Repost: Welcome!

Hi there,

and thanks for visiting this blog! I put it up to give you the opportunity to ask questions, about Scientology, Scientologists, David Miscavige and whatever you feel is related to that. If you are here to make statements or raise a fuss, you are violating the only rule this blog has. Otherwise I am very interested about your questions and will do my best to answer them, using documentation and all I know about the subject.

– Louanne

419 Comments

  1. I wonder if someone can help…

    I routed off Scientology back in the 90’s and never returned (proper procedure was followed – I didn’t blow). I paid for services, some of which were never delivered. So, my account still has money in it. What I want is to get this money returned to me. This isn’t a refund for services delivered but for services that weren’t delivered.

    I was contacted recently by someone from Saint Hill but the moment I mentioned getting this left over money returned, they cut the communication. Why should there be a problem? I have my full account which was printed for me before I left showing everything in detail. I even have an E-Meter that was never used – I never broke the seal.

    All I want is to do is close my account and move on.

    • Hi, JB! Tory Christman wrote about her experience, and there have been several others that have gone through a rather extensive process to get their money back. In her case, she contacted both the IAS and ASHO and was told to sign a waiver. If you are also told to sign a waiver, have a lawyer look over it FIRST- do not sign until you’ve had that done. In her case, she claims that the waiver was unnecessarily restrictive, and was eventually provided with another more standard waiver. According to her (and some others on the ‘net) anecdotal evidence, she was declared supressive only after asking for her money back. Again, take those anecdotal experiences for what it’s worth.

      If you click on my name (in this post) you’ll see a good discussion on this very topic.

      Good luck!

      • Thanks for the the info. I’ve had a look at the thread. The last thing I’m worried about is being labeled a “suppressive”. :)

    • You can contact the reception at the org where you didn’t get services and ask for the routing form. “Atrocity stories” are just that. Embellished to make the apostate look like victim. There are 2 sides to every story, but you never see the other side. That’s deliberate and by design. Best thing you can do is do it yourself without letting others think for you.

  2. Michael,

    What I can do is refer you to a medical doctor that helps people come off psych drugs. CCHR can possibly help with some names of doctors who do this.

  3. I am really loving the theme/design of your web site.

    Do you ever run into any browser compatibility issues?
    A handful of my blog audience have complained about my blog not working correctly in Explorer but looks great in Firefox.

    Do you have any ideas to help fix this issue?

  4. some time ago… call4reform stated…
    “the crimes of annonymous are…” and basically implied that they were not very much….
    I found this picture not long ago… its a conversation that was on annonymouses key site… 4chan… a warning… it is quite disturbing…

    • I believe I said critics of Scientology. Not all critics are anonymous, not all Anonymous are critical of Scientology.
      Besides, all I see is that Simone posted the coordinates to where a body was found after it was discovered. What does that have to do with Scientology or the critical movement?

      • oops, my mistake! If the screenshots are accurate, then someone may have known something, huh? I wonder if they asked the killer, who they arrested in Mexico not long after.
        Question remains… what does this have to do with scientology or its critics?

      • Annonymous was created through 4chan… the gathering of scientology critics on the internet connected with this group… you stated “the crimes of annonyomous are only…” and stated a very few crimes…
        The reality is… this and other shocking crimes have been done by 4chan “annonymous” users for years… They became Scientology critics too, and critics see it as a “benefit” to their “cause”…
        Some have said that this criminal “annonymous” are no longer interested in hitting scientology because its “boring too them” (or more their tactics didnt do much and they refuse to admit it…) and “the Wikileaks scandal has become more important to them” however i am not convinced… I find it difficult to believe that “annonymous” and scientology critics dont continue to have very strong communication lines….
        The question is…
        Of all the groups on the internet… why is it this criminal one was the one critics got involved with?

      • You’re slightly mistaken.
        Scientology “pulled in” the 4chan attackers when they tried to pull a certain video off the internet (the Tom Cruise one). The 4chan folks had been enjoying it for what it was, a very strange video of a celebrity. Scientology invoked copyright law to pull the video off youtube.
        Look up the “barbara streisand effect” to see what happens when you try to censor something embarrassing.
        You know what happens when you take something away from a collective of anonymous individuals, people that range from trustful and honest to criminal and insane? They strike. And they did! Until it was no longer fun.
        However, some of the more dedicated started a group called “project chanology”. Anonymous will attack, defend or ignore anyone, whatever’s more fun. Chanology is dedicated to scientology.
        There is crossover, of course, a lot of people oppose scientology from all walks of life. You’ll have some that are anons, some that are public, some that are former members, lawyers, politicians, adults, kids… the list goes on. But you can’t honestly say that “anonymous” does something, because there is no formal charter, membership or purpose. All you can honestly say is that a sub-group to a counter culture did an action while united under a common meme. In fact, you’re as anonymous as many others who adopt that title- you, like me, have chosen to hide behind a generic identity, never to be revealed.
        So, you know the history a little bit more. Anonymous attacked scientology for the “lulz” after scientology invoked copyright law (pulled it in), Chanology, the actual critics, are not one and the same.

      • so, question remains- who are these critics of scientology that are committing crimes? They’re there- I can show you a few.
        But they simply don’t compare to such things as government infiltration (if you’ve seen the news, there was another defector- an OTV- with stories of their own missions), murder, fraud, harassment, etc.
        I’d rather have my computer hacked than be murdered any day…

      • All that is SUCH a mistranslation of events…
        “pulled in 4chan”… BLAH…
        A poor arguement thats full of holes…
        Grow a wider perspective than that…
        Your too one minded in “making scientology responsible” or more… “blaming scientology”… even when a criminal internet group does things like it has… your wasting my time call4… i dont think i want to come here ever again…

      • And yet, here you are :)
        Please, I’m very interested- what, SPECIFICALLY- are the holes in my argument? What facts do you think I have wrong?

  5. “Individuals with criminal minds tend to band together since the presence of other criminals about them tends to prove their own distorted ideas of man in general.”

    L Ron Hubbard HCOB Criminal Minds

    Pat

    • That’s a very nice quote, if not a little bit of an oversimplification.
      Are you relating that to anything in particular?

      • Its called “repost welcome”… i can only assume Pat put it there for the fun of it…

      • Mebbe, but if you look at the timing and it’s seeming incongruity, it has the appearance of covert hostility.
        But, you know what they say about assumptions, which is why I asked him direct. He’ll be back once things calm down a bit, I suppose; I’ll wait.

  6. I apologize if I’m posting this in the wrong section but I couldn’t find a place to start any kind of new thread.

    I’m curious about what Mr Hubbard had to say about other religions. I’ve read things on the net and I wanted to know what you know about this.

    Thanks

    • Hello, How!
      I have some great resources for you, including voice recordings and other resources. But, just so I can make sure to cause no harm- are you a scientologist? If so, I want to be careful to choose resources that make no mention of the secret advanced materials.
      Thanks!

    • Please listen to “the Phionex lectures”… i cant recall the name of the lecture!… its called “timeline of a something” or something… the first part mensions alot on other religions… it includes things like…
      “Buddism was definatly wisdom”
      “It is possible Jesus studied in india between ages 13-30”
      there is alot more… the lecture should available at your local orgs qual library…
      Ron also states in an interview that “if scientology can get religions to see that they all have a relationship then i feel we would be doing a great service to man”

      • That is true, but all from the publicly available material- the good pr stuff. The advanced material, which I assume Fred has not seen, countermands the pleasant public statements.

      • Good theory call4 but the actions of the church do not reflect that…. good try on creating antagonism though…

      • “Good theory call4 but the actions of the church do not reflect that…. good try on creating antagonism though…”
        That’s quite a harsh judgment of my intentions. Have you ever read the material above OTIII?

      • “That’s quite a harsh judgment of my intentions. Have you ever read the material above OTIII?”
        Irrelevant…
        Have you ever read the ACC’s?

      • yes, what I could make my way through. :)
        But that’s not the point, and it’s a question that you’re ignoring, doing exactly what Luke accused me of doing…
        My point remains- do you have any idea whatsoever what Hubbard taught at the higher levels? If not, I’m sure you would agree that you can’t say what hubbard said in them, or if what those that reached those levels claim are true.
        Are you saying a definitive answer while knowing you have incomplete information?

      • Your trying to take something… again… outcontext… and then make an arguement out of it… i dont have time…

      • It would seem that you do, as you’re here…
        Seems to be in context to me. I see a lot of that- “you’re wrong!”, but without bothering to explain how I’m wrong. I think that’s more of a blanket statement than a decent argument.

    • LRH says a lot about religion in general but the idea here is that Scientology is an applied religious philosophy. It’s something one does, not something we believe. Which is why it can be all-denominational.

      Pat

      • Thank you for the input, pat.
        So would you that that Scientology is compatible with all religions?

      • Comment by Call4Reform on July 14, 2011 11:39 am

        Then it’s safe to say that we’ll not communicate to or about each other from this point forward. That way we can avoid my use of my technology.

        Good bye.

        Pat

      • … really… really trying to figure out what you’re trying to say here…
        If you’re saying that you don’t want to communicate with me any more, then you certainly don’t need my approval to do that.
        If you’re implying that it was my idea… whahuh?
        It seems to me that you may be breaking off comms in order to avoid the questions that I’ve raised, as I’ve noticed you have done in the past- you really don’t have to do anything special with me, Pat, I’m a simple guy. If you don’t want to / can’t answer my questions, you can just say so and the subject will be closed.
        But, if there was a miscommunication, all I’m saying is that your style of communication is fairly uncommon, but I’d be happy to respect it.

    • Comment by Call4 on July 12, 2011 8:52 am

      “Thank you for the input, pat.”

      So now you’re thanking me for my reply to How? WTH!!!

      Pat

      • Yes, you gave input to soneone’s question, and I appreciated that you did so.
        Does that offend you?

      • No, I’m not offended. I think that you were wrong to thank me for my answer to How. It wasn’t your communication to acknowledge and you violated a cycle of communication.

        Pat

      • So, since you’re touching on our previous conversation, in which you neglected to define your standards for comms cycles- (as we talked about in this thread: Comment by CallForReform on June 12, 2011)

        it’s okay for you to answer questions directed at someone else
        It’s okay for you to comment on someone else’s conversation
        It’s not okay for me to do the same
        And now we add that it’s wrong to thank you for helping to answer someone’s question

        I think I captured it all, but you disappeared the last time I asked you to share your rules for comms cycles. I’m afraid I just dont understand your standards, when they’re different for you than for other people.
        Can you clarify?

      • To clarify what I’m trying to say; what you’re saying is “wrong” for me, would it be wrong for you to do?

      • Wow I think Pat has finally lost his mind. Yelling at someone for saying thank you, it’s a new low. Hey Pat, take a vacation or something, let off some steam!

      • Wow! Talk about taking things out of context (and proportion)!

        I called you on acknowledging my reply to How. In the comm cycle, that is what How would do.

        In an example, Mr Brown asks a question of a group of students, what the square root of 64? Anyone can answer since it wasn’t directed to a specific person. Call answers and Pat answers. Before Mr Brown can let Pat know that he heard the answer, Call tells Pat thanks for the answer. That’s the issue here. I don’t know if How got my comm because you acknowledged and ended the cycle of communication.

        Refer http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH5_2.HTM

        When I object to matters of communication, it’s when someone else cuts into the cycle and doesn’t let it finish. You have your own communications here and I don’t ever try to stop them.

        Pat

      • Comment by Call4Reform on July 13, 2011 6:32 pm

        “To clarify what I’m trying to say; what you’re saying is “wrong” for me, would it be wrong for you to do?”

        If at any time, I have acknowledged your answer to someone’s question, then I apologize. I don’ t think I have but if you have some specific time I did that then feel free to point it out.

        Also, I have objected to someone else answering a question I’ve asked specifically to a person, again interfering with the cycle of communication. It’s like your Mom asking if you want a piece of cake, and your sister saying “what he means is…” or “no, he doesn’t”.

        It’s true that I have answered for Louanne when she has been gone for awhile, but never when she’s actively posting.

        Pat

      • Comment by Barney on July 14, 2011 7:39 am

        :P

        Pat

      • “Wow! Talk about taking things out of context (and proportion)!”
        I really don’t think it is, Pat, as I’m asking you to clarify your rules for communication. You’re applying scientology standards and concepts for communication, but don’t take into account that the rest of the world, especially the online world, doesn’t work that way. And as you’re primarily communicating with non-scientologists, you may be more effective at getting your point across if you were to communicate in a way that more people could relate to. I assume of course, that that is your goal- to represent scientology to the best of your ability while effectively transferring concepts and information? If so, enforcing concepts that we don’t agree with directly opposes those goals. Unless you have other goals for your communication?

        You see, you ask me for examples, but I’ve already give you FIVE examples in this thread alone. Basically, I take umbridge with you chastising me for something that you yourself do. However, you’ve said that it’s wrong when you do it, so at least you’re finally applying the same standard. I accept your apology, and acknowledge the way you wish to communicate. So, for instance, when you say “You have your own communications here and I don’t ever try to stop them”, I would say that maybe you won’t any more, but you did fairly recently. But, I think we can agree to communicate online in our own unique way.

        But, I’m sure you must understand that your way of communicating is difficult for the world to understand, as most of us don’t communicate that way. You list examples, but you’re talking about real world examples that don’t necessarily apply to the online world. For example, in the real world, we’re taught not to talk to strangers; yet you (and I) are essentially hiding behind masks of anonymity. Online, you and I think nothing of having deep conversations with strangers who, like you and I, won’t reveal their identities. Would you, in real life, join a conversation with someone wearing a mask?

        The analogy you give, then, is flawed. For example, using your analogy, if my mom asks me if I want a piece of cake, she’s probably talking directly to me. But if my sister says, “Mom, that’s really nice of you to offer a piece of cake”, then I wouldn’t think anything of it, nor would most. That’s more accurate to the situation at hand, then your analogy which doesn’t reflect the actual situation. But, even more so, posting online is like shouting in a crowded room- it’s not private conversation. It’s like my mom taking the microphone in front of hundreds of people, and saying , “Call, would you like a piece of cake?” The question is directed to me, but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone else commented on it, or even said, “I would!” Or, to put it in a very direct scenario- have you ever seen the price is right? The host asks the question, and the contestant answers. Then his/her family members say, “good answer! Good answer!”. Perhaps, to you, that also is wrong?

        But, again, you have your preference, and I can respect that. So, if you don’t comment on anything I say, do or communicate, then I can happily do the same. I will not, for instance, thank you for your input as I did here.

        As a closing thought, you say, “It’s true that I have answered for Louanne when she has been gone for awhile, but never when she’s actively posting.” How much time must pass before it’s ‘okay’ to post for someone? Also, what if one of us were to post something that the other strongly disagrees with? How would you like us to address such a situation?

  7. Happy fourth of July, all! No matter what our religious beliefs or personal opinions, it’s wonderful to live in a country that allows us to discuss them.
    God Bless America!
    or,
    May the Original Thetan Bless America! :)

    • “Original Thetan Bless America”
      Are you trying to insult scientology with that comment?

      • No, I’m am referencing Laurie Hamilton’s statement of her belief as to the nature of God. Does her belief offend you?

      • Oh your trying to annoy her! Ok…

      • Oh, Fred, you’re being silly. Laurie Hamilton is not here. She answers questions about scientology at allexperts.com and stated that as her belief of what ‘God’ is. If you don’t believe that, that’s fine- I don’t believe that I was asking you to.
        Are you just looking for things to be upset over?

  8. “So my own philosophy is that one should share what wisdom he has, one should help themselves and one should keep going despite heavy weather, for there is always a calm ahead.”

    L Ron Hubbard from Scientology: A New Slant on Life

    Pat

  9. Comment by Mary on June 30, 2011 7:49 am

    WordPress doesn’t accept multiple links. You have to put (dot) in place of “.” in the link to skip the filter. I am just a poster here. I have nothing to do with administering the blog.

    Pat

    • Well, then I apologize. I would never want to falsely accuse anyone of anything, or be falsely accused. I would remove my entire post venting about it if I could!

      • Common mistake- youve probably seen that deleting posts happens quite a bit around here, so it’s an understandable concern. You can also put web URLs in the “website” field of your postings.

    • we’re basically saying the same thing. The judge never evaluated, for instance, if Claire were forced to get an abortion, for example, only that the courts were not going to get involved. Like I said, we’ll probably see more in upcoming cases that aren’t covered by the exception.

      • oops- wrong space. But you know what I mean :)

  10. I was thinking about recent conversations and realized that what is coming in here is criticism, without solutions. Then I had to laugh, because that’s exactly what LRH said would happen when we are winning and achieving our aims. It drives the critics wild.

    Hey, go for it!

    Pat

    • Then Scientology must be doing better every day, because the worldwide criticism is growing rapidly- books, newspapers, websites, blogs, lawsuits… Not an ideal measure of success, but whatever works.
      You have a source for that?

      • Aside, I think to most folks, criticism includes the implied desire that said criticismS be addressed and remediated. For example, I criticized the Catholic Church for it’s handling of the sex abuse scandal- Is it REALLY neccesary to qualify it by saying “stop with all the molestin’!”?

        Similarly, much like historical critics before me (Martin luther being one), I continue to bring problems to light. Scientology may address them, else the public may continue to grow increasingly critical and non-supportive. It’s a self correcting (or self destructive, depending) mechanism.

      • There’s a lot of tech behind it, but the general idea is when attention is drawn to us we become interesting and those who are interested check us out.

        HCOB 1 May 1958 Signs of Success

        “Whenever we’re really winning, the squirrels start to scream. You can tell if somebody is a squirrel. They howl or make trouble when we’re winning.

        Spectacular success can quadruple the number of complaints [lol, boy did it!]. Tell the complainers “Come in, get Clear”. Otherwise, skip it.”

        Aside from that there’s the anti-social personality factor

        Introduction to Scientology Ethics
        Chapter 8, page 177
        The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist

        Way To Happiness Book Precept on Flourish and Prosper.

        So, ladies and gents, I’m taking his advice.

        Huffington Post article by Grant Cardone “Why Criticism is Important to Success”

        Posted: 06/28/11 in the Business section

        Pat

      • Then I, and thousands upon thousands of others (a growing number) will continue to help you celebrate this success.

        I would point out, however, that Hubbard may have not considered the fact that sometimes one is criticized when wrong, rather than right.

        But, in the mean time, I admire your optimism.

      • This is fun. What are you winning, Pat? Have you seen the independent studies showing worldwide membership in Scientology is under 70,000 people? Keep on that winning, Pat! If you want to trust the words of a college drop-out, that’s your business, just quit stealing money and tearing families apart. Other than that, believe whatever you want to believe. It’s a free country (not that a Scientologist knows what freedom is).

      • By the way, isn’t grant cardone a scientologist?

      • LOL, the more people who leave and talk about their horrible experiences, the more successful Scientology is! I hope you are the last Scientologist left, Pat–you will be the most successful person ever!! LOL!! I find it highly amusing that we are being called anti-social by someone who can’t even read or comprehend what other people are trying to say!!!

        And yes, Grant Cardone is a high level Scientologist. Clearly Pat could not refer to someone who isn’t. Those other people are too anti-social! LOL!

      • And even cardone says, in his article:

        “Disregard the criticism and get more attention. (Never attack the haters).”

        He lists that as a step in using criticism to further success (essentially writing an entire article around the flawed platitude, “there’s no such thing as bad press”). That’s his step 2- in other words, the grant claims that the criticism PRECEEDS success, which is contrary to hubbard’s belief that success is measured by criticism.

        In grant’s model, the process doesn’t work if you attack the critics. This, too, seems to be contrary to modern scientology, which produces websites and magazines to attack critics.

        Many organizations that are suffering due to heavy international criticism use the same defense- “it proves that we’re right,” they claim. Large businesses, fringe groups (like the westboro baptist ‘church’) and colonel qadaffi (sp?) all used the same argument. I would say that if the criticism is valid, and continues to be ignored by management, the increased scrutiny might not have the positive effect you’re hoping for.

      • Don’t you know you can’t win an argument with Pat? He/she is an unstoppable force of nature and no amount of facts, reason, or friendliness will have any impact whatsoever!

        It’s been a while Pat, keep on fighting!!! Give ’em hell!!!

      • LOL. Actually that’s true, but not in the way you’re thinking. The benefit to these guys being off org lines is that the orgs do better.

        So, let the squirrels leave :)

        Pat

      • Appears that they, too, are happy to oblige, Pat, since the independent movement seems to be growing pretty quickly. Of course, if the “criminal element” is leaving scientology, I’d imagine that you’d find that the number of crimes committed by independents are much higher than those committed by scientologists in good standing…?

        Boy, according to what you’re saying, the growing number of people critical of scientology, and the growing number of former high-ranking members leaving the organization, how else could you explain that but that scientology is doing extremely well.

      • My post was deleted!! I thought this was a discussion board? If Pat is allowed to cite websites, then why can’t I? I knew Pat wouldn’t read other points of view, but I see that the entire religion is banning them. Censorship is not the answer, Pat, just ask Hitler. Congratulations though, you just joined his ranks! No wonder you don’t believe the truth out there, you can’t even read it!! The real world out here allows freedom of thought. It’s wonderful Pat, I hope one day you will see!!!

      • Mary, if you included more than one link, it probably got caught in the filter for manual review. And since Louanne seems to be… elsewhere… for now, that may take a while. If you break up the URL, it should post just fine.
        For example, www (dot) google (dot) com

      • Forgive my skepticism, but I will believe that when I see it back on the web page!

    • It’s too bad that there’s still no solutions being offered.

      Pat

      • Pat, if you can’t even acknowledge the possibility that problems exist, then how can we hope to have meaningful discussions about solutions? You have then eliminated any possibilty of establishing a common ground from which we could productively discuss. We cannot move to that portion of the conversation if you continue to refuse to consider that issues are present.

      • So, pat, here’s what I expect would happen if we fall down that pit of wasted time:

        I would give you a list of items that I would like to see improved or reformed. As you have made it very clear that you don’t acknowledge any problems within the group, you would approach my list with a closed mind and attempt to counter or criticize them, and possibly me, personally. I would counter with my own thoughts, continuing the chain reaction. As we never established the common ground, we would be left to argue over certain aspects that are a matter of perceptions of value and utility, particularly given the mental buffer afforded to senior management.

        As you are not, I believe, in a position to directly effect change, even if you did see a need for it, great time and effort would be expended to no discernible benefit. So, it’s far more productive to continue to seek common ground. As ive already played this conversation out, I don’t see a need to do it.

      • Having fun? lol

        Pat

      • Actually I am. I always enjoy a good conversation. You?

    • If you’re going to compare the anti-Scientology rhetoric with the Catholic church then you should use the apostate, since those reporting the priests aren’t apostate. It just isn’t the same thing.

      Did people actually agree to the Sea Org rules or not? So, after leaving they then claim that there were laws broken, but the court says no, it’s all within the realm of the religious order, and that people knew about the fact that if a woman gets pregnant and wishes to have the child, then she would have to leave. So what’s to reform? Even the leaving thing. It’s policy that one gets a security check before leaving. That policy is studied by every new staff member or Sea Org member. Ask in your forums, how many of those who left came clean on what their actions were before leaving.

      Pat

      • Actually, there are many Catholic “apostates” that opposed the Church’s actions.
        Besides, I really don’t have a problem with the sea org rules you’re listing. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t necessarily agree with all of them, but if adults want to get tangled in with a group like that, that’s their choice- who am I to judge?
        Remember, you’re the one that brought up the Headley’s, not I, and not Mary, or any other “critic” at this time. I consider the Moltavo case to be of more pressing concern than the Headley one.

      • Montalvo is the same thing.

        Pat

      • I’ll be interested in seeing how his thefts get handled (which is why he was arrested to begin with).

        Pat

      • yes, Pat, we’ll see, won’t we?
        The hard drives have no bearing on the factuality, or lack thereof, of his allegations.
        But it’s not the same- he was a minor when he entered into the contract. It will be determined if ministerial exception may extend to a minor.

      • You will also discover that his Sea Org contract was signed at 16, not 6, and that he, himself, chose to join. Again, he knew that he was supposed to get a security check before leaving, but chose to blow, and buzzing the word “escape” isn’t going to change that he avoided the procedure, likely due to his stealing.

        Pat

      • Back to the apostates, I found it interesting that all the time these guys at whyweprotest are railing against the church, they are stealing scientology books and lectures.

        Pat

      • sigh, okay, Pat. Thanks for your input. I look forward to the outcome of the case.
        By the way, 16 is still a minor.
        And, yes, some people are stealing books and the like- that has no bearing on their claims of findings. Perhaps if the religious material were more accessible to people, that would happen less often.

      • These may give you some background on the case:

        markrathbun (dot) files.wordpress (dot) com/2011/03/montalvo_v_csi (dot) pdf

        markrathbun (dot) files.wordpress (dot) com/2011/03/montalvo_v_bridge_publications (dot) pdf

      • Do you have a resource showing that Daniel was 16 when he joined, rather than 6 as he claimed? The only thing I can see about 16 is that he was injured working for scientology at 16, which is why he’s still missing part of a finger.
        I do hope, for my own curiousity, that the hard drive issue goes to court- I’m very eager to see how a few used hard drives that were voluntarily returned constitute grand theft.
        I also have to wonder why he did return- according to Daniel, he returned to try and route out the correct way. He must have been surprised when they arrested him instead.

      • Comment by Call4 on July 2, 2011 6:13 pm

        By the way, 16 is still a minor – with parental consent to join a religious order and all that entails.

        And, yes, some people are stealing books and the like- that has no bearing on their claims of findings. Perhaps if the religious material were more accessible to people, that would happen less often.

        Lame

        The books are in the libraries in over 50 languages and that you (anyone) can walk into any Church or mission around the world and ask for the Qual library and read / listen for free kind of accessible?

        Pat

      • You’d be surprised, Pat, how few libraries carry the books, much less the policy letters and the like. Which local library carries any P/L? And, my local library, like many others, don’t carry any of Hubbard’s books at all. So how far would you have me drive to view a policy letter? How many hours (as there is no church near me) shall I travel in order to view the references that you give?
        Why does scientology have an interest in donating the books to the libraries, if not to widely disseminate the works of Hubbard? If that’s the interest, then why would they oppose people sharing the books in digital form, if it’s okay to share the books in print form?
        Also, what of those in third-world countries who have access to the internet, but the nearest library is days away, and there’s no org in the country? How would you spread the word to them- shipping physical books one at a time?

      • Also, when was the last time you went to an org and asked to listen to something for free? If so, let me know- I was charged a fee.

      • Someone already did the math, I guess.

        scientologytruths (dot) wordpress (dot) com (slash) 2009/11/12/go-to-your-library-just-fill-up-your-gas-tank-first/

        You can see that only about 6% of California libraries carry the most “popular” of the books. So, if you’re telling me to go to the library, might want to help me find which one- none in my city, nor the surrounding ones, seem to carry them.

      • That’s a no brainer and I’m surprised that you even asked this.

        It’s called exchange. Anyone who thinks it’s ok to steal anothers property rather than pay for it is criminal

        Pat

      • But I’m not bound by the Scientology concept of exchange, am I?
        Personally, I believe that Hubbard’s policy letters and writings should be available to those that can’t otherwise see them, rich and poor alike. What would YOU do, Pat, for those that have only the internet to work off of? No orgs, no libraries- how do you propose they’re reached?
        Scientology doesn’t give them much for free, of course, as you’ve pointed out- so they’re left to browse the incredible amount of negative information about scientology. Personally, I believe that they should have sufficient information from both sides in order to make an informed choice. What do you believe?
        But, they’re left with what they have, and it’s not very positive towards the group. Have you ever done a google news search for the term “scientology”?

      • All policy letters and technical bulletins are available in the Org Executive and Technical volumes at Bridgepub.com. Free? No, exchange is needed since it does cost to produce them.

        Has anyone written to them and asked for a copy of a policy letter?

        Exchange is not a Scientology concept. Stealing is something this society frowns on as immoral. Your advocacy is for the side of the criminally minded who thinks that no one ever really owns anything. Scientology data is so easy to get it hurts (to paraphrase Louanne ;p)

        Pat

      • Oh, Pat, always so eager to condemn me, it seems.

        What I’m saying is that I, as a mere wog, am not bound by the doctrine that “anytime a person receives something, he must pay something back”. This, of course, is the religious-based reason given to the IRS why scientology services are charged as a flat fee, which would normally not be protected under a tax-exempt operation. The rest of us, me included, believe that it’s okay to create things simply to give to others, as an altruistic purpose.

        Do you know how much it would cost to post the policy letters and technical volumes online? Not too much, little bit of bandwidth cost, maybe. The outdated model that scientology uses means that those that the ones that can’t afford the shipping cost and printing cost (plus added costs, since the cost is greater than is required to cover costs alone), they’re left in the dark, aren’t they? And if I were to purchase every lecture that you told me to reference- that would be rather pricy. How much did Hubbard charge people to attend his lectures when he was alive?

        I have not written, but I have called- I was given a price sheet.

        I don’t advocate for stealing- I do advocate for freely sharing information that one believes would truly help someone. Look at scientists and medical researchers- they write up a study and try to share it with the world, not hold onto it for people that are willing to buy it. Why? Because they believe that it would help the world- why would you restrict access to something that you truly believe would help people?

      • Just think about the practicality, Pat, if you want to raise worldwide conditions and eventually clear the planet, why would you start off by restricting access to the resources to those that can afford it? Aren’t the very poor, those that are suffering, the ones that need it the most?
        So yes, I believe that some information should be free. What I can’t understand is why scientology doesn’t agree.

      • I actually don’t care if you’re offended at having it pointed out that you have a “everybody owes me” attitude about life. Man up.

        You’ve sold short a whole bunch of folks by claiming that they aren’t even able enough to buy a book or go to an org or mission and listen to a $2 tape play. I hope anyone seeing what you said about poor people see how you think of them. Libraries are now part of what is called the Inter-Library Loan system. All one needs to do is ask for the book to be lent if it’s not in their library. That really is a very weak excuse for downloading an illegal copy of copyrighted work.

        Pat

      • Pat,
        Breathe deep
        Count to ten
        Read my comments again
        Repeat as needed

      • Are you a girl? Meow.

        Pat

      • Nope, just someone that values literacy.

      • Besides, Pat, you may be forgetting your own statements from before:

        “Being poor is a condition of existence. It means that one is not applying the conditions to his life or the affluence of tools available in Scientology Administration Tech”
        Comment by Pat on March 28, 2011 5:00 am (I can’t see that they are helpful for anything thread)

        So if you want to attack me for “how I think of them”, the go right ahead- I’ll even help you. I think that they’re human beings who shouldn’t be exploited for financial gain; is that so wrong of me? Do you believe that the poor are that way because of their own fault?

