Seeking advice
R. Hill
and found his/her name on my list of "Scientologists Online" that went
"offline" between Dec. 2002 and Jan. 2007:
http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/membership_online_chg.html
The person says that he/she has no connection to the religion and
would like to not be associated to it on the internet. I carefully
verified on archive.org, and indeed the name is clearly listed along
with the usual cookie-cutter page. This is not what seem a common
name, so I doubt this is actually someone else.
The name was also posted on OC message board in 2002:
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=4543&postorder=asc&start=45
I understand and respect people wanted to protect their privacy, but
in the current case my thinking is that I used published information
to create that list, and I would rather put a note aside the name
mentioning that this person has claimed that he/she is not connected
to scientology.
Looking for input as to what would be the appropriate thing to do.
Note that one useful purpose I see for this list is to find whether
someone is/was connected to scientology - something that can be handy
sometimes (as the reason to not be online anymore is not always
because someone is no longer scientologist I believe.)
Ray.
Out_Of_The_Dark
Ray, You are doing a terrific job. I had no idea you had such a page
and I shall email you some names that I am aware of with documented
proof they are off lines now.
This person should first address the cookie-cutter page with COS legal
and email you a copy of whatever COS replies and says it will do to
rectify the situation, if in fact they are not the same person.
Frankly, I would be happy that I am on a list that says I am out now,a
nd if it were not me I would be hounding COS to document that I am NOT
the same person as shown on their cookie-cutter this is me page. I
can't imagine why COS would not gladly do this to prevent flaps in the
future.
You are not obligated to do anything before that is how I see it. You
documented your source. I cannot imagine COS faking names for those
pages. Those were pages agreed to by the member at the time. The
obligation falls to the one who left or the who shares the same name
but was never in.
Perhaps the person is afraid COS will come after him and declare him
for being on a list of people who 'blew' the church? That is a good
possibility but we all have to take a stand at some point.
Mary
Out_Of_The_Dark
Dave Touretzky
There are two issues here: moral, and legal.
Legally, if you document the source for your info that this person is
(or was) a Scientologist, then you should be okay. If this person
says they are not associated with Scientology, I think you could ask
for an explanation: "Are you saying you are NO LONGER associated with
Scientology? Or are you saying that you NEVER were associated, and
the person on my list named 'Ludwig Allesandro Hao-Chan Goldberg' [or
whatever] is not you, but some *other* L. A. H.-C. Goldberg, which
would be a remarkable coincidence?"
Morally: while people do have a right to privacy, they do not have a
right to censor history, especially when the information in question
is already in the public domain. Assuming you got their info from a
Scienospam web page or a course completion announcement in some CoS
publication, you have every right -- and some would say a
resposibility -- to not censor that information just because someone
finds the truth inconvenient. If they tell you they are NO LONGER a
Scientologist, you should add a notation to that effect: "Says
(Mar. 2007) they are no longer a member." You have no other
obligation to them, in my opinion.
-- Dave
banchukita
Great site, Ray!
Dave's right - you can add a notation, but there's really no way to
tell whether there's more than one person with their name, no matter
how *unlikely* that may be.
-maggie, human being
Lulu Belle
It's possible that the person is a Scientologist but doesn't want that
information on the net.
He either 1) didn't give COS OK to put the SOL site up to begin with
or 2) didn't realize the ramilifications of it when it *was* put up.
When a lot of those sites first went up, a lot of the public who got
those sites were clueless about things like their names coming up in a
google search, etc. Some of the people who had these "websites" done
for them by COS didn't even own a computer.
Personally, I think the vicious attacks that occurred in the past on
Cerridwen and Kirstie Watcher from COS have a lot to do with the fact
that public Scientologists don't want to be able to be "googled" as
public Scientologists. I'm sure many have asked that the church leave
their names off of org completion lists, and this has caused quite a
problem in COS.
Pts 2
name would satisfy both the moral and legal issues here. i.e. "Note:
has claimed he (or she) has since abandoned the Hubbard faith"
Otherwise, I think you're doing an excellent job Ray.
Tom
----------------
www.thebridgemovie.net
Zinj
@news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
says...
<snip>
> In my opinion, maintaining a list of scientologists, smacks of a witch
> hunt.
>
> It has elements of the same behavior you decry.
>
> alex (evil scientologist)
Sorry alex; we're fresh out of pillories this week.
The only 'lists' are those which the 'Church' itself has
publicly published, whether as a PR effort or otherwise.
