Happy Holidays

It’s xmas eve and still so many presents to wrap and prepare for tomorrow… so only a short pointer to an interesting article. Otherwise: Happy Holidays!

Source: http://www.scientologynews.org/press-releases/christmas-media-advisory.html

The Scientology Religion and the Holiday Season

At this time of year, media often ask how Scientologists observe the holiday season. To answer that question, the Church of Scientology International provides the following:

How do Scientologists celebrate the holiday season?

Observances of the holidays are as diverse as Scientologists are.

Because the Scientology religion is practiced in 165 countries and territories, Scientologists come from a wide variety of faiths and cultural traditions.

But no matter what their background, they, like most people, gather with loved ones to enjoy the warmth of friends and family and celebrate the joy of the season.

Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard honored the great religious leaders of the past for the wisdom they brought to the world, writing that Scientology shares “the goals set for Man by Christ, which are wisdom, good health and immortality.” It is in this spirit that Scientologists celebrate the holiday season, whether Christmas, Hanukah, Kwanzaa or any other religious or cultural tradition.

Scientologists live by a code which includes: “To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to help my family, friends, groups and the world.” During the holiday season, Scientologists are especially active in this respect, volunteering in a wide range of endeavors to improve the lives of individuals and the community and bring joy to those who may need assistance.

What do Churches of Scientology do during the holiday season?

In addition to regular Scientology religious services, Churches of Scientology provide many special holiday activities for Scientologists and open houses and tours for the community at large.

Scientology Churches and their parishioners also organize and support numerous charitable events during the holidays, such as toy drives, food and clothing collections, and parties for underprivileged children. Scientologists visit nursing homes, orphanages, hospitals and homeless shelters, bringing holiday cheer through gifts and entertainment.

With the opening of new Ideal Churches of Scientology, community and charity events sponsored by the Church and its members are held continuously throughout the holiday season. In Inglewood, California, with its new Church and the nearby Scientology Community Center, in Melbourne, Australia, Twin Cities, Minnesota, Moscow, Russia and Tampa, Florida, social campaigns have their own dedicated spaces to get together and work out support actions for the community.

Christmas Stories

The Church of Scientology Celebrity Centre International in Hollywood produces Christmas Stories, an annual holiday benefit performance presented in the style of a 1930s radio show with traditional and original stories, songs and skits. (http://www.scientology.cc)

For nearly two decades, proceeds have benefited the Hollywood Police Activities League’s annual Christmas party for underprivileged children and PAL’s year-round inner city programs for at-risk youth.

Winter Wonderland

In an annual tradition beginning in 1983 when Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard provided a 60-foot Christmas tree as a gift to the people of Hollywood, Winter Wonderland holiday village is erected each year on Hollywood Boulevard as a service to the community. The opening of the village on the Sunday after Thanksgiving signals the start of the holiday season, when Santa arrives in his sleigh—always the final float in the famed Hollywood Christmas Parade—and lights the tree and village. Made possible by the Friends of L. Ron Hubbard Foundation, Winter Wonderland attracts more than 40,000 Los Angeles residents and tourists to daily live performances by community vocal and instrumental groups and snow banks imported for the season.

Winter Wonderland is also presented for three weeks each December in Clearwater, Florida, as a service to the community and to benefit needy children. The Church of Scientology and parishioners organize and sponsor the Christmas village, with ten of thousands of residents and tourists enjoying Santa, Mrs. Claus’s cookie decorating kitchen, live entertainment by local school, church and professional performing groups, a petting zoo and pony rides. (http://www.clearwatercommunityvolunteers.org)

122 Comments

  1. Some people here might find this interesting.
    I hate sky news personally, their Australian reporting is so full of shit.
    It may as well be called “Labor news channel”, as thier politics are so bloody one-sided.
    But I found this through them.

    http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=738681&vId

    • That IS good news. Any deception in the industry must be dealt with severely and decisively in order to protect the consumer.

    • Please stay on topic jen…

    • How is what she posted any less on topic than what you posted?

    • “Do Not feed the trolls”

      In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

      Wikipedia

    • If I am trolling then so is Aussie Luke, as neither has much to do with “Happy Holidays”. I just thought we were both celebrating government actions to protect innocent people.

    • Not really, Aussie Luke posted some news of interest to those who fight against Big Pharma and how they addict millions on dangerous psych drugs. Narconon is award-winning and the temporary closure of an Narconon branch is not good news in that fight. Just the opposite and the only reason I see for you posting that was to troll (create conflict) and be vindictive. (My opinion).

  2. A little late for easter, but just in time for Feast Day. Every organization which strives to benefit others deserves the benefit of both criticism and praise. The praise is provided by the members, while criticism should be universal. It’s a good day for us all to remember our role in bettering any faith, organization or philosophy.

    “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.”
    Winston Churchill

  3. Freedom of Religion applies to ALL religions, not just yours.

    Respect the religious beliefs (or non-belief) of others.

    http://www.thewaytohappiness.org/#/precepts/videos/hi/respect-the-religious-beliefs-of-others

    • No one’s denying that, Pat. You have the right to BELIEVE what you want- not DO what you want. That’s why people focus on the actions, particularly of management.

      • I do have the right to practice (DO) my religion. It’s called the 1st Amendment. Ironic, because Scientology is something one DOES, not believes, since it isn’t a faith based religion. Since you have no problem with me practicing my religion, you should have no problem with me practicing the administrative technology as well. Quit trolling

      • What???
        No one’s claiming you can’t practice your religion. Who’s trying to stop you?
        You’re not saying that people disagreeing with you is somehow infringing on your rights, are you?

      • Ah, so now you want to play Twister. Alter, alter alter. True squirrel tendency there.

      • No, it’s a simple question.

      • No, it wasn’t. You took what I said, twisted it into something I didn’t say then asked a loaded (assumes the answer in the question) question. I see your ilk do that a lot. Must be part of your anon primer.

        The administrative technology is part of Scientology. Management is using L Ron Hubbard’s technology. You disagree with LRH policy, which is something we signed on to follow as Scientologists. You don’t like it and have joined the 2%ers in ranting about it because it calls out those who broker it’s violations and can’t stand seeing Scientology flourish. The fact is, you say it’s oik for me to practice my religion then criticize it’s use. You’re not a Scientologist so it has nothing to do with you. Quite trolling

      • I don’t think “trolling” means what you think it means.

        You’re just all over the map here. I agree that you have the freedom of religion (your original statement, right?), and I’m asking who is denying you that right? Then instead if discussing it, you trot out your tired ad him attacks. You brought it up in the first place, then refuse to discuss it.

        Yes, many people mock your beliefs. I’m not one of them, although I certainly don’t agree with it. But that’s okay, that doesn’t stop you from practicing your religion. My point is very simple, belief does not allow one to break the law or oppress others, which is what people criticize. I’m not saying the criticisms are valid, only that you seem to be confusing the two concepts, either to try to portray criticism as religious persecution (it’s not) or because you’re personally unable to divorce the two.

      • Auto correct: “ad hom”

      • Nothing I said implied that I thought my right to practice was being denied. That’s why your asking that is twisting what I said.

        So, now… what law was broken? So far I have never received an answer when I ask that. You claim that laws are being broken. Be specific.

      • Did I make the claim that laws are being broken? No- you’re putting words in my mouth. I specifically said that’s the focus of the criticism. You’re twisting what I said :)

        So, to be clear, no one is impeding your rights? I never did claim that on your behalf- my response to you built on your post, it did not modify it. But, if you understand your own point, you are indeed sliding to the right to practice your religion. The 1st amendment, which protects freedom of religion, concerns one’s right to practice their beliefs. So, in your post- what exactly are you referencing?

        Does respecting one’s freedom of religion mean that I’m not allowed to disagree with it? Do I lose my freedom of speech because you gave freedom of religion?

      • It was implied by the snide comment “My point is very simple, belief does not allow one to break the law or oppress others, which is what people criticize. ”

        Quit trolling

      • Implied? So you’re saying that you’re only basing that on your own assumptions? But you’ve highlighted my point- no one is interfering with your freedom of religion, are they? You just don’t like the criticisms of it.