        So then, after that, you tell me that I’ve “sold short a whole bunch of folks by claiming that they aren’t even able enough to buy a book or go to an org or mission and listen to a $2 tape play”.

        Are you aware of the realities of global poverty, at least those that you DON’T blame on the poor themselves? Consider the following:

        At least 80% of humanity lives on LESS than $10 a day

        22,000 children die every day due to poverty

        EVERY OTHER child in the world is born into poverty

        The world bank defined the poverty line as living on $1.25 a day. About 10% of people in the world live in that condition.

        Almost HALF the world, over 3 BILLION people, live on less than $2.50 a day.

        So your suggestion that some people simply drive to the nearest library, or maybe their nearest org spend their entire daily ration to listen to a tape is either insensitive or uninformed, and I wonder which it is.

        Consider a person in Africa, and this is a real scenario; they live nowhere near a library that would carry scientology books- their village does what it can. They live nowhere near an org, but even if they scraped up the money to get down there and listen to a tape, what would that do for them? No, they go to the internet cafe and look up “scientology” and they get what the internet has to offer- they get what both scientology and its critics will give them for free. The critics and the independants seem to believe in giving information away for free; scientology does not. So they explore further. Like I asked before, have you done a google news search for scientology lately? I’d bet you that a lot of potential members have, and the lovely self-generated press releases aren’t quite keeping up.

        What’s the reason scientology copyrights its work, Pat? simply to control the content, or for profit? If it’s simply to control the content and ensure the pure application of the text… are they not aware that that could still be done and provided for free, to those that can’t afford to pay for the services? So, the question is, what does scientology do for them, those that can’t benefit the group financially? How do THEY climb the bridge?

      • “Comment by Pat on July 6, 2011 4:15 am
        Are you a girl? Meow.
        Pat”

        Something wrong with girls, “Pat”?
        What are you trying to say?

      • That’s just Pat. When he/she finally runs out of arguments, he/she resorts to basic insults. Pat told me the ‘High Road’ doesn’t apply to Scientology. Don’t worry though, Pat won’t lose the argument, at least not according to him/her!! Keep up the fight, Pat!!

      • Hee hee!
        Well, my daddy used to tell me that there’s no shame in losing to the best, and it looks to me that pat is the best!
        Didnt Hubbard say something about “pulling in” criticism and bad events? Pat pulled me in with (I assume a he?) his sexist comments. I wonder how he feels about criticism that he invites in?
        Steph

      • OK. I admit it. You don’t have to be a girl to be catty.

        Pat

      • That’s very big of you, Pat.
        Since I was the one you were trying to insult… What exactly did you mean? Wording is important, it helps to understand in what way I’m being personally attacked, and can help you avoid pulling in yet another critic.

      • Oh Pat. Following up a childish insult with a snide innuendo? You’re really hitting the bottom of the barrel. I expected so much more out of you. Where are the references and quotations? ‘Catty’ is just a meaningless buzzword, big guy!

      • Thank you! Thank you! Always happy to amuse!

        *bows left, bows right, bows facing forward*

        Pat

      • Wow, is that a sense of humor?!? Next thing you know, you’ll be saying nice things about people!!

        Bravo, Pat! Standing ovation!

      • Cheers.wav
        Flowers.bmp

      • Comment by Stephanie on July 6, 2011 10:28 am

        “Didnt Hubbard say something about “pulling in” criticism and bad events?”

        Nope. Look at the glossary at http://www.scientologymyths.info re: the overt motivator sequence.

        Perhaps you’d like to read the reference about anti-social personalities?

        http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH11_1.HTM

        also read the section with the same link above only change the _1 to _2.

        Pat

    • Gopat!!! Ut so right

  11. Comment by Mary on June 28, 2011 10:57 am

    What an incredible generality. The Headleys did take these allegations to court and the charges were thrown out. The point is that allegations are allegations. Apostate “testimony” is suspect. Haven’t you seen the independent study on this?

    http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/Kliever/

    Pat

    • Mary, forgive me for the addition, but I have some input.
      Pat, it’s a falsehood to say that the charges were “thrown out”. The charges were never even considered, so their validity was never tested. The court refused to hear the case based on a successful petition by the CoS under the first amendment.
      In doing so, the judge acknowledged the allegations, saying that he would be unable to analyze “the reasonableness of the methods” used to discipline Sea Org members and to prevent them from leaving.
      So, as the allegations were never tested in court, we can’t judge their validity from a legal perspective.
      But if you don’t want the generalities, there’s countless more allegations, trials and legal convictions. The upcoming Daniel Montalvo trial will cover some of the same ground, but with an added degree of specificity. There will be a big difference here because, unlike the Headleys, Montalvo was a minor when the alleged incidents took place.
      Now, you quote, correctly, a study by Prof. Lonie Kliever regarding the reliability of former members. That may be true, and certainly is in some cases. But tens of thousands and growing? 1,500 public former members, including many former high-level OT’s and executives? It would be foolish to think that every single one of those is merely dissatisfied, especially when leaving can have far worse implications than staying.
      Now, Kliever wrote many glowing reports and praises about scientology. Clearly, he was quite a fan. But I would point out that those that are in ALSO have a vested interest, and are necessarily biased. You, if I may point out, have demonstrated that by an inability to consider that there could be any room for improvement. In many cases, the truth lies somewhere between the die-hard critic and the unwavering adherent.
      But what of those legitimate issues, and problems? What of those former Catholics (or independent Catholics) that spoke out publicly against their own rape and sexual abuse? Are they merely apostates that should be discounted?
      But even Professor Kliever had concerns about scientology, saying that he’s troubled by Scientology’s “Mean Streak” and tells his students that religion isn’t “necessarily a good thing”. we all have biases, don’t we? (All things considered: Scientology, NPR, march 12, 1997)

      • ROTFLMAO

        Really, dude. Don’t you fact check?

        “But tens of thousands and growing? 1,500 public former members,”

        1500 compared to millions? pftt..

        Pat

      • You bore me.

        Pat

      • You don’t seem bored, Pat. In fact, you’ve been quite lively.

        I do fact check, but I think that you and I may have different standards for “facts”. 1500 is just the number of former members who publicly speak out against the group in interviews, protests, legal challenges, etc. Most of those have the same type of stories detailing that which they personally observed. And we’re not even counting the tens of thousands of former members that post online. Nor are we considering the unknown number that left scientology and now live quiet lives away from the group. Nor are we considering the growing number of independent scientologists (or what you may call “squirrels”).

        Now, where did you “fact check” your claim of millions? The number that you were given? The only one that claims that number is church management, and even that number includes those that don’t consider themselves scientologists. In fact, as I’ve taken coursework, I, too, am considered a scientologist.

        Surely you didn’t check that number against religious surveys and polls, for no more than 55,000 were able to be found in the latest religious identification survey. So where, if I can ask, did you do YOUR fact checking?

      • Children’s lives were ruined and you’re laughing and arguing about numbers? Saying “You bore me”? That’s the best you’ve got? You should be ashamed of yourself!! You’re embarrassing yourself Pat. Your refusal to open your eyes to the possibility that even some of the thousands of stories could be true paints your intellect in a very dim light. You might be good at arguing, but your ability for independent thought is seriously lacking. Until you are willing to look at both sides of the story, nothing you say is credible.

      • Mary,
        Were you aware that david miscavige’s own brother and neice are among those vocal critics? Both former members, they, too, now speak out against that which they had witnessed.

      • All allegations by the Headleys were dismissed.

        There is no mention here of the First Amendment. Do you have the opinion from the judge on these?

        Claire
        rottenrat(dot)com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/C270-a-Copy(dot)pdf

        Marc
        rottenrat(dot)com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/M171a-Copy(dot)pdf

        Pat

      • sorry for the dup posts.

        Pat

      • Yes.

        In his decision, the judge (U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer) said that ‘that the Headleys performed religious duties and that the Sea Org falls within the “ministerial exception” commonly granted to religious groups in employment cases. The exception prevents the court from prying into the church’s internal workings to get to the bottom of the Headleys’ allegations.’

        He further wrote: “Inquiry into these allegations would entangle the court in the religious doctrine of Scientology and the doctrinally motivated practices of the Sea Org,”  

        This was a case based on labor laws, and the dismissal is backed up by countless legal precedent. In fact, I can’t find an exception, against any church.

        That was the reason for dismissal, it was covered by legal precedent set largely by Catholic and Jesuit churches.

      • “Comment by Pat on July 1, 2011 3:09 am
        sorry for the dup posts.
        Pat”

        Didn’t see any, but I’ve done that more than once in my life! :)

      • Comment by Call4 on July 1, 2011 8:52 am

        Link please. Not that I think that you would lie, but like to look for myself.

        Pat

      • sure, this one should do:

        www (dot) tampabay (dot) com /news/scientology/judge-dismisses-two-lawsuits-aimed-at-scientology/1113544

      • Ok. Thanks.

        I had said earlier that all the charges were thrown out and someone (Mary?) said it was just the labor part, but it wasn’t. The lawsuit (at least Claire’s was) was re: labor & wages, abortions and human trafficking. All charges were thrown out. I used the term “thrown out” idiomatically, btw.

        “In her ruling, Judge Fischer noted that both Headleys knew the Sea Org’s rules when they joined, and the ministerial exception prevents the courts from second guessing those rules. She cited a prior ruling that said: “Government interference with the church-minister relationship inherently burdens religion.” ”

        Pat

      • Correct, Pat- and that’s my point. The charges were never considered for their worth, as the case never reached trial. The judge never said that such things did not happen, only that the court was unfit to rule in that particular case using the same legal precedent as cited by multiple other churches. The judge never saw, nor ruled, on any available evidence. We still don’t know what would have happened if the case had gone to full trial, but we may with Daniel M. THe difference is that the Headley’s were of legal age to enter into such a contractual relationship- Daniel was not.

      • They weren’t considered because the allegations weren’t true, due to the exception that religions have and if acted on would have violated the Constitution. And, let’s not forget, the judge made a point of the fact that the rules were known and agreed to.

        Pat

    • By the way, his alleged hard drive theft is a seperate matter, of course. Is there any update on that case?

  12. Geez, again.

    “just like any group, even scientology. In any group, there’s good and bad people- that’s why I, too, encourage reform (of scientology)”

    Why would you reform a group because there’s a bad person in the group? Talk about wrong target.

    Pat

    • For the same reason you would reform psychiatry despite the good “psychs”- to root out the bad and further the good.

      • The only “good” psychs are the ones trying to reform psychiatry.

        Pat

      • Not necessarily, any more than saying that the only “good” scientologist are those trying to reform the church.
        Do you believe that those psychiatrists that work ethically and responsibly are bad, if they’re not actively opposing corruption in others?

      • I find it amusing that someone who has no idea about what Scientology does first hand talks about “reform”. So far, you haven’t presented one cite about this “reform” and what exactly (specific acts that violate the law) it is that you’re trying to reform based on actual investigation by the appropriate authorities. You are either a merchant of chaos or their unwitting patsy.

        “Do you believe that those psychiatrists that work ethically and responsibly are bad, if they’re not actively opposing corruption in others?”

        I think it depends on what is considered ethical and responsible. Current practitioners of the “drug ’em” or “shock ’em” school are neither.

        Pat

      • “So far, you haven’t presented one cite about this “reform” and what exactly (specific acts that violate the law) it is that you’re trying to reform based on actual investigation by the appropriate authorities. You are either a merchant of chaos or their unwitting patsy.”

        Took you a little while to get to the insults, didn’t it? I’m intentionally not getting into that, out of respect for you and your religion. Additionally, you’re not the correct audience for that conversation- unless you’re perpetrating anything that requires reformation.
        Even Fred agrees that there are problems within the group, just like any other, and those problems deserve to be addressed. But according to a growing list of almost 1,500 former members, and a larger number than that that wish to remain anonymous, internal controls aren’t being effective. So, I continue to push for reformation in ways that are no way related, and would be a detraction, from this conversation.
        Do you believe that the current church is flawless? Or are there some areas that could stand improvement?

      • “I think it depends on what is considered ethical and responsible. Current practitioners of the “drug ‘em” or “shock ‘em” school are neither.”

        What of those many that are neither?

      • Comment by Call4 on June 27, 2011 6:37 pm

        Reread my comment. lookup “neither”

        Pat

      • Pat, I’d ask you to do the same. Perhaps the repeat of the word “neither” was confusing.
        You said, “Current practitioners of the “drug ‘em” or “shock ‘em” school are neither.”
        I asked what of those that are neither (practioners of drug ’em or shock ’em)?

      • neither ethical nor responsible

        Pat

      • okay… what of those that fit neither category? Or do you believe that all members of the psychiatric profession are irresponsible and unethical?

    • “So, I continue to push for reformation”

      Reform of what? You say it doesn’t matter here then you say it again. Reform of what, exactly?

      Pat

      • Pat, that’s an unproductive road that is not related. You will say, perhaps, that it is, which would be ironic given all of my questions that you’ve ignored.
        I feel that saying so would not do well for this communication, and would distract us from our our current comms cycle.
        Regardless, you are not the proper audience, nor are you receptive to criticism.
        I wonder if you will continue to push me for an answer, while ignoring my question, about whether or not there are “any” problems with the church.

      • about whether or not there are “any” problems with the church.

        There are not. In every org there will be situations where a policy isn’t applied and has to be corrected. But from your question I’m thinking that you’re asking for some big problem that isn’t being fixed and the answer to that is no. Fred has some issues with multiple releases, etc. but that’s his issues for whatever his reason is. I personally apply LRH’s policy on Knowledge Reports that every public person and staff are required to use. If I see something I report it and that’s the end of it. This is right in there on this “reform” subject that you continue to evade. Yes, I do want an answer, because I seriously believe you have no valid answers of founded law breaking that has to be reformed.

        Pat

      • Believe that all you want to, Pat :)
        But I’m not going to get dragged into something that would be unproductive and destructive to the current line of communication. Sorry, but I’m not going to let you force me to do something that I don’t want to do, and I really don’t appreciate the attempt to do so.
        Suffice to say, 1,500 former members, each coming public with similar stories- maybe there’s something there. Tens of thousands of former members, each trying to live their lives and discussing, anonymously, their mishaps in the organization- maybe that’s a clue.
        It’ll be good enough for me to say that I don’t see a history with you that you’re able to discuss such concepts without simple and automatic denial, as evidenced by your rather naive position that there are simply “no problems” within the group, making scientology the only human enterprise without room for improvement. If you were able to conceptualize that there may be some room for improvement, then we’d have something to work with, but your statement makes it rather clear that you’re starting with a closed mind. I’ll continue to direct my valid points towards a more receptive and actionable audience.

      • I’ll tell you what, Pat, for all we’ve been through together, I’ll give you some idea of where I’m coming from (and I’ve seen this concept brought to you before, so it’s nothing new.

        Do you think that the Catholic Church supported reform when Martin Luther brought forth his reforms, in the form of 95 direct questions? More to the point, do you think he was wrong for raising those questions? Recall that he reformation wasn’t attacking the legality of the Church’s actions, but the effectiveness and morality.

        There’s a strong history of criticism in religion, Martin Luther is but a single example. Was he wrong for his criticism? Like Scientology with critics today, the Church of the day believed so. In fact, the more one studies that movement, the more parallels one may draw.

        So, again, was Martin Luther wrong for what he did?

      • It’s true, Pat. There are thousands of stories of ex-members citing illegal activities by Scientology such as child abuse, child labor, forced abortions, kidnapping, and blackmail. They did not report these offenses to authorities because they’ve seen the harrassment received by Church critics. I can tell you will deny all of this, but what is more likely: that thousands of people had similar experiences or that there is a worldwide conspiracy of lies against Scientology? This isn’t one or two people Pat. These people’s lives were torn apart. How do you sleep at night knowing this happened? Denial or ignorance?

      • Pat, I’d like ur advice because I’m a 29 year old who has to see a psych for anxiety issues Anbecacusr of that I’m now addicted to bezodiazspines which keep Mr from getting the wonderful benefits of Scientology what can I do to stop seeing the psych yet getting of the meds without terrible withdrawal so once and for all I can get the real benefits and help other people with showing how wonderful Scientology is

  13. Comment by Call4 on June 25, 2011 1:57 pm

    “When LRH died, didn’t he have drugs in his system that are now (and were then) classified as psych drugs?”

    Per the toxicology report a trace of vistaril
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/l-ron-hubbard/docs/l-ron-hubbard-toxicology-test.html

    It’s isn’t classified as a psych drug. It’s classified as an antihistamine.

    “DRUG CLASS AND MECHANISM: Hydroxyzine (vistaril) is an antihistamine with anticholinergic (drying) and sedative properties that is used to treat allergic reactions. The body releases histamine during several types of allergic reactions and–to a lesser extent–during some viral infections, such as the common cold. ”
    medicinenet.com

    “Question is, what is the impact of psych drugs on a scientologist?”
    Unknown since we don’t take them.

    Pat

    • Actually, sweetheart, I don’t think you put too much research into that.

      FOr one thing, you didn’t copy the rest: “It is also used for anxiety and to treat the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal” (National Institute of Health)

      Visitril was first synthesized in 1956 and was marketed by Pfizer and is BOTH an antihistamine and anxiolytic. This is because it has qualities usable for both needs. Just because it CAN be (and indeed may have been for Hubbard) an antihistamine doesn’t change the fact that it’s also a psych drug that is prescribed for anxiety and psychoneurosis. And since it’s always been prescription only (because of the psych capabilities), the doctor that gave it to Hubbard would have known that. So, even if he had allergies, it has the same properties as any antu-anxiety psych drug.

      But why would Hubbard need an antihistamine, anyways? Doesn’t even scientology today claim “Asthma and allergies can make life miserable. Why suffer when you can be free from the effects of things that cause these ailments? This rundown can put you more at cause over the physical universe and bring relief” (smi dot org)? Doesn’t Hubbard have in his notes that he’s cured allergies (page 447 of Dianetics)? Didn’t Hubbard claim in Time Magazine (interview, July 24, 1950) that the cause and cure for allergies, amongst other ills, have been found?

      So, I’m left wondering what Hubbard was doing with drugs in his system, drugs that were sold as psych drugs even at that time, if not for allergies that he claimed he could overcome?

      • I’d actually be surprised if Hubbard was suffering from allergies, given his claims. Also, of course, David Miscavige claims that he was able to handle his asthma, which seems more grandiose than simple allergies. I guess the question is, did LRH really need to take a drug with psychiatric effects because he was unable to handle his own allergies?

      • Bodies don’t last forever. They get sick or old and die or even become unnecessary :P.

        Pat

      • True, by any standard. But the allergies aren’t fatal, in most cases. Was Hubbard able or unable to handle them? I’m not being coy, but straightforward with the question that may give insight into his condition.

      • Comment by Call4 on June 27, 2011 12:38 pm

        Read the autopsy.

        Pat

      • Comment by Call4 on June 27, 2011 12:38 pm
        errata

        Read the autopsy.

        What claims are you talking about?

        Pat

      • Re: Times

        Find the article. I believe the word psychosomatic has been left out of your paraphrase.

        Pat

      • After all this time, one would think you’d have read Dianetics so you’d know what we’re talking about.

        Look up psychosomatic illness. Not all illnesses are psychosomatic and I again remind you that his body was old and he was ready to go on.

        Enough on this. Do your research.

        Pat

      • I’m not sure what you’re referencing, in asking about claims. But I’ve read the autopsy- it names the drug specifically. Does that change the fact that it has psych drug functions?
        And, yes, the article claims, as I recall, that hubbard felt that allergies were psychosomatic. Unless you have a quote? I can’t seem to find the article, at the moment.
        A very simple question, pat, if you can- was or was not Hubbard able to handle his allergies around the time of his death?
        Also, how does it change the properties of the drug, even if it were injected for allergies? Does that change the fact that it was also a psych drug? If so, does scientology welcome those that have taken psych drugs, if it is prescribed for another reason, such as those that I listed previously?

      • Comment by Pat on June 27, 2011 8:43 pm

        I’ve read it, actually. It… well, I’ve read it, we’ll just say that :)
        I’ve done research, which is why I can present facts and figures, and historical data. I’m sure you’ve done your research, too, so I look forward to hearing your thoughts on some of the questions that remain unanswered.

      • Pat,
        Can you acknowledge, at least, that all available medical resources list the drug that was found in Hubbard’s system as BOTH an antihistamine and as a psych drug? That is factual, and you can verify this through the many resources that have been presented to you.
        It is also a fact that Visitril is used as a psych drug because of its effects on the mind, and is prescribed for general anxiety disorder or psychoneurosis. This, too, is verifiable through even the resources that you presented. In fact, even Louanne’s other website, scientologymyths dot info, concedes “The fact that Vistaril can be used as a mild sedative”
        What is NOT known by you or me (or anyone else here) is WHY Hubbard was given this drug. Was he unable to overcome his allergies due to his age? Was he facing undue anxiety? We, you and I and Call4, may only guess as to the reason. But, we must admit that we don’t know that for a fact, mustn’t we? Unless you were there, that is- I know I wasn’t.
        Whatever the reason for his usage of the drug, it is simply undeniable that it was in his system, and that it has qualities that “dampen” certain parts of the brain. Simple as that..
        -Devil Dog

      • I would also note that the same “psych” uses of visitril (specifically, social anxiety disorder, general anxiety and alcoholism) are also some of the effects of Paxil. They have similar affects on the mind and body. This is true for Visitril because it functions as a serotonin antagonist, otherwise known as a serotonin inhibitor. (Haraguchi K, Ito K, Kotaki H, Sawada Y, Iga T (June 1997), “Cetirizine: actions on neurotransmitter receptors”. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 86 (6 Pt 2): 1025–8)
        There are more effective antihistamines available, but Visitril is the only with these serotonin-blocking qualities, and are often selected for patients with that requirement (Pharmacology, Biochemistry, and Behavior 79 (1): 119–24)
        -Devil Dog

      • Lastly, you mention that Hubbard was elderly, and point to that as the reason that he was unable to control his own (potential) allergies. I’m not sure at what age one would no longer be able to control such things, or at least the highest of the living Operating Thetans, that would otherwise be able to.
        I can only think to defer to quote from one of the workers on his ranch in the 1980’s.

        “Mr. Hubbard was very active until the last time I saw him which was just a matter of days before he passed on. That was why it came as such a surprise to me for he appeared normal and certainly not suffering from any physical or mental ailment. He had been alert, chipper, active and content.”

        Similarly, LRH’s own written declaration to the State of California claim, “I am fortunate to be in good health and thus able to maintain my heavy daily work schedule. As to the claim of my incompetence, I do not intend to dignify it with a response. My life, my work, my activities, my publications, and my continued handling of my affairs speak for themselves.

        To me, that doesn’t sound like someone that could, at one time, overcome allergies, and then was no longer able.

      • Maybe we have a fundamental impairment in our joint understanding!
        Pat, I can’t find anything solid on this, merely allusions to the topic and anecdotal evidence.
        When L. Ron Hubbard was in the prime of his life, well after establishing scientology, but well before his death, could he have overcome his own allergies, if he indeed had them? In other words, could LRH have eradicated legitimate allergies at any point in his life?

      • If he chose, as far as I know he could have played around with the body and put more attention on it than on his OT level research. His work was done, RTC had the reigns and he felt it was time to go. No one except his doctor (as it should be) would know why he had a trace of Vistaril in his system, but it’s really out there to start claiming that he was on psych drugs for something that’s classed as an antihistamine, no matter what other uses it’s put to. It’s all so irrelevant and purposely used to create conflict and that’s all I have to say on the subject.

        Pat

      • No, it’s not out there. And you’ve already been shown that the drug is officially classed as an antihistamine AND an antianxiety drug. You’ve avoided all questions on the subject, as I believe that there’s no way around that fact. I only point out that the current position of scientology and psych drugs is ironic given the facts.

      • “No, it’s not out there. And you’ve already been shown that the drug is officially classed as an antihistamine AND an antianxiety drug”

        Do you have a reference that a drug can belong to more than one class? Even one that classes Vistaril specifically as a psych drug (irregardless of it’s uses)? If you do, then I’ll back off of this point of view.

        Pat

      • Okay:

        Do any drug resistance mutations reduce susceptibility to drugs belonging to more than one drug class?

        http://hivdb.stanford.edu/pages/FAQ/FAQ_answers.html

    • By the by, the 1983 drug reference, which was still current at the time of Hubbard’s death, described Visitril as:

      “VISTARIL® (hydroxyzine hydrochloride) Intramuscular Solution is useful in treating the following type of patients when intramuscular administration is indicated:

      The acutely disturbed or hysterical patient.
      The acute or chronic alcoholic with anxiety withdrawal symptoms or delirium tremens.
      As pre- and postoperative and pre- and postpartum adjunctive medication to permit reduction in narcotic dosage, allay anxiety and control emesis. ”

      And, more relevant, “It induces a calming effect in anxious, tense, psychoneurotic adults and also in anxious, hyperkinetic children without impairing mental alertness. It is not a cortical depressant but its action may be due to a suppression of activity in certain key regions of the subcortical area of the central nervous system. ”

      This was the data available to the doctor that gave it Hubbard.

      • The classification is, was and always will be antihistimine.

        Pat

      • It seems that all medical references disagree. From where do you get your information?
        Even if that was correct, what of the psychiatric qualities of the drug?
        To put it in a similar context: If you have resistant/severe hiccups, or tetanus, or AIDS, or severe migranes, one of the drugs that may be given is called Chlorpromazine. It’s also a psychiatric drug used (although less now that more effective medications are available) to treat depression and psychosis.
        Does the fact that you’re prescribed a drug for a particular purpose change the fact that it ALSO has psychiatric qualities?

      • Just for clarity’s sake, the National Institute of Health (NIH.gov) actually lists it into multiple classifications:
        Anti-Anxiety Agents; Antiemetics; Antipruritics; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Sedatives, Nonbarbiturate
        This is as registered in the National Library of Medicine

      • “It seems that all medical references disagree. From where do you get your information?”

        NIMH

        Pat

      • Here’s a better link
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000796/

        (nih, not nimh)

        Due to the fact that there was only a trace, he likely had an allergy shot days before his death.

        Pat

      • Your resource says nothing of the classification, which I already provided (also from NIH). But your own resource says “It is also used for anxiety and to treat the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal.”

        More likely, Hubbard was given a mild sedative for his nerves.
        Regardless, the drug has psych qualities, regardless of its other effects. I already listed another drug that is the same way. Does it make a difference for what reason that the drugs were given?
        Again, a very direct question, was hubbard able or unable to control his own allergies?

    • OO-RAH, devildog!
      Pat, I was referring to those that take psychiatric drugs before the point in their lives where they desire auditing; sorry about the confusion!
      What is an illegal PC? I’ve read the pl in full, it sounds like there are some people who may not be accepted for auditing…?

      • True. Psych drugs alter mental state making them difficult to audit, since it’s essential that one be able to contact mental image pictures which psych drugs interfere with.

        Pat

      • What does that leave, for those who may seek Scientology after receiving psychiatric care?

      • Comment by Call4 on June 27, 2011 12:49 pm

        “What does that leave, for those who may seek Scientology after receiving psychiatric care?”

        If you’ve read the HCOB, then you have the answer to that. For those reading who haven’t seen the actual HCOB irl, it’s called petition.

        Pat

      • I’ve read it, but didn’t notice that. Could you please assist me in identifying the context?

      • Comment by Call4 on June 27, 2011 6:37 pm

        No. To do so would be verbal data. Read the HCOB again.

        Pat

      • I couldn’t find it either, but then again I don’t have a searchable copy.
        Oh, well, one of them mysteries, I guess.

    • LRH did not say that all allergies are psychosomatic. but as a Dianetic auditor I have found first hand that a majority of illnesses go away after finding the underlying engrams (see glossary). That’s my personal observation so I don’t dispute the number.

      Chapter 5 Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health

      “The problem of psychosomatic illness is entirely embraced by Dianetics, and by Dianetic technique such illness has been eradicated entirely in every case. About 70 percent of the physician’s current roster of diseases fall in the category of psychosomatic illness.” ….. “That all illnesses are psychosomatic is, of course, absurd, for there exist, after all, life forms called germs which have survival as their goals.”

      Pat

      • If I read correctly, the belief is that some maladies, such as allergies or a cold, MAY be psychosomatic, or MAY be physical. Do I read that correctly?

  14. Hello there!

    The Huntington Post recently had an article about an old video the Church produced with Senior execs including COB RTC singing “We Stand Tall”, which is personally one of my favorite songs.

    Do you know the history behind the song and others like “Shoulder to Shoulder” and “One Man”. All I know is that David Pommeranz wrote the lyrics for them.

  15. 1. False – note this data is from the FDA so I don’t know where you got that idea.
    http://www.mcmanweb.com/FDA_suicide.htm

    2. Yep

    3. False – look at the many articles here:
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=psychiatry+and+eugenics&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

    4. There’s nothing to prove since what is true is true for each individual. That’s up front for everyone. Why try to make something else out of it?

  16. Pat,
    Forgive me for saying, ma’am, but it sounds to me like you have no idea whatsoever about the realities of combat or national defense.
    I’m a Marine (retired), and I’ve seen it. I’ve been there. How many combat missions you seen? How many friends you lost to indirect fire? If both answers are zero, how can you use soldiers to justify your attacks on an entire profession.
    Seems to me, with all due respect, that you and Fred are selectively acknowledging information in order to further your agenda, and you’ve shown in this thread that you don’t have too much concern for who it hurts along the way.
    I admire your ability (both you and Fred) to hold a position in the face of all contrary facts and evidence, but it just has the appearance of a personal mission with an end-state, but no substance.
    -DevilDog

    • By the way, I’d figure that you would be more tolerant of psychiatric care tied to military service. Even Hubbard wrote to the VA asking for psychiatric care, and he never actually saw combat Of course, that’s if you believe the VA and Naval records over Hubbard’s own unproven claims. I tend to.

      • When LRH died, didn’t he have drugs in his system that are now (and were then) classified as psych drugs?
        Question is, what is the impact of psych drugs on a scientologist?

    • DD. You’re here to make a statement. bye. Read the Faq

      Pat

      • Near as I can tell, he’s another vet that you yourself pulled in with your comments. You pulled it in, and then you want him to leave?

