Another Rumor Down the Drain

Since 2009 the usual hate crimers and Anons (same difference) were trying to glue a tragic suicide of a boy on the Church of Scientology and Scientologists. Unsurprisingly it now turns out that there was no relation at all, just as the accused have said all along. As the judge in the case put it, the accusation was “A MERE HYPOTHESIS that is without essential support based upon reasoned and direct inference from the available evidence.”

To me it was clear that the case was bogus the moment I heard who was pushing the case. But the general public does not have this interest in background connections and – unfortunately – nor does the “media.” One would think that journalists have a minimal ethics code to follow and actually they do. The Society of Professional Journalist ethics code says:  “Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.”  Sure. How courageous is it to pound on a grief-stricken father who just lost his son to a suicide? How fair is it to repeat online rumors and conclusions from rabid anti-Scientologists? How clever is it to follow an obvious spin campaign instead of doing actual research?

Let’s have a look at the people who pushed the hate campaign:

1) Anonymous – attention whores, paid and unpaid dupes in the name of hate and persecution of minorities. Not much needs to be said about these assholes. For those who don’t know what I am talking about, read here.

2) Dave Touretzky – another fanatic lacking the guts to do some real research and stand for his errors. There is plenty of information about him here and here.

3) Rick Ross – a former criminal and deprogrammer who IMHO never got to stop his ways, only his means.

4) Scott Pilutik – former legal assistant to Ken Dandar (the lawyer in the above case) and in bed with a couple of anti-Scientology campaigners (like Touretzky above). Did he think there was money in for him? Lame.

5) Mark Bunker – since 2008 the Anons are drooling over him because he took over the thinking for them. They call him Wise Beard Man. Well, Bunker, nomen est omen, is a hardhead for sure but not for humanitarian reason. My guess is that he wouldn’t be able to make any money if he wasn’t selling his services to brain-dead dupes. A vicious circle that might leave him with cancer in his testicles (psychosomatically anything can happen, just saying).

Anyway, got to cut it short, here is what the Courthouse News Service has to say about the “Kyle Brennan” Case: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/20/42410.htm

53 Comments

  1. HEY EVERYBODY!
    Callfourreform want to know how many Scientologists are in the world!
    How many do you think there are?
    What data sources do you use to back it up?
    As he CANT start a thread himself…
    I’m doing it for him!

    • Funny that no one answered you.
      Aussie luke- you’re a passive-aggressive pussy. Did you know that? You’re a big talker, but you hide behind a fake identity- you’re as anonymous as I am! You’re a perfect example of what a scientologist is- cowardly, pissy and ineffective. You claim to be a part of a “religion” that teaches people how to communicate, but you can’t seem to do it. You say that you’re a stereotypical aussie- what good is scientology then? You’re just a fucking coward that makes scientology look even more insane than it already does. But, t’s okay that I talk this way, ’cause I’m from New York, right? You’re a joke.

      • Funny that no one responded to you, by the way, since anyone that does any research know that scientology is small and shrinking. It’s a tiny little sect with a shit ton of money. But more an more people are leaving- more critics are coming out and more members are speaking against the management. How long can those case reserves last?

  2. Historian, there is no “reply” link under your last post so this post may seem out of order, but in answer to your questions: All of my information has been obtained from court documents, which are public record in this case.

    You can view these documents through Pacer.gov. (You can find information about Pacer and a link leading to it by visiting the U.S. District Court’s site at http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/.)

    Once you have a Pacer account you can log in and navigate to U.S. District Courts – Florida Middle, then query for case #8:09-cv-00264-SDM-EAJ to view documents for the Brennan case.

    Your best bet is to start by going to the Docket Report and downloading Exhibit #2 found next to Document 118 (09/08/2010). Exhibit #2 of doc 118 is a 100-page document containing the Clearwater Police Report and supporting evidence from their investigation of the suicide, including copies of Kyle’s writings.

    Regarding the gun: The father (Tom Brennan) kept the weapon in a little cloth bag in his nightstand drawer. When questioned during his deposition, he could not remember if the gun was loaded at the time that Kyle found it. (He stated there was ammunition kept in a separate drawer.) The gun was old and had previously belonged to his father. He put it in the nightstand drawer because he did not know where else to keep it, and there it remained for a few years.

    I’ve thought about the statements made by some people who have said that the father should not have had a gun in the house while his son was visiting. My own opinion (as a gun owner with a loaded weapon always next to my bed), is that the gun was probably rarely seen and therefore forgotten. I believe it never crossed the father’s mind that his son would search the father’s bedroom for a gun and use it to commit suicide. Since Kyle had made no previous suicide attempts or threats of suicide, it seems a bit much to assume that the father should have anticipated this unfortunate event.

    On a side note, approximately 10% of Americans are currently on some type of anti-depressant medication. This is just my two cents, but I don’t think all U.S. gun owners immediately remove their weapons from their home every time an adult — who happens to be on anti-depressants — comes to visit.

    • You’ve clearly done quite a bit of research on this, and I can respect that. I’ve “poked around” and am convinced that you’re correct from a legal point of view.

