Suggestions is a lively site, it changes a lot and has stuff going on and off of it. Going through it you maybe see something you miss or want changed. Here is the place to talk about it. Give me your suggestions, I am open for anything related to “Scientology Myths”.

Send me an email with your suggestions: ll at scientologymyths dot info

– Louanne


  1. I am curious as to why the CoS NEVER has one good thing to say about any of their apostates? I understand that having your beliefs attacked by an individual or group of individuals is offensive and appalling. However where is the “good” in the Church’s reaction and justification in calling these vengeful ex-members or opponents, names? I don’t hear of any other Church taking such drastic counter attacks on its ex-members. Not that those Churches don’t do it at all. it is just not as ? noticeable as with the CoS responses. I haven’t read one positive statement about one of your ex-members, the ones who speak out against the church, ever. Not Ever.
    As a successful business person, I encounter similar attacks of my company by ex-employees, on a pretty regular basis. IF i am feeling the need to express my opinion about the nature of the complaint, I have always had respect for that person, even in situations of extreme disagreements. I like to respond to the likes of:
    “Mrs. Blank was an employee for the company for X amount of time. Although the terms of our parting were not favorable, I respect Mrs. X’s opinion and hope that she can reconcile her dislike of the company/company’s policy in the near future. Good Luck to you in all future endeavors”.
    Rather the CoS response to a critic is always, always close to the same response to every single critic and also never, ever makes one positive statement about that person(s). This is a short version of the typical response:
    “Mrs. X has become what she said she has never wanted to be: a “bitter” ex-scientologist. She needs to stop her pathetic attempt to claim fame while disgracing her former Church. She has never taken responsibility for her own actions, always putting blame on others. Mrs. X’s statements have been repeatedly debunked by the Church yet she still feels the need to ruin her own reputation by making false claims and allegations of the Church she belonged to for 11 years. The Church works very hard to protect the virtue of mankind everywhere in the world. The real story can be found at”.
    You cant say ONE nice thing. For example:
    “Mrs. X was a dedicated member of the Church for 11 years and during that time Mrs. X experienced her ups and downs, of which, we were always there to help. She made positive contributions to the Church at times and we are sad to see her responding this way….then proceed to explaining what the reason(s) are the Church feels the way it does about this particular scenario.”
    This may mean you need to customize your template for every response letter but to be better understood and shed even a slightly positive attitude that the Church possesses, something needs to change.
    WHY CAN’T ONE RESPONSE HAVE A POSITIVE COMMENT ABOUT ANYONE OR ANYTHING BESIDES THE CHURCH? This is one reason you receive such a vast amount of negative publicity. Tell CoB, we are NOT at war as you seem to perceive, that the intention of the CoS to attack and never defend is only a model that should be chosen when in great duress or in times of war.
    If you were to change the way you handle criticism, your voice would begin to be heard. The way that your “enemies” are always heard and the fact that there is never a positive response makes us believe the Church is the one not taking any responsibility and always putting the entire full blame elsewhere.
    Just my own opinion.
    I have read a lot. I’ve read dianetics and other material posted on the internet that sheds positive light on the Church.
    Just as I have about what critics have to say.
    All I have to point out is what I mentioned here. The stories against scientology are always met with offensive measures and it makes me wonder why the Church never ever has anything pleasant to say?

  2. plz computer get me out of here, im trapped on a propaganda website that doesnt care for free thinking or objective truths, and tries to portray OPINION as FACT

  3. I’m in no way affiliated with Scientology and don’t intend to question your beliefs. I may have heard wrong information but Im curious to know: Do you see all “reptiles” as bad? If you do indeed believe in a “bad emperor” do you believe there might be a “good” one before or after him? Sweeping notions in any belief system always get my interest. People are often shaped by the wirld about them yet feel pride in their strengths. Applying notions of all men being “good” though is a dubious one.

  4. I am a Funeral Service student at Mount Ida, and am doing a presentation on Scientology. I was curious about funeral services at a church of Scientology. Does the church have specific guidelines a funeral director must follow? Are the funerals like other church ceremonies? Are their processions to the cemetery? Are there services at the cemetery? How else would a funeral director be able to help families with the loss of a loved one concerning funeral preparations? Please help with these questions. I am trying to learn as much as I can about Scientology for my presentation. Thank you for your time.

    • It is up to the family, just like any other religion.

  5. And, no, not in my library, or any near me. They don’t carry them. In fact, if you look at online library databases, you’d be surprised at how few do.

  6. I could understand his thought process, though, Given the huge gaps between replies.
    Read the basics, still see changes.

  7. Comment by Anon2 on December 2, 2010 10:11 pm

    Huh?! You wish. LOL


  8. Comment by BigDaddy on December 2, 2010 5:26 pm

    You need to study the basics. Then you’ll understand. You’ll find the books in the library.


  9. This site is just as dead as Scientology.

  10. Wow, nice to meet you too.
    I would say that the definitions have changed quite a bit after Hubbard’s death. For example, look at Louanne’s other site (link in on this page), where she lists  definitions obtained from Scientology websites and dictionaries.
    Clear: the name of a state achieved through auditing or an individual who has achieved this state. A Clear is a being who no longer has his own reactive mind. A Clear is an unaberrated person and is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. The Clear has no engrams which can be restimulated to throw out the correctness of computation by entering hidden and false data.

    Operating Thetan (OT): it is a state of beingness. It is a being “at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life.” Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things,” and Thetan is the Greek letter Theta (), which the Greeks used to represent thought or perhaps spirit, to which an n is added to make a noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. It is also n or “theta to the nth degree,” meaning unlimited or vast. Abbreviation: OT.

