the CoS aren’t -solely- regarding legal action. They also encompass things like, y’know, “Black PR”, dead-agenting tactics, etc. So even if, for instance, Jenna Miscavige Hill, Tory, Kendra, and so on haven’t been -sued-, there have been efforts to…discredit them or cast them in a bad light. Tory’s page on religiousfreedomwatch, for instance, is a pretty clear case of trying to attack her to diffuse any criticism she might level at the organiztion.

    “Just because we know these guys have crimes against the Church, doesn’t mean we did any legal actions on them for speaking out. That also doesn’t mean that we can’t point out that we know about them. No one’s taking any action.”

    See above. Mounting a PR effort to discredit or defame someone is a pretty clear “attack”, even though it doesn’t take place in a courtroom. I’d argue that having PIs or staff members conduct “noisy investigations” is also a form of attack bordering on “gaslighting”.

    When the church puts up a website that lists prominent critics and says “These people are religious bigots and here’s all the dirt on them”, that is “taking action”. Not LEGAL action, but it’s still an active attempt to discredit or defame.

    “True. I don’t think there is or has been any intention of doing so. The intent was clear from the beginning. Take Scientology down. ”

    Ehh….kinda sorta not really, as the saying goes. I’d say that there’s a wide variety of motives. Some people feel that the tech is inherently dangerous and harmful, whereas others don’t care one way or the other about auditing but would like to see a greater degree of openness and accountability. For some, disconnection is the big issue. I think most people would agree that they would like to see the organization change or reform, and it’s pretty much to be expected that the organization would resist such efforts. So did the Catholic church during the Reformation, but that didn’t necessarily make Martin Luther a “hate criminal” or a “religious bigot”.

    “Some have never even been inside a Church to my knowledge (Lerma and Touretsky at CMU.edu).

    I don’t know about contrast. If there were legal issues why didn’t they go to the courts and do it legally?”

    I was under the impression that Lerma is ex-Sea Org. As for Touretsky, I know he’s never been a Scientologist, but I’m unaware of to what degree he’s interacted with the organization.

    As for the legal issues, well…Scientology has a LOT of lawyers. It spends a lot of -money- on lawyers. The average person simply does not have the resources to fight Scientology in court even if they were inclined to do so, simply because Scientology has the legal muscle to bury any attempts in mountains of paperwork and procedure, dragging things out for years and making the legal bills skyrocket (see the aforementioned Wallersheim case, for instance).

    The court of public opinion, however…

    “See above. I’m not management. I have only given you my take on it. Hell, I’m not even staff. Just a parishioner. Keeping Scientology Working.”

    Understood. I don’t expect for you to be the Metatron of Scientology, handing down edicts from on high. It is nice to get an honest perspective from someone who is still in, though.

    Oh, well. So much for watching the length.

  93. @Comment by Libraesque on April 16, 2008 8:32 pm
    >CRIMES AGAINST $CIENTOLOGY?

    >you’re talking about Anonymous right? What crimes? Has anyone been charged with anything?

    Am I? Is this from one of my posts? Try at least showing the post this is from.

    Pat

  94. @Comment by veritas on April 17, 2008 12:54 am

    >Interesting on whole track recall pat

    So I’m guessing the infamous ‘obscene dog incident’ is another example of past lives recalled through auditing?

    These are anecdotes. Just something for people to take out of context to create unreality.

    I got to admit that this one is puzzling- I cant make sense of it- what does mohammed and a lodestone have to do with anything?

    Doesn’t it piss you off when people post out of context? You’re experiencing exactly what’s intended.

    Ask the poster to give it in context with the Lecture title.

    >TEXT Here-
    >Hubbard : “It’s an enormous stone hanging suspended in the middle of a room, this is an incident called the Emanator by the way, and this thing is by the way the source of the Mohammedan Lodestone that they have hanging down there, that, eh, when Mohammed decided to be a good small-town booster in eh Kansas, Middle-East, or something of the sort. By the way, the only reason he mocked that thing up, is the trade wasn’t good in his hometown. That’s right. You read the life of Mohammed. And he’s got a black one and it sort of hung between the ceiling and the floor, I don’t know, maybe they call it the Casbah or something or… Anyway, anyway, that thing is a mockup of the Emanator! The Emanator is bright, not black.

    >And so, your volunteer, who insists on a sightseeing trip, goes in and this thing is standing in the middle of the room, and it’s going ‘wong wong wong wong wong’ and he says: “Isn’t that pretty?”. It sure is, and then he says “Mmmgrmrm ponk” Why, I’ll tell you, they cart him from there, and they take him in and they do a transposition of beingness.

    This is discussed in the “Technique 88: Before Earth” lectures, which were done as companion lectures for the book “History of Man”. The lodestone is a duplicate of the one in the incident. When someone goes in and sees it, it brings the past up (activates upset in the past incident as tho’ he’s feeling it now) and the person feels like he did during the incident.

    It’s called restimulation.

    With all the questions your answering, you could start your own scientology blog too

    Nah, this is fine.

    Pat

  95. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 16, 2008 9:21 pm
    Here goes another hour :P

    >>“What have the apostates done, EA? Posted scriptures on the Internet. Posted copyrighted material on the Internet. Those are the only actions we take to handle them to my knowledge.”

    >Spoken out in public about their own disagreements with Scientology? I mean, up until reasonably recently, I don’t think Tory had posted copyrighted material or scriptures. I’m reasonably sure that Jenna Miscavige, Kendra Wiseman, and Astra Woodcraft didn’t, or at least, they didn’t BEFORE they were perceived as “enemies of the church”. I’m not -aware- of Michael Pattinson doing so.

    I’m talking about legal actions we’re taking. What have we done regarding Tory, and the others you mention just mentioned here for speaking out?

    What they did seems, to me, to have far less to do with releasing confidential materials and far more to do with the fact that they dared to speak out against certain practices of the organization.

    True. They did speak out. If they expected to be attacked for that then they accepted a false party line that we attack critics, so I question your use of “dare”. I only know of lawsuits for copyright violations and only on those who have posted copyrighted material to the internet. Not because someone was critical.

    >>“Do you know of lawsuits by apostates at this point for legal wrongs by the Church?”

    Well, Larry Wallersheim won quite a bit of money in a civil case against the church. There was also the case in Britain where a woman (though her name escapes me at the moment) won a substantial victory against the church regarding their slander of her as a “religious bigot”.

    Do you have the dates on those? Might be a good habit to get into if you want data here.

    That’s what is called dropped out time. :)

    >>“When did the Church publicly state that the apostates committed crimes against the Church?

    >>What government petition for recourse for intervention? Have you seen one?

    >>This is from some injustice to the apostates by the Church? This asking for government intervention? What wrong did we do to them that the government needs to intervene to get them justice? (I’m wording that in different ways so there’s NO misunderstanding about what I want to know.)”

    >That depends on the individual case. I’ll do a little more poking around to find specific instances.

    Good.

    >As a matter of policy, though, isn’t the church’s position that if one is an apostate, there must be some hidden overts that they’re trying to cover up? Even if there isn’t a direct statement each time an apostate speaks out, that policy would (if I understand it correctly) constitute a de facto claim of such crimes.

    Just because we know these guys have crimes against the Church, doesn’t mean we did any legal actions on them for speaking out. That also doesn’t mean that we can’t point out that we know about them. No one’s taking any action.

    As for the government intervention, again, it depends. Many of the apostates and critics seek reform in areas where they, themselves, have not been harmed, but they perceive that others have. One instance would be the alleged child labor in the Sea Org.

    Ah, yes. Thanks for using the word “alleged”. I was curious if, with such emphasis on re-connecting families, why Jenna didn’t try to reconcile with her own family.

    >>“How in the hell would you start a dialog with an Anonymous masked group?”

    >Well, I can think of a number of ways. Like I said, it’s not -easy-, but shutting people inside the orgs and refusing to even come out and speak certainly isn’t the way to start one.

    Interesting. Do you know what happened in my town? I got screamed at as I came up to go into my Church. “Fucking Scientologist” etc. etc. Very conducive to dialog. Or shove a pamphlet in my face and tell me to get out while I’m still alive. Anonymous has no intention of dialog or someone would have come forth to the Church to offer. Think about that.

    >Responding with nothing but counter-attacks doesn’t much help matters, either. (Which isn’t to say that I don’t understand -why- the organization does that, or to claim that the attacks by Anonymous members aren’t also a factor in preventing an open dialogue; I’m just pointing out the situation.)

    Same as above

    “Look. I try to get this communicated. If these guys want justice then they need to use the lines. I don’t see that there is any intention of that, and that’s my point. They aren’t trying to get justice for themselves. My question is why didn’t they?”

    >Or, because they -already- have no faith in the organization, they don’t trust its ability/willingness to resolve their complaints fairly and impartially. I mean, I -understand- why you, as a member, feel that using the church’s own mechanisms to resolve the disputes would be the proper course of action. If, however, these people feel wronged by the -organization-, I can also understand why they’d be unwilling to trust in the very same system they feel let them down in the first place.

    Who tried? Who made sure they weren’t just feeling motivatorish before trying to handle it?
    It still comes back to clean hands. What really happened? You’re hearing one side of it. What is the viewpoint of those that Jenna hurt in leaving? Her parents. Or Miss Wise. What do you think happened to her family? How were they affected. What did they try to help her with before she left? You don’t know. It’s not in her best interest to tell everyone that, you know? Have you heard any of these guys say. “Well I did this or I did that …. ” I don’t think so. It’s all about what was done to them, and because the 3 girls are teens they counted on playing the child card.

    >>““bringing in” one’s own troubles ?

    >>That isn’t what I said. Just want to point that out. This is how false data gets started. Even Libraesque started using YOUR term.”

    Okay, I apologize. I was speaking partly from my understanding of your own statements and partly from my understanding of the philosophy as a whole (ie. if bad things are happening to you and, say, you’re OT4, it’s probably because you’re connected to someone who’s PTS or SP; or, you have some overts that you’re withholding).

    >Since I apparently misinterpreted what you were saying, though, I gladly withdraw the offending statements.

    >I guess I can see -some- difference. Let me try to sum up the argument I think you’re making, and you can correct me if I’m wrong.

    >The CoS, in dealing with Anonymous, is unable to address the “group” in order to deal with any injustices it feels Anonymous may have perpetrated against it. Likewise, it feels that the protesters are not taking the proper steps to resolve the conflict.

    True. I don’t think there is or has been any intention of doing so. The intent was clear from the beginning. Take Scientology down.

    >By contrast, the critics -could-, in theory, address their concerns through church channels, but instead choose to speak about things publicly.

    CHOSE. Past tense. Some of these sites have been up for many years. Alot of this started with the attempted take over of the church by ex-GO and Robertson, Corydon and his cronies.

    Some have never even been inside a Church to my knowledge (Lerma and Touretsky at CMU.edu).

    I don’t know about contrast. If there were legal issues why didn’t they go to the courts and do it legally?

    >This doesn’t address the issue of whether their complaints are true or a “cover” for some actions of their own, because frankly, I think it’s impossible to generalize in deciding on a motive for so many people. However, does the rest of it seem at least somewhat accurate in describing the church’s position on the subject?

    See above. I’m not management. I have only given you my take on it. Hell, I’m not even staff. Just a parishioner. Keeping Scientology Working.

    Pat

  96. Interesting on whole track recall pat
    So I’m guessing the infamous ‘obscene dog incident’ is another example of past lives recalled through auditing?

    I got to admit that this one is puzzling- I cant make sense of it- what does mohammed and a lodestone have to do with anything?

    TEXT Here-
    Hubbard : “It’s an enormous stone hanging suspended in the middle of a room, this is an incident called the Emanator by the way, and this thing is by the way the source of the Mohammedan Lodestone that they have hanging down there, that, eh, when Mohammed decided to be a good small-town booster in eh Kansas, Middle-East, or something of the sort. By the way, the only reason he mocked that thing up, is the trade wasn’t good in his hometown. That’s right. You read the life of Mohammed. And he’s got a black one and it sort of hung between the ceiling and the floor, I don’t know, maybe they call it the Casbah or something or… Anyway, anyway, that thing is a mockup of the Emanator! The Emanator is bright, not black.
    And so, your volunteer, who insists on a sightseeing trip, goes in and this thing is standing in the middle of the room, and it’s going ‘wong wong wong wong wong’ and he says: “Isn’t that pretty?”. It sure is, and then he says “Mmmgrmrm ponk” Why, I’ll tell you, they cart him from there, and they take him in and they do a transposition of beingness.

    With all the questions your answering, you could start your own scientology blog too

  97. “What have the apostates done, EA? Posted scriptures on the Internet. Posted copyrighted material on the Internet. Those are the only actions we take to handle them to my knowledge.”

    Spoken out in public about their own disagreements with Scientology? I mean, up until reasonably recently, I don’t think Tory had posted copyrighted material or scriptures. I’m reasonably sure that Jenna Miscavige, Kendra Wiseman, and Astra Woodcraft didn’t, or at least, they didn’t BEFORE they were perceived as “enemies of the church”. I’m not -aware- of Michael Pattinson doing so.

    What they did seems, to me, to have far less to do with releasing confidential materials and far more to do with the fact that they dared to speak out against certain practices of the organization.

    “Do you know of lawsuits by apostates at this point for legal wrongs by the Church?”

    Well, Larry Wallersheim won quite a bit of money in a civil case against the church. There was also the case in Britain where a woman (though her name escapes me at the moment) won a substantial victory against the church regarding their slander of her as a “religious bigot”.

    “When did the Church publicly state that the apostates committed crimes against the Church?

    What government petition for recourse for intervention? Have you seen one?

    This is from some injustice to the apostates by the Church? This asking for government intervention? What wrong did we do to them that the government needs to intervene to get them justice? (I’m wording that in different ways so there’s NO misunderstanding about what I want to know.)”

    That depends on the individual case. I’ll do a little more poking around to find specific instances. As a matter of policy, though, isn’t the church’s position that if one is an apostate, there must be some hidden overts that they’re trying to cover up? Even if there isn’t a direct statement each time an apostate speaks out, that policy would (if I understand it correctly) constitute a de facto claim of such crimes.

    As for the government intervention, again, it depends. Many of the apostates and critics seek reform in areas where they, themselves, have not been harmed, but they perceive that others have. One instance would be the alleged child labor in the Sea Org.

    “How in the hell would you start a dialog with an Anonymous masked group?”

    Well, I can think of a number of ways. Like I said, it’s not -easy-, but shutting people inside the orgs and refusing to even come out and speak certainly isn’t the way to start one. Responding with nothing but counter-attacks doesn’t much help matters, either. (Which isn’t to say that I don’t understand -why- the organization does that, or to claim that the attacks by Anonymous members aren’t also a factor in preventing an open dialogue; I’m just pointing out the situation.)

    “Look. I try to get this communicated. If these guys want justice then they need to use the lines. I don’t see that there is any intention of that, and that’s my point. They aren’t trying to get justice for themselves. My question is why didn’t they?”

    Or, because they -already- have no faith in the organization, they don’t trust its ability/willingness to resolve their complaints fairly and impartially. I mean, I -understand- why you, as a member, feel that using the church’s own mechanisms to resolve the disputes would be the proper course of action. If, however, these people feel wronged by the -organization-, I can also understand why they’d be unwilling to trust in the very same system they feel let them down in the first place.

    ““bringing in” one’s own troubles ?

    That isn’t what I said. Just want to point that out. This is how false data gets started. Even Libraesque started using YOUR term.”

    Okay, I apologize. I was speaking partly from my understanding of your own statements and partly from my understanding of the philosophy as a whole (ie. if bad things are happening to you and, say, you’re OT4, it’s probably because you’re connected to someone who’s PTS or SP; or, you have some overts that you’re withholding).

    Since I apparently misinterpreted what you were saying, though, I gladly withdraw the offending statements.

    I guess I can see -some- difference. Let me try to sum up the argument I think you’re making, and you can correct me if I’m wrong.

    The CoS, in dealing with Anonymous, is unable to address the “group” in order to deal with any injustices it feels Anonymous may have perpetrated against it. Likewise, it feels that the protesters are not taking the proper steps to resolve the conflict.

    By contrast, the critics -could-, in theory, address their concerns through church channels, but instead choose to speak about things publicly.

    This doesn’t address the issue of whether their complaints are true or a “cover” for some actions of their own, because frankly, I think it’s impossible to generalize in deciding on a motive for so many people. However, does the rest of it seem at least somewhat accurate in describing the church’s position on the subject?

  98. CRIMES AGAINST $CIENTOLOGY?

    you’re talking about Anonymous right? What crimes? Has anyone been charged with anything?

  99. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 16, 2008 6:52 pm

    >I’m not saying that it’s necessarily wrong of Scientology to respond. However, I’m not sure I see the distinction between what Scientology is doing and what some “apostates” or critics have done.

    What have the apostates done, EA? Posted scriptures on the Internet. Posted copyrighted material on the Internet. Those are the only actions we take to handle them to my knowledge.

    Do you know of lawsuits by apostates at this point for legal wrongs by the Church?

    You say Scientology isn’t playing the victim, but terms like “religious bigotry”, while they may be true from the perspective of the organization, do paint a picture of “victim/aggressor”. Yes, Scientology has taken action through the legal system, but it has also released videos talking about how horrible Anon is and how the church is being unfairly persecuted.

    We aren’t. We are pointing out their illegal actions. That’s all. BIG difference.

    >This is, of course, Scientology’s right. How is that different, though, from critics or “apostates” who, perceiving that -they- have been unjustly treated, publicly state -their- grievances and do things like picket, petition the government for intervention, or sue?

    When did the Church publicly state that the apostates committed crimes against the Church?

    What government petition for recourse for intervention? Have you seen one?

    This is from some injustice to the apostates by the Church? This asking for government intervention? What wrong did we do to them that the government needs to intervene to get them justice? (I’m wording that in different ways so there’s NO misunderstanding about what I want to know.)

    >A dialogue is difficult, perhaps, because of the leaderless, decentralized nature of Anonymous, but it isn’t impossible. I honestly haven’t seen anyone from Scientology -try- to start a dialogue or any sort of communication (with this being something of an exception; though we clearly disagree on a number of things, at least we’re able to exchange perspectives and information in a civil, rational manner).

    How in the hell would you start a dialog with an Anonymous masked group?

    >Of course not, though I -personally- would hope for a certain amount of…soul-searching or introspection, to perhaps question if there MIGHT be some reason these people are protesting aside from their own “failings”. Barring that, however, the organization is free to do what it likes.

    Look. I try to get this communicated. If these guys want justice then they need to use the lines. I don’t see that there is any intention of that, and that’s my point. They aren’t trying to get justice for themselves. My question is why didn’t they? Was it a real grievance or one “made up” to justify their actions/crimes against Scientology or Scientologists? How do you get justice in that case? What is it to correct if what is said is wrong? How would we “soul-search” for something that’s a generality or that we have no idea what it is, because they left?

    Because these guys chose to attack publically tells me that there is no intention to correct any perceived injustice through the Church. That’s like announcing “I can’t confront getting off my overts against the Church or Scientologists, so I’m going to leave”.

    >My confusion here isn’t about the actions taken by Scientology in regards to the protests, per se; rather, I’m not sure how that’s substantially -different-, in terms of Scientology doctrine about “bringing in” one’s own troubles, from what the critics have done.

    “bringing in” one’s own troubles ?

    That isn’t what I said. Just want to point that out. This is how false data gets started. Even Libraesque started using YOUR term.

    Person A
    Person B

    Person A hits Person B.
    He goes and starts telling people that Person B is a theif because he saw him take money from a wallet in the break room so that his overt against Person B seems trivial or non-existent compared to what a bad person Person B is and he deserved to be hit for being a theif.

    Person A goes and puts a flyer out about Person B to watch out for your valuables.

    So, you see. In this case, there is a “made up” injustice. This is what I’m talking about.

    You keep wanting to us say that the Church is doing wrong. That’s not the case with these guys. I hope this clears up why it’s different, EA.

    Pat

  100. Pat,

    What is your opinion of people who, for whatever reason, do not believe that the study of dianetics and belief in scientology is the only, or even a, path to enlightenment?

    Please feel free to expand and outline your reasoning if your opinion is that different factors determine the answer to this question.

    Thank you for taking the time to answer :).

  101. Tabloid stories????
    What tabloid stories? Which fact did I state do you think was a “tabloid story”

  102. Dear Lib,

    Where on earth did you come up with these tabloid stories? Do you actually read and believe them?

    Pat]

  103. Pat –

    “We are dealing with the injustice, EA. We’re not sitting back moaning “Look what they did to me”.

    We never claimed “victims”. We stated the illegal acts against us and took action. That’s a lot different, don’t you think? Take a look at these actions – Is there one instance that we aren’t protecting the survival of Scientology.”

    I’m not saying that it’s necessarily wrong of Scientology to respond. However, I’m not sure I see the distinction between what Scientology is doing and what some “apostates” or critics have done.

    You say Scientology isn’t playing the victim, but terms like “religious bigotry”, while they may be true from the perspective of the organization, do paint a picture of “victim/aggressor”. Yes, Scientology has taken action through the legal system, but it has also released videos talking about how horrible Anon is and how the church is being unfairly persecuted.

    This is, of course, Scientology’s right. How is that different, though, from critics or “apostates” who, perceiving that -they- have been unjustly treated, publicly state -their- grievances and do things like picket, petition the government for intervention, or sue?

    “Anonymous makes a dialog impossible. We were left with the legal system for recourse. I honestly don’t understand how you think that’s a wrongness on the part of Scientology. Would you rather we sit back and let ourselves be attacked? Should anyone have to do that?”

    A dialogue is difficult, perhaps, because of the leaderless, decentralized nature of Anonymous, but it isn’t impossible. I honestly haven’t seen anyone from Scientology -try- to start a dialogue or any sort of communication (with this being something of an exception; though we clearly disagree on a number of things, at least we’re able to exchange perspectives and information in a civil, rational manner).

    “Would you rather we sit back and let ourselves be attacked? Should anyone have to do that?”

    Of course not, though I -personally- would hope for a certain amount of…soul-searching or introspection, to perhaps question if there MIGHT be some reason these people are protesting aside from their own “failings”. Barring that, however, the organization is free to do what it likes.

    My confusion here isn’t about the actions taken by Scientology in regards to the protests, per se; rather, I’m not sure how that’s substantially -different-, in terms of Scientology doctrine about “bringing in” one’s own troubles, from what the critics have done.

  104. Pat, if you don’t know about tom cruises rapid decline from the A-List to the F-List, I’m not quite sure what to say. I think you do know and you’re feigning ignorance.
    His appearance on the Today Show was not some tabloid story, and THAT is where the decline started and he’s been on a downhill toboggan ride ever since.
    Go to ANY tom cruise thread online and you’ll notice 98% of the comments are negative
    People boycotted MI3
    LFL bombed
    Valkyrie is getting terrible “reviews” and the release date has been changed twice
    His relationship with Katie Holmes was called a publicity stunt from day one and that opinion doesn’t seemed to have changed
    He’s the only celebrity who has a child that no one thinks he’s the biological father of.

    Did he bring what on? Did he bring on this decline himself, and if scientology is supposed to bring you hightened…everything…then why is he in this mess and why (even with a legal team, a PR team, etcetc..) is he incapable of changing the publics opinion of him???

  105. @Comment by Libraesque on April 16, 2008 4:11 pm

    >SO let me get this straight….in Scientology you guys believe “the idea that you “bring in” the bad things that happen”……so how do you explain tom cruises rapid descent from A-List star to the position of international joke??????

    He is? You mean that the tabloids should be listened to as a source of information on a Celebrity? That’s interesting.

    Last I heard he’s still making movies and producing them.

    >DId he bring it on himself?
    Bring what on himself?

    >And if he’s so advanced in the courses why hasn’t he been able to change the publics negative opinion of him (it actually seems to be getting worse and worse)

    Who is “the public” who have this negative opinion? Are you talking about the tabloids again?

    Pat

  106. @Comment by veritas on April 16, 2008 6:57 am
    >>Whole track recall?
    >I’m not familiar with the term, could you elaborate?

    WHOLE TRACK, the whole track is the moment to moment record of a person’s existence in this universe in picture and impression form.

    Dianetics and Scientology Tech Dictionary

    Scientlogy teaches that you are an immortal spiritual being who’s experiences span more than one life.

    Pat

  107. SO let me get this straight….in Scientology you guys believe “the idea that you “bring in” the bad things that happen”……so how do you explain tom cruises rapid descent from A-List star to the position of international joke??????
    DId he bring it on himself?
    And if he’s so advanced in the courses why hasn’t he been able to change the publics negative opinion of him (it actually seems to be getting worse and worse)

  108. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 16, 2008 7:08 am

    >That’s honestly at least a lot more balanced than the explanations I’d heard previously.

    I get what you’re saying. I’ve said it before, but maybe not clearly enough.

    >I’m curious, though: Does that apply to the CoS itself? Scientology has been positioning itself as a “victim” in several circumstances: of FBI persecution and, most recently, “hate crimes”, “terrorism”, and “religious bigotry” on the part of various Anonymous individuals.

    >It’s possible I’m misunderstanding the exact boundaries/ramifications of the idea that you “bring in” the bad things that happen, to some extent, but…couldn’t all of this negativity indicate that the church has done something to bring it in?

    >(I’m being honest, here; that seems like the logical extension of that philosophy, to me)

    We are dealing with the injustice, EA. We’re not sitting back moaning “Look what they did to me”.

    We never claimed “victims”. We stated the illegal acts against us and took action. That’s a lot different, don’t you think? Take a look at these actions – Is there one instance that we aren’t protecting the survival of Scientology? Anonymous makes a dialog impossible. We were left with the legal system for recourse. I honestly don’t understand how you think that’s a wrongness on the part of Scientology. Would you rather we sit back and let ourselves be attacked? Should anyone have to do that?

    Pat

  109. “That doesn’t mean there may not have been injustice. It only means that the one doing the complaining doesn’t have clean hands, and in some cases have accused the Church of doing what they themselves did.”

    That’s honestly at least a lot more balanced than the explanations I’d heard previously.

    “The whole idea of Scientology is to give a person back the ability to be cause over his own life. When someone comes to you or you hear “look what he did to me” you could know 2 things about it.

    1. He’s being a victim
    2. He’s done something so has withdrawn from the area and can’t reach enough to get any perceived injustices handled properly.

    There were signs of these actions as in #2 long before they blew and they got missed by org staff and technical for some reason. If the org has done something wrong it’s that. That’s why having the basics and getting everyone through them is so important now. ”

    I’m curious, though: Does that apply to the CoS itself? Scientology has been positioning itself as a “victim” in several circumstances: of FBI persecution and, most recently, “hate crimes”, “terrorism”, and “religious bigotry” on the part of various Anonymous individuals.

    It’s possible I’m misunderstanding the exact boundaries/ramifications of the idea that you “bring in” the bad things that happen, to some extent, but…couldn’t all of this negativity indicate that the church has done something to bring it in?

    (I’m being honest, here; that seems like the logical extension of that philosophy, to me)

  110. >Whole track recall?
    I’m not familiar with the term, could you elaborate?

  111. @Comment by veritas on April 16, 2008 6:12 am

    >Hey Pat what do make of this?
    >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-aR-m5hDMo
    >(on the van allen belt)

    Whole track recall, Veritas. :)

    Pat

  112. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 16, 2008 4:00 am
    >Pat-

    >Okay. I’ve still heard SOME people cite concerns about the tech itself (by which I mean, -just- auditing and whatnot), but I suppose more of the complaints would be things directed at those other two areas. The vast majority of the people I’ve heard have no problem with auditing and the like, per se; it’s the other policies of the church that they take issue with.

    >So in that regard, I misspoke. Thanks for clearing that up a bit. Those concerns with administrative policy and ethics, however, still exist.

    Alright. Glad that’s cleared up on the tech.

    I know there are complaints about the policy and ethics. I still hold with the basics of the overt and withhold tech. This is auditing procedure. I wish I could give you some insight. It would be too much to post here. The Handbook reference I linked to earlier (Honesty and Integrity) would be a good one to really go into. There were many options available to those who left to avail themselves of help within the structure that they are now critical of. That doesn’t mean there may not have been injustice. It only means that the one doing the complaining doesn’t have clean hands, and in some cases have accused the Church of doing what they themselves did.

    What’s true for you is going to be true. All I can do as I’ve said before is give you the data that is missing that the ones complaining forgot to mention (their own actions)

    The whole idea of Scientology is to give a person back the ability to be cause over his own life. When someone comes to you or you hear “look what he did to me” you could know 2 things about it.

    1. He’s being a victim
    2. He’s done something so has withdrawn from the area and can’t reach enough to get any perceived injustices handled properly.

    There were signs of these actions as in #2 long before they blew and they got missed by org staff and technical for some reason. If the org has done something wrong it’s that. That’s why having the basics and getting everyone through them is so important now.

    Pat

  113. @ Pat
    Hey Pat what do make of this?

    (on the van allen belt)

  114. Pat-

    Okay. I’ve still heard SOME people cite concerns about the tech itself (by which I mean, -just- auditing and whatnot), but I suppose more of the complaints would be things directed at those other two areas. The vast majority of the people I’ve heard have no problem with auditing and the like, per se; it’s the other policies of the church that they take issue with.

    So in that regard, I misspoke. Thanks for clearing that up a bit. Those concerns with administrative policy and ethics, however, still exist.

  115. Pat I think it’s really lame that you won’t answer my questions

  116. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 15, 2008 8:33 pm

    Let’s start with some nomenclature here.

    1. Tech. This is the technology of auditing and training of auditors to apply that technology. Included in this would be the basics of Scientology and Dianetics.
    2. Ethics is the administrative policy dealing with the subject of justice and personal morals, etc.
    3. Admin (administrative) is the Policy dealing with the structure and operation of organizations, groups etc.

    When I say tech, I’m talking about #1 above.

    Does that clarify it?

    Pat

  117. Pat –

    First of all, I -do- appreciate you responding to these points. I know it’s probably -equally- frustrating for you, trying to explain something that probably seems obvious and natural from your point of view.

    “No, I said that Ethics would determine the gradient based on his stats.

    That’s a lot different.”

    “It’s a possibility if that person himself was not producing and was downstat. That protection works both ways. The reports would be viewed from the viewpoint of production and validity.
    Ethics can always use the reports to detect patterns.”

    “>What it means is that as long as Miscavige is producing results (according to him), he is utterly unaccountable for anything he does.”

    Okay. What I meant is: David Miscavige’s “stats” are based on the global performance of the Church of Scientology and its associated organizations, yes?

    But he’s the one -delivering- that data to you. Is he not the one all of that raw data is ultimately coming to, to be compiled and compared?

    “And no, he’s never been unaccountable. That is false data. Where did that come from?”

    I don’t mean unaccountable in the sense that he’s explicitly stated to be by policy, but rather:
    If he is sufficiently productive, thus “upstat”, it is policy that complaints against him would be ignored. Thus, he is unaccountable for things that he does so long as he’s producing results. To engage in blatant, outrageous hyperbole, it doesn’t matter if he’s roasting kittens on a spit, so long as he’s bringing in new members and expanding the organization.

    (note: I do not believe David Miscavige roasts kittens on a spit. I do not, in fact, have reason to believe that he is involved in -any- anti-kitten activities. This is merely an extremely hypothetical to demonstrate a point)

    “That’s not true. I think you’re confused about something here. Where did that idea come from, EA? (That if it doesn’t work for you, you’re bad or evil?)”

    I admit that I may well be operating under some misconceptions here. My understanding was this:

    The tech is considered to be universally workable. Therefore, if it -doesn’t- work for you, it means it’s either being applied incorrectly or there’s something wrong with -you- that’s preventing it from working. Either you have overts and withholds that you haven’t handled, or you’re secretly suppressive, or something else. There has to be SOME reason why the tech, which is universal, isn’t working.

    “That’s not true, either. Let me get this straight, since we seem to have had some difficulty understanding each other’s communication. How would he have come to that conclusion? Did he do the test? Did he try to apply it? Does it worK? Supervisors have standard responses for that situation. To find out if he applied it the way it was laid out – the technique.

    Anyone saying that it’s harmful should be asked how he arrived at that conclusion. To my knowledge, anyone claiming that about the tech without ever trying to apply it correctly is meeting the characteristics of an anti-social personality. He’s going to be against anything that makes people more able than himself. He’s terrified of it.”

    I think it varies. In some cases, you’re right, the people saying these things have -not- experienced the tech for themselves. Personally, I would not automatically consider their motives “suppressive” based on that alone; there’s too little information to go on. There are many non-Scientology practices that I’m against on principle, though I have not experienced them -myself-, even though their practitioners would also claim that they make people more free. For instance:

    Proponents of hallucinogenic drugs frequently claim that they help to “free one’s mind” or “break down the artificial barriers of perception”. I, myself, am about as clean as one can get (no drugs, alcohol, smoking, etc.). Would I have to try those drugs myself, for a long enough period to detect long-term patterns, in order to be in a position to denounce them? (Of course, a lot of them would say “Yes”, but I use this example simply because of Scientology’s stance on drugs).