      I maintain, the point I was trying to make, is that it’s not the legal arena that will damage scientology- it’s the court of public opinion. Even those that understand that this is a terrible tragedy (which, with information unavailable, we’re unable to determine if the father could have done “more”) cannot help but be reminded of the hundreds of other deaths somehow directly connected to scientology. It’s a matter of proximity- if Kyle had killed himself in his mother’s home, we wouldn’t be seeing the same connections made that we are now. But because it was a few days after visiting his father, after which he stopped taking his medication altogether, it seems suspect. Perhaps the father didn’t influence his son- we’ll never know- but still the question lingers.

      so, tl:dr- I agree with you from a legal perspective. The moral perspective is unable to be addressed and something that I don’t feel willing to explore. However, with hundreds of deaths linked to scientology, the public assumptions are to be expected.

      • “Hundreds of deaths” is an unsubstantiated and false statement. Unless you include anything like “A woman went to a lecture conducted by L. Ron Hubbard in 1965 at age 45 and, 30 years later, died of heart failure…”

        Well, in that case your number would probably be accurate. Otherwise I have researched every death ever connected in any remote way to Scientology, and you my friend are “holy-crap-off” the mark.

      • That’s a very good point, VC. There’s another angle on this and that is that there are people of every religion that have died and not once have I seen that anyone tried to tie the death to their religion. The generality is, of course, intentionally stated to make it seem as though Scientology is different than other belief systems where members die for any reason. In the case of Lisa McPherson, it’s well-documented, in affidavits, that Minton paid for that rumor to be propagated, among others.

        The same goes for “people are leaving Scientology ‘in droves'” lol. Since when does Scientology have a monopoly on someone changing his mind about what religion is true for him? How many left Christianity (includes Catholicism, Mormonism, Judaism), Buddhism, Islam?

      • Pat-
        Sadly, you miss the point. The same standard IS applied for Catholocism, or any other religion, as to Scientology. If a Catholic priest were to murder someone on their son’s birthday, I would wonder why, and look into that man’s history. If a buddhist were to commit suicide, and blame his own death on his religion, I would wonder why. Scientology is very small, and shrinking, so every death is a higher percentage than for mainstream religions. There is a much higher degree of criminality, suicides and claims of abuse than you would expect from such a small group, especially when they claim to be entirely ethical.
        When you talk about the people leaving other faiths- how many of the other faiths are leaving with similar stories of abuse? IN the case of the Catholic sex abuse scandal, that invited legitimate criticism… why not treat scienotology the same way? Isn’t that what you want?

        VC-
        may I ask which resources you used when you”researched every death ever connected in any remote way to Scientology”? Where did you actually get your information? How do you explain all of the suicides?

  3. Just to keep everything accurate: The young man (Kyle) was not “dead within 24 hours of visiting his father,” but had in fact been staying with his father for 9 days prior to his suicide. He gave his pills to his father approximately 3 days before his death.

    All evidence (including pharmacy records and testimony from numerous witnesses) points to the fact that Kyle did not like the medication and was not taking it on a regular basis.

    • I think that the reason that this story has garnered so much attention is because this isn’t the first scientology-connected suicide, and far from the first scientology-related death. In fact, there have been hundreds, which is why this story is seen as “another” death.

      Whether or not one agrees with the decision to put him on medicine in the first place, it was dangerous and irresponsible to allow him to simply stop taking his pills- especially when he apparently had access to a firearm (I certainly hope that the father didn’t know that his son had access to such a thing- assuming that it didn’t belong to the father!). That decision was dangerous, and may have cost Kyle his life.

      Sadly, it seems, based on sketchy information, that the father didn’t seek qualified medical care for his son, relying instead on his understanding of scientology and hubbard’s “treatments” for mental health issues. We’ll never know for sure, but I suspect that if Kyle had stayed with his mother, he’d still be alive today.

      • From all indications, Kyle’s father did what he could under the circumstances. It’s unfair to place the blame on the father when the son was already on a steep downward spiral long before he arrived in Clearwater. To call this a “Scientology-connected suicide” is also unfair, since the only connection is the fact that the father is a Scientologist.

        Short of Baker Acting his son (which would not have been warranted since Kyle had not displayed any clear signs that he was a danger to himself or others), the father did everything he could do to motivate his son and to get him healthy.

        Remember, Kyle was a 20-year old adult who had been traveling alone throughout the country for 3 months before he decided to visit his dad. The father did not “allow” him to stop taking his medicine; pharmacy records indicate that Kyle had not been regularly taking his medication for quite some time, nor had he seen his psychiatrist in nearly a year. Obviously his mother and stepfather were fully aware of these facts long before Kyle left home.

        It’s highly doubtful that Kyle would be alive today even if he had chosen to stay with his mother, since he was not taking his medication regularly, and — based on his own writings — it appears that most of Kyle’s anger and paranoia were directed toward his mother and stepfather.

      • Martini-

        you seem to have a great deal of information that I do not have. May I ask where you had seen his writings or his medical records? How you know what his father did or didn’t do? How you know that Kyle had not displayed any clear signs that he was a danger to himself or others? If you know all that, do you know where he found the weapon?