        I don’t think you know what trolling actually means- I’ve noticed it’s just a generic insult / ad hom attack for you. Trolling =/= disagreement.

      • Second point, no one has to respect beliefs, but they should respect people. That’s the key- I may disagree with your beliefs, but I’m not trying to prevent you from practicing them, am I?

        I have been respectful to you. You, however, quickly resorted to accusations and allegations. Why am I treating you with more respect than you’re giving me?

      • There it is again — that silly anon thing “so you’re saying….?”

        You could try a dictionary if you have trouble understanding the words.

      • You may want to do the same- I implied no such thing. You made an assumption that is false. Point remains, you’re putting your words into my post.

        Are you unable to address everything that I said, or are you only able to quibble over definitions?

        By the way, I’m not “anon”, so you can drop that ad hom. It’s not even an “anon” thing- it’s called active listening.

      • Have you ever taken a Scientology communications course?

      • “You have the right to BELIEVE what you want- not DO what you want.”

        You see. Right there you are saying that I don’t have the right to practice my religion as laid out in the doctrine, and as stated earlier you added in implied that what we DO is breaking laws. Again I ask you, what specifics?

        You, btw, have no authority to say what I or any Scientologist, can or cannot DO as part of applying my religious philosophy of Scientology. You also said “My point is very simple, belief does not allow one to break the law or oppress others, which is what people criticize.” in context of your statement that I don’t have the right to DO. You see. Right there you are saying that I don’t have the right to practice my religion as laid out in the doctrine, and as stated earlier you implied that what we DO is breaking laws. Again I ask you, what specifics?

        Now you’re harping over some question that is an attempt to ask a loaded question and you won’t answer mine.

      • “You see. Right there you are saying that I don’t have the right to practice my religion as laid out in the doctrine, and as stated earlier you added in implied that what we DO is breaking laws. Again I ask you, what specifics?”

        Pat- are you really not able to understand what I’m saying, or are you intentionally acting confused? I’ll be very clear.
        You DO NOT have the right to do WHATEVER you want. Do you disagree with that? Or do you think that you can do ANYTHING that you want to do? I never associated it with your religious activities, you’re the one that is making the connection, not me. Why are you making that connection?
        My original statement is very simple, but you address it when you say:

        “You, btw, have no authority to say what I or any Scientologist, can or cannot DO as part of applying my religious philosophy of Scientology.”
        Yes, I do. It’s called law. My point is that you have no right to break the law. Note that I’m not claiming that you are- just defining the left and right limits. Furthermore, I have every right to criticize. I can’t, and won’t, prevent you from doing what you feel you’re bound to do- but you can’t tell me that I can’t criticize. I have every right to dpeak my mind- but I will not go so far as to prevent you from practicing your religion. Do you see the difference?

        Then, you quote me- but only part of it. Why did you cut out the rest of my comment? I actually said, “My point is very simple, belief does not allow one to break the law or oppress others, which is what people criticize. I’m not saying the criticisms are valid, only that you seem to be confusing the two concepts, either to try to portray criticism as religious persecution (it’s not) or because you’re personally unable to divorce the two.”

        I said, very clearly, that I’m not saying the criticisms are valid; but noting that few, if any, are criticising your beliefs themselves. That was my point, which you keep ignoring. For some reason, you’re trying to goad me into criticising the actions of scientologists- trying to get me to “give specifics” about crimes that I’m not claiming are valid. Why do you want me to do that? Look up the word “implied”, if you don’t know what it means- you’re using it wrong.

        And how can you accuse me of not answering your questions (which I’ve done, but I’ll do it again, ‘I have not accused scientology of any crimes’) while consitantly refusing to answer any of my basic questions? You’re very evasive and full of personal attacks. Why is that?

        I’ll ask you another question that I expect to go unanswered- do I have a right to criticize the organization “Scientology”? And, if I do, does that interfere with your Freedom of Religion? You’ve still never answered that last part… Your original post makes no sense, as NO ONE is interfering with your freedom of religion. It’s like you posted something JUST to pull in criticism.

      • I’ll be even more clear:

        “Right there you are saying that I don’t have the right to practice my religion as laid out in the doctrine”
        Where do I say that?

        “and as stated earlier you added in implied that what we DO is breaking laws.”
        Where do I say that?

        You’re creating criticism for yourself- I don’t have to do anything for you to invent arguments.

      • I understand very well that when I posted a link to a video about respecting religious beliefs of others, you said you respected beliefs and went on to qualify that one couldn’t DO what one wanted, which in context means that you implied that we couldn’t practice our religion and break laws (which I asked you to be more specific on, instead of just being snide and make innuendo). If you didn’t mean that to have anything to do with religious rights of Scientologists to apply their religious doctrine because (implied) it breaks laws, then why add that in there? Are you seriously expecting me to believe that you didn’t mean that as a covertly hostile remark? Pulleeeezzee

      • “My point is very simple, belief does not allow one to break the law or oppress others, which is what people criticize. ”

        Well, I’m glad we got that straight. Since management applies Scientology administrative technology, which doesn’t break the law or oppress others, then there should be no problem. :)

        I still don’t understand what that has to do with the video link I posted on respecting the religious beliefs of others.

      • It’s just a conversation, Pat- and my statements are factual and correct. You’re creating controversy- it sounds to me like you were looking for an argument, so you manufactured one. So you took my statement and you responded with insults, accusations and assumptions- that’s very poor communication.
        Why did you post a random link out of the blue, but then argue against my right to build upon it? And why dod you post something that’s not even an issue, as you can’t even cone up with any example of someone infringing upon your freedom of religion or not respecting your right to believe what you want?
        And when I post the qualifier to your comment, outlining WHY people say what they do, and how your freedoms are intact, you fonpletely miss that.
        All it appears to me is that you were looking to argue, and you jumped on the opportunity. You never even discussed my point nor answered any question, whereas I gave you that respect.
        So… Have you anything else or are we done here?

      • I’m curious, as you r reaction was so very eild and extreme- aside from your mere assumptions, what about my original reply is incorrect?
        See, you post a very general and generic comment about religion in general- not just Scientology. And we’ve already agrees that it’s not directly applicable here, as no one is claiming otherwise nor trying to prevent your freedom of religion. Or are they? I guess youve still never answered so I reply to your generic comment with discussion- a fact that is equally true to Scientology as any mainstream religion.
        So why post something that you don’t expect people to discuss? Did you not know that people would read it? Did you not think that anyone would have anything to say?
        My statements are true, and I’ve been able to make them without resorting to ad hom attacks and while answering your questions- why couldn’t you?

      • I’m curious, Pat. I’m not aware of any organized, legitimate religion in which management has never done anything wrong or done something with which the body disagrees. All religions have had such a thing.
        Has Scientology management ever done anything that you feel shouldnt have been done? Are there any policies with which you disagree? Or, perhaps more historically, had LRH said anything that you dont accept or agree to?

      • Posted in the topic Happy Holidays on Easter Sunday. Very appropriate :). Have a good day.

      • by jove, you’re right! And I’m very glad that no one is interfering with your religious freedoms. In fact, here in America, you have every right to believe whatever you want! I’m also glad that you seem to agree that one is not able to DO anything they want, but as long as you’re following the law and social convention, more power to you!

      • I’ve grown curious- since no one is interfering with your religious freedoms, what are your thoughts on criticism of your beliefs or the actions of the church? Do people have the freedom to criticize?

        Also, all your talk about crimes made me curious and I did a little research. Do you hold the church responsible for the actions of the members that commit crimes? If not, do you hold the critical movement responsible for the actions of some participants that commit crimes?

    • “Yawn“

      • Nice answer… A yawn. Cool.
        I guess my concepts are accepted, then.

