“Squirrel Zone”? Not bad…

This just hit my Inbox. Think what you want, but it made me smile.  Squirrels…

About these ads

191 Comments

  1. Thank you various other wonderful submit. Where altogether different may possibly any individual obtain that style of information in such a great way of writing? I’ve a presentation in the future, for around the search for like data.

  2. Hi there! I know this is kinda off topic nevertheless I’d figured I’d ask.

    Would you be interested in trading links or maybe guest authoring a blog post or vice-versa?
    My blog goes over a lot of the same subjects as yours and
    I believe we could greatly benefit from each other. If you happen to
    be interested feel free to shoot me an e-mail.
    I look forward to hearing from you! Terrific blog by the way!

  3. REPOST

    • POLICIES ON
      PHYSICAL HEALING
      INSANITY AND “SOURCES OF TROUBLE” page 216 Introduction to Scientology Ethics

      Type H

      “h. Persons who “have an open mind” but no personal hopes
      or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored,
      as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of
      ability to decide about things, and are seldom found to be very
      responsible and waste anyone’s efforts to convince them.”

    • I had a feeling you’d be back sooner or later, Pat, even if only to repost :)
      Nice to see you’re still following along.

  4. What’s new in Scientologyland?

    • Wow, quite a lot is going on lately. Please, allow me to bring you up to speed.

      Scientology opened a school in Israel. The government wants it out and is doing what it can, but chances are good that scientology will sue the country and force their way inside. That’s happened to many countries that wanted scientology to stay out.

      Someone calling themselves “ethicstrouble” has recently spoken out about the church, claiming they’re still inside. Of course, that’s up for each person to believe or disbelieve on their own, as is the data that he claims to have taken from the shredder pile allegedly showing a sharp decline in SF org stats. (media(dot)sfweekly(dot)com(slash)7291832(dot)0(dot)pdf and media(dot)sfweekly(dot)com(slash)7291833(dot)0(dot)pdf)

      The “Super Power” building opened- that should be interesting. I’ll be watching with great interest to see if the promised results come to fruition

      Author Skip Press completed and released a series outlining Scientology’s behaviors and stance towards homosexuality. No real surprises, of course, but an interesting read.

      Another celebrity has come forward with claims of abuse within the upper levels of management. This one is from former Australian Rugby star Chris Guider, who claimed on ABC’s Lateline that he witness MIscavige himself beat staff members, and was sent to RPF for witnessing the claim. Of course, the church over there lists him as an “apostate”. 

      Google bowed to pressure in certain countries, such as Norway, and removed certain anti-scientology websites at the behest of scientology’s lawyers.

      Videos recently surfaced depicting yet another scientology fundraising event, this one in the UK. Not only is it quite eye-raising, it’s been paired since with leaked information about one of the donors, showing that the donation that he gave that night will put him in debt as he’s pending dicorce- you should see the video (blogs(dot)villagevoice(dot)com(slash)runninscared(slash)2011(slash)09(slash)birmingham_in_t(dot)php) – it’s really something. [note: I don't support releasing personal information online]

      Scientology tried, once again, to bring legal charges against Marty Rathbun, this time for “assault” after knocking one of the “squirrel buster’s” sunglasses off of his head. The judge threw it out because of the very minor wound (a scratch- literally) and noted that no jury in the world would convict him, based on what he’s going through.

      Scientology in Australia has been told that it needs to hire an external expert after an 18 month probe into its work practices. The government’s findings claimed that “some workers were paid as little as $10 a week by the church, despite it earning more than $17 million in 2009. It also found the church had incorrectly classified as voluntary workers, people who were entitled to be classified as employees.”

      Another person has found themselves the subject of a “special issue” of “freedom” magazine, blasting his as a ‘financier of hate crimes”. This one is Mr. Robert Almblad, the inventor of a clean ice machine that could reduce hospital-related infection deaths by as much as 100,000. He was followed and his friends, neighbors and family members were visited by “investigators” and “investigative reporters”. Multiple “anti-almblad” websites have surgfaced attacking him. What was his crime? Did he speak out against scientology? Did he try to undermine miscavige? No. He hired former scientologists to help him with his business. AS a result, his livelihood, one that could literally save lives, is attacked.

      Lastly, another mysterious death, this one OT8 and IAS Patron Biggi Reichert. She went to flag for handling, her and her husband being approximately 16M US in debt, and then went to her friend and fellow scientologist’s horse ranch for a few days. On the last of those days, she was found dead in her car of apparent suicide. It’s a tragedy, to be sure, but also a mystery. There were wounds on her scalp that appeared to have happened while she was at flag and her husband has disappeared and is not cooperating with police.

      On the “good news” side, several scientologist report that they are happy. (seriously, that’s all the positive news I could find going back a ways in google news)

      • To summarize, the $h!t is hitting the fan…

  5. Ralph Marston – The Daily Motivator (Facebook)

    Power of your thoughts

    “The focus of your attention enlarges and expands whatever you focus upon. That can either hurt you greatly or help you immensely.

    Your complaints, for example, give more power and presence to whatever you complain about. …”

    • Someone should pass that quote along to your Dear Leader – spending thousands of dollars from parishioner donations to harass his critics is one of the reasons the critics are winning.

      • Have you noticed that when things start to get quiet here, Pat/Thetaworks always seems to have a compulsive need to post again? And not just post, but she always something that is engaging and invites further discussion? She (now we know she IS a she) seems to desire the conversation, in effect pulling in the very criticism that she claims to despise. What a bizarre pattern she engages in.

      • Hey Pat, I can post random quotes too!

        “People who claim to thrive on criticism are sad, lonely individuals and are only fooling themselves.” ~ Unknown

      • Lol, Leroy!

        Here’s another:
        “First I shake the whole Apple tree, that the ripest might fall. Then I climb the tree and shake each limb, and then each branch and then each twig, and then I look under each leaf.”
        -Martin Luther, Critic

    • Is that, I wonder, why the independent movement is growing so rapidly? (assuming the thesis is true)

      • Why do you think Scientology is growing so rapidly?
        (assuming the thesis is true)

      • Well, for one, the thesis is NOT true- criticism doesn’t necessarily bring positive attention to a group. Frequently, it’s the opposite.

        Second, any independent study or estimate has found that scientology is not growing, but shrinking- and rapidly. All polls and surveys, except for those held by scientology itself, show that the numbers are much lower than the last round of surveys.

        So, in this case, I think the massive criticism is actually working against the group.

      • All of that is in your point of view.
        Other points of view have other opinion. Many thesis written on Scientology with many opinion.
        If that point of view helps you through life then OK! But you are agreeing to very critical point of view.

      • Sorry… you are agreeing to a very critical of Scientology point of view.

      • Sorry… my english… you are agreeing to a very pessimistic of Scientology point of view.

      • Actually, that is not a point of view nor pessimistic. It’s a fact, and facts are neutral. There has not been a single independent study that show Scientology to be growing- the last pew study is just one example.

        Have you ever seen an independent study that shows otherwise?

      • Sorry for so much time! I have been busy…
        I cannot give you independent study no… I do not waste my times on such things, as they make Scientology a political movement.
        Any effort to quote them is a political push against the church, not philosophy, or more, an effort to make Scientologist political. I can give you more simple “facts” though… (even though all “political” discussions like this are no “facts” it is only, and always propaganda)
        1. Income is higher than ever for those who work in church (particularly ideal orgs)
        2. Hours of auditing per year is up. (records are sent through HGC’s on hours)
        3. Hours on course remains steady but on increase
        4. Staff member and Sea org numbers are higher… Churches are noticing more sea org personel helping.
        5. Course completions are higher. (more people might be doing shorter courses with release of new basics courses)
        6. Cannot get information on book sales… possible decline due to so few new releases this last year.
        If numbers are lower, activity is higher, therefore better members and stronger church.
        If numbers are higher therefore more people doing the above for that reason.
        Either way, i am happy with my church!

      • I didn’t expect a reply to this, as I thought I was under disconnection as a “PTS” as recommended by Pat :)
        I don’t think that asking scientology to prove their claims is a political action, but a very reasonable one. This is because they’re asking for money BASED on those unproven claims- they use them to promote their services.
        But you list six facts (five of which are claims)- is it unreasonable of me to expect those to be based on verifiable information? Or, to put it another way- how do you know those to be true?
        I ask because any objective validation (and yes, those are possible) has found the opposite to be true, which is why the church doesn’t support independant validation.
        It’s good that you’re happy with your church- that’s very important. I only say that they should either validate their claims or stop using them to attract new members.

      • I didn’t expect a reply to this, as I thought I was under disconnection as a “PTS” as recommended by Pat :)

        Sorry to disappoint any idea you had that scientologist do what they are told.

        I don’t think that asking scientology to prove their claims is a political action, but a very reasonable one. This is because they’re asking for money BASED on those unproven claims- they use them to promote their services.

        Pathetic discussion. Refuse to discuss.
        1. Quote from LRH. “you take his money, he takes your chance”. This is not something “hidden”.
        2. Claims can be “proven” but no matter what claims we present they will be debated. The bank will always insist that MEST is cause. Any converstion further will get stuck and create bypassed charge.

        But you list six facts (five of which are claims)- is it unreasonable of me to expect those to be based on verifiable information?

        Of course you will ask for verification! I dont know why I typed it knowing you would ask that. Stat collections are done internally, through each org, and they are sent uplines. So if you choose to “believe it to be untrue”, because the church must be “lying to make itself look bigger” be my guest.

        Or, to put it another way- how do you know those to be true?

        I dont KNOW for sure. Lets assume that it is… can you see how our church is getting stronger?

        I ask because any objective validation (and yes, those are possible) has found the opposite to be true, which is why the church doesn’t support independant validation.

        All information above can only be done internally. Sorry! Privacy is something the church had to earn. The only independant validation can be made on internal income, which different organisations audit once in a while in different countries depending on laws. Should you be interested some organisation could give you information of churches income.

        I only say that they should either validate their claims or stop using them to attract new members.

        Extra validation is only required to those who never want to be members any ways. Statistics and “numbers” like this are too political. Paying money to “validate” to make people who arent interested happy IS too much to ask any organisation. Look at it from the org’s point of view, not your own.

      • But see, Ed? You’re still starting with the PRESUMPTION of a conclusion based on missing data! You’re using the circular logic that the church is successful, which you conclude based on the fat that it claims to be successful. Why would I, or anyone, accept incomplete data and try to build a conclusion based upon it, ESPECIALLY when that data is intentionally restricted from you? Me, I would much rather base my conclusions on available information, as I have done.

        “Sorry to disappoint any idea you had that scientologist do what they are told.”
        Pat is. It’s okay if you’re not, I enjoy the conversation.

        “Pathetic discussion. Refuse to discuss”
        I understand that you “refuse” to discuss, but the discussion isn’t as pathetic as you would like it to be, so you may so easily dismiss it.
        You see, scientology (in the US at least, not in all areas) is a tax-exempt corporation. This is a contract, in a very real sense, with the public and the government. Essentially, my tax dollars are being used to support the mission of this organization that must (according to law) exist for public, rather than private, benefit. You see, there is only so much money available, and the government chooses to allow certain organizations to not pay taxes on some of their activities, which leaves me and other citizens to pick up the slack. My taxes are used for that purpose, and I think it’s very reasonable to expect such an organization to be open and honest. Why wouldn’t they do so? For what possible reason would scientology hide information?

        “So if you choose to “believe it to be untrue”, because the church must be “lying to make itself look bigger” be my guest.”
        Where did I say that? Expecting an organization to release facts to support their claims is not the same as believing something to be untrue. For example, if I were to tell you that 75% of all scientologists are inactive and support dismantling of management- and I garner support based on that claim- would you not ask me to back it up with facts? If so, why would you hold that double standard?

        “I dont KNOW for sure. Lets assume that it is… can you see how our church is getting stronger?”
        Oh, yes, if all of the claims are true, then sure. But why should we assume it’s true when scientology steadfastly refuses to release actual information that would allow individuals to make up their own minds, rather than merely believe what they’ve been told?
        I ask again- why else would every independent assessment disagree with the church’s claims?
        To use my previous example- let’s assume that the independent assessments are true- can you see how management is driving the church into the ground?

        “All information above can only be done internally. Sorry!”
        Incorrect- all of that information could easily be validated. What’s more, most of the core claims of scientology could be validated, as Hubbard himself claimed. Scientology today does not make that claim.

