Anonymous


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

25 May 2010: A Nebraska man who took part in a cyber attack against Church of Scientology websites two years ago was sentenced to one year in prison by a federal judge in Los Angeles.

23 February 2010: Hate group Anonymous member, Mahoud Samed Almahadin, pled guilty to Criminal Mischief on 22 February 2010 in the New York City Criminal Court in connection with a January 8, 2009 attack on the Church of Scientology of New York.

18 November 2009:  Per today’s media Anonymous Dmitriy Guzner got jailed for 366 days for attacking Scientology.org. Not only that – once he is out of jail, he has another two years of probation. Not reported, but likely is that he has to pay up to $100,000 in restitution for the damage he and his “friends” (none of which showed up to plead in his case) created back then in January 2008, when Scientology.org was crashed for a couple of hours.

October 2009:

“The high level of public controversy surrounding Scientology seems to be the key to the organization’s steadily expanding membership.

It appears that there are more than a few individuals who hear the Church being criticized in a variety of media, become curious, decide to look into Scientology for themselves, and then join.

Thus, and not a little ironically, the people and agencies that attack the Church most vociferously end up being Scientology’s best friends.”

James R. Lewis, The Growth of Scientology and the Stark Model of Religious Success in Scientology – Oxford University Press, 2009

Aside from that, I do not like Anonymous:

Hate Crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people. Hate crime can take many forms. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.

In 2006 the internet saw the creation of a phantom calling itself “Anonymous”. With recruits from porn and manga boards the new built group went to town stealing passwords, hacking and crashing MySpace pages and generally being obnoxious to other netizens. Some of Anonymous didn’t want to stop there and extended their work into real life. Online and real life harassment of those perceived as “enemies” followed.

In January 2008 this group got hijacked by another breed of online criminals and gotten to form an truly international form of cyber-terrorism. “Anonymous” now focused on members and buildings of the Church of Scientology. Bomb and death threats on YouTube and other public places were followed by the firing of guns against Church buildings. One might think the situation got out of hand. Nothing further from the truth, Anonymous is now being steered by people who know exactly what they want, how to “push buttons” with with the original manga and porn freaks to set them lose to destroy a religious minority. One could say that Anonymous fails to clean its ranks from psychos and criminals but – without morals to protect it and cowardice as “party line” – is actually actively supporting terrorist activities. Freedom of Expression however ends if is expressed with firing a bullet into someone’s head. It stops to be a civil right the moment someone gets terrorized and harmed by acts of Anonymous. The joke is over since a long time and you didn’t notice. The joke morphed into something you can be jailed for. Is that so hard to understand?

That’s my take. What’s yours?

– Louanne

Update 21 July 2009:

If you did not notice it yet: I don’t like cowards that hide behind masks and live a sad life geared to harass and intimidate others. These people are low-level criminals with no understanding of human rights and human dignity.

Update 12 July 2009:

I stumbled across an article about Anonymous, allegedly “published by the Church of Scientology” (according a PR spin site, so take this with a grain of salt). The article is quite interesting as it has much more facts to present than the usual anti-Scientology nonsense on the web. Somebody did quite some homework. Check it out: “When crime has no face”

Update 12 March 2008:

There is a video documentary called “Anonymous – Hate Crimes & Terrorism Directed at Scientology” which got posted on YouTube yesterday, giving all sorts of details about what Anonymous did. I checked, and this is actually a DVD which the Church is mailing out since a couple of days. You might consider this as well:

Flyer about Anonymous “in their own words”

Update 22 April 2008:

Older discussions are archived here:

Archive1: February 29 to March 14, 2008

Archive 2: March 14 to March 24, 2008

Archive 3: March 24 to April 22, 2008

309 Comments

  1. Check out what Jim Stone said about the e-meter, this guy is ex NSA and is now a journalist. http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/scientology.html

    • So, Mr. Stone concludes that the e-meter is 100% accurate. He doesn’t really say WHAT it’s accurate at doing, but just claims that it’s accurate at something. The FDA warning on the devices suggests otherwise, but let’s assume that Mr. Stone’s correct. So if we want to accept what Stone says in this case, we have to consider the other claims that he makes about scientology:

      “It’s the fact that Scientologists use government level top notch lie detectors for practically everything, to keep infiltrators out.”
      I thought scientologists objected to the term “lie detector”? But no matter- Stone’s demonstrably wrong here, which calls his credibility into question. The e-meter uses a very simple wheatstone bridge, which is NOT an accurate lie detector.

      “I’d like to ask people why they know Hollywood and the MSM is lying about 9/11”
      Oh, he’s a 9/11 denier. Awesome.

      “Scientologists are fighting the flu vaccine”
      Really?

      “They all know, as part of the religion, that the world banks are the enemy and that most governments are rotten to the core, so much so that you cannot be a soldier or other government employee and be allowed into the church as a member”
      Wow.

      “Scientologists also refuse any people as members who have done psychedelic drugs or have EVER been prescribed a psychiatric medication such as antidepressants, because they are fully aware of the fact that those types of drugs do permanent damage that can never be recovered from and that once you take them you can never be truly stable or “yourself” ever again.”
      With this statement alone, Mr. Stone shows that he hasn’t done much research

      ” I saw all the members in this community, and they all have outside jobs”
      Okay, apparently he didn’t talk to any sea org members

      “And when it comes to the e-meter, I am among the most qualified out there to say it is completely legitimate. I actually understand what makes things work, and there is no doubt the e-meter is exactly as represented.”
      Clearly not, if he claims it’s as accurate as an actual lie detector. Of course he understand what makes it work- you can see the plans in the patent. It’s a very simple design that, according to the FDA, does NOTHING in and of itself.

      Perhaps his other articles will be just as accurate? You can check out his articles on how zombie movies are preparing us for when the elite trigger the actual zombie outbreak, on how the government is using earthquakes as a weapon, how the government was behind sandy hook, on the jews and their role in 9/11, how Israel nuked syria and everyone’s lying about it and other moonbattery. Is there even any proof that he was ever with the NSA? I can’t find any, and his former short-term roommate Kerry Cassidy says, “What I do know from living with him is that he is very psychologically damaged…Lots of the stuff he says does not match any real jewish doctirine and I have studied the various forms of orthodoxy…At no time with me did he claim to have worked with the NSA…How valid is this interview if Jim Stone never worked for NSA — the first big foundational lie of the interview… ”

      So maybe this man is a good representative of scientology supporters. But he’s also insane.

      • BD. I agree with every point you made on this man’s statements. He is not a Scientologist and I have no idea how he arrived at these conclusions.

    • Scientology is a scam. Their members are quite violent. Many youtube videos of their members getting arressted for attacking people.

  2. I think this is one of the such a lot vital info for me. And i am glad reading your article. But wanna statement on few normal things, The web site style is great, the articles is in point of fact excellent : D. Good job, cheers

  3. “Anonymous Scientology Myths Forum” was
    a superb blog. If solely there were much more web blogs such as
    this one on the actual web. Anyhow, many thanks for ur precious time, Normand

    • “Normand”,

      Louanne puts a lot of time into this blog. If you’re going to spam it, please at least contribute to the discussion out of respect for her. Besides, she has “nofollow” set, so this is hardly a good site to use for your SEO efforts.

      Best,
      Appless

  4. All religion is false religion, but scientology is by far the worst, and most harmful religion during the current age. It has no sects, no denominations or separate movements, every evil, horrible thing it has done is on the WHOLE church!

  5. Well, I guess this site is officially dead. Louanne delete all discussion, closed all threads, and removed anything that doesn’t fit with what she’s trying to present as “truth”. This comment will be deleted too, I’m sure, once she realizes that she accidentally allowed conversation to exist.

    I guess removing discussions is the only way to pretend like the criticism of Scientology isn’t growing daily.

  6. http://nedu645.narod2.ru В программу Rylstim Budget включены весь необходимые возможности для управления деньгами: управление счетами и категориями и др.

  7. Thanks for putting together this very useful site. As always trolls will troll and spammers are out to do their thing. People who hate are sad. Would you really break down the catholic church to find out WHY they collect their 10% of their parishioners income? You people “anonym” and others who have your head up your asses are SO offensive it is beyond words at this point. I’ve been a parishioner of the Church for almost 20 years. Never was I ”
    held” or “harassed”, “beaten” or “brain washed. And I was part of the Staff at one point and then decided not to be and simply ended my agreement and continued studying and applying Scientology principles to my life. Hatred towards any group will not be tolerated.
    Anonymous is VERY much violent, I’ve scrolled through your 4Chan postings! Are you kidding me? Not only do you attack Scientology but many other minorities, you are racist, hate mongers who support child porn! LOL!

    • Hello, Claudia! You raise some very interesting points in your message, and I hope that you will allow me the opportunity to discuss them.

      You say that you’ve scrolled through a lot of 4chan postings and seen some awful things. May I ask, how many of those things are about scientology? Do you see any indication that 4chan is still discussing scientology, or has any interest in it? I think that you’ll find, on the whole, that they do not. What you’re thinking of is “project chanology”, the global protest movement that grew out of anonymous (not just 4chan). It’s a common mistake, sometimes spread by misinformation, that critics of scientology are the same as “anonymous”, and that anonymous is “4chan”. That’s what you might call A=A=A=A=A thinking. Look at me, I articulate criticisms that I feel could and should be addressed; yet I don’t go to 4chan. So I think that you can see that there is not a direct correlation between the two concepts. You might be surprised to learn that many professionals- lawyers, doctors, etc- are critical of the group. It’s not just bored teenagers, as some seem to baselessly think!

      Which leads me to another point- there is a very significant difference between being critical of something and willing to discuss those criticisms, and wanting to destroy something. One is constructive, and can be used to better a group, while the other is destructive. And, to be fair, both can have its place. However, I, like many critics, don’t want to see scientology destroyed. We just have questions to ask and improvements that are very possible. I assume that you’re familiar with Martin Luther? He, too, was a critic of the church and is responsible for a wide and positive reformation. Criticism is a good thing; it encourages growth and change. Surely scientology wants that.

      If I may ask you- you’ve never been beaten, harassed, etc- and I’m very glad for that! But does that mean that others have not been?

      • It seems that scientologists are often told, like on this site, that they’re the victims- that someone’s out to get them or that the world’s against them because of the “truths” that they have. No- the world’s against management; the critics are against management. It’s management that deflects to bring the average sceintolgist into it. Management is the one making them feel persecuted. And this blog here is one of the official mouthpieces for that objective. Management won’t acknowledge that it’s THEM that is the target of all of the criticism, and it’s DM himself that is deflecting the criticism directly onto those that look up to him- he makes life harder on actual scientologists by ignoring the criticisms against him!

  8. Hiya very cool web site!! Guy .. Beautiful .. Wonderful .. I’ll bookmark your web site and take the feeds also?I am glad to seek out so many helpful info here in the put up, we want develop extra strategies in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .

  9. Thank you a lot for sharing this with all of us you really recognise what you’re talking approximately! Bookmarked. Kindly also seek advice from my site =). We will have a link change arrangement between us

  10. Wonderful work! This is the type of information that are supposed to be shared around the web. Disgrace on the search engines for now not positioning this put up higher! Come on over and discuss with my web site . Thank you =)

  11. Good day very nice website!! Guy .. Beautiful .. Wonderful .. I will bookmark your web site and take the feeds also?I am satisfied to seek out a lot of helpful info here within the submit, we want develop extra strategies in this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .

    • Spammers really love this thread, don’t they? :)

      • Do they? Based on…?

      • Based on the fact that three spammers have posted here recently. Did you not see the generic text coupled with an ad link?

      • Four- sorry

      • To be spammers they would have to put links to their sites. From what I can see they are thanking Louanne for the data. I never click on the names so if there’s a link I don’t see it. I’m only interested in the actual text posts. Trolls are ignored as well.

      • Lol :)
        You think they actually read the page before they posted their spam links? Maybe “mobile cartoon porn” is sincere in their comments, but I wouldn’t count on it :)

      • Thank you for telling me that.

  12. I’m no longer certain the place you’re getting your information, but great topic. I needs to spend a while finding out more or understanding more. Thank you for great info I used to be looking for this info for my mission.

  13. Useful info. Fortunate me I discovered your web site by chance, and I’m surprised why this twist of fate did not happened in advance! I bookmarked it.

  14. Okay, then if what you say were actually true, then you surely could explain why 4chan has not been shut down by law enforcement?

  15. “Comment by Big daddy on November 17, 2010 4:22 pm
    Louanne, I wonder if you would indulge me as I explore a concept?”

    Nice story. You see, with Anonymous, committing crimes is part of their culture. For you your museum that would mean that it displays mainly stolen artwork on its walls, that some of the darker corners of your building would be used to threaten and torture innocent children and that the community room of the building would be used for plot character assassinations and illegal harassment. In real life such a building would be shut down by law enforcement and rightfully so.

    – L

  16. Louanne,
    I wonder if you would indulge me as I explore a concept?
    Let’s pretend that I were to build a building in the style of a museum. However, I leave the walls blank. My museum is unique, however- I allow patrons to bring their own artwork and place it on the walls themselves.
    Now, this museum proves to be very popular, and many people come to place their images or to view what others have placed. Some is certainly not for children, but those areas are hidden behind a curtain, with a sign banning children. This is similar to modern video stores, and the artists respect this rule.
    Now, many of my patrons begin to bond, and collectively refer to themselves as “patrons”, for that is what they are. They develop inside jokes and lingo, as groups often do.
    Some of these patrons also happen to be criminals, and they commit a crime. Am I, or my other museum visitors, to blame for their actions?

  17. a lot to cover.

    You say: “No. I am doing my share to get criminal prosecuted and proper justice applied.”
    Okay. I’m not going to ask you what you’ve done in any of these cases, but I wouldn’t believe it to be too much, given the fact that you would have very little influence over such things (unless you are in an official position within the group?)

    Now, rape is quite a charge. Has that happened, at such a time when an “anon” (I don’t know who you mean by that- visitors of the board? those who self-identify as such? People like you and me who hide their identity?)

    When you say, “show me a reformed anon”, it depends on what you’re looking for. In order for your question to be relevant, you would have to consider crimes that were committed due to ones’ affiliation with others, rather than ones that one would have committed regardless. For example, you list credit card fraud as one example. Are you saying that they committed such an act BECAUSE of their influence by others? Or are they like the many, many others that have committed crimes, without anonymous influence?

    See, I can’t show you a “reformed” anonymous until you can tell me who that is, and what they’re doing that requires reformation. If you mean people who have committed crimes, and were reformed, AND ALSO happen to have adopted the anonymous meme, then you would surely agree that they exist. But if you’re making the claim there are people that commit crimes SOLELY because of their involvement in online activities, then we would need to establish that fact before I’m able to demonstrate any exception.

    And, yes, I do apply that to your group as well. I do not hold you accountable for the actions of Rex Fowler, but I do suggest that the INFLUENCE OF OTHERS could possibly have influenced his decision to mishandle funds, which had a play in the murder. Likewise, I do believe that the actions of Jeremy Perkin’s Scientologist mother had a role in his declining mental health, and that she would be alive if she hadn’t acted in accordence with what she believed to be her religious convictions, but that still doesn’t doesn’t exonerate him of the crime. And I certainly wouldn’t hold any average scientologist responsible for the murders (or other criminal convictions) related to scientology.

  18. “Comment by Bigdaddy on September 30, 2010 6:48 pm
    So you, then would seem to hold me responsible for the actions (not crimes, but you’re imposing morals on the situation, which is fine, as long as we’re clear.”

    You said earlier you are not counting yourself into the Anonymous movement, so in this case the answer is “no”. You are a critic who loves to argue.

    “But, if what you say is true, are YOU guilty for failing to stop or capture scientologists who have committed murder?”

    No. I am doing my share to get criminal prosecuted and proper justice applied.

    “Why does this apply only to “ao anons, most of who couldn’t care less about the subject we’re discussing?””

    So you are saying there are Anonymous hitting up each other, saying “hey, I don’t think you should rape that girl, please stop!” or “let’s stop faking credit cards and ripping off hard-working people”?

    Show me a reformed Anonymous. I don’t believe it.

    – L

  19. So you, then would seem to hold me responsible for the actions (not crimes, but you’re imposing morals on the situation, which is fine, as long as we’re clear.

    But, if what you say is true, are YOU guilty for failing to stop or capture scientologists who have committed murder? There are several to choose from, and all were active in the church. Why does this apply only to “ao anons, most of who couldn’t care less about the subject we’re discussing?

  20. “Except that you’re still trying to lump an entire subculture into the posters at a single website. That’s not a fact, and we all know that. What’s more, anonymous =/= the entire Scientology critic movement. Are you aware if that?”

    I assume, right or wrong, that whoever calls him/herself Anonymous wants to be understood as a member of Anonymous and supports their actions.

    Yes, the Scientology critic movement is different. They are older, have a different agenda and are utilizing those dumb asses who are calling themselves “Anonymous”.

    – L

  21. “Are you saying that ALL anons are evil for the actions of SOME?”

    Those who support and maintain the group and show no effort to correct members that are criminal or spreading hate are just as evil as those who are doing it.

    “Do you believe that any one person who posts anonymously can control the thoughts of another?”

    You wish, eh? No. But such a person can influence others.

    – L

    • Would that by why so many people connected to David Miscavige end up critical of the church, hurt or dead?

  22. Except that you’re still trying to lump an entire subculture into the posters at a single website. That’s not a fact, and we all know that. What’s more, anonymous =/= the entire Scientology critic movement. Are you aware if that?

  23. tl;dr, or what?

    Ok, here in short:

    They are so fucked up that even if they do good it leaves a bad taste.

    – L

  24. That really doesn’t answer my question about a particular noble act that was in way publicized. But that’s okay, it kind of goes against your point.

    Are you saying that ALL anons are evil for the actions of SOME? Do you believe that any one person who posts anonymously can control the thoughts of another?

  25. “Comment by Bigdaddy on September 30, 2010 9:06 am
    Interesting to note, I was surfing the interwebs the other day and saw that some a-hole posted a video of themselves in disguise, killing a cat. Within hours, the killer’s identity was found, as was that of the accomplice, and they were reported to the ASPCA and the police. Do you side with anonymous on such a thing, reporting animal abuse? And this isn’t the first time they have done do’, is it?”

    Yes, there were several such stories recently, the cat in the dumpster, the puppies in the river and the cat killer. All brought to the attention of a world audience by use of social networks that were set up by clever companies like Google or Facebook, by use of internet lines that were created by governments and commercial enterprises and by use of equipment that was put together by hard-working contributors to this society.

    Anonymous, exploiting those means, have also done stories too that such-and-such celebrity died or has AIDS and got media to publish the lies. Or they spread invented stories about alleged rapists and got those people’s homes raided, preferably in the middle of the night. With that background it is extremely hard to determine if their “projects” are real or completely made-up. I side with people who do proper research, bring evidence to the attention of law enforcement and leave it to law enforcement professionals to bring the suspect in front of a court of law. But I won’t support the vigilante actions that Anonymous adds to such cases (even if they prove to be substantial) and certainly not the illegal actions that go along with it.

    Anonymous is not needed on the internet or in society. Just as 4chan is not a meeting ground for do-gooders.

    – L

  26. Interesting to note, I was surfing the interwebs the other day and saw that some a-hole posted a video of themselves in disguise, killing a cat. Within hours, the killer’s identity was found, as was that of the accomplice, and they were reported to the ASPCA and the police.
    Do you side with anonymous on such a thing, reporting animal abuse? And this isn’t the first time they have done do’, is it?

  27. Related to above:
    Grahame describes, quite well, the Scientology concept of “sanity”:

    “In Scientology we know that sanity is the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities. For example, if a man thinks the friendly dog coming towards him is the same as the dog that bit him last week, then him will act irrationally.”

    Does that mean that only an insane person would believe that just because one scientologist murdered someone, that all scientologists are murderers? To me, that sounds insane.

    Applying the same concepts, is it insane to believe that all “anons” are the same?

  28. You can do the same thing with simple google searches. Many, many people and videos will show the way that scientology treats critics. This is even at the top, from “reverend” Carmichael. The only ones that seem to truly believe that critics or “anons” treat scientologists the same way are… the scientologists!
    But that RFW hate site, and other scientologists, still demonize all critics under the same banner- it’s really frightening how angry and viscous the group can be!

  29. I must wonder if scientologists who use YouTube still hate the anons so?
    It’s an interesting experiment, and a relevant concept is amount of video evidence available.
    If you search YouTube for “scientologist attacks anon” or “scientologist attacks protestor”, you’ll get a long list of everything from personal videos to news reports showing scientologists physically attacking anons with fists, hammers and more- mostly fists.
    But reverse it? Search for “anon attacks scientologist”, and you won’t find a single video of an anon treating a scientolgist the same way.
    so, interestingly, the only examples of violence was sees is FROM, not to, the scientologists.

  30. This recent, very relevant article really clarifies the anonymous/Scientology conflict, from New York University Professor Gabriella Coleman. Most interesting is how she talks about how “anonymous” names have been used by activists and artists for many years.

    ——————————————

    NYU professor Gabriella Coleman opened this profoundly profanity laced academic talk with a question: why have internet enthusiasts been drawn to denounce Scientology so vehemently for two decades? Scientology, she explained, has provided a perfect nemesis for geekery.

    To the geeks, freaks and hackers of the net the Church of Scientology subverts the idea of technology to be about control instead of the freedom they cherish. Scientology has a long history of intimidation and litigation against its detractors and former members, which is abhorrent to the wilder ends of the internet. No end is quite as wild as 4chan, and it was out of 4chan’s endless quest for the lulz that online organized resistance to Scientology would emerge. After the infamous Tom Cruise video on his own experience of being a Scientologist and the church’s attempts to get it away of public scrutiny, Anonymous emerged from 4chan, a non-organization hellbent on the Church of Scientology’s absolute destruction. Anonymous started out harassing the Church online, but eventually translated to sometimes hilarious street protests, and disgusting pranking. “They decided to emerge form the internet bunkers and hit the streets,” says Coleman.

    Coleman had a member of Anonymous come speak in her class, who talked about going from ultra-coordinated internet motherfuckery to confrontation with the church, including “Faxing my bare arse to them.”

    Anonymous had real consequence on Scientology. “It pierced the media,” says Coleman,

    “People were more willing to be critical to the church post anonymous.” This included Coleman herself, who had studied Scientology for years but never felt free to come forward with her research. She talked about parallels between Anonymous/4chan and the trickster archetype in mythology, the trickster often not being a very clean and savory character, but perhaps vital for social renewal.

    Brunton opened his part of the talk by saying “If anyone wants to start a band called ultra-coordinated motherfuckery, I have a tambourine.” He went on to speak about what he called “lulzymedia” in general, touching on shock, humor, and action taken under collective pseudonyms by artists, writers, protestors and others. In particular he talked about protest media done under the name Luther Blissett by authors and social protests, largely independent of the net.

    Despite there being particular able groups in this kine of lulzymedia like the Yes Men, it’s by definition out of control, and eventually collapses to a 4chan-likes state of non-control or goes quiet. People trying to tap this creative force to get what they want invariable end up with plenty they don’t want. “There’s this friction between a coherent message, and a lulzy process,” says Brunton

    Ultimately media for the lulz is outside organizational control, and has very specific traits of being exploitable, pleasurable, and full of spectacle. Sometimes it turns into a viable political force, which is the specific phenomenon Coleman and Brunton are beginning to study, but it just as easily falls away. Brunton explains that socially, lulzy groups are like the universal solvent. “Nothing can contain them.”

    Coleman and Brunton plan to publish their ongoing work and tools for attempting to exploit the lulz for poltical purposes at lulzymedia.com.

    The Hackers on Planet Earth conference is an outsized 2600 meeting that happens every two years in New York. It’s come a long way in its time, ideas of hacking expanding from software to hardware, society, food and even sex. Quinn Norton is reporting live throughout the weekend.

  31. So while we’re clarifying lies and mistruths, we must of course find the most obvious of the “dead agent” sites- “religious freedom watch”. It’s a horrifying site that claims to “expose” people that oppose scientology (they claim other groups, but I can only really see defense of scientology) and spends a great deal of time digging into the private lives of their enemies. Instead of sticking to the issues, this is the ultimate “ad hom” site, attackeing the critics on a personal level unrelated to their criticism. At one time, they even offered bounties for the personal information of some of their enemies!

    No one but the insane (which I assume is no one here, but if so, I apologize) takes this site seriously, but the reasons for this deserve to be noted. As I won’t entertain their hate campaign against individuals, I stick instead to their entry on “anonymous”, which may be the source for some of the blind fury from some scientologists against all “anonymous”, to include those that have absolutely nothing to do with scientology. But, to some of the ill-informed, those that targeted the “no cussing” kid or those that participated in the “habbo raids” are the exact same people that protest scientology. Of course, a small amount of research will show that this is not true. But it does leave one to wonder what other lies they’re being told? More in their entry:

    “Pekka-Eric Auvinen posted a threat on an Anonymous forum before going on a shooting rampage, stating he was going to ‘kill people in the name of anonymous.'”
    This is a tricky one. I’m open to more information, but I can’t find any actual news outlet that makes this claim- I only see it from Scientologists and Scientology-controlled sites and postings. His long, rambling “manifesto” is posted in many places online- it doesn’t mention the phrase “anonymous” or “anon”- not once. Not even a mention in any context. The only reference, according to any news outlet, is that he posted his rantings and threats on youtube- that’s common knowledge. he posted many hateful rants on youtube, but I can’t find any claims of being “anonymous”. That being said, there is, I have found, a 4chan posting in which he (one can assume) posts such a threat on 4chan that morning. Reactions varied from “you are f**king retarted” to “DO IT”. That’s the first thing to note- not everyone was in agreement. Also, note that this is the website that invented the rickroll- dark humor pranks are common. That eleminates those that assumed he was joking or lying. That leaves those, and there are surely some, that supported what he would do if serious. Those are bad people, and they existed on youtube, too. However, they are not the entire subculture, as “RFW” would have you believe.
    I’ve enjoyed that out of the few scientology sites that post an image of the original posting, they all leave out some of the later postings. They can’t of course, block out the comments criticising him, but they stop the image before you see, “This is a guy that got a picture of a schoolmate that beat him up and is now to frame his abuser for threatening behavior. Good try OP” (translation, “it’s a hoax”). They also cut out other posts using the same image, with comments such as “hey /b/, i’m going to poop bananas at Jokela high school in the name of anonymous”. Then, when it actually happened, someone called it an “epic fail”, and someone else commented “WTF?! Apparently, someone really start a shooting at Jokela High School here in Winland”. They were surprised at the “coincidence”. Later in the thread, someone reports that they called the cops and they hope the OP enjoys jail. They still didn’t understand the connection. Some did, however. When the Finnish SWAT team moved in and rammed a vehicle through the wall, one poster called that an “epic win” while others asked if the “fag” was “dead yet” and others found and noted his “retarted” youtube ramblings. It really hit personal for one poster, who reported that their best friend was killed and others subsequently called the shooter a “waste of life”.
    It’s all a moot point, though, but it makes the point as to how 4chan posters react to such a thing. Once they realized it was real, they called him a failure, retarded, etc. Of course, they were only reacting to a hoax, anyways. 4chan time is GMT-5, being in New York. The initial 4chan post was at 6:56 AM EST on the day of the shooting. The shooting took place at 1144 Finnish time, (UTC+2), which is actually 4:44 AM GMT-5! In other words, the shooting took place a full TWO hours before the threat was posted. How on earth did that happen?

