Australian Prosecutor Got the Point

The Telegraph reports that Australia’s creeps have pulled in another loss today. Well, actually… here is the report:

Charges dropped for Scientologist

PROSECUTORS this morning dropped charges of perverting the course of justice against one of the leading members of the Church of Scientology, Jan Eastgate. (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/charges-dropped-for-scientologist/story-e6freuy9-1226337017187)

BTW, Jan Eastgate is not a leading member of the Church of Scientology. Oh well. I am curious if any other media that broadly spread the (unfounded) accusations last year will print a correction now. 

- L

PS: Yes, I closed most of the comment threads. Too much trolling going on vs not enough time on my part to respond to all of it. You can send me email anytime though: ll(at)scientologymyths.info

Update 24 April 2012, in The Daily Telegraph

(http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/charges-dropped-for-scientologist-police-felt-they-were-being-used-in-church-case/story-e6freuzi-1226337017187)

POLICE who laid criminal charges against one of the world’s leading members of the Church of Scientology believed they were being used as part of a campaign by senator Nick Xenophon.

As prosecutors yesterday dropped the two charges of perverting the course of justice against Jan Eastgate, internal police documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws have revealed officers’ concerns.

The charges alleged that in 1985, Ms Eastgate intimidated an 11-year-old girl and her mother into not reporting sex abuse allegations within the church. The girl’s stepfather pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault in 2001.

When the victim went to Balmain Police Station in May 2010 to make a complaint against Ms Eastgate, she was accompanied by Mr Xenophon, the independent Senator from South Australia, and the media. Mr Xenophon had been pushing for an inquiry into Scientology beforehand.

 When the woman returned four days later to Balmain Police Station to make her statement, she was accompanied by Mr Xenophon’s then-political adviser Rohan Wenn.

The police recorded that ABC’s Lateline, which had interviewed the woman, was screening the following week .

“(Senator) Xenophon is pushing for a senate inquiry into the Church of Scientology,” said the police in their internal report. “Following this interview (with the woman), investigating police are of the view that this matter … will be used as a political tool to push towards a Senate inquiry being held.”

An Office of the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions spokeswoman said yesterday the charges were dropped “because there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction”.

Ms Eastgate, who left Sydney in 1993 and is now international president of the Scientology-linked Citizens Commission on Human Rights, based in Los Angeles, said she had always maintained her innocence. Mr Xenophon denied he had been using the police or the woman because parliament had already refused his call for an inquiry into Scientology.

243 Comments

  1. “The circumstances, including my body and my parents, whom I may curse, are my soul’s own choice and I do not understand this because I have forgotten.”

    He says “my soul”.

    • No. A soul is not something one “has”, nor is a “self”. It’s individuation. I’ve also pointed out that Scientology needs no proof. It has never claimed anything other than individual gain based on personal observation. Your continuing to invalidate those claims by insisting on “proof” is anti-social and open-minded.

      Since you have shown that you’re open-minded, it’s a waste of time talking to you. Luke should also take note of this – refer page 219 Introduction to Scientology Ethics

  2. Ooooookay…

    • LOL

  3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-24/nsw-drops-charges-against-top-scientologist/3970176?section=nsw
    ABC took it up! I could have sworn they were going to ignore it!

  4. Cook link: http://www.scientologynews.org/statements/debbie-cook-baumgarten.html

    Xenophon has attempted to get an inquiry done on the Church several times. This was not the first. Twice, Australia’s lawmakers denied it due to lack of evidence. This 3rd time he tried to use the police to do it and when that failed denied it was for “meat” for his attempt to get a new inquiry,. So, it’s wrong. He’s finished. With this response from the police, it looks to me like he is perceived as a fanatic about his enmity to the Church. Part of the 2 1/2 %.

    • Pat, I know it’s impossible for you to understand this since you’re stuck inside, but for the outside world of non-Scientologists (biased or not), that statement is an absolute joke. It is embarrassingly pathetic. The church’s official stance is that when one person left, the entire religion exploded in growth? LOL. Even dumb people aren’t gullible enough to believe that.

      Those of us on the outside are intelligent enough to look for our own answers and consider what we read from ALL sources… not just the ‘scientology.org’ sites. I apologize that you aren’t allowed that luxury. Then we are open minded enough to consider all of the facts and come to our own conclusions. Yes, I know, LRH thinks being open-minded is a bad thing. Of course he would say that, so that his followers would never raise questions.

      Think about what that means for YOUR life. Being open-minded simply means I have the ability to look at a situation from all angles and then decide for myself what I believe. You aren’t even allowed to. I feel so bad for you. One day you’ll wake up and see what you’ve been doing to yourself. At least I hope you’ll see it.

      What does this have to do with Debbie Cook? Not much, besides the fact that there are enough accounts supporting her claims about the Hole that anyone allowed to see the big picture will easily come to the same conclusion.

      • This is exactly why all unbiased accounts show scientology to be shrinking rapidly. The ONLY organization that claims growth is scientology itself, while every survey and every study consistently shows shrinkage. These are the reasons why, because potential members don’t get the same “Good roads, fair weather” message that current members do. We see things from a different perspective, and have a growing number of critics, former members, lawsuits, criminal cases, etc, upon which to base our opinions. That’s why this case is bad for scientology- it may make scientologists feel good, to hear another critic silenced, but it only serves to cement the growing criticism and negative opinions of the group. You don’t think that the public sees this forced silence as a good thing, do you?

      • Exacty what of all that was on topic again?

      • Excellent question. It was directly related to the previous comment, discussing the specifics as to how there is a negative aspect to the agreement. If you only wanted to stay on topic, as most other threads are closed, I would be happy to talk about Jan eastgate with you; I just think that we covered that topic well, so the conversation has naturally moved into other topics.

      • Closed? I just commented! What the hell… this clearly isnt my thread…

      • Yeah, there aren’t too many topics here to choose from, if one feels obligated to discuss only the original post. :) but, I am very much enjoying our conversation.

      • “Pat, I know it’s impossible for you to understand this since you’re stuck inside”

        I’m not staff, despite attempts by critics to make it so, so an enemy line can be propagated beyond the critic’s sites. Where did this idea come from that Scientologists can’t post online? I refer you to the Hat of a Scientologist and Introduction to Scientology Ethics. I’m very active in the community and disseminating Scientology.

      • If I may, Jen?

        Pat, you ask: “Where did this idea come from that Scientologists can’t post online?”

        Because only a handful do :) but seriously- Where did anyone claim that you couldn’t? When she says “inside”, it doesn’t sound like she’s thinking you’re on staff, but rather inside the fold of the belief system…. And that you are.

      • Pat, It’s nice that you aren’t on staff, but I was referring to being stuck inside Scientology. As in, an organization that calls anything remotely negative “entheta” and strongly discourages members from reading them. And that’s putting it as nicely as I can. I would insult you and call you ‘slim’, but I’ll leave that to you.

      • Yes, thank you Visitor, that’s what I was trying to say about being inside.

        And thank you, Pat, for not arguing the rest. I lost a friend to Scientology when she disconnected from her husband, kids, and friends who were ‘outside’. I know, I know, disconnection doesn’t exist according to the church. Yeah right! I saw it first-hand.

      • Sadly, as have many. If not a documented “policy”, it is certainly a prevalent culture. Far too many people report extreme pressure to disconnect from enemies of the group. It’s wrong when any organization encourages the breakup of families and friendships for ideological reasons.

      • “I know, I know, disconnection doesn’t exist according to the church.”

        Critics would like that this is isolated to Scientology, but it isn’t. Down through the ages, people have left their families for what they consider survival necessity. There are those who think it’s alright to keep another from what they want to do, squelching will and purpose, thinking they know best. The only way to survive then is to either remove that person from their immediate space or relocate personally. Consider a scenario where a person finds that Scientology works for him (it’s not for everyone) and family hammer him to leave that which makes him happy. So, he moves out and chooses not to communicate. It’s rare and not something the Church requires. It is and always has been up to each individual. It’s like blaming Christians for something Baker did.

      • “I would insult you and call you ‘slim’, but I’ll leave that to you.”

        I wouldn’t consider that an insult. It’s on par with calling someone Dude or pard or kid. If v considers it an insult he can say it himself, if you’ll allow him to without preemption.

        I do consider critic sites to be “entheta”. Theta is elan vital, life force, survival, soul, spirit, spiritual, serenity, high affinity, reality and communication. Entheta is just the opposite of that and in our daily lives we are into using Scientology to help people become more theta. It isn’t a matter of not being allowed to read the entheta stuff, it’s an ethical decision that we make because we are working on the theta course. I find absolutely nothing constructive about what the critics have to say about Scientology because it’s a path to failure and misery for those who propagate it and try to drag others down with them. I choose on my own to stay on the survival course and create theta in my environment.

      • I happen to know that the Church itself pressured my friend to leave her family. There are also hundreds of similar stories covering decades available to those of us willing to educate ourselves. But feel free to keep your blinders on and trust your generalizations, whatever helps you sleep better at night. There is no excuse for a child growing up without a parent, ever. Your church’s actions, through my own personal experiences, clearly do not support this sentiment.

        “I find absolutely nothing constructive about what the critics have to say about Scientology because it’s a path to failure and misery for those who propagate it and try to drag others down with them.”

        Keep those blinders on yet again. Ignoring problems doesn’t make them go away, it just makes you further detached from reality. To borrow an earlier quote from Winston Churchill, “Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It calls to attention an unhealthy state of things.” Churchill is only one of the most positive influences in human history, I know I’d at least consider what the man said. If you weren’t allowed to learn about who he is, please do some research, you might actually learn something worthwhile.

      • In the end, this is just an opinion and a generality.

        I find, through personal experience with the Church spanning over 40 years that we Scientologist’s have always had freedom of choice. To blame the Church for someone’s choice is a wrong target and irresponsible. “The devil made me do it”. The term for it in Scientology is “Responsible for Condition” case and there is long-standing evidence that anyone acting this way was the same long before Scientology and Scientology is just later on the chain when it comes to blaming someone or something else for their own decisions and actions.

        Your position in this shows that you are of like mind.

        “The devil made me do it” LOL

      • I agree with Theta Works. Thinking that it’s ok to make someone responsible for one’s condition is not normal.

      • Pat- I thought you said you weren’t thetaworks?

      • Lol, you “agree”, do you?
        Pat, you messed up again, you were logged in as thetaworks and accidentally posted. Stop lying, you did this once before. No one is fooled.

      • It’s true Pat, everyone knows you’re thetaworks. I don’t even need to say how pathetic you look typing as two users. Obviously we have differing opinions, but you’ve proven yours to be ignorant and uneducated. You said yourself you don’t bother to read anything negative. That’s a GREAT way to go through life! Obviously you don’t know who Winston Churchill is either, which is fine. As for your sad metaphor about “the devil made me do it”, throwing out little quotes doesnt hide the truth. I know the truth because I’ve seen it, and I can read. I’m sorry you can’t see and you can’t read. Get back to me when you can post as one person and can use your full brain. I don’t expect that to be anytime soon.

      • So, Pat/Thetaworks,

        Are you saying that you shouldn’t blame a group for the actions of individuals? That’s an interesting position to take- do you believe that “anonymous” is not to blame for the actions of its members?

        Jen,

        You have to understand that this hits Pat/Thetaworks very close to home. You see, two of her sons despise and mock scientology, and her own marriage dissolved when her husband became independent. She probably DOES think that it was her own choice- but it’s the only one that she could have made. Basically, her belief system mandated that she choose her family or her salvation- once her husband was suppressive, she had no other choice.

      • I am not Theta Works. Sorry to disappoint.

      • Scientologists have self-determinism. It isn’t someone else making us do anything.

      • Right… :) “She” just (once again) replied in-stream to a conversation that YOU were having with someone, using your verbiage and your style, and has the same writing style, same amount of time in scientology, is ALSO named pat…. well, you get the point.
        Pat, if you want to lie about it, that’s fine, just be more careful. I’ve seen you do this twice now in the same way. No one is fooled. I won’t say which one, but one of your sons is very vocal about your role on this site. Have some integrity.

      • Do non-scientologists (such as critics) also have self-determinism?

      • Can you at least admit that this same “confusion” has happened once before, in much the same way, as far as the “pat is or isn’t thetaworks” thing? My memory might be going, but I recall you denying this same thing once before.

      • I didn’t realize the can of worms being opened here. Pat, if it’s true that you disconnected from your family, I’m very sorry to hear that. I’m even sorrier that you would choose your belief system over your children. I don’t know you, so I don’t know if that is true or not but I do know that this type of thing has happened many times in Scientology. You must be so proud. You’ve made your bed and now you’re lying in it.