        “Privacy is something the church had to earn”
        Again, not entirely factual. They’ve forced it, removing the ability of people to decide for themselves based on accurate information.

        “Extra validation is only required to those who never want to be members any ways”
        Actually, if the claims WERE correct, and scientology allowed validation, membership would EXPLODE very quickly! In fact, if a single one of the claims that Hubbard made about the core concepts of scientology- his actual, factual medical and scientific claims could be validated, then I’d probably join myself. But they can’t, even though Hubbard said that they could.

        “Look at it from the org’s point of view, not your own.”
        I do- and understand why they want to avoid validation. But look at it from a taxpayer’s point of view- what’s the benefit that my taxes are paying for? And why are my taxes paying for claims that the organization makes, while denying my knowledge of facts?

      • I have to finish here… all data i am telling you, you are just using to proove your point of view not change it… your decision have been made already…
        Just a quick point

        “Extra validation is only required to those who never want to be members any ways”
        Actually, if the claims WERE correct, and scientology allowed validation, membership would EXPLODE very quickly! In fact, if a single one of the claims that Hubbard made about the core concepts of scientology- his actual, factual medical and scientific claims could be validated, then I’d probably join myself. But they can’t, even though Hubbard said that they could.

        No all data stated is ignored… look how you just ignored mine! Mass media never helps Scientology. Nor does the “validation” that you feel you need. Imagine if psychiatry or pyschology was asked to validate itself in the same manner?
        Such things can be validated. You will ignore the validation everytime. Your mind is made up before you started. Quit demanding the favor from me or others here to validate it for you. They won’t audit you, sorry! All validation you will mistranslate into a validation of you own decisions. When the tech becomes a service fac thats what happens (if your interested)

        “Look at it from the org’s point of view, not your own.”
        I do- and understand why they want to avoid validation.

        1. Its expensive
        2. It bears no fruit. Only more questions like the one you are posting here. Do you at all introvernt on how much time you waste here? Imagine an organisation trying to do the same thing! Imagine the waste getting it in the media? All that will return is questions like the ones you are writing to me. Watch the last freedom magazine article!

        But look at it from a taxpayer’s point of view- what’s the benefit that my taxes are paying for?

        The expence is minimal compared to other overts committed by governments. Even if from some point of view the benifits don’t outwiegh the expenses, I bet any money government waste 10 times as large exists in that very country. Nevertheless, you have made your decision already. Nothing typed here will do anything. If you have any concern for you tax money, Scientology would be the least of your concerns. But again, why should i type that? You’ll ignore it anyway and type the same point to someone else.

        And why are my taxes paying for claims that the organization makes, while denying my knowledge of facts?

        Its only important to you because you have decided that it is. These “facts” you need what can only be described as an infinity validation for is to please so few people for so much money. Why should they?

        I want to stats emphaticly. IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT I WRITE HERE. Your not DOING anything other repeating the “I DONT KNOW” which appears to be the center of your philosophy of life. I cannot continue. Other activities are more survival for me.

      • Either that or you DO know how you feel about Scientology and you are here to create disagreements and thus, as per the ARC triangle, reduce tone and thus you are a “troll”.

      • Oh, Ed, I really thought that we were going to get somewhere. I have indeed reached a conclusion, as have you- both of us have access to the same data, yet have reached different conclusions based on our interpretation of it. What I don’t understand is why you fault me for that, when you have done the same? I can, at least, admit that there are benefits to the belief system- that people can get a lot out of it; yet you cannot admit that there is anything wrong with the organization! Why are you unable to do that?

        “No all data stated is ignored… look how you just ignored mine!”
        What did I ignore? I can’t find anything.

        “Imagine if psychiatry or pyschology was asked to validate itself in the same manner?”
        It is- why do you think that certain practices of the past are no longer done? Why do you think that lobotomies are illegal in most places of the world? Because they allow their peers and the public to review the studies and see the raw data. In fact, I can’t think of any other system that claims to be “based on science” and “validated by lab studies” that refuses to produce the notes and data that would come from that! Did not Hubbard himself claim to have validating all of his scientific and medical findings in the lab? Why are his notes hidden?

        “Such things can be validated. You will ignore the validation everytime. Your mind is made up before you started. Quit demanding the favor from me or others here to validate it for you.”
        That’s what we, in the US, call a “cop out”. It’s saying that you won’t even try because I won’t “get it”. Could you imagine if I tried the same? If I were to say that I could prove my point if I wanted to, but I won’t because you won’t listen. Would you accept that as an answer? And yet, I hear that a lot in my discussions, which seems to be only a way to end the conversation and avoid further concepts.

        “1. Its expensive”
        No, it’s not. There’s no cost to release the research notes, and several researches have offered to fund it. US researcher James Randi even offered to give Scientology one MILLION dollars if they can validate even a single claim. Cost is not a factor.
        “2. It bears no fruit. Only more questions like the one you are posting here”
        Not at all- it bears a great deal of fruit. A single validation of a single claim could do what all of the OTs in the world could not- silence the criticism and explode the membership numbers. What’s more, it would do exactly what Hubbard said could be done- validate his claims. So that answer is invalid- if it could be done, it would have. And, in fact, attempts have been made with the cooperation of practicing scientologists… But none of them have been successful. THAT’s the reason why it’s not attempted any more.

        “The expence is minimal compared to other overts committed by governments. Even if from some point of view the benifits don’t outwiegh the expenses, I bet any money government waste 10 times as large exists in that very country.”
        What else the government does is not related to this point- the point is valid if even a single dollar is funding an organization which will not validate the claims that it uses to attract new memberrs.

        “If you have any concern for you tax money, Scientology would be the least of your concerns”
        When our government is laying of employees and cutting the budget, when they’re trying to fund social programs and feed the hungry, when they can’t afford to fix roads or fund new businesses, when people are facing unemployment with no relief in sight, then it is my concern. I don’t mind picking up the slack for an organization that I can see is benefiting the people, but I don’t see that with scientology. Certainly not on par with other organizations who use their money more wisely.

        You’re still stuck on specific points, but cannot see the big picture- why should the people pick up the slack for scientology when we need the tax dollars to sustain the country? Why should we fund scientology when they are unable to prove their claims?

        I understand that you don’t feel that Scientology should prove their claims- but let me ask you this: COULD they prove their claims in an objective, scientific environment?chri

      • Case in point, Ed:
        It costs a lot of money to become an OT8, correct? People are spending a great sum and reasonably expect something in return- specifically, that they would reap the benefits that Hubbard claimed they would. This isn’t their expectation, mind you, but this is something that Scientology has claimed, upon which people are making this investment.

        Can an OT see what I’m doing right now? Could they exteriorize and see what I am wearing?

        Can a clear rememeber anything at any point along the time track?

        Does the e-meter measure the addition or subtraction of mass?

        Could cancer be “eradicated by auditing out conception and mitosis”?

        Can a broken limb “heal (by X-ray evidence) in two instead of six weeks.”

        Can Scientology raise IQ points (using controlled tests)?

        Bear in mind that hubbard himself said, “All our facts are functional and these facts are scientific facts, supported wholly and completely by laboratory evidence.” Each of those basic claims could be easily validated at no cost, and even one would literally change the world and make Scientology the only “proven” religion. This would immediately raise the tone level of the entire world, which would suddenly acomplish the primary goals of scientology.

        If scientology REALLY wants to improve conditions, and this would do it right away (before any more wars start, or crime rates go up), why wouldn’t they do so? If simply showing us that it could be done without us having to take their word for it would save the lives and of millions and improve conditions for billions, why aren’t they doing it?

  6. Wow… squirrels… still doing what they do i guess…

    • It is an entertaining video…

      • They always are… Just not for the reasons they hope for ;)

    • Mred;
      It’s clear how you feel about independent scientologists, but I wonder how you feel about the “squirrel busters” and their vigilante-esque actions against them? Do you think they’re right to do what they do against an INDIVIDUAL who criticizes the ORGANIZATION? (it you see a difference between the two)
      Also, do you feel they, these scientologists, are justified in committing crimes in the process?

      Dox:
      Markrathbun (dot) files (dot) wordpress (dot) com/2011/08/mx-m450n_20110815_165222_ocr1 (dot) pdf

      • “independent scientologist” is really a bad name. More like, “creative scientologist” or “scientologist with misunderstood word”.
        I dont know any squirell busters. KSW # 10 is too hard to do at this time. Ask Ron, he will tell you people who do not do KSW # 10 and then have problems.
        People do what they want. Nothing stops them. Power of choice is senior to responsibility. So I dont know what your saying. These INDIVIDUALS now “agree” with bank so they can be safe. Media and people like you help them feel safe.
        Do you agree them?
        Do you disagree with organisation built on disagreeing with bank?

      • I see, my friend, that we do not agree on the term “independent scientologist”, and we also don’t agree on the term “squirrel”, which I feel is used only in the pejorative sense and ignores the complexity of this growing movement. Perhaps we can agree that they are “unsanctioned scientologists? It’s encouraging to see that you still acknowledge them as scientologists, at least- that’s quite tolerant of you.

        I made the assumption that you were familiar with the actions of the “squirrel busters”, but I’m sure you do know about Marty Rathbun; the “squirrel busters” are a group of scientologists that have moved into his town in order to disrupt him. The entire town is rallied against this group, and the mayor tried to get them to stop their “harassment campaign”, but the scientologists threatened a lawsuit. They have followed him and his wife and tried to rent homes as a “base of operations”. The landlords refused to rent to them. They have made videos, followed him and turned an entire community against Scientology. They hired non-Scientology photographers, who left in disgust at their actions (and are now trying to repair their damaged professional reputation after their association with the group); and now their ot8 has been arrested for theft after trying to disrupt this man’s convention. Is that how you think scientologists should act? Is that Scientology? 

        “Do you agree them?
        Do you disagree with organisation built on disagreeing with bank?”

        I’m sorry, I don’t understand- could you please clarify the questions?

      • You seem to like these kind of Scientologist? (Independent or Scientologist with misunderstood word?) You have affinity for them in tone of writing?
        “Squirell” is LRH’s term, he invented it for a reason. I dont have reference, I will have to get them, I suggest you read references on “Squirell” and clear words if you disaggree with reference.
        Scientologists should never break laws of land they are in as per Way to Happiness (have you read it?). Hiring “media” (photographers is media?) to hurt reputation of “squirell” who uses media to hurt reputation of Scientology is just tone matching to get into communication with terminal to try to rise terminal up tone scale.
        Success? I don’t know. I don’t like ethics cycles. Lots of emotion. Even when I go in ethics there is lots of emotion! I am lucky we have good ethics officer.
        Do you aggree with Squirell? Like, before you write, “Squirell against Scinetology Organisation”. It is not “individuals” vs “Scientology organisation” it is “bank” or “mass aggreement” vs “Scientology organisation”. Scientology organisation is the “individual” or the “unique” one. Squirell use democracy, media, and other “agreement” ways to fight Scientology. Do you agree with Squirell? Do you aggree with bank or disagree with bank?
        If you still no understand, read Scientology reference Keeping Scientology Working #1. (Scientologist say KSW 1)

      • Yes, I like (most) scientologists. I celebrate people’s constitutional right to believe what they want to believe. So I don’t have anything against scientologists in general, but I don’t support everything that management does, nor do I support the actions of scientologists when they commit crimes or other unethical behaviors. So the harassment and crimes (of the squirrel busters) are no better than the things that they accuse others of doing. And, like I said, because of these scientologists many people that had ever heard of scientology before are now critics of the group. I really can’t believe that you would support such a thing.
        To be very honest, these people are criminals- do you think that their crimes are justified? Does KSW justify committing crimes?

      • Here’s the way I see it, MrED. People have the freedom of religion, at least in many countries. In the US, this is recognized in the Constitution.

        Even the United Nations agrees, saying, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

        What’s very interesting is that the Scientology organization YFHRI “simplifies” that same UN declaration as “We all have the right to believe in what we want to believe, to have a religion, or to change it if we want.” Notice the difference? They took out the reference to practicing on one’s own.

        The UN also addresses what the squirrelbusters are doing now. “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

        So, I don’t think that so much money and so many resources (videos, magazines, etc) should be used to attack the “enemies” of scientology.

