Anonymous & Scientology – Archived

Feel free to put your questions and comments about the current Anonymous vs Scientology drama here.

Earlier statements and discussions have been archived:

https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/whats-your-take-on-anonymous/

– Louanne

103 Comments

  1. Happy Easter everyone!

    I am closing this thread for acute unreadability and open a new one here

    https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/anonymous-wtf/

    – Louanne

  2. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 24, 2008 3:04 am

    We had a absolutely fantastic event last nite. Scientology is expanding all over the world with new Churches and Missions that are really doing well. Public demand for data on the Church is so high that we are passing out a DVD of all the videos at http://www.scientology.org for anyone who want’s one. There are more videos coming about some of our other social benefit programs and those will also go out free as an update. You can get one at a local Church or Mission.

    I’ll still answer questions but not about anything already covered. Read the threads before asking any more. A suggested format is that you post one question at a time, without stating your own opinion about it. Starting tomorrow I’ll be doing some volunteer work and on course, so the less text I have to wade through the better.

    Thanks :)

    Pat

  3. Correct me if I’m wrong;

    1. He or she speaks only in very broad generalities. “They say…” “Everybody thinks…” “Everyone knows…” and such expressions are in continual use, particularly when imparting rumor. When asked, “Who is everybody…” it normally turns out to be one source and from this source the antisocial person has manufactured what he or she pretends is the whole opinion of the whole society.

    Anonymous are all cyber-terrorists, domestic terrorists, the KKK, communists, psychiatrists, being led by psychiatrists, religious bigots, use mein kampf and the communist manifesto as their doctrine (still missed the boyscout handbook).

    2. Such a person deals mainly in bad news, critical or hostile remarks, invalidation and general suppression.

    Suppression of Anonymous actions of free speech. No mention of peaceful protests.

    3. The antisocial personality alters, to worsen, communication when he or she relays a message or news. Good news is stopped and only bad news, often embellished, is passed along.

    See part 1 & 2 in conjunction.

    4. A characteristic, and one of the sad things about an antisocial personality, is that it does not respond to treatment or reform.

    Really, does that apply to the Church of Scientology? or just individuals?

    5. Surrounding such a personality we find cowed or ill associates or friends who, when not driven actually insane, are yet behaving in a crippled manner in life, failing, not succeeding.

    I’m sorry, but to us most scientologists act mentally crippled in their inability to look at situations from multiple points of view. I understand this is part of your teachings. But ask yourself, if I only act on what I personally perceive do I see the whole picture?

    6. The antisocial personality habitually selects the wrong target.

    Anonymous is the effect, not the cause. Also, does Sean Casarov ring a bell? Have you personally spoken to him and got his side of the story? or is he not a reliable source of information?

    7. The antisocial cannot finish a cycle of action. Any action goes through a sequence wherein the action is begun, is continued for as long as is required and is completed as planned. In Scientology, this is called a cycle of action.

    Flag Building, Clearwater.

    8. Many antisocial persons will freely confess to the most alarming crimes when forced to do so, but will have no faintest sense of responsibility for them.

    Operation Snow White, Operation Freakout, tax free exemption from the IRD.

    9. The antisocial personality supports only destructive groups and rages against and attacks any constructive or betterment group.

    CCHR, say what you will, they want to DESTROY psychology, not just individuals responsible for crimes.

    10. This type of personality approves only of destructive actions and fights against constructive or helpful actions or activities.

    Nice, although you don’t see it this way, Anonymous is trying to help.

    11. Helping others is an activity which drives the antisocial personality nearly berserk. Activities, however, which destroy in the name of help are closely supported.

    I’d like to say something here, but I think it’s covered by what Anonymous has said already. Though Lisa MacPherson comes to mind.

    12. The antisocial personality has a bad sense of property and conceives that the idea that anyone owns anything is a pretense, made up to fool people. Nothing is ever really owned.

    Actually, I have nothing to say about this one. To be honest it is more closely aligned with Anonymous’ beliefs. But, and I add this of note, Anonymous believes in individual property rights, but not ownership of knowledge.

  4. Pat –
    “Amusing. So now “everyone” thinks this way?”

    Certainly not. However, if I were to judge by two metrics:
    A: What I see/hear in the media
    B: My own anecdotal evidence in speaking with unaffiliated individuals

    …I’d have to say that my experience is, yes, the church has a reputation for being litigious and belligerent. Certainly, not everyone thinks that way, but my -own- experience has been that a lot of people do, correctly or incorrectly.

    As for the second part, I’m not sure what you’re really asking for me to say or clarify. The issue isn’t that people who speak out against the church aren’t allowed to take Scientology courses anymore. The issue is that they’re branded as, essentially, “pure evil”, demonized, and in many cases, harassed. If you want to claim that last part is a generality, there’s -more- than ample evidence, including video, to back it up.

    I have not refused refutation and source data. “Refusing” would be, essentially, me refusing to look at it or consider it. There’s a difference between that and, frankly, finding it insufficient. It’s…okay, let me give an example.

    First of all, PLEASE understand that I am not in any way, shape, or form comparing the CoS to the extremists who bomb abortion clinics. I’m not, and I don’t want it to seem like I’m conflating the church’s actions with those acts of violence.

    However, linking me to a piece of Hubbard’s writing to disprove a particular accusation is not too far removed from a member of one of those groups linking to a copy of the Ten Commandments, where it says, “Thou shalt not kill”, as proof that they haven’t been blowing up clinics.

    “If that were true we wouldn’t be talking to you. It is “entheta” and I wouldn’t be able to stick here very long if I couldn’t deal with it. ”

    Could you clarify that point? Are you saying that any questioning of the church -is- entheta (and therefore bad), or am I reading that incorrectly?

    Again, I apologize if I’m coming off as…confrontational. Believe it or not, that’s really not my actual aim. However, the whole “with us or against us” thing is kind of one of my hot-button issues, as is labeling dissent as, by definition, evil. It just…smells to me of totalitarianism and “the ends justify the means”-type thinking. If I’m incorrect in that, I honestly would welcome clarification.

  5. @Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 24, 2008 12:04 am
    >>“Don’t come here whining about how misunderstood poor Anonymous is. You won’t get any sympathy.”

    >Unfortunately, because of the CoS’s attitude, the same holds true of the CoS in the general public’s perception/the media.

    Amusing. So now “everyone” thinks this way?

    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH11_1.HTM

    >>“As stated earlier, we can’t possibly see how your creating controversy is for the good of mankind since it is an attempt to say that Scientology isn’t for the good of mankind, which can be proven false in our results all over the world.”

    >Even if it’s to open a conversation? Is questioning anything in Scientology such a taboo that to even discuss WHETHER or not Scientology is a net positive influence is forbidden? Are we, the general public, to simply accept what the church tells us without any critical judgment or questioning of our own, lest we be branded “entheta”?

    If that were true we wouldn’t be talking to you. It is “entheta” and I wouldn’t be able to stick here very long if I couldn’t deal with it.

    >I mean, I guess this might just be one of those irreconcilable differences in view. I cannot, no matter how hard I try, bring myself to agree with the belief that ex-members speaking out publicly about their own experiences, positive AND negative, should make them “enemies” of the church. That’s…a pretty extreme position, and I’d venture to say that, to most people, that comes across less like a genuine religious doctrine and more like an attempt to silence/squash any dissent. That concerns me.

    So far it’s been very one-sided. You apparently want us to “admit” something to you that just plain doesn’t exist. What the ex-members are doing are Suppressive Acts according to our doctrines. Those are our doctrines. What’s the deal with that? Are they upset that they can’t have Scientology anymore? That will be true until they stop attacking and do the 5 steps. As I’ve said before, these are empirical and aren’t going away. You’ll have to do better than generalities at this point. You give no concessions then expect us to? Expect us to understand that you’re just trying to destroy my religon (and don’t kid yourself that it’s against the Church and not the religion) That’s just more evidence that you don’t know jack about Scientology and have some imagined grievance, as tho’ Scientology has done something to you personally. You’re operating on things that SPs say and have refused refutation and source data, dealing in invalidation instead. Like I said, don’t expect sympathy for the fact you’re not understood by those you’re trying to suppress.

    Pat

  6. I am sorry if I come across as aggressive or antagonistic I’m trying hard not to be. But I agree with ErroneousAssumptions, how can I speak from a critical viewpoint without simply being labelled entheta? or am I not allowed to speak out against the Church of Scientology in any way?

    In order to answer these questions Anonymous would have to actually be a group or organisation that you could define. As Anonymous is neither of these it is pointless to try and answer these questions. As to individual Anons, well, it’s impossible to say for certain. What I can say is that there will be members of Anonymous who have done everything you have mentioned here, what I cannot say is how many.

    What literacy programs is Anonymous running?
    How many people have been brought out of illiteracy by Anonymous?
    What exposure of abuse by [the Church of Scientology] has Anonymous accomplished?
    How many kids will never take drugs because of Anonymous?
    How many Anonymous have volunteered weeks of their lives to help disaster relief victims all over the world?
    How many homeless did Anonymous do Food drives for?
    How many pints of blood have Anonymous donated?

    Did you like my little addition? I’m sorry, I can’t help myself. The Church of Scientology has always singled out psychiatrists as one of the great evils of the world despite the good they have done, and will continue to do for society. We could argue the ‘net’ effect here, but as I am also pointing out there are obviously a few people who would argue the ‘net’ worth of the Church of Scientology. Nor do I believe any member of Anonymous has ever claimed that scientologists do not do any of the above.

    I know the writings claim that there will always be a number of anti-social personalities, around 20% (though only 2% are truely unable to be helped). Is it really impossible to believe that it may be the actions of anti-social personalities that have drawn this much attention to the Church of Scientology. You yourself said that there were SPs in the church before. Is it possible there may be some working against scientology from within now?

  7. “Don’t come here whining about how misunderstood poor Anonymous is. You won’t get any sympathy.”

    Unfortunately, because of the CoS’s attitude, the same holds true of the CoS in the general public’s perception/the media.

    “As stated earlier, we can’t possibly see how your creating controversy is for the good of mankind since it is an attempt to say that Scientology isn’t for the good of mankind, which can be proven false in our results all over the world.”

    Even if it’s to open a conversation? Is questioning anything in Scientology such a taboo that to even discuss WHETHER or not Scientology is a net positive influence is forbidden? Are we, the general public, to simply accept what the church tells us without any critical judgment or questioning of our own, lest we be branded “entheta”?

    I mean, I guess this might just be one of those irreconcilable differences in view. I cannot, no matter how hard I try, bring myself to agree with the belief that ex-members speaking out publicly about their own experiences, positive AND negative, should make them “enemies” of the church. That’s…a pretty extreme position, and I’d venture to say that, to most people, that comes across less like a genuine religious doctrine and more like an attempt to silence/squash any dissent. That concerns me.