      • “I don’t know you”

        You’re right. My family lives with me so I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about or who you think I am. I feel sorry that you’re such a bitter person.

      • “Do non-scientologists (such as critics) also have self-determinism?”

        That’s actually a very good question. Self-determinism is native to a thetan, even expanding into pan-determinism as awareness increases. As one progresses he becomes more himself.

        Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought

      • “I recall you denying this same thing once before.”

        Well, gee whiz Slim. I wonder why? Maybe because it’s true. I’m not the one asserting that I’m someone else.

      • You’re attacking me, Pat? I’m not the one who made claims about your family. I notice you didn’t address the person who appears to know you, so spit your venom elsewhere. I’m sorry that you’re in denial about the negative impact your ‘religion’ has had on thousands of people across the world. When you’re willing to educate yourself, come back and respond intelligently. Until then don’t bother addressing me, you know nothing about which you speak.

      • “That’s actually a very good question. Self-determinism is native to a thetan, even expanding into pan-determinism as awareness increases. As one progresses he becomes more himself.”

        That doesn’t seem to answer the question… I feel like I’m perfectly myself; how is that any less valid than your self-assessement as to your capabilities? That’s a rhetorical question.

        “Well, gee whiz Slim. I wonder why? Maybe because it’s true. I’m not the one asserting that I’m someone else.”

        Please don’t call me slim. I don’t like it.
        Pat, you are lying. I won’t communicate with someone who can’t even be honest about something like this. Isn’t integrity one of the tenants of scientology? How can I trust what you say about the “benefits” of scientology, if you’re not telling the truth about other things?

      • “Never receive communication unless you, yourself, desire it.

        LRH in Code of Honor

      • What does that mean, in this context?
        V25

      • Obviously Pat left the conversation, which I don’t blame her. It’s very fitting that she ended it by quoting Hubbard instead of using her own thoughts and words. If I ever reach the point of not being able to think for myself, I hope someone close to me would intervene and wake me up. Best of luck to you Pat, may you one day open your eyes to the real world. It’s a beautiful place.

      • “Lastly, pat, in your 40 years in Scientology, have you ever seen a scientologist do ANYTHING that a non-scientologist could not? With hundreds of thousands of dollars in courses, have you ever observed, in four decades, a scientologist do anything that I could not?

        I’m happy, healthy and whole, and paid exactly zero dollars to do that. But can you, after all that time, do anything that I cannot?”
        That sounds very familiar…

        Was that a copy and paste from… call4reform?

      • “copy and paste” generally implies that the messages should be the same :) you’ll notice that the messages you referenced… Don’t.

        But the concepts are similar, because they’re very common questions. And they’re questions that I’ve never seen a scientologist answer. Pat clearly can’t, even after 40 years! Can you?

      • Its not actually a question. Any answer to it can be treated as confirmation of the criticism the critic wants to say.
        The REAL question is “what can Scientology do for me?”
        The ONLY answer is “take your chance or leave it”
        Given a person on the net isn’t going to “take a chance” or “leave it” the result of the question is “annoy scientologist” which appears to be the purpose of the poster.
        IE TROLLING.
        I’m sure Call4reform asked it in another thread some time ago. due to the prolific number of posts in this site though, i dont know if i can be bothered finding it, should i ever get the itch, I’ll let you know.

      • ??“copy and paste” generally implies that the messages should be the same :) you’ll notice that the messages you referenced… Don’t.??
        Conversations get alittle complex here so i C+P my answers to specific questions sometimes… Sometimes it is unnessary but i do it anyway… I don’t see it hurting… That question above for Pat however i was curious though…

      • That’s a false dichotomy. It’s not ‘either/or’, but there are other options that you don’t address. What if the question is sincere? What if one actually wants to discuss such a complex subject? Or, what if one has simple questions about what their tax dollars support? Bear in mind that scientology, at least in the US, does not pay taxes- that means that I, and the rest of the non-scientologists, pick up the slack and pay more taxes to support the organization. That’s fine in many/most cases- the idea is that a tax-exempt organization is proving something of value that make the expense worthwhile. My question is very simple; what are my taxes supporting? My question stands and remains unanswered- what is the difference between someone who supports scientology with their taxes and someone who pays great sums of money to reach the highest levels of scientology?

        You ask me the question, “what can scientology do for me?”- that’s the same question that I’ve asked many scientologists. So far, it seems that scientology can do nothing for me that I can’t get for free.

      • As i said… the answer to “what can scientology do for me” is try it or leave it.
        Stating “i can get that elsewhere for free” is the same as saying “your religion has no validity”, which is what you want to say anyway. Thus it ISN’T a question just “trolling” or just trying to insult me for my decision for my religion, OR, an attempt to change the subject into “taxation” or other matters.
        Overall Pat’s decision to ignore aint that bad a one.

      • BTW… going on and on about tax dollars and feeling the “loss” of the money IS something call4reform would say also!

      • Ignoring is very valid if one is lacking an answer. Dismissing a difficult question as “trolling” is always a temptation, but the question is quite on topic and sincere which negates the dismissal.

        Consider this- Scientology is a very wealthy organization that receives a great deal of money from it’s members and pays no taxes. If it were taxed, those funds could go towards such essential programs as roads, hospitals and emergency services. I think, as a taxpayer, it’s very valid to wonder what this organization that I am supporting is doing. I hold the same standard for any tax-exempt organization; what is my community getting that outweighs the taxes that are not paid? There may be an answer, but I don’t know it- hence the question.

        The other part is a very direct and simple question; no tricks. It costs around a quarter million dollars to reach the highest levels of Scientology- what can a potential member hope to gain for that great sum of money? Do they “feel” better than they would if they were to better themselves for free? Is there anything more tangible than subjective sensations? My question is very sincere- is there any functional difference between me and an ot8? Can they do anything that I can not?

      • Got news for you, friend- a lot of people have that same concern. If you’ve ever sought both sides of the argument upon which to base your conclusion, you’d know that.

        A lot of that cones from the fact that Scientology won’t release the details of the settlement with the IRS. I wonder why they don’t want that public?

      • “Consider this- Scientology is a very wealthy organization that receives a great deal of money from it’s members and pays no taxes. If it were taxed, those funds could go towards such essential programs as roads, hospitals and emergency services.”

        Those funds do go to essential programs. Secular programs

        That’s why we qualify as a not-for-profit.
        http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology.html
        bottom of page far right column

      • “A lot of that cones from the fact that Scientology won’t release the details of the settlement with the IRS. I wonder why they don’t want that public?”

        Because they can’t. Simply put. Neither can the IRS so quit cher bitchin

      • Do they, pat? Surely some of the money does, but they won’t tell you how your money is being spent, so you surely can’t claim to know what percentage of income is spent on these “secular” programs.

        But, to a degree, I agree with you- although I have doubts as to the effectiveness of such programs as narconon or criminon (as the only studies that found any benefit to the programs were backed by Scientology itself). But, you’re missing my point- my point is that the organization does not pay taxes, leaving the community to pick up the slack. In and of itself, that’s fine- but it gives the taxpayer the duty of understanding it. The questions I’m asking are quiet fair in that context.

      • “But, you’re missing my point- my point is that the organization does not pay taxes,”

        So? Make me a list then, V. Take each Church and show how not paying taxes has harmed each of their communities and also show what impact each Church has had on their communities. Be specific here. Otherwise, you’re just parroting the anti-Scientologists who have picked this to bitch about with no substance. Maybe you could even get yourself published. :P

      • Pat- did you not read or not understand my point about taxes? If you had done both, you’d see how your comment doesn’t address my points- you’re trying only to mock, rather than understand.

      • It’s not a worthwhile argument. Understanding is not Pat’s MO, but such is the case when you’re close-minded and not willing to learn. I have to hand it to Pat. Her faith is unwavering in the face of so much common sense and free knowledge available. Lol who needs morals or a family when you have faith.

      • Pat / Thetaworks-

        “Because they can’t. Simply put. Neither can the IRS so quit cher bitchin”
        Yes, they can. In fact, only they can. Brush up on tax law and you can see that for yourself. It must need brushing up, since you make a claim, so I’m assuming that you base that on some measure of research, yes? Since they’re the only ones that legally can… why don’t they?

        Besides, if scientology is claiming that their programs, such as narconon or criminon are providing value to the community, is it not reasonable to ask that those claims be validated? As it stands, they have not been validated- quite the opposite in fact. Why should I support a program that has no basis in science or effective research? Unless you still believe that drugs are stored in fat cells and that they can be released some time later resulting in “flashbacks”. Oh, I’d be interested in hearing what you think about that one :)

        Jen-

        Sadly, you’re very right. It’s clear that she’s only using “half” of the story as research, and ignoring all independant or validated research. Otherwise, she wouldn’t make some of the claims that she does.

      • “Ignoring is very valid if one is lacking an answer. Dismissing a difficult question as “trolling” is always a temptation, but the question is quite on topic and sincere which negates the dismissal.”

        Its trolling dude!

        or even “Can they do anything that I can not?”

        Take Scientology or leave it! People have made thier claims, if you disbelieve them, fine, take it or leave it! No one can force you to study it or get auditing.
        Given i can see you are not “taking it” or “leaving it” (you are still here) the only reason i can see you to be here is to troll.
        Quit changing topic to taxation please.

      • Aussie Luke,

        They’re actually questions; questions that should be simple to answer. So far, not one has. In fact, many of the claims would be trivial to demonstrate; I’m asking only why they are not. And if they cannot be, why are they still claims?

        You don’t have to answer them, or you can simply use the standard cop-out of “take it or leave it,” but I choose to fully explore the issue and gain more knowledge. I have studied, but I don’t desire auditing. But, there are claims that are made that, every time they’re asked about, suddenly the conversation shifts or I’m called names. It doesn’t bother me, to be called names, but it’s frustrating when that’s the answer to a legitimate question. It really makes me wonder why someone (not you, in general) would brag about their increased ability to communicate if they can’t even answer very specific questions related to the topic.

        How, please, do YOU define trolling? We’ve seen Pat’s definition; what is yours? As you’re so quick to call me one- what exactly are you calling me?

        What, then, is the purpose of this blog if not to answer questions related to scientology? “Ask if you dare!” The site challenges… I say to that, “I have asked… answer if you can.”

        Taxation is not actually a topic- it’s a supporting concept to why a non-scientologist is morally obligated to understanding scientology. If you don’t want to answer, please do not.

    • Yeah your right pat… Xenophon wasn’t gettting what he wanted through the senate at all…

      • Yep :)

      • Apologies, posted in wrong portion.

    • For Jen, I think this kind of sums up the relative importance you have on sticking it out with family no matter how abusive they are:

      “While the family unit is an important building block for a viable society, the blood relationships between bodies do not dictate what are the optimum relationships between beings. Biology is not sacred, nor does it define our beingness. ”

      From Laurie Hamilton on AllExperts

      I chose the Code of Honor because it’s a Code that I want to live by, not because LRH wrote words. Give it up, dear. I’m not interested in being “converted”.

      • Oh, and Jen, Your oft repeated quote by Churchill might be valid if what one is being critical of was truly unhealthy. In the case of your attacks on Scientology, I’m afraid that you’re taking it out of context and misapplying it.

      • And yes, this is Pat. I purposely logged in as thetaworks (sorry TW). I like that name.

      • Pat, why single me out and not the poster who knows your family details? Should I feel honored?

        Anyway, so you’ve proven that family relationships are not your top priority (and consider that a good thing!!); you are, in fact, thetaworks; and you will never be converted. I don’t know why you thought I was trying to convert you. I never mentioned my religion and I never bashed the religious beliefs of Scientology or Hubbard. I critized some of the corrupt actions of the church, actions I’ve seen for myself.

        And since you aren’t willing to educate yourself, YOU are the one misapplying Churchill’s quote. It applies perfectly to this situation. Anyone with an open mind (ie. anyone willing to learn) can see that. Unfortunately, that is not you. Feel free to keep your head buried in the sand, just don’t pretend to be intelligent or knowledgeable. You aren’t. Now go attack someone else, we’ll never agree and you’ll probably never know who Churchill is.

      • Now I’m confused. Pat, why are you now admitting you’re thetaworks after blatantly denying it for so long? I mean, Im glad you’re finally being honest, but why did you lie before? And if you lied about that, what else were you not honest about?

      • How did I single you out? You have posted that you felt disconnecting from abusive family is wrong. Evidently, the family takes precedence over personal survival. (At least that’s how it appears since you complained about Scientologists making those decisions when their survival is threatened).

        I was merely responding to your origination. If you don’t want me to put you straight on your misconceptions then don’t bring it up.