    More to the point, though, many of the people who come to the conclusion that they disagree with the tech HAVE experienced it and subsequently departed from the organization. You would call most of these people apostates, which is where we run into a bit of a barrier: As I understand it, their opinions hold no weight because they -are- apostates, and yet, there’s no real way they could continue to hold these beliefs (and speak about them) without BECOMING apostates.

    “Have you seen anyone actually saying this about the tech (”think parts of it are actively harmful, dangerous, and detrimental to basic human rights”) ?”

    Yes, repeatedly. I’ve seen complaints about the introspection rundown, the RPF, disconnection, the “always attack, never defend” policy and Hubbard’s writings per the use of litigation to harass and destroy critics, the classic free speech arguments, et cetera. I could go into more detail on any of these points, if you like, but I think we’ve covered most of them in some form or another. I know you -disagree- with their complaints, but there -are- people who are making them.

  118. Errata:
    No smiley intended at the end of that post.

    Have you seen anyone actually saying this about the tech (”think parts of it are actively harmful, dangerous, and detrimental to basic human rights”) ?

    Pat

  119. @Comment by Libraesque on April 15, 2008 6:47 pm
    “I’ll just go get another body and carry on”

    >can you elaborate on that? What body? Whos body? How is the body chosen and why?

    No, I don’t see how that could help at this point since what I’ve already said is not true for you.

    >No dis-respect but the only way I’d answer questions about my religious beliefs online is if I had a website called My religion and it’s myths.com….so I can’t answer your question, sorry

    Very well.

    Pat

  120. “I’ll just go get another body and carry on”…can you elaborate on that? What body? Whos body? How is the body chosen and why?

    No dis-respect but the only way I’d answer questions about my religious beliefs online is if I had a website called My religion and it’s myths.com….so I can’t answer your question, sorry

  121. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 15, 2008 4:42 pm
    >>Guess where Henning is now?

    >It looks like he’s back in the Church’s good graces. Score one for forgiveness.

    >http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/h/henning-heldt.html

    Thanks! Good to see :)

    Pat

  122. @Comment by Libraesque on April 15, 2008 5:33 pm
    >Pat, you havent answered my question yet.

    That’s true. Since I have other obligations in my life I get here when I can. You know I’m volunteering here, right? I think I’ve said that before.

    >What is your knowledge of L.Ron’s military background???

    Just what I’ve read about and heard anecdotally in lectures and such.

    He talks about it a little in “My Philosophy”

    http://www.authentichubbard.org/

    >Also, what does scientology teach happens to “you” when you die???

    What I know is this:

    I don’t die. I’ll just go get another body and carry on, but this time around, because of Scientology, I’ll remember and will be able to have all my knowingness. :)

    What does your religion teach happens when your body dies?

    Pat

  123. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 15, 2008 5:14 pm

    >What I was addressing was a very simple contradiction in your own statements. You said that if David Miscavige were, right now, doing something wrong, people could report him to ethics.

    Exactly. That is what I said, and I’ll stand by that. It’s based on LRH policy and my 36 + years as a Scientologist.

    >In practically the same breath, you admit that ethics wouldn’t do anything because he’s upstat,

    No, I said that Ethics would determine the gradient based on his stats.

    That’s a lot different.

    >and thus, the person reporting would probably be the only one investigated, per Hubbard’s own instructions.

    It’s a possibility if that person himself was not producing and was downstat. That protection works both ways. The reports would be viewed from the viewpoint of production and validity.
    Ethics can always use the reports to detect patterns.

    Example:
    Joe Blow is consistently auditing high quality hours in the Hubbard Guidance Center. His senior reports him for being late and not keeping his auditing appointments. The EO files it.

    A week later, it comes up that he has done it again and this time his hours production is down and he’s been late for sessions as well.

    Bingo, Court of Ethics (due to Auditor Code Breaks). The original late report is in the ethics file and is now taken into account, as part of his ethics cycle. That Court is now part of his ethics file, so if he errs again while not producing, the gradient would be stiffened. Understand that it takes a lot to get to the point of post removal or loss of days off or demotions.

    It’s a protection for those who ARE producing.

    >Do you honestly not see the contradiction here?

    There isn’t one.

    >What it means is that as long as Miscavige is producing results (according to him), he is utterly unaccountable for anything he does.

    Actually, it’s not according to him, but what LRH laid out for the post is what his stats are.

    And no, he’s never been unaccountable. That is false data. Where did that come from?

    >Another example: The church plays up the “What’s true for you is true for you” line. You’re encouraged to look at each part of the “tech” and conclude whether it’s true for you.

    >At the same time, it pushes the line of reasoning that if the tech -doesn’t- work for you, it’s because there’s something wrong with -you- or something evil that -you’ve- done. If you disagree with the tech, you’re a bad person.

    That’s not true. I think you’re confused about something here. Where did that idea come from, EA? (That if it doesn’t work for you, you’re bad or evil?)

    >If you disagree with the tech because you think parts of it are actively harmful, dangerous, and detrimental to basic human rights, you’re now a suppressive person, one of the worst people imaginable.

    That’s not true, either. Let me get this straight, since we seem to have had some difficulty understanding each other’s communication. How would he have come to that conclusion? Did he do the test? Did he try to apply it? Does it worK? Supervisors have standard responses for that situation. To find out if he applied it the way it was laid out – the technique.

    Anyone saying that it’s harmful should be asked how he arrived at that conclusion. To my knowledge, anyone claiming that about the tech without ever trying to apply it correctly is meeting the characteristics of an anti-social personality. He’s going to be against anything that makes people more able than himself. He’s terrified of it.

    Have you seen anyone actually saying this about the tech (“think parts of it are actively harmful, dangerous, and detrimental to basic human rights”) ?

    Pat

  124. Pat, you havent answered my question yet.

    What is your knowledge of L.Ron’s military background???

    Also, what does scientology teach happens to “you” when you die???

  125. Pat-

    “First of all, structure is laid out by LRH in Policy. Policy is LRH. LRH is the source of the Tech, Ethics and Admin of Scientology. What we can do is find out where it’s been mis-applied or not applied, where it should have been. What I’m seeing here is an attack on the Basics of Scientology.

    It’s not about Myths anymore, but the (finally) admission that the disagreement is NOT with Scientology leaders is really about our structure and policies. ( EA) ”

    No, it can honestly be about both. For instance, disconnection as practiced is a core policy of the church, then yes, I have a problem with it. However, in asking questions, I can at least better try to understand -your- reasoning behind it.

    What I was addressing was a very simple contradiction in your own statements. You said that if David Miscavige were, right now, doing something wrong, people could report him to ethics.

    In practically the same breath, you admit that ethics wouldn’t do anything because he’s upstat, and thus, the person reporting would probably be the only one investigated, per Hubbard’s own instructions.

    Do you honestly not see the contradiction here? What it means is that as long as Miscavige is producing results (according to him), he is utterly unaccountable for anything he does.

    I just…I genuinely don’t understand some of the arguments you’re making. It sounds, to me, like a number of contradictory ideas which are somehow held together, ala. doublethink. I -know- you’re not unintelligent, and so that’s why I’m both confused and frustrated.

    Another example: The church plays up the “What’s true for you is true for you” line. You’re encouraged to look at each part of the “tech” and conclude whether it’s true for you.

    At the same time, it pushes the line of reasoning that if the tech -doesn’t- work for you, it’s because there’s something wrong with -you- or something evil that -you’ve- done. If you disagree with the tech, you’re a bad person. If you disagree with the tech because you think parts of it are actively harmful, dangerous, and detrimental to basic human rights, you’re now a suppressive person, one of the worst people imaginable.

    So we run into the limits of “What’s true for you is true for you” pretty quickly, don’t we?

    Like I said before, I -can- understand some of the CoS’s beliefs. I don’t subscribe to them myself, but I can understand and even respect how others might hold those beliefs. There are some things, though, that are so counter-intuitive and (to me) self-evidently contradictory and dangerous that I can’t even wrap my head around it.

  126. Guess where Henning is now?

    It looks like he’s back in the Church’s good graces. Score one for forgiveness.

    http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/h/henning-heldt.html

  127. Wow! You guys didn’t like my referring you to RTC?

    First of all, structure is laid out by LRH in Policy. Policy is LRH. LRH is the source of the Tech, Ethics and Admin of Scientology. What we can do is find out where it’s been mis-applied or not applied, where it should have been. What I’m seeing here is an attack on the Basics of Scientology.

    It’s not about Myths anymore, but the (finally) admission that the disagreement is NOT with Scientology leaders is really about our structure and policies. ( EA)

    That’s why everytime I point out that there were errors in applying LRH source data, someone keeps trying to pull it back to DM or our current Church leaders. DM wasn’t COB when the GO thing happened was he? That was Henning Heldt and Jane Kember. Guess where Henning is now?

    RTC owns the Tech, Ethics and Admin of Scientology, bequeathed by LRH.

    That’s why I invited you to talk to RTC if you think there is something wrong with our structure or policy. I don’t see anyone saying “You violated this policy or that ethics tool or this admin tool” – It’s about policy in general. Because that is not going to change (HCO Policy Letters – Admin and Ethics and HCO Bulletins – tech) it’s not going to do any good wasting your time.

    You won’t get it changed here. This is not a “Change Scientology” blog. This is where you can come to get a better understanding of the real life Scientologists. A few have chosen to use this blog as a propaganda machine for hate. Some of you have chosen to believe the apostate natter, looking for nothing but bad in everything that’s said, making your pronouncements final. That’s pretty low on the Tone Scale. I don’t need to deal with that. Some have shown a willingness to learn more about what’s our side and have a dialog and ask questions that show that willingness to learn and gain new understanding of who we are. Those I can deal with.

    Lu announced that she had to go out of town for a few days. That’s where Lu has gone.

    This link is the existing, official and current data about the Church leadership and RTCs role in the Church structure :

    http://www.rtc.org

    Pat

  128. WHERE HAS LOU GONE?!?!!?

  129. LRH policy actually allows for self-correction.

    O RLY? Do you have any evidence of this claim?

    People probably associate him more with Scientology’s leader because he is prominent in the videos for our celebrations and releases.

    And because he is Scientology’s leader. From the RTC site:

    RTC holds the ultimate ecclesiastical authority regarding the standard and pure application of L. Ron Hubbard’s religious technologies.

    The Chairman of the Board is the most senior office in RTC, …

    It seems rather obvious (to me, at least) that the person in charge of the tech outranks the person in charge of the Church. Jentzsch is a mere figurehead compared to Miscavige.

    Also, I really would appreciate it if you’d clarify “I see. Very clear now.”

    Call this my own cynicism speaking, but it means she doesn’t care about the flaws in Scientology’s policy and structure, as long as they don’t result in any convictions in a court of law. That was the GO’s major flaw, right? They got caught by the wogs!

  130. “I won’t address each individual “issue” with Scientology structure or policy.

    But here is where you can send your reports.

    http://www.rtc.org/matters/index.html

    …which will be summarily ignored, so long as the individuals involved are upstat.

    Why would I bother?

    Also, I really would appreciate it if you’d clarify
    “I see. Very clear now.”

  131. “[Tom Cruise] is a parishioner, a well respected parishioner, but that’s what he is. The only person who runs the Church and makes policy decisions is David Miscavige.”

    – Elliot Abelson, General Counsel for the Church of Scientology

  132. @EA
    ” I don’t understand how the organization can -require- you to “route out” over a period that can take MONTHS, lest you be declared an enemy of the church. ”

    If you do not mind, I wanted to chime in on this as much of the questions thus far have been directed at Pat and I did not want to interrupt. But with this I wanted to say that the majority of Scientologists I know can just walk out, sure they will be asked why but there is no such process for them. Now if one is a staff/volunteer or Sea Org than yes COS has a route out as that specifically is more involved. I have a good friend who left for a couple years and decided to come back. Some people come and go as it may not be for them while others stay as it works for them. I have seen this first hand and there is no routing out for any that i have seen. As for staff/volunteers, I do not know as I am not one.

  133. where has lou gone?

  134. I won’t address each individual “issue” with Scientology structure or policy.

    But here is where you can send your reports.

    http://www.rtc.org/matters/index.html

    Pat

  135. Let’s clear up 1 point right now. (I won’t be able to get back to the other stuff until later)

    DM is not the head of the Church. Heber Jentzsch is the President. DM is the Chairman of the Board of the Religious Technology Center. People probably associate him more with Scientology’s leader because he is prominent in the videos for our celebrations and releases.

    The data on his relation to the Church is in this link:

    http://www.rtc.org/david-miscavige.htm

    Pat

  136. EDIT: In this case, I would go further and say that even suggestions that these people are in fact NOT upstat are being ignored.

  137. >>Remember, according to Scientology, you are not a human being, you are a thetan who is operating the body of a human being.

    >>There is one significant difference between Scientology and these sources. In Scientology, your thetan is discrete and eternal. In most Eastern traditions, upon death, your thetan rejoins god/the universe, a process akin to pouring a glass of water into the ocean. The state of nirvana can be reached by reconnecting your discrete thetan with all theta while you are still alive.

    >Buddhism practices meditation in order to attain freedom from the cycle of birth and death. This means that they will (as spirits) not go pick up another body once they’ve attained this, putting an end to the cycle.

    Right. The difference is what happens at the end of the cycle. In Buddhism, you are a part of god/the cosmos; so when your theta reached enlightenment, your theta rejoins the cosmos/god.

    In Scientology, your theta is discrete (a thetan) and eternal. Once you shake off a few billion years of engrams, you can stop picking up bodies and do, essentially, whatever you want. (Total freedom) This universe is one big MM-RPG because eternity as a discrete all-powerful thetan is dull.

    Question:
    If you believe you (thetan) voluntarily accepted restrictions on yourself to keep eternity from being a drag, why does Scientology advocate shaking off those restrictions? Does this in turn imply a larger cycle, where after a few billion years of freedom you’ll get bored, voluntarily restrict yourself again, and return to the material plane?

    What is it that he’s doing that is violating structure and policy?

    I’ve heard that in Scientology violating the law is considered violating policy, yes?

    While I don’t think he personally ordered a minor to work a 16 hour day (Kendra Wiseman’s story), he does have some responsibility as the head of the RTC for what various organizations underneath him do.

    I’ve also heard multiple reports from his close staff that he has committed acts of assault and battery upon them. I believe these reports are credible. Here’s one: http://www.lermanet.com/audio/jeffhawkins.mp3 Is it your position that all of the people making these reports are lying?

    I’ll unload a previous question for you: How do you account for the disparity between the service record of L Ron Hubbard available from Scientology and the service record of L Ron Hubbard available from the US Navy? (Let’s avoid a conundrum here; there is a disparity, so this is /not/ an invalid question).

    And going with EA: This ‘upstat’ paradox is a common one that has struck many organizations in the past. It goes something like this.

    1. Entity lies about being upstat
    2. Other invest in entity
    3. Entity uses assets to fake being upstat
    4. Objections about entity are ignored as unproductive
    5. Entity grows

    Now, the fate of the entity splits off here. Some can convert the lie of being upstat into a truth; for example, Microsoft. However, in most cases, the fundamental truth is that the entity is flawed. The growth is unsustainable and eventually the entity will collapse. Perhaps the most recent example of this is the variable rate mortgage companies in the US; Enron is older but still a good example.

    This is one of the reasons I constantly harped on the figure of eight million Scientologists. This number is so obviously incorrect that it can only be the result of people faking upstats.

    However, the focus here is how people are ignoring objections because people are upstat. In this case, I would go further and say that even suggestions that these people are in fact upstat are being ignored. An organization which cannot be self-critical is in danger of unsustainable growth and eventual collapse. I suspect rather strongly that’s what ill happen now.

    Scientology can’t even finish renovating the buildings it has acquired prior to this year, and yet it continues to buy more.

    I asked this elsewhere; what is Scientology going to do with all these multi-million dollar buildings?

  138. Pat,Pat hello Pat! I was gone for awhile so I hope you see this.
    I discussed my inappropriate question to you and had a lovely heated debate with a collegue of mine. BTW, know that people out there care enough to discuss these issues amongst eachother on their off time……at a picnic….you must feel the love!!!!

    Okay, let me pose the question in a non-loaded way. What is your knowledge of L. Ron Hubbards military background?

  139. “I see. Very clear now.”

    Is that facetious?
    I’m sorry, it’s just…Okay. It’s like I’m making the argument, “It’s rude of someone to come by and egg your house.”

    And you’re asking, “What color is the house? Where is it located? C’mon, be specific.”

    I’m not trying to do a “gotcha” thing here. Even though I don’t -believe- in what a lot of Scientology does, I can understand how -other- people might. Past lives? Sure. Engrams? Okay, on some level, I can understand that.

    But this, the paradoxical freedom/authoritarianism of the organization itself, is a complete cipher to me. It’s like I’m being told that “2+2=5” as if it’s self-evident, and when I deny it, I’m asked to offer specific examples.

  140. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 14, 2008 3:34 am

    >Urgh. See, this is what’s frustrating to me.

    >I am talking about the -structure- of the church. There does not NEED to be a specific example of wrong-doing to show why the system is not set up to handle it efficiently.

    >I’m not even -making the claim- that Miscavige is violating policy (though, y’know, he might be. I don’t know. It’s not especially relevant to this particular subject).

    >Is it so completely against scripture to use things like “hypotheticals” or “abstract concepts”?

    >Once more: My argument has -nothing to do- with the specific, actual actions of David Miscavige. It could apply to -any- organization with similar rules, with ANY leader.

    >It’s frustrating for me, because any time I try to question -concepts- like this, it turns into you asking for specific examples, which…hey, great. Specifics are awesome…but sometimes, asking for a specific example is simply not pertinent to the discussion at hand.

    I see. Very clear now.

    Pat

  141. Pat-

    Urgh. See, this is what’s frustrating to me.

    I am talking about the -structure- of the church. There does not NEED to be a specific example of wrong-doing to show why the system is not set up to handle it efficiently.

    I’m not even -making the claim- that Miscavige is violating policy (though, y’know, he might be. I don’t know. It’s not especially relevant to this particular subject).

    Is it so completely against scripture to use things like “hypotheticals” or “abstract concepts”?

    Once more: My argument has -nothing to do- with the specific, actual actions of David Miscavige. It could apply to -any- organization with similar rules, with ANY leader.

    It’s frustrating for me, because any time I try to question -concepts- like this, it turns into you asking for specific examples, which…hey, great. Specifics are awesome…but sometimes, asking for a specific example is simply not pertinent to the discussion at hand.

  142. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 14, 2008 1:45 am

    What is it that he’s doing that is violating structure and policy?

    Specifics, remember.

    Pat

  143. Pat –
    But I’m not talking about the Guardian’s Office stuff. I’m talking about right here, right now, as a matter of structure and policy.

    As I see it, the statements I made above are true. Miscavige and the head execs are essentially devoid of any accountability. Like you said before, THEY’RE the ones with the big picture. They’re the ones who compile the data coming from all the orgs and missions and charity groups. They’re the ones who give the data to you.

    You are, essentially, taking them at their word that they’re upstat, because they’re the ones who handle the statistics.

    -Because- they’re upstat, any knowledge reports against them would be ignored. They’re immune. Knowing this, anyone who witnesses anything they disagree with ALSO knows that if they report it, -they’ll- be the ones investigated and suspected of being out-ethics. I cannot think of a system -more- assured of enforcing obedience and a culture of a silence.

    Again, it doesn’t have to be about the GO. As far as you know, there don’t even have to be -specific- examples of wrongdoing. I’m pointing out larger, systemic issues, not “how this particular, specific situation was handled”.

    I know you like specifics, and I agree that they’re important in many cases, but in regards to how the system and culture of the organization function, it seems like there’s something really, really broken.

  144. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 14, 2008 1:06 am
    >My point is this:
    >Say you’re a Scientologist. Say you have major problems with how things are being run by Miscavige (or, hell, any up-stat exec). You know, on a PRACTICAL level, that if you file the report, it will be ignored, because they are upstat. They are immune. They are beyond accountability. Moreover, it will likely just get YOU investigated.

    >You honestly don’t see why that would breed an atmosphere of fear, obedience, and toeing the line, straight out of the authoritarian playbook?

    The only enturbulation is Anonymous. Bringing up things that go back years as being in present time. Being stuck in the past is kinda … well, never mind, let’s just say that whoever is pushing those ideas are in some kind of serious case problems.

    The only time I felt that it was unsafe was when people like Robertson and ex-GO guys tried to take over the Church. It was very unsafe then. Anyone perceived to be concerned about what was happening was treated as out-ethics. I didn’t blame Scientology for that or the Church. I saw who it was and it got corrected. LRH policy actually allows for self-correction. That hasn’t been true for me since DM became COB of RTC. We’re talking about something over and nearly over 20 years ago, EA. Kind of dropped out time don’t you think?

    There were situations of out-ethics. By the GO and Robertson’s crowd and Mayo. It was a rough time for everyone. I never said there were no errors, but what keeps getting ignored here is that these things get corrected and some of the people who helped do those errors are now among those blaming the Church for what they themselves did.

    All I can say is “Come up to present time”

    Pat

  145. Pat –

    “No, it’s not the reporter’s job to determine whether an ethics report is acted on. The Ethics Officer determines the gradient needed based on statistics. It’s exactly what it’s called. Protection for those who are productive. As long as your personal ethics are in and you are up-statistic you have protection.

    It’s required to report. You become party to any actions that you fail to report if you knew about it and withheld the information. It’s a matter of justice on whether it warrants further handling.”

    My point is this:
    Say you’re a Scientologist. Say you have major problems with how things are being run by Miscavige (or, hell, any up-stat exec). You know, on a PRACTICAL level, that if you file the report, it will be ignored, because they are upstat. They are immune. They are beyond accountability. Moreover, it will likely just get YOU investigated.

    You honestly don’t see why that would breed an atmosphere of fear, obedience, and toeing the line, straight out of the authoritarian playbook?

    “You asked and if you disagree that’s your right. I’m having a great deal of difficulty trying to comprehend your statements. You evidently are operating on information that you haven’t communicated, because I have no idea why you would be so antipathetic to someone you’ve never met and only seen in videos. ”

    Well, while Miscavige is the SPECIFIC example we’re discussing, the points are equally applicable were it to be -anyone- else. The issues I see are endemic to the structure and culture, rather than being specific to Miscavige himself.

    As for my reasons for disliking him, well, I have antipathy towards a -number- of people I’ve never met in person. To use an old example, I’ve never MET Fred Phelps; I’ve only seen him in videos. I still think he’s a reprehensible individual.

    I don’t think Miscavige is anywhere near that level of crazy, granted. However, based on the evidence -I- have and that -I’m- inclined to believe, he’s not my favorite person in the world, no.

    “You mean that isn’t what’s already happening?”

    No, actually. I’ve seen remarkably little, if any, attacks against individual Scientologists. Even public spokespeople like Pat Harney and Karen Pouw have been largely left alone. If -you’ve- seen an army of private detectives photographing Scientologists, following them home, serving them with scary but legally meaningless letters from, hypothetically, Latham and Watkins, running “noisy investigations” on them, trying to “dead-agent” them through various smears and accusations, etc., I’d very much like to see it, because I wouldn’t approve of that, either.

    That doesn’t address my point, however, that just because such things are LEGAL, it doesn’t make them particularly defensible, and I’d say those fall pretty firmly in the realm of “fair game”.

    “You have mucho false data on sec-checks if you think it’s interrogation. “Sec-checking” is Security Checking. Confessionals as auditing are non-actionable and are a standard part of Scientology. You also have mucho false data if you think it’s bad to come clean and not have to carry your own guilt around with you when you leave. It’s akin to Confessional and other “unburdenings” in other faiths.”

    Okay. So what happens if you genuinely don’t have anything to “confess”? Or is that “impossible”, since you’d “only be leaving Scientology if you had overts or withholds”?

    “You are missing a great deal of data on the subject of overts and withholds. The fact that you call those who are bad-mouthing the Church “victims” tells me that. I can’t do anything else with that. You’re wrong about the Church and DM and this is why. ”

    But see, that works both ways. I don’t think -all- of them are victims; you, by contrast, DO believe that all of them are evil or, at least, actively harmful by virtue of their positions. That’s just…I mean, it’s completely illogical. It reminds me of people in the U.S. whose response to any criticism of the country or its policies is “You’re unpatriotic! Why don’t you just leave?”

    Criticism is -necessary- for any group, particularly a relatively closed one, to remain honest and survive.

    “I don’t see this resolving short of you hearing those lectures so you at least stop thinking of apostates as victims. We are all effect of our own causes. It’s all through philosophy and Christianity. Not a new idea. “You reap what you sow” “What goes around comes around” Karma. Overt-Motivator Sequence.”

    Again, this seems kind of like a double-standard. If that’s true, is all of the criticism being leveled at the church a result of what the church has sown? Is it an example of what goes around, comes around? Is the church “bringing this in” on itself? Or does that only apply to non-Scientologists, or Scientologists who are “out-tech”?

    I’m sorry if it seems like I’m being unnecessarily aggressive. It just seems to me like there’s a -clear- double-standard at work, where the church (so long as it’s “upstat”) can, by definition, do no wrong, and anyone with complaints cannot, by definition, ever be correct. The same arguments used to dismiss critics as “apostates” or “suppressive persons” are ignored when they might be turned back on the organization itself. That is what I would like to understand.

  146. Take a Thesis and an Antithesis. Socrates believed and taught that in debate or trying to resolve conflicts that the best solution was to combine the two into a synthesis.

    Uh… that was Hegel. Socrates was more than happy to take sides between thesis and antithesis. The whole point of the Socratic method, after all, is to get the other guy to realize he’s wrong. No touchy-feely syntheses there.

    False. She never said that.

    Not in so many words, but it’s implied by the statement she did make and other publicly available facts about her and about Scientology that she believes it, and since it has influenced her actions for the worse, it’s worthwhile to ask whether that belief comes from Scientology or from her own ignorance.

    I did very specifically say that I don’t know what Jenna’s reality is based on.

    Yet you were hesitant to reject that reality, hence the suspicion that you and other Scientologists accept it.

    Thus, anything, to persist, must contain a lie.

    The Church has persisted pretty well so far. Discuss. ;)

    The fact that he is being attacked tells me that he’s right on the money.

    That’s a pretty serious fallacy right there. You can be attacked because you’re totally right, but you can also be attacked because you’re totally wrong.

    Since it’s already assumed in the question that something is true it is useless to answer.

    The question wasn’t about that information. It was about your response to that information. And to make clear that it’s not just an “assumption”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Ron_Hubbard_and_the_military#Claimed_vs_actual_awards

    Yep, true. Completely

    And you don’t see anything wrong with this? Just because a person is upstat should not exempt him or her from the laws of the Church and of society. Besides which, it creates an incentive for people to lie about their production, if only to protect their own hinders.

  147. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 14, 2008 12:10 am

    >Don’t those quotes kind of disprove your statement that anyone could write up a KR on Miscavige? According to you, he’d be pretty upstat. Therefore, anyone writing a KR on him would, at -best-, have it ignored, and would probably be investigated themselves. In that kind of atmosphere, can you honestly BLAME people for feeling like their concerns would go unaddressed, or that the leadership is ultimately unaccountable?

    No, it’s not the reporter’s job to determine whether an ethics report is acted on. The Ethics Officer determines the gradient needed based on statistics. It’s exactly what it’s called. Protection for those who are productive. As long as your personal ethics are in and you are up-statistic you have protection.

    It’s required to report. You become party to any actions that you fail to report if you knew about it and withheld the information. It’s a matter of justice on whether it warrants further handling.

    You asked and if you disagree that’s your right. I’m having a great deal of difficulty trying to comprehend your statements. You evidently are operating on information that you haven’t communicated, because I have no idea why you would be so antipathetic to someone you’ve never met and only seen in videos.

    Reference: Intro to Scientology Ethics

    >We’ve discussed this. Something can be -legal- and still be a pretty sleazy thing to do. If I started hiring private detectives to investigate the private lives of every Scientologist I could find and then posted any dirt I could find about them on the internet and on flyers around their neighborhood, that would be -legal- and within my rights. It would also be a pretty lousy thing to do, and it would make -me- look petty and foolish.

    You mean that isn’t what’s already happening?

    But, I have the data I need now from you on why this isn’t resolving:

    >Or, you know, maybe they were sick of dealing with the church and wanted to leave on their own terms. I know if -I- wanted to leave an organization, I wouldn’t want someone telling me, “No, you -can’t- leave unless you do it the way WE say. Oh, by the way, that’ll involve lots of intensive sec-checking (read: interrogation) and prodding into your personal life, even though you’ve already said you want nothing more to do with us.”

    You have mucho false data on sec-checks if you think it’s interrogation. “Sec-checking” is Security Checking. Confessionals as auditing are non-actionable and are a standard part of Scientology. You also have mucho false data if you think it’s bad to come clean and not have to carry your own guilt around with you when you leave. It’s akin to Confessional and other “unburdenings” in other faiths.

    Reference:
    State of Man Lectures and Clean Hand Lectures.

    You are missing a great deal of data on the subject of overts and withholds. The fact that you call those who are bad-mouthing the Church “victims” tells me that. I can’t do anything else with that. You’re wrong about the Church and DM and this is why.

    I don’t see this resolving short of you hearing those lectures so you at least stop thinking of apostates as victims. We are all effect of our own causes. It’s all through philosophy and Christianity. Not a new idea. “You reap what you sow” “What goes around comes around” Karma. Overt-Motivator Sequence.

    Pat

  148. Also:

    Don’t those quotes kind of disprove your statement that anyone could write up a KR on Miscavige? According to you, he’d be pretty upstat. Therefore, anyone writing a KR on him would, at -best-, have it ignored, and would probably be investigated themselves. In that kind of atmosphere, can you honestly BLAME people for feeling like their concerns would go unaddressed, or that the leadership is ultimately unaccountable?

  149. Pat-
    I’ll go in order:

    “Did you read the reference I gave? The type of criticism is clearly laid out there. Alot different than documenting psychiatry abuses and making a time, place, form and event report, don’t you think?”

    I did, actually. Which part were you referring to, specifically?
    And for what it’s worth, Scientology’s claims against psychiatry and pharmaceuticals (among others) are often pretty vague, MORESO in fact than the claims made by many critics.

    “How do you figure that is “fair game”? Those are the allegations of current critics because we use the law to protect our rights. What actions are being taken that aren’t within the law and our right? People think you can label those actions “fair game” which is BS.”

    We’ve discussed this. Something can be -legal- and still be a pretty sleazy thing to do. If I started hiring private detectives to investigate the private lives of every Scientologist I could find and then posted any dirt I could find about them on the internet and on flyers around their neighborhood, that would be -legal- and within my rights. It would also be a pretty lousy thing to do, and it would make -me- look petty and foolish.

    Additionally, the use of legal threats to intimidate and harass is a -documented policy-. You can debate whether or not that’s appropriate, I suppose, but Hubbard -himself- says that you use lawsuits not to -win-, but to discourage and harass.
    The recent instance of Sean Carasov comes to mind, where the church filed REAMS of paperwork against him trying to find a charge that would stick. In the end, what he was charged with (making criminal threats) turned out to be -provably false-, the charges were dropped, and there’s now an investigation into the possibility that a false imprisonment charge can be filed.

    “That’s BS too. It doesn’t take months to route out. It’s just the excuse being given you by the apostates who blew so they didn’t have to disclose their overts and withholds.”

    Or, you know, maybe they were sick of dealing with the church and wanted to leave on their own terms. I know if -I- wanted to leave an organization, I wouldn’t want someone telling me, “No, you -can’t- leave unless you do it the way WE say. Oh, by the way, that’ll involve lots of intensive sec-checking (read: interrogation) and prodding into your personal life, even though you’ve already said you want nothing more to do with us.”

    “I seem to remember already having this conversation with you, EA.

    It’s anti-social. It’s suppressive of a betterment group. And other churches have the same principles. We aren’t alone in viewing attacks as an attempt to harm mankind.”

    We’ve had this conversation, and that’s why I said we might have to agree to disagree, because I don’t buy it. It reeks of “blame the victim”. What it says is: It is impossible, by definition, for the church or its management to do wrong. It is impossible, by definition, for a critic or ex-member to have a legitimate point about things that are wrong in the church. That’s…I mean, I’m not trying to be insulting, but that’s a pretty -severely- authoritarian attitude.

    “More innuendo? I actually started believing you were above that.”

    It’s not innuendo. I pretty clearly stated what I meant. You asked for my opinion, and I gave it. I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people being encouraged to write up reports on people for any little infraction. I mean, seriously, that is stuff -straight out of 1984-. If you’d like, I could go and find the relevant passages. I know that’s not going to change, but I can at least try to make you understand why -I’m- uncomfortable with the idea, in hopes of…establishing a better two-way understanding, I guess?