I can understand why a non-scientologist would not want to be
identified as a scientologist, but, why a *scientologist*?
There are two 'sources' for any of this information; the
'Scientologist Online' pages which the 'Church' deliberately
published for PR (and other, more nefarious) purposes and the
'completion lists', which the 'Church' publishes in its
'magazines'.
There's no 'private' information there.
The information is of fairly broad public interest especially
*because* Scientologists are so loathe to admit their
affiliation. Many are not particularly 'up-front' about their
'membership' while doing 'shill-duty' for the 'Church' and,
Hubbard Himself recommended infiltrating other organizations,
businesses etc. as part of the campaign to 'safe point'
Scientology.
Sneaky sneaky...
Admittedly, any *real* stats tend to be embarassing for the
'Church', and, as the Scientologist On Line pages dwindle due to
purges/declares etc. it can be even more embarassing, but,
that's part of being hoist on your own petard...
It's not a 'witch hunt'; it's a Petard Hoisting :)
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
ltricha1
> In article <1173782623.758876.105...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>,
> hunt.
>
> It has elements of the same behavior you decry.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
This lists demonstrates that $cientology lies.
This list demonstrates how $cientology uses it's members.
I understand why you would hate that, but what is sad is that you hate
the fact that it is being exposed, not that it is.
Patty Pieniadz
"alex" <alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote in message
news:alexrsingh-737D2...@news.west.earthlink.net...
> In my opinion, maintaining a list of scientologists, smacks of a witch
> hunt.
>
> It has elements of the same behavior you decry.
>
> alex (evil scientologist)
The lists are from their own publications, or in this case
from Scientology's "on-line" website.
The promotion of this website was announced at one
of the events I attended years ago. It was touted as
a real "handling" to clearing the planet and something
every Scientologist should do. All Scientologists
knew about the Scn "on line" plan and were gung-ho to
get their name up on the web and promote Scn. Very
few knew that there was also a net nanny installed on the
program so that you were kept away from "entheta" sites.
But even if the Scios did know about the net nanny
they probably wouldn't have objected because the Scn
mindset causes one to just give up things like civil rights
with no problems at all.
But I digress...
The lists on Ray Hill's website and on Kristi Wachter's
website are a reporting of fact. If the C of S didn't
out right LIE about their 10 million membership and
if they would stop reporting false stats about the
"International Expansion" and Stats being at "Highest
Ever" and "Soaring into Affluence", then it wouldn't be
necessary for people to document that they are lying.
How else would anyone know the truth? You're
certainly not going to get anywhere near
accurate figures from the C of S. By simply tabulating
the names on the lists, one can clearly see that
Scn lies about membership numbers and their
expansion stats. The list of names have to be
there as evidence to the tabulation, otherwise
Scios could say that the critics info was false
and they had no proof. If you are going to prove
that Scn is lying, you have to have documented
proof and that's what the lists are... Proof.
In by opinion, the fact that a Scientologist can google
his name and then arrive at critical web site to possibly
view, is just an added bonus.
Patty P
Keith Henson
wrote:
snip
>
>Great site, Ray!
>
>Dave's right - you can add a notation, but there's really no way to
>tell whether there's more than one person with their name, no matter
>how *unlikely* that may be.
While doing a bit of research on something that is probably not
related to scientology (though some have compared it) I found
something that just amazed me.
A lawyer with a hotmail address.
His fax number is at Kinkos.
His office phone seems to be a cell.
He started practicing in 1998, which would indicate an age of about 34
now.
There are two people connected through a maze of phone numbers and
addresses with the exact same name as this lawyer where the records
claim they are 67 and 107.
There are more oddities, but if I gave away more it might identify him
and the client.
Keith Henson
Skipper
alex <alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
> In article <1173782623.7...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>,
> In my opinion, maintaining a list of scientologists, smacks of a witch
> hunt.
>
> It has elements of the same behavior you decry.
>
> alex (evil scientologist)
Thanks for the admission.
For years (and perhaps still) there was a big money-making directory of
$cientologists circulated through the community. It was called "Who
What Where" - they witch-hunted themselves, by your logic.
R. Hill
Thank you both for your insights -- they comfort my initial position.
I added a note as accurate as possible given my correspondence with
that person. Although I'm convinced that I'm doing the right thing, I
empathize with that person which I understand is a young adult
probably starting a career, etc. and unfortunately, being associated
with Scientology is often perceived as a negative -- but people
critical of Scientology are not to blame for that, Scientology
continued history of wrongs and abuses is to blame.