        BTW, I have studied Scientology for over 40 years and have found knowledge that works. The Code of Honor is part of that which I have personally experienced to work and so it’s true for me. I quote LRH because what he says is true for me. I don’t really care what you think. “Never desire to be liked or admired” (another code from the Code of Honor). Again, if you don’t like that, and it doesn’t work for you, then fine. Same with any doctrine in Scientology. No one is making you use it, so get on with your life already and go help someone.

      • You have an open mind? Oh, dear. That explains things

        This is what that means in Scientology

        “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 effort ‘to convince them’.

        Introduction to Scientology Ethics, page 219

      • V25, I deliberately posted as thetaworks because I was making a point that anyone can do that. You’re too obvious in your ad homs

      • No, pat. You’re lying. You see, you were logged into wordpress as thetaworks when you posted. There’s ways to tell that I won’t get into. Or did you illegally hack thetawork’s account? It’s one or the other. You’re either a liar or a criminal. Which is it?

      • “You have posted that you felt disconnecting from abusive family is wrong”
        How on earth can you say that’s wrong, Pat? How on earth can you make a judgement as to the experiences of others?

        “Evidently, the family takes precedence over personal survival. (At least that’s how it appears since you complained about Scientologists making those decisions when their survival is threatened).”
        Dear God, do you have any idea how that sounds to a non-scientologist?

        “I have studied Scientology for over 40 years and have found knowledge that works”
        Funny, I’ve heard Thetaworks say that before, too… So you’re saying that you just happen to post as thetaworks once in a while, and you have been in scientology for the same amount of time, and you’ve BOTH had your families broken up by scientology AND you both rant insanely about the secret government conspiracy (Agenda 21, fluoride in the water)? You two have so much in common!

        “so get on with your life already and go help someone.”
        Are you making the assumption that she’s not?
        You are starting from the assumption that scientology has universal benefit based on your personal experiences. COnversely, Jen (and thousands of others) believe that there are problems and issues based on THEIR OWN personal experiences and observations. Why are your personal experiences (your subjective experiences) any more valid than Jen’s? or mine?

        “You have an open mind? Oh, dear. That explains things”
        Yes, Jen- to a scientologist, “open-minded” is an insult :)
        But, Pat, Jen said only that she has an open mind; she didn’t put it in the context of hubbard’s “ethics”, and I haven’t seen her say that she has “no personal hopes or desires for auditing or knowingness”. Why do you assume such a thing? Are you not open minded in general, meaning that you are closed-minded to new ideas and concepts?

        I don’t really expect the truth from you here, Pat. You have no credibility, as you’ve been lying for some time. Why are you lying? Why can’t you be honest about this?

      • Why would I care what Scientology’s made-up definition of open minded is? Here is the dictionary definition used by the rest of the English speaking world:

        open minded: receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others.

        Wow that is such a bad thing, I must be an awful person!!! I believe Writer has aptly responded to the rest of your other laughable arguments. I will stop trying to spread knowledge to you, Pat. Enjoy your ‘religion’ and please don’t pretend to know the first thing about me.

      • “open minded: receptive to new and different ideas or the opinions of others. ”

        Same idea. Scientology ethics comes in when a person causes trouble when he uses that to alter the workable Scientology technology, or thinks that it would be better “done this way or that”.

        and writer.

        “You have posted that you felt disconnecting from abusive family is wrong”
        ‘How on earth can you say that’s wrong, Pat? ‘

        I didn’t I was referring to what Jen said.

        “Dear God, do you have any idea how that sounds to a non-scientologist? ”

        Do you have any idea how it sounds when a non-Scientologist complains about us without ever reading a book or taking a service to find out for themselves? It’s a testimony to how todays children are being indoctrinated to only believe what “authorities” say.

        I haven’t said anything here about Agenda 21, but while we’re on the subject, you should look it up on the United Nations website. It’s real and Obama has signed us into it with a recent executive
        order. One world government. Here’s the link:
        http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

      • Another lie? Or did you forget saying:

        “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”
        - Pat on December 28, 2011 7:16 am

        In the happy holidays thread. I think that moon-battery was debunked there, but that’s from the same paranoid insanity that leads people to cry about the fluoride in the water (which im assuming that you also have an opinion on). If you had actually read the measure (which has been in place for years and years, not just since Obama), you would surely be able to point out exactly where the new world order will be coming- because a small number of people have been claiming this for some time. And yet, I’m still living in my own home and we’re not under one world order.

        “Do you have any idea how it sounds when a non-Scientologist complains about us without ever reading a book or taking a service to find out for themselves? It’s a testimony to how todays children are being indoctrinated to only believe what “authorities” say.”

        Well, I have. As have thousands of former members with similar stories of abuse and corruption. What of them?
        But one can criticize without being a part of something. How can you complain about psychiatry if you’ve never been a patient, pat?
        How can you complain about drugs if you’ve never been a user? But, see, the public pays for Scientology (as scientology does not pay taxes, yes?)- that gives us a right to complain about it.

        Aside, one doesn’t need to eat the apple to know its rotten.

      • According to your link, agenda 21 was drafted TWENTY years ago. So… Where’s your one world order?
        I’m just going to hazard a guess… Youre a Ron Paul supporter, yes?

      • Lastly, pat, in your 40 years in Scientology, have you ever seen a scientologist do ANYTHING that a non-scientologist could not? With hundreds of thousands of dollars in courses, have you ever observed, in four decades, a scientologist do anything that I could not?

        I’m happy, healthy and whole, and paid exactly zero dollars to do that. But can you, after all that time, do anything that I cannot?

      • “It’s a testimony to how todays children are being indoctrinated to only believe what “authorities” say.”

        Very, very curious pat- is there anything at all that hubbard said that you disagree with?

      • “Do you have any idea how it sounds when a non-Scientologist complains about US without ever reading a book or taking a service to find out for themselves?”
        (capitalization is mine)
        That’s the problem, pat. You seem to take legitimate criticism of management as an attack against you personally. No one’s attacking you, pat- or are you management?
        It’s much like your accusations about my country’s leadership- are you attacking me personally when you attack my “management” (political leadership)?

      • “According to your link, agenda 21 was drafted TWENTY years ago.”

        So? That makes it less true? lol
        You aren’t going to see this in the main stream media. Check the alternate news sites, better yet, google “Agenda 21 and ICLEI”

      • “That’s the problem, pat. You seem to take legitimate criticism of management as an attack against you personally.”

        What criticism of management did I take as a personal attack?

      • “BOTH had your families broken up by scientology ”

        What have you been drinking? Please show me where Thetaworks or Pat ever said that.

      • “Well, I have. As have thousands of former members with similar stories of abuse and corruption. What of them?”

        You mean, like DM beating people when it was documented he was thousands of miles away? LOL

      • I can think of lots of things that a Scientologist can do that a non-Scientologist can’t.

        1) Use the ARC triangle to repair a relationship
        2) Use the Tone Scale to bring someone out of grief or anger
        3) Knowingly operate exterior to one’s body.
        4) Use a touch assist to speed up healing
        etc. etc. etc.

      • “So? That makes it less true? lol
        You aren’t going to see this in the main stream media. Check the alternate news sites, better yet, google “Agenda 21 and ICLEI””
        Absolutely it does. It’s much like the people that have been predicting the end of the world for centuries- every year that passes that it doesn’t happen lends creedence to the possibility that, hey, maybe this isn’t some massive world-wide conspiracy. But, I’m open-minded (in the classsic sense of the word), so I’ll wait and see. But it surely sounds right up there with the theories of flouride in the water and shadow governments. It sounds… interesting…
         
        “What criticism of management did I take as a personal attack?”
        I told you already- maybe you missed it. You said, “Do you have any idea how it sounds when a non-Scientologist complains about US without ever reading a book or taking a service to find out for themselves?” No one was complaining about “you” (as you included yourself in the “us”) nor scientologists in general. They were complaining about management- you seem to take that as a personal attack (by your comment).
         
        “What have you been drinking? Please show me where Thetaworks or Pat ever said that.”
        Wait… which one are you right now? I won’t speak for writer, but he seems to have some indication of that. I’ll leave that one to him. Are we still pretending that you’re not thetaworks? Does she know you logged into her wordpress account? (hint: there’s ways to tell)
         
        “You mean, like DM beating people when it was documented he was thousands of miles away? LOL”
        That’s one of the many examples, yes. There are thousands and thousands of more, so I’m not sure why you pick one example. Please tell me, the only “documented evidence” that I’m aware of was a day planner produced AFTER the claims were made. Was there something that I missed?
         
        “I can think of lots of things that a Scientologist can do that a non-Scientologist can’t.”
        But isn’t an understanding of the tone scale and arc triangle free knowledge? You don’t have to pay for that. To be honest, it’s all based on well-established psychology and sociology; none of that is new or groundbreaking. So there’s many ways to achieve those same goals.
        But I’m very curious about 3 and 4, as they could be so easily demonstrated; could a scientologist leave their body at will and, say, view a remote object?

      • To be very specific, my question is what makes the cost worth it?
        If you’re talking about the simple concept map saying that Affinity, Reality and Communication is related- that’s common knowledge that long-precedes hubbard. But, I’ll give you that- the same end-state can be achieved by non-scientologists, but they wouldn’t call it the “ARC Triangle”. But that’s much like saying that an atheist can’t use prayer to repair their life… it’s true, but they have different names for what they do.
        So, then the tone scale… you can have that one, too. There are far more widely accepted theories out there that speak to the same concept but without the same conclusions, assuming that you’re referring to the tone scale as described by LRH, which links people with chronic anger to arthritis and covertly hostile people to be prone to homosexuality. But, that’s one philosophy to reach the same goal, which is fine. Like I said, it’s much like saying that I use prayer to fix problems in my life- just as valid of it “works for me”.
        But, some of your claims aren’t quiet so subjective. Some are actually quite objective scientifically-based claims, which is my greatest interest. I would pay a quarter million dollars if I had the ability to exteriorize or “heal” someone with touch (which, by the way, has it’s roots in reiki and other long-established beliefs). But, before I did so, I’d really want to make sure it was objectively real. Why has such a thing never been independently validated? If someone could really exteriorize, why aren’t they using that ability to explore remote corners of the galaxy? If someone can help someone with a touch assist, why can’t they use it on ailments that couldn’t be healed by the comfort of touch and companionship alone (for example, aids, cancer, etc?). In other words, what’s the utility of scientology if the greatest “abilities” can’t seem to be used on anything that isn’t readily explained by scientific understanding and natural factors?
        Or, is there some reason why a scientologist WOULDN’T want to use their abilities to help rescue hostages in a dangerous situation, or save the government billions of dollars by exploring the universe for them, or clearing our hospitals? Or maybe using their advanced IQ to make scientific discoveries worthy of the nobel prize? Or ending the devastating effects of terrorism around the globe?  Couldn’t a group of OT8′s do that?
        What I don’t understand is, is it wrong to ask for evidence of what should be very easy to demonstrate and could benefit so many?

      • Who says they aren’t? (Doing something about the planet)

        In all of this, you’re still trying to compare Scientology to something else.

        Scientology deals with the spiritual. Assists help thetans heal their own bodies. It, itself is just that – an assist. Scientology makes no claim to curing body illnesses or disease. That’s the purview of the Medical Doctor.

        Spiritually caused illnesses (psychomatic) are Scientology’s concern. Scientology’s beef with Psychology and Psychiatry are that they claim there is no soul, so treat psychoses with drugs.

        By the way, based on your response to my asking you to google “Agenda 21 and ICLEI”, you didn’t.

      • Indeed I did- I see official sources an conspiracy nuts- what am I missing? Many people believe David Icke’s “lizard people” theory, and you can find compelling arguments for that as well; or the illuminati; or holocaust denial; or the moon hoax- but I see no solid evidence for any of that, either. Pat, you’re believing in a massive conspiracy by multiple world governments- ours being the one that was duped into buying $500 toilet seats :) but I digress- believe it if you want, and it might very well be true; I just see no solid evidence for it.

        Where have you seen any reputable body of psychiatry make the claim that there is “no soul”? I’ve never heard that claim- in fact, you may not know that there is a substantial number of religious psychiatrists! How can that be if they believe there is no soul?

        I think what you’re thinking is that they base their research on the physical rather than spiritual, which is the traditional realm of religion. As you can’t empirically “test” the soul using the scientific method, it has no place in a scientific discipline. Other fields that don’t consider the soul / religion to be within the realm of science include medicine, physics, geology and other elements which are often toed to religious belief. Of course, most medical professionals, to include the mental health practitioners, do acknowledge the beneficial effect that religion may have on an individual, although it can often be the opposite.