  17. We’re really being unproductive here, so I’ll summarize, trying to stay in the realm of fact:

    1. There is zero evidence showing a link between antidepressant use and suicide attempts- the opposite is true, that those on ad’s are less likely to kill themselves

    2. There is an increase in psychiatric drug prescriptions, which we all agree should be accompanied by quality medical, spiritual and therapeutic care

    3. No evidence has been presented showing where the psychiatric profession developed eugenics programs. Instead, it has been shown that the efforts were led by politicians, biologists and geneticists

    4. All gains from Scientology are supported by subjective, rather than objective, evidence; those elements which may be established objectively have never been so.

    I think that captured the main points. Unless there’s anything to correct, I think that’s the best we can do.

  18. “No, I’m not.”

    Yes, by posting this allusion to an FDA study that says there’s no link then alluding that the FDA says suicide rates drop with the drugs is still leaving that idea wide open that the FDA considers that the soldiers treated would have been suicidal.

    Pat

    • EXACTLY! Yes!
      and they’re seemingly the perfect tool to use in your attack on psychiatry, as well!
      So we agree- those that committed suicide were, wow, suicidal. Giving them “psych drugs” made them less likely to kill themselves. So…. how are the psychs to blame?

      • Here you go, Pat- this is relevant.

        http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/164/7/1044

      • That’s not true. The FDA specifically states that the drugs themselves cause the suicide and ideation.

        Pat

      • That’s not true. The FDA specifically states that the drugs themselves cause the suicide and ideation.

        To then state that these drugs DON’T cause suicide is contrary to the Black box warnings they require on each prescription. By stating that the drugs don’t cause the suicides, then they are blaming the soldiers. That was my point.

        Pat

      • Pat, idealization? Yes. That’s why the FDA recommends pairing such drug use with competent therapy. However, as you’ve been shown, the FDA is very clear that the increase is in SOME (especially teens) towards suicidal thoughts, but actual suicides are actually decreased by the drugs. So if I had to chose between having people more likely to THINK about suicide and more likely to COMMIT suicide… I think I’d go with the one that keeps them alive. Recall that in every case a drop in AD prescriptions is paired with a rise in suicides.

      • No, Pat, they’re not blaming anyone. YOU are the ones dragging soldiers into it, and calling them unfit for duty. You’ve never seen war, except maybe in the movies. You’ve never gone outside the wire on patrol and wondered if a child’s going to throw a hand grenade into your convoy. You’ve never taken sniper fire. My Marine brother, he has. I have. So blame to soldiers if you want to, but maybe you should consider what factors may be going on in the lives of these men and women that you use so easily as a statistic in your attack on psychiatry.

  19. Comment by Pat on June 4, 2011 9:42 am

    “What thread was closed?”

    Nevermind. I see it

    Pat

  20. Comment by Fred on June 21, 2011 2:19 am
    start a new thread on this if you want to get into it…
    but more… “we seek no revolution, only evolution” is a central statement in Scientology.
    Basically, the “destruction” of Psychiatry will only happen by “evolution” not by violence, which is what i did say earlier… and what you implying above…

    Okay, we can talk about that :)
    First, let’s get the semantics out of the way. I think we agree that Scientology does not advocate physical harm to psychiatrists. I think we can also agree that Scientology does desire to see a psychiatrist out of business. I think we can establish that common ground, and we may be saying, ultimately, the same thing.

    Please consider these quotes from Scientology leadership- I have provided references so you can validate them, if you wish:

    “There are a lot of opinions out there as to what is wrong with Earth, 1995. But if you really want to eliminate those problems all you have to do is work for the objectives that we, as members of the IAS, have set for the year 2000: Objective One – place Scientology at the absolute forefront of Society. Objective Two – eliminate psychiatry in all its forms. Let’s get rid of psychiatry, and let’s bring Scientology to every man, woman and child on this planet.”
    David Miscavige, Oct 7, 1995

    …”Doctors are too often careless and incompetent, psychiatrists are simply outright murderers. The solution is not to pick up their pieces for them but to demand medical doctors become competent and to abolish psychiatry and psychiatrists and other infamous Nazi criminal outgrowths.”
    HCOPL 6 December 1976RB “ILLEGAL PC’s, ACCEPTANCE OF HIGH CRIME PL”

    ” what comes next is an all-out assault guaranteed to leave psychs nowhere to run and nowhere to hide, clearing the road to freedom for all.”
    International Scientology News, issue 29

    “There’s only one remedy for crime — get rid of the psychs! They are causing it!”
    HCO Bulletin of 6 May 1982, “The Cause of Crime”

    By “evolution”, are you referring to replacing psychiatry with Scientology?

    • “By “evolution”, are you referring to replacing psychiatry with Scientology?”
      Of course! Evolving scientology, expanding it so psychiatry is no longer needed. All of those quotes imply EVOLUTION… and GET ON WITH THE JOB… and THE JOB IS IMPORTANT AND THIS IS WHAT IT IS…
      “Lets get rid of psychiatry”
      Lets do what it takes to get rid of it… lets get them one crime at a time… its a big job… lets do it…
      “demand medical doctors get more competant”
      may ways to do that… 1. education by sending them information packs (something CCHR DOES do… 2. Scientologist doctors, and other with the said education, expressing thier opinion media or intellectual bullitans or otherwise… this is the only way to evolve…
      “get rid of the psychs”
      When crime becomes a bigger problem on earth, the action is to put fuel into the anti-psych campaign…
      You are basically taking the quotes you want to, to imply that violence or even, crime, will be done to achieve our goals… all of these quotes are saying… DO THE JOB, IT NEEDS TO BE DONE…
      You are taking these out context if you think that revolution is anything scientology desires… for there is one thing we know…
      even if pychiatry were banned tommorrow, the bigger job of making sure what takes its place isnt worse begins…

      • “demand medical doctors get more competent”

        Another facet of this is the tendency today to prescribe the pill for every life upset. Doctors need to think underlying causes and fix those. Psychiatrists and doctors prescribing psych drugs just aren’t doing that. It is so much easier to just say “take a pill” than to find out what a person is eating, who in his life is making it a dangerous environment, or even what chems are in his food or abode. It should be a heavy part of a doctor’s training to look for these.

        Pat

      • Absolutely! I agree with you, and you might be surprised to see how many doctors and psychiatrists do as well. There’s a growing positive trend to consider the “whole patient” rather than merely the symptom.

      • Ive kind of had enough of this thread of comments… reply what you like in a new one please… finding the place to click “reply” is annoying…
        I’d also like to start a up a new conversation above if you dont mind…

      • Of course, Fred!
        I saw it, but it was rather long. I’ll give it sone attention during my work day.
        I did notice that your uncle was ill. I’m sorry, I know how hard that can be. I’m sure it means a lot to him, that his family is there for him.

      • Of course, Fred!
        I saw it, but it was rather long. I’ll give it some attention during my work day.
        I did notice that your uncle was ill. I’m sorry, I know how hard that can be. I’m sure it means a lot to him, that his family is there for him.

    • So yeah we do want psychs out of business… but we arent stupid, we know…
      1. its a big job
      2. it can only be done with earth DECIDING that it doesnt want it.

      • Then indeed we ARE saying the same thing. I understand that scientology is not advocating any physical action, and I believe I said as much previously.
        It’s a goal of every religion to do exactly this- replace the femoral with the ethereal; the physical with the spiritual. Most (I would dare say all) religions offer religious-based therapy, believing it to be more effective than what is offered otherwise. Scientology, as I’m sure you’re aware, is not the first to work towards this goal. What is unique, though, is the method being employed. Most religions are passively trying to do this, seeing the loss of jobs as a sad but necessary factor, as they provide a superior service to believers. Only Scientology, interestingly, seems to be ACTIVELY trying to put these people put of work, essentially removing the option. That is the implication of the quotes, that the quotes I provided- not that Scientology is providing a better service that will naturally replace the field of psychiatry, but the goal is to destroy it actively. I say only that this should not be necessary, if Scientology were to expand at the claimed rates.

        What I wonder, and I truly don’t know, so I’m asking, a fully realized operating thetan, with complete control over matter, energy, space and time, would they require physical medical care? Or could they, for example, eradicate a tumor or cancer by postulating it to be so? Similarly, does Scientology have the ability to handle such things as schizophrenia?

        I’m curious, by your comments, you seem to believe that psychiatry is a significant cause of crime. Is that accurate? Do you believe that “psychs” are (also?) responsible for such things as 9/11, the holocaust, forced internment with no recourse (Siberia bill), etc?

        Interesting note; do you notice that the same thing that you want for psychiatry, many critics want for Scientology? Difference is that most critics, such as myself, don’t want to see Scientology destroyed completely; but we share a desire for reform.

      • .” What is unique, though, is the method being employed. Most religions are passively trying to do this, seeing the loss of jobs as a sad but necessary factor, as they provide a superior service to believers. Only Scientology, interestingly, seems to be ACTIVELY trying to put these people put of work, essentially removing the option”.
        When you convict people of crime… yeah they get out of work… kinda trouble with it hey!
        Yes we actively make people aware of the abuse psychiatry does as a way of “actively” achieving our objective…

        That is the implication of the quotes, that the quotes I provided- not that Scientology is providing a better service that will naturally replace the field of psychiatry, but the goal is to destroy it actively…
        “actively” as in we are “actively” creating the evolution we desire yes… that is the only way evolutuion happens…

        I say only that this should not be necessary, if Scientology were to expand at the claimed rates.

        Unfortunately… for us… psychiatry’s bank balance is so big, we can’t expand without getting them out of the way… or more, we can’t expand while they are in the way… remember, psychiatry has a multibillion dollar business to protect… they won’t let us expand without a fight… we have to be ready…

        What I wonder, and I truly don’t know, so I’m asking, a fully realized operating thetan, with complete control over matter, energy, space and time, would they require physical medical care?

        The thetan needs no medical care… his body does… A full operating thetan wouldnt be in the MEST universe to care…

        Or could they, for example, eradicate a tumor or cancer by postulating it to be so?

        It takes more than just a postulate… such an area of therapy requires more study from you that i am unprepared to deliver in this forum… listen to the “power of simplicity” (15th ACC) if your interested in processes that involve cancer and so on… sometimes the body goes so far out that processing will not fix it and the thetan has no choice but to drop the body and grab a new one…

        Similarly, does Scientology have the ability to handle such things as schizophrenia?

        Yes… read up on valences and how to audit them… ref.. “fundementals of thought” and “power of simplicity”… auditing the insane however has…
        1. Policial implications
        2. Potential to fail
        3. the need for patience, long drawn out sessions with sometimes little gain. but nonetheless… GAIN
        4. A huge repercussions on the therapist should one fail
        5. Should have two auditors while performing therapy making it very expensive
        Psychiatry gets around all this by
        1. Having political connectoins with profit, not “wellness” a goal
        2. Saying “if only we get there earlier”, constantly making excuses despite one failing ALL THE TIME
        3. Writing report after report after report, making out that the conidition is “uncurable anyway”
        4. Having complete power over the patience, never letting them complain about the psychaitrist no matter what they do hence having no repercussions.
        5. Not doing it, hence having the patience “rub off” on the pyschiatrist hence making them 1. insane 2. sympatheticless to them…
        ….
        I’m curious, by your comments, you seem to believe that psychiatry is a significant cause of crime. Is that accurate? Do you believe that “psychs” are (also?) responsible for such things as 9/11, the holocaust, forced internment with no recourse (Siberia bill), etc?

        Yes…
        many criminals have had the psych created drug LSD amoung others…
        Many criminals have psychiatry to justify thier criminal behaviour too might add… “kleptomania” for example…
        I believe 911 to be a complicated situation, but psychs are involved yes… as are bankers and those who wish to have large sums of money without exchanging a decent product… (criminal stock traders fo example)
        Holocaust, of course! Eugenics and the holocaust go hand in hand…
        Forced interment… of course! Many bills associated with such things get proposed by the psych and we scientologist oppose them all the time…

        Interesting note; do you notice that the same thing that you want for psychiatry, many critics want for Scientology? Difference is that most critics, such as myself, don’t want to see Scientology destroyed completely; but we share a desire for reform.

        unfortunately… complete reform of psychiatry MEANS its destruction. The moment psychiatry fixes up its therapies into humane therapies, workable therapies… it is no longer psychiatry…

      • Fred,
        Based on your reply, I’m wondering: outside of cchr material, what experience do you have with the field of psychiatry? On what do you base your beliefs?

      • Apart from multiple friend drugged while prescribed ADD drugs, and a friend who nearly had his wife and daughter raped by a man, who when taken to court had a psych say “he didnt take his meds that day” and get off scott free… oh and 2 other friends who took thier meds for depression only for both of them commit suicide…
        Otherwise… most of it is combination of research both inside and outside CCHR…

      • Oh i had an aunt who was committed for a while…
        once she got out she was “quieter” and less annoying…
        I have to admit… she had no personality once she was out…

      • Oh and i did some stress testing years ago, and i go a row of people with really STRANGE needle phenomena… i found out later that they were on psych meds…
        I also met a bloke on a train once told me he once broke out of a psych institution… he was at the very least… interesting…
        I’ve also had some friends who shared thier psych meds as a way of partying… usually dexamphetamine…

      • I’m sorry for the negative experiences that you’ve encountered, and could certainly understand why you would extend those personal encounters to the rest of the profession.

        What of those that have positive experiences? Those that felt suicidal, but do no longer, or those that faced other issues that they feel were alleviated with psychiatric care? And what of those psychiatrists that also believe that we’re overdrugging, and push for reform of the industry?

        Also, it seems that you believe in a sort of conspiracy within the profession, that there are literally millions of people (if you count the psychiatrists, drug manufacturers, researchers, etc) that are involved in a global objective to take over the world and influence history. Would this be an accurate statement?

      • Oh, in the circumstances you described, would you say that those are examples that most psychiatrists would say are good or positive?

      • Fred,

        You make some interesting points, but also some rather serious allegations. Among them:
        1. Politicians are knowingly supporting in harmful activity
        2. Controlling patients and not allowing them to seek help
        3. Constantly failing to benefit their patients
        I wonder, do you have any evidence of these allegations? Or at least numbers one and two.

        You say that scientology has the means to handle schizophrenia, and support it with theory (versus practice). Has there ever been a case where scientology has successfully treated such a case, where psychiatry failed to do so? That’s a very important question, because you’re making a very grand claim that could, if realized, effect countless lives. What does scientology “do” for those people, and what has it “done”?

        “if your interested in processes that involve cancer and so on… sometimes the body goes so far out that processing will not fix it and the thetan has no choice but to drop the body and grab a new one…”
        Then there are things that the thetan is not able to affect?

        Are you aware of the history of the medical profession?

      • Oh, and btw, Albert Hoffman, the discoverer of LSD, was a chemist looking for a circulatory stimulant that was tolerant of fetuses. He was not a psychiatrist, if that’s what you were saying.

      • Honestly… sometimes i wonder if you go out of your way to misinterpret everything i say…
        Anyways… i may as well start with 1…

        I’m sorry for the negative experiences that you’ve encountered, and could certainly understand why you would extend those personal encounters to the rest of the profession.
        ….
        OK…

        What of those that have positive experiences?
        I have none and i know noone who has had them….
        Those that felt suicidal, but do no longer, or those that faced other issues that they feel were alleviated with psychiatric care?
        I know of none.
        And what of those psychiatrists that also believe that we’re overdrugging, and push for reform of the industry?
        Those who push for reform risk their careers in many circumstances…. Those who take said risks find CCHR to be champions to them., Big pharmas dont want said reforms, so dont pay them to do any research in such directions.

        Also, it seems that you believe in a sort of conspiracy within the profession, that there are literally millions of people (if you count the psychiatrists, drug manufacturers, researchers, etc) that are involved in a global objective to take over the world and influence history. Would this be an accurate statement?
        ….
        NO its more complicated than that… they do so REACTIVELY… and also with GOOD INTENTIONS… The starting fault that leads them down that road is the materialism stable datum… which in turn… leads them down the road to a slave society….
        Oh, in the circumstances you described, would you say that those are examples that most psychiatrists would say are good or positive?
        Many times… yes
        ….
        You make some interesting points, but also some rather serious allegations. Among them:
        1. Politicians are knowingly supporting in harmful activity

        They do so unknownly not knowingly… The psych just have political “push” and great ability to lie.

        2. Controlling patients and not allowing them to seek help

        They control patients in such a way that…
        1. They wouldnt do to themselves
        2. If they complain they get no voice
        ….
        3. Constantly failing to benefit their patients

        Failure is everywhere amoungst the profession and openly admitted by psychs themselves… do some research, it doesnt take much to learn that… there is a whole culture of people who recieved ECT in the 70’s each and every one of them with simular problems, at the time hailed as a cure.
        …..
        I wonder, do you have any evidence of these allegations? Or at least numbers one and two.
        ….
        I can get some for you later im a bit busy at the moment…
        ….
        You say that scientology has the means to handle schizophrenia, and support it with theory (versus practice). Has there ever been a case where scientology has successfully treated such a case, where psychiatry failed to do so? That’s a very important question, because you’re making a very grand claim that could, if realized, effect countless lives. What does scientology “do” for those people, and what has it “done”?

        We are not involved with treating the insane. We get the able more able. Historic cases involving Ron treating some of the insane are in his notes… any critic would reject his notes accuracy they always do… the church keeps them for historic value… Ron outlines how to do it as a form of theory, he intends it to be used once psychiatry is out of the way… we cannot apply it now… the risk is too high and time investment is too expensive… Remember, the insane may get better during a session, but they known to get worse between sessions… whenever they do, it will be the scientologist who will be considered at fault… too risky…

        “if your interested in processes that involve cancer and so on… sometimes the body goes so far out that processing will not fix it and the thetan has no choice but to drop the body and grab a new one…”
        Then there are things that the thetan is not able to affect?
        ….
        Well… yes… a thetan who has a body and it looses an arm can’t grow back a new one… he can mock up a new one… but if he could, he wouldnt be in the mest universe to care to much about it anyway….
        ….
        Are you aware of the history of the medical profession?
        Yes
        Now… which part?? surgery? pediatrics? podiatry? chiropractic? what are you implying here?
        …..
        Oh, and btw, Albert Hoffman, the discoverer of LSD, was a chemist looking for a circulatory stimulant that was tolerant of fetuses. He was not a psychiatrist, if that’s what you were saying.
        ….
        LSD was known to Ancient races….
        Experimentation with LSD, and its purification, and strong support for its production came through psychiatrists trying to find a truth syrum (if that is how you spell it)… the USA intelligence agencies supported it… its all over you tube… videos of animal experimentation, even people experiementation… ect… kinda cruel stuff… the discovery channel did a doco on it a year or so ago… some other guy may have discovered it, the psych made into what it is today… without a doubt….
        The point is, psychs are men behind big problems, psychs push LSD, some other guy takes it and kills someone, psych gets away scott free…
        If some guy audited someone outside the church, and then that someone went out and killed someone, Scientology would get blamed in a heartbeat.
        The double standards are incredible.

      • Fred,

        Again you make some pretty serious allegations, and I wonder how you substantiate them?
        Starting with, for instance, your claim that psychiatrists are somehow partially responsible for 9/11 and the holocaust, and that they do so unknowingly. You can’t prove that. I can’t disprove that. It’s just like the occasional Christian claim that “The Devil made them do it”, and that there’s no way to prove it, it’s just subtle on a “spiritual” level. Do you have any way to back up your claims, to positively connect the CAUSE of the holocaust and 9/11 with psychiatry? Or is that a belief?

        In the circumstances that you described, you say that many psychiatrists would say that they are good or positive. Many. How do you know that?

        How, also, do you know that politicians are under the influence of psychiatric manipulation? Are you basing that on support for psychiatric initiatives, believing that the fact that they fund such things is evidence of manipulation, or is there anything more to your statement? What of the psychiatrists that support legal efforts to reform the industry, including mandating disclosure (effectively bringing alliances between psychiatrists and drug companies to light?)

        “They control patients in such a way that…
        1. They wouldnt do to themselves
        2. If they complain they get no voice”
        Example?

        “Failure is everywhere amoungst the profession and openly admitted by psychs themselves… do some research, it doesnt take much to learn that”
        Responsibly, any psychiatrist would tell you that their filed is not 100% successful. But what are your standards? What level is acceptable to you? If 90% of patients were successfully treated, would that be enough? 70%? 50%? I don’t understand to what level your rating, is my confusion. What, to you, is failure? Regarding ECT, let’s look at the present time, now that it’s understood a little bit better. There are strict guidelines for its use, and that’s a decision that must be made between a doctor and patient. There’s the concept of “informed medical consent”, where a doctor must legally inform patients of the side effects and negative aspects before treatment. If they knowingly go forth (and, in many cases, such as that of Kitty Dukakis, find benefit from) ECT, then who are we to judge?

        “I wonder, do you have any evidence of these allegations? Or at least numbers one and two.
        ….
        I can get some for you later im a bit busy at the moment…”
        Okay, I’ll wait.

        “Those who push for reform risk their careers in many circumstances….”
        How do you know this? What of those that are highly respected within the community (like I mentioned earlier) for doing so? Can you find me an example of a psychiatrist losing his job for refusing to drug?

        “We are not involved with treating the insane. We get the able more able. Historic cases involving Ron treating some of the insane are in his notes… any critic would reject his notes accuracy they always do”
        No, not at all. But what happens to the influx of the insane, if CCHR is wildly successful, what happens to the insane? You seem to indicate that Hubbard wrote of the theory of treating the insane- where? Can you provide the reference that showed you this? Lastly, are you saying that this scientology treatment is untested, or at least not successfully? That’s a very important question, because I already pointed out at least one case where psychiatry was able to help someone, where he became unstable under scientology.

        “Well… yes… a thetan who has a body and it looses an arm can’t grow back a new one… he can mock up a new one… but if he could, he wouldnt be in the mest universe to care to much about it anyway….”
        Okay, then this is an important piece. What CAN a high-level OT do that I can not? Practically, realistically speaking, what’s the difference in capability between me and someone that spend a quarter million dollars to climb the bridge? You may say that they’re “more able” and “happier”, but are you able to quantify that? What does that actually mean? Me, I’m not a scientologist, but I am very able, successfully at my job, successful at my marriage, and very deeply happy with my life. What can scientology do for me?

        Re: Medicine:
        All of it. I’m talking about the brutal, violent history of the medical profession. I’m talking about the medical experiments by the Nazis, such as throwing children into freezing water. I’m talking about the beliefs, in the early days of medicine, that illnesses were caused by demons or bad blood that must be let by leeches or bleeding. I’m talking about battlefield doctors amputating limbs with no medicine or understanding. I’m talking about medical doctors like Cesare Lombroso, who taught that criminality was inherited and that those that look “criminal” or like a “caveman” were criminal, something which convicted more than one innocent criminal. The early history of medicine was criminal and brutal… but is it today? No, not so much, because it’s self-reformed. Psychiatry is much younger, but CCHR is trying to halt the process. If they had been around in the medieval period, when barbers were doctors and applied leaches to cure illnesses, then they may have opposed that, too, costing lives today. Are there bad doctors? Yes. Are some of them greedy or criminal? Yes. But when a doctor goes to jail, do you blame the medical field? That, too, is a double standard.

         Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, or LSD, was not known to ancient races. It was only synthesized (eg, first created) in 1938, and its psychedelic properties weren’t known until five years later when Albert Hoffman accidentally got some into his bloodstream- he called it the “longest bicycle ride of his life”. Have psychiatrists studied its effects? Absolutely- anything that so greatly affects our perceptions, including sight, sound, kinetics, etc, MUST be studied in order to understand its effect and the structure of our brain. Has our government attempted to weaponize it? Yup. Does that mean that our government is evil? That’s a matter of perspective, I suppose.  But what’s the difference between LSD and the ancient practices involving peyote? Does the counterculture movement abuse it? Yes. What does that mean?

        “some other guy may have discovered it, the psych made into what it is today… without a doubt….”
        What “is” it today?

        “The point is, psychs are men behind big problems, psychs push LSD, some other guy takes it and kills someone, psych gets away scott free…”
        Reference? Or is this a matter of belief? If so, may I ask how you arrive at it?

        “If some guy audited someone outside the church, and then that someone went out and killed someone, Scientology would get blamed in a heartbeat”
        Yes, but then would not scientology, and this very site, then blame the “squirrel” technology for creating such a criminal? They make this claim already. But what of those that are in already, like the Scienotlogy Minister that killed his business partner… who do you blame for that? If you blame only the man for his own actions, how do you then blame psychiatry for the crime of an individual?

      • Fred,

        Again you make some pretty serious allegations, and I wonder how you substantiate them?
        Starting with, for instance, your claim that psychiatrists are somehow partially responsible for 9/11 and the holocaust,
        == Eugenics and the holocaust go hand in hand… look yourself… as i said… 911 is complicated, but i personally have alot of doubt to the usual theories… such as… “noone knew the stock was going to do what it did…”
        ==
        and that they do so unknowingly. You can’t prove that. I can’t disprove that. It’s just like the occasional Christian claim that “The Devil made them do it”, and that there’s no way to prove it, it’s just subtle on a “spiritual” level.
        ==
        Yeah there is… listen to the PDC’s… get some reality on scientology… LEARN THE PHILOSOPHY before you comment on its accuracy…
        ==
        Do you have any way to back up your claims, to positively connect the CAUSE of the holocaust and 9/11 with psychiatry? Or is that a belief?
        ==
        Look it up yourself! Hitler LOVED eugenics… psychiatry was a hip proffession in the time of the Nazis… they gave the nazis a scientific justification for inhumane policies, the nazis gave them the money and power to keep doing it… The murder of the mentally ill was the first policy intruduced… then it was the murder of anyone with “bad genes” then it was the murder of the jews… it all comes together… Read a book called “rule by secrecy” it states quite clearly that the bankers that supported hitler were eugenicists themselves…
        ===
        In the circumstances that you described, you say that many psychiatrists would say that they are good or positive. Many. How do you know that?
        ????????????????????????? dont understand the question…
        ==
        How, also, do you know that politicians are under the influence of psychiatric manipulation?
        20 proposals over the past 7 years… all trying to reduce a psych patients right to refuse treatment… Pyschs try to influence government all the time. sometimes they succeed… CCHR does what they can…
        ==
        Are you basing that on support for psychiatric initiatives, believing that the fact that they fund such things is evidence of manipulation, or is there anything more to your statement?
        Dont undertand the question….?????? What are you refering to???
        ==
        What of the psychiatrists that support legal efforts to reform the industry, including mandating disclosure (effectively bringing alliances between psychiatrists and drug companies to light?)
        Many of whom help CCHR, others that dont… CCHR’s attack on psychiatry is common sense… of course some people, even psychiatrists, will support it…
        ==
        “They control patients in such a way that…
        1. They wouldnt do to themselves
        2. If they complain they get no voice”
        Example?
        1. TELL ME ONE PSYCH who let themselves have ECT??
        2. Many of the complaints by many patients have been reported as “symptoms of a mental illness”… SO… no matter what happens… in some tradgic cases rape of the patient… they just can’t get out of an assylum…
        ==
        “Failure is everywhere amoungst the profession and openly admitted by psychs themselves… do some research, it doesnt take much to learn that”
        Responsibly, any psychiatrist would tell you that their filed is not 100% successful. But what are your standards?
        ==
        The standards set by the medical proffession… around 90-95% is considered acceptable… it is openly admitted that even best of psych medicine has a success rate of only 60%! And even the method of that stat collection is questionable…
        ==
        Regarding ECT, let’s look at the present time,
        OK… 5 4 year olds in Western australia had ECT… 30 under the age of 10… seem a tad too many??
        ==
        now that it’s understood a little bit better.
        ==
        They said that in the 80’s too… and the 90’s… and again in 2005… again they still shock people, and medical consequences (stroke back problem ect) remain…
        ==
        There are strict guidelines for its use, and that’s a decision that must be made between a doctor and patient.
        True, it doesnt means it at all affective medicine… The chiropractic proffession continues to protest its use…
        ==
        There’s the concept of “informed medical consent”, where a doctor must legally inform patients of the side effects and negative aspects before treatment.
        Yeah… such practice on informed consent is improving, the psychs still seem to dodge it though… i think more aggressive regulaton on informed consent for psychs is the least the government can do…
        ==
        If they knowingly go forth (and, in many cases, such as that of Kitty Dukakis, find benefit from) ECT, then who are we to judge?
        There is a whole culture of ECT patients from the 60’s – 70’s and 80’s still seeking compensation for lack of affectiveness of thier treatments… payouts from the psych proffession remain very low… Democratically, or empirically, the success of such treatments remains very low…
        ===
        “I wonder, do you have any evidence of these allegations? Or at least numbers one and two.
        ….
        I can get some for you later im a bit busy at the moment…”
        Okay, I’ll wait.