    Moving on. “Jarrad Willis, after posting a threat on an Anonymous forum to carry out a shopping mall massacre, committed suicide the day before he was to appear in court on related charges.”
    This is very similar. to the previous incident. The posting was made at 3:38 PM GMT-5, while Omaha Nebraska is GMT-6  (during standard time, when the shooting occured). The shooting took place at 1:43 PM GMT-6, which is 2:43 in the 4chan time zone. The posting, then, was made almost an hour after the shooting itself occured. As the shooter was dead by that time, that would be a tricky concept.

    “Later, some Anonymous members moved from 4chan to 7chan because 4chan had “deprived us of our jailbait,” (referring to child pornography). While 7chan no longer exists…”
    First, 7chan does still exist. Read moar.
    Interestingly, RFW distances “anonymous” from 4chan, claiming that they founded 7chan to pursue illicit activities and to protest 4chan’s “oppresive” moderation. Ironically, encyclopeia dramatica reports that the rules and moderation is very similar to 4chan. Also ironically, the only claim that RFW makes of 7chan is that they were created to pursue child pornography- this is untrue, and can be found in the “rules” section of 7chan, which says that they will remove illegal content, to include items that are illegal in the US or Luxembourg, and specifically lists “child pornography or people under the age of 18 nude, partially nude, in underwear, or in suggestive poses” They also warn that anyone asking for child porn will be banned.
    Even RFW no longer links 4chan with anonymous, in some capacities.
    They were, however, telling the truth when they said that some users moved from 4chan to 7chan… and their spelling is spot-on. Everything else is false.

    I won’t bother with the RFW tendancy to accept something that one person said as somehow applying to all anonymous people, but I think we can all agree that that’s innacurate and misleading. Unfortunately, that’s pretty much the reat of the article! they started well, with some facts and figures (although innacurate), but degenerated into assumptions and desperate grasps. My favorite quote: “Who can say how many deaths may have resulted from Anonymous postings?” maybe they could have found just one as an example, if there were truly so many.

    What scientology doesn’t get is that they’re boxing shadows and inventing their own enemies. “anonymous” is a meme- a massively growing online subculture. Scientology is trying to make them into their enemy, which is much like picking a fight with “punks” or “rockers” (being an entire community or culture, most of which couldn’t care less about a particular “war”)

    My second favorite: “Anonymous insiders have admitted to vandalism, bomb threats, plans to create and use pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails against the Church of Scientology, and other illegal tactics of their hate campaign”
    Which insiders? Heck, I didn’t even know there WAS an inside to anonymous, lol!

    Lastly, RFW states: “Fox News aired a special report exposing Anonymous in July 2007”. Yeah, Fox news- that’s where I get my unbiased, accurate news reports! IN fact, wired magazine online presence “wired news” derided the Fox report, noting that the “hacker group” was just your average examples of bored 15 year old kids. Certainly not the threat that scientology would have one believe. Journalist Ryan Singel said that the fact that someone got Fox to do the report seriosly was “by far the funniest prank anyone on the board has ever pulled off”.

  32. This isn’t new news, but I’ve found some more of the actions of members of the “anonymous” meme / subculture:

    In 2997, alleged internet secual predator Chris Forcand, aged 53, was charged with two counts of luring a child under the age of 14, attempt to invite sexual touching, attempt exposure, possessing a dangerous weapon, and carrying a concealed weapon. The police report revealed that “Forcand was already being tracked by “cyber-vigilantes who seek to out anyone who presents with a sexual interest in children” before police investigations commenced”. The responsible group was identified as “self-described Internet vigilant group called Anonymous” who contacted the police after some members were “propositioned” by Forcand with “disgusting photos of himself”. A GTN report stated that this is the first time a suspected Internet predator was arrested by the police as a result of Internet vigilantism.

    (copypasta from wikipedia) Following allegations of vote rigging after the results of the June 2009 Iranian Presidential Elections were announced, declaring Iranian’s Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the winner, thousands of Iranians participated in demonstrations. Anonymous, together with the The Pirate Bay, launched an Iranian Green Party Support site Anonymous Iran. The site has drawn over 22,000 supporters world wide and allows for information exchange between the world and Iran, despite attempts by the Iranian government to censor news about the riots on the internet. The site provides resources and support to Iranians who are protesting

    Just driving home the point that one cannot slander and entire group of people based on one’s misunderstanding of a concept or meme.

  33. I’m sure that by now, even Louanne won’t lump all anonymous posters with the so-called “anonymous group”, much less the 4chan posters or scientology critics.

    In fact, when lives are in danger, even 4chan will “cull the herd” and attempt to remove actual dangerous criminals from their midst. They will, and have, worked with police in order to turn in those that are dangerous to life and liberty.

    In 2007, around midnight of September 11th, s student at Pflugerville High School in Pflugerville, Texas, posted pictures of mock explosives and threats to blow up his school. 4chan users tracked down the poster through exif information embedded in the posted photograph. Using their technical expertise, 4chan posters were able to identify the original poster and notify police, who arrested the hoaxter on the day of the “planned” incident.

    In 2008, 21 year old Jarrad Willis posted “This is my last message, tomorrow a shooting will go down at 189 The Grove Drive, Los Angeles … I will not stop until I am incapacitated or killed by a police officer”. Police spent $100,000 in scrambling officers to the scene to react to the threat, which was never realized. 4chan owners assisted police in tracking the IP address of the poster, which led to the arrest of willis.

    Similarly, in 2009, an anonymous poster claimed that there would be a school shooting at St Eskils Gymnasium in Eskilstuna, Sweden, prompting the evacuation of 1250 students and 50 teachers. 4chan provided the IP address of the poster, leading to the arrest of the poster. Police determined that the posting was a hoax, and no charges were filed.

    And in a touching story, in mid-febuary, a youtube user known as “Timmy” posted the horrifying physical abuse of a domestic cat named Dusty. Outraged, the 4chan community tracked down 14-year old Oklahoma youth Kenny Glenn, and passed his information to the police. As a result, the suspect was arrested and the cat received medical treatment and a safe home.

    So, I think we can move past this misconception that anonymous = criminals = scientology critics.

  34. While we’re talking about myths, and about using inaccurate information to slander an entire culture, we invariably talk about “pedobear”.

    Pedobear is often intentionally misunderstood by scientologists in order to demonize critics, implying that they somehow support pedophilia. That is a bizarre claim used only as an attacking tool- those that truly believe that are either uninformed or intentionally fooled.

    Information for this writing is collected from wikipedia, the toronto sun, pedobear. org, and knowyourmeme. com, each of which is in agreement as to the origin and meaning on this online meme.

    First, it must be noted, that “pedobear” is in no way associated with the anti-scientology movelement, or “project chanology”. However, some make the choice to include the meme for reasons of their own, and this has been desperately seized upon as some sort of tacit approval or endorcement.

    “pedobear” is a renamed and re-imagined version of the japanese ascii character “kuma”, which means “bear”. Pedobear is the perennial pedophile- he looks harmless, friendly even, and is presented as a friendly cartoon character. However, note the eyes- they have no life in them- no emotion. Pedobear is the ultimate predator, and his image is meant to invoke such a concept.

    The usage, in this context, actually began on the 4chan boards. In a forum with (almost) no rules, the culture is self-policing, much like a a real-life society is governed by norms and social mores. As it’s self-policing, certain behaviors are tolerated or even encouraged (such as dark comedy or sarcasm) and some are strongly opposed, such as child pornography (one of the few official rules of 4chan). Pedobear, given his dangerous nature and harmless appearance, is often used within the community to mock contributors showing a sexual interest in under-age girls” (wikipedia) and used more widely as “a cartoon bear used to mock pedophiles on the Internet” (toronto sun). It’s become a sort of visual slang, meaning “You’re being creepy about a kid” (knowyourmem. com) and is often misundersood, particularly by the elderly, as “The vast majority of people do not advocate this type of behavior, and some of which do not see the black humor in Pedobear” (pedobear. org).

    Interestingly, the pedobear concept in America didn’t even begin with 4chan, but the English version of the japanese 2channel image board. With hundreds of other sprites and images, “kuma” was first noted on the Osaka phone image, which a an ASCII image of Osaka from the anime Azumanga Daioh holding a phone to her ear. In this board, Kuma introduced his catch phrase “is dat sum loli”, which established the pedobear perversion. It was only when ported to 4chan that it was presented as a “negative”, rather than as a neutral or even positive concept.

    More recently, “pedobear” began making appearances in relation to the Catholic Church, used to protest the response to the child sex abuse scandals.

    In any context, being referred to or connected to pedobear in 4chan or any other “anonymous” context is one of the gravest insults in a world in which many behaviors are tolerated or lightly mocked. Only the elderly or the ignorant are convinced of otherwise. (present company excluded, of course)

  35. Pretty sure she knows, at least a little bit. But there’s an agenda that makes it in her best interests to slander an entire Internet culture, most of which couldn’t care less about hubbard or david’s group. By doing so, she’s trying to paint Scientology as victims of some sort of mass conspiracy.

    For some reason, Scientology has chosen to take an immediate confrontational tone with mass Internet cultures, which is sort of like showing up to someone’s house and peeing on their doorstep; it’s rude and direspectful. Would you expect the homeowner to ignore the stains on their door?

  36. So Louanne. Since you don’t seem to be able to define “anonymous,” you seem to be having difficulty comprehending what “anonymous” the meme actually is. Why do you fear it so? If Scientology is such a massive powerful organisation, certainly it can stand a bit of criticism.

  37. So no definition other than your own beliefs on the matter, then?
    Do you expect all of “anonymous” to adhere to your definition? As i see it, you’re as anonymous on the Internet as I am.
    As far as any associations, Tld actually did a nice job, do you agree with his definition?

  38. Louanne, could you please define anonymous for us? You seem to paint this group with a broad brush, and seem to have certain beliefs about who wnad what “they” are.

    It seems that you’re trying to malign the entire anonymous movement, defined as “Anonymous (used as a mass noun) is a label and Internet meme adopted within Internet culture to represent the actions of many online community users acting anonymously, usually toward a loosely agreed-upon goal. It is generally considered to be a blanket term for members of certain Internet subcultures” when you really just hate the people that anonymously protest your small group.

    I think you may have gotten confused by the meme portion, as in: “The name Anonymous itself is inspired by the perceived anonymity under which users post images and comments on the Internet. Usage of the term Anonymous in the sense of a shared identity began on imageboards. A tag of Anonymous is assigned to visitors who leave comments without identifying the originator of the posted content. Users of imageboards sometimes jokingly acted as if Anonymous were a real person.” You see that some have jokingly referred to anonymous as an actual real person, or entity, in this case- I think you may have missed the joke.

    I believe you may be meaning to hate those that partake in “Project Chanology”, which is a movement of ANONYMOUS PEOPLE that have banned together in order to protest scientology. You see that by banner together online, they are subject to the anonymous definition, as in the meme. But, anonymous isn’t related to scientology, except in the forced definition from the scientologists.

    I got news for you, my real name is not Tommy Lee Davis. And I don’t know your full name, either. So, guess what? We’re both anonymous, here.

  39. “Hate Crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people. Hate crime can take many forms. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.”

    How does this NOT apply to CCHR? Or even to this site? I’ve heard Louanne, herself, say some pretty horrible things about people…

  40. Louanne,

    In order for your statement to be a truth, you must know BOTH of the following:
    Who was involved in the crimes
    Their current disposition.

    I must make the addition of Hubbard himself who, as you recall, was shown to have knowledge of the crime, and was labeled as an “unindicted co-conspiritor”. (forgive my spelling, I’ve been working rather hard).

    Have you ever considered this?:
    If the “Guardian Office” was attempting to wrest control of the group away from hubbard, why were they trying to locate and destroy incriminating information on Mr. Hubbard?

  41. “They got fired. And some of them expelled from the Church.”

    Including Hubbard’s wife, right?

    ANOJ asks an interesting question: was Hubbard unable to control his organization, or just his own household?

  42. Goodness, it would appear that I answered my own question.

    [Very good. Is that the reason you ignored my answer? -L]

  43. Here is a question, then. What happened to those that knew of the illegal operation, and either assisted it or failed to stop it?

    • “Here is a question, then. What happened to those that knew of the illegal operation, and either assisted it or failed to stop it?”

      They got fired. And some of them expelled from the Church.

      – L

  44. BG said: ” Comment by bigdaddy on January 1, 2010 2:43 pm
    but the question is how could such a thing happen (involving his own wife, no less).”

    You said: That’s rhetorical, I guess.

    It doesn’t sound rhetorical to me. It’s actually quite a straightforward question, as to how all this could go on, without Hubbard’s knowledge. That doesn’t sound possible, unless he was completely kept out of the loop and even his own wife was able to fool him.

    Either way, it’s not a good scenario. Either the group itself “shed” hubbard, and became a squirrel entity, or hubbard knew what was going on.

  45. maybe I can break it up a bit for ya.

    true or false: hubbard’s wife was arrested in conjunction with what she/they called “operation snow white”

  46. nothing, you’ve already ignored everything else. and you’re hardly providing a second perspective, you’re calling contrary evidence wrong, and submitting your theory, which has no evidence to support it.

    what we’re left with is either hubbard knew what was going on, or couldn’t even manage his household. and that’s not addressing what he set in motion.

    either way, he gave up control of his group and lost control of his home. no?

  47. “Comment by bigdaddy on December 31, 2009 9:09 am
    so… you’re not introducing anything new, just referring to an article that you wrote with no sources, no references, no evidence at all. clearly a bias exists, yet you would have us accept only your word?”

    No. I am providing a second perspective to the usually one-sided view on the subject. You make up your own mind.

    “for the sake of conversation, and ignoring the court records and the like, do you agree that hubbard’s own wife was indeed arrested for this crime, as well as other high-level members?”

    All you come up with are generalities. How about providing some facts and a clear statement? Several people were arrested, yes, that’s a historical fact. Now what?

    – L

  48. “your theory makes little sense”

    Certainly you say that. How did you end up there? I am just stating facts.

    – L

  49. ” Comment by bigdaddy on January 1, 2010 2:43 pm
    but the question is how could such a thing happen (involving his own wife, no less).”

    That’s rhetorical, I guess.

    “is it possible such a thing could happen again?”

    Unlikely, but never impossible. The Church has learned a lesson there and if you study up on the management policies you’ll see that a lot of transparency and control mechanisms were added after the 1970s. And I’d say that 40 years of “white vest” do indicate an improvement.

    – L

  50. lastly, how is it possible that those that hubbard trained were unable to prevent this? is that why dm retrained thos that hubbard hmself trained?
    occam’s razor applied, sounds like this was done with hubbard’s knowledge.your theory makes little sense.

  51. but the question is how could such a thing happen (involving his own wife, no less). is it possible such a thing could happen again?

  52. You’re partially right, Louanne. And I suspect that you know that you’re telling a partial truth.

    The Grand Jury Findings are as follows:

    “On or about March 27, 1976, MARY SUE HUBBARD,
    JANE KEMBER, MO BUDLONG, HENNING HELDT,
    RICHARD WEIGNAD, GREGORY WILLARDSON approved
    Guardian Program Order 302 which was written by CINDY
    RAYMOND. The order directed the infiltration
    of all government agencies for the purpose of illegally
    obtaining those documents related to Scientology which had been
    withheld by these agencies pursuant to provisions of the
    Freedom of Information Act.”

    So, yes, the FOIA was involved, but as a precursor to what was later a crime.

    So the question is: This happened while Hubbard was alive- his organization was involved, as was his wife. That raises the question: Did he know what they were doing? If not, was he unable to manage his organization as well as his household?

    • L. Ron Hubbard left active Church management in 1966, publicly and with a note to the staff that he was intending to continue his research and can’t spend a lot of time on day-to-day affairs of the Church. That means he was off active management (I am sure he continued advising but if I remember right he was living in South Africa around that time) during the time the criminal activities happened. I am not endorsing any of this. It was wrong, it was a mistake but it is not what either Scientology nor the Church of Scientology is about. The scandal resulted in a complete closure of that part of the Church structure – the Guardian’s Office – and a full re-creation of the functions these guys were supposed to fulfill (legal and PR activities as well as pushing for social reforms), with new people. More details about the Guardian’s Office are also on the site, here: http://www.scientologymyths.info/guardians-office/

      – L

  53. so… you’re not introducing anything new, just referring to an article that you wrote with no sources, no references, no evidence at all. clearly a bias exists, yet you would have us accept only your word?

    for the sake of conversation, and ignoring the court records and the like, do you agree that hubbard’s own wife was indeed arrested for this crime, as well as other high-level members?

  54. louanne,
    have you ever noticed that critics are, generally, more respectful and less insulting than you are?

    anyways, I am sure that david did read you rather imaginative article. it’s beautiful fiction. however, i’m sure he also read the court decision from “United States of America v. Mary Sue Hubbard”, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 1979.

    otherwise, why did hubbard’s wife, and many other high-ranking executives, go to jail?

    why, also, did it take 156 fbi agents (the most used in a single raid) to recover and load the recovered documents from the LA church?

  55. Oh and by the way. Your “Article” on Snow white was absolute rubbish.
    If you had even an ounce of investigative journalism to your name, you would have gone to the library of congress site and done a freedom of information request.
    However, you are clearly trying to make yourself look good.

    So tell me, if “Operation snow white” Never happened, why was Mary Sue Hubbard Arrested and sentanced to time for acts of treason and conspiracy against the government of the United States?

    This is PUBLIC RECORD.

  56. SImilarly, if I decided that I wanted to be a part of this “group”, but do not chant or protest, would you claim to be able to judge my intentions as well?

  57. No, I have not. But I have watched them on youtube- seem like a lot of fun.

    So, how do you define anonymous? Do you consider me to be anonymous? Do you believe that they have leaders, and a membership list?

  58. Anonymous, with a capital A. The group, the guys that chant “We are Anonymous, we are legion.” Have you ever been to an Anonymous raid?

    – L

  59. Does that give you enough data to judge all of those that you consider to be “anonymous”?

  60. The observation that masked guys are blocking the entrance to my Church and are screaming insults and provocations at me is quite enough to get a first idea. That the same guys continue this behavior in ignorance of actual facts, for 21 months, makes another observation, which is that they are either paid, brainwashed or completely incapable of their own observations. They claim they want to “end abuse” by abusing those they consider the victims of the abuse, i.e. public Scientologists? Doesn’t add up.

    – L

  61. Is your observation on people in masks, who you call anonymous, more valid than the observations that some may make regarding scientologists? Furthermore, how many of them have you observed to a sufficient extent to be able to determine what drives them and how they live their lives? Those are deeply personal convictions- you must have spent a great deal of time with each one…

  62. “How is it that you presume to know what drives these people or how they live their lives?”

    Observation. 21 months now.

    – L

  63. “If you did not notice it yet: I don’t like cowards that hide behind masks and live a sad life geared to harass and intimidate others. These people are low-level criminals with no understanding of human rights and human dignity.”
    -from the edit to this thread, at the top of the screen

    How is it that you presume to know what drives these people or how they live their lives?
    Except, of course, that this is almost exactly what Hubbard had said, and breeds such prejudice.
    Also, what really is the difference between wearing a mask in person, and hiding behind a computer screen? I have no idea what you look like, or what is your real name. How are you any better than other people that wear masks?
    _FR

  64. I would like to put forth a theory.

    First, we will repeat your definition of “hate crime”

    Hate Crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group,

    usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. Hate

    crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire

    group or class of people. Hate crime can take many forms. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal

    abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.

    your words, from the top of the thread.

    Next, I would like to submit a few quotes from you, Louanne Lee:

    “One could say that Anonymous fails to clean its ranks from psychos and criminals but – without morals to protect it and cowardice as “party line” – is

    actually actively supporting terrorist activities.”

    “every single one of you has not the slightest purpose to improve anything”

    “If I’d been there I had bulldozed these vicious trolls out of the way”

    “A bunch of masked cowards they are.”

    “these Anonymous goons”

    “A few hundred idiots, yes, and what they did is “normal” for Anonymous members.”

    “My tolerance level for losers just hit the roof.”

    “Scientologists do not listen to masked, obnoxious assholes.”

    “Germany became a country of killers and it seems like they have not learned yet that tolerance and understanding make up a successful group.”
    (assuming that you draw a parallel between Germany and Anon?)

    “The inventions and outright lies of some “anonymous” cowards show their view on “human rights” and their understanding of fair and equal treatment: none.”

    “by members of the “Anonymous movement” who since day one of their criminal activities against the Church of Scientology ”

    Time and again, a whole group (or, I would call it a “movement”) is insulted or accused, coming directly from you.
    I would also like to submit the following quotes to include your collegue Pat, which is relevant as it outlines the broad accusations against

    “anonymous” (such as the implications that they are all crimiinals):

    “You’re terrorists.”

    “You’re critical. What are your crimes?”

    “Those who are critical of Scientology have crimes. The only ones objecting to that and whining about it are the very criminals that it applies to.”

    “I don’t need to know you to know that you’re a critic, therefore you have crimes. That’s a certainty. It is true, 100% of the time”

    “You have crimes. That’s all I need to know.”

    I would also like to submit the following quotes and examples from the CoS and/or other scientologists:

    “They also have engaged in cyberterrorism and more conventional forms of harassment such as telephone bomb threats and vandalism.” (an unproven

    accusation from the scientology-owned religious freedom watch site)

    “http://www.lisamcpherson.org/images/nazis_clearwater_79.jpg” (calling opponents ‘fascists’)

    Of course, this is relevant, than less so, so I won’t spend too much time. Only point is that these generalities are not limited to this thread

    Until recently, I didn’t consider this to be true. I can only conclude that Scientology itself is a hate group, per your own definition. You, and

    others like you, target protestors, mask wearers and others because of their membership in a group that you yourself believe to exist! You, of course,

    target a whole group based solely on membership alone, and not individual merits, and you engage in verbal abuse and insults.

    So what makes you better than the ones that you’ve called so many vicous things? Anyone?

    Unless, of course, you would say that you’re exercising your right to free speech, which I could support, but you should allow the group that you hate

    the same liberty. In other words… glass houses… The irony is that the same members that you accuse of so many crimes are now assisting the fight

    against Tyrany in Iran- doing a job that the government and scientology both is unable to do. Why would they put themselves at risk of retribution if

    they’re as awful as you say?

    And we’re not even started on the treatment of psychiatrists (who are maligned by scientology soley for their profession) in this and countless other forums, including the cos website!

    End point is this… look in the mirror, and ask what makes you better than those that you judge.

    (note: there is NO disrespect meant by this posting. the point is that a different standard seems to be applied, and I’m hoping that we can all end up on the same page)

  65. Louanne,
    You’ve posted some extremly hateful things about a group that you call anonymous.
    Could you please define exactly WHO and WHAT is anonymous? In other words, when you refer to this group, what is it that you mean?
    thanks in advance,
    _F

    • I did not elaborate on my personal experience with these jerks, just to be fair, but the article covers my viewpoint. Feel free to disagree.

      – L

  66. May I introduce the only form “Anonymous” seems to be able to use for communication: trolling. A couple of months ago an article about it was published on Nolan Chart, called “What is trolling?”:

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article4827.html

    The links in the article are worth reading.

    – Louanne

  67. @Comment by ANON on January 29, 2009 9:03 am

    Do you have a question? I don’t see one here – only a statement.

    Pat

  68. I HAS QUESTION
    SO HOWS DO U LIEK GIVING UR MONEY AWAY TO THE UFO CULT AND FOLLOWING SCIFI BOOKS WRITTEN BY A DOPED UP PEDO WANTED IN SO MANY COUNTREIS HE HAD TO GO LIVE ON A SHIP WITH HIS OWN PERSONAL MANBOYLOVE SLAVE ARMY EL RON HUBBARD?

  69. Comment by Slowpoke on January 20, 2009 3:24 am

    What is your question?

    Pat

  70. Hay guise!

    Let’s have a debate about Anonymous vs. Scientology.

  71. I’m interested in the various statements by Scientologists along the lines of ‘What is true for you is true for you’. I realise that due to the nature of the following question the answer is going to be purely from the perspective of whomever answers it.

    Pat, Louanne, or both, do you see a singular objective reality, a singular subjective reality or an individual (most likely positivist) reality?

  72. You have taken a paragraph completely out of context. This is BS trying to undermine our use of the law to bring criminals to justice. Please find me 1 instance where the Church sued someone who didn’t do the crime charged.

    You even quote a policy out of context that’s been cancelled! LOL

    Here’s the real timeline on that policy. You really should have ALL the data.

    http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_policy-letter_history_fair-game.html

    You link OSA to Paulette Cooper (from the 70s) when OSA wasn’t even formed yet.
    You should look at the links here for the true facts on that

    http://www.scientologymyths.info

    Pat

  73. I read the same article by Walt. My understanding is that he deleted them mainly because they weren’t documented enough. I saw someone there trying to get the anon to come up with the documentation. The idea is that when you post something and say “this is so” then you’d better have something more than an opinion to back it up. (I also don’t think he’d buy something written by a “news” source that uses an opinion site as source. Gotta have those valid cites.

    Pat

  74. I can’t answer your “questions” because I don’t have this information and you know that.

    Or not. Who cares.

    – Louanne “Gloria Patria” Lee

  75. “What should I do?”

    Well, Gloria, you should probably answer my questions. Just a thought.

  76. “Just keep telling yourself that, Gloria Idda.”

    Gloria Idda, Gloria Idda, Gloria Idda…nothing happened!!!

    What should I do?

    – Louanne

  77. “Bullshit, OKIAN. Nolanchart killed about 20 articles to stop the ongoing posting of recycled articles on nolanchart. Three of them were mine, the rest were blunt Anon lies.”

    As they say in my country, proof or GTFO. Right now, the only articles which I can confirm were taken down are yours. You posted the links, now the links are dead, QED.

    “My name is not Gloria,”

    Just keep telling yourself that, Gloria Idda. Tell me, how are things over at the OSA Internet Unit? Are you guys still upstat despite this whole Anonymous flap? Has anyone from the unit blown because of it? Have you, personally, experienced any doubts about the power of the Tech to handle the Internet? After all, we’re still here. I’m still here. Despite your best efforts, you haven’t shattered our so-called suppression. I would hope you’re starting to wonder why.

  78. Bullshit, OKIAN. Nolanchart killed about 20 articles to stop the ongoing posting of recycled articles on nolanchart. Three of them were mine, the rest were blunt Anon lies.

    – Louanne

    PS: About three weeks ago some Anon asshole decided to call me Gloria. Now you start doing the same. Can you shed some light why you are doing this? My name is not Gloria, though it sounds nice, “glory”.

