Cultists to suffer from new disese
redco...@gmail.com
willful ignorance.
All those years of not learning anything that will help them in the
real world, all those years when they could have gone to college, all
that time wasted.
The only jobs they will be qualified for will be scrubbing toilets.
Sucks to be them.
Richard Ford
They will be middle aged teenagers because they lack the emotional
maturity of adults too.
LaserClam
> When the cult shuts down, they will suffer from their decades of
> willful ignorance.
>
> All those years of not learning anything that will help them in the
> real world, all those years when they could have gone to college, all
> that time wasted.
Have you noticed any one else
who has wasted another's time?
feministe
news:f15a2a89-0e1f-4339...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 13, 2:17 pm, redcoat1...@gmail.com wrote:
> When the cult shuts down, they will suffer from their decades of
> willful ignorance.
>
> All those years of not learning anything that will help them in the
> real world, all those years when they could have gone to college, all
> that time wasted.
Have you noticed any one else
who has wasted another's time?
you're wasting our since years now, cretinized scienospoon.
Sam Buckland
> On Jun 13, 2:17 pm, redcoat1...@gmail.com wrote:
>> When the cult shuts down, they will suffer from their decades of
>> willful ignorance.
>>
>> All those years of not learning anything that will help them in the
>> real world, all those years when they could have gone to college, all
>> that time wasted.
>
>
> Have you noticed any one else
> who has wasted another's time?
>
Just you and "Tom Newton". Why do you ask?
Richard Ford
LazerClam.
Recall an incident where you gave up on real life for scientology.
redco...@gmail.com
Got anything of substance to add, or do you just do hit and run
posting?
Come on, ask away.
Or visit me at the protest tomorrow. I'll be the one with my face
covered.
Monica Pignotti
> Sucks to be them.
That's just not true. There are plenty of people who were in
Scientology for more than 20 years, got out, and then became
successful at a wide variety of different occupations. I know one who
owns a restaurant, several who are computer programmers or web
designers and a wide variety of other occupations where they're making
a decent living, People leave and learn new skills or use ones they
already had. Its never too late. Last may an 85 year old woman
graduated from a university with her PhD -- not an ex-Scientologist
but it shows that its never too late. Your negative view of what life
is like after Scientology is not helpful to people who are thinking of
leaving and it also is very far from the truth. People who leave
Scientology can have a difficult time for awhile but most I know are
doing extremely well in their lives. Why would you say something so
discouraging when there are thousands who have already left that prove
otherwise.
Monica
Monica Pignotti
And most will grow up and do just fine.
Tom Newton
(This is but one of the dozens of aliases this cowardly,
ignorant, backstabbing gossip uses.)
Original subject: Cultists to suffer from new disese
The definition of "cult" used by 'Anonymous' equally well
fits almost every church in existence.
So when one of these anti-Scientology wackjobs calls the
Church of Scientology a "cult", it is meaningless.
It is simply a lame attempt to prejudice people's perceptions
of the Church of Scientology.
> When the cult shuts down, they will suffer from their decades
> of willful ignorance.
The Church of Scientology isn't going to shut down.
This typical troll nitwit thinks that he and his loser buddies
can bring down an organization that has spread to 133 countries
and is growing like wildire by posting infantile hate propaganda
on the Internet.
http://www.faq.scientology.org
Scientologies New castle in Africa:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20942/scientology-kyalami-castle
The Church of Scientology has acquired the famous
Johannesburg landmark, the Kyalami Castle, to be the home of its
new advanced spiritual retreat.
This marks a significant step for the Scientologists who until
now had to travel all the way to the US, Australia or England
for their higher spiritual progress, said Paul Sondergaard,
National Director of the Church's Public Affairs Office.
"For all African Scientologists, this is a dream finally come
true," Sondergaard said, adding "It means a lot for the future
expansion of the Church in Africa."
The 64,000-square-foot castle on 22 acres of land will be
providing religious services to followers throughout the
continent. It is the latest acquisition of the 66 buildings the
Church has purchased internationally over the past five years to
accommodate the Church's expansion.
Sondergaard said "The Kyalami Castle is the best yet and a
fitting tribute to the 50th anniversary of the Church in Southern
Africa."
-------
Very recently:
The San Diego chapter of the controversial Church of
Scientology is moving its focus to La Mesa with the May 21
purchase of a Coleman College campus at 7380 Parkway Drive.
The Church of Scientology?s San Diego offices are located at
1330 Fourth Ave. between A and Ash streets.
The church purchased the new site for $9.3 million. The two
buildings, which are 53,400 square feet and 11,000 square feet,
will be used as an educational campus, said the broker on the
deal, Vince Provenzano with Commercial Properties.
Originally built in 1962, the buildings were the site of
La Mesa Bowl before they were remodeled in 1981 and used by
Coleman College as a computer center. The new site will provide
more parking and visibility, said Provenzano.
Ned Randolph
------------------------------
Even more recently:
http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2008/06/16/story4.html
CLEARWATER -- The Church of Scientology -- the largest downtown
property owner -- expects to begin work on the interior of its world
spiritual headquarters almost 10 years after it first began
construction of the building.
The organization has hired Staubach Co., an international construction
management firm founded by former NFL star Roger Staubach, to oversee
the $45 million interior design of the six-story Mediterranean Revival
building.
The church hasn't yet hired a general contractor, but work on the
380,000-square-foot building, which takes up a city block, will begin
in late summer, said Lisa Mansell, the church's downtown relations
director.
Skanska USA completed the shell of the $175 million building nearly
five years ago.
----------------------------------
>
> All those years of not learning anything that will help them
> in the real world, all those years when they could have gone
> to college, all that time wasted.
Says an effing loser that spends all of his life posting juvenile
hate propaganda on the Internet while he hides behind dozens
of aliases.
A loser who has never even seen a Scientologist.
> The only jobs they will be qualified for will be scrubbing
> toilets.
Says a loser who couldn't even do that.
> Sucks to be them.
You are such a stupid punk.
Tom
--
The Truth will set you free:
http://www.sethcenter.com
redco...@gmail.com
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
Richard Ford wrote:
I'm sure you speak from experience ;-)
The ex-members I know are pretty amazing. But that might be because I hang
out with a select group of ex-members.
Best Regards
Jens
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 829 985
"I'll yield to the flood of your beauty/ my cheap violin and my cross" L
Cohen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIU2f0imJs3AlyPBIRAmkxAJ9GEM+YG4UhRBubwcuPgu2botwAmwCgmR0H
MSDfE27Gvz2ahPmQljBjMxc=
=Pz44
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Monica Pignotti
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Richard Ford wrote:
> > On 13 Jun, 19:17, redcoat1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> When the cult shuts down, they will suffer from their decades of
> >> willful ignorance.
>
> >> All those years of not learning anything that will help them in the
> >> real world, all those years when they could have gone to college, all
> >> that time wasted.
>
> >> The only jobs they will be qualified for will be scrubbing toilets.
>
> >> Sucks to be them.
>
> > They will be middle aged teenagers because they lack the emotional
> > maturity of adults too.
>
> I'm sure you speak from experience ;-)
>
> The ex-members I know are pretty amazing. But that might be because I hang
> out with a select group of ex-members.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Jens
Yes, this posting is a specific example of some of the concerns I have
about people in Anonymous who are going out and picketing with this
sort of attitude. Although I am sure some do really care, this posting
shows that for some, there is no real caring about the people involved
and a relishment of the thought of them doing badly in life if not in
Scientology which is very far from the reality, given all the people
who left Scientology and have done wonderfully. Redcoat really should
stop and think how people in Scientology thinking of leaving are going
to feel reading a post like that, which says they have no real future
outside of Scientology. This is not true, but for someone in
Scientology they may well believe that this is the case and Redcoat
reinforces it with this posting. This shows a real hatred, not just
for Scientology but towards the people who are in Scientology,
gloating over the belief that they will be no good for anything if
they leave.
It's also completely unrealistic to expect that Scientology is going
to be destroyed anytime in the near future if at all, but that isn't
something that can be argued -- we'll just have to touch base 1 year
from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now and see if Scientology
is still here, which my bets are that it will be. It kind of reminds
me of the doomsday cults who predict a date for the end of the world
(although Anonymous is smart enough not to give a specific date) and
then when the day comes and goes, setting another date. If Anonymous
is still around 5 years from now, they'll probably be saying the same
thing, that Scientology will be coming down any day now.
Ted Mayett
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Yes, this posting is a specific example of some of the concerns I have
>about people in Anonymous who are going out and picketing with this
>sort of attitude. Although I am sure some do really care, this posting
>shows that for some, there is no real caring about the people involved
Oh please already. 1996 they were out there calling total strangers
murderers. All scientologists had Lisa's blood on their hands and
etc. They were foul-mouthed, unfair, stupid, wearing dripping blood
t-shirts and calling this behavior gandhi-tech. At least one
clearwater picket had an autopsy photo for a picket sign.
These anons are Saints compared to some of us in 1996.
Blow up xenu dolls in a pick-up truck, xenu babies in a stroller,
laughing and mocking people they don't even know. These Anons have to
deteriorate quite a bit to match the performances of some of the
people doing pickets around 1996.
--
Ted Mayett
Critical information regarding Scientology:
http://www.solitarytrees.net
Monica Pignotti
<ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Monica Pignotti
>
> >Yes, this posting is a specific example of some of the concerns I have
> >about people in Anonymous who are going out and picketing with this
> >sort of attitude. Although I am sure some do really care, this posting
> >shows that for some, there is no real caring about the people involved
>
> Oh please already. 1996 they were out there calling total strangers
> murderers. All scientologists had Lisa's blood on their hands and
> etc. They were foul-mouthed, unfair, stupid, wearing dripping blood
> t-shirts and calling this behavior gandhi-tech. At least one
> clearwater picket had an autopsy photo for a picket sign.
>
> These anons are Saints compared to some of us in 1996.
>
> Blow up xenu dolls in a pick-up truck, xenu babies in a stroller,
> laughing and mocking people they don't even know. These Anons have to
> deteriorate quite a bit to match the performances of some of the
> people doing pickets around 1996.
The difference is that even though the drama may have been over the
top back then, the people in 1996 mostly had a real understanding of
what was going on and sincerely cared about a human being who had
died, Lisa McPherson. The comment that began this thread shows a
completely different and highly dehumanizing attitude towards people
who are in Scientology. The nature of that posting tells me that some
people are in this just to put others down and wish them the worst.
For all their faults, at least the OG had heart.
k
day off) standing outside for a few hours, not to mention the many hours of
preperation and research.
It definately didnt come from any sense of compassion or justice.
We are so cruel and evil.
"Monica Pignotti" <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:a65717d5-72b0-4b0e...@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Ted Mayett
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The difference is that even though the drama may have been over the
>top back then, the people in 1996 mostly had a real understanding of
>what was going on
Regarding a real understanding of what was going on, in 1996 knowledge
was still coming in, the clear cognition was not even know in 1996.
We did not have many pictures of orgs, or reports on the conditions of
orgs in those early days. There was a time on this ng when the NOTs
and OT Levels had not even been posted for the first time. Perhaps
any real understanding in 1996 was an understanding obtained in the
absence of knowledge.
> and sincerely cared about a human being who had
>died, Lisa McPherson.
The tragedy of Lisa McPherson was so sad and so horrific that it
needed no embellishments, no street theater, no dripping blood
t-shirts or anything. And where oh where were these people who truly
cared? All I ever saw were people with bloody displays calling
strangers murderers. Where was the compassion for the living I would
ask you? For without a doubt the people intimately involved with the
final days of Lisa still cry themselves to sleep on occasion. They
carry this knowledge with them always, that they could have done
something, they could have kept that woman alive. But they did
nothing for they were victims themselves, trapped in a cultic mindset
for the moment. And how do you measure this 'caring' you speak of?
Does the person who carries an autopsy photo of Lisa's dead body care
more than someone who simply carries a picket sign with Lisa's smiling
face? NO, if you cared, if you truly cared you would be humble and
respectful. No street theater, your being humble, your lack of
adornments would speak loudly for the true emotions you had. I had
argued that a simple sign saying only 'Remember Lisa' would be louder
than bullhorns calling them murderers. But it was not about Lisa.
Have you watched that one video from Clearwater, I forget which
picket. They are out there doing a "Service" for Lisa, only they
didn't quite know what to do. Where do the flowers go, when does the
candle get lit, should the candle be turned off? They didn't quite
know, they had not worked that part out yet. These were not people
that sincerely cared about Lisa, they were a gang happily feeding off
of each other and using Lisa as a theme.
And what was so special about Lisa anyway? How did she differ from
let's say Konrad Aigner? Well Lisa had a pretty face, and we protect
our women don't we? We care about our women and do not tolerate them
being killed. A pretty face might rally the troops. And they know
that some big guy's face won't inspire anyone. The face of a pretty
woman is not guaranteed results, but with a guys face you have no hope
at all. These caring people of yours knew Lisa as much as they knew
Konrad, but they played the odds, they went with the woman. No
surprise there.
Lisa was never murdered, they were never honest out there, they didn't
care about Lisa at all. Had they cared they would have been
respectful and treated the living with compassion.
Show us somebody out there quiet and respectful. A simple picket sign
and no adornments. Show us somebody humble and then you are showing
us someone that cares about Lisa.
> The comment that began this thread shows a
>completely different and highly dehumanizing attitude towards people
>who are in Scientology. The nature of that posting tells me that some
>people are in this just to put others down and wish them the worst.
>For all their faults, at least the OG had heart.
In your dreams they had heart. Only a very few actually cared, for
the majority it was an opportunity to be mean and spiteful, petty and
childish. Those old guard you praise would never be out there making
fun of something like the Virgin Mary, they are smart enough to know
that would be frowned upon. But Xenu, they somehow think that
ridiculing publicly this xenu business is a sign of intelligence. And
then to be fair, it might be all the intelligence some of them are
capable of.
Ted Mayett
>Yes anon is heartless, thats why we spent our saturday (in my case my only
>day off) standing outside for a few hours, not to mention the many hours of
>preperation and research.
>It definately didnt come from any sense of compassion or justice.
>We are so cruel and evil.