    Theta Clear: a person who operates exterior to the body without need of a body.

    So we have some promises remaining , that’s true. But what exactly is being promised? What of any substance is actually SAID in those statements?. Perhaps a promise that you can be at cause over “matter, energy space, time, form and life”, but I have never heard that to be used in the same context in which Hubbard used it. Currently, it’s more of a self-empowerment kind of thing. I invite any scientologist to correct my misunderstanding. Similar to the ability to operate exterior to their body. “The Amazing Randi” has offered one million dollars to any scientologist that can demonstrate this in a controlled environment. None has.
    Hubbard himself, however, made some very specific claims which are no longer evident within scientology. For example:
    “A clear, for instance, has complete recall of everything which has ever happened to him or anything he has ever studied. He does mental computations, such as those of chess, for example, which a normal would do in a half an hour, in ten or fifteen seconds. He does not think “vocally” but spontaneously. There are no demon circuits in his mind except those which it might amuse him to set up — and break down again — to care for various approaches to living. He is entirely self-determined. And his creative imagination is high. He can do a swift study of anything within his intellectual capacity, which is inherent, and the study would be the equivalent to him of a year or two of training when he was “normal.” His vigor, persistence and tenacity to life are very much higher than anyone has thought possible.”
    L. Ron Hubbard
    Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (1950)
    Have you ever, even once, seen these promises kept? Does scientology still accept Hubbard’s definition?
    In his 1952 lectures, Hubbard promised that an OT could leave the body at will and travel anywhere in the universe instantaneously. He promised that an OT could view any portion of the time track clearly and precisely. That he or she could create or destroy MEST (Matter, energy, space, time). That’s a lot more specific than “beingness”. Has that ever been accomplished by any scientologist? Why is scientology not standing by Hubbard’s promises?
    Hubbard also defined a “Cleared Theta Clear” in Scientology 8-8008. He said, “”A thetan who is completely rehabilitated and can do everything a thetan should do, such as move MEST and control others from a distance, or create his own universe; a person who is able to create his own universe or, living in the MEST universe is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the MEST universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence”.
    So those are some pretty significant changes, made after Hubbard’s death. I would wonder why scientologists are no longer holding the church to Hubbard’s standards?

  11. Big (fat?) daddy,

    You sound like a paranoid lunatic. The promises made by Scientology today are exactly the same as the ones LRH made. You want to be a more capable person? Scientology helps you achieve that, just like source promised.

    • Are you seriously stupid enough to believe the crap that Mr Hubbard has fed you? How can you even consider it as a valid system of belief?

      Is it because your “church” told you that your prophet was a genius and a war hero? Does that make him worth following to you? If it is, you should know that he dropped out of univercity after two semesters because he kept failing his courses. You should also know that he was such a terrible navy officer that he somehow got lost, entered Mexican territorial waters and commenced live fire gunnery drills. It should come as no surprise that firing live ammunition within the bounties of another state is technically an act of war. Fortunately war was averted. But even worse than his stupidity and incompetence was his corrupt personality. If you doubt me, google Operation Snow White.

      As for your “religion”, it is nothing more than a money making scam. Your E-readers, free personality tests and theories on physics are devoid of logic and evidence (any respectable scientist will back me up on this one). Psychiatrists are not evil, and I highly suspect that you demonize them only because they are competition for those in the population that are mentally vulnerable (I.e. the majority of your converts). What you see as “persecution” is in fact criticism and what you see as ” protecting yourselves” is in fact illegally abusing lawsuits to bully and intimidate those same critics. You claim to be a growing religion, when in fact you are shrinking. As for your whole story about Xenu and Thetans, it makes it very obvious why Hubb failed as a science fiction writer.

      Something should also be said on the subject of Anonymous. I don’t agree with their ideology or their methods, but I do recognize their power. You cannot win against them. They will keep coming until your church is reduced to its foundations. It won’t happen tommorrow, next week or next year, but it will happen. And I must also admit, I will be happy to see them succeed.

      Now, I want you to know that I usually don’t go after people I disagree with like this. I am very open minded. Being an atheist means I run into a lot of religions that seem weird to me. But no matter how wrong I think they are, I respect their beliefs and seal my lips. This courtesy doesn’t extend to you because Scientology is not a real religion. It is just an excuse to scam the weak and vulnerable out of everything they own. That is the truth. Plain and simple.

      Everything I have written can be verified. All you have to do is search the web and you will find a hell of a lot of article on the subject. You will certainly dismiss most of these as opinion pieces. Just look closer and you may find that some of these “opinion pieces” have a pretty solid backing in fact.

      P.S. if you are thinking about sueing me for religious prosecution, you should know that Canada, the country I call home, doesn’t see scientology as a religion either.

      • Scientology isn’t about people. It’s about a philosophy that is only true if you personally used the technology and it works for you. So, it doesn’t really matter to me if you tried it and it didn’t work for you.

      • “Scientology isn’t about people”

        Never before have truer words been spoken. Scientology ISN’T about people in any sense of the word. That’s why there’s a shrinking number of active adherents and a growing number of “apostates”. Scientology definitely isn’t about people.

      • Scientology is something we DO, not believe. It has nothing to do with what propaganda you throw out, about the people in the religion. It’s still gonna be about the doctrine and whether it’s true for you or not by the very fact of using it and observing for yourself. You can try and make this about Scientologists until you’re blue in the face. It won’t change the fact that for me and others who actually looked and applied the technology and improved ours and others lives as a result, that for us it works. No matter what your agenda is, that will never change. Scientology is here to stay and use.