      • You are so busy that you missed the answer I gave. This trolling is so boring.

        trolling – angling by drawing a baited line through the watertrolling – angling by drawing a baited line through the water

        Wikipedia : trolling – posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

        Urban dictionary : Trolling is trying to get a rise out of someone. Forcing them to respond to you, either through wise-crackery, posting incorrect information, asking blatantly stupid questions, or other foolishness. However, trolling statements are never true or are ever meant to be construed as such.

      • It’s big of you to admit when wrong. Your definitions show that I am not trolling. However, by your definitions, you are. Please stop that.

        So… You gonna answer a question or two? I understand one rarely does when trolling, and your history does not include many actual answers. If not, I guess we’re done aren’t we?

      • Why, even your op was trolling, as you agree that no one is impeding your freedom of religion. At best, it’s just a wild random comment. Besides, from what I’ve seen, a troll won’t actually answer any questions asked…

      • Posted in the topic Happy Holidays on Easter Sunday. Very appropriate :). Have a good day.

      • by jove, you’re right! And I’m very glad that no one is interfering with your religious freedoms. In fact, here in America, you have every right to believe whatever you want! I’m also glad that you seem to agree that one is not able to DO anything they want, but as long as you’re following the law and social convention, more power to you!

  4. Wow… Louanne deleted all intellectual and mutually respectful discussion as to war record of LRH, including from the person that claimed his record was legitimate! And, what’s more, closed almost all discussion on this site.
    I guess this site is dead afterall.

  5. I’m curious, how do you scientologists here feel about management suing Debbie Cook? She tried to keep her email from the media, and even asked news outlets to remove their coverage. The policy of disconnection ruined her business and the only negative things she said was under oath. I know that many scientologists are disgusted with management for their treatment of the situation- how do you all feel?

  6. There is a new “what is scientology” video on Scientology.org by the way…
    Watch it! Its great!

    • Hi luke… saw it!

      • Luke… you Luked at the video?

      • Shut up!

      • Lol…

  7. HNY Scientologists!

    • You too, Luke. Flourish and prosper :)

      Pat

    • Happy new year Luke!

      • The same to all of you!

    • Happy new year. Do as Pat says, Flourish and prosper!

  8. May your future be one of freedom from tyranny and may you have the power to choose. Flourish and prosper.

    “The first principle of my own philosophy is that wisdom is meant for anyone who wishes to reach for it. It is the servant of the commoner and king alike and should never be regarded with awe.

    …”The second principle of my own philosophy is that it must be capable of being applied.

    …”The third principle is that any philosophic knowledge is only valuable if it is true or if it works.”

    – L. Ron Hubbard.

    From Scientology: A New Slant on Life, “My Philosophy”

    • Trolls hit even with good wishes! no surprise!
      Thanks for that quote pat and may you flourish and prosper too!

      • Sigh, Luke- always the first to call names. I’ll take the high road and say, “I’m rubber, you’re glue- whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!”
        Seriously, bud- the name calling is beneath you.

      • Call4… I am australian. It is my DUTY to tell you….
        DRINK A CUP OF CONCRETE AND TOUGHN THE FUCK UP!
        Complain again about name calling again and i will simply rewrite that same sentence…. seriously i know a 3 year old here who can tolerate more than you.
        Quit prancing around like a faire queen with all this crying and just comment.
        Not discussing debbie cook’s email or any of your questions here… start another thread and ask pat or someone and i might get involved, might not.
        I’m under no obligation to answer any of your questions or even talk to you. If i dont reply to you for any strange logic you have to the contrary DEAL WITH IT.

      • Lol :)
        No. I don’t accept that. I have always treated you with dignity and respect, you are insulting, rude and unable to effectively communicate. I think it’s reasonable to expect the “most ethical people on the planet” to be fairly respectful and decent, even online. The difference between you and me? I’m not a scientologist- you are, and you appear to be fairly insane. That’s not an insult, just an observation that you appear to be unstable. And you present that time and time again.
        So I will take the high road, even if you, a scientologist, can’t control yourself online.

      • Oh, I might remind you that YOU came here to talk to ME! Saying that you have no obligation to reply to me is fairly obvious, since I didn’t direct anything to you nor ask you to join in on this conversation. You’re welcome to, of course, but there’s not much point in talking to me just to tell me that you’re not talking to me, is there? :)
        And you don’t need to reply to Debbie Cook’s email- I would think, however, that any scientologist would rather follow Hubbard’s rules that the COBs.

      • Lol :)
        No. I don’t accept that. I have always treated you with dignity and respect, you are insulting, rude and unable to effectively communicate. I think it’s reasonable to expect the “most ethical people on the planet” to be fairly respectful and decent, even online. The difference between you and me? I’m not a scientologist- you are, and you appear to be fairly insane. That’s not an insult, just an observation that you appear to be unstable. And you present that time and time again.
        So I will take the high road, even if you, a scientologist, can’t control yourself online.

        CUP OF CONCRETE PLEASE! If you said that in australia you’d be laughed at. Scientologist or not!

        Comment by Callfourreform on January 8, 2012 10:39 am

        Oh, I might remind you that YOU came here to talk to ME!

        NO! I HAVENT! My first comment is on trolls… you agree you are a troll then?

        Saying that you have no obligation to reply to me is fairly obvious, since I didn’t direct anything to you nor ask you to join in on this conversation. You’re welcome to, of course, but there’s not much point in talking to me just to tell me that you’re not talking to me, is there? :)

        Yes so you dont waste more of your time….

        And you don’t need to reply to Debbie Cook’s email- I would think, however, that any scientologist would rather follow Hubbard’s rules that the COBs.

        Yes ron says to ignore… Read them again…

      • Like I said, you’re not hurting my feelings- you haven’t given me any reason to respect you enough to invest in what you have to say. But, you come across as angry, defensive, bitter and poorly controlled- why on earth would anyone want what you have to offer? Were you such a poor communicator BEFORE scientology, as well?

        Your first comment was passive-agressive- who were you referencing, then? Please do tell. Regardless- my reply said as much. But you continued talking of other topics.

        You misunderstand what I’m saying- I have no problem replying to you. But you seem compelled to reply to me. It’s flattering, really, I appreciate the atetntion :)

        “Yes ron says to ignore… Read them again…”
        Ignore what? The way that Ron said to do business? Did you actually read the email?

      • Like I said, you’re not hurting my feelings- you haven’t given me any reason to respect you enough to invest in what you have to say.

        But your compelled to answer! Flattering! Damm i’m good!

        But, you come across as angry, defensive, bitter and poorly controlled- why on earth would anyone want what you have to offer?

        Read the books if you want what SCIENTOLOGY has to offer.
        Go to scientology.org or go to your local library.
        Listen to me if you want that AUSTRALIA has to offer!
        People who swear like sailors yet have DEEP respect for all cultures. Its an amazing place to you yankie “dont want to hurt anyone but we will bomb thier country” bullshit.

        Were you such a poor communicator BEFORE scientology, as well?

        Its just Australian tone. You cry this much over so little gives me the shits. You remind me of my second grade school teacher. Not to mension crying babies of the second grade also!

        Your first comment was passive-agressive- who were you referencing, then?

        The trolls above. Trolls like you are here too i guess… Keep discussing debbie cook when the thread starts with “happy new year” and a quote. Even went so far as to put the whole email in the thread!

        “Yes ron says to ignore… Read them again…”

        Ignore what?

        You

        If you want to discuss debbie cook open a new thread with a question and i might answer it, might not. This thread isnt the place and its clear trolling to keep bringing it up.

      • “But your compelled to answer! Flattering! Damm i’m good!”
        No- I enjoy answering :)

        “Read the books if you want what SCIENTOLOGY has to offer.
        Go to scientology.org or go to your local library.
        Listen to me if you want that AUSTRALIA has to offer!
        People who swear like sailors yet have DEEP respect for all cultures. Its an amazing place to you yankie “dont want to hurt anyone but we will bomb thier country” bullshit.”
        LOL, I’ve read the scientology books. Some parts are actually well written. Now… who have I bombed exactly?