        “Those who push for reform risk their careers in many circumstances….”
        How do you know this? What of those that are highly respected within the community (like I mentioned earlier) for doing so? Can you find me an example of a psychiatrist losing his job for refusing to drug?
        The most famous is a psych from the 80’s who found non drug therapy for schizophrenia to be much more affective… he recieved no funding from any research foundation, and was forced to close in 1995 with a very interesting letter to the pharma companies at the time..
        CCHR.org has more names…
        ==

        “We are not involved with treating the insane. We get the able more able. Historic cases involving Ron treating some of the insane are in his notes… any critic would reject his notes accuracy they always do”
        No, not at all.
        PLease, ive read too many critics claim ron did blah in 195 whatever in blah… only to personally have lectures where he was in a completely different country…
        ==
        But what happens to the influx of the insane, if CCHR is wildly successful, what happens to the insane?
        ==
        Humane treatment gets done to them, and they live, much happier lives…
        ==
        You seem to indicate that Hubbard wrote of the theory of treating the insane- where?
        Heaps of HCOB’s… DMSMH, SOS, 15th ACC… FOT, even Scientology 0-8 has some, 9th ACC has some data on the insane who have exteriorised…
        ==
        Lastly, are you saying that this scientology treatment is untested, or at least not successfully?
        I know little of “testing” in the current scientific method… i know treatment of the insane certainly isnt “tested”… auditing on any “person” is very thoroughly tested… results are inevitable… all that is needed is the willingness of the PC to get better.
        ==
        That’s a very important question, because I already pointed out at least one case where psychiatry was able to help someone, where he became unstable under scientology.
        The one where the psych gave him LSD before he walked in the church? Or was it the guy who committed suicide one week after the psych “cured” him of his “religion disorder”??
        ==
        “Well… yes… a thetan who has a body and it looses an arm can’t grow back a new one… he can mock up a new one… but if he could, he wouldnt be in the mest universe to care to much about it anyway….”
        Okay, then this is an important piece. What CAN a high-level OT do that I can not?
        You are an OT… you just dont think you are thats all…
        ==
        Practically, realistically speaking, what’s the difference in capability between me and someone that spend a quarter million dollars to climb the bridge?
        After you do all that… you will tell me how you are different…
        ==
        You may say that they’re “more able” and “happier”, but are you able to quantify that?
        They tell me they are… i dont need to say anything… they will tell you how much better they are… just ask them…
        ==
        What does that actually mean? Me, I’m not a scientologist, but I am very able, successfully at my job, successful at my marriage, and very deeply happy with my life. What can scientology do for me?
        What CANT scientology do for you? What do you WANT scientology to do for you? Can you recall a time you failed to help someone? what happened? If that situation in the future happened again, would you like to know what to do so that you succeed in helping them? Because in scientology, THATS WHAT HAPPENS… you can help others better than you ever felt you could have before…
        ==
        All of it. I’m talking about the brutal, violent history of the medical profession. I’m talking about the medical experiments by the Nazis, such as throwing children into freezing water. I’m talking about the beliefs, in the early days of medicine, that illnesses were caused by demons or bad blood that must be let by leeches or bleeding. I’m talking about battlefield doctors amputating limbs with no medicine or understanding. I’m talking about medical doctors like Cesare Lombroso, who taught that criminality was inherited and that those that look “criminal” or like a “caveman” were criminal, something which convicted more than one innocent criminal. The early history of medicine was criminal and brutal… but is it today? No, not so much, because it’s self-reformed. Psychiatry is much younger, but CCHR is trying to halt the process. If they had been around in the medieval period, when barbers were doctors and applied leaches to cure illnesses, then they may have opposed that, too, costing lives today. Are there bad doctors? Yes. Are some of them greedy or criminal? Yes. But when a doctor goes to jail, do you blame the medical field? That, too, is a double standard.
        ==
        Today research methods need not be as brutal as the ridiculous “guess and check” the psychs have been doing for around 4 centuries… they were doing that before then too although written hisory is abit vague… More than 30% of medical crime is committed by psychs despite the fact that they are less that 1% of the medical proffession as a whole…
        Or more… let me put it this way… If the psych profession is “evolving” it hasnt removed its central postulate of materialism… until it does that, Scientology states it is a waste of time and criminality within it is inevitable. You keep forgetting, we are in the dualism camp. We aren’t haulting psychiatries “evolution” into something useful, we are proventing an evil postulate, materialism, from spreading and killing everyone.
        Your wrong… psychiatry isnt young at all… “hitting” the insane to make them well is a LONG TIME practive believe me!
        ==
        Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, or LSD, was not known to ancient races.
        Yes it was… all sorts of American indians know of the plants and mushrooms involved with having a “spiritual experience”. Some of stated the really strong ones could curse a man for life… just like LSD takers who are in psych hospitals for life…
        ==
        It was only synthesized (eg, first created) in 1938, and its psychedelic properties weren’t known until five years later when Albert Hoffman accidentally got some into his bloodstream- he called it the “longest bicycle ride of his life”.
        Interesting… the psychs got a hold of it in the 60’s in aim for a truth cyrum to combat potentail russian spys during the cold war…
        ==
        Have psychiatrists studied its effects? Absolutely- anything that so greatly affects our perceptions, including sight, sound, kinetics, etc, MUST be studied in order to understand its effect and the structure of our brain.
        Watch thier tests on it… the lack of medical ethics involved is appalling…
        ==
        Has our government attempted to weaponize it? Yup. Does that mean that our government is evil? That’s a matter of perspective, I suppose.
        I struggle to see how it is justified… but nonetheless… ok…
        ==
        But what’s the difference between LSD and the ancient practices involving peyote? Does the counterculture movement abuse it? Yes. What does that mean?

        “some other guy may have discovered it, the psych made into what it is today… without a doubt….”
        What “is” it today?
        A profitable entity for criminal dealers…
        ==
        “The point is, psychs are men behind big problems, psychs push LSD, some other guy takes it and kills someone, psych gets away scott free…”
        Reference? Or is this a matter of belief?
        Irrelevant…
        If so, may I ask how you arrive at it?
        Psychs were the key to getting LSD from a mere lab experiement to the street drug it became. The results it has had on society is incredibly negetive, yet they “arent responsible”…

        “If some guy audited someone outside the church, and then that someone went out and killed someone, Scientology would get blamed in a heartbeat”
        Yes, but then would not scientology, and this very site, then blame the “squirrel” technology for creating such a criminal?
        PLEASE… Your missing the point so badly… I swear your doing it intentionally… The damage psychs have done are classed as… “all part of science”… anything like this is classed as “scientologys master plan to…” or whatever…Remember… scientologists have free lives… psychs demand the right to have every last one of thier patients freedom.. when they get it wrong? Oh just “all part of science”…
        ==
        They make this claim already. But what of those that are in already, like the Scienotlogy Minister that killed his business partner… who do you blame for that?
        The minister of course…
        If you blame only the man for his own actions, how do you then blame psychiatry for the crime of an individual?
        The practice is criminal! Cutting a mans brain to peices and trying to help, learning that it doenst help, and then KEEP DOING IT TO PEOPLE for more than 4 decades is CRIMINAL.
        Calling “brain chemical imbalance” the cause of all mental illness, selling trillions of dollars of drugs with such justification with no test to back you up.. is CRIMINAL. The proffession is filled with said practices and it is time they either destroyed the profession completely, or, reformed into humane treatments to the point that you cant even call it psychaitry anymore…
        Auditing isn’t criminal! how can sitting in a chair and talking to someone be? If all psych treatment was “talking” i assure you, there would be little to complain about it!
        If psychiatry openly admitted to being as uncertain as it is, or even just called themselves “witch doctors”.. then people can follow them or not by choice…. currently there remains proposal after proposal after proposal trying to remove a patients right to refuse psych treatment… this isnt CHOICE… scientology always has been a choice…

      • Fred, we’re getting a little bit long here, and seeing very little productivity? Do you see our conversation as being productive?

         

        You talk many times about Hitler, and how much he loved eugenics. True, he did. But do you know who also loved it? We did- the United States of America. In fact, he founded portions of his program on our research. Interestingly, the public outcry in Germany was so great that he was forced to “publicly” stop the program, but it continued in secret.

         

        Do you know who started the eugenics movement? You might think it’s a psych, perhaps… but it was actually a british biologist named Sir Francis Galton in the 1880s. His philosophies didn’t catch on until the early 1900s, when large corporations began to fund his movement. This included Carnagie Institution, Rockafeller Foundations and the well respected MEDICAL doctor JH Kellogg (yes, of the cereal). This medical doctor founded the first Eugenics organization, with the second in the Nation formed by the Biologist Charles Davenport. With so much medical and biologist support, the rest of the academic and medical community began to accept the concepts, including psychiatrists, but also the leading universities across 376 courses. By 1910, the bulk of the professional scientific community accepted Eugenics, with a biologist forming the first national Eugenics association, the American Breeder’s Association, which pushed for government support. Eventually, California became the champion of the movement, and the inspiration for Hitler’s program, performing 20,000 forced sterilizations between 1909 to 1960. Later, Hitler appointed Biologist Otmar Von Verschuer to the director of his Eugencis program, assisted by geneticist Fritz Lenz and Professor of Medicine Eugen Fisher.

        Of course, Hitler also expressed praise for the Nation-State of Sparta for their own program.

        I wonder, since Eugenics was conceptualized by a biologist and popularized by medical doctors (and even bankers, as you yourself point out), why don’t you blame them at least equally? Or do you?  

        Learn the history before you base an argument on it.

        “LEARN THE PHILOSOPHY”

        I know it equally well as some, but not all, scientologists that I’ve met. What shall you correct, that I have said?

        “dont understand the question…”

        Okay. You expressed some negative experiences with psychiatry. I asked you if you thought that psychiatrists would find your negative experiences to be positive ones, and you said that many would. I asked how you know that?

        “all trying to reduce a psych patients right to refuse treatment… Pyschs try to influence government all the time. sometimes they succeed… CCHR does what they can…”
        Reference, please?

        “CCHR’s attack on psychiatry is common sense”

        In many places, yes. I, and most, agree that reform is a good thing. But were you aware that Dr. Szanz is not a Scientologist? He wants to reform psychiatry, true, but can you find him saying anywhere that he wants to replace it with scientology?

         

        “TELL ME ONE PSYCH who let themselves have ECT??”

        Just one? psychotherapist Martha Manning.

         

        “The standards set by the medical proffession… around 90-95% is considered acceptable… it is openly admitted that even best of psych medicine has a success rate of only 60%”

        Please share your sources for information?

         

        “OK… 5 4 year olds in Western australia had ECT… 30 under the age of 10… seem a tad too many??”

        To me? Yes. We have the same opinion there. But please show me your source for that statistic?

         

        “They said that in the 80′s too… and the 90′s… and again in 2005…”

        And indeed it is. Do you expect no side effects?

         

        “True, it doesnt means it at all affective medicine…”

        Irrelevant- it does prove that it’s voluntary and done with full disclosure of the negative effects. Many patients choose for themselves because the side effects are well worth the relief they receive.

         

        “Yeah… such practice on informed consent is improving, the psychs still seem to dodge it though”

        Source? Or opinion?

         

        “payouts from the psych proffession remain very low… Democratically, or empirically, the success of such treatments remains very low…”

        Again, source, please. I try, personally, to give sources for my claims, or the means for validation. It would save us both a great deal of time and space if you could do the same, please. You’re an intelligent young man, I’m sure you’re aware that that’s pretty common in debates or scholarly discussions.

         

        “The most famous is a psych from the 80′s who found non drug therapy for schizophrenia to be much more affective… he recieved no funding from any research foundation, and was forced to close in 1995 with a very interesting letter to the pharma companies at the time..”

        Okay, it’s not many, but it’s something at least. Could you please provide a reference?

        Now, I agree that pharmaceutical companies are run as a business, and many are corrupt. THAT, that needs to be fixed. You seen the movie Johnny Mnemonic? It’s like that.

         

        “PLease, ive read too many critics claim ron did blah in 195 whatever in blah… only to personally have lectures where he was in a completely different country…”

        Okay… what?

         

        “Humane treatment gets done to them, and they live, much happier lives…”

        But I thought  you said they can’t treat the insane? I thought also that those that have had psych treatment couldn’t go clear- is that true or false?

         

        “even Scientology 0-8 has some, 9th ACC has some data on the insane who have exteriorised…”

        Ah, yes, but didn’t LRH say not to take his word alone? I’ve seen his notes… they’re not scientific in any sense, they’re unverifiable and subjective. Has there been any OBJECTIVE proof within scientology that this is true? If I may ask, why do you believe it? Have you seen it, or because you were told? I’m not trying to be offensive, but you see that there’s a huge difference.

         

        “i know treatment of the insane certainly isnt “tested”… auditing on any “person” is very thoroughly tested… results are inevitable… all that is needed is the willingness of the PC to get better”

        You can see, then, that this isn’t Science in any contemporary sense of the word? You have a biased subject, by definition, and must rely on their subjective experience.

         

        “The one where the psych gave him LSD before he walked in the church? Or was it the guy who committed suicide one week after the psych “cured” him of his “religion disorder”?”

        No, you’re changing the subject. Perkins.

         

        “You are an OT… you just dont think you are thats all”

        That’s not true for me.

         

        “After you do all that… you will tell me how you are different…”

        That’s not much of a selling point, I’m afraid. It should be simple to see, if you put me in a room with a scientologist, is there anything at all that they can do that I can’t?

         

        “They tell me they are… i dont need to say anything… they will tell you how much better they are… just ask them…’
        And that’s great, but I can be happy for free.

         

        “What CANT scientology do for you? What do you WANT scientology to do for you?”

        I don’t have any expectations for scientology in my life. What can’t scientology do for me? I haven’t seen any evidence that it can allow me to control mest, exteriorize, heal my illnesses, or be any happier than I am now. Certainly the many scientologists that committed suicide were not any happier than they were before they joined.

         

        Can you recall a time you failed to help someone? what happened? If that situation in the future happened again, would you like to know what to do so that you succeed in helping them? Because in scientology, THATS WHAT HAPPENS… you can help others better than you ever felt you could have before…”

        Oh, yes, I’ve failed at things. But I learn from it and don’t make the same mistakes again. I help others wonderfully well.

         

        “… they were doing that before then too although written hisory is abit vague… More than 30% of medical crime is committed by psychs despite the fact that they are less that 1% of the medical proffession as a whole…”

        You know what I’m going to ask… :)

         

        “Or more… let me put it this way… If the psych profession is “evolving” it hasnt removed its central postulate of materialism”

        The same reason the medical field hasn’t. It’s not their realm.

         

        “Your wrong… psychiatry isnt young at all… “hitting” the insane to make them well is a LONG TIME practive believe me!”

        You consider that psychiatry? Hitting and trepanning was done in the name of religion.

         

        “Yes it was… all sorts of American indians know of the plants and mushrooms involved with having a “spiritual experience”.

        Do you know that LSD is a chemical, and different than plants and mushrooms?

         

        “just like LSD takers who are in psych hospitals for life…”

        You’re probably right- but can you name one? And who do  you blame for their choices, if not themselves?

         

        “Interesting… the psychs got a hold of it in the 60′s in aim for a truth cyrum to combat potentail russian spys during the cold war…”

        Right, but the aliens led them to it after hiding bigfoot :)

        Seriously, do you not hold the CIA director Richard Helms responsible for ordering the tests? Or the American Chemist Sidney Gottlieb responsible for ordering and conducting the tests? Or medical doctors Ewen Cameron and Harris Isbell for assisting? Or narcotics officer George Hunter White for carrying out some of the dosing? In fact, maybe you could just let me know exactly which of the team members were psychiatrists? But, once again, why do you absolve chemistry and the medical doctors, especially when it was actually THEIR idea?

         

        “Watch thier tests on it… the lack of medical ethics involved is appalling…”

        Okay, I will- where?

         

        “I struggle to see how it is justified… but nonetheless… ok…”

        Because I’m having trouble seeing your standards…

         

        “A profitable entity for criminal dealers…”

        Okay, and how did psychs do  that?

         

        ““The point is, psychs are men behind big problems, psychs push LSD, some other guy takes it and kills someone, psych gets away scott free…”
        Reference? Or is this a matter of belief?
        Irrelevant…”

        No, it’s really not. It’s a very simple question- you make a claim, can you back it up?

         

        “Psychs were the key to getting LSD from a mere lab experiement to the street drug it became. The results it has had on society is incredibly negetive, yet they “arent responsible”…”

        Do you have a… well, you know. I see a whole lot of accusations, but you’re not establishing any of them. Why?

         

        “PLEASE… Your missing the point so badly… I swear your doing it intentionally”

        Is it possible that if I keep “missing the point”, perhaps you’re not communicating effectively. I asked a simple question that tied in directly to yours. I GET your point, but I’m merely pointing out that you’re stringing together baseless beliefs and accusations, and I keep looking for  you to bring any sort of validation. You’re obviously very passionate, and I respect that, but your cause would be much better served if you could pair that passion with reason.

         

        “The practice is criminal! Cutting a mans brain to peices and trying to help, learning that it doenst help, and then KEEP DOING IT TO PEOPLE for more than 4 decades is CRIMINAL.”

        Doing what? Lobotomies? Illegal in most areas, for good reason.

         

        Anyways, Fred, we’re communicating on two different planes. I’m trying to stick to fact and verifiable claims, and you’re communicating using what’s called an ‘appeal to passion’. That’s fine, and you’ve expressed your passion… have you anything else?

      • I’m getting sick of this… and i’m going to try and close things up a bit…

        Fred, we’re getting a little bit long here, and seeing very little productivity? Do you see our conversation as being productive?
        Dont know..we just keep ADDING DATA… not points or even counter points…

        You talon our research. Interestingly, the public outcry in Germany was so great that he was forced but it continued in secret.
        ADDED DATA… cant see the point…

        Do you know === by geneticist Fritz Lenz and Professor of Medicine Eugen Fisher.
        ADDED DATA NO POINT…
        Yes i knew most of that… some bits added in…
        ==
        Of course, Hitler also expressed praise for the Nation-State of Sparta for their own program.
        As well as used it as a political mechinism to justify the holocaust…
        ==
        I wonder, since Eugenics was conceptualized by a biologist and popularized by medical doctors (and even bankers, as you yourself point out), why don’t you blame them at least equally?

        The form of “medicine” that they used is in fact psychiatry itself… biology was a tool to justify their “scientific nature…
        Or do you?
        Do you think i should? Yes i consider them somewhat responsible to contributing to the flawed postulate that genes are responsible for mental illness that psychiatrists promoted and perpetuated which in tern made things like the holocaust occur… Bankers being the biggest of contributors…
        ==

        Learn the history before you base an argument on it.
        I have learnt alot of the history… my arguement is still sound… psych are men behind the holocaust…
        ==
        “LEARN THE PHILOSOPHY”

        I know it equally well as some, but not all, scientologists that I’ve met. What shall you correct, that I have said?
        GO BACK TO THE CONVERSATION… this comment makes no sense…
        ==
        “dont understand the question…”

        Okay. You expressed some negative experiences with psychiatry. I asked you if you thought that psychiatrists would find your negative experiences to be positive ones, and you said that many would. I asked how you know that?
        I think you’ve misinterpretted what i said earlier… or ive misinterpretted your question… There is no logic to this… quote me directly and i might know what your talking about…
        ==
        “all trying to reduce a psych patients right to refuse treatment… Pyschs try to influence government all the time. sometimes they succeed… CCHR does what they can…”
        Reference, please?
        Major one was a bill after obama got in, its been a while… … another one is the “teen screen” bill trying to make it manditory… another is of course the bill to stop parents having the right to refuse psych treatment… Australia had the debate alongside the johovas witness debate on blood transfusions are their children… theres a few there… i dont know if i can be bothered finding media articles…
        ==
        “CCHR’s attack on psychiatry is common sense”

        In many places, yes. I, and most, agree that reform is a good thing. But were you aware that Dr. Szanz is not a Scientologist?
        Yes
        ==
        He wants to reform psychiatry, true, but can you find him saying anywhere that he wants to replace it with scientology?
        He doesnt have to… “reform” means removal of its brutality… with that the whole proffession will have nothing left really… as holisitic medicine is all that is left…
        ==
        “TELL ME ONE PSYCH who let themselves have ECT??”
        Just one? psychotherapist Martha Manning.
        Did they really… WOW…
        Every scientologist has auding.. .even auditors… Psychs rarely do their own treatements on themselves… They know the consequences…
        how on earth you got that data is beyond me…
        ==

        “The standards set by the medical proffession… around 90-95% is considered acceptable… it is openly admitted that even best of psych medicine has a success rate of only 60%”

        Please share your sources for information?
        Can’t be bothered…
        ==

        “OK… 5 4 year olds in Western australia had ECT… 30 under the age of 10… seem a tad too many??”

        To me? Yes. We have the same opinion there. But please show me your source for that statistic?
        “The West australian”… newspaper january 2010…
        I have relatives in WA btw…
        ==
        “They said that in the 80′s too… and the 90′s… and again in 2005…”

        And indeed it is. Do you expect no side effects?
        They certainly advertise the treatment to be a heck of alot better than what it is… Chiropractors are big critics of it… even in todays apperent “readressed”… “better” version of it… There remains to be any biological justification for doing the treatment… statistics remain questionable… biological justificatoin is nonexistant… Science is ussually better than this…
        ==

        “True, it doesnt means it at all affective medicine…”

        Irrelevant- it does prove that it’s voluntary and done with full disclosure of the negative effects. Many patients choose for themselves because the side effects are well worth the relief they receive.
        Aparently…
        ==
        “Yeah… such practice on informed consent is improving, the psychs still seem to dodge it though”

        Source? Or opinion?
        opinion personal experience…
        ==
        “payouts from the psych proffession remain very low… Democratically, or empirically, the success of such treatments remains very low…”

        Again, source, please. I try, personally, to give sources for my claims, or the means for validation. It would save us both a great deal of time and space if you could do the same, please. You’re an intelligent young man, I’m sure you’re aware that that’s pretty common in debates or scholarly discussions.
        ==
        You want source all the time… i’ll organise something…
        The testing treatment on psych medicine, and thier “effectiveness statisitics”… can be found through wikipedia… They remain low compared to proper medicine… like say… antibiotics…
        ==
        “The most famous is a psych from the 80′s who found non drug therapy for schizophrenia to be much more affective… he recieved no funding from any research foundation, and was forced to close in 1995 with a very interesting letter to the pharma companies at the time..”

        Okay, it’s not many, but it’s something at least. Could you please provide a reference?
        Your asking me to rememebr something i read 7 years ago… i’ll work on it…
        ==
        Now, I agree that pharmaceutical companies are run as a business, and many are corrupt. THAT, that needs to be fixed. You seen the movie Johnny Mnemonic? It’s like that.

        “PLease, ive read too many critics claim ron did blah in 195 whatever in blah… only to personally have lectures where he was in a completely different country…”

        Okay… what?
        Its a comment on your statement that was above it at the time… had sex and danced to the moon with UFO cult in california in 1952 was my favourite… How on earth one can be doing the PHILADELPHIA DOCTRINE COURSE and that at the same time is beyond me… Philadelphia is quite a way from cali… Doing all the lectures stoned was another one i thought was funny… how on earth anyone could deliver 523 lectures (average an hour long) in 365 days with different material every lecture while stoned beyond me…
        Romours of ron’s life are getting so bad, people forget that maybe there was a lecture on the same day in a completely different country…
        ==

        “Humane treatment gets done to them, and they live, much happier lives…”

        But I thought you said they can’t treat the insane? I thought also that those that have had psych treatment couldn’t go clear- is that true or false?
        FOR PETE SAKE… Do you go out of your way to misinterpret everything? If one is instituitionalised… one can still go clear by the way… its just really hard…
        If psych treat became more humane it wouldnt be psych treatment any more!
        Those who are rejected auditing because of psych treatment have a case by case basis to work with… exceptions can be made…
        Retrace this whole conversation what you’ve said makes no sense…
        ==
        “even Scientology 0-8 has some, 9th ACC has some data on the insane who have exteriorised…”
        Ah, yes, but didn’t LRH say not to take his word alone? I’ve seen his notes… I dont think you have…
        they’re not scientific in any sense, they’re unverifiable and subjective. Has there been any OBJECTIVE proof within scientology that this is true?
        We dont deal with the insane so no…
        If I may ask, why do you believe it?
        My personal journey, not communicating to you… Why have you gotten so agressive all of a sudden?
        Have you seen it, or because you were told?
        I’ve seen how the theory works… for example.. .auditing a valence… its clear valences exist, its clear that is the cause of schizophrenia… its clear processes that target it would work on a schizo… Same deal with all other stuff involved really…
        I’m not trying to be offensive, but you see that there’s a huge difference.
        No your just being aggressive…
        ==
        “i know treatment of the insane certainly isnt “tested”… auditing on any “person” is very thoroughly tested… results are inevitable… all that is needed is the willingness of the PC to get better”
        You can see, then, that this isn’t Science in any contemporary sense of the word? You have a biased subject, by definition, and must rely on their subjective experience.
        Yep! We never claim to be an empirical modern university validated science by the way… we are traditional science in the philosophy definition… a common mistake intensionally perpetuated by critics…
        ==
        “The one where the psych gave him LSD before he walked in the church? Or was it the guy who committed suicide one week after the psych “cured” him of his “religion disorder”?”

        No, you’re changing the subject. Perkins.
        Only simular to the ways you have!

        “You are an OT… you just dont think you are thats all”

        That’s not true for me.
        Then your question makes no sence to me!
        ==

        “After you do all that… you will tell me how you are different…”
        That’s not much of a selling point/
        Yep, we take your money, you take a chance!
        ==
        I’m afraid.
        Your not going to be scientologist. What are you afraid of?
        ==
        It should be simple to see, if you put me in a room with a scientologist, is there anything at all that they can do that I can’t?
        They can audit! We arent circus performers… i dont know where you natural abilities are… all i know is
        1. you can improve them
        2. after you do scientology you wil state that they improved.
        Not to mension the fact that some other guy might not be… say… have as high an IQ as you… but it improves with scientology… it may still be lower than yours but it DID improve… SO.. what can a scientologist do that you cant? Help another “3rd” person…
        ==
        “They tell me they are… i dont need to say anything… they will tell you how much better they are… just ask them…’
        And that’s great, but I can be happy for free.
        Dont know what your getting at… sounds offensive… not going into it…
        ==
        “What CANT scientology do for you? What do you WANT scientology to do for you?”

        I don’t have any expectations for scientology in my life. What can’t scientology do for me? I haven’t seen any evidence that it can allow me to control mest, exteriorize, heal my illnesses, or be any happier than I am now.
        BLAH! Your not looking at those who have experienced gains… healing, mest control, exteriorisation… thats the easy part! I see people do this every week!
        ==
        Certainly the many scientologists that committed suicide were not any happier than they were before they joined.
        BLAH! Far more scientologists have had improvements in their lives.. your just refusing to look at them and i swear it is intentional sometimes… noone who has had little to no personal experience with scientology is like this.. what IS your experience with scientology?
        So few have committed suicide.. you’ve just spent 30 hours reading about them and zero hours reading about those who have had gains… you dont WANT to be scientologist, your not even considering it… this whole conversation is you with some adgenda, i can’t conclude anything else…
        ==

        Can you recall a time you failed to help someone? what happened? If that situation in the future happened again, would you like to know what to do so that you succeed in helping them? Because in scientology, THATS WHAT HAPPENS… you can help others better than you ever felt you could have before…”

        Oh, yes, I’ve failed at things. But I learn from it and don’t make the same mistakes again. I help others wonderfully well.
        You havent answered the question! Look harder…
        ==
        “… they were doing that before then too although written hisory is abit vague… More than 30% of medical crime is committed by psychs despite the fact that they are less that 1% of the medical proffession as a whole…”

        You know what I’m going to ask… :)
        == CCHR is source of that one…
        ==
        “Or more… let me put it this way… If the psych profession is “evolving” it hasnt removed its central postulate of materialism”

        The same reason the medical field hasn’t. It’s not their realm.
        YES IT IS… the cause of “mental illness” is their realm… they refuse to test anything other than the material…
        ==

        “Your wrong… psychiatry isnt young at all… “hitting” the insane to make them well is a LONG TIME practive believe me!”

        You consider that psychiatry? Hitting and trepanning was done in the name of religion.
        Point being?? To hurt the patient to “fix” them is the eariest of psych treatments… how long has it been around? hell monkeys to an extent are psychiatrists…
        ==

        “Yes it was… all sorts of American indians know of the plants and mushrooms involved with having a “spiritual experience”.

        Do you know that LSD is a chemical, and different than plants and mushrooms?
        To my knowledge the hypnotic form of it is also in plants an mushrooms… source: doco i saw a few years ago…
        ==

        “just like LSD takers who are in psych hospitals for life…”

        You’re probably right- but can you name one? And who do you blame for their choices, if not themselves?

        “Interesting… the psychs got a hold of it in the 60′s in aim for a truth cyrum to combat potentail russian spys during the cold war…”

        Right, but the aliens led them to it after hiding bigfoot :)

        Documentry on “discovery channel” gave me all that data… also with video evidence… I’ll find the name of it given the “source” of all sorts of things is so important…
        ==
        come back later…

      • Fred, I’m not sure why it’s a problem when I add information that countered your claims. But, I think that we’ve played this conversation out, and I appreciate the enjoyable time. Unless you can show me where “psychiatry” itself created the eugenics program, which seems to be your main point, then I’ll just note that it seems to be primarily political and medical. But asking for validation isn’t being aggressive, but I apologize if it appeared so.
        I would note, however, that selective breeding (a form of forced evolution, if you will) is not a psychological concept- it’s biological.
        So, I appreciate your opinions, and that you’ve shared your beliefs, but I don’t really see much substance to them. So, let’s find another topic, we played this one out :)
        One small question, if LRH wasn’t hanging out with Jack Parsons (who it sounds like you’re referring to about the “moon child”, etc), then how did he marry Parson’s girlfriend?
        Out of curiousity- you quoted me saying, “I’m afraid”… what were you quoting? I don’t recall seeing that.
        On the other subject we spoke about, the difference between a scientologist and a non-scientologist… are you saying that there is a raising of IQ? Is this objectively verifiable?
        Can a non-scientologist “help” a 3rd person?
        I’m glad to hear that you experience such wins every week, but EACH one of those items could be objectively proven, winning the million dollar prize. Is it unable to be done if a skeptical person is nearby?
        To be honest, Fred, like I said before, I see a lot of passion, which I can respect, but the only real validation comes in the form of old television shows. Let’s agree to disagree on this one, and have yourself a great weekend :)

      • I have to agree, about the reliability of unvalidated “research” notes. It would be one thing if Hubbard captured empirical data, but if you notice, his data is primarily unverifiable and anecdotal.

        For example, what ever happened to “clears do not get colds”? Or Hubbard’s promise that “All our facts are functional and these facts are scientific facts, supported wholly and completely by laboratory evidence”? Or how about “A broken limb will heal (by X-ray evidence) in two instead of six weeks”? Or, the best of the lot, “Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer. Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer!”

        each of those are from Hubbard’s books or taped lectures. Point being, I wouldn’t consider his “notes” the be ‘evidence’ in and of themselves.

        DevilDog

      • Fred, I’m not sure why it’s a problem when I add information that countered your claims.
        ==
        The data i labelled as added data doesnt counter anything look at it again…
        ==
        But, I think that we’ve played this conversation out, and I appreciate the enjoyable time.
        ==
        had some family issues sorry about delay…
        ==
        Unless you can show me where “psychiatry” itself created the eugenics program, which seems to be your main point, then I’ll just note that it seems to be primarily political and medical.
        ==
        Research it… The head of american psychiatric association invented the term “niggertude”… saying black people inherited a disease AT BIRTH…
        The concept of eguenics started with the mentally ill… biology was a method of justifying killing the mentally ill despite the fact they didnt have the evidence… How on earth you consider this NOT PSYCHIATRY is beyond me… I mean, considering the mentally ill were killed first by the germans, and THEN it moved to the jews ect… of course psychiatry has nothing to with it..
        not that it matters anyways… your philosophy IS materialism, and any data that gives in the contrary is something you will reject and anything that supports it you will accept…
        If i had the time i would go through some of history websites and journals and stuff, but working these days is time consuming… plus i just cant be bothered…
        ==

        But asking for validation isn’t being aggressive, but I apologize if it appeared so.
        I would note, however, that selective breeding (a form of forced evolution, if you will) is not a psychological concept- it’s biological.
        ==
        REALLY COMPLEX ARGUEMENT… Only someone with an inherent intent on making a scientology wrong would make such a complex arguement as that…
        ===
        So, I appreciate your opinions, and that you’ve shared your beliefs, but I don’t really see much substance to them.