      • merely dismissing it as propaganda doesnt make it so. it might be easier for you to pretend there’s no validity to the growing criticism- often from those that HAVE applied it, but that diesnt change the fact that you’re in a very small and shrinking minority.

        of course scientology will always be available! you can’t kill an idea, and people still find value in voodoo and druidism. scientology is headed that way- not a statistically significant group (that’s already happened) but with a small number of loyal adherents like you. no one wants to kill the idea, but to see the organization change. that’s why critics, former members and independant scientologists are growing while formal members are shrinking.

      • oh, and my point was that I agree with you. scientology is NOT about scientologists, and I think that’s reflected in the consistent stories of thousands of former members that have spoken out against the group, particularly its current management. But I’d imagine you haven’t read THOSE stories.

      • Merry Xmas and may you flourish and prosper

      • likewise, dear!

  12. Just to clarify- I’m talking about the claims lrh himself made- NOT the claims officially made by Scientology to day. They are very different, and I just want to avoid confusion.

  13. I think they’re referencing, tongue in cheek, the promises lrh made about becoming clear or ot.

  14. Comment by Sharlie Williams on November 29, 2010 3:09 pm

    “Thetan power” ? What are you talking about?


  15. I hope you get more critics posting. I know that you will never agree with them and will just dig your heels in further. Therefore your resolve to stay in Scientology will become stubbornly stronger. It is a fit punishment and you deserve it if you are so stupid to stay in it in the first place. Chances are, you will never know. So go on the Freewinds, increase your thetan power, have your OT wins. It must be so sparkly and linecharging.

    • Since I’m not sure where to post this comment, this seemed to the most appropriate as it hoped for more critics. I’m not sure I’m a critic, just someone who respects the truth. I just read some of the pages of “myths 2.0” & couldn’t help but notice a considerable number of glaring & convenient omissions, half truths & . . . well let’s call them falsehoods. For example, in the sections on the illegal activities carried out by the Guardian Office (that is still one, if not the largest infiltration of the American gov’t), that according to you were unbeknownst to the leaders of the church, you neglected to mention a little detail about who was arrested & sent to jail. While it may not be convenient to your premise, the fact that LRH’s (3rd & at that time current) wife was one of the ‘ring leaders’ is kind of an important detail. This would not only suggest that he knew about it, (& please don’t insult our intelligence & say he had no idea about this major undertaking . . . It would surely rob you of any credibility you have in terms of honesty & integrity) but that he sat back & allowed his wife, one of the three mothers of his children to take the rap. You see, while it may be an inconvenient truth, it’s a major fact that you had to know & thus purposefully omitted.
      Rather than list several other examples of omissions, (I’m sure you are well aware of all your “withholds”) I will only suggest that they only serve to further scientology’s reputation of covering up inconvenient truths/facts, thier history of glaring omissions, half truths & well let’s face it . . . lying & denying the truth until the cows come how!
      Just be honest, even if the E-meter isn’t running.

      • Look up the definition of withhold.

  16. I wonder why you choose to allow discussion on some threads, but you close off others? For instance, you allow people to discuss gene simmons, but not silent birth. Why?
    If I may sincerely ask a question about that locked thread, perhaps you could help me understand.
    All of the press releases released by scientology, addressing kelly preston’s pregnancy, say that silent brith is a matter for the mother to decide. Is that accurate, when Hubbard said that it is the “right” way to give birth. Would a sicentologist really say that they know more than hubbard, that he was wrong about something.
    On a similar note, not to be crude, by why do scientologists take family and relationship advice from a bigamist with three failed marriages (one former wife said, she endured “systematic torture, beatings, strangulations and scientific torture experiments.” and is not mentioned in any official scientology literature, one called him “insane”, one commited a major felony ), who’s children (some, not all) disowned him? How on earth is this person seen as a family expert?

    • To ask this question means that you have ignored repeated posts of the the tenet “What is true is only true if you yourself observed it to work in being applied.” Refer

      • Ive noticed, Pat, that every time things fall silent here, you demonstrate some sort of need to keep the conversation going. It’s almost like you try to pull in criticism against Scientology. In this case, you’ve replied to a nearly two year old posting! Why is that?

        May I assume that you’ve maintained a healthy marriage based on hunbard’s advice? In other words, did it work for you, that you can consider it to be true?

        What makes Hubbard qualified to give advice about something at which he was so unsuccessful? Especially when there are those that have solid advice, and it worked for them? I mean, if Hubbard’s own techniques couldn’t work in his life, why would anyone try them over the guidance of more successful experts?

      • If it isn’t true for you, so be it. Whatever anyone else did or didn’t do is irrelevant to whether any principle works for me.

      • I see… so, DID it work for you?

        Whether it did or not, please consider a scenario. Hypothetical, of course, but let’s assume that you find out that your house has a bad foundation, and will collapse if not properly repaired. So you talk to two contractors- one has repaired many houses, and lives in a home with a strong foundation. In fact, he’s lived there for many years with no issues. The other one… he’s lost three homes after using his own methods to repair the foundation. Which would you elect to follow?

        No discussion as to your tendency to “pull in” criticism for scientology?

      • Dwayne opened the thread with his question. At which point I noticed your unanswered question. You object to that. Weird.

      • Oh, Pat- I beg of you, please show me where I objected?
        I merely pointed out that in “Noticing my old post” you invited further criticism of the ideas that you profess. There’s no other way to interpret that other than you are once again (as you seem to have a tendency to do) pulling in criticism for scientology. It’s an observation, not an objection- I suggest you look up those words to avoid confusion in the future.