  79. Nice try, Gloria, but if he had had a problem with Anonymous, he would have deleted the comments. Instead, he deleted the articles. Your articles, which supported Scientology(TM) and opposed Anonymous. So tell me, Gloria, how did your articles violate NolanChart’s terms of service?

  80. Walt Thiessen was pretty fed up with all this Anonymous-created abuse of his site and deleted a whole bunch of articles. I understand that. This website nolan chart has so nothing to do with scientology, anonymous and any of the ongoing controversy that I would have done the same in his position.

    – Louanne

  81. Looks like those links point to articles that no longer exist.

    I searched nolanchart for ‘anonymous’ and came up with this:

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article4858.html

    He mentions how disappointed he is about the lack of research on recently submitted articles about anonymous and scientology, perhaps these fit that criteria?

  82. Here are some new articles on Anonymous:

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article4803.html
    http://www.nolanchart.com/article4802.html

    – Louanne

  83. Wow Post Moar Faggotry Plz?

  84. EA,

    What probably hasn’t been clear here is that Scientology is not taught. It is studied. It is evaluated based on personal integrity (what’s true for you is true because you used it and found it worked – my words).

    Part of the Scientology Study Technology is a test of whether it works for you or not

    It goes like this.
    1. How could it be that way
    2. How could it not be that way

    By working those 2 points, back and forth, on anything you find hard to believe you can decide for yourself if it’s true for you or not. That’s all there is to it. It doesn’t have to be true for you, ok? There’s nothing wrong with that.

    On that line, I still don’t understand how you arrived at the idea that Atheists should be isolated from society. The quote I gave you talks about Science being godless, because it teaches that we are mud and not spiritual beings. That’s what it means to me, anyway. I have seen some Atheists state that they believe they are spiritual beings while at the same time believing that there is no Creator. There are people out there who aren’t even Scientologists that believe they are spiritual beings. We don’t have a copyright on knowledge (just the marks of Dianetics and Scientology and the works of L Ron Hubbard :P), and we aren’t telling you what you have to believe or not believe.

    You’ve called it being vague, when I tell you to use your personal integrity. I hope this clears it up for you. If you want an opinion, then you would get my reality and personal truths. It may not agree with yours. What’s true for me may not be true for you. Is that ok?

    Pat

  85. Hm. It’s been a while. Can we expect any further response from the Scientologists(TM) on this blog?

  86. Okay, so I read the linked source material, and right off the bat I have a few problems with it. If someone would like to address these, that’d be great:

    1: Hubbard seems to act under the assumption that membership in all such “groups” is voluntary and that all members of the group are party to the creation of its “rules”. I suspect there are some feudal serfs who would disagree.

    2: Further, the concept of “overts” seems to operate under the assumption that there is no such thing as a negative “moral code”. I hate to Godwin the whole argument, BUT: Nazi Germany had a set of moral codes. Would acting against those be an “overt” and thereby the cause of all the difficulty that supposedly comes along with that?

    3: Hubbard frequently switches between qualifying language and absolutes. For instance, he states that it is -possible- for individuals to be forced out of a situation because it has become so untenable, though this is rare. In the very next paragraph, he states in absolute terms that “A man with a clean heart can’t be hurt” and that a person’s departure is -by necessity- a product of their overts and withholds. How do you reconcile these two statements?

    4: Again, I hate to invoke the Nazis, but they ARE a handy sociological reference point. In regards to the claim that “A man with a clean heart cannot be hurt”, how does this fit with, say, the Holocaust? How does it fit with ethnic cleansing? In those situations, people are (through no fault of their own) being persecuted and harmed, meaning that their alternatives are:
    A: Fight back (and, frequently, defy the agreed-upon “moral codes” of the majority of society)
    B: Flee (leaving the “group”, apparently as a result of their own overts)
    C: Let themselves be victimized (which, according to Hubbard, is apparently impossible).

    I don’t mean this to sound disrespectful, but honestly, it all sounds incredibly simplistic and ignorant of not only the vast body of sociological and anthropological research, but human history as well.

  87. Okay, let me try this again:

    “Godlessness” is typically defined as lack of belief in a god or gods. This is the same as atheism. Lack of belief in a soul may or may not enter into it; however, that’s irrelevant for the question at hand.

    -Given- that many, perhaps most, atheists ALSO deny the existence of a soul, does Hubbard suggest that these individuals should be isolated from society? Even given the narrower-than-normal definition of “godless”, they would seem to qualify.

    If this is NOT the case, could you expound a bit upon how -you- read the term “godless” here, along with his suggestion that said individuals should be removed from society?

  88. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 17, 2008 8:08 am

    Got it.

    EA, What do you mean by “creative” interpretation? You either understand it or you don’t, right? What does it say? It is what it is. You maybe are used to dealing with people who speak in innuendo? Why would you try to think it means anything other than what it says?

    He was very clear what he meant by Godlessness. Nothing less, and nothing more.

    Pat

  89. Pat-

    Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was responding to your post, starting with

    “False

    What word was misunderstood? ”

    I could have been more specific, and for that I apologize.

  90. No more until my questions are answered.

    By the way, AKION. That’s so cool that you use LRH’s full name like that. :)

    Pat

  91. EA, what post is your post in reply to?

    Pat

  92. Er, actually, I have to interject here…

    The primary thrust of the quoted passage seems to be the denial of a supreme being. That is -precisely- what atheism is.

    Now, if you’d like to try to “creatively” interpret that passage to mean that “godlessness” must by necessity include a completely materialistic world view and thereby deny anything transcendent in humanity, you still run into a couple of problems.

    1: This is still in line with the position of many, if not most, of the self-defined “atheists”;
    2: Freedom of religion also includes freedom NOT to believe, and that passage would still seem to condemn individuals who do not believe in a soul or gods or anything “supernatural” to, at best, removal from the rest of society.

    Can you please indicate how the above is incorrect, if at all?

  93. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 16, 2008 6:56 pm

    False

    What word was misunderstood?

    If you read the quote you’ll see that he tells you exactly what he means by Godless. What does Atheist have to do with those trying to say we are only lumps of mud and not spiritual beings?

    Pat

  94. Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. But allow me to confirm one thing.

    True or false, Pat: Lafayette Ronald Hubbard supports quarantining atheists from society.

  95. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 15, 2008 11:21 pm
    >Pat, I have become convinced that you are physically incapable of logical reasoning.

    Physically? LOL

    >Nonetheless:

    >In my previous post we find Lafayette’s description of persons in the 2.0-and-under bracket, and the traits which are (uniformly) associated with them. If you find my summary paragraph an inaccurate listing of those traits, you may at least refer to the original quotes.

    My interest is in seeing how you can read one thing and add things into it that it doesn’t say. That’s why I made a point of asking for the page #s. For that I am called illogical. All that tells me is that you have decided in advance what is wrong then try to make the text fit your preconceived prejudices. You have accused me of your own illogic.

    >In the post before that, we find Lafayette’s prescription for persons in the 2.0-and-under bracket, in which he recommends “the permanent quarantine of such persons from society”. While only 1.1’s are specifically asked to be “institutionalized,” it is evident that any person 2.0 and below is to be considered legally insane

    And that’s a problem for you, because…. ? One would think you’d be happy to have a technology that could give you a tool to spot those who would be non-survival in your life.

    >Now, just to give you one example, Lafayette’s description of this bracket includes “the Godless” and those who “tend, as a general rule, to consider all life, all organisms as MEST”. Unfortunately for you, we have in America this thing called “freedom of religion.” I’m sure you’re familiar with it. And to assert that “the Godless” “should not have… any civil rights of any kind” is squarely in opposition to religious freedom.

    What religion believes that man is an animal and not a spiritual being?

    By the way, you’re missing some context here. It would help if you had the book, yourself. The page #s you give are wrong. And wherever you’re getting these are incomplete.

    “Modern science, producing weapons for annihilation of men, women and children in wholesale lots, has solidly run itself aground on the reef of godlessness. Modern science has gone so far as to advocate the rise of man from mud and clay alone, has denied to him even the semblance of a soul and so has not only solved none of the problems of the humanities, but has aided and abetted a godless, totalitarian government which seeks nothing less than the engulfment and enslavement of all men and the extinguishment of every spark of decency in the breast of every human being. These two tracks which have led away from the affirmation of the existence of a Supreme Being (modern science and totalitarianism) are both bringing Man into a machinelike state of being where the ideal has become a lump of muscle, greasy with sweat, or a grimy mechanic serving a howling monster of steel. …. The abandonment of the admission of a Supreme Being, as a reality intimate to the life of Man, makes prostitution the ideal conduct of a woman, perfidy and betrayal the highest ethic level attainable by a man, and obliteration by treachery, bomb and gun the highest goal attainable by a culture. Thus, there is no great arguement about the reality of a Supreme Being, since one sees in the failure to countenance that reality, a slimy and loathesome trail downward into the most vicious depths.”

    I wonder why you wouldn’t read this for yourself?

    Pat

  96. “I’m not asking you to believe what is written there but rather, read and understand the text and then try to look at your own experiences in light of what is stated and see if it makes sense to you.”

    That’s fair. I’ll do just that and get back to you a little bit later. Thank you for taking the time to respond.

  97. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 16, 2008 12:20 am

    If the hypothetical rape victim “continuously complained” or displayed “harping criticism” for her attacker, that would be a sign that she has unaddressed crimes?

    I think that depends on what she’s criticizing and in what context and I’m afraid I have to refer you to some source material if you want to understand the phenomena you’re trying to explore: scientologyhandbook.org/SH9.HTM

    Please take a look, it’s not that long. The chapter titled Moral Codes explains what overt acts and withholds are. You need to get an idea of those in order to understand the next pages. Then, the chapter titled Justification lists various manifestations of having withholds, including criticism, and the chapter titled Blow-Offs gives details on the mechanism that makes a person leave a group and then criticize it.

    Further, does that mean that hatred that’s kept bottled up, rather than manifesting through “criticism”, would not be a problem?

    Excellent question. The symptoms are not the important part and criticism is just a symptom. The problem is the undisclosed harmful act. That is going to drive the person and others unhappy and that is a problem.

    Please read through the above material, that should help you see what this is all about.

    I’m not asking you to believe what is written there but rather, read and understand the text and then try to look at your own experiences in light of what is stated and see if it makes sense to you.

  98. “No, it is addressed. It’s the criticalness, or hostility itself that is the “tell” here. This is the part that you apparently seem to have trouble with. It’s the harping criticism, continuous complainer that we are talking about. That’s clear in the references I and others have given you.

    In that category, you can find yourself. ”

    Heh, cute personal attack, but whatever. That’s what I’ve come to expect. Moving on:

    No, it really -isn’t- addressed. If the hypothetical rape victim “continuously complained” or displayed “harping criticism” for her attacker, that would be a sign that she has unaddressed crimes?

    Further, does that mean that hatred that’s kept bottled up, rather than manifesting through “criticism”, would not be a problem?

  99. Pat, I have become convinced that you are physically incapable of logical reasoning. Nonetheless:

    In my previous post we find Lafayette’s description of persons in the 2.0-and-under bracket, and the traits which are (uniformly) associated with them. If you find my summary paragraph an inaccurate listing of those traits, you may at least refer to the original quotes.

    In the post before that, we find Lafayette’s prescription for persons in the 2.0-and-under bracket, in which he recommends “the permanent quarantine of such persons from society”. While only 1.1’s are specifically asked to be “institutionalized,” it is evident that any person 2.0 and below is to be considered legally insane and “should not be given more freedom in the society than the chronic psychotic, since he is as thoroughly psychotic in his acute state of enturbulence as any constantly insane individual.”

    By a simple syllogism, we can derive that Lafayette’s prescription applies to persons who have those traits that are associated with the 2.0-and-under bracket.

    Now, just to give you one example, Lafayette’s description of this bracket includes “the Godless” and those who “tend, as a general rule, to consider all life, all organisms as MEST”. Unfortunately for you, we have in America this thing called “freedom of religion.” I’m sure you’re familiar with it. And to assert that “the Godless” “should not have… any civil rights of any kind” is squarely in opposition to religious freedom.

  100. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 15, 2008 4:03 pm
    >>“It is very valid to fight back when one is attacked but hatred toward the attacker is a different matter entirely.”

    >I agree that the two are different, but that still fails to address the examples I mentioned.

    No, it is addressed. It’s the criticalness, or hostility itself that is the “tell” here. This is the part that you apparently seem to have trouble with. It’s the harping criticism, continuous complainer that we are talking about. That’s clear in the references I and others have given you.

    In that category, you can find yourself.

    Pat

  101. Let’s review. Lafayette considers jerks, idolaters, sexual puritans, sexual deviants, pro-choicers, the immoral, the forgetful, the unlucky, the smelly, and atheists to be in the 0.0 to 2.0 band, as well as those who refuse Dianetic processing.

    He said these should be institutionalized where exactly?

    jerk = page #?
    idolators = page #?
    sexual puritans = page #?
    sexual deviants = page #?
    pro-choicers = page #?
    the immoral = page #?
    the forgetful = page #?
    the unlucky = page #?
    the smelly = page #?
    atheists = page #?
    Non Dianetic = page #?

    Go back again, and tell me exactly who he says should be the ones in the institutions, and tell me why that’s wrong. For some reason, it doesn’t appear that you answered me on that.

    Pat

  102. “It is very valid to fight back when one is attacked but hatred toward the attacker is a different matter entirely.”

    I agree that the two are different, but that still fails to address the examples I mentioned.

    For instance, with the rape victim: I’m not talking about fighting back, I’m talking about after the fact…days or weeks after. It is not uncommon for rape victims to feel a tremendous amount of hostility towards their attackers.

    According to the idea you’ve put forth, is that because they themselves have “crimes”?

    Again, I don’t disagree with your basic premise that -sometimes- hostility is a cover for something else; I just think it’s incredibly simplistic to try to say that that’s ALWAYS the case. There are pretty clearly situations where it’s not.

  103. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 14, 2008 9:33 and June 14, 2008 9:35 am

    I think a distinction must be made between the various things you brought together in those examples.

    Attacks will no doubt bring about certain responses like resistance, opposition, fighting back, submission, confusion, etc.

    But taking every opportunity to convince anyone who cares to listen how bad the attacker is, that’s not one of the responses the attack itself brings about.

    That is a response to internal pressure to lessen the burden of one’s actions against the target of the accusations, manifesting as anxious effort to lessen that target itself by destroying its reputation, lessening its apparent value, making it appear sinister, etc.

    As Pat pointed out before, that is a further act against the target and thus we have a positive feedback mechanism, a dwindling spiral where the ever increasing burden of one’s actions will destroy them one way or another. That may take a while but will surely happen unless the feedback mechanism is interrupted.

    It is very valid to fight back when one is attacked but hatred toward the attacker is a different matter entirely.

  104. You disagree that those who are harming others should be isolated until they can be brought up above 2.0?

    What I disagree with is Lafayette’s definition of “those who are harming others.” For example, from Book One of Science of Survival:

    “At 2.0 we reach a level of antagonistic conversation. The individual is apt to nag or to make derogatory comments to invalidate other people. On this level the individual can only be roused by nagging, nasty cracks, invalidations, and other antagonistic communication.”
    (Chapter 13, p. 63)

    “At 1.1 on the tone scale would ensue doubt of one’s own reality, insecurity, and attempts to gain reassurance. In the sphere of MEST realities there would be appeasement of gods or elements.”
    (Chapter 15, p. 69)

    “At the band of 2.0, we begin to get a disgust for sex, a revulsion toward sex, mostly when irregularly practised.”
    (Chapter 18, p. 76)

    “At 1.1 on the tone scale we enter the area of the most vicious reversal of the second dynamic. Here we have promiscuity, perversion, sadism, and irregular practices. We have no enjoyment of the sex act but a hectic anxiety about it. The sex act cannot truly be enjoyed whether performed regularly or irregularly. Here is Free Love, easy marriage and quick divorce, and general sexual disaster.”
    (ibid.)

    “At 1.1, a mother will attempt the abortion of her child; and any woman who will abort a child, save only if the child threatens her physical life (rather than her reputation), lies in the 1.1 bracket or below. She can be expected to be unreliable, inconstant and promiscuous; and the child is looked upon as evidence of this promiscuity.
    At 0.5 we have abortion with the specious reasoning that the world or the future is too horrible to bring a child into. With the parent at 0.5, all the natural gaiety and happiness of the child will be suppressed, and we have as unhealthy an atmosphere for childhood as one could postulate.”
    (Chapter 18, p. 78)

    And from Book Two of the same:

    “Below 2.0… is the band of the immoral, the promiscuous, the criminal, the Godless, the suicide, and other undesirables.”
    (Chapter 4, p. 128)

    “Below 2.0 lies fatality. That fatality may be manifested on a gradient scale. It may only be nagging or forgetfulness or occasional gossip, but it is destructive and it is evil.”
    (Chapter 4, p. 130)

    “The auditor will have his problems with preclears who want attention but not processing. These preclears are automatically classified as below 2.0. This is the quickest chart location which can be done. The preclear who wants no kind of processing whatsoever, even though he understands some of the principles involved and knows they will not be harmful, and the preclear who wants no processing but to be hovered over are both headed toward succumb and will do their best to pull the auditor with them.
    (Chapter 5, p. 133)

    “Below 2.0 we have the unlucky. One could with some surety give to a person high on the tone scale a few dollars and expect him to come out a winner at Las Vegas. And one could expect that the same few dollars given to a person low on the tone scale would see him coming out of the game very much the loser. Above 2.0, the individual plays to win. Below 2.0, the individual uniformly plays to lose. And not only does the individual below 2.0 play to lose himself; he plays to lose for everyone else around him and for the future.”
    (Chapter 8, p. 156)

    “Individuals from 2.0 down commonly have bad breath. Their feet may have a considerable odor. The musk glands are very active. The sweat has a peculiar smell. Sexual organs emit a repelling odor. And various body exhaust functions are not under very good control. The person may have to urinate or defecate under slight stresses or may weep easily for no apparent cause. This column has not been added to this chart because it has not been thoroughly explored but is only known in a general way. Any slightly or greatly repulsive physical odor from an individual does, however, indicate a tone scale position below 2.0.”
    (Chapter 12, p. 183)

    “When individuals are enturbulated below the level of 2.0, they tend, as a general rule, to consider all life, all organisms as MEST and will in their handling of life and organisms reduce them down toward MEST.”
    (Chapter 18, p. 228)

    Let’s review. Lafayette considers jerks, idolaters, sexual puritans, sexual deviants, pro-choicers, the immoral, the forgetful, the unlucky, the smelly, and atheists to be in the 0.0 to 2.0 band, as well as those who refuse Dianetic processing. And these are the people he would place in mental institutions?

  105. Hah. That is pretty good. I’ll even admit, when it comes to my own preferences, I’d take zombies over pirates any day.

    Regrettably, I couldn’t be out at any protests today, either, though in light of the blatant fair-gaming of Stuart Wyatt over in Plymouth, I wish I could have.

  106. What a boring performance today…. A handful of anons in LA incoherently blabbering what their boss had told them. I wish I could have been in Melbourne….

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=580154

    Now, THAT’S a flash mob with a message.

    – Louanne

  107. Addendum:

    You know, Pat, if you’re not interested in logic or rational discourse, just go ahead and say so, and it’ll save me and everyone else the trouble of responding to you. There’s not any point in even trying to discuss things if that’s the case, since you’ll fall back on your same unprovable dogmatic arguments that do nothing but end conversation.

  108. “You just made my point. You can’t take responsibility for your own non-survival acts. Now you want me to make you a martyr so you can go be a poor victim?

    You have crimes. That’s all I need to know.”

    No, Pat. You are an irrational hypocrite. What you’re doing is essentially the “Do you still beat your wife?” trick. You accuse me of crimes. If I deny it, I’m “refusing to take responsibility”. If I agree, I’m discredited. The only way I can “win” your little game is by ceasing to argue with you.

    Well, sorry, Pat. That’s not how the real world works.

    I don’t want you to make me a martyr. I want you to put up or shut up. You have accused me of being a criminal. I take that seriously. I’m asking you to prove it. Or is it okay to go around making unverified claims? Can I suddenly start saying whatever I want about you or Scientology, since apparently claims of criminality don’t need any evidence or factual basis, here?

    You’re a hypocrite and a zealot, Pat. You have yet to make a single rational argument. You resort to personal attacks because you don’t have any evidence or logic to support your position.

    Also, you seem pretty intent on attacking me and being hostile. What are YOUR crimes? I mean, obviously your attacks can’t be the result of something -I’ve- done, because that’s not how it works, right?

  109. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 14, 2008 8:26 pm

    Good on getting the references.

    So, what’s the problem?

    You disagree that those who are harming others should be isolated until they can be brought up above 2.0? After all, that’s what the book is all about. How to recognize when someone is all about survival or non-survival and handling the Reactive Mind that is behind all those non-survival actions.

    Pat

    Pat

  110. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 14, 2008 9:12 pm

    You just made my point. You can’t take responsibility for your own non-survival acts. Now you want me to make you a martyr so you can go be a poor victim?

    You have crimes. That’s all I need to know.

    Pat

  111. “I know that you are critical of Scientology. (Which is the Administration (RTC) as well as the technology which LRH bequeathed to RTC and the Ethics policy which LRH bequeathed to RTC). You keep trying to say they aren’t all part of Scientology.”

    Er, well, actually, I’m a lot MORE critical of the administration than I am of the “tech”. Frankly, I don’t really -care- about the beliefs one way or the other, except insofar as they excuse/encourage anti-social behavior.

    “I don’t need to know you to know that you’re a critic, therefore you have crimes. That’s a certainty. It is true, 100% of the time. ”

    Prove it. You’ve just made an unsupported claim; you are, dare I say it, generalizing again.

    “Don’t ask us to tell you how to work that out (if you’re even willing to admit that you have them, which I don’t see.)

    We’re not talking about others here. This is about you. ”

    What’s amazing to me is that you’re using a textbook ad hominem argument to shut down dissent and prevent rational thought and you apparently -don’t even realize it-. That’s both incredible and horrifying to me.

    Explain this to me, Pat: Why is it that EVERY TIME I show you or some other Scientologist making that argument (“They’re all criminals! What are YOUR crimes?”) to a neutral third party (INCLUDING those who are more inclined to be sympathetic to Scientology than they are to “Anonymous”), they become disgusted and derisive towards that behavior. Why is that? Why is it that ONLY Scientologists seem to find this behavior appropriate? Why is it that unproven generalities are okay when Scientology uses them?

    For that matter, why are you even HERE? Every response you give is going to consist of either “Read the source material” or “The claims are being made by criminals”. Couldn’t the blog consist JUST of those two talking points, then, since apparently that’s the only argument you’re capable of making?

    I’m sorry if I sound irritated, but really…this is the WORST kind of irrational, counter-factual garbage, and its only purpose is to shut down any kind of discussion. If all you have to say is, “Well, even though I can’t prove it, they’re all criminals”, you can feel like you invalidated their arguments without having to actually listen to or address anything they said. It’s just -sad-.

  112. All references are from Book One of Science of Survival.

    Chapter 13, pp. 63-64:

    But the 1.1 is a skulking coward who yet contains enough perfidious energy to strike back, but not enough courage ever to give warning. Such people should be taken from the society as rapidly as possible and uniformly institutionalized; for here is the level of the contagion of immorality, and the destruction of ethics; here is the fodder which secret police organizations use for their filthy operations. One of the most effective measures of security that a nation threatened by war could take would be rounding up and placing in a cantonment, away from society, any 1.1 individual who might be connected with government, the military, or essential industry; since here are people who, regardless of any record of their family’s loyalty, are potential traitors, the very mode of operation of their insanity being betrayal. In this level is the slime of society, the sex criminals, the political subversives, the people whose apparently rational activities are yet but the devious writhings of secret hate. A 1.1 can be accurately spotted by his conversation; since he seeks only to enturbulate those around him, to upset them by his conversation, to destroy them without their ever being aware of his purpose. He listens only to data which will serve him in his enturbulations. Here is the gossip, here is the unfaithful wife, here is the card cheat; here is the most undesirable stratum of any social order. No social order which desires to survive dares overlook its stratum of 1.1’s. No social order will survive which does not remove these people from its midst.

    Chapter 21, p. 86:

    If a person can enturbulate easily down to a level below 2.0, and has not enough free theta to refrain from aberrated action, he should not be given more freedom in the society than the chronic psychotic, since he is as thoroughly psychotic in his acute state of enturbulence as any constantly insane individual. Society, recognizing that the greatest danger from an individual lies in the band from anger down to 1.1, has sought to safeguard itself by suppressing these people permanently into an apathy level; this control mechanism, however, is as unworkable as it is widespread, since individuals in the apathy strata can rebound sporadically up into the active strata and so are still thoroughly dangerous. The only answers would seem to be the permanent quarantine of such persons from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and the general turbulence which they bring into any order, thus forcing it lower on the scale, or processing such person until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value.

    In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints. And particularly, none below 2.0, chronically or acutely, should be used as witnesses or jurors in courts of law, since their position in regard to ethics is such as to nullify the validity of any testimony they might essay or any verdict they might offer.

    Chapter 27, p. 100:

    There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line — a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or simply quarantining them from the society. A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.

  113. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 14, 2008 6:21 am

    I know that you are critical of Scientology. (Which is the Administration (RTC) as well as the technology which LRH bequeathed to RTC and the Ethics policy which LRH bequeathed to RTC). You keep trying to say they aren’t all part of Scientology.

    I don’t need to know you to know that you’re a critic, therefore you have crimes. That’s a certainty. It is true, 100% of the time. Don’t ask us to tell you how to work that out (if you’re even willing to admit that you have them, which I don’t see.)

    We’re not talking about others here. This is about you.

    Pat

  114. Addendum:

    “When you see a guy taking every chance to bash his ex-girlfriend, would it be insane to suspect that the the guy has done something to that girl that he’s not telling about and that the ex may even be the sweetest girl on the planet?”

    No, it wouldn’t be insane.

    However, the situation changes a little bit when he can provide the restraining order he got against her, the police reports of her stalking behavior, affadavits from several other individuals who can confirm her erratic behavior, and so on.

    Context matters, here.

  115. “Can you see how that could be?”

    Sure. I just think it’s insane to conclude that that is -always- the case. I think it’s reasonable in many cases to suspect that it might be the case, but there are clearly cases where this is not true.

    Case in point: Let’s say that some people in a racial minority were the victims of racially-motivated violence. Let’s further say that this bred resentment and hate towards their oppressors. Are you saying that the minority must have done something against the bigots?

    Similarly, let’s say a woman is a victim of rape. She feels intense feelings of hate towards her attacker. Is the woman somehow complicit, since she feels hate towards the man who victimized her?

    I agree with you that, in -some- cases, hostility can be the result of one’s failure to confront one’s own misdeeds or shortcomings. It is an unreasonable stretch, however, to conclude that this is true 100% of the time. Therefore, it is equally unreasonable to conclude that this is automatically the case for some random person on the internet whose motives, history, and personality you are unfamiliar with.

  116. @Comment by T on June 14, 2008 9:24 am

    Errata: I meant to say “Contrary to popular belief.”