      • You write too complex. You have to write again. Especially on “human rights” (second writing) and words in there.
        I read this.
        To be very honest, these people are criminals
        WHO?
        - do you think that their crimes are justified?
        No crime is justifies if laws is good.
        Does KSW justify committing crimes?
        KSW explain that “aggreement” can also be “reactive” Squirrell is using this in media to create “reactive aggreement” to try to damage Scientology’s reputation. It seems that simular media is being used back on Squirrell? (is that what is happening?) Your other post is saying “this should be illegal”? (I think, so many words!) Well, if it was illegal I think Scientology would take many media to court for money before any squirell got Scientology to court.
        Please write more simple as there are too many words to clear.

      • If I am correct, the answer is in the video names on “related videos” of the above video.
        “Squirel busters” vs “Scientology harrassment”
        It appears what is harrassment to one is freedom to the other and it clear call4reform supports the non-Scientology point of view.
        (Not that I have ever read him support Scientology)
        Sorry to post in your thread MrED.
        Just as a note MrED. He hasn’t really answered your question.

      • I will try to write more simply.

        I was saying that what they squirrel busters are doing is against the UN declaration of human rights. I thought scientology supported these rights?

        So I posted an arrest document (and can show you video, if you need it) of a squirrel buster being arrested for knowingly committing a crime. Are you agreeing, then, that the crime is not justified? What of the other crimes that have been committed by scientologists? The murders? Fraud? The harassment? Or even Hubbard’s own wife taking part in the LARGEST government infiltration is US history. You would agree, I assume, that those crimes are also unjustified?

        I hope I’m not being too complicated, but I can simplify if need be. I couldn’t even begin to read French, so I’ll do my best to keep my English simple :)

        I’m sure you can see that the criticism is growing, and the independent/squirrel movement is growing very quickly, too. There are THOUSANDS of former members that have publicly come out and spoken about the crimes and abuses that they witnessed. Do you believe that sometimes criticism is justified if there’s something wrong?

        Do you know who Martin Luther is?

      • Luke, thank you for joining in. What question did I miss? I really don’t understand. If you can help to clarify for me, I can answer.
        It’s slightly ironic that you’re so helpful when I miss a question, when you ignored so many of my own :) but I appreciate the assist.
        How do you think that people that have never heard of scientology before feel about the squirrel busters?

      • You didnt answer my questions i feel no need to answer yours… sorry!
        questions…
        ““Do you agree them?
        Do you disagree with organisation built on disagreeing with bank?”

        I’m sorry, I don’t understand- could you please clarify the questions?

        I mean… overall you stated “you dont understand” and the questiosn have moved around it… in effect no answers just discussion… anyways… i’ll go away now…

      • Wow call4, you REALLY support the independent scientologist movement. Are you an independent scientologist?

      • Luke, you’re not much for clarifying, are you? :)
        I see what you’re saying, though- you don’t feel the need to answer questions, but will always point out if I miss one. I’ve asked you this many times, and you can never answer… what questions of YOURS did I not answer? I’ve give you a list, you can’t seem to find any for me. Why is that?
        Small matter- the question, I think, is do I disagree with the independant movement…
        the answer is no, I don’t. I celebrate their right to practice their religious beliefs, just like I celebrate the rights of “permitted” scientologists to do so. When have I ever opposed anyone’s right to practice their religious beliefs? It’s management, and the actions of a few scientologists. It’s those, like here, that practice religious oppression.
        So, I don’t know why you think I “support” the independant movement- what’s given you that idea? Because I believe they should have the freedoms referenced in the universal declaration of human rights? The big question to me is why do you desire so strongly to restrict their religious rights? Why do you support those that are actively breaking the law to restrict them?

      • Luke, you’re not much for clarifying, are you? :)
        Are you?
        I see what you’re saying, though- you don’t feel the need to answer questions, but will always point out if I miss one. I’ve asked you this many times, and you can never answer… what questions of YOURS did I not answer?
        I’ve give you a list, you can’t seem to find any for me. Why is that?

        CAUSE ITS RIGHT THERE ABOVE THE BOX… I dont have a degree in STATING THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS so i dont know how to do it.

        Small matter- the question, I think, is do I disagree with the independant movement…
        the answer is no, I don’t. I celebrate their right to practice their religious beliefs, just like I celebrate the rights of “permitted” scientologists to do so. When have I ever opposed anyone’s right to practice their religious beliefs? It’s management, and the actions of a few scientologists. It’s those, like here, that practice religious oppression.

        There is a difference between “disagreeing” with a movement and “allowing a movement to exist”. Scientologist don’t want to ELIMINATE squirrels. They don’t need to. They simply disagree with it and they want to make that clear.
        I disagree with say, catholicism, i dont believe i will go to heaven or hell when i die. But i dont want the catholic church to die, nor do i not celebrate their “right to practice”.
        What isnt clear from you is what do you AGREE with. Are you an independent scientologist? Is your personal philosophy Scientology?

        So, I don’t know why you think I “support” the independant movement- what’s given you that idea?

        Look at your last post. Your practically trying to convert mrED the same a catholic priest converts.
        Because I believe they should have the freedoms referenced in the universal declaration of human rights?
        I do not believe that is your purpose of your post. I believe your purpost to create antagonism with the church. Your bringing up the UN declaration to make the scientology organisation wrong not because you “believe” in it or anything. If you DO believe in it and ARE educating others on it then you are doing a service to mankind and i thank you.
        The big question to me is why do you desire so strongly to restrict their religious rights?
        I dont. Why do you think disagreement is the same as “wishing to restrict?”
        Why do you support those that are actively breaking the law to restrict them?
        They arent trying to restrict them they simply communicating to them that they disagree in (as mrED has pointed out) a tone level that they can understand.

      • Sorry last post is all cramped up and hard to read…

      • Given that you dont DISAGREE with the independent scientologists, does that mean you consider yourself an independent scientologist?
        (sorry your answer before, once again, hasnt FULLY ANSWERED the question)

      • Oh, Luke. You have never been able to show me which questions of yours I’ve ignored. Yet you angrily accuse me of doing exactly that. I really don’t think that you’re able to show me, but if you can tell me where to find them, I’d be happy to. That’s far more than you’ve done for me, when I showed you the many questions of mine that you were unable to answer. You say “above the box”, but that’s not communicating effectively- I have no idea what you’re referring to.

        “There is a difference between “disagreeing” with a movement and “allowing a movement to exist”. Scientologist don’t want to ELIMINATE squirrels. They don’t need to. They simply disagree with it and they want to make that clear.”
        Okay, so are you saying that the squirrel busters don’t want to eliminate the independant movement? Then what are they trying to accomplish? It’s very easy to say, “I disagree”, but they’ve spent months stalking and harassing. Do you know how many anti-Marty sites there are? But, for you, do you believe that the independant movement should be allowed to exist? Should they be able to practice their beliefs without constant interference?
        No, I am not a scientologist- independant or otherwise.

        “Look at your last post. Your practically trying to convert mrED the same a catholic priest converts.”
        Really? By saying they should be allowed to practice in accordance with the UN’s declaration of human rights? How is that conversion?
        It appears that you support the squirrel busters, a group that is actively interfering with the free practice of religion- do you support what they’re doing? That’s my very simple question- do you support their actions? Can you not see that their actions (such as disrupting their activities) goes far beyond simple disagreement? Can you not see that a growing number of non-scientologists see it that way as well? In reality, the “squirrel busters” are doing great harm to the image of scientology as a whole- do you not have a problem with that?

        “Given that you dont DISAGREE with the independent scientologists, does that mean you consider yourself an independent scientologist?”
        I really don’t know why this hasn’t been understood, but I’ll try to be very clear:
        No. I do not.

      • “I do not believe that is your purpose of your post. I believe your purpost to create antagonism with the church. Your bringing up the UN declaration to make the scientology organisation wrong not because you “believe” in it or anything. If you DO believe in it and ARE educating others on it then you are doing a service to mankind and i thank you.”

        Sorry you don’t believe me, but only one of us knows the truth (hint: it’s me). I bring up the UN declaration because (a) it is something that scientology claims to support and (b) it is not being supported in practice.
        And I thank you for acknowledging my position, and you are very welcome.
        I understand that the official position of the squirrel busters is that they are doing this on their own and not supported by the management (nevermind the statements by the non-scientologist photographer who reported a “war room” in a nearby hotel). If that is the case, then it’s only those scientologists, and not the organization as a whole, that are interfering with this free practice of religion. But, the fact that they have been doing it for months and have not been stopped indicates tacit approval of the church itself. Like I said before, when you’re committing crimes to make your point, that’s far beyond simple disagreement.

      • Perhaps we can put it in context:
        You’re saying that the actions of the squirrel busters are in actuality their airing of a “disagreement”. These actions include:
        - staking out a private residence (prompting the city government and the neighbors to attempt action against the group- these are people who until recently knew nothing about scientology)
        - following someone in their daily affairs, including out of town
        - approaching their spouse after finding that he is not around
        - recording someone on private property
        - hiring from outside of their organization to assist, prompting at least one person hired to leave in disgust and try to clear their professional name
        - break the law in an attempt to further their goals

        So, if you allow those actions to fall under the auspices of “disagreement”, would you say that the anons that protest scientology functions are also voicing their disagreement? If not… what’s the difference?

        To be very honest, I think that the squirrel busters are doing far more damage to scientology that rinder and the anons combined.It’s a SIGSW- “Self-inflicted Gunshot Wound”.

      • Oh, Luke. You have never been able to show me which questions of yours I’ve ignored. Yet you angrily accuse me of doing exactly that. I really don’t think that you’re able to show me, but if you can tell me where to find them, I’d be happy to.

        Quit being a victim you baby. The questions you haven’t answered are… IN THE BOX THAT HAS TEXT IN IT. Its in the conversatoin before. Look… i dont care now. Quit repeating something so insignificant it relates to the air we breathe.

        That’s far more than you’ve done for me, when I showed you the many questions of mine that you were unable to answer. You say “above the box”, but that’s not communicating effectively- I have no idea what you’re referring to.

        It was IN THE BOX where there is text in it.

        “There is a difference between “disagreeing” with a movement and “allowing a movement to exist”. Scientologist don’t want to ELIMINATE squirrels. They don’t need to. They simply disagree with it and they want to make that clear.”
        Okay, so are you saying that the squirrel busters don’t want to eliminate the independant movement? Then what are they trying to accomplish?
        Ethics.
        It’s very easy to say, “I disagree”, but they’ve spent months stalking and harassing. Do you know how many anti-Marty sites there are?
        NO and i dont need to know the ethics actions taken on SPs.

        But, for you, do you believe that the independant movement should be allowed to exist? Should they be able to practice their beliefs without constant interference?

        Depends on what you mean here. I know them practicing is an inevitibility of scientologys expansion. Squirrel busters is just the church reminding them of the simple fact that ron disagrees with thier existance also.

        No, I am not a scientologist- independant or otherwise.

        OK. Thank you.

        “Look at your last post. Your practically trying to convert mrED the same a catholic priest converts.”
        Really? By saying they should be allowed to practice in accordance with the UN’s declaration of human rights? How is that conversion?

        Its not your purpose to EXPAND the declaration. Your purpose is to highlight an apparent double standard of the church and hence “encourage” the independent movement. Quit taking my writing out context please.

        It appears that you support the squirrel busters, a group that is actively interfering with the free practice of religion- do you support what they’re doing?

        They arent. They are simply disagreeing with a group. I’ve told you that.

        That’s my very simple question- do you support their actions?

        I dont KNOW all of thier actions. I support the films they are making yeah. They are, as mrED has said, tone matching.

        Can you not see that their actions (such as disrupting their activities) goes far beyond simple disagreement?

        No. Can you not see that all this text you are writing goes beyond a mans “interest” and hence why i think you are an “independent scientologist” trying to “convert” people? Or at the very least a man with a strong interest in the destruction of the church of scientology?

        Can you not see that a growing number of non-scientologists see it that way as well?

        No.
        In reality, the “squirrel busters” are doing great harm to the image of scientology as a whole- do you not have a problem with that?

        “great harm to the image of scientology” Says who? You? People dont walk into my church saying “i would be a scientologist but then i saw squirrel busters and i decided not to” The only reason why YOU believe it is harming the image is because (i think anyways) too much of your experience in scientology is on the internet, not IN A CHURCH looking a people and talking to them. So there is an internet article saying squirrel busters are harming scientology” you believe this because it tells you? the reality is, i dont see it harming anything around me, so i cannot agree to that statement and hence not be able to answer your question.