        “Its just Australian tone. You cry this much over so little gives me the shits. You remind me of my second grade school teacher. Not to mension crying babies of the second grade also!”
        I’m not talking about your tone any more, I’m talking about your inability to actually intelligently discuss a topic. You seem to prefer blanket insults and passive aggressive tones. That’s fine for you, but it makes you look… well… silly. Like I said, I’ve known too many aussies- they’re not all poor communicators. Most can actually form a compelling argument. I just think that you, personally, are so quick to jump to insults. You make my point for me better than I ever could.

        “The trolls above. Trolls like you are here too i guess… Keep discussing debbie cook when the thread starts with “happy new year” and a quote. Even went so far as to put the whole email in the thread!”
        Lol, it’s relevant. Someone brought her up, so we discussed it. Guess what? You don’t have to. But, then again, I really don’t think you’re read it, so you probably can’t. If you don’t want people to bring things up, or want to set rules, feel free to suggest them to the blog owner.

        “You”
        And yet… you can’t, can’t you?

        “If you want to discuss debbie cook open a new thread with a question and i might answer it, might not. This thread isnt the place and its clear trolling to keep bringing it up.”
        Now what would that get me? I wasn’t seeking your opinion, and I don’t think that you can discuss it. So, if you want to talk about it, feel free. If you want to start a thread, feel free. But I don’t think you have anything productive to add to the conversation. So far, history has proven me right. You won’t be any more able to construct a logical argument in a new thread than this one.

      • Sorry my bad…
        On ignoring the question.
        Ron does state quite clearly to ignore clear questions (and people) where “any answer is made into evidence of what they want to proove”. I dont have the reference here.
        Ron states that you are also service facing as well.

      • LOL, I’ve read the scientology books. Some parts are actually well written.
        You dont like what it has to offer? What did you get out of them?
        Now… who have I bombed exactly?
        You dont know who americans have bombed? HA! You really are in the second grade!

        “Its just Australian tone. You cry this much over so little gives me the shits.——
        me better than I ever could.

        You sound like SUCH A DICKHEAD!
        GROW SOME BALLS FOR FUCK SAKE! “your not talking intelligently!! WAAA WAAA!!” BABY!
        Just TALK. FUCK the insults if you have any strength in you at all. Every Australian knows that!

        Lol, it’s relevant. Someone brought her up,

        Yes a troll. DERRRRRRRRRRR Thats my point. You seem unwiling to confront that.

        so we discussed it. Guess what? You don’t have to.

        And i’m not. I might in another thread though. Have you tried?

        But, then again, I really don’t think you’re read it,

        I have.

        so you probably can’t. If you don’t want people to bring things up, or want to set rules, feel free to suggest them to the blog owner.

        MY POINT is bringing it up in a thread like this IS TROLLING… ISNT THAT CLEAR? You seem unwilling to confront THAT FACT or even discuss it.
        You bringing up the email over and over again further is YOU HELPING THE TROLLS!
        You need thetan glasses or something to clear it up?

      • “You dont know who americans have bombed? HA! You really are in the second grade!”
        Wow, good comeback potsie. No, ME, personally. In case you didn’t know, I’m not the whole of America.

        “You sound like SUCH A DICKHEAD!
        GROW SOME BALLS FOR FUCK SAKE! “your not talking intelligently!! WAAA WAAA!!” BABY!
        Just TALK. FUCK the insults if you have any strength in you at all. Every Australian knows that!”
        “The most ethical people on the planet”, ladies and gentlemen! A shining example of communication tech in action. For a non-scientologist, do you think that I want what you have to offer?

        “Yes a troll. DERRRRRRRRRRR Thats my point. You seem unwiling to confront that.”
        How are you defining troll? Anything off-topic of the approved post?

        “And i’m not. I might in another thread though. Have you tried?”
        Goof for you! You’re just talking about how you won’t talk about it. Acknowledged- anything useful to say

        “I have.”
        Okay- so do you follow hubbard tech or COB tech?

        “MY POINT is bringing it up in a thread like this IS TROLLING… ISNT THAT CLEAR? You seem unwilling to confront THAT FACT or even discuss it.
        You bringing up the email over and over again further is YOU HELPING THE TROLLS!
        You need thetan glasses or something to clear it up?”
        No, because there’s no proof that the thetan exists, so I don’t think it’ll do me too much good.
        It’s off topic, I would like to talk about it. Am I not free to do so?

        I’m off to enjoy my social life- enjoy yours :) See you later.

      • “You dont know who americans have bombed? HA! You really are in the second grade!”
        Wow, good comeback potsie. No, ME, personally. In case you didn’t know, I’m not the whole of America.

        I never said you personally. I said YOU AMERICANS… DERR…

        “You sound like SUCH A DICKHEAD!
        GROW SOME BALLS FOR FUCK SAKE! “your not talking intelligently!! WAAA WAAA!!” BABY!
        Just TALK. FUCK the insults if you have any strength in you at all. Every Australian knows that!”
        “The most ethical people on the planet”, ladies and gentlemen! A shining example of communication tech in action. For a non-scientologist, do you think that I want what you have to offer?

        Read the books if you want what scientology has to offer! I’m only what AUSTRALAIAN BLUE COLAR people have to offer. I’m not here to convert you! DERRRRRRRRRRRRR.
        Sorry all scientologists are unique and that is what scientology has to offer. YOU getting the chance to be MORE YOU.

        “Yes a troll. DERRRRRRRRRRR Thats my point. You seem unwiling to confront that.”
        How are you defining troll? Anything off-topic of the approved post?

        You dont know what a troll is? Look it up! 4chan is full of them and they are even proud of it!
        Basically a troll is one who goes on threads, knowing the sort of people that post on them, with the purpose of irritating them. Its an online term refering to nearly every comment made by “annonymous” on media article on Scientology.

        “And i’m not. I might in another thread though. Have you tried?”
        Goof for you! You’re just talking about how you won’t talk about it.

        OPEN ANOTHER THREAD AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!

        “I have.”
        Okay- so do you follow hubbard tech or COB tech?

        Not discussing in this thread open a new one please!

        “MY POINT is bringing it up in a thread like this IS TROLLING… ISNT THAT CLEAR? You seem unwilling to confront THAT FACT or even discuss it.
        You bringing up the email over and over again further is YOU HELPING THE TROLLS!
        You need thetan glasses or something to clear it up?”

        No, because there’s no proof that the thetan exists, so I don’t think it’ll do me too much good.

        Typical troll statement…

        It’s off topic, I would like to talk about it. Am I not free to do so?

        OPEN A NEW THREAD! The topic of this thread is CLEAR… bringing up debbie cooks email when someone writes “happy new year” and a quote from Ron IS TROLLING!!!

        I’m off to enjoy my social life- enjoy yours :) See you later.

        You’ll be back….

      • “I never said you personally. I said YOU AMERICANS… DERR…”
        Exactly my point- what does that have to do with me?

        “Read the books if you want what scientology has to offer! I’m only what AUSTRALAIAN BLUE COLAR people have to offer. I’m not here to convert you! DERRRRRRRRRRRRR.
        Sorry all scientologists are unique and that is what scientology has to offer. YOU getting the chance to be MORE YOU.”
        I’ve read the books- I find that they’re poorly constructed, often rambling and without a shred of scientific method or capability. Is that what it has to offer? No thanks, I don’t want that. But YOU are a real life scientologist, aren’t you? Not black and white pages in a book- you’re an actual product of the tech; is this “more you”? Has scientology made you more able to “discuss” things like this? IF that’s the case… no thanks, I’ll keep my ability to discuss logically. Honestly, I find that a lot of scientologists are angry, prone to outbursts and unable to discuss certain topics. No thank you.

        “You dont know what a troll is? Look it up! 4chan is full of them and they are even proud of it!
        Basically a troll is one who goes on threads, knowing the sort of people that post on them, with the purpose of irritating them. Its an online term refering to nearly every comment made by “annonymous” on media article on Scientology.”
        Troll: (Noun) Anyone that disagrees with “Aussie Luke”
        Seriously, you have a pretty wide definition, and it’s not really tied in reality. I’m not here to irritate anybody, but that seems to happen once in a while. You just seem a little more sensitive than most others. You feel “trolled” because you don’t like the topic. So… feel free to not discuss them. It’s amazing, but you can do that.