      • “I think what you’re thinking is that they base their research on the physical rather than spiritual, which is the traditional realm of religion…”

        You’re close. By treating the body (brain) as the cause of mental illness, Psychology and Psychiatry deny the existence of the spiritual being and the role that being plays. To that end, the fact that the spiritual being or thetan is denied as having the ability to heal the body and mind.

      • Sorry, hit post before finishing the thought.

        Should read
        To that end, the fact that the spiritual being or thetan is denied as having the ability to heal the body and mind, Psychology and Psychiatry deny the existence of a separate being.

      • As for references about Psychs and the soul

        “Revealing quotes on the goals of Psychology and Psychiatry”
        http://www.psychquotes.com/

        Scroll down to “Psychiatry’s Views on Religion”

      • Yes, I do have such a chart; however, I have it from sources that I’m sure you don’t trust- I respectfully request that you link to a copy that you consider to be valid. That would enable us to ensure we have the dame data.

        Regarding clears: did nor Hubbard himself make very specific claims as to what a “clear” would look like? Now, outside of Hubbard’s claim, the term is very unscientific and non-falsifiable; but hubbard’s claims give us a different context. Should we be seeing clears with colds? Should we not have seen a clear with perfect memory along the whole time track? What we see instead are the same type of gains as from some televised faith healers; there, too, the claimed gains aren’t found when any degree of scrutiny is applied.

        I’m disappointed that you again retreat to the “subjective” argument, as I was rather excited by our brief excursion from that. On the surface, I agree with you- the gains of Scientology are purely, and only, subjective- all inside one’s perception. That’s nor to say it’s not valid, but you yourself make that claim. Within that context, I see no reason why one should pursue Scientology over, say, shamanism. Adherents of shamanism “feel” better, too.

        But, you negate your own argument when you yourself make claims that are no longer subjective. Did you not say that a scientologist can increase healing? Did you not say that they may exteriorize at will? Those are no longer subjective claims- you’re saying that a scientologist may alter, effect or interact with the physical world in a way that is decidedly objective. Those claims are, if true, no longer based in subjective experience but within the realm of real science. But, again, what is the difference? When I close my eyes and imagine flying on the moon, is that less real than a scientologist “exteriorizing” in a similar way?

        But now we have a moral quandary. If a scientologist’s gains are not purely subjective and they actually can impact the world, it’s fundamentally offensive that they would not do so. Is it beyond their power to heal someone of something medicine has failed to? Where were the ot8′s when people were being slaughtered in dafur? Why was there no rain when the California wildfires were killing people and destroying homes? Are ot’s unable or unwilling to act to save lives?

      • Pat / Thetaworks-

        “By treating the body (brain) as the cause of mental illness, Psychology and Psychiatry deny the existence of the spiritual being and the role that being plays.”

        Not at all, it only (correctly) acknowledges spirituality as outside of the realm of science. Are you not aware that many psychiatrists are, themselves, religious? How would you account for that?

        “To that end, the fact that the spiritual being or thetan is denied as having the ability to heal the body and mind.”
        When there’s some evidence of this (aside from “I totally saw it happen!”), then that idea will gain some traction. But, as it stands, the concept doesn’t fall within science, it falls within belief. Science is empiracal, testable, repeatable- is spiritual healing any of those things? It would be an irresponsible scientist to try and frame the spiritual or supernatural within science. Would you want your doctor prescribing prayer? No, you want science when you have a broken arm. Unless you’re saying that scientology can heal a broken arm? The concept is the same.

        “Revealing quotes on the goals of Psychology and Psychiatry”
        Fixed for you: Revealing quotes by individuals on their personal views of religion.
        Pat, a LOT of people hate religion. I can find you a ton of quotes from doctors, biologists, mathematicians, physicists, with similar sentiments. And many of the quotes are true and express the sentiment that science and religion, while able to coexist, are not the same. Oddly, one of the quotes is from the “humanist manifesto”… Thomas Szasz (co-founder of cchr) was awarded the title of “Humanist of the Year” in 1973- have you ever researched his view on religion?

        But, surely you’re aware that problems with faith (such as questioning one’s faith or converting to a new faith) are now covered in the DSM (well, since 1994) to encourage psychiatrists to take such things seriously? Most of your quotes are decades before that point, so it’s not really a surprise that the compiler couldn’t find too many recent quotes.

        Some more:

        “The evidence suggests that, on balance, religious involvement is generally conducive to better mental health. In addition, patients with psychiatric disorders frequently use religion to cope with their distress…Religious issues are important in the assessment and treatment of patients, and therefore clinicians need to be open to the effect of religion on their patients’ mental health. It is, however, important that clinicians do not overstep boundaries.”
        -Psychiatric Times

        “Whatever his or her religious background, the professional’s moral stance should be neutral, with no attempt to manipulate the patient’s beliefs. Clinicians must be aware of how their own religious beliefs affect the therapy process”
        -Rehabilitative Psychiatry, R. Fallot

        “Religion or spirituality may have therapeutic implications for mental health. Randomized trials indicate that religious interventions among religious patients enhance recovery from anxiety and depression.”
        -”Cognitive psychotherapy for inherently religious clients: a two year follow-up”

        “Psychoeducational groups that focus on spirituality can lead to greater understanding of problems, feelings, and spiritual aspects of life”
        -Southern Medical Journal

        “At times, patients’ religious views may conflict with medical/psychotherapeutic treatment, and therapists must endeavor to understand the patient’s worldview and, if necessary, consult with clergy. It might be appropriate to involve members of the religious community to provide support and to facilitate rehabilitation.”
        -Psychiatric Times

        “Psychiatrists learn quickly about the belief systems that motivate an individual and work with these belief systems in order to assist a person in recovering from psychiatric illness”
        -Eugene Rubin MD, PhD and Charles Zorumski MD.

        “Unfortunately, a few religious leaders have recently made great effort to set up a straw man of conflict between psychiatry and religion. They have tried to show that psychiatry, specifically psychoanalysis, is anti-religious and destructive of religious faith. But to the astute observer of the relationship, psychiatry is no more pro- or antireligious than is surgery. Some psychiatrists are strongly religious and some are atheists, just as are other kinds of doctors, educators, laborers.”
        William C. Menninger

        So, it sounds like you can use quotes to prove nearly anything. But you certainly CAN’T make the case that “psychiatry” as a whole is against religion or denies the existence of anything in particular. It’s a weak argument at best.

      • Comment by Visitor 25 on May 17, 2012 7:10 am

        It all comes down to Personal Integrity. If you haven’t looked for yourself into auditing and received gains or studied and applied some technology in your life then it will never be true for you.

        It’s too bad that you keep asking others to prove it to you and don’t get “proof”, when all you have to do is look for yourself.

        Science is material universe. Scientology is spiritual universe. There is always going to be that factor that spiritual gains are subjective.

        It’s a waste of time at this point to go any further on this topic. You won’t see it until you DO it.

      • “So, it sounds like you can use quotes to prove nearly anything. But you certainly CAN’T make the case that “psychiatry” as a whole is against religion or denies the existence of anything in particular. It’s a weak argument at best.”

        I said Psychiatry and Psychology claim there is no soul. And the quotes from people in both fields in the link I gave you clearly states that. I don’t know where you got religion in this topic since I said soul. Spiritual being does not = religion although religion, to be such believes in the supernatural.

      • No, YOU were making claims that were within the realm of science. You claimed exteriorization is possible, which would be easily demonstrable. And you made a medical claim as well. Those would be very objective, if true.

        But, at least you finally answered my question- the only gains of Scientology are internal and unable to be demonstrated.

        I’m curious though- are the experiences of those that tried it and determined that it didn’t work as valid as your own?

      • Your quotes show only that many psychiatrists don’t believe in the soul. As in any group, many will not- but how do you explain the many psychiatrists who are religious and do believe in the soul?

        As medicine has the same standard, and Scientology claims to have special knowledge on healing using techniques not accepted by the field, why do they not feel the sane against practitioners of medicine?

      • As you can see in my quotes, the psychiatric field accepts and supports the utility of religions which DO have the soul as a central tenant- you can’t separate the two so easily when the patient ties the two together so strongly.

        The only difference is that they recognize spiritual counseling as the role of the church- do you think they should encroach on religion? Certainly not! But they should, and do, support the religious beliefs of patients.

        The soul should not be considered in science until it falls within that realm. Medicine acknowledges the soul as the realm of religion, so it concerns itself with the physical. That’s the way it should be.

      • “No, YOU were making claims that were within the realm of science. You claimed exteriorization is possible, which would be easily demonstrable. And you made a medical claim as well. Those would be very objective, if true.”

        Not so. I stated that a spirit (spiritual) can exteriorize from the body. But you are right. Science means knowledge or knowing (Latin SCIO), so any knowledge revealed in the research into the spiritual universe would be scientific.

        What medical claim? That thetans can heal themselves with assists? That’s not medical but spiritual.

        Refer to the article by LRH called Personal Integrity.
        www(dot)doctrinalhubbard(dot)com/

        Also, Laurie Hamilton did a good job explaining the “Scientology needs no proof” concept.
        http://en.allexperts.com/q/Scientology-1751/2011/1/Access-research.htm

      • Does a touch assist not “speed up” healing of the physical body?

        Could one view a remote location while exterior to the body?

        When I say “science”, I’m referring to the contemporary usage of the word. But you’ve already answered the question, pat- any gains from Scientology are purely subjective and unable to stand against any level of unbiased, independant validation. We’ve agreed on that point, and only disagree as to the significance of that fact. I find it significant, you do not.

        To me, subjective interpretation is not sufficient to consider something true and worthy of acceptance. Many people fell, as strongly as you do about their experiences and based on the exact same criteria, that they’re able to read minds or talk to the dead- it’s fine that they believe that, but they can’t expect anyone to take it seriously when it could be so easily demonstrated yet they refuse to do so. Or, when they try, fail.

        To me, it’s a significant moral failing when you have a group that claims to have abilities that could save lives and they refuse to do so. While, based on history and observation, I don’t believe that they can, it’s sad that they would either realize they cannot yet still claim they could, or believe they can yet not try.

        Of course, maybe you could clear this misconception for me- to repeat my question; can an operating theyan exteriorize at will and view a remote location? Are they at cause over matter, energy, space and time? If so, could they influence the weather? I’m sincerely curious.

      • When I say “science”, I’m referring to the contemporary usage of the word.

        I’m not talking about usage of the word. I’m talking about what the word actually means, based on it’s origin. “Knowledge” or “knowing”. Science is not confined to the physical based on that.

        But you’ve already answered the question, pat-

        I did, but you disagree. Results are observable in persons receiving the tech. That’s empirical. That includes tests done before and after auditing about a person’s abilities to handle life.

        But, since you haven’t read the books, you don’t know that, I guess. The data is there and the auditing sessions are there.

        I find it hilarious that you have to assert some imaginary agreement on the results with me. You have no idea since you haven’t used the technology and using it yourself would be scientific. Instead you want others to look for you and think for you. I’m not gonna play that.

      • An origin of the word, Pat, is not the same as it’s current meaning. It’s true that the definition you use was commonplace 900 years ago- and at that time, simple “knowledge” of a subject was considered science. You’re referring to the archaic definition; but that’s okay- you can define it however you want to; by your usage, certainly you’d claim that shamanism and voodoo are science as well. I think that you would be hard pressed to find someone that would agree with you, but our personal definitions are irrelevant to the subject itself.

        You may be surprised to learn that words change over time. You know what the origin of brave is? cowardice. You know what the origin of sophisticated is? corrupted. The word disaster used to refer to the negative influences of stars in one’s life. In fact, in the ten years since marrium webster updated their definitions, they changed the definitions of almost a quarter million words! It’s a rare person that considers the etymology of a word as the current definition.

        I maintain, and I believe that you’d agree, that scientology is simply unable to stand up to the contemporary application of the scientific method or any rigor.

        But, then, you throw a curveball! You claim that scientology is empirical because of its subjective nature. But it’s still based on subjective experience and interpretation. Nothing that you’ve told me would stand up to INDEPENDENT VALIDATION. Is that right or wrong? You keep saying exactly that without actually being able to agree that that’s what you’re saying. It’s fine if you accept subjective experience as validation- good for you- but that’s not the way that modern science works. If you’re using the 900 year old definition, you’re spot on- but try getting scientology or dianetics accepted by any branch of legitimate science or published in any scientific journal… wait, wasn’t that tried at one point?

        “I find it hilarious that you have to assert some imaginary agreement on the results with me. You have no idea since you haven’t used the technology and using it yourself would be scientific. Instead you want others to look for you and think for you. I’m not gonna play that.”