        “Given that you dont DISAGREE with the independent scientologists, does that mean you consider yourself an independent scientologist?”
        I really don’t know why this hasn’t been understood, but I’ll try to be very clear:
        No. I do not.

        I asked you twice sorry. Thanks for your answer.

        Sorry you don’t believe me,
        Can you give me one good reason why i should?

        but only one of us knows the truth (hint: it’s me). I bring up the UN declaration because (a) it is something that scientology claims to support and

        It does by “youth for human rights”. It only has it own centers and meets with government all accross the world to try to 1, increase education on it 2. increase its application. Sorry if thats not “supporting it enough for you to acknowledge”. I can understand you being unwilling to spend any time looking at the good stuff scientology DOES DO given it is easier to be to one sided.

        (b) it is not being supported in practice.

        Because of squirrel busters? BLAH. How on earth whatever squirrel busters have done is SOOOO BAD as to render it the ONLY ACTIONS of a multinational religion is beyond me. Support for the UN declaration has been done for more than a decade now. I can understand you being unwilling to acknowledge it though. Critics have to have this shape of mind to remain critics.

        And I thank you for acknowledging my position, and you are very welcome.
        I understand that the official position of the squirrel busters is that they are doing this on their own and not supported by the management (nevermind the statements by the non-scientologist photographer who reported a “war room” in a nearby hotel). If that is the case, then it’s only those scientologists, and not the organization as a whole, that are interfering with this free practice of religion. But, the fact that they have been doing it for months and have not been stopped indicates tacit approval of the church itself. Like I said before, when you’re committing crimes to make your point, that’s far beyond simple disagreement.

        Dont know how this fits in here but OK.

        Perhaps we can put it in context:
        You’re saying that the actions of the squirrel busters are in actuality their airing of a “disagreement”. These actions include:
        – staking out a private residence (prompting the city government and the neighbors to attempt action against the group- these are people who until recently knew nothing about scientology)
        – following someone in their daily affairs, including out of town
        – approaching their spouse after finding that he is not around
        – recording someone on private property
        – hiring from outside of their organization to assist, prompting at least one person hired to leave in disgust and try to clear their professional name
        – break the law in an attempt to further their goals

        Alot of those things are legal might i add. Any law break i do not support. If one wants to harrass a squirrel one needs to know the laws. If they have broken the law i dont support that, the rest is just disaggreement like actions yeah. Stuff pretty simular to what the media and annonymous has done encouraged by marty rathburn himself. All he needs to do is take to court whatever “illegal” actions they have done and maybe he can win some money. Otherwise the independent movement just has to accept the fact that thier actions have “pulled this in”

        So, if you allow those actions to fall under the auspices of “disagreement”, would you say that the anons that protest scientology functions are also voicing their disagreement? If not… what’s the difference?

        Depends. As i said, i disagree with any breaking of a good law which is what annonymous has done and (according to you) what squirel busters have done. Not to mension denial of service attacks which new laws will need to be made on perhaps?

        Yes the media actions of annonymous and ex scios is simply them voicing there disagreement. Nothing can be done to stop this happening. All the church can do is make known their point of view on certain things, or even make it clear to people that often they are lying, and the media hasn’t (always) given them equal opportunity to respond, and that annonymous, and the independent movement often prefers it when they are never given the opportunity to also.

        To be very honest, I think that the squirrel busters are doing far more damage to scientology that rinder and the anons combined.It’s a SIGSW- “Self-inflicted Gunshot Wound”.

        Thank you for communicating your thoughts. I think differently.
        Thank you for that huge novel for me to go through. It is doubtful i will continue from here (sorry)

      • “Quit being a victim you baby”
        Oh, goodness, Luke- ANOTHER ad hom attack from you? But that’s exactly my point- you chose to attack rather than stick to issues. I don’t do that- which style of communication do you feel is more effective? I’m not sure why you do that, but you do, and then do it more when I object. You appear to be quite rude- are you that rude to everyone that disagrees with you? Bear in mind that ONCE AGAIN you joined in while I was talking to someone else. That’s fine with me, but you are choosing to extend this conversation. Are you enjoying our conversation that much, that you have to compulsively continue it? You seem obsessed, that you have the need to respond when it’s not even you that I’m addressing.

        “The questions you haven’t answered are… IN THE BOX THAT HAS TEXT IN IT”
        Maybe we’re looking at different things. There are many boxes with text in it. If you can’t find it either, how do you expect me to? So, since you can’t find it, I’ll assume that you’re just trying to cause trouble.

        “It was IN THE BOX where there is text in it.”
        Oh, with the black words? In a white background? That narrows it down :)
        I dare say that you can’t find a question that I’ve ignored, and not sure how you can morally try, as I’ve given you many that you have.

        “Ethics.”
        It’s frightening that you see crimes and stalking as a way to get ethics in. Does that really sound normal to you?

        “NO and i dont need to know the ethics actions taken on SPs.”
        Then what are you arguing? You’re closing your mind to the totality of the situation, and only knowing enough to say, “they’re bad, and I’m not going to question what’s done to them”? That’s the way it comes across- it sounds terrible.

        “Depends on what you mean here. I know them practicing is an inevitibility of scientologys expansion.”
        Perhaps. Certainly the independent movement is growing, but all available information indicates that the corporate entity is shrinking. Have you ever seen any objective information that indicates actual growth (not just of money spent and buildings purchased)?

        “Squirrel busters is just the church reminding them of the simple fact that ron disagrees with thier existance also.”
        Okay… but I thought that the busters weren’t authorized by the church? That’s their claim anyways. Besides that, how long will that take? They made their point, they stated their position. Is it necessary to break the law to make that point? Is it necessary to spend months outside of a private residence to “remind” them of what they believe a deceased man would want?
        Were you aware that one of Ron’s close friends, who helped him write book one, was an independent scientologist?

        “Its not your purpose to EXPAND the declaration. Your purpose is to highlight an apparent double standard of the church and hence “encourage” the independent movement.”
        True and false- it is a fact that the squirrel busters are interrupting the free practice of their interpretation of their religion. That’s my point. I don’t “encourage” the independent movement… I DISCOURAGE religious oppression. That’s why I also oppose the censorship of Hubbard’s books; everyone has the right to practice their beliefs as they choose- do you not agree with that?

        “I dont KNOW all of thier actions. I support the films they are making yeah. They are, as mrED has said, tone matching.”
        You don’t know all of their actions willingly- you are choosing to be ignorant of their actions and crimes. If you knew everything that they were doing, I would bet anything that you would disagree with it. The films? Sure, them and Marty both can make all the films they want. I’m talking about the facts that you’ve ignored, even when I’ve told you of them.

        “No. Can you not see that all this text you are writing goes beyond a mans “interest” and hence why i think you are an “independent scientologist” trying to “convert” people?”
        Do you see that you’re asking questions, and then faulting me for answering them? Talk to me, I’ll talk to you.

        “Or at the very least a man with a strong interest in the destruction of the church of scientology?”
        If you ever read up on martin luther, you would understand.

        “Can you not see that a growing number of non-scientologists see it that way as well?
        No.”
        “great harm to the image of scientology” Says who? You?
        Right, that’s because you never looked at the news, like I recommended. I can’t argue knowledge into you, if you choose to avoid it so vehemently. Were you aware that the town in which Marty lives has banded together in supporting him? Have you read the comments in the videos that you referred to? Actually, have you ever heard ANY non-scientologist support what they’re doing? I don’t believe everything I read, you shouldn’t trust your pre-conceived notions. Look for yourself, look at what the non-scientologists are actually saying. Can you do that?

        “I asked you twice sorry. Thanks for your answer.
        No problem.

        “Can you give me one good reason why i should?”
        Nope. But I come to you with facts you can validate- I haven’t seen much of that from you, mostly just emotion.

        “It does by “youth for human rights”.
        I don’t see that in practice- I see a lot of lip service, and claims of meetings that never happened. Try it yourself- call the UN and ask them if YFHRI co-sponsored any events with them. Ask them if they had a meeting in “Conference Room 1” last year. Ask them if they’ve every sanctioned YFHRI in any event in their building. You’ll find that the claims are actually a lie. But I thought YFHRI was not run by scientology? Regardless, how many times would you like me to say that scientology does do some pretty nice things- we can debate the effectiveness of their criminal or drug programs, but it’s great that they try. I’ll say it again, so you won’t be confused again in the future- they do some pretty good things.

        “Because of squirrel busters? BLAH. How on earth whatever squirrel busters have done is SOOOO BAD as to render it the ONLY ACTIONS of a multinational religion is beyond me.”
        Is scientology doing anything about the actions of these members? It’s been months, plenty of time- the group is allowing their actions to continue. So, yes, I have a problem with that.

        “Support for the UN declaration has been done for more than a decade now”
        I do acknowledge it! Totally, completely, all-encompassingly. I just don’t think that what they’re doing is effective, and I think that their allowance for their members to outright reject the declaration is worthy of criticism. Sometimes… problems deserve criticism when nothing’s being done about it from inside. You, personally, make allowances and defend their actions, and that attitude is why critics are needed- the scientologists that COULD do something about it are allowing it. Have you not hear? “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” I will not do nothing… you are.

        “Alot of those things are legal might i add”
        Exactly- is it okay that some of the critics do the same? Is legal the same as moral?

        “Any law break i do not support”
        That’s actually quite open and honest of you… So you DO NOT support any crimes committed by the squirrel busters? That’s good to know. So that OT8 that was part of the team… he was wrong for breaking the law?

        “If one wants to harrass a squirrel one needs to know the laws. If they have broken the law i dont support that, the rest is just disaggreement like actions yeah”
        Do you see what you did there? You only briefly touched on the actual point, and then very quickly changed it to an attack on someone else. Some would call that a deflection. But, okay, you at least ack’d that not all of the actions of the squirrel busters is ethical, and you can see that the church has allowed the group to operate- do you not see a connection? But, it’s interesting that you use the word “harass”- it is okay with you to harass someone as long as you stay within the law?

        “Otherwise the independent movement just has to accept the fact that thier actions have “pulled this in””
        Wouldn’t you agree then that it works both ways?

        “Depends. As i said, i disagree with any breaking of a good law which is what annonymous has done and (according to you) what squirel busters have done. Not to mension denial of service attacks which new laws will need to be made on perhaps?”
        Oh, yes, there have been crimes by critics, and that’s not okay. Any of the DOS’ers should be punished in accordance with the law. Do you agree with that? Do you also hold that standard to scientologists equally. I think the standard should be the same, and one should not hold something against a critic that they allow for a scientologist. Am I right or wrong?

        “Yes the media actions of annonymous and ex scios is simply them voicing there disagreement”
        I think we agree on that point. I would go so far as to say that any crimes committed by the anons or ex’s are beyond disagreement. I would say that if an anon were to spend months outside of YOUR home, it would be morally wrong, and I would oppose that.

        “Thank you for communicating your thoughts. I think differently.”
        Based on what? I ask because you haven’t actually allowed yourself to see the public’s perception- you seem to have gotten your information only from scientology sources. Do you have any idea how the average person views scientology? Do you think that impression is getting better or worse?

        I’m enjoying our conversation- should you want to continue it, I’ll be here. :)

      • Luke, look at page 216 in the Introduction to Scientology Ethics. Type h.

        Pat

      • Pat, you’re thetaworks? I’ve enjoyed your writing outside of this forum.

      • Pat is right, Luke- that is an excellent resource to better understand what’s at play. He is, of course, referring to me as a “potential trouble source” for you (implying, as he outright said earlier) that you should disconnect from me- but I would ask how I could be trouble for you? Are my words dangerous? Can I cost you your progress on the bridge merely by talking to you?

        No. That’s silly. All i hope that people will do is to look at why they believe what they do, and why they’re being told what they are being told.

        Have you considered why your church is directly telling you that people with an open mind are dangerous (type h)? Why are they telling you that those that want to test the claims are dangerous (type f), which eliminates any possibility of the objective validation that Hubbard indicated was possible? What of those who choose not to disconnect from an sp (type a), which in many cases may be husbands or wives, children or parents? What of those who have a potential critical slant avaunt the church, and who may voice them in print or media?

        Do you see what each of those have in common? They all have the second-order effect of restricting the flow of information.

      • This thread too long… too many words to clear… sorry!
        For your information call4reform, PTS cause trouble, not SP’s… SP’s just SQUASH… PTS… trouble… hard to expain… you need to read the PTS/SP course for reality.