  8. Addendum:
    >I can see how you would consider those segments to be ‘bad news’ and as per my new found understanding of Suppression I can see why they would not pass them on. But to me, even looking at it as objectively as I possibly can, I cannot see how ‘for the good of mankind’ could possibly be perceived as ‘bad news’.

    As stated earlier, we can’t possibly see how your creating controversy is for the good of mankind since it is an attempt to say that Scientology isn’t for the good of mankind, which can be proven false in our results all over the world.

    What literacy programs is Anonymous running?
    How many people have been brought out of illiteracy by Anonymous?
    What exposure of psychiatry abuse has Anonymous accomplished?
    How many kids will never take drugs because of Anonymous?
    How many Anonymous have volunteered weeks of their lives to help disaster relief victims all over the world?
    How many homeless did Anonymous do Food drives for?
    How many pints of blood have Anonymous donated?

    I could go on, but then I would be ranting. Just answer me those.

    Pat

  9. @Comment by John on March 23, 2008 8:32 pm

    >If I’m spreading entheta I’m honestly not trying to. What I would like to do is get to the bottom of your thoughts on Anonymous to try and understand why you, and many other scientologists, have immediately taken offence.

    I’ve explained that before. Because it is antagonistic to Scientology.

    >What I am concerned about is that from my perspective omitting the above segments of the original Anonymous video the Church of Scientology is deliberately making it seem as if Anonymous is saying that they are ONLY doing it for their ‘own enjoyment’. I’m sorry, but from my perspective this is an outright lie. To me this is my ‘truth’ and many others share the same view. There are many others have a different ‘truth’, hence the impasse in understanding.

    I can see how you would consider those segments to be ‘bad news’ and as per my new found understanding of Suppression I can see why they would not pass them on. But to me, even looking at it as objectively as I possibly can, I cannot see how ‘for the good of mankind’ could possibly be perceived as ‘bad news’.

    Or am I missing something?

    I would have to say that what is missing here is that we see Scientology work and help people. Along comes Anonymous with false propaganda and is basically saying that Scientology isn’t doing good for mankind but is harmful and that Anon is doing this for the good of mankind which is harmful as it endangers Scientology’s social betterment programs.

    You use a slogan from the holocaust “We never forget. We never forgive” as tho’ positioning yourselves as the Jews against the Nazis.

    You disagree that what you say about the Church is false. You don’t like the fact we protect our copyrighted video by violating our Constitutional right to free speech by taking down web-sites. You try to hide behind anonymity and then accuse us of “secrets”. I am using generic “you” here, John – TeeBee.

    There’s more, but I’m getting tired of rehashing the same ol’ same ol’. It all comes down to the fact that this is my religion. No one is forcing anyone to be part of my religion. We work toward giving man back his power of choice in his own life and everything we stand for goes to that.

    Yes, there were SPs in the Church that managed to get into positions of power and wreak havoc. Yes, that was over 30 years ago. Yes, the Church took them down and re-organized.
    Yet, here we are 30 years later being told we’re bad for something that’s in the past and that we took responsibility for and handled. Some of those who created that havoc are now the very ones screaming loudest about the wrongs they themselves committed.

    Don’t come here whining about how misunderstood poor Anonymous is. You won’t get any sympathy.

    Pat

  10. If I’m spreading entheta I’m honestly not trying to. What I would like to do is get to the bottom of your thoughts on Anonymous to try and understand why you, and many other scientologists, have immediately taken offence.

    What I am concerned about is that from my perspective omitting the above segments of the original Anonymous video the Church of Scientology is deliberately making it seem as if Anonymous is saying that they are ONLY doing it for their ‘own enjoyment’. I’m sorry, but from my perspective this is an outright lie. To me this is my ‘truth’ and many others share the same view. There are many others have a different ‘truth’, hence the impasse in understanding.

    I can see how you would consider those segments to be ‘bad news’ and as per my new found understanding of Suppression I can see why they would not pass them on. But to me, even looking at it as objectively as I possibly can, I cannot see how ‘for the good of mankind’ could possibly be perceived as ‘bad news’.

    Or am I missing something?

  11. “Why would we pass on what we consider to be anti-social entheta?”
    Because it provides crucial context to the Anonymous statement. The edited version makes it sound as though Anonymous is merely confronting the Church(TM) for the lulz. The full version reveals that Anonymous is also confronting the Church(TM) for great justice. To borrow a phrase from His Hubbardness, the Church(TM) “alters, to worsen, communication when [it] relays a message or news.”

    “[Y]ou continue to pass on entheta.”
    Entheta is fundamentally based on deception, yet as far as I know, neither Anonymous nor John have made any false statements. An inconvenient truth is still a truth.

  12. “Why would we pass on what we consider to be anti-social entheta?”
    Because it provides crucial context to the Anonymous statement. The edited version makes it sound as though Anonymous is merely confronting the Church(TM) for the lulz. The full version reveals that Anonymous is also confronting the Church(TM) for great justice. As His Hubbardness put it, the Church(TM) “alters, to worsen, communication when [it] relays a message or news.”

    “[Y]ou continue to pass on entheta.”
    True entheta is based on falsehood. Yet, as far as I know, Anonymous has not been caught in any lies. An inconvenient truth is still a truth.

  13. @Comment by John on March 23, 2008 6:09 am
    >One quick thing I did want to ask; I quite often see scientologists or spokespeople for the Church of Scientology state that claims by Anonymous are based on quotes that are taken out of context.

    Those are specifically in reference to quoting parts of sentences from LRH policies and bulletins, deliberately making it seem as if he is saying something else.

    As for omitting in Anon’s video. Looks like the bad news parts were cut out. Why would we pass on what we consider to be anti-social entheta?

    As for “am I suppressive?”
    I think you have some social characteristics as well, but you continue to pass on entheta. That concerns me.

    Pat

  14. One quick thing I did want to ask; I quite often see scientologists or spokespeople for the Church of Scientology state that claims by Anonymous are based on quotes that are taken out of context.

    However, in response to Anonymous actions, the Church of Scientology released a video documenting crimes committed by Anonymous (the video on the Anonymous page). In this video the original message to the Church of Scientology is quoted only in part. From my perspective it is taken out of context when quoted in this manner. Below is the full text with the segments cut in brackets.

    “Hello, Scientology. We are Anonymous.

    [Over the years, we have been watching you. Your campaigns of misinformation; suppression of dissent; your litigious nature, all of these things have caught our eye. With the leakage of your latest propaganda video into mainstream circulation, the extent of your malign influence over those who trust you, who call you leader, has been made clear to us.] Anonymous has therefore decided that your organization should be destroyed. [For the good of your followers, for the good of mankind and] for our own enjoyment. We shall expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the Church of Scientology in its present form.”

    What are your thoughts on this?

  15. I am still reading, but I read and reread the passage on page 8;

    “However, the list given above consists of things which such a personality
    cannot detect in himself or herself. This is so true that if you thought you
    found yourself in one of the above, you most certainly are not antisocial. Selfcriticism
    is a luxury the antisocial cannot afford. They must be right because
    they are in continual danger in their own estimation. If you proved one wrong,
    you might even send him or her into a severe illness.
    Only the sane, well-balanced person tries to correct his conduct.”

    What I am wondering is, am I still a suppressive person?
    Part of the reason I came here was to further my understanding of scientology in an effort to correct what scientologists, yourself included, perceive to be misleading or false information.

    But I still think there is something wrong with what the Church of Scientology is doing and I would like to help change that. Please note though, that I am only concerned with the actions taken by the Church of Scientology, not the Church of Scientology itself.

  16. Comment by John on March 22, 2008 3:17 am
    >TeeBee was me actually, I forgot to change the alias after replying on a seperate blog.

    >I will say at this stage that conversely I perceive attacks on Anonymous as a suppressive act – an act to suppress our use of free speech. I do not however condone acts of violence or hate speech and thus lawful actions targetting these individuals I have no issue with. My perception of what is hate speech is most likely not in sync with yours though, I guess on that point we may have to agree to disagree :).

    >I am currently reading ‘The cause of suppression’ to further my understanding in this area.

    Got it.

    Pat

  17. TeeBee was me actually, I forgot to change the alias after replying on a seperate blog.

    I will say at this stage that conversely I perceive attacks on Anonymous as a suppressive act – an act to suppress our use of free speech. I do not however condone acts of violence or hate speech and thus lawful actions targetting these individuals I have no issue with. My perception of what is hate speech is most likely not in sync with yours though, I guess on that point we may have to agree to disagree :).

    I am currently reading ‘The cause of suppression’ to further my understanding in this area.

  18. Comment by John on March 21, 2008 10:14 pm
    >> Like I can respect your beliefs on what you perceive to be true about my religion, but I don’t respect your actions, as being part of Anonymous, because it is based, in my reality, on false perception. I consider there is a distinct difference there. I respect you as an individual because of all the Anon here you have been one of the most courteous.

    >I think there is a lot of truth in these statements, I also respect scientology, and also the Church of Scientology, as a way to understanding ourselves, but I do not respect the Church of Scientology’s reactions in regards to Anonymous. Because, they are based, from my perspective, on false or misleading information and perceptions of Anonymous. I also respect you as an individual, because of the, admittedly, few scientologists that I have communicated with you have looked first and foremost at what I have said and my actions rather than simply dismissing me as just another person calling themselves Anonymous.

    Any attack on Scientology is perceived as a suppressive act – an act to suppress our religion and practice of it. I defined those terms for anmn a few days ago. That’s scriptures. Those won’t change. Why don’t you look at the link that TeeBee gives for the letter to Radar from Karen Pouw. She says it much better than I can.

    Thanks

    Pat

  19. @Comment by TeeBee on March 21, 2008 9:17 pm
    >I guess what worries me about scientology as a religion, and it may just be a growth spurth or similar to a teenager ‘acting out’ because it is still a young religion, is the talk I hear about from David Miscavige about ‘clearing the planet’ and the destruction of psychiatry. But Scientology is not the first religion to have their moment of claiming to be the one ‘true’ religion.

    That is kind of “Do you still beat your wife” kind of thing, isn’t it? Scientology has never claimed to be the one true religion. It’s assumptions like that that create the antagonism from people of other religious beliefs. See my comment to John regarding our tenets. Isn’t that contrary to what you just said?

    >I realise there are reasons why scientologists have a dislike of psychiatry, if not outright hatred, but I personally believe in a live and let live policy. I think that there is some good in psychiatry and to destroy it outright is wrong.

    Hatred is a reactive misemotion that means we would have to have had some affinity with the subject to begin with. I have to conclude from this that you are unaware of our history with the APA.

    Perhaps you would understand it better if you read some of the issues we have with what they are doing:

    http://www.cchr.org
    http://www.freedommag.org

    >I read the letter sent to Radar by Karin Pouw in response to questions asked.
    http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/scientology_radar_feb_12a.pdf

    Good doc. I hadn’t seen it. Thanks. I’ve saved it in my “debunk” docs file. LOL

    I snipped some of your comments because I think I’ve covered it already as to my views.
    This is not my site, it’s Lu’s and she may have different responses.