    “Yep, true. Completely :)

    It’s an idiom, EA”

    I know. I wasn’t suggesting that they could LITERALLY get away with murder.
    It doesn’t make sense to me, though. Because someone is productive, they can -literally- do no wrong? Because they produce results, their actions are a priori justified, or at the very least, discreetly ignored?

    Doesn’t that kind of say, “The ends justify the means?”

  150. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 13, 2008 9:20 pm
    >>“People are critical of others because of their own overts and withholds. ”

    >That just doesn’t hold up. What about when Scientology is critical of people? What about when it’s “critical” of the psychiatric profession or the pharmaceutical industry? What about when it’s “critical” of ex-members and critics?

    Did you read the reference I gave? The type of criticism is clearly laid out there. Alot different than documenting psychiatry abuses and making a time, place, form and event report, don’t you think?

    >So you admit, then, that there might be actions taken in the name of “the good of the church” that you are unaware of?

    >Is it -impossible- that such things would include fair game tactics and some of other allegations made by critics?

    Yes.

    How do you figure that is “fair game”? Those are the allegations of current critics because we use the law to protect our rights. What actions are being taken that aren’t within the law and our right? People think you can label those actions “fair game” which is BS.

    “Management by rights (due to weekly statistics and data reported from every Church, Mission or group on the planet) have the overall picture based on a planetary view. Evaluations of data are not something I particularly care about or need to know. ”

    “Anyone could write a Knowledge Report with full time, place, form and event about any exec, including DM if they thought he’d done something wrong. Instead they chose to blow Scientology and commit high crimes against the Church. (Another manifestation of overts and withholds)”

    >Here’s where we may have to agree to disagree. Frankly, to me, “blowing” is a non-issue. I don’t understand how the organization can -require- you to “route out” over a period that can take MONTHS, lest you be declared an enemy of the church. That comes across, to me, as incredibly authoritarian and controlling, and it makes me strongly suspect the motives in doing so.

    That’s BS too. It doesn’t take months to route out. It’s just the excuse being given you by the apostates who blew so they didn’t have to disclose their overts and withholds.

    >As for “high crimes”: I still don’t understand why publicly admitting one’s grievances is such a terrible offense, -especially- if the person no longer trusts the organization to fairly handle things by itself. Scientology claims to value communication, so why is that only communication that’s pro-Scientology is okay?

    I seem to remember already having this conversation with you, EA.

    It’s anti-social. It’s suppressive of a betterment group. And other churches have the same principles. We aren’t alone in viewing attacks as an attempt to harm mankind.

    >You say that anyone could write up a Knowledge Report on DM. Again, I’m reminded a bit of 1984 and East Germany, but I would nonetheless refer you to this quote:

    More innuendo? I actually started believing you were above that.

    >“In short a staff member can get away with murder so long as his statistic is up and can’t sneeze without a chop if it’s down. … When people do start reporting a staff member with a high statistic, what you investigate is the person who turned in the report.” – L. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL 1 September 1965, “Ethics Protection”

    >From the same document, a more thorough quotation:
    “When people do start reporting a staff member with a high statistic, what you investigate is the person who turned in the report. In an ancient army a particularly brave deed was recognized by an award of the title of Kha-Khan. It was not a rank. The person remained what he was, BUT he was entitled to be forgiven the death penalty ten times in case in the future he did anything wrong. That was a Kha-Khan. That’s what producing, high-statistic staff members are – Kha-Khans. They can get away with murder without a blink from Ethics…. And Ethics must recognize a Kha-Khan when it sees one – and tear up the bad report chits on the person with a yawn.”

    Yep, true. Completely :)

    It’s an idiom, EA
    From Random House Unabridged Dictionary

    “get away with murder, Informal. to engage in a deplorable activity without incurring harm or punishment: [The new baby-sitter lets the kids get away with murder]. ”

    Pat

  151. Pat-
    “People are critical of others because of their own overts and withholds. ”

    That just doesn’t hold up. What about when Scientology is critical of people? What about when it’s “critical” of the psychiatric profession or the pharmaceutical industry? What about when it’s “critical” of ex-members and critics?

    I suspect your response would be, “Well, those people and organizations are doing -harm-, and so addressing that harm is our obligation.”

    I would suggest, then, that “people are critical of others because they have some flaw in themselves” might not be entirely accurate and would depend largely on context.

    “Because Scientology is expanding right now, the statistics show me that we are doing it right. If we weren’t we would be contracting. We judge people by what they DO not by what they SAY.”

    That’s not necessarily true, either. I think history would show lots of organizations and movements that have grown quite large while doing some fairly horrible things. I’m not comparing Scientology to the Nazis, or the Stalinist Communist party, or the “Great Leap Forward” era Chinese Communists, or Islamic militants, or anyone like that, but their very -existence- shows that growth does not NECESSARILY equate to correctness.

    “Management by rights (due to weekly statistics and data reported from every Church, Mission or group on the planet) have the overall picture based on a planetary view. Evaluations of data are not something I particularly care about or need to know. ”

    So you admit, then, that there might be actions taken in the name of “the good of the church” that you are unaware of? Is it -impossible- that such things would include fair game tactics and some of other allegations made by critics?

    “Anyone could write a Knowledge Report with full time, place, form and event about any exec, including DM if they thought he’d done something wrong. Instead they chose to blow Scientology and commit high crimes against the Church. (Another manifestation of overts and withholds)”

    Here’s where we may have to agree to disagree. Frankly, to me, “blowing” is a non-issue. I don’t understand how the organization can -require- you to “route out” over a period that can take MONTHS, lest you be declared an enemy of the church. That comes across, to me, as incredibly authoritarian and controlling, and it makes me strongly suspect the motives in doing so.

    As for “high crimes”: I still don’t understand why publicly admitting one’s grievances is such a terrible offense, -especially- if the person no longer trusts the organization to fairly handle things by itself. Scientology claims to value communication, so why is that only communication that’s pro-Scientology is okay?

    You say that anyone could write up a Knowledge Report on DM. Again, I’m reminded a bit of 1984 and East Germany, but I would nonetheless refer you to this quote:

    “In short a staff member can get away with murder so long as his statistic is up and can’t sneeze without a chop if it’s down. … When people do start reporting a staff member with a high statistic, what you investigate is the person who turned in the report.” – L. Ron Hubbard, HCO PL 1 September 1965, “Ethics Protection”

    From the same document, a more thorough quotation:
    “When people do start reporting a staff member with a high statistic, what you investigate is the person who turned in the report. In an ancient army a particularly brave deed was recognized by an award of the title of Kha-Khan. It was not a rank. The person remained what he was, BUT he was entitled to be forgiven the death penalty ten times in case in the future he did anything wrong. That was a Kha-Khan. That’s what producing, high-statistic staff members are – Kha-Khans. They can get away with murder without a blink from Ethics…. And Ethics must recognize a Kha-Khan when it sees one – and tear up the bad report chits on the person with a yawn.”

  152. @ Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 13, 2008 8:28 pm

    Wow, back.

    Upper levels are confidential. That’s the technology. It’s ok with me, totally 100% that that is kept that way, since I’m not ready for it yet.

    Management by rights (due to weekly statistics and data reported from every Church, Mission or group on the planet) have the overall picture based on a planetary view. Evaluations of data are not something I particularly care about or need to know. I trust my Churches management to make decisions based on the greatest good for the greatest number. Because Scientology is expanding right now, the statistics show me that we are doing it right. If we weren’t we would be contracting. We judge people by what they DO not by what they SAY.

    That’s my reality.

    Here’s another piece of technology for you that has been brought up before:
    People are critical of others because of their own overts and withholds. So when someone attacks DM I don’t have to think twice to know that I’m hearing motivators and justifications.

    Anyone could write a Knowledge Report with full time, place, form and event about any exec, including DM if they thought he’d done something wrong. Instead they chose to blow Scientology and commit high crimes against the Church. (Another manifestation of overts and withholds)

    Definitions are on scientologymyths.info in the glossary.

    you can also read about that here.
    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH9.HTM

    Pat

  153. Wow. So, uh…

    Anyway!

    Two things:

    “I have no reason to distrust DM or the data about the levels above VIII. In Scientology, people are judged by their actions. DM has been an incredibly effective Chairman of the Board of RTC. Under him, we have seen a complete reversal of the trends on expansion, a complete restoration of the word Standard in the technology. All of it LRH. That’s documented.

    The fact that he is being attacked tells me that he’s right on the money.”

    I’m not disputing the higher levels. What I’m saying is:
    1: You know that there are things that the higher management in the RTC is keeping from you. You agree with their reasons, and I don’t dispute them, but that establishes that there ARE things in Scientology which are, to some degree or another, kept secret.
    2: That being the case, can you say -with certainty- that some of other allegations that have been made by critics are untrue? Can you state unequivocally that those things -did not happen-, and that they weren’t simply hidden from the vast majority of the organization? It wouldn’t even have to be an act of malicious deceit; the logic could simply be “We’re doing this in service of the church, but it’s better for everyone if only those who -need- to know, know.”

    You can probably say that you have not -observed- any of those allegations to be true, or that it does not match the information you have, but can you say without any question that you have access to all of the information?

    As to your question:

    “What is your personal experience with DM? (You come asking for my personal views, so now I want the same from you.)

    What experience have you had, personal observation (no hearsay or what others claim) that makes it true for you that DM has done something to cause your antipathy?”

    I’ve never met him personally, granted. I have watched/read as many interviews with him as I could get my hands on. I have watched every video of him I could find. I have read about his personal history and the nature of his rise to power within the organization.. Those are things that I have personally seen. My impressions from that information have not been at all positive. I’ll refrain from being too derogatory towards him out of courtesy, but I will say that he is not an individual that I would feel comfortable trusting. I have seen or known a number of individuals who seemed very much like him, and common among them were certain unflattering personality traits which, if you like, I could elaborate on.

    Beyond that, however, I have no -reason- to doubt the reports from those who previously worked under him, not least because their stories match up so well. The church’s allegations against such individuals (see: religiousfreedomwatch.org) tend to be pretty transparent in their attempts to attack the critics in an attempt to discredit them, rather than addressing their claims. That doesn’t earn a lot of sympathy from me, either. Granted, I know he’s not losing any sleep over that, but you asked for my opinion.

    I do think Miscavige probably believes in Scientology, at least to some extent. I don’t think he is a -completely- cynical individual, using his position solely for personal gain. I do think, though, he is ruthless and untrustworthy, and that the line between “What’s good for Scientology” and “What’s good for Dave Miscavige” might tend to get a little blurry.

  154. I guess it’s time to remind everyone of the basics again.

    This is a Scientology website.

    Scientologists are here on a volunteer basis to answer your questions about Myths.

    Questions which spread propaganda are not considered valid questions. No one is required to answer any question he/she does not wish to. That is a basic human right.

    A loaded question is such an example. The one I use to illustrate that point is “Do you still beat your wife?”. You’re damned if you answer “yes” and damned if you answer “no”.

    Asking me if I knew someone did somthing is a loaded question. I won’t answer them. If you asked me if there was documention for something, that’s something I could answer. Since it’s already assumed in the question that something is true it is useless to answer Entrapment is covertly hostile and a tool of someone who means harm. Anyone coming here with insult and loaded questions isn’t here to get answers. Therefore, any such posts will be ignored by me.

    All you do when you toss insults is show that you have an inability to communicate. I can return them or just ignore you. I choose to ignore. It’s not worth my time to try and help someone who doesn’t want help.

    Pat

  155. pat sounds like a kid arguing with an adult.

  156. Ah….typical
    Tell me this Pat…..how can I POSSIBLY have the answer to HOW YOU FEEL PERSONALLY ON THE FACT THAT L> RON LIED ABOUT HIS MILITARY BACKGROUND, and the other QUESTIONS I posed to you to answer as a scientologist

    YOU must have some feelings or thoughts on these subjects, which I am now asking YOU, how you, as a member of an organization that was built on the teachings of someone who would lie about their military background to pass himself off as something he WAS’NT, feel about those lies of his
    My job is done here, for the moment, because you have proven that when faced with the truth.. and to answer simple questions…as Jack said to your fellow scientologist YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH

  157. @Comment by Libraesque on April 13, 2008 6:35 pm

    Since I’m here as a volunteer and since I don’t HAVE to communicate with anyone unless I WANT to, and I find your questions offensive, I choose not to answer them. If you already have the answers then you don’t need my data anyway. Have a happy life.

    Pat

  158. Pat, you’re deliberately avoiding my questions.
    What I am stating re: his military background is not an assumption…IT IS A PROVEN FACT

    So I will ask the question AGAIN

    How do you as a scientologist feel about the FACT that L.Ron lied about his military background

    ANSWER THE QUESTION

    If you continue to avoid the simple question and attempt to distract with rude comments and links to definitions you should seriously resign from your “job” here of making sure people are asking questions not “spreading propaganda”

    ANSWER THE QUESTION

  159. Definition time!

    troll, adjective; a person online who incites argument and what is colloquially known as “lulz” through wit and occasionally “intentional ignorance”

    not entirely accurate but it works

  160. I’m not allowed in this courtroom?

    this is a COURTROOM?!?!?!!

    OMG

    *runs up and slaps the balif*

    my age has only to do with my maturity of which I have none, intelligence is a relative value between persons in a quantitative setting. you have none as yours would be calculated into a percentage that has no significant figures.

    you would do well to answer all “loaded questions” with a simple statement regarding its content rather than pitiful diatribe and insults!

  161. @Comment by you idiot on April 13, 2008 5:48 pm
    >overruled,

    Sorry, you’re not allowed in this courtroom.

    Pat

  162. @Comment by you idiot on April 13, 2008 5:16 pm
    >lol I assume you’ve never heard of an internet “troll”?

    Are you a troll? Hmm…

    >I’m getting called a “wife beater” I’m not even married I’m fucking 16!!

    Ah, ok. That explains it.

    Look at this wiki reference.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

  163. overruled,

    the question was based upon factual evidence with no particular objective to incite anger your actions would be punishable in court for remarking he is a wife beater even though it was said in rebuttal as a logical fallacy.

    you will answer the question with an affirmative that yes these accusations are true and proven, and counter with a argument invoking debate rather than laughter

  164. @Comment by Libraesque on April 13, 2008 5:29 pm

    Also, I had assumed you knew what a loaded question was since you claim to have some kind of legal expertise. Since Scientologists are “evidently” on trial in your mind, at least you can accord us the right any “witness” in court would have. The way you ask is rude and presumptive. You seem think you have so much truth in your assumptions that you never did bother to find out if it was truth or not. Why should I not ignore you if that’s how you are? It won’t matter what I say. It will still be wrong in your universe.

    So, objection! You asked loaded questions.

    Pat

  165. @Comment by Libraesque on April 13, 2008 5:29 pm
    >“Loaded”??????? Sounds more like when faced with the less than honorable facts about the person who wrote the stuff you all believe in and are trying so hard to defend, you get nasty.
    Why are you refusing to acknowledge that I’m asking ACTUAL questions?

    Maybe this reference will help you understand what I mean.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

    Pat

  166. “Loaded”??????? Sounds more like when faced with the less than honorable facts about the person who wrote the stuff you all believe in and are trying so hard to defend, you get nasty.
    Why are you refusing to acknowledge that I’m asking ACTUAL questions?

    Should I pose the questions individually so you can answer them one by one? WOuld that make them seem more like actual questions and not propaganda spreading???

    How do you, as a scientologist feel about the FACT that L.Ron lied about his military background.

  167. oh and btw, you should prolly answer that question as you have no fucking clue if it’s TIME mag or one of many other publications that will report and further soil your organizations name because of your inconsiderate words and callous attitude… some customer service representative you are!

  168. lol I assume you’ve never heard of an internet “troll”?

    I’m getting called a “wife beater” I’m not even married I’m fucking 16!!

    am I trying to beat my non existant wife? I could but the psychiatrist might get me on anti psychotics for trying to beat up the air!

    lol house of glass this one, eh?

  169. @Comment by you idiot on April 13, 2008 4:24 pm

    Interesting isn’t it, what happens when you get called for what you are really trying to do?

    Do you have a legitimate question or are you just here to spread your own propaganda and be an ass, “you idiot”?

    Pat

  170. @Comment by Libraesque on April 13, 2008 4:42 pm

    You didn’t ask any answerable questions. Only “loaded” ones that imply the answer in the “asking”. You presume too much.

    Do you have a legitimate question or are you just here to spread your propaganda?

    Pat

  171. WOW…..ruuuuuuuude. So since I asked a QUESTION that hit a nerve I beat my wife?? The TRUE ugly scientologist rears it’s ugly head with the oh-so-typical WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES bullshit
    I’ll ask the question again. How do scientologists feel about their “leader” being:
    A liar about his education
    A liar about his military record
    A liar about his drug use
    A polygamist

    Do they chose to IGNORE FACTS, or do they except these FACTS and somehow justify them?????

  172. good job making yourself look like a slanderous buffoon!

    wife beating indeed!

    If i had only one superpower it would be the ability to reach through my computer monitor to bitch slap you for attacking him with your bullbaiting schemes

    lets just throw out the evidence and attack with slander huh? good idea, while you are doing that let me find more evidence and witnesses, you just keep yelling and cursing so we can win based upon image alone

  173. @Comment by Libraesque on April 13, 2008 9:14 am
    >Pat, to answer your question from a zillion comments ago….NO……a couple people here asked what police station/city Lu filed her report in. If someone were to call the police to verify IF in FACT there was a shooting, as she’s claiming, that in no way “interferes” with an investigation…..if there even IS one. Believe me, the police would never expect someone who filed some report to be sworn to secrecy about it, thats absurd, she’s not involved in a lawsuit….or a juror!!!

    Wow. Still at it, are you? She said she couldn’t comment on an on-going investigation.

    You’ll just have to wait like everyone else.

    Okay I have a question….How do scientologist feel about L.Ron being a fraud as far as his education level, his military record, that he was a polygamist, that he was a hypocrite re: drugs, considering many people who worked for him (and I believe his son also) have said he took many many drugs (I think a letter from him to his wife also speaks of his “pinks and blues”???? Or do they chose to believe these facts aren’t true?

    Wow, again. A whole bunch of leading questions all rolled into one paragraph. I don’t see a question here. Tell me, Libraesque. Do you still beat your wife?

    Pat

  174. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 13, 2008 9:04 am
    >A follow-up question of sorts:

    >You say that Hubbard has laid out the levels up through OT XV. However, those levels will not be released until specific conditions, laid out by Hubbard, have been met.

    True.

    >I ask this mostly to get a clearer perspective on things: Have you seen proof of this? You are no doubt far better read when it comes to Hubbard than I am, so does he say somewhere that that’s the case? Have those documents been verified?

    I’ve seen it by LRH, yes. It’s written. It’s signed by LRH. He had the authority to write it. Voila! Verified!

    >(I know my own skepticism is coloring things a little bit here, along with my -complete distrust- of, and significant antipathy towards, David Miscavige)

    >Secondly, that establishes that there are things in Scientology which you are not yet allowed to know. Can you then say, with 100% certainty, that there are not OTHER things which are being kept from you?

    I have no reason to distrust DM or the data about the levels above VIII. In Scientology, people are judged by their actions. DM has been an incredibly effective Chairman of the Board of RTC. Under him, we have seen a complete reversal of the trends on expansion, a complete restoration of the word Standard in the technology. All of it LRH. That’s documented.

    The fact that he is being attacked tells me that he’s right on the money.

    What is your personal experience with DM? (You come asking for my personal views, so now I want the same from you.)

    What experience have you had, personal observation (no hearsay or what others claim) that makes it true for you that DM has done something to cause your antipathy?

    Pat

  175. Pat, to answer your question from a zillion comments ago….NO……a couple people here asked what police station/city Lu filed her report in. If someone were to call the police to verify IF in FACT there was a shooting, as she’s claiming, that in no way “interferes” with an investigation…..if there even IS one. Believe me, the police would never expect someone who filed some report to be sworn to secrecy about it, thats absurd, she’s not involved in a lawsuit….or a juror!!!

    Okay I have a question….How do scientologist feel about L.Ron being a fraud as far as his education level, his military record, that he was a polygamist, that he was a hypocrite re: drugs, considering many people who worked for him (and I believe his son also) have said he took many many drugs (I think a letter from him to his wife also speaks of his “pinks and blues”???? Or do they chose to believe these facts aren’t true?

  176. A follow-up question of sorts:

    You say that Hubbard has laid out the levels up through OT XV. However, those levels will not be released until specific conditions, laid out by Hubbard, have been met.

    I ask this mostly to get a clearer perspective on things: Have you seen proof of this? You are no doubt far better read when it comes to Hubbard than I am, so does he say somewhere that that’s the case? Have those documents been verified?

    (I know my own skepticism is coloring things a little bit here, along with my -complete distrust- of, and significant antipathy towards, David Miscavige)

    Secondly, that establishes that there are things in Scientology which you are not yet allowed to know. Can you then say, with 100% certainty, that there are not OTHER things which are being kept from you?

  177. @Comment by veritas on April 13, 2008 2:43 am
    >Here is another for Lou/pat
    >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-washing_%28book%29
    >A report that hubbard authored a book on brainwashing was published by COS, wtf?!

    *sigh*

    http://www.cesnur.org/2005/brainwash_13.htm

    scientologymyths.info/brainwashing/is-scientology-involved-in-brainwashing.php

    Pat

  178. @Comment by John on April 13, 2008 4:30 am

    John,

    If I see evidence, that’s what I believe. If one of my Church’s management makes statements it is accompanied with truth. We get to see the data. That is based on Axiom 38.

    1. Stupidity is the unknowness of consideration.
    2. Mechanical Definition: Stupidity is unknowness of time, place, form, and event.

    1. Truth is the exact consideration.
    2. Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.
    Thus we see that failure to discover Truth brings about stupidity. Thus we see that the discovery of Truth would bring about an AS-IS-NESS by actual experiment.

    Thus we see that an ultimate truth would have no time, place, form, or event.

    Thus, then, we perceive that we can achieve a persistence only when we mask a truth. Lying is an alteration of time, place, event, or form. Lying becomes ALTER-IS-NESS, becomes Stupidity. (The blackness of cases is an accumulation of the case’s own or another’s lies.)

    Anything which persists must avoid AS-IS NESS. Thus, anything, to persist, must contain a lie.

    Pat

  179. Pat,

    Do you base part of your truth, what is true for you, on statements made by spokespeople for the Church of Scientology? If so, why?

  180. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 13, 2008 1:58 am
    >>I didn’t say logic. I said Socratic logic.

    >I think you mean Aristotelian logic. Socrates had the Socratic method, but that’s different. Regardless of which philosopher you meant, however, the fact is that the logic of the ancient Greeks hasn’t been invalidated by time. Rather, it’s been integrated into today’s “classical” logics, and it remains a valid method of deductive reasoning.

    No, I really meant Socratic. Here’s what I mean. Take a Thesis and an Antithesis. Socrates believed and taught that in debate or trying to resolve conflicts that the best solution was to combine the two into a synthesis. Even if it led to a false idea. I guess it would have been better to say your premise did not follow logically.

    >Jenna Elfman claims “AIDS is a state of mind.”
    True
    >Jenna Elfman is a Scientologist.
    True
    >Scientologists believe in Dianetics.
    True
    >Dianetics claims to improve one’s state of mind.
    True
    >Therefore, Jenna Elfman is claiming that Dianetics can treat or even cure AIDS.
    False. She never said that. That’s where the logic fails.

    >I wasn’t trying to invalidate anyone… this time. I was just trying to get a straight answer. You were being very evasive when it came to Ms. Elfman’s statement, preferring to talk about past lives and Scientology front groups rather than give a simple “I think she’s right” or “I think she’s wrong”.

    Alright. Did you ask me if I thought she was right or wrong? I don’t find that in the thread. I don’t think I gave that data to you. It was in response to other’s questions. I did very specifically say that I don’t know what Jenna’s reality is based on.

    Pat

  181. @Comment by veritas on April 13, 2008 1:19 am
    >Thanks much Pat, that bit with the negro comment does not look so bad in full context.

    You’re welcome.

    >I keep wondering though why must OT levels cost so much money, I mean the celebs pay millions to the COS so why not make the knowledge free to those who have progressed up the bridge?

    First of all, you may be confusing the donations that some Celebrities make to the International Association of Scientologists (IAS) with what is charged for auditing and training. They are not the same. Those big numbers you see from the Celebs are donations to the IAS (International Association of Scientologists). That is what is used to support our social betterment programs and running of the Sea Org management.

    What is paid to service goes to the Churches or Missions delivering the service to pay for materials, and the cost of delivering and training delivery people, including building support and maintenance and staff pay. We just donated a full set of basics (12 books) to every library in the USA (sometimes 2 sets for the bigger libraries) so that all could read them for free. There are many ways to get services. I, myself, went up by the training route, where I did the courses and then traded auditing with another student. There are several books in the basics that you can use to audit yourself and learn to help others. FREE.

    Here’s Lu’s link too:
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/scientology/

    >BTW- how many ‘operating thetans’ are there?

    I don’t know, exactly. I heard that we’re not far from meeting the 10,000 on OT VII and VIII. I’ll see if I can get some more data on that.

    Pat

  182. Here is another for Lou/pat
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-washing_%28book%29
    A report that hubbard authored a book on brainwashing was published by COS, wtf?!

  183. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 11, 2008 5:03 pm

    >>Remember, according to Scientology, you are not a human being, you are a thetan who is operating the body of a human being.

    >There is one significant difference between Scientology and these sources. In Scientology, your thetan is discrete and eternal. In most Eastern traditions, upon death, your thetan rejoins god/the universe, a process akin to pouring a glass of water into the ocean. The state of nirvana can be reached by reconnecting your discrete thetan with all theta while you are still alive.

    I would love to know what reference you used for this.

    Buddhism practices meditation in order to attain freedom from the cycle of birth and death. This means that they will (as spirits) not go pick up another body once they’ve attained this, putting an end to the cycle. Fully believing that they are spiritual beings and not bodies with souls that go to some “oneness”. So, they definitely do acknowledge that there is a cycle. Look at the Dalai Lama (sp?) – he is considered to be the old Dalai come back in a new body. That religion is over 2500 years old.

    You can believe that you’re not a spirit if you want.

    Pat

  184. I didn’t say logic. I said Socratic logic.

    I think you mean Aristotelian logic. Socrates had the Socratic method, but that’s different. Regardless of which philosopher you meant, however, the fact is that the logic of the ancient Greeks hasn’t been invalidated by time. Rather, it’s been integrated into today’s “classical” logics, and it remains a valid method of deductive reasoning.

    *Pat snickers at oian’s weak attempts to invalidate people*

    I wasn’t trying to invalidate anyone… this time. I was just trying to get a straight answer. You were being very evasive when it came to Ms. Elfman’s statement, preferring to talk about past lives and Scientology front groups rather than give a simple “I think she’s right” or “I think she’s wrong”.

  185. Thanks much Pat, that bit with the negro comment does not look so bad in full context.

    I keep wondering though why must OT levels cost so much money, I mean the celebs pay millions to the COS so why not make the knowledge free to those who have progressed up the bridge?
    BTW- how many ‘operating thetans’ are there?

  186. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 13, 2008 12:31 am
    >I’m not talking about changing existing tech. I’m talking about introducing NEW tech. For instance, as you go “up the bridge”, you are introduced to the new OT levels. What if someone OTHER than Hubbard were to extend the levels beyond those that currently exist?

    >My point is this: If Dave Miscavige says, tomorrow, “Hey, here’s these unreleased writings of Hubbard that go through OT 9 and 10.”, is it not true that people would pretty much embrace it with open arms?

    >Why is that reserved strictly for Hubbard? What if someone ELSE “discovered” higher OT levels?

    Maybe they will after doing what we already have.

    LRH researched and developed all the way through OT XV. They’re on the Grade Chart. OT IX and X will be released when we have met the requirement he set for that. (10,000 on OT VII and VIII). That’s not too far away.

    After that? The universe? Who knows :)

    Pat

  187. I’m not talking about changing existing tech. I’m talking about introducing NEW tech. For instance, as you go “up the bridge”, you are introduced to the new OT levels. What if someone OTHER than Hubbard were to extend the levels beyond those that currently exist?

    My point is this: If Dave Miscavige says, tomorrow, “Hey, here’s these unreleased writings of Hubbard that go through OT 9 and 10.”, is it not true that people would pretty much embrace it with open arms?

    Why is that reserved strictly for Hubbard? What if someone ELSE “discovered” higher OT levels?

  188. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 13, 2008 12:14 am
    >>Socratic logic kinda faded out a few millenia ago. Your corollary is faulty.

    >Yes. Logic is so passé. The best way to figure things out these days is to read and accept the unsubstantiated claims of a man who specialized in fiction.

    I didn’t say logic. I said Socratic logic.

    >I take back every one of my insults, because they pale in comparison to your own words.

    Don’t change on my account.

    >>Dianetics isn’t the only thing that improves one’s state of mind, and would only be effective it were a psychosomatic illness (caused by the reactive mind).

    And what part of “AIDS is a state of mind” sounds like Jenna Elfman isn’t calling it a psychosomatic illness? I will ask you again: are you willing to reject, if only on a probationary basis, the proposition that TV’s Dharma has the cure for AIDS?

    Yes, I reject that TV’s Dharma has the cure for AIDS. *Pat snickers at oian’s weak attempts to invalidate people*

    >>Imbueing MEST with personality means living at the mercy of MEST? What word or symbol was misunderstood?

    “Personify,” it looks like. From Merriam-Webster:

    1 : to conceive of or represent as a person or as having human qualities or powers
    2 : to be the embodiment or personification of : incarnate

    I was thinking definition 2, i.e. being the embodiment of life in MEST. Definition 1 never even occurred to me. My bad.

    Ok.

    Pat

  189. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 12, 2008 11:09 pm
    >Here’s a thought that just occurred to me, though I’m shocked it hadn’t before:

    >If Scientology is so much about finding your own truth, particularly through exploration of your past lives, then why does Hubbard have to be the sole source of the tech?
    What if someone, in exploring their past experiences, had a revelation about new techniques/OT levels/whatever?

    >Why does Hubbard, who (I believe) -admitted- that he was just another guy, not a messiah or anything, have a monopoly on workable “tech”?

    Same book: Scientology: A New Slant on Life:

    Chapter “How to Study Scientology”

    “He should, before he starts to discuss, criticize or attempt to improve on the data presented to him, find out for himself whether or not the mechanics of Scientology are as stated and whether or not it does what has been proposed for it.

    He should make up his mind about each thing he is taught – the procedure, techniques, mechanics and theory. He should ask himself these questions: Does this piece of data exist? Is it true? Does it work? Will it produce the best possible results in the shortest time? There is a way to answer these questions to his own satisfaction: find them himself. These are the fundamentals and every student should undertake to discover them himself, thus raising Scientology above an authoritarian category. It is not sufficient that an instructor stand before him and declare the existence of these. Each and every student must determine for himself whether or not the instructor’s statements are true. ”

    “Any quarrel you may have with theory is something that only you can resolve. Is the theory correct or isn’t it correct? Only you can answer that. It cannot be answered for you. You can be told what others have observed, but you cannot become truly educated until you have acheived the results for yourself. The moment a man opens his mouth and asks, “Where is validation?” you can be sure you are looking at a very stupid man. That man is saying bluntly and abruptly, “I cannot think for myself. I have to have Authority.” Where could he possibly look for validation except into the physical universe and into his own subjective and objective reality?”

    “So the only advice I can give you is to study Scientology for itself and use it exactly as stated, then form your own opinions. Study it with the purpose in mind of arriving at your own conclusions as to whether the tenets you have assimilated are correct and workable. Compare what you have learned with the known universe. Seek for the reasons behind a manifestation, and postulate the manner and in which direction the manifestation will likely proceed. Do not allow the authority of any one person or school of thought to create a foregone conclusion within your sphere of knowledge.”

    Take something like the chapter on the ARC triangle, EA. (Link below)

    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/ARCTRI.HTM

    Use it. Does it work? Did you raise someone’s affinity or reality? If so, why would you want to change it? Etc., etc. etc.

    Pat

  190. Socratic logic kinda faded out a few millenia ago. Your corollary is faulty.

    Yes. Logic is so passé. The best way to figure things out these days is to read and accept the unsubstantiated claims of a man who specialized in fiction.

    I take back every one of my insults, because they pale in comparison to your own words.

    Dianetics isn’t the only thing that improves one’s state of mind, and would only be effective it were a psychosomatic illness (caused by the reactive mind).

    And what part of “AIDS is a state of mind” sounds like Jenna Elfman isn’t calling it a psychosomatic illness? I will ask you again: are you willing to reject, if only on a probationary basis, the proposition that TV’s Dharma has the cure for AIDS?

    Imbueing MEST with personality means living at the mercy of MEST? What word or symbol was misunderstood?