      • Thank you, mred- you know a lot about Scientology.
        What trouble does a PTS cause? Do you think I’m a PTS?

      • Hi MrEd.

        The reference I gave actually gives that data. Page 216 Introduction to Scientology Ethics

        For example, none of these make case gain and that in itself is a source of trouble for the org. Time is wasted, gains are lost when reconnecting to antagonistic sources, etc.

        Pat

      • Thank you, MrED! Do you know where I might be able to find that course information online? There is not a church within driving distance of me.

      • Sorry I take so long…

        Hi MrEd.

        The reference I gave actually gives that data. Page 216 Introduction to Scientology Ethics

        For example, none of these make case gain and that in itself is a source of trouble for the org. Time is wasted, gains are lost when reconnecting to antagonistic sources, etc.

        Pat

        Yes I understand.

        Comment by CallForReform on August 25, 2011 10:16 pm

        Thank you, MrED! Do you know where I might be able to find that course information online? There is not a church within driving distance of me.

        No. PTS/SP course only available at orgs, not online.

      • Thank you, mred- you know a lot about Scientology.
        What trouble does a PTS cause?

        PTS cause confusion. PTS will go “up and down” in life and not win. Scientologist will work hard to get “win” with PTS and feel “failed help” when trying, hence trouble.
        SP just hurt people, and can be found. PTS, can hide and “cause trouble”.

        Do you think I’m a PTS?

        I don’t know. Strange question. PTS is a Scientology term, so if you decide to be Scientologist it is more simple to communicate an answer!

  7. This is not my blog and what I write here is my point of view based on 40 years as a Scientologist, who has trained as an Auditor and Case Supervisor as well as advanced training in policy.

    In the Auditor’s Code, the Code of a Scientologist and especially Keeping Scientology Working, LRH stresses that it is the job of every Scientologist to keep Scientology working, not just staff or management or the Sea Org. Scientology is defined by LRH as an applied religious philosophy. It’s something we do, not “believe”. It is learned under the strongest intention to keep the technology pure, without alteration and definitely not by those who try to “audit” outside of the exact administrative procedures laid out by LRH in policy to keep it that way. Anti-Scientology “factions” have gone to great lengths to undermine this management that is holding the line on the technology so people get maximum benefit and gains from it.

    What this all comes down to is that the applied philosophy itself is workable procedure that gets intended results. You see squirrels like Rathbun and his ilk still trying to use the tech. You see people trying to put the technology up on the internet. When people complain about prices, they are not complaining about the tech itself, but the cost. People are yelling “free free free” “gimmee gimmee gimmee” without consideration of what it takes to produce the Auditors and trained Scientologists to deliver. But, see, they still want the tech, while saying Scientology is a “cult” etc. etc.

    Bottom line, Scientology is the tech (the applied religious philosophy). It is not management, It is not who bit who or who squirreled or who altered. It is the tech, exactly as researched and written by L Ron Hubbard, and administered according to his policy on how it should be. Scientology is not something to be debated, or argued about. That is because Scientology is not belief-based (what is true is true only if personally observed to work),

    The purpose of Ethics is to get tech in. I have recently ceased communication with anyone displaying open-mindedness and deprogramming type activity. (See page 216 Introduction to Scientology Ethics).

    Pat

    • “I have recently ceased communication with anyone displaying open-mindedness…”
      I suppose that says it all right there.
      Thanks for the enjoyable conversations, Pat. I don’t suppose that I’ll see too much more of you, given your statements above.
      See you around the ‘net!

      • Did Louanne finally blow?

      • Probably not… But she has been noticeably absent lately, hasn’t she?

  8. Comment by Barney on August 5, 2011 7:33 am

    “Can you help me, Pat?

    Thanks for the link, Fred. I agree that this site does not offer a neutral opinion from either side. I don’t think either side is willing to be open-minded at all. Hopefully there is another place that is more helpful.”

    POLICIES ON
    PHYSICAL HEALING
    INSANITY AND “SOURCES OF TROUBLE” page 216 Introduction to Scientology Ethics

    Type H

    “h. Persons who “have an open mind” but no personal hopes
    or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored,
    as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of
    ability to decide about things, and are seldom found to be very
    responsible and waste anyone’s efforts to convince them.”

    So whatever help I can give you would be to debunk myths. There is no attempt to convince you. Only facts about Scientology on a Scientology website. Therefore, there’s no argument or debate and attempts to bring us into one pretty much confirms type H and the fact you are to be ignored. If you’re not here for answers to questions, but just making statements then you’re trying to subvert this blog and its only rule.

    Pat

    • btw, Bernie, despite claims, (Fred’s link) is not neutral. He has obvious issues about management, as stated on his site.

      This buzzword about neutral is just another way of saying be open-minded. See definition above. It’s a critic attempt to discredit Scientology.

      Pat

      • Pat,
        Could you please define what “neutral” actually means? Or, perhaps, an example of what it looks like? I don’t think that we all have a common understanding.
        Thank you!
        C4R

      • Thanks for proving my point, Pat. Again, this forum is a waste of time for anyone wanting a discussion.

      • depends on who you ask, Barney :)
        This is Louanne’s site (or was, when she was around…), and Pat’s just here as a guest, like you and I. So Pat made it clear that she’s not here to discuss, nor to answer questions that have a “point”, which means that she’s really here to answer the questions that make scientology look good.
        So, yes, this is not a place for discussion about Scientology, but it’s one of the few places where you can actually find a scientologist online. Which means that, really, there are few (if any) opportunities to actually discuss scientology with a scientologist unless you are one.

      • “Comment by Barney on August 6, 2011 2:26 pm

        Thanks for proving my point, Pat. Again, this forum is a waste of time for anyone wanting a discussion.”

        Ah, finally someone gets it.

        From Louanne’s FAQ:
        “What can I get out of this?

        You tell me. Sure a more balanced view on Scientology, the Church of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard. If you want to be a fanatic extremist, go away, the information here could be dangerous for you.

        Are there rules?

        Not many. Actually there is only ONE RULE: Don’t trash this place! I don’t want statements or lengthy introductions to your questions. Just as you I like to spend my time on something useful and to go through three pages of copypasta is not part of that.”

        Pat

      • Oddest thing is that Pat was the one that always seemed to invoke that rule- not Louanne. Seems to me that Pat was using that rule in order to silence criticism, when Louanne (the site owner) was actually able to discuss quite a bit more effectively.
        That’s just the way it appears, that is :)

  9. Comment by Fred on July 29, 2011 4:25 am

    “LOL TW!!
    Taking things “out of context” is call4′s speciality!”

    I know. Even after I told him to get all of PR Series 7 read to him, he still asks “is bad pr subjective?” Too funny. PR is PUBLIC relations, right? I especially love the way he cries “insult” if one of us calls him on negative comments, then does this “Of course I’m biased- I’m the con perspective.” (As if this were a debate, LOL)

    TW

    • Oh, TW, you are a treat, aren’t you?
      You left out quite a bit of information, I believe. The question remains- where would you like me to find PR 7? The nearest org is very far away, and scientology hasn’t exactly caught on to the digital bandwagon. So what would you suggest?

      But, instead, you keep up with your current tactic- “you’re wrong. I won’t say why, but everything you say is wrong”. Okay, that’s possible. How? What DID Hubbard say about protest PR? Is criticism ever appropriate, or even necessary? These are things you just can’t seem to answer- or are unwilling to. And if you’re only here to try to attack (‘not defend’), you’ve done that. Not very effectively, since all of your attacks are personal ones, rather than against the concepts, but I think that’s about the best I’ll see from you. So, what more can I hope to see from you, if you can’t even answer my very legitimate questions?

      And, yes, you do insult. You do attack. You get very personal very quickly, and I believe that’s in poor taste. Do you disagree? You seemed to try, but can’t even come up with an equal example of me doing the same- you say “yeah, I insult him, but he says he’s biased” as if they’re somehow related. I’m as biased as you are- we’re two sides of the same coin. The difference is that I can actually respond to your questions, and do it without personal attacks and off-topic jabs. That seems to be the bulk of your arguments right there.

      So, where would you like to go from here? You seem to have a need to continue posting- to change my mind? To show me the error of my ways? To convince potential members that you have something that they would want? I’m not sure. But I get the feeling that you’re just here because I am. And if it’s not to rationally and maturely discuss things… then why?

    • One last time. I told you to have your friend (that read you the quote) to read the whole PL to you. Did you miss that?

      TW

      • Yes, thank you. I will get ahold of him again. He discussed it with his supervisor, but I will ask for the whole doc. This would be a lot easier if you could help- do you have the ability to scan it in?

      • I think, TW, that I may not have correctly stated my position. I have little concern for the way Hubbard SAID things should work- the validity of his statements are a whole different conversation (and, let’s be honest, sometimes based on faulty information or understanding). My concern is the way things ARE and why they are that way. In other words, what is said is less important than what is done. Wouldn’t you agree?

        But look at this conversation; I ask you for your thoughts on the predominantly negative opinion of Scientology among the populace. That is a valid, current concern. Instead of addressing what is, you’ve only been able to focus on discussion of what Hubbard said. You’re not striking me as a “big picture” kind of guy (which is fine, some people aren’t); but I wonder, do you ever think about the things that are done? The way things are?

      • “I ask you for your thoughts on the predominantly negative opinion of Scientology among the populace.”

        A perfect example of a generality. LOL

        Because I no longer wish to deal with your anti-social commentary I won’t be communicating with you anymore. Bye

        TW

      • You mean that I’ll miss out on your inability to answer questions and your frequent personal attacks? I suppose I can make do.

        But I gave you the means to substantiate my claims- if you haven’t bothered to check it out, I’m not sure what you have to work from.

    • btw, Fred. Every time someone implies that our web sites are biased is an attempt to invalidate Scientology. Knowledge is what we offer and that’s what we offer. :)

      TW

      • Oops Correction “Knowledge is what we offer and that’s what is there. :)”

      • Not to jump in, but you made a small error. I said those that post on this website. Big difference. The difference is that Fred and I can agree we’re biased. Are you?

  10. I agree with Pat, Luke. Ignore him.

    • I can’t blame you- ignoring is a lot easier than confronting :) Oddly enough, I recall that you’re the one that started the comms cycle with me- you pulled in the criticism… and now you want me to stop.
      That’s fine, I’m not too worried about it. But there’s so few scientologist that actually post online that I’ll miss the few that are here. I guess I’ll live :)

    • From what I’ve read, the posts by Call4 have not been made to “start problems, insult, or hurt…” anyone; unless stating an opinion in a polite and rational way qualifies as that. No personal attacks have been made at all on his end. Those have proven to be a bit “one way”. Were I someone who had no opinion on the subject and no idea of what Scientology is, I would immediately gravitate to the person who is putting forward the most respectful and most honest (that is to say, Call4 is addressing your questions and offering to be corrected when he is told he is incorrect.) argument. That argument is coming from Call4. When confronted by his assertions I only see what appears to be a dogmatic zealotry being spit back at him in an extremely pernicious way.

      • Thank you, AWAG, I really appreciate your sentiments. You bring up a great point, about perceptions- and I’d have to agree. If I were a curious third party, I’d really be suspicious of the benefits from scientology; not just based on what I’ve read here, but elsewhere on the internet, too.

      • Comment by AllWellAndGood on July 30, 2011 11:10 pm

        That’s just it. We don’t argue. You don’t like an answer? You don’t understand why we hold our positions? Tough

        Asking questions that insinuate or make statements are actually against the rules of this blog. You want interaction? Then respect that. Otherwise, bugger off, as Louanne put it so well. lol

        Pat

      • In reading the recent comments on here, it is increasingly obvious that this message board is almost pointless. I am not a Scientologist, but I am not a critic either, as I’ve discussed with Pat before. The bottom line is that the points of view of Scientologists vs. critics will never meet a common ground or agree on anything. Attempting to do so is futile! It’s fun to debate with each other, but in the end there is never progress.

        Maybe it’s time to just go our separate ways and stop yelling at the wind. Oh and Pat, you know you love to argue…. that’s what I love about you, man!