        I think that I failed to properly convey one of my central statements- while Kyle’s father may NOT have been in any way to blame for Kyle’s death, because there have been so many suicides and deaths connected with scientology, the public perception will be (and, I think to a degree, IS) that this is yet “another” death tied to scientology. Do recall that the father spoke to his local org about his son. I’m not saying that’s directly connected as the cause, but scientology was indeed involved.
        I’m not sure how you can say that it’s “highly doubtful that Kyle would be alive today even if he had chosen to stay with his mother”. I, myself, did say that I SUSPECT that kyle would be alive if he had stayed with his mother, but I don’t claim any certainty as you seem to. The timing is, I believe, what will cause this issue to be tied to scientology; he was alive until a short period of time after coming into his father’s home. Somehow, he was staying alive until that point.

        Perhaps, if you could direct me to the source where you found the information that you possess, I would be more able to intelligently discuss the factors?

        Thanks,
        Historian

      • Historian
        I think to call this a “scientology related death” and in the same sentence use the terms “in fact there have been hundreds” (The “scientologykills” site barely got to 100 btw, so even agreeing with those whom invested heaps of time counting people doesnt hit a number so high) is an obvious attempt at using propaganda terms and spreading hatred.
        Please try wording your opinion and “other important fact deletion” so you dont look like such a troll.
        PS: call4reform is better at it

      • lol, ah, Luke- I missed your passive aggressive insults :)
        Please, how many suicides and deaths are acceptable to you?

      • Point, Luke- whyaretheydead stopped updating in 2006, so it doesn’t take into accounts some of the more recent suicides and deaths. Some of the more well-known, perhaps, but it’s not exhaustive. I assume, for example, you’re aware of scientology minister and OTVII Rex Fowler?

        “I have taken what I consider to be the most expedient way out of my present predicament. I harbor no resentment against anyone, except the Church of Scientology. They have a great deal to do with my demise. To play with people’s defense mechanisms in the manner that they do is a criminal thing at best. l hope they can be outlawed.” – Suicide note by James Hester

      • Drink a cup of concrete please!
        Thanks for more irrelevant data call4
        1. Are there more than 100 suicides? Ie, is he lying intentionally or telling the truth?
        2. Do you agree his wording is plain anti-scio propaganda? not TRUTH?

      • All other data is irrelevant by the way… when you look at it…

      • LOL, Aussie Luke- do you think that it’s unreasonable to expect that you treat me with the same respect and dignity that I treat you? Or is this how scientology has taught you to communicate? To be honest, you’re a very poor communicator, which is why you have to result to name calling. It doesn’t hurt my feelings- far from it- but I think that it reflects poorly on you personally, as well as gets in the way of whatever message you’re trying to convey. In short, the tech doesn’t seem to be working, in your case.

        Suicides? I don’t know. Deaths in total, including the murders and manslaughter convictions, yes- well over 100. You could, if you want to, include the deaths that hubbard himself said scientology could prevent, but I think that we all agree that scientology is not able to prevent those deaths. Case in point- have you ever met a REAL clear that meets the definition set forth by hubbard?

        But, you ignored my question- let’s ignore your arbitrarily selected number: how many deaths are acceptable to you? one? two? ten?

        I don’t think that the data is irrelivent, but I understand that you need to consider it that way. If you could confront it (ie, discuss it)… I would be very surprised.

        I’m curious, what are you trying to accomplish here? Are you trying to convince ME of something? I doubt that’s the case, or else you’d actually form some sort of factual argument. Are you here to reach out to non-scientologists and show them how effective scientology is, and that they should join? I doubt that as well, or else you’d present yourself with some sort of decorum. I think you’re STILL here because you’re compelled to be here. I don’t think you even know, for sure, why you HAVE to post time and time again, while you’re not able to actually intelligently and respectfully discuss the issued that OTHER PEOPLE were talking about.

      • By the way, you know what’s another useful number that you will dismiss without due consideration? The almost 2,000 former members that are now speaking out about the horrors that they witnessed inside scientology. That doesn’t include the countless others that left quietly and chose not to publicly speak against COB and the way he’s perverted hubbard’s dream.

        You know why that list is growing? because scientology cannot confront its own role in the horrors that are causing people to leave in mass. I’m curious- how many scientologists do YOU believe there are in the world?

      • LOL, Aussie Luke- do you think that it’s unreasonable to expect that you treat me with the same respect and dignity that I treat you?

        You call all this troling respect? HA!

        Or is this how scientology has taught you to communicate?

        This is how aussies communicate! Come here and find out!

        Suicides? I don’t know. Deaths in total, including the murders and manslaughter convictions, yes- well over 100.

        Proof? How do you validate that claim?

        All other data irrelevant to my comment…. Start a different thread if you want those questions answered. I might get involved might not.