        “OPEN ANOTHER THREAD AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!”
        No.

        “Not discussing in this thread open a new one please!”
        No. I’m fine here. If you can’t form a logical argument here, you won’t get any more capable in another thread.

        “Typical troll statement…”
        Nope- an observation. Hubbard made certain promises, but they’re not observable nor based in any scientific reality. I don’t need thetan glasses because there’s no proof such a thing would work; I appreaciate the suggestion, though. Most people base their decisions on logical, scientific information, and can seperate what they “believe” versus what they can scientifically trust. Maybe not you, but most of us can tell the difference.

        “OPEN A NEW THREAD! The topic of this thread is CLEAR… bringing up debbie cooks email when someone writes “happy new year” and a quote from Ron IS TROLLING!!!”
        Then tell louanne- you can ask her to delete it so it’s more pleasing to you. But someone brought it up; you don’t have to discuss it nor discuss people discussing it. That’s all you’re doing- you’re not talking about the topic, you’re talking about pepole talking about it. You’re meta-talking. I have every right to talk about something that I, and others, would like to discuss. If you don’t like it, sorry. But I’m not going to do something just because you tell me to. Maybe you live your life that way, but I tend to be a little more self-sufficient than that.
        I respect scientology, as a whole, and the many high-level OT’s that are leaving in droves are doing so because COB squirreled the tech. He’s out-ethics and anti-KSW. That’s why there’s so few people like you- so very few that are on the net to say anything positive about scientology, while the number of vocal critics are growing. And people like you? with your inability to form a logical argument and ad hom attacks? You just keep pulling it in. That’s why the critics are growing so rapidly, that’s why the independant movement is flourishing.

        “You’ll be back….”
        Yeah… that’s what I meant by “see you later”. Wasn’t that clear?
        Of course I was back, I enjoy being here. Isn’t that why you’re here?

        You never did answer my question- have you ever met a clear, as defined by hubbard?

      • “I never said you personally. I said YOU AMERICANS… DERR…”
        Exactly my point- what does that have to do with me?

        AMERICANS:
        1. Must be SENSITIVE and NOT OFFENSIVE. And cry whenever someone insults you.
        2. Must bomb numerous countries

        1+2 dont make sense. You are going on in the way of #1… that was my point. Typical of Americans… if your going to bomb countries you may as well insult them at the same time. Hell atleast that way you have some kind of consistancy!

        Any way… you’ve appeared to improved, you’ve atleast stopped crying!

        I’ve read the books- I find that they’re poorly constructed, often rambling and without a shred of scientific method or capability. Is that what it has to offer?

        Wow one minute your like “they are well written” next minute like this? STOP TROLLING! It is what it is to offer… don’t like it? FINE, don’t talk to Scientologists about Scientology then! Why are you here then given you disagree?
        Let me answer… to generate arguements and annoy people: what a troll IS!

        Can’t look up the word troll?
        OK… here fuckhead…
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

        “OPEN ANOTHER THREAD AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!”
        No.
        Then im not talking about it! This thread is about the troll above.

        “Not discussing in this thread open a new one please!”
        No. I’m fine here. If you can’t form a logical argument here, you won’t get any more capable in another thread.

        Keep my posts in a logical sequence and keep threads on topic.
        I am demanding logical flow of discussion from YOU. My demand isnt much. Irrelevance is key to trolling. And politics for that matter! Especially in America!

        “OPEN A NEW THREAD! The topic of this thread is CLEAR… bringing up debbie cooks email when someone writes “happy new year” and a quote from Ron IS TROLLING!!!”

        Then tell louanne- you can ask her to delete it so it’s more pleasing to you. But someone brought it up; you don’t have to discuss it nor discuss people discussing it.

        I am discussing the fact that the statement is trolling. You have yet to answer or express an opinion as to weather it is or it is not, you have only brought up “how i feel about the email” which is irrelevant to this thread I have started. IT IS YOU that is being illogical.
        As scientology improves logic, that is why i can stay on topic and you cannot!

        “You’ll be back….”
        Yeah… that’s what I meant by “see you later”. Wasn’t that clear?
        Wow didn’t take you long. You must have one heck of a small social life…

        New thread to get an answer to this question please… STAY ON TOPIC… i may as well have that on my clipboard i keep asking you to do the same fucking thing

        You never did answer my question- have you ever met a clear, as defined by hubbard?

        Hey fuckhead! Here is a question to YOU that is ON TOPIC OF THIS THREAD…
        Is bringing up debbie cook’s email while someone says “happy new year” and brings up a quote trolling?

        Thanks for expressing your opinion on scientology books by the way. I understand you dont like them but understand I DO and havent found any flaw in logic to them as you seem to have.

      • “1+2 dont make sense. You are going on in the way of #1… that was my point. Typical of Americans… if your going to bomb countries you may as well insult them at the same time. Hell atleast that way you have some kind of consistancy!”
        Ah, so it’s the whole country, too? You’re loony.

        “Any way… you’ve appeared to improved, you’ve atleast stopped crying!”
        Yeah, I proved my point.

        “Wow one minute your like “they are well written” next minute like this? STOP TROLLING! It is what it is to offer… don’t like it? FINE, don’t talk to Scientologists about Scientology then! Why are you here then given you disagree?
        Let me answer… to generate arguements and annoy people: what a troll IS!”
        When did I say they’re well written? I would think that most people would disagree. They’re insane ramblings- mostly unproven but demonstrating a clear lack of scientific knowledge. That’s why scientology remains unable to be proven.


        “Can’t look up the word troll?
        OK… here fuckhead…
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
        My intent is not to elicit an emotional response. Just because you’re you’re feeling all emotional about it doesn’t alter my intent. A lot of people feel emotional about things- that doesn’t mean they’re all being trolled. But, boy, if you’re that easy to troll… you must really get worked up. I wish I was trolling you, you’d be a piece of cake!

        “OPEN ANOTHER THREAD AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!”
        No.
        Then im not talking about it! This thread is about the troll above.”
        gee- my loss, isn’t it? I’ll miss your brilliant insights and intelligent comments.

        “Keep my posts in a logical sequence and keep threads on topic.
        I am demanding logical flow of discussion from YOU. My demand isnt much. Irrelevance is key to trolling. And politics for that matter! Especially in America!”
        You’ve only talked about one thing- the number of “suicides” (forgetting that it’s about deaths). That’s not my claim. You’re not very able to handle many things at once.

        “OPEN A NEW THREAD! The topic of this thread is CLEAR… bringing up debbie cooks email when someone writes “happy new year” and a quote from Ron IS TROLLING!!!”
        No- that’s YOUR topic. I don’t acknowledge it, nor may I be forced into participating in YOUR thread. I choose to talk about different things. If you don’t want to, that’s okay.

        “I am discussing the fact that the statement is trolling. You have yet to answer or express an opinion as to weather it is or it is not, you have only brought up “how i feel about the email” which is irrelevant to this thread I have started. IT IS YOU that is being illogical.
        As scientology improves logic, that is why i can stay on topic and you cannot!”
        Yeah, clearly- you’re a perfect example of scientology “logic”. You can’t even see that, can you? Only being able to focus on minute details without being able to handle a real-world conversation is hardly something to brag about.

        “You’ll be back….”
        Yeah… that’s what I meant by “see you later”. Wasn’t that clear?
        Wow didn’t take you long. You must have one heck of a small social life…
        lol, buuuuurn. Believe me, I’m fine. But… you’re still here aren’t you? Isn’t it monday over there?

        New thread to get an answer to this question please… STAY ON TOPIC… i may as well have that on my clipboard i keep asking you to do the same fucking thing
        Where did I deviate from the topic? You’re the only one here trying to define the topic. Are you a controlling person?