  117. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 14, 2008 6:21 am

    When I see you bleeding it’s not a big stretch to conclude that you’re physically hurt. I don’t need to know you to be able to conclude that.

    When I see you walking around happily with chocolate around your lips it’s not a big stretch to suspect you’ve been eating chocolate and I don’t need to know you to suspect that.

    Same goes with hatred.

    Contrary to populate belief, one’s hatred stems not from what has been done to one. One’s hatred stems from what one has done to the target of one’s hatred or to what that target represents to one.

    When I see hatred I see things done to the target of that hatred, by the person acting in hatred, that are not being told. I don’t need to know the person to see that they have done something that they are not telling.

    Is that really so difficult to fathom?

    When you see a guy taking every chance to bash his ex-girlfriend, would it be insane to suspect that the the guy has done something to that girl that he’s not telling about and that the ex may even be the sweetest girl on the planet?

    Can you see how that could be?

  118. “Those who are critical of Scientology have crimes. The only ones objecting to that and whining about it are the very criminals that it applies to. That’s true for me and every time you try to use this forum to make broad sweeping generalities like that you show exactly what you are. Don’t expect to be treated like an upstat, here. You aren’t one.”

    Mm hmm.

    First of all, Pat, you don’t know me. You don’t know the first thing about me, unless you’d like to prove otherwise. Therefore, you’re making some pretty big assumptions. You are, dare I say it, generalizing.

    For what it’s worth, I have -yet- to show the “Everyone who objects to Scientology is a criminal” line to a neutral third party WITHOUT them thinking it is absolutely insane. You don’t get to do the “anyone who disagrees with us is EEEEVVVVIIILLLL” thing and still maintain even the pretense of rational behavior.

    Likewise, saying “It’s true for me” doesn’t absolve an idea of scrutiny or criticism. That’s a cop-out, particularly because crimes are a -tangible and provable thing-. If it’s “true for you”, and yet there actually HAVEN’T been any “crimes” committed by me, then what’s true for you is both incorrect and delusional.

    Do you not even see what you’re doing? I mean, this is the EXACT kind of behavior that got me irritated at Scientology in the first place. It doesn’t particularly matter WHAT the reason is for the behavior; that kind of blind, unthinking hostility and accusations towards any dissent is inappropriate and just makes you enemies. I guarantee it. You want to know why Mark Bunker is significant to a lot of Anons? It’s because he filmed that kind of B.S. happening (“What are your crimes, Mark? Do you beat your wife?”) and showed people a side of Scientology that many of them hadn’t seen before. That side is not pretty.

  119. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 13, 2008 8:35 pm

    Why is it that when some anti site posts some out of context statement do you come here wanting us to prove the negative?

    I’ll go one better. Ask them for the full source so you can read it for yourself in context.

    Pat

  120. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 13, 2008 8:35 pm

    What mistreatment described in Science of Survival? Chapters? Pages?

    Pat

  121. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 13, 2008 10:37 am

    Those who are critical of Scientology have crimes. The only ones objecting to that and whining about it are the very criminals that it applies to. That’s true for me and every time you try to use this forum to make broad sweeping generalities like that you show exactly what you are. Don’t expect to be treated like an upstat, here. You aren’t one.

    Pat

  122. @Comment by Anonymouslynotanonymous on June 12, 2008 6:23 am

    tl;dr, no.. actually I read it.

    “I still feel like there are people in the Church that are being treated unfairly and being taken advantage of and being hurt, not because of scientology itself but because of the people who are in fact taking advantage of the system.”

    Yawn. Old propaganda, new wrapper.

    “I protest cause I feel like it’s the right thing to do. I feel like I’m taking a stand for what I believe is right. I do wear a mask, not to intimidate but to protect my family.”

    So much for “outside observer”. This is a nice story but honestly very hard to believe. Unless you actually, for real, don’t get it that these masked, Anonymous/anonymous protests won’t change anything. Scientologists do not listen to masked, obnoxious assholes. You might not be one, but you chose to look like them.

    – Louanne

  123. I’d like to retract my previous statement. On further review, it appears that Pat’s statement is merely another instance of technique C. But to be fair, since we’re talking about doctrine right now, I’m not sure how he would be able to apply technique B, except perhaps to insinuate that allegedly “low-toned” persons somehow deserve the mistreatment prescribed for them in Science of Survival.

  124. …you know, here it -looked- like there was some progress being made, but out come the personal attacks and “what are your crimes” stuff.

    You want to know what ends up drawing more and more critics in? You want to know what transforms people who would otherwise be, at most, neutral to the whole thing into campaigners against Scientology? It’s -that- kind of behavior, that “If you dare to say anything against us, you’re obviously a criminal” kind of irrational, counter-factual nonsense that creates enemies.

  125. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 13, 2008 3:19 am

    Good, glad you got what you came for.

  126. Amusing. You’re critical. What are your crimes?

    Aaand there’s letter B. Thanks for the /b/lackup, Pat. :-D

  127. Amusing. You’re critical. What are your crimes?

    Pat

  128. A: Make broad statements in an attempt to invalidate the claim without actually addressing any of the details;
    B: Insinuate, without naming names or specifying actual transgressions, imply that the individuals involved are “guilty” of something or trying to hide something, thereby invalidating their arguments;
    C: Resort to personal attacks on the other party in the discussion, ranging from “You’re a bigot” and “What are your crimes?” to “You’re deluded” and “Obviously, you have an agenda, so there’s no point in talking with you anymore.”

    A? Check. C? Check. B? Not so much. But as the American philosopher Meat Loaf observed, “two out of three ain’t bad.” Allow me to simplify the question, in order to clarify your answer. Do you deny that Hubbard advocated the “quarantine” of persons at or below 2.0 on the Scientology(TM) tone scale?

  129. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 9, 2008 11:22 pm

    Sorry man, I can’t help you here. Honestly, I can’t.

    You take examples describing some phenomena and you interpret them as though the author somehow advocated the examples. You take the word “quarantine” and add some extra meaning to it that it never possessed, like that it somehow involved destruction. You take the word “isolate” and, again, you add some extra meaning to it that it never had.

    You have so little clue about what that quote describes that you equated the examples therein to a self evident and trivial statement. If you had a clue, the examples would have been informative as they highlighted phenomena that, when comprehended, one could immediately use to make someone or even themselves happier. And no, that application would not involve the destruction of other beings.

    As you said, finding the context should not be difficult and it isn’t. It’s right there in front of you and yet you don’t see it. I can’t give you the ability to see what’s right in front of you. You have to work on that yourself.

    That’s where the study technology comes in.

    As the story goes, some time in the past the training of auditors was impeded because some could not apply the material that contained the technology of auditing. Recognition of that problem led to a research into the subject and resulted in the isolation of the factors that prevent one from fully comprehending symbolic communication.

    The technology that emerged from that research is called the Study Technology. It is a simple tool that you can use to help yourself and others comprehend symbolic communication, e.g. written or spoken language.

    With that, I sincerely advise you to find someone near you who is conversant in the technology of study and get them to help you understand what’s written in that book. Short of that, what I can say is read and understand the basics of the study technology and apply it yourself on that book.

    Here’s the link to the basics of the study tech: scientologyhandbook.org/SH1_1.HTM

    A word of warning, though: no technology will help you comprehend some text if comprehension is not part of your goals with that text.

  130. As an outside observer all I can say is this…
    I’ve kinda seen how both sides treat each other.
    I didn’t even find out about the protests till about 1/2 a year after they started. Honestly, the first time I heard about scientology at all was in reference to Tom Cruise (no big surprise there). I’ve heard rumors about anonymous via other people in reference to Lawlercats/caturday and had heard about alot of the bad stuff that they did. I also heard about some of the good too. Not one to let other people do my thinking for me, I decided to do a little research on both sides for myself. Some of the things I found kinda shocked me on both sides.
    One of the things that was apparent to me about anonymous is that it’s not really a “group” per-se as a group implies some sort of structure. Which in this case obviously isn’t true. It’s more of a label if anything at all. I read about some of the bullying and other stuff mostly kiddie prank stuff. I also did some homework on Scientology. All in all it didn’t seem as crazy as everyone made it sound. The people seem to be hard working citizens just doing what they need to do to get by. And the basic principle in it sounds overall good.
    After looking at both sides tho to say that there aren’t atrocities would be false. Stalking, harassment, meh u’ve heard it all before. But to say that Anonymous has it’s hands clean in all of this would be false too. I’ve seen them bull bait and try and intimidate. But that’s not to say that I haven’t seen Scientology try the same thing. There have been assaults curses threats and bullbaits from them. I’m not sticking up for either side or saying one is right. I still feel like there are people in the Church that are being treated unfairly and being taken advantage of and being hurt, not because of scientology itself but because of the people who are in fact taking advantage of the system. I don’t protest for lulz, I’m not any kind of internet wiz or anything like that, all I know about the internet is that it lets me play WoW…..I don’t do it becuase the “anonymous” do it. I protest cause I feel like it’s the right thing to do. I feel like I’m taking a stand for what I believe is right. I do wear a mask, not to intimidate but to protect my family. I have a wife and a daughter that I would not want to be dragged into this.
    To say that everyone who protests is labled anymous would be false and to say that everyone who is labled anonymous protests would be false as well. So would the overly hyped “all of Scientology is out to get you” esque theory. Just an outsiders perspective.

  131. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 10, 2008 3:45 am

    Yes, but you have to understand that no one is necessarily going to take your answer as the undeniable truth without further examination, either. In the same way that I would take the answer given by anyone else and subject it to scrutiny, I would be obligated to treat Scientologists’ answers as just one more piece of information I’ve been given when forming my own opinion.

    Does that seem fair?

    Yes. No one is expecting you to take what we say as undeniable truth. What we say is expected to be examined and that includes, as we both understand, asking for clarifications when the answer does not appear to be a good answer to you.

    If that’s understood on your end as you say it is then I see no problem with the terms.

    Concerning the questions, please understand that we are individual Scientologists and not the voice of the Church of Scientology or some other entity so please try to phrase your questions to us, the people, rather to the Church or Scientology in general.

    I hope others will accept these or similar terms and that the usual respondents will soon be back to deal with inquiries in that spirit…

  132. Great, I’m willing to try again if you are. Just a couple of quick things to address first:

    “Do you have a question that is not based on the assumption that your allegations are true and that is phrased in a way that shows willingness on your part to listen to what we have to say, even if it’s not immediately apparent to you how what we say is an answer to the question?”

    Yes, so long as you can -explain- how what you say is an answer to the question. Otherwise, it’s not really an answer (or at least, it’s not a particularly effective one).

    “Are you able to make an effort to understand what we say without firing back with more allegations or accusations as though they were true?”

    Yes, but you have to understand that no one is necessarily going to take your answer as the undeniable truth without further examination, either. In the same way that I would take the answer given by anyone else and subject it to scrutiny, I would be obligated to treat Scientologists’ answers as just one more piece of information I’ve been given when forming my own opinion.

    Does that seem fair?

  133. “Expecting someone else to interpret some material for you or else you take it to mean something sinister is not the way to make friends, don’t you think?”

    I’m not here to make friends, Steph. I’m here to get answers. And I’m not asking you to “interpret” anything. I’m asking for the context, which you claim exists, that negates the apparently sinister intent of the quoted statement.

    This should not be difficult, if it is possible. For example, Psalm 14:1 says “There is no God.” A rather shocking admission for a holy book. In context, however, the full sentence is: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.'”

    So where is the context that reveals that Lafayette Hubbard does not, in fact, advocate “quarantining” (and optionally destroying) low-toned persons?

    “You could, for instance, examine how the statements made in that quote may actually be true. What data are you aware of that support the statements made? What data contradict to those statements?”

    Wow. You fail it (it is not promoting genocide). Does it even matter whether his statement is true? I mean, I could observe that a society’s average intelligence can easily be raised by “removing” everyone with an IQ of 70 or lower. This statement is true by definition, as long as we agree that IQ is a reasonable measure of intelligence. Yet if I were to actually propose such a course of action, I would rightly be regarded as a sociopathic monster. Should not the same rules apply when someone else proposes to do the same to people whose only “crime” is a spiritual handicap?

  134. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 8, 2008 11:52 pm

    So then, in what context do my quotes not sound like Lafayette Ronald Hubbard is advocating the forced isolation and/or death of at least 2.5% of the human population?

    You expect me to teach you Scientology and that’s not going to work. Scientology is not taught, it is studied.

    I could refer you to the basics of the study technology that is used in our course rooms but I’m concerned with what you’re doing. Expecting someone else to interpret some material for you or else you take it to mean something sinister is not the way to make friends, don’t you think?

    Anyway, if you’re really interested then let’s turn this around.

    You could, for instance, examine how the statements made in that quote may actually be true. What data are you aware of that support the statements made? What data contradict to those statements?

    Are you going do that?

  135. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 9, 2008 1:19 am

    Ok, let’s start this over.

    Do you have a question that is not based on the assumption that your allegations are true and that is phrased in a way that shows willingness on your part to listen to what we have to say, even if it’s not immediately apparent to you how what we say is an answer to the question?

    Are you able to make an effort to understand what we say without firing back with more allegations or accusations as though they were true?

    Then shoot. There may be someone here that can make an honest effort to answer your questions.

  136. “There’s no need to be so sensitive. Would it help if I used third person and rephrased my offending statement like so?”

    I wasn’t being especially sensitive; the way your comments were phrased, they were pretty clearly attributing things to me that don’t have any basis in reality. That said, no, even when your comments are phrased more generally, I don’t think they’re necessarily true.

    “If, on the other hand, one joined the ‘look what they did to me!’ folks and chanted ‘look what they did to them!’, that behavior alone would reveal a need on one’s part to see Scientology or the Church in a bad light. Whatever that need is based on, I don’t think it’s a stretch to suspect it to be something to frown upon.”

    Or, you know, they -believe- the stories of people who claim to have been wronged by Scientology. It seems like you think it’s impossible for someone to fairly examine both sides and come to a conclusion that is different than yours.

    “Are you for real? Your allegations are not true until proven true. Why is that so difficult to understand? The burden of proof lies on you, not me.”

    My allegations were about how you (the general “you”, meaning “Scientologists”) respond to questions and criticism. I would say, as Okay I’m Anonymous Now did, that almost every response by a Scientologist fits into at least one of the categories I outlined. If I was unclear what I wanted you to “prove me wrong” about, I apologize; I wanted you to prove me wrong in that you can, in fact, respond to questions and criticism in a manner other than those outlined.

    “You have been invited here to ask questions and instead you are rudely pushing on us allegations that have not been shown to be true and insist that we disprove them.”

    Er, well, two things here:
    1: See above RE: “allegations”
    2: When evidence is offered, such as court documents, affadavits, etc., you dismiss them or cast aspersions on the individuals involved. I truly wonder what level of “proof” you would require, short of a notarized statement in Hubbard’s own handwriting.

    “What do you expect, hugs and kisses?”

    Intellectual honesty and a conversation consisting of rational discussion back and forth would suffice.

  137. So then, in what context do my quotes not sound like Lafayette Ronald Hubbard is advocating the forced isolation and/or death of at least 2.5% of the human population?

  138. You are here to troll; not to engage in an open and honest discussion.

    What are you talking about? Re-read my post. Hell, re-read your post.

    “‘“The ones that are here to defend something are you and your fellows who are very inventive in justifying their actions against my religion and my church.’

    LOL WUT? Your own butthurt is justification enough. That’s the whole point of trolling. But if your ‘Church’ is evil, then hey, icing on the delicious caek.”

    I was clearly referring to the “actions against [your] religion and [your] church,” which I assume refers to Project Chanology in general. That campaign was and is being executed “for the lulz,” and any moral justification is secondary to that goal.

    My own actions, however, are separate from Chanology. I came here, in good faith, to seek answers from Scientologists(TM) in their own words regarding the more controversial aspects of LRH’s philosophy and his “Church”‘s behavior. And while I admit I am more sympathetic to the Anonymous cause than to your own, I have thus far refrained from participating in any Anonymous actions on-line or IRL. However, the non-answers provided by your brethren on this site have whittled away what sympathy I did have for your “Church.” (This fact is reflected in my change of usernames from “Not Quite Anonymous” to “Okay I’m Anonymous Now.”) Nonetheless, I remain open to whatever actual answers you might be able to provide, if indeed you are even capable of providing any actual answers.

  139. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 8, 2008 7:29 pm

    Your own butthurt is justification enough. That’s the whole point of trolling. But if your “Church” is evil, then hey, icing on the delicious caek.

    I see. I found this definition for trolling:

    Intentionally posting derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.

    Well, I guess that says it all. You are here to throw allegations in people’s face and see what comes out of it. Whether those allegations are true or not is irrelevant.

    Good to know your motives.

    Incidentally, it says something about you — I’m not sure what — that we can troll you simply by asking for an open and honest discussion.

    I fail to see any indication that you are into open and honest discussions but now I understand why. You are here to troll; not to engage in an open and honest discussion.

    That makes it pointless to respond to the rest of your post.

  140. Are you for real? Your allegations are not true until proven true. Why is that so difficult to understand? The burden of proof lies on you, not me.

    His allegations are proven true with every post you, Pat, and Louanne make. You are, to put it bluntly, evasive. You do not answer questions directly. You do not respond to statements directly. You do not act like normal people having a conversation. Again:

    “Is -that- the kind of communication that Scientology teaches?”

  141. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 8, 2008 6:43 pm

    There’s no need to be so sensitive. Would it help if I used third person and rephrased my offending statement like so?

    “If, on the other hand, one joined the ‘look what they did to me!’ folks and chanted ‘look what they did to them!’, that behavior alone would reveal a need on one’s part to see Scientology or the Church in a bad light. Whatever that need is based on, I don’t think it’s a stretch to suspect it to be something to frown upon.”

    Do you think you are able to inspect that statement on its own to see if there may be some truth in it?

    If I brought up a specific case of allegations against Scientology, you would -almost certainly- dismiss it with vague insinuations and fallacious appeals to authority.

    Please, this is a sincere request: Prove me wrong.

    Are you for real? Your allegations are not true until proven true. Why is that so difficult to understand? The burden of proof lies on you, not me.

    You have been invited here to ask questions and instead you are rudely pushing on us allegations that have not been shown to be true and insist that we disprove them.

    What do you expect, hugs and kisses?

  142. “From what I see, you just interpreted some text out of context.”

    Then put it in context, smart guy… if you can.

    “You see, the Church needs no defense.”

    Because, for example, tax breaks from the IRS that violate the Internal Revenue Code and the Constitution of the United States of America are so self-evidently right that they don’t need to be defended.

    “The ones that are here to defend something are you and your fellows who are very inventive in justifying their actions against my religion and my church.”

    LOL WUT? Your own butthurt is justification enough. That’s the whole point of trolling. But if your “Church” is evil, then hey, icing on the delicious caek.

    Incidentally, it says something about you — I’m not sure what — that we can troll you simply by asking for an open and honest discussion.

  143. T-
    (*snip various stuff*)

    First of all, I think it’s amazing that, without knowing me, you feel qualified to comment on my experiences and motivations. Incidentally, I don’t “need” to see Scientology in any particular light. You’re assuming that, if I went into the situation exactly as you suggested, that I would automatically side with the Scientologists’ view of things. This is simply not correct.

    (incidentally, I was using “rhetorical” in the broader sense of “rhetoric”, as in any prose communication or speech. I wasn’t -necessarily- implying it was all sound and fury, so I believe the term still stands. Ahem /pedant.)

    You also don’t know my intentions. The problem here is that you’re doing (again) EXACTLY the things I pointed out in that very post. Rather than address my concerns, you turn to personal attacks. You try to impugn my motives. If I brought up a specific case of allegations against Scientology, you would -almost certainly- dismiss it with vague insinuations and fallacious appeals to authority.

    Please, this is a sincere request: Prove me wrong.

  144. Forgot to close that HTML tag… here we go again:

    @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 7, 2008 2:11 am

    From Science of Survival:

    “[…]”

    From what I see, you just interpreted some text out of context. With that, I believe, you just proved my point:

    “By referring to Scientology material to back your preconceived ideas you are only proving that you actively look for statements in the materials that fit your preconceived context while ignoring the actual context of the text.”

    Did you read the whole book just to find pieces that could be taken out of context? Or do you randomly open books until you find some text like that? You must really need Scientology seen in a bad light.

    Your hypothetical is more analogous to your own defense of the ‘Church,’ […]

    I think you got the wrong idea. You see, the Church needs no defense. The ones that are here to defend something are you and your fellows who are very inventive in justifying their actions against my religion and my church. You didn’t notice?

  145. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 6, 2008 10:12 pm

    “Isn’t there anything about Scientology that you find puzzling? Couldn’t you take a similar attitude and describe the apparent contradiction with the intention to resolve it rather than trying to prove how correct your preconceived views are?”

    It’s funny you ask; I wonder why, when people post multiple accounts of abuse and wrongdoing, the Scientologist response turns into the rhetorical equivalent of a frowny emoticon! Must be another quirk of WordPress.

    What I see is that you perceive some contradiction between what Scientologists say Scientology or the Church is and what your “multiple accounts” say they are.

    A person of good intentions would go and take an honest, unbiased look at what Scientology or the Church is about before making up their mind about which source to give credit to. The people you drive into our churches and missions by your actions do just that.

    What are you doing instead? You join the “look what they did to me!” folks and chant “look what they did to them!”

    That behavior alone reveals a need on your part to see Scientology or the Church in a bad light. Whatever that need is based on, I don’t think it’s a stretch to suspect it to be something to frown upon.

    So I guess you got the “frowny” part right except this is only rhetorical if you see the words but not the meaning.

    You see, communication is not a trick but an act of getting a message from one point to another and it requires, among other things, intention on the receiving end to receive the message intact and then understand that message.

    Without that intention, as in your case, communication will not take place. No wonder you find what we say to be merely “rhetorical.”

  146. Errata: “…to my reasonable inference…” No “an.”

    Also,

    Hate group? I’m not Anonymous, you’re confusing me with someone else.

    Even assuming, arguendo, that my characterization of your “Church” as a hate group is unwarranted, I would have hoped you could muster a better rebuttal than “I know you are but what am I?” To re-iterate another’s question:

    “Is -that- the kind of communication that Scientology teaches?”

  147. Elimination of 160 million human beings? That sounds like Eugenics and I’m not a psychiatrist either.

    From Science of Survival:

    “The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line – a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred – or simply quarantining them from the society.

    A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.”

    This is eugenics, albeit of a spiritual kind. And IIRC, the 2.0 and under demographic includes all so-called “anti-social personalities,” who (according to Hubbard) constitute at least 2.5% of the human population*. A check of the almanac and a quick calculation confirm that this group, whom Hubbard proposes to “delete,” must then be at least 160 million in number.

    * Ah, here we go. From HCOPL 27 Sept. 1966, Issue I:

    “In the fields of government, police activities and mental health, to name a few, we see that it is important to be able to detect and isolate this personality type so as to protect society and individuals from the destructive consequences upon letting such have free rein to injure others. As they only comprise 20% of the population and as only 2.5% of this 20% are truly dangerous, we see that with a very small amount of effort we could considerably better the state of society.”

    The latter would be like trying to prove how WordPress was intent on corrupting your posts with those emoticons.

    Actually, my “preconceived view,” based on prior experience and prima facie evidence, was that WordPress simply had a bug. Your hypothetical is more analogous to your own defense of the “Church,” as it makes an assertion contradictory to an my reasonable inference without bothering to provide any evidence for that assertion. Nice try, though.

  148. “No, it’s not (but you know that already).”

    No, I really, really don’t. I mean, I know what’s taught in the lower TRs and whatnot, if that’s what you mean. However, I’ve got to say that the kinds of tactics I described are EXACTLY what I see 99% of the Scientologists engaged in any kind of discussion doing. Now, one of the things I apparently excelled at as a kid is “pattern recognition”, and that’s a heck of a pattern, right there. When you see the same kinds of behaviors being repeated across the board by people belonging to a given organization, you’ve eventually got to think that those behaviors are somehow linked to the organization itself, rather than being some kind of coincidence.

    Look, even though I obviously disagree with A LOT of what you and other Scientologists have to say, I’ve attempted to keep my side of the conversation on a rational, logic-based footing. I operate based on parallels, on reason and evidence and historical records. I’m not especially fond of insinuation, of ad hominem fallacies or appeals to authority.

    My frustration arises from the apparent unwillingness of parties on the other side of the discussion to operate under the same rules.

  149. @Comment by Nobody on June 6, 2008 3:53 pm

    “I thought T was asking me questions about the “critical thinking” thing and stuff. I have an answer for it, but all I wanted to know if if you cared enough to hear the answer.”

    What I care about is a conversation, not a “but I am more right that you” and “here is the next link list of opinionated trash”. I am very interested in what you want to know and have to say but I don’t accept any display of – artificial – inability to tell a proper source from opinion. Decide to seriously make some progress in understanding the issue, instead of scouting around the web for the next piece of shit to throw on here.

    – Louanne

  150. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on June 6, 2008 10:12 pm

    No, it’s not (but you know that already).

    – Louanne

  151. “Isn’t there anything about Scientology that you find puzzling? Couldn’t you take a similar attitude and describe the apparent contradiction with the intention to resolve it rather than trying to prove how correct your preconceived views are?”

    It’s funny you ask; I wonder why, when people post multiple accounts of abuse and wrongdoing, the Scientologist response turns into the rhetorical equivalent of a frowny emoticon! Must be another quirk of WordPress.

    Seriously, though, I do think this pattern is interesting: Whenever confronted with specific cases, Scientology apologists will almost never address the specifics involved. Instead, they will:
    A: Make broad statements in an attempt to invalidate the claim without actually addressing any of the details;
    B: Insinuate, without naming names or specifying actual transgressions, imply that the individuals involved are “guilty” of something or trying to hide something, thereby invalidating their arguments;
    C: Resort to personal attacks on the other party in the discussion, ranging from “You’re a bigot” and “What are your crimes?” to “You’re deluded” and “Obviously, you have an agenda, so there’s no point in talking with you anymore.”

    I have to ask, in all sincerity: Is -that- the kind of communication that Scientology teaches? To me, it doesn’t seem to be particularly effective OR persuasive, and it doesn’t exactly do a lot to sell me on the value of those courses.

  152. Louanne-

    I thought T was asking me questions about the “critical thinking” thing and stuff. I have an answer for it, but all I wanted to know if if you cared enough to hear the answer. That still hasn’t been answered by you guys, like most of the questions I’ve asked.

    And decide what? I’m confused about what I’m suppose to be deciding here. If it’s my opinion on Scientology, I don’t have one set yet, but it’s definitely not looking good due to the recent direction of the conversation. I don’t want to just write it off as evil. I wouldn’t be here if I did. Like you said, I’d just be over at enturb and not be out looking for any other answers if that’s the case. I’m here to get the other side of the story and all I’m getting is getting called a “loser.” That doesn’t really help me at all.

  153. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 6, 2008 12:48 am

    I was just trying to figure out why WordPress read “) as winking, when the correct emoticon for that is ;) .

    WordPress apparently uses HTML entities for the quote marks to make them look pretty and HTML entities end with a ; .

    If the quote mark is then followed by a closing parenthesis, you get the ;) combination.