    Pat

  20. > Like I can respect your beliefs on what you perceive to be true about my religion, but I don’t respect your actions, as being part of Anonymous, because it is based, in my reality, on false perception. I consider there is a distinct difference there. I respect you as an individual because of all the Anon here you have been one of the most courteous.

    I think there is a lot of truth in these statements, I also respect scientology, and also the Church of Scientology, as a way to understanding ourselves, but I do not respect the Church of Scientology’s reactions in regards to Anonymous. Because, they are based, from my perspective, on false or misleading information and perceptions of Anonymous. I also respect you as an individual, because of the, admittedly, few scientologists that I have communicated with you have looked first and foremost at what I have said and my actions rather than simply dismissing me as just another person calling themselves Anonymous.

  21. I guess what worries me about scientology as a religion, and it may just be a growth spurth or similar to a teenager ‘acting out’ because it is still a young religion, is the talk I hear about from David Miscavige about ‘clearing the planet’ and the destruction of psychiatry. But Scientology is not the first religion to have their moment of claiming to be the one ‘true’ religion.

    I realise there are reasons why scientologists have a dislike of psychiatry, if not outright hatred, but I personally believe in a live and let live policy. I think that there is some good in psychiatry and to destroy it outright is wrong. I am no way infering that the Church of Scientology is comparable to Hitler, merely using him as an example. Einstein was Jewish, if Hitler had succeeded in his goal of exterminating the Jews then we would have lost one of the greatest minds the world has known (we would have lost Adam Sandler movies, but that may have been a good thing :P). I guess the point I’m trying to make is that it’s dangerous to declare an entire group, or in this case a branch of science, fit to be exterminated.

    I read the letter sent to Radar by Karin Pouw in response to questions asked.
    http://www.radaronline.com/from-the-magazine/scientology_radar_feb_12a.pdf

    She then goes on to talk about Anonymous and links to a couple of youtube videos, including the one below (bear with me, I’m going somewhere with this). The claim regarding this video is that members of Anonymous have publicly proclaimed their guiding materials to be the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, what they neglect to mention is that the third book listed is the boyscout handbook.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3_JaXCMsp4

    I had to laugh, I’m sorry, I see how this could be percieved as a threat, but it’s really just a piece of satirical black humour (or a poor attempt at, most Anons are already marking it down); something that the denizens of the *chan sites are quite famous for. Here’s a list of the injokes that I can see; Rules 1 & 2, goatse, over 9000, dogs and curtains, none of us is as cruel as all of us, barrel roll, ????/profit and ‘last tuesday’.

    I was thinking about this earlier this morning, as I have been a denizen of the *chan sites for a number of years now. After speaking to a number of people I know we all came to the same conclusion. The *chan sites, for us, serve a similar purpose to auditing, though I would not be so crass as to compare it to auditing. It’s the place we go to say and do things that we would ordinarily never be able to in real life, for us it is a way to get these feelings out of us. We then return to societry without these ‘entheta’? and for the most part you would never be able to guess who browses these sites because their online personality is completely different to their offline personality.

    As another Anon pointed out, “it’s a knee-jerk reaction to the overly PC world we live in today.”

  22. “You don’t get it do you? You said that none of it is deductible. That’s false.”

    FLUNK!

    You are a liar. At no point did I say that none of one’s contributions to the Church(TM) are tax-deductible. You are a filthy liar. All I said was that “fixed donations,” i.e. quid pro quo payments given in exchange for auditing services, are not tax-deductible. You are a conniving liar. If Nancy Cartwright forks over ten million dollars to the Church(TM) and gets nothing in return, that is a tax-deductible gift. You are a devious liar. If Nancy Cartwright forks over ten thousand dollars to the Church(TM) to purchase the latest rundown, that is not a tax-deductible gift. You are an underhanded liar.

    P.S.: You’re also a terrible liar, and OSA is paying you too much.

    Start.

    “This is a discussion, not a coached drill. I consider you hostile. Now because of the hostility I won’t be responding to any more of your communication.”

    FLUNK!

    What you perceive as hostility is merely my way of stating emphatically that you are wrong. If you cannot handle being told that you are wrong, by someone who knows that you are wrong, then you may certainly disconnect from me. But it shall be seen as an admission of defeat, an acknowledgement that the Church(TM) is in the wrong, that it bullied the IRS into violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. In which case, what shall you do to correct this grievous wrong?

    Start.

  23. @Comment by John on March 21, 2008 6:31 am
    >I know this question may be a bit too personal, so feel free to say so and not answer.
    I’m wondering, Pat and Louanne if she’s back, do you believe that the Bridge? is the only way for man to achieve enlightenment?

    >How would you feel if I said that I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong but I don’t believe that there is a single path for man to discover enlightment?

    >I personally believe that a person can achieve their maximum potential by being true to themselves and respectful of others. I don’t believe that a person has to follow a religious belief, or any organised belief system for that matter, to achieve enlightenment.

    Hi John,

    No, not too personal.

    There’s definitely agreement on our beliefs and yours. We too believe in being true to ourselves and being respectful to others where respect is due. So there’s value judgement here. Like I can respect your beliefs on what you perceive to be true about my religion, but I don’t respect your actions, as being part of Anonymous, because it is based, in my reality, on false perception. I consider there is a distinct difference there. I respect you as an individual because of all the Anon here you have been one of the most courteous.

    As for belief, I think that there is a basic misunderstanding about Scientology that I’d like to address now with this question.

    Scientology is not messianically (we don’t worship any prophets) based. It is the study of knowledge that leads us to spiritual enlightenment. What that means is for each individual is full rehabilitation of native state. Us as spiritual beings.

    Scientology is not faith based. It’s always been a very basic tenet that what is true for you is what you have personally observed to be true. It will vary from Scientologist to Scientologist because as individuals we may not have the same truths as another as to what in the teachings is true for us. So, enlightenment means different things. The Bridge is the term used for the steps toward this enlightenment, with the end phenomenon for each level listed. If you have seen it you’ll see that there are abilities to be gained. Whether it’s true for you is not for me to say.

    As for other paths, I think that Buddhism is probably closer than any other religions for enlightenment. Spiritual awareness for us, free of the cycle of birth and death (basically to not have to go back into a body when the current one dies) for Orthodox Buddhists.

    That’s what’s true for me.

    Pat

  24. I know this question may be a bit too personal, so feel free to say so and not answer.
    I’m wondering, Pat and Louanne if she’s back, do you believe that the Bridge? is the only way for man to achieve enlightenment?

    How would you feel if I said that I don’t necessarily think you’re wrong but I don’t believe that there is a single path for man to discover enlightment?

    I personally believe that a person can achieve their maximum potential by being true to themselves and respectful of others. I don’t believe that a person has to follow a religious belief, or any organised belief system for that matter, to achieve enlightenment.

  25. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 21, 2008 2:31 am

    You don’t get it do you? You said that none of it is deductible. That’s false.

    This is a discussion, not a coached drill. I consider you hostile. Now because of the hostility I won’t be responding to any more of your communication.

    Pat

  26. “Your ‘logic’ escapes me. How are these even similar?”

    FLUNK!

    Both documents were published without the consent of their respective authors.
    Both authors continue to assert the secrecy of their respective materials.
    Both authors refuse to make their respective materials publicly available.

    The IRS clings to its confidentiality statutes,
    just as the Church(TM) clings to its copyrights.

    The analogy should not be that hard to understand.

    Start.

    “Me thinkest thou has misunderstood.”

    FLUNK!

    Again, from Sklar v. Commissioner:

    “Not only has the Supreme Court held that, generally, a payment for which one receives consideration does not constitute a “contribution or gift” for purposes of §170,… but it has explicitly rejected the contention… that there is an exception in the Code for payments for which one receives only religious benefits in return.”

    “Section 170(f) of the Code adds a new requirement that taxpayers claiming a charitable contribution deduction obtain from the donee an estimate of the value of any goods and services received in return for the donation, and exempts from that new estimate requirement contributions for which solely intangible religious benefits are received.” Emphasis in original.

    Start.

  27. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 20, 2008 9:43 pm

    >The non-deductibility of “quid pro quo” contributions is a part of the Code, even though that name isn’t given to them. And it’s not in Section 501; it’s in Section 170.

    >http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96102,00.html

    >Tl;dr: A payment made in exchange for services rendered, even if the services are of a purely religious nature, is never tax-deductible.

    And It says this where in the linked text?

    From your own link:
    “No disclosure statement is required when:

    1. The goods or services given to a donor meet the standards for insubstantial value set out in Rev. Proc. 90-12, 1990-1 C.B. 471, and Rev. Proc. 92-49, 1992-1 C.B. 987 (as updated);
    2. There is no donative element involved in a particular transaction with a charity (for example, there is generally no donative element involved in a visitor’s purchase from a museum gift shop); or
    3. There is only an intangible religious benefit provided to the donor. The intangible religious benefit must be provided to the donor by an organization organized exclusively for religious purposes, and must be of a type that generally is not sold in a commercial transaction outside the donative context. ”

    Me thinkest thou has misunderstood.

    Pat

  28. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 20, 2008 9:46 pm

    >“That makes it public. Even the judge says that in the 9th Circuit court ruling.”
    By that reasoning, the OT Levels are “public” as well. Are you giving me your blessing to distribute OT III?”

    You mean WSJ broke the law by posting copyrighted material to the internet? LOL

    Your “logic” escapes me. How are these even similar?

    Pat

  29. >Well, thanks for getting that out into the open.

    >What if your “expose” of Scientology shows that we aren’t doing anything wrong? >That we aren’t breaking any laws? Will that be the end of religious intolerance? Will >that be the end of attacks on Churches? And not just Scientology?

    >What then?

    All I can fairly say is that if an investigation into the issues we are concerned with is carried out in good faith and the Church of Scientology is exonerated then I would accept that finding as I would accept any judgement in a court of law.

    On the Commission of Inquiry into the Hubbard Scientology Organisation in New Zealand, 1969. The Church of Scientology at the time of this commission, 1967-1968, was criticised for both its disconnection policy and declaration of Fair Game. The conclusion of the commission, on the word of Lady Hort, principle witness for the Church of Scientology, was that as long as disconnection is no longer practiced and Suppressive Person or Declaration of Enemy orders are not issued by any member to any other member of a family then no further occasion for Government or public alarm should arise.

    I understand your feelings on apostates but I have to believe that people are generally good. I do not accept that simply because they are ex-members I should listen to them any less than I should listen to a current scientologist. In many ways an ex-member, who has been a part of the organisation, will know a lot more than I could about the inner workings. If, as we believe, disconnection and abuse of the right to free speech is still being practiced by the Church then by distancing themselves from the organisation they are now able to speak out, where they could not before.