        2. Do you agree his wording is plain anti-scio propaganda? not TRUTH?

      • “You call all this troling respect? HA!”
        What you’re asking is whether or not I think two people can discuss their differing opinions intelligently and without personal attacks? yeah… yeah I do. You’re confusing my disagreement with your beliefs as a personal attack against you. But you- you’re clear cut. When you can’t present an idea, you result instead to insults and name-calling. Just saying it’s trolling doesn’t make it true, cupcake. Quite honestly, I don’t think you know how to debate online- or at all. You certainly don’t know how to present a logical argument. Can’t scientology help with that?

        “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.”
        Margaret Thatcher

        If you’re representative of what scientology has to offer by way of communication, I think I’ll stay a lowly wog, thank you.

        “This is how aussies communicate! Come here and find out!”
        No good- I’ve known too many australians that are intelligent and able to form a coherent sentence. Like I said, isn’t scientology supposed to help you with that?

        “Proof? How do you validate that claim?”
        Each death is paired with something called a “name”. That “name” uniquely identifies the person. It’s very simple to confirm their death. If you don’t know how, I can show you.

        “All other data irrelevant to my comment…. Start a different thread if you want those questions answered. I might get involved might not.”
        Like I said before, calling it irrelivent doesn’t make it so. It seems to me that you just can’t discuss it. Maybe you’re not allowed to. Maybe you don’t know how. I can’t tell. I don’t control the threads here, only louanne can start a thread. If you don’t want to discuss it… guess what? You don’t have to! Isn’t that amazing? I’m not too interested in going out of my way to enable YOUR communication, since so far you really haven’t shown it to be worthwhile. And don’t go slandering a whole people by saying that none of them know how to communicate- that’s just you. Haven’t you taken one of hubbard’s comms courses?

        2. Do you agree his wording is plain anti-scio propaganda? not TRUTH?
        I already said- no, it’s factual. Have you ever done any research yourself? Have you ever seen for yourself if it’s true or not? How can you discount something without taking the time to research for yourself?

        On a related note: how many scientologists do you think there are?

      • “You call all this troling respect? HA!”
        What you’re asking is whether or not I think two people can discuss their differing opinions intelligently and without personal attacks?

        You keep bringing up irrelevant stuff. THATS TROLLING. Respect my by staying on topic of the questions i ask and the points i make, and calling me a few names or something so i know your alive… you dickhead!

        “This is how aussies communicate! Come here and find out!”
        No good- I’ve known too many australians that are intelligent and able to form a coherent sentence.

        Sounds to me you havent met enough of them! WE ARE a violent speeking bunch. We often insult WITHOUT it being serious! You taking it so seriously is fucking SAD! Its also an indicator of tone in SOS on “literalness of statements made”. Its only a page or so long that chapter too!

        “Proof? How do you validate that claim?”
        Each death is paired with something called a “name”. That “name” uniquely identifies the person. It’s very simple to confirm their death. If you don’t know how, I can show you.

        Validate claim that suicides are in the 100s! DERRRRRR!!! Do you go out of your way to misinterpret everything i fucking say?

        2. Do you agree his wording is plain anti-scio propaganda? not TRUTH?
        I already said- no, it’s factual. Have you ever done any research yourself? Have you ever seen for yourself if it’s true or not? How can you discount something without taking the time to research for yourself?

        How do you account for …
        “suicides in the 100s”
        I see no proof of yours either!
        Its just another lie to make out scientology is worse than what it is which is your purpose (and that other guys) in being here! NOT TRUTH!

        THIS QUESTION

        On a related note: how many scientologists do you think there are?”

        and all other stuff written that isnt on this post is irrelvant. You want me to answer open a new thread and i might. Please stay on topic here.

      • “You keep bringing up irrelevant stuff. THATS TROLLING. Respect my by staying on topic of the questions i ask and the points i make, and calling me a few names or something so i know your alive… you dickhead!”
        Nope. You see, I’m not on your level. I can communicate without getting personal. I’m comfortable in my beliefs, and know how to form a logical argument. I’m not a scientologist- I’m nothing like you.

        “Sounds to me you havent met enough of them! WE ARE a violent speeking bunch. We often insult WITHOUT it being serious! You taking it so seriously is fucking SAD! Its also an indicator of tone in SOS on “literalness of statements made”. Its only a page or so long that chapter too!”
        So scientology can’t help you with your inability to effectively communicate with people who are better at it than you? I don’t care that you get personal with your insults- they’re childish and immature anyways. I’m talking about your inability to form a logical argument.

        “Validate claim that suicides are in the 100s! DERRRRRR!!! Do you go out of your way to misinterpret everything i fucking say?”
        Nope- I got it, and told you how to do the same.

        “How do you account for …
        “suicides in the 100s”
        I see no proof of yours either!
        Its just another lie to make out scientology is worse than what it is which is your purpose (and that other guys) in being here! NOT TRUTH”
        Because I know how to read :) Try google. You wouldn’t take my word for it, but I’ve verified each of the deaths. You can do the same (will you?)