        “Hey fuckhead! Here is a question to YOU that is ON TOPIC OF THIS THREAD…
        Is bringing up debbie cook’s email while someone says “happy new year” and brings up a quote trolling?”
        How can I know? I don’t know their intent, which is a critical part of your own definition. You should ask the person that posted it. But since it was already posted, I discussed it. Thus, no changing of the topic.

        “Thanks for expressing your opinion on scientology books by the way. I understand you dont like them but understand I DO and havent found any flaw in logic to them as you seem to have.”
        Really? I’d talk about them, but I don’t think you’d follow :)

      • One last thing, for your own knowledge…
        logical =/= focused.
        logical: “reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic”
        a particular method of reasoning or argumentation

        Now, enjoy your day! I plan to enjoy my night :)

      • Aussie Luke-
        You might be Australian, but you also claim to be a Scientologist. Please don’t announce your affiliation until you can represent it well. LRH taught effective communication and ethical behavior; while I sought that you have ever taken any of LRH’s communications courses, people will assume that you represent what Scientology is- to be blunt, you make the us look incapable and foolish.
        You can be Australian, and you can be a Scientologist- just remember which one you’re here representing. If it’s more important to you to be an Aussie than a Scientologist, then you might want to reconsider your priorities.

  9. I read the Siberian Bill. Nowhere in the bill did it say it passed. I’ll accede with your reference that it did, but data I’ve read also indicate that the intention was (whether written or not) to use it on all Americans. There was so much out-cry that the unwilling incarceration part was removed in the final passage. It didn’t fully get implemented until it was restored in 1980.

    As for Agenda 21, yes, I’ve read it and concur with the viewpoint that it will and is being used to herd us into camps (with resultant loss of private land ownership), crash the value of the $ so we can be taken to a global currency and that we will be told what we can and cannot eat with the sustainable food supply (can anyone say Monsanto?)

    That’s all I have to say on this. We’re off topic.

    • I think we did get a little bit off-topic with Agenda 21- as I recall, you had brought up the document in support of Mr Hubbard’s claim of 12 men that are forming a one-world government. Is that accurate? Reading the doc, I just don’t see anything that leads me to believe that I’ll ever find myself in a concentration camp. But, of course, I’m certainly not going to say it’s impossible.

      Now the Siberia bill is very related, as Scientology today still makes certain claims about the bill and it’s role in it. Freedom magazine, for instance, says that the bill would create a large mental health facility on the trust, a claim that was dissected as illogical in the bill itself! FM also claims that the bill was rejected by the senate. Which is a half-truth at best.

      Now, despite hubbards and miscavige’s claims, I can’t find a single shred of evidence that indicates that the bill was ever designed to or could even be used to support involuntary commitment, which was already in place at time under existing law. But certainly, it couldn’t have applied to other states- it was written for the Alaskan territory, which was not a state. But more that anything, recall that one aim of the bill was to reduce transportation costs, not increase them. In fact, the only reference that I can find anywhere is in a telegram to Hubbard from his son, while the bill itself complains about the way that the federal law treats the insane, which is with something akin to a criminal trial; the proponents of the bill aimed to change that. Now there were title 1 elements covering commitment, including voluptuary, but that was removed prior to the senate vote in favor of existing law. The stayed goal of the bill was to make commitment processes more equitable and with die consideration to the patient.

      There may be confusion over the reciprocity provisions, which allow citizens of the 48 states to be treated in Alaska if they were already there and required treatment prior to returning to their state. Likewise, Alaskan citizens could be treated in other states if needed. The 48 states had similar agreements at the time- funding was the primary issue.

      Even the scope of scientology’s actions must be considered. As you are probably aware, Scientology was not the first to send letters or lobby congress, but you may not have seen that the congressional record does not list Scientology as one of the groups that was significantly in opposition of the bill. Despite the opposition, it did pass in the 50’s, although much of the land was pulled from the trust in the 60’s and 70’s for various reasons. What you’re thinking of, with the 80’s was when that land was returned.

      I think this just highlights the importance of personally validating what one is being told. As we’ve seen here, the information provided to you was incomplete and inaccurate; it could be disastrous if one were to act on such information. Yet, Scientology sources continue to propagate the faulty information in support of its position.

      Michael

      • My viewpoints had nothing to do with an LRH article. You have a very strange idea that we as Scientologists accept everything quid pro quo. That’s just the opposite and tells me that you yourself have seemingly accepted something as true about us that you didn’t look for yourself. A basic truth for us is that it isn’t true unless we ourselves see it work in application. LRH could say the moon is purple and that wouldn’t make it true for me unless I could see it for myself when I examined the moon.

        A Scientologist gains by becoming more self-determined, not less.

      • Now, Pat- where on earth am I talking about what “scientologists” accept? I’m talking about you, not some generalization about other people that I’ve never spoken to. Nor did I say that your viewpoints had anything to do with an LRH article.
        What I -did- say is that you clearly had not read the bill before you formed an opinion. If you hadn’t considered the actual, factual information, on what did you base your belief as to the content? The information that you DID have was incorrect, and claimed ONLY by scientology sources. If not from scientology, how did you get that information? What I said is true- if you looked for yourself, you would have already had the information, and based your opinion on self-collected facts, rather than what others said to be true.
        What I said was that the siberia bill discussion is relevant, because it contains mis-information claimed to be true by scientology. As you would surely agree, one must seek truth and correct falsehoods.
        That’s not the only example, however. And I say that to generate discussion relevant to this conversation- it’s not an insult or attack on your fine character. You, for instance, once made the claim that scientology has, what, 8? 10? million members. On what do you base that statement that you present as fact? Another example is when you made certain claims regarding the effectiveness of criminon- if you had considered the actual verifiable data, you would have had accurate information going into the conversation. This is a similar situation.
        So, LRH has nothing to do with this; and, really, neither does your willingness or lack thereof to validate the things that you regard as factual. The main point is that scientology has made a claim and we can clearly see that certain elements are non-factual. We have accomplished what this site claims to embrace- the truth about scientology myths.

      • I did read the bill (reiterated). I also said that it, in itself, says nothing about whether it was passed or not.

        I am talking about a basic tenet of Scientology. We as students and followers are asked NOT to accept anything LRH says without first “validating” it, to use your term, empirically. In other words, it isn’t true unless we personally see it work. That’s not a generality. It’s a statement of perceived truth.

        What’s with the diatribes? Keep it short and simple so your message doesn’t get lost in endless sentences. (Use paragraphs, white areas etc. for easier reading and thus duplication)

      • Yes, I’m aware that you said that you read it- but only at a certain point. If you had read it BEFORE you rendered an opinion, you would have known certain things about the bill that you did not. But that’s not even what I’m referring to. You believed certain things ABOUT the bill- my question to you is very simple (and I’ll keep it short, per your direction): why did you believe that the bill died if you never actually looked into it? Why did you believe that people would be shipped to alaska for treatment under the bill? I don’t think that you actually read the bill before this conversation, nor took time to to validate what you had come to believe.

        How did you validate your statements about criminon? How did you validate your statements regarding the number of scientologists?

        But, again, even that’s not the point; my point is that scientology has made claims about the siberia bill that are untrue. Is that a concern, or is that acceptable?

      • also, maybe I’m mistaken, but I don’t think that most laws say whether or not they’ve been passed in the text itself. Unless you know otherwise?

      • You can believe anything you want. Nothing I say will change that.

      • Not so, Pat! I believe nothing, I can only categorize what I observe and create a hypothesis as to the reason for them. Isn’t it correct to ask you for your input?

  10. Now, Pat, asking you to have more facts and less reliance on your word is hardly bias. I’m merely asking that you try to back up your claims once in a while with more than just “because I said so”- what’s wrong with that?
    Disconnect if you’d like, and follow whichever policy makes you do so, but all I’m asking for is a little bit of honesty and full discussion. Louanne deleted your identity, and I’m not going to bring it up again nor the reason(s) that it is known. I respect your wish to remain anonymous.
    I wish that you had chosen to be honest, rather than continue to deception, but that is your choice and, as louanne pointed out, you have the right to be anonymous just as much as the online collective does, unless you or they choose to commit crimes. I celebrate your wish to remain anonymous, just as if you were wearing a physical mask, instead of a digital one.
    Not sure what you’re reading in my comment above, but you took it as hostile- I think you may have wanted to see it as such and interpreted it that way; that’s okay, it’s entirely my loss :)
    Anywho, have a great christmas, fellow anonymous person, I wish you the best for a new year!

