So where are the Scientologists?
Robert Kirkpatrick
Greetings,
I subscribed to this newsgroup to learn about Scientology. Is this the
wrong newsgroup? Like most other newsgroups this one seems filled with
bashing. Is there a better venue? I really want to hear from the members. I
have read a number of books on the subject (for and against) now I would
like to see the results (good or bad) for myself. If the results are like
the books say the proof will be with them I think.
Thanks,
Robert
Some guy said...Ye shall know them by their fruits...yeah well whatever
Exile49
If you want to hear the offical Church of Scientology party line go to
their official web site at :http://www.scientology.org/
But if you tire of this pap and want to hear the real story of Hubbard
and Scientology read "Bare-Faced Messiah" at:
http://www.icon.fi/~marina/bfm/index.htm
In this newsgroup you will find a little of everything but safe to say
that it is the home of the harshest critics of this sinister group. Many
are former members who had their lives ruined by Scientology, or have lost
friends and family, some are disgusted by Scientology's ruthless
persecution of those who point out the obvious lies and frauds it
contains, and many are here because it is the right thing to do.
Scientology is the Borg Collective of our times. Resistance is NOT
futile, we will Not be assimilated!
The Exile
$scientology: chiefly responsible for the deaths of Lisa McPherson, Susan Meister, James Stewart, Noah Lottick and others. To learn more about the lame-brained, quack medical practices of this sinister cult see:hrrp://www.primenet.com/~cultxpt/index.htm
Eric S. Smith: Left-Field Marshal
In article <01bca57d$b2408880$65c245c6@pppillos>,
Robert Kirkpatrick <il...@ari.net> wrote:
> I subscribed to this newsgroup to learn about Scientology. Is this the
>wrong newsgroup?
Currently, yes. a.r.s goes through cycles of relevancy and irrelevancy,
and it's currently getting near the bottom of its own little pit of
off-topic whinge-sniping. Go read some Web pages and check back later...
>If the results are like
>the books say the proof will be with them I think.
Sounds reasonable to me. Most former members on this group seem to think
that Hubbard was full of baloney, FWIW.
--Eric Smith
Inducto
>>I really want to hear from the members. I
have read a number of books on the subject (for and against) now I would
the books say the proof will be with them I think.<<
What you're seeing here IS the result of Hubbard's doctrines.
Wherever CoS goes, they end up alienating large numbers of people -- and,
conveniently, creating enemies to reinforce their paranoid notions that
they are opposed by some great conspiracy -- through their general
tendency to treat non-Scientologists as contempibly unenlightened beings
to be manipulated and lied to as necessary, as well as specific policies
such as "attack, never defend".
Despite their "big lie" claims to have 8 million members and be "the
world's fastest growing religion", they don't actually have enough members
to even be able to fill a newsgroup -- what credence can you give to a
group that can't even give you an accurate accounting of its membership
(much less its finances)? The basic truth is that there are many more
ex-members than current members, and so the criticism by ex-members that
you see here really probably is a better representation of what the "8
million Scientologists" actually think, than anything that comes out of
CoS PR offices or carefully coached current members. Not to mention
which, their doctrines conveniently forbid them to discuss or criticize --
their doctrines or leadership! So there's nothing to be discussed. There
is a CoS "fellowship and support" folder on AOL, but you can look at the
contents of it posted to a.r.s. -- the CoS PR staff has unethically taken
it away from the regular members, but even when it was mostly inhabited by
everyday Scientologists it was still pretty uninteresting.
And, since it's relevant, I'll mention two of their recruiting tricks.
The first is that, yes, there are some useful techniques in Dianetics --
mostly adaptations from other sources -- with which you are lead into
making the unwarranted assumption that all the higher courses will be
equally valuable. The second is a principle called "false attribution",
in which Scientologists are encouraged to attribute anything positive that
happens in their lives to Scientology -- the things that happen to people
all the time in their lives either as a result of some other source or
just application of our inner strengths and resources, but that a
Scientologist will tend to see as the unique result of the application of
the teachings of Hubbard.
I fully support the freedom of religion of everyday Scientologists, and
one of those freedoms will be to be freed from an oppressive leadership
that won't even let them discuss their beliefs in a public forum.
I.
posted/mailed
SIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIGSIG
Induct YourSELF into new realities
Avoid highway robbers on the path to personal and spiritual betterment - don't be detoured down a dead end
Zane Thomas
"Robert Kirkpatrick" <il...@ari.net> wrote:
>I have read a number of books on the subject (for and against) now I would
>like to see the results (good or bad) for myself. If the results are like
>the books say the proof will be with them I think.
Despite decades of time, and who knows how many hundreds of millions
in dollars collected by co$, they haven't seen fit to finance even one
scientific study to back up their claims. So, from an objective point
of view, all of their claims are entirely unsubstantiated.
You could solicit opinions from current and former members. Current
members would tell you all the claims are true, and former members
would likely point out numerous claims they say are not true. How do
you decide who to believe? That's where objective studies come in,
but co$ hasn't conducted any and as I recall the one scientific study
of the "reactive mind" found no substantiation.
Obey little, resist much.
BP
In article <34e82954....@snews.zippo.com>, be...@arcadis.be says...
>
>"Robert Kirkpatrick" <il...@ari.net> wrote in article
><01bca57d$b2408880$65c245c6@pppillos>:
>
>>Greetings,
>> I subscribed to this newsgroup to learn about Scientology. Is this the
>>wrong newsgroup?
>
>around here. The group was created in such a way to dupe people
>like you who think the subject matter is Scientology. It is not.
>It is anti-Scientology.
No. There is no better place to learn about Hubbard's lies.
>>Like most other newsgroups this one seems filled with
>>bashing. Is there a better venue? I really want to hear from the members. I
>>have read a number of books on the subject (for and against) now I would
>>like to see the results (good or bad) for myself. If the results are like
>>the books say the proof will be with them I think.
If the results were what the books say, the Scientologist Supermen
would already be running the world. What does that tell you?
>Try to post to alt.clearing.technology. It's a newsgroup for
>ex-members of the CofS but who still believe in the CofS
>technology. Only a few people in there may see your post because
>they interact mainly through an internal mailing list, to avoid
>the type of dishonest discussion that is taking place in this
>newsgroup. But some people may see your post and give you
>guidance.
They hide from real science there.
>Check www.scientology.org. That's the official Church (and its
>propaganda)
>
>Check the "critics" pages (and their propaganda). URL running
>free in this newsgroup.
>
>Check the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance for
>independent information. http://www.religioustolerance.org/
NOT REALLY
>I think the CofS members themselves discuss in some AOHell
>folder somewhere.
>
>If you want the independent, neutral point of view of an
>ex-member, e-mail me :-) Or post your questions in the newsgroup
>(and put your asbestos suit on).
>
ROTFL!! Bernie is a solid supporter of the Co$, just read his
posts.
ChrisR2455
on Aug 11, 1997 ind...@aol.com (Inducto) wrote:
>Despite their "big lie" claims to have 8 million members and be "the
>world's fastest growing religion", they don't actually have enough members
>to even be able to fill a newsgroup. . .<
And the members they do have probably can't afford cpmputers due to the
loss of all their money to Co$.
Dave Bird---ARS troll patrol
In article <34e82954....@snews.zippo.com>,
>"Robert Kirkpatrick" <il...@ari.net> wrote in article
><01bca57d$b2408880$65c245c6@pppillos>:
>
>>Greetings,
>> I subscribed to this newsgroup to learn about Scientology. Is this the
>>wrong newsgroup?
>
>Yes. You will only learn about the negative sides of Scientology
>around here. The group was created in such a way to dupe people
>like you who think the subject matter is Scientology. It is not.
>It is anti-Scientology.
If you are an ex-cult member and looking for recovery, beware of
Barnie Spoons from Blgium , who is a very confused person and/or
still wroking for OSA, who wants to keep you well away from the
accurate information and mess up alt.support.ex-cult with lots
of off-topic spam which certainly WON'T support anyone trying to
recover from a cult experience: he's part of the problem,
not nthe solution.
/; ;\
-- Regards, __ \\____//
XEMoo.Moo.Moo /{_\_/ \`'\_/__ (cow by P.Kistner
<da...@xemu.demon.co.uk> \___ (o\ /o } <up...@sunyit.edu>)
_____________________________/ :--' ____________________
http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/ \_ `__\ ---[ now you've made me ]
\___(o'o) [_really MAAAaadd!___]
`===='
"So many idiots, so few comets" ..OldTimer on ARS