    Given the new information that has come to light and the recent, what I consider to be paranoid, actions of the Church of Scientology I am asking local officials for a new inquiry into the Church of Scientology. I will accept the findings of an impartial third party.

    >And if groups are passing out anti-drug literature that we very likely printed and are >distributing as part of our “Say No to Drugs, say Yes to Life” campaign and >“Drug-Free Marshalls”, why is that wrong? Those are several of our social >betterment programs that qualify us as not-for-profit under 501(c)(3). You state it as >if there’s a crime there or something. We aren’t subsidized by any group or >government. We are a not-for-profit that files our tax reports every year, and those >are available to all as far as I know.

    In regards to this, I have already stated that I have no issue with these organisations existing. In many ways I agree with their stance, not necessarily ‘no drugs. period.’ but I certainly agree that we should be wary of overmedication and I am against ‘recreational’ drugs, however I do not agree with a ban on alcohol.

    My issue in this regard is goverment funding and misrepresentation.

    Below is the link to government funding in 2005, they applied again in 2007 but were declined (relevant section is 1.4);
    http://www.manukau.govt.nz/uploadedFiles/manukaugovtnz/Your_Council/Agendas_and_Minutes/2005/Agendas/communityagenda03112005.pdf

    It states that the pamphlets included ‘Truth about joints’, ‘Ecstasy booklet’ and ‘Drug free Ambassadors Certificates’. I can only assume that these booklets are the same as is on http://www.drugsalvage.org.au (and other sites such as http://www.drugfreeworld.org). Link below;
    http://www.drugsalvage.org.au/downloads/joints.pdf
    http://www.drugsalvage.org.au/downloads/ecstasy.pdf

    What concerns me here is that this organisation may have represented itself as being a secular drug-free program, however, as evidenced in the ‘Truth about..’ booklets, this is somewhat different. The booklets are littered with quotes by L Ron Hubbard and specifically point out Narconon and the Church of Scientology as the best places to go for more information. The last page of the booklets states that it is a public service by the Church of Scientology and encourages people to learn more.

    As I have repeatedly stated, there is no issue here so long as the organisation does not promote itself as being secular when it blatently isn’t. The other issue I have with this particular media is that it is not really a balanced booklet as it does not suggest any other alternatives to being drug free. I do not believe that there is only one way to be drug free. Nor do I believe that there is only one option for living a good life.

    The next statement by you, I assume, would point out that they are only using the methods of L Ron Hubbard. It just so happens that the methods are the same as those used by the Church of Scientology. I return to the analogy of a sports team being coached by Christians, if they said “Oh, it’s not Christianity, we are just teaching them that our method, the worship of God and prayer, will lead them to victory.” would you not be skeptical?

    Personally I’m still a bit dubious of these methods, particuarly the purification program, but I’m a skeptic, so if they work for some people, great.

    >By the way, I don’t know what the big deal is about the IRS settlement. It was leaked >to the Wall Street Journal years ago. A Judge mentions it in one of the Sklar cases. >Why is it coming up now?

    I was avoiding mentioning my country until now, but I guess the cat is out of the bag, so to say. The relevant Government department for me is the IRD, New Zealand’s tax department. We, as citizens, have access to the Official Information Act of 1982. I am still contacting further up the chain in regards to this issue, as I have not had any luck with my enquiries so far. I have not taken a stance on this issue yet as I have not seen the information first hand and I feel it’s important to do the research myself and find that information before simply deciding one way or the other on false or misleading information.

    Also, I came across this website, http://www.algonet.se/~tourtel/interests/hubbard-index.html

    I feel that it offers a very unbiased overview of scientology.

  30. “That makes it public. Even the judge says that in the 9th Circuit court ruling.”
    By that reasoning, the OT Levels are “public” as well. Are you giving me your blessing to distribute OT III?

  31. FLUNK!

    The non-deductibility of “quid pro quo” contributions is a part of the Code, even though that name isn’t given to them. And it’s not in Section 501; it’s in Section 170.

    http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96102,00.html

    Tl;dr: A payment made in exchange for services rendered, even if the services are of a purely religious nature, is never tax-deductible.

    Start.

  32. Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 20, 2008 8:17 pm
    >>“It’s already public.”

    >No it’s not. Leaked and public are two very different things. E.g. The Way to Happiness is public; the Wall of Fire was leaked. Officially, the agreement between the Church(TM) and the IRS is still confidential. This is not pleasing to Anonymous.

    Published 30 December 1997 by the WSJ.
    That makes it public. Even the judge says that in the 9th Circuit court ruling.

  33. @ Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 20, 2008 8:17 pm
    >>“It’s already public.”

    >No it’s not. Leaked and public are two very different things. E.g. The Way to Happiness is public; the Wall of Fire was leaked. Officially, the agreement between the Church(TM) and the IRS is still confidential. This is not pleasing to Anonymous.

    “2. That parishioners can deduct spiritual training and auditing as charitable contributable contributions.”
    But not even the mighty IRS cannot overrule the Supreme Court. In Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989), it was ruled that payments for auditing sessions are quid pro quo contributions and, therefore, not deductible under the Internal Revenue Code. When the IRS allowed those payments to be deducted anyway, it gave preferential treatment to the Church(TM), in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Even if the Church(TM) keeps its own tax-exempt status, those deductions have got to go.

    What’s with the (TM)?

    “quid pro quo” is not part of the IRC 501(c), which was written by Congress. It’s an additive to the Code as passed by Congress.

    According to this excerpt of the Code, the Sklars should have been able to deduct ALL of their children’s education, because their synagogue is a not-for-profit.

    “Exempt Purposes – Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)

    The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.”

    By winning that concession we were able to set a precedent for other religion’s parishioners.

    http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=175418,00.html

  34. Comment by ErroneousAssumptions on March 20, 2008 7:19 pm
    >>“By the way, I don’t know what the big deal is about the IRS settlement. It was leaked to the Wall Street Journal years ago. A Judge mentions it in one of the Sklar cases. Why is it coming up now?”

    >Right, but that same judge -also- mentions that the IRS is irrationally reluctant to share the details with ANYONE, including the Department of Justice.

    Which is amusing since it was already leaked Dec. 30, 1997 in the WSJ. They already had the data. It wasn’t the Church that refused to share.

    >What the heck. I’ll also answer your earlier question, though I cannot state my “goals” for the “group”, as there is no group. It’s very…”open-source”. However, what I would like to see happen is:

    >A: A disclosure of and investigation into the circumstances surrounding the IRS deal. If things are all above-board, fine.

    Already on-line.

    >B: A greater degree of transparency within the church and investigations into several of the allegations that have been made, such as child labor, ongoing “fair game” tactics by any other name, gross manipulation and fraud, etc.

    Allegations from who?

    C: An end to the disconnection policy as currently practiced. That is not to say that people do not have the right to communicate (or not) with who they choose. However, it is -not- appropriate for some authority to say, “You need to disconnect from this person or you’ll be considered PTS” or “You’ll be sent to RPF” or any of the other punitive measures potentially arrayed against a person with family members or friends who are no longer in the church’s good graces.

    I guess you didn’t get a chance to look at the references that I gave anmn.

    PTS stands for Potential Trouble Source. It’s a condition that a person falls into by reason of being connected to a Suppressive Person. It’s scripture. It’s a state of mind. It’s policy that these individuals cannot be trained or audited while under the influence of a Suppressive Person because he doesn’t keep his spiritual gains while so connected. He gets gains, goes out and gets invalidated by the SP and crashes. Over and over. Thus the policy for who can be audited. The choice on whether to disconnect or not has always been up to the individual. If a Scientologist disconnected from a family member, it wasn’t the Church who “forced” them to do that. It was their own self-determinism and Scientologists don’t try to “blame” the Church for their own choices. See my earlier post to amnm where I actually define the terms.

    All of this data is available for anyone who wants to understand what this is all about. The reference is in the book “Introduction to Scientology Ethics” and is in the libraries.

    >If an investigation were done that, in good faith, refuted the claims against the church and exonerated it of any wrongdoing, then so be it. I’ll be honest and say that, given the preponderance of evidence and how unlikely it is that -so many- people are lying about their experiences inside, I severely doubt that outcome.

    Then why are you here if you’ve already decided that it won’t matter what we say or the references we give since it won’t conform to your preconceived ideas?

    If you have documents for ScientologyMyths that support your allegations, I’m sure that Lu would appreciate them.

    Is there a reference I can get for you?

  35. Whoops. Forgot to include a link to the case.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/490/680/

  36. “It’s already public.”

    No it’s not. Leaked and public are two very different things. E.g. The Way to Happiness is public; the Wall of Fire was leaked. Officially, the agreement between the Church(TM) and the IRS is still confidential. This is not pleasing to Anonymous.

    “2. That parishioners can deduct spiritual training and auditing as charitable contributable contributions.”
    But not even the mighty IRS cannot overrule the Supreme Court. In Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680 (1989), it was ruled that payments for auditing sessions are quid pro quo contributions and, therefore, not deductible under the Internal Revenue Code. When the IRS allowed those payments to be deducted anyway, it gave preferential treatment to the Church(TM), in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Even if the Church(TM) keeps its own tax-exempt status, those deductions have got to go.

  37. Just to clarify that there appears to be 2 separate issues here.

    1. That the Church of Scientology has tax-exempt status
    2. That parishioners can deduct spiritual training and auditing as charitable contributable contributions.

    In both cases the reference is Internal Revenue Code 501 created by Congress (26 USC 501(c)) regarding non-profit organizations.

    http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

  38. “By the way, I don’t know what the big deal is about the IRS settlement. It was leaked to the Wall Street Journal years ago. A Judge mentions it in one of the Sklar cases. Why is it coming up now?”

    Right, but that same judge -also- mentions that the IRS is irrationally reluctant to share the details with ANYONE, including the Department of Justice.

    What the heck. I’ll also answer your earlier question, though I cannot state my “goals” for the “group”, as there is no group. It’s very…”open-source”. However, what I would like to see happen is:

    A: A disclosure of and investigation into the circumstances surrounding the IRS deal. If things are all above-board, fine.
    B: A greater degree of transparency within the church and investigations into several of the allegations that have been made, such as child labor, ongoing “fair game” tactics by any other name, gross manipulation and fraud, etc.
    C: An end to the disconnection policy as currently practiced. That is not to say that people do not have the right to communicate (or not) with who they choose. However, it is -not- appropriate for some authority to say, “You need to disconnect from this person or you’ll be considered PTS” or “You’ll be sent to RPF” or any of the other punitive measures potentially arrayed against a person with family members or friends who are no longer in the church’s good graces.