        Your not looking very hard at them either… You just believe sceintology to be wrong so you dont look hard at what they say…
        ==
        So, let’s find another topic, we played this one out :)
        OK
        ==
        One small question, if LRH wasn’t hanging out with Jack Parsons (who it sounds like you’re referring to about the “moon child”, etc), then how did he marry Parson’s girlfriend?

        WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?? I dont know!
        ==
        Out of curiousity- you quoted me saying, “I’m afraid”… what were you quoting? I don’t recall seeing that.
        Im not going through it its a waste of my time…
        ==
        On the other subject we spoke about, the difference between a scientologist and a non-scientologist… are you saying that there is a raising of IQ? Is this objectively verifiable?
        Few people have tried to come up with a fair test in reguards to it… as scientology increases in number, as it has done over the past decade… someone might decide to take it up…
        ==
        Can a non-scientologist “help” a 3rd person?
        Of course they can… its human nature to… they can learn to do it better with scientology…
        ==
        I’m glad to hear that you experience such wins every week, but EACH one of those items could be objectively proven, winning the million dollar prize.
        WRONG… The prizes are jokes made out to humiliate people… its a mockery of dualism… dualists rare take it up knowing the mockery behind it… why waste your time with people who have no intent other than harm?
        ==
        Is it unable to be done if a skeptical person is nearby?
        A skeptic could make the PC PTS… other than that… yes it can… Particularly everything above OT3… or 5… one or the other…
        ==
        To be honest, Fred, like I said before, I see a lot of passion, which I can respect,
        BLAH!! WHAT A MAKE WRONG!!
        ==
        but the only real validation comes in the form of old television shows.
        If i find it i’ll give you a link… BTW documentry is different to “TV show”… man you have propaganda in your speech!
        ==
        Let’s agree to disagree on this one, and have yourself a great weekend :)
        OK
        ==
        Comment by DevilDog on June 26, 2011 9:10 am
        I have to agree, about the reliability of unvalidated “research” notes.
        Thanks for validating my point
        ==
        It would be one thing if Hubbard captured empirical data, but if you notice, his data is primarily unverifiable and anecdotal.

        Yes it is… although he’s own notes are kept private… maybe someday they will be made public… who knows? Ron didnt care much for them… Mental “science” of the time was very political…
        ==
        For example, what ever happened to “clears do not get colds”?
        They dont i guess…
        ==
        Or Hubbard’s promise that “All our facts are functional and these facts are scientific facts, supported wholly and completely by laboratory evidence”?
        Yeah, his own lab when he was at university and after the war… as i said… no critic would ever accept the data…
        ==
        Or how about “A broken limb will heal (by X-ray evidence) in two instead of six weeks”?
        It takes a heck of alot of processing but yeah, i imagine it could be done…
        ==
        Or, the best of the lot, “Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer. Not smoking enough will cause lung cancer!”
        Don’t know the full context of that one… its a tad more complex than that if he is refering to “reach withdraw” on cigarettes…
        ==
        each of those are from Hubbard’s books or taped lectures.
        DID YOU HEAR THE WHOLE LECTURE??? or just get those quotes from critical sites??
        Let me give you an example…
        Critical site: “We in scientology have nothing to do with religion…”
        SCIENTOLOGY ADMITS IT IS NOT A RELIGION…
        Full context: “we in scientology ask you to evaluate for yourselves… we dont ask you to take anything cause we say so… (in that sence) we in scientology have nothing to do with religion”
        We have nothing to do with religoin when it comes to forcing people to believe things… get the difference??
        ==
        Point being, I wouldn’t consider his “notes” the be ‘evidence’ in and of themselves.
        Of course you dont… your a critic!

        ANYWAYS everyone… i wont be on for a while, i have to leave the city for about a week or so… have fun!

      • On side note…
        I think you guys should stop making out that your “objective” or “open minded” or even… open to both points of view…
        I have gone through pages and pages of these discussions and you have yet to admit that any scientology or scientologist has done anything right or good for anyone…

      • “had some family issues sorry about delay…”

        I’m very sorry to hear that. Is everything okay?

         

        “Research it… The head of american psychiatric association invented the term “niggertude”… saying black people inherited a disease AT BIRTH…”

        Literally, the only place that I can find anything about that connection is a youtube comment. But, let’s assume that it’s true, for the sake of argument. How does one person’s racism imply that an entire profession created eugenics? I’m sure you’d agree that it doesn’t- after all, Scientology doesn’t have a Eugenics program, that I know of, and founder L. Ron Hubbard came up with such gems as:

         

        – “the African tribesman, with his complete contempt for truth and his emphasis on brutality and savagery for others but not for himself, is a no-civilization” (L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, Bridge Publications: Los Angeles, 1997.)

        – “the Zulu is only outside the bars of a madhouse because there are no madhouses provided by his tribe. … primitives are far more aberrated than civilized peoples. Their savageness, their unprogressiveness, their incidence of illness …” (L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Bridge Publications, Los Angeles, 1995.)

        – “You can put these things into the hands of some Chinese and send him to Hong Kong and we’ll have cleared chinks.” (L. Ron Hubbard, Secrets of the MEST Universe (lecture 1), “Methods of Research: The Thetan as an Energy Unit”, 6 November 1952)

        – (on Arabs) “This race has been going for a very, very long time and has been eating death for a very long time and it is death. … They have eaten death too long and now they bring death to the things they touch.” And “The Arab is to a point where he won’t even follow a decent leader. He’s got to have a man of blood, a man of cruelty, exaggeration and bigotry. Then he’ll follow him.” (. Ron Hubbard, 20th Advanced Clinical Course, “Case Analysis—Rock Hunting”, lecture of 4 August 1958)

         

        There’s more, of course, but you can see the connection. Now you say that the Biologists that started the Eugenics program (I assume you mean in the US) were actually practicing psychiatry because they “killed” the mentally ill “first” (when in reality the first programs were for forced sterilization). Okay. But, were you aware that there was awareness that certain mental illnesses were genetic, and that the biology concept was to “purify” the genetic material? This was based on the biology research on plant and animal genetics. If it was psychiatry, what was it when it moved on the Jews or the gypsies? Bear in mind that the first US Eugenics laws targeted epileptics as well. Is that psychiatry?

         

        Now, in the German program, the first law (Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, 1933) required doctors to register EVERY hereditary illness, except for in women that were too aged to give birth. They, too, sterilized the first groups of “feeble”. Hitler based his views, primarily, on that of the Biologist Charles Darwin, and his laws on the US programs. So, I still don’t see where the psychiatrists fit into this.

         

        “REALLY COMPLEX ARGUEMENT… Only someone with an inherent intent on making a scientology wrong would make such a complex arguement as that…”

        Not really. It’s quite simple. Selective breeding is a genetic-based concept. Genetics is biology.

         

        “Your not looking very hard at them either… You just believe sceintology to be wrong so you dont look hard at what they say…”

        Only when scientology (or CCHR) makes a specific claim of facts that one can easily validate or disprove. Many of your arguments to me seemed to center on non-factual statements.

         

        “WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?? I dont know!”

        You said, “had sex and danced to the moon with UFO cult in california in 1952 was my favourite… How on earth one can be doing the PHILADELPHIA DOCTRINE COURSE and that at the same time is beyond me…”

        You are referring to the claims that Hubbard was with Satanist Jack Parsons at the time. However, even scientology admits that he was, although they claim that the US Navy sent him there as a spy. But if he wasn’t even there, as you seem to be saying, then it would have been difficult for him to marry Parson’s girlfriend.

         

        “Few people have tried to come up with a fair test in reguards to it… as scientology increases in number, as it has done over the past decade… someone might decide to take it up…”

        What’s unfair about the existing IQ tests? Are you suggesting that Scientologists have a different IQ test than everyone else? If so, how could you compare the two?

         

        “Of course they can… its human nature to… they can learn to do it better with scientology…”

        I see. Is there any observable difference?

         

        “WRONG… The prizes are jokes made out to humiliate people… its a mockery of dualism… dualists rare take it up knowing the mockery behind it…”

        Actually, the tests are very open to scrutiny. Could not a scientologist exteriorize at will and identify an object in another location? Would that not prove scientology to be correct once and for all? Would that not be a very quick way to shatter all suppression and bring scientology to Billions of people at once?

         

        “A skeptic could make the PC PTS… other than that… yes it can… Particularly everything above OT3… or 5… one or the other…”

        A scientologist could, or could not, exteriorize (just for an example) with a skeptic in the same room?

         

        “BLAH!! WHAT A MAKE WRONG!!”

        I’m not sure if you meant it that way, but that made me think of a vampire.

         

        “If i find it i’ll give you a link… BTW documentry is different to “TV show”… man you have propaganda in your speech!”

        Depends on the venue. If it was a show that you watched on the TV, then it would probably be a TV show. By definition, a TV show may be a television program (“TV Show”) unless it’s in another media. What about that is propaganda?

         

        DevilDog, hope you don’t mind if I field a few, brother?

        “I have to agree, about the reliability of unvalidated “research” notes.
        Thanks for validating my point”

        How is that validation?

         

        “Yes it is… although he’s own notes are kept private… maybe someday they will be made public… who knows? Ron didnt care much for them… Mental “science” of the time was very political…”

        So we can’t evaluate his notes for a discernable scientific process? Are we left only with anecdotal evidence and subjective experience?

         

        “Yeah, his own lab when he was at university and after the war… as i said… no critic would ever accept the data…”

        What data? Like I said, all he provided is with anecdotal evidence and subjective experience.

         

        “It takes a heck of alot of processing but yeah, i imagine it could be done…”

        So you’re saying that scientology is making a claim that it can reliably effect medical processes?

         

        “Don’t know the full context of that one…”

        I’ve seen the whole lecture. Feel free to check it out yourself, if you’d like. I’m sure your local org has it:

        “SHSBC-35 6107C19, Q-and-A Period: Auditor Effect on Meter, 19th July 1961”

         

        “We have nothing to do with religoin when it comes to forcing people to believe things… get the difference??”

        But you have to consider more than one source. For example, in the Creation of Human Ability, Hubbard writes, “”Scientology has opened the gates to a better World.  It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion.  It is a body of knowledge which, when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual.” Of course, this is prior to the tax exempt filing, which states that scientology IS a religion, and that adherents are expected to look to the wisdom of L Ron Hubbard for all spiritual truths. (IRS filing, 1993)

         

        “Of course you dont… your a critic!”

        Me, personally, I expect the same from any organization that makes specific claims for which my taxes support. Don’t I have that right?

         

        “I think you guys should stop making out that your “objective” or “open minded” or even… open to both points of view…”

        Do I? Maybe. I have biases, like anyone else. Or, more accurately, I have a position and belief, if that’s not the same thing. Do you feel that you are unbiased?

         

        “you have yet to admit that any scientology or scientologist has done anything right or good for anyone…”

        I actually believe that I did, but for the record:

        A lot of people get great gains and benefit from their adherence in scientology, and such a thing should be celebrated.

        Now, I wonder if you could do the same, and admit that there are those that are worse off due to their affiliation with scientology, due to circumstances beyond their control?

         

      • Hey man… alot of added time… sorry there is a soon to be death in the family… i’ve tried to get the sources i was refered to…
        One that connects psychiatrists and bankers to the Nazi Germany is definately “rule by secrecy” by Jim Mars… There is also “Doctors Under Hitler” by Michael H. Kater…
        Statistical collections on psychiatry have souces i read so long ago i am unable to find it…
        The discovery channel documentry i saw is also unable to be found… although i found this with some interesting data….

        There is a list of them on the side as “related”… it does make disturbing viewing…
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1498038/posts
        Connects US government use of LSD as a “weapon”…
        Many other searches on the internet have a history journals for you to refer to if your interested…
        =====
        “had some family issues sorry about delay…”

        I’m very sorry to hear that. Is everything okay?
        My uncle should die very shortly… there is little that can be done… we have known for along time that this was going to happen… My mother and aunt are very sad at the moment and i’ve been giving them my time…
        ===
        “Research it… The head of american psychiatric association invented the term “niggertude”… saying black people inherited a disease AT BIRTH…”

        Literally, the only place that I can find anything about that connection is a youtube comment. But, let’s assume that it’s true, for the sake of argument. How does one person’s racism imply that an entire profession created eugenics?

        WOW what a way to water it down! The whole proffessional called the african americans “diseased” and named it “niggertude” and you think its ONE MAN’s RACISM! HA!!
        ==

        I’m sure you’d agree that it doesn’t- after all, Scientology doesn’t have a Eugenics program, that I know of, and founder L. Ron Hubbard came up with such gems as:

        – “the African tribesman, with his complete contempt for truth and his emphasis on brutality and savagery for others but not for himself, is a no-civilization” (L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, Bridge Publications: Los Angeles, 1997.)

        Taken out context… you feel the african tribesman werent brutal? They HAD a civilisation… and brutality destroyed it… this isnt racist at all… it simply states that african tribes can be brutal… as were the philipino and the australian aboriginal… Tribal living is very often very brutal… not a playground… and NOT a civilisation…

        – “the Zulu is only outside the bars of a madhouse because there are no madhouses provided by his tribe. … primitives are far more aberrated than civilized peoples. Their savageness, their unprogressiveness, their incidence of illness …” (L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, Bridge Publications, Los Angeles, 1995.)

        How do you interpret this? I see nothing wrong… it simply states the zulu didnt handle the mentally ill…

        – “You can put these things into the hands of some Chinese and send him to Hong Kong and we’ll have cleared chinks.” (L. Ron Hubbard, Secrets of the MEST Universe (lecture 1), “Methods of Research: The Thetan as an Energy Unit”, 6 November 1952)

        Did you hear the lecture? It refers to processes to be used on the chinese… as their level on the know to mystery scale creates different processes… at such a time using the term “chink” was acceptable… esp in the US…

        – (on Arabs) “This race has been going for a very, very long time and has been eating death for a very long time and it is death. … They have eaten death too long and now they bring death to the things they touch.” And “The Arab is to a point where he won’t even follow a decent leader. He’s got to have a man of blood, a man of cruelty, exaggeration and bigotry. Then he’ll follow him.” (. Ron Hubbard, 20th Advanced Clinical Course, “Case Analysis—Rock Hunting”, lecture of 4 August 1958)

        I havent heard the lecture… I’ll read it and get the idea… i think what hes saying is that groups of people can get used to a violent lifestyle to the point where they won’t allow anything else to come along… such a lifestyle in the middle east certainly exists…

        I applaud your “research” and your inevitable attempts to create antagonism by taking things “out context” but please listen to the whole lecture set… not just ONE LINE… not to mension to take into account the culture of the time vs the culture that exists today… Might i also i add that i well educated on LRH and you arent really able to “fool” me… had you listened to all the lectures in such areas you would know that your attempt to connect them to “racism” are in fact quite feeble…
        ===
        There’s more, of course, but you can see the connection. Now you say that the Biologists that started the Eugenics program (I assume you mean in the US) were actually practicing psychiatry because they “killed” the mentally ill “first” (when in reality the first programs were for forced sterilization). Okay. But, were you aware that there was awareness that certain mental illnesses were genetic, and that the biology concept was to “purify” the genetic material? This was based on the biology research on plant and animal genetics. If it was psychiatry, what was it when it moved on the Jews or the gypsies? Bear in mind that the first US Eugenics laws targeted epileptics as well. Is that psychiatry?

        Psychiatrists used this “biology” as a method of justifying thier practice of sterolization… they have a habit of justifying violence to thier patients all the time.. promising results and not delivering… it appears to me that thier intention is simply to hurt people…
        ==

        Now, in the German program, the first law (Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, 1933) required doctors to register EVERY hereditary illness, except for in women that were too aged to give birth. They, too, sterilized the first groups of “feeble”. Hitler based his views, primarily, on that of the Biologist Charles Darwin, and his laws on the US programs. So, I still don’t see where the psychiatrists fit into this.

        He also read the book “white america” written by a psychiatrist… which was used to create simular laws in the US… he refers to this book as his “personal bible” in mien kampf….
        ==

        “REALLY COMPLEX ARGUEMENT… Only someone with an inherent intent on making a scientology wrong would make such a complex arguement as that…”

        Not really. It’s quite simple. Selective breeding is a genetic-based concept. Genetics is biology.

        Psychiatry used the concept and employed and implemented it… there was never anything wrong with “genetics” there was only the use of phony genetics to employ inhumane social policies promoted by psychiatrists…
        ==

        “Your not looking very hard at them either… You just believe sceintology to be wrong so you dont look hard at what they say…”

        Only when scientology (or CCHR) makes a specific claim of facts that one can easily validate or disprove.

        The “disproof” isnt as strong as it seems either…
        ==
        Many of your arguments to me seemed to center on non-factual statements.
        So do yours…
        ===

        “WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?? I dont know!”

        You said, “had sex and danced to the moon with UFO cult in california in 1952 was my favourite… How on earth one can be doing the PHILADELPHIA DOCTRINE COURSE and that at the same time is beyond me…”
        You are referring to the claims that Hubbard was with Satanist Jack Parsons at the time.
        AM I?? How could he be in california and philadelphia at the same time? I never seen nor mension the name “jack parsons”…
        However, even scientology admits that he was, although they claim that the US Navy sent him there as a spy.

        I have no data… need references… your just giving it to me…

        But if he wasn’t even there, as you seem to be saying, then it would have been difficult for him to marry Parson’s girlfriend.

        I dont know! Give me dates… this may be a statement occurring in 1950’s or even 40’s… it cant be 1952-3… too many lectures… 515+ to be more exact…
        ==
        “Few people have tried to come up with a fair test in reguards to it… as scientology increases in number, as it has done over the past decade… someone might decide to take it up…”

        What’s unfair about the existing IQ tests? Are you suggesting that Scientologists have a different IQ test than everyone else? If so, how could you compare the two?

        So our tests that state that IQ has risen? You accept that scientology raises IQ?
        ==
        “Of course they can… its human nature to… they can learn to do it better with scientology…”

        I see. Is there any observable difference?

        Not for you because i think you’ve already made up your mind…
        ==
        “WRONG… The prizes are jokes made out to humiliate people… its a mockery of dualism… dualists rare take it up knowing the mockery behind it…”

        Actually, the tests are very open to scrutiny. Could not a scientologist exteriorize at will and identify an object in another location? Would that not prove scientology to be correct once and for all? Would that not be a very quick way to shatter all suppression and bring scientology to Billions of people at once?

        BLAH! All that is “magic tricks”… it isnt scientology… nobody who extorisises goes for such stupid things…
        ==

        “A skeptic could make the PC PTS… other than that… yes it can… Particularly everything above OT3… or 5… one or the other…”

        A scientologist could, or could not, exteriorize (just for an example) with a skeptic in the same room?

        Interesting call… the thetan gets alittle nervous… he knows whats going on… Above OT 7 is when one is complete cause over a skeptics non-intention, even then though things might get difficult… the skeptic has such an intention to prevent help… There is stuff in the “power of simplicity” lectures on what happens… getting around it can be a challenge…
        ==

        “BLAH!! WHAT A MAKE WRONG!!”

        I’m not sure if you meant it that way, but that made me think of a vampire.

        “If i find it i’ll give you a link… BTW documentry is different to “TV show”… man you have propaganda in your speech!”

        Depends on the venue. If it was a show that you watched on the TV, then it would probably be a TV show. By definition, a TV show may be a television program (“TV Show”) unless it’s in another media. What about that is propaganda?

        First of all… university papers can use documentries as reference number one… while a “TV show” like “sienfeld” they cannot… number 2… refering it as a “TV show” communicates a tone like my reference has no value… where if i was able to find it i think you would see that it does… hence it is “propaganda” to rebuke my reference with such a term…
        ==
        DevilDog, hope you don’t mind if I field a few, brother?
        I’m not surprised…

        “I have to agree, about the reliability of unvalidated “research” notes.
        Thanks for validating my point”

        How is that validation?

        I stated a critic wouldnt accept rons notes… here is one not validating his notes… hence a validation… i dont think you can have my point of view on this… but if you could you’ll be able to see it…
        ==

        “Yes it is… although he’s own notes are kept private… maybe someday they will be made public… who knows? Ron didnt care much for them… Mental “science” of the time was very political…”

        So we can’t evaluate his notes for a discernable scientific process? Are we left only with anecdotal evidence and subjective experience?

        Yep we take your money and you take a chance… remember… all auditing is refundable if you dont like it…
        ==

        “Yeah, his own lab when he was at university and after the war… as i said… no critic would ever accept the data…”

        What data? Like I said, all he provided is with anecdotal evidence and subjective experience.

        He has his own notes… dont worry… you wouldnt accept them even if you had them…
        ==

        “It takes a heck of alot of processing but yeah, i imagine it could be done…”

        So you’re saying that scientology is making a claim that it can reliably effect medical processes?

        Scientology combined with medical processes improves healing… but we are not healers… we just improve the spirit and the spirit then heals the body if he wants to… if the spirit doesnt want to heal the body well then scientology wont heal the body! It will just help the spirit in its intention to NOT heal it!
        ==

        “Don’t know the full context of that one…”

        I’ve seen the whole lecture. Feel free to check it out yourself, if you’d like. I’m sure your local org has it:

        “SHSBC-35 6107C19, Q-and-A Period: Auditor Effect on Meter, 19th July 1961”
        ==

        “We have nothing to do with religoin when it comes to forcing people to believe things… get the difference??”

        But you have to consider more than one source. For example, in the Creation of Human Ability, Hubbard writes, “”Scientology has opened the gates to a better World. It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion. It is a body of knowledge which, when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual.” Of course, this is prior to the tax exempt filing,

        WRONG… Tax exemption came before that… applications were in 1951… they were rejected but still existed… might i add “creation of human ability” came after “phoinex lectures” when it states “Scientology is a religion in the traditional sence of the word”.
        Please refer to more than one reference if you are going to argue what scientology says itself to be…

        ==

        which states that scientology IS a religion, and that adherents are expected to look to the wisdom of L Ron Hubbard for all spiritual truths. (IRS filing, 1993)

        Don’t argue scientology makes itself a religion entirely because of tax exemption… i have too much data to back up the opposing arguement…
        What happened between 1951 and 1993 is HUGE… quit forgetting to mension so much other valid data… only someone with intentions of harm would do such a thing… there i no way you don’t know that…
        ==

        “Of course you dont… your a critic!”

        Me, personally, I expect the same from any organization that makes specific claims for which my taxes support. Don’t I have that right?

        You being WAY to subjective here… you have the right to appeal to government to not have taxes to support us… you dont have the right to make out your point of view so right that noone have the right to anything opposing it… You also dont have the right to think that your point of view has no valid counter arguement…
        I myselft am under no dillusion that other people can’t have another point of view that they consider “right” while i consider it “wrong”…
        ==
        “I think you guys should stop making out that your “objective” or “open minded” or even… open to both points of view…”

        Do I?
        Yes

        Maybe. I have biases, like anyone else. Or, more accurately, I have a position and belief, if that’s not the same thing. Do you feel that you are unbiased?

        No… but i openly admit it…
        ==
        “you have yet to admit that any scientology or scientologist has done anything right or good for anyone…”

        I actually believe that I did, but for the record:

        A lot of people get great gains and benefit from their adherence in scientology, and such a thing should be celebrated.
        LOL…
        Gains that you insist need to be fully objectively tested by modern day empirical science… before you will admit exist… or even try yourself to achieve…
        Please admit scientologists have helped others… You know VM’s… way to happiness… CCHR hunting psych abuse… you know…
        ==
        Now, I wonder if you could do the same, and admit that there are those that are worse off due to their affiliation with scientology, due to circumstances beyond their control?

        BLAH… leaving scientology is so easy i dont believe there are that many people with THAT BAD A RUN…
        But yes… there are some people who have had a bad run… sometimes due to themselves making it bad that they wont admit… and other times due to other Scientologists in higher ranking not practicing scientology but forcing thier opinion… Some have had such a bad run that they no longer seek the gains they originally “felt” when they started in scientology… that to me is a shame… but understandable…

    • All of this attention now coming out in the media is due to CCHR’s dedication to expose the abuse in Psychiatry. Over 150 laws regarding labeling, standards of hospitalization and violation of human rights have been initiated by CCHR.

      “There used to be a time, when we (CCHR) were the only ones exposing psychiatry for their bogus science, crimes & abusive practices. Today, psychiatric diagnoses are being exposed as bogus in major publications, there are daily reports on psychiatric drugs being no more effective than placebo and more deadly than street drugs, and psychiatrists are routinely exposed for their crimes. Times have definitely changed.” Quoted from a Facebook post by CCHR International 6/20/2011

      Pat

      • What I wonder is what if the reforms suggested by cchr? What if the complaints are addressed? Is there ever a possibility that cchr would say, “okay, they’ve changed their problems”, or is the very profession so repugnant that cchr would not stop until each person in the field is unemployed?

      • Sorry to butt in…
        BUT
        REMEMBER…
        The philosophy of psychiatry is materialism… ie… the body is the cause of all behaviour and mental illness…
        The philosophy of scientology is dualism… ie… the spirit is the cause of all behaviours and mental illness…
        Both of them extrapolate from that datum with the intention of helping.
        The moment psychiatry gets reformed to use scientologys stable datum it is no longer “psychiatry”.
        As for “unemployment”, good psychaitrists would cease inhumane treatments and enter into other treatments which HAVE OTHER NAMES.
        Thier experience can only be of value and i doubt they will have trouble getting employment.
        As for criminal psychs… i dont think there is much we can do other than send them to jail…

      • Re: Comment by Fred on June 22, 2011 3:13 pm

        You’re correct when you way that psychiatry and scientology will never quite be one and the same. But, it sounds like you’re saying that they cannot co-exist? That, like the highlander, there can be only one?

        Yes, criminals should go to jail, if the crime warrants it, and that’s true for psychs, scientologists, police officers, doctors or anyone else.

        The true question is which has the greater benefit? Which is helping people? Now, of course, a scientologist would say that it’s scientology, while a psychiatrist would say that it’s psychiatry. Perhaps the answer would lie in the objective, rather than subjective. Has there ever been a verified case, independently established, of scientology taking someone with a serious “psychiatric issue” and resolving it, where medicine could not? Of course, please let me know if you can find anything that’s validated objectively.

        There are, of course, very high-profile cases where scientology has tried, and deaths or other tragedies have occurred. Take Jeremy Perkins- he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, but it was controlled by medication. She took his medicine away from him and got him into the purify rundown. He stabbed her multiple times and killed her. Once the courts restored his medication, he was described as a “model prisoner” and has had no other issues. In this case, he was “safe” while under psychiatric care, but became dangerous once removed from that care.

        Do you have any examples of the opposite, where someone has been helped in ways that psychiatry was unable to do?

      • CCHR’s mission is to end abuse in the field of mental health. A mission statement that has an end goal. That to me seems to be the answer to your question. We just want to put the psyche back into psychiatry.

        Pat

      • okay, so I see! You want to see psychiatry reformed by removing any criminal element and ensuring widespread responsibility. You’re not out to END the field of psychiatry, nor to put the “good” ones out of a job, but to see the “bad” ones removed.

        You, me, and countless others (including many psychiatrists) agree!

      • And the part you left out, putting the psyche back in. Psychiatry is all about man as an animal, trying to treat psyche problems with chemicals and physical means (shock treatments, water boarding, bleeding, etc.). Man is not an animal and that view originated in the 1800s with Wundt. All references to the soul as the person, in the bible, were removed. It’s not a new idea that we are spiritual beings. It goes back as far as 10,000 years ago to the Veda and Vedic Hymns. There are more and more psychologists and psychiatrists who see that the spiritual is what needs to be fixed. Once those vested in keeping folks on drugs are exposed, then there will be even more. I see it happening very soon.

        Pat

      • Well, consider the military, for example. They have “pillars” for soldier well-bring, recognizing the importance of physical, spiritual, family, etc. You’re right, that we need to start treating the whole patient, rather than only one of the many pillars. I don’t really expect medical doctors to pray for patients, but they must acknowledge to role of religious belief in the whole person. And, I agree, any criminal or unethical person must be removed from power, should they abuse it in violation of their oath.

      • So what do you propose we do with those who only see the money or power over others when treating spiritual trauma as physical disease? Who deny the spirituality? That’s why so many soldiers being given psych drugs are committing suicide, right? That they aren’t being treated spirituality for what they’ve done in the name of war?

        Pat

      • Pat,
        Where do you get your statistics regarding soldiers? I served, I saw war, I can tell you that the common thread in suicides isn’t “psych drugs”- it’s war. The brutal viciousness and bloody violence that brave men endure and commit in order to preserve your freedoms. But I’m sure you realize that.
        But they are indeed being treated spiritually- there’s an entire chaplain corps that are available 24/7, and are the first point of contact for soldier mental health.
        But, to your first point, any psychiatrist that is taking advantage of patients for monetary gain or undue influence MUST be punished, if a crime is being committed. If they are violating their oath, which bars such unethical behavior, they should lose their license.
        I don’t expect psychiatrists to necessarily acknowledge, and certainly not participate, in the spiritual, nor more than I expect a doctor or teacher to do so. That’s not their realm. But I DO expect that they allow patients, and encourage them, to pursue their religious beliefs and accommodate them in their treatment. What’s more, I encourage them to encourage physical health, spiritual well-being and familial harmony.

      • Also, it varies by Nation, as well. Recent studies have found that Canadian soldiers have a lower suicide rate than the general Canadian population.
        Also, as I mentioned before- war is a factor. As the length of time in combat increases, and the number of deployment increases, suicide rates go up. In fact, in 2009, the Army suicide rate was 21.8 per 100,000 soldiers, and increase that coincides with the increased tempo of combat operations. For the first time ever, this surpassed the general population. Last year, this number dropped to 20 per 100,000. This is a noticeable increase from the average 10 per 100,000 that we saw before the war.
        I’m not sure how many deployments you’ve seen, or how long you’ve served in the military, but I can tell you personally that antidepressants are culturally discouraged (as a sign of “weakness”), but are sometimes used for those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
        What’s interesting is that recent studies (well after the 1979 study that prompted the anti-depressant “black box” warnings) by government researchers have found a direct correlation between a drop in the usage of anti-depressants and the rise in youth suicides. This is true in every country that conducted a similar study. In the study period of 2003-2004, teen suicides rose 14%, which was “the most dramatic one-year change since the government started collecting suicide statistics” in 1979. This followed a shard decrease in the prescription of antidepressants, which followed the FDA warnings. (washington post)
        According to statistics, ever 20% decline in antidepressant use across all ages is followed by an additional 3,040 suicides per year.(NIMH)
        The Netherlands saw a correlation between the 22% drop in antidepressant use and a 49% rise in teen suicide.
        The US veterans administration also followed 200,000 military veterans and found that that those taking antidepressants had 70% less of suicide rates than those that did not.
        I would also note that the 1979 study used statistical figures only and was unable to remove other variables. Also, the figures included suicidal idealizations, as well, rather than only suicidal behavior. Also, despite the non-causative statistical data, the FDA findings claimed:

        “The decline in the national suicide rate (1985-1999) appears to be associated with greater use of non-tricyclic antidepressants. Treatment of a greater proportion of mood disorders with SSRIs and other second-generation non-tricyclic antidepressants may further reduce the suicide rate.”