        Pat, you’re applying the same level of validation that a shaman or voodoo priest does. They say, “I tried it, it worked! I said these words and poured these items in a bowl, and this thing happened. And, what’s more, it does every time?” Given that you’re applying the same level of rigor, what’s the difference? They say the SAME as you- is shamanism as valid as scientology?

        But, you forget that you made claims that COULD be independently validated- claims that could actually be applied against modern scientific standards. What happened to those?
        1. Can a scientologist exteriorize at will and view a remote location?
        2. Can a touch assist accelerate healing of the physical body?
        Pat, those are claims that could easily be validated by an unbiased body. Why can’t it? Wouldn’t it be trivial? Instead, all that you’re able to prove is that people CLAIM that they FEEL different, and the only validation is by those that already believe in what they’re expecting to find.

      • Pat, this article explains it much better than I could:

        —-

        Is the Etymology of a Word Its True Definition?

        Not at all, though people sometimes try to make this argument. The word etymology is derived from the Greek word etymon, which means “the true sense of a word.” But in fact the original meaning of a word is often different from its contemporary definition.
        The meanings of many words have changed over time, and older senses of a word may grow uncommon or disappear entirely from everyday use. Disaster, for instance, no longer means the “evil influence of a star or planet,” just as consider no longer means “to observe the stars.”

        Let’s look at another example. Our English word salary is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as “fixed compensation for services, paid to a person on a regular basis.” Its etymology can be traced back 2,000 years to sal, the Latin word for salt. So what’s the connection between salt and salary?

        The Roman historian Pliny the Elder tells us that “in Rome, a soldier was paid in salt,” which back then was widely used as a food preservative. Eventually, this salarium came to signify a stipend paid in any form, usually money. Even today the expression “worth your salt” indicates that you’re working hard and earning your salary. However, this doesn’t mean that salt is the true definition of salary.

        —–

        I’m very curious; how can someone that avoids certain perspectives and data because of the “enturbulation” that it would cause chide someone for missing data? Have you actually taken the time to read and consider the experiences of those that you DON’T already agree with, as you so readily accept the personal experiences of those that you do?

      • perhaps, Pat, you could educate me. You say that there are “tests done before and after auditing about a person’s abilities to handle life”. What form do those tests take? How can you test something with as many variables as their “ability to handle life”?

        I have trouble seeing a test (particularly if the same organization that offers the assistance tests for its effectiveness) that would fail to show a benefit to most self-help or religious programs. Surely, you would agree that one one show improvement if a christian church “tested” an adherent after they completed a course of counseling? Or if a self-betterment group tested someone after they completed a course?

      • What is true for me is true from personal observation. If you haven’t personally observed it then it isn’t true for you. That’s all I have to say on this. I don’t agree with you and you don’t agree with. Ce la vie.

        It’s time to close this particle thread.

      • “What is true for me is true from personal observation. If you haven’t personally observed it then it isn’t true for you. That’s all I have to say on this. I don’t agree with you and you don’t agree with. Ce la vie.”

        True, and we at least agree on that point. I don’t know why you can’t agree to this, but it appears to me that we’re both saying that the gains of scientology are “true from personal observation”, rather than independent, objective validation. In other words, people have wonderful gains from their participation (I mean that sincerely), but those same gains are more… internal… than they are externally validated. People sincerely believe that they can exteriorize and control MEST, and they may be able to, but it simply can’t be accomplished in a controlled environment in the presence of unbiased observers. Would that be an accurate representation?

        It’s fine, Pat, to have internal gains. Most religions say something similar. Judeo-Christian relgions and Islam says much the same, that you’ll grow as a person, you’ll reach a higher plane, you’ll become more capable and happier- it’s fine to make those claims. So there’s no real shame in saying that all the gains are intrinsic; that’s just saying that scientology is as valid as another religious group. My only point, at this stage, is that the gains are limited to the individual and validated by their personal observations. Am I mistaken?

        “It’s time to close this particle thread.”

        Isn’t this the last thread that’s actually open? What happens to a blog when all threads are closed? It’s not necessary to force communication to stop, or to censor a blog from people that simply disagree. You’ve answered the question to the best of your ability; if you have nothing to add, then communication has ended anyways.

      • “Isn’t this the last thread that’s actually open?”

        I didn’t say “close the topic” did I? I meant the thread that is about 9 miles long. lol

      • For Truth is me, Pat. I used it to comment on someone else’s wordpress blog that was political (so I can keep them separate) and WordPress carried it over. Didn’t get enough sleep I guess. Didn’t notice that there was a different name in the box. Nappie time.

      • Argh.. did it again. Nite.

      • It happens :)
        But the thread is getting a little long, true.

      • I think that you have an inability to give specifics, due to the fact that you never give cites or specifics for statements like this:

        “but how do you explain the many psychiatrists who are religious and do believe in the soul?”

        Links please to psychiatrists (plural) that believe in the soul.

        That inability concerns me because the use of generalities consistently are an indication that the intent is to overwhelm and cave people in (send them into depressions and hopelessness).

        But then, if you were to stop making these generalizations, then I would be able to change my viewpoint.

        As for exteriorization – why should we have to prove it to you? Sharing a win that one was able to do it means that it isn’t valid because someone else doesn’t see it? Your insistence on “proof” is just invalidation. I have trouble seeing it as anything else at this point, accompanying as it does the inability to give specifics.

      • Not at all, Pat. I’m more than happy to give the specifics that you’ve asked for. This becomes very easy when one realizes that in order to claim certain religious beliefs, one has to accept certain religious tenants. This is even easier once one accepts that each psychiatrist is an individual human being with their own beliefs and religious experiences. I’m sure you’re familiar with the nicean creed, which established the formal belief system of Christianity.

        But we’ll make this very easy for both of us. In the roman catholic church, one MUST accept the creed as a profession of faith. So, if one were to (as I did) do any research, it’s very easy to find such a list. Google will do this for you, but here’s a partial list (feel free to contact them to check up. I spot checked some from the same results via telephone, and you’re certainly welcome to do the same):

        Dr. Angela M. Rosson, Portland OR, 503 546 6377
        Dr. Richard G. Culley, Catham NY, 518 392 7570
        Dr. Linda Albert, Nanuet NY, 845 624 5134
        Dr. Carmine Thomas Capone, Woodbury NY, 516 367 1016
        Dr. Eileen M. Raffaniello Barbella, Cleveland TX, 281 5929569

        Dr. Maureen Roberts runs “Psychiatry with Soul”, which offers treatment based on a preposition of a soul.
        Dr Gerald May, another psychiatrist, wrote a book called ‘The Dark Night of the Soul”, which explores spiritual growth.

        Of course, those are but a few examples, but it’s exactly what you asked for. Please feel free to contact any of them, if you’d like- I very easily found thousands of such names. If you would like to independently contact them to ask about their personal beliefs, please feel free to do so. I’m sure that you would be interested in proving for yourself that not all psychiatrists fit into the same mold. It would be quite silly to believe, I’m sure you’d agree, that EVERY person of a certain group feels or believes the same way. There’s no tenant anywhere saying that psychiatrists have to believe a certain thing; in fact, as was pointed out before, psychiatrists are cautioned against imposing their religious beliefs upon a patient, specifically against praying for patients who don’t share their religious beliefs.

        See, but this is what I don’t get. You make claims (as did I), but they’re ones that you both can’t and won’t validate. That’s fine, but I am left to consider such things to be in the realm of your personal belief and opinion, rather than any sort of fact. I am curious as to your impression- do you use generalities on this site?

        I’m concerned, however, at your indication that my questions have the potential to give you depression or hopelessness. I don’t want to give you either of those things. If you would like, we can end this conversation.

        Why should you HAVE to prove exteriorization to me? You don’t, Pat. TO be very honest, Pat, I don’t expect you to, nor do I expect that you can. That’s not a dig, it’s just an observation based on available facts. Have you ever seen the movie, ‘Mystery Men’? I love that movie, it’s very funny. I remember the character that had the ability to turn invisible, but only when no one was watching. Much like that, you are making a claim that you cannot or will not provide any sort of validation for. I don’t understand why, when it would be very easy to do. But here’s what bothers me the most- you’re claiming that an ability exists that could do so much good for the world; it could save lives, it could save money, it could literally change the world for the better. As a human being, it’s offensive that scientologists would either lie about be able to perform such a life-saving act OR claim it when they are unable to actually do it. Now, if it’s just a matter that they “really really” believe that they can do such a thing, I suppose that’s fair enough. But any power or ability that can only be demonstrated in a non-controlled environment under non-faslsifiable conditions is only of very limited utility. To be very honest, I see no functional difference between the belief that one is able to exteriorize with that of a young child who believes that they’re able to control the strength of the wind! (I think we all did that at one time, lol)

        Anyways, can you at least agree that exteriorization CANNOT be demonstrated to someone that doesn’t already believe in it? All I’m asking, Pat, is why you can’t or won’t validate a claim that you made? You presented your claim as fact… why is there no evidence whatsoever to support it?

      • Thank you for those names, V. I’ll look into it. Just a cursory look tho’ points to a different usage of soul as something man has versus what man is. Scientology holds that you are an immortal soul, not that you have one, but that you are one. If Psychiatry truly recognized that then there would be no drugging or labelling.

        “Much like that, you are making a claim that you cannot or will not provide any sort of validation for. I don’t understand why, ”

        Requiring a “validation” for a state of existence is an insult. You’re saying with that statement that unless some “authority” says it’s true it isn’t true, and that people don’t have knowingness. Depending on someone else to tell you what to think is slavery and authortarianism.

        BTW, when you say religious tenant, did you mean tenet? Tenant is someone who resides in a house or on a plot of land.

      • First one I checked: Dr. Angela M. Rosson is not a Psychologist or Psychiatrist and there is nothing on her sight that suggests that she treats the being rather than the body. In fact, her focus is on body.

        I’ll check a few more, but it isn’t looking good for your contention that any Psychiatrists treat the being, let alone recognize it.

      • Oops! sight should be site.

      • Comment by Visitor 25 on May 17, 2012 2:32 pm

        LOL. You’ll have to ask them.

    • It costs around a quarter million dollars to reach the highest levels of Scientology

      bs

      • Oh? How much, then, does it cost to become an ot8? There are several ot8′s and others that would disagree with you.
        Are you an ot8?

      • If one goes completely on the processing route, it can add up. However, there are alternate routes up the Bridge including

        1) joining staff and getting it that way – whether it’s Sea Org or a lower Org.
        2) Co-auditing all the way to the OT levels.

        It takes years to train auditors so it costs money to deliver it. That’s true for any service organization on the planet. If you have no personal concept of the value of auditing, I can understand that it would be hard to wrap your head around. Scientologists use the technology and gains to flourish and prosper. Those you see in the Church are applying the technology and those who left or have issues with paying and exchanging for services didn’t.

      • Is it possible to reach the state of clear (using the modern definition, rather than Hubbard’s at least) without any money? If one has no money, are they able to reach ot8?

        Also, what of those that committed suicide after spending all/most of their money on courses; how does that happen?

        But, we come back to the key question- after all that money or time on staff (I’d be interested in hearing how quickly one can climb the bridge through staff work if they’re trying to feed a family at the same time), what is the utility? Is it only that someone FEELS better than they did before? Is there any gain that’s not completely subjective or based on self-assessment?

        That should have an easy answer, if any such thing exists. As it stands, the claimed benefits are EXACTLY the same (with different name’s) claimed by shamans, mystics and religious groups for centuries. It’s a sincere question- why should one adhere to Scientology if, say, shamanism can offer the same benefit for no cost?

      • Comment by Visitor 25 on May 16, 2012 6:25 pm

        Yes. (Re: Clear with no money – almost)
        Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health. Anyone can co-audit it after reading the book.

        To my knowledge, no one has suicided due to the cost of services. You’ll have to give me something here that shows that was the reason the person gave (as in suicide note).

        I do know of several who knowingly dropped their body for various reasons, such as age and wanting a new body. Once one knows that he’s an immortal spiritual being, that is not a big deal.

      • “Is there any gain that’s not completely subjective or based on self-assessment? ”

        I have pointed this out numerous times. What is true for you is true based on PERSONAL observation. Scientology requires no proof. Everytime a critic goes on this slant, is saying that no one’s personal experience counts. That’s pretty evil in my book, Slaver think, because it denies that people can achieve gains according to their own knowingness. Do you really honestly believe that no one knows their own experiences?

      • (Re: definition of Clear)
        “(using the modern definition, rather than Hubbard’s at least)”

        Huh? There is no other definition that is valid except for LRH’s.