    • Well… no surprise im on lukes side… i guess….
      LOOK… i’ve gone through PAGES AND PAGES with call4… he makes out he is here to “discuss” but takes the critical point of view EVERY TIME…. he agrees EVERY TIME when Scientology is accused of ANYTHING… Everything happens to scientology is “deserved” everything that scientology does “could be done better if only reformed”… so much data is taken outcontext i can only believe that hes doing it on purpose… he doubts pro-scio data presented and always takes others “on rumour”
      The sad thing is that he has so much time to be here… while i believe anything is better than discussing all that…
      Barney…
      I strongly believe there are neutral people out there… i believe you could be one too… i dont why given all the “discussion” ive had with call4… read up on bernie’s site here http://bernie.cncfamily.com/ars.htm on what a neutral opinion LOOKS LIKE, contact him if you like… and notice that Call4 has NONE OF IT…
      I’m sorry barney i cant go into discussion with you further as i have no intension of returning here… I’m taking lukes position and saying “to hell with it”…
      this site is good for scientologists to get updated on info from time to time… but to “discuss”… people like call4 really should just be avioded…
      I also know hes going to reply to me now having a “justified arguementative” point of view to what im saying… as hes repeated such a reply so many times…

      • Better to just ignore. Those that are just trolling are obvious because they are negative.

        There are those that come here to ask legitimate questions. Those we can help.

        Pat

      • See, Pat, you’re talking about me again, and of course in negative and pejorative sense. It really sounds to me like you consider the difficult questions to be negative and, thus, worthy of insults or to be ignored.
        To be honest, that’s the reason that criticism is able to thrive- places like this- the few that post positively about scientology, they never seem to be able to address any problems and seem to run from them, rather than admit that they exist. People feel that the scientologists themselves aren’t going to do anything, because they can never acknowledge that anything needs to be done. Take this blog for example. The scientologists seem unable to directly admit that anything needs to be improved upon, but the problems are there. How else do you explain the nearly universal negative perception of the group? Why are you not helping to be a part of the solution?

      • We’re not as different as I think you’d like to think, Fred. We’ve both selected a position, and we both present information conducive to that point. We’re both here, choosing to spend time to discuss our points of view.

        You see, Fred, if this was my own page, I may feel the need to present information in a different manner and discuss both sides. But that’s not the nature of this site. You, and a few others, do half of the work. You present only positive information- in fact, all of the official posts on this site are certainly one-sided and non-neutral. I merely provide the counterpoint to existing information, while you attempt to post the opposite. Between you and I, we’re balanced, to a degree.

        I am free to communicate or not, as are you. If I disagree, I am free to say so, am I not?

        But there are differences. Have I attacked you, personally? Have I insulted you? Yet you have done both to me. Why is this? You accuse me of certain things, but please allow me to replace a few words to show you something:

        he agrees EVERY TIME when (psychiatry) is accused of ANYTHING… Everything happens to (psychiatry) is “deserved” everything that (psychiatry) does “could be done better if only (destroyed)”… so much data is taken outcontext i can only believe that hes doing it on purpose… he doubts pro-(psych) data presented and always takes others “on rumour”

        Do you see what I’m saying here?

        So, if you don’t want to talk to me, that’s fine. My job is such that I can do this all day long, and it’s quite relaxing to do so. But the hypocrisy and personal attacks? Those gotta go. That’s the difference between you and I.

      • Can you help me, Pat?

        Thanks for the link, Fred. I agree that this site does not offer a neutral opinion from either side. I don’t think either side is willing to be open-minded at all. Hopefully there is another place that is more helpful.

    • Lol… call4… you attack scientology… its not personal… some scientologist attacks you… its not ok… i get it…

      • :)

      • Yes, that’s exactly right. Do you really not see the difference between criticizing an idea and attacking a person? Are those really the same to you?
        Please allow me to put it in perspective- some people believe that people of a certain race are inferior to those of another. The idea is stupid, there’s no other name for it. Is calling that idea stupid, or criticizing the concept, the same as attacking individuals?
        Look at your comment, for instance- you ignore all concepts and focus on the person. Why?

      • Pat, as we can see, is quite soundly the same way- somehow feeling personal attacks are justified, for some reason that I can’t fathom. Is insulting me for the greater good, pat?

      • sorry for my english… i am from france…
        Some scientologist attacks YOUR ideas… its not ok… i get it…

      • Pat no insult you… just leave symbol…

      • I have friend here… he says that saying “you” means “what you have written” not “you personally”. I think you or i have misunderstood word. Does “you” mean “you personally” to you?

      • Hello, mred! 

        Comment by MrED on August 18, 2011 1:39 am
        sorry for my english… i am from france…
        Some scientologist attacks YOUR ideas… its not ok… i get it…

        Your English is actually quite good. It’s a difficult language, especially if not your first. 
        Attacking my ideas is fine, I have no problem with with such communication, and feel that criticism is a great thing. But I’m not talking about insulting my ideas- I object to the personal insults; the name-calling and (what is called in English) “ad hominem” attacks. In my short time of communicating with scientologists, I have been called many names- some on this very blog! But in other forums, I have been called a “fag”, “retard”, and, the strangest, “baby raper”. Surely you would agree that such names have nothing to do with my ideas!

        Comment by MrED on August 18, 2011 1:40 am
        Pat no insult you… just leave symbol…

        Words are just symbols, too; they’re all symbols for a meaning behind them. It’s a passive aggressive way to communicate while appearing to ignore me :) but, if you want to see personal attacks, she’s made a lot of them. I would hope that you don’t support such a thing?

        Comment by MrED on August 18, 2011 2:07 am
        I have friend here… he says that saying “you” means “what you have written” not “you personally”. I think you or i have misunderstood word. Does “you” mean “you personally” to you?

        To me, it does mean “you personally”, especially since I was referring to insults against me personally rather than my ideas. Language is a tricky thing :)

      • Comment by Call4reform on August 18, 2011 6:49 am

        Hello, mred!

        Comment by MrED on August 18, 2011 1:39 am
        sorry for my english… i am from france…
        Some scientologist attacks YOUR ideas… its not ok… i get it…

        Your English is actually quite good. It’s a difficult language, especially if not your first.

        I learn english to do Scientology. So it is problem.

        Attacking my ideas is fine, I have no problem with with such communication, and feel that criticism is a great thing. But I’m not talking about insulting my ideas- I object to the personal insults; the name-calling and (what is called in English) “ad hominem” attacks. In my short time of communicating with scientologists, I have been called many names- some on this very blog! But in other forums, I have been called a “fag”, “retard”, and, the strangest, “baby raper”. Surely you would agree that such names have nothing to do with my ideas!

        I do not understand. Please write more simple.

        Comment by MrED on August 18, 2011 1:40 am
        Pat no insult you… just leave symbol…

        Words are just symbols, too; they’re all symbols for a meaning behind them. It’s a passive aggressive way to communicate while appearing to ignore me :) but, if you want to see personal attacks, she’s made a lot of them. I would hope that you don’t support such a thing?

        Please write more simple.
        She attack you? Or you annoy her? Were you asking to be attacked or not? Are you being a victim? If you do not like Pat then why communicate to Pat in this chat room? If Pat no like you why so Pat communicate to you? You communicate above in favor of those who not like Scientology. Do you think Scientologist will be nice to you when you do that?
        Nobody is ever ALL WRONG. All there ever is, is bank (eg SP’s), misunderstandings (in particular misunderstood word), or an inability to handle or disconnect.
        Do not blame Pat, just handle or disconnect. And Pat should do same.
        I do not have e-meter on both of you to solve problem sorry!

        Comment by MrED on August 18, 2011 2:07 am
        I have friend here… he says that saying “you” means “what you have written” not “you personally”. I think you or i have misunderstood word. Does “you” mean “you personally” to you?

        To me, it does mean “you personally”, especially since I was referring to insults against me personally rather than my ideas. Language is a tricky thing :)

        My friend say that “insults you” in way i say above means “your ideas” does not mean “you personally”. To say “Oh you hit him he hit you” does not have to mean “you hit his body he hit your body” it can mean “you hit (insult) his ideas he hit (insult) your ideas” even though it does not say it. So I not personally attack you, just your injustices, or, “double standard”.

      • “I learn english to do Scientology. So it is problem.”
        I’m sure you’ll do fine. Aren’t the scientology books available in French?

        “I do not understand. Please write more simple.”
        Of course. Pat (and some others) are not attacking my ideas- they’re distracted by personal attacks. They can not deal with the ideas, so they’re attacking me as a person. Like I said, in English, it’s called an “ad hominem” attack. Margaret Thatcher said it best when she said, “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” In the same way, I know that Pat (for one) can’t talk about my concepts, so she has to call me names.

        “She attack you? Or you annoy her? Were you asking to be attacked or not? Are you being a victim? If you do not like Pat then why communicate to Pat in this chat room? If Pat no like you why so Pat communicate to you? You communicate above in favor of those who not like Scientology. Do you think Scientologist will be nice to you when you do that?”
        Yes, she attacked me. For whatever reason, but it was rude and mean. But have you seen me do the same? No, I’m able to communicate about concepts without insulting other people. Why can I do that, but Pat cannot? I think that people should be free to discuss their ideas- if all Pat wants to do is insult and talk about me, personally, then she should just stick like that and not pretend to do anything more :)
        So I don’t desire to disconnect with Pat, although she’s free to do the same. But she has a tendency to make these passive-aggressive comments. She hasn’t fully disconnected yet.

        “So I not personally attack you, just your injustices, or, “double standard”.”
        I didn’t think you were attacking me- you’re not like the other ones here. But… what double standards are you talking about?

      • I do not want to keep goin here as it is boring.

        I’m sure you’ll do fine. Aren’t the scientology books available in French?

        Yes but English is better. There are several million words to translate. So, it takes time!

        Of course. Pat (and some others) are not attacking my ideas- they’re distracted by personal attacks. They can not deal with the ideas, so they’re attacking me as a person. Like I said, in English, it’s called an “ad hominem” attack. Margaret Thatcher said it best when she said, “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” In the same way, I know that Pat (for one) can’t talk about my concepts, so she has to call me names.

        “She attack you? Or you annoy her? Were you asking to be attacked or not? Are you being a victim? If you do not like Pat then why communicate to Pat in this chat room? If Pat no like you why so Pat communicate to you? You communicate above in favor of those who not like Scientology. Do you think Scientologist will be nice to you when you do that?”
        Yes, she attacked me. For whatever reason, but it was rude and mean. But have you seen me do the same? No, I’m able to communicate about concepts without insulting other people. Why can I do that, but Pat cannot? I think that people should be free to discuss their ideas- if all Pat wants to do is insult and talk about me, personally, then she should just stick like that and not pretend to do anything more :)
        So I don’t desire to disconnect with Pat, although she’s free to do the same. But she has a tendency to make these passive-aggressive comments. She hasn’t fully disconnected yet.

        It is simple. No decision of handle or disconnect, problem persists. That is all. Pat has more to add here. Your point of view is yours and I acknowledge. Pat has a point of view too, and I will not make Pat wrong without Pat’s input, therefore I cannot aggree with you.

        “So I not personally attack you, just your injustices, or, “double standard”.”
        I didn’t think you were attacking me- you’re not like the other ones here. But… what double standards are you talking about

        First comment in this thread.

      • Well, if past conversations hold true, I would believe that you’ll stick around a little bit longer :)

        “Pat has more to add here. Your point of view is yours and I acknowledge. Pat has a point of view too, and I will not make Pat wrong without Pat’s input, therefore I cannot aggree with you.”
        Are you referring to Pat’s point of view about me personally? That’s what I’m saying- is she right when she insults me? Of course, I was mostly referring to the other scientologists on this blog who are even worse. I’d prefer to stick to the points, rather than attacking the individuals.

        “First comment in this thread.”
        I’ve read it- what about that is a double standard?
        Do you not see a difference between attacking concepts and attacking people?

  11. Luke, what we are dealing with here is a classic anti-social personality. Loves to pass on bad news, dwells on it, doesn’t change, etc. Best way to handle this personality is to ignore any further communication. Let him do his rant and troll the blog. Don’t respond to it and that goes for anyone who tries to “argue”.