        So, I think that the only real claim that we can objectively discuss is that “criminals should be punished, regardless of their occupation”, and I believe that’s a clear-cut “yes”

      • To add to, since we’re on the subject, recent FDA studies have also confirmed a statistical link between usage of antidepressants (AD) and a drop in suicidal actions or attempts. (Diane Wysowski, PhD, FDA Office of Drug Safety)
        Included in this 2004 study includes such findings as:
        – The risks of increased suicidal activity with AD use is not demonstrable in statistical studies
        – Referenced another study finding that “AD treatment with any class of drugs did not increase risk of suicide attempt”
        – Referenced yet another study showing “no statistically significant association between each AD and completed suicide” and “no statistically significant association between stopping AD and nonfatal suicidal behavior”

        The fact that suicidal IDEALIZATION was included in the original FDA study is very important. According to the FDA website: “There weren’t more actual suicides, but more people under 24 were thinking or talking about it”. (“consumer update”, 2009) That’s important, and is repeated several times in FDA studies, such as their 2010 white paper on the topic, which reported, “Several studies conducted in the 1990s concluded that there was, in fact, no link between antidepressants and the risk of completed suicide”

        For this reason, any usage of AD’s are generally coupled with intensive therapy, to counter and identify any suicidal speech or idealizations.

      • Google “soldiers psych drugs”. That’s where I got my data. I read the articles in the links

        Pat

      • Comment by Call4 on June 23, 2011 11:48 pm

        “To add to, since we’re on the subject, recent FDA studies have also confirmed a statistical link between usage of antidepressants (AD) and a drop in suicidal actions or attempts. (Diane Wysowski, PhD, FDA Office of Drug Safety)”

        Interesting, then because if you’re tying that into the increasing suicides by soldiers on psych drugs, you’re saying (as is the study) that the soldiers were suicidal pre-prescription, which means that they were unfit for duty.

        Pat

      • You’re confusing being treated as someone who has a soul that goes to heaven or hell by a Chaplain vs being treated as immortal spiritual beings that are the soul, and not the body.

        Pat

      • “Interesting, then because if you’re tying that into the increasing suicides by soldiers on psych drugs, you’re saying (as is the study) that the soldiers were suicidal pre-prescription, which means that they were unfit for duty.”
        No, I’m not. Are you using soldier deaths to try and attack psychiatry. The same attitude that you’re expressing now is that which keeps soldiers from seeking help in the first place, and an attitude that the military considers to be borderline criminal.

        But, my point is that the military tries the spiritual approach first, then the medical one.

      • But, again, read the FDA’s reports- there’s no actual link between AD use an suicide deaths. Logic will tell you that it may have something to do with the huge increase in deployment times, decrease in time home, divorces, etc. You’re looking for a cause/effect relationship, and in doing so, ignoring all of the other factors.

      • lastly, there’s few choices. A statistically insignficant number of soldiers claim to be scientologists, so there are no scientology chaplains. There just aren’t many across all military branches.

      • And by the way, if I wasn’t clear before, I AGREE that over-drugging is a bad thing. Heck, even the Air Force psychologist in one of the top links for your search term says the same! I agree that there should be greater resources available, but it would be quite a stretch to think that psychiatrist would intentionally drug someone to kill them.
        Now, with all respect, I would like it if we left soldiers out of this. A good friend of mine killed himself very recently, and I’d rather not use his death (as represented by the other soldiers we’re discussing) as our battleground. In case you’re wondering, he did not seek psychiatric nor spiritual care, nor was he on any medication. He was healthy and fit. But he couldn’t take his fourth deployment, back to back, and the fact that he only met his child on his dwell time.
        Was he weak or unfit? You can say that, if you’d like, but you can’t tell me that psychiatry had anything to do with it.
        So, I hope you’ll respect my wishes with that, but I intend to respect my own.

      • Comment by Call4 on June 23, 2011 11:31 pm

        Cites please. You constantly “quote” studies without ever giving the links to the documents. You question source for every time that one of us makes a statement so start delivering up.

        Pat

      • And yet, you never quite do :)
        But I gave you names, dates, everything else that you need to be a verifiable site.
        I recommend google, and you can personally verify each of the names.
        If you add the google term “site:fda.gov” it will search only the fda site.

      • Actually, I take that back- you actually have several times recently, and should be commended for doing so. I gave you the means to verify, but if you need help searching, I will be happy to help you.

      • And the holistic health movement is strong and growing.

        Thanks to those who went outside the box and risked censure, such as Dr Szasz. That’s why he’s honored, along with any others following that path.

        Pat

      • Additional data on the sea change in Psychiatry

        http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-disorders/psychiatrists-on-lack-of-any-medical-or-scientific-tests/

        Pat

      • Exactly, it’s a wonderful thing that so many psychiatrists are pushing for reform within the industry. It really shows that the profession has all types, from caring and compassionate to greedy and evil… just like any group, even scientology. In any group, there’s good and bad people- that’s why I, too, encourage reform (of scientology) without any intention of destroying the whole.

      • interestingly, Google shows me that those names on your list are actually rather respected members of the psychiatric community. Why would the field, if as corrupt as some believe, allow such dissension in their midst? indeed, and welcome it, publishing their papers in psychiatric journals?

      • Comment by Call4 on June 25, 2011 5:34 pm

        Pretty cool, huh? Innies are outing the lies. :) – in journals, no less!

        Pat

      • Comment by Call4 on June 25, 2011 5:15 pm

        cites?

        Pat

      • oh, yes, any problems need to be brought to light, and the most effective reform will come from the psychiatrists themselves. This is the same thing that reformed the medical community- dedicated professionals that want to make sure that the patients are well cared for.

      • are you asking for citations showing that the names on the CCHR list are well-respected?

      • oh, wait, you asked me to cite the 5:15 message. What were you asking me to elaborate upon? That there are good and bad psychiatrists? That there are good and bad scientologists? That I advocate reform, rather than destruction, of scientology? I don’t see what else I’ve claimed there, that I may provide sources.

    • If you look at all of the publications on the CCHR.org and cchrint.org sites you’ll see that they have cites. This is not a matter of “belief” but one of knowledge.

      Pat

      • Thank you, Fred, and I agree that there are problems, crimes and abuses that needed to be routed out. This is similar to the early barbaric days of medical practice in which greater understanding and reform created what we know today.
        How do you feel about the number of psychiatrists that also push for reform?

      • You’ve adressed this reply to me, although pat wrote it, im just wondering if your refering to something else or not!
        What psychs are pushing for what reform?

      • oh, yes, I get confused because she answered my question to you :)
        Were you not aware that many psychiatrists are pushing for reform of the field, or are you asking me for a by-name list?

      • There is, for instance, Psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Insel who is encouraging healthcare reform to require psychiatiatrists to disclose all dealings with pharmaceutical companies.

        Or Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus, Dr. Thomas Szasz, who founded CCHR.

        Or Dr. Peter R. Breggin, called “the conscience of psychiatry” who pushes to reform the field of mental health.

        Or Dr. Elisa S. Lottor, Ph.D, who takes rereferrals through the “Safe Harbor” group, and will not prescribe psychiatric drugs, in favor of holistic medicine?

        That is, of course, a very small list. With the obvious exception of Sazsz, what would you have happen to those?

      • Those are folks that are working for reform as CCHR is. We want to get rid of those who are harmful. I’m sure that it will continue as it is, but with a new mission. Dr. Szasz is co-foiunder of CCHR.

        Pat

      • I dont think there psych are “practicing” psychs… i in no way resent them…
        I am interested to know how a critic would react to a “nonpracticing” scientologist….

      • I dont think there psych are “practicing” psychs… i in no way resent them…
        You’re including the ones that claim that they are?

        I am interested to know how a critic would react to a “nonpracticing” scientologist….
        Love ’em. Why?

      • Here’s the link to the latest reports.

        http://www.cchrint.org/2011/06/24/u-s-troops-reportedly-taking-more-medication-than-ever/

        There are additional ones at the bottom of the article

        Pat

      • Comment by Fred on June 24, 2011 2:23 pm

        Correct, Fred. These are doctors that are now practicing outside of what psychiatry considers politically correct, whistleblowing and advocating non-abusive treatment.

        Pat

      • Pat, I see your study showing that more soldiers are being placed on psych drugs, which directly corresponds to the factors that I have laid out (I don’t believe you answered- have you ever experienced those factors? Have you ever seen combat?), but I don’t see any study supporting your implication that that is harming the soldiers.

      • If I may add in;
        actually, Pat, those psychiatrists that push for reform are (in most cases) well respected in the field, even being affectionately referred to as the “conscience of psychiatry”. And the holistic health movement is strong and growing.

      • Comment by Call4 on June 25, 2011 9:24 am

        Not this lifetime.

        Pat

      • Actually, right here, right now! I’d venture to say that any group with an agenda (such as CCHR) might NOT be considered to be unbiased in the information they present.

    • Fred, you’re coming through as rather aggressive and seemingly upset. Perhaps me should agree to disagree on this one?

      • “Butting in”

        I don’t see any “upset” here. And there’s virtue in being aggressive in ones belief. Scared to enforce and afraid to offend are patty-cake attitudes.

        Pat

      • Just my observation. Thank you for yours.

    • Fred,

      Again, on a personal note, I’m very sorry about your Uncle. I’m sure that it’s quite a challenge, to balance work (I hope your new job is going well), a social life and such great responsibilities as comforting your family in a time such as this.

      If you aren’t up for conversation right now, please, feel free to say so. We can continue at another time. No harm in waiting  a bit.

      ===================== optional conversation below ===============

      Thank you for that interesting information. To begin, in order, we agree that the US government experimented with drugs at a certain point in our history, and perhaps still do today. We agree, I think, that there WERE psychiatrists involved, but also that there were other medical professionals and government officials. What I don’t understand is how you tie in the entire psychiatric profession, past and present, while lessening the far greater contributions of other professional communities. Is the medical profession equally to blame for the actions of some of the doctors?

      “WOW what a way to water it down! The whole proffessional called the african americans “diseased” and named it “niggertude” and you think its ONE MAN’s RACISM! HA!!”
      I ask again- please help me find any reference showing that this belief was claimed by more than that referenced comment. What is your source? I can’t find it. What I CAN find is that the African American community has adopted the term as their own- where is your reference showing otherwise?

      “Taken out context… you feel the african tribesman werent brutal? They HAD a civilisation… and brutality destroyed it… this isnt racist at all… it simply states that african tribes can be brutal… as were the philipino and the australian aboriginal… Tribal living is very often very brutal… not a playground… and NOT a civilisation…”
      Have you ever known any African Tribesman, Fred? I have. I went to war with some of them- cooks, medics, even soldiers. Literally, tribesmen from Africa. They seemed to have a pretty good civilization to me. And your oversimplification of Hubbard’s quote removes some of the key terms- that he has a “contempt for truth” and an “emphasis on brutality and savagery”. It’s an absolute. I’ve read it in context.

      “I see nothing wrong… it simply states the zulu didnt handle the mentally ill…”
      No, it says that they are ONLY outside of the madhouse because there are none. “Savage”? “unprogressive”? Go ahead and go to Africa today and tell a modern Zulu that you think such things about them- do you think that they would feel that it’s correct?

      “at such a time using the term “chink” was acceptable… esp in the US…”
      “Chink” was always used in the perjorative sense, and was offensive to the Chinese from the onset, especially in America when the Chinese were looked down upon.
      But, let’s pretend that it wasn’t the case, and that it was socially acceptable. Why would you forgive hubbard for using such a term that was acceptable at the time, but not a psychiatrist who used a term that is offensive now, but was acceptable at the time?

      “Might i also i add that i well educated on LRH and you arent really able to “fool” me… had you listened to all the lectures in such areas you would know that your attempt to connect them to “racism” are in fact quite feeble…”
      Ouch :) And yet, his statements seem to stand for themselves.

      “He also read the book “white america” written by a psychiatrist… which was used to create simular laws in the US… he refers to this book as his “personal bible” in mien kampf….”
      I assume you’ve read it? I have not, but I pulled it up online and searched for the reference. It doesn’t seem to be in there. Where did he say this in mein kampf?

      “Psychiatry used the concept and employed and implemented it… there was never anything wrong with “genetics” there was only the use of phony genetics to employ inhumane social policies promoted by psychiatrists…”
      Again… where? You have not yet been able to show me, in a factual sense, rather than your belief, where psychiatry is directly responsible for any atrocity, or had a major role in any eugenics program. Can you do this?

      “The “disproof” isnt as strong as it seems either…”
      Okay.

      “Many of your arguments to me seemed to center on non-factual statements.
      So do yours…”
      Oh? Please, show me? I’m not the one making grand claims about psychiatrists being responsible for certain world events. You’re making these claims, and you’re not supporting them by fact. Please, be so kind as to show me a claim that I’ve made that I haven’t supported, and I’d be happy to address it. Would you be willing to do the same?

      “So our tests that state that IQ has risen? You accept that scientology raises IQ?”
      No, I don’t. Because there is no evidence that this is so. The only test that seems to support this is developed by scientology to prove scientology, so it’s not a reliable indicator.

      “Not for you because i think you’ve already made up your mind…”
      My mind is made based on available evidence, and is subject to change if new, better evidence comes along. Do you have any better evidence?

      “BLAH! All that is “magic tricks”… it isnt scientology… nobody who extorisises goes for such stupid things…”
      Why? Wouldn’t that make for a very quick way to clear the planet?

      “hence it is “propaganda” to rebuke my reference with such a term…”
      Both words are correct. If you’d like, I’ll just as correctly use the term “documentary”. However, recall that you “corrected” me for using the term TV show- my point is that it’s equally correct.

      “I’m not surprised…”
      Ba-zing. Would you rather I didn’t?

      “I stated a critic wouldnt accept rons notes… here is one not validating his notes… hence a validation”
      How do we know? Neither of us have ever seen them. If the notes were “scientific”, perhaps that would change something.

      “Yep we take your money and you take a chance…”
      Yeah… That’s not what I would want when giving up thousands upon thousands of dollars.

      “He has his own notes… dont worry… you wouldnt accept them even if you had them…”
      So… we have no actual data, beyond the subjective? Have you seen the notes?

      “Please refer to more than one reference if you are going to argue what scientology says itself to be…”
      What are YOU arguing it to be? Because it seems to me that Scientology has claimed to be both, depending on what’s convenient for the situation. Are you arguing that scientology IS or IS NOT a religion?

      “Don’t argue scientology makes itself a religion entirely because of tax exemption… i have too much data to back up the opposing arguement…”
      Ah, there we go, that makes more sense. Please, feel free. Because if scientology is NOT a religion, then it has no business receiving a tax exemption as one. So… what’s your opposing data?

      “you have the right to appeal to government to not have taxes to support us… you dont have the right to make out your point of view so right that noone have the right to anything opposing it…”
      OF COURSE you have the right to oppose it! Have I ever said otherwise? All that I’m saying is that I have a right to question the worth of something that my tax dollars support. Don’t I? Don’t I have the right to question why my taxes are higher to support an organization that must exist for public benefit, rather than private benefit?

      “Do you feel that you are unbiased?
      No… but i openly admit it…”
      Did I deny it? Oops, my mistake. Yes, I have biases, like you and anyone else. That’s why I attempt to provide (and request) facts- they are neutral.

      “Gains that you insist need to be fully objectively tested by modern day empirical science… before you will admit exist… or even try yourself to achieve…”
      Did I not? I’ll try to be more clear: “A lot of people get great gains and benefit from their adherence in scientology, and such a thing should be celebrated.”
      I celebrate the subjective feelings of the scientologists- there’s nothing wrong with wanting the factual claims to be validated. Do you believe that Hubbard’s factual claims COULD be validated objectively?

      “Please admit scientologists have helped others… You know VM’s… way to happiness… CCHR hunting psych abuse… you know…”
      Of course! Any group will do some good- the KKK raises money for sick kids. The black panthers clean up communities. And scientology helps people as well. But, like I said, I don’t advocate destruction of scientology- keep the good, fix the bad.
      I’ve met your demand. Can you admit that scientologists have also hurt others? As in the suicides, bankruptcies, murders, frauds, harassment, etc?

      “leaving scientology is so easy i dont believe there are that many people with THAT BAD A RUN…
      But yes… there are some people who have had a bad run… sometimes due to themselves making it bad that they wont admit…”
      But how many thousands need to tell the same story before you could even consider, or even admit, that there MIGHT be something to it? We’re talking tens of thousands, if not more.
      Are you unable to admit, even though I can admit to good, that there is any bad? Can you admit that there are those that are worse off due to their affiliation with scientology, due to circumstances beyond their control?

  21. Just a comment… to Call4
    I do think commenting on others question is OK just not under “reply” as it floods the thread up…

    • I would agree, Fred! Such communication is both the beauty and nature of the Internet. That’s just what I don’t understand about Pat’s comments. I suppose that the way to reply is a matter of taste, and I can see both sides. I like how the reply option keeps threads nested, but I also like how starting a new thread, like you did here, can help keep different conversations organized. Excellent point.
      How’s the new job going?
      If I can ask a personal question, is your girlfriend a scientologist, too?

      • Hi,
        Yeah… its an administrative issue, which basically means there are many schools of thought! But hell, we practically wrote a novel down there and because topics arent in separate threads things are bit confusing to back-track…
        The new job is alittle harder than what i though, but i am getting the hang of it… pay can increase if i get more sales, but heck, people just arent biting for the time being!
        Yes my girlfriend is a scientologist… she also has the fortunate quality of being really hot…
        Is your girlfriend/boyfriend a scientologist?

      • True to that. Of course, that’s what I love about the internet- it’s a completely unprecedented opportunity to get disparate points of view in the same place, at the same time, and fully explore an issue. It’s really amazing, isn’t it? Technology, I tell ya.

        I’m sure you’ll get the hang of the job, sounds like you sized it up pretty quick, so you can adjust and do well. So you’re on a commission basis? That can really be a good thing for you- I know it’s harder, sometimes, but hopefully with gas prices going down people will get out more and shop a bit more. Hopefully the economy picks up even more, so folks’ll build up that disposable income. Is this your first sales job, or were you already pretty well versed in sales?  

        Lol on the g/f- I’m sure she’d be pretty flattered to see that you wrote that :). I’m also sure it’s true, so good on you. My wife is not, but one of our (relatively new) friends is. Another one of our friends is a theistic Satanist, so we have some pretty good conversations, lol!

  22. You didn’t read what I said earlier. I asked Scientist a question and BD bypassed him and answered as tho’ Scientist couldn’t handle it. I told BD to butt out in so many words. That’s much different than commenting on a statement you make that had nothing to do with any questions.

    Pat

    • Actually, Pat, I read every word. You’ve created a very complicated set of rules. And you can understand my confusion, as I listed five examples of you doing the very same thing that you are faulting BD for. Why are you being so evasive?

    • Okay, I think I figured out your rules.
      It’s okay to respond to someone’s question, as long as you only copy the leadup to the question and leave out the actual question portion.
      It’s okay to respond to someone’s opinion, even if it’s in the middle of a conversation between two people.
      It’s NOT okay to respond to a question, when asked of another, if not directed at you.
      Ergo, it’s wrong when you do it, as in the five examples I provided.
      Therefor, it is morally dubious, at best, to chastise someone for doing what you yourself do.

      Am I factually incorrect on any point?

      • Yes.

      • Oh?

      • In sorry, Pat, I failed to effectively communicate here. When I said, “oh?”, what I was intending to convey was an earnest request that you tell me where you feel that I am factually incorrect?

  23. Luanne, if I may shift to a myth regarding Mr. David Miscavige; as you’re aware, there is a perpetual myth that his wife, Shelly Miscavige has “disappeared”. I’m sure that’s just a myth, but then again, I don’t believe anyone has seen her, publicly, in half a decade, and she hasn’t been seen with Jim in that time. In the new yorker interview, Mr. Tommy Davis did not directly answer that question. Do you know the answer?

    Also, it looks like the recent anonymous arrests are related to hacks on Sony. Is there a tie to Scientology that wasn’t clear?

    • I’m sorry, Jim=Him. If dm likes the nickname, though, he is welcome to keep it

  24. Louanne,
    Regarding your other thread, “anonymous, when crime has a face”, I actually agree with you. While the article, I don’t think, is related to scientology, the large collective has more recently faced horrible PR and horrible moral issues with their attacks on government agencies, banks, etc. I think that, in many cases, the various “projects” are nothing short of domestic terrorism, and anyone taking part in them should be tried as such.
    However, I also believe that, as anyone can self-identify as anonymous, the individuals must be judged as individuals, at least until such a time that self-identification itself is considered a crime. Project Chanology, one of the many off-shoots, the project concerned with scientology, is not related to this crime, but it definitely hammers home the point that one must be careful to avoid judgment and convict a large group of people based on the actions of others. For example, just because a scientology minister murders someone, does that mean that all scientologists are murders? no way, that’s just silly. Similarly, because someone that self-identifies as part of a hacker “group” commits a crime, does that mean that critics of scientology are also criminals? That, too, would be silly.

    • Why is this here and not on that thread Call4?

      • OK nm… i think i just worked it out….

      • :)

  25. Comment by Barney on June 13, 2011 6:24 am

    That’s an interesting view but there is something I’d like your feedback on.

    Read this and tell me how it applies to what you think of as the high road. It will help if you’re specific.

    http://www.righttraining.net/

    Pat

    • I’m sorry Pat, but who wrote that? It is a rambling group of opinions none of which can be proven to be true.

      “Fully 80 percent of existing moral codes today are defunct, and yet they’re still in force.”

      –Where is that study? No, really, show me the reference.

      “The moral is not based upon reason, honesty, codification, good behavior or anything else. It’s based upon the fact that something, some time or other in the history of a race has been inhibitive to survival, and the powers that be at that time and their successors adjudicated the fact that it ought to be impressed upon people that they shouldn’t do this. ”

      –According to who? the author? This is another opinion with no facts backing it up. In reality it contradicts the definition of morals.

      “Morals and ethics are entirely separate subjects. They are not even interrelated. Of course, in this decadent age you open up the dictionary to ethics, and in a big learned statement, there’s one word sitting there—it says morals. So you say, “Well, let’s find out about this.” So you turn to morals, and then this terrifically learned dissertation there: says ethics. If you want to play around with dictionaries, you’ll find out that when two words are being defined one against the other and then back again, you can pretty well conclude that nobody’s ever figured them out. Well, it’s that case with morals and ethics. ”

      –Another opinion that is actually incorrect. Outside of Scientology, the world uses these definitions:

      Ethics: Moral principles that govern a person’s or group’s behavior.
      Morals: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

      Ethics and morals ARE closely related, at least by the English definitions. If the author and/or Scientology wishes to change the definitions for themselves (which it appears they have), it becomes impossible to communicate with non-Scientologists. Was that the intention? It is easy to see why you wish to argue definitions all day Pat. Unfortunately, Scientology’s definitions of these words are incorrect for the rest of society. It makes it extremely difficult to reach common ground! You might as well speak Chinese and I’ll speak Russian.

      I thought the “High Road” was a basic concept, but I can see now that it‘s not basic to your point of view. Perhaps Scientology doesn’t have a “High Road”, or if it does, it is truly following it with the posts about Jason Beghe. Cheers Pat, I hope you’re a lawyer or a debate teacher!

    • If you read the article you’d see who wrote it. It’s on the first page.

      It’s a sorry day when a person can’t know something and can only accept what someone else tells them to think. We’ll have no new ideas or thoughts or creativity because there wasn’t a study done on it.

      Pat

    • Actually I did read it Pat. That’s why I quoted 3 different passages. And no, it doesn’t say who wrote it, besides saying “based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard”. I guess he wrote it? So he decided to change the meanings of words and concepts, that isn’t going to help us reach an understanding.

      That’s not even the point. It’s a sorrier day when something as basic as the “High Road” can’t be understood between two people. So it is a foreign concept to Scientology. That’s fine, but it is easy to see why there is so much misunderstanding between Scientologists and non-Scientologists. We are speaking two different languages.

      • The high road for you seems to be that the Church ignore it when the media like the New Yorker prints a trash piece about how someone who hasn’t even been in Scientology since 79, has left the Church. You call it classless to expose a paper for bad journalism and the pawn as just that. According to you no one has the right to expose these things because of some obscure opinion that it’s classless, which is just a spin buzz word.

        Pat

      • I didn’t read the New Yorker, but however you want to look at it is cool Pat. It’s not going to change how much I like you. Keep on fighting, buddy!

    • Pat, Our conversation isn’t going to reach a logical conclusion, so at this point I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. The Church has every right to defend itself against critics and even if I believe their behavior as a respected religion was classless, that is their right. Clearly you disagree, and that is your right as well. I’m still a lover of all people and beliefs, especially you Pat! You’re such a fighter, I dig that about you!

  26. hmm… deleted and banned yet again? I can’t tell, and Louanne will never tell me- Louanne, if you don’t want to allow me to communicate here, just let me know. Why do you keep deleting my comments, even though I was able to conclusively PROVE that Pat was doing the exact same thing that she accuses others of doing? Can I not to that? Please, just let me know if I’m not allowed to communcate here!

    • Or, if I’m just not allowed to remind Pat that she promised to prove that criminon was effective? Whatever it is, please just let me know! If you can’t have me here, for whatever reason, just let me know.

      • whatever, this is why I left in the first place. Too much censorship here, too many deleted posts and closed threads. Too often have threads been closed when the questions became too difficult, or comments been selectively erased to manipulate the conversation.
        This is not a place for open discussion, it’s a place run by someone that wants to prove a point, and won’t let open discussion get in here way. In other words, not my kind of place- I dig equal terms, and you won’t find that here.
        Out.

  27. “Anyways, Pat, it’s a pleasure to have you join in on my comm cycle, even if you spoke out against doing so just a few months ago.”

    Not the same. I specifically asked Scientist a question which BD deigned to answer for him as though he couldn’t answer it and had to be by-passed. I stateed that as well. If I had generically asked a question, it would have been no problem. I find it amusing that in so doing, It’s amusing how you take things out of context.

    Pat

    • I see. So, to you, if you directly ask someone a question and someone else answers, that’s wrong.
      But if ask someone a question, and am in the middle of a discussion, and YOU answer, that’s okay.
      I get it, thanks for clearing that up.

      • What question did I answer that you asked someone else?

        Pat

      • If you see the thread, Fred and I were discussing, at the time, his personal views on psychiatry.

        Don’t get me wrong, I like conversation/ it’s the double standard I have problems with.

      • I didn’t “answer” any question. I made a comment. Big diff

        Pat

      • Yes, you did- you just cut out the next line in your copypasta which directly asked the question. But, either way, what rules are you following, that if you cut out the question, it’s okay to answer, but if you quote the question, it’s not okay? That, and the other examples that BD posted in the same thread.
        It’s not a problem, pat, all I’m saying is please stop inventing rules for other people, and please adhere to the same standards that you hold for other people.

      • For reference, you can see his examples, and the context, here:

        scientologymyths (dot) wordpress (dot) com /2010/05/07/new-scientology-video-clarifies-front-groups/

      • examples, if it helps:

        “notorious human rights violator loses task force”
        Big Daddy to Louanne: “But, I suppose that what is true is what one has observed to be true, is it not?”
        Pat: “BD, absolutely what is true is what one has personally observed to be true.”

        “Yawn…. another journalist trying a PR stunt. Disappointing.”
        Failroot to Louanne: “But this seems to be what this site is lately- no “myths” to address, just focused on attacking individuals, rather than their claims. Same way with Freedom Rag… I wonder if the two are related somehow?”
        Pat: “What claims? I didn’t see or hear anything from Sweeney beyond generalities. Did you see or hear an actual specific claim, that I missed?”

        “Check out 11:30”
        BigDaddy to Louanne: “Could you explain why lronhubbard (dot) org brags of an award that he received calling him “the incarnation of the Buddhist saint, matteya”? It’s in his biography on that site.”
        Pat: “Where exactly? I still don’t see where he claims he is Mettaya.”

        “Repost: Welcome!”
        Reporter to c.d.: “out of curiousity, do you defer to the 1976 versions of the OEC or the 1992 version?”
        Pat: “Starting in 1950. with the publication of Dianetics, all the way to 1986, when LRH dropped his body, research was constantly on-going, with new bulletins and policy letters being published.”

        “Why Crime doesn’t pay off”
        Me to Louanne: “Did scientology have anything to do with his non-scientology related crimes?”
        Pat: “Who’s his?”

        So, to be very direct (since I’m sticking to your rules about answering questions directed to other people), why aren’t you following the standards you set for others? I’m not trying to be tough on you, but you’re not owning up, and I’m not sure why.

      • an opinion is being voiced, and that’s what i’m acting on. In at least one question ? it was rhetorical

        Pat

      • Right… So, the sane thing you faulted someone else for doing.
        It’s not a problem, I just can’t figure out why you’re being so evasive about it.

      • Sane=same

  28. Does every welcome post turn into something resembling the ghettisberg address?

    • Naw, it’s more like a collection of braveheart speeches, lol :)

      • lol…
        i mean… 87 comments… a few hundred in the other… alot of energy goes in here!

      • Yes, certainly a lot of passion, that’s for sure :) Of course, some replies, like this, add to the number without expanding any significant energy.

      • and replys like this one too..

      • ?

      • just a gag…

      • I’m slow, lol :)

  29. “Innuendo: an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.”

    Exactly. That is it. It’s what you do while pretending to be all sweet and nice.

    Pat

    • merely an observation, but your definition is not applicable if Barney is being sincere.
      I’m not saying he is or isn’t, but that would be a true/false condition.

      • it was snide to me.

        Pat

      • And I respect your perception. My observation remains true, of course. However, I would submit that your perception may not necessarily be be a forcing function as to the perceptions of others.
        In other words, your perspective is highly respected, but it doesn’t necessarily change what Barney intended.

    • Hey Pat, of course I sincerely want to be nice. I tried cracking a good-hearted joke earlier about becoming the World Commander of Common Sense and you said it wasn’t allowed here. It’s always possible to disagree and still be nice!