    If an investigation were done that, in good faith, refuted the claims against the church and exonerated it of any wrongdoing, then so be it. I’ll be honest and say that, given the preponderance of evidence and how unlikely it is that -so many- people are lying about their experiences inside, I severely doubt that outcome.

  39. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 20, 2008 4:31 pm
    >>“Can you show a copy of the permit?”

    >I cannot, and I retract my statement. Upon re-reading the original article, it says only that an application for a protest permit had been filed. Unfortunately, since this took place in Sydney, Australia, and I’m not an Australian, I don’t know how I would go about getting a copy of this application from their public records.

    >>“By the way, I don’t know what the big deal is about the IRS settlement. It was leaked to the Wall Street Journal years ago. A Judge mentions it in one of the Sklar cases. Why is it coming up now?”

    >Because according to the judges of that Sklar case, it’s most likely unconstitutional. (See case no. 00-70753, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.)

    Yes, that’s one of the places I saw the data about WSJ. My question comes from the protests because people were yelling about making the agreement public as tho’ we were hiding it. One of the “crimes” we’re being accused of, as it were. It’s already public. That’s the problem with the game plan to put up as many sites as possible so that the anti stuff comes up in search engines closer to the top. The truth gets obscured from copying site to site.

  40. “Can you show a copy of the permit?”

    I cannot, and I retract my statement. Upon re-reading the original article, it says only that an application for a protest permit had been filed. Unfortunately, since this took place in Sydney, Australia, and I’m not an Australian, I don’t know how I would go about getting a copy of this application from their public records.

    “By the way, I don’t know what the big deal is about the IRS settlement. It was leaked to the Wall Street Journal years ago. A Judge mentions it in one of the Sklar cases. Why is it coming up now?”

    Because according to the judges of that Sklar case, it’s most likely unconstitutional. (See case no. 00-70753, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.)

  41. @Comment by John on March 20, 2008 10:07 am
    >In regards to my goals.

    >Personally I would like to expose scientology, bring as much information to light as possible for people to see. But, I expect them to make their own decision, if they choose to try scientology that is their personal choice and I have no right to deny them that. I would prefer to do this in as fair a way as possible, as I have already stated I don’t regard xenu.net, clambake, lermanet or others as unbiased sources so I am doing my own personal research.

    Well, thanks for getting that out into the open.

    What if your “expose” of Scientology shows that we aren’t doing anything wrong? That we aren’t breaking any laws? Will that be the end of religious intolerance? Will that be the end of attacks on Churches? And not just Scientology?

    What then?

    And if groups are passing out anti-drug literature that we very likely printed and are distributing as part of our “Say No to Drugs, say Yes to Life” campaign and “Drug-Free Marshalls”, why is that wrong? Those are several of our social betterment programs that qualify us as not-for-profit under 501(c)(3). You state it as if there’s a crime there or something. We aren’t subsidized by any group or government. We are a not-for-profit that files our tax reports every year, and those are available to all as far as I know.

    By the way, I don’t know what the big deal is about the IRS settlement. It was leaked to the Wall Street Journal years ago. A Judge mentions it in one of the Sklar cases. Why is it coming up now?

    Pat

  42. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 20, 2008 3:07 pm
    >“What counter-protests? We didn’ t do any. Just documenting the protests.”

    >My point exactly. A protest permit had been obtained, but no protest actually happened. The Church(TM) wasn’t able to rally its troops in time.

    Can you show a copy of the permit?

    Pat

  43. “What counter-protests? We didn’ t do any. Just documenting the protests.”

    My point exactly. A protest permit had been obtained, but no protest actually happened. The Church(TM) wasn’t able to rally its troops in time.

  44. In regards to my goals.

    Personally I would like to expose scientology, bring as much information to light as possible for people to see. But, I expect them to make their own decision, if they choose to try scientology that is their personal choice and I have no right to deny them that. I would prefer to do this in as fair a way as possible, as I have already stated I don’t regard xenu.net, clambake, lermanet or others as unbiased sources so I am doing my own personal research.

    I realise my first sentence may seem rather hostile, but I am coming from a position where the information regarding the tax-exempt status of the Church of Scientology is not being disclosed to me. We have legislation that allows any resident to request any information from any government body but for some reason this particular information is not forthcoming. I feel that as a citizen of my country I have the right to view this information so that I may make an informed decision.

    I am also concerned by certain non-profit organisations that have requested and received funding from government bodies. This funding was then used to print booklets which were distibuted to schools. To my knowledge, and I will amend this if new information comes to light because I am still contacting people, these organisations have approached funding bodies as being totally secular. I won’t argue semantics on this, but I am concerned when an anti-drug group that claims to be secular tells readers to contact their local Church of Scientology for further information. They do not hide the fact that they are sponsored by the Church of Scientology, and I have no qualm that they are, but if they apply for funding as a secular program then I feel it is unethical to promote scientology as the only option to remain drug free.

    I would have the same issue if a government funded sports initiative sponsored by Christian church was telling children that the only way that their sports team will win is if they worship god and pray.

    Fellow Anons have already explained why the Church of Scientology attracted our attention in the first place, I reiterate, it was due to aggressive moves to remove a video from gawker.com. Again, we could argue ethics here, I realise that you wish me to recognise the Church of Scientology’s right to defend copyright infringement. My personal opinion is that no religious organisation should ever be able to claim copyright infringement so I defend Gawker’s right to publish the video. It is for this reason that we are involved with the Church of Scientology, perhaps when this is over we will go back to helping the police catch pedophiles, harrassing white supremecists and fighting ignorant feminists.

    As for the group, Anonymous, I find it difficult to answer as a single person. There are a lot of emotions from a myriad of people. I would say that the main issue that most of Anonymous as a ‘collective’ has with the Church of Scientology is the tax-exempt status that it holds in a lot of countries.

    This is a contentious point for me personally, many members claim that the Church of Scientology is a cult and thus should not enjoy the tax-exempt status held by similar religions. I’m still deciding on this point, so I don’t take a stance on that issue. I know you’re thinking that if I don’t believe this then how am I Anonymous, more on this later.

    The second point of contention to Anonymous from my perspective is the transparency of connections between the Church of Scientology and organisations such as Narconon, Crimonon, the CCHR, YHR and Drug Free Marshalls. I am concerned that these organisations may be misrepresenting themselves in order to provide a more palatable message to the public, I suspect many Anons feel the same way.

    I know you’ve probably heard this before, so I don’t blame you if you’re skeptical. Anonymous doesn’t actually exist as group, the name Anonymous (along with David) and the masks worn by protestors are merely the physical representation of the concept that is Anonymous. What this means in regard to me personally not agreeing with other members of Anonymous that the Church of Scientology is a cult, well, see it really doesn’t actually factor into it.

    I’ll use an anology that I told a friend of mine to describe how I perceive Anonymous ‘works’ as such. On a hot day many people decide it is a good idea to go to the beach. Some people swim, others eat ice cream and some just bathe in the sun. Not everyone will do exactly the same thing at the ‘beach’ but to onlookers it appears as if the group is perhaps being led or controlled because of the uniformity of their actions. Relating this to Anonymous, something happens to provoke action from people, if people believe it is worth doing something then individuals move of their own accord.

    I hope this has helped explain things, sorry for the wall of text.

  45. @Comment by Okay I’m Anonymous Now on March 18, 2008 3:23 am
    >Hey L(o)u, now that the second round of protests is over, what are your thoughts? Judging by the Chanology site’s figures, attendance was up 20% over last month, and still Anonymous kept all its members peaceful and orderly. Even if you disagree with their ends, you have to respect their ability to stick to non-violent means.

    >P.S.: The “concurrent protest” thing is mentioned here –

    >http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/scientology-attempts-disrupt-planned-protest-using-human-rights-front-group

    >Looking at the YouTubes and Chanology recap, however, it looks like those counter-protests didn’t pan out. Which is just as well: the Church(TM) only planned for about 50 Scilons to show up, which would have been kinda pitiful compared to the 200+ Anons who attended the Sydney protest.

    What counter-protests? We didn’ t do any. Just documenting the protests.

    Pat

  46. @Comment by John on March 20, 2008 5:24 am
    >I’m disappointed as this conversation is starting to feel one sided. Surely there are questions you would like to ask myself, or other Anons?

    >Please ask away.

    @Comment by John on March 20, 2008 2:41 am
    >Thinking about it, my agenda, to use such a crude word to describe it, is curiosity. I am enjoying this discussion as it gives me a chance to hear from scientologist first hand – I agree that the enturbulation forums are not an unbiased source of information (squirreled?).

    >If there is anything that I hope to impart to yourself Pat, and Louanne, it’s that not every member of Anonymous is uninformed and unwilling to open their eyes and see for themselves.

    >I do still stand by my stance that scientologymyths.info is not an unbiased source of information though.

    Glad to hear that, John. I’m willing to have this dialog as long as I fix something once in awhile. I am optimistic that there is a chance these conversations can help handle misunderstandings that led up to the Anonymous DDOS and video. I need to get some sleep right now, but will spend some time here tomorrow.

    I’m wondering if anyone got a chance to see the new video site? I think they are very well done. I work as a volunteer on some of those programs mentioned.

    I do have a question and that is what is your goal (personal) for your group (Anon)?

    Pat

  47. I’m disappointed as this conversation is starting to feel one sided. Surely there are questions you would like to ask myself, or other Anons?

    Please ask away.

  48. Also, one further note: What Mark Bunker did was -not- to incite anyone to protest. What he did was call for an -end- to the DDoS attacks and any possibly illegal activities, including suppression of the church’s right to speak for itself. Instead, he encouraged people to find legal, non-violent ways to speak their mind, if they felt it necessary to do so.

    That hardly sounds like the manipulative monster he’s being made out to be.

  49. “Are you aware that the US Government is spending 2.5 billion A DAY in Iraq? Did you know that you protested Scientology on the same day as the World Wide protest against the War?”

    That’s not really a fair argument. Saying, “Well, X is even worse than Y. Why don’t you do something about THAT?” doesn’t fly as an argument in the first place. Even if it did, the Iraq war would be a poor example, as we know EXACTLY how much a protest against it could possibly accomplish: 0. Whereas, with these protests, there is at least the chance of raising public awareness and getting the media involved.

    “Took some kids who were hanging out in 4chan and 711chan looking and exchanging kiddie porn and got them to go protest the Church of Scientology.”

    That’s not really a fair summary of 4chan and 711chan, either. I mean, look, I’m not going to argue that they’re bastions of decency and morality or anything, but the “kiddie porn” thing that gets tossed around is…simply not really accurate.

    Further, the page about Anonymous really does present a pretty slanted view. Granted, it’s not unexpected.

    You ask how it’s “biased” to post the hate crimes quote at the beginning. Well, simple. It’s insinuating that Anonymous is guilty of hate crimes, which is a claim that the church (and the church alone, so far as I’ve seen) makes.