    Pat

    • What a mean thing to say!
      But, it’s much easier to simply dismiss me as an “SP” than to actually discuss any of my points, as you have not done so.
      To be very honest, it doesn’t matter to me if any of you reply or ignore, because none of the replies have been productive or thoughtful- they’ve mostly been angry, insulting or dismissive.
      How many of you have I insulted? None, although I have been many times, even being called the worst name a scientologist can use, just for speaking my mind.
      If you consider criticism to be anti-social, it’s no wonder you haven’t been able to converse with me! But, that’s also why the criticism is growing daily- that’s why the independents are growing so quickly. That’s why we have yet another high-ranking former member speaking out and apologizing for their actions.
      So feel free to ignore- I’m not here to convince you. I’m here to give the counterpoint to those that come here for the one-sided propaganda. You pull me in, so ignore me- maybe I will go away :)

  12. Luke,

    You’re very insistant that I answer your questions, which I do try to do. I feel very badly that I am not able to live up to your expectations. But I must point out that you have ignored most of mine! I’m sure that you’re not a hypocrite and merely missed them- to make things easier for you, I’ll reiterate the ones you missed:

    - look at the way you speak, the arguments you make- if a non-scientologist were to read this, would they want what you have? Would they want to be you? I mean, how many times have I insulted any of you? Yet I am insulted and attacked. Is that the best way to represent your religion?

    - My point is that sometimes “bad pr” is a subjective term, isn’t it?

    - Do you believe that there is ever a legitimate purpose or reason for criticism?

    - why is it there? (you gave a partial answer… nothing that addresses the facts of the situation)

    - I’m very sorry, but how do you know his intent for our comms cycle?

    I must again wonder- are you here solely to try and drive me away? That’s not an easy task, I do so enjoy good conversation, and you feed my fix :)

    • I think I missed one- do you support all of the actions of the “squirrel busters”?

  13. “Indeed, much like your own above :)”
    Yeah… and your response is nothing more than “ignore and ask another question”… dont like answering questions?? Afraid you might end up “in session” or something?

    • What a pleasant surprise to wake up to! No less than three scientologists feeding this here “troll”; what a joy it is to be pulled in with such well-reasoned and respectful arguments.
      That is. Aside from the ad hom attacks and brief diversions.
      Well, I’ll happily get to them when I can, rest assured I won’t forget about you.
      But think of something while you’re waiting; look at the way you speak, the arguments you make- if a non-scientologist were to read this, would they want what you have? Would they want to be you? I mean, how many times have I insulted any of you? Yet I am insulted and attacked. Is that the best way to represent your religion?
      Especially Fred, who’s particularly disappointing. I had seen more potential in him than the poor replies I’m seeing today.
      Oh, well, more later.

    • I’m back :)
      While I appreciate you serving as an intermediary between me and TW, I’m not sure if you noticed that I was referring to his comment. He didn’t ask a question, but said “Personally, I don’t think your questions are meant to do anything other than troll”. I pointed out the irony.
      Thanks for joining, though.

      • you havent answerd my question

      • your question about me and TW’s conversation? I’m confused- please repeat the question. I just started reading, so I hope you finally got to some of my questions that you’ve been ignoring, since you’re so insisting that I answer yours.

      • Read the comments again and make sure you clear the words…
        You havent answered my question, on WHY you DONT ANSWER QUESTIONS… your not even communicating relevant data…
        BLAH… i dont even care… IM DONE…

      • Oh, Luke, you keep accusing me of not answering questions, but you can never show me where. Why can’t you? What questions have I missed? None that I can find, and none that you can provide… So I think you’re getting confused.
        Meanwhile, ironically, I’ve given you a specific list of questions that you’ve either ignored or missed.
        I’m left to wonder why you can accuse me of something that you yourself clearly do.

    • I dont know… the obvious attempts and irrelavant arguement you put up, and constant defence of critics and no compliments to scientology and its actions when it credit worthy ones come up… certainly make you a troll… yeah… i dont know… change your tone and focal point and maybe the title will go away!

      • I’m actually not too concerned about what you think of or call me- you made up your mind already, I think.
        You have a perception that I have “obvious attempts” and “irrelevant arguments”, but I disagree. To be blunt, I think that you’ve shown yourself to be unable to answer some rather fundamental questions. But, then again, I may be surprised when I read on.
        I wonder why you expect me to compliment scientology? Is that some sort of requirement you’re placing on me? And why would you expect me to compliment it if you can’t even ack any wrongs (hopefully, I’m wrong as I read more! )?

      • I have a game for you. You ever seen silence of the lambs? quid pro quo.
        Can you name anything (as you say they exist) that is “wrong” with scientology? Anything that isn’t quite kosher?
        If so, I’ll gladly say some of the things (as I have before) that are positive. I’ll start.
        Many, many people report a positive benefit and increased capability due to their association with the group.
        You have anything?

      • I will answer one question here… then im done…
        Given you dont really answer my questions and attempt to make conversation in places that really ISNT what im talking about…

        “Can you name anything (as you say they exist) that is “wrong” with scientology?”
        That there arent more Scientologists…

      • Luke, I refer you to my last comment. You can’t tell me WHAT I’ve missed, like I have done for you.

        Also, your answer (“there arent more scientologists”) is either surprisingly insightful and honest or dissapointingly mirroring the party linne.
        Are you referring to the fact that official surveys are finding fewer scientologists than any other time in history, and that more and more of those that are members are leaving? If so, I’ve misjudged you, and there may be something to work with here.
        Or are you saying ‘everything’s super swell and the only problem is that it’s totally not big enough yet!’- if that’s it, then I’m less impressed; even though I have gladly admitted that there’s good in the group, that would show you’re unable to admit flaw, even a small one. And that position, which is very common and the reason why the organization is not growing effectively from within. In short, your answer is what makes criticism necessary.

  14. Your quote is being taken out of context. That’s why I suggest you not quote quotes off the internet. You should have your “insider” read you the whole thing, not just a few lines. It’s PR Series 7. Policies have a subject. Taking a few lines to convey the whole never works since context is important. In Scientology it’s called “people who quote policy to show they can’t apply it”. That’s Policy letter btw.

    Here’s an example of it in use:
    http://www.freedommag.org/sites/default/files/CSI-Statement-for-BBC-Panorama-24-Sept-2010.pdf

    This article is protesting the BBC Panorama with facts (there’s a video on the site as well that documents these facts.)

    • We agree, then, facts are an effective way to protest. My point is that sometimes “bad pr” is a subjective term, isn’t it?

      Do you believe that there is ever a legitimate purpose or reason for criticism?

    • By the way, your argument is well presented and free from insults- thank you.

      • For a guy who apparently gets nothing but “insulted” yet stil hangs around…
        WHY ARE YOU HERE?

      • because I enjoy it, overall, although I don’t enjoy your insults and personal insults. Are you doing it on purpose, hoping I’ll go away if you push hard enough?

      • you enjoy it… i dont believe you… you keep complaining about getting “insulted”… and you enjoy it? BLAH if you dont like it… go away… i dont believe for a second that your arent a troll

      • Oh, but I do! Now, I’ll be honest- I don’t much enjoy your insults and accusations, they’re a barrier to effective comms. But I enjoy it overall, why else would I post here? Not because I’m paid by psychiatrists… :)
        Then I wonder why you’re here? If you don’t enjoy it- are you told to come here?
        I’m curious- why do you insult and attack so readily?

  15. I’m trying to figure, TW, if you have been attacking and insulting in every post, of just most of them. Why are you so angry? Recall that YOU opened the lines of comms with ME.

    So, every resource that I’ve found agrees on the policy. A very dear friend of mine, who is still in, has read and cofirmed the policy for me. I can’t help it if there’s so few orgs that I can’t find one close to me; what would you have me do?

    But, you respond with a brilliant debate tactic: “you’re wrong, but I won’t tell you what’s right”. I have to ask you, how do you know that I’m wrong so quickly? I mean, did you happen to be at an org and quickly check the policy? Do you have it memorized? Or were you, more likely, just assuming and trying to attack?

    You’re definition of trolling is your own, and it seems to match you as well, as you have tried very hard to insult and hurt me. I don’t believe that I have insulted you, but you have taken several opportunities to insult me. So are you a troll? And just because you don’t like what I have to say, or can’t handle it like a mature, respectful person, does that make me on?

    No, it doesn’t. But I’m seeing a pattern- you can’t deal with my point, so you ignore it and use this electronic messaging system to attack and insult me. That’s fine, but what does that make you?

    • Addendum: the quote is a very small portion of my point. If you don’t agree with my quote, and can’t tell me what’s right, feel free to ignore it. If you can’t address my other points, feel free to ignore those, too. No one’s making you talk to me, TW, are they? I’m certainly not. But, if you are only here to attack me, and can’t converse with me… you’ve already taken care of that part.

  16. “What part of him or her saying not gonna communicate with you did you not understand? Seems pretty clear to me.”

    Again, if I missed that, please do let me know where you’re seeing that.

  17. “If he doesn’t want to talk to me, he can easily say so himself. ”

    Dude, lol. He did.

    • Could you please remind me of where?

      • “Comment by Pat on July 14, 2011 6:53 pm

        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”

      • Thank you for the refresh! I suppose I shan’t wait for an answer than him then, shall I?
        You’ll notice the confusion- it’s not unusual for him toeave when the conversation gets difficult, only to come back later.
        I don’t expect a reply from him- I’m quite used to that. But surely you’re not saying that im not “allowed” to respond to his posts when I disagree? It’s up to pat what he responds to or ignores. He’s free to reply or not, as am I, as are you.

  18. Lol, I had a feeling that you’d be posting here shortly, now that someone else had; and here you are! :)

    Now, are you referring to Rathbun or the scientologists and the private investigators that they hired at great expense to record him from multiple camera angles?

    If you’re talking about Rathbun, I’d imagine he’ll stop using his camera when they stop giving him things worthwhile to record. You see, unlike the scientologists that have been following him and his wife, have you noticed that he doesn’t seek people out to record? No, he records what is being done to him, and to great effect- indeed recording is the only thing that he can do, as his word alone cannot capture the bizarre reality. As it is, the whole town, including the town leadership, wants the scientologists to leave Rathbun, his wife and the other citizens alone, but the threat of a lawsuit kept them in there by force. Would you say that’s good pr?

    Now, if you were asking about the scientologists, it’ll be a while. They just rotated crews, and are (surprise!) forcing their way into an area that doesn’t want them.

    I must wonder, do you support such a thing?

    • Why do you support the PR against scientology?

      • What type of PR are you referring to? Are you not considering what LRH said about protest PR?

        “Outright protest PR, based on facts, is a legitimate method of attempting to right wrongs.
        It has to be kept overt. It has to be true.
        Protest PR can include demonstrations, hard news stories and any PR mechanism.
        Minorities have learned that only protest PR can get attention from politicians or lofty institutions or negligent or arrogant bosses.
        Where protest PR is felt to be a necessity, neglect has already occurred on the issues.”
        -L Ron Hubbard, Organization Executive Course

        Perhaps the more pressing question is why is there still so much bad PR against the group? When you do a google news search, why is all of the news bad, reflecting the current public opinion about the group?

      • You arent really answering my question…

      • And btw.. .the more pressing question is … why do YOU type in this forum… an attempt to support negetive scientology PR is the only reason i can find…

      • No, Luke- that is not the more pressing question. What you’re doing is Very close to “ignore and ask another question”.
        You’re asking the difference between my personal perception and an issue that affects thousands of people. Once you answer the big question, you can attack my motivations.

      • I withdraw last- I did fail to directly answer your question.
        I post because I believe that critics are necessary for success; even pat said the same, although we disagree on the reason.
        Have you ever heard of Martin Luther? If so, you may be aware of the parallels.
        Criticism is, essentially, an agent of change. This is especially true if there is the possibility that the organization is unwilling to change without it. I wonder, do you think that there are any problems at all with Scientology? I’m not asking you WHAT they are, but is there anything about the group that could be improved upon?
        You can probably think of something, and what is your avenue for addressing any grievances? You have an internal process that I do not have acres to. What, then, for me? Have I no voice? No right to address my own grievances?
        I do have this right. Scientology is a (mostly) tax exempt organization. That means that the public supports it financially in exchange for the expectation of social and societal benefit. My taxes must cover the organization, instead of being made available to my child’s school, or roads, or other direct-benefit organizations. As such, I have a right to desire reform for an organization that I pay for.

        Okay, your turn: bad press: why is it there?

      • Bad press is there because it makes money.
        There are things wrong with scientology but the things you focus on…
        1. Aren’t really your concern (unless you have a story to tell)
        2. Unless you are interested in destroying scientology, there is no reason to bring up over and over agian in this forum!
        The group can be improved upon by the group evolving…
        More auditors training at flag
        More parishiners doing thier basics and getting auditing
        More staff doing thier OEC volumes…
        THIS IS happening… and this is how we get better.