      • I said nothing about allowing the World Commander snide comment

        Pat

      • You said, “I don’t know where you got the idea that this is a friendly chat ” in response to my post about being World Commander of Common Sense. And it was not meant in a ‘snide’ way at all! I would honestly get rid of all hate by both critics and Scientology if I could. I’m not going to re-explain everything when I already typed it before. Please stop attacking me if you aren’t going to read what I’ve written.

      • My response was to your saying this was a friendly chat. You are critical, and make deprogramming attempts about my religion. That to me is the act of an enemy of my religion and not a friend. You don’t respect my beliefs when you do that. Bye

        Pat

      • Awww Pat now we’re enemies?!? I thought we had a very unique relationship beginning. Sad. For the record, I made one critical comment about Scientology: that they were petty and immature in attacking Beghe and, regardless of what he’s done, the Church has a moral responsibility to take the ‘High Road’. That’s it. Hell, I’m more critical towards my wife and she just tells me to shut up! Obviously you don’t believe in the Church taking the ‘High Road’ since you never acknowledged it. That’s fine, I guess we disagree. I don’t consider everyone I disagree with an enemy, that wouldn’t be a very happy life. What do you think?

        Finally, name one time I disrespected your religious beliefs. It never happened. I love all religions. It doesn’t mean I have to love the actions of all religions. You might hate me, but I love you, man. I love everybody, life’s more enjoyable that way!

      • What do you consider the “high road” is, Barney?

        Pat

      • “Finally, name one time I disrespected your religious beliefs. It never happened. I love all religions. It doesn’t mean I have to love the actions of all religions.”

        It’s not how I see it. Questioning Church actions is disrespecting my religion. Saying “take the high road” is disrespecting my religion. If you were fully administratively trained and you saw a Church policy being violated, and pointed that out specifically, then I could work with that, but you seem to be judging Scientology by some other “code” which isn’t working. If you know the technology that we operate on then, by all means tell me what was done that was a violation of that.

        Pat

      • I’m just curious. Is “Questioning Church actions is disrespecting my religion” really how you feel?

      • “I’m just curious. Is “Questioning Church actions is disrespecting my religion” really how you feel?”

        You betcha. It’s one thing to have an opinion about my religion and it’s another to use some other “code” to say something is wrong with it and persist in trying to convince us that we are in the wrong. It’s an attempt to deprogram and that’s already been exposed by several people who were ex and returned.

        You tell me something. If a person published an article about you that was false and you knew that person was doing that to misdirect attention off of their own crimes and basically say you’re the one committing them, would you sit there and say nothing?

        Pat

      • Pat,

        You seem to hold that belief towards anyone that has a dissenting view. No offense, of course, but sometimes people can disagree without it being disrespectful. Yet, you seem to see it as deprogramming. I’m sure you’re aware that there’s a lot of critical information on the internet, even from former members. Even current members can have criticisms once in a while. Seeing all of that as “desrespect” seems… like a rough way to live.

        Could you please show me where ex’s have returned and exposed deprogramming?

        “You tell me something. If a person published an article about you that was false and you knew that person was doing that to misdirect attention off of their own crimes and basically say you’re the one committing them, would you sit there and say nothing?”

        No. And if that happens to you, I’d expect you to do the same. But no one is publishing articles about you, are they? Who is criticising YOU and has their own crimes that they’re deflecting?

        It sounds more to me that you’re unable to seperate legitimate criticism about the management of scientology and personal attacks against you. But there is a difference. People criticise my country- are they attacking me? People criticise the school that I attended- are they attacking me?

        More to the point, when I say that the Catholic Church handled the sex abuse scandal wrong, was I attacking my mom?

        Pat, people disagree. But if you take it as a personal attack when someone criticises something in which you participate, you’ll be constantly offended and offensive. Is scientology all you are? Is there anything more to you than that, that you would have perspective or depth?

      • See, Pat, you seem to hold the position that only a select few, a very small percentage of the population, are qualified to render an opinion on what they observe regarding scientology. But, like any organization, there is an necessity to interact with the public at large. And I feel that’s just, as well. You see, in the US, Scientology is a tax exempt organization. This means that Scientology, like all churches, have a responsibility for public benefit and trust, that the church is expected to act for the benefit of society at large. If MY tax burden is greater because Scientology pursued that public trust, why do I not have a right to question what I observe? While you have very specific standards of who may render a critical opinion, I hold that we all have that right, as you have the right to not honor or respond. You choose to, however- as do I.

      • Hope you had a great weekend, Pat. Sorry for not responding, I was out of town.

        High Road: A morally superior approach toward something.

        That’s the definition. I assure you that I was personally not disrespecting your religious beliefs by disagreeing with the Church’s action. I’m sorry you felt that way, it was not my intention. I know that I have gotten mad at the actions of people/governments/organizations without completely disrespecting them. It wouldn’t be a very happy existence for me if I did! Obviously I’m not a Scientologist and not trained in your policies. I was applying a “code” of general morality, not religiously affiliated, such as is used in the definition below.

        Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

        If we can’t establish a common ground of general morality, if it is not part of Scientology, then I guess it’s pointless to continue discussing. Have a great day Pat!

  30. “If it is possible, please read and comprehend what is typed,”

    So, now you’re saying that I didn’t read or comprehend, and that’s a snide comment. I am done with this subject.

    Pat

    • Yeah, I figured you would be. Just remember you began the snide comments with my supposed ‘innuendos’ and calling me ‘patronizing’ when I attempted to be friendly, while refusing to respond to what I was actually saying, thus leading me to believe that you hadn’t read or comprehended. It was a logical conclusion to draw. Smile more, Pat, friendliness is Pretty Cool :)

  31. “You’ve mentioned that you would like to see psychiatry destroyed. You may recall that COB said the same thing, and even predicted that it would happen by a certain date. Yet, I assume that you’re not a member of the psychiatric profession, nor a patient. You would have a profession destroyed, people out of work, because of what you perceive from the outside.”

    Watch the trailer for Psychiatry: Industry of Death at cchr.org. You’ll see the video footage of a president of the American Psychiatry Assoc. laying out their plan to literally infiltrate psychiatry into schools and all religions, and to do this as part of taking over the planet (their words). You have NO IDEA about the destructive plans of this profession and what they do to people in the name of “help”. Yes, the plan is to do away with this profession.

    Pat

    • This is between me and Scientist. If you can’t respect that communication cycle, BD, then I will hereafter cease any and all communication with you.”
      Pat to “BD”, Feb 4, 2011

      Anyways, Pat, it’s a pleasure to have you join in on my comms cycle, even if you spoke out against doing so just a few months ago.

      Regardless, I’d be more than happy to communicate with you, since you seem to want to with me.

      So, let’s consider for a moment- what if there were some psychiatrists that were stupid enough to think that the (honorary, not elected) president was being literal, rather than metaphorical. What a shame that would be! Fortunately, I think most people could tell the difference. Why, if people couldn’t, they would probably believe that LRH said that you should shoot people in the head just because he was recorded lecturing on R2-45!

      But most people, if they have no agenda, can tell the difference.

      But look at what you’re doing! You’re using partial information and slanted perspectives from a critical site to attack. You are a critic. And, after all, how are the psych comments made so long ago that much different than Scientology today? Did not LRH say that someday Scientology would be the center of government? Did not the federal court find that the goal of Scientology “is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology”? Or am I taking things out of context?

      So, let’s say that cchr is successful and hundreds of thousands are out of of work. Millions are without the care they were receiving. What then? Will Scientology help ease the burden on our unemployment system? Will they assume the care of the patients? What is their plan? 

      Also, what of those psychs who are pushing for reform? The large and growing movement that doesn’t believe in drugs? Or those that recognize that the profession is still young, and want to learn more so that we can evolve the profession, much like traditional medicine in the middle ages (draw the parallel- it’s there). Are they acceptable casualties? Are they just collateral damage?

      And, of course, what of those like Jeremy Perkins, whose skitzophrenia (sp?) was well controlled by medicine. When his mother, a scientologist, forcibly removed him from his medicine in favor of the purif rundown, his illness got so bad that he murdered her. The courts found him not mentally responsible and the tine and ordered his medicine restored. Now he’s a model patient.

      So, you say that I have no idea of their destructive plans. You’re right, because they’re not there. Do you really believe in some massive worldwide conspiracy, in which the secret orders (that were so secret that they were recorded and shared with the world) are passed to each government agency and individual practitioner? That none of the millions of professionals have uncovered proof of this conspiracy, even those critical of the establishment? Who’s controlling this international, massive effort? 

      Lastly, how do YOU know of the destructive plans? First-hand knowledge, or what you’ve been told? How many psych classes have you taken lately? 

      Yes, I know you’re deflecting, but cchr is an incredibly hateful group, and I don’t mind indulging you once in a while. 

      • I hate to say it call4… but i think i answered all this in our conversation before… sorry for butting in, but i didnt know how to refer to this thread in another comment… there is no number stamp…

      • As I recall, we spoke of the fundamental differences in the expected philosophical ideologies, but this was of a more practical nature. It’s difficult, although cchr tries, to lump an entire section people into a common assumed characteristic, and the very attempt is flawed on a very basic level.
        Consider that most religions teach that there is a spiritual influence on our lives; cchr claims that psychiatrists, because of their profession, believe man to be nothing more than a flashlt animal with purely biological influences. If cchr were correct, there would not be any psychiatrist with religious beliefs, much less those that incorporate those beliefs into their therapy. True, you won’t find many psychiatrist scientologists, but would you join a group that wants to put you out of work, and accuses you of terrible crimes?
        I think that many, if not most, psychiatrists don’t agree with Scientology, if they’re even aware of it, but that’s certainly not limited by profession. I simply find no evidence of a conspiracy.

      • start a new thread on this if you want to get into it…
        but more… “we seek no revolution, only evolution” is a central statement in Scientology.
        Basically, the “destruction” of Psychiatry will only happen by “evolution” not by violence, which is what i did say earlier… and what you implying above…

  32. unrelated, but Louanne- I’m just curious, did anything ever come of your police/FBI investigation? As I recall, during the godiscussion forum discussions (I was watching, didn’t have a need to add to), you had said that the moderator posting your partial IP address and a picture of a subway station put your life in danger, and that people more intelligent than I were able to somehow deduce your real address. Did they make any arrests, or are they still investigating?

  33. Your point of view and how the hell you got there is beyond me…
    If you want to “help” scientology by reforming it, yet the religion isnt “real” to you doesnt make sense…
    Look, based on the things that need “fixing” i assure you, talking to you about them i dont think is going to get either 1. me 2. the problem 3. yourself, anywhere…
    It makes us more knowledgable or more things i guess, and reminds us of the fact that both scientologist and critics are humans and therefore on the same dam planet that needs fixing…
    Criticsim is criticism… Most scientology criticism is an intent to stop the good it DOES do… Become a scientologist and you learn that with experience and the PTS/SP course lectures… not to mension a reference… err… cant remmeber… “on human behaviour” i think its callled, explains the subtly of it all… (a strong understanding of dianetics is certainly recommended to get the most out of that referene!)
    Science of survival helps too… (the new one might i add)
    If you just love being critical, critize psychiatry… it certianly needs more people critisizing it thats for fucking sure… (note people as young as 4 are still recieving ECT to this day) It needs more critizing than scientology. If that isnt real to you… well… i dont know what to say…

    And johns statements are?? what???

    Man once i get a job i dont think i’ll be here much… Sorry!

    DM was decided by ron for the job…
    As ron himself was flawed, yeah so is DM…
    From everyone i have ever known to have spoken with him, they have all concluded that he says amazingly helpful things.
    As has everyone i have ever known to have written or spoken with ron.
    If your “reform” is to replace scientology with a new leader i assure you, whoever could do a better job would have to be someone pretty dam impressive.

    • Fred,

      I’m not out to “help” scientology- I’m interested in solving problems that I see. And you and I agree that they’re there, although we may disagree on the scope of them. More than anything, I would say that I want to “help” scientologISTS. As I said, there’s a list of over 1,000 former members that have spoken out about abuses and other problems that they’ve encountered. I feel that they, and those that are still in the organization deserve that.

      True, I don’t believe in the religious aspects of scientology. I won’t name them here, out of respect, but I don’t personally believe in them. But can’t you discuss something that you don’t believe in? I’m not Catholic, but shouldn’t I have objected to their handling of the sex abuse scandal? I feel that it is morally right to do so, and must pursue my moral obligations, as I believe them.
      While we’re not talking about psychiatry, we can if you’d like. I disagree with many of the field’s practices as well. But, like scientology, I would not want to see it destroyed, but to see it reformed by addressing the legitimate problems that exist. May I not care about more than one issue?

      “And johns statements are?? what???”
      His opinion, and I celebrate his expression of it. I don’t agree with what he said, but value that he is able to say it.

      I’m curious, what do you believe to be DM’s role in Scientology? Is there anyone in the organization with equal or more authority than he? Also, I’ve had trouble finding this answer, despite my questions and research- where did LRH place DM in his position as the ultimate ecclesiastical authority of scientology? LRH was find of putting things in writing- what, specifically, did he designate DM to do, and how did he designate it?

      • Your stance on your intensions just gets more and more confusing…
        But hey it seems to work for you.
        You want to help scientologists but not the church but you dont want to destroy it but you want it reformed into then a church that you are willing to help?
        Every ex-member i have encountered (personaly) has minimized thier responisbility to thier own problems and blamed the church, or some member, for them. Not to mension hugely overstated the “damage” the church has done to them, and often have concluded crazy things about the theology/philosophy that just doesnt make sense to me, and they refuse to put the time in to clear it up…. I warn you in believing everything you read from them, especially over the net. There are of course, ex-members who genuinely were mistreated, i just have never met them personally thats all!
        OK serously… have you put this much effort into the catholic churches sex scandal? Whatever drives you to be this prolific a writer in this forum is beyond me.
        I wouldnt mind seeing psychiatry destroyed! But hey, we can disagree on that.
        I honestly feel johns statements deserve more critisism than that…
        I have not spent alot of time reading up on the administrative side of scientology… DM’s role would have been written up by LRH, exactly what reference ect i couldn’t tell you… the focus of my study is tech not admin… ron wrote so much its hard enough learning one area of it!

      • “Prolific”… I’m quite flattered, thank you. I don’t feel that I deserve such a compliment, but would humbly point out that you’ve certainly been keeping up with me, as of late!

        I’m sorry that you’re confused; I’m not sure how much more clear I could be. You seem very interested in me and my intentions, so I’ll try again.
        1. You and I both agree that there are problems. (ie, our mutual agreement that some former members were genuinely mistreated, or the legal problems for senior scientologists and management)
        2. Like you, I want to see those problems fixed.
        3. As you and I are in different “statuses” with the church, we have different avenues for redress.
        It’s actually quite simple.

        I place equal stock in the statements of ex-members as I do current members. Both bring only subjective experiences, which are necessarily colored by their perceptions, beliefs and experiences. The kicker is that many of the claims of scientology, and hubbard himself, could be independently validated through OBJECTIVE means, but this has never been done. Such an attempt, however, would certainly be worth-while, if it’s possible to do so. If I may ask, what would it mean to you if the claims of abuse, for one example, were valid? Would you fight to see those wrongs redressed?

        “I honestly feel johns statements deserve more critisism than that…”
        I’m glad to hear how you feel. Why aren’t you?

        “I have not spent alot of time reading up on the administrative side of scientology”
        If I may ask, why not? Whether or not things are now as LRH intended seems to be very important, or it would be to me. This is especially true, given Spokesman Tommy Davis’ recent statement that if indeed Hubbard was lying about his war record, then Scientology is based on a lie. If I were a scientologist, I would be very interested in knowing. That’s just how I work, however.

        And, yes, I put a great deal of effort into my criticism of the Catholic sex abuse scandal. I truly believe, even know, that wrongs were done, and that the criticism was valid. I would not waste my time if I didn’t truly believe that the criticism was valid.

      • I’m also curious, Fred- if you assume that there truly are Millions of scientologists, active and each grateful for their gains, do you wonder at all why so few of them are posting online? If you look, there’s a handful, and most of the posting is done by Louanne or another select few. However, you go to any news item about Judaism or Christianity, and there’s thousands and thousands of unique individuals. similarly, there’s countless personal webpages and blogs where people are proud of their beliefs, and either defending it or posting positively about it. I observe that this is not the case with scientology, despite their claims that they are nearly as large as Judaism. similarly, if you do a Google news search, the news about scientology is rarely good, except for the paid press-releases that scientology itself puts out.
        I’m not pointing to that as “proof” of anything, but I’m wondering what you think that indicates, if anything?

      • Now to go through this huge amount of info…

        “Prolific”… I’m quite flattered, thank you. I don’t feel that I deserve such a compliment,

        OK LOOK… i DONT HAVE A JOB… and im writing this much… How on earth you have the time to reply this much on this site over the past 3 days… is incredible… this isnt just an “interest” to you or a passing fancy… unless you are incredibly wealthy… even if you were i doubt you’d have this much free time.

        but would humbly point out that you’ve certainly been keeping up with me, as of late!

        As i said… i dont have a job and applying every day doesnt take that much time… how on earth you have the time is incredible.

        You seem very interested in me and my intentions, so I’ll try again.
        1. You and I both agree that there are problems. (ie, our mutual agreement that some former members were genuinely mistreated, or the legal problems for senior scientologists and management)
        2. Like you, I want to see those problems fixed.
        3. As you and I are in different “statuses” with the church, we have different avenues for redress.
        It’s actually quite simple.

        NO… 1 + 2 + 3 make no sense… you believe in the huge significance of 1 and 2 yet because of your position in 3… it makes no sense for you to take this much interest in 1 and 2.
        How is it that you take this much interesti in it? and believe so strongly in 1 and 2? Your not even a “member”!
        ———
        I place equal stock in the statements of ex-members as I do current members. Both bring only subjective experiences, which are necessarily colored by their perceptions, beliefs and experiences. The kicker is that many of the claims of scientology, and hubbard himself, could be independently validated through OBJECTIVE means, but this has never been done. Such an attempt, however, would certainly be worth-while, if it’s possible to do so.
        ————
        All that gets really complex and im not going into that… Your on the right track but you can’t be on the “sideline”… Demanding “testing” and expecting people to be nonpartisan on it is near impossible.
        ———-
        If I may ask, what would it mean to you if the claims of abuse, for one example, were valid? Would you fight to see those wrongs redressed?
        ————-
        Unlikely… i have enough problems. I would need to know someone personally i guess… media stuff on these cases is a waste of my time…
        ——————-
        “I honestly feel johns statements deserve more critisism than that…”
        I’m glad to hear how you feel. Why aren’t you?
        ——
        I have you havent thats the point…
        —–
        “I have not spent alot of time reading up on the administrative side of scientology”
        If I may ask, why not? Whether or not things are now as LRH intended seems to be very important, or it would be to me. This is especially true, given Spokesman Tommy Davis’ recent statement that if indeed Hubbard was lying about his war record, then Scientology is based on a lie. If I were a scientologist, I would be very interested in knowing. That’s just how I work, however.
        ———–
        Read “a history of man”… towards the end… your just going to have to read it then you might understand my stance… Otherwise, dont even bother making study demands on me… i’ve got so much more tech data to get through…
        ————
        And, yes, I put a great deal of effort into my criticism of the Catholic sex abuse scandal. I truly believe, even know, that wrongs were done, and that the criticism was valid.
        —-
        You’ve written a couple of pages here in the past couple of days… have you done the same for them? can you show me a thread or something of the sort where you have written anywhere near this much?
        ——
        I would not waste my time if I didn’t truly believe that the criticism was valid.
        —–
        TO WHAT ENDS? More discussion? What actions do you want the church to do?
        —-
        I’m also curious, Fred- if you assume that there truly are Millions of scientologists, active and each grateful for their gains, do you wonder at all why so few of them are posting online? If you look, there’s a handful, and most of the posting is done by Louanne or another select few. However, you go to any news item about Judaism or Christianity, and there’s thousands and thousands of unique individuals. similarly, there’s countless personal webpages and blogs where people are proud of their beliefs, and either defending it or posting positively about it. I observe that this is not the case with scientology, despite their claims that they are nearly as large as Judaism. similarly, if you do a Google news search, the news about scientology is rarely good, except for the paid press-releases that scientology itself puts out.
        I’m not pointing to that as “proof” of anything, but I’m wondering what you think that indicates, if anything?
        ——
        I dont know… the definiton of “scientologist” is broad?
        Numbers of scientologists range from 100 thousand to ten million in different statistic collections… no one really knows how many there are… what is known is most are english speaking (although not for much longer) and most are sick of chatting to random internet people about it. In defence or attack or otherwise. ESP given annonymouses criminal and bullying ways…
        Given decades of critisicsm and statements of people insisting that the destruction of scientology is about to happen in the next year/ coming months… and given scientology still exists… what do you think that indicates?

      • I like you, Fred, hope the job search goes well. How’s Wilma? Betty’s inside giving Bam-Bam a bath. Wanna go bowling later?

      • Fred,

        No one’s faulting you for not having a job. You mentioned that before, and I said something similar to this, although Louanne, for reasons I don’t understand, deleted it. Fred, I’ve been there. I’ve lost jobs, I’ve been between jobs, I’ve job hunted- I’m sure you’ll find one soon. Our discussion aside, if you’re interested, please feel free to email me at hasteraster (at) gmail (dot) com- I have a lot of experience with resumes, and I’d be more than happy to take a look at yours and either see if I know of a good match, or if I can’t help you clean it up a bit, if needed. Feel free to remove any identifying information.

        Now, my writing, I spend, maybe a few minutes per message. Let’s say I post 20 times in a day and average 3 minutes per message… That’s about an hour. I don’t spend an hour a day here, but you can see that it’s not as much free time as it may appear.

        “How is it that you take this much interesti in it? and believe so strongly in 1 and 2? Your not even a “member”!”
        regarding my interest, I think that you can see a connection here.
        You’ve mentioned that you would like to see psychiatry destroyed. You may recall that COB said the same thing, and even predicted that it would happen by a certain date. Yet, I assume that you’re not a member of the psychiatric profession, nor a patient. You would have a profession destroyed, people out of work, because of what you perceive from the outside. You act from the outside, much like I do. How is my criticism of the corporate body (ie management) of scientology any different than your criticism of the profession of psychiatry?

        “All that gets really complex and im not going into that… Your on the right track but you can’t be on the “sideline”… Demanding “testing” and expecting people to be nonpartisan on it is near impossible”
        Oh, you can. You seem if you consider the very specific claims that have been made, they indeed could be independantly, scientifically validated in a way that would silence any critic. Why, Hubbard himself said that his claims would hold to scientific scrutiny- why not let them? There’s specific medical claims, for example, that could be easily validated. Even the “Amazing Randi”, famed skeptic, has a Million dollar reward outstanding for any scientology that can prove the specific claims. This remains unclaimed, even though it would be very simple to do. So, yes, testing is possible, but not yet done. I’m sure you’re familiar with the difference between subjective and objective experiences or validation. All that I’ve seen offered is the subjective- “it worked for me” or “it made me feel better”. This is equally as valid as the subjective experiences of psychiatry, where people claim that “it works for me” or “it made me feel better”. The difference being that psychiatry allows for independant validation and peer scrutiny- that’s exactly the reason why ECT has so many critics even within the profession, and requires specific legal oversight before attempting. This is also why lobotomies, once common practice, are all but extinct. The light of review is cleansing.

        ” would need to know someone personally i guess… media stuff on these cases is a waste of my time”
        I can’t blame you for that, especially as you have much on your plate, starting a career and all that. Me, my life is exactly where I want it, so I have some extra energy to devote to other causes (consider Maslow’s hierchy of need, if  your’re interested). Because of that, I can get involved in causes that I am not personally vested in. In fact, I would say that’s the greatest type, as you’re uncolored by personal experience or outside influence.

        “I have you havent thats the point”
        Not clear what you’re saying here…

        “Read “a history of man”… towards the end… your just going to have to read it then you might understand my stance… Otherwise, dont even bother making study demands on me… i’ve got so much more tech data to get through…”
        I have actually. I’m not making demands of you, but pointing out that there appears to be a great deal of important information to which you have not been exposed. Like I said, the spokesman for scientology gave a condition under which scientology would be invalid- that’s not a critic, that’s the official spokesperson in an interview. Seems important to me, but that’s my opinion.

        “What actions do you want the church to do?”
        Are you TRYING to get this thread closed? ;) j/k
        But seriously, suffice to say that we agree there’s problems, I want to see them fixed. It’s as simple as that.

        “Numbers of scientologists range from 100 thousand to ten million in different statistic collections… no one really knows how many there are”
        Interesting comment. Scientology management, and this site, claims that they know. Would you say that perhaps it’s possible that their official numbers are incorrect?

        “ESP given annonymouses criminal and bullying ways…”
        Which are those? I assume you’re talking about the actions of a handful of individuals that self-identify as part of an internet subculture? Unless, of course, you’re lumping an entire group based on the actions of a small number. If that’s the case, we must compare the crimes of critics versus the crimes of members/advocates. We’re talking about the difference between “malicious mischief” (an actual crime for which a critic was convicted) versus fraud, first degree murder, espionage and other crimes that scientologists have actually been convicted.

        “what do you think that indicates?”
        That scientology still exists- nothing more, nothing less.

      • Fred,

        –No one’s faulting you for not having a job.
        MAN HOW ON EARTH YOUVE GOTTEN INTO THIS IS BEYOND ME
        I got job yesterday but thanks anyway…
        —Now, my writing, I spend, maybe a few minutes per message. Let’s say I post 20 times in a day and average 3 minutes per message… That’s about an hour. I don’t spend an hour a day here, but you can see that it’s not as much free time as it may appear.
        An hour a day to me is more than just an “interest”… whats happened with you and scientology? A relative? a friend? yourself?

        “How is it that you take this much interesti in it? and believe so strongly in 1 and 2? Your not even a “member”!”
        regarding my interest, I think that you can see a connection here.
        You’ve mentioned that you would like to see psychiatry destroyed. You may recall that COB said the same thing, and even predicted that it would happen by a certain date. Yet, I assume that you’re not a member of the psychiatric profession, nor a patient. You would have a profession destroyed, people out of work, because of what you perceive from the outside. You act from the outside, much like I do. How is my criticism of the corporate body (ie management) of scientology any different than your criticism of the profession of psychiatry?

        If your intension is destruction of scientology, then our intensions are simular… you say you just want to “help” scientologists by converting them to your philosophy and then “destroying” the church…
        You see, scientology PHILOSOPHY is “dualism” and psychiatry PHILOSOPHY is “materialism”… the two can never be “together” despite the catholic churches “hylomorphism” trying ever so hard to do so…
        Basically, all dualist want materialists converted and visa-versa…
        The destruction of psychiatry is simply an indicator that dualism has won or is “winning”. It will be done one case at a time, and it will evolve slowly… remember scientology’s intension is “evolution” not “revolution” which is what you are implying.
        ….
        “All that gets really complex and im not going into that… Your on the right track but you can’t be on the “sideline”… Demanding “testing” and expecting people to be nonpartisan on it is near impossible”
        Oh, you can. You seem if you consider the very specific claims that have been made, they indeed could be independantly, scientifically validated in a way that would silence any critic. Why, Hubbard himself said that his claims would hold to scientific scrutiny- why not let them? There’s specific medical claims, for example, that could be easily validated. Even the “Amazing Randi”, famed skeptic, has a Million dollar reward outstanding for any scientology that can prove the specific claims. This remains unclaimed, even though it would be very simple to do. So, yes, testing is possible, but not yet done. I’m sure you’re familiar with the difference between subjective and objective experiences or validation. All that I’ve seen offered is the subjective- “it worked for me” or “it made me feel better”. This is equally as valid as the subjective experiences of psychiatry, where people claim that “it works for me” or “it made me feel better”. The difference being that psychiatry allows for independant validation and peer scrutiny- that’s exactly the reason why ECT has so many critics even within the profession, and requires specific legal oversight before attempting. This is also why lobotomies, once common practice, are all but extinct. The light of review is cleansing.
        …….
        no you’ve gone way off track…. should you read more scientology tech you will learn very quickly that the claims made “specifically” need to be isolated and how they get isolated and why… can easily be manipulated to the point taht it is a faulty test…
        No Scientologist would go to such a claim knowing how much trouble the skeptic would go to make the test unfair.
        …..
        ” would need to know someone personally i guess… media stuff on these cases is a waste of my time”
        I can’t blame you for that, especially as you have much on your plate, starting a career and all that. Me, my life is exactly where I want it, so I have some extra energy to devote to other causes (consider Maslow’s hierchy of need, if your’re interested). Because of that, I can get involved in causes that I am not personally vested in. In fact, I would say that’s the greatest type, as you’re uncolored by personal experience or outside influence.
        ….
        ” causes that I am not personally vested in”
        I just dont believe you i dont know why…
        ….

        “I have you havent thats the point”
        Not clear what you’re saying here…
        I have already criticised john… you havent.. thats the point… look over the conversation again… i dont mind if it gets dropped though…

        “Read “a history of man”… towards the end… your just going to have to read it then you might understand my stance… Otherwise, dont even bother making study demands on me… i’ve got so much more tech data to get through…”
        ….
        I have actually.
        ,,,,
        Then you would know my stance… read it again when he refers to scientology being a religion and what opinion one can have on it.
        ….
        I’m not making demands of you, but pointing out that there appears to be a great deal of important information to which you have not been exposed.

        Ron wrote said information for people who want to take on said responsibilities… believe me, learning how to audit is plenty of responsibility… more than enough for me! If the church offered me a position taking on such responsibilities (they are always offering me a chance to take on MORE responsibility believe me!) i would reject it
        ……
        Like I said, the spokesman for scientology gave a condition under which scientology would be invalid- that’s not a critic, that’s the official spokesperson in an interview. Seems important to me, but that’s my opinion.
        ….
        Its thier responsibility to be the spokesperson… they took it on… i have faith in them… as a team with faith in one another who knows how far we can go.
        ….
        “What actions do you want the church to do?”
        Are you TRYING to get this thread closed? ;) j/k
        But seriously, suffice to say that we agree there’s problems, I want to see them fixed. It’s as simple as that.
        ….
        I dont think the church could ever satisfy the needs you have for them. I just get that feeling…
        ….
        “Numbers of scientologists range from 100 thousand to ten million in different statistic collections… no one really knows how many there are”
        …..
        Interesting comment. Scientology management, and this site, claims that they know.