  11. Happy holidays to you and yours! And you, too, “Pat”- hope there’s no hard feelings. In the spirit of the holidays, I’m sorry for sharing information that you weren’t ready to share. I feel badly about that, and hope that we can continue to have our lively, spirited discussions.

    • “Freedom is for honest men. Individual liberty exists only for those who have the ability to be free.

      Today, In Scientology, we know the jailer – the person himself. And we can restore the right to stand in the sun by eradicating the evil men do to themselves.

      Who would punish when he could salvage? Only a madman would break a wanted object when he could repair it – and we are not mad.

      The individual must not die in this machine age – rights or no rights. The criminal and madman must not triumph with their newfound tools of destruction.

      The least free person is the person who cannot reveal his own acts and who protests the revelation of the improper acts of others. On such people will be built a future political slavery where we all have numbers – and our guilt – unless we act.

      It is fascinating that blackmail and punishment are the keynotes of all dark operations. What would happen if these two commodities no longer existed? What would happen if all men were free enough to speak? Then and only then would you have freedom.

      On the day when we can fully trust each other, there will be peace on Earth.”

      -L. Ron Hubbard.

      Scientology: A New Slant on Life
      (Pg. 229; Honest People Have Rights, Too)

    • That quote wasn’t meant to be there but under the topic, itself. Oh, well, it’s there and I hope all flourish and prosper in the new year and that you achieve your heart’s desire.

    • Call, I have communicated to you many times. For whatever reasons, you have chosen to stalk a Scientologist and your note above doesn’t really handle for me the fact that you can’t or won’t accept anything I say, due to your own confirmation bias. I did not post as “Thetaworks” or “Theta Works” or whatever that persons online store calls it. I’m not going to talk to you about this anymore. Your stalking proved to me once and for all that you intentionally tried to create conflict and trouble for me, assuming I’m this other person. Cloaking a covertly hostile comment inside an apology is so classic 1.1, it’s funny. I hadn’t disconnected from you before (just chose to ignore you per the policy), but now I am because I sincerely believe that you’ll never change.

      • Pat, surely you must realize that you belong to a group that, for various reasons, makes People angry. Many people have a very deep emotional reaction to even the name of Scientology. And it’s not just critics! It’s a growing list of thousands of ex-members, public officials, etc. Some people feel that their loved ones were “taken away” by Scientology, while some were impacted by bankruptcy, suicide, fraud or murder.

        I think that people reason, at least it’s my impression, that distancing your real identity from your vocal pro-Scientology one means that you don’t stand by what you say- that you’re not willing to accept responsibility for what you say. It just makes it look like you have something to hide.

        Anywaaaaays… Its the public people that can make Scientology look good. People that post from behind a mask just make Scientology look that much more secretive and sketchy.

      • Also, too, kinda seems like your posts lack any sort of validation. People would wonder, why should they believe it if you won’t back it up with facts and won’t even attach your name to it? I mean, without facts or accountability, what is there?

      • Amusing, Limited. What’s your name? What authority or “validity” gives you the right to question mine when you come in with an anonymous name as do ALL here?

      • Ah, but I’ve never asked anyone up take my word without facts or verifiable evidence, have I? Apples n’ oranges.

      • See, pat, I notice that when critical people post a claim, they tend to include the information needed to validate it independently- studies, polls, etc. Yet you tend to rely on your word alone, expecting people to believe “you” while trying to hide who “you” are. It only means that you’d be more pusuasive if you tried more facts and verifiable information, since you font want your name attached to your statements.

      • Nor have I. So the fact that you’re demanding that I give my true name is completely irrelevant to the thread and more stalking.

        Something you should read
        http://freedom.lronhubbard.org/page084.htm

      • Anyways, take or leave the advice. No difference to me. But then I must wonder why you spend your time here? If you’re not going to effectively reach people, what on earth compells you to post? All you’re accomplishing is furthering the negative perception that sooooooome people have about the way scientologists work and behave. I assume you want to help Scientology’s image…. Unless you just like to argue.
        Like I said, take or leave it, I don’t care. But talking about your identity is rather boring.
        Just out of curiosity, ewhy didn’t you deny call’s post noting the connection between thetaworks and your post when he first noted the connection MONTHS ago? I’m just curious about that, because you deny it now, but not then…
        Oh, well, see you around!

      • The problem is, Limited, that the verifiable information generally doesn’t agree with her claims. Take, for example, her claim that scientology has millions of members and is growing… what information could she possibly provide that could support it? All polls and surveys disagree with her claim, and show it to be shrinking. True, more buildings are being opened- but go look at one. Most of the time, it’s empty. Seriously, look for yourself, despite what “some” here might claim.

        That’s why you won’t see validation, leaving her with only her word to rely on. And, since she won’t even attach her name to that, there’s really no reason to believe her over facts and figures. Instead, you’re more likely to see unverifiable claims followed by a desperate attempt to turn your claims around in a “sort of” tough guy attack. Like you said, apples and oranges.

      • “nor have I”
        Seriously, pat?? What of your criminon discussion? Number of members? Etc. You do that alllll the time. In fact, Ive rarely seen any “validation” from you aside from links to Scientology sources, including a magazine used to smear enemies.
        What do psychiatrists have to do with this thread?

      • By the way, pat- are you aware that the “Siberia bill” actually passed?

      • How incredibly funny! Since when do Scientologists have to defend anything? We don’t have to. I have repeatedly posted the basic tenet of Scientology by LRH on Personal Integrity. If it isn’t true for you it isn’t true. It’s true for me because I’ve observed it to work when applied. Finis. End of discussion.

        http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/eng/wis3_4.htm

      • And that proves the point. You favor Scientology references while failing to actually verify their accuracy. So when you do provide “validation”, it’s far from accurate and unbiased. And since you choose to be “anonymous”, we can’t count on your reputation.
        You can see the problem here.

      • “Since when do Scientologists have to defend anything?”

        Well, you’re certainly not :)
        But, you must see that criticism is growing, and your stated pOsition only fosters that. In short, it’s harming Scientology by encouraging it’s critics.

      • Again, (and again and again) you keep missing the point. I get that you don’t see it. That’s ok since you haven’t personally observed what I have observed to be true, so it’s not true for you. It’s true for me, because I’ve seen it work for over 41 years.

        I don’t have to prove anything to you. It’s not even open to debate. It’s just what is true for me. If I give a reference, then it’s because it’s true for me. You can doubt everything til the cows come home. Makes no difference. What is true for me is true for me.

        This is not a forum for debating my observations in life. At least I’ve taken the time to observe for myself. You reading about it isn’t going to make it true for you, unless what you read is something you have observed for yourself. I can’t be in your head to be your eyes on this. You have to LOOK.

      • Then why are you even here? If you can’t bring facts to the table (something that non-scientologists understand and trust), then what are you doing here? If you only have one real point… then why bother? All you’re doing is making scientology look ill-informed. I don’t think that you’re intentionally trying to harm the image of scientology, but look what you’ve done here with me- I was on the fence and came here for facts and perspectives on scientology. After talking to you, I really don’t see why anyone would want what scientology has to offer. Isn’t that harming scientology? Isn’t that against the code of a scientologist?(numbers 18 and 19)

      • (Sorry for getting involved pat)
        Limited
        If you want to learn what scientology has to offer buy a book and read it!
        Available on scientology.org and they go very cheap. If you dont have the income, go to library and read up!
        How is it you know about code of a scientologist and not about what scientology has to offer? Like, they are both so close to one another in the books!