If I would allow that list to lose its integrity by 'arbitrarily'
removing names, it would lose its purpose (which I will explain to
alex.) The note should actually be seen as a positive, as it removes
any doubt as to whether the person is still in Scientology.
Ray.
R. Hill
Thank you both for your insights -- they comfort my initial position.
R. Hill
wrote:
Thanks for your answer Mary.
Just to clarify: the cookie-cutter site, I took it from archive.org,
so it was actually removed from the internet somehwere between 2002
and 2007.
I decided to keep the name in the list, but clarify the status of the
person with a note. It is actually probably better, as it is unlikely
this person will be able to erase from the internet all traces of her
name being associated with Scientology: at least I provide an update.
Ray.
R. Hill
> In article <1173782623.758876.105...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>,
> "R. Hill" <r...@xenu-directory.net> wrote:
>
> > and found his/her name on my list of "Scientologists Online" that went
> > "offline" between Dec. 2002 and Jan. 2007:
>
> >http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/membership_online_chg.html
<snip>
> > Note that one useful purpose I see for this list is to find whether
> > someone is/was connected to scientology - something that can be handy
> > sometimes (as the reason to not be online anymore is not always
> > because someone is no longer scientologist I believe.)
>
> > Ray.
>
> In my opinion, maintaining a list of scientologists, smacks of a witch
> hunt.
>
> It has elements of the same behavior you decry.
>
> alex (evil scientologist)
What behavior that I decry are you specifically referring to?
To "witch hunt" would imply I accuse of wrongdoing without basis the
persons on this list. Aside providing *factual information* on
particular individuals (as a hypothesis of why they were tentatively
'erased' from internet), I do no accuse of wrongdoing the people on
this list (built from *published* material.)
Here is why I did this list. First, I was inspired by a post from
FearNot two months ago (see link below.)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/e1011f7bd5042c26#2ab9dfe86f655e14
http://tinyurl.com/39xmh5
The Church of Scientology (CoS) has claimed membership of 8 to 10
million in the last 15 years. Many observers find this highly
suspicious. Some skilled and hard working skeptics looked closer and
they came to quite a different conclusion: Kristi Wachter, Hartley
Patterson and many others have provided insights -- backed by good
data (even using CoS' own figures!) -- that Scientology membership is
nowhere close to the figure claimed by CoS. 8-10 million vs. 100,000
at most.
Now, each time there is an opportunity to find a new angle to look at
the membership figure, it is certainly useful, as it allows to
increase or decrease the reliability of the best non-CoS estimate
currently available. I will refer you and the reader to this post from
Piltdown Man as a good example of that:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/507d83759dc8c09f
http://tinyurl.com/2m3nmg
Some other purposes I see for this list... Consider this quote from
Hubbard:
"Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal.' By then be sure the
orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not." -- HCO
Policy Letter of 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"
Since Scientology doesn't have built-in checks and balances (as
demonstrated by its long history of wrongdoing and amoral behavior),
this is a task left to concerned 'wogs', and who knows, maybe this
list could be useful one day to assist in this task. Look-up Innes
Willox in the list, and ask yourself why he would lie about his link
to the CoS.
Also, knowing how the CoS has history of erasing/rewriting its own
history for the benefit of... Scientology (ref. KSW), there again,
keeping accurate records -- however irrelevant they might be currently
seen -- is always a sound practice.
Ray.
Fredric L. Rice
>The person says that he/she has no connection to the religion and
>would like to not be associated to it on the internet.
I've removed lots of people's names, putting in their initials.
It's a reasonable request when they're listed as idiots who fell
for an obvious stupid fraud.
---
Welcome to Nazi America thanks to Republicanism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfhUaUuG1sM
jerald
>
> The Church of Scientology (CoS) has claimed membership of 8 to 10
> million in the last 15 years. Many observers find this highly
> suspicious. Some skilled and hard working skeptics looked closer and
> they came to quite a different conclusion: Kristi Wachter, Hartley
> Patterson and many others have provided insights -- backed by good
> data (even using CoS' own figures!) -- that Scientology membership is
> nowhere close to the figure claimed by CoS. 8-10 million vs. 100,000
> at most.