    “Personify,” it looks like. From Merriam-Webster:

    1 : to conceive of or represent as a person or as having human qualities or powers
    2 : to be the embodiment or personification of : incarnate

    I was thinking definition 2, i.e. being the embodiment of life in MEST. Definition 1 never even occurred to me. My bad.

  191. >I think his idea is that thetans tend to avoid picking up black bodies. (The African kind, not the physics kind.) Frankly, I don’t see where Hubbard claims anything like that. “[P]ersonify[ing] MEST,” in this case, appears to be more about living at the mercy of MEST, as opposed to using one’s power as a thetan to live at cause over MEST. Poverty, disease, menial labor, victimization,… Hubbard could have used any lower-class or Third-World group of people to make his point, but his audience was most familiar with the plight of Southern blacks.

    Imbueing MEST with personality means living at the mercy of MEST? What word or symbol was misunderstood?

    Pat

  192. Here’s a thought that just occurred to me, though I’m shocked it hadn’t before:

    If Scientology is so much about finding your own truth, particularly through exploration of your past lives, then why does Hubbard have to be the sole source of the tech?
    What if someone, in exploring their past experiences, had a revelation about new techniques/OT levels/whatever?
    Why does Hubbard, who (I believe) -admitted- that he was just another guy, not a messiah or anything, have a monopoly on workable “tech”?

  193. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 11, 2008 11:00 pm
    >Scientology deals with spiritual aspect of life.

    >Which, according to Jenna Elfman, includes AIDS. Here’s the breakdown:

    Huh?

    >Jenna Elfman claims “AIDS is a state of mind.”
    >Jenna Elfman is a Scientologist.
    >Scientologists believe in Dianetics.
    >Dianetics claims to improve one’s state of mind.
    >Therefore, Jenna Elfman is claiming that Dianetics can treat or even cure AIDS.

    Socratic logic kinda faded out a few millenia ago. Your corollary is faulty.

    Dianetics isn’t the only thing that improves one’s state of mind, and would only be effective it were a psychosomatic illness (caused by the reactive mind).

    Psychosomatic Illness
    http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/aha/umpsysom.htm

    A disorder that involves both mind and body is called a psychosomatic illness. In other words, the illness may be emotional or mental in origin but have physical symptoms. Psychosomatic illnesses are not imaginary. They are physical disorders in which both emotions and thought patterns are believed to play a central role, and usually develop when a person’s disease-fighting ability is weakened due to stress. After a particularly stressful event, like the loss of a loved one, for example, an individual might develop high blood pressure shortly afterward or even have a heart attack. In another person, the same situation might lead to a peptic ulcer or a series of asthma attacks. A third individual, equally as grief-stricken, might not get sick at all. For a psychosomatic illness to occur, a person must first be vulnerable in a particular body system. It’s important for these illnesses to be recognized and treated soon as they occur.

    I’ll do you a favor and give you a quote from a book that’s in your local library called Scientology: A New Slant on Life.

    From the Chapter “A Description of Scientology”

    “By spiritual means, but means which are a precise as mathematics, a host of the bad conditions of life may be remedied in Scientology. Illness and malfunction can be divided into two general classes. First, those resulting from the operation of the spirit directly upon the communication networks of life or the body, and those occasioned by the disruption of structure of purely physical causes. Unhappiness, inability to heal and psychosomatic illness (which include some 70 percent of the illnesses of man) are best healed by immediate address of the human spirit. Illness caused by recognizable bacteria and injury in accident are best treated by physical means and these fall distinctly into the field of medicine and are not the province of Scientology, except that accidents and illness and bacterial infection are pre-determined in almost all cases by spiritual malfunction and unrest, and conditions in accidents are definitely prolonged by any spiritual malfunction. Thus we have the field of medicine addressing the immediate injury (such surgical matters as birth and acute infections, and such things as contusions and abrasions resulting from accidents) as well as the administration of drugs and antibiotics to prevent the demise of the patient in a crisis. Thsi is the role of medicine.

    Where predisposition to disease or injury exists, or where disease or injury is being prolonged, or where unhappiness and worry causes mental or physical upset, or where we desire to better and improve communications or social relationships, we are dealing, and are best healed or best prevented or best remedied by immediate address and direct recourse to the spirit and its action and determinism of the course of the body.

    The only truly therapeutic agent in this universe is the spirit. In Scientology this has been demonstrated with more thoroughness and exists with more certainty than the physical sciences or mathematics. A Scientologist can (italics) make an individual well, happy and grant him personal immortality, simply by addressing the human spirit.”

    There’s a lot more on this in the book. So, you see… While medical is needed too, it’s ultimately the state of mind of the individual that determines if he heals or not or even becomes predisposed in the first place.

    Pat

  194. @ Comment by veritas on April 12, 2008 12:46 am

    Veritas,

    The reference is:
    Therapy Section of Technique 80: Part I, Route to Infinity, 21 May 1952:

    Here’s the quote in context:

    He’s talking about overts and their effects on the various dynamics. On the 6th he is saying how we permit the deterioration of MEST by throwing it together in a temporary way.
    Route to Infinity is all about BEING and progessing up the tone scale and up the dynamics and being the dynamics. MEST is the 6th Dynamic. “you could be an icebox or a Cadillac or anything while you are still being yourself”

    Hope this helps. This is actually validative of the negroes because they could imbue MEST with personality (personifying MEST), instead of just letting it deteriorate.

    “Actually, have you ever noticed how a negro, in particular, down south, where they’re pretty close to the soil, personifies MEST? The gate post and the wagon and the whip and anything around there. A hat — they talk to ’em, you know. “Wassa madda wit you, hat?” [laughter]. They imbue them, with personality. Well, you don’t do that very much anymore, because as you go down tone scale you don’t do this. Because, actually, all MEST is, really- you might consider it in the same range and the same band as solid thought. But it’s, by aesthetics and other things, moulded up by man into being what it is.”

    Pat

  195. Based on the reconstructed OT-8 rundown, it’s another block of Scientology terminology. Translated extremely loosely, it appears to be a set of instructions for not letting other thetans metaphorically beat you up and take your lunch money. (Just my reading; not intended to be a serious evaluation.)

    Most of the weird stuff related to Christ appears to be either L. Ron Hubbard making stuff up or disinformation told to people (such as Fishman) to mess them up.

  196. @Comment by veritas on April 12, 2008 12:46 am

    >Cool, thanks for taking the time to look for that piece.

    Ok. Still working on that. Will have more time this weekend.

    >Heard anything about OT-8 saying that hubbard reveals himself to be an antichrist?

    Nope. Sounds pretty far out there to me.

    Pat

  197. @ Pat
    Cool, thanks for taking the time to look for that piece.
    Heard anything about OT-8 saying that hubbard reveals himself to be an antichrist?

  198. Scientology deals with spiritual aspect of life.

    Which, according to Jenna Elfman, includes AIDS. Here’s the breakdown:

    Jenna Elfman claims “AIDS is a state of mind.”
    Jenna Elfman is a Scientologist.
    Scientologists believe in Dianetics.
    Dianetics claims to improve one’s state of mind.
    Therefore, Jenna Elfman is claiming that Dianetics can treat or even cure AIDS.

    Do you agree or disagree? Are you willing to reject, if only on a probationary basis, the proposition that TV’s Dharma has the cure for AIDS?

    Even early Christianity had this concept.

    Um… Christianity still has this concept, as do the other Abrahamic religions. One’s soul, being a creation of God, might not extend into the eternal past, and it might occupy only one body during its lifetime, but it’s still a distinct entity from the body, and it still lives forever.

    You are a thetan who HAS a mind which is composed of mental images of all past experiences (some of which were received during moments of unconciousness – reactive mind – so not available to the conscious mind – analytical),…

    Point goes to Pat. After all, my understanding is that Scientology can audit engrams from past bodies, and how can a thetan carry engrams from one body to another unless the reactive mind is a part of the thetan, not of the body?

    WOG stands for Worthy Oriental Gentleman. That’s LRH’s definition. It only means non-scientologist.

    So all non-Scientologists are Asian? Neat.

    You aren’t getting it. You don’t “have” a thetan. You ARE a thetan.

    Yes, great, fantastic. I’ll be honest: I don’t see what’s wrong with the phrase “your thetan,” any more than I see something wrong with the phrase “your identity.” It’s useful to distinguish the person as a thetan from the person as a combination of body, mind, and thetan. In certain contexts it might be clear that “you” refers to the thetan, but otherwise I think this wording serves its purpose well.

    Considering that it’s the THETAN that is going to go pick up another BABY body how do you commute that to negroes?

    I think his idea is that thetans tend to avoid picking up black bodies. (The African kind, not the physics kind.) Frankly, I don’t see where Hubbard claims anything like that. “[P]ersonify[ing] MEST,” in this case, appears to be more about living at the mercy of MEST, as opposed to using one’s power as a thetan to live at cause over MEST. Poverty, disease, menial labor, victimization,… Hubbard could have used any lower-class or Third-World group of people to make his point, but his audience was most familiar with the plight of Southern blacks.

    As for WOG, look it up in the Scientology dictionary. You’re using the wrong definition.

    He’s using the definition that the rest of the English-speaking world uses. Like, if I joined a group that used the term “asshole” as slang for Scientologists (for whatever reason), you might be offended. And it wouldn’t matter if, to me, the word had nothing to do with its common usage; to everyone else, it sounds like we’re saying (because we are saying) Scientologists are assholes. That’s pretty much how it is when Scientology uses an ethnic slur to describe outsiders; it’s taken as an insult, no matter how it’s meant.

  199. >I wasn’t aware that you personally had answered those questions exactly as they are written. If I am mistaken let me know and I’ll go and find it.

    >This particular exercise relies on specific wording which is why I have asked something that I know has come up before.

    >Exercise? LOL

    >The Church has ORIGINATED several times that it created the video linked below. What’s the problem? There has never been a secret that it was done by us nor was there ever an attempt to hide it’s source.

    >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGEuGsO9cCA

    >Pat

    So in this case you’re saying what’s true for you is exactly what the Church of Scientology has said? Did you personally view the creation of that video by Church members or are you relying on what they say?

    That still doesn’t answer the second question though.

  200. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 11, 2008 5:24 pm
    >Also, Pat, out of curiosity:

    >Are you Pat Harney, Director of Public Affairs for Scientology?

    No, and Karen Pouw is Director of Public Affairs for Scientology International

    http://www.scientology.org/news-media/biographies/pouw.html

  201. Comment by Tony Meman on April 11, 2008 5:03 pm
    >@Pat

    >>>Remember, according to Scientology, you are not a human being, you are a thetan who is operating the body of a human being.

    >Oh, and Buddhism and Tao and Veda and the Vedic Hymns.

    >There is one significant difference between Scientology and these sources. In Scientology, your thetan is discrete and eternal. In most Eastern traditions, upon death, your thetan rejoins god/the universe, a process akin to pouring a glass of water into the ocean. The state of nirvana can be reached by reconnecting your discrete thetan with all theta while you are still alive.

    Tony,

    You aren’t getting it. You don’t “have” a thetan. You ARE a thetan.

    >>However, not all human beings have thetans.

    >LOL Where did that idea come from?

    >From Hubbard’s lectures, mainly. There a lot of references to what happens to your thetan between lives. This possibly includes a trip to Venus to be brainwashed and then dumped back to Earth off the coast of California. It does include picking up the body of a baby; presumably, they don’t have a thetan up that point. One of Hubbard’s lectures also includes instructions on recognizing an adult without a thetan.

    Considering that it’s the THETAN that is going to go pick up another BABY body how do you commute that to negroes?

    >>You just basically admitted that you never read Dianetics.

    >Have you? According to Dianetics, the reactive mind is the mind of the cells of your body and their impulse to survive. When your analytical mind is knocked off-line, your cells remember what happens. Then, if it looks like that bad thing is going to happen again (restimulators), your cells take over and do what they think is necessary to avoid that bad thing again, often with tragic and hilarious results.

    Yep, all of the books on it, in fact.

    He makes some interesting calculations on how much memory could be held in the cells and that it can’t be done there.

    As for WOG, look it up in the Scientology dictionary. You’re using the wrong definition.

    Pat

  202. Also, Pat, out of curiosity:

    Are you Pat Harney, Director of Public Affairs for Scientology?

  203. @Pat

    >>Remember, according to Scientology, you are not a human being, you are a thetan who is operating the body of a human being.

    >Oh, and Buddhism and Tao and Veda and the Vedic Hymns.

    There is one significant difference between Scientology and these sources. In Scientology, your thetan is discrete and eternal. In most Eastern traditions, upon death, your thetan rejoins god/the universe, a process akin to pouring a glass of water into the ocean. The state of nirvana can be reached by reconnecting your discrete thetan with all theta while you are still alive.

    >>However, not all human beings have thetans.

    >LOL Where did that idea come from?

    From Hubbard’s lectures, mainly. There a lot of references to what happens to your thetan between lives. This possibly includes a trip to Venus to be brainwashed and then dumped back to Earth off the coast of California. It does include picking up the body of a baby; presumably, they don’t have a thetan up that point. One of Hubbard’s lectures also includes instructions on recognizing an adult without a thetan.

    >You just basically admitted that you never read Dianetics.

    Have you? According to Dianetics, the reactive mind is the mind of the cells of your body and their impulse to survive. When your analytical mind is knocked off-line, your cells remember what happens. Then, if it looks like that bad thing is going to happen again (restimulators), your cells take over and do what they think is necessary to avoid that bad thing again, often with tragic and hilarious results.

    >Show me some references where blacks and arabs are called wogs in Europe.

    To the dictionary!

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wog

    wog
    Function:
    noun
    Etymology:
    perhaps short for golliwog
    Date:
    circa 1929

    chiefly British usually disparaging : a dark-skinned foreigner

    I also ran across it in the recent French WWII historical film “Days of Glory”, used in reference to men of a north African foreign legion. Come on, “Wise Oriental Gentleman” must seem like a stretch even to you. My point was, a racist term is used to describe people who do not agree with you, which indicates a fundamental racist intent.

  204. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 11, 2008 8:15 am

    >Remember, according to Scientology, you are not a human being, you are a thetan who is operating the body of a human being.

    Oh, and Buddhism and Tao and Veda and the Vedic Hymns. In fact, it’s just been in the last 100 years or so until Wundt in 1879 decided there was no soul and that man was just an animal.
    This idea that man is an animal is the new concept. The fact that you are a Thetan (Greek for soul or spirit) has been known for 10000 years. Even early Christianity had this concept.

    >However, not all human beings have thetans.

    LOL Where did that idea come from?

    >The thetan is house of the “analytical mind”, which according to Dianetics, is infallible. A human being without a thetan only possesses a “reactive mind”; which according to Scientology is the source of all human problems.

    Wow. And this is in what book?

    >These people tend to more connected with the physical then the spiritual. It is suggested that these people tend to be petty, small minded, reactionary, concerned only with themselves and their immediate surroundings, short-sighted, etc.

    More rant, Tony?

    You just basically admitted that you never read Dianetics. You are a thetan who HAS a mind which is composed of mental images of all past experiences (some of which were received during moments of unconciousness – reactive mind – so not available to the conscious mind – analytical), and YOU use the MIND to operate in life, including moving the body around.

    >In that conversation, Hubbard is citing the example of talking to non-living objects

    Yes. Treating them like they are alive.

    >”as a sign that Negros in the deep south are not possessed of a thetan. To put it another way, they have no souls.”

    What? Where did he say that exactly?

    >To take another angle, he says they “personify MEST.”

    We all do. Haven’t you ever talked to your car? LOL

    I do, sometimes. “C’mon baby, you can make it”. :D

    >One of the goals of Scientology training is to control MEST. I don’t know how literally this should be taken in this case, but still, it’s indicative.

    Indicative of what? (That’s a Classic generality, BTW. Very Well Done!)

    >However, I think the best indication of Hubbard’s racism is Scientology’s use of the derogatory word “wog” to refer all non-Scientologists.

    How do you get from non-Scientologists to racism? Your logic leap escapes me at the moment.

    >I only learned the origin of this word recently. It’s an old racist term used in Europe to refer to Africans (including both blacks and Arabs).

    Show me some references where blacks and arabs are called wogs in Europe.

    What a twisty one you are, Tony. WOG stands for Worthy Oriental Gentleman. That’s LRH’s definition. It only means non-scientologist. LRH never used it in any other way. I have heard a few Scientologists use it derogatorily but that was unethical. It means that they either don’t know their basics or aren’t using them. The whole idea of ARC and the ARC Triangle is to raise affinity and reality and communication not lower it. I know I’ve personally pointed that out to the one’s I’ve heard use it that way, and so have others. It’s something that an apostate or anti-Scientologist would grab onto though to make it seem as though that is “Scientology”.

    Reference: Dictionary of Scientology and Dianetics terms.

    Pat

  205. @Comment by John on April 11, 2008 7:16 am
    >I wasn’t aware that you personally had answered those questions exactly as they are written. If I am mistaken let me know and I’ll go and find it.

    >This particular exercise relies on specific wording which is why I have asked something that I know has come up before.

    Exercise? LOL

    The Church has ORIGINATED several times that it created the video linked below. What’s the problem? There has never been a secret that it was done by us nor was there ever an attempt to hide it’s source.

    Pat

  206. @veritas

    The statement is derogatory, in a way, but it requires a lot of translation.

    Remember, according to Scientology, you are not a human being, you are a thetan who is operating the body of a human being.

    However, not all human beings have thetans. The thetan is house of the “analytical mind”, which according to Dianetics, is infallible. A human being without a thetan only possesses a “reactive mind”; which according to Scientology is the source of all human problems. These people tend to more connected with the physical then the spiritual. It is suggested that these people tend to be petty, small minded, reactionary, concerned only with themselves and their immediate surroundings, short-sighted, etc.

    In that conversation, Hubbard is citing the example of talking to non-living objects as a sign that Negros in the deep south are not possessed of a thetan. To put it another way, they have no souls.

    To take another angle, he says they “personify MEST.” One of the goals of Scientology training is to control MEST. I don’t know how literally this should be taken in this case, but still, it’s indicative.

    However, I think the best indication of Hubbard’s racism is Scientology’s use of the derogatory word “wog” to refer all non-Scientologists. I only learned the origin of this word recently. It’s an old racist term used in Europe to refer to Africans (including both blacks and Arabs).

  207. I wasn’t aware that you personally had answered those questions exactly as they are written. If I am mistaken let me know and I’ll go and find it.

    This particular exercise relies on specific wording which is why I have asked something that I know has come up before.

  208. @Comment by veritas on April 11, 2008 6:30 am
    >I’m confused-how many pats are there on here? lol

    Just one :)

    >Well to be honest pat I viewed it because someone sent it my way and said it was proof of hubbards discriminative nature. I concurred first viewing, then to be fair watched it again and right now I’m thinking this may be something torn from a point he was making to make him look bad perhaps?

    Even out of context, it’s a real stretch to imply that it’s derogatory.

    >All I know is I would like to listen/view the whole piece he was talking about to see for myself.

    I’ll track it down for you. It’s one of the lectures on the basics. I don’t recall exactly which one just now (There’s over 240 lectures on the Basics alone). I’ll get back to you in a few days with the reference.

    Pat

  209. @Comment by Libraesque on April 10, 2008 6:28 pm
    >Pat you’re not addressing MY QUESTION. (Louanne finally did though) I wasn’t asking about what scientology does for the world in general, and what I do volunteer wise as an individual ISNT the issue here, now is it?

    >My question was speciafically about the AIDS epidemic, and why scientology has never seen fit to sink their teeth into this huge problem IF IN FACT it’s goal is to help the world.

    >I’m specifically asking about AIDS because I am speciafically trying to get to the bottom of, and get a little truth, on Scientology’s views on AIDS and homosexuals. Understand?

    @Comment by Libraesque on April 10, 2008 5:50 pm
    >well, if thats the case, I have to ask again, if scientology is all about helping the world, and obviously AIDS is a worldwide problem, and a big one….WHY aren’t they involved in trying to help?

    Which of these questions did I not answer? You wanted to know what we’re doing to help. I told you. Scientology deals with spiritual aspect of life. Lu and I gave you the list of our social betterment programs. How about if we handle the causes behind that pandemic? You can help us do that too. Become a Volunteer Minister – you don’t even have to be a Scientologist.

    Pat

  210. @Comment by Libraesque on April 10, 2008 7:42 pm
    >yea, I’m not sure I get why you, louanne, don’t want to validate your claims of filing police reports, because by refusing something so simple it just makes it sound like a bunch of shit. I’m also pretty sure if some crazy person were shooting at a building there would have been media coverage of it, right?

    >And how would random people on a blog be able to interfere with an investigation of what you reported….?????

    Didn’t you just say that you work in the legal field? If that is true, then you would know that she can’t comment on on-going investigations.

    Does that mean something different when Scientologists say it?

    Pat

  211. I’m confused-how many pats are there on here? lol

    Well to be honest pat I viewed it because someone sent it my way and said it was proof of hubbards discriminative nature. I concurred first viewing, then to be fair watched it again and right now I’m thinking this may be something torn from a point he was making to make him look bad perhaps?
    All I know is I would like to listen/view the whole piece he was talking about to see for myself.

  212. @Comment by John on April 11, 2008 1:21 am

    Already covered in the threads.

    Pat

  213. @Comment by veritas on April 11, 2008 1:56 am

    >What do you think of this

    Hubbard on negroes

    It was a funny story about how some negroes in the south talk to objects. They did. I can think of quite a few movies where things like that were shown. White people do it to.

    Are you sharing it with us because you liked it?

    Pat

  214. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 11, 2008 4:47 am

    I know you don’t like my answers Tony but you’re getting one anyway. I went back to re-read what you wrote. You tried to re-enact an “engram” where the person already had a finger that hurt. What you tried to “restimulate” wasn’t the engram since he/she already had the hurt finger. The engram is what ever happened to the finger that cause the original pain (if the person had unconsciousness with it). You didn’t find the engram. That’s the flaw. And the reason it’s flawed is because you didn’t handle it Dianetically. You’re not gonna find it unless you know what COMMANDS were used at the time of the original engram and the ONLY way to do that is to ask the person who has it.

    Since you state you’ve read Dianetics and still thought what you did shows that you either didn’t understand what you read or didn’t really read it.

    Pat

  215. @Comment by Libraesque on April 10, 2008 8:08 pm
    >The media isn’t everywhere…..but thank god you were on all those occassions….camera/video in hand?????

    >I still think if someone was shooting at or into a scientology building there would have been massive police activity and media coverage….given that it’s a church, etc…and it sounds like you….what…called in a report?

    Yes, that’s what she said.

    I agree. Thank God she was there.

    Pat

  216. >I understand. Did you miss the part in Dianetics that you need the PCs agreement and cooperation first before auditing does any good? Two analytical minds against one reactive mind? Sounds familiar? What you are describing is very much off the mark. For example the subject’s mind could be busy with his last meal, or the next one, so intensely that no other thought, not even a restimulation, would occur. And so on.

    I do not think that you do understand. I’m not trying to audit my subjects, to clear engrams, or to use any tech at all. I’m trying my own basic-basic, which is to confirm the existence of engrams. This doesn’t really require cooperation, since I’m only trying to observe a supposably naturally occurring phenomenon. It shouldn’t really be any more difficult then a doctor using a rubber mallet to confirm a knee-jerk response. I’d like to think I could also observe if my subject is intensely preoccupied, and it’s hard to think that all my subjects had other reasons for not showing signs of my instilled engram.

    >Anyway, to be honest, I think you are making this up. Are you bored or something?

    Well, this is fair, since I think you’re also making things up; or at least, uncritically repeating falsehoods others have told you. I can tell you I spent less then ten minutes on this over the course of two days. Is was out of some sense of boredom, I suppose.

    >>I’ve seen multiple claims that the pinch test was faulty; the PC observed that they reacted by clenching their hands, which affected the needle.

    >Sure, clenching you hands, rubbing the cans on synthetic clothing etc all does affect the needle behavior. (snip)

    You can see why I’m a bit dubious about an instrument that’s not all that hard to fool.

    >>Is there an experiment I can run to verify an engram that doesn’t use an e-meter?

    >By-the-book auditing. Grab a Dianetics book, read and understand it. Grab a partner, have him/her read and understand it. Start a session, run an engram without deviating from the book’s instructions. It’s really simply, if you have the guts to do it.

    I’m dubious about this for a few reasons. One, I’ve had Scientologists tell me that messing around with this stuff can make you seriously ill if you don’t have the right training. I doubt it, but why risk it? Secondly, I’ve run previous mini-experiments with a Socratic technique (roughly similar to the Dianetic technique, since it relies on asking a series of questions) and was able to get nearly any answer from my subject that I cared to. I want to be sure that what I’m seeing is actually an engram by seeing if I can see it elsewhere, ya dig?

    >>Are there case files, lab reports, or scientific documentation on the 270 people mentioned in Dianetics that Hubbard did his original research on?

    >I don’t know. I heard that all the data from the original research location was secured. That location was in Hollywood/CA (LRH describes it in a congress), at La Brea/Hollywood, I think in 1948. Anyone in the Church, especially those who have that data, would not see any need to publish it. Remember, there is no doubt for a Scientologist that auditing works. Hence no need to “proof” or opening up for alterations.

    Scientology makes repeated claims that it is based on science. Now, when you say that Scientology has proof which noone is permitted to see but it does not hesitate to laud at every opportunity, you can see how others might become suspicious. Science is an open process. Think about it; if it was truly effective, the best thing Scientology could do to help the world is to open up its research and allow everyone to look at it.

  217. LOU-
    What do you think of this

    Hubbard on negroes

  218. I guess “democracy” is your point here. This refers to the same thing. There is no voting about truth, means: you can’t by majority vote change Scientology technology. No internal democracy when it comes to Scientology scriptures.

    But the quote isn’t specifically about Scientology or KSW. It is about “man” in general. In fact, his very next sentence is this:

    Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax.

    Certainly, none of those are related to KSW. Hubbard appears to be saying here that popularity, self-abnegation (defined by American Heritage as “[t]he setting aside of self-interest for the sake of others or for a belief or principle”), and democracy are bad things per se. As a Scientologist, do you agree with that sentiment or not, and more broadly, does Scientology teach you to agree with that sentiment?

  219. Wow, a lot has gone on since I last read up. Now, I apologise in advance but I’m about to set you up. My questions are based on your truth.

    As per Blue’s post regarding the Anonymous Exposed video;

    Was the Anonymous Exposed video produced by the Church of Scientology?

    Is the version of the Anonymous bomb threat video seen in Anonymous Exposed exactly the same as the version seen on YouTube?

  220. Louanne-
    “EA, sorry to say, but I have to catch a flight shortly. I’ll try to be around on the weekend.”

    Have a good flight, and don’t sweat it. There’s no rush with any of this stuff.

  221. The media isn’t everywhere…..but thank god you were on all those occassions….camera/video in hand?????
    I still think if someone was shooting at or into a scientology building there would have been massive police activity and media coverage….given that it’s a church, etc…and it sounds like you….what…called in a report?
    Sorry, I work in the legal field and it just sounds all kinds of fishy to me

    anyhoo…have a safe trip

  222. @Comment by nothernon on April 10, 2008 7:10 pm

    >Would it be easier to take my questions seriously if I didn’t associate myself with anon?

    It certainly would do you good to distance from a group of people who employ criminal means as a “protest”.

    Sorry also to you, my flight is in 3 hrs and I haven’t prepared anything. See you around on or after the weekend!

    – Louanne

  223. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 10, 2008 7:12 pm

    >“No, I have not even gotten one such story. It’s hypocrisy to say “we can’t give the name of the victim because Scientology would harass him” and then let than “anonymous” victim rant on over pages and pages with unverifiable claims.”
    >But that’s the thing. Generally, you -do- get names. Larry Wallersheim. Jenna Miscavige Hill. Kendra Wiseman. Astra Woodcraft. Michael Pattinson. And so on and so on.

    Those guys are critics, some of them live of it. And yes, that does mean something. It means that they ceased dialog (or not even tried it) and joined a crowd of harassing and ranting “critics” like Bunker or Tory whose sole activity is to invalidate Scientology and Scientologists. And that is an observed fact.

    >>“Sure. It means that keeping Scientology clean from “wild ideas” or “improvements” (which turn out to water down the effectiveness) is a point which could be attacked and said to be unpopular. KSW is all about and only about not changing the technology but doing it right.”
    >Okay. Could you address that -last- sentence: “And I don’t see that popular measures, self-abnegation, and democracy have done anything for man but push him further into the mud.”

    I guess “democracy” is your point here. This refers to the same thing. There is no voting about truth, means: you can’t by majority vote change Scientology technology. No internal democracy when it comes to Scientology scriptures.

    EA, sorry to say, but I have to catch a flight shortly. I’ll try to be around on the weekend.

    – Louanne

  224. Damnit can’t edit posts to add more:

    Indeed. Sorry about that.

    – Louanne

    No problem Lou.

  225. @Comment by Libraesque on April 10, 2008 7:42 pm

    >yea, I’m not sure I get why you, louanne, don’t want to validate your claims of filing police reports, because by refusing something so simple it just makes it sound like a bunch of shit. I’m also pretty sure if some crazy person were shooting at a building there would have been media coverage of it, right?

    Not unless someone calls the media. They are not everywhere.

    >And how would random people on a blog be able to interfere with an investigation of what you reported….?????

    I applaud the fact that you are not thinking that evil. Any clue of who the police has in focus gives the guy who did it a warning. I just promised not to give this out and that’s that. But here is what I said earlier:

    “I would post this video any time, just because I know very personally that Anonymous DOES death threats (I witnessed one and reported it to the police), DOES fire bullets at Scientology buildings (I photographed it and reported it to the police), DOES do harassment calls (I witnessed a couple of them) and I know that the anthrax packages to at least one location in Los Angeles had Anonymous material in them (I cared for one of the mail clerks who received the “joke” and almost lost her unborn child over it). Considering this I have not the slightest doubt that some sick-minded Anonymous created the Nitroglycerin bomb threat.”

    I am truly sorry that I can’t share more of my personal experiences at this point of time.

    – Louanne

  226. ^^^

    Granted, I’m not one of the scientologists but to be fair there are lots of shots fired in various cities all over North America that don’t get covered on the news.

    Also, I understand Lou’s point (but disagree with) about not wanting to release the Police report due to potentially the person seeing the police report and knowing that it had been filed. That point as I mentioned is kind of moot though considering that the CoS released videos and messages telling people that they’ve reported the crimes to the police which means any effect that could have been caused by showing the police reports has already probably happened due to the CoS releasing the anon-exposed video and whatever this other message is that Lou refers to. If they didn’t want suspects to know they were being investigated publishing videos on YouTube etc. probably wasn’t the best plan.

    That being said, now releasing the police reports for the crimes alleged in those messages can’t possibly do any further damage.

  227. kind of ironic that when I put in “shooting scientology building” into google to see if any news report came up, this did…….”On another occasion, Mr. Miscavige expressed fantasies about shooting Michael Flynn, an attorney who had claims against Scientology, with his rifle”

  228. @Comment by nothernon on April 10, 2008 7:18 pm

    >>“Maybe nothing, how should I know. He didn’t go very far to actually research but posts a Youtube link to some trash propaganda clip.”
    >I didn’t post any youtube link. Do you have me confused with someone else?

    Indeed. Sorry about that.

    – Louanne

  229. yea, I’m not sure I get why you, louanne, don’t want to validate your claims of filing police reports, because by refusing something so simple it just makes it sound like a bunch of shit. I’m also pretty sure if some crazy person were shooting at a building there would have been media coverage of it, right?

    And how would random people on a blog be able to interfere with an investigation of what you reported….?????

  230. @ Lou considering AE’s question was referencing me:

    “Maybe nothing, how should I know. He didn’t go very far to actually research but posts a Youtube link to some trash propaganda clip.”

    I didn’t post any youtube link. Do you have me confused with someone else?

  231. “No, I have not even gotten one such story. It’s hypocrisy to say “we can’t give the name of the victim because Scientology would harass him” and then let than “anonymous” victim rant on over pages and pages with unverifiable claims.”

    But that’s the thing. Generally, you -do- get names. Larry Wallersheim. Jenna Miscavige Hill. Kendra Wiseman. Astra Woodcraft. Michael Pattinson. And so on and so on.

    “Sure. It means that keeping Scientology clean from “wild ideas” or “improvements” (which turn out to water down the effectiveness) is a point which could be attacked and said to be unpopular. KSW is all about and only about not changing the technology but doing it right.”

    Okay. Could you address that -last- sentence: “And I don’t see that popular measures, self-abnegation, and democracy have done anything for man but push him further into the mud.”

  232. Back at Lou again.

    “And you sure don’t know of anybody who did, eh? So that Mr. Cop would come to interrogate you.”