    You see, it is possible that some detail that you were not aware of resolves an apparent contradiction that puzzled you before. All you need is to recognize that there is a contradiction that is puzzling and seek to resolve that contradiction.

    Isn’t there anything about Scientology that you find puzzling? Couldn’t you take a similar attitude and describe the apparent contradiction with the intention to resolve it rather than trying to prove how correct your preconceived views are?

    The latter would be like trying to prove how WordPress was intent on corrupting your posts with those emoticons.

    Do you see how nonproductive that would be?

  154. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 5, 2008 11:14 pm

    Yeah, sure. What “other side” is there to the stories of abuse? What “misunderstandings” do we have about your hate group? And what possible “context” could justify calling for the elimination of over 160 million human beings, simply for failing to measure up to your group’s standards?

    Hate group? I’m not Anonymous, you’re confusing me with someone else.

    Elimination of 160 million human beings? That sounds like Eugenics and I’m not a psychiatrist either.

    Concerning your message in general, do you know that the hardest barrier to learning anything is the attitude that there is nothing to learn because you already know it all?

  155. @ Comment by Nobody is still sort of here… on June 5, 2008 12:47 am

    “I thought you guys wanted me to “piss off” and now you are asking me questions. Should I bother responding at this point? Do you even care what my answer is or should I just leave? Like I said, I really wanted to engage in a conversation here….”

    Nobody asked you anything. Did you decide?

    – L

  156. they are called emoticons. i turned the function off.

    I know what they are. I was just trying to figure out why WordPress read “) as winking, when the correct emoticon for that is ;) .

  157. Is this long list of statements going to lead to an inquiry in the foreseeable future?

    Yeah, sure. What “other side” is there to the stories of abuse? What “misunderstandings” do we have about your hate group? And what possible “context” could justify calling for the elimination of over 160 million human beings, simply for failing to measure up to your group’s standards?

  158. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 5, 2008 5:25 am

    “Huh. That’s twice now that right parentheses have become winky faces. Seriously, what the heck is going on with that?”

    they are called emoticons. i turned the function off.

    – L

  159. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 5, 2008 5:24 am

    Is this long list of statements going to lead to an inquiry in the foreseeable future?

    A question at last that is directed at the resolution of contradicting details would be a refreshing development.

    I hear so much about research and critical thinking from you guys but all I see is dumb repetition of spiteful propaganda.

    You have a chance here to get the other side of your stories and you are wasting it.

    You also have a chance to clarify your misunderstanding of Scientology material and guess what, you are wasting that, too.

    I wonder if you actually wanted to see the other side of your stories or to get your misunderstanding clarified.

    By referring to Scientology material to back your preconceived ideas you are only proving that you actively look for statements in the materials that fit your preconceived context while ignoring the actual context of the text.

    What do you think such a context substitution filter is good for, beside preventing you to see what’s actually there and maybe learn something new?

  160. Huh. That’s twice now that right parentheses have become winky faces. Seriously, what the heck is going on with that?

  161. Yes, OK. What policies or laws do you think he was talking about that they weren’t protected by? You should know these by now. Please. Enlighten us.

    If I had to guess, I would say… all of them. Do you need to clear the word “any”?

    Now, where are the Anonymous members kicking his ass?

    Please. This is the Internet. His threat is as empty as an OT VIII’s wallet. The correct response is to laugh at his pathetic and foolish gesture, not to honor it as a legitimate attempt at intimidation. Nonetheless, I concur with Nobody’s recommendation. Call the cops on him as soon as you get his info, if only to humiliate him further.

    You KNOW that you are posting and reposting obsolete and biased information and you give a shit.

    Obsolete? Biased? Interesting that you don’t actually deny the information.

    (P.S.: the phrase is “you don’t give a shit.”)

    My tolerance level for losers just hit the roof.

    BAWWWWW.

    Hot air. You wouldn’t recognize “critical thinking” even if it spat in your face. Or “logic”, for that matter.

    BAWWWWW.

    If there was anything in those stories that could be investigated, why do you think no one is investigating them? You give enough publicity to those outrageous claims, how come no steps have been made to investigate any of those claims?

    Probably because the complainants are afraid to press charges. Look at all the crap they’ve taken just for talking about your “Church.” Lord knows what would happen if they tried doing something about it, though I suspect that the “Church”‘s response would impress even the Five Families.

    Those stories that you are so pissed about are not some other side of Scientology.

    You’re right. The “other” side of Scientology(TM) is worse. It’s “Penalties for Lower Conditions,” which allows Scientologists(TM) to do anything to ex-members without fear of reprisal. It’s “Attacks on Scientology,” which promises destruction to anyone with the temerity to look at the “Church” objectively. It’s Science of Survival, which uses the tone scale to justify persecution and genocide. Compared to all that, the RPF is a trifle.

  162. I thought you guys wanted me to “piss off” and now you are asking me questions. Should I bother responding at this point? Do you even care what my answer is or should I just leave? Like I said, I really wanted to engage in a conversation here….

  163. Don’t you guys ever get bored of those “look what they did to me” stories?

    Stories with no important detail that is also verifiable? If there was anything in those stories that could be investigated, why do you think no one is investigating them? You give enough publicity to those outrageous claims, how come no steps have been made to investigate any of those claims?

    The whole point of these stories is to manipulate emotions rather than to bring true events to view.

    Don’t you see that? Is that where your “research”, “critical thinking” and that “look at both sides” mantra of yours lead to? Analytical blindness?

    You guys are aware that the “look at both sides” rule applies to the sides of the same thing, right?

    Those stories that you are so pissed about are not some other side of Scientology. If you want to know about Scientology you need to look at Scientology and not some fairy tales that are used to scare people.

    If you want to look at both sides of the same thing, why don’t you look behind those “look what they did to me” stories?

    Like, you know, the “don’t look at what I did” side.

    That would be research, and critical thinking, too.

  164. I really didn’t want to give up here, but you are pretty much forcing me into it. I wanted to talk to Scientologists one on one and find the truth, but you are proving that you are all completely unwilling to do so. With that, I guess I will have to use enturb as my main source of discussion on the matter, which I really didn’t want to do. It’s really unfortunate.

    But as far as critical thinking is concerned, again, you must look at both sides to think critically. You can’t just listen to one side and call that “thinking.” I hope you can begin to understand that someday. I really do care about you all and I hope that someday this can all be cleared up and everyone can come to an understanding. Good luck, Lu. I wish you all the best. I really do, even if you don’t believe it.

  165. @Comment by Nobody on June 4, 2008 9:28 pm

    “Again, critical thinking. I want to know the truth here.”

    Hot air. You wouldn’t recognize “critical thinking” even if it spat in your face. Or “logic”, for that matter.

    – L

  166. Also, I’ve visited this site way more than enturb, if that means anything to you. I want to talk to real Scientologists, not just the critics. As I’ve said, I want BOTH sides of the story, and you aren’t willing to listen to the other side.

    Again, critical thinking. I want to know the truth here.

  167. Oh yes, because you totally know who I am enough to call me a loser. Yep.

    I don’t WANT to give up here. I want to believe that there is hope that Scientology can become just like every other religion and that it’s not the evil cult that the people over at enturbulation make it out to be. But if you’d rather I give up that hope I will. I’m doing this so that you guys can lose the bad reputation that you have. Right now all I’m hearing is bad stuff about Scientology and all you are doing is proving it right. I WANT it all to be wrong. I want to think it’s good and has positive motives. But with all of those personal accounts of abuse, I’m finding that really hard.

    Now, did those acts really happen? Are they lying? Are they justified? I’ve read your FAQ multiple times, but it contradicts all of those other sources and I want to know why.

  168. @Comment by Nobody on June 4, 2008 9:14 pm

    Maybe you should have a look at the FAQ and then decide to move your butt over to enturbulation.org where the LOL-guyz hang out and have fun in their agreement how great they are. My tolerance level for losers just hit the roof.

    – L

  169. Also, in the interest of fairness, I will answer your question. I don’t know who that person is, but if I did I’d call the cops on him. Now if you have his name, go ahead and call the cops. I have no problem with people who make threats going to jail. Do it!

    Now, answer my questions. Are those sources lying? Or is that behavior justified?

  170. What’s wrong with those sources? Come clean with what? And no, I have changed my mind about some things related to Scientology. BradS convinced me that the whole reincarnation thing can work with Christianity if you look at it from a certain view point. He was very accomodating and explained his reasoning well. Pat, not so much. Now you? I thought better of you, Louanne. You had been so good about all of this so far and now you just seem pissed. What happened to the good ol’ Louanne from the last few weeks?

  171. @ Comment by Nobody on June 4, 2008 5:15 pm

    “I take it that you don’t deny everything else? I really want to know if you think all those people are lying or if you think those actions are justified. It’s one or the other. Either it happened and you are ok with it, or they are lying. Which is it?”

    The problem with you, Nobody, is that your are completely and utterly unable to change your mind about something related to Scientology. Actually, it’s worse. You KNOW that you are posting and reposting obsolete and biased information and you give a shit. Come clean, and we talk. Continue being a know-best bully, and you can piss off. That’s about all I have to say seeing your posts of the last 4 days.

    – L

  172. One week, zero response. Well, that’s kind of telling, isn’t it.

    @ Comment by Louanne on May 30, 2008 8:19 pm

    BTW, Centurian, the crim who vandalizes Google Maps etc, also authored this:

    http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=70877
    To Luana…
    Pray we never meet in person…I have no scruples and as far as I am concerned, the only good OSA/SeaOrg is one that is (guess my meaning here).
    by: Centurian 10 05/20/2008 11:34 PM

    He is delusional but it does not really matter if he thinks I am an alien and kills me for that. Threat is threat. Now, where are the Anonymous members kicking his ass?

    – Louanne

  173. I take it that you don’t deny everything else? I really want to know if you think all those people are lying or if you think those actions are justified. It’s one or the other. Either it happened and you are ok with it, or they are lying. Which is it?

  174. >A bit less menacing than “fair game”, though it does appear to re-affirm the principle that Scientologists will not be disciplined for harming a declared SP, since he/she “[m]ay not be protected by any rules or laws of the group”. And since this particular HCOPL has never been cancelled, it’s still official policy.

    Yes, OK. What policies or laws do you think he was talking about that they weren’t protected by? You should know these by now. Please. Enlighten us.

    Pat

  175. Huh, interesting. Thanks for the link.

  176. Something other than Fair Game?

    Yup. Specifically, the HCOPLs of 15 and 18 Feb 1966, appropriately titled “Attacks on Scientology.” For details, follow the link below and scroll down to section (ii), “Doubters Outside the Fold”:

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/audit/foster07.html

    Also from that page, it’s worth noting that there are two HCOPLs titled “Penalties for Lower Conditions.” The first, 18 Oct 1967 Issue IV, was the one with the “fair game” quote. The second, 21 July 1968, supersedes that one and contains a different prescription for the “Enemy” condition.

    “ENEMY – Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee. May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org.”

    A bit less menacing than “fair game”, though it does appear to re-affirm the principle that Scientologists will not be disciplined for harming a declared SP, since he/she “[m]ay not be protected by any rules or laws of the group”. And since this particular HCOPL has never been cancelled, it’s still official policy.

  177. Man, I was hoping there would be a response from somebody besides Okay by now. Once again, I get the most answers about Scientology from non-Scientologists.

    Anyway, what policies are you talking about OKay? Something other than Fair Game?

  178. Ah, I see. Well, I still don’t like that behavior towards anybody, even if I’m not personally included in that list of people. The word “destroyed” is just… ugh… I really don’t feel that’s right.

  179. Not quite, but you’re getting closer. *snip*

    Interesting stuff. Question: since undue criticism is itself an overt, does that mean that it can trigger this downward spiral on its own? Like, you say something mean about someone, and you feel bad, so you try to convince yourself that the insult was deserved by saying more mean stuff about the person? (Not you personally, BTW. I mean the generic “you.” The indefinite “you.”)

    I’m assuming here that it’s the anti-social personality being referred to, but please correct me if I’m wrong.

    Actually, I’m pretty sure “Penalties for Lower Conditions” only applies to declared SPs, which for the most part limits it to ex-Scientologists(TM). There are other policies in place to deal with those critics who never joined the fold.

  180. Will you actually read any of those links by the way? I’ve suddenly realized that all of my research may have been a waste of time. Again, you can’t learn anything unless you go out and do research. Research involves reading various sources, even ones you don’t think you will agree with. The point is to read those sources, do your own critical thinking, and come to your own conclusion based on evidence presented by both sides of the argument. If you cut off one side of the argument, you aren’t doing any thinking at all.

  181. Ok, I was only going to post two things, but then I realized that I left the very thing out that got me interested in this controversy in the first place. Fair Game! The official “policy” was canceled, but in that very policy letter it says that it doesn’t change the handling of “SPs.” I’m assuming here that it’s the anti-social personality being referred to, but please correct me if I’m wrong. Either way, I think it’s rather corrupt think that it’s ok to “trick, sue, lie to or destroy” anybody, nor is it ok to “injure by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline.” I don’t think that’s right at all.

    The biggest incident I can think of is Paulette Cooper. The Who, What, When, and Where can be found here:
    http://www.lermanet.com/paulette-cooper/

    And the most neutral source I can think of on the matter is here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)

    I consider Fair Game “abuse” due to the fact that it allows Scientologists to do anything to “SPs” without punishment, including injuring them, lying to them, etc. Since you seem to be implying that I am an SP (you haven’t said this directly, but you keep alluding to it), that really makes me angry and, well, scares the crap out of me.

  182. Okie dokie, moving on to the next thing that bothers me the most…

    This encompasses numerous things that can be defined as “slave labor” and physical/mental abuse that is meant to break people’s spirit. On Lu’s site it says that the RPF is voluntary, but there are people (WILL CITE THIS SOON LATER IN THIS VERY POST so shush about generalities) who claim the contrary after having been through it. The problems that many have is the extreme physical labor and forced confinement that comes from the RPF (and reports from the SP Hall at Gold Base in Hemet, CA… more on that later)

    A brief overview of this issue can be found here:
    http:/ /www.lermanet.com/scientology/gulags/BrainwashinginScientology’sRehabilitationProjectForce.htm

    Now, onto the details of specific incidents as you have requested….

    Who: Tonya Burden
    What: RPF. Referred to as “Scientology Concentration Camp”. Recounted stories of the horrors of the RPF in a court affidavit.
    When: January 25th, 1980 (abuse occurred prior to that date)
    Where: Las, Vegas

    Source: http:// http://www.lermanet2.com/scientology/gulags/Part1BrainwashinginScientologyProjectForce.htm#2
    Source: http:// http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/s/scientology/affidavit2/

    Other stories about those specific abuses can be found here:
    http:// x.sea.org.googlepages.com/insideintbase

    And here:
    http:// http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/rpfcover.htm

    The last two links include abuses in both the RPF and at Gold, so sorry if you have to dig in those. I can do more specifics if you want them. And more sources too. Whatever you want.

  183. Ugh, I suck at posting links. Just copy paste them into the browser and delete the space. Please do go to those sites, though. It’s really hard for you to call them “lies” unless you go there and actually read it.

  184. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on June 1, 2008 5:23 am
    >That’s what criticism is, you know? It’s an attempt to lessen the target of one’s own transgressions by making up imagined acts.

    >LOL WUT? Does that mean one can’t be a critic of the Bush administration unless one has committed a crime against the government?

    Not quite, but you’re getting closer.

    Excerpt from:
    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH9_2.HTM

    “This does not say that all things are right and that no criticism anywhere is ever merited. Man is not happy. And the overt act mechanism is simply a sordid “game” man has slipped into without knowing where he was going. So there are rightnesses and wrongnesses in conduct and society and life at large, but random, nagging criticism when not borne out in fact is only an effort to reduce the size of the target of the overt so that one can live (he hopes) with the overt. Of course, to criticize unjustly and lower repute is itself an overt act and so this mechanism is not in fact workable.

    This is a downward spiral. One commits overt acts unwittingly. He then seeks to justify them by finding fault or displacing blame. This leads him into further overts against the same people which leads to degradation of himself and sometimes those people. ”

    Pat

  185. That’s what criticism is, you know? It’s an attempt to lessen the target of one’s own transgressions by making up imagined acts.

    LOL WUT? Does that mean one can’t be a critic of the Bush administration unless one has committed a crime against the government? Or does this only apply to the “Church” of Scientology(TM)?

  186. @Comment by Nobody on May 31, 2008 8:30 pm
    >>“You betcher bippie. That goes right back to why, when my whole life is being spent helping to increase the theta on this planet would I go somewhere that is entheta? If all you want is bad news, I guess thats where you can go. In the meantime, I want to keep enough theta free so I can raise the others around me. Can you understand why I would want that?”

    >Why would you want that? Reading various sources, not just sources sponsored by Scientology, increases critical thinking and gives you a wider view of the subject as a whole. The sources cited that say that Scientology is good is entirely Scientology produced. What is needed is an objective source. A source that is not created and sponsored by Scientology or Scientologists.

    Considering that I already have what works, what’s the point in listening to someone else’s overts against Scientology talk? That’s what criticism is, you know? It’s an attempt to lessen the target of one’s own transgressions by making up imagined acts. Look at the article that Lu references here:

    http://www.scientologymyths.info/apostates/

    That’s as objective as you can get.

    >Do you see the problem we are having here?

    I see that you have a great deal of difficulty thinking with this concept of exact time, place, form and event. You have some weird idea that you’re supposed to be critical of people or groups. That it’s ok to think that way. Boy, I feel for you. If you want to truly sort this out you’ll get those specifics. You’ll find out the who did what to whom, when and how they did it exactly. Every last one of the abuses you keep trying to push off on us.

    Pat

  187. > Specifics means you need to specify *who* did *what*, *when* and *how*.

    … and *where*. Time, place, form and event are the specifics.

    The list comes from the Scientology Axiom 38:

    http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part14/Chp41/pg0768.html

  188. @Comment by Nobody on May 31, 2008 8:38 pm

    > All I want to take away is the aforementioned abuses.

    Abuses? What abuses? Honestly. What abuses?

    It has been repeatedly explained on this forum that in order to right a wrong, you need specifics. You guys seem to miss that point entirely.

    I briefly looked through the websites you listed as your sources and guess what: I found no specifics. To be honest that’s not the first time I check out an anti-scientology website and find no specifics whatsoever.

    Specifics means you need to specify *who* did *what*, *when* and *how*.

    You guys keep bringing up “abuses”. Where are the specifics? There aren’t.

    Don’t you find that strange? Why are there no specifics?

    That is so obvious that it bogs the mind how so many people can buy into this scam.

    If there were specifics, you wouldn’t be able to say “Scientology did this” or “the Church of Scientology did that”, you would have to say John Smith did this or that. Doesn’t sound that alarming, does it? Doesn’t sell that well either.

    If there were specifics, something could be done about the accusation. John Smith could be tracked down and investigated. His side of the story could be heard and more names would come up. Eventually there would be some sort of resolution and that would be the end of the accusation.

    If there were specifics, the accused could have a chance to defend themselves and then the accusers would have to take responsibility for their claims.

    If there were specifics, the accusation would have to have at least some link to reality. Without specifics, the accusation can be as baseless as you wish as long as it sounds credible. Given enough baseless accusations, any accusation becomes credible.

    Lack of specifics is compensated for by the amount of accusations that keep flooding your awareness until you see nothing but alarming abuses. At that point you may find yourself outraged and then you are owned.

    And controlled. The people that supply you with the accusations are in fact controlling you and yet you are convinced that you are expressing your own thoughts.

    Brilliant, don’t you think? Someone pulled some big lulz on you, I’m afraid.

  189. @Comment by Nobody on May 31, 2008 8:25 pm

    >I don’t feel that I’m generalizing. I’ve read many many MANY stories of people who have been hurt my the CoS. My sources on these instances are as follows.

    >http://www.whyaretheydead.net
    >http://www.exscientologykids.com

    Ah, I see.

    >However, what I’m getting from you is that you refuse to look at those sites because of Entheta, right? That means we’ve sort of hit a wall on that subject I guess. I’m trying to encourage research, balance, and critical thinking, which you are flatly refusing. There is nothing more I can really do, and I find that really sad.

    Your asking for a Scientologist to go look at entheta is like asking for a Christian to deny Christ.
    This all comes back to the fact that you haven’t read the basic books so you understand US.
    You want us to understand you without you doing same. One key reference on this is the Theta Mest Theory in Science of Survival. KEY. Also the Chart of Human Evaluation in same.
    You’re asking us to go DOWN scale to see what you write. Why not read what we study?

    >I do understand the “reality” thing, though. Again, I’m actually fascinated by the Scientology belief system and if it weren’t for the aforementioned abuses, I’d think that Scientology was actually pretty damn cool. It’s like sci-fi come to life. And I’m a huge sci-fi nerd. Believe me. I watch Battlestar Galactica obsessively. Oh my god, such a fraking good show… but I’m digressing…

    Scientology doesn’t have a belief system. It’s not faith-based.

    ‘All’ of these “aforementioned abuses” still haven’t been narrowed down to specifics. What abuses have you confirmed from an objective point of view?

    >It’s unfortunate that that belief stifles discussion on the beliefs of Scientology, though. I can think of no other religion that does that. In most religions that I’ve studied, discussion and debate is encouraged. That’s how religions have evolved over the years. Does Scientology evolve? Or is it the same as it was when LRH first wrote it?

    What’s to discuss?

    There is so much knowledge in Scientology that being stifled is the least of our worries. It’s going to be hard for you to see that we aren’t other religions. We aren’t faith-based. We aren’t messianic. We don’t worship any prophet. We follow the written works by L Ron Hubbard because they WORK. That’s all. It’s so incredibly simple. Scientology is about Knowing. As soon as you’ve tried something and it works you know. That’s why we keep saying “read the books”. All the data is there. Once you’ve done that objectively you’ll see what the “abuse” claims really are. Data has been codified from research into philosophies and religions over 10000 years old. Knowledge has to be applied to work. Knowing something isn’t enough. It has to be applied if you want a product from it. Through the knowledge and applying it we as individuals evolve. Haven’t you ever just really known something? I mean, it’s yours. There
    is no question that you have it and you know it. That’s how it is with us when we read and apply something and see it work. Not only for us but for others. We see people get better in front of our eyes. Then here comes Anonymous and says that those miracles didn’t happen because it’s all bad and abusive.

    I KNOW. I don’t have anything to “discuss”. How’s that for belief?

    Pat

  190. Also, one more thing (sorry for triple posting)…

    I DO NOT deny the Scientology has helped people. Narconon gets people off drugs? Fine! Good for you guys. Crimonon rehabilitates criminals? Awesome! Go for it! Scientology has helped you personally in some way? Great. I DO NOT want to take that away from you. All I want to take away is the aforementioned abuses.

  191. “You betcher bippie. That goes right back to why, when my whole life is being spent helping to increase the theta on this planet would I go somewhere that is entheta? If all you want is bad news, I guess thats where you can go. In the meantime, I want to keep enough theta free so I can raise the others around me. Can you understand why I would want that?”

    Why would you want that? Reading various sources, not just sources sponsored by Scientology, increases critical thinking and gives you a wider view of the subject as a whole. The sources cited that say that Scientology is good is entirely Scientology produced. What is needed is an objective source. A source that is not created and sponsored by Scientology or Scientologists.

    The sources that many of us have cited come from a wide array of groups and people. They’ve come from ex-Scientologists, families of current and ex-scientologists, people who have personally witnessed the abuses, video of said abuses, third party sources such as newspapers, tv shows, and magazines that reference and/or confirm said abuses, and a bunch more. You take all of those and then you put it up against one source: Scientology.

    Do you see the problem we are having here?

  192. Pat-

    I don’t feel that I’m generalizing. I’ve read many many MANY stories of people who have been hurt my the CoS. My sources on these instances are as follows.

    http://www.whyaretheydead.net
    http://www.exscientologykids.com

    However, what I’m getting from you is that you refuse to look at those sites because of Entheta, right? That means we’ve sort of hit a wall on that subject I guess. I’m trying to encourage research, balance, and critical thinking, which you are flatly refusing. There is nothing more I can really do, and I find that really sad.

    I do understand the “reality” thing, though. Again, I’m actually fascinated by the Scientology belief system and if it weren’t for the aforementioned abuses, I’d think that Scientology was actually pretty damn cool. It’s like sci-fi come to life. And I’m a huge sci-fi nerd. Believe me. I watch Battlestar Galactica obsessively. Oh my god, such a fraking good show… but I’m digressing…

    It’s unfortunate that that belief stifles discussion on the beliefs of Scientology, though. I can think of no other religion that does that. In most religions that I’ve studied, discussion and debate is encouraged. That’s how religions have evolved over the years. Does Scientology evolve? Or is it the same as it was when LRH first wrote it?

  193. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 31, 2008 6:08 am
    >Pat-
    >>“You still took what I said out of context, EA. Then you went off on a list of everyone YOU help, as tho’ by my saying that someone else is being anti-social, I said YOU were.”

    >If I took it out of context, I apologize;

    Alright

    >it seems, however, that you were defining “Anonymous” as an anti-social group (which you later affirmed). I was simply making that -something- is off, there; why is it that the CoS is being “attacked”, yet none of these other organizations that “help” people are?

    Again, that post was a specific reply to a specific post which I quoted. So, in that case who/whom would I have said was being anti-social? You? Anonymous? or the poster?

    >Incidentally, I -don’t- help all of those organizations; I’m only human, and doing all of that would be pretty impressive. I was merely pointing out that I am -not- involved in any campaigns against them.

    Well, that’s good

    >Also, just a minor point (addressing something you said in another post):

    >“It does? How many has it HURT? How did it hurt them, exactly? You’re generalizing.”

    >To be fair, you’re -also- generalizing when you say that Scientology helps people. Now, you’ll probably say, “But you can get the specifics on Scientology.org, and I’ve said before…” etc, etc.

    The point is is that I do give you specifics. I point you to exact sites where successes are given
    (Scientology.org, volunteerministers.org, dianetics.org, bridgepub.com for a few)

    Should I quote each one endlessly or is just giving you the link alright?

    >To which I would reply, “Right…and for information on HARM, you could go to any one of this list of sites, or you can look at the claims already made by critics on this blog”.

    If I can get specific instances, it might change my view that it’s stated that way as a generality to enturbulate, making it ant-social. The difference between a social and anti-social personality is that they will be able to correct something like that. An anti-social can’t. Until then I ask .. Who said, who thinks, what was harmful, etc., hoping.

    >Of course, you’ve already stated that you don’t wish to look at the critical sites because of the “entheta” they contain, so…that makes it a little difficult.

    You betcher bippie. That goes right back to why, when my whole life is being spent helping to increase the theta on this planet would I go somewhere that is entheta? If all you want is bad news, I guess thats where you can go. In the meantime, I want to keep enough theta free so I can raise the others around me. Can you understand why I would want that?

    Pat

  194. “International subject, international initial response. What it tells me is that there is a lot of agreement and harmony between the organizations all over the world. You get local responses on local situations, like the statement on the Anonymous anthrax scare in Los Angeles about which no other organization has said anything. I can’t find anything out of the ordinary here but I guess you never worked for an international organization?”