        Per the tech dictionary: “A person who no longer has his own reactive mind”. Reading Dianetics with the intent to learn will give full understanding of what the Reactive mind is.

        —-

        “I’d be interested in hearing how quickly one can climb the bridge through staff work if they’re trying to feed a family at the same time), what is the utility?”

        I love auditing staff, because they work hard and are dedicated to service and helping others. Staff can, while serving a contract, get the Bridge. For lower orgs, that can be Grades and Ned. Sea Org members can, of course, get the OT Levels at an AOLA or Flag. Often, when staff are sent to train at Flag, they receive auditing to the level they are training for. NOTs auditors receive NOTs. (I’m going to assume that you have access to a Classification and Gradation Chart if there’s terms you don’t understand. Check it out and see what abilities are gained with each level).

      • Kindly see my comment in the thread above, where I replied to your comments

      • “i do know of several who knowingly dropped their body for various reasons, such as age and wanting a new body. Once one knows that he’s an immortal spiritual being, that is not a big deal.”

        How, exactly, did they accomplish this?

      • Link to Classification and Gradation Chart
        http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part02/Chp06/pg0181_1.html

  5. Awesome news!

  6. Thanks for hinting the Debbie Cook settlement. My only source is TO at the moment and he is a delusional bastard so give me a moment to get some real documentation together.

    - L

    • Ah, here we go with the actual settlement:
      https://scientologymyths.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/injunction.pdf

      So she finally shuts up. Nice!

      - L

      • I think you miss the point- this wasn’t something she was ordered to do, this was something she agreed to. She said what she intended to say, got it in the court system, and didn’t milk it. Consider your objections to Rinder/Rathbun- they’re making money from what they do, right? But Cook’s acceptance of the terms of the agreement completely remove that accusation. She’s making no money, getting no fame, she’s not extending her complaints past a very simple message- she entered her testimony into record and received not even a slap on the wrist.

      • I agree, Louanne, that this settlement is a total win for Scientology. The church would never, in a million years, win any damages from Cook in the case. The evidence surrounding the existence of the Hole is so overwhelming (at least to those of us willing to read both sides of the story) that Cook’s non-disclosure agreement would never have been enforceable. In settling the church avoided any more further embarrassment by, as Louanne herself said, “shutting her up” and preventing her from testifying about her time in the Hole, an account which has been corroborated by dozens of other people who have nothing to gain by agreeing with her. Big win, Scientology, stay classy.

      • She was ever loud? i didnt notice…

      • who said anything about loud? now I’M confused!

      • The variable here is the truth, or at least our understanding of it. We don’t know the truth of her claims, not for sure. And since scientology didn’t continue in the lawsuit, the court never judged the validity of her claims.

        If Debbie Cook is telling the truth, then silencing her is immoral and wrong, and only serves to protect the abusers.

        If Debbie Cook is lying (for unknown reasons, as she did not and can not benefit from it), the silencing her is just.

        When you apply occam’s razor, the possibility of her lying seems less likely, as it doesn’t fully explain the actions of all parties- not her motivation nor her actions (which resulted in personal stress, financial damage, etc) and doesn’t explain why scientology would ask her to testify at the hearing and not refute her testimony.

      • Q: Why doesn’t the church sue her for slander of David Miscavige?

        A: They can’t. She told the truth.

        Nice church, not.

      • Lou
        “so she finally shuts up”
        Me
        “She was ever loud? I never noticed”

    • Party on, Wayne :)

      The truth is a 100% defense against libel or slander. She was able to enter her experiences into record and avoided the traditional punitive lawsuits by Scientology.

      • As was the Church about her actions. It is now a decree that both sides don’t say anything about the other.

        Thank you, Jen for recognizing that what she said may not be true. That’s another reason for the muzzle.

      • If it is not true, then the “muzzle” was appropriate. However, one would wonder what she could gain if it’s not? And why didn’t scientology deny the accusations on the record? And, for that matter, why have so many corroborated her story?

      • drat, my comment was supposed to be in response to Focus, above. Wayne’s world reference.

        Pat, why do you feel that scientology called off the suit?

      • Yer stretchin’ there slim. Where did you get the idea that the Church called off the suit? Why would the Church issue a statement after the judgement? They are muzzled too. I think you’re sweeping a clean floor there slim

      • Pat, I don’t know which of my quotes you’re referring to since you’ve posted this in the wrong place, but I never said anything about the possibility of Cook’s statements being false. Arguing doesn’t make you intelligent. Read, comprehend, and then re-read again for good measure.

        Until you are able to use an open mind (forbidden I know), nothing you say holds any merit. When you display the ability for independent thought, you will hopefully never post here again and run for your life.

      • I think the question actually is, pat, why did Scientology choose to make a statement AFTER the case was closed, rather than make a response on the record? You may know that if they denied the allegations in court (as they did outside of the court), and the allegation were true, then they wouldn’t they purger themselves?

      • “I think the question actually is, pat, why did Scientology choose to make a statement AFTER the case was closed, ”

        And they did that where? when?

      • You didn’t read their official statements?

        Point is that Scientology was very talkative… Outside of the court.

      • To be clear, I was continuing the Debbie cook conversation

      • There was one official statement in response to ABC’s article in February. Long before the judgement. So, again, where did the Church make a statement about her after the judgement?

      • Here’s the link to the Feb. 28, 2012 statement:

        http://www.scientologynews.org/statements/debbie-cook-baumgarten.html

        The injunction was dated by the Judge on April 23, 2012

      • The date is not important to me, as it’s not central to my actual point. I happily concede the point and humbly acknowledge your most-likely correct data.

        The point I was trying to make is the one you ignored- why the only rebuttals to cook’s claims were made away from the legal venue. That’s my main question.

      • Since there’s been no publication of what went on in the “legal venue”, I don’t know how you could presume that there was no rebuttal. All along you keep referring to something that there’s no data that it did or did not happen. Appears that you have some kind of “hidden data line”. lol

      • I sure do :) it’s a super-secret technique called “google” :D

        The testimony is on the public record. Would you like me to link you to the foia website, or would you prefer to read it online? Or perhaps you’d like to see some of the video?

        I’m afraid you were given false data. But I’m a little bit surprised that you didn’t know that- where are you getting your information, if not from the court records and news media?

      • I did google, v. I see no link where the Church made a statement about her after the judgement, which is what I’ve been contesting. Give me the link. I also noticed that you parrot the media rather than actual court docs. It appears to me that if you had the link to the court docs themselves you’d have posted them. Still waiting for those specifics I asked for.

      • Oh, pat :)
        Did you miss that I agreed with you? So you can celebrate winning the minor point, which I happily concede because it’s irrelevant to my main point, which you still can’t address while expecting me to do so for you. How can you ask me to do something that you will not?

        Now, I can find nothing from a Scientology spokesperson regarding the case, published after the trial was concluded. But consider my confusion- This blog claims to present “responses from the church of Scientology”, claiming very specifically to speak for the entity. Also, this blog endorses another “myths” site, which has derogatory information published about cook AFTER the trial concluded. Is this site misrepresenting itself, or did Scientology make an accusatory claim about her after the conclusion of the trial?

        Now, you say you googled…. What did you google? I’m surprised you didn’t find the 200+ page court document or the many courtroom videos. If you really can’t fond it, I’ll start posting links for you, lemme know.

        So contrary to your accusation, I’m not “parroting the media”, it only appears that way because the merchants of chaos and I have actually read the source documents. Maybe I’m crazy, but I feel that one should actually research an issue before sharing their opinion on it… Don’t you?

      • Comment by Visitor 25 on May 2, 2012 7:15 am

        “This blog claims to present “responses from the church of Scientology”, claiming very specifically to speak for the entity. ”

        LOL. That’s a gargantuan stretch. So… based on that logic, everytime anyone posts a link in a blog they are claiming to speak for whoever is behind the link. Amusing

        “Also, this blog endorses another “myths” site, which has derogatory information published about cook AFTER the trial concluded.”

        Sorry to disappoint but the original post about Debbie was done in March. The settlement was April 23, 2012. Louanne updated the March entry with a link to the settlement. Nothing derogatory was said in that update. Again, yer stretchin’

      • Not at all, Pat. But anyone someone sets the description for their wordpress blog as, “Responses from the Church of Scientology to critical articles and media reports presented against the Church.” So that’s a very clear claim that this site represents (ahem) “responses from the Church of Scientology”. So, my point remains that this blog makes a claim. Whether she’s sanctioned to do so or not, you can see how it would appear. Do you disagree with Louanne’s claim?

        Now, again (and probably again after this, and maybe another time for good measure based on the fact that I’ve had to say this several times already)- I. Agree. With. You. I explained my confusion based on the fact that someone who runs a blog that claims to include responses from scientology had an update on their other site which included derogatory information AND included a notation that it was updated after the case caused my misconception. I agree that it was a misconception, and I acknowledge your correct information; how much more clear do I need to be? If I’m mistaken, I’ll gladly admit it. However, my original point (the only point that I cared about in that context) still stands- scientology made comments OUTSIDE of the courthouse, but didn’t make the same claims INSIDE of the courthouse. Did you notice, based on the court records, that they never officially denied Cook’s claims? If they did, they would be exposing themselves to libel if her claims were true. Why wouldn’t they say in court the same things they were saying in the media?

      • That’s horrible, sorry. I meant to say, “Not at all, Pat. But anyone who sets the description for their wordpress blog as, ‘Responses from the Church of Scientology to critical articles and media reports presented against the Church’, is”.

      • I find your conclusion to be faulty. You didn’t respond to my point about how someone can , by posting a response before any judgement, be making a claim after the judgement. That’s illogical.

      • “I find your conclusion to be faulty. You didn’t respond to my point about how someone can , by posting a response before any judgement, be making a claim after the judgement. That’s illogical.”

        Did I call it or what?? I said at 6:54 PM yesterday “Now, again (and probably again after this, and maybe another time for good measure based on the fact that I’ve had to say this several times already)- I. Agree. With. You.” I assumed that I’d have to repeat it again, and was correct. Pat, you’re right. You’re correct. I agree. I concur. I acknowledge your data. I accept your premise. I acquiesce to your point. I approve of your comment. Can you understand now? I’ve been saying this for some time, but you never quite pick it up; once again, I AGREE WITH YOU, PAT :)

        Like I said several times, I see that I was mistaken on the date based on the portrayal of this blog as an official source and my misunderstanding of the date on louanne’s other blog. We’ll have this conversation with later if you need to. seriously- have you even been reading my comments?

        But you’re still refusing to discuss my actual point, as to why the church lawyers didn’t despite the charges on the record, while the spokeperson was quite comfortable doing so in a venue that’s not guided by contempt-of-court laws.

      • Please forgive typos above!!

      • “But you’re still refusing to discuss my actual point, as to why the church lawyers didn’t despite the charges on the record, while the spokeperson was quite comfortable doing so in a venue that’s not guided by contempt-of-court laws.”

        I don’t understand this. Church lawyers didn’t what? All I see is that (despite the fact you acknowledged that Louanne’s post was pre-settlement) you have some strange timeline thing going on.

        Do you think the Church should have attacked her in court? That would have proven what? The fact that they didn’t do that says a lot to me about them. You (I’m guessing) apparently think that the Church is malicious or mean and that there was something wrong with the lawyers not going after her, to fit your preconceived idea of what the Church is like. Again, the spokesperson’s statement was in February, but it was a statement of a history. I see nothing malicious or mean about it. It was a report on the situation to clarify what the Church perceived to be true. Capice?

      • I’m saying they didn’t deny her claims in court, but did so outside of court. The same things the church said ito the press, why not say them in the lawsuit that they themselves initiated? No one said malicious, I’m only asking why they said one thing in the press, but not in court?

  7. I am wondering if LAL here will be spinning the Debbie Cook settlement as a good thing next ;) it’s been a big day for Scientology court cases.

    • Are you implying this is not a good thing?

      • Good for who?

      • Good for the Church that now can concentrate more funds and attention on more important things, like the opening of new Churches or the organization of our social programs.

        Good for Cook who can now stop committing crimes against her former friends.

        Good for me because it makes me happy :))

        - L

      • Lost in what your trying to say… oh well better luck next time!

      • What crimes did she commit?

        It seems to me that Scientology had to settle, rather than continue the lawsuit. Are you aware of the accusations that were both unrefuted and entered into public record?

      • essentially, there are some things that I don’t think you’re considering.

        Debbie was not asked to recant the testimony (which, as I mentioned is public record now- which was given at scientology’s request). That was not a condition of the settlement. Why? The church lawyers stopped the hearing AND the lawsuit based on her original testimony, so obviously what she was saying was a problem. If they asked her to recant AND what she was saying was true, she would be pugering herself. Note that her claims were not disputed on the record.