        Have you noticed that it’s very often YOU that re-ignites these threads, when everyone else is letting them go?

      • Nope. I don’t notice your generality.

      • By “generality”, do you mean this very specific example?
        Or is “generality” just a dismissive word you use when you can’t say anything about the actual point?

      • No. I mean this: “as you seem to have a tendency to pull in criticism on Scientology”. Generality. Also, I don’t any example where I’ve pulled in criticism on Scientology, except you trying to do that. You have some agenda and try to make it seem as if that’s a general view when you haven’t given any proof whatsover that something I said did that. You’re so obvious.

      • Oh, I see pat.
        So what do YOU call it when criticism falls silent, when people finally stop posting critical comments here, and it’s YOU that reignites the conversation, perhaps by responding to an old thread? What would you call that, when the result is predictably additional criticism towards Scientology?
        Or do you even see that tendency? Or do you just get bored and try to encourage critics to keep posting when they stop?

      • And if you want proof, I can offer very valid proof that perfectly validates my claim:

        It’s true for me based on my personal observation!

      • Thank you for your viewpoint. It isn’t true for me.

      • So, it seems that my validation for my premise and yours for Scientology are equally valid.

      • I’m very, sincerely curious. Can you at least see that no one was saying anything here negative about Scientology- they had stopped entirely- until YOU reignited the discussion by responding to an old thread? You can look at the time/dates yourself, if you’d like. There was (at the time) no criticism about Scientology being offered, and it was only after you posted, inviting further discussion that it resumed? Can you at least see that that’s what happens today, if nothing else?

      • You’re the only one being critical so you could just shut up and solve your whole dilemma. I didn’t ask you to respond to my answering your unanswered question. LOL

      • Lol, but it’s not MY problem. I think that the criticism is valid and should be encouraged, and i’m not the one that has re-ignited the conversation that had ended.

        Wait… You really CAN’T see the role you play in encouraging criticism, can you?

      • On a similar note, no one asked you to answer a question from two years ago. The fact that you did so only once the criticism had stopped is strange.

      • Like I said. The only one being critical is you. But you evidently can’t see that.

      • To be a little bit pedantic, I’m certainly not alone. There are many, many people being critical of Scientology; what’s rate are those supporting it.

        But do you see what happened, again? The conversation died down; no one was saying anything at all. But you posted again, and not even with anything new, but repeating something that you had already said! What drives you to do that? It’s like you have some need to fan the flames when they start to die down.

        Of course I’m being critical; like all but a small number here, I think it’s warranted. So why do you repeat yourself and post to two-year-old threads when I stop? One would think that you either want to “win”, even at the cost of pulling in more criticism, or that on some level you two think it’s warranted. I wonder which it is?

        But, since you’ve re-ignited the dying embers of this conversation, did you ever see the statement from the former head of narconon arrowhead?

    • Rate = rare

  17. Question:
    I live in San Francisco. Here, in the city, there are three scientology centers. Why is it that the two “missions” are gone (You go to the address listed, and there’s no sign saying anything about scientology- one of them, ironically, is some psychiatric center) and the main scientology center is ALWAYS empty, except for a few staff members. What’s going on in San Fran?

  18. And… I hate to say it, but I wouldn’t say “us”- I really don’t see Louanne here agreeing with you or supporting what you’re saying. She’s got a good head on her shoulders- she’s sharp, and I’d bet my bottom space credit that she can understand the difference between a single example and the overall concept.

    I’m just saying.

  19. Oh, but I do “get it”, Pat. Although it’s becoming increasingly obvious that you do not.

    For one, I withdrew one single example because you couldn’t understand the concept. You could see the single tree, but not the forest for the rest of them. While slightly myopic of you, my one single example was a very apt example of SOMEONE (I never said you, nor did I even say it was a scientologist) making a claim that has actually factually been made before without proof. An example can be found in the website link near my name in this posting. LIke I said, before you reply and deny this person is a scientologist- I don’t care. It doesn’t matter. It is an example, and one that remains accurate. I still withdraw it, and invite you to address the rest of the comments, if you are able or willing.

    But, as I said, I withdrew that example because you were unable to see it for what it was. That’s okay, I had plenty more examples to support the concept that I did lay out. My concept is very simple and remains: “no one (scientologist or anonymous specifically) should make a dramatic claim without having facts or substance with which to support them”. That’s my point, and it seems very clear. You even briefly understood my point, saying yourself, “I’ll agree that it’s wrong to make claims about anything without firsthand knowledge.”

    Of course, ironically, you then ruin it by making another accusation (twofold, actually, that I have “cronies” and that I have made insinuations that were unsubstantiated), while with the former you have no firsthand knowledge, and the latter, you were unable to support.

    Because you couldn’t understand one of my examples, I even went back and came up with four examples of things that YOU yourself had said, in which cases you made accusations and failed to back them up due to your lack of first hand knowledge. We can make it about math, if it’s easier to understand. Are you familiar with the substitution property of equality? We may use it here. You say:

    “I’ll agree that it’s wrong to make claims about anything without firsthand knowledge”

    We can plug in an example of a claim that you made (editor’s note: I am no longer quoting, as I am altering your comment):

    it’s wrong to make claims about terrorist activities without firsthand knowledge

    Did you have firsthand knowledge when you accused others of terrorism? Or crimes?

    So, try to look at the big picture. If you don’t want to talk about it, fine.