    Well, I think that’s -part- of the disconnect, here. When Scientology issues a press release that’s parroted by all of the local orgs, what it most resembles is…well, a corporation. Also, I don’t think “agreement” and “harmony” are necessarily prerequisites for the press release being repeated verbatim; rather, I think “orders from top management” might cover the same territory quite nicely.

    What’s most interesting to me, though, is what happens when they -break- from the script. In the past few months, we’ve had org leaders and spokespeople claim that Anonymous is:
    1: A threatening group of terrorists
    2: A bunch of teenaged hackers who rarely leave the basement
    3: A bunch of college kids who are being paid to protest
    4: A serious issue and an immediate threat to the safety of local Scientologists
    5: A minor annoyance
    6: Not even worth noticing.

    I’m willing to give a little leeway here based on the individual experiences of the org leaders, but…that’s a pretty broad spectrum, right there.

  195. Pat-
    “You still took what I said out of context, EA. Then you went off on a list of everyone YOU help, as tho’ by my saying that someone else is being anti-social, I said YOU were.”

    If I took it out of context, I apologize; it seems, however, that you were defining “Anonymous” as an anti-social group (which you later affirmed). I was simply making that -something- is off, there; why is it that the CoS is being “attacked”, yet none of these other organizations that “help” people are?

    Incidentally, I -don’t- help all of those organizations; I’m only human, and doing all of that would be pretty impressive. I was merely pointing out that I am -not- involved in any campaigns against them.

    Also, just a minor point (addressing something you said in another post):

    “It does? How many has it HURT? How did it hurt them, exactly? You’re generalizing.”

    To be fair, you’re -also- generalizing when you say that Scientology helps people. Now, you’ll probably say, “But you can get the specifics on Scientology.org, and I’ve said before…” etc, etc.

    To which I would reply, “Right…and for information on HARM, you could go to any one of this list of sites, or you can look at the claims already made by critics on this blog”.

    Of course, you’ve already stated that you don’t wish to look at the critical sites because of the “entheta” they contain, so…that makes it a little difficult.

    (Incidentally, I don’t -frequently- have conversations with myself; this is a special occasion).

  196. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 30, 2008 7:37 pm

    >Well, Pat, again, if you’d read the -rest- of that post, it pretty clearly explains that. In fact, the very next sentence begins with “As for -why- I did”.

    You still took what I said out of context, EA. Then you went off on a list of everyone YOU help, as tho’ by my saying that someone else is being anti-social, I said YOU were.

    Pat

  197. @Comment by Nobody on May 30, 2008 8:21 pm
    >Pat-

    >No, you haven’t answered my questions. All you do is attack. I’ve asked many questions about the Thetan and thoughts on reincarnation which were completely ignored. I have no problem with your beliefs. I’m actually interested in them. For the billionth time, my problem is with the ABUSES of the CoS, NOT the beliefs.

    That’s BS – I’ve told you guys time and time again – these are individual realities. What’s real for me may not be real for you. The fact is, is that I’ve repeatedly referred you to the books that WILL answer those questions for you. You want MY reality which may not be another’s reality. I don’t know you well enough to give you my personal life, and trust you to not ridicule my personal reality, just because it isn’t or may not be true for you. The basics are in the Books that WILL answer those questions for you based on your own reality. That’s not evasive. That’s Scientology. We don’t evaluate for you or tell you what to believe. That’s basics. The basics are in the books that WILL answer those questions for you.

    >And no, I never said Scientology doesn’t help people. I’m sure it’s helped a lot of people. However, it doesn’t help everyone. It hurts a lot of people too, and that’s what I’m trying to stop.

    It does? How many has it HURT? How did it hurt them, exactly? You’re generalizing.

    >Also, you are saying I’m “anti-social” even though I don’t fit any of the requirements that you linked to? How does that make sense?

    That’s not the truth. Just in this post there have been several points. The test of whether you’re a true anti-social or not lies in whether you have the majority of the anti ones or if you have a majority of the social ones. Your biggest (and the most telling at this point is what appears to be a continuing difficulty with specifics and continued adherence to anti-Scientolgy sites, even to the point of urging us to join you. I did check Lu’s link. All I saw was entheta about Scientologists and advocating destruction. Why do you think that’s supporting a group that helps? To me, you’re supporting a destructive group. You wanted my opinion. You got it.

    Pat

  198. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 30, 2008 6:16 pm

    ““The sequence was the other way around. He first put the threat on the page and then claimed that a stray cat got harmed (though I still can’t believe that a cat would drink ammonia).” Again, how is it a threat? He said if someone comes back and breaks into his house, he’s prepared to defend himself. Is “Breaking and entering” a protected sacrament of Scientology that I’m somehow not aware of?”

    I don’t know anyone you is not defending her/himself against burglars but I don’t know anyone else but Carasov who seems to have a compulsion to put it on a website, specifically mentioning Scientologist as his preferred burglar. For me this comes across as if he would LOVE to find a Scientologist intruder in his home because that would give him a nice justification to kill one. Why else would he promote this.

    ““I guess you are one of the “recruited active participants” and you are now expected “to destroy the CoS”.” I’d be reasonably satisfied if it just stopped all of its harmful nonsense. Frankly, I suspect that no matter what, the organization will continue in some form; that’s fine, so long as it stops doing, well, a lot of the stuff we’ve already covered.”

    And how do you measure this? I mean, just in case Scientology does not do harmful nonsense, how would you find out?

    “Lives being destroyed, well, that’s not funny. People being harmed? Not funny. And yes, that applies on -both- sides. Threats and stuff like that? Not funny. That’s just dumb and harmful.”

    We are on the same page here.

    “No matter how much Scientology might want it to be so, though, “hate crimes” does not mean “saying anything negative about a religion or acting against it in any way”. That’s simply not how it works.”

    True, but not what I am talking about. Criticism can be constructive or not, but I have not seen any constructive criticism coming with a Anonymous label on it.

    ““Sorry, but I don’t buy this “hive mind” stuff. Individuals are responsible for their actions and if they put on symbols which make them part of a group they become responsible for the actions of the group as well. That’s why the law includes the banning of groups as a measure of public safety. Nobody is forced to become a member of Anonymous or to call oneself Anonymous (capital A) but nevertheless they have the same masks, the same flags, the same lingo and the same goals. That’s a group.” Sure, by some measures. It’s also a group that has no official membership, no formalized hierarchy, no “governing body”, no dues, no required activities…”

    I think they are big enough to warrant an ethics committee now. And a pension fund.

    “No one has ever said that individuals aren’t responsible for their -own- actions. If I’m at, say, an anti-war protest, though, and one lone idiot does something stupid…I have a responsibility not to join him, sure. It would be wise of me to make sure that it’s obvious his actions are not representative of me or my friends. It would be smart for me to encourage others not to do the same thing as that guy. However, I am not -legally responsible- for his actions as an adult. Moreover, if he’s on the other side of the protest and I never even SEE the guy or know his name, how am I magically supposed to stop him?”

    If you are joining protests which are liable to explode or have a bad end, you could help out as an usher or security. That would be more responsibility. Or you could register the picket and then be busy keeping Anonymous members from doing stupid things.

    “What areas of Scientology you think are not transparent enough?” Well, that is tough. The thing is, even reporters will tell you how much difficulty they’ve had doing anything on Scientology. Scientology will say, “Why didn’t you talk to a bunch of average Scientologists?” Well, because the reporter is inevitably “handled” by a PR contact who never LETS them.”

    That is a trust problem. If the Church rep does not trust this reporter but gets the idea that the story is preconceived and will anyway be negative why would that PR rep then agree to lead a parishioner to the slaughterhouse of public ridicule? I have talked to media in the past (not about Scientology) and the percentage of sleaze bags seems to be higher in this profession than elsewhere (there are some exceptions though).

    “It’s pretty telling, in the initial days of the whole Chanology thing, that practically ever org asked for comment issued the same response, -word for word-, that had been handed down via press release from top management.”

    International subject, international initial response. What it tells me is that there is a lot of agreement and harmony between the organizations all over the world. You get local responses on local situations, like the statement on the Anonymous anthrax scare in Los Angeles about which no other organization has said anything. I can’t find anything out of the ordinary here but I guess you never worked for an international organization?

    – Louanne

  199. Pat-

    No, you haven’t answered my questions. All you do is attack. I’ve asked many questions about the Thetan and thoughts on reincarnation which were completely ignored. I have no problem with your beliefs. I’m actually interested in them. For the billionth time, my problem is with the ABUSES of the CoS, NOT the beliefs.

    And no, I never said Scientology doesn’t help people. I’m sure it’s helped a lot of people. However, it doesn’t help everyone. It hurts a lot of people too, and that’s what I’m trying to stop.

    Also, you are saying I’m “anti-social” even though I don’t fit any of the requirements that you linked to? How does that make sense?

  200. BTW, Centurian, the crim who vandalizes Google Maps etc, also authored this:

    http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=70877
    To Luana…
    Pray we never meet in person…I have no scruples and as far as I am concerned, the only good OSA/SeaOrg is one that is (guess my meaning here).
    by: Centurian 10 05/20/2008 11:34 PM

    He is delusional but it does not really matter if he thinks I am an alien and kills me for that. Threat is threat. Now, where are the Anonymous members kicking his ass?

    – Louanne

  201. @ Comment by dumb on May 30, 2008 5:55 pm

    “so instead of starting though provoking discussion you go and point out we are doing something illegal?”

    “YOU HAD THE OPTION TO CONTACT AN ADMIN AND HAVE A PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN A LOCKED ARENA YET YOU DIDN’T!”

    No, you noob, my ID got blocked including my IP. So when I hit “reply” I got a very unfriendly message typed by the mod and could not ask for any\thing.

    “he got pissed because you obviously researched his activities… an openly hostile action in his opinion… again STUPID IDEA”

    Oh, you mean Anonymous should do their criminal activities without being noted and it is a stupid idea to actually look what these guys are doing? Thanks, that is very eye opening.

    – Louanne

  202. >Finally, see above for the “But you can find out about Scientology by reading a book!” No, you can’t. You can find out about the book and, perhaps, the founding philosophies behind the organization.

    Challenge: Go to your local library and check out Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought

    It covers the whole of what Scientology is based on and what the beliefs are. The spiritual practices of Scientology and even the data behind administration of it is covered in the basic books. You want to understand? Read the books

    Pat

  203. @Comment by Nobody on May 30, 2008 6:41 pm
    Pat-

    Alright. I guess I’m not talking to you and never have. I guess I haven’t answered numerous times thru-out this blog about the beliefs of the Church (which are my beliefs). I guess that protests against my Church are ok for lulz but they are still hate crimes by legal definition.

    At the bottom of this you assert that you aren’t attacking a betterment group. By saying that you have just said that Scientology doesn’t help anyone, as far as you’re concerned. You can believe that it won’t help you. That’s your prerogative. But when you protest us you protest the incredible miracles that Scientology gives. Scientology is not faith-based. It’s applied and those who apply it get miracles. You object to people in Scientology shunning those who are destructive, not only of them but of their Church. By supporting that attitude you would have to support the abolishing of restraining orders too. It’s the same principal. You never seem to look at “why did the Scientologist disconnect from that person that’s complaining?”. You want to believe that we’ve done something bad because others have told you we’re bad. At this point, I don’t think it matters to you what you pick out to attack.

    Yes, Anon is an anti-social group. (that’s a response for EA, too)

    Pat

  204. Well, Pat, again, if you’d read the -rest- of that post, it pretty clearly explains that. In fact, the very next sentence begins with “As for -why- I did”.

  205. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 30, 2008 5:55 pm

    >>“It’s interesting that you would take one sentence out of a post replying to someone else and make it about yourself.
    What’s up with that?”

    >Well, see, Pat, here on the internet, that’s how conversation works. If it’s not a private conversation in private messages, other people are able to comment and contribute.

    What does that have to do with taking a communication that replied to someone else’s communication (even quoting it) with you? Why do you take that personally, going on to protest how supportive you are of help groups. It wasn’t about you so why would you jump in on that as tho’ this were a personal attack?

    Pat

  206. Pat-

    I HAVE gone to a church. I took a free stress test in LA, read some of Dianetics at my local library, and have asked numerous questions here on this blog about your belief system, which you have refused to answer. It’s not my fault that you refuse to talk about your own beliefs. If you want to talk about your beliefs, I’ll gladly ask my questions again, but you seem to have no interest in talking to me which makes my perception of your organization even worse.

    Besides, getting information only from Scientology is only getting half of the story. You see, in college we are taught to look at various sources to get the full story. If you are going to present an argument you need to understand the other side of it in order to adequately defend your point of view. Getting only half of the story is just lazy and really poor research. You can’t just take one source and claim it to be true. You have to look at all sides, compare and contrast, think critically, and come up with your owns conclusion. That’s all I’m doing.

    Also, we have to agree to disagree about protests not being peaceful. I think protests can be very peaceful if done right. I participated in an anti-war protest once that seemed to be straight out of the sixties. Besides being horribly cliche, it was extremely peaceful and actually quite fun. People were playing music, singing, blowing bubbles, and making crafts. How is that not peaceful? It IS a protest. Now, at the protest I went to against the abuses of Scientology, it was also pretty peaceful. People were playing music, eating cake, dancing, singing, hugging, etc. Overall, these two protests were the most peaceful I have ever been to.

    You are right though. Not every protest can be peaceful. I was at a protest on a college campus (as an observer) where people climbed into the trees to set up a camp to prevent them from being cut down. The broke down barricades, hit a cop, damaged property, and were over all just plain loud and annoying. That was NOT peaceful.

    Now, as for “attacking a betterment group.” I am doing no such thing! If you want to go and say that Psychiatry is evil and people shouldn’t do drugs, be my guest! On some level, I agree with you. If you want to rehabilitate criminals and drug addicts, go ahead! I don’t care what whacky belief you choose to use to do so. That’s not what I have a problem with. My problem is with the abuses going on within the Church of Scientology.
    My problem is the families that have been torn apart, the people who have been hurt, the people who have been stalked and harassed, and the many questionable policies of the Church of Scientology.

    Pat, every time you try to attack me you fail because what you are saying simply isn’t true. You seem to think that any “member” of Anonymous is some evil, religious hating, criminal bigot who hates anything happy and positive in the world. Those aren’t your words of course, but that’s what I’m getting from what you are saying. I’m not any of those. I’m the exact opposite. Now can we actually address some of the concerns that we have over the CoS? I’m getting tired of this “always attack, never defend” mentality.

  207. Louanne-
    “The sequence was the other way around. He first put the threat on the page and then claimed that a stray cat got harmed (though I still can’t believe that a cat would drink ammonia).”

    Again, how is it a threat? He said if someone comes back and breaks into his house, he’s prepared to defend himself. Is “Breaking and entering” a protected sacrament of Scientology that I’m somehow not aware of?

    Also: The cat didn’t drink ammonia. It ate cat food laced with it, which is -entirely- possible (stray cats, marking territory, etc etc you know all this already).

    “Not “false” allegations but “not court proof”. Did someone post the actual court statement? Maybe there was footage of the incident and Carasov said something else then “I’ll slit your throat” .”

    No, fair enough. I was under the impression that the “making false claims” thing was currently under investigation. If anything else comes out about it, I’ll let you know.

    “You are leaving out half of the story. Anonymous gathered, filmed in the windows of the Church (they do regularly and post the pictures – and sometimes names – of the people working in there, how about THEIR privacy?). They went on messing up the side walks with chalk graffiti. THEN someone got out there to photograph. We agree that it should have gone differently but no Church staff ordinarily walks around with a camera unless there is a provocation first. ”

    Oh, no, I’m well aware of the flash raid and all the stuff that goes on. I’ll admit I’m not a huge fan of posting people’s names and identifying info online (except, perhaps, if the person has -already- done something to merit it, or in the extenuating case of a “public figure” like Carmichael). Sidewalk chalk, though? That’s…pretty mild. I mean, really, -that’s- the big case for harassment and vandalism? That’s provocation to do…well, what the Scientologists did?

    (Incidentally, I suspect their agitation had a bit MORE to do with being shut down by the police and fined for operating their table without a permit.)

    “I guess you are one of the “recruited active participants” and you are now expected “to destroy the CoS”.”

    I’d be reasonably satisfied if it just stopped all of its harmful nonsense. Frankly, I suspect that no matter what, the organization will continue in some form; that’s fine, so long as it stops doing, well, a lot of the stuff we’ve already covered.

    Also: Yes, some of this stuff is -deeply- funny. I’ll admit, Scientology attempting to react to current, quickly-changing circumstances based on the same playbook it’s been using for decades is, really, pretty funny. The tone-deafness and ineptness of many of the official responses is funny. The 1984-ish “We’ve always been at war with Eurasia” doublethink is funny (although also depressing and terrifying).

    Lives being destroyed, well, that’s not funny. People being harmed? Not funny. And yes, that applies on -both- sides. Threats and stuff like that? Not funny. That’s just dumb and harmful.

    As for the hate crimes thing, the part you seem to frequently overlook is that in order for something to be a “hate crime”, it first has to be a “crime”.

    Some of the things you mention, such as “bullying” and “harassment”, would first have to reach the level of criminal offense. THEN the hate crime label could be attached, adding to the seriousness of the case.

    No matter how much Scientology might want it to be so, though, “hate crimes” does not mean “saying anything negative about a religion or acting against it in any way”. That’s simply not how it works.

    “Sorry, but I don’t buy this “hive mind” stuff. Individuals are responsible for their actions and if they put on symbols which make them part of a group they become responsible for the actions of the group as well. That’s why the law includes the banning of groups as a measure of public safety. Nobody is forced to become a member of Anonymous or to call oneself Anonymous (capital A) but nevertheless they have the same masks, the same flags, the same lingo and the same goals. That’s a group.”

    Sure, by some measures. It’s also a group that has no official membership, no formalized hierarchy, no “governing body”, no dues, no required activities…

    No one has ever said that individuals aren’t responsible for their -own- actions. If I’m at, say, an anti-war protest, though, and one lone idiot does something stupid…I have a responsibility not to join him, sure. It would be wise of me to make sure that it’s obvious his actions are not representative of me or my friends. It would be smart for me to encourage others not to do the same thing as that guy. However, I am not -legally responsible- for his actions as an adult. Moreover, if he’s on the other side of the protest and I never even SEE the guy or know his name, how am I magically supposed to stop him?

    “That sounds like “stop doing your secret activities”. If there aren’t how to stop them? Scientology is not transparent enough because what you think is there cannot be seen yet? But maybe I am not fair here and you have specifics in mind. What areas of Scientology you think are not transparent enough?”

    Well, that is tough. The thing is, even reporters will tell you how much difficulty they’ve had doing anything on Scientology. Scientology will say, “Why didn’t you talk to a bunch of average Scientologists?” Well, because the reporter is inevitably “handled” by a PR contact who never LETS them. It’s pretty telling, in the initial days of the whole Chanology thing, that practically ever org asked for comment issued the same response, -word for word-, that had been handed down via press release from top management.

  208. Pat-

    You’re being -remarkably- intellectually dishonest. First of all:

    “It’s interesting that you would take one sentence out of a post replying to someone else and make it about yourself.
    What’s up with that?”

    Well, see, Pat, here on the internet, that’s how conversation works. If it’s not a private conversation in private messages, other people are able to comment and contribute.

    As for -why- I did, well, you were making a pretty sweeping generalization, trying to (at the very least) categorize the whole Anon thing as an anti-social group, with the IMPLICATION that this extended to its members, as well. I was pointing out how it’s interesting that this supposedly anti-social group has not gone after any groups that are -widely- considered to be helpful, rather than a group about whom many people disagree (such as Scientology).

    “By attacking Scientology you’re attacking a Betterment group.”

    That’s what you say. I disagree. I think the average Scientologist -is- trying to help, and I do think they BELIEVE in what they’re doing, but my overall impression of the organization is quite different.

    “You buy into the garbage without ever personally investigating it for yourself by reading a book or going into a Church to see a film or attend a service. I could be lenient on you by saying you don’t know what it is you’re attacking when you protest (and it being legal is irrelevant) but I don’t think that will change anything. Find out what it is by investigating first-hand.”

    You know, you guys say this a lot, but it doesn’t fly. Reading a book or going into the church to see a film only gives me Scientology’s perspective. It doesn’t give me some sort of unvarnished absolute “truth”, any more than reading the Bible tells me about the history and political influence of the Catholic church. Might it help? Certainly.
    The irony here, of course, is that if the people complaining DID join Scientology, only to later leave and voice their concerns about the organization, you’d label them “apostates” and say that they should have addressed their concerns through the “proper channels”.

    I don’t need to join a snake-handler church for years to realize that there’s a pretty good chance you’re going to get bitten.

    “Protests are not peaceful, as they incite people, which is the whole intention. Just the fact you are there at all hiding behind masks of any kind is not transparent at all. I wish I knew what you think is so “un-transparent” about the Church, that you couldn’t get the knowledge on in the basic books (Everything, and I mean everything about Scientology is in those basics) that are free to read in every library.:

    You know, you like to harp on the masks, but given that I -personally- know at least two individuals who have been followed by Scientology investigators for their participation in protests (and for putting their names on a police report as witnesses in one Scientologist-instigated incident), they seem like a good enough idea to me. Maybe if Scientology did not have a -documented history- of following, harassing, stalking, and smearing its critics, it’d be different. Sadly, they do. Also: There’s no such thing as a peaceful protest? -Really-? Do you -really- want to try to make that argument?

    Finally, see above for the “But you can find out about Scientology by reading a book!” No, you can’t. You can find out about the book and, perhaps, the founding philosophies behind the organization.

  209. “”””””””””I am blocked from enturb.org after someone posted a death threat against me. My ID was LuSmyths and here are the links:

    http:// forums.enturbulation .org/26-think-tank/operation-google-mapmaker-13203/
    http:// forums.enturbulation .org/7-general-discussion/google-maps-13067/””””””””””””

    so instead of starting though provoking discussion you go and point out we are doing something illegal?

    wouldn’t you be able to LINK TO THAT PAGE in a separate post or locked discussion?

    YOU HAD THE OPTION TO CONTACT AN ADMIN AND HAVE A PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN A LOCKED ARENA YET YOU DIDN’T!
    in my opinion you had the insults coming the moment you said FUCK ALL to the smart ideas! btw you were banned because you were stupid enough to NOT contact an admin and inform them that you are a scientologist

    “”””””””””Centurian, you spend a lot of time on Google Maps though… why are you changing your own changes back?”””””

    he got pissed because you obviously researched his activities… an openly hostile action in his opinion… again STUPID IDEA

  210. Lou I was generalizing what Mark Bunker said. He might have said “don’t make martyrs out of scientologists” but isn’t that a good thing? I do not think any Scientologists were ever in physical danger because thats just not how the internet goes about things. Anonymous was famous for just freaking out the enemy and having them overreact= Lulz. You don’t want to be made into a victim… or do you?

    Ok your links showed no death threats against you, the worst that was said was “Fail Troll is Fail” and it you weren’t even identified as a Scientologist until the 2nd page. Unless it was a PM you haven’t given me to believe you personally got a death threat.

    http://www.partyvan.info- this is more of the chans and /i/nsurgents playground. This (pre-mark bunker) had discussions on the black faxes, prank calls, destruction of property that was REMOVED because of basically Mark Bunker’s pleas. I personally go to Enturbulation.org which technically isn’t anonymous (we have names) because it contains less incitefull material. And the scientolgists are always bawwwing over “they are in masks” yet several people not of anonymous have gone into an org and asked about it (including a Radio Talk Show Host *I think in boston*) and they people there say “its no big deal, just a silly group of protesters…”. So if we are such a threat how can they play it off as nothing…

    And writing on sidewalks is legal in many places, just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it “graffiti”. Heck you just have to pour water on it to clean it off. And the reason we wear mask: FAIR GAME, which still exists in practice! And the reason Michael reacted the way he did was anons shined a normal flashlight into the lens of the camera to prevent their picture being taken. I still don’t understand why he didn’t just leave, if he was “being harassed” or in ANY danger he didn’t he just leave? Is it his job “to handle” to protesters?

  211. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 29, 2008 11:02 pm

    ““No, I am talking about the threat Carasov put on his ED page (that he is ready to shoot Scientologists, along with a picture of his two guns)”
    No, what he said was that he was prepared to shoot anyone who broke into his house. Given the poisoning of the stray cat that he took care of, this was an ill-advised (but understandable) reaction.”

    The sequence was the other way around. He first put the threat on the page and then claimed that a stray cat got harmed (though I still can’t believe that a cat would drink ammonia).

    “Note that the case was dropped. So…false allegations?”

    Not “false” allegations but “not court proof”. Did someone post the actual court statement? Maybe there was footage of the incident and Carasov said something else then “I’ll slit your throat” .

    “That’s what happens if you try to have a conversation with Anons, pure provocation, but yes, he should just have left. There is no good reason to continue a conversation which starts that unfriendly.” It was unfriendly partly because he’d been trying to photograph them and gather personal info that he has no particular need for nor a right to.”

    You are leaving out half of the story. Anonymous gathered, filmed in the windows of the Church (they do regularly and post the pictures – and sometimes names – of the people working in there, how about THEIR privacy?). They went on messing up the side walks with chalk graffiti. THEN someone got out there to photograph. We agree that it should have gone differently but no Church staff ordinarily walks around with a camera unless there is a provocation first.

    “And no, I’m not supporting a “group whose “big name” is traditionally dependent on the damage they create to others”. If a bunch of channers went and pulled some typical online stunt, I wouldn’t be showing support for that. I support the general goals of Project Chanology, however, and its associated individuals.”

    I understand what you think but then again the “general goals of Project Chanology” as of this morning are:

    ” * Gain experience of performing operations on a global scale for future lulz.
    * Alert the public to our presence and recruit active participants (for destroying CoS, not necessarily to become Anon).
    * Lulz.
    * Great justice.
    * More lulz.
    * Destroying a cult = lulz
    * Destroying a business = lulz
    * Destroying both at once = double lulz
    * Force Dave Miscavige and Tom Cruise to buy curtains, a phone recorder, and a dog.
    * And even more lulz.”

    and this one – a mere afterthought per the edit history – but I guess this is what you think you are supporting:

    “Save people from Scientology by reversing the brainwashing and help Scientologists realize that the Church of Scientology in its current state is a vast money-making scheme under the guise of religion. Everyone has the right to freedom of religion, but religion should be free.”

    (Source: http://www.partyvan. info/index.php/Project_Chanology )

    I guess you are one of the “recruited active participants” and you are now expected “to destroy the CoS”.

    ““Cheap, and not an anwer. You want to try this again?” How is that not an answer? Perhaps a clear definition of what you consider to be harassment and “invalidation” would help. Are we talking about the -legal- definition of harassment? Is it “any protest outside of a Scientology org”? Is it “anything which makes Scientology look bad”?”