    Imagine if I started an article about Scientology with:
    (From Wikipedia) “Brainwashing (also known as thought reform or as re-education) consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — sometimes unwelcome beliefs in conflict with the person’s prior beliefs and knowledge”

    Accurate? Sure, it’s a definition of brainwashing from a neutral source. However, by putting it at the beginning of the article, I automatically draw a connection between Scientology and brainwashing, even if I -never- explicitly state that connection.

    The entry then goes on to selectively cherry-pick information to make Anon look as bad as possible. Again, imagine I were writing an article about Scientology, and I included nothing -but- Operation Freakout, Operation Snow White, Hubbard’s false claims of being a nuclear physicist and war hero, the allegations of child abuse, etc.

    You would call this biased and unfair. Well, that works both ways.

  50. While I cannot say for certain, I believe that Mark Bunker was unaware of Anonymous prior to them taking actions against the Church of Scientology.

    But can I confirm this in any way?

    I’m assuming you would not regard Mark Bunker as a reliable source of information were I to ask him if he was aware of Anonymous and the chan sites prior to the DDoS attacks.

  51. Thinking about it, my agenda, to use such a crude word to describe it, is curiosity. I am enjoying this discussion as it gives me a chance to hear from scientologist first hand – I agree that the enturbulation forums are not an unbiased source of information (squirreled?).

    If there is anything that I hope to impart to yourself Pat, and Louanne, it’s that not every member of Anonymous is uninformed and unwilling to open their eyes and see for themselves.

    I do still stand by my stance that scientologymyths.info is not an unbiased source of information though.

  52. @ Comment by John on March 20, 2008 2:08 am
    >No, there isn’t an agenda per say. But, to be honest I am somewhat offended by the page on Anonymous. I feel that neglecting some information in relation to a subject can be just as damning as ouright lies.

    First of all there were no statements made about Anonymous by Lu. Only the Wikipedia article on it. Are you saying that Wiki is capable of spinning the truth? Did they lie?

    I would compare it to a doctor that informs his patient about the benefits of psychiatric drugs while neglecting to inform them of the side effects, or vice versa.

    Do you agree?

    I ask again, are ALL members of Anonymous terrorists and religious bigots?

    I do believe that I have answered that several times now.

    I believe that Anonymous is being used. Hell, google Mark Bunker or go to xenutv. He’s being held up as a hero for telling Anonymous to do the protest and what to say. He is taking credit for that too. Took some kids who were hanging out in 4chan and 711chan looking and exchanging kiddie porn and got them to go protest the Church of Scientology. The rest of you came in from God knows where thinking you were doing something righteous. Then you come here and demand to be patted on the head and told that you did something good? It ain’t gonna happen. If you’re part of it, you’ll need to get real that it’s a group and it’s the group doing the actions. That’s all.

    Are you aware that the US Government is spending 2.5 billion A DAY in Iraq? Did you know that you protested Scientology on the same day as the World Wide protest against the War?

    Pat

  53. No, there isn’t an agenda per say. But, to be honest I am somewhat offended by the page on Anonymous. I feel that neglecting some information in relation to a subject can be just as damning as ouright lies.

    I would compare it to a doctor that informs his patient about the benefits of psychiatric drugs while neglecting to inform them of the side effects, or vice versa.

    Do you agree?

    I ask again, are ALL members of Anonymous terrorists and religious bigots?

  54. @Comment by John on March 19, 2008 9:09 pm
    >> This is the only site that I know of that says what Anonymous did without spinning it.

    >By not mentioning the peaceful aspects of Anonymous you are spinning it yourself.

    I Disagree. How is it spin to post a quote from wikipedia about Anonymous and our video? Fair and balanced from an unbiased source. It would have been worse if she’d posted Anonymous’ video to the Church. You know, “we’re going to take Scientology down” and all that benign friendly positive communication. You don’t need a license from Scientology to be. The fact that the protests themselves haven’t been violent is irrevelant since they spread lies about church, so you won’t get any approval from us on them at all. I’m not mad at you, but I can’t help feel that there’s another agenda here for wanting some kind of approval rating from a Scientology site.

    Pat

  55. >>I did look up the reference to clambake. It seems to be a rather light hearted joke to be honest. Something similar to a “Priest, a Rabbi and a scientologist walk into a bar…”

    >Hey, that’s unfair! What’s the end of this joke?

    >- Louanne

    There wasn’t actually a joke that I know of, I was merely using the starting of a popular joke to indicate my opinion on the ‘clambake’ comment.

    But just for you Louanne I came up with something on the way over to work, my apologies if it’s lame :P

    A priest, a rabbi and a scientologist walk into a bar. The priest starts by ordering a round of drinks, but the scientologist politely declines and has a water instead.

    He starts a friendly conversation “I believe that man’s enlightment is found through God.”

    “I agree” says the Rabbi.

    The scientologist just nods.

    A few rounds later and the priest says “Ya know… I lied.. Enlightment comes from the bottom of a glass.”

    “Exactly.” says the Rabbi.

    And the scientologist just smiles.

    —-

    So, a question, do you think that me telling a joke like this makes me a religious bigot?

    And do you think ALL members of Anonymous are like those described on the Anonymous page on scientologymyths? If not all, just some, or most?

  56. > This is the only site that I know of that says what Anonymous did without spinning it.

    By not mentioning the peaceful aspects of Anonymous you are spinning it yourself.

  57. @Comment by John on March 19, 2008 3:09 am
    >To Pat and Louanne,

    >I have shifted over to this thread, as such, as I seem to be shifting towards a conversation, rather than a question, and I would rather leave your questions section for actual questions.

    Alright.

    >I agree with you that the texts by L Ron Hubbard are an excellent source of first hand information. The very events surrounding the conflict between Anonymous and the Church of scientology have convinced me to set aside time to read them myself. I would argue however, that they would not have information regarding court cases surrounding the Church of Scientology. I am also concerned about the bomb threats, threats of violence and antrax scare, however at this stage there does not appear to be any confirmation from an external source, eg. law enforcement as opposed to either CoS or Anonymous, as to who perpetrated these acts.

    That’s good about the books, John. I hope you can get something out of them :)

    Is there a particular court case you have in mind that hasn’t already been ended and published?

    I saw your reference to Lu about court cases outside of the US. Which one?

    My apologies regarding non-biased sources of information. I was referring specifically to http://www.scientologymyths.info/ as opposed to this wordpress site, which has proven to be quite informative. The .info site however is quite biased and I do not regard it as a good source of information.

    >As a few examples I refer to the page on Anonymous, which while you stated you are under no obligation to promote protests against scientology, does not provide an unbiased opinion of Anonymous. As a further point on this, were I to use scientologymyths.info as an unbiased source of information on scientology I would expect you to use the enturbulation forums as an unbiased source of information on Anonymous.

    Glad you narrowed it down. This is an on-going discussion here in the blog. I can’t use the enturbulation forums as unbiased because they aren’t. Enturbulation makes a point of being pro-Anonymous. This is the only site that I know of that says what Anonymous did without spinning it, so I don’t think it’s unbiased, if it’s what we have experienced for ourselves. Anonymous isn’t going to get any approval from Scientologists due to false allegations that have already been disproven in Courts.

    >The page on clambake provides no reference for the ‘baking scientologists’ statement.

    Sure it does. It is in reference to the book, History of Man regarding clams.

    >The page on kidnapping mentions no cases pending in US courts, but makes no mention of overseas courts. Is there a reason for this?

    Because there is no court case to my knowledge. The Scientologists (alleged to be Scientoloigists) were arrested and released. I know of no court procedings on this.

    I can’t come up with more than that thru research.

    I would like to take a moment to thank you for responding reasonably to my posts.

    ok :)

    Lu may want to address the Anonymous link with you. I gave you my take on it.

    Be happy,

    Pat

  58. @Comment by John on March 19, 2008 2:20 pm

    >I did look up the reference to clambake. It seems to be a rather light hearted joke to be honest. Something similar to a “Priest, a Rabbi and a scientologist walk into a bar…”

    Hey, that’s unfair! What’s the end of this joke?

    – Louanne

  59. @Comment by Lady on March 19, 2008 4:48 am

    “In any event, it is not as though all of the protesters are out to “get” the CoS. A lot of them just may be standing up for what they believe in, which happens to be different than what members of the church itself may think. Sure, there will always be bad seeds in the situation, but I don’t see how filming innocent people will benifit anyone–it just makes the church look bad.”

    I know of people taking pictures of the pickets and I have personally seen at least a dozen Anonymous guys filming and photographing a 50-Anon picket. What’s the problem with documenting a public event?

    – Louanne

  60. I did look up the reference to clambake. It seems to be a rather light hearted joke to be honest. Something similar to a “Priest, a Rabbi and a scientologist walk into a bar…”

  61. In any event, it is not as though all of the protesters are out to “get” the CoS. A lot of them just may be standing up for what they believe in, which happens to be different than what members of the church itself may think. Sure, there will always be bad seeds in the situation, but I don’t see how filming innocent people will benifit anyone–it just makes the church look bad.

  62. To Pat and Louanne,

    I have shifted over to this thread, as such, as I seem to be shifting towards a conversation, rather than a question, and I would rather leave your questions section for actual questions.

    I agree with you that the texts by L Ron Hubbard are an excellent source of first hand information. The very events surrounding the conflict between Anonymous and the Church of scientology have convinced me to set aside time to read them myself. I would argue however, that they would not have information regarding court cases surrounding the Church of Scientology. I am also concerned about the bomb threats, threats of violence and antrax scare, however at this stage there does not appear to be any confirmation from an external source, eg. law enforcement as opposed to either CoS or Anonymous, as to who perpetrated these acts.

    My apologies regarding non-biased sources of information. I was referring specifically to http://www.scientologymyths.info/ as opposed to this wordpress site, which has proven to be quite informative. The .info site however is quite biased and I do not regard it as a good source of information.

    As a few examples I refer to the page on Anonymous, which while you stated you are under no obligation to promote protests against scientology, does not provide an unbiased opinion of Anonymous. As a further point on this, were I to use scientologymyths.info as an unbiased source of information on scientology I would expect you to use the enturbulation forums as an unbiased source of information on Anonymous.

    The page on clambake provides no reference for the ‘baking scientologists’ statement.

    The page on kidnapping mentions no cases pending in US courts, but makes no mention of overseas courts. Is there a reason for this?

    I would like to take a moment to thank you for responding reasonably to my posts.

  63. Comment by Lady on March 19, 2008 1:24 am

    There’s some dots not being connected here, I think.

    1. Anon admits and brags about the illegal DDOS attacks on the CofS
    2. Anon sends out a video to the Church where they state they are going to take the church down.
    This is all in January. It wasn’t until after this that the protests got organized.

    3. It hasn’t been confirmed that Anon did it and I can’t say one way or another. There’s been bomb and death threats against the Church, and white powder sent to 24 Churhes, so the authorities had to be called in. There were bomb scares called into police. This is coupled by observation of threats in forums such as enturbulation.com.