    Like I said- you’ve offered to take a look at points that I may have failed to support- I invite you to do it. If I missed anything, I will humbly admit to it. Can you do the same?

  20. @Comment by Big daddy on November 3, 2010 8:26 am

    “I’ll agree that it’s wrong to make claims about anything without firsthand knowledge. This goes for all statements made by you and your cronies here as well, if you’re going to push this point. We can go back and look at all the insinuations that you didn’t make and make a big deal out of it.”

    “”Well, Pat, I’d certainly appreciate it if you could take a ook at that and find us a couple, much like I did for you, and could continue to do, if you’d like.
    I am both surprised and impressed that you can admit that what you’re doing is wrong, and I certainly hope that we can move past it and press on.”

    Then as usual you didn’t get it. You really should do something about that inability to duplicate (or is it deliberate?… hmm… ).

    I have nothing to admit to since I wasn’t the one protesting what you, yourself brought into the dialog. Since I didn’t make the accusation (you brought up Big Pharma funding for Anonymouse, not us), I’m not the one that needs to admit to anything. Nuff said.


  21. “I’ll agree that it’s wrong to make claims about anything without firsthand knowledge. This goes for all statements made by you and your cronies here as well, if you’re going to push this point. We can go back and look at all the insinuations that you didn’t make and make a big deal out of it.”

    Well, Pat, I’d certainly appreciate it if you could take a ook at that and find us a couple, much like I did for you, and could continue to do, if you’d like.
    I am both surprised and impressed that you can admit that what you’re doing is wrong, and I certainly hope that we can move past it and press on.

  22. @Comment by Sharlie Williams on November 2, 2010 7:17 pm

    “I suggest you go breastfeed yourself if that is possible Pat.”



  23. @Comment by Big daddy on November 1, 2010 11:25 pm

    Try to keep up here. It doesn’t matter WHO made the claim- my point is that the claim has been made, and it was made without proof. Do youagree that’s wrong to do?”

    I’ll agree that it’s wrong to make claims about anything without firsthand knowledge. This goes for all statements made by you and your cronies here as well, if you’re going to push this point. We can go back and look at all the insinuations that you didn’t make and make a big deal out of it.


  24. I suggest you go breastfeed yourself if that is possible Pat.

  25. And, by the way, by “repeat such claims”, I was referring to the ones that you, yourself, made. Such as the four that you, a scientologist made, with no proof, evidence or backing.
    And I hold myself to my own standard, which is why I patiently indulge your efforts to avoid the sctual issue in favor of a trivial example.
    I’ll tell you what, I formally withdraw that single example. It’s gone, poof, no more. I have at least five more listed in this thread, anyways.

  26. Pat,
    Try to keep up here. It doesn’t matter WHO made the claim- my point is that the claim has been made, and it was made without proof. Do youagree that’s wrong to do?

  27. Comment by Big daddy on October 29, 2010 12:36 pm

    “So, in closing, I would ask any scientologist who repeats such claims, in all sincerity, why do you make them? Why do you believe them? Is it because you have some knowledge, some evidence that they are true? Or is it merely because you were told that they were so?”

    I have no idea why you would even be bringing this up since no Scientologist here made such a claim. That’s why you were asked where it came from. The one that did bring that into myths (as previously quoted) was not a Scientologist.


  28. So, in closing, I would ask any scientologist who repeats such claims, in all sincerity, why do you make them? Why do you believe them? Is it because you have some knowledge, some evidence that they are true? Or is it merely because you were told that they were so?

  29. Why? Because I’ve posted just four examples of her doing the very thing that my original point talks about: putting forth a statement without having anything to back it up. As such, I don’t expect that to ever be addressed.

  30. You’re much too kind, Big Daddy, in your efforts to facilitate good communication.
    But, I don’t think that she’ll move on, because pat is merely avoiding the much larger subjects.
    She asked for a source (surely realizing that the specific example was trivial, and could have been replaced by any of the random examples that this site has provided, and multiple sources for the myth were provided. The IAS story was provided, as was the way to find ample information on terryeo on nolanchart. Then, you even provided a way to see where that very myth was addressed HERE, in a thread that she herself later posted in. But, she just can’t accept that someone has heard such a myth before, just because two scientologists (her and louanne) weren’t the ones to make the claim.
    Pat, no one is saying that THAT is the issue- he’s saying, accurately, that you can’t make a claim or accusation without something to back it up. Terryeo, for one example, made the claim without backing it up. It is a good example. But, it could easily be replaced by your own baseless assertations, like anons are criminals.
    So, you asked for sources, you got them. Now, you’re just avoiding the questions that you don’t want to confront. Why?

  31. A light! Lawdy, lawdy, I have seen the error of my ways! I was blind and now I see! Oh how wring I was! I withrdraw that one, single, very minor example, even though I provided your references and pointed out where louanne heard the myth herself! How foolish I was! I was so wrong and beg your forgiveness!
    There- can we move on?

  32. BD, your attempts at misdirections are amusing.

    @Comment by Louanne on October 24, 2010 7:19 pm
    Where did you get the idea about “pharma funding”?

    – L
    @Comment by question on May 28, 2008 9:45 pm
    “Let me tie up the loop holes: Answering using only the words “yes” or “no” within 24 hours of reposting of the question, is it true hat anonymous is paid by the Pharmaceutical Companies and the German Government? (explanation after said yes or no would be appreciated).”

    No. If that would be true Anonymous would not be that broke and unsupported.