    Nope. Don’t know anyone considering my amount of involvement mostly involves reading up on the subject. I haven’t attended any of the protests. I was actually opposed to the whole thing when the DDoS attacks took place. I’m not a /b/tard and never visit 4chan or any chan for that matter and I don’t interact with any other anon people. I basically keep my mouth shut about the whole subject and just read and observe. I’m a casual observer if you will. I have read various information, and asked questions but that’s extent of my involvement in any of the anon vs scientology fiasco. I do however side with anon on the subject, hence the name. Would it be easier to take my questions seriously if I didn’t associate myself with anon?

    “Well, the video is circulating for at least 6 weeks now (it shows two police reports with their location, good luck with those). The latest message to Anonymous, by the Church (reminds me I shall post it here) describes more details, all easy to verify with the closest police station. So how much did you try? ”

    I assume the video you’re referring to is the one at anonymous-exposed? I watched it just now and quite frankly it’s too blurry for me to make out any sort of detail. The death threat one as best I can tell was from San Francisco? It looked like the incident # was 083 073 134. Is that correct?

    The other one (the bomb threat one) all I could make out were the words “Police Report” and 150 (or 160) [something] dr. which doesn’t help me a whole lot.

    As for the most recent message I haven’t seen it. Please when you have a chance throw up a link. I’d be interested to see the information it has. As for how much did I try looking into the reports? Not at all. Like I said I don’t have enough information to go on. I can’t read the reports in anon-exposed, and being told “someone shot a gun at an org somewhere” doesn’t really help me since you guys claim to have somewhere between 450 and 7000 orgs.

    Without incident report #’s, cities/PD’s it’s impossible to track down any sort of information. Hopefully the new message you speak of contains some of that info.

    To Pat:

    “@Comment by nothernon on April 10, 2008 6:08 pm

    You know, I find this interesting that you just can’t wait for the investigations to come out. You have to whine about how unfair it all is.

    If you’re so worried about it go to the cops.”

    I’ve been nothing but polite and respectful to you guys here. I haven’t called anyone names, or made any disparaging comments to anyone. Your tone is greatly inappropriate and unneeded for a website that is designed to help people learn more about scientology, dispell myths and provide facts. Attacking the people asking questions by telling them they’re whining when they request facts (documents) to support a claim is the exact opposite of what you should be doing.

    Right now the “myth” if you will is that Scientology made all this up. I’m trying to help you dispell that myth by looking into the police reports. You should be working WITH me to prove that those claims are valid, not attacking me and calling me a whiner.

    For the record, police report doesn’t equal investigation. The police report, or incident report shows that a crime was committed. In no way could it help potential suspects destroy evidence because it doesn’t outline who the suspects are. Also, potential suspects KNOW they committed the crime so any evidence would be destroyed regardless of the police reports. In fact, the anon-exposed video would be more likely to result in destroyed evidence as the person seeing the video would go “oh shit, that was me. Better cover my ass”. Requesting the police reports 6 weeks after the video has been circulating isn’t going to do anything the initial video didn’t already do.

    As for my wanting to find out the results of the investigations, of course I do. If someone shot up and org that’s a dispicable act and they should be arrested for it. As for “If you’re so worried about it go to the cops”. Sure. Tell me which ones and I’ll call them.

  233. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 10, 2008 6:38 pm

    >>“Don’t make me part of your delusions, please.”
    >What delusions?

    What you just said. That you and me would know that I am wrong. That is your delusion. The TRUTH is that you and me know that YOU are wrong….

    >What does that have to do with the person who posted the original question?

    Maybe nothing, how should I know. He didn’t go very far to actually research but posts a Youtube link to some trash propaganda clip. My Arts teacher would cringe seeing that. They got better video equipment and the clip lost some color during the DVD burning (conversion to MPII or MP4 or whatever DVD files are). But no, no critical thought is even remotely conceived when it comes to trash the Church with BULLSHIT.

    >>“What would you prefer, my dear? Apathetic? Sweet? EA, let this be my choice. I think these Anonymous idiots are best helped with the online equivalent of a bucket of ice water over their head.”
    >Okay, actually, that’s fair. If nothing else, I can respect that you’re passionate about your beliefs and defending the church.

    Thanks.

    >This does not, however, mean that the BAD should be ignored.

    It does not get ignored. Open dialog and honest exchange of ideas, with a straight face, no mask and unemotional arguments, that is what is being ignored.

    >Including even the district where the police report was filed, since that would be publicly available?

    Come on, think about it. If you would want to interfere in police investigations, what would you do first? Find out where they are at. So I am trying not to give any clues in public.

    >You don’t accept those statements unless the individual has an actual photograph of David Miscavige, holding up a dated newspaper while carrying out fair game tactics and forcing children to do hard labor.

    No, I have not even gotten one such story. It’s hypocrisy to say “we can’t give the name of the victim because Scientology would harass him” and then let than “anonymous” victim rant on over pages and pages with unverifiable claims.

    Turn it around. Let’s say I say: “Here is a testimony of an Anonymous member. He cna’t give his name because Anonymous would try to harass him with death threats and might kill his pet. But these are the crimes of Anonymous.”

    Would you believe me?

    >Incidentally, a lot of those claims DO have evidence: to use one example – fair game (video evidence via xenutv and others, court records such as the Wallersheim case as late as the 1980s, -plus- signed affadivits from high-ranking ex-members).

    True, public “handling” of critics was done wrong and in a quite harassive. But there was nothing criminal about it and it has stopped years ago because it was recognized as wrong.

    > One more thing: Could you elaborate on this particular segment from KSW?
    “This point will, of course, be attacked as “unpopular,” “egotistical” and “undemocratic.” It very well may be. But it is also a survival point. And I don’t see that popular measures, self-abnegation, and democracy have done anything for man but push him further into the mud.”

    Sure. It means that keeping Scientology clean from “wild ideas” or “improvements” (which turn out to water down the effectiveness) is a point which could be attacked and said to be unpopular. KSW is all about and only about not changing the technology but doing it right.

    – Louanne

  234. If you were discriminated against louanne, how would you handle it? Would you make “noise”, would you stand up for yourself? And how would you identify yourself as being someone who is actually being discriminated against? How would you go about that? Maybe if it was something like who you want to be in love with, be in a relationship with, marry, have kids with and be able to be in the hospital room with them when they’re dying you might wave a fucking flag

  235. Just a brief bit of input:

    “Personally, I don’t understand the noise homosexuals create about them “being different”, rainbow flags, CSD and so on. They want to be treated like anyone else (i.e. not being discriminated) so why the “diversity” campaign then and all this noise about it? ”

    Because there are still gross social inequities to be addressed. Asking gay people to just “sit down and be quiet” is roughly equivalent to telling them to “suck it up and deal with it”. It’s an issue that needs to be in the public eye so it can be addressed sufficiently.

  236. @Comment by Libraesque on April 10, 2008 6:28 pm

    >I’m specifically asking about AIDS because I am speciafically trying to get to the bottom of, and get a little truth, on Scientology’s views on AIDS and homosexuals.

    AIDS is a lethal illness.

    Homosexuals are people.

    Scientology does not address bodies, being in “wrong” bodies (subjectively), having sick bodies etc etc. Scientology addresses the spirit and considers the individual being that spirit (called a thetan) inhabiting a body. A spirit has no sexual identity and might have been a man in the last life and a woman in the current one.

    Personally, I don’t understand the noise homosexuals create about them “being different”, rainbow flags, CSD and so on. They want to be treated like anyone else (i.e. not being discriminated) so why the “diversity” campaign then and all this noise about it?

    – Louanne

  237. Louanne-
    “Don’t make me part of your delusions, please.”

    What delusions? What crime is a cop going to come knock on my door to accuse me of? If (and this is a big -if-) we accept your claims of those crimes at face value, what does that have to do with -me-? What does that have to do with the person who posted the original question?

    “What would you prefer, my dear? Apathetic? Sweet? EA, let this be my choice. I think these Anonymous idiots are best helped with the online equivalent of a bucket of ice water over their head.”

    Okay, actually, that’s fair. If nothing else, I can respect that you’re passionate about your beliefs and defending the church.

    “Yeah, this is how Scientology is being treated. They do something good, no one believes it, they do something questionable: certainly this justifies World War III.”

    Actually, I -do- believe that the organization does some good. I believe that some people experience positive benefits. I believe that some of the charity-type endeavors probably do help people.

    This does not, however, mean that the BAD should be ignored.

    “That is your choice. But I won’t mess up police investigations or give out anything which could warn those crims and make them destroy evidence.”

    Including even the district where the police report was filed, since that would be publicly available?

    “Ideally. But most accusations against Scientology have not even a shred of evidence to it. So asking for at least a clearly non-emotional statement of fact should be ok, no?”

    That’s not what we’re talking about, though. You don’t accept those statements unless the individual has an actual photograph of David Miscavige, holding up a dated newspaper while carrying out fair game tactics and forcing children to do hard labor.

    Incidentally, a lot of those claims DO have evidence: to use one example – fair game (video evidence via XenuTV and others, court records such as the Wallersheim case as late as the 1980s, -plus- signed affadivits from high-ranking ex-members).

    One more thing: Could you elaborate on this particular segment from KSW?

    “This point will, of course, be attacked as “unpopular,” “egotistical” and “undemocratic.” It very well may be. But it is also a survival point. And I don’t see that popular measures, self-abnegation, and democracy have done anything for man but push him further into the mud.”

  238. more testimony

    Ms. Byasson informed Plaintiff that he could begin a scientifically proven cure for his illness of “perversion” if he paid for and took Dianetics and Scientology courses. Ms. Byasson further informed Plaintiff that the cure would work only if he provided her with a statement acknowledging his “illness,” and stated that Scientology was scientifically proven to be the only means by which Plaintiff could ever by cured of his illness.
    71. At the end of his first Scientology course, Plaintiff was informed by a Scientology staff person that he could partake of the scientifically proven cure for his “illness” only by paying for in advance and taking a second course. Plaintiff had difficulty doing the course “Student Hat” as it had nothing to do with his “ruin.” In order to prevent Plaintiff from ceasing the course, the Scientology staff person would remind Plaintiff of his “illness” of perversion, and would again tell Plaintiff that the sole means by which he could be cured was through continued study of the science of Dianetics, as applied by the Scientology enterprise.

    So, once again I have to ask…..what are scientologys views on homosexuality???

  239. this is SWORN TESTIMONY that scientology views homosexuality as an illness that can be cured

    The book explains that the “science” of Dianetics can be used by a Dianetics practitioner, who is referred to as an “auditor,” to cure the “patient” (also referred to as a “pre-clear”) of certain illnesses, including “perversion,” which Dianetics defines as including, inter alia, “homosexuality, lesbianism . . .” The illness of perversion, and Dianetics’ approach to curing it, are said by the author, LRH, to be “a scientific fact.” The book read by Plaintiff and entitled Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health, A Handbook of Dianetic Therapy was published by the Hubbard College of Scientology.

  240. Smear???? This is from SWORN TESTIMONY. You must know who Michael Pattinson is.

    http://www.antisectes.net/pattinson99.htm

    His testimony is very intersting

  241. Pat you’re not addressing MY QUESTION. (Louanne finally did though) I wasn’t asking about what scientology does for the world in general, and what I do volunteer wise as an individual ISNT the issue here, now is it?

    My question was speciafically about the AIDS epidemic, and why scientology has never seen fit to sink their teeth into this huge problem IF IN FACT it’s goal is to help the world.

    I’m specifically asking about AIDS because I am speciafically trying to get to the bottom of, and get a little truth, on Scientology’s views on AIDS and homosexuals. Understand?

  242. A little announcement: I will be traveling for a couple of days, starting today. Certainly I have my laptop, but won’t have much time to check in. Send urgent communications to my email, scientologymyths@yahoo.com

    Have a nice weekend, too!

    – Louanne

  243. @Comment by Libraesque on April 10, 2008 5:53 pm
    “I mean….thats not a conviction of the offense but it’s TESTIMONY of the offense of kidnapping.”

    Did the cops take it and investigate it? Or is it another such smear statements which leave a bad taste but have not enough details to verify and start investigations on?

    – Louanne

  244. @Comment by Pat on April 10, 2008 6:14 pm

    >I guess you’ve been too busy reading the anti-scientology sites to see what >Scientology is actually doing for the world. What have YOU done to help?

    whatisscientology.org
    scientology.org
    volunteerministers.org
    drugfreeworld.org
    scientologyhandbook.org
    dianetics.org

    >Did I miss any key ones, Lu?

    twth.org
    youthforhumanrights.org

    come to mind. Ah, and:

    cchr.org
    scientologyreligion.org
    scientologytoday.org

    – Louanne

  245. @Comment by nothernon on April 10, 2008 6:08 pm

    You know, I find this interesting that you just can’t wait for the investigations to come out. You have to whine about how unfair it all is.

    If you’re so worried about it go to the cops.

    Pat

  246. @Comment by nothernon on April 10, 2008 6:08 pm

    >>>Can we see copies of the police reports please?
    >>No. You can see the cop knocking at your door.
    >I asked politely, there’s no need to be rude. There is no reason a cop would knock at my door as I’ve done nothing wrong.

    And you sure don’t know of anybody who did, eh? So that Mr. Cop would come to interrogate you.

    >Police reports are public information and as such the public can request to see a copy >from the police station. All I’m trying to do is verify the incidents you describe. If the >incidents occured and they were reported to the police I would like to see the police >reports backing that up.

    Well, the video is circulating for at least 6 weeks now (it shows two police reports with their location, good luck with those). The latest message to Anonymous, by the Church (reminds me I shall post it here) describes more details, all easy to verify with the closest police station. So how much did you try?

    >Can you please supply the police reports (or information as to where it can be obtained) to back up your claims that those reports were filed with the police?

    I won’t change what I said earlier, promised is promised. And I don’t mind if you don’t accept my reasons.

    – Louanne

  247. @Comment by Libraesque on April 10, 2008 5:14 pm
    >WOW, so you’re just at the right place at the right time, all those times??? Impressive. So Luanne, can you maybe answer my question….DOES SCIENTOLOGY TEACH ITS MEMBERS THAT AIDS IS A STATE OF MIND??????

    >Also, if they do think it’s a state of mind, and that they have an alternative way to cure AIDS, why aren’t they involved in a global mission to help? I mean isn’t that their big thing…they want to help the world????

    I guess you’ve been too busy reading the anti-scientology sites to see what Scientology is actually doing for the world. What have YOU done to help?

    http://www.whatisscientology.org
    scientology.org
    volunteerministers.org
    drugfreeworld.org
    scientologyhandbook.org
    dianetics.org

    Did I miss any key ones, Lu?

    Pat

  248. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 10, 2008 6:00 pm

    >Louanne- Geez, why so hostile?

    These morons calling themselves “Anonymous” (yes, I know that they are not the real ones) seem to have a real thorough need to be woken up.

    >You seem so…combative all the time. I would honestly expect someone who was pursuing a “path to total enlightenment” to be more…I dunno. Calm? In control?

    What would you prefer, my dear? Apathetic? Sweet? EA, let this be my choice. I think these Anonymous idiots are best helped with the online equivalent of a bucket of ice water over their head.

    >“No. You can see the cop knocking at your door.”
    >Nice try, but again, we both know that’s total garbage.

    Don’t make me part of your delusions, please.

    >This is sort of interesting, though: When “Anonymous” does something, then there’s no need for proof or evidence;

    Yeah, this is how Scientology is being treated. They do something good, no one believes it, they do something questionable: certainly this justifies World War III.

    >your word on it is sufficient

    That is your choice. But I won’t mess up police investigations or give out anything which could warn those crims and make them destroy evidence.

    >Yet when Scientology is accused of something, the accuser has to practically have a notarized letter from a Supreme Court justice verifying their claims before they’re taken seriously.

    Ideally. But most accusations against Scientology have not even a shred of evidence to it. So asking for at least a clearly non-emotional statement of fact should be ok, no?

    – Louanne

  249. @ Louanne

    >Can we see copies of the police reports please?

    No. You can see the cop knocking at your door.

    I asked politely, there’s no need to be rude. There is no reason a cop would knock at my door as I’ve done nothing wrong. In fact all I did was ask a question.

    Police reports are public information and as such the public can request to see a copy from the police station. All I’m trying to do is verify the incidents you describe. If the incidents occured and they were reported to the police I would like to see the police reports backing that up.

    Anonymous people (at least the polite ones) have reversed their statements here if they could not produce evidence to support their statements. All I am asking is for you to either please supply the police reports or supply me the city/police station where the report was filed so that we can verify your claim.

    So I will repeat the question politely. Can you please supply the police reports (or information as to where it can be obtained) to back up your claims that those reports were filed with the police?

  250. Pat-
    “Do you think that commonly acceptable drug and surgery methods of today are the only solution? What about the state of mind? Psychosomatic illness? Have you researched it?”

    Oh, no, I -absolutely- believe that mental and emotional state play a significant role in healing. I don’t deny that for a second.

    Setting aside the specific example of Jenna Elfman, though, I’m more interested in the idea that one’s “personal truth” can be at odds with verifiable fact. It’s possible that I’m misunderstanding, but it seems like “What’s true for you is true for you” is a philosophy that breaks down in certain contexts. If it’s -intended- to be limited largely to the philosophical or theological, then of course, there’s no problem.

  251. Louanne- Geez, why so hostile? You seem so…combative all the time. I would honestly expect someone who was pursuing a “path to total enlightenment” to be more…I dunno. Calm? In control?

    As for this:
    “No. You can see the cop knocking at your door.”
    Nice try, but again, we both know that’s total garbage. It’s a nice scare tactic, but there’s absolutely nothing behind it. Or maybe you can explain how your guilty by association fallacy has any legal weight.

    This is sort of interesting, though: When “Anonymous” does something, then there’s no need for proof or evidence; your word on it is sufficient, and you refuse to show the evidence because….”it’s part of an ongoing investigation”, I guess?

    Yet when Scientology is accused of something, the accuser has to practically have a notarized letter from a Supreme Court justice verifying their claims before they’re taken seriously. A touch of hypocrisy, perhaps?

    (As an aside, I’ve been reading KSW to put some of this conversation into context. It -does- make the pattern of this conversation make a lot more sense, even if some of what the policy letter contains is fairly disturbing.)

  252. @Comment by Libraesque on April 10, 2008 5:50 pm

    > well, if thats the case, I have to ask again, if scientology is all about helping the world, and obviously AIDS is a worldwide problem, and a big one….WHY aren’t they involved in trying to help?

    I don’t know if they are not but you might be right that there is no Church of Scientology directly involved in helping AIDS victims. There is a Scientology-supported organization though called Youth for Human Rights which does AIDS education and there are about 80,000 Scientologists with Volunteer Minister training (“VMs”) who do nothing but help people in all areas of life, including if they suffer from AIDS. Some VM groups are also helping on fund raising for AIDS foundations as part or AIDS awareness days (online I found some actions in India and South Africa) and and article in Freedom (http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol33I1/drug-addiction.htm).

    – Louanne

  253. Also, didn’t Michael Pattinson testify that a woman who was kind of high up tried to escape from Gold Base and they tracked her down, John Travolta offered the use of one of his planes and they went and retrieved her from New York and brought her back to Gold Base and no one has seen her since?????
    I mean….thats not a conviction of the offense but it’s TESTIMONY of the offense of kidnapping

  254. well, if thats the case, I have to ask again, if scientology is all about helping the world, and obviously AIDS is a worldwide problem, and a big one….WHY aren’t they involved in trying to help?

  255. @Comment by Thetans on April 10, 2008 5:11 am

    >So, I was reading your section on “kidnapping,” and I couldn’t help but notice that you >only mention cases in the US. Members of the Church of Scientology HAVE been >convicted for kidnapping in other countries around the world, and there is a woman in >France who will be pressing kidnapping charges in the next few weeks.

    You got an answer on that by Pat, but I want to give you this in upper case:

    NO CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IN THE WORLD WAS EVER CONVICTED FOR KIDNAPPING.

    The OCMB is known as a source of lies and half-truths about Scientology. That’s kinda obvious if you take the purpose of that site. I am sorry that you got duped but no Church of Scientology in the world was ever convicted for kidnapping.

    – Louanne

  256. @Comment by Libraesque on April 10, 2008 5:14 pm

    > WOW, so you’re just at the right place at the right time, all those times??? Impressive. So Luanne, can you maybe answer my question….DOES SCIENTOLOGY TEACH ITS MEMBERS THAT AIDS IS A STATE OF MIND??????

    No, there is no such teaching. AIDS is not a “state of mind”. AIDS is an illness. Scientology would teach that your state of mind either attracts or repels injuries and illnesses. In other words AIDS might be one of those lethal illnesses you catch more likely when being “down” or on a “bad trip”. And Scientology would teach that you can support the cure of illnesses and injuries by improving your state of mind. I don’t know any case of AIDS where this has been tried. But Scientology is not about healing bodies. Scientology is about healing spirits and if this positively effects the body: great! But it is not the purpose. Got it?

    – Louanne

  257. @Comment by nothernon on April 10, 2008 5:22 pm

    >Can we see copies of the police reports please?

    No. You can see the cop knocking at your door.

    >Or tell us which city/police station you filed them at and anon members will use the FIOA to obtain them.

    I think you don’t know how FOIA works. Otherwise, see above.

    – Louanne

  258. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 9, 2008 4:38 am

    >To clarify, I was waiting for an engram to form naturally and then working to verify it.
    In a situation where a person is “unconscious” (tired or upset) and in some kind of pain, I would add a stimulus by saying “Twinkie House” or another nonsense phrase. Later, when they were in the same environment and not in pain, I would reintroduce my stimulus by repeating the phrase and then observing for any sign of unconsciousness or pain. I wasn’t able to observe any. In this context I was the “auditor”; obviously I’ve already failed observing engrams in myself.

    I understand. Did you miss the part in Dianetics that you need the PCs agreement and cooperation first before auditing does any good? Two analytical minds against one reactive mind? Sounds familiar? What you are describing is very much off the mark. For example the subject’s mind could be busy with his last meal, or the next one, so intensely that no other thought, not even a restimulation, would occur. And so on. Anyway, to be honest, I think you are making this up. Are you bored or something?

    >I’ve seen multiple claims that the pinch test was faulty; the PC observed that they reacted by clenching their hands, which affected the needle.

    Sure, clenching you hands, rubbing the cans on synthetic clothing etc all does affect the needle behavior. And now what? Keep your hands calm, don’t shuffle your feet, sit relaxed in a chair, remember the time you got pinched and I assure you, that needle will move. That you can mess up the reading with physical motions and electrostatic discharges is known since the first e-meter went in operation about 50 years ago. It just means that either a) the auditor can’t “see” anything because your actual reads are obscured by you doing nonsense with the cans or b) the untrained auditor misreads your fumbling as a mental reaction. In either case you will not be helped or get worse, and if this is what you wanted, you won. If not, stop fiddling around.

    >Is there an experiment I can run to verify an engram that doesn’t use an e-meter?

    By-the-book auditing. Grab a Dianetics book, read and understand it. Grab a partner, have him/her read and understand it. Start a session, run an engram without deviating from the book’s instructions. It’s really simply, if you have the guts to do it.

    >Are there case files, lab reports, or scientific documentation on the 270 people mentioned in Dianetics that Hubbard did his original research on?

    I don’t know. I heard that all the data from the original research location was secured. That location was in Hollywood/CA (LRH describes it in a congress), at La Brea/Hollywood, I think in 1948. Anyone in the Church, especially those who have that data, would not see any need to publish it. Remember, there is no doubt for a Scientologist that auditing works. Hence no need to “proof” or opening up for alterations.

    – Louanne

  259. @ Louanne

    From above “DOES death threats (I witnessed one and reported it to the police), DOES fire bullets at Scientology buildings (I photographed it and reported it to the police”

    Can we see copies of the police reports please? Or tell us which city/police station you filed them at and anon members will use the FIOA to obtain them. Thank you.

  260. WOW, so you’re just at the right place at the right time, all those times??? Impressive. So Luanne, can you maybe answer my question….DOES SCIENTOLOGY TEACH ITS MEMBERS THAT AIDS IS A STATE OF MIND??????

    Also, if they do think it’s a state of mind, and that they have an alternative way to cure AIDS, why aren’t they involved in a global mission to help? I mean isn’t that their big thing…they want to help the world????

  261. @Comment by Blue on April 10, 2008 5:17 am

    >I have to say I’m very disappointed by your section on Anonymous. In particular, that video you’ve posted has already been proven to not be from Anonymous origin.

    So, is it? Blue, you understanding of “proven” makes me puke. I would post this video any time, just because I know very personally that Anonymous DOES death threats (I witnessed one and reported it to the police), DOES fire bullets at Scientology buildings (I photographed it and reported it to the police), DOES do harassment calls (I witnessed a couple of them) and I know that the anthrax packages to at least one location in Los Angeles had Anonymous material in them (I cared for one of the mail clerks who received the “joke” and almost lost her unborn child over it). Considering this I have not the slightest doubt that some sick-minded Anonymous created the Nitroglycerin bomb threat.

    You are protecting a bunch of effing criminals, Blue.

    – Louanne

  262. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 9, 2008 4:03 am

    >To me, based on the “Personal Integrity” title … Also, that statement implies to me a level of acceptance that seems…contradictory, I guess? To explain better, the unspoken corollary to that statement seems to be, “What’s true for you is true for you, and if it’s not the same as what’s true for me, that’s okay.” Is that incorrect? If not, what about when those truths are in conflict?

    Then we have something to talk about. There will always be two realities, your own personal one and the one somebody else. Sometimes they match, sometimes they don’t. Where they match: agreement, where they don’t match: disagreement. I hope this is not too simple for you.

    – Louanne

  263. !!!!!!!!!
    I think these people would disagree strongly with the un-informed, irresponsible claims of Jenna that AIDS is a state of mind.

    People living with HIV/AIDS in 2007 33.2 million 30.6-36.1 million
    Adults living with HIV/AIDS in 2007 30.8 million 28.2-33.6 million
    Women living with HIV/AIDS in 2007 15.4 million 13.9-16.6 million
    Children living with HIV/AIDS in 2007 2.5 million 2.2-2.6 million
    People newly infected with HIV in 2007 2.5 million 1.8-4.1 million
    Adults newly infected with HIV in 2007 2.1 million 1.4-3.6 million
    Children newly infected with HIV in 2007 0.42 million 0.35-0.54 million
    AIDS deaths in 2007 2.1 million 1.9-2.4 million
    Adult AIDS deaths in 2007 1.7 million 1.6-2.1 million
    Child AIDS deaths in 2007 0.33 million 0.31-0.38 million

    More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981.

    Africa has 12 million AIDS orphans.

    At the end of 2007, women accounted for 50% of all adults living with HIV worldwide, and for 61% in sub-Saharan Africa.

    Young people (under 25 years old) account for half of all new HIV infections worldwide.

    In developing and transitional countries, 7.1 million people are in immediate need of life-saving AIDS drugs; of these, only 2.015 million (28%) are receiving the drugs.

    And I just have to ask….how do you account for all the people who died of it before anyone really knew what it was…..how are you infected with something, and die of it if you don’t know what you have…how can there be a “state of mind” about it???

    ALSO, you NEVER answered my original question……DOES SCIENTOLOGY TEACH ITS MEMBERS THAT AIDS IS A STATE OF MIND??????

  264. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 10, 2008 8:34 am

    >I’m not saying that we should reject any assertion that challenges the established view automatically. However, the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. If I said, “You know, space is not actually a vacuum, but it is instead similar to the Victorian idea of the luminiferous ether,” or “The planet is, in fact, flat, and things like the satellite photos and altitude distortions are simply holographic projections left in place to set our astrophysics programs back 200 years,” and then failed to provide any PROOF, I would be ridiculed, and rightfully so.

    I understand your confusion since you keep trying to put all healing into physical rememdies.
    What Jenna said was “state of mind”.

    Do you think that commonly acceptable drug and surgery methods of today are the only solution? What about the state of mind? Psychosomatic illness? Have you researched it?

    Using Science, how many blind studies showed people got better on placebos because in their mind they were getting a cure? How could that be if not a state of mind?

    Pat

  265. Pat-

    It’s not a matter of “having a degree”. It’s a matter of having verifiable, repeatable evidence. Having a degree does not automatically make one qualified to dictate “the way things are”. One has to establish a body of evidence, show correlation, and (if possible) verify your data through repeated trials. This has been done with disease theory (for instance) and one can -see- a virus when viewed through a microscope. One can see the virus attach itself to a t-cell and reproduce inside of it. Moreover, given repeated tests, one can see this happen repeatedly, under controlled conditions.

    I’m not saying that we should reject any assertion that challenges the established view automatically. However, the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. If I said, “You know, space is not actually a vacuum, but it is instead similar to the Victorian idea of the luminiferous ether,” or “The planet is, in fact, flat, and things like the satellite photos and altitude distortions are simply holographic projections left in place to set our astrophysics programs back 200 years,” and then failed to provide any PROOF, I would be ridiculed, and rightfully so.

    This is where the problem with “what you know” comes in. A gut feeling is not enough. Anecdotal evidence is not enough. If you’re talking philosophy or theology, that’s one thing. When you’re talking about science and the physical world, the rules change.

    If Jenna said, “Falling is a state of mind” because she genuinely believed that to be true, and her statement convinced several individuals to jump off of a building, should she not be held partially responsible if they hit the ground?

  266. @Comment by Thetans on April 10, 2008 5:21 am

    >http://www.rue89.com/2008/03/18/scientologie-les-dessous-de-laffaire-martine-boublil

    >The article in French. Sorry, I don’t know where a good translation is.

    Yes, I’ve seen it. Dated 3-18-08. Not exactly current news. The so-called “kidnappers” were released with no charges filed. I guess xenu forgot about that part.

    Pat

  267. @Comment by Blue on April 10, 2008 5:17 am

    Do you have a question, Blue?

    Pat

  268. @Comment by Thetan on April 10, 2008 5:11 am

    Correction:

    Members of the Church of Scientology were convicted of kidnapping? Where was that? When was that?

    Pat

  269. @ Pat

    http://www.rue89.com/2008/03/18/scientologie-les-dessous-de-laffaire-martine-boublil

    The article in French. Sorry, I don’t know where a good translation is.

  270. I have to say I’m very disappointed by your section on Anonymous. In particular, that video you’ve posted has already been proven to not be from Anonymous origin. An excellent version of the comparison is here on youtube:

    I’ll sum it up for those readers who don’t have the time or ability to watch the video right now: CoS somehow had the original copy of the “bomb threat” video, and used the high quality, uncompressed footage in their slanderous DVD “Anonymous: Hate Crimes.” Since they told the authorities that they only received the threat over youtube in its compressed form, they’re definitely lying about something.

  271. @Comment by Thetans on April 10, 2008 5:11 am

    I’ve seen the French press. Nothing there about the woman pressing charges.

    The Church of Scientology was convicted of kidnapping? Where was that? When was that?

    Pat

  272. So, I was reading your section on “kidnapping,” and I couldn’t help but notice that you only mention cases in the US. Members of the Church of Scientology HAVE been convicted for kidnapping in other countries around the world, and there is a woman in France who will be pressing kidnapping charges in the next few weeks:
    http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=25909&postorder=asc

    Yes, I know the site is traditionally critical of Scientology, but they’re pulling quotes from the French press, not justing opinion.

  273. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 9, 2008 9:00 pm

    That’s where the difference lies. It’s not real to you that someone could have knowledge about something without having some kind of degree. Let’s get down to the nitty-gritty of it. You’re, as you say, a product of your liberal arts education. (That’s not intended as an insult, just an introductory statement that follows)

    Consider this:

    Who trained the first doctor? Where did HIS knowledge come from?

    If it’s possible that Scientlologists can recall past lives who’s to say we haven’t brought our past experiences forward to our new bodies? Based on that, isn’t it possible that Jenna knows an alternative? (I don’t know where her knowledge comes from but I’m totally open to the fact she may know from what she speaketh.) Again, if that were true, about the past lives, who might not want that generally known?

    Pat

  274. Pat-
    To clarify, I wasn’t talking specifically about Jenna in that hypothetical. I was instead trying to demonstrate that the “What’s true for you is true for you” philosophy, while fine for abstract or philosophical issues, can break down when exposed to matters of concrete, tangible reality. In the above example, the gun would fire despite the child’s “truth” that it would not do so. This is why we have things like the scientific method, which relies on repeatable, verifiable data instead of anecdotal information.

    To your question about Jenna, no, I don’t know what she’s seen or experienced. I do know that she’s not a doctor, has not attended medical school, and has no medical or clinical qualifications to speak of, and thus her assertions about medical issues (arguing -against- the established medical evidence) should be taken with extreme skepticism.

    Is it -possible- that she’s right? Well, I guess. Virtually anything is possible. However, I think it’s -irresponsible- of her to make statements like that without some solid evidence to back it up. She’s…well, speaking in generalities.

    When it comes down to it, it isn’t a matter of differing viewpoints. I don’t have any problem with people who feel differently than me on a huge range of subjects. What I do object to is when unqualified individuals give potentially harmful advice based on unproven or anecdotal information. If even one AIDS patient, upon hearing her statement, decided to forego medical treatment in favor of whatever spiritual methods she was suggesting, then she would be at least partially complicit in that person’s death.