    The official definition does well:

    (1): to annoy persistently (2): to create an unpleasant or hostile situation for especially by uninvited and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct
    (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/harassment)

    Harassment goes along with hate crimes:

    “Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. Hate crime can take many forms. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime)

    Damage of property? Check.
    Bullying? Check.
    Harassment? Check.
    Verbal abuse or insults? Check.
    Offensive graffiti? Check.
    Offensive letters? Check.

    ““A few hundred idiots, yes, and what they did is “normal” for Anonymous members. They do it to other groups and invididuals too and have done so long before “Scientology” became their newest fad. ” The fact that you say “Anonymous members” indicates to me that you still don’t really get it.”

    Sorry, but I don’t buy this “hive mind” stuff. Individuals are responsible for their actions and if they put on symbols which make them part of a group they become responsible for the actions of the group as well. That’s why the law includes the banning of groups as a measure of public safety. Nobody is forced to become a member of Anonymous or to call oneself Anonymous (capital A) but nevertheless they have the same masks, the same flags, the same lingo and the same goals. That’s a group.

    “And finally: “The a.r.s. battles were before I could spell “internet” but I, too, think something has to change but what would that be?” Here, again, I suspect we would disagree. I think, at the very least, a greater degree of transparency on Scientology’s part would help tremendously.”

    That sounds like “stop doing your secret activities”. If there aren’t how to stop them? Scientology is not transparent enough because what you think is there cannot be seen yet? But maybe I am not fair here and you have specifics in mind. What areas of Scientology you think are not transparent enough?

    – Louanne

  212. @ Comment by Nobody on May 29, 2008 10:27 pm

    “I’m really confused by what you guys think qualifies as a member of Anonymous though. People who have gone to protests? People who keep their names secret? People who come from the chans? People on enturb? All critics? Please clarify so I know whether you think I am Anonymous or not. It’d make this whole thing a lot easier.”

    In my understanding a member of Anonymous is whoever choses to take on the “memes” of this group, including attending anonymous events or hanging out in Anonymous boards, but the main factor is taking on the philosophy that they are “nobody” (no offense to your user name) amongst many, a kind of “hive mind” which implies that they do not take any responsibility for any their actions and the actions of their group members. If it gets too hot or they did something illegal, they can go away and never get caught (so they think). Some critics went “anonymous” to help stirring the crowd with catchy accusations but the majority of the old critics are not part of that group. They have more interest in public attention and that requires a face and a name.

    “Also, no, Louanne, you are most certainly welcome on enturb.”

    I am blocked from enturb.org after someone posted a death threat against me. My ID was LuSmyths and here are the links:

    http://forums.enturbulation.org/26-think-tank/operation-google-mapmaker-13203/
    http://forums.enturbulation.org/7-general-discussion/google-maps-13067/

    “There have been a hand full of Scientologists who came there seeking information already and we’ve provided it. We don’t kick somebody off just for being a Scientologists. Personally, I wish more would show up.”

    This would require a fair setting and the actual wish of those enturb visitors to learn something new. As its name says already Enturb is a place for planning the next harassment “run” on Scientologists and has been from the start. If there are people on enturb who appreciate a live conversation and exchange of ideas then I haven’t found them yet.

    – Louanne

  213. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 29, 2008 6:09 pm
    >>“Helping others is an activity which drives the Anti-Social Personality nearly berserk. Activities, however which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.”

    >Which is clearly why I’m also protesting the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the ACLU, Doctors Without Borders, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Cancer Fund, the Humane Society, and every local women’s shelter, orphanage, hospital, veterinary clinic, and soup kitchen I can find.

    It’s interesting that you would take one sentence out of a post replying to someone else and make it about yourself.

    What’s up with that?

    Pat

  214. @Comment by Nobody on May 29, 2008 10:27 pm

    By attacking Scientology you’re attacking a Betterment group.

    You buy into the garbage without ever personally investigating it for yourself by reading a book or going into a Church to see a film or attend a service. I could be lenient on you by saying you don’t know what it is you’re attacking when you protest (and it being legal is irrelevant) but I don’t think that will change anything. Find out what it is by investigating first-hand.

    Protests are not peaceful, as they incite people, which is the whole intention. Just the fact you are there at all hiding behind masks of any kind is not transparent at all. I wish I knew what you think is so “un-transparent” about the Church, that you couldn’t get the knowledge on in the basic books (Everything, and I mean everything about Scientology is in those basics) that are free to read in every library.

    Pat

  215. “No mask, though I did cover my face and wear concealing clothing to protest my identity from the (several) Scientologist photographers, including one guy -hiding in a bush-.”

    Same, mainly because Guy Fawkes masks are expensive and I don’t know enough about British history to know what I’d be promoting. Ha. But I also concealed my identity. Does that make me “anonymous” or “Anonymous”? Again, what makes Anonymous? Who is counted? If it’s people wearing Guy Fawkes masks, some Scientologists in LA would be considered Anon. Heh.

    “transparency on Scientology’s part would help tremendously.”

    This. A thousand times this. An organization that holds so many secrets is bound to make others suspicious, even if it’s unwarranted. If the critics are wrong, they should be proved wrong, which I simply haven’t seen yet. Transparency is key.

  216. Ahem (in no particular order):

    “No, I am talking about the threat Carasov put on his ED page (that he is ready to shoot Scientologists, along with a picture of his two guns)”

    No, what he said was that he was prepared to shoot anyone who broke into his house. Given the poisoning of the stray cat that he took care of, this was an ill-advised (but understandable) reaction. Unless the Scientologists were -planning- to break into his house, it’s difficult for them to make a case for that being a threat. Also, that’s not what he was charged with. He was -charged- with threatening that guy on the street. Other people filmed Carasov’s interactions with the guy, though I don’t believe the video has been put up on Youtube. The entire case, however, was based on that guy’s claims that Sean had threatened him.

    Note that the case was dropped. So…false allegations?

    “Found it, and it is unflattering. That’s what happens if you try to have a conversation with Anons, pure provocation, but yes, he should just have left. There is no good reason to continue a conversation which starts that unfriendly.”

    It was unfriendly partly because he’d been trying to photograph them and gather personal info that he has no particular need for nor a right to. Note how he keeps asking for their names and telephone numbers. Why does he need that information in order to discuss Dianetics? I grant that some of the protesters there were being pretty provocative, and it’s not how -I- would have handled things. However, I wasn’t there. I didn’t see what happened off-camera. Carmichael’s reaction, though, is pretty unbecoming of a “reverend” and the local head of a religious organization.

    “Start looking, that’s always a good way to start. Ask Anons to stay away from provocation and harassment, scold them if they don’t.”

    Been there, done that, though again, I suspect our definitions of provocation and harassment might differ.

    “So you are supporting a group whose “big name” is traditionally dependent on the damage they create to others? Did you wear a mask, supporting their symbology?”

    No mask, though I did cover my face and wear concealing clothing to protest my identity from the (several) Scientologist photographers, including one guy -hiding in a bush-.

    And no, I’m not supporting a “group whose “big name” is traditionally dependent on the damage they create to others”. If a bunch of channers went and pulled some typical online stunt, I wouldn’t be showing support for that. I support the general goals of Project Chanology, however, and its associated individuals.

    “Cheap, and not an anwer. You want to try this again?”

    How is that not an answer? Perhaps a clear definition of what you consider to be harassment and “invalidation” would help. Are we talking about the -legal- definition of harassment? Is it “any protest outside of a Scientology org”? Is it “anything which makes Scientology look bad”?

    “A few hundred idiots, yes, and what they did is “normal” for Anonymous members. They do it to other groups and invididuals too and have done so long before “Scientology” became their newest fad. ”

    The fact that you say “Anonymous members” indicates to me that you still don’t really get it.

    Look. If I went to 4chan /b/ -right now-, and posted on the forum, I would technically be anonymous. That does not mean that people there all share the same opinions, goals, or outlooks. There’s no charter, no statement of purpose.

    Was the whole epilepsy thing done by people calling themselves Anonymous? Yeah, probably. That’s just a fancy way of saying, “It was done by some jerkoffs on the internet who read one of the image boards.” That’s a pretty low threshold for establishing association.

    I’m not going to lie and say it’s all sweetness and light. I mean, we all know what the internet is like. That does not mean that the specific individuals involved in Chanology, though, are complicit in the things you mention.

    And finally:
    “The a.r.s. battles were before I could spell “internet” but I, too, think something has to change but what would that be?”

    Here, again, I suspect we would disagree. I think, at the very least, a greater degree of transparency on Scientology’s part would help tremendously.

  217. Pat, are you calling me an sp? As I’ve said, I DO help others. It doesn’t “drive me crazy.” It’s pretty much my entire life off of the internet. I’m an educator and a volunteer on a local committee (again, keeping myself as anonymous as possible, but if you want more specifics I can provide it, just ask) and I’ve organized many community projects that, I believe, help others.

    Also, what adherence? I’ve stated many times that I do encourage others to be responsible, peaceful and legal. However, I’d also be willing to call the cops on anyone that I see breaking the law. How is that adherence? If I’m willing to call others out in my “group” for their own stupidity I’d say that’s the antithesis of adherence, but maybe you don’t know what that word actually means. Here is the definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adherence

    I’ve never claimed to “be a member of Anonymous.” I’m just anonymous by default because I don’t give a name. If by keeping my name secret I am a “member,” then I guess I am.

    I’m really confused by what you guys think qualifies as a member of Anonymous though. People who have gone to protests? People who keep their names secret? People who come from the chans? People on enturb? All critics? Please clarify so I know whether you think I am Anonymous or not. It’d make this whole thing a lot easier.

    Also, no, Louanne, you are most certainly welcome on enturb. We are directly inviting you all to come. There have been a hand full of Scientologists who came there seeking information already and we’ve provided it. We don’t kick somebody off just for being a Scientologists. Personally, I wish more would show up. I want to have direct conversations with Scientologists, which, again, is why I’m here. I’m really enjoying this blog and I’m thankful you guys are communicating so openly. I think this is the only place online that I’ve seen that happen and I’m really happy a about it. Though Pat is extremely harsh and nearly drove me away once, I’m sticking around. Thanks for providing the venue.

  218. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 29, 2008 6:01 pm

    “I’ve attended a protest. I’ve pointed other people to critical information.”

    So you are supporting a group whose “big name” is traditionally dependent on the damage they create to others? Did you wear a mask, supporting their symbology?

    ““Yes, if I know about them I am responsible to do something about it. And I do.”
    That’s the rub, isn’t it? If you -know- about it. … What other recourse do I, random person on the internet #9141515, have? “Kick them out”? Heh.”

    Start looking, that’s always a good way to start. Ask Anons to stay away from provocation and harassment, scold them if they don’t. Be critical not only about Scientology information but as critical about “critic’s” claims and accusations. There are plenty of ways, most of them require a little courage though. Protesting and harassing Scientologists hidden behind a mask does not require any courage.

    Carmichael: “Like I said, if you want the link, it’s no problem, but it’s pretty unflattering.”

    Found it, and it is unflattering. That’s what happens if you try to have a conversation with Anons, pure provocation, but yes, he should just have left. There is no good reason to continue a conversation which starts that unfriendly.

    ““There were no false allegations against Carasov, to my knowledge, but there were false allegations BY Carasov and plenty of them. He should have been arrested much earlier for what he did.”
    Which is obviously why the charges were dropped before it even went to trial. What, praytell, should he have been arrested for, since the charge that was leveled against him (making threats) proved to be unfounded? In fact, if I recall, there is direct video evidence that shows that the event in question occurred very differently than the supposedly “threatened” Scientologist reported it.”

    I haven’t seen any video about it (link? you know you can put links, though I sometimes have to digg your posts out of the spam cue). No, I am talking about the threat Carasov put on his ED page (that he is ready to shoot Scientologists, along with a picture of his two guns) which was before the picket and the insinuation that Scientologists did something to his cat. Which is just too fitting in the whole meme thing of Anonymous and also the timing indicates pure propaganda. I don’t know if he then threatened that security guard to kill him or not (nor do you) but this was later.

    ““Now, EA, how many Anonymous members have you stopped from harassing and invalidating Scientologists? How many from engaging in online crimes? What is your contribution to stop this war?”
    Depends on your definition of harassing and invalidating. I would not support Scientologists being followed, for instance, or trailed by private investigators, or having their homes staked out. I would not support Scientologists being given a blanket, thought-stopping label like “terrorist” or “bigot”.”

    Cheap, and not an anwer. You want to try this again?

    “Finally, for me to -stop- anyone from engaging in illegal acts, I would have to be aware of them. I am not, nor have I been. To date, the only illegal acts I’ve seen -confirmed- have been the DDoS attacks, and as with the GO, those happened before I was involved in any way. There probably WERE a few idiots who made threatening phone calls, and if I -knew- specifics I’d do something. I don’t. If I had to -guess-, I would suspect it was a few idiots acting independently, without the knowledge of or approval of anyone else.”

    A few hundred idiots, yes, and what they did is “normal” for Anonymous members. They do it to other groups and invididuals too and have done so long before “Scientology” became their newest fad.

    http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=3894628&version=7&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1

    http://www.citypaper.com/printStory.asp?id=15543
    http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/03/epilepsy
    http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/anonymous-hacke.html
    http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/anonymous-hac-1.html (what this guy witnessed personally happened to scientologists and churches at large)
    http://www.anonymous-exposed.org
    even here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29

    “As for “stopping this war”, it’s been going on since long before January. This is just the latest part, and I suspect it will continue in some form until people are satisfied with the answers Scientology gives. For that to happen, I think something has to change. For my part, I’ve been -aware- of things since the infamous ARS battles, but I’ve only been active in any capacity since February or so.”

    The a.r.s. battles were before I could spell “internet” but I, too, think something has to change but what would that be?

    – Louanne

  219. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 29, 2008 6:09 pm

    ““Helping others is an activity which drives the Anti-Social Personality nearly berserk. Activities, however which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.”
    Which is clearly why I’m also protesting the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the ACLU, Doctors Without Borders, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Cancer Fund, the Humane Society, and every local women’s shelter, orphanage, hospital, veterinary clinic, and soup kitchen I can find.”

    Did anyone say you are anti-social? I must have missed that. I actually doubt that the one’s laughing their head off in view of the false information you are parroting for them can be found on blogs like this one. At least we are communicating here, somewhat.

    – L

  220. “Helping others is an activity which drives the Anti-Social Personality nearly berserk. Activities, however which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.”

    Which is clearly why I’m also protesting the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the ACLU, Doctors Without Borders, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Cancer Fund, the Humane Society, and every local women’s shelter, orphanage, hospital, veterinary clinic, and soup kitchen I can find.

    Right.

  221. Oh, Louanne…

    “I wasn’t talking to you here. If I remember right you are not even part of the “Anonymous” crowd.”

    I’ve attended a protest. I’ve pointed other people to critical information. By your definition, I guess that would make me part of that “crowd”. That’s part of why I’m trying to figure out what your criteria for “belonging” to the group includes.

    Also, you may not have been talking to me, but it was a comment publicly posted on the blog, so, y’know…it seems fair enough to address it. If you’d like to use “I wasn’t talking to you” as a pretense to avoid answering the questions though, well, have at it.

    “Yes, if I know about them I am responsible to do something about it. And I do.”

    That’s the rub, isn’t it? If you -know- about it. If I -knew- that someone were planning to do stupid, harmful, and/or illegal, then yeah, I would try to do something about it. First, I’d try to convince them not to do it. I would try to get others to do the same. If it were illegal, I could give what information I have to the authorities. What other recourse do I, random person on the internet #9141515, have? “Kick them out”? Heh.

    “No, because I was not born yet. But as a group member I am responsible that such actions never happen again.”

    Fair enough. The evidence I’ve seen indicates that some of that stuff IS going on (not the infiltration of government offices, mind you, but harassment of ex-members (“apostates”) and critics), but you clearly disagree; I find the desire to prevent GO-style stuff from happening again to be totally reasonable, however.

    “That’s your interpretation and not a question. I have not seen him using such language.”

    Yeah, well, I grant you that this was pretty recent. I -could- link you to the video if you like, but there’s a lovely example of him telling several protesters to go ahead and come out of the closet, along with his now-famous declaration of “I smell (fill in the blank)”.

    Like I said, if you want the link, it’s no problem, but it’s pretty unflattering.

    Also, by definition, that is a question. It’s simply a question that -includes- my own reactions to his words.

    “There were no false allegations against Carasov, to my knowledge, but there were false allegations BY Carasov and plenty of them. He should have been arrested much earlier for what he did.”

    Which is obviously why the charges were dropped before it even went to trial. What, praytell, should he have been arrested for, since the charge that was leveled against him (making threats) proved to be unfounded? In fact, if I recall, there is direct video evidence that shows that the event in question occurred very differently than the supposedly “threatened” Scientologist reported it.

    Thus: False allegations. “You threatened me and said all kinds of mean things at X time”, when there is evidence that clearly refutes that, seems like the platonic -ideal- of false allegations, to me.

    “Now, EA, how many Anonymous members have you stopped from harassing and invalidating Scientologists? How many from engaging in online crimes? What is your contribution to stop this war?”

    Depends on your definition of harassing and invalidating. I would not support Scientologists being followed, for instance, or trailed by private investigators, or having their homes staked out. I would not support Scientologists being given a blanket, thought-stopping label like “terrorist” or “bigot”.

    Of course, those are all things that Scientology does to -other- people, but “do as I say, not as I do” seems to be a core tenet of the organization.

    I suspect you would define harassment and invalidation much differently than I would. I do not consider the protests to be either, including flash raids. Those are terms that the church throws around to try to shut down criticism, because all they have to do is label ANY criticism of or action against Scientology as “harassment and invalidation”, and suddenly they get to play the wounded victim.

    Finally, for me to -stop- anyone from engaging in illegal acts, I would have to be aware of them. I am not, nor have I been. To date, the only illegal acts I’ve seen -confirmed- have been the DDoS attacks, and as with the GO, those happened before I was involved in any way. There probably WERE a few idiots who made threatening phone calls, and if I -knew- specifics I’d do something. I don’t. If I had to -guess-, I would suspect it was a few idiots acting independently, without the knowledge of or approval of anyone else. Because of that, my own influence is mostly limited to encouraging other people -not to be idiots-; if they do something illegal AND I have personal knowledge of it, then I can do something.

    As for “stopping this war”, it’s been going on since long before January. This is just the latest part, and I suspect it will continue in some form until people are satisfied with the answers Scientology gives. For that to happen, I think something has to change. For my part, I’ve been -aware- of things since the infamous ARS battles, but I’ve only been active in any capacity since February or so.

  222. @Comment by Nobody on May 29, 2008 12:57 am
    >>“All I understand is that you feel that you are not responsible for your actions or the actions of the group you belong to. And that is another lie they sold you.”

    >Please point out where I said I wasn’t responsible for my own actions? I’m not responsible for people I’ve never met and have no control over. Why is this such a hard concept for you guys to understand? How can you control somebody that you don’t know, have never met, and know nothing about?

    That’s an easy one. The very fact that you have continued adherance shows mutual agreement and tacit consent.

    Pat

  223. @Comment by Nobody on May 29, 2008 1:15 am
    >No seriously, even you guys. Feel free to join: http://www.enturbulation.org

    Since my whole life is devoted to raising the level of free theta on this planet, why would I go to a site that is devoted to lowering it?

    Anti-social characteristic #11 page 180 Introduction to Scientology Ethics :

    “Helping others is an activity which drives the Anti-Social Personality nearly berserk. Activities, however which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.”

    Pat

  224. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 28, 2008 10:16 pm

    I wasn’t talking to you here. If I remember right you are not even part of the “Anonymous” crowd.

    – L

  225. @EA

    “Secondly, are -you- personally responsible for what other Scientologists have done?”

    Yes, if I know about them I am responsible to do something about it. And I do.

    “Are you responsible for the Guardian’s Office fiasco?”

    No, because I was not born yet. But as a group member I am responsible that such actions never happen again.

    “Are you responsible for the vulgar, sexist, homophobic language of John Carmichael in New York?”

    That’s your interpretation and not a question. I have not seen him using such language.

    “Are you responsible for the false allegations against Sean Carasov?”

    There were no false allegations against Carasov, to my knowledge, but there were false allegations BY Carasov and plenty of them. He should have been arrested much earlier for what he did.

    Now, EA, how many Anonymous members have you stopped from harassing and invalidating Scientologists? How many from engaging in online crimes? What is your contribution to stop this war?

    – Louanne

  226. @Comment by question on May 28, 2008 9:45 pm

    “Let me tie up the loop holes: Answering using only the words “yes” or “no” within 24 hours of reposting of the question, is it true hat anonymous is paid by the Pharmaceutical Companies and the German Government? (explanation after said yes or no would be appreciated).”

    No. If that would be true Anonymous would not be that broke and unsupported.

  227. @Comment by Nobody on May 29, 2008 1:15 am

    “No seriously, even you guys. Feel free to join: http://www. enturbulation.org”

    Not if you are a Scientologist. They are prohibited.

    – L

  228. No seriously, even you guys. Feel free to join: http://www.enturbulation.org

  229. “All I understand is that you feel that you are not responsible for your actions or the actions of the group you belong to. And that is another lie they sold you.”

    Please point out where I said I wasn’t responsible for my own actions? I’m not responsible for people I’ve never met and have no control over. Why is this such a hard concept for you guys to understand? How can you control somebody that you don’t know, have never met, and know nothing about?

    We don’t have a secret club house where we all hang out and plot to destroy you. We are very much out in the open about everything we do, accessible to everyone, and open to whoever decides they want to join. We’d even accept you Louanne. For that, as you say, there are always a “few bad apples” in every group. All I can do is to encourage them to not do stupid stuff and call the authorities if applicable (I’ve never had to do the second one, but I have done the first).

    Nobody “sold” me on anything. I originally heard about Scientology back when I read the Times magazine article. Later I got offered a stress test in LA, which I took. That was the only selling point, actually, as they tried to get me to buy Dianetics by “calling a friend to borrow money for it.” I googled Dianetics and Scientology and was amazed at the information that I found out about it. There were court documents, videos, and tons of newspaper and magazine articles highlighting the abuses of Scientology…. then Anonymous got involved. From that point I decided I’d help in anyway I could since I also believed that the abuses needed to be stopped.

  230. Louanne- Sure. I’m here to get to the truth. In those cases in which I have misconceptions, I am glad to have them corrected. That does not mean, however, that I should uncritically accept any information I’m given.

    “Lie. This crowd of people with the same lack of personal responsibility like you have – called “Anonymous” – is very much controlled by those doing the thinking for you. They call themselves the “Old Guard” now and consider you guys as their “pupils”. Hilarious.
    And you run, run, run for them and spread, spread, spread their venom for them. Think for yourself. ”

    It’s amusing mostly because it’s wrong. I’m sure there are some people who simply parrot whatever information or opinions members of the “Old Guard” provide. Your sweeping generalization, however, is grossly inaccurate. For my part, while first-person testimony is important and frequently valuable, other things are often required (corroboration from other sources, supporting documents, etc.) Likewise, I have no particular compulsion to do something simply because a member of the Old Guard says so. As with any other suggestion, I take it into consideration, weigh the benefits and possible risks, consider the source, and then make my decision. I would hope that Scientologists do the same.

    “All I understand is that you feel that you are not responsible for your actions”

    Funny, I don’t recall seeing ANYONE claim that they’re not responsible for their own actions. To the contrary, the sentiment I’ve seen is that individuals are, first and foremost, completely responsible for what they do.

    “or the actions of the group you belong to”

    Two things. How do you define group membership, here? Anyone who attends a protest? Anyone who attends a protest without publicly giving their name? Anyone who reads a Chanology message board? Anyone who supports the same basic goals?

    Secondly, are -you- personally responsible for what other Scientologists have done? Are you responsible for the Guardian’s Office fiasco? Are you responsible for the vulgar, sexist, homophobic language of John Carmichael in New York? Are you responsible for the false allegations against Sean Carasov?

  231. Let me tie up the loop holes: Answering using only the words “yes” or “no” within 24 hours of reposting of the question, is it true hat anonymous is paid by the Pharmaceutical Companies and the German Government? (explanation after said yes or no would be appreciated).

  232. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 24, 2008 6:54 am

    “Louanne- Tell me: Do you think that you and I are part of a “group”, since we both post on this blog?”

    Not really. We are not working together to achieve an agreed upon goal. Which is what groups usually do. But certainly there is another definition for group, which is just a bunch of people gathering on the same spot, like at a location or on a blog. In this definition we are a group here.

    Maybe I am wrong and you share my goal for this blog: “Here you can ask questions about Scientology, no matter what type of questions or how stupid they may sound.”
    (from the FAQ). You seem be here to make statements or just be right about preconceived answers. But again I just might have gotten the wrong impression and you might want to explain what your goal is.

    – L

  233. @Comment by Nobody on May 25, 2008 7:32 pm

    “I have no control over Anonymous.”

    How convenient.

    “Nobody does.”

    Lie. This crowd of people with the same lack of personal responsibility like you have – called “Anonymous” – is very much controlled by those doing the thinking for you. They call themselves the “Old Guard” now and consider you guys as their “pupils”. Hilarious.
    And you run, run, run for them and spread, spread, spread their venom for them. Think for yourself.

    “All I can do is keep doing what I”m doing. That is, state my opinions on the matter in a peaceful, legal, and as tactful way as possible. I can encourage others to do the same, but since I don’t know these people, I can’t force them to. Do you understand?”

    All I understand is that you feel that you are not responsible for your actions or the actions of the group you belong to. And that is another lie they sold you.

    – Louanne

  234. Some of these Anonymous goons still don’t get what an SP is (most likely they give a shit but I am ignoring this for now).

    So I updated the definition of SP and PTS on the site:

    http://scientologymyths.info/definitions/suppressive-person.php

    The source for all of that is the book “Introduction to Scientology Ethics”.

    – Louanne

  235. So since we are number of individuals assembled on this blog, I guess we are a group here, right? I think that was his point. A “group” can be pretty much anything, including us here. And I’m sure if somebody here were to go and do something stupid, you wouldn’t want to get punished for it either, right? How can you control people you don’t know and have never met in real life?

    I’ve been branded “anonymous” by a lot of people simply because I don’t state my name. Does that mean that if somebody else who also doesn’t reveal their name does something stupid I should be punished for it?

    I understand the sticky situation of real life protests. There people are meeting in real life, so there is a bit more responsibility. If somebody did something stupid or violent at one of the protests, I’d hope everybody else there would react properly (contact authorities, stop them, etc). But when it comes to things like this, the lines get blurry. It’s not all black and white.

    I have no control over Anonymous. Nobody does. All I can do is keep doing what I”m doing. That is, state my opinions on the matter in a peaceful, legal, and as tactful way as possible. I can encourage others to do the same, but since I don’t know these people, I can’t force them to.

    Do you understand?

  236. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on May 24, 2008 6:54 am

    > Louanne- Tell me: Do you think that you and I are part of a “group”, since we both post on this blog? Am I responsible for what you do? I mean, after all, we’re here for a common purpose, right?

    What’s this denial of Anonymous being a group? Is that your idea of avoiding personal responsibility for the actions of your group. How convenient.