      • What is your purpose in being here?

      • Oh and btw… your taxes get wasted at much greater volumes in other things… i doubt you spend as much time sorting that out…
        WHY ARE YOU HERE??

      • Do I have, or not have, the right to criticize the group? It’s a very simple question that you still can’t answer.
        Like I said, look into Martin Luther- you’ll understand.

        “There are things wrong with scientology”
        Wow! I’m quite surprised you could say that. So you’re saying that scientology in its current form has flaws? Are you saying also that I don’t have a right to also feel the same way, and discuss it?

        Yes, there are greater wastes of my tax dollars- but why can’t I focus on one in this particular forum?

        Lastly, you ask why I’m here- I told you. If you don’t agree with my reasons… sorry. But they are my reasons. Why are you here?

      • “Bad press is there because it makes money.”

        Really? That’s the only reason? It has nothing to do with the legal convictions? defections? thousands of former members speaking out? Had you even read any of the countless KRs and other reports from former members?

        Also, do you really think that people are so stupid that they only have a negative view of scientology because of the media? Is that what you think of people?

      • I’m not answering your question here because i know your answer is going to be a disagree… i’m done here…

      • Okay :)
        To be completely honest, I’m not convinced that the reason you won’t answer yet another question is because you anticipate that I will disagree…

      • The reason your here call4 is because you KNOW people are going to disagree with what you say…

      • “The reason your here call4 is because you KNOW people are going to disagree with what you say…”

        No, Fred- I’m here despite that knowledge.
        If you had been able to give an honest assessment of scientology, including the elements that need improvement (hint: they’re there), then I wouldn’t have a role. Your inability to honestly assess the organization creates my role.

    • I wonder how long he’s going to use a camera to confront with?

      • It’s a TR term. A person uses a body part or object to take the place of just being there and confronting or being face to face with someone. Marty obviously is unable to just be face to face and has the camera being his “confronter”.

      • interesting point, TW. May I sincerely ask your opinion- why do you believe that the “Squirrel Busters” used cameras in the same way?

      • Because the camera wasn’t being held by the person asking the questions, and Marty isn’t asking questions .. just keeping that ole camera up there to receive communication he can’t deal with.

      • so, in other words, the two are not even similar.

      • I see, I value your opinion.
        To me, and this is only my opinion, it seems that Marty recognizes the fact that the videos that he’s sent out have been far more effective than any claims that he could make, which would be easily refuted by the scientologists that have been following him.
        Maybe he can, maybe he can’t confront the questions being asked. And it’s a judgement call as to whether or not he should have to, or if he should be followed to such length. All that I know is that the videos have rallied the entire town around him, and have given him much more credibility than his word alone. I, for one, would not believe his claims if I couldn’t see the videos. Those videos are doing a great deal of harm to the reputation of scientology- not because of the fact that filming is happening, but because of what the scientologists in them are doing.

      • Amusing. Be specific. Exactly how did it harm Scientology? What was said exactly?

      • Are you serious?
        I’ll tell you what, do a google news search for the terms scientology and “squirrel buster”. Do you see many positive opinions of the church based on their actions?

      • “Because the camera wasn’t being held by the person asking the questions, and Marty isn’t asking questions .. just keeping that ole camera up there to receive communication he can’t deal with.”

        It occurs to me- this statement indicates that you have not actually watched the videos in question…

      • I’ve watched every one of them. I don’t see a Squirrel buster holding a camera while being questioned by a reporter.

      • I think, friend, you’re confusing the squirrel busters with reporters. Perhaps you see them that way, but if you view the publi opinion, as I suggest you do, you’ll see that the non-scientologists, especially in the impacted city, see them as aggressors.

        Did you notice their head-mounted cameras? And their inability to address certain difficult questions like “what is your name”?

      • Just because someone asks a question like that doesn’t mean it would have to be answered, especially since he was the one being questioned. You can’t see the difference between having a camera on your hat than holding it in front of your face “talking for you”. lol. The squirrel busters had no problem communicating.

      • There is a difference- the hats look ridiculous :)
        But, you’re setting a condition- are you saying that if Marty wore a silly hat, you’d be okay with that?
        Lets say Marty IS hiding behind the camera; if so, I couldn’t blame him. they’ve followed him home, around town, out of town and during meals. They’ve cone on his property and learned his flight reservations. They’ve watched for him to leavens assailed his wife once he left. Tgeyve followed them through traffic and passed out hateful material and posted signs. Thrive tried to rent homes near him, making the landlords uncomfortable. They’ve made the entire town nervous about their intentions. The city leaders tried to help Marty by passing a law to stop The behavior but, surprise, were threatened with a lawsuit. Do you really support these behaviors? What’s more, can you find any non-scientologist that does?
        Like I said, how do you justify this incredible amount of self-generated bad pr?

      • Please forgive typos- dyac

      • “Just because someone asks a question like that doesn’t mean it would have to be answered”

        By the by, is that your position on the many questions so far that you’ve ignored? Are you unable to answer them? If you need me to, I can repeat them, starting with why the majority of the public has a negative impression of scientology, including thousands of former members? Did you ever do a Google news search for the term “scientology”?

      • Final thought for now, something just occurred to me- maybe the reason why marty has the camera in his face is because he doesn’t come after the “squirrel busters” in mass.
        Consider this picture:
        radaronline (dot) com/sites/radaronline.com/files/imagecache/350width/Squirrel%20Busters (dot) jpg

        see that fellow with the camera glued to his face? He does that because it gives you better quality. Marty’s only one deep, but the scientologists come after him in mass. So he has to make do to get the same quality that the “team” gets.

        But, that’s not my concern, as I don’t agree with your perception.

        The point is that things have happened to this former scientologist that most people wouldn’t believe, if it wasn’t recorded. But, as it is recorded, the unbelievable events are being seen the world over, and making news. Again, do you think they’re creating good or bad pr for themselves?

      • Funny how your always there to defend critics call4… i actually believed you had a far more “neautral” point of view….

      • Why would you think that, if you actually do? You and I long since agreed that we both have bias- have you forgotten that already?
        But, if you’ve taken the time to read what I’ve written, you may notice that I’m not defending marty, I’m defending some of what he does in the face of a very bizarre situation. And by recording what’s happening, he’s showed the world something that they wouldn’t believe otherwise. I ask you, since no one else seems to be able to answer this- do YOU support what they squirrel busters are doing? And are you aware what non-scientologists think of it?

      • Your missing my point call4… nevermind…

      • I don’t think that you communicated it in a way I can understand; but I am eager to understand if you could re-phrase it.
        Of course I’m biased- I’m the con perspective. You and some others are the pro. Equally biased on all sides, but intentionally so as we represent differing perspectives, each critical. If you don’t want to participate, I won’t try and force you. But if you’re just here because you feel the need to correct or battle me, than that’s not much better than what you accuse me of, is it?

    • Dude! Pat didn’t say he / she wasn’t posting here anymore. Looks like he / she cut off communications with you only.

      • I don’t believe that I claimed he did, dude :)
        I was remarking on the notable pattern in which he will disappear for a length of time, and then post, seemingly forgetting about all of the questions he was unable to address. Generally speaking, he will only resume posting once someone else has already made a point, at which time he will agree with it.
        He’s more than welcome to communicate or not with whoever he wishes. To be quite honest, there’s too many open lines of communication open between me and he (and he and others) already.
        Thanks for clarifying; but I’ll wait for pat to tell me if I’m cut off or not.

      • Its kind of obvious call4 that your questions have a purpose other than “i want to know”…

      • Why would he / she answer questions from you if he’s not communicating with you? Personally, I don’t think your questions are meant to do anything other than troll. I agree with Luke

      • “Its kind of obvious call4 that your questions have a purpose other than “i want to know”…”
        Indeed, much like your own above :)
        But look up the term “rhetorical question” and you’ll see the philosophical usage for a question mark, when meant to provoke or enable further communication.

        “Why would he / she answer questions from you if he’s not communicating with you? Personally, I don’t think your questions are meant to do anything other than troll. I agree with Luke”
        I’m very sorry, but how do you know his intent for our comms cycle? To be honest, he’s abandoned many cycles with me and others, including those that he initiated and promised more information on, so it’s somewhat hard to tell. Perhaps we should let Pat clarify his intent, rather than you doing it on his behalf?

      • So, you think that he / she is obligated to respond to obvious trolls? You evidently think quite highly of yourself if you think that these warrant a response. LOL

      • Yes, I am the most important person in the world, and everyone owes me a response, because of my very important position. You’ve been so kind to oblige. :)

        naw, I’m just joshin’ you. He’s not obligated to reply, if he doesn’t want to. All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t try to enforce your perception on his comms cycle. If he doesn’t want to talk to me, he can easily say so himself. Or, here’s an idea, he can simply… not talk to me.

        But, in the mean time, seems like you have an interest in me. Are you wanting to develop a comms cycle?

      • What part of him or her saying not gonna communicate with you did you not understand? Seems pretty clear to me.

        BTW, your data on protest PR is wrong. That’s not what the PL says. Suggest you actually read it for yourself instead of quoting someone else’s paraphrase.

      • “BTW, your data on protest PR is wrong. That’s not what the PL says. Suggest you actually read it for yourself instead of quoting someone else’s paraphrase.”

        Oh? Would you be so kind as to show me where I can find a correct copy (one that is original Hubbard, of course)?

        Regardless, that still doesn’t answer the question- where’s the GOOD PR about scientology, other than that which they release themselves?

      • Go to any org and ask to see PR Series 7.

        Why would I answer such an obvious troll?

      • There is no org anywhere near me, not within reasonable driving distance. What are my other options? Have YOU read it?

        “Why would I answer such an obvious troll?”
        Why are you calling me names? I mean, you pretty much started off our conversation with insults- that’s our first real interaction.
        But, more to the point… why do you, if that’s what you think?
        I don’t know how you define troll, but I think you’re just using it as a blanket insult without understanding the actual definition.

      • Don’t come to a Scientology site pretending to quote Scientology policy without actually seeing it. That’s the real problem here, you “listened” when you should have “looked” Then whined because you don’t have access to the real deal.

        Trolling
        To use a blog or forum or message board to start problems, insult, or hurt others. An action that only usually affects the person trolling.

        Usually a very bored, lonely person with no friends. Or a punk ass kid.

        The best thing to do with trolls is ignore them.

      • oops, my mistake. posted the reply at the top. My sincere apologies.

      • LOL TW!!
        Taking things “out of context” is call4′s speciality!

      • Oh, Fred. How disappointing. We don’t talk in so long, and you come back to me with simple one-line insults and ad hom attacks. I had come to hope for more from you.
        Tell you what- you’ve leveled a personal charge against me- show me. Support your insult, Fred. Or, if you can, show me the right context.

      • I did comment on this but i think it got erased… oh well…

      • nope not erased just up the top

      • For god sake call4…
        You transform ACC quotes into pro-eugenics…
        You take one quote from 1952-3 and another from 1993 and “make out” you have a point…
        You write pages and pages of critical data with ONE LINE kinda complimentry of scientology and YOU THINK… your HAVENT TAKEN ANYTHING OUTCONTEXT??
        I dont have time to go further on this… I barely have time to come here… i dont think i will…

      • “You transform ACC quotes into pro-eugenics…
        You take one quote from 1952-3 and another from 1993 and “make out” you have a point…
        – What are you referring to? Is this from our previous discussion? I don’t believe I was claiming that scientology was pro-eugenics, just that Hubbard’s efforts to place the blame for the existing programs on psychiatrists shoulders is based on faulty logic and inaccurate data. It’s simply not supported by fact.

        “You write pages and pages of critical data with ONE LINE kinda complimentry of scientology and YOU THINK… your HAVENT TAKEN ANYTHING OUTCONTEXT??”
        –okay, what am I missing? What’s the actual “good” stuff that I’m missing, if you take out the subjective experience. You may say drug awareness, VM’s, etc- and that’s swell and all. But, to be honest, those programs are largely ineffective, and the funds used for them could be more effectively leveraged against existing entities. But, it’s wonderful that most of them WANT to help, that’s a good thing. But the good doesn’t need to be fixed- it’s working fine, and you guys are already (and only) discussing the positives. When do you confront the things that are wrong?

        I dont have time to go further on this… I barely have time to come here… i dont think i will…


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

    Es ist vollbracht / It is finished

    DSC_0005

    IT IS FINISHED

    More Photos
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.