>
You will evolve to smaller numbers, and only the meanest of you will
last for the long run. You don't know what you are doing out there,
you have no real plan. You say one thing and do another, you are not
honest people. As the publicity fades you will get louder and more
garish for the spotlights. You measure success by car-honks for it is
praise that you seek. You don't know your "enemy", your ignorance is
astounding. They think in lifetimes, you kids won't last a single
year except for a few pickets that will inevitably linger on.
You are not cruel and evil, you are just nothing, just standard run of
the mill nothing. You will dance your dance and only ever be a hiccup
on the history of scientology.
How many cars honked today? OH, a *lot* of cars honked. That is so
great, so cool, so like rad man. You got lots of support today, that
is so awesome. Good job out there!
Roger Larsson
Competent slaves finding illusionary worlds built on lies as better
worlds than real worlds don't have to say good-bye to their competence
when they faces the truth - They can say good-bye to the slavery and
keep their competence.
hu...@mailinator.com
<ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
Ted makes some interesting points. Anonymous, to be successful, must
remember that its not about them. It's not for the glory of winning a
battle, it's not about bringing down a religion. To be successful,
they must remember that it is the abuses of the Scientology
Organization that they are fighting.
While one may have sympathy for those, leaving Scientology, who may
feel they have wasted many years, it serves no purpose to ridicule
them.
It is the abuses of the organization that will not be forgiven, not
the mistakes of the individual.
Monica Pignotti
<ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:33:11 -0700 (PDT), Monica Pignotti
>
> >The difference is that even though the drama may have been over the
> >top back then, the people in 1996 mostly had a real understanding of
> >what was going on
>
> Regarding a real understanding of what was going on, in 1996 knowledge
> was still coming in, the clear cognition was not even know in 1996.
> We did not have many pictures of orgs, or reports on the conditions of
> orgs in those early days. There was a time on this ng when the NOTs
> and OT Levels had not even been posted for the first time. Perhaps
> any real understanding in 1996 was an understanding obtained in the
> absence of knowledge.
I first came onto ARS in February 1996 and by that time the OT
materials had already been posted and were known. More importantly,
though, people had a real interest in learning and trying to
understand the dynamics of what was going on. We disagreed and debated
about a lot of things and sometimes things got heated with personal
attacks, but at least there was real substance to the debates. Diane
Richardson and I really went at it in a debate about cults, mind
control and the DSM and this is still posted on Bernie's website.
There were personal attacks, but there was also a good deal of
substance that seems to be lacking in disagreements people have on ARS
these days. It's become all flame and no substance. For a good example
of a debate in the early days of ARS, see:
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/mc3_dsm.htm
This is very different from what is going on now.
That's true in some of the cases, but I still would say that there was
more of an effort to understand what was going on.
> And what was so special about Lisa anyway? How did she differ from
> let's say Konrad Aigner? Well Lisa had a pretty face, and we protect
> our women don't we? We care about our women and do not tolerate them
> being killed. A pretty face might rally the troops. And they know
> that some big guy's face won't inspire anyone. The face of a pretty
> woman is not guaranteed results, but with a guys face you have no hope
> at all. These caring people of yours knew Lisa as much as they knew
> Konrad, but they played the odds, they went with the woman. No
> surprise there.
>
> Lisa was never murdered, they were never honest out there, they didn't
> care about Lisa at all. Had they cared they would have been
> respectful and treated the living with compassion.
>
> Show us somebody out there quiet and respectful. A simple picket sign
> and no adornments. Show us somebody humble and then you are showing
> us someone that cares about Lisa.
I don't think its necessarily the case that just because someone
carried a dramatic picket sign, they didn't care. People have
different styles. I'm not objecting to the drama, what I'm objecting
to is the callous attitude towards people who are in Scientology that
was displayed by the person who originated this thread.
Lermanet.com Exposing the CON for over 10 years!
Did you sell your online account to Ida Gavino?
http://www.lermanet.com/cos/toryonosa.htm#Part7
Eldon
<ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:33:11 -0700 (PDT), Monica Pignotti
>
> >The difference is that even though the drama may have been over the
> >top back then, the people in 1996 mostly had a real understanding of
> >what was going on
>
> Regarding a real understanding of what was going on, in 1996 knowledge
> was still coming in, the clear cognition was not even know in 1996.
> We did not have many pictures of orgs, or reports on the conditions of
> orgs in those early days. There was a time on this ng when the NOTs
> and OT Levels had not even been posted for the first time. Perhaps
> any real understanding in 1996 was an understanding obtained in the
> absence of knowledge.
The difference that you conveniently or blindly overlook is that back
in 1996, most of the people involved had closeup personal experience
with Scientology. I'm talking about both those who had spent time in
the evil cult and those like Tom Klemesrud who were personally
attacked by OSA with gusto.
Only a few of the New Guard Anons have been outed and harassed. I
think only a few of them have had any previous contact with
Scientology. They have acquired their knowledge vicariously, through
quick study, and in my opinion have done an admirable job of educating
themselves. Just look at the news coverage they've garnered and the
current disarray of the cult. Observe the plight of local org leaders
making fools of themselves for all the YouTube audience to enjoy for
posterity.
I really don't see what you and Monica think you've got to whine
about.
Eldon
wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2:17 pm, redcoat1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > When the cult shuts down, they will suffer from their decades of
> > willful ignorance.
>
> > All those years of not learning anything that will help them in the
> > real world, all those years when they could have gone to college, all
> > that time wasted.
>
> > The only jobs they will be qualified for will be scrubbing toilets.
> > Sucks to be them.
>
> That's just not true. There are plenty of people who were in
> Scientology for more than 20 years, got out, and then became
> successful at a wide variety of different occupations. I know one who
> owns a restaurant, several who are computer programmers or web
> designers and a wide variety of other occupations where they're making
> a decent living, People leave and learn new skills or use ones they
> already had. Its never too late.
Now, now Monica. This post by Redcoat did not say they'd never, ever
recover. DID IT? It said they would suffer, but not for how long. Not
that I agree all will suffer a whole lot, but some will, as you said,
"have a difficult time for awhile."
Conway & Spiegelman said it might take up to 12 years. That's one hell
of a long time, isn't it?
Oh, gosh. As a matter of fact, it's been that long since 1996. Are you
sure you're fully recovered yet, or did your brainwashing by that that
accupoint-tapping guy require a few more years?
But never despair. There's always a light at the end of the tunnel.
Lighten up and keep the faith, baby. ;-)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Rick+Ansley&hl=en&sitesearch=#q=Rick%20roll&hl=en&sitesearch=
Eldon
> Tom, you are a bigot.
He's far worse than that. But what a kind and tolerant person you are
not to say something far more insulting.
Piltdown Man
Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
<snip>
> The difference is that even though the drama may have been over the
> top back then, the people in 1996 mostly had a real understanding of
> what was going on and sincerely cared about a human being who had
> died, Lisa McPherson. The comment that began this thread shows a
> completely different and highly dehumanizing attitude towards people
> who are in Scientology. The nature of that posting tells me that some
> people are in this just to put others down and wish them the worst.
> For all their faults, at least the OG had heart.
It also demonstrates something that I've noticed in a lot of the
"Anonymous" stuff. Many of them seem unaware that the vast majority of
Scientologists are just public (in the Scientology sense of the word), and
lead otherwise perfectly normal real world lives, holding real world jobs.
If they didn't, they wouldn't earn the money that keeps CoS going. One gets
the impression many of them think Scientology solely consists of staffers
and Sea Orgers. This misapprehension may also go towards explaining the
strange obsession with having protests (or "raids", as they like to call
them) in front of org buildings. As if all Scientologists, or at least a
significant percentage of them, are permanently there. And that the few who
are there when a protest happens to take place outside won't be affected by
it in the least, and that if anything it will serve to reinforce their
beliefs ("See, the SPs are getting increasingly desperate to stop our
growth, just like LRH said!") also doesn't occur to them.
I wish I could ask these "Anonymous" kiddies (and the old-guard picketers
who are cheering them on), one simple question:
Which of your own beliefs would you ditch because some people you don't
know, don't want to know, and have no reason to respect in any way at all,
turn up waving picket signs saying those beliefs are bad?
Seriously, in the whole history of humanity, has anyone ever changed their
opinion on anything just because other people with an opposing opinion
organized a public protest?
l.l.lipshitz
<ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote in
<psu954d0hgl4befh4...@4ax.com>:
[...]
|Where was the compassion for the living I would
| ask you?
what about the scnists who were responsible for
lisa's suffering and lonely, senseless death? i
would ask you, where was *their* compassion for one
of their own?? the protestors showed a helluva lot
more concern for a scnist than the scnists did!
those scnists, imho, are guilty of manslaughter.
ok, so maybe being a brain-dead cult member is a
mitigating factor. however, drunken drivers who kill
people in accidents are still guilty of manslaughter
and go to jail for it. why should these scnists be
excused?
|For without a doubt the people intimately involved with the
| final days of Lisa still cry themselves to sleep on occasion.
i have my doubts -- scn seems to remove shame and
guilt from a person.
|They
| carry this knowledge with them always, that they could have done
| something, they could have kept that woman alive.
i sure hope so! maybe they do feel bad, but maybe it's
because they committed the scn crime of misapplying the
tech rather than lisa's maltreatment and death.
[...]
| And what was so special about Lisa anyway? How did she differ from
| let's say Konrad Aigner? Well Lisa had a pretty face, and we protect
| our women don't we? We care about our women and do not tolerate them
| being killed. A pretty face might rally the troops. And they know
| that some big guy's face won't inspire anyone. The face of a pretty
| woman is not guaranteed results, but with a guys face you have no hope
| at all. These caring people of yours knew Lisa as much as they knew
| Konrad, but they played the odds, they went with the woman. No
| surprise there.
you might have a point.
| Lisa was never murdered, they were never honest out there, they didn't
| care about Lisa at all. Had they cared they would have been
| respectful and treated the living with compassion.
they were being respectful of lisa by protesting the
injustice of her death.
[...]
--
-elle
--------=[ l.l.lipshitz * elkube(at)lycos(dot)com ]=--------
those are my principles and if you don't
like them...well, i have others. -gm
FTSOH
In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
With the Message-ID:
<29d77384-a18f-4b56...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
And the Organization Header: http://groups.google.com.
The famous author: Eldon <Eldo...@aol.com>.
Wrote on the subject: Re: Cultists to suffer from new disese:
May I boldly suggest that what Monica and other irrelevants now whines
about is exactly that they now feel that they've been rendered obsolete?
Eldon
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> Monica Pignotti <pigno...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
>
> <snip>
>
> > The difference is that even though the drama may have been over the
> > top back then, the people in 1996 mostly had a real understanding of
> > what was going on and sincerely cared about a human being who had
> > died, Lisa McPherson. The comment that began this thread shows a
> > completely different and highly dehumanizing attitude towards people
> > who are in Scientology. The nature of that posting tells me that some
> > people are in this just to put others down and wish them the worst.
> > For all their faults, at least the OG had heart.
>
> It also demonstrates something that I've noticed in a lot of the
> "Anonymous" stuff. Many of them seem unaware that the vast majority of
> Scientologists are just public (in the Scientology sense of the word), and
> lead otherwise perfectly normal real world lives, holding real world jobs.
> If they didn't, they wouldn't earn the money that keeps CoS going. One gets
> the impression many of them think Scientology solely consists of staffers
> and Sea Orgers. This misapprehension may also go towards explaining the
> strange obsession with having protests (or "raids", as they like to call
> them) in front of org buildings. As if all Scientologists, or at least a
> significant percentage of them, are permanently there.
There is a high proportion of staff to public (possible 1:4) , because
staff gets "free" services until they blow and get billed for their
purported education. Also, Scientology is a two-shift industry.
The ones who have full time day jobs study and work evenings and
weekends ti take or deliver courses and auditing. That's the
"Foundation Org." There is also a "Day Org" that does the same thing
during regular work hours for people who saved up or work as nighttime
cab drivers, waiters, etc.
> And that the few who
> are there when a protest happens to take place outside won't be affected by
> it in the least, and that if anything it will serve to reinforce their
> beliefs ("See, the SPs are getting increasingly desperate to stop our
> growth, just like LRH said!") also doesn't occur to them.
>
> I wish I could ask these "Anonymous" kiddies (and the old-guard picketers
> who are cheering them on), one simple question:
>
> Which of your own beliefs would you ditch because some people you don't
> know, don't want to know, and have no reason to respect in any way at all,
> turn up waving picket signs saying those beliefs are bad?
Well -- as an old guard, old fart picketer who LOUDLY cheers them on,
and perceives that the Anon kiddos are yearning for a sense of justice
and civil responsibility -- I wanted to ditch the belief that the
forthcoming generation doesn't really give a shit.
And I did. Maybe you could could ditch a similar belief if you had a
more modern computer. You continue to use that tired old piece of shit
(probably running Windows -- "snort") that won't even display videos,
right?
Tired old man. Go get the latest iMac and report back to me. You'll
feel so much better after that lifee-chaning experience. ;-)_
henri
<pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
><snip>
>> The difference is that even though the drama may have been over the
>> top back then, the people in 1996 mostly had a real understanding of
>> what was going on and sincerely cared about a human being who had
>> died, Lisa McPherson. The comment that began this thread shows a
>> completely different and highly dehumanizing attitude towards people
>> who are in Scientology. The nature of that posting tells me that some
>> people are in this just to put others down and wish them the worst.
>> For all their faults, at least the OG had heart.
>It also demonstrates something that I've noticed in a lot of the
>"Anonymous" stuff. Many of them seem unaware that the vast majority of
>Scientologists are just public (in the Scientology sense of the word), and
>lead otherwise perfectly normal real world lives, holding real world jobs.
>If they didn't, they wouldn't earn the money that keeps CoS going. One gets
>the impression many of them think Scientology solely consists of staffers
>and Sea Orgers. This misapprehension may also go towards explaining the
>strange obsession with having protests (or "raids", as they like to call
>them) in front of org buildings.
Where else would you suggest they protest? You can't exactly protest
the Freewinds, nor can you effectively protest at Gold Base.
>As if all Scientologists, or at least a
>significant percentage of them, are permanently there. And that the few who
>are there when a protest happens to take place outside won't be affected by
>it in the least, and that if anything it will serve to reinforce their
>beliefs ("See, the SPs are getting increasingly desperate to stop our
>growth, just like LRH said!") also doesn't occur to them.
You'd look silly picketing Scientology in front of a McDonald's.
>I wish I could ask these "Anonymous" kiddies (and the old-guard picketers
>who are cheering them on), one simple question:
>Which of your own beliefs would you ditch because some people you don't
>know, don't want to know, and have no reason to respect in any way at all,
>turn up waving picket signs saying those beliefs are bad?
Therefore, you picket where the organization and the public intersect.
That's at orgs. Why would you protest at locations where you'd only
find the most hardcore members? Your argument here contradicts your
assertion above.
>Seriously, in the whole history of humanity, has anyone ever changed their
>opinion on anything just because other people with an opposing opinion
>organized a public protest?
Depends. If their belief is they don't know much about Scientology,
but they might be interested, or might not be, then disseminating
accurate information about Scientology directly to the foot traffic
from which they draw their paying customers would tend to prejudice
people against signing up.
However, you seem to be here arguing that protesting anything, ever,
is never worth doing and can't achieve anything. There's no real way
to respond to that argument, except to point out that it seemed to
work for Gandhi, Vaclav Havel, anti-war activists, etc. It is not
necessary for a protest, by itself, to shut down whatever it is that
is being protested.
Clearly, if it were legal or the group had the physical power to do so
despite the law, physically dismantling or destroying whatever it is
they dislike would be the way to go. Revolution or riot is not
generally a valid option, however.
Public protests, whether or not they have an immediate impact on the
target, establish relations between individuals in a social movement,
promote solidarity, and create a network that can be mobilized for
other kinds of activism. Even if they had literally zero impact
otherwise, this would be a positive impact on the viability of a
social movement.
obscene dog
>Ted makes some interesting points. Anonymous, to be successful, must
>remember that its not about them.
Funny you should say that because the only one I've ever seen on here
whining that they got no recognition was Ted!
--
Don't get in front of me.
What the... Oh, shi-
obscene dog
> Where was the compassion for the living I would
>ask you? For without a doubt the people intimately involved with the
>final days of Lisa still cry themselves to sleep on occasion.
Somehow, Ted, I doubt that very much.
The only reason I imagine they would cry themselves to sleep is
because they feel sorry for themselves, not for what they did to Lisa
McPherson.
Astrid...@yahoo.com
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> I wish I could ask these "Anonymous" kiddies (and the old-guard picketers
> who are cheering them on), one simple question:
>
> Which of your own beliefs would you ditch because some people you don't
> know, don't want to know, and have no reason to respect in any way at all,
> turn up waving picket signs saying those beliefs are bad?
>
If I were a cult member of a 1950's "religion," and saw my "religion"
being picketed, I'd go straight to a clear/unfiltered line on the web,
to see what all the fuss was about. Why do they care? It might prompt
me to do some research about the biographical, well-documented details
of the REAL life of the church's founder, as revealed in a book such
as Bare Faced Messiah. In this case, that alone would start a process
of questioning many of my beliefs.
If I experienced one thing while in a cult, that I thought was just a
little strange, I'd want to read what ex-members had to say. What did
they see, back in the old days. It is not like you need to research a
complex history two thousand years old, like studying the Catholic
Church.
As far as my spiritual beliefs now, they are very flexible. I don't
even think about joining a mainstream religion, let alone some bizarre
"cult of me," pseudo-science, like Scientology.
Yes, I believe the earth is a sphere, but so do most people on earth.
Scientologists are such a tiny minority, the flat earth society is
probably larger.
> Seriously, in the whole history of humanity, has anyone ever changed their
> opinion on anything just because other people with an opposing opinion
> organized a public protest?
That sounds very Sciento-logical. it isn't about "opposing opinion,"
instead protests are meant mostly to attract attention, which is
necessary in a cult which thrives on secrecy, and duping the public
into their form of brain washing, by giving free personality and
stress tests, to sucker them into paying higher and higher prices.
If Scientology were like Heaven's Gate, and you were just interested
in offing yourselves to meet a spaceship, I wouldn't care about it.
Instead, Scientology expresses STRONG desires to worm its way into
education, business and government. I don't want that, and a lot of
other people don't either.
If there had been more protest of the early Nazi Party, it may have
drawn more attention to people giving a closer read to a book such as
Mein Kampf, to see what Hitler was really about. Well, now people may
just be giving ol' L. Ron Hubbard's life and Scientology a closer
look. Hitler used brute force and rabble rousing and intimidation.
Scientology uses legal power from the money they have from mind-fucked
stars, and brainwashed member. However, no amount of money is going to
distract people from finding out the truth. The truth is that most of
Scientology's claims, are false. They have no superior method for
educating children, getting people off drugs, or preventing people
from disease, running businesses or governments.
Even school children wonder what the hell is up, when they get a
brochure that mentions L. Ron Hubbard in same category as Gandhi and
MLK, Jr., in the area of human rights.
If I were in Scientology, I wouldn't give a crap about validation from
any movie star, let alone ones that dropped out of high school. I'd
want validation from at least a few dozen of the most reputable people
in the country. The best journalists, writers, scientists and even,
yes, psychiatrists. I'd be interested in their opinions. Instead,
virtually ALL of those people, who know anything about Scientology,
are opposed to it and consider it dangerous.
In the age of the web, protests are more effective than ever, in
bringing to light the practices and abuses of a cult like scientology.
While I don't doubt that protests strengthen the resolve and belief of
some brainwashed cult members, in others, cracks start to appear.
Questioning starts, and in the case of Scientology, there is a whole
lot to question. And "questioning" anything Ron said, is not allowed
in your pseudo religion.
Members have to start questioning what they will do, for Scientology.
Will they do ANYTHING Miscavige asks of them. Will they pay any price,
and keep getting strung along with new levels that don't give them the
promised "super powers." Will they arm themselves and start shooting
those who disagree with them?
I'm not an ex-member nor am I young. I think Anonymous is doing a
great job. Instead of arousing hate in people, they are making the
exploration of the truth of a fringe group like Scientology, fun, so
it won't spread. The websites put up by ex-members were always
helpful, but now they are invaluable sources of information, to anyone
considering joining this cult or signing up for a course.
Years ago, Scientology would have had hundreds of people who just hear
about it through one friend, and would try it to see if they liked it.
Now, people are going to read about the OTHER SIDE of Scientology,
BEFORE they even try it. It is going to make a big difference.
People are comparison shopping on the web when they buy a freaking TV,
why wouldn't they do it before dumping thousands on brainwashing
therapy courses, from a lunatic fringe group like "Scientology."
k
"Ted Mayett" <ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:8n2a54tfifkjchup7...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 03:43:29 +0100, "k" <admi...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes anon is heartless, thats why we spent our saturday (in my case my only
>>day off) standing outside for a few hours, not to mention the many hours
>>of
>>preperation and research.
>>It definately didnt come from any sense of compassion or justice.
>>We are so cruel and evil.
>>
>
> You will evolve to smaller numbers, and only the meanest of you will
> last for the long run. You don't know what you are doing out there,
> you have no real plan. You say one thing and do another, you are not
> honest people. As the publicity fades you will get louder and more
> garish for the spotlights. You measure success by car-honks for it is
> praise that you seek. You don't know your "enemy", your ignorance is
> astounding. They think in lifetimes, you kids won't last a single
> year except for a few pickets that will inevitably linger on.
Evolve into smaller groups? The numbers are already thinning and it isn't
the "meanest" who are sticking with it.We have plans, as you have stated you
don't know how to use our forums so you couldn't possibly know that. I can
only attest to my own honesty, i unlike you, don't claim i know the thoughts
of everyone. I can state i have been honest and truthful in all the actions
i have taken against Scn. Publicity and car honks? again i suggest before
you make such uninformed opinions you put some effort into our forums. You
don't know me so please don't make any claims about my ignorance. It makes
you look foolish. how about you go to a picket and talk to us? It's true
with think in smaller faster periods of time, thats their weakness. We
aren't in the 1800's anymore. Lets make something clear, WE ARE NOT LIKE YOU
AND NEVER WILL BE TIMES CHANGE SORRY.
>
> You are not cruel and evil, you are just nothing, just standard run of
> the mill nothing. You will dance your dance and only ever be a hiccup
> on the history of scientology.
Only time will tell. Why do so many people on the Internet think they can
predict the future. I personally wont be defeated before i begin. Just
because you have accepted defeat doesn't mean everyone has. Oh and skip the
"what i have done lecture" it really did mean nothing. Time did show that.
>
> How many cars honked today? OH, a *lot* of cars honked. That is so
> great, so cool, so like rad man. You got lots of support today, that
> is so awesome. Good job out there!
>
Car honks? You really are not up to date. The reporters that come and take
leaflets are our success markers. Oh and there were a lot in London.
barb
They're sorry they got caught is all. If they were really concerned,
that woman in Sardinia wouldn't have been imprisoned in squalor. She
could have been the next Lisa. It's like they didn't learn anything.
Nor do they care. The only thing they're concerned about is "causing a
flap." And they sure did, involving both Italian and French polis forces
with this latest Introspection Rundown flap.
--
Barb "That's Captain Barbossa to you!"
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
It's Poodlin' Time!
“I think that the protections that we enjoy for freedom of worship exist
so long as we don’t step over the line. When religious worship and
belief cross over into things like fraud, victimization of others and
the disruption of the political arena, that protection is no longer
appropriate.”
--Robert Goff
Professor Emeritus, UCSC
obscene dog
wrote:
>obscene dog wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:27:17 -0400, Ted Mayett
>> <ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Where was the compassion for the living I would
>>> ask you? For without a doubt the people intimately involved with the
>>> final days of Lisa still cry themselves to sleep on occasion.
>>
>> Somehow, Ted, I doubt that very much.
>>
>> The only reason I imagine they would cry themselves to sleep is
>> because they feel sorry for themselves, not for what they did to Lisa
>> McPherson.
>
>They're sorry they got caught is all.
You got that right.
>If they were really concerned,
>that woman in Sardinia wouldn't have been imprisoned in squalor. She
>could have been the next Lisa. It's like they didn't learn anything.
They're not allowed to learn or adapt. To stray from Ron's teachings
is heresy.
>Nor do they care. The only thing they're concerned about is "causing a
>flap." And they sure did, involving both Italian and French polis forces
>with this latest Introspection Rundown flap.
As the Cult doesn't have the influence in Europe as they do in the US,
I'm hoping the Cult is in for some major spankage :-)
realpch
<ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 19:33:11 -0700 (PDT), Monica Pignotti
>
Well Teddy, people do what they can, and they aren't always graceful!
: D
> And what was so special about Lisa anyway? How did she differ from
> let's say Konrad Aigner? Well Lisa had a pretty face, and we protect
> our women don't we? We care about our women and do not tolerate them
> being killed. A pretty face might rally the troops. And they know
> that some big guy's face won't inspire anyone. The face of a pretty
> woman is not guaranteed results, but with a guys face you have no hope
> at all. These caring people of yours knew Lisa as much as they knew
> Konrad, but they played the odds, they went with the woman. No
> surprise there.
Lisa left words for us to know her, and her state of mind. I believe
Kristie Wachter put them on one of her sites, yes? A thoughtful person
might wish to read them. There never was much in the way of
particulars in the case of Konrad Aigner, was there?
> Lisa was never murdered, they were never honest out there, they didn't
> care about Lisa at all. Had they cared they would have been
> respectful and treated the living with compassion.
The art of picket signage was perhaps, in infancy. And has been known
to appear in this manner, spontaneously here and there, now and again.
Someday in the future...all perfect picket signs! Marvels of wit,
taste, heart, and graphics. Why, I heard of a guy once who was so
interested in the art of picket signage, he even experimented with a
blank sign!
: D
> Show us somebody out there quiet and respectful. A simple picket sign
> and no adornments. Show us somebody humble and then you are showing
> us someone that cares about Lisa.
>
> > The comment that began this thread shows a
> >completely different and highly dehumanizing attitude towards people
> >who are in Scientology. The nature of that posting tells me that some
> >people are in this just to put others down and wish them the worst.
> >For all their faults, at least the OG had heart.
>
> In your dreams they had heart. Only a very few actually cared, for
> the majority it was an opportunity to be mean and spiteful, petty and
> childish. Those old guard you praise would never be out there making
> fun of something like the Virgin Mary, they are smart enough to know
> that would be frowned upon. But Xenu, they somehow think that
> ridiculing publicly this xenu business is a sign of intelligence. And
> then to be fair, it might be all the intelligence some of them are
> capable of.
>
> --
> Ted Mayett
> Critical information regarding Scientology:http://www.solitarytrees.net
Why, matters of taste again. And of course, discretion. I myself feel
that since the Church of Scientology is grievously cheating
prospective customers by withholding information about Xenu, that
others are merely stepping courageously into the gap! A public
service.
: D
Piltdown Man
hu...@mailinator.com wrote...
<snip>
> It is the abuses of the organization that will not be forgiven, not
> the mistakes of the individual.
Which would make some sense if all organizations didn't consist entirely of
individuals.
"It is the abuses of the Nazi organization that will not be forgiven, not
the mistakes of the individual Nazis."
(The first person to respond to this with a post containing the name Godwin
is off my Christmas card list.)
I am increasingly irritated by this absurd artificial dichotomy so many
people seem to want to maintain. On the one hand, we are told that there's
an evil, manipulative, brainwashing cult, called Scientology. It commits
all kinds of terrible crimes, including murder. And on the other hand, we
are told that there are innocent, manipulated, brainwashed victims, called
Scientologists, who sometimes end up dead because of the actions of
Scientology. But that these two descriptions cover exactly the same group
of people doesn't seem to occur to anyone.
Piltdown Man
henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote...
> On 15 Jun 2008 14:52:02 GMT, "Piltdown Man"
> <pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
<snip>
>>It also demonstrates something that I've noticed in a lot of the
>>"Anonymous" stuff. Many of them seem unaware that the vast majority of
>>Scientologists are just public (in the Scientology sense of the word),
>>and lead otherwise perfectly normal real world lives, holding real world
>>jobs. If they didn't, they wouldn't earn the money that keeps CoS going.
>>One gets the impression many of them think Scientology solely consists
>>of staffers and Sea Orgers. This misapprehension may also go towards
>>explaining the strange obsession with having protests (or "raids", as
>>they like to call them) in front of org buildings.
>
> Where else would you suggest they protest? You can't exactly protest
> the Freewinds, nor can you effectively protest at Gold Base.
As far as I'm concerned, anybody can go protest against whatever they like,
wherever they like (within the bounds of locally applicable law, of
course). It's the notion that such protests have any impact on CoS which
I'm questioning.
>>As if all Scientologists, or at least a
>>significant percentage of them, are permanently there. And that the few
>>who are there when a protest happens to take place outside won't be
>>affected by it in the least, and that if anything it will serve to
>>reinforce their beliefs ("See, the SPs are getting increasingly desperate
>>to stop our growth, just like LRH said!") also doesn't occur to them.
>
> You'd look silly picketing Scientology in front of a McDonald's.
That's pretty much what various "Anonymous" groups have done on several
occasions already. I found that amusing -- before organizing a picket in
front of an org, I'd think you'd make sure that there is an org there
in the first place. But it's not relevant to the point of whether pickets
against Scientology make any sense at all.
<snip>
>>Seriously, in the whole history of humanity, has anyone ever changed
>>their opinion on anything just because other people with an opposing
>>opinion organized a public protest?
>
> Depends. If their belief is they don't know much about Scientology,
> but they might be interested, or might not be, then disseminating
> accurate information about Scientology directly to the foot traffic
> from which they draw their paying customers would tend to prejudice
> people against signing up.
Where's the evidence that Scientology draws a significant amount of its
income by recruiting new members from such foot traffic? Based on what I've
seen some "Anonymous" kiddies post on the net, I also seriously doubt they
are capable of offering accurate information about Scientology. (Some of
them seriously suggested buying Christian Markert's alleged book in bulk
and then selling it to members of the public during "raids", remember?) If
such naive "foot traffic" people really exist, do you think they'd be
swayed by information in a flier handed out on the street by a teenager
dressed up as a pirate, or wearing a silly mask? Coupled with the fact that
statistically the chance is almost negligible that anyone so naive happens
(a) to be walking by an org (there are so few of them), and (b) just at the
time that a picket happens to be taking place.
> However, you seem to be here arguing that protesting anything, ever,
> is never worth doing and can't achieve anything.
Not at all.
> There's no real way
> to respond to that argument, except to point out that it seemed to
> work for Gandhi, Vaclav Havel,
Those were people who were figureheads for mass political protest
movements, representing the majority of their people, against undemocratic
regimes. (Once those undemocratic regimes had gone, their symbolic
leadership role very quickly evaporated too.) Not a tiny bunch of people
protesting against the opinions of another tiny bunch of people, which
happens to be a marginal, politically completely irrelevant, self-absorbed
cult.
> anti-war activists, etc. It is not
> necessary for a protest, by itself, to shut down whatever it is that
> is being protested.
I heard a few weeks ago that for decades now, there's been a weekly protest
in London against the Chinese policies in Tibet. Once a week, same day,
same time, a small bunch of protesters turn up outside the Chinese embassy
in London and, well, protest for a bit. I'm sorry, but I couldn't help
wondering if perhaps those people couldn't find a better pastime.
<snip>
> Public protests, whether or not they have an immediate impact on the
> target, establish relations between individuals in a social movement,
> promote solidarity, and create a network that can be mobilized for
> other kinds of activism. Even if they had literally zero impact
> otherwise, this would be a positive impact on the viability of a
> social movement.
Organizing protests against an obscure fringe phenomenon in society like
Scientology doesn't qualify as a "social movement".
But let me try an anecdotal example to illustrate why I don't think pickets
have any impact. An American acquaintance of mine a few years ago produced
(and starred in) a production of a play that some Christian groups strongly
objected to, because they consider it blasphemous. The result was that
before every performance, a motley crew of picketers turned up outside the
theater, with signs, and fliers, and chanting, the usual. Does anyone
really think that made my acquaintance reconsider his decision to stage
that play, and cancel the run? Does anyone really think that a single
person who wanted to go see that play decided not to, because there were
some religious nutters protesting outside the theater, shouting at the
people who went in? Those picketers were a source of amusement to everyone
involved in the production, and even helped sell tickets, since it got the
play more press coverage than it would otherwise have gotten. But I'm sure
they themselves went home every day feeling very smug about themselves,
sure in the knowledge that they'd done the Lord's work.
Piltdown Man
Eldon <Eldo...@aol.com> wrote...
> On Jun 15, 4:52 pm, "Piltdown Man"
> <piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
<snip>
>> It also demonstrates something that I've noticed in a lot of the
>> "Anonymous" stuff. Many of them seem unaware that the vast majority of
>> Scientologists are just public (in the Scientology sense of the word),
>> and lead otherwise perfectly normal real world lives, holding real
>> world jobs. If they didn't, they wouldn't earn the money that keeps
>> CoS going. One gets the impression many of them think Scientology
>> solely consists of staffers and Sea Orgers. This misapprehension may
>> also go towards explaining the strange obsession with having protests
>> (or "raids", as they like to call them) in front of org buildings. As
>> if all Scientologists, or at least a significant percentage of them,
>> are permanently there.
>
> There is a high proportion of staff to public (possible 1:4) , because
> staff gets "free" services until they blow and get billed for their
> purported education.
I'm sorry, but given the complete absence of hard numbers, you don't know
this. Even if this 1:4 ratio is correct, it still means 80% of
Scientologists are public, leading normal lives and having normal jobs. And
definitely not cooped up in their local org whenever a picket happens to
take place.
> Also, Scientology is a two-shift industry.
>
> The ones who have full time day jobs study and work evenings and
> weekends ti take or deliver courses and auditing. That's the
> "Foundation Org." There is also a "Day Org" that does the same thing
> during regular work hours for people who saved up or work as nighttime
> cab drivers, waiters, etc.
I know all that, Eldon. I've done my homework. For over 25 years of
Scientology-watching by now (if I count from the first time I read about
the cult in Christopher Evans' book). It's also completely irrelevant to
the fact that the vast majority of Scientologists won't be anywhere near
any org when a picket ("Anonymous" or not) takes place. What's funny is
that what you say actually supports my point: you're saying that even most
staffers are off doing other things most of the time.
<rest of non-answer snipped>
realpch
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> h...@mailinator.com wrote...
Well, did you like either of those descriptions? Guess not...
: D
So, if you would, please provide us with the correct description!
Peach
realpch
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> in London against the Chinese policies in Tibet. Once a week, same day,
> same time, a small bunch of protesters turn up outside the Chinese embassy
> in London and, well, protest for a bit. I'm sorry, but I couldn't help
> wondering if perhaps those people couldn't find a better pastime.
<snip>
Why, it sounds very pleasant to me. I imagine the participants enjoy
it, and the embassy expects it.
> But let me try an anecdotal example to illustrate why I don't think pickets
> have any impact. An American acquaintance of mine a few years ago produced
> (and starred in) a production of a play that some Christian groups strongly
> objected to, because they consider it blasphemous. The result was that
> before every performance, a motley crew of picketers turned up outside the
> theater, with signs, and fliers, and chanting, the usual. Does anyone
> really think that made my acquaintance reconsider his decision to stage
> that play, and cancel the run? Does anyone really think that a single
> person who wanted to go see that play decided not to, because there were
> some religious nutters protesting outside the theater, shouting at the
> people who went in? Those picketers were a source of amusement to everyone
> involved in the production, and even helped sell tickets, since it got the
> play more press coverage than it would otherwise have gotten. But I'm sure
> they themselves went home every day feeling very smug about themselves,
> sure in the knowledge that they'd done the Lord's work.
> - Show quoted text -
Ah! Now there was a good, informational picket!
: D
Peach
Android Cat
> I am increasingly irritated by this absurd artificial dichotomy so
> many people seem to want to maintain. On the one hand, we are told
> that there's an evil, manipulative, brainwashing cult, called
> Scientology. It commits all kinds of terrible crimes, including
> murder. And on the other hand, we are told that there are innocent,
> manipulated, brainwashed victims, called Scientologists, who
> sometimes end up dead because of the actions of Scientology. But that
> these two descriptions cover exactly the same group of people doesn't
> seem to occur to anyone.
No, we all see it, it just seems to be new to you.
--
Ron of that ilk.
Android Cat
> I know all that, Eldon. I've done my homework.
Previous posts suggest otherwise.
Roger Larsson
wrote:
> h...@mailinator.com wrote...
Imprisoned in their mental prisonwalls consisting of lies can leave
scientology if they gets support from ex-prisoners that have breaked
out from scientology.
Prisons don't exist in the reality only lies controling people making
them afraid to leave scientology.
What happens to scientologists leaving scientology in the reality?
Nothing,,,,so it was only lies that bound them to the something they
were afraid to leave.
Scientologists can choose to listen on the ones controling them with
lies or choose to listen on the ones no longer imprisoned by lies.
It's better to encourage scientologists to leave scientology than to
discourage them to leave scinetology.
henri
<pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>Where's the evidence that Scientology draws a significant amount of its
>income by recruiting new members from such foot traffic? Based on what I've
The evidence would be in the possession of Scientology. I know they
are very concerned with getting people in and recruiting them, and
therefore, activities which do so are favored. They've continually
had people whose job was to get people in the door. They've
continually made some amount of money doing so. I imagine that on a
per-contact basis, contacts between friends and acquaintances, or
business associates, have more chance of success, but each member only
has so many contacts they can annoy.
I don't think they'd keep doing it if they never, ever got any money
from doing so. One thing they have always been good at is maintaining
gross income.
>seen some "Anonymous" kiddies post on the net, I also seriously doubt they
>are capable of offering accurate information about Scientology. (Some of
>them seriously suggested buying Christian Markert's alleged book in bulk
>and then selling it to members of the public during "raids", remember?) If
And then this never happened. I doubt it would have happened even had
there been a book to sell. If your point is that people say stupid
things and come up with stupid ideas on Enturbulation, then I doubt
anyone would contest that. People come up with stupid ideas here,
too.
>such naive "foot traffic" people really exist, do you think they'd be
>swayed by information in a flier handed out on the street by a teenager
>dressed up as a pirate, or wearing a silly mask? Coupled with the fact that
>statistically the chance is almost negligible that anyone so naive happens
>(a) to be walking by an org (there are so few of them), and (b) just at the
>time that a picket happens to be taking place.
Why not? If they'd be likely to swayed by information from a
Scientology body router, frankly I don't think the class of people who
is likely to sway them is a particularly narrow class. Their mind is
wide open and the doors are swinging in the breeze.
[. . .]
>> anti-war activists, etc. It is not
>> necessary for a protest, by itself, to shut down whatever it is that
>> is being protested.
>I heard a few weeks ago that for decades now, there's been a weekly protest
>in London against the Chinese policies in Tibet. Once a week, same day,
>same time, a small bunch of protesters turn up outside the Chinese embassy
>in London and, well, protest for a bit. I'm sorry, but I couldn't help
>wondering if perhaps those people couldn't find a better pastime.
This is bad why exactly? Abolitionists protested slavery, printed
literature attacking it, harassed their representatives in Congress
about it, and even committed terrorist acts against it, seemingly
without effect, for literally centuries of American history. Were
they wrong, simply because their activities did not have immediate
effect?
I'd rather see lengthy protests against the Chinese embassy than
nothing. I'd rather see those protests than have that embassy go
unmolested.
><snip>
>> Public protests, whether or not they have an immediate impact on the
>> target, establish relations between individuals in a social movement,
>> promote solidarity, and create a network that can be mobilized for
>> other kinds of activism. Even if they had literally zero impact
>> otherwise, this would be a positive impact on the viability of a
>> social movement.
>Organizing protests against an obscure fringe phenomenon in society like
>Scientology doesn't qualify as a "social movement".
>But let me try an anecdotal example to illustrate why I don't think pickets
>have any impact. An American acquaintance of mine a few years ago produced
>(and starred in) a production of a play that some Christian groups strongly
>objected to, because they consider it blasphemous. The result was that
>before every performance, a motley crew of picketers turned up outside the
>theater, with signs, and fliers, and chanting, the usual. Does anyone
>really think that made my acquaintance reconsider his decision to stage
>that play, and cancel the run? Does anyone really think that a single
>person who wanted to go see that play decided not to, because there were
>some religious nutters protesting outside the theater, shouting at the
>people who went in? Those picketers were a source of amusement to everyone
>involved in the production, and even helped sell tickets, since it got the
>play more press coverage than it would otherwise have gotten. But I'm sure
>they themselves went home every day feeling very smug about themselves,
>sure in the knowledge that they'd done the Lord's work.
There's a difference between going to a play, something that takes a
couple hours of your time, which you might do just out of curiosity,
and making a potentially life changing decision to join a cult.
Generally, your movie protesters are warning you that you might see
something titillating. The result is that people are even more
titillated and more likely to see it.
Anything that gives consumers some advance warning as to what follows
the "stress test," something you might do out of pure curiosity, and
inclines them to later skepticism, is a good thing. And as I pointed
out, it also increases the cohesiveness and solidarity of the group
pursuing action against the cult. Some face to face contact between
people who otherwise would have no direct contact is a good thing.
Ted Mayett
<pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>I know all that, Eldon. I've done my homework. For over 25 years of
>Scientology-watching by now (if I count from the first time I read about
>the cult in Christopher Evans' book). It's also completely irrelevant to
>the fact that the vast majority of Scientologists won't be anywhere near
>any org when a picket ("Anonymous" or not) takes place.
shhhh, they don't want to hear this.
FTSOH
In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
With the Message-ID: <qaod54hm4ggmud1if...@4ax.com>
And the Organization Header: .
The famous author: Ted Mayett <ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com>.
Wrote on the subject: Re: Cultists to suffer from new disese:
>On 16 Jun 2008 06:09:26 GMT, "Piltdown Man"
><pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>
>
>>I know all that, Eldon. I've done my homework. For over 25 years of
>>Scientology-watching by now (if I count from the first time I read about
>>the cult in Christopher Evans' book). It's also completely irrelevant to
>>the fact that the vast majority of Scientologists won't be anywhere near
>>any org when a picket ("Anonymous" or not) takes place.
>
>shhhh, they don't want to hear this.
Exactly, please don't tell this.
Ted Mayett
>On 16 Jun 2008 06:09:28 GMT, "Piltdown Man"
><pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>
>>Where's the evidence that Scientology draws a significant amount of its
>>income by recruiting new members from such foot traffic? Based on what I've
>
>The evidence would be in the possession of Scientology. I know they
>are very concerned with getting people in and recruiting them, and
>therefore, activities which do so are favored.
> They've continually
>had people whose job was to get people in the door.
Wrong. Today this might be more true, or quite true. It might be
true at some orgs. But yesterday, no, it did not happen. It was
Postulated, it was Ordered, it was no doubt a cause for ecstasy at
staff meetings because "we are going to do this!". But it didn't
happen to any degree. Trust me, I was there! And those two vegas
orgs had to be somewhat indicative of org life on the whole.
With uncountable hosannah's, flash and flurry and hip hip hooray and
cheers of joy I was there when, oh I don't remember the exact details.
But a program came along that offered, I'm pretty sure it was Free
Training up the bridge. Two sides to the Bridge, Training and
Processing, and we all know this. But all you had to do was to go out
and sell softback Dianetics books, and based on your sales you
received what was hundreds and hundreds of dollars in free Training,
the Training side of the bridge. As I recall it did not cover course
materials, but it was worth a lot money. NONE of them, nobody went
out there and sold books for this.
You had your Body Routing Courses, Dissemination Courses, and you even
had some people that did these courses. But nobody went out there,
and when they did they were back inside in 30 minutes, if that long.
Every now and then some young guy would get all fired up, they would
help him get all fired up, and he would go out there and do something.
But that *always* faded quickly yesterday. This one girl, talkative
and born-again, she would tell anybody that would listen about the
glories of Body Routing and how it expands scientology, she would even
demonstrate to you how she did this, but she never went outside and
did it.
> They've continually
>had people whose job was to get people in the door.
Sure, but the people did not do this, not yesterday. I've got further
proof of this, coming soon.
> One thing they have always been good at is maintaining
>gross income.
>
Wrong again. I'll supply the proof soon enough.
Everything is there, almost everything. We have the power of the net
at our fingertips, why don't we use that power. I have some
disturbing information coming, and it is coming from the archives.
Ted Mayett
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I first came onto ARS in February 1996 and by that time the OT
>materials had already been posted and were known. More importantly,
>though, people had a real interest in learning and trying to
>understand the dynamics of what was going on. We disagreed and debated
>about a lot of things and sometimes things got heated with personal
>attacks, but at least there was real substance to the debates. Diane
>Richardson and I really went at it in a debate about cults, mind
>control and the DSM and this is still posted on Bernie's website.
>There were personal attacks, but there was also a good deal of
>substance that seems to be lacking in disagreements people have on ARS
>these days. It's become all flame and no substance. For a good example
>of a debate in the early days of ARS, see:
>
>http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/mc3_dsm.htm
>
>This is very different from what is going on now.
>
I have a lot of respect for you Monica, you type that you get people
out, and I believe you with no reservations. And I believe you act
out of most honorable intentions and not for praise. And this has
nothing to do with this subject, just felt like saying this.
I've been working the archives, some things have been bothering me.
I don't believe we are smarter today then we were in 1995, but I also
don't believe we were smarter in 1995 than we are today. Be this as
it may.
Let me tell you, from where I sit, what I see. I see you as a cult
member yourself here Monica, doing your self-appointed daily official
round. You do the same thing over and over. You find a post from a
certifiable ding-a-ling, on some ding-a-ling message board. Then you
spread it out and say LOOK LOOK LOOK. Same-o same-o, over and over.
The words of undeniable ding-a-lings are your proof of this and that.
And you ignore, along with everyone else, solid irrefutable proof of
real people being part of this ars cult. People like Rob, Tilman,
you, Roland, Jens, Ritson, the list goes on and on.
What happened to show we are all of us a cult here? Even me to some
degree I'm sure, well maybe anyway. What happened, the best ever
example showing us to be a cult is webbed on Jen's pages and mine, and
it is in the archives of course.
For a while there, they were doing the pickets in London, and they did
not know the org had moved to another location. They thought they
were picketing the org, they posted as though they were picketing the
org, their observations as to membership and activity was as though it
were still an org.
And the only person to laugh at this was me. I was severely
disappointed in Rob, Tilman and Roland. From these three I truly
expected better. I expected nothing from you Monica, because Joking
and Degrading, ummmm, well it seems to be beneath you for one thing,
and these were real people and not anonymous ding-a-lings doing the
pickets for another thing, and you seem to lean towards arguing or
debating with anonymous people.
But Rob, Tilman and Roland are among the best writers, or are simply
the best writers today on this ng. They could have had a blast with
this, made jokes so funny we would still be laughing after all this
time. And it was funny, it was hilarious. In all these of years of a
most serious activity something truly funny had occurred. But we
could not laugh, we could not do Joking and Degrading. I made jokes,
a lot of jokes about this, but then I couldn't stop laughing easily
when I read that the org had moved and they didn't even know! FUNNY.
And Roland said I would be killfiled if I did not stop the jokes.
But we could not laugh at the UK crowd, they were the only ones really
doing any pickets at the time. And if we laughed at them they might
stop doing pickets and then oh me oh my what would happen to us then I
ask you? (horrors). And why weren't they laughing at themselves I
often wonder, what is they do that is so darn serious?
We are a cult, no Joking and Degrading, we don't laugh at each other,
we don't laugh at ourselves. "Critics are allowed to criticize other
critics." We are allowed to say this and it is a good idea to type
this every now and then to prove your allegiance. But don't ever
actually cross that line and start criticizing. "Why (blank) is one
of the few actually doing something and if we criticize (blank) s/he
may stop."
We are a cult. Maybe some of you break free one day and go to town,
get down and dirty on those UK pickets where they didn't know the org
had moved. That was funny. And laughing at each other on occasion is
a healthy thing to do, it helps separate us from them.
BTW, I am an SP-Critic. And I have no competition in this, none.
Did that 'ARS Weak In Review' post, talked about how we lost the
lyrics to a great little song titled, "does anybody know where the org
is?" sung to the tune of London Bridge is Falling Down.
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
that was funny
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Let me see you top that one. Anybody?
Ted Mayett
>Car honks? You really are not up to date. The reporters that come and take
>leaflets are our success markers. Oh and there were a lot in London.
>
Will 'The Big Story' (BBC) do an expose on scientology? Do you think
this might happen?
FTSOH
In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
With the Message-ID: <r5td54h1bamilgv99...@4ax.com>
And the Organization Header: .
The famous author: Ted Mayett <ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com>.
Wrote on the subject: Re: Cultists to suffer from new disese:
>On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:36:17 +0100, "k" <admi...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Car honks? You really are not up to date. The reporters that come and take
>>leaflets are our success markers. Oh and there were a lot in London.
>>
>
>Will 'The Big Story' (BBC) do an expose on scientology? Do you think
>this might happen?
No, it will never happen again, because what we see here is mainly
picture and video manipulation from Anonymous.
The "raids" (or pickets as we called them back in my days when they
really happened) Really doesn't happen at all.
Anonymous is just manipulating us all by manufacturing fake videos and
pictures. With today's technology, it's so easy to make it look like a
real "raid" when it fact there's not been any "raids" at all, nowhere on
Teegeeack from Anonymous.
But then Ted, you knew that of course already. I had to say it though for
the rest of the audience in here...
SAZ
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>Why, matters of taste again. And of course, discretion. I myself feel
>that since the Church of Scientology is grievously cheating
>prospective customers by withholding information about Xenu, that
>others are merely stepping courageously into the gap! A public
>service.
>
>: D
I've often wondered about this. For me let's say, if my goal were to
show the "lunatic" aspect of the scientology scriptures, well I would
have used History of Man. This is no less kooky than xenu, and
undeniable, they sell the book right there in the org!
We are numb here, most of us, we surrendered intelligence and good
manners, we surrendered common decency. We forgot who we are, if we
ever knew, we forgot the values that make a human a human.
These xenu flag-wavers would never ridicule eating the body of christ
on a sunday if they were opposing criminal aspects of christianity.
And they would certainly never picket the faith of xians, they are not
that far gone. Any other group and they would address the issues at
hand and not carry on like irresponsible children.
You may choose to be "politically correct" peaches and walk the middle
of the road. Good for you, whatever floats your boat and all of that.
But I have a fear you don't have, I fear that these hypocrites, these
sub-humans might one day call me a 'good critic'. That they might
think I'm one of them, it is a horrible fear. They might expect me to
sit in a truck and inflate xenu dolls, they might actually think I'm
the type of person to do something like that.
If the goal was to show, exemplify the "odd" theological theory of
scn, then these people were terribly stupid. They picked xenu,
something that could be denied. Next to them, on a golden platter was
history of man. So what was the goal they had? What were they trying
to accomplish? If your goal is to laugh at a belief system, well do
it the right way. And the right way was to use materials that could
be openly purchased, and not materials that could be denied.
But we know why they were out there don't we? We could ask them, we
know what they will say. They will tell us that people have a right
to believe what they choose to believe, that they are not opposed to
the belief system of scn, but rather to the criminal or questionable
practices of scn. And I guess that is why they are xenu flag-wavers.
And I guess to them it makes perfect sense.
And I still want to know what the difference is between ten of them
wearing 'scientology-kills' and ten of them wearing
'psychiatry-kills'. I've asked them before, but they won't answer.
Maybe because there is no answer.
k
>>leaflets are our success markers. Oh and there were a lot in London.
>>
>
> Will 'The Big Story' (BBC) do an expose on scientology? Do you think
> this might happen?
What is 'The Big Story', never heard of this show (unless you are getting
FOX and the BBC mixed up).
If you want me to speculate, Watchdog or Panorama would be a likely places.
They both have a history with Scn.
"Ted Mayett" <ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:r5td54h1bamilgv99...@4ax.com...
FTSOH
In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
With the Message-ID: <vaD5k.124792$TL1....@newsfe21.ams2>
And the Organization Header: virginmedia.com.
The famous author: "k" <admi...@ntlworld.com>.
Wrote on the subject: Re: Cultists to suffer from new disese:
>>>Car honks? You really are not up to date. The reporters that come and take
>>>leaflets are our success markers. Oh and there were a lot in London.
>>>
>>
>> Will 'The Big Story' (BBC) do an expose on scientology? Do you think
>> this might happen?
>
>What is 'The Big Story', never heard of this show (unless you are getting
>FOX and the BBC mixed up).
>If you want me to speculate, Watchdog or Panorama would be a likely places.
>They both have a history with Scn.
>
>
It was The Big Story by ITV actually, and can still be seen here:
realpch
<ars.to.tedmay...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:06:47 -0700 (PDT), realpch <real...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Why, matters of taste again. And of course, discretion. I myself feel
> >that since the Church of Scientology is grievously cheating
> >prospective customers by withholding information about Xenu, that
> >others are merely stepping courageously into the gap! A public
> >service.
>
> >: D
>
> I've often wondered about this. For me let's say, if my goal were to
> show the "lunatic" aspect of the scientology scriptures, well I would
> have used History of Man. This is no less kooky than xenu, and
> undeniable, they sell the book right there in the org!
Teddy, you can go have yourself a one-man picket and urge passersby to
buy The History of Man. Personally, I think everybody should read it.
It's really something!
: D
> We are numb here, most of us, we surrendered intelligence and good
> manners, we surrendered common decency. We forgot who we are, if we
> ever knew, we forgot the values that make a human a human.
Hey, speak for yourself!
: D
> These xenu flag-wavers would never ridicule eating the body of christ
> on a sunday if they were opposing criminal aspects of christianity.
> And they would certainly never picket the faith of xians, they are not
> that far gone. Any other group and they would address the issues at
> hand and not carry on like irresponsible children.
I dunno whether they would or not. That would tend to be inflamatory
with no "reward", since any interested party can easily aquaint
themselves with those beliefs if they chose to.
> You may choose to be "politically correct" peaches and walk the middle
> of the road. Good for you, whatever floats your boat and all of that.
> But I have a fear you don't have, I fear that these hypocrites, these
> sub-humans might one day call me a 'good critic'. That they might
> think I'm one of them, it is a horrible fear. They might expect me to
> sit in a truck and inflate xenu dolls, they might actually think I'm
> the type of person to do something like that.
Oh fer chrissakes, Teddy. Let me put it this way. Neither you nor I
are tempermentally suited to picketing in large crowds. I would prefer
that others met or exceeded my standards for behaviour, which in my
opinion are usually adequate (your mileage may vary). But this has
never been the Picketing Army, so there ya go. You have no control
other than persuasion and setting a good example. Lots of things are
like that. Shit, most things are like that. I also have no control
over how others perceive me because of my perceived association with
other people or groups.
> If the goal was to show, exemplify the "odd" theological theory of
> scn, then these people were terribly stupid. They picked xenu,
> something that could be denied. Next to them, on a golden platter was
> history of man. So what was the goal they had? What were they trying
> to accomplish? If your goal is to laugh at a belief system, well do
> it the right way. And the right way was to use materials that could
> be openly purchased, and not materials that could be denied.
Well what bull. The point about Xenu is that the OT materials are very
expensive, and people are persuaded to buy a pig in a poke, and a very
suspicious looking pig at that. How many people would buy that pig if
it were accurately described, before they started their installment
plan? The Church of Scientology is Big Business, with attendent
deceptive advertising. Full disclosure, please!
> But we know why they were out there don't we? We could ask them, we
> know what they will say. They will tell us that people have a right
> to believe what they choose to believe, that they are not opposed to
> the belief system of scn, but rather to the criminal or questionable
> practices of scn. And I guess that is why they are xenu flag-wavers.
> And I guess to them it makes perfect sense.
Ted, people are free to believe whatever the hell they wish to
believe. And other people are quite free to discuss or even ridicule
those beliefs. That was never my plan for picketing.
> And I still want to know what the difference is between ten of them
> wearing 'scientology-kills' and ten of them wearing
> 'psychiatry-kills'. I've asked them before, but they won't answer.
> Maybe because there is no answer.
>
> --
> Ted Mayett
> Critical information regarding Scientology:http://www.solitarytrees.net
I'm sure that in the spirit of debate I could come up with a number of
reasons that they both the same, or that they're both different.
Personally I don't care to debate it. My standpoint has always been,
what am I gonna do? I never thought "Scientology Kills" t-shirts were
the best idea, and mentioned a couple of times that I wouldn't wear
one. Then I went right ahead and never wore one.
: D
Peach
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:27:17 -0400, Ted Mayett
><ars.to.t...@XXmmXXspamgourmet.com> wrote in
><psu954d0hgl4befh4...@4ax.com>:
>
>[...]
>
> |Where was the compassion for the living I would
> | ask you?
>
> what about the scnists who were responsible for
> lisa's suffering and lonely, senseless death? i
> would ask you, where was *their* compassion for one
> of their own?? the protestors showed a helluva lot
> more concern for a scnist than the scnists did!
>
True enough.
> those scnists, imho, are guilty of manslaughter.
>
As adults they should have been charged with a crime.
> ok, so maybe being a brain-dead cult member is a
> mitigating factor. however, drunken drivers who kill
> people in accidents are still guilty of manslaughter
> and go to jail for it. why should these scnists be
> excused?
>
And this has what to do with compassion for the living???
>
> |For without a doubt the people intimately involved with the
> | final days of Lisa still cry themselves to sleep on occasion.
>
> i have my doubts -- scn seems to remove shame and
> guilt from a person.
>
Do you so desperately need to believe that you are fighting monsters?
And here is one example, concerning not that many people, and you want
to make it that all members are this way. Or do you have other
examples of this removed shame and guilt?
>
> |They
> | carry this knowledge with them always, that they could have done
> | something, they could have kept that woman alive.
>
> i sure hope so! maybe they do feel bad, but maybe it's
> because they committed the scn crime of misapplying the
> tech rather than lisa's maltreatment and death.
>
That would be nice to believe I suppose. You do know they don't
believe in death, the Whole Track and all of that. They don't die,
they drop the body. At least they will ramble on about that. But to
be that close to death is a strong experience. Maybe because I was a
member once, and maybe because I don't need to fight monsters to
justify my existence. But I don't believe they were ever truly
callous, but rather just caught under The Spell for a while. You see
I didn't need hubbard to tell me that man's basic nature is good, I've
always believed there is good in all of us. Like anyone here I've
walked on this earth and I don't true evil anywhere in anyone. There
are some truly evil people among us, but they don't hang out with a
bunch of pretending wannabe pansies like scientologists. Now if some
members want to pretend that they are monsters, stoic, indifferent.
Fine, let them, they are not fooling anybody. And if you want to
believe them when they pretend, then do so. But there is nothing
wrong these people, they are good people, temporarily lost.
So too with the picketers, those with dripping blood displays and xenu
displays. These are good people also, just temporarily lost in a cult
called ars.
> | Lisa was never murdered, they were never honest out there, they didn't
> | care about Lisa at all. Had they cared they would have been
> | respectful and treated the living with compassion.
>
> they were being respectful of lisa by protesting the
> injustice of her death.
>
The Clearwater pickets were not about pickets, or about Lisa. It is
there in the archives, read what happened. We'll come back to this
one day, an analysis of the clearwater pickets.
Tom Newton
>
>> When the cult shuts down, they will suffer from their decades
>> of willful ignorance.
>>
>> All those years of not learning anything that will help them
>> in the real world, all those years when they could have gone
>> to college, all that time wasted.
>>
>> The only jobs they will be qualified for will be scrubbing
>> toilets.
>>
>> Sucks to be them.
This 'Anonymous' group is full of idiot trolls who post garbage
like this.
Why is it that people who obviously couldn't find their own
assholes with a GPS unit and that no rational person would trust
for one second, and who obviously never do anything but post
garbage on the Internet, pretend that they are authorities on
subjects they obviously don't know anything about, and seem to
think that everyone just accepts their grand pronouncements as
fact?
Is it simple insanity?
Tom
--
The Truth will set you free:
http://www.sethcenter.com
redco...@gmail.com
How about some substance.
You are a bigot.
And, the cult is dying.
In your heart, you know I'm right.
Ted Mayett
>>>Car honks? You really are not up to date. The reporters that come and take
>>>leaflets are our success markers. Oh and there were a lot in London.
>>>
>>
>> Will 'The Big Story' (BBC) do an expose on scientology? Do you think
>> this might happen?
>
>What is 'The Big Story', never heard of this show (unless you are getting
>FOX and the BBC mixed up).
>If you want me to speculate, Watchdog or Panorama would be a likely places.
>They both have a history with Scn.
>
I'm pretty sure it was called the big story, it might have happened
about 1994 or 96 or something like that, I'm too lazy right now to
look it up. But the video is webbed in some places. It was an
in-depth scathing report on scientology. A reporter goes undercover,
hidden camera and microphone, and they show the video's on television
in the UK. It happened in the UK. Those reporters that are your
success marker have been there and done that already, it is old news,
sorry to break this to you this way. There was even footage showing
the reporter practicing on an emeter, to fool the emeter, to pass the
emeter check that would occur, or maybe might occur.
This was a planned, rehearsed, and successful infiltration that
produced a hard hitting documentary that showed no mercy whatsoever to
scientology. And your reporters today, if they spend the time and
money required, could equal that show, but they could not exceed that
show. The press has been there and done that, and that is the way
things are. Sorry.
obscene dog
Tom / Alan is back?
Huzzah!
--
The Truth will set you free:
http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/fga.shtml
Tom Newton is Alan Connor.
FTSOH
In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
With the Message-ID: <3b6g54hr4mmnj6oro...@4ax.com>
And the Organization Header: .
Wrote on the subject: Re: Cultists to suffer from new disese:
>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:02:41 +0100, "k" <admi...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
It was The Big Story by ITV actually, and can still be seen here:
FTSOH
In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
With the Message-ID: <10fg545b50ad9r5kq...@4ax.com>
And the Organization Header: .
Wrote on the subject: Re: Cultists to suffer from new disese:
>On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:29:30 -0700 (PDT), redco...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Oh Tom, come on.
>>
>>How about some substance.
>>
>>You are a bigot.
>>
>>
>>And, the cult is dying.
>>
>>In your heart, you know I'm right.
>
>Tom / Alan is back?
>
>Huzzah!
But he's on his way out, he peaked in May. The trend is clear.
Tom/Alan's posting activity:
2008
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
381 165 184 574 134
Ball of Fluff
"Tom Newton" <t...@server.invalid> wrote in message
news:0f3li5x...@treeoflife.3v8l2x.net...
>
> This 'Anonymous' group is full of idiot trolls who post garbage
> like this.
A number of anons have actually ~been~ in CofS.
They aren't trolls because they are not pretending to be something they're
not.
I'd say you're closer to being a troll than they ever will be.
>
> Why is it that people who obviously couldn't find their own
> assholes with a GPS unit and that no rational person would trust
> for one second,
I view people as individuals. I would trust some anons. I just gave one of
them some personal data just the other week and it was fine.
>and who obviously never do anything but post
> garbage on the Internet,
Boy, you really resent them, don't you. That might be because CofS has a
real bug up its ass about freedom of speech.
As I said, a number of anons are ex CofS. Not that one has to be to be a
critic, but it does show that they have done a number of things.
Other ones are interviewing ex members, asking really good questions and
trying to draw the attention of the general public to the harm that CofS is
doing.
I think the Anons are great. I think so for these reasons:
CofS is a predatory organization and should be protested and criticized
The Anons are earnest people who, for the most part (there are some
exceptions but such is life) listen to other people, even if those people
don't have the same views, and they want to make a difference. They'd like
to see a world without Scn enforced disconnection, coerced abortions,
predatory behavior toward staff, abusive regging and recruitment practices,
etc.
And our society and most other western societies allows freedom of speech.
Even if I ~didn't~ agree with the Anons (although I do agree with them on
many things) I'd want to defend their right to assemble peacefully and to
have freedom of speech.
> pretend that they are authorities on
> subjects they obviously don't know anything about,
Again, many of them are ex members and others among them have spent a great
deal of time doing research.
> and seem to
> think that everyone just accepts their grand pronouncements as
> fact?
Well, ~you~ seem to think everyone should accept ~your~ pronouncements as
fact...
>
> Is it simple insanity?
>
I think this constant railing against the anons is nuts, frankly. You're
acting very irrationally.
C
redco...@gmail.com
fixed
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>Why, matters of taste again. And of course, discretion. I myself feel
>that since the Church of Scientology is grievously cheating
>prospective customers by withholding information about Xenu, that
>others are merely stepping courageously into the gap! A public
>service.
>
But the xenu crowd says they are out there protesting the abuses and
criminal aspects and blah blah of scientology. None of this really
matters though. It was all a flash in the pan anyway.
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>Personally I don't care to debate it. My standpoint has always been,
>what am I gonna do? I never thought "Scientology Kills" t-shirts were
>the best idea, and mentioned a couple of times that I wouldn't wear
>one. Then I went right ahead and never wore one.
>
But don't you have an extra large scientology kills t-shirt that you
use as a nightgown for sleeping? And you have three clocks in your
house, and all of those are scientology kills clocks. Aren't you the
one that said you have a scientology kills tattoo, but you cannot show
it because it is on a private part of your body? And you talk about
how you never miss an important date anymore since you purchased a
kills wall calendar. People talk you know, they say that in your
kitchen, on the flatware it says
SCIENTOLOGY
KILLS
STERLING
And when you wear slacks you hitch up your trousers to show one sock
that says 'scientology' and other sock says 'kills'. And they say you
have these sneakers that you wear, with like a cookie cutter on the
bottoms, and you walk in soft dirt and one foot spells out scientology
while the other foot spells out kills as you walk along.
But yeah, you were never blood thirsty out there, not that I recall
anyway.
Ted Mayett
wrote:
>It was The Big Story by ITV actually, and can still be seen here:
>
>http://www.whyaretheydead.net/Sten/www.users.wineasy.se/www.users.wineasy.se/noname/multimed/index.htm#13
It was a fascinating piece. Interesting to watch. Part 1 I believe.
Stephen Durkin
> When the cult shuts down, they will suffer from their decades of
> willful ignorance.
Willful ignorance? Major oversimplification. Foul on you. We're
talking about cults, here.
> All those years of not learning anything that will help them in the
> real world, all those years when they could have gone to college, all
> that time wasted.
Wasted *only* for those who view it as wasted *while* they view it as
wasted. What if they view it as a learning experience and a chance to
help other humans from falling into similar traps? They need to
forgive themselves; you're not helping.
> The only jobs they will be qualified for will be scrubbing toilets.
>
> Sucks to be them.
Oversimplified pessimism...probably more of a drag than scrubbing
toilets.
realpch
>
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:09:09 -0700 (PDT), realpch <rea...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Personally I don't care to debate it. My standpoint has always been,
> >what am I gonna do? I never thought "Scientology Kills" t-shirts were
> >the best idea, and mentioned a couple of times that I wouldn't wear
> >one. Then I went right ahead and never wore one.
> >
>
> But don't you have an extra large scientology kills t-shirt that you
> use as a nightgown for sleeping? And you have three clocks in your
> house, and all of those are scientology kills clocks. Aren't you the
> one that said you have a scientology kills tattoo, but you cannot show
> it because it is on a private part of your body? And you talk about
> how you never miss an important date anymore since you purchased a
> kills wall calendar. People talk you know, they say that in your
> kitchen, on the flatware it says
> SCIENTOLOGY
> KILLS
> STERLING
> And when you wear slacks you hitch up your trousers to show one sock
> that says 'scientology' and other sock says 'kills'. And they say you
> have these sneakers that you wear, with like a cookie cutter on the
> bottoms, and you walk in soft dirt and one foot spells out scientology
> while the other foot spells out kills as you walk along.
No, no, no, no, and no. Etcetera. However, I did have the Xenu blow up
chair that Dave Bird sent me, and I had a couple of those great green
alien drink sippers from Marine World in my front window, during the
time of some of the home picketing. I don't know how many of the
picketers were OT 3 or above, so most of them may just have thought I
had odd ideas about home decorating. Come to think of it, I do have some
odd ideas about home decoration.
> But yeah, you were never blood thirsty out there, not that I recall
> anyway.
>
> --
> Ted Mayett
> Critical information regarding Scientology:
> http://www.solitarytrees.net
Yes, you see I thought about it at the beginning, and decided to apply
caution. But then, how old was I? in my forties, so conservative action
came much more easily to me than say, when I was in my twenties. There
was already enough reading material on the web about the Church, to
inform me that any missteps were going to be capitalized upon. I much
preferred leaving the missteps to the Church and operatives.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
realpch
Yes, yes, it's all a flash in the pan. Every doggone thing, no matter
how large, small, wonderful, miserable. Rises up and dies down, such is life.
: D
Ted Mayett
>> But the xenu crowd says they are out there protesting the abuses and
>> criminal aspects and blah blah of scientology. None of this really
>> matters though. It was all a flash in the pan anyway.
>>
>> --
>> Ted Mayett
>> Critical information regarding Scientology:
>> http://www.solitarytrees.net
>
>Yes, yes, it's all a flash in the pan. Every doggone thing, no matter
>how large, small, wonderful, miserable. Rises up and dies down, such is life.
>
Great poetry will never fade. Mozart, Shakespeare and the like will
survive as longs as humans survive. Democracy might never fade,
slavery will never return. The Freedom Riders will forever be part of
history, as will those like Gandhi. Or have you forgotten this :-))
realpch
I'm not convinced that the human beings are going to be around a lot
longer. And of course, regardless of what the improvident humans are
doing, the sun is eventually going to turn into a red dwarf, or was it a
white dwarf, I forget. So much for the immortality of art!
Ted Mayett
To be sure, there is that.
Piltdown Man
henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote...
> On 16 Jun 2008 06:09:28 GMT, "Piltdown Man"
> <pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>
> >Where's the evidence that Scientology draws a significant amount of its
> >income by recruiting new members from such foot traffic? Based on what
>
> The evidence would be in the possession of Scientology. I know they
> are very concerned with getting people in and recruiting them, and
> therefore, activities which do so are favored. They've continually
> had people whose job was to get people in the door.
I know they are supposed to have them, yes, per LRH orders. But just
because Hubbard ordered his followers to spend their time engaging in
pointless activities doesn't mean these activities serve any real use. Nor
have I ever seen much evidence of a lot of body routing going on for real.
In a lot of places, annoying passers-by like that on the street would be
stopped by the police after a short while. In most civilised parts of the
world, selling stuff on the street is strictly regulated.
> They've continually made some amount of money doing so. I imagine that
> on a per-contact basis, contacts between friends and acquaintances, or
> business associates, have more chance of success, but each member only
> has so many contacts they can annoy.
Unless Scientology is totally different from every other cult, the main
recruitment route is personal contact with people who are already in (or
being unlucky enough to be born to parents already in, of course). I've
never seen anything indicating that this whole body routing routine Hubbard
came up with, trying to get random passers-by to join, ever had any
significant results. But it certainly would keep any staff who are involved
in it busy. That's important. Keep them busy all the time, otherwise they
might have the time to think, and wonder why they're wasting their time
working for no money.
> I don't think they'd keep doing it if they never, ever got any money
> from doing so. One thing they have always been good at is maintaining
> gross income.
Here, I disagree completely. There's never been a proper cost/benefit
analysis mechanism in Scientology that I've ever heard of. They
demonstrably waste huge amounts of money and effort on things that will
never get a single new customer into the shop, or that will have the exact
opposite effect.
<snip>
> >such naive "foot traffic" people really exist, do you think they'd be
> >swayed by information in a flier handed out on the street by a teenager
> >dressed up as a pirate, or wearing a silly mask? Coupled with the fact
> >that statistically the chance is almost negligible that anyone so naive
> >happens (a) to be walking by an org (there are so few of them), and
> >(b) just at the time that a picket happens to be taking place.
>
> Why not? If they'd be likely to swayed by information from a
> Scientology body router, frankly I don't think the class of people who
> is likely to sway them is a particularly narrow class. Their mind is
> wide open and the doors are swinging in the breeze.
If there is such a huge proportion of the general public who can easily be
swayed into joining Scientology simply by being accosted on the street by a
body router (if they happen to be on the street near any of the pitifully
small number of orgs, that is, which happens to have a body router out on
the street somewhere where that isn't illegal), then why is Scientology
such a small cult?
There is no indication it has ever managed to attract more than a few tens
of thousands of people worldwide, at any one time. There are lots of
indications that even the people who fall for it leave after a very short
time. And even if we assume people are joining Scientology in any
significant numbers because they happen to be strolling by an org, how is a
couple of hours of picketing a month in front of orgs that are open all
hours, 7 days a week going to make any impact on that?
<snip>
> >I heard a few weeks ago that for decades now, there's been a weekly
> >protest in London against the Chinese policies in Tibet. Once a week,
> >same day, same time, a small bunch of protesters turn up outside the
> >Chinese embassy in London and, well, protest for a bit. I'm sorry, but
> >I couldn't help wondering if perhaps those people couldn't find a better
> >pastime.
>
> This is bad why exactly?
I'm not saying it's bad. If those people find it an entertaining way to
pass the time, that's their prerogative. I'm just pointing out that their
activities are completely pointless, in that they have no effect whatsoever
on what they're protesting against.
> Abolitionists protested slavery, printed
> literature attacking it, harassed their representatives in Congress
> about it, and even committed terrorist acts against it, seemingly
> without effect, for literally centuries of American history. Were
> they wrong, simply because their activities did not have immediate
> effect?
Again, these were political protests against a nominally democratic
government, and against unjust laws. It wasn't a case of one group of
private citizens with firmly held beliefs "protesting" against the firmly
held beliefs of another group of private citizens, in which neither group
has any reason to take the other group's beliefs seriously at all, and in
which both groups are deeply convinced that the other side is at the least
badly misguided and ill-informed, or more probably evil, stupid, etc.
There was also a clear final goal to the abolition efforts in the US. So
far, I've never seen anyone who claims to be part of "Anonymous" explain
just what the final goal of "Anonymous" is supposed to be. I saw a very
funny cartoon in a magazine at the time of one of the "Anonymous" pickets,
by a great Belgian cartoonist (he actually drew a caricature of me once,
many years ago when I went to a book signing). It shows a man standing on
the pavement wearing a sandwich-board and holding a picket sign, facing an
obviously puzzled passer-by. Puzzled, because the sandwich board is
completely blank, and the picket sign just says "NO!!". But the speech
bubble gives his explanation: "No to what, we'll look into later."
Completely unintentionally, that cartoon summed up a lot of what is wrong
with "Anonymous" to me.
<snip>
> >But let me try an anecdotal example to illustrate why I don't think
> >pickets have any impact. An American acquaintance of mine a few years
> >ago produced (and starred in) a production of a play that some Christian
> >groups strongly objected to, because they consider it blasphemous. The
> >result was that before every performance, a motley crew of picketers
> >turned up outside the
> >theater, with signs, and fliers, and chanting, the usual. Does anyone
> >really think that made my acquaintance reconsider his decision to stage
> >that play, and cancel the run? Does anyone really think that a single
> >person who wanted to go see that play decided not to, because there were
> >some religious nutters protesting outside the theater, shouting at the
> >people who went in? Those picketers were a source of amusement to
> >everyone involved in the production, and even helped sell tickets, since
> >it got the play more press coverage than it would otherwise have gotten.
> >But I'm sure they themselves went home every day feeling very smug about
> >themselves, sure in the knowledge that they'd done the Lord's work.
>
> There's a difference between going to a play, something that takes a
> couple hours of your time, which you might do just out of curiosity,
> and making a potentially life changing decision to join a cult.
There is, but that's not relevant to whether or not protesters have any
impact on anyone making such decisions. I've also never heard of anyone who
made a life-changing decision to join a cult. One of the primary
characteristics of people who are in cults is that they strongly believe
they aren't in a cult, and their involvement invariably started with just a
few hours of their time, just out of curiosity. Also, at least all the
people who went to that play had to pass by those picketers. Most people
who visit Scientology orgs, either as a first-timer or a regular customer,
will never see a picketer.
<snip>
> Anything that gives consumers some advance warning as to what follows
> the "stress test," something you might do out of pure curiosity, and
> inclines them to later skepticism, is a good thing.
The vast majority of people, even those who do something like taking the
"stress test" out of curiosity, don't need any advance warning to spot
Scientology for the scam it is. Otherwise, Scientology would be much bigger
than it is.
I could include a nice illustration here about a completely clueless woman
who'd responded to one of the Scientology fraudulent "Now Hiring!" ads in
Brussels, and who was interviewed about her experience briefly by a TV news
crew. But I suppose that didn't happen on YouTube and it didn't happen in
English, so by today's standards it never happened at all. So why bother
transcribing it.
> And as I pointed
> out, it also increases the cohesiveness and solidarity of the group
> pursuing action against the cult.
As is so beautifully demonstrated every day right here among the group of
people who post to ARS.
> Some face to face contact between
> people who otherwise would have no direct contact is a good thing.
All the worst, never-ending online feuds I've ever witnessed were due to
people who'd only had internet contact previously and gotten along fine,
but then made the mistake of meeting each other face to face.
obscene dog
<pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>I'm not saying it's bad. If those people find it an entertaining way to
>pass the time, that's their prerogative. I'm just pointing out that their
>activities are completely pointless, in that they have no effect whatsoever
>on what they're protesting against.
I totally disagree.
Some things that comes to mind are:
The money they have to spend each month just to counteract the raids.
The negative publicity they produce themselves.
Coverage / exposure in the media.
More people aware of their outlandish behaviour, practises and
beliefs.
I'm sure there's more.
--
Don't get in front of me.
What the... Oh, shi-
barb
Thousands of fliers taken by people all over the world.
Yeah, that wouldn't have any impact at all, would it. </sarcasm>
Wet blanket is wet. And irrelevant.
--
Barb "That's Captain Barbossa to you!"
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
It's Poodlin' Time!
“I think that the protections that we enjoy for freedom of worship exist
so long as we don’t step over the line. When religious worship and
belief cross over into things like fraud, victimization of others and
the disruption of the political arena, that protection is no longer
appropriate.”
--Robert Goff
Professor Emeritus, UCSC
Piltdown Man
obscene dog <obsce...@xenu.com> wrote...
> On 22 Jun 2008 14:11:57 GMT, "Piltdown Man"
> <pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying it's bad. If those people find it an entertaining way to
>> pass the time, that's their prerogative. I'm just pointing out that
>> their activities are completely pointless, in that they have no effect
>> whatsoever on what they're protesting against.
>
> I totally disagree.
That was a comment about some people with issues about Tibet pointlessly
picketing the Chinese embassy in London, every week for decades now, not
about anti-Scientology pickets. Did you spot that?
> Some things that comes to mind are:
>
> The money they have to spend each month just to counteract the raids.
Small amounts of money which they'd spend anyway, on other equally futile
things. I can't imagine any picketing has ever caused a significant drain
on Scientology's financial resources. Some CoS money has probably been
spent on other things than it might have been spent on without "Anonymous"
turning up. Like hiring more lawyers and PI's than they might otherwise
have done. Is that the point of the demonstrations, sorry, "raids"? Bleed
CoS dry financially by making them spend money on fighting "Anonymous"?
> The negative publicity they produce themselves.
>
> Coverage / exposure in the media.
This claim has been gone over in several other threads already. Scientology
has generated negative exposure for itself in the media for as long as it
has been around, long before anybody thought of picketing.
> More people aware of their outlandish behaviour, practises and
> beliefs.
The reason so few people ever join Scientology is exactly because their
behaviour, practices and beliefs are outlandish, and most people realise
this on first contact. If they didn't, by definition they would no longer
be outlandish. Making more people aware of the specifics of this
outlandishness doesn't change a thing (that's assuming that anything
"Anonymous" has done has achieved that result).
I know, it's a widespread idea in some circles that *everyone* is
vulnerable to being sucked into evil, brainwashing cults of all kinds, not
just Scientology, and that therefore people must be educated and made aware
of all the evilness and outlandishness of all the evil, brainwashing cults
that are out there, in as much detail as possible. Otherwise, we'd all be
joining them in droves. It's an idea that is especially popular among
people who make a living out of warning other people about evil,
brainwashing cults, and people who've been enthusiastic members of such
cults themselves. It is steadfastly clung to, despite the undeniable fact
that the vast majority of people don't need any education at all to not
join a cult. Most people have functioning weirdo detectors, and realise on
first contact with culties that something isn't right. It's why cults are
small.
obscene dog
<pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>
>obscene dog <obsce...@xenu.com> wrote...
>
>> On 22 Jun 2008 14:11:57 GMT, "Piltdown Man"
>> <pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not saying it's bad. If those people find it an entertaining way to
>>> pass the time, that's their prerogative. I'm just pointing out that
>>> their activities are completely pointless, in that they have no effect
>>> whatsoever on what they're protesting against.
>>
>> I totally disagree.
>
>That was a comment about some people with issues about Tibet pointlessly
>picketing the Chinese embassy in London, every week for decades now, not
>about anti-Scientology pickets. Did you spot that?
No. No I did not. Thank you for making me look foolish on usenet once
again.
<sigh>
>> Some things that comes to mind are:
>>
>> The money they have to spend each month just to counteract the raids.
>
>Small amounts of money which they'd spend anyway, on other equally futile
>things.
Balls. It's extra money. They've never experienced this before.
>I can't imagine any picketing has ever caused a significant drain
>on Scientology's financial resources.
No picketing of the Cult has occured in as many places at the same
time before.
>Some CoS money has probably been
>spent on other things than it might have been spent on without "Anonymous"
>turning up. Like hiring more lawyers and PI's than they might otherwise
>have done. Is that the point of the demonstrations, sorry, "raids"? Bleed
>CoS dry financially by making them spend money on fighting "Anonymous"?
Of course it won't bleed them dry but it's wasted dollars.
>> The negative publicity they produce themselves.
No answer for this one?
>> Coverage / exposure in the media.
>
>This claim has been gone over in several other threads already. Scientology
>has generated negative exposure for itself in the media for as long as it
>has been around, long before anybody thought of picketing.
Before the internet. The Cult can't get away with it now.
>> More people aware of their outlandish behaviour, practises and
>> beliefs.
>
>The reason so few people ever join Scientology is exactly because their
>behaviour, practices and beliefs are outlandish, and most people realise
>this on first contact. If they didn't, by definition they would no longer
>be outlandish. Making more people aware of the specifics of this
>outlandishness doesn't change a thing (that's assuming that anything
>"Anonymous" has done has achieved that result).
Of course it makes a change. $ciTube videos, fliers and online
coverage of the Cult gives them fewer rocks to hide under.
>I know, it's a widespread idea in some circles that *everyone* is
>vulnerable to being sucked into evil, brainwashing cults of all kinds, not
>just Scientology, and that therefore people must be educated and made aware
>of all the evilness and outlandishness of all the evil, brainwashing cults
>that are out there, in as much detail as possible. Otherwise, we'd all be
>joining them in droves. It's an idea that is especially popular among
>people who make a living out of warning other people about evil,
>brainwashing cults, and people who've been enthusiastic members of such
>cults themselves. It is steadfastly clung to, despite the undeniable fact
>that the vast majority of people don't need any education at all to not
>join a cult. Most people have functioning weirdo detectors, and realise on
>first contact with culties that something isn't right. It's why cults are
>small.
Wall of text.
Bored.
The Cult sucks.
Ted Mayett
<pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>I know, it's a widespread idea in some circles that *everyone* is
>vulnerable to being sucked into evil, brainwashing cults of all kinds, not
>just Scientology, and that therefore people must be educated and made aware
>of all the evilness and outlandishness of all the evil, brainwashing cults
>that are out there, in as much detail as possible. Otherwise, we'd all be
>joining them in droves.
Cool.
> It's an idea that is especially popular among
>people who make a living out of warning other people about evil,
>brainwashing cults, and people who've been enthusiastic members of such
>cults themselves.
Awesome. And I thought I was an SP-Critic!
> It is steadfastly clung to, despite the undeniable fact
>that the vast majority of people don't need any education at all to not
>join a cult. Most people have functioning weirdo detectors, and realise on
>first contact with culties that something isn't right. It's why cults are
>small.
>
>
Ted Mayett
<pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> And even if we assume people are joining Scientology in any
>significant numbers because they happen to be strolling by an org, how is a
>couple of hours of picketing a month in front of orgs that are open all
>hours, 7 days a week going to make any impact on that?
>
When I was doing the picket marathons, and the vehicle count was
already lowered. I figured I could do two separate pickets a day in
front of the big org, one hour each picket. And at different times of
the day, and do this for 30 days in a row. And still I might not see
50% of the members for the org. Such is the math of it all.
What I especially always enjoyed were the UK pickets though, in
essence each UK org received about 5 hours of pickets per year, it was
something small like this. Whatever the math is, they did about 4-6
pickets a year spread across 4 or 5 locations, whatever. And because
of this, because of some few hours a year spent in front of an org,
"Pickets wiped out scientology in the UK!" It is funny.
Monica Pignotti
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> > Coverage / exposure in the media.
>
> This claim has been gone over in several other threads already. Scientology
> has generated negative exposure for itself in the media for as long as it
> has been around, long before anybody thought of picketing.
>
> > More people aware of their outlandish behaviour, practises and
> > beliefs.
>
> The reason so few people ever join Scientology is exactly because their
> behaviour, practices and beliefs are outlandish, and most people realise
> this on first contact. If they didn't, by definition they would no longer
> be outlandish. Making more people aware of the specifics of this
> outlandishness doesn't change a thing (that's assuming that anything
> "Anonymous" has done has achieved that result).
Nowadays, this is especially true. In the past, before the internet
many people got recruited not knowing about the beliefs of the
advanced levels, but nowadays this has been widely publicized and this
was the case for at least a decade before Anonymous ever came on the
scene. So I have to agree with Piltdown Man on this. The person who
would join today wouldn't be stopped by picketers making a spectacle
and it is highly unlikely that the average person walking down the
street receiving a flyer or seeing a picketer would have joined
anyway.
> I know, it's a widespread idea in some circles that *everyone* is
> vulnerable to being sucked into evil, brainwashing cults of all kinds, not
> just Scientology, and that therefore people must be educated and made aware
> of all the evilness and outlandishness of all the evil, brainwashing cults
> that are out there, in as much detail as possible. Otherwise, we'd all be
> joining them in droves. It's an idea that is especially popular among
> people who make a living out of warning other people about evil,
> brainwashing cults, and people who've been enthusiastic members of such
> cults themselves. It is steadfastly clung to, despite the undeniable fact
> that the vast majority of people don't need any education at all to not
> join a cult.
Not so much in that extreme form anymore. If you check out some of the
talks at the upcoming ICSA conference, positions are much more
moderate these days. Its more about undue social influence which is
something well documented that we can see in the behavior of some
right here on ARS and in many groups that do not clearly fall into the
category most people would consider a "destructive cult".
>Most people have functioning weirdo detectors, and realise on
> first contact with culties that something isn't right. It's why cults are
> small.
That's the case with the extreme cults but a high percentage of the
public subscribes to belief in things like ESP, angels, psychic
abilities, and the like. Even in mainstream religions, some of those
beliefs are really pretty outlandish -- the only thing that makes them
not seem that way is the widespread acceptance.
Monica Pignotti
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote...
> > On 15 Jun 2008 14:52:02 GMT, "Piltdown Man"
> > <piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
> <snip>
> >>It also demonstrates something that I've noticed in a lot of the
> >>"Anonymous" stuff. Many of them seem unaware that the vast majority of
> >>Scientologists are just public (in the Scientology sense of the word),
> >>and lead otherwise perfectly normal real world lives, holding real world
> >>jobs. If they didn't, they wouldn't earn the money that keeps CoS going.
> >>One gets the impression many of them think Scientology solely consists
> >>of staffers and Sea Orgers. This misapprehension may also go towards
> >>explaining the strange obsession with having protests (or "raids", as
> >>they like to call them) in front of org buildings.
>
> > Where else would you suggest they protest? You can't exactly protest
> > the Freewinds, nor can you effectively protest at Gold Base.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, anybody can go protest against whatever they like,
> wherever they like (within the bounds of locally applicable law, of
> course). It's the notion that such protests have any impact on CoS which
> I'm questioning.
Yes, exactly. I see no evidence to support the claim this is having
any impact on the CofS.
> >>As if all Scientologists, or at least a
> >>significant percentage of them, are permanently there. And that the few
> >>who are there when a protest happens to take place outside won't be
> >>affected by it in the least, and that if anything it will serve to
> >>reinforce their beliefs ("See, the SPs are getting increasingly desperate
> >>to stop our growth, just like LRH said!") also doesn't occur to them.
>
> > You'd look silly picketing Scientology in front of a McDonald's.
>
> That's pretty much what various "Anonymous" groups have done on several
> occasions already. I found that amusing -- before organizing a picket in
> front of an org, I'd think you'd make sure that there is an org there
> in the first place. But it's not relevant to the point of whether pickets
> against Scientology make any sense at all.
>
> <snip>
>
> >>Seriously, in the whole history of humanity, has anyone ever changed
> >>their opinion on anything just because other people with an opposing
> >>opinion organized a public protest?
>
> > Depends. If their belief is they don't know much about Scientology,
> > but they might be interested, or might not be, then disseminating
> > accurate information about Scientology directly to the foot traffic
> > from which they draw their paying customers would tend to prejudice
> > people against signing up.
>
> Where's the evidence that Scientology draws a significant amount of its
> income by recruiting new members from such foot traffic?
There isn't any evidence that the majority of members are recruited
off the streets. On the contrary, there are a number of surveys done
that have asked people how they got recruited into cults and the vast
majority respond that they were recruited by people they already knew.
Few were just walking down the street minding their own business when
a cult recruiter approached them. Of course, there are cases like this
but according to surveys done by people such as ICSA's Michael
Langone, people recruited in this way are in the minority. I was hard
enough to recruit people that way in the 1970s, let alone today with
all the information on the internet that was there long before
Anonymous came on the scene.
>Based on what I've
> seen some "Anonymous" kiddies post on the net, I also seriously doubt they
> are capable of offering accurate information about Scientology.
And that's another big part of the problem. Critics who are ignorant
are not going to come off as credible.
>(Some of
> them seriously suggested buying Christian Markert's alleged book in bulk
> and then selling it to members of the public during "raids", remember?) If
> such naive "foot traffic" people really exist, do you think they'd be
> swayed by information in a flier handed out on the street by a teenager
> dressed up as a pirate, or wearing a silly mask? Coupled with the fact that
> statistically the chance is almost negligible that anyone so naive happens
> (a) to be walking by an org (there are so few of them), and (b) just at the
> time that a picket happens to be taking place.
>
> > However, you seem to be here arguing that protesting anything, ever,
> > is never worth doing and can't achieve anything.
>
> Not at all.
>
> > There's no real way
> > to respond to that argument, except to point out that it seemed to
> > work for Gandhi, Vaclav Havel,
>
> Those were people who were figureheads for mass political protest
> movements, representing the majority of their people, against undemocratic
> regimes. (Once those undemocratic regimes had gone, their symbolic
> leadership role very quickly evaporated too.) Not a tiny bunch of people
> protesting against the opinions of another tiny bunch of people, which
> happens to be a marginal, politically completely irrelevant, self-absorbed
> cult.
That's the point continuously getting missed by many people.
Scientology has no real political power and yet it keeps getting
compared to oppressive regimes.
>
> > anti-war activists, etc. It is not
> > necessary for a protest, by itself, to shut down whatever it is that
> > is being protested.
>
> I heard a few weeks ago that for decades now, there's been a weekly protest
> in London against the Chinese policies in Tibet. Once a week, same day,
> same time, a small bunch of protesters turn up outside the Chinese embassy
> in London and, well, protest for a bit. I'm sorry, but I couldn't help
> wondering if perhaps those people couldn't find a better pastime.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Public protests, whether or not they have an immediate impact on the
> > target, establish relations between individuals in a social movement,
> > promote solidarity, and create a network that can be mobilized for
> > other kinds of activism. Even if they had literally zero impact
> > otherwise, this would be a positive impact on the viability of a
> > social movement.
>
> Organizing protests against an obscure fringe phenomenon in society like
> Scientology doesn't qualify as a "social movement".
Now there I would have to disagree. Some sociologists who study social
movements focus on some of the smaller fringe groups. Sure, some study
the larger movements like the civil rights movement, but there are
also many who study smaller movements. A movement doesn't have to be
large to be considered a social movement.
> But let me try an anecdotal example to illustrate why I don't think pickets
> have any impact. An American acquaintance of mine a few years ago produced
> (and starred in) a production of a play that some Christian groups strongly
> objected to, because they consider it blasphemous. The result was that
> before every performance, a motley crew of picketers turned up outside the
> theater, with signs, and fliers, and chanting, the usual. Does anyone
> really think that made my acquaintance reconsider his decision to stage
> that play, and cancel the run? Does anyone really think that a single
> person who wanted to go see that play decided not to, because there were
> some religious nutters protesting outside the theater, shouting at the
> people who went in?
Nope. In fact the impact that could have is to make the person feel
persecuted just as the fringe group predicted and in the cultists
mind, that kind of persecution tends to confirm things.
>Those picketers were a source of amusement to everyone
> involved in the production, and even helped sell tickets, since it got the
> play more press coverage than it would otherwise have gotten. But I'm sure
> they themselves went home every day feeling very smug about themselves,
> sure in the knowledge that they'd done the Lord's work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
henri
<pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Those were people who were figureheads for mass political protest
>> movements, representing the majority of their people, against undemocratic
>> regimes. (Once those undemocratic regimes had gone, their symbolic
>> leadership role very quickly evaporated too.) Not a tiny bunch of people
>> protesting against the opinions of another tiny bunch of people, which
>> happens to be a marginal, politically completely irrelevant, self-absorbed
>> cult.
>That's the point continuously getting missed by many people.
>Scientology has no real political power and yet it keeps getting
>compared to oppressive regimes.
This is nonsense. It has considerable political power where it is in
their interest. It has little political power in general, but despite
Hubbard's grandiose pronouncements, does not want any. Where it has
political power is in its local areas, where often considerable
financial donations to politicians coincide with favorable executive
actions and, in some cases, favorable legislation.
Anyone who has paid any attention whatsoever to the astonishing
deference with which Scientology is treated by Clearwater's city
government, despite its nearly universal unpopularity, is aware that
their political power within the localities in which they have their
largest presence is considerable.
They don't have the political power to push particularly large
agendas, set the tone on a national level on broad topics, or (except
in close local elections such as in Clearwater) determine the outcome
of elections, but to say they hav no real political power is simply
nosense.
Entities with "no real political power" don't get audiences with the
President's National Security Advisor on issues of concern to them,
nor do they get House resolutions condemning closely allied countries,
such as Germany, for nonexistent human rights violations against them.
Entities with "no real political power" don't have city politicians
utterly cowed and terrified to criticize them even slightly, as they
are in Clearwater, or schmoozing with them in tacky public displays,
as the crooked Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles County does.
Anyone who has done any research on the issue, or even paid any
attention to that done by others, realizes that Scientology does,
indeed, have political power in the areas which directly concern them,
and is reasonably good at getting things done in this arena, even
against the interests of the nation (and here I specifically mean
2000 H. Res. 588 although there are certainly other examples).
When this political influence doesn't succeed, their litigation
ability often does. Not many other entities have litigated the IRS to
a standstill and forced the IRS to sue for peace. Nobody who has
researched their methods could reasonably conclude they have "no real
political influence." To the contrary, they are quite adept at
exerting pressure through multiple channels in order to get results
they want, or more to the point, to avoid detrimental outcomes.
Piltdown Man
Monica Pignotti <pign...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
On Jun 22, 9:36 pm, "Piltdown Man"
<piltd...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>>I know, it's a widespread idea in some circles that *everyone* is
>>vulnerable to being sucked into evil, brainwashing cults of all kinds,
>>not just Scientology, and that therefore people must be educated and
>>made aware of all the evilness and outlandishness of all the evil,
>>brainwashing cults that are out there, in as much detail as possible.
>>Otherwise, we'd all be joining them in droves. It's an idea that is
>>especially popular among people who make a living out of warning other
>>people about evil, brainwashing cults, and people who've been
>>enthusiastic members of such cults themselves. It is steadfastly clung
>>to, despite the undeniable fact that the vast majority of people don't
>>need any education at all to not join a cult.
>
> Not so much in that extreme form anymore. If you check out some of the
> talks at the upcoming ICSA conference, positions are much more
> moderate these days. Its more about undue social influence which is
> something well documented that we can see in the behavior of some
> right here on ARS and in many groups that do not clearly fall into the
> category most people would consider a "destructive cult".
Perhaps, hopefully, a more sensible attitude is prevailing in some
quarters. But there's still an awful lot of hysterical hyperbole about
"cults", that conveniently vague scare word, being bandied about. In
Germany for instance, where government agencies put out some improbably
awful publications about Scientology, much lauded by some posters here. I
really had to laugh when I saw that one of the booklets put out by the OPC
of Bavaria has the REALLY SCARY WORDS highlighted in RED, just so the eager
reader who's supposed to be innoculated against joining Scientology (which
he would otherwise do at a moment's notice, obviously) wouldn't miss them.
There are some more sensible voices in Germany too, but they tend to get
shouted out by the salaried hysterics.
>>Most people have functioning weirdo detectors, and realise on
>>first contact with culties that something isn't right. It's why cults are
>>small.
>
> That's the case with the extreme cults but a high percentage of the
> public subscribes to belief in things like ESP, angels, psychic
> abilities, and the like. Even in mainstream religions, some of those
> beliefs are really pretty outlandish -- the only thing that makes them
> not seem that way is the widespread acceptance.
Nonsense that is widely accepted is no longer outlandish, that's pretty
much the definition of "outlandish". Which also makes it highly dependent
on where you live. A lot of the stuff that's considered perfectly normal in
the USA, for instance, is considered very outlandish in Western Europe. You
know, like politicians claiming they talk to God personally before taking
important decisions. In one famous British example, religionist nutter Tony
Blair tried to sneak a reference to God into a speech he was giving trying
to justify the invasion of Iraq. His PR advisor (and de-facto deputy Prime
Minister) Alistair Campbell excised that with the memorable words: "We
don't do God".