        “THIS QUESTION

        On a related note: how many scientologists do you think there are?”

        and all other stuff written that isnt on this post is irrelvant. You want me to answer open a new thread and i might. Please stay on topic here.”
        Very on topic- you just won’t answer it and can’t see it. It’s a conversation, feel free to try it or ignore the question. But, I repeat it- how many scientologists do you think there are? Can you answer that question?

      • WOW FINALLY (kind of) ON TOPIC! WELL DONE!

        “You keep bringing up irrelevant stuff. THATS TROLLING. Respect my by staying on topic of the questions i ask and the points i make, and calling me a few names or something so i know your alive… you dickhead!”
        Nope. You see, I’m not on your level. I can communicate without getting personal
        .
        I’m not getting personal either. Your just TAKING IT PERSONALLY, which is you being a poor communicator.


        I’m not a scientologist- I’m nothing like you.

        THAT INSULTING WAAAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAA!!! GO AWAY! WAAAAAAAAAAAA! (by the way… being SARCASTIC)
        No scientologists are alike. Learn that. All scientologists are nothing like me as all scientologists are nothing like each other.

        “Sounds to me you havent met enough of them! WE ARE a violent speeking bunch. We often insult WITHOUT it being serious! You taking it so seriously is fucking SAD! Its also an indicator of tone in SOS on “literalness of statements made”. Its only a page or so long that chapter too!”
        So scientology can’t help you with your inability to effectively communicate with people who are better at it than you?

        How are you better? you keep crying… not communicating.

        I don’t care that you get personal with your insults- they’re childish and immature anyways. I’m talking about your inability to form a logical argument.

        No your not, your just crying… GET UP AND TALK BABY!

        “Validate claim that suicides are in the 100s! DERRRRRR!!! Do you go out of your way to misinterpret everything i fucking say?”
        Nope- I got it, and told you how to do the same.

        NO you havent provided proof that there are “100’s of suicides” the troll statement made above.

        “How do you account for …
        “suicides in the 100s”
        I see no proof of yours either!
        Its just another lie to make out scientology is worse than what it is which is your purpose (and that other guys) in being here! NOT TRUTH”
        Because I know how to read :) Try google. You wouldn’t take my word for it, but I’ve verified each of the deaths. You can do the same (will you?)

        LINK PLZ?? Its not my responsibilty to research every “claim” made here. I am challenging YOU to validate HIS claim. Any troll can come up say bullshit and call it “fact”. The commentor has a responsibility to VALIDATE.

        “THIS QUESTION

        On a related note: how many scientologists do you think there are?”

        and all other stuff written that isnt on this post is irrelvant. You want me to answer open a new thread and i might. Please stay on topic here.”

        Very on topic- you just won’t answer it and can’t see it. It’s a conversation, feel free to try it or ignore the question. But, I repeat it- how many scientologists do you think there are? Can you answer that question?

        HOW IS A CONVERSATION ABOUT A GUY WRITING “in fact there have been 100’s (suicides related to scientology)” and me calling him a liar and a troll relevant to the question “how many scientologists are there?” ITS IRRELEVANT! Open a new thread and i might get involved with that question there.

      • Sigh, I am actually a Scientologist and I can tell you that Aussie Luke is not. He is one of a very small number of angry critics that dedicate time to lying online to make actual scientologists look bad. It’s sad, but that’s what these people do, I’ve seen it before. He is only playing a role, trying to make us look bad.

        The reality is that Scientology isn’t for everybody- it takes someone who’s willing to embrace their true nature and realize they can make a difference. Scientologists are artists, writers, actors, politicians, but also everyday people that are making a difference in their community and the world.

        Try it sometime, Callfourreform- visit your local org to see what we’re really like. I think you’ll be glad you did! :)

        Best of luck to you- please don’t judge all of us by what critics (even those in disguise) would have you believe! :)

        Greg

      • It’s unfortunate for scientologists that when the majority of the internet world look up scientology they are able to read both sides. Yet, scientologists either seem to bypass or are unable to view the critical info from former members. So, what is a former members supposed to do when they still love the tech, but have been “kicked out”?

        When people are having trouble shouldn’t they talk to friends and family? Or, should they only talk to a “qualified” church member. It seems that family is bypassed in this religion and not something I want to be a part of.

      • Heck, Martini here is giving me SOME hope for this site :) In all seriousness, I don’t recall the last time that a scientologist came to this site that was able to intelligently and respectfully discuss issues that are in some way related to scientology / scientologists. He has a decent point, and has researched it well enough to present his findings. Perhaps the only time that I’ve seen that here. I like the guy (?).

    • “WOW FINALLY (kind of) ON TOPIC! WELL DONE!”
      I’m glad I meet your approval! But, I don’t think that you know what “on topic” means- I think you’re defining it as “talking about what you want to talk about”.

      “I’m not getting personal either. Your just TAKING IT PERSONALLY, which is you being a poor communicator.”
      Wow- the “I’m rubber, you’re glue argument”. I haven’t heard that one in a while. What would peewee herman do?
      Actually, I think I was very clear. You don’t have the words nor the ability to upset me. You can’t form a decent argument enough to do so. But your premise is flawed on many levels- having to result to personal attacks because you can’t actually discuss the topic is foolish and faulty communication. Look up “ad hominem” to understand.