>
> Now, each time there is an opportunity to find a new angle to look at
> the membership figure, it is certainly useful, as it allows to
> increase or decrease the reliability of the best non-CoS estimate
> currently available. I will refer you and the reader to this post from
> Piltdown Man as a good example of that:
>
>
> Some other purposes I see for this list... Consider this quote from
> Hubbard:
>
> "Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal.' By then be sure the
> orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not." -- HCO
> Policy Letter of 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"
>
> Since Scientology doesn't have built-in checks and balances (as
> demonstrated by its long history of wrongdoing and amoral behavior),
> this is a task left to concerned 'wogs', and who knows, maybe this
> list could be useful one day to assist in this task. Look-up Innes
> Willox in the list, and ask yourself why he would lie about his link
> to the CoS.
>
> Also, knowing how the CoS has history of erasing/rewriting its own
> history for the benefit of... Scientology (ref. KSW), there again,
> keeping accurate records -- however irrelevant they might be currently
> seen -- is always a sound practice.
>
> Ray.
Google his name and see what comes up. If it looks like he got out
then just add that info to the listing. If it looks like all he is
trying to do is hide the connection then I would leave it like it is.
It's a judgement call. Trust your instincts.
jerald
butterflygrrrl
> In my opinion, maintaining a list of scientologists, smacks of a witch
> hunt.
>
> It has elements of the same behavior you decry.
>
> alex (evil scientologist
It's only a witch hunt if someone is accusing the people on the list
of something that they know is false and trying to punish them for
it.
No one is going after these people. No one is "fair gaming" them.
Unlike the cult YOU belong to.
If they're ashamed of being known as scientologists, then maybe they
shouldn't BE scientologists!
Reasonable people do not belong to groups that they would be ashamed
of if their affiliation became publicly known, i.e. NAMBLA.
But you know that, don't you, "alex"?
LaserClam
> "R. Hill" <r...@xenu-directory.net> wrote:
>
> I've removed lots of people's names, putting in their initials.
> It's a reasonable request when they're listed as idiots who fell
> for an obvious stupid fraud.
>
Have you noticed any one else
who has been an idiot?
Nevaeh N. Lleh
> In article <1173831607.718073.179...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > 1011f7bd5042c26#2ab9dfe86f655e14
> >http://tinyurl.com/39xmh5
>
> > The Church of Scientology (CoS) has claimed membership of 8 to 10
> > million in the last 15 years. Many observers find this highly
> > suspicious. Some skilled and hard working skeptics looked closer and
> > they came to quite a different conclusion: Kristi Wachter, Hartley
> > Patterson and many others have provided insights -- backed by good
> > data (even using CoS' own figures!) -- that Scientology membership is
> > nowhere close to the figure claimed by CoS. 8-10 million vs. 100,000
> > at most.
>
> > Now, each time there is an opportunity to find a new angle to look at
> > the membership figure, it is certainly useful, as it allows to
> > increase or decrease the reliability of the best non-CoS estimate
> > currently available. I will refer you and the reader to this post from
> > Piltdown Man as a good example of that:
>
> > 07d83759dc8c09f
> >http://tinyurl.com/2m3nmg
>
> > Some other purposes I see for this list... Consider this quote from
> > Hubbard:
>
> > "Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal.' By then be sure the
> > orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not." -- HCO
> > Policy Letter of 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"
>
> > Since Scientology doesn't have built-in checks and balances (as
> > demonstrated by its long history of wrongdoing and amoral behavior),
> > this is a task left to concerned 'wogs', and who knows, maybe this
> > list could be useful one day to assist in this task. Look-up Innes
> > Willox in the list, and ask yourself why he would lie about his link
> > to the CoS.
>
> > Also, knowing how the CoS has history of erasing/rewriting its own
> > history for the benefit of... Scientology (ref. KSW), there again,
> > keeping accurate records -- however irrelevant they might be currently
> > seen -- is always a sound practice.
>
> > Ray.
>
> such a list could be used by the less tolerant of the
> anti-scientologists for any number of unsavory purposes.
>
> Not saying you will do that, just that it is a enabling action.
>
> Take my opinion for what it is worth to you.
>
> As to behavior you decry, I confess I committed the sin of
> generaliztion. But maintaining a list of a certain class of people is
> one step on a path to disconnection, fair game and other objectionalbe
> activities, even if know by other descriptions.
Since when did "Scientologist" determine "a certain class of people"?
Alex, how narrow minded of you. Oh, and I thought Fair Game no longer
existed. Are you telling us that it still does and we've all been
lied to, by the church?
>
> Not saying you will do the, just that it is an enabling action.
>
> alex- Hide quoted text -
Gerry Armstrong
<alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote:
>In article <1173827960....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>Actually I philisophically favor the freedom of information.