        The settlement itself tells a story. What we she barred from talking about? Confidential, non-public secrets. Not lies, nowhere does scientology accuse her of lying in the record. Sure, the current spokesperson (since Tommy’s disappeared) will accuse her of lying off the record, but no lawyer will say that on the record.

        Consider, also, how the rest of the world will see this. In the court of public opinion, they see only ANOTHER former scientologist forced by ANOTHER lawsuit to stop talking about what they’ve seen.

        So, the end result, is that we have another PR flap in which the public, us wogs, see scientology using the law to harrass someone who’s trying to speak out about what they saw. And now, we have some very frightening testimony on the public record, with no indication that it’s denied in court. What’s more, we have a solid indication that the “gag orders” issued by scientology are really unenforcable- I suppose time will tell, but I believe that will only embolden the growing independant scientology movement. It’s very encouraging to some, I suspect, that she openly shared her experience with NO negative repercussions, aside from that caused directly by the church’s smear campaign.

        I’m very curious- will scientology take down their anti-debbie hate sites, now that she won’t be speaking of them?

      • “Comment by Aussie Luke on April 26, 2012 8:36 pm
        Lost in what your trying to say…”

        Really? That’s a shocker, that. I had just grown used to your quick wit and well-thought out arguments. ;)

      • Dude…. Visitor25… Are you stating that this article on the Australian court case being a good thing is spin from LAL?Thats what i STILL can’t understand…

      • Yes- presenting this as positive news for scientology is either spin or deluded.

      • visitor

        It wasn’t a “settlement”. It was an Agreed Judgement. A settlement is where the parties mutually agree on terms of payment. There was no payment, but there were judgements

      • So what is the REALITY on this court case Visitor?

      • Or more, how is it bad for Scientology? And how has she spun it?

      • I’m really wondering how you can consider it a good thing! A good thing that scientology used the courts to once again silence a critic, perhaps. But that’s a matter of perspective.

        My message at 10:53 pm outlines it fairly well, but to summarize- consider that her claims are now part of the court record, and were never refuted by scientology (on the record, at least). Plus, you have the public perception which (to non-scientologists) is very negative.

        What’s good about it?

        Pat-
        thank you for correcting my verbiage! :)

        V25

      • This is actually good for Scientology. It sets a precedent.

        I don’t know where this weird idea comes from that the Church can’t use our legal system for recourse or is somewhat “less” for using due process or jurisprudence.

      • A precedent of what, that’s the question. To the outside world, it has the appearance that scientology is using the courts to stifle criticism from within. It does set a precedent- but it’s one that will completely ban reformation and change from within.

        Consider- this case showed that the traditional “NDAs” used by scientology are not enforceable. Now that there’s a court order, THAT’S the document that will be shown to keep others in line. So, now you have those that are under the unenforceable gag order that are seeing that they can easily speak out as well, so the threat of lawsuits will be necessary to keep them in line. Meanwhile, to non-scientologists, it just makes the group look more litigious than ever, which is a reputation that its had for many decades.

        The problem is not that scientology is using the court system, it’s that it’s using it as a punitive measure, using member’s funds to silence critics. This would be like the catholic church suing those that came forward about their sexual abuse- why didn’t they sue in that case?

      • “Meanwhile, to non-scientologists, it just makes the group look more litigious than ever, which is a reputation that its had for many decades. ”

        Such a generality. That’s spin and false data.

        Why don’t you answer Aussie Luke’s questions?

      • There is a confusion between Jan and Debbie…
        I am talking about Jan… this australian situation…
        Explain to me Visitor, how it is that this court case is a negetive thing to Scientology and explain how it is that it has been spun into something positive…

      • AL-
        And, if you read the comments, you’ll see that we’re all talking about Debbie.

        Pat-
        Are you, of all people, seriously chastizing me for not answering a question? That would be hypocricy if so, as you have quite a history (even in this thread) of ignoring questions.

      • “Such a generality. That’s spin and false data.”

        Oh? May I ask how you can know this? I’m afraid that the thought is very common among non-scientologists. This, probably, is due to the fact that scientology is in the news for lawsuits and legal matters far more often than anything positive. How do YOU guage the stance of non-scientologists, since you can so positively say that my data is false?

      • Yer still stretchin, slim. A generality means there’s no specifics given. That’s how I know (the definition of the word). Now skedaddle back to the viper’s nest and get them facts, hombre.

      • Pat- it’s called Google :) Go ahead, do a google search for scientology: you see the pages speaking positively of the group? Those are few and generally owned by scientology and are far outnumbered by the pages that are critical of the group. Try the same thing with google news. How about blogs? twitter? you can search until you’re blue in the face, if you’d like- the overwhelming consensus based on available data is negative. If you’d like specifics, I can give you a list of thousands of former members with similar stories, or the membership lists of the many critical sites with tens of thousands of members. Perhaps you’d like to see some of the many public polls that have found the same? Or, perhaps, you’d like to ask some random folks on the street and see what happens. Pat, the difference between you and I is that I’ve already looked on the open internet- I’ve read both sides of the argument.

        But, hey, you made a claim- I’m interested in seeing what you bring to the table. Where did you get the data that allows you to so easily dismiss I say?

      • “I am wondering if LAL here will be spinning the Debbie Cook settlement as a good thing next ;) ”
        note word NEXT implying THIS ONE IS SPIN… hence my question which is what started this thread which is…

        ARE YOU IMPLYING THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING?
        THIS being this australian result…
        or do you think this result IS good for Scientology?

      • No, it is not good for Scientology for reasons already given. It is good for scientologists and management, but not Scientology as a whole.

      • It’s not as “bad” as the cook issue, though. I think the eastgate case has its pros and cons.

        What do you think, overall, AL?

      • Overall its good but insignificant.
        Xenophon wasn’t getting his proposal through the senate. He never was. Only the greens supported him and they were too busy to give it any time, Labor and LNP had no interest. Even if they did the church had other avenues.
        This women wasn’t going to win in court. She never was. Evidence and charges were too weak, too old.
        The media making out like either of these was going to be any different was them out of touch with reality.
        This result and these articles are showing that reality is catching up with them.
        The most out of touch with reality were internet critics of Scientology who desparately held onto the fantasy the media gave them… saying things like Scientology was going “fall apart” because of them or “these charges are the start of the end of Scientology” or even “she’s so guilty the courts will straighten her out”, or even “another typical crime of religion being exposed”… All garbage, no analysis, like so much of what they say…
        Their repeated dissappointment of they are saying is what is making them ever increasingly easy to handle, and Scientology’s strength and sustainablity more clearly evident…

      • It appears that we’re drawing different conclusions from the same data. However, as both of our conclusions are opinion, they are equally valid.

        My main hope in all this is that Scientology improves; I’m sure that you’d agree that Scientology has room for betterment, like any organization. Believe it or not, most critics (at least in my experience) don’t want Scientology to fall apart- they bring the gift of criticism. I know it doesn’t feel like a gift when you’re aligned to the organization, but neither did the catholic church before Martin Luther.

        I respect your opinion and belief, and very respectfully disagree.

    • This is a clarification of an earlier post.

      “A consent decree (also referred to as a consent order or stipulated judgment or agreed judgment) is a final, binding judicial decree or judgment memorializing a voluntary agreement between parties to a suit in return for withdrawal of a criminal charge or an end to a civil litigation”

      A consent decree is a settlement that is contained in a court order. The Court maintains jurisdiction and oversight to ensure compliance.

      • Very informative information, thank you!

  8. I don’t think you know what “trolling” means. The word implies intent to deceive or exaggerate in order to elicit an emotional response. Certainly you don’t agree with my position, but that alone does not make it trolling.

    That being said, I don’t that any of us should be surprised at this- it was one person’s word against another (and her child, granted), with nothing available to corroborate. But also, more recent news has emerged that the felony law under which ms eastgate was charged wasn’t passed until 1990, while the alleged offense took place five years earlier, in 1985. In other words, what ms eastgate is accused of doing wasn’t a felony at the time, although it is now. You can’t charge someone for a felony that wasn’t on the books!

    I do wonder what would have happened if the court was asked to determine guilt or innocence, but hopefully this will give sone form of closure to the poor girl that was molested by her stepfather.

    • Dude, you fell for slimy propaganda again. The case was dropped because there is no substance, no case, no facts. THAT’s what the prosecutor says and I give a shit about the interpretation of those who run an obvious anti-scientology agenda.

      • Oh? Can you please tell me where you got that information? Because the link that you provided doesn’t say anything like that.

      • “the office of the DPP would not give specific reasons as to why the charges were withdrawn”
        - ABC news.

        So how do you claim to know WHY the case was dismissed? Or are you making assumptions? Is it not significant to you that the law under which eastgate was charged didn’t exist at the time of the alleged offense?

      • Here, Visitor 25, read this slowly: “An Office of the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions spokeswoman said yesterday the charges were dropped “because there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction”.”

      • And you’re able to determine the exact reason from that? You should be a judge, then, if you can draw conclusions with insufficient information.

        Prosecution under the wrong law is also a possible reason, is it not?

      • Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying; I don’t know if she’s innocent or guilty. Neither do you. And neither does the court that never even heard the case. My only point is that you’re presenting information in a way that is far from unbiased, which is unethical if you’re trying to present your personal interpretation as fact. I only ask that you be honest when presenting information, rather than selectively presenting that which supports your ore-determined conclusion. It is a fact that the reason for dismissal is not yet known- why can’t you be honest about that?

      • I have to agree with Louanne regarding the fact that there was no evidence to make a conviction possible in the Eastgate case. However, Visitor 25 is correct that Louanne doesn’t appear to understand trolling. There were debates going back and forth in the comments based on facts (some pro and some anti Scientology). Pat’s earlier definition of trolling will prove that this was not trolling, simply people disagreeing with each other.

        As the site admin, Louanne can censor whatever she wants. She obviously chooses to promote the pro Scientology stories and block references to anything negative, regardless of the facts surrounding either side. And that’s her right, so there’s no point in getting worked up about it.

      • Very valid point, Jen, and well put! I think that with the case being dismissed (versus a not-guilty verdict) we’ll never truly know what would have happened. But there is always difficulty when it’s one person’s word against another. Those cases are almost always dismissed anyways, as we’ve seen with other cases involving Scientology.

        You’re also correct that she chooses to promote a single viewpoint, rather than present all facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. But I suppose that is to be expected. It’s just that this is one of the very few pro-Scientology sites, and one of the very few that allows discussion (albeit with very significant censorship). It’s an opportunity to earnestly discuss this topic, and I regret that such a thing doesn’t happen here. But, it is her site, so she can delete what she wants.

        And yes, she doesn’t know what trolling means :)

      • Well, thank you all that you agree that I don’t know what trolling means.

      • You’re… Welcome?

      • “Pat’s earlier definition of trolling will prove that this was not trolling, simply people disagreeing with each other. ”

        I disagree, Jen. You popped an unrelated negative link into the discussion, so you were trolling, whether you think you were trying to upset or not.

      • You seem to throw that word around a lot, Pat. What do you think trolling means?

      • I posted one of two links totally unrelated to “Happy Holidays”. Both links involved government involvement to help people and I would continue that discussion except that Louanne censored it. And that is her right, although I’ve never seen a discussion board censored before. Freedom of speech and thought are what make this country great… just something for you to think about (if you’re allowed) in your current situation.

      • You can look, Jen, at Pat’s history on this blog. She uses “troll” as a generic insult whenever she hasn’t a reasonable argument against the comment. The only common thread is that she uses the perjorative term to mean “someone with whom I disagree”, rather than any common usage of the word.

      • I’m the one that posted the definition of troll since it appears that it’s not understood. Any negative comment about Scientology, it’s staff or it’s administration at this point is a troll. Designed to upset and “rock the boat”. This blog / forum has only one rule and that’s in the FAQ. Anyone who does the above is violating that. If you have a legit question without added “soapboxing” then that’s fine. It’s due to those violations from trolls that gets the threads deleted.

      • “I posted one of two links totally unrelated to “Happy Holidays”. ”

        Negative unrelated links. Therefore trolling

      • I’d respond, but my comments keep getting deleted (again), so what’s the point?

      • that seems to be working now :) I suppose I’ll leave these up until they’re removed.
        I’m curious, Pat- what about a poster claiming that they have evidence that Hubbard was indeed a war hero is “trolling”? What about claiming that they have new documents that outline his positive war record is “trolling”? Yet even those comments were deleted. You’re assuming that Louanne interprets her own rules in the same way that you do. This is clearly not the case.
        But you’re using a definition of trolling that’s entirely your own, and trying to enforce rules based on your unique definition. No one else seems to use your definition, Pat, so you can understand the confision.
        And you’re definition still boils down to “anything you don’t like or agree with”.