      • Small point of order, many libraries do not carry Hubbard’s books. You can verify this on county library websites, but there is no hubbard book in any library within 50 miles of me. They receive it, but discard them.

    • “This Bill received scant public attention, and passed unanimously in the House of Representatives in January 1956. (The Daily Alaska Empire, Feb 20, 1956)

      It now called for psychiatric facilities to be built in what was then the relatively unpopulated territory of Alaska. The measure included provisions for a national commitment procedure which would have empowered any peace officer to involuntarily commit any individual to psychiatric care – without recourse. The person would then be shipped off to Alaska for confinement and “treatment.” (H.R. 6376, 1956)

      A coalition of citizen advocacy groups and members of the Church of Scientology, lead by L. Ron Hubbard, brought the clear and present dangers of the Bill to public attention. (“On Psychiatric Subversion”, article by L. Ron Hubbard)

      In late 1956, the bill was defeated. (“Bats in the Belfry”, Chapter 10 “Alaska Forever”, p. 159, by Ellen McClay, 1964).”

      You may have a misunderstanding on the architecture of Congress. It consists of 2 legislative bodies. A bill has to be passed in both and in some cases be signed by the President to become law. It wasn’t and therefore did not pass.

      • I assume you actually read the bill?

      • Sweetcakes, you can read it for yourself. The cites are there.

      • We come full circle. Louanne’s article:

        http://www.nolanchart.com/article5205-scientology-kills-siberia-usa.html

        cites at the end

      • The bill is in the first cite, down past Rees / Chisolm docs for taking over America through this bill.

      • Ah, then I assume that you haven’t actually read it for yourself.
        Nice scientology source, and I appreciate the attempt to post non-scientology sources- that’s a good thing, and progress, I believe.
        But you left out some information- you don’t seem to be aware that the bill passed the senate on July 20, 1956> Now, if you had read the bill that passed and established the alaska mental health trust legislature, you would know that its goal was to create a mental health system for alaska, which didn’t have one at the time. Currently, there’s 500,000 acres dedicated to the trust because of the bill. It achieved its goals. However, it’s clear that you never actually read the bill, so I don’t think that you’d know what the goals actually were. There was no need to include involuntary commitment procedures, since those have existed on the federal level for many years prior to that point- however, as Alaska was only a territory, it echoed the federal mandates and policies.

      • I’m curious, were you aware that Hubbard wasn’t the first to oppose the bill? The only change that hubbard made to the already-lively opposition was his one-world government type conspiracy theory:
        “less than twelve men. They are members of the Bank of England and other higher financial circles. They own and control newspaper chains, and they are, oddly enough, directors in all the mental health groups in the world which have sprung up. Now these chaps are very interesting fellows: They have fantastically corrupt backgrounds; illegitimate children; government graft; a very unsavory lot. And they apparently, sometime in the rather distant past, had determined on a course of action. Being in control of most of the gold supplies of the planet, they entered upon a program of bringing every government to bankruptcy and under their thumb, so that no government would be able to act politically without their permission”

      • How disappointing- I thought you actually did the research yourself, rather than just copypasta from the nolanchart article.
        Again- did you every read the bill yourself, or are you just relying on what you’ve been told?
        Anyways, it’s a moot point anymore, since Alaska is now a state and has access to the same mental health resources and funding as the other states. But, at the time, the mentally ill of alaska had few options and had to be “shipped” to the continental US for care.

      • Heck, don’t take my word for it- contact the people that administer the trust even today
        http://www.mhtrust.org/
        you can ask them if they exist or not

      • I suggest you read up on Bilderberg Group, United Nation’s Agenda 21. They are very real.

        The Siberia Bill passed in the House, but not in the Senate. Do your research. Not my job to educate you.

        I am pro-Scientology, pro-LRH and it’s hilarious to me that you cry about me giving Scientology references. I’m a commenter on this blog just like you. It’s not my job to put you on the fence or take you off. You have to do that on your own, once you have looked at all the data, and it’s not my job to provide it. You have gone ad hom, so at this point I say adieu.

        “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.”

      • heh heh heh, me thinks that if she had ever actually read the bill, that she’d feel a tad silly right now.
        For anyone inclined, here’s the bill from a neutral source:
        http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/1956_Alaska_Mental_Health_Enabling_Act_legislative_history.pdf

        interestingly, it specifically says that its important to get away from the then-current method of committing the mentally ill, which likened it to a criminal trial. Other than that, it’s most about funding. I see NO provision that would effect anyone aside from a citizen of the alaska territory. Nothing saying that people from other states could or would be treated there. Why would they? The whole goal of the bill was to create a mental health system in alaska comparable to that in the other states. As the bill stated, it’s ineffective and cruel to send the mentally ill of alaska to oregon for treatment, away from their families and familiar surroundings. I’m sure that the ill and their families at the time were quite surprised that so many people were trying to oppose the bill! (and, as te bill pointed out, the cost was unreasonable for transportation, etc).
        Actually, Pat, if you take a moment to read section 3640, you’d see that the bill itself addresses the “siberia usa” concerns, and deconstructs them quite well. It says in there that it’s illogical to assume that a mental health facility would be built on the land trust, so far away from population centers. It would be inefficient, to say the least. Check it out for yourself, it’s all there in the actual bill.

        The whole purpose was to allow alaska to treat its own mentally ill and to fund it through a land trust. Both of those goals were achieved.

      • “I suggest you read up on Bilderberg Group, United Nation’s Agenda 21. They are very real.”
        Seriously? Did you ever read THAT ONE, at least, or are you just repeating what you’ve been told there as well?

        “The Siberia Bill passed in the House, but not in the Senate. Do your research. Not my job to educate you.”
        Clearly it’s not! :) Look it up, it did pass the senate- that’s how the trust that still exists today was formed.

        “I am pro-Scientology, pro-LRH and it’s hilarious to me that you cry about me giving Scientology references. I’m a commenter on this blog just like you. It’s not my job to put you on the fence or take you off. You have to do that on your own, once you have looked at all the data, and it’s not my job to provide it. You have gone ad hom, so at this point I say adieu.”
        I don’t think that you know what that word means… where did I “ad hom” you? By pointing out that you’ve damaged the reputation of scientology to me and, most likely, others? I think that’s very relevant to your style of conversation. I’ve seen the data, but if you’ve been doing scientology for 41 years, well… Like I said, if all you can provide is scientology (biased) references but won’t actually read the material that you complain about, what’s the point?

      • Seriously, here’s the document:
        http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_01.shtml
        I’d be very interested in where you find a one-world order in this voluntary agenda that encourages developed nations to work together to help developing ones while maintaining the environment.

      • I think you’ve been disconnected from, Limited. ;) Your loss, to be sure.
        But, yeah, I’m not saying that Pat here is a nut- surely she’s very sane and intelligent, but there are some nuts out there that point to the UN as proof of some global conspiracy to control the world; including misinterpretations of things like agenda 21. It takes all kinds, I suppose. The only addition is that scientologists also believe that evil psychs control the world, too. That must be confusing for pat- who actually runs the world? the psychiatrists or the UN? Now I’M confused!

      • LOL, yeah, no kidding. I’ve seriously never heard “open minded” in the negative sense before. How would she know that I’m “not interested” in auditing or other services? Hell, I’ll try it. Am I still a potential trouble source for her even though I don’t fit the definition?
        Seriously, if you read the PTS categories (A-J), and add psychiatrists and journalists (who they also consider to be trouble, and type J), the only real way to avoid being trouble for a scientologist, and thus subject to the disconnection policy, is to approach it with a closed mind and a positive opinion of scientology! That’s a lot of people that they’re told not to associate with!

      • And I assume that you’ve actually READ agenda 21, rather than just going off of what you’re being told? Seriously- read it for yourself, what are YOUR actual concerns? The agenda has been in place for nine years, and it’s predecessor for almost 20 years. If that’s the “one world government” that’s up and coming, it’s sure coming slowly.
        Out of curiosity, what’s your opinion on fluoridation of our drinking water?


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

  • 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