    – L
    This is still unanswered, and Louanne hasn’t written anything since asking the question listed at the top here, so that doesn’t mean that she’s accepted your non-answer. I’ve read what you wrote. I still don’t see where you answered the question. You refer to a statement that “question” makes and Louanne answers, in 2008. The point isn’t being made by Louanne or myself. BD brought it up again, as though it were an issue and still hasn’t answered her question or mine.

    So, where does the idea come from, originally? Is BD saying that it’s from some obscure source by some entity “Terryeo”? Why couldn’t he just say that when Louanne asked? (Of course, then I’d have to ask why he brought it up here in myths)


  33. Pat,
    As we’ve now established that it was not -I- that made the mistake (versus, of course, your charge as to my character and when you said, ” that he added that in or where he saw that statement being made about Anonymous”), I think that we may be able to move on. Can we?
    On a similar note (different than my previous questions to you), I noticed that you said, “I’m for truth, not rumor. It’s why I ask for sources”. I admire that in a person. However, it appears that you may have inadvertantly posted some information, surely in error, without providing any facts or reputable sources! Since you have stated a preference for truth, and since you have an obvious passion for sources (so much so that you ignored the bulk, and the overall point, of my post to chase one), I wonder if you wouldn’t mind providing some sources for some of your previous comments on this board? I had asked for them before, but you were no longer posting and the time and seem to have forgotten. I’ll post just a few here, if you wouldn’t mind addressing them, as I took the time to address your requests.

    1. Comment by Pat on May 14, 2008 6:01 am
    This is not “peaceful” nor is Anonymous. You’re terrorists.
    (you did not establish that “we” are terrorists)

    2. Comment by Pat on June 14, 2008 11:57 pm
    You have crimes. That’s all I need to know.
    (what crimes?)

    3. Comment by Pat on July 17, 2010 1:00 am
    At least then he’d know what it really was instead the propaganda being spewed to incite him to commit criminal acts.
    (What is it, and how do you know, that “incited” him to commit criminal acts?)

    4. Comment by Pat on July 16, 2010 11:13 am
    Personally, I don’t believe that jail / prison is the only answer to criminal rehabilitation. That is statistically backed up with recidvism rates. In my own research, what is and has been proven is the Criminon program, by statistics world-wide. I would like to ask Big Daddy and any one else to find (for themselves) any and all actual statistics — befores and afters for these, before going into the snide comments and attacks that usually follow this kind of post. I won’t respond to those. I am asking for actual stats, fair and balanced. I am interested to see if you are able to be objective or if you continue the bias.
    I will present my own research once I see what you’ve been able to come up.
    Yes, this is a test.
    (you did not respond to the facts that I presented, as you said you would)

    So, this is an apt example of what I was saying originally- making claims, spreading information, maligning groups and individuals, without having facts, data… anything really, with which to back them up. Is this any different than your cartoon?
    “it’s a cult” “why?” “it’s a cult”
    isn’t really all that far from:
    “you have crimes that’s all I need to know” “what are they?” “you’re critical, what are your crimes?”

    Thank you for your time.

  34. Pat,
    I will tell you again, this HAS been addressed. This has been dealt with. Why do you think Louanne isn’t asking any more? She accepted my answer. I’ll be more specific:
    in th “Anonymous” thread there was a comment by Louanne on May 29, 2008 4:11 pm. IN that comment, she addressed the myth. She heard it, and acknowledged it. She also provided an answer. You commented later in that thread. Is it my fault that you didn’t read the rest? Also, as I said before as well, do a google search for the words “terryeo” and “pharma”- you’ll find a scientologist making this claim.
    So you really can’t say that it’s “been avoided”. I’ve answered you several times, and have now done so again.
    Since it has been addressed here, and since the scientologist terryeo has made the claim, it falls in the category of a stated myth. Is it widespread? No. Has it been claimed and debunked? Yes. Did Terryeo make the claim without anything further to back it up? Yes. That’s my point. That people shouldn’t do such things regardless of their claim. Do you agree with that?
    So, what do you want? Are you able to have a discussion now that your very minor point has been cleared up?

  35. @Comment by Seeker on October 26, 2010 12:49 pm

    “Dear pat, now you know. If you don’t intend to address the overall concept, please say so, so that I can stop hoping. Louanne adressed this myth before, and it’s an apt example of a myth with no substance.
    Are you able to move on now?”

    No, I’m not. Louanne has not addressed the point that BD made about Anonymous being funded by Big Pharma. In fact, she specifically asked where he got that data and it’s been avoided ever since. Why can’t BD just come out and admit that he added that in or where he saw that statement being made about Anonymous? It’s when such statements are made and some sheeple comes along, sees it then runs around saying “Anonymous is being run by Big Pharma”. It’s how rumors get started. If that’s what he wants, then I’m willing to let it stand and possibly act as a myth for Anonymous to deal with. I’m for truth, not rumor. It’s why I ask for sources. So far, I’ve tried to track a number of these down. Seems almost impossible to get anyone to admit they made a mistake or made it up, or where data came from.


  36. Thanks, seeker, but somehow I don’t expect it will help too much. Besides, what I posted wasn’t even a question, merely a statement as to the importance of fully exploring one’s beliefs and positions. That is something that I stand by.

    On a lighter note, maybe you guys are on to something…

  37. pat, in order to allow for better, more effective communication, I’m re-posting this previous point with the item that was causing you confusion removed. Hopefully, we can discuss the actual point, rather than getting tied up on a single example. May we?