      • “Pat- what about a poster claiming that they have evidence that Hubbard was indeed a war hero is “trolling”? ”

        For one, it’s not negative and two, I’d ask for the docs.

      • V, if you’re having trouble understanding what the FAQ says, clear the words.

      • Pat- so why was the pro-Scientology comment censored, since you’re the keeper of the law here?

        Also, I’ve read the FAQ- you don’t think that only applies to people that are critical, do you? Because the FAQ doesnt say that. I post in accordance withmy understanding of the rules- if I’m mistaken, the blog owner can let me know. I’ve heard your opinion, and frankly think that you’re in violation of the same. I respectfully no longer request your interpretation of louanne’s rules.

      • That’s fine, slim. You did ask me what it meant. I leave it to you and Louanne.

      • Don’t you feel that’s more appropriate? To let the blog owner police her own blog?

        But, no- I asked you how you define trolling, not how you define louanne’s rules. You answered an unaked question :)

      • I already posted the definition of trolling. Look back in this topic

      • “Any negative comment about Scientology, it’s staff or it’s administration at this point is a troll.”

        That was your real definition??

        It’s unique, I’ll give you that. Not really grounded in reality, though.

        So what’s the difference between disagreement and trolling? Or criticism and trolling?

  9. Thanks, Louanne. Good News!

    • Update report: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/charges-dropped-for-scientologist-police-felt-they-were-being-used-in-church-case/story-e6freuzi-1226337017187

      POLICE who laid criminal charges against one of the world’s leading members of the Church of Scientology believed they were being used as part of a campaign by senator Nick Xenophon.

      As prosecutors yesterday dropped the two charges of perverting the course of justice against Jan Eastgate, internal police documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws have revealed officers’ concerns.

      The charges alleged that in 1985, Ms Eastgate intimidated an 11-year-old girl and her mother into not reporting sex abuse allegations within the church. The girl’s stepfather pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault in 2001.

      When the victim went to Balmain Police Station in May 2010 to make a complaint against Ms Eastgate, she was accompanied by Mr Xenophon, the independent Senator from South Australia, and the media. Mr Xenophon had been pushing for an inquiry into Scientology beforehand.

      When the woman returned four days later to Balmain Police Station to make her statement, she was accompanied by Mr Xenophon’s then-political adviser Rohan Wenn.

      The police recorded that ABC’s Lateline, which had interviewed the woman, was screening the following week .

      “(Senator) Xenophon is pushing for a senate inquiry into the Church of Scientology,” said the police in their internal report. “Following this interview (with the woman), investigating police are of the view that this matter … will be used as a political tool to push towards a Senate inquiry being held.”

      An Office of the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions spokeswoman said yesterday the charges were dropped “because there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction”.

      Ms Eastgate, who left Sydney in 1993 and is now international president of the Scientology-linked Citizens Commission on Human Rights, based in Los Angeles, said she had always maintained her innocence. Mr Xenophon denied he had been using the police or the woman because parliament had already refused his call for an inquiry into Scientology.

      • Thanks, LAL

      • Pat, LAL is me. I need to change my initials. Sorry, been not blogging for a while. Good to see you around!

      • I know it’s you, L. Just being silly :P

      • “Mr Xenophon denied he had been using the police or the woman because parliament had already refused his call for an inquiry into Scientology.”

        Ooooo… I love a little sidestep.

      • Pat, I don’t think you understood the quote. Obviously Mr. Xenophon is anti-Scientology, and he has his reasons. If anything, that information proves that the police was wrong in assuming this case would be used as a ‘political tool’ because Xenophon himself admitted there will be no inquiry into Scientology. Try again.

        Clearly this entire case was pointless. Even if Eastgate was guilty (which we will never know), there was never going to be a conviction. Justice was (sort of) served, so congrats. No point in getting your panties in a bunch over Xenophon. He’s not going to change his stance just like you’ll never change yours. Feel free to keep butting your head into that wall though. Cheers.

      • He didn’t say there would be no further inquiry. He skirted the police allegation by say what WAS, not that he might not try again which is what the police were saying.

      • Is It truly unreasonable to ask the police to investigate what is now a crime? Even if he hoped for a particular outcome, why shouldn’t the police simply do their job?

      • The police was abused for a political agenda of hate and propaganda. I understand they were upset about being made to hunt ghosts.

      • So what was reported wasn’t an actual crime? Quite honestly, I think that any police officer that complains about a report of a legitimate crime needs to be carefully looked at. If it was a false report, wouldn’t the senator be charged with a crime himself?

      • But let’s assume that you’re right- that he used completely legal methods in order to harass a perceived opponent. Is that wrong?

      • Visitor, I think he used legal methods to get media involved against his percieved opponent and this is the media, correcting thier mistake for going with it i guess…

      • That’s not exactly my question. If he did use technically legal means with the intention of harassing an opponent, is that right or wrong?

      • In the eyes of the police, it was wrong since they considered he was using them for his own personal or political agenda. It’s also a huge assumption that any allegations were true.

      • I suppose who are you talking about, Nick Xenophon or the media?
        Is it wrong for the media to make out someone is guilty before the case is over? And NOT announce thier innocence in the future if they are wrong? Like so many times in Scientology? Yeah, that is wrong for the media to do that.
        (Its a propaganda trick, focus on any wrongness for as long as possible, ignore any and all rightness or atleast shorten attention on it, the result is many people believing in a lie)
        Was it wrong for Nick Xenophon to harrass Scientology? Yes and no… It depends who you are…
        If you consider Scientology a pro-survival entity, then yeah its wrong. If you consider Scientology a non-survival entity then it is right. As a person you cannot detatch yourself from that. Don’t bullshit me and tell me that you have…
        But courts of law don’t care what else an entity has done, as all are equal in the eyes of the law, all they want is “facts of case” and “12 people to judge”
        There is nothing wrong with making a case in courts of law if you have one. There is nothing wrong with timing that case to suit your political intentions. (Check out Pauline Hanson) But it does make yur case seem to have less truth in it, and thus less likely to be proven “guilty” by them 12 who judge… unless you have very hard evidence.
        Informing the public of that also makes them tend to agree on that side also…

      • At least Aussie Luke KINDA answered the durect question; pat didn’t even come close :)

        Pat- In your view, was what Xenophon did, wrong?

        And, Aussie Luke- you and I have already reached our conclusions, have we not? You feel that scientology is a good thing that needs to be defended. I think that scientology has the potential to be good, once reform is made possible- much like Martin Luther’s role in the Catholic Church. Reformation is good and necessary for any organization, and EVERY major religious group has endured it. If scientology is to endure, reformation is going to happen.

        So, you would accept that the concept of
        “The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”
        Has some validity?

      • By the way, Aussie Luke, I appreciate and respect your honesty and ability to consider multiple sides of an issue. By being willing to acknowledge certain realities (such as, above, the realities of court cases and their political use), your posts carry much greater weight.

      • Response by the Church on Cook allegations in Februrary. (v says no response to the allegations, which isn’t true.)

      • Pat- please clarify… I see no response on the court record. I see only a response given to the media. One could, perhaps, consider that making a response in the media while avoiding making one on the court record avoids the possibility of perjury.

      • “It depends who you are…
        If you consider Scientology a pro-survival entity, then yeah its wrong.”

        Thank you

      • Yeah concluded… i don’t agree that we need to “reform” the way you do….
        All i see in us is evolution, and that keeps us changing which keeps us surviving… (things like all the auditors melbourne and sydney have sent to flag for training or all the sea org that went clear last month in ANZO…)
        You term our “change in order to survive” as reformation… or revolution… Exactly how you see it that way i don’t really want to know…
        That reference only works when the entity harrassed has enough entheta to cave itself in… Any try of that against Scientology is like… i don’t know… trying to buy pornography at an evangelist convention….

      • “If you consider Scientology a pro-survival entity, then yeah its wrong.”
        And if one does not?

        I appreciate and respect your position AL; and you are, it seems, the only one that frequents this site that is able to articulate such a concept. Sincerely, bravo for that.

        I suppose we must disagree on this point. You see, prior to Martin Luther, the Catholic Church would have said the same thing. However, the organization required reform to survive. In fact, reform or a schism is inevitable in scientology if it will survive. Do you believe that scientology can exist indefinitely in its current form? Or will the independant movement every gain legitimacy as a religious movement?

        I think that scientology has potential. But consider the organization from an outside perspective. Consider the news- it’s nearly universally unpleasant, save for the press releases put out by the organization itself. Consider the growing number of former members, much like Debbie Cook, with terrible stories of abuse and harm. Consider the massive number of lawsuits designed to (as pat so delicately put it) “muzzle” opponents. Consider the perspective that an organization that claims to increase ability has not produced a single “clear” (using hubbard’s definition), or a nobel prize winner, or a world leader. These are the things that must be overcome, and I think that in doing so, we will see a significant schism due to the friction between current management and the growing number of unhappy members.

      • Yeah, i dont consider those things as significant…
        No i do think we will survive under our current form.
        We have to EVOLVE… we need more scientologists and more OT and clears and more trained auditors… and when we get that our form will be different…
        We are doing this as best as we can and we will continue to do that as best as we can…

      • “Consider the massive number of lawsuits designed to (as pat so delicately put it) “muzzle” opponents. Consider the perspective that an organization that claims to increase ability has not produced a single “clear” (using hubbard’s definition), or a nobel prize winner, or a world leader.”

        Huh? More generalities, v?

        What “massive number of lawsuits designed to muzzle”? Specifics, dude. I’m amazed that you still do that despite being called on it. Don’t you know how you are perceived when you do that?

        As for perspective, obviously you have chosen to ignore the basic tenet of Scientology – what is true for you is true for you. What is true for me is true for me. Having read the 18 basic books and accompanying lectures that go with them, I disagree with you that we have not produced Clears (we do it daily) and that includes those on Book 1 who achieve it as well, while not even on Church services. I don’t what “definition” you are talking about.

      • “Consider the massive number of lawsuits designed to (as pat so delicately put it) “muzzle” opponents. Consider the perspective that an organization that claims to increase ability has not produced a single “clear” (using hubbard’s definition), or a nobel prize winner, or a world leader.”
        “Huh? More generalities, v?”

        No, Pat- those are very specific points. You might need to word-clear generalities in order to see them. Unless you’re aware of an actual “clear” as defined by hubbard? or any world leaders or brilliant scientists that have benefited from scientology? My lawsuits comment is based on Hubbard’s own policy (“The Scientologist, a Manual on the Dissemination of Material” from Ability Magazine, Major issue 1), in which he says, “The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win.The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.” I’m sure you’ve heard that before. So, yes- I think that my statement is well in line with what is said by source.

        “What “massive number of lawsuits designed to muzzle”? Specifics, dude. I’m amazed that you still do that despite being called on it. Don’t you know how you are perceived when you do that?”

        Perceived by you? Pat, dear, I don’t think that anything that I can do can change that :) But I think that you’ll find that most (non-scientologists) have that same perception. I’ve told you how you can confirm this yourself, rather than taking my word for it- not my fault if you don’t bother to do that before discounting a claim.

        “As for perspective, obviously you have chosen to ignore the basic tenet of Scientology – what is true for you is true for you. What is true for me is true for me. Having read the 18 basic books and accompanying lectures that go with them, I disagree with you that we have not produced Clears (we do it daily) and that includes those on Book 1 who achieve it as well, while not even on Church services. I don’t what “definition” you are talking about.”

        Are you not aware of what Hubbard claimed that a clear can “do”? For example, how about total recall along the whole time track? Increased IQ (which could easily be measured using standard tools)? repairing cancer? Never having colds? Decreasing computational time requirements? (this, of course, assumes that you read the editions of scientology that were released while Hubbard was alive, rather than after his death) For that matter, can any of the OTs do what hubbard said they could? But, our opinions can easily take a back seat to observable fact. I ask again, where are all the scientology industry and world leaders?

        Here’s the real question, Pat- how do you tell the difference between ME (or any average non-scientologist) and someone who paid a quarter million dollars to climb the bridge? I’m happy, I’m healthy. I have a wonderful, loving family. I’m successful at work, I have friends and hobbies. I’m a complete and happy human being. What does scientology have to offer to me? Surely, with Hubbard’s claims, you could easily tell the difference. I can’t control MEST… can you? I get colds… do you? I can’t leave my body at will and travel to physical locations… can you?


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

    IMGP1278

    Fundadores I

    Martes Santo. Californios Cartagena

    More Photos
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.