    Again, I use the Jenna example only because she made an assertion that is, in some ways, provably contradicted by established medical data. I’m not really interested in her, specifically; I’m more interested in what happens when one’s personal “truth”, based on one’s own observations, is at odds with…well, physical reality.

  275. @Comment by Libraesque on April 9, 2008 6:17 pm
    >I find Jennas comment completely insulting…….and I want to know does she think AIDS is a “state of mind” because that’s what scientology teaches her???? Because if it does, thats totally wrong

    I don’t get how you could find it insulting. What if she does know that there may be something that could help? That’s an insult?

    Pat

  276. I find Jennas comment completely insulting…….and I want to know does she think AIDS is a “state of mind” because that’s what scientology teaches her???? Because if it does, thats totally wrong

  277. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 9, 2008 5:04 am
    >Pat-
    >Okay, that seems reasonable. The reason I brought it up is that, taken to an extreme, that statement could be…well, kind of insane.

    >One, it’s important to recognize, I think, that anecdotal evidence is no substitute for solid proof, and furthermore, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”. To give a far-fetched (but illustrative!) hypothetical:

    *Anecdotal snipped*

    >Does that make any sense?

    I understand your inference that Jenna could only have a narrow perspective, but I have to say again that you can’t assume that she is uninformed. Maybe she has another perception that you don’t. She has a reason for that viewpoint. You don’t have to agree with her. We’re a part of a whole planet of different viewpointed individuals. You’re going to get diversity. Is that a reason to insult, just because that’s not your viewpoint?

    Pat

  278. Pat-
    Okay, that seems reasonable. The reason I brought it up is that, taken to an extreme, that statement could be…well, kind of insane.

    One, it’s important to recognize, I think, that anecdotal evidence is no substitute for solid proof, and furthermore, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”. To give a far-fetched (but illustrative!) hypothetical:

    You put a child who has no concept of “gun” into a room. Over the course of several weeks, you bring the child various guns, all of them empty of any ammunition.

    The child will observe that a “gun” is an object that, when you pull the trigger, makes a “clicking” noise and nothing else. The child would have no reason to attach any more significance to this object called a “gun”, and so its lethal potential would not be part of that child’s reality.

    Then, say you bring in a gun that -is- loaded. Again, to the child, this is just another object that makes a clicking noise. That does not change the -objective- reality that if the child points the gun at someone and pulls the trigger, that person will be hurt or killed.

    You might argue that this hypothetical is invalid, since the child’s ability to receive data about what a “gun” is has been limited. However, that’s true of any subject for any of us, albeit on a larger scale. Our ability to perceive and understand is necessarily limited by our own perceptions, and on some level, we’re no more able to see the “big picture” than that kid in the room is. That does not mean, however, that there is no objective reality behind all of that, and that if we accidentally pull that trigger, there won’t be unforseen (to us) consequences.

    Does that make any sense?

  279. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 9, 2008 4:03 am
    >Okay, sure. (Though I should admit, I come from a liberal arts education; it’s in my -nature- to overcomplicate things)

    >To me, based on the “Personal Integrity” title, I take it to mean that one should actively observe and form conclusions based on all of the evidence, rather than simply taking “common knowledge” or “accepted wisdom” as a given. One should be willing to stick by one’s most deeply-held convictions, even if those convictions may be unpopular or dismissed by the majority. One should not let others dictate one’s own reality.

    >That much, I can gladly agree with.

    Cool :) That’s my understanding as well. Having all the data (whether you agree with it or not) is important. Too many people depend on others to give them their facts and never question past that. It’s vitally important that you try to see the other side if understanding others is ever to be reached. Observing for yourself is the key. Doesn’t mean you have to agree with it but at least you can see where the other is coming from and can let that be. For them and you.

    >What I’m interested in his how far this philosophy is taken. Is it largely philosophical, or does it apply to other areas as well (medicine, the physical world, “objective” reality, and so on). I say this, again, partly because of the Jenna Elfman thing; even if she had “observed” AIDS to be a certain way, there is empirical evidence, gathered via the scientific method, to indicate otherwise. How much weight should that expert evidence have, placed against her own limited observations?

    How do you know what her observations were? Not even I know that.

    >Also, that statement implies to me a level of acceptance that seems…contradictory, I guess? To explain better, the unspoken corollary to that statement seems to be, “What’s true for you is true for you, and if it’s not the same as what’s true for me, that’s okay.”

    She obviously had a reason for believing that to be true. I offered one possibility but I’m only guessing.

    >Is that incorrect? If not, what about when those truths are in conflict?

    It only means that there are different truths, for different people. Nothing more than that. LRH actually has a Study Technique (from the Lecture Study and Education) for something like this. When something is unbelievable, first clear up the nomenclature and if that doesn’t help then ask “How could it be that way?” and alternately “How could it not be that way?” Eventually you’ll end up at least understanding why someone else may think that way, even if in the end it doesn’t work for you. At least in my experience.

    That’s where tolerance comes in. You may not agree with someone about something but you can let them have their own reality. Sometimes added data can change that belief but it doesn’t mean it’s ok to bash someone for beliefs (on either side).

    Pat

  280. Louanne;

    A pleasure talking with you again. Pat is rather evasive when it comes to answering direct questions.

    To clarify, I was waiting for an engram to form naturally and then working to verify it. In a situation where a person is “unconscious” (tired or upset) and in some kind of pain, I would add a stimulus by saying “Twinkie House” or another nonsense phrase. Later, when they were in the same environment and not in pain, I would reintroduce my stimulus by repeating the phrase and then observing for any sign of unconsciousness or pain. I wasn’t able to observe any. In this context I was the “auditor”; obviously I’ve already failed observing engrams in myself.

    I’ve seen multiple claims that the pinch test was faulty; the PC observed that they reacted by clenching their hands, which affected the needle. I did the same thing to verify when I was in my stress test (not an auditing session, sorry for being imprecise). Of course, my control over my skin reactions meant that I didn’t rely on that mechanical trick to move the needle thereafter.

    Thus, my questions are:

    Is there an experiment I can run to verify an engram that doesn’t use an e-meter?

    and one I’ve asked earlier in other forums:

    Are there case files, lab reports, or scientific documentation on the 270 people mentioned in Dianetics that Hubbard did his original research on?

  281. Okay, sure. (Though I should admit, I come from a liberal arts education; it’s in my -nature- to overcomplicate things)

    To me, based on the “Personal Integrity” title, I take it to mean that one should actively observe and form conclusions based on all of the evidence, rather than simply taking “common knowledge” or “accepted wisdom” as a given. One should be willing to stick by one’s most deeply-held convictions, even if those convictions may be unpopular or dismissed by the majority. One should not let others dictate one’s own reality.

    That much, I can gladly agree with.

    What I’m interested in his how far this philosophy is taken. Is it largely philosophical, or does it apply to other areas as well (medicine, the physical world, “objective” reality, and so on). I say this, again, partly because of the Jenna Elfman thing; even if she had “observed” AIDS to be a certain way, there is empirical evidence, gathered via the scientific method, to indicate otherwise. How much weight should that expert evidence have, placed against her own limited observations?

    Also, that statement implies to me a level of acceptance that seems…contradictory, I guess? To explain better, the unspoken corollary to that statement seems to be, “What’s true for you is true for you, and if it’s not the same as what’s true for me, that’s okay.”

    Is that incorrect? If not, what about when those truths are in conflict?

  282. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 9, 2008 3:28 am
    >Pat-
    >Okay, but how far does that philosophy extend? Earlier, the Jenna Elfman example came up regarding the whole AIDS thing, and you said that if she’d observed that AIDS was largely a state of mind, then it must be true for her.

    >Does this, then, reject any idea of an objective reality? Is it all a sort of…relativistic thing?

    >I guess what I’m getting at is: Is that statement basically just a call to people to observe and investigate things for themselves, rather than relying on second-hand information or “common” knowledge, OR is it -actually- saying that one’s reality is entirely subjective?

    I think you’re overcomplicating this a bit. The best way to explain that is to swing it back to you. What part of that was true for you? What did it mean to you? C’mon, take a stand. :P

    Pat

  283. Pat-
    Okay, but how far does that philosophy extend? Earlier, the Jenna Elfman example came up regarding the whole AIDS thing, and you said that if she’d observed that AIDS was largely a state of mind, then it must be true for her.

    Does this, then, reject any idea of an objective reality? Is it all a sort of…relativistic thing?
    I guess what I’m getting at is: Is that statement basically just a call to people to observe and investigate things for themselves, rather than relying on second-hand information or “common” knowledge, OR
    is it -actually- saying that one’s reality is entirely subjective?

  284. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 9, 2008 2:47 am
    >Hey Pat!
    >>“All I know is that in later works he no longer refers to him as a friend. I don’t know of anyone else that has never changed alliances for whatever reason. Do you?”

    >Sure, I don’t dispute that. There are two issues with that, though:

    What Lu said. I actually had misunderstood who you were talking about, since Lu was answering you. That’s what I get for jumping into her communication.

    >While I’m finishing this thing, though, could -you- perhaps expand on the “What’s true for you is true for you” statement? On the surface, I admit, it seems like kind of a meaningless statement, but I’d appreciate further insight into its meaning and application.

    Well, that’s something I can actually help you with. :)

    That’s from an LRH article called “Personal Integrity”
    http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/eng/wis3_4.htm

    Pat

  285. Hey Pat!
    “All I know is that in later works he no longer refers to him as a friend. I don’t know of anyone else that has never changed alliances for whatever reason. Do you?”

    Sure, I don’t dispute that. There are two issues with that, though:

    1. If he changed his opinion of Crowley -after- he made the recorded statement, that’s fine, but it doesn’t change the fact the statement conflicts with the story of him “infiltrating” the OTO lodge to destroy it, which occurred BEFORE that statement was made (Hubbard and Parsons parted ways in 1947, and that statement was made in the early 1950s.)

    2. This is less of an issue and more of a “personal take”: To me, Hubbard’s attempts to later distance himself from Crowley seem to parallel Scientology’s evolution from “psychiatry alternative”/”philosophy” to “religion”. Based on the similarities I have observed (which I will post soon, I promise; I’m just in a bit of a crunch trying to get this one portfolio piece done), it appears as if the efforts to distance himself from Crowley have less to do with any -disagreement- with Crowley and more to do with a desire to present Scientology as an entity that is distinct from Thelema and the OTO, rather than a descendant of it. Of course, I suspect you’ll disagree, but I just thought I’d toss that out there as a possibility.

    While I’m finishing this thing, though, could -you- perhaps expand on the “What’s true for you is true for you” statement? On the surface, I admit, it seems like kind of a meaningless statement, but I’d appreciate further insight into its meaning and application.

  286. Veritas’ quote appears to come from a 1990 LA Times article. Full text here:

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/la90/la90-1b.html

    The “they,” in this case, seems to be Operating Thetan level III. So his question becomes: does OT III cost 6000 dollars? (And if not, how much does it cost?)

  287. @Comment by veritas on April 9, 2008 12:52 am
    >Just saw the hubbard on alister quote, I wonder why he would say they were friends unless he was still under orders from navy intel to keep his cover?hmm.

    All I know is that in later works he no longer refers to him as a friend. I don’t know of anyone else that has never changed alliances for whatever reason. Do you?

    >*MAY BE OT3 INFO-Warning*

    Isn’t.

    >Heres a bit saying
    Hubbard said that when a person dies, his or her thetan goes to a “landing station” on Venus, where it is programmed with lies about its past life and its next life. The lies include a promise that it will be returned to Earth by being lovingly shunted into the body of a newborn baby.

    Not exactly an accurate quote since LRH would never say “his thetan”. You don’t have a thetan, you are one.

    That is talking about between lives implants. Those are discussed in the Scientology Basics as well.

    >Hubbard, who described the thetan’s re-entry this way:

    >“What actually happens to you, you’re simply capsuled and dumped in the gulf of lower California. Splash. The hell with ya. And you’re on your own, man. If you can get out of that, and through that, and wander around through the cities and find some girl who looks like she is going to get married or have a baby or something like that, you’re all set. And if you can find the maternity ward to a hospital or something, you’re OK.

    >“And you just eventually just pick up a baby.”

    >But Hubbard offered his followers an easy way to outwit the implant: Scientologists should simply select a location other than Venus to go “when they kick the bucket.”

    LOL. A good suggestion :)

    >And do they cost $6,000?

    What is they?

    Pat

  288. Just saw the hubbard on alister quote, I wonder why he would say they were friends unless he was still under orders from navy intel to keep his cover?hmm.

    Another question if you can answer
    *MAY BE OT3 INFO-Warning*
    Heres a bit saying
    Hubbard said that when a person dies, his or her thetan goes to a “landing station” on Venus, where it is programmed with lies about its past life and its next life. The lies include a promise that it will be returned to Earth by being lovingly shunted into the body of a newborn baby.

    Hubbard, who described the thetan’s re-entry this way:

    “What actually happens to you, you’re simply capsuled and dumped in the gulf of lower California. Splash. The hell with ya. And you’re on your own, man. If you can get out of that, and through that, and wander around through the cities and find some girl who looks like she is going to get married or have a baby or something like that, you’re all set. And if you can find the maternity ward to a hospital or something, you’re OK.

    “And you just eventually just pick up a baby.”

    But Hubbard offered his followers an easy way to outwit the implant: Scientologists should simply select a location other than Venus to go “when they kick the bucket.”
    And do they cost $6,000?

  289. That may have meant something if E-Meters registered only galvanic skin reactions.

    How could it measure anything else? The e-meter has one and only one metric: the needle. And if that needle measures galvanic skin response (GSR), then that’s all it can measure. One value equals one parameter. The promise of New Era Dianetics is that mental stress can influence GSR, not that it can be measured independently of GSR. It’s the same principle as a polygraph and it’s nothing to be ashamed of.

    Unless someone here is OT VIII we can’t help you with that.

    You’ve been a Scientologist for over 36 years and you still haven’t reached the top of the published Bridge? Do you need me to loan you a few bucks so you can afford the last levels?

    Scientology would not allow such “experimentation” (realize you hurt someone intentionally when creating an engram).

    To put it more bluntly, Scientology won’t allow the very existence of engrams to be verified scientifically. If auditing can remove the engram, then there should be no problem creating one for experimental purposes, as long as it isn’t something particularly traumatic that would cause the subject to go crazy or die in the meantime, and as long as the subject signs the proper waivers.

  290. “Now what? L. Ron Hubbard saying “my very good friend” (and “mad old boy” in a later lecture) about Crowley does prove what? EA, you please learn that smearing around assumptions is neither truth nor does it help anyone. ”

    I don’t know. Do we take Hubbard at his word, there? From -my- perspective, it indicates a level of fondness for Crowley that contradicts the “adversarial” relationship indicated by your story. I have a hard time believing Hubbard would refer to someone whose organization he had infiltrated with the goal of dismantling it as “my very good friend”.

    “I am still waiting for the synopsis.”

    Well, sorry to keep you waiting. I -am- trying to actually work on some portfolio materials while I do this, sadly. Even those of us who aren’t Scientologists have to occasionally be productive, lest we become “downstat”.

    However, this does tie in to some of the stuff I’ll be posting, as soon as I’m done compiling it: Could you elaborate on the idea of “What’s true for you, is true for you?” Could you explain that idea in a bit more detail? That might come in handy in some of the upcoming comparisons.

  291. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 8, 2008 10:45 pm

    >No, actually, I point to that clip for a specific quote:
    “…and that’s work written by Aleister Crowley, the late Aleister Crowley, my very good friend. ”

    Now what? L. Ron Hubbard saying “my very good friend” (and “mad old boy” in a later lecture) about Crowley does prove what? EA, you please learn that smearing around assumptions is neither truth nor does it help anyone.

    And may I remind you that this story started off with you stating rather than asking the following:

    “>How do you reconcile, then, the glaring similarities between Hubbard’s own philosophy and that of esoteric “secret societies” like Crowley’s with the claims on this site that Hubbard was sent to “break up” Jack Parsons’ “satanic” group?”

    I am still waiting for the synopsis.

    – Louanne

  292. Also:
    “But lets back up for a moment! If any of Crowley’s stuff would be part of Scientology today, why can’t you then just name a part of Scientology scripture and another of Crowley scripture so they can be compared to each other?”

    See above:
    “(and other evidence, which I’ll list in the next post)”

    Of course, my next post ended up being about your misinterpretation of the point I was -actually- making, so that turned out not to be true. However, give me a little while to summarize, and I’ll be glad to oblige you.

  293. “Thanks. Undated and generalized as usual, and what again did you want to prove with this? Similarities in Scientology and Crowleys ideas? Ok, I am going to do this for you now.”

    No, actually, I point to that clip for a specific quote:
    “…and that’s work written by Aleister Crowley, the late Aleister Crowley, my very good friend. ”

    Nice try on invalidating the rest of the argument by skewing the context, though. Like I said, I’ll provide the -actual- parallels once I’ve summarized them up neatly for you. No, the only purpose I had in posting this clip was the aforementioned quote, which (at the very least) seems to cast some doubt on the portrayal of Hubbard as some sort of “righteous crusader” who infiltrated Parsons’ group for the sake of “disbanding a Satanic cult”.

    We both know that take on the story is ridiculous revisionist history. Make no mistake: I don’t actually have anything -against- Crowley and the OTO, any more than I necessarily have anything against other schools of esoteric or mystical philosophy. I’m not using this as some sort of “Gotcha”, trying to prove that Scientology is a “satanic cult”, since I already pretty much said that the Crowley/Satan thing is largely a misunderstanding. I just want to clear up the (to me) baffling insistence that the CoS has on rewriting this particular bit of history.

  294. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 8, 2008 10:11 pm

    “First, before we even get to the parallels, I’d like to question your assertion that Hubbard was “infiltrating” Parsons’ OTO lodge. In particular, I would point you to this excerpt from a Hubbard lecture, several years -after- Crowley’s death:

    Thanks. Undated and generalized as usual, and what again did you want to prove with this? Similarities in Scientology and Crowleys ideas? Ok, I am going to do this for you now.

    You picked out a truly reliable and scientific source for your statement: YouTube!

    Your Youtube clip soundtrack is a 71 seconds long section out of a lecture series recorded in December 1952, titled the Philadelphia Doctorate Course (a total of 76 lectures over about a month, some 100 hours of talk).

    The part you listen to is directly preceded by a discussion about “magic cults of the eigth, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth century in the Middle East” and the mentioning of Crowley fits into that, as an example for a magic cult. Certainly this contextual information is being withheld from you, otherwise the whole rah-rah about Hubbard and Crowley would fall apart, right? This lecture series, the “PDC”, is part of the Basics of Scientology, i.e. to be studied by every Scientologist as part of his way through Scientology. So that people spreading out-of-context information with the intent invalidate Scientology or its founder L. Ron Hubbard look as foolish as they deserve.

    Now, how about Parsons and Hubbard (Crowley never met Hubbard, as you know, and Crowley did not trust Hubbard either)? The most concise story about that is in the Sunday Times (UK) article of 1969. Do I need to pull it out or do you know already?

    But lets back up for a moment! If any of Crowley’s stuff would be part of Scientology today, why can’t you then just name a part of Scientology scripture and another of Crowley scripture so they can be compared to each other?

    -Louanne

  295. @veritas

    Done. Article scanned in, fumbled into a PDF and now stored here:

    https://scientologymyths.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/lrh-rockymountainnews1983.pdf

    Hope it helps.

    – Louanne

  296. Louanne-
    “Great rhetoric, no content. Show Crowley and Hubbard in a synopsis, one claim by the next and I will be happy to answer. This “question” however is presuming that there are “similarities” without pointing to at least one example. That makes it hard to even understand what you are saying.”

    Oh, you’re always such a ray of sunshine, even when I go out of my way to be polite.
    Firstly, I should point out that it only “makes it hard to even understand what (I’m) saying” if you, yourself, are genuinely unaware of any of the parallels. I find this…unlikely.

    But what the heck: Let’s look into this deeper, shall we?

    First, before we even get to the parallels, I’d like to question your assertion that Hubbard was “infiltrating” Parsons’ OTO lodge. In particular, I would point you to this excerpt from a Hubbard lecture, several years -after- Crowley’s death:

    You’ll understand if I’m having some trouble reconciling that quote (and other evidence, which I’ll list in the next post) with your assertions that Hubbard had nothing to do with Crowley save his “infiltration” effort. Could you, perhaps, clarify?

  297. @Comment by veritas on April 8, 2008 8:23 pm

    >I’m trying to find an article where hubbard answered written question for the rocky mountain news, it was titled ‘founder of scientology speaks out’ have had no luck finding it completely, hopefully someone knows.

    I happen to have this article. Let me fire up my scanner….

    – Louanne

  298. @ whoever

    I’m trying to find an article where hubbard answered written question for the rocky mountain news, it was titled ‘founder of scientology speaks out’ have had no luck finding it completely, hopefully someone knows.

  299. I am working this threat backwards, so sorry if I miss one or the other statement.

    @Comment by Tony Meman on April 8, 2008 1:22 am
    >The next step is to verify the existence of engram. By re-stimulating the engram, I should be able to get the subject to experience the somatic again.

    So I understand this right: you are auditor and PC in one person here?

    – Louanne

  300. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 8, 2008 2:18 am

    >Uh… I /did/ know the circumstances. I was there. Controlling the circumstances was part of the experiment. I used the same environment. I said the words. I wasn’t able to get an engram to resurface with any combination of restimulators that I could reproduce. Was my experiment flawed?

    Obviously, because you violated the absolute basic basic basic purpose of such action: The subject (PC) is the one to recall the incident, not the auditor.

    – Louanne

  301. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 8, 2008 4:09 am

    >How do you reconcile, then, the glaring similarities between Hubbard’s own philosophy and that of esoteric “secret societies” like Crowley’s with the claims on this site that Hubbard was sent to “break up” Jack Parsons’ “satanic” group?

    Great rhetoric, no content. Show Crowley and Hubbard in a synopsis, one claim by the next and I will be happy to answer. This “question” however is presuming that there are “similarities” without pointing to at least one example. That makes it hard to even understand what you are saying.

    – Louanne

  302. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 8, 2008 1:53 pm

    >Can you suggest an experiment that would show me an engram without me questioning the subject?

    Scientology would not allow such “experimentation” (realize you hurt someone intentionally when creating an engram). If you try to make someone recall the moment of pain/unconsciousness you will have to ask for it. There is no way of not giving a command to recall if it is supposed to work. Gosh, Tony, please read a little bit original material so you know what this is about. A demonstration of recalling pain is part of the auditor training and also of emeter demonstrations in any Church or Mission. It’s called a “pinch test” and it exists since 50 years or longer. The subject gets pinched and then asked to recall the moment of the pinch. The emeter will show the exact moment of this recall.

    – Louanne

  303. @Comment by Pat on April 8, 2008 5:10 pm
    @@Comment by Tony Meman on April 8, 2008 4:12 pm
    >>Pat:
    ?>I actually have taken the free stress test at a Scientology Org. I had already learned to control my galvanic skin reactions (got bored one day), so I was able to make the needle dance after about five minutes of toying with it. I demonstrated my control to the person running the test; they got very flustered and ended the session prematurely.

    >That may have meant something if E-Meters registered only galvanic skin reactions. Anyone can make the needle jump around. Piece of cake. We even have drills to teach us what they look like, compared to actual mental stress. My guess is that the person doing the test on you hadn’t done the drill.
    Pat

    Tony, I think you are leaving out some parts here to make yourself look better. Was it a “test” or a “session” ongoing. Do you actually know the difference?

    – Louanne

  304. @Comment by GroveGnome on April 8, 2008 3:45 pm

    “OTI-VIII were recently published on wikileaks.”

    Wrong. There are no such materials “leaked”.

    ” Lawyers representing the RTC have sent cease and desist orders.”

    Asking to cease and desist what? Come on, be specific.

    “The OT’s include LRH’s own handwritten manuscripts.”

    Half-truth (one page out of hundreds of fake pages).

    “And these are supposedly alerted, even the ones hubbard wrote?”

    Altered you mean. Yes they are, simply because someone has “rewritten” them “from memory”. You obviously did not even look at them. It says it right on the documents.
    And who can say if the “handwritten” page is real? Especially as the rest of the pages are forgeries I would not give much credit to a “handwritten” page. In 2008 handwriting is not a proof for authenticity anymore.

    “If they aren’t real, wouldn’t they be considered satire or parody”

    How much parody is in a forged 100 Dollar bill? None. It was printed to delude people into thinking they got the real thing while they don’t. Same here.

    “and if they are not real, why would they be copyrighted?”

    Get a clue about copyright and the protection of marks. The terms “OT” and other such terms are protection for the reason that no one should be able to falsely claim that this and that is “scientology”, “OT material” or “dianetics” etc. Copyright is a protection against forgery and misleading people, like you.

    – Louanne

  305. If I may because so much is on OT III here and about Xenu. I tried to answer it up above quite a few post back but I will attempt to try and explain again.
    1. I am not OT III but before you dismiss this post please read on.
    2. I cannot confirm nor deny what is and is not as for OT III BUT here is what I can confirm.

    OT 1 – the unreleased are all auditing levels, they are for auditing and nothing else. They do not establish beliefs. All beliefs and tenets are established in the “Basics” books this is why DM wanted all editing/publishing errors fixed. It becomes essential that the foundation of beliefs be easy to understand and error free.

    Moving on, NOTHING is SECRET as to hide one from information in that to establish further beliefs; moreover, in that context it should properly be stated that much is UNKNOWN if that makes sense.
    >So what do I mean by this, well auditing is not the same per person, each auditing session is uniquely different from any other. Therefore Scientology cannot tell you what is in those levels because for “You” it has not been established or it does not exist because “You” have not taken that auditing level.
    >So what is kept secret? Quite simply the data given in the auditing session which for crude words “stimulates” or tries to expose further problems, issues, self-questions what have you.
    That said if I am conducting an experiment as to human behavior and tell the test volunteers what I am going to do ahead of time would in essence destroy the results of the test if what I am after is the behavior with out predetermination.
    So what I will safely say is that even if Xenu were to exist, see my post further up as I do not want to re-write it out, it is considered data as to create a result as with TRs that have in the exercise to say “all chairs are purple.”
    Can one not agree with the premise that if I were to tell a Scientologist every bit of data as to which is designed to help them in auditing that it would create a predetermined response and thus not be true to the Scientologist. The auditing session would thus be invalid.
    Many arguments are that of “Scientologists believe in aliens” as in context of the COS belief structure. I will not play games with words. I know what many critics are after in that to establish COS dogma as stating belief as such. The COS dogma is in the Basics and no such established statement exists there.
    As for auditing consider data to be again crude word use “stimuli” not belief.

    I made a parallel to auditing or the practice of keeping data secret so that when learned it is learned correctly as to Gemara study then to kabbalah.

  306. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 8, 2008 4:12 pm
    >Pat:

    >I actually have taken the free stress test at a Scientology Org. I had already learned to control my galvanic skin reactions (got bored one day), so I was able to make the needle dance after about five minutes of toying with it. I demonstrated my control to the person running the test; they got very flustered and ended the session prematurely.

    That may have meant something if E-Meters registered only galvanic skin reactions. Anyone can make the needle jump around. Piece of cake. We even have drills to teach us what they look like, compared to actual mental stress. My guess is that the person doing the test on you hadn’t done the drill.

    Pat

  307. @Comment by GroveGnome on April 8, 2008 3:45 pm

    Unless someone here is OT VIII we can’t help you with that.

    Pat

  308. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 8, 2008 4:12 pm
    >Pat:

    >I think you’re misunderstanding some of the basic tenets of science here. When Kepler and Newton made observations on the nature of gravity, what was true for them was true for everyone.

    >I actually have taken the free stress test at a Scientology Org. I had already learned to control my galvanic skin reactions (got bored one day), so I was able to make the needle dance after about five minutes of toying with it. I demonstrated my control to the person running the test; they got very flustered and ended the session prematurely.

    >>You should be able to tell if you’re making it up or not.

    >Surprisingly, no. Many things that people deeply believe are, in fact, invented. Humans possess no mechanism to distinguish between invented memories and real ones.

    >Note that there have been extremely rare cases of people with perfectly accurate memories, as promised by Dianetics. (They were not Scientologists.)

    >Anyway, this is more advanced then what I want. I don’t want to explore an engram or clear an engram. I just want to demonstrate that engrams exist by creating one and then recalling it. Real basic falling-apple type science. I want to use another person so that I don’t influence the results with my skepticism. I do not want to use a procedure that I know can produce a false result. I just want something very basic.

    Can’t help you there. I already have what works for me.

    Pat

  309. Pat:

    I think you’re misunderstanding some of the basic tenets of science here. When Kepler and Newton made observations on the nature of gravity, what was true for them was true for everyone.

    I actually have taken the free stress test at a Scientology Org. I had already learned to control my galvanic skin reactions (got bored one day), so I was able to make the needle dance after about five minutes of toying with it. I demonstrated my control to the person running the test; they got very flustered and ended the session prematurely.

    >>You should be able to tell if you’re making it up or not.

    Surprisingly, no. Many things that people deeply believe are, in fact, invented. Humans possess no mechanism to distinguish between invented memories and real ones.

    Note that there have been extremely rare cases of people with perfectly accurate memories, as promised by Dianetics. (They were not Scientologists.)

    Anyway, this is more advanced then what I want. I don’t want to explore an engram or clear an engram. I just want to demonstrate that engrams exist by creating one and then recalling it. Real basic falling-apple type science. I want to use another person so that I don’t influence the results with my skepticism. I do not want to use a procedure that I know can produce a false result. I just want something very basic.

  310. supposedly alerted=supposedly altered. sorry.

  311. OTI-VIII were recently published on wikileaks. Lawyers representing the RTC have sent cease and desist orders. The OT’s include LRH’s own handwritten manuscripts. And these are supposedly alerted, even the ones hubbard wrote? If they aren’t real, wouldn’t they be considered satire or parody, and if they are not real, why would they be copyrighted?

  312. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 8, 2008 1:53 pm
    >Pat:

    >What I was referring to is the tendency of humans to invent memories to suit questions. I suspect something similar is going on in an auditing session when people speak about past lives. There are plenty of instances of people making verifiably false reports when subjected to questioning.

    >With this knowledge, I want to verify the engram theory is correct and not an instance of memory-creation. Therefore, I’m trying to set up a scenario where I can witness an engram without influencing my subject with questioning. See my line of thought here?

    >Can you suggest an experiment that would show me an engram without me questioning the subject?

    Yes, what is true for you is what you have personally observed to be true. You won’t ever know unless you experience it for yourself. Even if you were to audit someone exactly per the Dianetics technique, you’re still going to be sceptical. Go to any Church of Scientology and ask for Introductory auditing for yourself. At least give it a chance. There’s another way to do it, too. Get a copy of Self Analysis and do the recalls from that. You should be able to tell if you’re making it up or not.

    Pat

  313. Pat:

    What I was referring to is the tendency of humans to invent memories to suit questions. I suspect something similar is going on in an auditing session when people speak about past lives. There are plenty of instances of people making verifiably false reports when subjected to questioning.

    With this knowledge, I want to verify the engram theory is correct and not an instance of memory-creation. Therefore, I’m trying to set up a scenario where I can witness an engram without influencing my subject with questioning. See my line of thought here?

    Can you suggest an experiment that would show me an engram without me questioning the subject?

  314. I return!
    I’ll have more stuff soon, but I did want to respond to one point:

    “You can scream and cry foul and claim we have secrets. (So do other religions – so what?)”

    Well, not generally, no. Or, that is to say, if they DO have secrets, they’re frequently in the form of apocrypha. Granted, there are a relatively small number of “esoteric religions” that have things like levels of initiation, though it’s interesting to note that the vast majority of those (at least, in Western civilization) are linked with the occult tradition of people like Blavatsky (theosophy), the Rosicrucians, various hermetic orders and studies like those of John Dee, and perhaps most famously, the Ordo Templi Orientis of Crowley. There are also a few smaller Eastern sects that deal in things like hidden texts and the like, but that’s largely limited to monastic orders.

    In fact, much of Hubbard’s philosophy is echoed in Crowley’s own writings. It’s worth noting, in Hubbard’s defense, that the conception of Crowley and the OTO as a “satanic” cult is something of a misconception, at least in the “killing kittens and listening to bad 80s thrash metal” sense that most people think of it.

    How do you reconcile, then, the glaring similarities between Hubbard’s own philosophy and that of esoteric “secret societies” like Crowley’s with the claims on this site that Hubbard was sent to “break up” Jack Parsons’ “satanic” group?

  315. OK. Let me get this straight. You tried to “restimulate” an engram by showing a video of a car crash?

    And you fail at reading comprehension too. Remind me again why you took offense at being called a thundering moron?