>
>Its a delicate balance between having information available and putting
>information in the hands of people who will use it to do harm to others.
>
>If the names were of scientologists who have taken a hostile stand
>against the anti-scientologist I would say go for it.
All Scientologists are hostile to SPs.
Of course you don't address your cult's malevolent "Suppressive
Person" doctrine.
When you Scientologists repudiate your utterly indefensible SP
doctrine, it will be time to stop IDing Scientologists.
>
>But it is more a list of scientolgoists doing what was asked of them by
>the organization of their religion and in many cases beyond their
>comfort level.
>
>And as I have in various ways outed and harassed people on this newgroup
>and am not on the list, I can be seen as a bit of a hypocrit.
>
>But my point is simple and stands on it own.
>
>alex
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
antisectes
> In article <46362017....@news2.lightlink.com>,
> hkhe...@rogers.com (Keith Henson) wrote:
>
>> A lawyer with a hotmail address.
>>
>> His fax number is at Kinkos.
>>
>> His office phone seems to be a cell.
>
> and doesnt own a phone. NONE.
working with maffiosi?
Who could ever believe that an atty with a real practice can get rid of
phone?
r
antisectes
> "alex" <alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam> wrote in message
> news:alexrsingh-737D2...@news.west.earthlink.net...
>
>
>> In my opinion, maintaining a list of scientologists, smacks of a
>> witch hunt.
>>
>> It has elements of the same behavior you decry.
>>
>> alex (evil scientologist)
>
> The lists are from their own publications, or in this case
> from Scientology's "on-line" website.
>
> The promotion of this website was announced at one
> of the events I attended years ago. It was touted as
> a real "handling" to clearing the planet and something
> every Scientologist should do. All Scientologists
> knew about the Scn "on line" plan and were gung-ho to
> get their name up on the web and promote Scn. Very
> few knew that there was also a net nanny installed on the
> program so that you were kept away from "entheta" sites.
The cult has much bettered its netnanny, it seems.
Now its staffs receive messages from outside with mentions of the
supposedly antispam tool scientology has created.
Here are the end lines of such a message; I got it from Bridge... to
whom I had sent some questions. The guy DID not receive another message
I had sent him (more critical than the one he received nonetheless):
==
> pts rule name description
> ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
> 2.1 OBSCURED_EMAIL BODY: Message seems to contain rot13ed
> address
> 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to
> 60%
> [score: 0.5000]
> 0.2 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE RBL: Envelope sender in
> abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
> 1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST RBL: Envelope sender in
> postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
> 0.4 UPPERCASE_50_75 message body is 50-75% uppercase
==
Zinj
@news.west.earthlink.net>, alexr...@notmail.comdamnspam
says...
> In article <1173819381.0...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> "ltricha1" <joker...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > This lists demonstrates that $cientology lies.
> > This list demonstrates how $cientology uses it's members.
> >
> > I understand why you would hate that, but what is sad is that you hate
> > the fact that it is being exposed, not that it is.
>
> I dont like the idea of non combatants being drawn into batttle.
>
> a
And yet, you're selective about it.
The 'Church' (and the 'philosophy') declares total war on *all*
non-Scientologists, talks of skirmishes and speaks of the
eliminiation not only of 'counter intention' but *other
intention* and you find it acceptable.
For decades, as part of its *religious* dogma, the 'Church' has
stalked, defamed and assaulted not only its perceived 'enemies',
but their families (including elderly parents where possible)
and friends, employers and employees or even just neighbors,
yet, all you can think to whine about is the publication of
information the 'Church' itself has already made public, for its
own purposes.
Hopefully you took a look at the 'Freedom Magazine' cartoon of
Gabe Cazares, a man they attempted to frame, defame and 'ruin
utterly'.
The irony is biting.
banchukita
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:16:54 GMT, alex
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <1173827960.862501.49...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Gerry, I learned a new word today: Truthenize
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Truthenize
It's what needs to happen to Scn, Inc.
-maggie, human being
>
> >But it is more a list of scientolgoists doing what was asked of them by
> >the organization of their religion and in many cases beyond their
> >comfort level.
>
> >And as I have in various ways outed and harassed people on this newgroup
> >and am not on the list, I can be seen as a bit of a hypocrit.
>
> >But my point is simple and stands on it own.
>
> >alex
>
> © Gerry Armstronghttp://www.gerryarmstrong.org- Hide quoted text -