    Yes, if any are identified, I’m sure the data is being forwarded to the investigation, since the fake anthrax and bomb threats are federal crimes. It’s considered terrorism.

    Yes, people there are telling the ones making statements of violence not to do it, but it’s there.

    Wouldn’t you want to find out who’s doing this if it were your Church?

    We can only take steps to stop it legally.

    Pat

  64. Comment by Lady on March 19, 2008 1:24 am

    There’s some dots not being connected here, I think.

    1. Anon admits and brags about the illegal DDOS attacks on the CofS
    2. Anon sends out a video to the Church where they state they are going to take the church down.
    This is all in January. It wasn’t until after this that the protests got organized.

    3. It hasn’t been confirmed that Anon did it but then there’s bomb and death threats against the Church. This is coupled by observation of threats in forums such as enturbulation.com

    Yes, people there are telling the ones making statements of violence not to do it, but it’s there.

    Wouldn’t you want to find out who’s doing this if it were your Church?

    Pat

  65. Why is it that members of the CoS have been taking photographs and videos of the protestors? Do they plan on finding out who they are and attempting to turn them into the police or what? If the protest is peaceful, I just don’t see a reason for doing this.

    Sorry if this has been asked before.

    (If possible, drop me a line on my blog so I can find this site again. Thanks.)

  66. @Comment by ARC_Break on March 18, 2008 3:00 am
    >Pat, I’ll be talking to the anon moderators to work out the details. I’m sure we’ll look forward to welcoming you to the site.

    I think you misunderstood. I’m not talking about what you are trying to set up with Lu. I’m talking about discussions between you and me right here on Myths. What you’re setting up there is a separate thing altogether.

    Pat

  67. @Comment by ARC_Break on March 17, 2008 3:25 am

    >1) Only one member from Scientology Myths and one member from enturbulation.org will be allowed to post in the section. That is to say, you will have one nomination, we will have one nomination.

    The funny thing here is that Scientology Myths has only one “member” and I hadn’t planned to open up for memberships. But I guess any Scientologist would count as “Scientology Myths member”, right?

    >2) The format will be like one of a governmental debate. The way this works is that there will be a questioner and and responder. The two posters will take turns in each role.

    How about the timing? Realtime or does each side get some time to answer the question properly, like 24 hours? Some of those I got here so far required quite some research and I confess that I am not done with all of them.

    Another thought, a lot of the “questions” I get are actually statements, long-winding statements of all kinds of crap, done with the purpose to spread it rather than get it examined. Other “questions” are more of an attack than a question. So who is going to filter the crap?

    – Louanne

  68. Hey L(o)u, now that the second round of protests is over, what are your thoughts? Judging by the Chanology site’s figures, attendance was up 20% over last month, and still Anonymous kept all its members peaceful and orderly. Even if you disagree with their ends, you have to respect their ability to stick to non-violent means.

    P.S.: The “concurrent protest” thing is mentioned here —

    http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/scientology-attempts-disrupt-planned-protest-using-human-rights-front-group

    Looking at the YouTubes and Chanology recap, however, it looks like those counter-protests didn’t pan out. Which is just as well: the Church(TM) only planned for about 50 Scilons to show up, which would have been kinda pitiful compared to the 200+ Anons who attended the Sydney protest.

  69. Pat, I’ll be talking to the anon moderators to work out the details. I’m sure we’ll look forward to welcoming you to the site.

  70. @ Pat
    > I agree to your terms. It’s basically what I said too. I think proof is simple. Were there or were there not children protesting where anonymous was protesting? Did we or did we not put children at risk?

    Pat

    I’m going to do the intellectually responsible thing and retract my statement as I cannot find the information without the site where I read it (I don’t memorize sites unfortunately). It’s not fair to you guys.

    However, I will repost when I find the information. If I was mislead, I’ll say so as well.

  71. I agree to your terms. It’s basically what I said too. I think proof is simple. Were there or were there not children protesting where anonymous was protesting?
    Did we or did we not put children at risk?

    Pat

  72. Sorry, one quick addition. I’ll find the proof or I’ll retract my statement (as I’ve done in the past when I was mistaken or incorrect).

  73. > If I make a charge then I have to provide the proof. Agreed on that basis? I’ll show you mine if you show me yours ;p LOL

    How about this. Each time someone makes a claim, they provide proof. That will clear up all this nonsense.

    As for my proof for the children’s event/protest (whatever you like to call it), the ISP where proof is down, so when it comes back up I’ll be happy to link for you.

  74. @Comment by terrorist? i think not on March 17, 2008 2:54 am
    its about fucking time to STOP CALLING US TERRORISTS BITCH!

    have we been v& yet? NO!

    has my uncle said to me…. “hey you got us lookin for you”? NO!

    HAVE WE BLOWN SHIT UP?!?!?!

    NO!

    so shut the fuck up with the terrorist accusations its SLANDER you litigious CULT of BLOOD

    Do you have a question that isn’t already answered in http://www.scientologymyths.info?

  75. @Comment by ike on March 17, 2008 3:16 am

    “I don’t see how anyone who opposes a religion that perpetrates illegal activities is a ‘hateful terrorist.’ For instance, if someone started a religion that was all about human sacrifices, nobody would tolerate that religion. Would I be a ‘bigot’ for abhorring that religion? No. Why, then, would I be labeled a ‘bigot’ for abhorring a religion that is a best extremely shady and at worst a mind-controlling, murdering cult?”

    Here’s what Lu asks for.
    ” 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 and L. Ron Hubbard. 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! ”

    Do you have some specific questions that haven’t already been provided with documention on the site? http://www.scientologymyths.info

  76. @Comment by ARC_Break on March 17, 2008 3:15 am
    > What protest was this? Did you see kids around in Clearwater where the Anonymous protest was? Let’s see it on the videos, because the ones on YouTube don’t show any kids except the ones in masks.

    > Let’s use the Legal format here. You be the prosecutor bringing this charge. The burden of proof is now on you.

    I’ll agree to this if you agree to do so for my next question. Do you agree?

    If I make a charge then I have to provide the proof. Agreed on that basis? I’ll show you mine if you show me yours ;p LOL

    (Because you made a charge by stating that we had kids at the protests so I’m asking for your documentation, as the Prosecutor. Prove your case, Counsellor)

  77. @Comment by ARC_Break on March 17, 2008 3:13 am

    > What’s with this fear thing, anyway? Because we want to have the protection of the law from death threats means we have to be afraid?

    You didn’t answer the question. Let’s use your reply to further the discussion. If Scientology legitimately feels that it needs protection from the law because of an imminent threat by Anonymous, why would it schedule an event at the same time. With children no less.

    So, either Scientology KNOWS that there will be no acts of violence (or very little threat of such), or it’s putting it’s children DIRECTLY into harms way. Either stance is lose / lose. Unless you can point out another way of looking at these events that makes sense to you.

    There were no kids out there with the protesters, unless you count the ones in masks. That’s
    in my answer, so I did answer. Where’s your proof, Mr. Prosecutor? LOL

  78. Sorry, addition to 4.

    The questioner can request an explanation if unsure about the question. This doesn’ count as an “answer” to the quesiton. :P

  79. > Thunderdome rules? Isn’t that a techno concert…? I get how this is suppsed to go, a little bit like gladiators in the arena and Julius is watching. Somehow I am not fond
    of this idea. Your first idea was a moderated forum. What happened about that? Any news from entubulation.org?

    Pop culture reference. I was attemping to be funny. Pay it no mind.

    Are you in agreement with the terms? We’ll use http://www.enturbulation.org (if the admins approve it) to have a question and answer session. Here’s the format that I am proposing. I figure I’ll retype it so you can agree to the whole thing…

    1) Only one member from Scientology Myths and one member from enturbulation.org will be allowed to post in the section. That is to say, you will have one nomination, we will have one nomination.

    2) The format will be like one of a governmental debate. The way this works is that there will be a questioner and and responder. The two posters will take turns in each role.

    3) The responder will not be allowed to ask questions of the questioner. The reponder can only answer the question that is given.

    4) If the question itself is not answered (Ie, being dodged by either side), the Questioner may re-explain the question by reposting the question below. The questioner will not be penalized for this. The questioner however has a good faith responsibility to ensure his/her question is fully explained and straight forward.

    5) The process of the questions will be as such…
    1. Post by Questioner.
    2. Post by Responder.
    3. Follow up question by Questioner.
    4. Post by Responder.

    At that point a mod will post to effectively “break up” the questions so they are easier to read. I would think that we could have one question/answer session per day. If both sides agree.

    Thoughts and your acceptance / refusal?

  80. > Minton’s group and a couple of Scientologists made it a sick game to provocate each other. I could as well emphasize on the the incidents on him shooting with a gun “just over the head” of Scientology picketeers in front of his house or him posing with a bloodstained sword for a photo, captioned “What Bob will do with Scientologists”. This will get us nowhere.

    Let’s use the Legal format here. You be the prosecutor bringing this charge. The burden of proof is now on you.

    Links ahoo!

  81. I don’t see how anyone who opposes a religion that perpetrates illegal activities is a ‘hateful terrorist.’ For instance, if someone started a religion that was all about human sacrifices, nobody would tolerate that religion. Would I be a ‘bigot’ for abhorring that religion? No. Why, then, would I be labeled a ‘bigot’ for abhorring a religion that is a best extremely shady and at worst a mind-controlling, murdering cult?

  82. > What protest was this? Did you see kids around in Clearwater where the Anonymous protest was? Let’s see it on the videos, because the ones on YouTube don’t show any kids except the ones in masks.

    > Let’s use the Legal format here. You be the prosecutor bringing this charge. The burden of proof is now on you.

    I’ll agree to this if you agree to do so for my next question. Do you agree?

  83. > What’s with this fear thing, anyway? Because we want to have the protection of the law from death threats means we have to be afraid?

    You didn’t answer the question. Let’s use your reply to further the discussion. If Scientology legitimately feels that it needs protection from the law because of an imminent threat by Anonymous, why would it schedule an event at the same time. With children no less.

    So, either Scientology KNOWS that there will be no acts of violence (or very little threat of such), or it’s putting it’s children DIRECTLY into harms way. Either stance is lose / lose. Unless you can point out another way of looking at these events that makes sense to you.

  84. > its about ******* time to STOP CALLING US TERRORISTS *****!
    > have we been v& yet? NO!
    > has my uncle said to me…. “hey you got us lookin for you”? NO!
    > HAVE WE BLOWN **** UP?!?!?!
    > NO!
    > so shut the **** up with the terrorist accusations its SLANDER you litigious CULT of BLOOD

    Go die in a fire. Seriously. And if you don’t want to do that, do everyone a favour and don’t procreate. We have enough retards running around already.

