"Anon" <Anonymous-Remai
...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
...
> "Max Mustermann" <anonym...@remail.amessage.info> wrote in message
> news:0271fa34a8e25ca6f678d1ca075a9d82@remail.amessage.info...
> <snip>
> > (btw: hi, you scientologists reading this; has it ever occured to you
that
> > attacking your critics by posting personal slurs against them just makes
> you
> > look really stupid? Killing people kind of ranks higher than someone
> having
> > epilasy out here in the real world . . . remember the real world? Where
> you
> > could have your own opinions and say what you really felt? It's still
out
> here,
> > waiting for you to come back to it. I'm sure there's people you care
about
> > and who care about you who'd love to see you again).
> This comment implies that any and all Scientologists harass critics and
kill
> people.
> ---------
> Please note that I was not implying here that scientologists kill or
harrass
> people, although people *are* dead and harrassment of critics is a matter
> of public record. Re-read that sentence carefully. I am referring to the
glaring
> differences between the anti- and pro-coS websites.
As I said, the above paragraph, the phrasing in it implied the glaring
generality.
I figured that probably wasn't what you meant, but it was pretty much the
way it came out by virtue of your having written "you scientologists reading
this".
And, by the way, people who've been in the church a long time often do NOT
know what's going on. You may think they do, you may hope they do, but most
do not.
This I know from experience.
To make it clearer to you
> what I was saying: to the average person (and remember, most people know
nothing
> about scientology, good or bad) a quick search in Google will reveal, for
instance,
> verifiable accounts of people dead because of the "church", versus the
coS's
> non-verifiable propoganda which consists mainly of picking on people for
the
> kind of stuff that anyone might have in their background, but might not
choose
> to reveal to the world, and a bunch of other stuff that is quite obviously
> just made up. And quite frankly, no-one really gives a stuff about
someone's
> private failings, if that person's arguments are good,
> and if that's the only
> basis their critics have for claiming this person's arguments should be
ignored.
> That's in the real world. I understand that the world within scientology
might
> work somewhat differently.
Perhaps you mean "within CofS". Scn, though commonly referred to
interchangeably with CofS, is actually the subject. CofS would be the
organization to which you refer. Point of fact, not all Scn'ists are in
CofS, nor do they wish to be tarred with that particular brush.
> Perhaps I should have said "hi, all you scientologist OSA operatives out
there"?
Or just OSA.
> I'm not 100% up with the lingo yet: is OSA the group within scientology
that
> forges documents and makes nasty personal attacks on people?
OSA is Dept 20 in ~CofS~. It is their Office of Special Affairs and is
indeed known for those things. It is culpable but it does not act
autonomously- it gets its orders from the top mgmt.
<snip>
> It's a miracle it hasn't happened yet. And I'm assuming you are not
counting
> those who have committed suicide because of coS harrassment amongst the
dead.
I've never heard of a critic committing suicide because he was harassed by
CofS. I have heard of several church members who have committed suicide,
though.
> It's a fact that a number of church members lurk here to find out what
their
> church won't tell them. I assure you, they don't give a flying fuck about
> what critics do.
> ----------
> Once again, I reminded of Alice in Wonderland, every time I have to deal
with
> scientological thinking.
We're just folks.
> Perhaps they should give a flying f*ck.
Read the sentence again. I meant that they don't care in the sense of
wanting to HARASS. Obviously they care enough to read the friggin' forum.
> Most people
> are born with a sense of morality (or have it instilled in them, if you
prefer)
> which tells them: lying is wrong. Making up stuff about your opponent in
debate
> is wrong. Bullying people is wrong. Standing by and watching someone die
is
> wrong.
Not what I was talking about. Very few church members have ever "stood by
and watched someone die" or are aware that such has ever happened.
The other comments don't apply to church members in general, though they may
apply to some, such as OSA and various mgmt and HCO staff who've decided to
"handle the enemy."
I was discussing rank and file every day church members.
>Outright killing someone or driving them to suicide is wrong. "Body
> Thetans" or no BT's, it's . . . just . . . wrong.
So? Not what I was talking about.
Maybe you should reread my post...
> Allowing something to continue which a person knows in his/her heart is
wrong
> is something which gives some people sleepless nights.
Most church members do not know the stuff their church does. That's WHY I
talked about some coming here- as I did- to lurk, to find out what's going
on.
The very few who know about ars, that is.
>And so it should: should
> a witness to a hit-and-run, who knows the person who did it, just keep
mum?
> Is that person then responsible? There's even a legal term for it:
accessory
> to a crime.
See above.
> When the "church" finally fails I wonder how many ex-scientologists
You mean ex CofS members. A lot will continue to remain Scn'ists by creed-
as have I, BasicBasic, Ralph Hilton and some otheres you can find on a.r.s.
and elsewhere...
> are going
> to be able to live with what they did, in the name of scientology.
I have no problem.
Most church members don't "do" anything other than take services at CofS,
run a courseroom, etc.
> I'm also a Scientologist- a non CofS one and I assure you, I don't do
that,
> either.
> ----------
> See above: perhaps you should. Or maybe you were saying "I don't kill and
harrass
> people".
Yes, I was.
>Fine. I never said you did. But *someone* did (unless they were just
> embodied BT's who did it. Or maybe they were giant pink bunnies). Someone
put
> their finger on the Enter key and uploaded a bunch of dirty tricks to the
*official*
> coS website.
The vast majority of CofS members do not know about any of those 'sites or
so forth.
BTs have nothing to do with it.
Our theology/cosmology has nothing to do with it. Immorality is immorality.
Since OSA and CofS mgmt do not blame it on BTs, neither can you.
> The people responsible are either sociopaths of some kind, are
> too brainwashed by the church to be able to help themselves, or are just
normal
> people who are too bullied to be able to resist. Minus the people who
don't
> have a conscience, they're going to have to live themselves someday. Now
is
> the time for those people to decide if they really want to have such
things
> on their conscience.
See above.
Could you consider using a nick like Cerridwen does?
Can still use anon remailers...
C