        They have other statitics which give them their guesses. E.G. books sold, auditing hours… other people have other data to give them their guesses too… E.G. Census, polls, letters recieved by government… Take each guess and take an average and go with that i guess… otherwise each one who claims to “know” is simply using different stable datums they consider valid…

        Would you say that perhaps it’s possible that their official numbers are incorrect?
        …..
        Of course they could be incorrect. They could also be correct. Who knows for sure? The question is what stable datum do you think is the best for judging numbers? I studied stats many years ago and thats the basic behind it really.
        …..
        “ESP given annonymouses criminal and bullying ways…”
        Which are those? I assume you’re talking about the actions of a handful of individuals that self-identify as part of an internet subculture? Unless, of course, you’re lumping an entire group based on the actions of a small number. If that’s the case, we must compare the crimes of critics versus the crimes of members/advocates. We’re talking about the difference between “malicious mischief” (an actual crime for which a critic was convicted) versus fraud, first degree murder, espionage and other crimes that scientologists have actually been convicted.
        ….
        Why have you changed the subject?
        Scientologists dont go online because annonymous are bullies online. As are many scientology crtitics.
        What the hell has that scientology “convictions” which is where you have ended up? You are way to quick to defend Scientology critics man… not to mension change the subject in that direction.
        Oh btw… scientologist critics have been convicted of fraud, tortue, rape, espionage, murder… ect.. the media just doesnt inform you that they are scientology critics thats all… do you think thats a double standard?
        ….
        “what do you think that indicates?”
        That scientology still exists- nothing more, nothing less.

        Ohh ok… not that critism is ever wrong… ok…
        I wont force to criticise the many cases that are genuinely full of shit that the media HAS run with… it is alot to ask…

      • Fred, Congratulations on the job! May I ask what it is?
        You ask how I got into that- do you recall that you brought it up many times?

        An hour a day? It’s only an interest to me. But it seems that we have different standards. And, as you recall, I said specifically that I DON’T spend an hour a day here. So, I like to be here, as I mentioned before. Is that a problem?

        “If your intension is destruction of scientology, then our intensions are similar”
        Is this what you meant to say? Well, we may differ, because I’m not out to destroy scientology, nor did I ever say that it was.

        I remember first-year college philosophy, although it’s been a while :) However, I disagree that all dualists want materialists converted, lest you could have no scientologist doctors, could you?

        “No Scientologist would go to such a claim knowing how much trouble the skeptic would go to make the test unfair.”
        I don’t think you’re aware of the concept of objective testing. It’s quite possible.

        “I just dont believe you i dont know why…”
        Okay.

        “I have already criticised john… you havent..”
        Good, you spoke your mind and that’s great.

        “Its thier responsibility to be the spokesperson… they took it on… i have faith in them…”
        He is only a man, Fred, and flawed as any other. Recall that he made a bet, essentially. If you choose to let it go, that’s up to you. I took it up, and found some very interesting information for it. But that’s my personal journey.

        “I dont think the church could ever satisfy the needs you have for them. I just get that feeling…”
        They could, easily. Recall that I’m not speaking about the religious beliefs, they’re welcome to it. I’m talking about management functions- that’s easy to fix.

        “The question is what stable datum do you think is the best for judging numbers?”
        I would put my money on objective sources, rather than those with a potential vested interest. I would not trust a critical website, nor scientology. I do, however, trust government census and independent study data.

        “Why have you changed the subject?”
        Changed? To anonymous? You brought them up, Fred. I’m not sure where you think I changed anything.
        Where, also, have I defended any critic? By comparing the legal conviction rates? That’s not a defense, it’s a simple comparison.

        “Oh btw… scientologist critics have been convicted of fraud, tortue, rape, espionage, murder… ect.. the media just doesnt inform you that they are scientology critics thats all… do you think thats a double standard?”
        How do you know?

        Listen, Fred, I think that our relationship has become one sided. I actually like you, but I don’t get the feeling that you’re too fond of me. I should have taken the hint when you called me an “idiot”. If you don’t want to answer my questions, that’s fine, I only ask for the same respect that I’ve shown you.

      • Fred, Congratulations on the job! May I ask what it is?
        You ask how I got into that- do you recall that you brought it up many times?

        I meant i wasnt asking for help on my cv and stuff… anyways… ignore… thanks for your wellwishes…
        ….
        An hour a day? It’s only an interest to me. But it seems that we have different standards. And, as you recall, I said specifically that I DON’T spend an hour a day here. So, I like to be here, as I mentioned before. Is that a problem?

        I just dont know… your position is too wierd… but hell whatever…

        “If your intension is destruction of scientology, then our intensions are similar”
        Is this what you meant to say? Well, we may differ, because I’m not out to destroy scientology, nor did I ever say that it was.

        I just said i wouldnt mind psychiatry destroyed… you said our view were simular.. thats how i came to that… anyways… it appears i misinterpretted you
        ….
        I remember first-year college philosophy, although it’s been a while :) However, I disagree that all dualists want materialists converted, lest you could have no scientologist doctors, could you?
        ….
        in philosophy…. no… there is no scientology philosophy that states that it is medicine… hence no scientologist doctors in that sense… HOWEVER…
        One can be scientologist doctor… he is simply embracing two subjects that dont collide… although it is true… justifying the existance of a body is a problem of dualism… and ron does that…
        one cannot be a scientologist phsychiatrist nor visa versa because one is the calling oneself a “dualist materialist” which is impossible.
        ….
        “No Scientologist would go to such a claim knowing how much trouble the skeptic would go to make the test unfair.”
        I don’t think you’re aware of the concept of objective testing. It’s quite possible.

        Its unlikely a skeptic would create fair conditions… their would be an arguement somewhere… not to mension 3rd dynamic “hidden standards” that can put pressure on the auditor…

        “I just dont believe you i dont know why…”
        Okay.
        ….
        “I have already criticised john… you havent..”
        Good, you spoke your mind and that’s great.
        Why havent you criticised him? thats the original question

        “Its thier responsibility to be the spokesperson… they took it on… i have faith in them…”
        He is only a man, Fred, and flawed as any other. Recall that he made a bet, essentially. If you choose to let it go, that’s up to you. I took it up, and found some very interesting information for it. But that’s my personal journey.

        well ok then. My personal journy doesnt go in that direction. i have enough on my plate.
        ….
        “I dont think the church could ever satisfy the needs you have for them. I just get that feeling…”
        They could, easily. Recall that I’m not speaking about the religious beliefs, they’re welcome to it. I’m talking about management functions- that’s easy to fix.

        I dont believe you but ok…
        …..
        “The question is what stable datum do you think is the best for judging numbers?”
        I would put my money on objective sources, rather than those with a potential vested interest. I would not trust a critical website, nor scientology. I do, however, trust government census and independent study data.
        ….
        Different independent studies also have different stable datums that even bring scientologist numbers higher than the churches numbers… the question is which one and why?
        ….
        “Why have you changed the subject?”
        Changed? To anonymous? You brought them up, Fred. I’m not sure where you think I changed anything.
        ….
        OK… rehash,,,
        1, Why arent scientologists online YOU
        2. They arent there cause annonymous are bullies online, ME
        3. You bring up court cases against scientologists… YOU
        4. I state 3 makes no sense… you have brought them up,,, ie changing the subject…
        The reality is crtitics hunt scientologists online and do what ever they can to convert them… scientologist cant be bothered with it…
        remember also that scientologists dont defend scientology… it needs no defence… they just DO scientology… management might, but only a select few have the balls to take on the responsibility.
        People online do everything they can to get scientologist “defencive”. Most scientologists cant be bothered with it…
        …..
        Where, also, have I defended any critic? By comparing the legal conviction rates? That’s not a defense, it’s a simple comparison.

        No your just ignoring the direction of what i have stated above…
        1. Scientology has survived decades of criticism totally with the attempt of destroying it.
        2. the most plausable reason is the fact that critics were wrong.
        3. you can accept 1 but not make yourself state 2.
        For that i find that you find it difficult to critisize critics.. thats what im saying…
        ….
        “Oh btw… scientologist critics have been convicted of fraud, tortue, rape, espionage, murder… ect.. the media just doesnt inform you that they are scientology critics thats all… do you think thats a double standard?”
        How do you know?

        Psychiatrists are anti-scientologists… thier crimes are revealed all the time… just like the above… are they reported as “antiscientologists?” of course not!
        ….
        Listen, Fred, I think that our relationship has become one sided. I actually like you, but I don’t get the feeling that you’re too fond of me.
        ….
        Ok
        ….
        I should have taken the hint when you called me an “idiot”.

        How on earth you take being called an idiot so seriously is beyond me… i was calling you an idiot the same way i call my mother an idiot. Hence i was triyng to tell you you’ve taken it “out of context”…. you seem to not understand though…

        If you don’t want to answer my questions, that’s fine, I only ask for the same respect that I’ve shown you.

        Your not answering mine either… deal with it… We have different views.. .and we keep not answering where we want to and asking different questions in a different direction… we must find it fun… we’ve been at it for a long time now! Anyways… i might not be online for a while… i’m busy tommorrow and the next day with the girlfriend… unsure on sunday… i have a rather angry landlord that i need to sort out… just letting you know there will be comm lag.,,

      • Spokesman Tommy Davis’ recent statement that if indeed Hubbard was lying about his war record, then Scientology is based on a lie. If I were a Scientologist, I would be very interested in knowing

        He didn’t say that. It’s been twisty paraphrased to mean something altogether different than what he actually said. First hand knowledge means that you actually looked for yourself. Can’t see that here, since what he actually said (as the New Yorker quotes him) is

        “if it was true that Hubbard had not been injured, then “the injuries that he handled by the use of Dianetics procedures were never handled, because they were injuries that never existed; therefore, Dianetics is based on a lie; therefore, Scientology is based on a lie.” He concluded, “The fact of the matter is that Mr. Hubbard was a war hero.”

        Pat

      • Pat, the quote you provided said the same as what I paraphrased, but I appreciate that you provided the full quote. Very kind of you.

        The condition, however, remains the same. If…Then.

        IF hubbard was not actually injured, then Scientology is ultimately based on a lie. Simple.

        Thank you for helping, Pat. However, I thought you didn’t approve of intruding in the comms cycles of others? At least, that’s what you told “BigDaddy” some time ago.

      • Specifically, Pat, I was talking with Fred about psychiatry. That is the conversation that you chose to invite yourself into. There is no difference between what you chastized BD for and what you do yourself.

    • “Pat, the quote you provided said the same as what I paraphrased, but I appreciate that you provided the full quote. Very kind of you.”

      Thank you. I enjoy being kind. Especially when it shows your paraphrase was an alteration of what was actually said. Hope that helps.

      I can’t believe you guys took that literally.

      Pat

      • Right, pat. It really is amazing when “we” take a literal statement literally.
        Tommy Davis gave a condition, and my paraphrase accurately reflects that condition. Unless you can show me where I was in error?

  34. Thank you to Louanne for responding on the other thread, and also thank you for not arguing about being petty and immature. What a great impression of Scientology you leave for new readers!

    • I think she’s made a very good impression and let’s people see that she’s willing to hold her position despite ad hominem attacks and snide innuendos. Pretty cool :)

      Pat

      • 1. It should be lets, not let’s.
        2. Yes, she’s holding her position, a position so ludicrous she had to shut the thread down because the backlash was out of control.
        3. If you asked 100 people on the street if they’d be interested in a religion that bashed its former members for a minor arrest, 99 would be disgusted, and the 100th would be catatonic. We don’t need to do this study because it is common sense.
        4. I am not anti-Scientology, I am anti-stupidity. As a Scientologist, you should probably focus more on bettering the world which I hear the religion does well, and focus less on attacking random idiots like Beghe. You tell the critics to quit hating so much, but that’s exactly what Louanne is supporting. You’ll find a way to argue because that’s what you do, but I’m right… it’s just COMMON SENSE.

      • 1. ok
        2. she closed the thread because it went off-topic, or did you miss that?
        3. lol. “Move along now. There’s nothing here” In other words, sounds like you’re saying “please don’t put that to the test”. You go out and ask anyone a slanted question like that (in legal circles it’s called a leading question, which is asking a question with the answer), and you’ll get slanted answers. Truth is the exact time, place, form and event.
        4. So, you give equal time to the critics letting them know they are hateful?

        Pat

      • 4 (additional) Stupidity is the unknowness of time, place, form and event. Truth is the exact time, place, form and event. This former member showed a great deal of stupidity in his rant against the Church, with his generalities, all the time having criminal tendencies.

        Pat

      • 1 down, 3 more to go! I’m surprised you gave me the first one.

        2. You say it was off-topic, I say it was out of control. Both are opinions. I do know that my comment was not off-topic, but Louanne responded and then shut it down before I had a chance to reply.

        3. I would love to have this test done! It would make my day, and might even open your eyes. And yes, it’s a slanted question, which can’t be avoided because it is still factual and true. Louanne is, in fact, bashing a former member for a minor arrest. Which part of that is incorrect?

        4. Thank you for not arguing about being hateful. I do not support any hateful comments, but as a person with common sense I know that there will be annoying, hateful critics of any large-scale religion such as Scientology. Unless I become the World Commander of Common Sense (which can’t pay very well), I can’t stop all of these people. As a responsible religion, however, Scientology should recognize these instances as opportunities to take the ‘High Road’. People of logic and reason respect the ‘High Road’, much more than the mudslinging currently taking place.

        If I do become World Commander of Common Sense, I will strike hate from the Earth and appoint you, Pat, as my Scientology representative to keep your religion in line. It will be quite an honor, although the pay won’t reflect that.

      • 2 No, that’s what Louanne said when she closed it, so that’s a fact, not opinion.

        3 “And yes, it’s a slanted question, which can’t be avoided because it is still factual and true”

        Not so, since you’re leaving out the what is being responded to (him bashing the Church). Your pattern here is to propagandize these guys as victims, because we are trying to make bringing out the real story as “bashing”.

        4. You misunderstand. You harp on the above as “hateful”, yet I don’t see you telling the anti-scientology sites that they are “bashing” or being hateful, which goes to my earlier statement that you’re a “deprogrammer”.

        I don’t know where you got the idea that this is a friendly chat. Quit patronizing.

        Pat

      • You’re right, Pat. I thought we were having a friendly, reasonable discussion. That’s how respectable adults interact, I apologize for such an egregious error. If I had any remaining questions about Scientologists, you cleared them right up! Thanks for letting everyone know that you won’t consider other points of view and can’t be friendly. Pretty cool :)

      • Pat,

        Barney raises an interesting point, and highlights the duality demonstrated here.

        There are many, many former members out there, mostly just living their lives. Yet, when one vocally and effectively speaks out against the group, they find themselves under incredible scrutiny, and may be featured in magazines or webpages with information about their sex or personal lives. In this case, louanne relies on an increments account by the (ahem) “news” source TMZ. No otter, just TMZ.

        So, being a critic and either committing a minor crime or being suspected of one, that warrants space here. But current members, they can murder (like Fowler), commit fraud, espionage- all manner of felonies- with nary a mention.

        So, yes, former members are targeted.

      • Barney,

        Glad you got that I see your innuendos, in the guise of “friendly discussion”, for what they are.

        Call,

        Fowler is a Scientologist. He broke the law. He now has to face his consequences. He didn’t try to make his Church responsible for his condition.

        You still got that ole’ propaganda / deprogramming machine going.

        Pat

      • Pat, Again, you ignore most of the points to focus on a small one.
        No matter. Without confirmation that Beghe committed a crime, why do you so quickly believe it? Because you were told it was so? Did he, anywhere, blame this alleged crime on Scientology? No, this site gave the current members a pass, but won’t muss an opportunity against a critic. That is wrong.

      • Pat, I’m going to try once more to reply to the numbered arguments in an attempt to reason with you. If it is possible, please read and comprehend what is typed, and then respond accordingly instead of launching attacks on me. I have not attacked you or any aspects of Scientology, and I won’t respond to any of CallforReform’s statements. I clearly stated that I am anti-hatred. I even tried to be friendly and show a sense of humor, which you immediately threw back in my face.

        2. Fine, but my comment was very much on-topic.

        3. I agree, let’s change the test to explain how much hatred Beghe has shown toward Scientology. I never took Beghe’s side, I called him an idiot. Do you think any reasonable person will still advocate a religious institution responding like this site has? Do you have any idea what kind of message this sends to people about your organization? Please see ‘High Road’ below.

        4. No Pat, you misunderstand. Did you even read anything I wrote? I am against all hate. As I previously said, there is no way to stop all critics, and in the end it should be the Church’s moral responsibility to take the ‘High Road’. I notice you refused to even acknowledge anything about the ‘High Road’. Countering hate with hate only creates more hate. I initially commented because I’ve heard of the wonderful things Scientology does regarding community involvement, and was disappointed to see the Church lowering itself to Beghe’s level.

        Innuendo: an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.

        Your overuse of the word innuendo is repeatedly incorrect. All of my statements are VERY direct. Please do not bother responding if you are not willing to read and understand what I’ve said. I’m sorry that you don’t appreciate friendliness, I prefer being friendly if at all possible.

      • “Comment by Callforreform on June 8, 2011 2:32 pm
        Pat, Again, you ignore most of the points to focus on a small one.
        No matter. Without confirmation that Beghe committed a crime, why do you so quickly believe it?”

        Because he did it before. But you are right, he’s not convicted.

        “Did he, anywhere, blame this alleged crime on Scientology?”

        Yes, he did. Read the article.

        “No, this site gave the current members a pass, but won’t muss an opportunity against a critic. That is wrong.”

        Hilarious to hear that from you. But you are right, this site should not give current members a pass and it does not. But it doesn’t blow in the same horn than “critic’s” sites that make every transgression of a Scientology member a case of the Church organization.

        – L

      • “Because he did it before. But you are right, he’s not convicted.”
        How do you know he’s even accused? I, personally, don’t trust TMZ all that much, but that appears to be the only source for this news.

        “Yes, he did. Read the article.”
        I did- he denied the crime and claimed it may have been falsified by Scientology. Different thing.

        “But you are right, this site should not give current members a pass and it does not.”
        I strongly disagree. I have not once seen you denounce any current scientologist, even when the crimes are very related to scientology. Embezzling money and donating it to scientology? Committing espionage and collecting such records in church offices? Conviction of fraud when performing hatted functions? Those are very related. Yet when there is a chance to slam a former member, whether related or not, this site will take that opportunity, and do it in a very personal way. That’s my only point on that.

    • I maintain and submit that for the same crime, handled the same way, this site would cover the crime of a critic (possibly linking to scientology’s print magazine) and ignore the crime of the member. Do you expect different from the critics?

  35. You call it “black and white” and I call it certainty of personal knowing through observation. That’s what people somehow don’t seem to get — like what is the proper order of magnitude here? We see lots of great things happening and see the positive and here come the critics trying to deprogram us with their negative bs that means nothing since we are flourishing. That’s the statistic. Not someone’s “opinion” and generality innuendos.

    Pat

    • Pat,
      I thank you for joining in on our conversation. Your input is most welcome.
      We’re talking about the difference between “black and white” and “shades of grey”. For example, the following are black and white statements:
      1. scientology is wonderful and has no problems
      2. scientology is horrible and has no redeeming value.
      It would, perhaps, be more accurate to say, “scientology is neither flawless nor completely terrible; the reality lies somewhere in between.”
      I admit, readily, that there is value in scientology, but also feel that there are certain flaws that deserve to be addressed.
      What about you? Since you were kind enough to join in- do you believe that scientology is perfect and flawless? Is management perfect and flawless? It’s quite a simple question, and I would wonder if you feel that you may answer it?
      You mention a statistic that scientology is flourishing, and I’ve seen you make similar claims in the past. Could you please tell me where you’re getting that statistic, the one that is not someone’s opinion? How do you, personally and for yourself, know that scientology is growing?

      • The statistics are from our events, new groups formed achieving major progress in social betterment programs. You could see these if you go into the org and ask to see the New Years, May 9th, and maiden voyage vids.

        I prefer to work toward our aims and when you focus on negative that’s all you’re going to see. There is no such thing in this universe as an absolute. The problem with your negative offerings is that they are flawed, coming from known antagonists and spun with lies (I refer to your recent discourse with Fred where he called you on your intentional slants and false data). How do you really know that this crap you think is true data about Scientology is really not just anti-Scientology rhetoric? Have you been in the Church and heard the successes of parishioners? Have you heard about the lives that have been changed for the better? Or do you focus on the negative? In what way do you think Scientology helps people? What has Narconon, Criminon, Applied Scholastics, Drug Free World, Youth for Human Rights, CCHR and the many Churches, Missions and groups done for the world? Have you ever bothered to find out?

        Pat

      • Let’s forget “focus” for a moment and consider “aware”. I say aware, because you seem unaware that problems exist. For example, you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that real problems may exist; unable or unwilling to openly consider that the leadership, to include DM, might fall short of flawless.

        And if problems exist, then there is room and utility for criticism. And problems do exist, Pat- I won’t list them here, lest the thread be closed, but there are problems. You are correct, that people have found benefit from Scientology, and that’s wonderful. I’ve been able to find literally hundreds of people online expressing their wins through the works of Hubbard, either through organized Scientology or the independent movement. Yet there are also over 1,000 former members that have spoken out about their negative or harmful experiences- and those are only the ones that have publicly spoken out, not those that choose to speak anonymously. I believe that they deserve more consideration than “apostates with an agenda”, solely because they spoke out. Same with those raised by the church.

        now you’re correct, that I had facts wrong. Yup, you caught me. Perhaps you don’t believe that mistakes happen, but they do. But if it were intentional, wouldn’t I defend it? Instead, I admit my mistake. So, I’ll take a mulligan on that one. Feel free to make assumptions about my motives, won’t hurt me any.

        But here’s the thing- your whole statement, you can replace “Scientology” with “psychiatry” and the general point would be equally true. People also have glowing praise for psychiatry, and credit their treatment with saving and improving their lives. Are their experiences less valid? Yet, cchr still opposes the group, as a whole. Why, when people have valid gains from it? 

      • Pat, just so I may can understand, is your only indication that Scientology is flourishing what you observe within Scientology, and what you’re told by management? That’s fine, if so, I’m just trying to make sure I understand.
        You believe, perhaps, that there are 8-10 million scientologists in the world?

      • “Let’s forget “focus” for a moment and consider “aware””

        Let’s not. I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you.

        Pat

      • Certainly your right, but leaves me confused as to why you joined mine and fred’s conversation in the first place. No matter, thanks for the brief conversation all the same.

  36. ummm what happened?

    • we got ourselves shutted down, Fred :)
      Oh, well, it was a pleasure talking with you while we could. It’s Louanne’s site, of course, so it’s her right.
      Another time, perhaps. :)

      • clicked tghe wrong reply…

      • What thread was closed? Only thread I see closed was the Dianetics one. That one is a month old.

        Pat

      • “Ouch”

      • “think” not, rather. I honk plenty.
        On a friendly, personal note, you mention that you’re in between jobs. Been there :) may I ask what field you’re in? I’m a computer guy, myself.

      • your in computers…
        now you make more sence….
        being in computers mean that you can watch this thread and work at the same time!
        Far out… ok…

      • Sorry, dude, missed this comment.
        Yes, when I’m not on netflix, lol :)

    • how on earth do you enjoy it here?
      I mean… you seem to disagree with everyhting thats in this site?

      • Because having a stimulating, engaging and mutually respectful discussion doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything, or anything at all! :)
        I enjoy speaking with people about things which we both feel strongly, and I, personally, enjoy speaking with you, Fred.

      • I wish i could say the feeling is mutual…
        Admittingly… chatting here is better than a slap in the head… and sitting down on a chiar all day wondering what on earth there is to do…

      • well, I’m sorry to hear that, Fred. But, I must ask, what is forcing you to sit for days on end doing something that you don’t enjoy? If you don’t want to be here, why are you?

      • You idiot…
        i just said its better than doing nothing… which has been my past week really…

      • Sigh, Fred.
        Where, please, have I insulted you? Called you a name? Impugned your character? I haven’t Fred. But, here you are name calling, in addition to the other mean things you’ve said to me. You’ve also made it clear that you don’t WANT to talk to me, I think it’s a fair question, asking what it is that seems to be making you come here.
        And, something seems to be.
        If you don’t want to talk to me, and you don’t agree with me, then clearly you have another reason for doing so. I ask only what it is? What is it that draws you to me? You can’t stop, that’s quite clear, and you approached me, I didn’t start our conversation. Have we some history together? If so, I don’t recall. Are you deeply offended by my beliefs that you’re dedicating a great deal of time to trying to change them? If so, your insults and names are a poor way of doing it.
        I would submit that it’s something else, and that contrary to your statement, you ARE somehow forced to stay, to talk to me. Perhaps I’m wrong, of course, but I suspect that you’ll keep talking to me.

      • Dude… enough…
        Your going into wiierd things here…
        Look im here… ive got nothing else better to do…

      • Lol, weird, maybe; but also rather accurate.

        But I’m slightly flattered that you can think of nothing better do do than talk to me.

      • no i dont believe your accurate…
        I think you’ve taken somethng totally outcontext thats all…

      • Hmm… Actually, I honk not; but I incite you to clarify the context. You’ve said that you don’t want to talk to me, and that you’re not enjoying it, yet you continue. You continue doing something that you don’t enjoy… Why? What compells you to do it?
        Me, I enjoy our discussion, and doing something one enjoys is normal and healthy. What is it, when you repeatedly and voluntarily do something that you don’t want to do? That question remains unanswered and beyond my understanding.

      • You have gone SOOOOOO FAR in a direction i have never intended… (perhaps miscommunicated)
        Please stop its annoying…
        Just ignore it all…
        I dont hate chatting here… i never said i did… i’m just saying its better than nothing… GOD!

      • Hey, Fred, it’s late; how about we each get ourselves a good night’s sleep. I’ll be on again in the morning, I’m sure you will too, we can talk more then. In the meantime, have a good night, and I’ll talk to you tomorrow.

  37. Oh, well, another thread closed. That’s fine, it’s your site, but I object to your select censorship. You deleted the comments that were well-done, but contrary to your point, and left it appearing that I failed to answer some Fred’s comments. I only wish to point out that I answered all of Fred’s questions fully.

    • What thread was that?

      Pat

  38. Hello there. You have a very informative site and I’d to commend you for your efforts. You’ve obviously spent a long time crafting the intricacies required to shine a good light on the Cult of Scientology. Your blatantly biased point of view helps me to grasp the magnitude of your conviction.

    In the future, try to be more subtle in your deception. It would help ease the perceived ridiculously on part of the reader. Although it’s not really your fault; I realize how hard it must be to write anything particularly persuasive about the Cult. Good luck in the future.

    • Oh, John, just wait until you meet Pat :) You’ll love him/her

    • Hi John,

      you sound like another one who’s using this place for some ad hom rhetoric exercises. I am sure you’ll find good company but be assured that if you are here to make statements I’ll kick your ass. Byeee.

      – L

    • Wow… how hard is it for your to realise the blatant fact that the magnitude of YOUR conviction that everythting scientology does is wrong?
      Is there any shade of grey at all?

      • Of course, Fred! The world is not black and white, but varying shades of grey. A lot of people feel that scientology has done wonderful things for them, and that should be celebrated. I believe (and you didn’t answer this question, by the way) that there are consistent problems that, if ignored, could do great harm.
        Do you see the shades of grey as well, or do you believe that scientology leadership is flawless?

      • Seriously, gray areas are pretty much handled with the Conditions of Existence, specifically doubt. Any decisions to be made where there’s deprogramming type activities going on, like what occurs in this blog, is to apply those steps..

        http://www.volunteerministers.org/solutions/conditions.html

        Pat

      • I have never stated scientology leadership to be flawless…
        Take this for example… they have re-released the phionex lectures… ohhh about… 7 times??? I mean… MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!!!
        Admittedly, they havent rereleased them in years and im pretty sure they are happy with the current version…
        All i know is propaganda words like ones john has used and yourself, and to an extent lounane (if that is how you spell it) makes things black and white and therefore… simply… not a reflection of reality…

      • Fred,
        I’m actually encouraged by your almost-statement. You never said scientology is flawless, true, but I notice that you can’t quite bring yourself to admit that they are flawed in any way. Unless your example, and prompt qualifier that ‘things are okay now’ count as some sort of definitive answer.
        To be very blunt, is the leadership of scientology without flaw?
        Now, you’re right that both sides tend to use rhetoric (in the aristotelian sense) to make their point. What that I’ve said would you consider to be “black and white”?

      • To be very blunt, is the leadership of scientology without flaw?
        NO of couse not! they rereleased the phionex lectures… thats a flaw aint it? Even if i THINK its “fixed now” i can assure you that the basics release, HAS HAD FLAWS… in all sorts of areas…
        1. Lib donos… having been told 3 times all libs were done only to be told a few months later more were found.
        2. 1st int congress… rereleased a few times
        3. Proffessional dianetics course lectures… released late…
        The list goes on…
        Dont even get me started with the amount of work required to get the translations done… not to mension a few dates made to get super power through… these are all flaws arent they?
        But heck… i wouldnt play another game! Too much fun!
        To be blunt… Is scientology critism without flaw? ie… statements like johns?
        You and black and white?
        Well… its in another thread that has been closed now!
        I wouldnt worry though… heck im still here!

      • Well put, Fred! Scientology leadership is indeed not flawless, which means that certain elements stand to be improved, replaced or repaired. I am not interested in destroying Scientology, bit instead seeing it reform. As you and I both see that problems exist, we share a desire to see it fixed, do we not? You, on the inside, can rely on a different chain to see things fixed, and perhaps you are. I don’t have those same options, and must work from a different way. As Scientology is not true for me (only speaking for me), I am unable to be a part of it. Thus, I remain on the outside.

        Recall that critics have played pivotal roles in history, and are a useful method for reform. Martin Luther was a critic that was violently opposed by the church. As was Jesus Christ. I wonder how you view their criticism?

        On to your questions:
        No, the critical movement is definitely NOT flawless, and assumes the inherent flaws from any which chooses to partake. Especially when there are those that merely parrot information that is false or unproven, but convenient. This is especially true when discussing intent, which requires certain assumptions.
        And, as I’m sure you saw that I posted before that the issue is not black and white- management is neither completely flawed, nor flawless.

        You say that you’re still here- I had a feeling you would be. In fact, we both are, ack’ing the same problems and out shared assumed desire to see them fixed. Perhaps we’re not all that different, you and I.

      • If I may ask a deep question-
        David Miscavige is a human being, not a God- something I’m sure even he would agree to. As he is human, does he himself have flaws?

      • Go up to the top to read my reply i clicked the wrong place sorry


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • 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

    Road Cross

    Raquel llora por sus hijos

    LOPBURI TEMPLES

    More Photos