    “My last post, of course, was referring to an ad nauseum argument as those mounted with a sensational claim, but no substance. For example, some feel that scientology is a cult, but are unable to articulate their arguments (which I will not outline here). Similarly, some claim that anonymous is an organized group with leaders and , but are unable or unwilling to provide any evidence to their claims.
    Both individuals are equally wrong in their approach.”

  38. Dear pat, now you know. If you don’t intend to address the overall concept, please say so, so that I can stop hoping. Louanne adressed this myth before, and it’s an apt example of a myth with no substance.
    Are you able to move on now?

  39. You guys really are amusing.

    You say the IAS talked about Anonymous and psychiatry. That’s no secret. :)

    That wasn’t what BD said, though, and what Louanne and I both are trying to track down is where does “big pharma funding” come in to the myth (BD used that phrase specifically and I just wanna know where it comes from)? It can’t get any more simple than that.


  40. Pat, did you, um,… Not understand big daddys post? I only ask because you really seem to haves missed the point completely.

  41. This myth comes from an IAS briefing about Anonymous in early march 2008, that one of our spies infiltrated :)

    “I was able to get into an IAS briefing that was talking about Anonymous. It was quite interesting, they have some strange views on you guys.

    First, they are telling their followers that you are little more than gnats, “That we are currently swatting away”

    He started off letting everyone know where Anonymous attacks are coming from. He said that because they have delivered such a big blow to psychiatry with all the lawsuits that they have done and/or help create. Psychiatry is fighting back, and is that the source of Anonymous attacks. That Anonymous, the computer geeks that have to much time on their hand, are so low on the tone scale that they are being hypnotized into doing everything for psychiatry.


  42. Also, I had made the assumption that you had read the “anonymous” thread on this site, on which you left a comment. I’m also surprised that louanne seemed somewhat unaware, as she herself addressed the myth concluding that anonymous is not actually paid by big pharma or the German government.
    Do you recall reading that thread, pat? Perhaps you missed it. But it’s a small matter. Point is that it’s a myth that surfaces once in a while with no evidence or further argument with which to support it.

  43. Well now you know about a false myth. Do you have any thoughts on the rest of the message, now that we’ve established that you’ve missed that rumor?

  44. #

    I ask you again, have you ever heard that myth before?
    Comment by Pat on October 25, 2010 11:36 am

    Comment by Bigdaddy on October 25, 2010 5:23 am

    If I knew where that came from I wouldn’t be asking you.



  45. Shucks

  46. Correction, name was terryeo.

  47. Pat,
    I can’t help but note the irony that you, of all people, would imply that I’m vein evasive, given our past conversations. I merely called you out for what you’re doing, either intentionally or unwittingly. You’re ignoring the overall point, instead focusing on a minute detail with no other diecernable purpose other to detail the conversation and derail useful communication. While I will provide a source, since you’re unable to discuss the larger point without clearing up the unimportant details, but whatever works for you. My point I’d, and remains, that anyone, scientologist or anon, that makes a claim should be prepared to back it up to some degree. Can you at least agree on that larger concept?
    A quick google search finds the scientologist terry making that claim at least once. You may reply that a single scientologist making that claim means nothing, bug I again direct you to my larger point, where you will see that volume is not a factor,
    I ask you again, have you ever heard that myth before?

  48. Comment by Bigdaddy on October 25, 2010 5:23 am

    If I knew where that came from I wouldn’t be asking you.

    That’s twice now that you’ve evaded the request for source.

    Where did this idea come from that Anonymous has Big Pharma funding. It’s fascinating really. I’d like to know!


  49. *are

  50. Pat, ate you just trying to derail communication by focusing on a single component of a very narrow example, rather than the overall concept, or “big picture”, of have you actually seriously never heard that myth before?

  51. Comment by Bigdaddy on October 24, 2010 9:04 am

    “Similarly, some claim that anonymous is an organized group with leaders and big pharma funding”

    Who claims, BD?


  52. You’re not saying this is the first that you’ve heard of that myth, are you?

  53. Where did you get the idea about “pharma funding”?

    – L

  54. My last post, of course, was referring to an ad nauseum argument as those mounted with a sensational claim, but no substance. For example, some feel that svcientologyis a cult, but are unable to articulate their arguments (which I will not outline here). Similarly, some claim that anonymous is an organized group with leaders and big pharma funding, but are unable or unwilling to provide any evidence to their claims.
    Both individuals are equally wrong in their approach.

  55. It is a funny one :)
    As a rational, sane person that’s able to mount multifaceted and complete arguments, I find the ad nauseum argument to be ineffective and, frankly, annoying.
    Withe the exception of your “anonymous is a terrorist organization” argument, which I find endearing :)

  56. “Comment by Pat on October 23, 2010 3:09 am


    I copied it on my youtube channel (!

  57. “Comment by DMSTCC on October 22, 2010 9:41 pm
    Where is Tommy Davis?”

    I saw him in the LA Church last Monday or Tuesday evening, touring someone through the exhibition. He’s around quite often. Why?

    – L

  58. Cute


  59. Where is Tommy Davis?

  60. Thanks, I took that to heart and made a new page on

    Any other suggestions are welcome!

    – L

  61. Hello!

    I found your website really usefull, I would add some information about ABORTION, maybe some LRH quotes from DIANETICS like this one “Once the child is conceived, no matter how “shameful” the circumstances, no matter the mores, no matter the income, that man or woman who would attempt an abortion on an unborn child is attempting a murder which will seldom succeed and is laying the foundation of a childhood ofillness and heartache. Anyone attempting an abortion is committing an act against the whole society and the future; any judge or doctor recommending an abortion should be instantly deprived of position and practice, whatever his “reason.”