    You’re a disgrace. You’re clown shoes.

    Thanks,

  85. its about fucking time to STOP CALLING US TERRORISTS BITCH!

    have we been v& yet? NO!

    has my uncle said to me…. “hey you got us lookin for you”? NO!

    HAVE WE BLOWN SHIT UP?!?!?!

    NO!

    so shut the fuck up with the terrorist accusations its SLANDER you litigious CULT of BLOOD

  86. @Comment by ARC_Break on March 14, 2008 7:03 pm

    ” With regards to the scientology “restraining order” against Anonymous. How can the Church claim to be afraid of people, yet schedule a concurrent protest with children that follows the same path at the exact same time. Do you see this as a contradiction?”

    What’s with this fear thing, anyway? Because we want to have the protection of the law from death threats means we have to be afraid?

    I saw the “report” on Digg that someone supposedly “eavesdropped” on a meeting in Clearwater. Find out what room they were in at this meeting, and which building, ok and what was the date of this meeting?

    That should be proof enough that this “eavesdropper” actually heard this. I can find out

    What protest was this? Did you see kids around in Clearwater where the Anonymous protest was? Let’s see it on the videos, because the ones on YouTube don’t show any kids except the ones in masks.

    Let’s use the Legal format here. You be the prosecutor bringing this charge. The burden of proof is now on you.

  87. @Comment by P Wires on March 16, 2008 10:22 pm

    “Hmm a lot of comments I’ve read seem extremely bias, I witnessed the Scientology protest here in Edinburgh as a neutral bystander. It certainly wasn’t terrorist activity Talking with a few of them showed them to be freindly, approachable and remarkably well informed and willing to discuss the issues. I tend to live by the motto live and let live, but having done some looking around the web and seeing how confrontational scientologists seem to be over picketers I can’t help but feel the self help company (religion?) has brought this on itself. Every action taken so far to fight back at this group of teenagers seems to make COH look worse. The accusations of terrorism are laughable and overrated, the restraining order speaks for itself. I hope the issues resolve themselves soon in an aimable fashion, maybe it would be best simply to drop the tax excemption in favour of some good PR at last. Imagine if dianetics was a well run company that people respected with well placed research and a driving market value, maybe one day.”

    Since there is a offer on the table here that you can ask your questions and get answers, relating to Scientology Myths, I’m wiling to answer any question you have. Is there one?

    Have you seen this? It’s very informative. Lots of free knowledge there for all.
    http://www.scientology.org/

  88. I read that Anonymous has that court paper, as it was filed against it’s leaders. They say that Heber Jentzsch’s signature was on a copy of another signed page, and had no notary signatures or other witnesses.

    I’d always been taught you couldn’t do that, it was against the whole point of a witness//notary so you can’t just throw extra papers in later. They’re claiming it’s so no-one would have been on record for being a false witness to a fake signature.

    I’m really just not sure what to think any more and don’t know who to turn to. I’m worried about my next audit floating. You’re impartial, but you’re on lines so I thought maybe you could help me.

  89. Hmm a lot of comments I’ve read seem extremely bias, I witnessed the Scientology protest here in Edinburgh as a neutral bystander. It certainly wasn’t terrorist activity :) Talking with a few of them showed them to be freindly, approachable and remarkably well informed and willing to discuss the issues. I tend to live by the motto live and let live, but having done some looking around the web and seeing how confrontational scientologists seem to be over picketers I can’t help but feel the self help company (religion?) has brought this on itself. Every action taken so far to fight back at this group of teenagers seems to make COH look worse. The accusations of terrorism are laughable and overrated, the restraining order speaks for itself. I hope the issues resolve themselves soon in an aimable fashion, maybe it would be best simply to drop the tax excemption in favour of some good PR at last. Imagine if dianetics was a well run company that people respected with well placed research and a driving market value, maybe one day.

  90. @Comment by ARC_Break on March 16, 2008 1:36 pm

    >So, how about the established Q&A session. I haven’t heard back from anyone.

    See above.

    – Louanne

  91. @Comment by Thinking on March 15, 2008 3:42 am

    >Heber Jentzsch (that anonymous has supposedly threatened) [PR brabble removed]

    I saw him personally at the last IAS event and just last week he signed a court paper. So I guess he is around as ever.

    Why should individual staff members be featured on Scientology information websites?
    The purpose of those sites is to inform about what Scientology is and does and not for biographies of staff members.

    – Louanne

  92. @Comment by Thinking on March 15, 2008 3:38 am

    >Hello my pretty eyed friend. So today i have just one question.I know that a website does not come under ‘the tech’ after all the web as mostly post LRH. so changing a website is not squirelling. but really, with the new web site design on http://www.scientology.org/

    What are you talking about? The website does not cite Scientology scriptures. So how could they be changed?

    >Just where is LRH?

    lronhubbard.org

    David Miscavige is the current Chairman of the Board and the major driving force in putting forward the expansion plans L. Ron Hubbard has written up.
    Certainly he is presented as that on the internet as well.

    – Louanne

  93. @Comment by ARC_Break on March 14, 2008 7:03 pm

    >Anyways, a quick rundown on my previous questions that were unanswered…
    1. What say you Lu/Lou/Louanne to a private discussion. I outlined the rules on the take on anonymous posts, but I’ll go over them again.
    One person is the questioner, the other is the answerer. Questioner asks, answer answers, questioner asks followup, answer answers. We take turns doing this. However, if the questioner believes the question wasn’t answered he/she may re-explain with no penalty (Ie, doesn’t count as a question. One rep per side. Two men enter, one man leaves. (Thunderdome rules).

    Thunderdome rules? Isn’t that a techno concert…? I get how this is suppsed to go, a little bit like gladiators in the arena and Julius is watching. Somehow I am not fond
    of this idea. Your first idea was a moderated forum. What happened about that? Any news from entubulation.org?

    >2. You have denied that Bob Minton was subjected to harassment by the CoS as per their fair game policy. How do you explain this http://www.skeptictank.org/figtback.htm (you can google the news article if you like). Because the police were called this is easily provable.

    Minton’s group and a couple of Scientologists made it a sick game to provocate each other. I could as well emphasize on the the incidents on him shooting with a gun “just over the head” of Scientology picketeers in front of his house or him posing with a bloodstained sword for a photo, captioned “What Bob will do with Scientologists”. This will get us nowhere. Fair Game has the connotation that illegal acts would be done or supported against “critics”. And this was not the case with Minton and most other “critics”. It is just not true.

    >3. With regards to the scientology “restraining order” against Anonymous. How can the Church claim to be afraid of people, yet schedule a concurrent protest with children that follows the same path at the exact same time. Do you see this as a contradiction?

    The “scheduled concurrent protest with children” was an invention by one of your Anon friends. It never happened. Classical “Black PR” nonsense.

    – Louanne

  94. So, how about the established Q&A session. I haven’t heard back from anyone.

  95. Comment by Thinking on March 15, 2008 8:24 pm

    I’m assuming they do let you have Flash enabled so you see all the glossy new stuff the rest of us do, instead of something like it automatically forwarding you to /home.html

    ok. There’s an email link on the home page if you want to point that out to the designers.

  96. Comment by Thinking on March 15, 2008 8:19 pm

    “Well Pat, thing is, that isn’t the front page, the most important page on the whole site now is it. what you’ve linked there now is commonly referred to as a ’sub page’.
    it is not the ‘root of the server’ or ‘root domain’.

    I was asking about http://www.scientology.org/ the world facing main home of Scientology, you know, the one all the web search engines link to by default, and the most prominent individual on that page by FAR is David Miscavige.

    Everyones said ‘nice flashy web page, but where’s L.Ron Hubbard, it’s his birthday after all too.

    (oh admittedly there’s a little tiny picture of a book up there, for now, where you can just about make out the name of some author, bit hard to make out though really, and even THAT doesn’t link to information on him, but just to a popup to order a copy)”

    I don’t understand. You’re pissed because there’s no link for LRH on the video page? Why? It’s on the home page as I stated, and the link for that is upper right hand corner. Why is this a problem for you?

  97. I’m assuming they do let you have Flash enabled so you see all the glossy new stuff the rest of us do, instead of something like it automatically forwarding you to /home.html

  98. Well Pat, thing is, that isn’t the front page, the most important page on the whole site now is it. what you’ve linked there now is commonly referred to as a ‘sub page’.
    it is not the ‘root of the server’ or ‘root domain’.

    I was asking about http://www.scientology.org/ the world facing main home of Scientology, you know, the one all the web search engines link to by default, and the most prominent individual on that page by FAR is David Miscavige.

    Everyones said ‘nice flashy web page, but where’s L.Ron Hubbard, it’s his birthday after all too.

    (oh admittedly there’s a little tiny picture of a book up there, for now, where you can just about make out the name of some author, bit hard to make out though really, and even THAT doesn’t link to information on him, but just to a popup to order a copy)

  99. @Comment by Thinking on March 15, 2008 3:38 am

    “Just where is LRH ? I mean, the David Miscavidge link is pretty prominent for a flash portal. He’s the only person named, or linked in fact.”

    Here you go:
    http://www(dot)scientology(dot)org/home(dot)html

    Right at the top and 2nd link down on the left

  100. Oh, two questions actually, sorry.

    If Heber Jentzsch (that anonymous has supposedly threatened) is alive and well in good care and not RPF’d, and is the leader of the Church of Scientology, and as such would be the target of any evil (as would the pope for Catholicism is some crazy loon targeted them).

    Then where is he mentioned on the Scientology site? LRH is at least on sub pages. Heber is nowhere to be found.

  101. Hello my pretty eyed friend.
    So today i have just one question.

    I know that a website does not come under ‘the tech’ after all the web as mostly post LRH.

    so changing a website is not squirelling.

    but really, with the new web site design on http://www.scientology.org/

    Just where is LRH ? I mean, the David Miscavidge link is pretty prominent for a flash portal. He’s the only person named, or linked in fact.

  102. Anyways, a quick rundown on my previous questions that were unanswered…

    1. What say you Lu/Lou/Louanne to a private discussion. I outlined the rules on the take on anonymous posts, but I’ll go over them again.

    One person is the questioner, the other is the answerer. Questioner asks, answer answers, questioner asks followup, answer answers. We take turns doing this. However, if the questioner believes the question wasn’t answered he/she may re-explain with no penalty (Ie, doesn’t count as a question. One rep per side. Two men enter, one man leaves. (Thunderdome rules).

    2. You have denied that Bob Minton was subjected to harassment by the CoS as per their fair game policy. How do you explain this http://www.skeptictank.org/figtback.htm (you can google the news article if you like). Because the police were called this is easily provable.

    3. With regards to the scientology “restraining order” against Anonymous. How can the Church claim to be afraid of people, yet schedule a concurrent protest with children that follows the same path at the exact same time. Do you see this as a contradiction?

  103. FIRST POST. Woot


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