  316. Obviously, time and time again you have shown that you only want to use it for your own propaganda, and have been unable to have a dialog without tossing insults at those trying to answer you.

    Correction: without tossing insults at you.

    The other Scientologists on here appear to be decent people. I may disagree with what they say, but I can tell that they genuinely believe it. Brad, Louanne, Carrie: they’ve experienced the wins, they believe in the tech, they’re concerned for the Church(TM).

    You, on the other hand, strike me as clueless and/or deceptive. You sound like a press secretary, like a person who has been given a list of talking points and told not to deviate from that list. You have demonstrated a complete inability to understand anything not on that list, and you have made it impossible for me to respect you as a Scientologist or as a person. That is what it means to be a fundie.

    I think that this is the best neutral site I can find on this. It’s true in my experience as well.

    And by “neutral,” you mean run by the Church(TM).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Consultants_on_Religious_Tolerance#Scientology_connection

    There’s another door open if someone were to try handling it through Dianetics in case [AIDS] is psychosomatic.

    You know, even the HIV deniers don’t go this far. I can only assume that a basic understanding of medical pathology, of the sort that can be gleaned from spending a week outside Flag, wasn’t included with your talking points.

    What work were you trying to do with it, exactly?

    You take the word “work” too literally, so I gather that English isn’t your first language. The only work he’s trying to accomplish is to understand Scientology beliefs and practices, including their stance on out-tech, suppression, and the Super Top Secret Operating Thetan documents.

    Not lying. Honest. It isn’t about aliens at all. That’s the honest to God truth.

    So Xenu and friends were human? “Spacemen,” I guess the correct term would be.

  317. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 8, 2008 2:18 am

    OK. Let me get this straight. You tried to “restimulate” an engram by showing a video of a car crash?

    Did you think they would have an engram just like that in their own reactive mind?

    I’m concerned that you missed something in the book if you think this is how it’s done.

    You don’t need an e-meter to audit Book 1 (the procedure from Dianetics). You can read it and do it.

    Pat

  318. Uh… I /did/ know the circumstances. I was there. Controlling the circumstances was part of the experiment. I used the same environment. I said the words. I wasn’t able to get an engram to resurface with any combination of restimulators that I could reproduce. Was my experiment flawed?

    I have read Dianetics. I’m too cheap to shell out for an e-meter and too lazy to build one, so I can’t quite audit as per spec. However, I do have a natural gift for hearing deception from tone of voice. Using that as a substitute, I have done something similar to auditing before. It’s surprisingly easy to use questions to get someone to say or reason something that’s completely wrong.

    Classic example:

    Two groups of people were shown a video of a mild traffic accident. One was asked to describe what happened when the cars “collided”, and the other asked to describe what happened when the cars “smashed together”. More then half of the “smashed” group reported broken glass, when in fact no glass was broken in the video.

    Humans seem to have a natural mechanism for filling in memories that didn’t actually happen.

  319. @Comment by John on April 8, 2008 1:55 am
    I’m sorry Pat. I wasn’t trying to get further information out of you regarding OT III.

    Not lying. Honest. It isn’t about aliens at all. That’s the honest to God truth. The ex-scientologist was very much NOT your friend by talking to you about this. If he’s confirming aliens then he’s got problems.

    Pat

  320. @Comment by Tony Meman on April 8, 2008 1:22 am

    Pat here, Tony. Louanne can answer too, but I found this interesting.

    >I’ve been running an experiment in my spare time to try to verify engram theory. I regularly work in a situation where people are bored and develop finger pain. I’ve been saying random phrases at random moments under the guise of jokes. (Twinkie house!) All the components of an engram are there: unconciousness, somatic, and verbal component. So I’ve made myself an engram. Granted, it’s a fairly weak one, but I something.

    >The next step is to verify the existence of engram. By re-stimulating the engram, I should be able to get the subject to experience the somatic again. I say the random thing again; no pian. I say the random thing in the same place where the somatic was experienced; no pain. I’ve tried using extremely twisty logic to see if they’re somehow taking what I say in some kind of super-literal sense; noone’s trying to eat the walls yet.

    >What am I doing wrong? Is there a better way that I can use to verify engram theory for myself?

    Have you read Dianetics? You’re trying to restimulate an engram when you don’t know the circumstances surrounding it. Like sounds, machines, words used etc.

    If you actually want to see one in action then actually audit someone per the Dianetics book :)

    You’ll get alot of scientific (heuristic and empirical) knowledge from that.

    >Before you get on me, I’m not causing anyone pain or using any tech on them, so I’m with in both scientific and Scientology ethics.

    Not doing that. Why not try the existing technique and see how that goes, before trying something new?

    Pat

  321. I’m sorry Pat. I wasn’t trying to get further information out of you regarding OT III.

    What I was pointing out is that I have heard the OT III story from an ex-scientologist, as well as it being posted various places on the internet. The data seems to legit, and I was merely trying to confirm from as reputable source as possible that this is the case.

    Your reply is that it’s copyright so I’m not telling you, that’s fine. But you’re also saying that you won’t confirm whether or not the data is legit. I said I won’t question you further on this topic (I didn’t intend that last post to be a question on OT III), at this stage however, given the evidence available I have to assume that the OT III data is correct.

    If this is the case then I must also assume that aliens are a core belief of scientology due to the nature of body thetans. The beliefs of scientologists are not at question here but I must then assume that when scientologists tell me that they don’t believe in aliens as a core part of their religion they are lying.

  322. @Comment by Libraesque on April 8, 2008 12:09 am

    >Pat, what happened is my brother paid about 350.00, called me, told me he wanted to borrow money so he could keep going to get to the Travolta “class” I said forget it. He quit. Granted, he only wanted to do it so he could be in the same room with Travolta……but so did every single other gay circuit boy who paid thousands to take courses, etc….because he spoke at the gay meetings or whatever……it sounded like a crock to me….to sucker people in under false pretenses….show me someone who has ACTUALLY been “cleared” of their gayness and I’ll eat my computer. It’s just like those religious “retreats” to try to cure young people , etc of being gay….they’re like kids in a candy store at those things, it’s all about fucking not being cured of anything.

    So, you’re asking me to confirm what appears to be 3rd hand data. Who did he pay the $350.00 to? Did you read the link I gave you?

    Pat

  323. Nice to see you again, Louanne!

    I’ve been running an experiment in my spare time to try to verify engram theory. I regularly work in a situation where people are bored and develop finger pain. I’ve been saying random phrases at random moments under the guise of jokes. (Twinkie house!) All the components of an engram are there: unconciousness, somatic, and verbal component. So I’ve made myself an engram. Granted, it’s a fairly weak one, but I something.

    The next step is to verify the existence of engram. By re-stimulating the engram, I should be able to get the subject to experience the somatic again. I say the random thing again; no pian. I say the random thing in the same place where the somatic was experienced; no pain. I’ve tried using extremely twisty logic to see if they’re somehow taking what I say in some kind of super-literal sense; noone’s trying to eat the walls yet.

    What am I doing wrong? Is there a better way that I can use to verify engram theory for myself?

    Before you get on me, I’m not causing anyone pain or using any tech on them, so I’m with in both scientific and Scientology ethics.

  324. @Comment by John on April 8, 2008 1:00 am

    Oops. I almost missed this one
    >”but person B (Pat) doesn’t give me much to work with”

    What work were you trying to do with it, exactly?

    Pat

  325. @Comment by John on April 8, 2008 1:00 am
    > Thanks for that admission. I never will say yay or nay on it. I have explained that to you. If you trust it so much, have fun with it.

    And here in lies the problem. Person A says something, and person B says ‘I won’t say yes or no’. It’s not that I inherently believe person A over person B, but person B doesn’t give me much to work with.

    I had already answered that the best it can be answered. You’re not going to get more from a legit OT III. I meant what I said. So quit asking. OT III is confidential to those lower on the grade chart. If you can’t accept that, it’s too bad, John. That’s life. You can scream and cry foul and claim we have secrets. (So do other religions – so what?) If you’re trying to find out so you can go somewhere else with it, you won’t get it from me. It doesn’t matter whether or not what’s up is real or not, or if it harms or not, or any other BS because it’s COPYRIGHTED, it’s confidential and that’s all there is to it. I see this as a covert attempt to get a Scientologist to divulge confidential data. It was tried in the courts too and didn’t work.

    Pat

  326. @Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 11:53 pm
    >He went there? He went WHERE? And what photographer? I’ve never seen a single photo of the incident….what are you talking about?

    You didn’t like my answer that this “incident” was so minor that I’d never heard of it before.

    Going by what Lu said, it was a setup complete with photographer to catch the reaction to the t-shirt. Then he runs and complains about it. Don’t you find that sick? Jenna and Danny are great humanitarians.

    Pat

  327. Tone it down(or up?) Libraesque, you’re not really helping things by ranting, no offense.

    Firstly, welcome back Louanne, good to see you again.

    > Thanks for that admission. I never will say yay or nay on it. I have explained that to you. If you trust it so much, have fun with it.

    And here in lies the problem. Person A says something, and person B says ‘I won’t say yes or no’. It’s not that I inherently believe person A over person B, but person B doesn’t give me much to work with.

    Perhaps you can clear up something for me though, can you please wordclear(?) thetan, operating thetan and body thetan? I know these terms mean different things but I think I may be confusing them.

  328. Pat, what happened is my brother paid about 350.00, called me, told me he wanted to borrow money so he could keep going to get to the Travolta “class” I said forget it. He quit. Granted, he only wanted to do it so he could be in the same room with Travolta……but so did every single other gay circuit boy who paid thousands to take courses, etc….because he spoke at the gay meetings or whatever……it sounded like a crock to me….to sucker people in under false pretenses….show me someone who has ACTUALLY been “cleared” of their gayness and I’ll eat my computer. It’s just like those religious “retreats” to try to cure young people , etc of being gay….they’re like kids in a candy store at those things, it’s all about fucking not being cured of anything.

  329. He went there? He went WHERE? And what photographer? I’ve never seen a single photo of the incident….what are you talking about?
    And YES if you look above I had a question…Pat didn’t know what I was talking about so I provided him with two examples………..and since I’ve never posted here before this IS NOT my “favorite ranting place”

  330. @Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 11:31 pm

    Roecker et al.

    So what? He went there to provoke them with a damn shirt denigrating their religion and start babbling about ufos and whatever else his crooked brain finds in the emptiness of his head. Provocation, nothing else, was his target. Or did the photographer show up “accidentally”? No. It went as planned, celebs come, they get pissed and scream back at him. And then he goes whiny, the poor guy, feeling soooo insulted. Poor show, what a wimp.

    Now, did you have a question or is this your favorite ranting place?

    – Louanne

  331. youtube.com/watch?v=8U_wIpibRNk

  332. I think you’re being just a little coy about the connection between the VERY common statements “what are your crimes” and references to opponents of the COS as being baby rapists……….if you’re going to deny it, thats cool.
    Who is Roecker? He’s a dude that was verbally assaulted by Jenna and her husband on a sreet in LA because they didn’t like his t-shirt

  333. @ Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 11:21 pm

    So… from a report that one person did this, you have it as “commonly”?

    Who is Roecker?

    Pat

  334. well…fellow scientologist Jenna Elfman to begin with…you MUST be aware of her tirade against a man, strolling with his family, that had a t-shirt on that said Scientology is Gay

    Roecker quickly recognized the couple as actor Bodhi Elfman and his wife, ‘Dharma and Greg’ star Jenna Elfman. Mr. Elfman’s ire was apparently drawn by Roecker’s self-made t-shirt, which had a picture of Tom Cruise on the front under the caption “Scientology is Gay!” and a ‘Stayin’-Alive’-era John Travolta on the back with the words “Very Gay!” For the record, both Cruise and Travolta have said repeatedly they are not gay.
    According to Roecker, who first recounted the incident on LA’s KROQ-FM’s Kevin and Bean Show, the invective started to fly after he made several references to Scientology theology and its reported central tenant, the story of Xenu. Roecker says Jenna repeatedly said “What crimes have you committed?” and began screaming at Roecker, “Have you raped a baby?” as motorists on Los Feliz Boulevard drove by in snarled traffic.

  335. @Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 11:15 pm
    >psychosomatic AIDS????????????

    Is that a question? I thought I already answered it.

    Pat

  336. @Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 11:11 pm
    >So you’re saying you’re not aware of a group within the COS Celebrity Centre that specifically claims to “clear” people of homosexuality, that at one point John Travolta was the head of?

    That’s news to me. I’ve never heard of such a group and besides it would go against policy on no rules etc for sexual preferences. Did you read the link I gave you?

    >Because my brother tried to buy his way into that group so he could meet Travolta after a friend of his told him that he was in the group and Travolta spoke frequently.

    Interesting. What happened?

    Pat

  337. psychosomatic AIDS????????????

  338. @Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 10:21 pm

    Why do Scientologists commonly mention “baby raping” to non-Scientologists? Are Scientologists taught that people who oppose them are all baby rapists?

    Wow, again!

    Interesting choice of words. “commonly” You’re gonna have to give me some specifics to work with here. I’ve never heard of this, so I guess not it couldn’t be as common as you have been led to believe. I’ve been a Scientologist for over 36 years.

    Pat

  339. So you’re saying you’re not aware of a group within the COS Celebrity Centre that specifically claims to “clear” people of homosexuality, that at one point John Travolta was the head of? Because my brother tried to buy his way into that group so he could meet Travolta after a friend of his told him that he was in the group and Travolta spoke frequently.

  340. @Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 10:21 pm
    >More questions
    >Why did Jenna Elfman say AIDS was a “state of mind” when it clearly is not.
    >Do Scientologists believe AIDS is a state of mind, is this something that they’re taught?

    In Scientology, what is true for you is what you have personally observed to be true.
    Jenna obviously has that truth for herself. I am only guessing at this point that Jenna may feel that it’s psychosomatic. (Caused by the mind). I personally have no data on it being one way or the other. Since some forms are terminal, we aren’t able to audit those who have it. (That is petitionable).

    There’s another door open if someone were to try handling it through Dianetics in case it is psychosomatic.

    Here’s a link for you:
    http://www.dianetics.org

    You don’t have to be a Scientologist to use the techniques in the book.

    Pat

    Why do Scientologists commonly mention “baby raping” to non-Scientologists? Are Scientologists taught that people who oppose them are all baby rapists?

  341. @Comment by Libraesque on April 7, 2008 10:11 pm

    >I have a question about the gay/transgender issue. If Scientologists are all good with the gays, then why do they have a special group that claims it can “clear” you of your homosexuality, and that John Travolta sometimes spoke to these groups (about 10+ years ago)????????

    Wow!
    I think that this is the best neutral site I can find on this. It’s true in my experience as well.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_scie.htm

  342. More questions
    Why did Jenna Elfman say AIDS was a “state of mind” when it clearly is not.
    Do Scientologists believe AIDS is a state of mind, is this something that they’re taught?

    Why do Scientologists commonly mention “baby raping” to non-Scientologists? Are Scientologists taught that people who oppose them are all baby rapists?

  343. I have a question about the gay/transgender issue. If Scientologists are all good with the gays, then why do they have a special group that claims it can “clear” you of your homosexuality, and that John Travolta sometimes spoke to these groups (about 10+ years ago)????????

  344. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 7, 2008 2:52 am

    You think I’d be insulted to be called a fundie? LOL I am proud to be a Scientologist. I think being called one is a validation of all that I am doing to keep what is still right in this world. I don’t need to prove myself or my religion to you. This site was set up so you could ask your questions. Obviously, time and time again you have shown that you only want to use it for your own propaganda, and have been unable to have a dialog without tossing insults at those trying to answer you.

  345. What would perjury have to do with anything?

    Steven Fishman filed a sworn affidavit in a court of law which, according to him, contained authentic copies of the Church(TM)’s Operating Thetan levels. Hence the name, “the Fishman affidavit.” If the documents thus filed had in fact been altered from their original form, Fishman should have been immediately indicted on criminal charges of filing a false affidavit, i.e. perjury. But no such indictment occurred or, to my knowledge, was even sought. Rather than argue authenticity, the Church(TM) argued copyright and trade secrecy. Alas, their lawyers speak louder than their words when it comes to the OTs.

    As Brad said, it was only transcription errors, and publishers/editor additives and omissions that were corrected in the books.

    So just “greedy liar,” then. Thanks for clearing that up. But one wonders whatever happened to KSW if such “errors” were allowed to go unchecked for so long.

    If you want, I’m sure that the LRH Archives would be willing to let you see the originals and change logs.

    How gracious of them. You know, they have this thing called “the Internet” now. It’s great; you can actually publish anything you want on it. The Church(TM), for example, can publish the entire LRH Archives, with obvious exceptions for the really high-level stuff. I wouldn’t have to rely on outside sources, you wouldn’t have to rely on verbal tech; it’s a win-win. And they could even keep selling the books, for people who want a hard copy for when they’re away from their computers, so it’s a win-win-win. But I suppose some things would just make too much sense.

    Just keep telling yourself that you’ve got the “real stuff” and then you can go audit this “real stuff” and see how you do.

    Yeah, no thanks. Worst case scenario: it’s out-tech and I die from pneumonia. Best case scenario: it’s standard tech and I end up like you. I’m not sure which is the more horrible fate. (Nothing personal, Pat, but if Scientology is a religion, you are its fundie.)

  346. @Comment by John on April 6, 2008 10:35 pm
    >> Since you have this great source to use, why bother asking me?

    >Because I wanted to hear you say it.

    Thanks for that admission. I never will say yay or nay on it. I have explained that to you. If you trust it so much, have fun with it.

    Pat

  347. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 6, 2008 8:25 pm
    >>No, he just confirmed what I said. It’s altered.

    >Which is, of course, why Steven Fishman was convicted of perjury shortly after filing his affidavit. After all, entering something into a court of law that purports to be the official OT levels but isn’t… well, that’s a crime.

    >Oh, wait. That’s not what happened at all. In fact, the Church(TM) acted very much like an organization that was trying to cover up a genuinely leaked secret. Heck, they didn’t even press perjury charges over his bizarre version of OT VIII.

    What would perjury have to do with anything? There’s a lot of years going on here. What’s up is part of a second theft that was “improved” by Mayo as far as I can tell. You must be pretty sure it’s the real thing to keep bringing it up here. Just keep telling yourself that you’ve got the “real stuff” and then you can go audit this “real stuff” and see how you do. Don’t take my word for it. Go with your current source.

    Pat

  348. > Since you have this great source to use, why bother asking me?

    Because I wanted to hear you say it. Because I wasn’t happy listening to just a singular, anti-scientology source.

    But when you say ‘altered’, I can accept that within scientology even a single misplaced word can change the understanding of scripture. However, a single misplaced word does not change the content of such.

    I have tried and tried to get a straight answer out of scientologists regarding the content of OT III, I have never argued the understanding.

  349. Regarding the Basics:

    As Brad said, it was only transcription errors, and publishers/editor additives and omissions that were corrected in the books. I can send you the DVD where the details are laid out on each book if you’d like. It actually shows the transcripts used to confirm the books against.

    If you want, I’m sure that the LRH Archives would be willing to let you see the originals and change logs. Every change was documented.

    Having read the originals too, I know they didn’t alter any tech. As for edits on the lectures – what TECH was altered? LRH himself ordered edits from time to time. Can you honestly say that TECH was altered in any of these? LRH was constantly evolving as he continued his research. The study being done chronologically shows this a great deal. Even Clear is defined differently in places. I loved the basics because it let me follow the path he took in arriving at the tech we have today. It’s pure LRH from the original trranscripts and his typed manuscripts.

    As I said it’s all documented and that is available to view if you wish.

    Pat

  350. The new basics actually took a lot of work to correct errors made by prior editors and publishers. Also much of the tech has been put in order to better understand it. DM is not altering anything really but correct past mistakes in publishing, making it easier to read and follow and adding glossaries and the like. They are also accompanied by the LRH lectures a benefit that many who studied before did not have.

    Thanks for the spam filter advice, it is noted :)

  351. I guess Miscavige is getting the blame since he’s in charge of keeping Hubbard’s writings from being changed. I don’t know if he’s the one who’s directly chopping off parts of the recorded lectures that are racist or applaud the Guardian Office, but maybe he thinks that’s ok because they’re not written. Some of the changes are not publishing policies that were canceled. And Hubbard did change his mind about some things, like the second dynamic. In 1979 he decided it wasn’t just sex and family, but first and foremost ‘creativity’. Unfortunately that change really doesn’t make sense with the rest of his writings. But Hubbard can be wrong, he’s not infallible.

    I’d suggest reading Gene Zimmer’s take on the changes made, “Alteration of Scientology Materials Report”.

    Anyway, in keeping with the questions topic of this ‘board’: According to Hubbard, how do anti-depressants and other drugs prescribed by psychiatrists affect the spirit, thetan, you?

  352. No, he just confirmed what I said. It’s altered.

    Which is, of course, why Steven Fishman was convicted of perjury shortly after filing his affidavit. After all, entering something into a court of law that purports to be the official OT levels but isn’t… well, that’s a crime.

    Oh, wait. That’s not what happened at all. In fact, the Church(TM) acted very much like an organization that was trying to cover up a genuinely leaked secret. Heck, they didn’t even press perjury charges over his bizarre version of OT VIII.

    How did DM squirrel the tech? He hasn’t written anything or published anything. What tech did he alter?

    Obviously, the ex-Church(TM)ies could answer this better than I, but I can give you two little words: “New Basics.” Miscavige is hawking them like they’re the second coming of LRH, and he admits that they’ve been changed from the books Scientologists are used to. Now, either those changes are substantive or they are not. If they are not, his enthusiasm is phony; he’s just selling Scientologists something they already have, the money-grubbing bastard. If they are, his enthusiasm is phonier; he’s replacing the very foundations of the Bridge with an out-tech version, the suppressive bastard. Since you’re the Scientologist, I’ll ask you: which is he? A greedy liar, or a greedy SP liar?

    (To quote a particularly famous Scientologist: “Well, you’re damned if you do, and you’re damned if you don’t.”)

    I am sorry for some reason my posts are not showing up.

    Louanne has a spam filter enabled. If you try to post two or more hyperlinks in the same post, it’ll kick you out. Someone above mentioned that you could get around it by omitting the “http://www.” . I don’t know if you tried that before or after getting blocked, but you may want to remember that for the future.

  353. jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm

    “There are a number of stories that discourage the pursuit of such knowledge and power as dangerous and irresponsible. If you see any books on the subject of “practical kabbalah,” you can safely dismiss them as not authentic Jewish tradition because, as these stories demonstrate, this kind of knowledge was traditionally thought to be far too dangerous to be distributed blindly to the masses.”

    I am also Jewish. That said reform really do whatever they want disregarding orthodox tradition and law but that is an internal Jewish debate.

  354. I am sorry for some reason my posts are not showing up.

    @John

    For source there are quite a few, but i will use the following “the rabbis of the Talmud regarded the mystical study of God as important yet dangerous”

    jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kabbalah.html

  355. @John

    For source there are quite a few, but i will use the following:
    “the rabbis of the Talmud regarded the mystical study of God as important yet dangerous”

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kabbalah.html

  356. @John

    For source there are quite a few, but i will use the following
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kabbalah.html

    “the rabbis of the Talmud regarded the mystical study of God as important yet dangerous”

    http://www.jewfaq.org/kabbalah.htm
    “There are a number of stories that discourage the pursuit of such knowledge and power as dangerous and irresponsible. If you see any books on the subject of “practical kabbalah,” you can safely dismiss them as not authentic Jewish tradition because, as these stories demonstrate, this kind of knowledge was traditionally thought to be far too dangerous to be distributed blindly to the masses.”

    I am also Jewish. That said reform really do whatever they want disregarding orthodox tradition and law but that is an internal Jewish debate.

  357. test post, if you see this for some reason the post is not showing up.

  358. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 6, 2008 7:01 am
    >Unfortunately, while Fishman may be unreliable, his dox are not. As your own link states:

    >But in 1993 he wrote a declaration to which he attached as exhibits copies of copyrighted and unpublished scriptures belonging to the Church of Scientology, the originals of which had been stolen from the Church. When the exhibits were repeatedly posted on the Internet, the Church filed suit against the posters for violation of intellectual property rights.

    >That sounds like an admission that his versions of the OTs are legitimate (or were; David Miscavige has a nasty habit of squirreling the tech).

    How did DM squirrel the tech? He hasn’t written anything or published anything. What tech did he alter?

    Pat

  359. @Comment by John on April 6, 2008 7:15 am
    >You know what I find interesting Pat, I just confirmed with an ex-scientologist that the OT3 documents available on the internet are, baring minor changes between retellings, correct.

    >That is the aliens, hydrogen bombs etc… (I don’t want to retell the whole thing, I’m trying not to be insensitive to your beliefs that learning this information too early may be detrimental to a persons enlightenment)

    >Do you think he is lying? Why? Should I ask him about the Three Bears story?

    No, he just confirmed what I said. It’s altered.

    http://www.scientologymyths.info/aliens/what-is-the-damage-of-knowing-about-or-using-this-data.php

    Since you have this great source to use, why bother asking me?

    Pat

  360. @Comment by anmn on April 6, 2008 8:05 am

    >No. Out-tech can cause upset. Not Standard Tech correctly applied at the right gradient.

    That’s not what I asked. I asked if the tech could cause harm.

    I answered that. See above. What does “No” mean, besides no?

    >This would be an example of correct tech applied incorrectly, right?

    >Remember that these documents have been confirmed as correct by ex-members and by the CoS itself.

    What documents? We’re talking about tech. Do you mean the Tech Volumes?

    What do you mean by “upset”?

    What does “upset” mean? It’s in the dictionary. That’s what I mean.

    To paraphrase Dr. Seuss: “I meant what I said and I said what I meant”

    THE TECH DOES NOT HARM. “OUT-TECH” IS ALTERING THE TECHNOLOGY.

    Pat

  361. > It also is considered dangerous to attempt to learn kabbalah without so many years study of Torah and Gemara because you need the foundation.

    Source?

  362. As to copyright, I want to state as I have before in other debates that because COS or Bridge Pub declares copyright does not equate to material: being used in Scientology or belief of Scientology.
    Quite simply most if not all writings of LRH, whether it is fiction, non-fiction, Dianetics, Scientology, diaries, notes, logs are all owned by bridge Pub, I.E. COS and therefore can and will fall under copyright law.

    Again with these arguments of not knowing “study knowledge” not “actual beliefs” puzzles me. In Judaism all Gemara classes are study knowledge and protected via the class itself. Non-Jews via orthodox law are not allowed to learn this. It also is considered dangerous to attempt to learn kabbalah without so many years study of Torah and Gemara because you need the foundation.

    Auditing is not belief knowledge it is study knowledge even more so than Judaism as an analogy because auditing is very personal and knowing any study knowledge before the audit creates a bias or predetermined response thus invalidating the desired result of helping the individual.

    Moreover, in auditing just for the for the sake of argument, let us say Xenu is true and I get to that level and use that data to reveal whatever xyz is in my life. Perhaps I get up and refuse to accept that data.
    1. It does not invalidate my prior auditing as by logic I kept going on the bridge because it was obviously working.
    2. It does not change my belief in G_d as that Dynamic as clearly stated is not intruded upon by Scientology.

    The major difference that many do not understand about Scientology is that they project what they know or have been brought up to know as religion simply defining a god and the dogma thereof. Granted Scientology is not that, it instead of defining G_D and dogma thereof helps one find and understand themselves as a spiritual being. It is hard to explain in that context as Christian dogma puts one as having a soul where for contextual purposes in Scientology you by defining you are the soul and the body just an apparatus. Thus that is what Scientology addresses.

    So to answer the arguments that state “Scientology hides its real truth from you until OT III” is bunk. Quite simply Scientology does not know “you” the soul nor does it pretend to create a template to. Scientology gives you tools to find out for yourself as “you” are the only one who can, it would be an impossible task otherwise for that person would have to be G_d I.E. all knowing. So again as a message all Scientology can tell you is that “we have the tools to help you” because we are all different and all have different needs and wants and problems and no one is going to pretend to know otherwise.

  363. @Pat:
    >No. Out-tech can cause upset. Not Standard Tech correctly applied at the right gradient.

    That’s not what I asked. I asked if the tech could cause harm. This would be an example of correct tech applied incorrectly, right? Remember that these documents have been confirmed as correct by ex-members and by the CoS itself.

    What do you mean by “upset”?

  364. You know what I find interesting Pat, I just confirmed with an ex-scientologist that the OT3 documents available on the internet are, baring minor changes between retellings, correct.

    That is the aliens, hydrogen bombs etc… (I don’t want to retell the whole thing, I’m trying not to be insensitive to your beliefs that learning this information too early may be detrimental to a persons enlightenment)

    Do you think he is lying? Why? Should I ask him about the Three Bears story?

  365. Unfortunately, while Fishman may be unreliable, his dox are not. As your own link states:

    But in 1993 he wrote a declaration to which he attached as exhibits copies of copyrighted and unpublished scriptures belonging to the Church of Scientology, the originals of which had been stolen from the Church. When the exhibits were repeatedly posted on the Internet, the Church filed suit against the posters for violation of intellectual property rights.

    That sounds like an admission that his versions of the OTs are legitimate (or were; David Miscavige has a nasty habit of squirreling the tech).

  366. So, your Church(TM) claims Fishman was a compulsive liar. I suppose there might be some merit to that; after all, he was trained by the best.

    http://xenu.net/archive/go/trs/tr-l.htm

  367. Comment by anmn on April 6, 2008 5:01 am
    @GrandFalloon:
    >Have both real and altered OT documents been leaked/distributed?

    >Here’s a site about the Fishman Affidavit, with summaries and excerpts:

    Try this one too:

    http://www.theta.com/fishman

    There’s more affidavits there.

    Pat

  368. @Comment by John on April 6, 2008 6:15 am
    >Do any of the TRs contain an example that references ‘wife beating’?

    Not that I know of. I’ve done TRs and don’t recall ever seeing that.

    Pat

  369. >I admit that wording was awkward. But you do believe that the tech can cause harm, right?

    No. Out-tech can cause upset. Not Standard Tech correctly applied at the right gradient.

    An example of this is if someone has a problem in life such as a guy is on the verge of being fired, and is audited over this he can lose gains. Just an example. So problems are checked for at the beginning of most auditing sessions.

    Standard tech that isn’t altered works.

    That’s why we fight so hard to keep it being taught correctly per LRH study tech.

    >I know some people on this forum do.

    I realize that. What personal experience led to that, I wonder? Auditing by an inexperienced auditor? Given auditing far above his/her ability? No reality with what auditing does for someone, but has an opinion anyway? :P

    Pat

    Can you tell me why you believe that?
    Because I’ve seen it correctly applied and misapplied. The most awesome thing about it is that the Tech has applications that repair any misapplied tech.

  370. Do any of the TRs contain an example that references ‘wife beating’?

  371. @GrandFalloon:
    >Have both real and altered OT documents been leaked/distributed?

    Here’s a site about the Fishman Affidavit, with summaries and excerpts: http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/fishman/home.html

    The CoS has basically confirmed that OT1-OT8 presented there are real by claiming copyright. It later retracted its claim on the OT8 part.

  372. @Pat:
    >No. The “Since it’s so powerful, it can cause harm” is your words not mine. As John would say “A dance”. The rest is true.

    I admit that wording was awkward. But you do believe that the tech can cause harm, right? I know some people on this forum do. Can you tell me why you believe that?

    Do you understand why that logic seems ridiculous and circular to me? Does anyone else quote a 20% figure for any group of people that resemble Scientology’s definition of SP? Can the benefits of Scientology be quantified, or are they spiritual and defiant of analysis? Can the tech cause harm, and if so, can this harm be noticed by people and methods outside of Scientology?

    I believe that reading the tech cannot cause harm to raw meat. I know of many others who believe the same. I don’t believe that 20% of the world seeks to restrain the rest. I believe there are many other reasons for people wanting to publish the tech. For example: freedom of information advocates distributing information freely; critics who want people to know what they are getting into; resentful apostates seeking to harm the CoS’s profits; those who want to know why the CoS is so protective of these documents.

    While I don’t agree with the core points of your logic, I understand how it develops and supports itself. Can you see the same in my beliefs?

  373. @Pat:
    >Here is the data on Churches, Missions and groups (what they do, who they minister to, etc.)

    > scientology.org/religion/groups/index.html

    No, that has the barest mention of what “groups” are. Is each field auditor a group? How many field auditors are there? How many “Dianetics Counseling Groups” are there? Does the word “groups” in this context include any other gatherings of people?

    I’m looking for official numbers. What I’ve seen so far is contradictory. “10 million members” on Lou’s page; “millions introduced” on the page you linked. 164 countries on Lou’s page; 125 on the one you linked. 7700 establishments on Lou’s page; 450 on scientology dot org.