    Some bigots are making absurd claims about abortions and the Church of Scientology, and this may harm the image of DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY particularly among people with a Christian backround.

    (Sorry about my English)

    Keep up the good work!


  62. Oh, well, no worries. Thanks!

  63. BD, not that I am aware of. This blog runs on, they don’t allow a lot of changes. Sorry.

    – L

  64. Is it possible to allow posters to edit their comments, should they make an error?

  65. (Sorry, I opened the comments again now! – L 09/16/2010)

  66. Hi Lu,
    i found your site by accident, Its great.
    May I suggest you change the red font on black, I found it very har to read.

  67. > It might be good to open up a forum for some of the Anons who don’t want to hurt people anymore to come forward and provide some of the real stories about Anonymous. This is probably outside the scope of your site tho.

    Don’t want to hurt people anymore? That denotes that all anonymous have hurt someone in the past. This shows nothing but ignorance about what anonymous is or how it’s built.

    I have a suggestion for your site Lou. Please ensure all posts are accurate and well thought out, not just the ones promoting or defending scientology and/or defaming anti-scientology sites or critics.

    By doing this you lend what we call “credibility” to your arguements. You’ll note that I’m doing this, refuting both pro and anti-scientology posts on this board.

  68. @Comment by Lake on February 29, 2008 8:28 pm

    Thanks, I thought of something like that but found it extremely hard to keep track of all the questions. I found a forum software and maybe I’ll manage to install it in the next days on the server. I will know by tomorrow.

    – Lu

  69. Lu,

    One suggestion I think would be great for the site down the road, would be to have a link at the end of the answer to each question which says “Followup questions”. In there, you could create a sub-page which has the various followup Q&A (in your own words) based on these answers that you like at And at the end of that sub-page, you could create a link which goes to which would allow further Q&A. There will be those that continually try to trash up the Q&A unfortunately (as we’ve already seen), but it sounds like you have the tools to properly moderate it.

    As well-formed questions & answers start to fill out in these pages, it will be a great resource to use to point people to answers to various questions and/or accusations that are tossed around out there about Scientologists, the Church and Ron.

  70. To “just a suggestion” (apparently a member of “Anonymous”):

    There was a formal video from Anonymous in July-2007, which made their views and goals pretty clear:

    “We are the face of chaos… We ruin the lives of other people simply because we can … Hundreds die in a plane crash. We laugh. The nation mourns over school shooting, we laugh. We’re the embodiment of humanity with no remorse, no caring, no love, or no sense of morality.”

    Do you support not caring? Not loving? Ruining the lives of others? Laughing when hundreds die in plane crashes? Laughing when murderers kill their fellow students in school shootings?

  71. first…. please stop trying to use our lingo…. urdoinitwrong

    second… there is a place for anon to speak… It’s

    I understand how tempting it is to say THAT HAVE CRIMINALS IN THEIR “RANKS” (which by the way there ARE NO RANKS) the fact of the matter is……. the very nature of anon is that ANYONE CAN BE A MEMBER!!!!! we are chaotic neutral, remember that essay i posted? when need calls for it those VERY FEW criminals follow the law lest they be ostracized from the group and attacked in the future for being idiots…. its not our job as citizens of the internet to care about what they do in their personal life…. only whats relevant to our interests…. btw… this is a suggestion board not a slander board, and FOX NEWS IS SENSATIONALISTIC AND INTENTIONALLY BIASED

    (and those people probably made a mistake of pissing off someone with mean friends, with a population of every person ages 8 to whatever with internet access there are bound to be people on here that are scum…….)

    oh… if you can give us PROOF of being harassed i wont shoot that down and PROBABLY give shit to enturb admins…

  72. @Comment by MikeBert on February 29, 2008 2:39 am

    Hi Mike,

    I agree with you that Anonymous should not be played down as “just a bunch of college kids with nothing better to do”. They have some hardened criminals in their ranks. I don’t know why they stick to these guys, I really don’t. Anyway. in the beginning I wanted to avoid any discussion about Anonymous, just for the same reason. But now, with the personal experience of a threat from Anonymous, I should not hold back on any longer. I started it with what my take is on Anonymous.

    I bet this section will be swamped with nonsense but who cares, this is teh interwebs after all.

    – Lu

  73. Some of the stuff that gets spread on the Net is pretty wild, so its good there is a place where people can come and get some facts.

    I think you might want to open up a section for some of the people who want to give the other side of Anonymous. All you see when you check it on YouTube is a bunch of computer generated voices making various threats and dire pronouncements. If you checked out some of the FOX News shows about Anonymous, including the Cyber Bullies segment and the one that was on the other night, some of these Anon guys are hiding behind the masks are into some serious criminality. Hopefully it will catch up with them one day and they’ll find themselves having to explain their hate crimes to a judge, who I doubt will see little lulz in it.

    It might be good to open up a forum for some of the Anons who don’t want to hurt people anymore to come forward and provide some of the real stories about Anonymous. This is probably outside the scope of your site tho.

    At any rate, I enjoy reading the questions and answers. Keep it up Lu.

  74. @Comment by Marge on February 27, 2008 10:16 pm


    There is a link to in the text box (right side) but red-on-red is hard to see….

    I put another one on top of the Flickr Channel photos.

    – Lu

  75. Oh, you know what would be useful? A link to the page from this page. Or did I miss it?


  76. You’re doing a great job.

    Thanks for doing it!

  77. Excellent site, Lu!

    Keep up the good work.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply to ARC_Break Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, 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