    Group: a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/group, definition 2a)

    You organize and/or attend the same protests (i.e. “a number of individuals assembled together”), you wear the same masks, you use the same slogans, you believe the same nonsense, you quote the same sources, you share a common enemy (i.e. “a number of individuals having some unifying relationship”), you use the same jargon, and you identify yourself with an immature internet community that finds joy in the inconvenience of others.

    What I see is a perfect fit. You are a group.

  237. In addition to that, it was mostly about their opinion on the use of the word “Cult” to the both of them. Louanne answered most of that, so thanks.

  238. The reason I included Jim Jones in the statement is because they actually have intersected in the media in the past. Mike Rinder famously stated that the People’s Temple was a “mainstream Christian Church” and Ida Camburn, a notable Scientology critic, had communications with Leo J Ryan. Comparisons have been made numerous times in the past, so I was wondering what a Scientologists take on that was. I was also interested in comparisons made to Rajneeshee’s tactics. Again, I am really interested in learning about different faiths, even controversial ones.

    And as for “my beef,” I don’t really care so much about L Ron Hubbard since he died (or “dropped” his body as Scientologists say) so many years ago. He may have done questionable things in his life time and is certainly surrounded by controversy, but that’s not really what I’m interested in. I’m more concerned with the reported abuses and questionable policies of the Church of Scientology.

  239. Oh, awesome, are we doing this again? Well, here’s as good a place to start as any:

    Louanne- Tell me: Do you think that you and I are part of a “group”, since we both post on this blog? Am I responsible for what you do? I mean, after all, we’re here for a common purpose, right? To discuss Scientology and “debunk myths” about it (even if we may have some differing ideas about what those myths actually are)?

    Veritas- Could you please explain to me what part of court documents and sworn statements are “hearsay”?

  240. Nobody-
    Thanks for the open reply, from what I gather of your response it seems that your somewhat more along the lines of my thinking.
    The whole reason I’m here is because much of what I’ve studied of LRH so far(for free btw, there is such things as libraries that have the books and such) a lot of it back ups some of my own intuitiveness and independent verification of many matters both of a spiritual and of a more logic based approach. For example I think hubbards point on religious belief being awry and often a tool of control which is very contradictory to the notion of spirituality and hence his approach via observed and workable acts that are not read from some mystic text and not to be questioned but rather from the individual applying it to his life and seeing what works for himself

    I admit I’ve yet to step into a COS or done any of the techs/dianetics, partly through some trepidation relating to the rumors swirling about scientology. As I go on and do more research much of it looks to me as unfounded or hearsay passed on as fact.
    And when I study the history of lrh;s and scientolgiys opponents much of this comes clearer into focus and one can connect the dots at least from my vantage point.
    However I still have some reservations like OT levels and if they cost a much amount, why not make it based on ones income instead of set price?

    I think you’ll agree that my ‘assumption’ is at least partly right, I based it off my actual observations of certain protesters though your right that theres room for variety amongst all manner of groups(I’d use this as an example of the so called evils of the COS structure, it appears to me rather than broad based corrupt policy what legitimate wrongs committed were isolated incidents) apologies if I came off as derisive but with all the media and public forces having a free for all with taking up anything as fact as long as it proves a negative against scientology, it annoys me.
    .
    Could you illustrate how jim jones at all intersects with scientology?
    Also is your beef with the COS or LRH or both?

    From a non-scientologists POV I think that when you get what you may perceive to be a ‘brush-off’ of sorts when you ask a scientolgists about scientology, the answer makes sense in that from what im reading it has many complex strands that can be boiled down to ‘knowing how to know’ the core if you will, one can only make up his mind from his own study of the info available.

  241. Downstat much?

  242. “One: there are already activist movements spreading awareness of and fighting against the other problems you mentioned. Our services are not needed there. And nothing prevents individual Anons from supporting those other movements, even if they can’t do so in their capacity as Anonymous.”

    I’d like to comment on this too. I’ve actually donated my time to a lot of other organizations too. I probably spend 10-20 hours a week volunteering (on top of all the other stuff I mentioned in my last post) to community organizations and local causes. This cause is the biggest cause I donate my time to in the sense that Scientology and the protests against it stretch all over the world.

    If you’d like to know what else I do, just ask, but to keep my anonymity, I won’t be giving exact specifics. I don’t want to be harassed, thanks.

  243. Veritas-

    I’m agnostic. I was raised with a Pentecostal preacher as a grandfather, but I was encouraged to follow my own path. I am extremely interested in all sorts of religions and have spent many years studying various religions both in my own time and in the class room. I have read many religious texts and have enjoyed lively debates and discussions with people of varying faiths.

    Now, onto your assumption that we are all college kids living off of their parents and playing dress up. You are wrong. Yes, I am in college (I’m graduating in three weeks), but I am completely self sufficient. I”m paying my own way through school by holding down two jobs and stacking up lots of loans. I’m working my ass off here.

    So, why Scientology? I feel that it’s an extremely abusive and dangerous organization. I fear that, much like Jonestown, this can lead to a tragic ending and I would like to prevent that. If not something like Jonestown, it can lead to something else dangerous like the Osho-Ranjeesh attack.

    I have no problem with their religious beliefs. As a matter of fact, I’m a loud supporter of the Freezone. I have no problem with what people may perceive as crazy beliefs. I love talking about them actually and would love to sit down with a Scientologist and discuss the finer details of their belief system. I also believe in re-incarnation and am quite fascinated by their take on it. Unfortunately, most Scientologists aren’t very open to talking about their beliefs. I can’t afford to buy the dozens of books and tapes they offer (working through school, remember?) so I’m limited to discussing them. Most of the time the response is “go find out for yourself!” which is quickly followed by a Dianetics or Way to Happiness sales pitch.

    What I cannot stand, though, are the numerous abuses committed by the organization known as the Church of Scientology. These issues have been discussed many times, but if you’d like me to repeat them I’ll gladly launch into it. I feel that these abuses need to be stopped before more harm is done.

    Does that answer your question?

    I’m here for discussion. I’m here to learn and ask questions. This topic is fascinating.

  244. Please point out thes groups, what is there mission, why are they not protesting outside of these other religious houses?
    FLDS: the states of Texas and Colorado.
    Wahhabi: various right wing commentators.
    Et cetera.
    They don’t do protests because that’s not how they roll.

    I made a statement earlier that I could not understand why a pulled internet video got you riled up and now I still fail to see how this effects you or got you pissed of enough to “protest”
    The Tom Cruise video was a source of lulz. NO ONE threatens our lulz.

    There are real actual dangers to free soeech being forced on the american public by traitors posing as officials in the government but I guess if they let you type on your forum and watch your youtube everything A-Okay right?
    You still think this is about free speech, about censorship, about a force of good standing up to a force of evil? Silly, silly cracker. This is about trolling. If the American government were as prone to butthurt and emo rage as the “Church” of Scientology(TM), then maybe, maybe we’d take them on. Until then, we leave them alone. The government may be more vicious than your “Church,” but at least they’re grownups about it for God’s sake.

    I give scientolgy credit for standing up to these corrupt entities alone.
    That’s like being proud of the Yakuza for taking on the Mafia, or even for taking on a “corrupt” police force.

  245. “More like V for victim (Anonymous). It was Anonymous who chose to back the criminal doing the posting of the copyrighted DVD (Mark Bunker) and go after Scientology. Poor Anonymous!”

    You are asked about a PI working for the CoS flashing a gun in a protest and your answer is a declaration that someone has crimes… You people really never learn new tricks.

  246. @ okay Im anonymous Now

    >>One: there are already activist movements spreading awareness of and fighting against the other problems you mentioned. Our services are not needed there. And nothing prevents individual Anons from supporting those other movements, even if they can’t do so in their capacity as Anonymous.

    Please point out thes groups, what is there mission, why are they not protesting outside of these other religious houses?

    >>Two: it’s personal. The “Church” of Scientology(TM) has been fighting the Internet for over a decade, and for whatever reason, getting the Tom Cruise video yanked from YouTube was the last straw. As one Anon put it, “[they] pissed off the Internet, and [now] the Internet is pissing back.”

    I made a statement earlier that I could not understand why a pulled internet video got you riled up and now I still fail to see how this effects you or got you pissed of enough to “protest”
    There are real actual dangers to free soeech being forced on the american public by traitors posing as officials in the government but I guess if they let you type on your forum and watch your youtube everything A-Okay right?

    Just for the record I would like to mention I am somewhat suspicious of mark bunker and some other prominent critics, you anonymous types like research right? Look up project mockingbird and further take a minute and try an just picture the scope of those forces that assailed LRH early on(FBI,FDA, IRS, psych orgs) and these groups unless your living under a rock constitute major heavies in this country and have many times forced there will upon those deemed enemies of their agenda.
    I
    I give scientolgy credit for standing up to these corrupt entities alone

  247. @ AnonymousNow’s /b/ackup

    Actually I think you suffer from non-comment reading! I would like you to show where I mentioned me being a scientologist, you cannot because I am not one. I am interested in lrh philosophy but have not yet stepped into a COS(or taken any programs) or had the chance to talk face to face with a real scientologist, which is one reason I like this site because I can get some straight answers.

    See I agree that there are problematic issues when you have religions holding the realms of spirituality, so I think you may have a valid point there. But in the case of scientology what I am going on is hubbards writings, wherein he mentions the distinction between manipulative faith and a logical applied spiritual philosophy which is more along my lines of thinking on that subject.

    Also I have read about almost every claim(brainwashing, deaths, forced aborition, etc…) and most claims are varied incidents that do not link or as in the ‘quickest way to make a buck is start a religion’ phrase, its just based on undocumented hearsay that passes off as “well everyone knows he said that” kind of knowledge.

    I must disagree that anonymous is not against scientologys “belief”(applied philosophy would be more accurate imo but you’d have to ask lou or pat on that one) I routinely observe your group carrying ‘Scientology Kils’, “Ufo Cult’, ‘Scientology=brainwashing” which are not criticisms of the COS structure but attacks based on the actual practices of scientologists.

    Okay briefly;
    As a former catholic I can guarantee you they are anything but a fully reformed entity, on the sex abuse issue alone it is an age old problem of letting in the predators then shufflinfg them around(there are historical writings that mention the ‘priest disease” for example) instead of outright firing them. And they still claim to be the representative of jesus on earth and the pope still claims divine authority on all matters of dogma and interbranching issues.

    The FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH OF LATTER DAY SAINTS is very distinct from the moron churcn, they also have not reformed- go do your own research on that sect.

    I see no groups bullhorning/protesting outside of the religious groups mentioned in my previous post, so I am curious as to who you are talking about because the only one trying to disrupt the services of a church is anonymous vs COS. If protests did occur outside a mainstream catholic, christian, jewish, muslim place of worship I assure you it would be swiftly branded bigotry and or a form of hate crime and the protestors would be made to cease and desist.

  248. >Is it the V for Vendetta mask? Would it make you more COMFORTABLE if we just put on face paint? I just don’t understand, the COS sends PIs after anonymous who don’t give us their names. At LA a PI brandished his weapon… that is intimidation!

    More like V for victim (Anonymous). It was Anonymous who chose to back the criminal doing the posting of the copyrighted DVD (Mark Bunker) and go after Scientology. Poor Anonymous!

    Pat

  249. “You ARE attacking individuals, you are trying to intimidate and harass PEOPLE and not some buildings or imaginary “structure”. Your Anonymous brothers here in L.A. additionally try to coerce people to leave the group they chose to be with on their own steam.”

    I have no desire to attack anyone. I wear a mask because of the COS’s long reputation of litigation and court, and I rather not have them know who I am. And Anonymous is a loose collective of people, I have no control over the actions of other anons, just like you can’t control another Scientologist. And how can you “coerce” people into leaving a group, I guess an example of their actions would be nice. Anonymous has had 4 peaceful protests and many spokespersons have said the Anonymous is not an issue yet here you accuse us of harassment and “intimidation”.

    Is it the V for Vendetta mask? Would it make you more COMFORTABLE if we just put on face paint? I just don’t understand, the COS sends PIs after anonymous who don’t give us their names. At LA a PI brandished his weapon… that is intimidation!

  250. BS, the last time I checked the Catholics still had a Pope and their organizational setup has not changed since more than 1,000 years.

    Which is why you still see Inquisitions, Crusades, and indulgences going on today. Oh wait. Ack this, Louanne: structural changes are independent of policy changes. For example, when the wogs found out about Snow White and Freakout, the structure of the “Church” was shuffled around a bit, with the GO falling on its sword and being replaced by the OSA, but the policies were left intact. That is why we do not trust you.

  251. Never mind religions now, out of all the crimes against humanity do you decide to focus on perceived faults of scientology?

    Two reasons.

    One: there are already activist movements dedicated to spreading awareness of and fighting against the other problems you mentioned. Our services are not needed. And nothing is stopping individual Anons from supporting those other movements, even if they can’t do so in their capacity as Anonymous.

    Two: it’s personal. The “Church” of Scientology(TM) has been waging war on the Internet for over a decade. Getting the Tom Cruise video pulled from YouTube was merely the final straw. As one Anon put it, “they pissed off the Internet, and now the Internet is pissing back.”

    For more, click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_versus_the_Internet

  252. @Comment by AnonymousNow’s /b/ackup on May 17, 2008 8:46 pm

    No group, especially very big ones, is safe against “black sheep” amongst their mid. But most of those groups have a way to correct those members or give them the boot as they are not longer in agreement with the group. So does the Church of Scientology , so do the Mormons, Catholics, most groups I know, except “Anonymous”.

    “I AM AGAINST THE STRUCTURE AND RUNNING OF THE COS!!!!”

    So that’s why you are bumping your head against the walls of the Church, you are against the “structure”! Please realize that the Church of Scientology is made of people, just like any other group is, who came together to forward a common purpose. And they do, 24/7, in most countries in the world. So what you are saying is nonsense. You ARE attacking individuals, you are trying to intimidate and harass PEOPLE and not some buildings or imaginary “structure”. Your Anonymous brothers here in L.A. additionally try to coerce people to leave the group they chose to be with on their own steam. That’s why this harassment campaign does not work. Scientologists are Scientologists because they want to. Maybe such an idea has no place in your head, I wouldn’t be surprised. Anonymous is a group that allows their members to commit criminal acts without restraining them and thereby help to correct illegal activities. That is the maximum in irresponsibility towards a group and that is something a Scientologist can’t think with.

    “THEY REFORMED”

    BS, the last time I checked the Catholics still had a Pope and their organizational setup has not changed since more than 1,000 years. And why should it? They set it up because it fits their needs and beliefs and it works for them.

    – Louanne

  253. Never mind religions now, out of all the crimes against humanity do you decide to focus on perceived faults of scientology?

    Two reasons.

    One: there are already activist movements spreading awareness of and fighting against the other problems you mentioned. Our services are not needed there. And nothing prevents individual Anons from supporting those other movements, even if they can’t do so in their capacity as Anonymous.

    Two: it’s personal. The “Church” of Scientology(TM) has been fighting the Internet for over a decade, and for whatever reason, getting the Tom Cruise video yanked from YouTube was the last straw. As one Anon put it, “[they] pissed off the Internet, and [now] the Internet is pissing back.”

    For more, click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_versus_the_Internet

  254. Wow Louanne and Veritas you basically don’t read comments. I am not attack your beliefs or religion. And according to the COS you have “15 million people” so that wouldn’t make you all a huge minority (but you and I know that number is completely exaggerated). But I will reiterate once again because you ignored my previous post….

    I AM AGAINST THE STRUCTURE AND RUNNING OF THE COS!!!!
    not the beliefs behind Scientology.

    I guess we could “go after others” but they have their critics just like Catholics and Mormons. But the amazing thing about those two groups was THEY REFORMED. Unlike the COS they made changes because of the outcries. the COS resists these changes/criticisms that is why they are being “targeted”. And just like the polygamist sect of the Latter day Saints I think there will be an investigation maybe not in the US but certainly in other countries.

    And everyone will have to take criticism so I don’t think they will “annihilate” us. And who were are does not effect the facts and our voice will be heard!

  255. @Comment by veritas on May 17, 2008 8:14 am

    “My big question to this christian/atheist anonymous crowd is why scientology of all religions do you focus your efforts on?”

    Yeah, I am curious about that answer. I think they chose a religious minority because the big ones would have annihilated them on Day 1. A bunch of masked cowards they are.

    – L

  256. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 17, 2008 4:45 am

    “ARE YOU THREATENING ME?”

    Buhaha… no. Just be aware of the consequences if you should ever decide to harass and intimidate me. You intrude my rights at your own risk.

    “Seriously, though, drop the Internet tough guy act. It only makes me lol harder.”

    Scary. Did you ever dare to show up at those ridiuculous “squatting parties”?

    And it’s “girl”.

    – Louanne

  257. My big question to this christian/atheist anonymous crowd is why scientology of all religions do you focus your efforts on?

    Where is anonymous exposing fundamentalist mormons hurting children?
    Where are you protesting catholic child raping men who claim to be the voice of god on eath?
    Where are you protesting wahabbist sects of the more extreme variety?
    Why do not protest cults like raelin?
    Where are you protesting orthodox jews and their disdain of the gentile?

    Never mind religions now, out of all the crimes against humanity do you decide to focus on perceived faults of scientology?

    I’m not sure if any of you will be able to answer this perhaps because gravely serious issues dont allow for college kids living with mom to play dress up, and you know why, you’d get laughed straight off the streets by any real activists(who are up to more serious things than a year round halloween party) and are actually trying to bring up non-sectarian issues that actually effect everybody and are of import.

  258. Intimidating and harassing is what I call that. They gathered at the the side where the entrance is and certainly they were blocking exactly that and they know that they are. They even congratulate each other for it.
    They’re not intimidating anyone. They’re not harassing anyone. They’re not blocking anyone. They’re just standing there, and the buses simply refuse to go near them, apparently because the people on board are unable to confront (i.e. face without flinching or avoiding) a few so-called SPs. Think about that, Louanne. These people are Sea Org, the “Church” of Scientology(TM)’s elite, and they can’t even confront “suppression,” let alone handle it.

    Try that with me and I show you what a “protest” is.
    ARE YOU THREATENING ME? Seriously, though, drop the Internet tough guy act. It only makes me lol harder.

  259. Harassment is “the usual” for Anonymous but no serious protest does instigate:

    Suicide

    or ask for
    Suicide

    – L

  260. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 17, 2008 2:46 am

    Intimidating and harassing is what I call that. They gathered at the the side where the entrance is and certainly they were blocking exactly that and they know that they are. They even congratulate each other for it.

    Try that with me and I show you what a “protest” is.

    – Louanne

  261. Lady, it’s a protest. If it doesn’t piss someone off, it’s not doing its job. And they weren’t blocking anyone from using the entrance; the gate was closed. The only problem I see here is your bawwwwwing about the situation.

  262. Big guy, or “Okay I’m Anonymous Now”, what’s your take on the youtube clip? Bunker, Tory, Graham Berry, the creme de la creme of scientology “experts” trolling an entrance to piss off people…. WTF?

    – Louanne

  263. Very interesting,
    I might have known the unholy alliance was at work lol

  264. I personally am Christian, but that doesn’t really matter does it?

    There was actually a poll on Enturbulation.org
    http://forums.enturbulation.org/10-off-topic/poll-what-religion-anonymous-9813/

  265. Hey Anonymous people on here,
    am curious as to what religion or lack of you espouse?

  266. After reading the discussion above I have a few comments…

    There have been absolutely no links between the fake anthrax and bomb threats with anonymous. And the FBI is supposedly doing the investigation and if there was any, the slightest hint of our involvement it would be exposed immediately. CNN in an interview with Tommy Davis even said there was no links and the only thing the spokes person could say was “Come see for yourself…”. I do believe you should be able to look at BOTH sides not just one.

    Apparently this is a hard concept for some people to grasp but Anonymous is only protesting the atrocities of the church to “dismantle in its current form”, meaning reform. This means no fixed donations (business not religion I also don’t agree with Mormons just to head you off there). No more disconnection- Just because of disagreements with religion there shouldn’t be this disconnection. Heck even denominations of Christian churches disagree but there has never or will be a policy to disconnect. No more RPF, underpaid workers, and no more Fair Game (it was canceled in name only which is quite apparent with Sean Carsonov’s case and Gregg’s in Boston).

    Do I think you are a bad person? No. You should do what you feel is right, but the crimes are there and hundreds of testimonies even from JENNA MISCAVAGE herself back up these accusations.

  267. This is not “peaceful” nor is Anonymous. You’re TERRORISTS!

    Just like Paulette Cooper? ;-) Seriously, though, you need to clear your m/u’s. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

    terrorist: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
    terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

    For example, when the “Church” used infiltration, blackmail, and frivolous lawsuits to coerce the IRS into giving it tax-exempt status, that wasn’t terrorism, because none of those acts were violent.

    And when the “Church” uses violence and the threat of same to intimidate its critics, that’s not terrorism, because it’s directed at individuals instead of society or the state.

    And when the “Church” issued fake bomb threats and white powder to itself in order to discredit Project Chanology, that wasn’t terrorism, because it was neither violent nor directed at the state.

    See? It’s not that hard to figure out. In closing, I welcome an investigation into the “Church” of Scientology(TM), as I have begun one myself and found shocking evidence. Nyoro~n.

  268. This is not “peaceful” nor is Anonymous. You’re terrorists.

    Pat

  269. Why don’t you come out and state what your actual problem is?
    Okay, fine. Our actual problem is that the “Church” of Scientology(TM) is a cheap and plentiful source of lulz which we have failed to harness for far too long. We’ve got a lot of lost time to make up.

    If I’d been there I had bulldozed these vicious trolls out of the way. There is no justification for such harassment.
    I see no harassment. I see only a peaceful protest and cowardly bus drivers.

    So much for hiding the fact the whole reason for Anonymous is to enturbulate. You are really out in the open now.
    As though naming one of our websites http://www.enturbulation.org wasn’t enough of a hint? Geez, Pat, you really are slow.

  270. So much for hiding the fact the whole reason for Anonymous is to enturbulate. You are really out in the open now.

    Pat

  271. Here’s my point:

    If I’d been there I had bulldozed these vicious trolls out of the way. There is no justification for such harassment.

    – L

  272. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 13, 2008 11:17 pm

    Ah, another friend of the 180-degree argumentation. No Mister, I find it surprising and it actually makes me proud that no Scientologist has yet hurt one of you guys. What “Anonymous” does as a group is just outright disgusting and pure provocation. Not all of you are terrorists and criminals, no, not all of you. But every single one of you has not the slightest purpose to improve anything. Your talk about “dismantling” this or that is just bullshit and you know it. There is nothing to dismantle and there is nothing to win here. Why don’t you come out and state what your actual problem is?

    – Louanne

  273. “Some of Anonymous didn’t want to stop there and extended their work into real life. Online and real life harassment of those perceived as “enemies” followed.”

    Need new reading glasses?
    No, I need evidence. We have a saying on the Internet: “pics or it never happened.” I don’t need photographs necessarily, but something to back up your assertions would be nice.

    Well, then. It’s in your own words, now. Terrorism.
    Silly girl. Dismantling a criminal organization with a record of human rights abuses isn’t TERRORISM!, as long as peaceful means are pursued to that end. And ever since we shunned the DDoS and went IRL, I’d say things have been pretty peaceful on our side, despite your “Church”‘s best efforts at bull-baiting.

  274. Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 12, 2008 6:52 am

    >And since the statement is about “Anonymous”, what does Project Chanology have to do with anything? Is Anonymous changing it’s name?
    Have you done any research on Anonymous, or do you limit your data to “Church”-approved propaganda? Project Chanology is the accepted name of Anonymous’ campaign to dismantle the “Church” of Scientology(TM), and it has been so since the beginning. Anonymous is who we are; Chanology is what we do.

    Well, then. It’s in your own words, now. Terrorism.

    Pat

  275. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 12, 2008 6:52 am

    “Some of Anonymous didn’t want to stop there and extended their work into real life. Online and real life harassment of those perceived as “enemies” followed.”

    Need new reading glasses?

    – L

  276. Who are you? Can you prove that you’re not part of the group that are terrorists?
    Ah, Pat, this isn’t Russia. Is this Russia? This isn’t Russia, is it? No. You see, here in America, the burden of proof lies on the accuser. If you want to establish guilt by association, you first have to establish guilt. Unless you have evidence that the alleged bomb threats were produced by current or former participants in Project Chanology, your use of the word TERRORIST! is nothing but a defamation of my character as a citizen of the Internet.

    And since the statement is about “Anonymous”, what does Project Chanology have to do with anything? Is Anonymous changing it’s name?
    Have you done any research on Anonymous, or do you limit your data to “Church”-approved propaganda? Project Chanology is the accepted name of Anonymous’ campaign to dismantle the “Church” of Scientology(TM), and it has been so since the beginning. Anonymous is who we are; Chanology is what we do.

  277. Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on May 11, 2008 6:55 am

    Who are you? Can you prove that you’re not part of the group that are terrorists?
    And since the statement is about “Anonymous”, what does Project Chanology have to do with anything? Is Anonymous changing it’s name?

    Pat

  278. Specifically who have we false reported on? And what was the false report on this person(s)?

    ME. Louanne libels ME by saying that I am a member of a TERRORIST! movement. Unless she has evidence that the alleged bomb threats were produced by current or former participants in Project Chanology, her claims are nothing but a defamation of MY character as a citizen of the Internet.

  279. Test.

  280. Specifically who have we false reported on? And what was the false report on this person(s)?

    ME. Louanne libels ME by suggesting that I am a member of a TERROR!ist movement. Unless she has evidence that this alleged bomb threat came from a former or present member of Project Chanology, her claims are nothing but a defamation of MY character as a citizen of the Internet.

  281. Nope

    Just more rhetoric.

    Specifically who have we false reported on? And what was the false report on this person(s)?

    Pat

  282. @Comment by Blue on April 24, 2008 3:04 am
    >I am incensed that this website continues to spread this libelous material. There is clear evidence that the Church of Scientology likely created the “bomb threat from Anonymous.” Why don’t you address that pressing matter?

    Hmm.. Clear evidence. Got it. Who (not what), but WHO did we libel?
    Let’s be specific.

    Pat

  283. @Comment by Blue on April 24, 2008 3:04 am

    “I am incensed that this website continues to spread this libelous material. There is clear evidence that the Church of Scientology likely created the “bomb threat from Anonymous.” Why don’t you address that pressing matter?”

    I do. Welcome to the world of logic:

    “clear evidence” vs “likely” equals = you don’t know.

    You see, wishful thinking won’t help you. Look and find out.

    – L

  284. @Comment by anon on April 24, 2008 2:35 am

    “Wake up and come up to present time?”

    What now?

    – L

  285. It’s funny because most of that was completely made up by the “church”

  286. I am incensed that this website continues to spread this libelous material. There is clear evidence that the Church of Scientology likely created the “bomb threat from Anonymous.” Why don’t you address that pressing matter?

    • Good question.

  287. Wake up and come up to present time.
    Your church is a fraud. You KNOW this.
    Wake up and come up to present time.
    COB is NOT KSW. You KNOW this.
    Wake up and come up to present time.
    BLOW. The is help out here.
    Wake up and come up to present time.


Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos