An Apology and Retraction.
Ananamuss
At the time I posted that link, I was unaware that it contained
information that it at best contested, at worst completely false.
I'd like to apologize for that posting and I will, in future,
*aggressively* fact check *every* aspect of any video I post.
I would also like to mention, while I have the opportunity, that the
material I post is posted simply to propagate the information
therein. I do not necessarily agree with all opinions expressed in
the videos I post, as I am not the creator or producer of any of there
videos.
If there is incorrect information in a video, please point it out and
link to the right information. Do not fall into the trap of assuming
an innocent error that others have made is malicious in it's nature.
Thank you.
phil scott
there is also satire.... saying for instance that scientology is a
cluster fuck...well actually fucking in clusters is not one of their
things from all can tell... the cos however remains imo one of the
worlds preiminent cluster fucks....in spades, along with its front
groups...and infiltration deep into the dark side of govt. and more
than a few US corporations.
. same with many things hubbard said or did not say..
he is long on record from the satanist side of the fence, linked to
and praising those folk......and lying about and trashing xianity
etc.... thats the larger picture of the man... was he right or
wrong about those religions is beside the point. it is his stand
against them, and trashing generally that is factual.
did he actually say the pedophelia line, or that 'jesus was a lover of
young men and boys' in some sort of derogatory context? damn if I
know...
his larger remarks .....position.... and life however tell a complete
story... he hated religion in general, he tried to destroy anyone that
exposed his truly nasty habits and criminal behavior.
Phil Scott
Ananamuss
> contained in that video.
Oh, crap... I meant to point out WHAT info was wrong... and totally
missed doing so. Thanks for posting this.
I wish there was an "edit" button for these posts...
Michael Pattinson
RE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U_wIpibRNk
Who told you this stuff is not accurate?
It seems to me that the main points of possible contention are the
"Jesus" reference and the Sea Org sexual abuse charges, but for the
Jesus reference, even that text, I believe, was claimed copyrighted by
Scientology at one point.
The rest is not shocking from my own observations and witnessing over
a 24 year period in Scientology. That IS how things are, especially in
the "Sea Org". it is a brutal private navy with rules that are meant
to enforce loyalty through extreme duress and cruel treatment.
I am sorry someone got to you in some way to make you back down, but
that is part of the cult's attempts at putting up a smoke screen
against how things really are.
If you want to contact me about this ny email is
mpattinson AT gmail DOT com.
Peace and lulz.
Michael.
intergalactic...@hotmail.com
> At the time I posted that link, I was unaware that it contained
> information that it at best contested, at worst completely false.
I understand the error, and made it my self recently.
After doing my homework I made sure to post on Wise Beard Man's site
the possibility that Scieno-sitter / Clam Nanny might no longer be in
use.
I respect the fact that it's hard to filter out bullshit from
bullshit.
On another note, what are your feelings of J. Witnesses and their role
in maintaining the status quo on anonymous free speech?
dharm...@gmail.com
Not back down, Michael, just retract my support for a questionable
piece of information. As I said, the error was mine, as if I had
researched that particular bit about Jesus I would have been able to
see that it is in contention, and I would not have posted had I known.
I think it's good to apologize when you've made a mistake or do
something that is against your own principles whether on purpose, or
by accident. In this case I am certainly guilty of laziness and was
rightly admonished for it.
I also forgot to specify in the OP WHICH info I was referring to, due
to my wanting to get the post up ASAP.
So now I'm doubly guilty to lack of attention to detail.
....but thanks for sticking up for me. :-)
dharm...@gmail.com
I'm not very familiar with the Jehovah's Witness stance on free
speech, although I do remember reading about it perhaps last year or
the year before. I don't, at the moment, recall anything from the
series of articles I read, but I'll go brush up on it and get back to
you?
In the meantime, can you recommend some good, unbiased sources to
broaden my understanding of the JW position?
dharm...@gmail.com
Ah poo... I busted myself... heh....
henri
>Thank you.
Thanks. This is how criticism remains credible and unassailable, by
fact checking and refraining from questionable assertions of fact,
even when it would be really useful if they were true.
Being able to address and correct our errors is how we avoid
perpetuating them, and is our advantage over a cult stuck to
the false ideology of a dead charlatan, unable to correct his errors
and move into the future.
spam...@telus.net
Anonymous and the war on Scientology needs soldiers who are smart and
strong enough to learn from experience and just move on...
Just out of interest, how did you come upon the video? Because it
wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for an OSA operative you
trusted to have pointed you to the video - and then have his or her
sidekicks attack you for believing it, hoping to suppress you.
Dirty tricks are what OSA is all about.
LaserClam
> Thanks. This is how criticism remains credible and unassailable, by
> fact checking and refraining from questionable assertions of fact,
> even when it would be really useful if they were true.
>
> Being able to address and correct our errors is how we avoid
> perpetuating them, and is our advantage over a cult stuck to
> the false ideology of a dead charlatan, unable to correct his errors
> and move into the future.
Why don't you read Dianetics, The
Modern Science of Mental Health so
you have a basic understanding
of the mind?
Hartley Patterson
> I recently posted a link to a video called: "A Scientologist Speaks".
> At the time I posted that link, I was unaware that it contained
> information that it at best contested, at worst completely false.
A more permanent solution would be to correct the source. If it is as I
suspect Karin Spaink's website where the Fishman papers have been for a
long time, a message to her asking for a qualification to be added that
there is no general consensus as to the veracity of that story would be
helpful.
--
Hartley Patterson
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
http://news-from-bree.blogspot.com
Henri Ladd
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 12:40:09 -0800 (PST).
> Michael Pattinson <mpatt...@gmail.com> Wrote:
>
>>On Feb 17, 12:20 pm, Ananamuss <ananam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I recently posted a link to a video called: "A Scientologist Speaks".
>>>At the time I posted that link, I was unaware that it contained
>>>information that it at best contested, at worst completely false.
>>>
>>>I'd like to apologize for that posting and I will, in future,
>>>*aggressively* fact check *every* aspect of any video I post.
>>>
>>>I would also like to mention, while I have the opportunity, that the
>>>material I post is posted simply to propagate the information
>>>therein. I do not necessarily agree with all opinions expressed in
>>>the videos I post, as I am not the creator or producer of any of there
>>>videos.
>>>
>>>If there is incorrect information in a video, please point it out and
>>>link to the right information. Do not fall into the trap of assuming
>>>an innocent error that others have made is malicious in it's nature.
>>>
>>>Thank you.
>>
>>RE
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U_wIpibRNk
>>
>>Who told you this stuff is not accurate?
>>
>>It seems to me that the main points of possible contention are the
>>"Jesus" reference and the Sea Org sexual abuse charges, but for the
>>Jesus reference, even that text, I believe, was claimed copyrighted by
>>Scientology at one point.
>
>
> But later retracted in court. The pedo stuff is indeed a forgery.
Indeed?
The cult lawyers do and say a lot of things in court, and it doesn't
make those things true. How can you be so smart in saying that it is
indeed a forgery? Are you an OT8?
After this incident, weren't all OT8s told that they had to retake that
course? If that's the case was it because OT8 was changed?
Larry Wollersheim, who has infinite credibility with me, said two
different sources from two different points of the world said that this
was accurate. You remember Wollersheim right? He was the one to was
awarded by a jury $30 million for the cult's abuses on him, and
subsequently fought them for 20 years-- eventually winning.
>
> Hell we've had more than one OT-8 leaving the cult, and not one of them
> are saying that the "Jesus was a Pedo" is part of the OT-8 they did.
That's interesting. Who are these people? Can you give a citation
where they said this? Maybe you've got something here if you can do that.
It's my understanding that Kenrick Moxon, the cult attorney, is an OT8.
He identified the material as being in their own material copyrighted,
trademarked, and a trade secret.
I can easily understand how they would want to disassociate themselves
with this material weeks later, in the Lerma court case--a case that
actually did real damage to the cult--unlike the Erlich case. The judge
in that case actually quoted OT3 for publication.
Here's the question: could it be that they actually decided to
disassociate themselves from their own works? In order to cast L. Ron
Hubbard in a gentler, kinder light? The L. Ron Hubbard with a Christian
song in his heart?
How do you know that that, indeed, is not the truth?
banchukita
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whether the Jesus bit is true or not, it's just a great example of the
lack of informed consent that permeates the organization.
That most of its adherents do not know their own belief system's
cosmology story or even have access to it to determine whether an
outrageous statement is true or not is the real point here, I'd say.
-maggie, human being
intergalactic...@hotmail.com
> I'm not very familiar with the Jehovah's Witness stance on free
> speech, although I do remember reading about it perhaps last year or
> the year before. I don't, at the moment, recall anything from the
> series of articles I read, but I'll go brush up on it and get back to
> you?
>
> In the meantime, can you recommend some good, unbiased sources to
> broaden my understanding of the JW position?
Keep in mind that I'm not a JW, and in fact disagree with some of
their practices. Specifically their attitude toward whole blood
transfusions. But unlike Scientologists they won't "put ethics" on
this subject near as I'm aware. And while I don't agree with the
practice... it is important to keep the right to refuse a medical
procedure.
The most recent case on the subject was Watchtower Bible v. Stratton.
Cornell should be unbiased enough
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1737.ZO.html
Where I would submit that this case might be important to Chicago
Anons who couldn't protest due to permit laws from what I'm told.
I'll have to dig up some older court cases with them. I recall one
involving saluting the flag at school. (West Virginia State Board of
Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943)). Others involving
distribution of literature well here's wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_involving_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses
henri
I have. It's wigged-out lunacy. It only gives a basic understanding of
the diseased mind of L. Ron Hubbard.
Henri Ladd
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:18:11 -0600.
> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> With the Message-ID: <47b8...@news2.lightlink.com>
> And the Organization Header: Lightlink Internet.
> The famous author: Henri Ladd <hen...@nowhere.com>.
> Wrote on the subject: Re: An Apology and Retraction.:
> You want it to be true eh Tom? There's been several OT-8's leaving the
> cult and becoming critics. Not one of them is saying that the "Jesus was
> a Pedo" is the OT-8 they did while in the cult.
Again who are these people? Point out a citation where they said this?
And then when you do that, explaining how the material could not have
been changed to exclude this, for these particular people? We all know
why they would want to exclude this.
In order for you to discredit the court record, and what the cult
attorneys have said,along with Larry Wollersheim's contacts, you are
going to have to cite those people who provided your proof for the
discrediting. Aren't you? For instance you're going to have to say
that Kendrick Moxon was telling the truth the second time, only.
There is a genuine issue of fact here. Don't ask us to just take your
word for it.
> But Tom I know you're the kid of critic who thinks that "the end
> justifies the means" so you don't need to argue anymore.
>
> You want it to be true, whether or not it is true...
Your ad hominem attacks on me are going to be ignored by me. But,
they're not going to be ignored by others. They are going to be used to
diminish any credibility you might have.
We want your scholarship in this, not your opinions and rants.
Michael Pattinson
I was curious about how this came about, regarding the inaccuracy, so
I have posted an accurate OT8 message above. I am not surprised you
were misinformed, as many have been on this point.
MP
Friendly Xenu
>I recently posted a link to a video called: "A Scientologist Speaks".
>At the time I posted that link, I was unaware that it contained
>information that it at best contested, at worst completely false.
>I'd like to apologize for that posting and I will, in future,
>*aggressively* fact check *every* aspect of any video I post.
}:-} Good on you! There were a number of different, closely related
versions of OT8 posted in the past, one of which was identified by the
Scientology crime bosses who raided Arnie Lerma's residence as written
by Hubbard so Scientology claimed ownership of Arnie's copy.
The pedophile Jesus mythos is contested along with a lot of the rest
of the stuff that's in various versions of OT8, but there are quite a
few legitimate Biblical schollars who note that pedophilia wasn't a
taboo back in the time of the Jesus mythos and that according to the
classical Christanic mythologies, the Jesus mythos did maintain a
young boy lover whom many identify as Lazarus.
Don't feel too bad about forwarding questionable stuff, though -- this
is the Internets (which is not like dump trucks but more like a bunch
of tubes) not real life.
---
"Every time Tory waves to OSA, David Miscaviage gets shorter."
Friendly Xenu
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8U_wIpibRNk
>Who told you this stuff is not accurate?
>It seems to me that the main points of possible contention are the
>"Jesus" reference and the Sea Org sexual abuse charges, but for the
>Jesus reference, even that text, I believe, was claimed copyrighted by
>Scientology at one point.
It was claimed to be copyrighted by the Scientology crooks when they
raided Arnie's residence. It's likely that the crime syndicate just
laid claim to _everything_ since they're organized crime, not bothering
to actually verify what they were laying claim to.
Copies of OT8 are up all over the tubes and the Scientology crooks
don't try to take them down -- either because they can't claim ownership
or because they don't want to be embarrassed by having to admit that
Hubbard noted that the Jesus mythos had a young boy lover.
Valerie
<anan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I recently posted a link to a video called: "A Scientologist Speaks".
>At the time I posted that link, I was unaware that it contained
>information that it at best contested, at worst completely false.
>
>I'd like to apologize for that posting and I will, in future,
>*aggressively* fact check *every* aspect of any video I post.
>
>I would also like to mention, while I have the opportunity, that the
>material I post is posted simply to propagate the information
>therein. I do not necessarily agree with all opinions expressed in
>the videos I post, as I am not the creator or producer of any of there
>videos.
>
>If there is incorrect information in a video, please point it out and
>link to the right information. Do not fall into the trap of assuming
>an innocent error that others have made is malicious in it's nature.
>
>Thank you.
In normal circumstances there's a way to filter the true story, you
ignore the insane parts in it.
The problem with Hubbardian text is that if you ignore the ridiculous
parts only the copyright on the bottom remains.
So no harm done, just some collateral damage :)
Rev Dennis L Erlich
"pride proceedeth the fall."
D
Ananamuss <anan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I recently posted a link to a video called: "A Scientologist Speaks".
>At the time I posted that link, I was unaware that it contained
>information that it at best contested, at worst completely false.
>
>I'd like to apologize for that posting and I will, in future,
>*aggressively* fact check *every* aspect of any video I post.
>
>I would also like to mention, while I have the opportunity, that the
>material I post is posted simply to propagate the information
>therein. I do not necessarily agree with all opinions expressed in
>the videos I post, as I am not the creator or producer of any of there
>videos.
>
>If there is incorrect information in a video, please point it out and
>link to the right information. Do not fall into the trap of assuming
>an innocent error that others have made is malicious in it's nature.
>
>Thank you.
-----------------
"The Rock You Stood Upon
Is Broken Up And Gone
Hey Baby, Who's Your Baby Now
On The Slipway Of Your Dream
Stands Someone Else's Scheme
Hey Baby, Who's Your Baby Now" - Mark Knopfler
Henri Ladd
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:00:49 -0800.
> In the Newsgroup(s): alt.religion.scientology
> With the Message-ID: <hvehr3p9g52m9ps00...@4ax.com>
> And the Organization Header: inFormer Ministry www.informer.org <ministry
> correspondence priviliged>.
> The famous author: Rev Dennis L Erlich <info...@informer.org>.
> Wrote on the subject: Re: An Apology and Retraction.:
>
>
>>"pride proceedeth the fall."
>>
>>D
>
>
> off the "Jesus was a Pedophile" OT-8 from history totally now, as the
> forgery it is.
>
> Thanks for helping keeping the subject alive today.
>
>
Excuse me. You haven't accomplished anything today. The "Jesus was a
lover of men and boys" statement allegedly in OT8 has not been proven,
or disproven today.
There is a genuine issue of fact here.
If you apply Occam's razor, it would be more truthful than not.
Just because Michael Pattinson says it was not in his course pack, does
not preclude it from being in other peoples'. how many other times has
Scientology edited or abridged material for their own benefit?
It is part of the controversy that is Scientology.
What I take from both you fellows, is that you've turned in to
Scientology apologists. And that is very curious.
Rev Dennis L Erlich
yhn
>>Next time try remain mindful of the proverb which teaches us that
>>"pride proceedeth the fall."
fts
>This day Dennis, something has been accomplished.
I'll believe it when I see it, Sten. People see to be so easily lead
down the garden path.
>Let's hope we can write
>off the "Jesus was a Pedophile" OT-8 from history totally now, as the
>forgery it is.
One would hope that after all this time the Fishman Fiasco could be
put behind us, finally.
Now if the nonys would just drop the whole silly emeter/endorphin
snowjob, and stick to facts (god knows there are plenty), perhaps they
could not be easily dismissed the way Monica and her unnamed
colleagues have seemed to characterize them.
>Thanks for helping keeping the subject alive today.
I am at your service.
D
-------------
"In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of
its value is not in its taste, but in its effects." - J. William
Fulbright
Kilia
Why don't you GTH, LC?
Out_Of_The_Dark
> On Feb 17, 12:20 pm, Ananamuss <ananam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I recently posted a link to a video called: "A Scientologist Speaks".
> > At the time I posted that link, I was unaware that it contained
> > information that it at best contested, at worst completely false.
>
> > I'd like to apologize for that posting and I will, in future,
> > *aggressively* fact check *every* aspect of any video I post.
>
> > I would also like to mention, while I have the opportunity, that the
> > material I post is posted simply to propagate the information
> > therein. I do not necessarily agree with all opinions expressed in
> > the videos I post, as I am not the creator or producer of any of there
> > videos.
>
> > If there is incorrect information in a video, please point it out and
> > link to the right information. Do not fall into the trap of assuming
> > an innocent error that others have made is malicious in it's nature.
>
> > Thank you.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U_wIpibRNk
>
> Who told you this stuff is not accurate?
>
> It seems to me that the main points of possible contention are the
> "Jesus" reference and the Sea Org sexual abuse charges, but for the
> Jesus reference, even that text, I believe, was claimed copyrighted by
> Scientology at one point.
>
> a 24 year period in Scientology. That IS how things are, especially in
> the "Sea Org". it is a brutal private navy with rules that are meant
> to enforce loyalty through extreme duress and cruel treatment.
>
> I am sorry someone got to you in some way to make you back down, but
> that is part of the cult's attempts at putting up a smoke screen
> against how things really are.
> If you want to contact me about this ny email is
> mpattinson AT gmail DOT com.
> Peace and lulz.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Michael,
Are you, as an OT VIII completion, saying that the OT VIII materials
you studied contained this statement, which is the point of contention
in this thread:
"For those of you whose Christian toes I may have stepped on, let me
take
the opportunity to disabuse you of some lovely myths. For instance,
the
historic Jesus was not nearly the sainted figure he has been made out
to be. In
addition to being a lover of young boys and men, he was given to
uncontrollable
bursts of temper and hatred that belied the general message of love,
understanding and other typical Marcab PR. You have only to look at
the history his teachings inspired to see where it all inevitably
leads. It is historical
fact and yet Man still clings to the ideal, so deep and insidious
is the biological implanting."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/4844dd075e8362c0
I know some people have CoS produced mimeo copies of the HCOB on OT
VIII where the above statement exists, but the history ( in scn and on
the internet) of there OT VIII materials is that there have been
various versions of the HCOB and where one or more stated that Christ
was "a lover of boys and men"
I'm told that CoS originally determined that the HCOB with the above
statement was in fact the correct version and levied copyright
infringement of that particular one with others, but later pulled the
OT VIII copyright infringement charge out of the infringement case
while it was in litigation because of the content either being
embarrassingly correct or inherently incorrect.
Can you tell us if that version if the pne you studied, as one of the
few ARS members who actually did OT VIII while a member of CoS?
Thanks
Mary
Seebs
> Why don't you read Dianetics, The
> Modern Science of Mental Health so
> you have a basic understanding
> of the mind?
...
Are you joking?
Hey, has someone got a guide to the players, so I can figure out what's going
on here? There can't seriously be people left who don't know that Dianetics
was a scam, can there?
--
Copyright 2008, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Rasta Robert
Because it's neither modern, nor science,
ok, it appears mental, I'll give you that,
but it isn't healthy either.
--
<http://rr.www.cistron.nl/> -!- <http://www.rr.dds.nl/>
<http://www.dread.demon.nl/>
barb
> On 2008-02-17, LaserClam <Lase...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Why don't you read Dianetics, The
>> Modern Science of Mental Health so
>> you have a basic understanding
>> of the mind?
>
> ...
>
> Are you joking?
>
> Hey, has someone got a guide to the players, so I can figure out what's going
> on here? There can't seriously be people left who don't know that Dianetics
> was a scam, can there?
>
Yes, and you just responded to one. :)
Laser clam is employing Black Dianetics to introvert us. After years of
doing this, you'd think he'd have figured out by now that it ain't
working, but that's clams for you. Brainwashed, processed into olive
loaf, observant as a brick, with critical thinking skills that would
leave a lump of coal looking smart.
--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
I can haz Legion?
Seebs
> Laser clam is employing Black Dianetics to introvert us.
Wait, he, uhm.
He WHAT?
I see. So, what he's trying to do is duplicate the way in which, when
I first learned about Xenu, I was immediately attacked by the most powerful
mental forces of enturbulation that Xenu's implants had to offer, and
suffered a fit of difficulty breathing, loss of motor control, and so on?
Because the fact is, the man's just not funny enough to do that to me.
--
Copyright 2008, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
Rasta Robert
Well, they also 'claimed copyright' on the 'OT 9' some critic
wrote and I also got a Kobrinagram for a random cut-up that
mashed together words and fragmented sentences from several
OT/NOTS HCOBs. So it's already been shown over and over that
they make bogus copyright claims for fabricated 'scriptures'.
LaserClam
> Yes, and you just responded to one. :)
> Laser clam is employing Black Dianetics to introvert us. After years of
> doing this, you'd think he'd have figured out by now that it ain't
> working, but that's clams for you. Brainwashed, processed into olive
> loaf, observant as a brick, with critical thinking skills that would
> leave a lump of coal looking smart.
>
Do you always try to reduce
someone to an object?