  374. Have both real and altered OT documents been leaked/distributed?

  375. >It’s interesting how difficult it has become to counter such a ridiculous statement after learning what Scientologists believe. The tech works. Since the tech works so well, it’s powerful. Since it’s so powerful, it can cause harm. SPs seek to cause harm. SPs would steal the tech and present it to the unprepared in order to cause harm and then, I don’t know, they laugh evilly. That’s what I’ve picked up in my time here. Is that basically correct?

    No. The “Since it’s so powerful, it can cause harm” is your words not mine. As John would say “A dance”. The rest is true. SPs do cause harm. That tech is applicable to all of man, not just Scientology. Yes, they would steal it in order to harm. Evil laugh included :P

    Pat

  376. Here is the data on Churches, Missions and groups (what they do, who they minister to, etc.)

    http://www.scientology.org/religion/groups/index.html

    Pat

  377. Also, how can it be claimed that the version of OT III on the Internet is an “altered” copy when we have scans of the original manuscript in LRH’s own handwriting?

  378. @Pat:
    >That’s the problem with altered data of an upper level being posted on the internet. It was done to create harm to anyone reading it.

    It’s interesting how difficult it has become to counter such a ridiculous statement after learning what Scientologists believe. The tech works. Since the tech works so well, it’s powerful. Since it’s so powerful, it can cause harm. SPs seek to cause harm. SPs would steal the tech and present it to the unprepared in order to cause harm and then, I don’t know, they laugh evilly. That’s what I’ve picked up in my time here. Is that basically correct?

    When I question any part of that logic, I get told to read what LRH wrote (circular), or I get told “what is true is what is true for you” (dodging the question).

    Has the tech been shown to cause harm, or is it only spiritual harm? Has the tech been shown to cause physical benefit, or is it only spiritual benefit?

  379. @Pat:
    >Maybe you should clear up the words “official membership”.

    Maybe we should clear up where these numbers are coming from. Here are the official numbers I’ve heard:

    The CoS’s current press release boilerplate makes a claim of 10 million members. I can’t find this number on any CoS website except as a boilerplate or a passing mention.

    The statistics page on this site makes the same claim, and also claims the number was 6.1 million in 2000.

    I don’t have a source right now, but I recall that same boilerplate reading 8 million within the last few years. I believe that this number was claimed consistently back to the early 1990s, when Heber Jentzsch said in an interview that it included everyone who had taken even one course since 1954.

    Now, this could all make sense: the old 8 million figure could have been all of the one-course people, and the new 6 and 10 million figures could be the official claim of active members.

    Are there any more concrete numbers to be found on a CoS website?

    The statistics page also claims there are 7,731 churches, missions and groups in 164 countries. The most complete official list I can find is at

    http://www.scientologytoday.org/around-the-world/index.htm

    which lists roughly 450 missions and organizations.

    Are there many more missions than on that list? (I did find one missing, but most of Anonymous’ protest sites seem to be there.) Or does each mission average 16 or so “groups”? What is a “group” anyway?

    Further, if the total membership is 10 million, that means each mission handles 22,000 members. Does that sound right? How many members go to a mission regularly for auditing or other services? If it’s more than one percent, it sounds a bit high for most of the missions I’ve seen.

  380. In other news, Sean Carasov is free and clear.

    http://glosslip.com/2008/04/03/scientology-case-against-los-angeles-member-of-anonymous-dropped/

    Apparently the charges had nothing to do with the guns picture, but from a report that a Scientology member accused Carasov of making a death threat. This is old news, but I wasn’t clear on it until recently.

    Anyway, the conversation in question was recorded, but the LAPD stopped pursuing charges before they even knew that. Further, the door is open for Carasov to pursue damages, and the CoS member in question may be in trouble for filing a false police report.

    I bring this up as closure to the topic in a previous thread. Does the CoS have any official word on this decision? Lou, do you have any explanation for why “a murder threat…face to face, with plenty of witnesses” [Lou, Questions questions questions] failed to stick?

  381. @Okay I’m Anonymous Now:
    >P.S.: Can someone remind me what I have to do to get around the spam filter? I know it was mentioned at some point; I just forget where.

    Stripping off http through www gets past the filter, and should still make the link work on a copy/paste.

  382. Somehow my post got edited. Here’s the correct URL:

    http://www.anonymousexposed.org/

  383. If you have already decided that there is nothing to resolve and only wish to attack, you’d probably be happier over on xenutv where you have mutual anti-scientology friends.
    Again, I am not attacking; I am being emphatic. I have stated repeatedly that the Sklar case I cite has already been decided and that the Sklar case you cite is an entirely new one. You have repeatedly refused to process this simple fact. Therefore I am forced to rely on boldface, CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL, and personal insults to draw attention to the statement. You pulled this one in, buddy.

    Eleven: your name has a bad link. The correct URL is —

    http://www.anonymous-exposed.org/

  384. @Comment by John on April 3, 2008 10:11 am
    >Okay, I accept your point Pat. I still believe you may be telling me a ’shore story’ and it is that belief that caused me to ask the same question in a myriad of different ways, but I also agree that it is not conducive to conversation to press the point so I will refrain from that path of questioning.

    >I apologise if it seemed like I was attacking you, or your fellow scientologists, I was trying my hardest not to.

    >…whoops… *facepalm*… I just re-read to doublecheck…

    >>I have to do this, sorry. Can’t resist. This has nothing to do with Scientology or it’s beliefs.

    >Sorry, I skipped right over that sentence the last time I read it. I do owe you an apology, I’m sorry.

    I know how that happens. Thanks.

    Pat

  385. Okay, I accept your point Pat. I still believe you may be telling me a ‘shore story’ and it is that belief that caused me to ask the same question in a myriad of different ways, but I also agree that it is not conducive to conversation to press the point so I will refrain from that path of questioning.

    I apologise if it seemed like I was attacking you, or your fellow scientologists, I was trying my hardest not to.

    …whoops… *facepalm*… I just re-read to doublecheck…

    >I have to do this, sorry. Can’t resist. This has nothing to do with Scientology or it’s beliefs.

    Sorry, I skipped right over that sentence the last time I read it. I do owe you an apology, I’m sorry.

  386. Although I appreciate the open dialogue about Scientology on here, I do think there comes a point that if someone becomes as openly antagonistic and insulting as some of these guests, then it becomes trolling, not communication, and shouldn’t be tolerated. Just my two cents.

  387. I will not respond to any communication where folks can’t be courteous. You’re coming here, supposedly because you have questions about Scientology. If you have already decided that there is nothing to resolve and only wish to attack, you’d probably be happier over on xenutv where you have mutual anti-scientology friends.

    Pat

  388. @Comment by John on April 3, 2008 3:24 am
    >I disagree, I think there are a lot of people who do not think that the idea of extraterrestrials is funny, merely that the interpretation presented in the leaked OT3 documents is absurd.

    Your right.

    That being said there is nothing wrong if that, or even part of it, is what scientologists choose to believe. And I am in no way presenting that this is the core of scientologists beliefs. Anonymous have stated numerous times that we are not against the the right of scientologists to believe whatever they want. Please stop trying to imply that we are.

    Re-read what I wrote. Where the hell did I say anything about you implying anything?

    >Once again you danced and did not answer my question. Not only that but you have further tried to twist it into a question of beliefs. That is what, at times, frustrates me when speaking to scientologists, including yourself

    You invite me to ask you a question, and when I do I get accused of dancing? Give me a break.

    You’re the one trying to make more out of something that I was curious about.

    Pat

  389. You seemed to have missed the rest of it too.

    It’s in the 9th Circuit Court right now and it looks like they may lean toward granting the Sklar’s their appeal. We’ll see. We aren’t done yet.

    I missed nothing. I will explain this very slowly and very carefully.

    THAT IS A DIFFERENT LAWSUIT, YOU THUNDERING MORON!

    The original Sklar v. Commissioner was in regard to the Sklars’ 1994 tax return. The United States Tax Court ruled against them in 2000, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling in 2002. That is the decision from which I have taken my quotes.

    The current Sklar v. Commissioner is in regard to the Sklars’ 1995 tax return. The United States Tax Court ruled against them in 2005, and the Ninth Circuit is currently deliberating on this case. The principle of stare decisis, however, suggests that the Sklars probably will not win this one either.

  390. I disagree, I think there are a lot of people who do not think that the idea of extraterrestrials is funny, merely that the interpretation presented in the leaked OT3 documents is absurd.

    That being said there is nothing wrong if that, or even part of it, is what scientologists choose to believe. And I am in no way presenting that this is the core of scientologists beliefs. Anonymous have stated numerous times that we are not against the the right of scientologists to believe whatever they want. Please stop trying to imply that we are.

    Once again you danced and did not answer my question. Not only that but you have further tried to twist it into a question of beliefs. That is what, at times, frustrates me when speaking to scientologists, including yourself.

  391. @Comment by John on April 2, 2008 8:47 pm
    >There’s some minor evidence for, and none against. But there is not enough evidence to push me in either direction so I don’t believe one way or the other. I do believe it is possible that there is life on other planets.

    >Is there any element of truth in any of the versions of the story floating around the internet when compared to the version that you’ve heard?

    As I said, that question has nothing to do with Scientology. I was curious about your attitude since people seem to think the idea of extraterrestials in this universe is so funny.

  392. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 3, 2008 1:50 am
    You seemed to have missed the rest of it too.

    It’s in the 9th Circuit Court right now and it looks like they may lean toward granting the Sklar’s their appeal. We’ll see. We aren’t done yet.

    Pat

  393. I apologize for not noticing this earlier, but…

    “You’re not operating on current data. Hernandez was 1989. Congress changed the Code in 1993 regarding intangibles. That overrides the Supreme Court opinion of 1989.”

    Not according to the Ninth Circuit. Again, from Sklar v. Commissioner Round One, which was decided in 2002, quite a few years after 1993:

    Despite the clear statutory holding of Hernandez, the Sklars contend that recent changes to the Internal Revenue Code have clarified Congressional intent with respect to the deductibility of these payments. We seriously doubt the validity of this argument. The amendments to the Code appear not to have changed the substantive definition of a deductible charitable contribution, but only to have enacted additional documentation requirements for claimed deductions. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (“OBRA’93”), P.L. No. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 26 U.S.C.). Section 170(f) of the Code adds a new requirement that taxpayers claiming a charitable contribution deduction obtain from the donee an estimate of the value of any goods and services received in return for the donation, and exempts from that new estimate requirement contributions for which solely intangible religious benefits are received.2 I.R.C. § 170(f)(8)(A) & (B)(ii). Similarly, § 6115 requires that tax-exempt organizations inform taxpayer-donors that they will receive a tax deduction only for the amount of their donation above the value of any goods or services received in return for the donation and requires donee organizations to give donors an estimate of this value, exempting from this estimate requirement contributions for which solely intangible religious benefits are received.

    Given the clear holding of Hernandez and the absence of any direct evidence of Congressional intent to overrule the Supreme Court on this issue, we would be extremely reluctant to read an additional and significant substantive deduction into the statute based on what are clearly procedural provisions regarding the documentation of tax return information, particularly where the deduction would be of doubtful constitutional validity

    Emphasis in the original.

    You see, Pat, this is what I like to call “You’re wrong and you should feel shame.” As for Sklar Round Two, I see no reason to suppose that it will end differently from Round One, unless you can point me to a law passed between 2002 and now that would make quid pro quo payments deductible. (Hint: you can’t.) Unfortunately, the Sklars appear to be relentless, and will most likely file one lawsuit for each year their deduction was rejected, no matter how successful they are. It’s like that old saying: “the purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win.”

  394. OT3, that is.

  395. There’s some minor evidence for, and none against. But there is not enough evidence to push me in either direction so I don’t believe one way or the other. I do believe it is possible that there is life on other planets.

    Is there any element of truth in any of the versions of the story floating around the internet when compared to the version that you’ve heard?

  396. @Comment by John on April 2, 2008 12:11 pm
    >Oh, one further quick question though… I note that ‘Aliens’ is capitalised, are you referring to Giger’s work by any chance?

    LOL. I didn’t realize I’d done that. Funny.

    No. I think it’s just my frustration in how that’s being plastered all over the internet and embellished with every telling. Makes it stand out.

    I have to do this, sorry. Can’t resist. This has nothing to do with Scientology or it’s beliefs.

    Do you believe there is life on other planets, right now, as we speak?

    Pat

  397. Oh, one further quick question though… I note that ‘Aliens’ is capitalised, are you referring to Giger’s work by any chance?

  398. No aliens, gotcha. I’m happy now.

  399. John,

    That’s the problem with altered data of an upper level being posted on the internet. It was done to create harm to anyone reading it. You try to put me on the spot by answering yes or no. I can’t do that and not say something that could cause harm to you and anyone else. I have a responsibility to make sure that people are brought properly up the gradients so that OT 3 can be viewed in full by those who will be auditing it.

    You’re curious and I understand that. What I can say is that Aliens are not part of it and that it was a great catastrophe that happened on this planet 75 million years ago. This is how LRH introduced us to it in 1967 on Ron’s Journal 67. (Not verbatim because I don’t have a copy here at the moment to get an exact quote)

    Pat

  400. Just going back over the previous comments thread Pat, I was wondering if you could clarify something.

    First, BradS responded to me:
    >With all due respect, no you can’t. I’m not questioning whether or not the infamous OT3 story is the core belief of scientologists. I was attempting to confirm whether or not the infamous OT3 story is correct, from a scientologist.

    And then Pat said:
    >The “infamous OT3 story” didn’t come from Scientologists (It’s hard to know which version you mean since there seem to be quite a few different interpretations out there, and it changes with every telling). It’s not the OT 3 I did at the actual Church.

    Would you please answer the original question Pat? Because removing the word ‘infamous’ the meaning is quite different.

    Do the contents of OT3 have anything to do with, or even imply, aliens, volcanoes, hydrogen bombs and/or an intergalactic ruler? Just a yes or no will suffice, but feel free to elaborate.

  401. Comment by Carrie on April 2, 2008 4:18 am
    Regarding an earlier post by “Okay I’m Anonymous Now”, just for the record, I am NOT a “free zone” person. Unlike freezoners, I have no complaint with the current administration of the Church of Scientology. I most emphatically do NOT oppose the actual Church, unlike the freezoners.

    As of tonight, I offiically declare myself a Scientologist. Hurray!

    :D

    Pat

  402. Regarding an earlier post by “Okay I’m Anonymous Now”, just for the record, I am NOT a “free zone” person. Unlike freezoners, I have no complaint with the current administration of the Church of Scientology. I most emphatically do NOT oppose the actual Church, unlike the freezoners.

    As of tonight, I offiically declare myself a Scientologist. Hurray!

  403. Holy crap, quadruple post. Thank you WordPress.

    Maybe you should clear up the words “official membership”. Bye Bye

    Ohhh, okay. So that 10 million figure actually counts official members of the incorporated Church(TM) of Scientology. Thanks for clearing that up. Now I can say, without any doubt, that the Church(TM)’s statistics are filthy god-damned lies, since unbiased sources indicate that it has fewer than even one million official members.

    http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

    Hint. FAQ

    Yeah. Have you read it? This is Lou’s place to answer questions, not yours.

    This “forum” is actually a blog. Here you can ask questions about Scientology, no matter what type of questions or how stupid they may sound. I’ll answer them.

  404. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 2, 2008 3:19 am

    Hint: FAQ

    Pat

  405. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 2, 2008 3:10 am
    >Excuse me, Pat, but is this your blog?

    Yes, for Scientologists to come and answer questions.

    Hint. FAQ

    Pat

  406. There was no “conversation”, so No.

    Um… Pat? Sweetie? Do you understand what a “conversation” is? Like… English is your first language, right? Because… I don’t know if the Church(TM) has its own definition of “conversation,” but in the English language I learned growing up, it means something like:

    2 a (1): oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas (2): an instance of such exchange : talk b: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups c: an exchange similar to conversation

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conversation

    And it seems to me like you and Nobody were exchanging sentiments, observations, opinions, and/or ideas, so… yeah, there was a conversation. A rather lively one, too. (In this case, what is true for you is just plain silly.)

  407. There was no “conversation”, so No.

    Um… Pat? Sweetie? Do you understand what a “conversation” is? Like… English is your first language, right? Because… I don’t know if the Church(TM) has its own definition of “conversation,” but in the English language I learned growing up, it means something like:

    2 a (1): oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas (2): an instance of such exchange : talk b: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups c: an exchange similar to conversation

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conversation

    And it seems to me like you and Nobody were exchanging sentiments, observations, opinions, and/or ideas, so… yeah, there was a conversation. A rather lively one, too. (In this case, what is true for you is just plain silly.)

  408. There was no “conversation”, so No.

    Um… Pat? Sweetie? Do you understand what a “conversation” is? Like… English is your first language, right? Because… I don’t know if the Church(TM) has its own definition of “conversation,” but in the English language I learned growing up, it means something like:

    2 a (1): oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas (2): an instance of such exchange : talk b: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups c: an exchange similar to conversation

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conversation

    And it seems to me like you and Nobody were exchanging sentiments, observations, opinions, and/or ideas, so… yeah, there was a conversation. A rather lively one, too. (In this case, what is true for you is just plain silly.)

  409. There was no “conversation”, so No.

    Um… Pat? Sweetie? Do you understand what a “conversation” is? Like… English is your first language, right? Because… I don’t know if the Church(TM) has its own definition of “conversation,” but in the English language I learned growing up, it means something like:

    2 a (1): oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions, or ideas (2): an instance of such exchange : talk b: an informal discussion of an issue by representatives of governments, institutions, or groups c: an exchange similar to conversation

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conversation

    And it seems to me like you and Nobody were exchanging sentiments, observations, opinions, and/or ideas, so… yeah, there was a conversation. A rather lively one, too. (In this case, what is true for you is just plain silly.)

  410. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 2, 2008 3:10 am
    >Excuse me, Pat, but is this your blog? (Hint: no.)

    >“In the tech dictionary Scientologist is defined as one who applies Scientology technology in his/her life.”

    >I guess that explains why your Church(TM)’s official membership statistics look so inflated. See, to outsiders like myself, “Scientologist” = “member of the Church of Scientology.” But to you, “Scientologist” = “anyone who has ever applied any part of LRH tech.” (Oddly, by that definition you’re conceding that the Free Zoners are “real” Scientologists.)

    Maybe you should clear up the words “official membership”. Bye Bye

    Pat

  411. Excuse me, Pat, but is this your blog? (Hint: no.)

    “In the tech dictionary Scientologist is defined as one who applies Scientology technology in his/her life.”

    I guess that explains why your Church(TM)’s official membership statistics look so inflated. See, to outsiders like myself, “Scientologist” = “member of the Church of Scientology.” But to you, “Scientologist” = “anyone who has ever applied any part of LRH tech.” (Oddly, by that definition you’re conceding that the Free Zoners are “real” Scientologists.)

  412. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on April 1, 2008 8:21 pm
    >Carrying over from the previous thread…

    Nope. You didn’t have a question. Just more insults.

    Pat

  413. @Comment by Nobody on April 1, 2008 7:08 pm
    Well, that last thread got closed, but I feel like we have an unfinished conversation so I hope it’s ok if we just transplant it over to this thread. Yes?

    There was no “conversation”, so No.

    When you have a real question and not a statement you can ask. Read the FAQ.

    Pat

  414. @Comment by E on April 1, 2008 8:12 pm
    >My question is simple.

    How is Scientology different from the Spanish Inquisition?

    Bleep. Not a question. Propaganda disguised as a “question”. Read the FAQ.

    Pat

  415. @Comment by Carrie on April 1, 2008 9:14 pm
    >Hi Louanne,

    >I saw a post on some blog recently by someone who said he’d been a Scientologist for years but had never been audited. He said he was an active Scientologist simply by owning and studying all the LRH books, and by attending Sunday Services and helping out sometimes at the local Org. So my question is: is that really possible? I was under the impression that undergoing auditing and working your way up the Bridge was the whole point really.

    >Heck, if it’s not absolutely required to do the Purif or be audited, then I guess that makes me a Scientologist too, albeit a low-level one. I’ve read all the Basics books and plenty of others as well, and use Scientology concepts in my everyday life.

    >(Great work you’re doing by the way! I can’t believe you have the patience to sift through so many rude and insulting comments.)

    Carrie,

    In case Lu doesn’t see this, I can confirm that one does not have to have had auditing to be a Scientologist. In the tech dictionary Scientologist is defined as one who applies Scientology technology in his/her life. There are many out in the world today that even audit Dianetics but have never been in a Church or Mission. I am glad to hear that there were things you could use in your life. Good job! Thanks for this. :)

    I found the Basic Books incredibly useful for helping my family and people around me.

    Pat

  416. Its a question Pat & I dont know what your talking about?

  417. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 1, 2008 10:21 pm
    >I also have one general question, this time relating to current practices and events.

    >It has been claimed here that the private detectives and investigation of people operating under the label “Anonymous” are in place as a result of the bomb threats and whatnot.

    Not exactly. Just those who did the threats. Broke the law. Took down websites (cybercrime, which puts it in FBI territory).

    The data I have, you have also. It’s in the hands of the FBI and law enforcement. We’ll all just have to wait and see how that plays out.

    Pat

  418. @Comment by veritas on April 1, 2008 11:35 pm
    >LOU-
    >Can you speak to the allegations that Hubbard mixed drugs with booze and this contributed to his ‘illusions of grandeur’ as one put it, as an example I read that in a letter to one of his wifes he allegedly admitted to being an opium addict?
    thanks

    An excellent example of propaganda spread in the form of a question. This violates the FAQ.

    Pat

  419. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 1, 2008 10:17 pm
    >Pat-
    >Thanks for clarifying that issue. So, just to make sure I’m understanding, a transgendered person would be treated the same as any other, if they were getting into Scientology? If that is the case, well, I’m glad to hear it.

    It is the case. There is no policy regarding sexual preferences.

    Pat

  420. My apologies BradS, I can see on re-reading that my comment sounded harsher than I actually meant. I also realise it was not particuarly appropriate for this forum, nor does it further the conversation in any meaningful way, so I apologise again.

    I only meant to point out that if the Church of Scientology, though its spokespeople, wishes to be critical of Anonymous it must accept criticism from Anonymous or it risks loosing the moral high ground in regards to that issue.

  421. LOU-
    Can you speak to the allegations that Hubbard mixed drugs with booze and this contributed to his ‘illusions of grandeur’ as one put it, as an example I read that in a letter to one of his wifes he allegedly admitted to being an opium addict?
    thanks

  422. @john

    for the context of this forum I would expect different. For one, you have come here in offer to discuss likewise with this site in offer to answer the best it can via myself and Lou and Pat and others of which I would hope is outside of what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

  423. I also have one general question, this time relating to current practices and events.

    It has been claimed here that the private detectives and investigation of people operating under the label “Anonymous” are in place as a result of the bomb threats and whatnot.

    My question is, exactly what do those investigations -possibly- accomplish? You get the name and address of some person. That leaves, oh…8-10,000, if we count just the people at the protests. There is, additionally, no guarantee whatsoever that the threats came from anyone who actually attended the protests; rather, they could have come from -anyone-.

    Even on the off chance that one of the few people you identified WAS related, how would your PI find that out? How would having the person’s name, face, and address be useful information in tracking down the culprits?

    It seems to me that if there were actual threats made, the authorities should be more than able to track them down via phone records, IP addresses, etc., and that the use of private detectives can serve only to intimidate.

  424. Pat-
    Thanks for clarifying that issue. So, just to make sure I’m understanding, a transgendered person would be treated the same as any other, if they were getting into Scientology? If that is the case, well, I’m glad to hear it.

  425. Sorry to interrupt BradS, but I repeat Karin Pouws rather insulting and rediculous statement, paraphrased.

    “Anonymous are cyber/domestic communist terrorists who read Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto for inspiration.”

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so to say.

  426. Hi Louanne,

    I saw a post on some blog recently by someone who said he’d been a Scientologist for years but had never been audited. He said he was an active Scientologist simply by owning and studying all the LRH books, and by attending Sunday Services and helping out sometimes at the local Org. So my question is: is that really possible? I was under the impression that undergoing auditing and working your way up the Bridge was the whole point really.

    Heck, if it’s not absolutely required to do the Purif or be audited, then I guess that makes me a Scientologist too, albeit a low-level one. I’ve read all the Basics books and plenty of others as well, and use Scientology concepts in my everyday life.

    (Great work you’re doing by the way! I can’t believe you have the patience to sift through so many rude and insulting comments.)

  427. @nobody

    I do not honestly think you are fearful but rather trying to make a point in that of the perception of tactics used by COS. I will let Pat answer that as I have given my opinion numerous times.

    As for diversity, COS is very diverse, very… that goes for anything from ethnicity to language to opinions.

  428. @E

    First off thanks for starting off with a rather insulting and ludicrous line. If you have a serious question, please ask it.

    As for the Myth rewritten tech, the new basic releases are not rewritten but lost writings and faulty publishings by former publishers and editors. David has nothing to do with authoring anything.

  429. P.S.: Can someone remind me what I have to do to get around the spam filter? I know it was mentioned at some point; I just forget where.

  430. Carrying over from the previous thread…

    “Scientology and Dianetics don’t address the body. Only the spiritual.”
    Yet they claim that the vast majority of problems with the body, if not all of them, are caused by underlying spiritual problems and can therefore be resolved by addressing the spirit. From the Scientology Handbook:

    Unhappiness, inability to heal and psychosomatic illnesses (which include some 70 percent of the illnesses of man) are best handled by immediate address of the thetan.
    h t t p : / / w w w . s c i e n t o l o g y h a n d b o o k . o r g / S H 6 _ 1 . H T M

    Injury and illness are predisposed (made more likely to occur) by the spiritual state of the person. They are precipitated (brought on) by the being himself as a manifestation of his current spiritual condition. And they are prolonged (extended in time beyond normal limits) by any failure to fully handle the spiritual factors associated with them.
    h t t p : / / w w w . s c i e n t o l o g y h a n d b o o k . o r g / S H 6 _ 2 . H T M

    Consequently, it should not be a surprise when Scientology promises a life free from injury and illness. After all, Scientology claims to remove the spiritual conditions that precipitate those things in the body. Unfortunately, modern medicine has a word for such claims: “quackery.”

    “Is there someone you’re connected to that’s opposed to betterment groups?”
    Frankly, yes. But to be fair, it looks like you can’t help it; your unthinking opposition to medical science is just one of the tenets of your so-called religion.

  431. Carrying over from the previous thread…

    “Scientology and Dianetics don’t address the body. Only the spiritual.”
    Yet they claim that the vast majority of problems with the body, if not all of them, are caused by underlying spiritual problems and can therefore be resolved by addressing the spirit. From the Scientology Handbook:

    Unhappiness, inability to heal and psychosomatic illnesses (which include some 70 percent of the illnesses of man) are best handled by immediate address of the thetan.
    http :// www. scientologyhandbook .org/SH6_1.HTM

    Injury and illness are predisposed (made more likely to occur) by the spiritual state of the person. They are precipitated (brought on) by the being himself as a manifestation of his current spiritual condition. And they are prolonged (extended in time beyond normal limits) by any failure to fully handle the spiritual factors associated with them.
    http :// www. scientologyhandbook .org/SH6_2.HTM

    Consequently, it should not be a surprise when Scientology promises a life free from injury and illness. After all, Scientology claims to remove the spiritual conditions that precipitate those things in the body. Unfortunately, modern medicine has a word for such claims: “quackery.”

    “Is there someone you’re connected to that’s opposed to betterment groups?”
    Frankly, yes. But to be fair, it looks like you can’t help it; your unthinking opposition to medical science is just one of the tenets of your so-called religion.

  432. Carrying over from the previous thread…

    “Scientology and Dianetics don’t address the body. Only the spiritual.”
    Yet they claim that the vast majority of problems with the body, if not all of them, are caused by underlying spiritual problems and can therefore be resolved by addressing the spirit. From the Scientology Handbook:

    Unhappiness, inability to heal and psychosomatic illnesses (which include some 70 percent of the illnesses of man) are best handled by immediate address of the thetan.
    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH6_1.HTM

    Injury and illness are predisposed (made more likely to occur) by the spiritual state of the person. They are precipitated (brought on) by the being himself as a manifestation of his current spiritual condition. And they are prolonged (extended in time beyond normal limits) by any failure to fully handle the spiritual factors associated with them.
    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH6_2.HTM

    Consequently, it should not be a surprise when Scientology promises a life free from injury and illness. After all, Scientology claims to remove the spiritual conditions that precipitate those things in the body. Unfortunately, modern medicine has a word for such claims: “quackery.”

    “Is there someone you’re connected to that’s opposed to betterment groups?”
    Frankly, yes. But to be fair, it looks like you can’t help it; your unthinking opposition to medical science is just one of the tenets of your so-called religion.

  433. My question is simple.

    How is Scientology different from the Spanish Inquisition?

    The Inquisition ruthlessly persecuted those who disagree with it, just as Scientology does now. And just as the pope has absolute power, so does David Miscavige have absolute control over the whole organization, to the point that if he rewrites the tech, everybody needs to accept it.

  434. Hello,
    There is so much going on about scientology now. Everybody seems to have an opinion. some say that it is a cult, others say it is a church. When I walk down the street the people try to give me little cardboard cards with lines, sometimes they smile and are nice, others they are a little bit overbearing.

    There is all these famous people in Scientology saying good things about it, but then you read about their lives and they seem afraid, sad, suffering even! Like Katie Holmes, that is now a prisoner in her own house, with motion sensors and digital keylocks and CCTV even in the bathrooms!

    And it is so expensive! It seems that Scientology is only for the super-rich, that it takes huge amounts of money before it actually helps you. And the people that have left scientology, even after all that money, say that it does not really help at all! Is this true?

    And all these youtube videos lately… I saw this one with Tom Cruise and David Miscavige, and they had this wild look in the eyes, as if they were on drugs! They laughed and laughed, but it sounded empty, as if they were robots, or asleep, or hypnotized… it was VERY creepy.

    And they say that Scientology makes you abandon your family! That if your family are catholics or christians and think scientology, you are not allowed to keep in contact! That they force you to be alone, so that you become sad and have no alternative but to do whatever you are told! They say that you are expected to obey, even if you are ordered to do things you do not want to do!

    And they say that Scientology’s prohet, R L Hubbard, was a science fiction writer! That he made up the whole thing just to make money! And that he believed that everybody that is not a scientologist is insane, or deluded or something! And that the only way to be sane is to do all these very expensive courses!

  435. Well, that last thread got closed, but I feel like we have an unfinished conversation so I hope it’s ok if we just transplant it over to this thread. Yes? Ok.

    Pat- I’m sorry if it was rude to butt into your conversation earlier. I was just shocked at what you said. To be honest, your response sort of scared me. To me, it does sound paranoid. You don’t believe in psych terms, so I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.

    My question, however, is do you think it’s ok that people are genuinely terrified of your church? I’m now one of them. My conversation with Brad was pretty decent. I didn’t feel scared. I respected his responses and actually enjoyed conversing with him (I hope our conversations can continue by the way). You, however, scare me quite a bit. Perhaps that’s not your intention, so I’m sorry if I’m over-reacting. Do the majority of Scientologists behave like you or like Brad? Or is it a mix of both? Just how diverse is the church? Does everyone or even just the majority think that the aforementioned behavior is ok? Or are you just speaking from personal experience? It sounds like the former, but I’ll let you answer to clear it up.

    Do you think it’s ok that people like me are now scared of possibly getting stalked by a Scientologist? Or even getting “fair gamed” or whatever it is? Even people who aren’t affiliated with the protests have been stalked (see the coffee shop girl in Clearwater). I’m really quite terrified that I’m going to get targeted just for posting on this blog and that bothers me a lot. That won’t stop me from asking questions though, but I don’t think that this is the type of feeling I should have after talking about a church. If I criticized any other church, I don’t think I’d be met with such hostility and the possibility of being stalked and having my life ruined. Maybe I’m wrong on that, but when I talk to my uncle about his church he’s very accommodating and friendly about it. Most importantly, I have no fear of his church stalking me.

  436. @ Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on April 1, 2008 6:28 pm
    >Okay, I’ve got another general question about Scientology belief/practice:

    >It is stated on the site that the CoS’s anti-homosexual beliefs have been amended. While there are recent reports to the contrary, for the purposes of this question, we’ll accept that premise as true.

    >What is the CoS’s policy towards the transgendered? Particularly in terms of those who end up seeking gender reassignment surgery, I can’t help but -guess- that it probably takes a somewhat dimmer view of these individuals. Again, I’m basing this on my admittedly limited knowledge, but it -seems- like the church would group such surgery under “psychiatric abuses” rather than a genuine medical treatment, and that the issue of gender identity disorder would be believed to be something to address/repair via auditing.

    >However, it is -completely- possible that my reading of the situation is mistaken, and if so, I’d welcome clarification on the subject.

    It’s a medical procedure. Since we deal in the spiritual it wouldn’t be a question of ok or not ok. If someone has spiritual issues with their identity and want to address this then we can. We have no policies about it.

    Pat


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed