Leaving the church
robertthompson88
member, off and on, since 1976. I decided to search the internet
concerning Ron's death and found out the truth. Back in 1986 I was at
the event at Flag where the top management of the church lied to us. We
were told that Ron had voluntarily dropped his healthy body and had
decided to do upper level research. It did not sound right at that
time, but I did not question it. In retrospect, I cannot believe my
gullibility.
I have educated myself regarding the good and bad of Scientology. It is
sad to report that the reality is not very pretty. The internet makes
finding out the truth a simple matter now. I suspect this ability to
easily find answers will hurt the church considerably. The internet is
a powerful communication tool.
I want to thank the people who helped me to see through the lies.
Thank you,
Robert Thompson
Tampa, Florida
rt...@verizon.net
John
"robertthompson88" <rt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1163729577.0...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Welcome to the wider world :)
butterflygrrrl
Good luck on your new life, free from lies.
I wish you all the best!
Larry T.
news:1163729577.0...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Is that where you were?
We were at home in New York City watching the television when all of a
sudden the space shuttle Challenger exploded with Kristie McAuliffe on board
and a few moments later came an announcement of L. Ron Hubbard's death.
Most unusual.
Larry
Gerry Armstrong
wrote:
Congratulations Robert. Another document that you may find helpful in
the process of exiting Scientology and cutting through the lies that
bound you all those years is Hubbard's Affirmations or Admissions from
1946, eight years after he started Scientology, and while he was
inventing Dianetics.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/ars/ars-2000-03-11.html
Also you might check out the false claims and fraud documented on my
wife Caroline's site: http://www.carolineletkeman.org/
And now that you're an SP, you'll need the data on this site that is
dedicated to exposing, elucidating and eliminating the "Suppressive
Person" doctrine:
http://www.suppressiveperson.org/
Good luck out here.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Robert Thompson
>Tampa, Florida
>rt...@verizon.net
© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org
Verminius Lardiculi
robertthompson88 wrote:
> I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church.
Robert;
Thank you for this extremely courageous post, it sends a message to the
CoS that its power to intimidate those whom it exploits and betrays is
getting weaker every day. Good to see you here, and welcome to a
dysfunctional but slightly less deluded world!
Ball of Fluff
"robertthompson88" <rt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1163729577.0...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I wish you all the best and hope that you will continue doing the things
~you~ want to do.
C
knok_knok
Well done Robert. You have taken the first and the most difficult of
steps.
It takes great courage to do what you have done, but the rewards will
be even greater as you begin to cast off the shackels of "Clamdom".
Good luck m8... knok_knok
thorazine shuffle
"robertthompson88" <rt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1163729577.0...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Good on you, man. Here you will find some very cool people that have gone
through what you are going through.
Larry T.
news:455d2716$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
Great web site Claire.
Have you gotten much feedback from it?
Larry
Iggy
Good luck to you, Robert!!
"thorazine shuffle" <thorazin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lR97h.6544$IR4....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
freeway
Good for you, Robert. I'm sure you will never look back voluntarily to
the lies you've been told.
Have a wonderful, and 'free' life, all the best to you! Thanks for this
couragious mail.
Simkatu
Robert-
Congratulations on making this life-changing decision. It is one of the
best things you could have done at this time in your life. Wasting your
time and money on lies and fraud is not the way to go.
There is a way you can really help others in this world. And it DOESN'T
even require that you sell other people IAS memberships, or Dianetics
books, or packets of Way to Happiness pamphlets.
I know that leaving the security of friends (and possibly family) that
are involved with Scientology can be a very traumatic experience for
some people. Rest assured, that there are many people out in the real
world that will help your through.
I am very happy you made this decision. I can promise you that in the
end, you will not regret having made it. Now you have real freedom.
The freedom to think as you want. The freedom to question the validity
of what L. Ron Hubbard wrote. The freedom to ask what could have been
done by church officials to help save the lives of Lisa McPhereson and
Ellie Perkins.
Its a great big world out here filled with us wogs. Many are willing to
provide help you and many of them could use some help that you can
provide, if you are able.
I hope to hear more about your story inside Scientology soon.
Take care,
Simkatu
moontaco
Yes, I look forward to hearing more of your story too, Robert, if you'd
like to share it. Best wishes for life in wogland.
moontaco
Skipper
robertthompson88 <rt...@verizon.net> wrote:
Welcome back to the human race, man. You're an immortal being, but that
doesn't have anything to do with $cientology.
The Chief Instigator
Welcome back to reality. Keep proving that the way out of Scientology is the
nearest open door.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Milwaukee 2 (November 15)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 17 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
Susan
"robertthompson88" <rt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1163729577.0...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Congratulations Robert!
Wonderful to see that you have left the cult and are on your way to your new
life.
Please continue to post and share your story as you feel comfortable.
Susan
Scientology...@gmail.com
Welcome back to life - it is hard sometimes but well worth it.
RolandRB
Congratulations for publically departing Scientology. You have made
yourself into an SP. Expect the Church of Scientology to send PIs round
to search through your trash and to leaflet your neighbours telling
them that you associate with paedophiles. If you have a young child at
school then expect parents of the other children to be given the same
leaflet at the school gates. Expect to be physically assaulted by
Scientologists as you walk down the street. Expect to be refused
service in any shop run by Scientologists. If you have household pets
then keep them indoors. Drain your swimming pool just to be on the safe
side.
Eldon
robertthompson88 wrote:
> I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church.
THANK YOU for making this a public announcement. That alone is
extremely beneficial as an example to others. Let's keep in mind
Hubbard's decree that anyone who departs Scientology is required to
slink away in silence... or else. Anyone who has the audacity to say
they're leaving is committing a HIGH CRIME.
What a crock of free speech suppression. Can you imagine another
religion harassing and defaming apostates who dare to say they left the
fold? A few practice shunning, which is paranoid enough.
I hope you'll let us know if there are any repercussions from your
announcements beyond a sheet of goldenrod paper. Considering how much
they have on their plate these days, I sort of doubt it, but one can
never underestimate their irrational spite.
Hartley Patterson
> I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church.
Welcome back to reality!
> In retrospect, I cannot believe my
> gullibility.
We, all of us, are hard wired to believe some things that are untrue,
rejecting all evidence to the contrary. That is not gullability, and
these are faults that can be overcome by learning a skill, Critical
Thinking.
Unfortunately, one of these hard wired faults causes us to believe that
we don't have hard wired faults :-)
My favorite example of this is the Three Door Problem:
http://www.uvm.edu/~dhowell/StatPages/More_Stuff/ThreeDoor.html
Try asking your friends this, tell them the obvious answer is wrong, and
listen with growing astonishment as they proceed to explain to you why
*you* (and every computer and scientist set the problem) are wrong.
Some other hardwired faults:
People who join cults are stupid.
No one I know would join a cult because they are real people.
I left a cult because XXXXXXX, therefore everyone else will leave
because of XXXXXXX if I tell them often enough.
--
"I just might be the angel at your door"
http://www.newsfrombree.co.uk
A medieval spreadsheet and enturbulating entheta.
Beckyboo
Hip, hip, Hooray! Some of us, who have never been in Scn, are still
very gullible. Do not worry about that.
Questions, what are your plans? Are you going to travel? Write a book?
This is so exciting!
:-)
Best wishes!
--
Becky
FreeThinker
co$ member, but I have very dear friends who are and I know that this
decision with change you for the better.
Many blessings to you,
Freethinker
robertthompson88 wrote:
> I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church. I have been a
> member, off and on, since 1976. I decided to search the internet...
> ...
Out_Of_The_Dark
Robert,
Your post here on a.r.s is and will continue to be an inspiration for
many.
I read your letter to Lermanet.com ! I remember the lies we were told
too.
The truth does set us free, for sure! ~~ JustCallMeMary
Robert Thompson's letter to Lermanet.com
Hello,
I have been involved with Scientology, off and on, since 1976 and
served on mission staff for a period of about 2 ½ years. In 2004, I
decided to become active again and paid for a lot of training and
auditing. All was going well and I was happy with the services that I
was receiving.
I use the internet quite a bit for such activities as email, job
searches, and research. I had never really looked at any of the
anti-Scientology sites since as Scientologists we are told they contain
entheta and lies. Anyway, I was a little curious about Ron's death
and decided to do a quick Google search. I was just curious, nothing
else.
Back in 1986, at the event where Ron's death was announced, I had
felt a twinge of disbelief when I heard the speaker say that Ron had
willingly departed his body so that he could continue his OT research.
He said that Ron was in good health generally, but that these OT levels
needed to be done without a body. We were told Ron researched how to
discard the body and he wrote up the procedure so that we could all do
the same when our time came. They said that Ron lay down on a bed, used
his OT powers to stop the body's functioning, and quietly passed
away. At the time, I put aside my doubts since I knew that the tech
worked, and also because I knew that questioning the church was frowned
upon.
I knew that looking on the internet was considered out-ethics since it
can expose the unwary person to upper level material. Since I had been
in Scientology for many years, I felt I could easily skip any
confidential upper level material on the internet. My first surprise
was how many responses I received from my Google search for "death of
L. Ron Hubbard". My next surprise was that his death certificate and
toxicology report were so readily accessible. Needless to say, I was
quite surprised to see that he died of a stroke that took 8 days to
kill him. I did not immediately believe that the church had lied to me
at the event in 1986. I then came across Michael Tilse's doubt
formula and realized that other people had had similar doubts about
this event. In my opinion, that gave the death certificate information
credibility. A couple of weeks later, the ethics officer and DSA at the
org confirmed what I had read on the internet. They showed me that the
"vistaril" drug was used to treat Ron's stroke symptoms. I did
not really care about that. My concern was that it proved that the
management had lied to the church membership about Ron's death. The
discovery of the lie was important.
The revelations about Ron's death lead me to look further into other
areas where I had felt something was a little off in the past. For me
that meant the conviction of Mary Sue and the whole GO debacle. At that
event, I was told that the church had mistakenly copied documents on a
government copier and some people in the GO were convicted and had to
serve a short jail sentence. The event made it sound like the
prosecutors and the FBI were the bad guys and the GO people were being
persecuted for making an error in using a copier. I left the event with
the impression they went to jail because they did not furnish their own
paper and inadvertently used the government paper in the copier thereby
technically breaking the law. When I read about "Operation Snow
White" and what really happened it proved to me that I had been lied
to again. Later, I also saw that Mary Sue had admitted in court about
the existence of GO Order 121689 that describes culling of PC folders.
That was the moment for me where I realized I would never get any more
auditing in the church. To break that confidentiality promise was
unconscionable. It is interesting that the church says they never
betray that parishioner/minister confidentiality, and yet there are
numerous testimonials on the internet of ex-staff admitting to culling
PC folders.
Before finding out about the culling of PC folders I found something
else that was my turning point away from Scientology. I read the
"Scientology - Through the door interviews" as well as other
interviews on the internet. I never realized how many people had gone
clear and OT and did not have any OT abilities. It wasn't just a
couple of dissatisfied PCs nattering on the net. I counted close to one
hundred people who were clear or OT and had left Scientology. I knew
their stories were true because I could identify similar experiences
that I had had during my Scientology career. That is when the walls
came crashing down for me personally, and I knew there was no bridge to
total freedom. I was suddenly at the same spot that I had been at
thirty years earlier just before I discovered Scientology. I had been
searching for the answers to life. I wanted to understand life and help
myself and others to live a better one. I had thought Scientology was
the answer. Now I realize that the answer I had found was a fraud, and
that I had been duped.
I would like to be able to turn back the clock and say that I never
found out the church had been lying to me. I am an unwilling recipient
of this knowledge. I even tried going back on course, but it was not
the same. The bubble had been burst. Once outside, I could not go back
inside.
I have had great wins on my auditing and training, especially Life
Repair. My life changed so much on Life Repair that I decided that this
was something I could do for the rest of my life. I believe this is
also the point where I left my objectivity about Scientology and began
to trust and believe what I was told without really examining or
questioning any of it. Over the years I have endured a lot of the good
and bad of Scientology. After a while, I would tell myself that the
tech works and that that is what really matters. I would minimize and
gloss over the bad stuff. When things like the church's explanation
of Ron's death did not make sense, I did not pursue the matter. I
closed my eyes to it. In fact, one of the reasons I got my grades
expanded last year was because I wanted to be able to handle the bad
stuff better. I knew the church would not change; therefore I needed to
change, and to a large extent I did change. The expanded grades were
really excellent and I had many wins. But they did not change the weird
things that go on at the church. Lots of little, odd things occur like
being forced to go to Sunday service, or the changes in the definition
of a floating needle.
At any rate, I have decided to give the money I have on account to my
ex-wife and walk away from the church. I would love to stay, but I
don't like liars. I have also decided to speak out about the church,
the good and the bad. I am not sure to what extent at this point since
I have seen what they do to those that speak out critically. But then
what kind of church creates fear through intimidation. I feel I am
becoming a truth seeker, critical thinker, and free speech advocate. It
will be interesting to see where this road leads.
Here is a short write up of two items that concern me about the church.
I have had great gains in my auditing and training and I find many
things about the church that I like and admire. The following items
appear to be indisputable facts.
Thanks,
Robert Thompson
"When Mary Sue Hubbard and 10 Guardian's Office members where
convicted in Federal court, the church held an event to explain what
had happened. In that event it was explained that the only thing
illegal that had occurred was that the GO had used government office
copiers without permission and that the 11 people were convicted of
"stealing photocopy paper."
www.lermanet.com/reference/77Granjurypart1.htm
This was simply not accurate. The chain of events are available on the
internet, including the actual court documents.
lisatrust.bogie.nl/legal/snowwhite/index.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
When Ron dropped his body there was an event held to inform the
membership of his passing. At the event it was explained that Ron had
moved on to his next level of research, a level beyond the imagination
and in a state exterior to the body. It explained that he had even
written up the procedure so that other members could have this data
when it was appropriate. There was no mention of him being ill. It was
explained that this was a planned event so he could do further research
into the upper OT levels without the encumbrance of a body.
Ron's death certificate and toxicology report are easily found on the
internet these days. Apparently, I was not alone in believing the
documents could be forgeries. At least one and probably several
Scientologists researched further by going to the San Luis Obispo
Sheriff's office and the county courthouse to view the reports
personally. The facts are as follows:
1) Ron suffered a stroke eightdays before his death. (According to Gene
Denk, Ron's personal physician),
2) Ron had Vistaril, an anti-psychotic drug, in his blood at the time
of his death. There were ten recent puncture wounds on his body from
these injections,
3) Ron apparently had a history of acute pancreatitis, and developed
dysphrasia just prior to his death. Dysphrasia indicates a difficulty
in swallowing and can be caused by a variety of things.
4) Testimony from Robert Vaughn Young says that the PR story about
Ron's research into upper OT levels was created very soon after his
death by church management to hide the true facts of his death.
Here is one internet site that has the coroner's and toxicology
report. http://www.xenu.net/archive/hubbardcoroner/
http://www.lermanet.com/reference/77Granjurypart1.htm
Interviews with some current and mostly former Scientologists.
http://alley.ethercat.com/door/ "
www.lermanet2.com/reference/new-flyers/july-mailing.doc
Google entry on Robert Thompson Scientology
DOC] Chapter 6 Creative Image Therapy by Volney Matheson©1954 THE BODY
...
Robert Thompson When Mary Sue Hubbard and 10 Guardian's Office
members where convicted in Federal ...
http://www.lermanet.com/reference/77Granjurypart1.htm ...
Ball of Fluff
Larry T. wrote:
> "Ball of Fluff" <getof...@fluffentology.com> wrote in message
> news:455d2716$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
> |
>
>
> Great web site Claire.
Well, it's fair to middlin'. I'm still learning.
>
> Have you gotten much feedback from it?
>
Some. When I first put it up and announced it, I got some attagirls
here and one person said (which was really really cute) that it was
like watching a kid with his first bike.
So other than maybe one or two comments, the a.r.s. feedback was
positive.
On an FZ forum, I got mixed reviews. A couple people took that as a
chance to bitch about my stance.
On OCMB I got a lot of feedback. Tons. All of it negative.
One woman created a thread with a porno link that she said was my site
and then told me she'd take down the post if I took down my site. Not
the picture I have on my site that offended her (the oyster shell lady)
but the entire website. I responded that I'd not asked her to withdraw
her post so do what ya want, babe.
Andreas nuked the thread.
One other lady there was complaining about that site and pic for months
after I first put it up.Right up to about the time OCMB went down for 3
and a half weeks. Probably will still talk about it.
Tom Padgett complained a lot about it, too, as recently as maybe a
month ago.
Another guy called it "tacky beyond belief" (huh? The entire website?
Or the JPG which doesn't have one single boob or genital on it?) and
then said that in any event, it was up to me and freedom of speech,
etc. Ummm...yeah..that's true....
I didn't get any actual negative ~emails~.
I did get a highly negative PM on OCMB about it but just one and I
won't say what was in it or who sent it.
Since I got so very much feedback on the Clearwater Clambake JPG, I
will leave it up for a long time to come.
I am also keeping the link to my husband's artwork on there- which also
got a lot of negativity and accusations of "you put porn on the
internet" from one person (mentioned earlier) on OCMB .
C
Larry T.
news:1163796116....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Thank you Claire for this important feedback yourself.
It occurred to me that this *might* be your first site because
over the last 2 or 3 years of us posting here you have never
put a URL up to where others might learn more about you
and the experiences you had in the Church of Scientology.
Diane Richardson has however done you a big compliment
as well by posting a rather large section about you on her
website:
Here: http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/swazey.htm
and here: http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/C_disconnect.htm
Have you seen it?
It was interesting and informative to read.
Two things caught my eye however:
1. In cyberspace no one can hear you scream? {Sounding a lot
like the "Alien" here.
2. And this Phyllis Stein woman.
Proceed.
Larry
Muldoon
-snip-
Fluff, I hope that you won't allow yourself to be used by the sleazy
"Bernie" manipulation operation.
And Larry T., you should know better.
Zinj
says...
Heh. Larry, I doubt we'll ever know whether you're actually
just part of the more bizarro detritus of the 'Church' or one of
the more bizarrg prototypes of the 'I am Critic!' which evolved
into the 'Truth Seeker'/'Lily'/Bick bots.
But; you are certainly bizarre.
Diane Richardson is and has been many things; most of them over-
hyped and irrelevant, but, she is *not* 'Bernie'.
Newbies might 'research' the non-question, but, it's probably
one of those issues of the distant past that really needs little
clarification.
Good riddance to both.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Larry T.
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fc7fd2b6...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
Zinj:
My shocking friend, is it possible that this week Cindy Bullens
may have made it back to the top of the rock charts?
This is Claire's first web site and that is great.
About the Bernie CNC family, regardless of if Diane Richardson
or someone else there wrote it, Claire should know that in spite
of negatives from people, there is also the postive to consider.
Larry
Ball of Fluff
Muldoon wrote:
<snip>
>
> Fluff, I hope that you won't allow yourself to be used by the sleazy
> "Bernie" manipulation operation.
Oh, he's had my stuff on his site for years.
I don't have a problem with it.
He's been courteous to me and if he wants to discuss my posts,
then,great.
At least he's not calling me OSA on his site, unlike a couple people
here...
C
Muldoon
"Bernie" is *using* your (edited by "him") posts, and "he" is *using*
you.
"Bernie" is being "nice" to you, in order to manipulate you into
cooperating with "him," so as to corrupt and taint you by association
with "him." ("Bernie" was once a person, but is now a "function.")
I'm not going to comment further - but please try to connect the dots
on this. "Bernie" is *not* your friend.
Tannman
"Susan" <enlighte...@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
news:A9d7h.23054$si3....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
is) bless you and I wish to you a very happy holiday and a great new year.
>
>
Feisty
"robertthompson88" <rt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1163729577.0...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church. I have been a
> member, off and on, since 1976. I decided to search the internet
> concerning Ron's death and found out the truth. Back in 1986 I was at
> the event at Flag where the top management of the church lied to us. We
> were told that Ron had voluntarily dropped his healthy body and had
> decided to do upper level research. It did not sound right at that
> time, but I did not question it. In retrospect, I cannot believe my
> gullibility.
>
> I have educated myself regarding the good and bad of Scientology. It is
> sad to report that the reality is not very pretty. The internet makes
> finding out the truth a simple matter now. I suspect this ability to
> easily find answers will hurt the church considerably. The internet is
> a powerful communication tool.
>
> I want to thank the people who helped me to see through the lies.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Robert Thompson
> Tampa, Florida
> rt...@verizon.net
Great for you, welcome back to the free world.
Feisty
>
Ball of Fluff
"Muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1163815978.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ball of Fluff wrote:
>> Muldoon wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> >
>> > Fluff, I hope that you won't allow yourself to be used by the sleazy
>> > "Bernie" manipulation operation.
>>
>> Oh, he's had my stuff on his site for years.
>>
>> I don't have a problem with it.
>>
>> He's been courteous to me and if he wants to discuss my posts,
>> then,great.
>>
>> At least he's not calling me OSA on his site, unlike a couple people
>> here...
>>
>> C
>>
>> www.claireswazey.com
>
> "Bernie" is *using* your (edited by "him") posts, and "he" is *using*
> you.
Well, people sometimes do that. My posts- and those of many others- are on a
number of people's websites.
What do you call it when Gerry Armstrong lists me and half a dozen or more
other people in his OSA goon follies pages?
Same thing.
I didn't ask Bernie to post or not post my stuff and I didn't ask anyone
else to do it or not do it, either.
>
> "Bernie" is being "nice" to you, in order to manipulate you into
> cooperating with "him," so as to corrupt and taint you by association
> with "him." ("Bernie" was once a person, but is now a "function.")
I'm not in private communication with him and his site's content has no
effect on anything I'm doing on the internet or off it.
>
> I'm not going to comment further - but please try to connect the dots
> on this. "Bernie" is *not* your friend.
See above.
C
the even harder to handle .Lily Firered.
With that kind of postings the church of scientology tries to
intimidate its members as well as other people who show any critical
view of this organization.
Intimidation is a form of terror, according to the US-law, if I am
right.
Please watch with interest, how this works, by thinking and analysing
which effect such posting has on you personally. And be aware, that
this is exactly the effect the scientologists want to have on you. Thus
they hope to silence you down.
You know what? They can try to do what this poster - very likely
another OSA-operative, threatens, they can try that with one, with two
or even with 50 people. But they cannot do that with everyone who is
critical to them or who wants to leave the church. It is not possible.
And the effect goes back to them after a while, this is also a fact.
They might be able to harm you by doing this tactics (if they do it at
all). What they mostly do, is to put the fear that they *could* do
this, into your mind. Probably they even *could*, but then only for a
while. A very short while. And after that, once the truth is out, it
comes back at them as a very awful reputation for themselves and the
defamers and bad-mouthers. Who wants to have anything to do with them,
then?
Should one really let him/herself being intimidated that much by such
threats, think about, that you can do something against it: just tell
everybody, that you have left scientology and that you expect certain
mobbing-tactics against yourself. After a while people will get to know
you and then they will decide for themselves, who you really are. The
other people who do not find it worth to build their own opinion about
you should not be able to hurt you. And they should not interest you
that much at all.
Where you can find help:
Scientology destroys every website, which is really critical to them.
That is the reason, why it is hard to provide any link.
My suggestion is always: if you are looking for help on behalf of cult
- matters you can find it on various places:
please ask an attorney,
contact the FBI or the next police station,
contact the mayors office,
the citizens-helpline of your government,
the consumer protection center,
contact a hospital,
a doctor,
a good friend (if you want to leave the cult a former friend of yours,
who is not in, or your family),
a (former?) teacher or the priest of your former
church/temple or look at the websites of the world religions.
If you are an atheist, you could try it here:
in Universities - join groups of philosophical matters or any other
matter which interests you (physics, maths, history, philo, economic,
law, language, in my country age for instance is absolutely no
obstacle, anyone can listen to the lectures, it is open to all at least
for listening) or in any other educational center, like a community
college, which is recommended or supported by government or other
official offices.
They provide you with their helplines. Each of them can give further
assistance or at least direct you to the right places for your problem
or your questions.
.Lily.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
For further enlightenment, please read some of Truth Seeker's articles:
:: The Hitchhiker's Guide Through A.R.S. - Complete List Of Truth
Seeker's Articles About This Newsgroup ::
or try this link: <http://tinyurl.com/g8jm7>
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
robertthompson88
leaving the church. This is a great group of people which is very much
in contrast to what I had been indoctrinated to believe inside the
church.
I thought it particularly funny that I am now guilty of commiting a
high crime against the church. Ordinarily, I would be shaking in my
boots as a Scientologist. I would envision lower conditions, O/W
writeups, amends projects, and possibly Qual cycles in my future.
However, my perception has changed. Now it just seems silly. How can a
liar(the church) tell someone else to get their ethics in? They have
lost their "altitude" or "ethics presence" completely as far as I am
concerned.
Since I donated $150,000 and several years of my life to Scientology,
only to find that they lied to me repeatedly, it seems reasonable that
I should work toward reforming the church or helping current members to
get out. Therefore, I am interested to hear suggestions on how to go
about doing this. What are some of the successful actions that you have
taken to reform the church, free current members, or dissuade
prospective members? What has worked well, and what has not? What are
the liabilities? What are the rewards?
Here is a list of possible activities:
Picketing - this one is not very appealing to me personally. I am not
confrontational.
Posting on newsgroups - I don't know much about this.
Create a web site - since I am a programmer this has some appeal
Write a book - not appealing
Forget the whole thing and do something else - I suspect this is what
most people do
Can you help me to expand this list of possible activities?
Warmest Regards,
barbz
> Thank you! I appreciate all the positive responses from my post about
> leaving the church. This is a great group of people which is very much
> in contrast to what I had been indoctrinated to believe inside the
> church.
>
> I thought it particularly funny that I am now guilty of commiting a
> high crime against the church. Ordinarily, I would be shaking in my
> boots as a Scientologist. I would envision lower conditions, O/W
> writeups, amends projects, and possibly Qual cycles in my future.
> However, my perception has changed. Now it just seems silly. How can a
> liar(the church) tell someone else to get their ethics in? They have
> lost their "altitude" or "ethics presence" completely as far as I am
> concerned.
>
> Since I donated $150,000 and several years of my life to Scientology,
> only to find that they lied to me repeatedly, it seems reasonable that
> I should work toward reforming the church or helping current members to
> get out. Therefore, I am interested to hear suggestions on how to go
> about doing this. What are some of the successful actions that you have
> taken to reform the church, free current members, or dissuade
> prospective members? What has worked well, and what has not? What are
> the liabilities? What are the rewards?
>
> Here is a list of possible activities:
> Picketing - this one is not very appealing to me personally. I am not
> confrontational.
I hear ya! However, you can leave fliers around...in coffee shops,
record stores, laundromats, kiosks, libraries, etc. It's a good,
nonconfrontational way to spread the word.
> Posting on newsgroups - I don't know much about this.
> Create a web site - since I am a programmer this has some appeal
> Write a book - not appealing
> Forget the whole thing and do something else - I suspect this is what
> most people do
>
> Can you help me to expand this list of possible activities?
>
> Warmest Regards,
>
> Robert Thompson
> Tampa, Florida
> rt...@verizon.net
>
--
"I'm for the separation of church and hate."
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC(wdne)
xenu...@netscape.net
Saucy111
Hi Robert,
Just telling everyone you can about your experiences would be a good
place to start. Another good idea would be to contact the good folks
at Xenutv.com or Operation Clambake.
Tory (Magoo), who posts here and is VERY active in the critic movement,
has a public e-mail address at which you can contact her. I'm sure she
has many great ideas that can help you get your message out there.
If you read enough posts here, you will quickly learn who is there to
help you along your path to setting your life back in order and those
are the folks that can help you "wet your feet" in the waters of
Scientology Criticism.
Best wishes,
Saucy
Out_Of_The_Dark
Robert, I am really enjoying your What's Next post!! I felt the same
kind of fears just melt way as I took independent steps and realized
I'd been conned into that fear!
And your natural response to want to contribute- well, I certainly know
how you feel there and I am happy for you.
A web site, even a one pager, would be helpful because the more web
sites out there, the better.
Posting replies, creating new topic posts - asking questions or making
comments- all that is helpful.
But whatever you decide to do, keep posting here and at OCMB as you
can, because that will be very helpful to the readers who I am certain
will be aided by it.
A few questions:
What orgs did you do services at over the years you were in?
Were you always in Tampa area? Were you Sea Org ot staff?
Are you the Robert Thompson who completed the INVESTIGATORY TECH
COURSE, at Flag per Source Mag #56, 1987-03-01?
Thanks.
JustCallMeMary
Out_Of_The_Dark
www.xenu.net
www.lermanet.com Exposing The Con
http://www.suppressiveperson.org/
Fear Not
CONGRATULATIONS!
Just getting out and telling your story is one of the most powerful
ways to help.
Simkatu
Creating a web site or blog that details your story inside of
Scientology would be helpful to many people. We already have a bunch of
websites that detail the history of Scientology and provide archives of
data, so the kind of website that would be most needed is one where you
just document your personal stories of what happened to you in
Scientology, what made you leave, and how you managed to leave, and how
leaving has affected your life and relationships.
You can visit "Scientology - Through the Door" and post your story there:
http://alley.ethercat.com/door/
This is where many ex-Scientologists learned the quickest way out is
"through the door".
Posting details and answering questions about your experiences inside of
Scientology to this newsgroup and at the Operation Clambake message
board would be helpful.
You can also make yourself available to be interviewed by media people
and you can tell of your experiences inside of Scientology. We
sometimes get calls from people in the media that are curious about
Scientology and want to talk with someone about it. A number of
ex-Scienos and other critics appear on the radio and on TV shows. If
that sounds like fun to you, then I'm sure somebody can contact you
later with more details.
I like to write letters to media people, politicians, and other
important folks to teach them about the various Scientology front
groups, including CCHR, ABLE, The Way to Happiness Foundation, Narconon,
Criminon, and many others. I've convinced a number of newspapers to
stop running free advertisements for the Church of Scientology. I was
also recently involved in exposing the lie that CCHR's Museum of
Psychiatric Horrors was co-sponsored by Howard University. After I
informed the University administrators that they were being exploited by
Scientology, the event was canceled. There are many people that be
informed about the abuses of Scientology in the media. Write an letter
to the opinion page of your paper when you see Scientology front-groups
moving in to take advantage of people.
You can also choose to do nothing, which is of course what most people
do. As Truth in Scientology points out: "Preliminary analysis suggests
that about 60% of people who try Scientology do only a single course or
service, that 80% of new members become inactive within 2 years, and
that 65% of those who reach the level of Clear become inactive within a
year after doing so. "
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/
There are lots more ex-Scientologists than active Scientologists, but
there just aren't a whole lot of networking groups for ex-Scienos --
unless you count the FreeZone and similar groups, which is a group for
people that still practice the religious aspects of Scientology, but are
not affiliated with the Church of Scientology. Hopefully, you aren't
interested in staying involved with that, because its based on the same
nonsense and lies written by L. Ron Hubbard. There is also a networking
group for ex-Sea Org members.
With hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of ex-Scienos around, we
can tell that most of them just go on with their lives, never discussing
their time in Scientology at all. Perhaps they are embarrassed at being
defrauded, or perhaps they have other interests that are more important
to them than being a critic of Scientology.
Do what you think is best for you! You don't need to do anything that
makes you feel uncomfortable. You don't need to do anything that makes
you feel pressured. If you want to help expose the con of Scientology,
then there is always some work that you can do. Critics of Scientology
don't have any organizational structure -- and that is partly by design.
You can't be kicked out of any group, because there is no group. You
are free to post here on ARS as little or as much as you want (provided
that you aren't spamming or violating the law with your posts).
Take care and best wishes,
Simkatu
RolandRB
While you are at it, let's see if you can recommend this fellow a book
that is critical of Scientology. That is if your handlers allow you,
which they will not.
Hahaha
RolandRB
robertthompson88 wrote:
> Thank you! I appreciate all the positive responses from my post about
> leaving the church. This is a great group of people which is very much
> in contrast to what I had been indoctrinated to believe inside the
> church.
>
> I thought it particularly funny that I am now guilty of commiting a
> high crime against the church. Ordinarily, I would be shaking in my
> boots as a Scientologist. I would envision lower conditions, O/W
> writeups, amends projects, and possibly Qual cycles in my future.
> However, my perception has changed. Now it just seems silly. How can a
> liar(the church) tell someone else to get their ethics in? They have
> lost their "altitude" or "ethics presence" completely as far as I am
> concerned.
>
> Since I donated $150,000 and several years of my life to Scientology,
Oh, fuck... :o((
> only to find that they lied to me repeatedly, it seems reasonable that
> I should work toward reforming the church or helping current members to
The only way to reform the Church of Scientology is to destroy it. This
is not the first time I have stated this and I still stand by it fully.
> get out. Therefore, I am interested to hear suggestions on how to go
> about doing this. What are some of the successful actions that you have
> taken to reform the church, free current members, or dissuade
> prospective members? What has worked well, and what has not? What are
> the liabilities? What are the rewards?
The whole raison d'être (ha ha ha - I can do that with my normal
keyboard and you C A A A A A N ' T) of the Church <spit> of Scientology
is to make money. When they are extorting money from the chumps they
are happy. When the chumps extract it back they are hurt. So what I
would suggest is to demand all your money back. Go through the full
legal system to do this and get back the full $150,000. Gerry - Arnie -
Whoever - how should this person proceed?
the even harder to handle .Lily Firered.
Try it with:
The Constitution of your country, if you live in a democracy that is,
each and every law book of a democratic state,
or
The Bible
The Koran
The Thora
Books of the Dalai Lama
Buddha
Vedic Scriptures
Dreamtime Tales of Australia
Books about African Native Religions
and if you are through that, ask for further recommendations from me. I
will be glad to provide you with more.
.Lily.
RolandRB
Oddly enough, I don't see in that list a single book that is critical
of the Church <spit> of Scientology. Can't you ask your handlers for
permission for just one? Do you realise that the same is true for your
close but alter-ego Truth Seeker.
Hahahahaha !
the even harder to handle .Lily Firered.
No, because I do not have "handlers".
For lurkers: Obviously these "handlers" are people, who direct or order
scientologists posting here around, to do something on behalf of their
church.
My guess is, that a lot of phony critics feel somehow uncomfortable
with being "handled", and especially for Roland that seems to be a big
problem. Or probably he would wish to get an instruction from his
handler? Anyway that is definitely a big issue for him. Poor guy.
.Lily.
RolandRB
If you do not have handlers then perhaps you are able to recommend a
previously published book that is critical of the Church <spit> of
Scientology. Can you do that Lily Firered/Truth Seeker? Over to you!
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
RolandRB wrote:
>
> the even harder to handle .Lily Firered. wrote:
>> RolandRB wrote:
>> > the even harder to handle .Lily Firered. wrote:
>> > > RolandRB wrote:
>> > > > the even harder to handle .Lily Firered. wrote:
[......]
>> > > and if you are through that, ask for further recommendations from me.
>> > > I will be glad to provide you with more.
>> > >
>> > > .Lily.
>> >
>> > Oddly enough, I don't see in that list a single book that is critical
>> > of the Church <spit> of Scientology.
>> Try it with:
>>
>> The Constitution of your country, if you live in a democracy that is,
>>
>> each and every law book of a democratic state,
>>
>> or
>> The Bible
>> The Koran
>> The Thora
>> Books of the Dalai Lama
>> Buddha
>> Vedic Scriptures
>> Dreamtime Tales of Australia
>> Books about African Native Religions
>>
>> and if you are through that, ask for further recommendations from me. I
>> will be glad to provide you with more.
Yes please, I would love you to recommend a book which specifically
criticises the criminal organisation known as the "church" <spit> of
$cientology.
ROTFLMAO!!
>>
>>
>> > Can't you ask your handlers for
>> > permission for just one?
>>
>> No, because I do not have "handlers".
>
Oooh, I *do* like the ones that talk back.
> If you do not have handlers then perhaps you are able to recommend a
> previously published book that is critical of the Church <spit> of
> Scientology. Can you do that Lily Firered/Truth Seeker? Over to you!
A bit sad how they think anyone is going to be fooled by this for any
siginificant amount of time...
Maybe if they repeat the post *again* someone will believe them! ROTFL!!
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 211 585
"Insanity runs in my family; it practically gallops" 'Arsenik and old lace'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFYVvbimJs3AlyPBIRAq7wAJ9Oi68+Azegy8lkAwV2g1IeHny1DACg2EnF
XZnfYlbS6cZtHD/MfoY1QrE=
=otva
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Keith Henson
wrote:
>
>the even harder to handle .Lily Firered. wrote:
snip
>> Where you can find help:
>> Scientology destroys every website, which is really critical to them.
This is, of course, utter nonsense. It's David Miscavige's wet dream
to be sure.
>> That is the reason, why it is hard to provide any link.
http://www.xenu.net
www.lermanet.com
http://PerkinsTragedy.org & http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Narconon/
http://www.scientology-lies.com
http://www.lisamcpherson.org/
All of these sites are "endorsed" by scientology putting the web page
authors on their hate site, http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/
(Sorry if I missed anyone)
Other good places are:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
www.xenutv.com
>> My suggestion is always: if you are looking for help on behalf of cult
>> - matters you can find it on various places:
I normally don't respond to TS or his alter ego, but this is an
interesting list.
>> please ask an attorney,
Attorneys with very rare exceptions won't take a case involving the
cult or even listen to you with less than $50,000 up front.
>> contact the FBI or the next police station,
Neither will the FBI or the cops. If you think this is unusual, read
the saga of the people who tried to tell the FBI about the 9/11
hijackers before it happened. Eric Pham, an FBI agent once told me
that the FBI was forbidden to investigate scientology. I didn't
believe him, but after 9/11 it came out such a policy was in
existence. Don't know if was ever changed, probably not.
>> contact the mayors office,
>> the citizens-helpline of your government,
>> the consumer protection center,
Experience says this is also useless, especially if it in an area such
as Clearwater or Riverside county. Local governments there are more
likely to help the cult harass you than to prosecute the cult.
>> contact a hospital,
>> a doctor,
None will help, even if they want to. Look up what happened to Lisa
McPherson.
>> a good friend (if you want to leave the cult a former friend of yours,
>> who is not in, or your family),
>> a (former?) teacher or the priest of your former
>> church/temple
This is the only even half way reasonable suggestions. They are more
effective today when such people can use the net to come up to speed
on the cult
snip
>> .Lily.
>
>While you are at it, let's see if you can recommend this fellow a book
>that is critical of Scientology. That is if your handlers allow you,
>which they will not.
>
>Hahaha
<grin> Good shot Roland.
Keith Henson
Susan
"Keith Henson" <hkhe...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:4562e9a7....@news2.lightlink.com...
That does not make snse.
Susan
Raptavio
robertthompson88 wrote:
> I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church. I have been a
> member, off and on, since 1976. I decided to search the internet
> concerning Ron's death and found out the truth. Back in 1986 I was at
> the event at Flag where the top management of the church lied to us. We
> were told that Ron had voluntarily dropped his healthy body and had
> decided to do upper level research. It did not sound right at that
> time, but I did not question it. In retrospect, I cannot believe my
> gullibility.
>
> I have educated myself regarding the good and bad of Scientology. It is
> sad to report that the reality is not very pretty. The internet makes
> finding out the truth a simple matter now. I suspect this ability to
> easily find answers will hurt the church considerably. The internet is
> a powerful communication tool.
>
> I want to thank the people who helped me to see through the lies.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Robert Thompson
> Tampa, Florida
> rt...@verizon.net
Robert,
Thank you for posting. Sometimes it's good to get a reminder that this
NG and the critics' movement (such as it is) actually reaches people
and helps them free themselves from the shackles of Scientology.
Good luck to you, and may your future be bright.
Susan
> That does not make sense.
Zinj
enlighte...@ca.rr.com says...
>
> "Keith Henson" <hkhe...@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:4562e9a7....@news2.lightlink.com...
> > On 18 Nov 2006 22:17:45 -0800, "RolandRB" <rolan...@hotmail.com>
<snip>
> >>> contact the FBI or the next police station,
> >
> > Neither will the FBI or the cops. If you think this is unusual, read
> > the saga of the people who tried to tell the FBI about the 9/11
> > hijackers before it happened. Eric Pham, an FBI agent once told me
> > that the FBI was forbidden to investigate scientology. I didn't
> > believe him, but after 9/11 it came out such a policy was in
> > existence. Don't know if was ever changed, probably not.
>
> That does not make snse.
>
> Susan
The policy Keith is referring to is a general guideline not to
'investigate' 'religions' or 'religious orgaizations'.
That in itself, following the PR nightmare of Waco, makes sense,
if your goal as a governmental police agency is to 'not cause
flaps'.
While I don't doubt that there was a general pussilanimous
'verbot' pre 9/11, I suspect that it's no longer in at least
'full force', for 'all' religions, although there's little doubt
that the people who *should* be examining Scientology are not.
To an extent, the post 9/11 world gives them an even better
excuse for not doing so, since they can claim 'we're too busy'.
Still; the public exposure of the 'Church' is moving along to
the point where those sworn to protect society from such vicious
parasites may be *forced* to do so.
Keith Henson
>In article <M1o8h.33788$si3....@tornado.socal.rr.com>,
>enlighte...@ca.rr.com says...
>>
>> "Keith Henson" <hkhe...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:4562e9a7....@news2.lightlink.com...
>> > On 18 Nov 2006 22:17:45 -0800, "RolandRB" <rolan...@hotmail.com>
>
><snip>
>
>> >>> contact the FBI or the next police station,
>> >
>> > Neither will the FBI or the cops. If you think this is unusual, read
>> > the saga of the people who tried to tell the FBI about the 9/11
>> > hijackers before it happened. Eric Pham, an FBI agent once told me
>> > that the FBI was forbidden to investigate scientology. I didn't
>> > believe him, but after 9/11 it came out such a policy was in
>> > existence. Don't know if was ever changed, probably not.
>>
>> That does not make sense.
>>
>> Susan
>
>The policy Keith is referring to is a general guideline not to
>'investigate' 'religions' or 'religious orgaizations'.
>
>That in itself, following the PR nightmare of Waco, makes sense,
>if your goal as a governmental police agency is to 'not cause
>flaps'.
That's a darn good point, Zinj. Never thought of this policy
originating with Waco, thought it was related to the corrupt IRS
decision which happened late in 1993 (October?)
The standoff between FBI agents and Branch Davidians was in April of
1993 and in a (memetic) way was part of the cause of the Oklahoma City
bombing exactly two years later.
>While I don't doubt that there was a general pussilanimous
>'verbot' pre 9/11, I suspect that it's no longer in at least
>'full force', for 'all' religions, although there's little doubt
>that the people who *should* be examining Scientology are not.
>
>To an extent, the post 9/11 world gives them an even better
>excuse for not doing so, since they can claim 'we're too busy'.
>Still; the public exposure of the 'Church' is moving along to
>the point where those sworn to protect society from such vicious
>parasites may be *forced* to do so.
You would think so. But I think the policy is still in effect for
scientology.
The story that Arthur Solomonyan came into the US on a Scientology
Religious Workers Visa was only recently reported in a US news source.
And those officials who did talk were speaking on condition of
anonymity. (It came out right away in European publications.)
BTW, it has been 3 weeks since Solomonyan's trial begin and I don't
see any reports about it at all.
Any NYC people want to look at it? Or is it secret?
Keith Henson
Barbara Schwarz
robertthompson88 wrote:
> I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church. I have been a
> member, off and on, since 1976. I decided to search the internet
> concerning Ron's death and found out the truth. Back in 1986 I was at
> the event at Flag where the top management of the church lied to us. We
> were told that Ron had voluntarily dropped his healthy body and had
> decided to do upper level research. It did not sound right at that
> time, but I did not question it. In retrospect, I cannot believe my
> gullibility.
I don't believe this story either but I also don't fall for the stories
of people on the net who hate L. Ron Hubbard for no reason so much that
they qualify as suspect of having murdered him.
>
> I have educated myself regarding the good and bad of Scientology. It is
> sad to report that the reality is not very pretty. The internet makes
> finding out the truth a simple matter now. I suspect this ability to
> easily find answers will hurt the church considerably. The internet is
> a powerful communication tool.
>
> I want to thank the people who helped me to see through the lies.
And who might these people be? The lying anti-religious extremists? Did
you check them out or do you just believe their lies?
Barbara Schwarz (Looking for the original Mark [Marty] Rathbun. No
impostor, please!)
--
(I am concerned about Dave Touretzky's activities. He also has bomb
instructions on the net.)
http://www.parishioners.org/anti-religious-extremists/david-touretzky/
Brian J. Bruns aka Burns plays a "cop" on the net but he is a felon
(computer crimes), a spammer, an anti-free speech activist. The abusive
AHBL website is his. He lies about me on his website, and he is
disturbed. Inmate # 445064, County of Suffolk, NY, FBI: 843935WB8. He
was many months incarcerated.
Bruns is the abuser, and he is supported by Korey Jerome Kruse
("Simkatu" or "Vivaldi") who also just came out of jail and is,
according to the courts, an habitual offender. He also was ordered to
undergo psych evaluation. Of course it didn't help.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/msg/70fdd710bf99c37a?dmode=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&q=%22Korey+Jerome+Kruse%22
Iggy
"Barbara Schwarz" <barbara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164061430.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> robertthompson88 wrote:
>> I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church. I have been a
>> member, off and on, since 1976. I decided to search the internet
>> concerning Ron's death and found out the truth. Back in 1986 I was at
>> the event at Flag where the top management of the church lied to us. We
>> were told that Ron had voluntarily dropped his healthy body and had
>> decided to do upper level research. It did not sound right at that
>> time, but I did not question it. In retrospect, I cannot believe my
>> gullibility.
>
> I don't believe this story either but I also don't fall for the stories
> of people on the net who hate L. Ron Hubbard for no reason so much that
> they qualify as suspect of having murdered him.
>
L Ron committed suicide....and had enough psychotropic drugs in his system
to put a horse to sleep. Sorry, Babs....he was a victim of his own
bullshit.
>>
>> I have educated myself regarding the good and bad of Scientology. It is
>> sad to report that the reality is not very pretty. The internet makes
>> finding out the truth a simple matter now. I suspect this ability to
>> easily find answers will hurt the church considerably. The internet is
>> a powerful communication tool.
>>
>> I want to thank the people who helped me to see through the lies.
>
> And who might these people be? The lying anti-religious extremists? Did
> you check them out or do you just believe their lies?
>
No, he probably went to the many credible sites on the net, and met people
off-net, to form his opinion. You see, when one is allowed to think for
ones self, it becomes clear that Scientology is nothing but a money making
pyramid scheme....only, they just don't take your money. Sometimes they
take your family, your sanity and sometimes your life. Then again, you'd
know about the "sanity" part of that equation, wouldn't you?
robertthompson88
Thank you for replying to my post.
Barbara Schwarz wrote:
> robertthompson88 wrote:
> > I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church. I have been a
> > member, off and on, since 1976. I decided to search the internet
> > concerning Ron's death and found out the truth. Back in 1986 I was at
> > the event at Flag where the top management of the church lied to us. We
> > were told that Ron had voluntarily dropped his healthy body and had
> > decided to do upper level research. It did not sound right at that
> > time, but I did not question it. In retrospect, I cannot believe my
> > gullibility.
>
> I don't believe this story either but I also don't fall for the stories
> of people on the net who hate L. Ron Hubbard for no reason so much that
> they qualify as suspect of having murdered him.
>
Yes, there are people who hate L. Ron Hubbard. I am not one of them.
Back in 1986, I actually was foolish enough to set aside the story of
Ron's death, instead of confronting the fact that it is untrue. Since I
was a good Scientologist, I decided that I did not understand it, and
it wouldn't do any good to criticize the story anyway. I am not proud
of the fact that I conformed to the group think.
Once I did poke my head out of the sand and found out the truth then I
had to ask myself a question, "Why would the church lie about Ron's
death?" Here is a great individual who dedicated his life to helping
all of mankind to be something better. Here is a person who created a
technology to "clear" the planet to end crime, war, and insanity. Why
would the church lie about Ron's death?
You say that you don't believe this story about his death either. You
are right not to believe it because it is not true. I was there at the
event in 1986 along with hundreds of other people. I heard them lie to
me and everyone else. The question is "Why would they lie about Ron's
death?" What was the motive of the upper management? What were they
hoping to gain by deceiving their membership?
Barbara is right not to believe this story about Ron's death.
I would ask any one reading this to ask themselves, "why would the
church lie about Ron's death?"
I believe each person can find the answer for themselves on the
internet.
> >
> > I have educated myself regarding the good and bad of Scientology. It is
> > sad to report that the reality is not very pretty. The internet makes
> > finding out the truth a simple matter now. I suspect this ability to
> > easily find answers will hurt the church considerably. The internet is
> > a powerful communication tool.
> >
> > I want to thank the people who helped me to see through the lies.
>
> And who might these people be? The lying anti-religious extremists? Did
> you check them out or do you just believe their lies?
Barbara, that is a great question. Why should I believe the people
telling me this derogatory information about LRH? In truth, I did not
believe them. I thought they were lying SPs that were out to destroy
the good name of Scientology. I figured they were criticizing due to
some personal agenda or just out of pure hatred. Indeed, I found out
that some of these critics were just spewing hatred. I also saw many
who presented facts, and appeared to be quite genuine. For me, the
turning point was reading the stories of ex-scienologists. Since I had
been in the church for quite a few years, staff and public, it was easy
for me to identify real, truthful stories. I did not give more weight
to any one account over another. It was the volume of all accounts that
moved me. It was after reading many, many of these accounts that the
preponderence of evidence tipped the scale so that I finally believed
that the church had lied to me. It was a very difficult thing to
accept.
Also, I read a lot of books. Not books written by critics, but books
that help me to understand more about Ron's personal history. The
source that had the most validity for me though was source himself.
Ron's own words provided the last remaining pieces to the puzzle. I
plan on sharing some of these quotes through a web site or positng to
newsgroups like this one.
I very much appreciate your reply. I was beginning to wonder if any one
would critically question my posting.
Thanks,
John
"robertthompson88" <rt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1164076591.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Barbara,
>
> Thank you for replying to my post.
>
>
> Barbara Schwarz wrote:
>> robertthompson88 wrote:
>> > I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church. I have been a
>> > member, off and on, since 1976. I decided to search the internet
>> > concerning Ron's death and found out the truth. Back in 1986 I was at
>> > the event at Flag where the top management of the church lied to us. We
>> > were told that Ron had voluntarily dropped his healthy body and had
>> > decided to do upper level research. It did not sound right at that
>> > time, but I did not question it. In retrospect, I cannot believe my
>> > gullibility.
>>
>> I don't believe this story either but I also don't fall for the stories
>> of people on the net who hate L. Ron Hubbard for no reason so much that
>> they qualify as suspect of having murdered him.
>>
>
> Yes, there are people who hate L. Ron Hubbard. I am not one of them.
>
Please consider who are conversing with ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Schwarz
Although she will tell you that wikipedia is evil and full of lies, it is
from her posts to A.R.S. that it was learned that she believes she is,
"daughter of L. Ron Hubbard and the granddaughter of Dwight Eisenhower. She
says she lived in a submarine village beneath Great Salt Lake as a young
child until she was kidnapped and taken into Germany at age 4 by Nazi
agents"
She also believes that everyone in the world has electronic implants in
their ears that allow nazis to control them.
So, converse away... but You Have Been Warned :)
The Chief Instigator
>robertthompson88 wrote:
>> I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church. I have been a
>> member, off and on, since 1976. I decided to search the internet
>> concerning Ron's death and found out the truth. Back in 1986 I was at
>> the event at Flag where the top management of the church lied to us. We
>> were told that Ron had voluntarily dropped his healthy body and had
>> decided to do upper level research. It did not sound right at that
>> time, but I did not question it. In retrospect, I cannot believe my
>> gullibility.
>I don't believe this story either but I also don't fall for the stories
>of people on the net who hate L. Ron Hubbard for no reason so much that
>they qualify as suspect of having murdered him.
L. Rum Hubbard was a lifelong liar, Babbles...and use your "OT powers" to tell
me when I was last in California. (Free clue: it wasn't until Hubbard had
been dead for over a decade.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Hartford 4, Houston 3 (November 19)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, November 21 at San Antonio, 7:05
Zinj
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, rt...@verizon.net says...
<snip>
> I very much appreciate your reply. I was beginning to wonder if any one
> would critically question my posting.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robert Thompson
Hi Robert, I just wanted to let you know that I do appreciate
your post and look forward to more as you find your voice.
I didn't comment before because I generally try to avoid empty
'Acks', especially when someone's already being inundated by
them :)
But, as to why your post hasn't been 'critically' questioned;
that is actually answered, in part at least, in your own post.
There is nothing startlingly incredible about what you're
reporting as to your own experiences and 'evolution', and, in
fact, in many ways it could be considered 'representative' of
many, although unusually well thought out and clearly presented.
Which is why I'm looking forward to hearing more from you.
The sheer quantity of such posts and stories makes
'questioning' them superfluous. It would be like questioning
whether rain makes wet :)
Of course, the 'Church' has taken to imitating 'new ex-
scientologists' in fairly transparent attempts at 'third
partying' and dissention stifting, so, you can pretty much
expect to be considered 'critically' eventually, and, in any
case, you will certainly face more criticism and disagreement
and challenges as you begin to more uniquely differentiat
yourself and your positions.
As to 'hating' Hubbard; while I've never been in any danger of
'idolizing' Ron, since I was never a Scientologist, I was barely
aware of 'Him' except as a vaguely likable con-man of a classic
American type, a feeling I had for many Cult founders dating
from the 60s, when I first became aware of them.
That changed during the 80s, as the far more disasterous aspects
of Cults became apparent (to outsiders), and, it's also around
the time I began to more closely research 'Ron' Himself and the
darker and more reprehensible aspects of Himself and His
'creation'.
Still; I wouldn't call it 'hatred'; however, considering the
abject worship that's trained into Scientologists, I do think
that thorough, complete and damning exposure of the man and his
myths is called for.
Barbara Schwarz
robertthompson88 wrote:
> Hi Barbara,
>
> Thank you for replying to my post.
>
>
> Barbara Schwarz wrote:
> > robertthompson88 wrote:
> > > I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church. I have been a
> > > member, off and on, since 1976. I decided to search the internet
> > > concerning Ron's death and found out the truth. Back in 1986 I was at
> > > the event at Flag where the top management of the church lied to us. We
> > > were told that Ron had voluntarily dropped his healthy body and had
> > > decided to do upper level research. It did not sound right at that
> > > time, but I did not question it. In retrospect, I cannot believe my
> > > gullibility.
> >
> > I don't believe this story either but I also don't fall for the stories
> > of people on the net who hate L. Ron Hubbard for no reason so much that
> > they qualify as suspect of having murdered him.
> >
>
> Yes, there are people who hate L. Ron Hubbard. I am not one of them.
Nice to hear that, Robert.
>
> Back in 1986, I actually was foolish enough to set aside the story of
> Ron's death, instead of confronting the fact that it is untrue. Since I
> was a good Scientologist, I decided that I did not understand it, and
> it wouldn't do any good to criticize the story anyway. I am not proud
> of the fact that I conformed to the group think.
Ron said specifically that one should just believe what one experienced
as true. It happens to anybody once in a while that he/she fails to
draw a conclusion at the given moment but I would not beat myself up
for that.
>
> Once I did poke my head out of the sand and found out the truth then I
> had to ask myself a question, "Why would the church lie about Ron's
> death?" Here is a great individual who dedicated his life to helping
> all of mankind to be something better. Here is a person who created a
> technology to "clear" the planet to end crime, war, and insanity. Why
> would the church lie about Ron's death?
Perhaps it is more complicated then this. I thought a lot about Ron's
death and you are sure right when you suspect that Ron did not just
drop his body because he wanted to leave.
>
> You say that you don't believe this story about his death either. You
> are right not to believe it because it is not true. I was there at the
> event in 1986 along with hundreds of other people. I heard them lie to
> me and everyone else. The question is "Why would they lie about Ron's
> death?" What was the motive of the upper management? What were they
> hoping to gain by deceiving their membership?
I think somebody said that Ron voluntarily dropped his body and from
there it was spread. I think that many people believe it. I am most
certain that L. Ron Hubbard was murdered. I also believe that the
person who died in 1986 with Vistaril in his blood was not L. Ron
Hubbard but a doppelgaenger who was planted by p$ychs after they killed
Ron already.
>
> Barbara is right not to believe this story about Ron's death.
> I would ask any one reading this to ask themselves, "why would the
> church lie about Ron's death?"
> I believe each person can find the answer for themselves on the
> internet.
There are lots of lies on the Internet.
>
> > >
> > > I have educated myself regarding the good and bad of Scientology. It is
> > > sad to report that the reality is not very pretty. The internet makes
> > > finding out the truth a simple matter now. I suspect this ability to
> > > easily find answers will hurt the church considerably. The internet is
> > > a powerful communication tool.
> > >
> > > I want to thank the people who helped me to see through the lies.
> >
> > And who might these people be? The lying anti-religious extremists? Did
> > you check them out or do you just believe their lies?
>
> Barbara, that is a great question. Why should I believe the people
> telling me this derogatory information about LRH? In truth, I did not
> believe them. I thought they were lying SPs that were out to destroy
> the good name of Scientology. I figured they were criticizing due to
> some personal agenda or just out of pure hatred. Indeed, I found out
> that some of these critics were just spewing hatred. I also saw many
> who presented facts, and appeared to be quite genuine. For me, the
> turning point was reading the stories of ex-scienologists. Since I had
> been in the church for quite a few years, staff and public, it was easy
> for me to identify real, truthful stories. I did not give more weight
> to any one account over another. It was the volume of all accounts that
> moved me. It was after reading many, many of these accounts that the
> preponderence of evidence tipped the scale so that I finally believed
> that the church had lied to me. It was a very difficult thing to
> accept.
Many of these former Scientologists are former infiltrators, Robert.
The kind of people who would also lie in the orgs hat Ron voluntarily
left his body to allow his p$ychiatric killers to come away with
murder.
>
> Also, I read a lot of books. Not books written by critics, but books
> that help me to understand more about Ron's personal history. The
> source that had the most validity for me though was source himself.
> Ron's own words provided the last remaining pieces to the puzzle. I
> plan on sharing some of these quotes through a web site or positng to
> newsgroups like this one.
>
> I very much appreciate your reply. I was beginning to wonder if any one
> would critically question my posting.
I hope the truth will come out, Robert. But sofar, I have not seen the
absolute truth on any side. It is all still in the dark. The C of S
still does good things e.g. by getting study tech ut, Narconons in
place and by informing about the crimes of p$ychiatry. The socalled
critics are mainly defamers and harassers who apparently have some
secret p$ychiatric masters and they march to their drums. The Freezone
is not really free either and rather theethie wheetie.
I am joining nobody, Robert, until the truth and nothing but the truth
is officially established.
Exposing p$ychiatric agents and trolls:
If you are intelligent and think for yourself, they defame, libel and
abuse you as being mentally ill. If you are not intelligent and don't
think for yourself but adopt their mentally retarded, narrow, false,
insecure and hate filled opinions, they call you sane. - Thanks, I
rather be my own thinking person. -- Barbara Schwarz
Check these guys out:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/
And by the way: Wikipedia (Wickipiggi) lies.
Simkatu
> I very much appreciate your reply. I was beginning to wonder if any one
> would critically question my posting.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robert Thompson
> Tampa, Florida
> rt...@verizon.net
Regarding the "critical questioning": I am generally skeptical of most
information where the only source is a pseudo-anonymous person on the
internet.
Right now I am of the inclination that your story, what little of it
that you have told, is genuine. Of course it could all be an elaborate
set up. There are many folks here that probably would suspect that it
is.
But you seem like a pleasant bloke who could provide information that
could help other folks. I hope you are real, but even if you're not,
what you are doing will still help to undo the CoS.
--
Simkatu
Barbara Schwarz
John wrote:
> "robertthompson88" <rt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1164076591.7...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi Barbara,
As I said, Wikipedia lies.
Robert, "John" is Dave Rice. He is an anti-religious extremist and
suggested in a posting to kill members of the FBI. He is also on the
www.religiousfreedomwatch.org.
He is one of the defamers.
Barbara Schwarz
Susan
"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fcbdd988...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
Criminals are criminals. I do not understand why the FBI, if what you say is
true, puts blinders on when groups are committing crimes right in front of
them.
Still makes no sense to me. The investigation is not of religion but of
criminal acts.
Susan
butterflygrrrl
Barbara Schwarz wrote:
> I don't believe this story either but I also don't fall for the stories
> of people on the net who hate L. Ron Hubbard for no reason so much that
> they qualify as suspect of having murdered him.
Barbara-
That is a fallacious argument. Not *everyone* who criticizes Ron hates
him. And the people who do criticize him don't do it for *no* reason.
I, for example, think he was a pathological liar and a con man and I
think that people who believe his lies deserve to know the truth.
Wanting the truth to come out is *not* the same thing as hating him.
So, *everyone* who criticizes Ron and his cult are suspects in his
murder? That is just plain silly.
> >robertthompson88 wrote:
> > I want to thank the people who helped me to see through the lies.
> Barbara Schwarz wrote:
> And who might these people be? The lying anti-religious extremists? Did
> you check them out or do you just believe their lies?
Barbara, just because someone criticizes the cult, not *religion*, of
scientology doesn't mean they are an anti-religious extremist.
Personally, scientology is the only alleged *religion* I criticize. So,
I guess you could call me an anti-scientologist. But I'm hardly
extreme. I've been on a.r.s. less than a month. And I have not yet
donned a Xenu suit. I am going shopping, though. ;-D
Beckyboo
robertthompson88 wrote:
(snipping for brevity but it's all great stuff!!)
> Since I donated $150,000 and several years of my life to Scientology,
> I should work toward reforming the church or helping current members to
> about doing this. What are some of the successful actions that you have
> taken to reform the church, free current members, or dissuade
> prospective members? What has worked well, and what has not? What are
> the liabilities? What are the rewards?
>
> Picketing - this one is not very appealing to me personally. I am not
> confrontational.
> Posting on newsgroups - I don't know much about this.
> Create a web site - since I am a programmer this has some appeal
> Write a book - not appealing
> Forget the whole thing and do something else - I suspect this is what
> most people do
>
> Can you help me to expand this list of possible activities?
But of course,
Three words, Class action suit.
Disseminate information in any way that suits you.
Go ahead, travel! :-) See the big wide world.
Don't forget the others left behind though.
Spread the word, spread the word, spread the word.
Good luck!
:-)
--
Becky
banchukita
robertthompson88 wrote:
> I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church. I have been a
> member, off and on, since 1976. I decided to search the internet
> concerning Ron's death and found out the truth. Back in 1986 I was at
> the event at Flag where the top management of the church lied to us. We
> were told that Ron had voluntarily dropped his healthy body and had
> decided to do upper level research. It did not sound right at that
> time, but I did not question it. In retrospect, I cannot believe my
> gullibility.
>
> sad to report that the reality is not very pretty. The internet makes
> finding out the truth a simple matter now. I suspect this ability to
> easily find answers will hurt the church considerably. The internet is
> a powerful communication tool.
>
>
Hi, Robert,
It is much appreciated that you are willing to talk about your
experiences on one hand, but on the other, I am wondering why you
choose to publicly announce this?
-maggie, human being
> Thank you,
banchukita
robertthompson88 wrote:
> Thank you! I appreciate all the positive responses from my post about
> leaving the church. This is a great group of people which is very much
> in contrast to what I had been indoctrinated to believe inside the
> church.
>
> I thought it particularly funny that I am now guilty of commiting a
> high crime against the church. Ordinarily, I would be shaking in my
> boots as a Scientologist. I would envision lower conditions, O/W
> writeups, amends projects, and possibly Qual cycles in my future.
> However, my perception has changed. Now it just seems silly. How can a
> liar(the church) tell someone else to get their ethics in? They have
> lost their "altitude" or "ethics presence" completely as far as I am
> concerned.
>
> only to find that they lied to me repeatedly, it seems reasonable that
> I should work toward reforming the church or helping current members to
> get out. Therefore, I am interested to hear suggestions on how to go
> about doing this. What are some of the successful actions that you have
> taken to reform the church, free current members, or dissuade
> prospective members? What has worked well, and what has not? What are
> the liabilities? What are the rewards?
>
> Here is a list of possible activities:
> Picketing - this one is not very appealing to me personally. I am not
> confrontational.
> Posting on newsgroups - I don't know much about this.
> Create a web site - since I am a programmer this has some appeal
> Write a book - not appealing
> Forget the whole thing and do something else - I suspect this is what
> most people do
>
> Can you help me to expand this list of possible activities?
Since you're in Tampa, I would suggest you contact some of the local
press who have written or spoken about Scn, Inc. in the past, and tell
them you're up for an interview. I bet you get some takers!
You write very well, and perhaps you don't need to write an entire book
to relate your experiences; did you see what Dr. Donna Shannon wrote on
the Through the Door pages?
I think a website would be a great idea. I don't believe there is a
website about Scn, Inc. in our community other than Mike Krotz's that
focuses mostly on who the private investigators are. Since you live in
Tampa, you must know a lot of people don't really like Scn, Inc. But
they also don't know why they don't like it.
A long time ago (in 1996?), I and a friend put together a "Brief
History of Scientology in Clearwater" document -- everything from
publicly available sources about the impact of Scn, Inc. upon the
community of Clearwater. I think it gives a necessary perspective.
I'd sure like to update it, but I have nowhere to put it - I have no
website, and I'm not a programmer. If you choose to do a website, I'll
be happy to take the time to update the "Brief History" if you'd like
to include it on your site.
-maggie, human abeing
>
> Warmest Regards,
Keith Henson
wrote:
>
>"Zinj" <zinj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1fcbdd988...@news-server.woh.rr.com...
snip
>> Still; the public exposure of the 'Church' is moving along to
>> the point where those sworn to protect society from such vicious
>> parasites may be *forced* to do so.
>
>Criminals are criminals. I do not understand why the FBI, if what you say is
>true, puts blinders on when groups are committing crimes right in front of
>them.
>
>Still makes no sense to me. The investigation is not of religion but of
>criminal acts.
It didn't make sense to me either, in fact, I was so sure Eric Pham
was just lying to me that I didn't report it for a number of years.
When I was in high school, we were taught policemen are your friends
and the FBI is incorruptible. I would been better off reading Lemony
Snicket's _A Series of Unfortunate Events_ for my civics classes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events
"Social commentary is a major element in the books, which often
comment on the seemingly inescapable follies of human nature. The book
consistently presents Baudelaires as free thinking, independent
people, while almost everyone in the world around them obey authority
and succumb to mob psychology, peer pressure, ambition, and other
social ills."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_With_a_Beard_but_No_Hair_and_the_Woman_With_Hair_but_No_Beard
"The man with a beard but no hair and the woman with hair but no beard
have an "aura of menace" and even intimidate Count Olaf[a villain in
the story], and are so terrifying that Lemony Snicket is afraid to so
much as mention their names.
. . .
"In _The Penultimate Peril_, it was revealed that the pair of them
were the two judges (aside from Justice Strauss) on the High Court,
and have been pretending to be interested in the Baudelaire case so
they could get all the information Justice Strauss has about the
children. They then tell Count Olaf everything they know to help him."
****
If you gritty fact rather then allegory, then you might read these two
books: _Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J Edgar Hoover_,
by Anthony Summers (1993)
"Summers also claimed that the Mafia had blackmail material on Hoover,
and Hoover had been reluctant to aggressively pursue organized crime
for this reason."
and _Above the Law, Secret Deals, Political Fixes, and Other
Misadventures the U.S. Department of Justice_ by David Burnham (1996).
"This book tells us that far too often the Justice Department
represents not the people, but politicians, corporation and other
entrenched interests."
(The FBI is a division of the Justice Department. In Hoover's day it
was effectively the other way around.)
Local cops don't want to "lift the tail of a skunk," so they tell you
to take it to the FBI. The FBI might listen to you (though *NOT* in
Riverside county) but they won't do anything.
It wasn't always this way. Perhaps someone could recount the 1977
raid? I have not found anyone inside the FBI that remembers that raid
at all.
Keith Henson
morgan
You might be on to something there, Barbara.
> I also believe that the
> person who died in 1986 with Vistaril in his blood was not L. Ron
> Hubbard but a doppelgaenger who was planted by p$ychs after they killed
> Ron already.
OK... nevermind...
robertthompson88
Thank you for your reply.
banchukita wrote:
> Hi, Robert,
>
> It is much appreciated that you are willing to talk about your
> experiences on one hand, but on the other, I am wondering why you
> choose to publicly announce this?
That is an excellent question.
Initially, I intended to work toward reforming the church from the
inside. After all, I was enjoying my auditing and training. I had good
friends at the church, and I was looking forward to helping other
people go up the bridge.
However, the information on the internet painted a very different
picture of Scientology. I saw that it was hurting people, a lot of
people. The following is a good example.
One of the drills a student performs in preparation for becoming an
auditor involves memorizing a code of conduct. In an HCOB called "The
Auditor's Code" item number twenty-two says, "I promise never to
use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for punishment or
personal gain." In other words, an auditing session is like a
Priest/Penitent confessional and is supposed to be kept strictly
confidential. It's a matter of trust with a capital 'T'.
On the internet, I found out about GO Order 121669 called "PROGRAMME:
INTELLIGENCE: INTERNAL SECURITY" written by Mary Sue Hubbard which
states, "To make full use of all files on the organization to affect
your major target. These include personnel files, Ethics files, dead
files, Central files, training files, processing files, and requests
for refunds." The document continues, "MAJOR TARGET: To use any
and all means to detect any infiltration, double agent or disaffected
staff member, Scientologist or relatives of Scientologists and by any
and all means to render null any potential harm such have rendered or
might render to Scientology or Scientologists." This document was
written in 1969 and the GO was disbanded around 1980(?). Unfortunately,
the personal accounts available on the internet indicate that this
culling activity continues to this day.
Here is a link to the GO document
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/mpoulter/scum/culling.html
This intelligence activity meant that if I stayed in the organization
and audited people then their PC folders could potentially be culled by
the OSA if that PC were ever deemed a threat to the church. My personal
integrity and respect for other people would never allow me to be
associated with an activity of this nature. In fact, now that I know
better, I feel I have a responsibility to make these facts publicly
known. I believe that every Scientologist, or potential Scientologist,
has a right to know how their confidence may be betrayed at the Church
of Scientology.
I would like to be clear about something. I am not against the church,
Ron Hubbard, or the church membership, quite the contrary in fact. I am
against unethical behavior, and I believe people have a right to know
both sides of an issue.
Skipper
robertthompson88 <rt...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I would like to be clear about something. I am not against the church,
> Ron Hubbard, or the church membership, quite the contrary in fact. I am
> against unethical behavior, and I believe people have a right to know
> both sides of an issue.
> > > Thank you,
> > >
> > > Robert Thompson
> > > Tampa, Florida
> > > rt...@verizon.net
If you honestly continue looking at it, you'll find out it was only
labeled a church as a ruse by Hubbard to (a) dodge taxes and (b) get a
slave labor force he called "The Sea Organization."
You'll also find that Ron Hubbard was one of the most evil con artists
of the 20th century and that there is very little in his "tech" that
wasn't stolen completely from another source and called his own. For
example, Dianetic$ is abreaction - anyone who tells you otherwise is a
liar or uninformed.
"Church" membership means helping an organization that has RUINED
thousands of lives and sent untold millions down the rathole into the
pockets of vicious con artists like David Miscavige.
Keep reading - your head will start spinning after a while but it won't
have anything to do with a Confusion condition because the conditions
are a construct that really don't work.
banchukita
Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly. I very much
appreciate that, and the way you illustrated how you arrived at your
current course of action.
Thank you also for taking the time to stand up for what is right. I
hope you stay, your insights are valuable here.
I also hope you can deal with facing a few more integral
inconsistencies in the Scn, Inc. infrastructure. Here I am talking
about the policy-driven, organizational behavior that demands attacks
against individuals or other groups that speak out against its
perceived abuses. Especially the blatant attempts on many levels to
stifle free discourse. To me that goes against a very basic idea
representing in a Scientology document that mentions "being free to
utter or write their opinions"...sound familiar?
However, I am well aware that you and I are seeing Scientology
differently. It's easy for me, on the outside, to watch for a decade or
so and see many different ways that Scn, Inc. says one thing and does
another. I'm not talking about little stuff. But stuff that's just as
huge a betrayal as culling private PC folders. I have a lot of respect
for what you're doing, and I wish you well on your journey.
Awhile back, Chuck Beatty posted a document he said was written by
Scientologists, titled "Seven Questions Every Scientologist Should
Ask." I would look forward to seeing your comments on these questions.
I will repost Chuck's original post from July, 2006 here:
"I got sent these thoughts via a relay so I dont know who is the
author.
These thoughts reflect some official Scientology public at the first
stages of doubt start to wonder about their church right now, July
2006. These little niggly doubts this author at least has risen to
put in writing and they asked these thoughts be shared publicly.
- Chuck Beatty 412-260-1170
"Seven Questions Every Scientologist Has the Right to Ask"
"The following list was compiled after discussions with a number of
Scientologists. There are questions we all have about current
Scientology events, sometimes unstated, sometimes just nagging
feelings. The list below is intended to get such questions out in the
open where we can discuss them in a forthright manner, and, hopefully,
find answers.
"1. Who runs our Church? This is not a minor point, yet, outside of
half a dozen familiar faces that appear at events, Scientologists in
general do not know who is in charge of the Church. LRH designed a
system of Church management that involved managing committees and
oversight groups who would act as a system of checks and balances
within the Church. So who are these people? Specifically, who, by name,
are the executives of RTC, the members of the Watchdog Committee, and
the International Executives under ED Int? Why is this information kept
secret? Shouldn't we know who the people are on these posts, and
their qualifications (such as training and auditing level)? And
shouldn't we know when they are removed or demoted, and why?
"2. What are the stats? LRH stresses the importance of managing by
statistics. Yet the average Scientologist has no idea of what the
international statistics are. The stats shown at events are typically
short-term. Yet, long term, what are the statistics of such things as
Clears and OTs made, Auditors made, membership numbers, books sold and
so on. In other words, how are we doing? And specifically, what do the
statistics look like long-term, from back when LRH was on the lines?
How do today's stats compare to, say, the mid-1980's? Wouldn't
you like to know?
"3. Who owns the copyrights to LRH materials? It is supposed to be CST
- the Church of Spiritual Technology. But who is that? Who are the
people on their Board of Directors, by name? Where is CST located?
Shouldn't we know this?
"4. What happened to broad dissemination? There used to be big
campaigns for Dianetics in the 1980's, with TV ads and so on. It
seemed like Dianetics was everywhere. What happened? Why don't we
have big campaigns like that anymore?
"5. How did this practice of regging for pure donations get started? We
are regged for everything from IAS donations to the Superpower building
to the local org's building fund. Yet such donations without
exchange for services were never done when LRH was on the lines.
Donations were for services. With the forming of the IAS, this idea of
just regging for pure donations got started, and now it seems like a
major push from the Church. Why? What is this based on? Why was it not
done when LRH was on the lines but is done now?
"6. Where does the money go? Between donations and services, we give a
lot to our Church. Shouldn't there be some sort of accounting for how
it is spent, such as one might expect from any church or charity?
Certainly there are orgs to support, but the Church doesn't found or
support hospitals, orphanages or charities like other Churches do.
Entities like Applied Scholastics, Narconon and WISE all tithe to the
Church. Local organizations send a portion of their income weekly to
Management. Flag sends the bulk of their income to Management. Money
flows up the lines. How is it then spent? Don't we, as the ones
donating, have the right to know?
"7. Are the revisions to LRH materials on-Source? Books have been and
are being edited and recompiled. Tape lectures have been and are being
edited. Compilation books are appearing "based on the works of
LRH." Are these materials faithful to the original LRH works? Who is
doing these revisions? Based on what? How can an individual
Scientologist know that the materials he is provided with are correct?
How can we, as individuals, enforce "Keeping Scientology Working"?
" You may personally have other questions. The point is, don't we
have the right to ask such simple, obvious questions about our Church
and expect answers?
" If you agree that there should be more openness, more transparency
and more accountability within the Church, pass these questions to your
friends and discuss them. Take them up with your local Org or Mission.
Write to International Management about them. Make your voice felt.
Beware of those who try to keep you from asking these questions, or any
others you may have. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. You
do have rights, and you do have a voice in your Church. "
best,
-maggie, human being
Susan
Robert, great to hear that you are learning the truth about the insidious
cult of scientology. Keep reading, don't unbuckle your seat belt!
Susan
John
"robertthompson88" <rt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1164165603....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Do you believe that the GO and OSA were set up without Hubbard's premission,
or without his input on the sort of operations they would be involved in?
butterflygrrrl
John wrote:
> Do you believe that the GO and OSA were set up without Hubbard's premission,
> or without his input on the sort of operations they would be involved in?
I've wondered how, given Hubbard's tight control of every other issue
in the cult, how could they believe that he didn't control that, too.
Out_Of_The_Dark
> kind of fears just melt way as I took independent steps and realized
> I'd been conned into that fear!
>
> And your natural response to want to contribute- well, I certainly know
> how you feel there and I am happy for you.
>
> A web site, even a one pager, would be helpful because the more web
> sites out there, the better.
> Posting replies, creating new topic posts - asking questions or making
> comments- all that is helpful.
>
> But whatever you decide to do, keep posting here and at OCMB as you
> can, because that will be very helpful to the readers who I am certain
> will be aided by it.
> A few questions:
>
> What orgs did you do services at over the years you were in?
>
> Were you always in Tampa area? Were you Sea Org ot staff?
>
> Are you the Robert Thompson who completed the INVESTIGATORY TECH
> COURSE, at Flag per Source Mag #56, 1987-03-01?
>
> Thanks.
>
> JustCallMeMary
> Out_Of_The_Dark
>
> www.xenu.net
> www.lermanet.com Exposing The Con
> http://www.suppressiveperson.org/ < <
Thanks for writing me back, Robert. Keep us posted here, too. :)
JustCallMeMary
Inside Scientology
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9363363/inside_scientology
OTee Zonnie Bauer Shoots her Mouth Off on Current Use of Fair Game!!
http://www.buffalobeast.com/110/cult_classic_scientology_3.ht
robertthompson88
With your permission, I will defer answering your questions since they
broke loose some of my cult conditioning.
banchukita wrote:
> Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly. I very much
> appreciate that, and the way you illustrated how you arrived at your
> current course of action.
>
> Thank you also for taking the time to stand up for what is right. I
> hope you stay, your insights are valuable here.
>
> I also hope you can deal with facing a few more integral
> inconsistencies in the Scn, Inc. infrastructure. Here I am talking
> about the policy-driven, organizational behavior that demands attacks
> against individuals or other groups that speak out against its
> perceived abuses. Especially the blatant attempts on many levels to
> stifle free discourse. To me that goes against a very basic idea
> representing in a Scientology document that mentions "being free to
> utter or write their opinions"...sound familiar?
>
> However, I am well aware that you and I are seeing Scientology
> differently. It's easy for me, on the outside, to watch for a decade or
> so and see many different ways that Scn, Inc. says one thing and does
> another. I'm not talking about little stuff. But stuff that's just as
> huge a betrayal as culling private PC folders. I have a lot of respect
> for what you're doing, and I wish you well on your journey.
>
> Awhile back, Chuck Beatty posted a document he said was written by
> Scientologists, titled "Seven Questions Every Scientologist Should
> Ask." I would look forward to seeing your comments on these questions.
>
Thank you for the Chuck Beatty post, your insights, and your kind
words. You have given me a lot to think about. Your post helped me to
remember that I had asked most of those questions in the past, but I
did not answer them. There are many inconsistencies within the church
that people become aware of over time. What I find interesting now is
that I turned off the questioning.
Here are some of the reasons I used to shutdown my critical thinking,
or questioning:
1) The group will be mad at me. People I like and admire will be angry
with me.
2) I will be sent to ethics and have to do lower conditions, O/W, and
amends.
3) This one outpoint is not important in the overall picture.
4) I also used the "What is true for you is true" quote to negate
many things that I disagreed with in the church. If it wasn't true
for me then I just ignored it.
5) I would tell myself that the "tech" worked and that was what was
really important.
6) I wanted to believe.
In looking back, I have to say fear was the predominant emotion that
turned off any critical questioning. My first thought in reading Chuck
Beatty's questions was that someone was going to have knowledge
reports written about them, and then a very unfriendly conversation
with the ethics officer. Those kinds of communications are not
tolerated in the church. I have been on the receiving end of knowledge
reports. It is not a pleasant experience.
Right now I am interested in these questions. How can I reach the
people who don't know the full story of Scientology? How can I help
them to reawaken their critical thinking and begin to ask questions?
I would be happy to post any material you care to contribute to my web
site.
Happy Holidays,
Robert Thompson
Tampa, Florida
Rt...@netzero.net
John
snip
For all the vaunting of Hubbard's tech and the fine minds of Homo Neo, in
the end members of the organisation are kept in line by the use of the same
psychological tricks that all cults seem to use... intimidation, isolation,
fear. Carrots and sticks.
As I've posted before, there's nothing particularly *special* about the CoS.
They use the same bag of tricks countless other cultic organisations have
used since the dawn of time. The CoS just happens to be
science-fiction-flavoured, and with a particularly strident insistence on
money flowing from the member to the organisation. A quick googling for
attributes or signs of a cult will show how the CoS fits the cult mold.
I don't know if this is of any use to you to know, but it might help to know
that you've falled into the same type of trap that countless other people
have over the last few thousand years.
Remember, the CoS is nothing *special*. It's just a particularly nasty
strain of a particular type of social disease.
robertthompson88
No, Hubbard created the Guardian's Office and his wife, Mary Sue, ran
it until she was sent to jail for committing crimes. Many of the
actions they were involved in were reprehensible. The OSA is probably
involved in similar unscupulous activity.
I certainly condemn their crimes, their behavior, not the person.
Happy Holidays,
Robert Thompson
Tampa, Florida
rt...@netzero.net
John
> Hi John,
>
snip
>> >
>> > I would like to be clear about something. I am not against the church,
>> > Ron Hubbard, or the church membership, quite the contrary in fact. I am
>> > against unethical behavior, and I believe people have a right to know
>> > both sides of an issue.
>>
>> Do you believe that the GO and OSA were set up without Hubbard's
>> premission,
>> or without his input on the sort of operations they would be involved in?
>
> No, Hubbard created the Guardian's Office and his wife, Mary Sue, ran
> it until she was sent to jail for committing crimes. Many of the
> actions they were involved in were reprehensible. The OSA is probably
> involved in similar unscupulous activity.
>
> I certainly condemn their crimes, their behavior, not the person.
>
By his deeds shall ye know him. That's all we have to judge people by, and
all of us make those judgements every day, whether we notice ourselves
making them or not.
banchukita
robertthompson88 wrote:
> Hi Maggie,
>
> With your permission, I will defer answering your questions since they
> broke loose some of my cult conditioning.
I've never been a Scientologist, so I don't mind if you don't answer
the questions. I think they are questions Scientologists should care
enough to ask their church, and not have to be afraid to ask them.
I was wondering why most Scientologists don't seem to want to hear the
answers, and you
explained that pretty darn well below, I think.
You got to that point where your critical questioning was compromised
on a gradient; I wonder if it feels the same way to come out, or if it
happens more like quantum leaps of critical thought?
> Right now I am interested in these questions. How can I reach the
> people who don't know the full story of Scientology? How can I help
> them to reawaken their critical thinking and begin to ask questions?
>
I think by posting your own experiences, just like in this thread, you
are helping a bunch of people who are scared. You can help them
recognize what they're going through, and help them understand that
they are not alone. Every post of yours I've seen so far is articulate
and makes the experiences you're having make sense for others.
Your words also help us 'wogs' who care about people being able to have
informed consent, real freedom of religion, real freedom of speech, and
freedom from coercive persuasion, harassment, and the abuses of a
corrupt organization that has as its goal complete domination of our
community. You can help us understand what it's like to walk in your
shoes.
You could post them whereever you feel comfortable; on ethercat's
Through the Door site, here on a.r.s., or on OCMB.
> I would be happy to post any material you care to contribute to my web
> site.
>
Thanks. I'll be working on updating that timeline, between bites of
turkey!
-maggie, human being
Keith Henson
wrote:
snip
>Posting on newsgroups - I don't know much about this.
You have been doing just fine.
There is always interest in reporting conditions of the orgs,
especially LA and Clearwater.
snip
>Can you help me to expand this list of possible activities?
If you *really* wanted to put them out of business in that area, start
a political campaign to rename Clearwater to Xenu City.
The "clear" in Clearwater is supposedly what brought them there in the
first place. If the place was renamed Xenu City, they would have to
leave.
Some years ago I ran a bit of telephone survey that indicated a name
change would be supported by about 70% of the population. I don't see
how scientology could oppose it without convincing people to vote for
it.
You might get the real estate interests to support such an initiative
with serious money. After all, with the cult gone, the value of city
real estate would skyrocket.
Keith Henson
PS. If you want to understand the theory of why people get sucked
into cults, Google for sex drugs cults and take the first link.
robertthompson88
John wrote:
> For all the vaunting of Hubbard's tech and the fine minds of Homo Neo, in
> the end members of the organisation are kept in line by the use of the same
> psychological tricks that all cults seem to use... intimidation, isolation,
> fear. Carrots and sticks.
>
> As I've posted before, there's nothing particularly *special* about the CoS.
> They use the same bag of tricks countless other cultic organisations have
> used since the dawn of time. The CoS just happens to be
> science-fiction-flavoured, and with a particularly strident insistence on
> money flowing from the member to the organisation. A quick googling for
> attributes or signs of a cult will show how the CoS fits the cult mold.
>
> I don't know if this is of any use to you to know, but it might help to know
> that you've falled into the same type of trap that countless other people
> have over the last few thousand years.
>
> Remember, the CoS is nothing *special*. It's just a particularly nasty
> strain of a particular type of social disease.
I agree. The last book I read was Steve Hassan's "Combating Cult Mind
Control".
As you so succinctly put it, "in the end members of the organisation
are kept in line by the use of the same psychological tricks that all
cults seem to use... intimidation, isolation, fear. Carrots and
sticks."
That is why I am leaning toward creating a web site where people can
post their views on various organizations. I sort of envision something
where the person picks their topic, like the Moonies, and then is
prompted through a survey process as is used in the "Scientology -
Through the Door" site. I may also allow them to pick a topic and
subcategory and do a simple free form post.
I would be interested to know what questions people might like to ask
current and ex-cult members. I can customize the questions for each
individual cult, or group, to target areas of particular interest.
Arnie Lerma had asked me in an email, "How it was that you came to
raise your head and dare LOOK at the materials?" I was never able to
come up with a good answer. It is an excellent question, and I would be
interested to see how other people respond to it as a survey question
on a web site.
Would anyone like to contribute some ideas about questions to ask on a
survey?
I am also interested in ideas on how to disseminate the survey.
Happy Holidays,
Robert Thompson
Tampa, Florida
rt...@verizon.net
John
> Hi John,
>
snip
>
> I would be interested to know what questions people might like to ask
> current and ex-cult members. I can customize the questions for each
> individual cult, or group, to target areas of particular interest.
>
> Arnie Lerma had asked me in an email, "How it was that you came to
> raise your head and dare LOOK at the materials?" I was never able to
> come up with a good answer. It is an excellent question, and I would be
> interested to see how other people respond to it as a survey question
> on a web site.
There does seem to be a requirement of receptivity. Possibly you could have
looked at the same material at a hundred different moments in your past and
you would have been able to brush them off with the CoS' pat answers against
criticism.
Perhaps members need to accumulate enough cognitive dissonance and
experience some level of abuse before they become receptive to what critics
say.
>
> Would anyone like to contribute some ideas about questions to ask on a
> survey?
The Through the Door questions seem like a good starting point, obviously
made more generic.
Perhaps a little check-list to ask which if any standard cult tactics have
been experienced?
One line of questioning that might be interesting would be to try to
quantify what sort of damage has been caused, e.g.
How much money have you given to your organisation?
How much time have you spent on your organisation?
What were you paid for your time?
Have you neglected any medical issues while in your organisation?
Do you recollect other members of your organisation ignoring medical
problems while in?
robertthompson88
John wrote:
>
> There does seem to be a requirement of receptivity. Possibly you could have
> looked at the same material at a hundred different moments in your past and
> you would have been able to brush them off with the CoS' pat answers against
> criticism.
>
> Perhaps members need to accumulate enough cognitive dissonance and
> experience some level of abuse before they become receptive to what critics
> say.
Good point. This is an area that I want to learn more about.
> >
> > Would anyone like to contribute some ideas about questions to ask on a
> > survey?
>
> The Through the Door questions seem like a good starting point, obviously
> made more generic.
> Perhaps a little check-list to ask which if any standard cult tactics have
> been experienced?
> One line of questioning that might be interesting would be to try to
> quantify what sort of damage has been caused, e.g.
> How much money have you given to your organisation?
> How much time have you spent on your organisation?
> What were you paid for your time?
> Have you neglected any medical issues while in your organisation?
> Do you recollect other members of your organisation ignoring medical
> problems while in?
>
A standard generic list does seem doable. I have noticed the posts of
cult members other than Scientology are very similar to the Scientology
posts. Your suggestions will make an excellent starting point for
further research. Thank you.
I also want to express my gratitude to everyone on A.R.S. and
especially to those individuals on this newsgroup that helped me to
begin the process of moving beyond "leaving the church". I came
onto this newsgroup announcing something negative. Now I am departing
with a newly found purpose and a plan of action. That's pretty cool.
I will check in from time to time. Thank you all.
Happy Holidays,
Robert Thompson
Tampa, Florida
Rt...@verizon.net
ethercat
Hi Robert,
Congratulations on your EP. (see below)
On 23 Nov 2006 08:13:34 -0800, "robertthompson88" <rt...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>John wrote:
>> Remember, the CoS is nothing *special*. It's just a particularly nasty
>> strain of a particular type of social disease.
>
>I agree. The last book I read was Steve Hassan's "Combating Cult Mind
>Control".
>As you so succinctly put it, "in the end members of the organisation
>are kept in line by the use of the same psychological tricks that all
>cults seem to use... intimidation, isolation, fear. Carrots and
>sticks."
>
>That is why I am leaning toward creating a web site where people can
>post their views on various organizations. I sort of envision something
>where the person picks their topic, like the Moonies, and then is
>prompted through a survey process as is used in the "Scientology -
>Through the Door" site. I may also allow them to pick a topic and
>subcategory and do a simple free form post.
If you would like to use the script that I use on Through the Door
as a basis for your survey script, email me and I'll send it to you as
a zip file. It's heavily customized for my site, but it shouldn't be
too difficult to modify it to your needs.
>I would be interested to know what questions people might like to ask
>current and ex-cult members. I can customize the questions for each
>individual cult, or group, to target areas of particular interest.
>
>Arnie Lerma had asked me in an email, "How it was that you came to
>raise your head and dare LOOK at the materials?" I was never able to
>come up with a good answer. It is an excellent question, and I would be
>interested to see how other people respond to it as a survey question
>on a web site.
Now that is a question I would be interested in seeing the answers
to as well!
>Happy Holidays,
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!
>Robert Thompson
>Tampa, Florida
>rt...@verizon.net
I've added this address to my filters to let your email through, if
you'd like the script.
ethercat
|_____|__| |\__/,| (\
|__|_____| _.|o o |_ ) )
|--------------------------| ethercat |----------------(((---(((--------|
|_____|_____|____ Scientology - Through the Door _____|_____|_____|_____|
|__|_____|_____|___ http://ThroughTheDoor.net/ ____|_____|_____|_____|__|
|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|
|__|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|__|
Zinj
Mo...@nanunanu.com says...
<snip>
> So he should jump from one book of fiction to another? Give it up
> dude, no one here is buying it. We all know you work for MinTrue.
Poor Howard, when he discovers the sash as 'her' belt :)
But, he's a gentleman, and I don't think there's any HCOB or
HCOPL on tango, or, even waltz.
Zinj
--
You Can Lead a Clam to Reason; but You Can't Make Him Think
Ball of Fluff
"El Kabong Flubber" <Mo...@nanunanu.com> wrote in message
news:u9hfm2d1g51trr2os...@4ax.com...
> On 17 Nov 2006 17:22:07 -0800, "Ball of Fluff"
> <amaflu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Muldoon wrote:
>><snip>
>>
>>>
>>> Fluff, I hope that you won't allow yourself to be used by the sleazy
>>> "Bernie" manipulation operation.
>>
>>Oh, he's had my stuff on his site for years.
>>
>>I don't have a problem with it.
>>
>>He's been courteous to me and if he wants to discuss my posts,
>>then,great.
>>
>>At least he's not calling me OSA on his site, unlike a couple people
>>here...
>>
>>C
>>
>>www.claireswazey.com
>
> You're not OSA?
> Onto $cientology's Assassinates
That would be an ok kind of OSA to be...
C
Howard
>
> In article <rrhfm2dieahrk9mut...@4ax.com>,
> Mo...@nanunanu.com says...
>
> <snip>
>
> > So he should jump from one book of fiction to another? Give it up
> > dude, no one here is buying it. We all know you work for MinTrue.
>
> Poor Howard, when he discovers the sash as 'her' belt :)
>
> But, he's a gentleman, and I don't think there's any HCOB or
> HCOPL on tango, or, even waltz.
Heh. Perhaps it will turn out that 'her' name is really Lola. :) [1]
[1] Well I'm not the world's most physical guy
But when she squeezed me tight she nearly broke my spine
Oh my Lola la-la-la-la Lola
Well I'm not dumb but I can't understand
Why she walked like a woman and talked like a man
Oh my Lola la-la-la-la Lola la-la-la-la Lola
"Lola" - The Kinks
Howard
--
hedmundoatmacmaildotcom
(Who is now back home and wading through some 1100 or so ars messages)
sim...@techie.com
>Sorry....Bzzzzzt.....hi-jacking another thread doesn't help you, Tonei. It
>only cements your reputation as a troll and a fraud.
I'm already thought of in those terms, so what have I got to lose, you
on the other hand want a rep here, but you're nothing but a troll and a
fraud. Yet you want to be a somebody speaking with 'authority'.
Get this into your THICK SKULL TROLL, every thread of mine you hijack,
I'll keep doing the same to you, over and over.
Are you listening BOARD? If you don't want my hijacking him with the
same BS he hijacks me with, then take the little mother fucker in hand.
Sorted.
I will constantly only reply to you with this post until you, or I tire
of it. The board already knows who's the true Troll.
> Or, you could just flat out admit that your full of shit, and retain some
> modicum of self-respect.
I deign to you the same courtesy.
>Sorry, dipshit, you're not worming out of it that easy. You said you have
>my "life in a file, waiting to be released".
Let's see who's "worming" here:
You've equally claimed to have a 'file' on me. I've even aided and
abetted you by giving you my full name, my phone number...sheesh there
can't be much left in that file of yours.
I've given you Dignitas' no. and given you permission to phone them to
check if I'm on their books, yet still you obfuscate and deflect. Your
Demonic hallmark my little enemy for life.
> Now, do it. Or, keep avoiding it....and continue to show yourself for the
> fraud you are.
Exactly, given all the info you claim to have found on me (all bluff)
and given all the REAL info that I've provided you, NOW DO IT. Or,
keep avoiding it....and continue to show yourself for the fraud you
are.
A classic case of Pot, Kettle, but in this case the pot is new and
shining and the kettle is ancient and black.
God you're boring. I really don't think I can be arsed to reply to
you anymore.
Please FOAD at the earliest opportunity.
Thanks.
Tonei.
Iggy wrote:
> No wonder "Angela Gupta" went nuts with the spam postings!!!
>
> Good luck to you, Robert!!
>
> "thorazine shuffle" <thorazin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:lR97h.6544$IR4....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> >
> > "robertthompson88" <rt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:1163729577.0...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>I am publicly announcing that I am leaving the church. I have been a
> >> member, off and on, since 1976. I decided to search the internet
> >> concerning Ron's death and found out the truth. Back in 1986 I was at
> >> the event at Flag where the top management of the church lied to us. We
> >> were told that Ron had voluntarily dropped his healthy body and had
> >> decided to do upper level research. It did not sound right at that
> >> time, but I did not question it. In retrospect, I cannot believe my
> >> gullibility.
> >>
> >> I have educated myself regarding the good and bad of Scientology. It is
> >> sad to report that the reality is not very pretty. The internet makes
> >> finding out the truth a simple matter now. I suspect this ability to
> >> easily find answers will hurt the church considerably. The internet is
> >> a powerful communication tool.
> >>
> >> I want to thank the people who helped me to see through the lies.
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >>
> >> Robert Thompson
> >> Tampa, Florida
> >> rt...@verizon.net
> >>
> >
> > Good on you, man. Here you will find some very cool people that have gone
> > through what you are going through.
> >
Fear Not
Fear Not
Truth Seeker
wrote:
He may be telling the truth and he may be who he says he is but always
make sure to ask yourself this question first?
How do I know for sure that what he's saying is the truth not not just
made up in order to fool readers?
How do I know for sure that what he's saying is the truth not not just
made up in order start a thread that they trolls could then use to
spew their promotion?
How do I know for sure that the post wasn't put up by one of the other
posters on this newsgroup under a different posting name?
How do we know for sure that "Robert Thompson" isn't a OSA agent?
How do we know for sure that "Robert Thompson" is really his real
name?
Truth Seeker
===========
Here is a list of the titles of all the articles posted earlier
to this newsgroup that the Church of Scientology does not want you to
read. If you're having a hard time finding them, just do a search on
the title of the article within this newsgroup with your newsreader or
go to Google.com, select "groups" and enter the title of the article.
*- The FAQ for Alt.Religion.Scientology
*- The 4 things you should never do on this newsgroup
*- All about the church of scientology's "Xenu" undercover operation
*- Ways of keeping the church of scientology out of your computer and out of your life
*- How the church of scientology tries to justifies their crimes
*- Names the Church of Scientology is posting under on this newsgroup
*- Want to know how to beat the church of scientology at it's own game?
*- The church of scientology: Alt.Religion.Scientology's thought police
*- Want to see an example of Tory ( Magoo ) getting caught in a lie?
*- The Church of Scientology wants to install Spy Ware on your computer!
*- Want to know how the Church of Scientology makes nothing out of their crimes?
*- The Church of Scientology's criminal "Operation Snow White"
*- Did you know that the scientologists on this newsgroup use communication as a weapon?
*- Watch how the scientologists on this newsgroup work the "Effects Scale"
*- The incredible things the church of scientology believes
*- Is spiritual growth a mechanical process?
*- What happened to Lisa McPherson proves one of these 2 things
*- Another Inconsistency in Tory's story
*- Tory's real mission on this newsgroup
*- Want to know how to tell the real critics from the scientologists pretending to be critics?
*- This is how Tory and the church of scientology brought down Bob Minton
*- Why were these important facts omitted from the book "Dianetics"?
*- More betrayal at the Church of Scientology in Washington DC
*- Here are 10 unscrupulous Scientology staff members I've encountered at the church
*- Want to know what techniques the scientologists use on this newsgroup to silence critics?
If any of the articles listed in this index cannot be found, it is probably
because the Church of Scientology has illegally canceled it in order to keep
anybody from reading it. Please wait for me to re-post it in the future.
Thank You.
Fear Not
Actually because Truth Seeker is trying to put a spin on this, I now
know Thompson is for real.
LaserClam
robertthompson88 wrote:
> No, Hubbard created the Guardian's Office and his wife, Mary Sue, ran
> it until she was sent to jail for committing crimes. Many of the
> actions they were involved in were reprehensible. The OSA is probably
> involved in similar unscupulous activity.
>
> I certainly condemn their crimes, their behavior, not the person.
>
She should have got them to do The Way
To Happiness course, eh Robert?