      ”I’m not a scientologist- I’m nothing like you.

      THAT INSULTING WAAAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAA!!! GO AWAY! WAAAAAAAAAAAA! (by the way… being SARCASTIC)
      No scientologists are alike. Learn that. All scientologists are nothing like me as all scientologists are nothing like each other.”
      Lol, actually, I’m finding that a lot of scientologists are a lot alike. The common thread isn’t your country- it’s your belief system.

      “How are you better? you keep crying… not communicating.”
      Calling you out on ad hom isn’t crying- pat and louanne have both done it to others. You think the same of them?

      “No your not, your just crying… GET UP AND TALK BABY!”
      Nice argument there, bud. You’re really laying down a strong logical foundation there. Tell me, you learn that in Hubbard’s course?

      “NO you havent provided proof that there are “100′s of suicides” the troll statement made above.”
      Lol, I’m not doing your homework for you. I’ve told you how to confirm it, if you don’t want to do the work, that’s fine for you. Tell you what- start with “whyaretheydead(dot)info”, you can google the names there if you want to. Now, for the second part- the claim is suicide AND deaths- you don’t seem to understand that part.

      “I see no proof of yours either!
      Its just another lie to make out scientology is worse than what it is which is your purpose (and that other guys) in being here! NOT TRUTH”
      Okay, so let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that there are less than 100 suicides and deaths. How many are acceptable to you? How many people naming scientology in their suicide note is okay?

      “LINK PLZ?? Its not my responsibilty to research every “claim” made here. I am challenging YOU to validate HIS claim. Any troll can come up say bullshit and call it “fact”. The commentor has a responsibility to VALIDATE.”
      Sure: google(dot)com. Try it sometime.
      Anyways, I gave you a link to start- if you don’t like it, then I don’t know what to say. It’s not my claim, even though I know how to google well enough to have verified it myself. I would expect that you’ve never bothered to consider whether it’s true or not.

      “HOW IS A CONVERSATION ABOUT A GUY WRITING “in fact there have been 100′s (suicides related to scientology)” and me calling him a liar and a troll relevant to the question “how many scientologists are there?” ITS IRRELEVANT! Open a new thread and i might get involved with that question there.”
      It’s very relevant- why are you so scared to answer it? I’m very surprised at this, like you’re terrified of the question. Wow, sorry to scare you so much. All you’re really talking about is the way people talk about scientology. I’m not bound by your bizzare and arbitrary rules- if you can’t discuss it here, then I suppose I’ll just miss out on your brilliant insights and intellectual discourse.


      • OK TO THAT! Nice insults… like “did you learn that in a hubbard course?” HAHHAHAHA!

        Did you learn how to troll like that here or elsewhere?

        Lol, I’m not doing your homework for you. I’ve told you how to confirm it, if you don’t want to do the work, that’s fine for you. Tell you what- start with “whyaretheydead(dot)info”, you can google the names there if you want to. Now, for the second part- the claim is suicide AND deaths- you don’t seem to understand that part.

        DONE THAT…
        didnt reach anywhere NEAR 100… Face it… you can’t validate it and your happy with the lie to continue because lying to generate hatred of scentology is your purpose!

        “I see no proof of yours either!
        Its just another lie to make out scientology is worse than what it is which is your purpose (and that other guys) in being here! NOT TRUTH”

        Okay, so let’s, for the sake of argument, assume that there are less than 100 suicides and deaths. How many are acceptable to you? How many people naming scientology in their suicide note is okay?

        Irrelevant. HOW I FEEL about suicides is nothing to do with “is the statement “in fact there have been 100’s (suicides)” true. Come on back up your troll buddy… proove to me there have been “100’s” of suicides!

        “LINK PLZ?? Its not my responsibilty to research every “claim” made here. I am challenging YOU to validate HIS claim. Any troll can come up say bullshit and call it “fact”. The commentor has a responsibility to VALIDATE.”
        Sure: google(dot)com. Try it sometime.

        Done; no where near 100 sorry!

        Anyways, I gave you a link to start- if you don’t like it, then I don’t know what to say. It’s not my claim,

        WHAT? You’ve supported his claim all this time and you say its not your claim? HA! Your IN now… proove to me there have been 100’s of suicides?

        even though I know how to google well enough to have verified it myself. I would expect that you’ve never bothered to consider whether it’s true or not.

        I have… i can’t find 100.

        “HOW IS A CONVERSATION ABOUT A GUY WRITING “in fact there have been 100′s (suicides related to scientology)” and me calling him a liar and a troll relevant to the question “how many scientologists are there?” ITS IRRELEVANT! Open a new thread and i might get involved with that question there.”
        It’s very relevant- why are you so scared to answer it? I’m very surprised at this, like you’re terrified of the question.

        I’ve answered it before… i know my answer and i know your answer to my answer, its a long conversation… PUT IT IN ANOTHER THREAD! How many fucking times do i need to ask you? STAY RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD which is you crying about me owning you, you crying like a baby and about the statement “in fact there have been 100’s (suicides)” in scientology with no data to back it up

        I’m not bound by your bizzare and arbitrary rules-

        THEY ARE RULES OF COMMON SENSE! Stay on topic with me… i’ll delete off topic… i’m not going to be here long enough to handle all your bank answers and “irrelevant other discussions”.

        if you can’t discuss it here, then I suppose I’ll just miss out on your brilliant insights and intellectual discourse.

        WHAT? you call all the troll statements by you “appreciation of my brilliant discourse?”
        HAAHHAHAHA! You are very rude to me you know… by staying off topic and NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS THAT ARE ON THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD.

        COME ON YOU IDIOT start a new thread… fuck i’ll start it for you!

      • Sorry, this thread is also about you trying to troll me…

      • “Did you learn how to troll like that here or elsewhere?”
        Only trolling by your definition. You don’t like it, you don’t have to partake.

        “DONE THAT…
        didnt reach anywhere NEAR 100… Face it… you can’t validate it and your happy with the lie to continue because lying to generate hatred of scentology is your purpose!”
        Really? Wow, you’ve really got me pegged. Tell me, if you really did that- how many deaths did you come up with?

        “I see no proof of yours either!
        Its just another lie to make out scientology is worse than what it is which is your purpose (and that other guys) in being here! NOT TRUTH”
        The truth does that just fine. The thousands of former scientologists telling the truth are more than enough. One doesn’t have to lie to make scientology look like an organization rife with deaths, crimes and other life-altering events.

        “Irrelevant. HOW I FEEL about suicides is nothing to do with “is the statement “in fact there have been 100′s (suicides)” true. Come on back up your troll buddy… proove to me there have been “100′s” of suicides!”
        Very relevant. I didn’t make the claim, but I do believe it to be true. But all the same, it’s not my claim and I’m not bound to support it. And, learn to read- it’s suicides and other deaths. How do you keep missing that? It’s very relevant; if it’s not 100+ deaths, how many are okay with you?

        “Done; no where near 100 sorry!”
        How many, then, did you find?

        “WHAT? You’ve supported his claim all this time and you say its not your claim? HA! Your IN now… proove to me there have been 100′s of suicides?”
        Can’t- the claim isn’t of suicides, but suicides and other deaths. I don’t claim 100+, but I think it’s probably true. How many did you find?

        “I have… i can’t find 100.”
        how many?

        I’ve answered it before… i know my answer and i know your answer to my answer, its a long conversation… PUT IT IN ANOTHER THREAD! How many fucking times do i need to ask you? STAY RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD which is you crying about me owning you, you crying like a baby and about the statement “in fact there have been 100′s (suicides)” in scientology with no data to back it up”
        Again- how many did you find? And, I say again- learn to read. You speak english in Australia, so I’ve heard.

        “THEY ARE RULES OF COMMON SENSE! Stay on topic with me… i’ll delete off topic… i’m not going to be here long enough to handle all your bank answers and “irrelevant other discussions”.
        To you, maybe common sense. To anyone else… not so much.

        “WHAT? you call all the troll statements by you “appreciation of my brilliant discourse?”
        HAAHHAHAHA! You are very rude to me you know… by staying off topic and NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS THAT ARE ON THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD.
        COME ON YOU IDIOT start a new thread… fuck i’ll start it for you!”
        heh- the person that has yet to actually form a logical argument calling ME an idiot. That’s rich.
        If you start a thread, we can continue the conversation, that’s fine. Don’t know why you can’t do it here, but that sounds like a personal problem to me. I’m on topic- you’re so fixated on particular details, you can’t see the big picture. I find that’s a common theme with lesser-educated scientologists.

        Like I said, if you want to define something as a “troll”, that doesn’t make it true. I think you have to define things so you can simply excuse them, rather than actually try to think about them. Classic.

      • Listen, Aussie Luke- you’re getting really repetitive. I’ve answered all your questions, you haven’t answered mine. So unless you plan to start, I think I’ll just move on to more productive discussions. I know you’re really eager for me to start a new thread, but I’m not too inclined to do what you tell me to do. We disagree- and I’ve been remarkable respectful to you, personally. You don’t seem to feel the same, and that’s okay, it takes all types. You couldn’t answer my question, but perhaps you should reflect on why you’re here. Obviously it’s not to change my mind, clearly it’s not to represent scientology as a sane, collected and capable person, and clearly it’s not to present information in such a way that would be attractive to visitors of this site.

        You’re here for you. You’re angry- perhaps at me, or perhaps at the thousands upon thousands that share my opinions. Go out, enjoy the sunshine, take a deep breath, and try again when you’re a little bit more collected. You’re able to focus on single points- I’ll give you that, but I see no ability to create chains of concepts and thoughts that build upon eachother, so no real communication is possible at this time.

        It was nice talking to you. I hope that you get an answer from the person that you accuse of “trolling”- you seem to really want to talk to them. Now, I’m off to make tender love to my dear wife; so maybe I’ll see you around later.

        ARC to you, flourish and prosper!

      • “Did you learn how to troll like that here or elsewhere?”
        Only trolling by your definition. You don’t like it, you don’t have to partake.

        So you are trolling? OK then! We’ll… start talking about FACTS ect for a change please?

        “DONE THAT…
        didnt reach anywhere NEAR 100… Face it… you can’t validate it and your happy with the lie to continue because lying to generate hatred of scentology is your purpose!”
        Really? Wow, you’ve really got me pegged.

        I know… you fuckhead troll…

        Tell me, if you really did that- how many deaths did you come up with?

        Even IF i decide to agree that “scientology is responsible for the suicide of” I still only come up with 5 people listed. AND that is being generous over a period of about 40 years. No where near the bullshit statement he says above with the purpose of trolling.

        Do you agree that the statement “in fact there have been 100’s” is bullshit then? Or can you find a higher number given you are here to defend him? And promote the troll action he has done?

        —-

        Those who have time for you on all the PAGES AND PAGES of IRRELEVANT TO THE THREAD QUESTIONS are wasting their time! I have DELETED SHITLOADS of crap from you. As each question comes from your bank, and every answer provided, your bank will come up with another question… i’m here to FINISH MY CYCLE OF ACTION IN MY THREAD….
        You want other irrelevant information… START YOUR OWN FUCKING THREAD AND GET YOUR ANSWERS…
        So yeah… people fall for your troll trap of “irrelevance”… they shouldn’t .
        “I can’t make him wrong here so i will try somewhere else” It appears to be the REASON behind constantly CHANGING THE SUBJECT… STAY ON TOPIC AND BE LOGICAL! Typical of those lesser experienced and educated on Scientology and “internet threads” to have such a troll related logic.

        So yeah troll mate… this is my last time online until a few days (weeks) as rain has stopped now and i have to get back to work… Have fun with all your trolling and irrelevant comments and making scientologists wrong ect… seems like a fun game!
        (fuckhead)

      • Okay, sounds good! Enjoy the nice weather! :) <3

  4. well, at least you’re covering scientology stuff again :)
    I actually wasn’t aware of this case, having confused it with some of the other suicides tied to the group. In this particular case, there was a lack of evidence due to the fact that ONLY the deceased and the father knew the exact circumstances of the death.
    But I have to agree with it, to a degree. We know how scientology feels about psychiatry and related medicines. We know that the father was a scientologist and subscribed to the teachings of the same. We also know that the young man was dead within 24 hours of visiting his father, after “deciding on his own” to stop the medication, without consulting anyone with medical training, then killed himself with a gun that he found in his father’s department. I think that we’ll see another suit against the father.

    • Clarification: I have to agree that scientology itself cannot be legally blamed without additional evidence, and cannot be legally blamed for this particular suicide.

    • Can you tell me one case in history where a man commits suicide and his father (or any relative or friend) is taken to court for not acting?

      • HI MRED!

      • Hi luke

      • Err Luke?

      • Yes im Luke too… I’ve just realised there are 2 Lukes who have been speaking in this forum and that Call4reform has been speaking to both of us with both of us not-knowing that there were two of us!

      • I really dont know how to react to that!
        Should i change my name?

      • Can if you want to!

      • Oh well i’m Aussie Luke now!

      • Can Luke and Luke discuss this on another thread!
        I just got alot of stupid email.
        Hello Luke and Luke. Now don’t Luke stupid.

      • You can turn the email off by the way MrEd

      • Sure! Peter Fonteece in 2010

      • Martini pointed out, above, that many people are on psychiatric medicine, and many of them in homes in with guns. Who “forgets” that they have a weapon unsecured in their house while their mentally ill son is with them? Why did he call a scientologist before the police, waiting 45 minutes to call for help? There’s too many questions. Whether or not there is legal repercussions, it still looks like another one of the hundreds of deaths in some way connected to scientology. If nothing else, it demonstrates that he was better cared for by qualified medical care, much like the Perkins tragedy.

      • Anyways, allow me to be very clear- I don’t think that the father SHOULD be held legally liable. It sets a dangerous precedent, and the evidence is not fully supportive of criminal negligence. I do believe that he should have done certain things differently, but I’m sure that he already recognizes this by now.
        That’s All State’s stand.

      • Just popping back in to clear up another misconception:

        The father did not wait “45 minutes to call for help.” Yes, he called his best friend Denise first after arriving home from work and finding his son dead in the bedroom. The father was panicked and distraught and in a state of shock and his first thought was to call his friend. She told him to call 911, which he did.

        Cell phone times confirmed that the call to 911 was made immediately after the call to Denise.

        The “45 minutes” claim was created by the defense attorney and based on a rough estimate of the time the father thought he had left to head home that night.

      • Oops, didn’t mean to say “defense” attorney. Strike that. The “45 minutes” claim was created by attorney Dandar.

      • Excellent point, Martini! Thank you for the clarification.

      • My research on previous court cases of simular nature hasn’t gone very far! Law is very complex. I conclude a case can not be brought against the father with the information I have found, but lots of information is not given to the media, and I am not very smart at law.


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

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos