Home - News - What's New - Quick Map - Site Map - Search - Contact


Peter McDermott on ARS


 

 

Peter McDermott was an early ARS poster who came back after 2 years of absence. He expresses amazement at how Diane Richardson, who remained the strong and honest debater he knew her to be, is now attacked by arsers, and how entrapped in their own cultic mindset they seem to be. For the origin of the cultic anger of arsers against Diane, check the Mind-Control thread and the Cooper thread.


Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: FACTNET rejects Scientology's 12 million settlement offer

news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Wed, 30 Jul 1997 22:54:50 +0100

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: FACTNET rejects Scientology's 12 million settlement offer - Wollersheim
Message-ID: <B00576BA9668670D7@petermc.demon.co.uk>

Peter:
>>But perhaps you've changed of late, and prefer people to follow some invisible party line?

Dennis Erlich:
> Yea right. If you don't think my advice to Diane to take a break from ars was motivated by a desire for her to regain equilibrium, you didn't know me before any better than you know me now.
 

Diane appears to be posting in exactly the same way as she always did - retaining a critical independence and asking the hard questions.

The only difference is that she seems to have gone from being Ms. Popularity hereabouts, to Public Enemy Number One.


I don't see any lost equilibrium. On the evidence before me, she appears to be posting in exactly the same way as she always did - retaining a critical independence and asking the hard questions.

The only difference is that she seems to have gone from being Ms. Popularity hereabouts, to Public Enemy Number One.

> I gotcher party line right here.

I wish that I did.

 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Message-ID: <FACTNET rejects Scientology's 12 million settlement

news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Fri, 01 Aug 1997 19:08:07 +0100

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.religion.scientology.xenu
Subject: Re: FACTNET rejects Scientology's 12 million settlement offer - Wollersheim
Message-ID: <B007E49796681B82CC@0.0.0.0>

[snip]
 

It wasn't that long since the clams saw Diane as one of their most serious PR problems on this newsgroup


As you may or may not know, it wasn't *that* long since the clams saw Diane as one of their most serious PR problems on this newsgroup and would have given anything to be able to have people dismiss the hard questions she asks as being motivated by some sort of personal failing on her part.

It would seem that they've got their wish.

[snip]

 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement

news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Thu, 07 Aug 1997 11:45:47 +0100

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement
Message-ID: <B00F65EB96684B6F7@0.0.0.0>

Peter:
>>What was the deal with Operation Freakout? This is what's led to Diane's status as being an SP hereabouts, I take it?

Dennis Erlich:
> You're doubly clueless here, Peter.

So clue me i.

> First off, you clearly missed Diane's vindictive jihad against Paulette.
 

Sadly, it seems that Rod's Week in Review doesn't contain all of the really interesting stuff.


Of course I missed it. I haven't read ARS for two years. Sadly, it seems that Rod's Week in Review doesn't contain all of the really interesting stuff.

> And "B", on ars they don't have Espees.

Ah. ARSCC stopped issuing declares then? I don't believe it. I think this is akin to what the nutkult says about fair game.

"Oh, we don't do that any more. That was just the results of a few misguided souls, but we've sent them off to ARSCC RPF now, and besides, they were never really members anyway."

 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement

news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Fri, 08 Aug 1997 01:10:18 +0100

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement
Message-ID: <B010227A96683103FD@0.0.0.0>

Bernie:
>Dozens of people were involved in an ugly and nasty flame war that went on for about two months. I think that quite a few posters didn't survived it (virtually speaking of course), and some only started to recover from it around now
 

I've been wondering where some of the old regulars disappeared to.


Thanks, Bernie. I'll check it out on DejaNews. I've been wondering where some of the old regulars disappeared to.

Maybe this explains their absence?

 

news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Fri, 08 Aug 1997 01:10:15 +0100

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement
Message-ID: <B0102277966831036B@0.0.0.0>

[snip]
 

People can't rebut Diane's allegations, so they are intent on a hypocritical attempt at dead agenting her instead.


After all, if it's inaccurate info, you can always rebut it and by doing so, hopefully show that the person who is posting has some sort of malicious intent. However, it seems pretty clear that what is happening here is that people *can't* rebut Diane's allegations, so they are intent on a hypocritical attempt at dead agenting her instead.

 

news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Fri, 08 Aug 1997 01:10:04 +0100

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: For Dennis: illustrating a generality
Message-ID: <B010226C96683100A0@0.0.0.0>

Dennis, you accused me of 'slinging generalities' when I talked about the sort of abusive responses that I was seeing to Diane's posts and you wanted me to quote an example from the newsgroup. I use an off-line newsreader though, and delete them after I read them, so I couldn't cite one of the posts that had shaped my perceptions of the issue. However, it wasn't very long before I read another example of the type of posts that I was referring to.

So try this one. The post it's following up takes was of a similar nature, but only calls her a brainless bitch. This goes a little bit further, claiming that Diane is evil incarnate and comparing her with (guess who?) the Nazis.
 

So long as it's approved speech, attacking approved targets, we'll defend it - but if it happens to be raising questions that we don't want to hear, let's stick our fingers in our ears and scream abuse as loud as we can.


It appears that the cost of expressing views that differ from those of the dominant posters can be very high indeed. So much for our precious defense of free speech, huh? So long as it's approved speech, attacking approved targets, we'll defend it - but if it happens to be raising questions that we don't want to hear, let's stick our fingers in our ears and scream abuse as loud as we can. After all, it's *so* much easier
 

I never even saw the Scienos themselves work this hard to smear their critics

The odd thing is that I never even saw the Scienos themselves work *this* hard to smear their critics. At least posters like Andy Milne would make some attempt to rebut their opponents positions.
 

This stuff is simply mindless abuse aimed at discrediting the person and diverting all attention from the arguments and the issues being argued over.


This stuff is simply mindless abuse aimed at discrediting the *person* and diverting all attention from the arguments and the issues being argued over.

Now where have I seen *that* tactic used before? Hmmm.

It seems to me that the thing that lies at the heart of all this anger is a difference over tactics. Diane's position seems to be lets get *everything* out in the open, put the emphasis on accuracy rather than just relying on the propaganda value of a statement, and acknowledge it when someone who is fighting the cult happens to be wrong, because by doing so you can only enhance your credibility and show that you have precisely the sort of integrity that Scientology lacks. I have to say that this is also the same position that I hold (and always have, which is why I'm somewhat bemused by those who claim that I've 'changed' somehow.)
 

If you want to establish your moral and ethical superiority, you really do have to behave in a morally superior manner.


In contrast, there are those who believe that we should fight the clams 'by any means necessary' and if that means lying, or breaking the law, focusing on the propaganda value of data rather than whether it's true or not. Actually, I do have an emotional tendency towards this point of view myself. However, there's a big problem with it, and that is when you get caught out, your credibility is all shot to shit. And of course, this is another of the strategies that the cult uses to deal with its critics, another good reason why I feel critics should explicitly distance themselves from it. If you want to establish your moral and ethical superiority, you really do have to behave in a morally superior manner.
 

It does highlight all manner of interesting parallels, and goes some way to illustrating Bernie's thesis that anti-cult posters are often very similar in their thinking and behavior to the cultists that they profess to hate.


Mind you, it does highlight all manner of interesting parallels, and goes some way to illustrating Bernie's thesis that anti-cult posters are often very similar in their thinking and behaviour to the cultists that they profess to hate.
 

Another way that it does this is by showing that critics reserve their most intense venom for their apostates in precisely the same way that the cult does.


Another way that it does this is by showing that critics reserve their most intense venom for their apostates in *precisely* the same way that the cult does.

You and Diane may have a bit more in common than either of you currently recognize. I've heard you go on quite a lot about persecution. This looks to me like a pretty clear example of persecution, and if it were happening to anybody else *besides* Diane I'd be astonished that you weren't speaking out about it.

Maybe it's time that this old bus went in for a service?

Here's the post.

In article <anima.870918229@bermuda.io.com>,
anima@bermuda.io.com (Anima) wrote:

>posted/emailed

>"Alec" <alec@flash.net> writes, perhaps because he still bothers to pay attention to the irrelevant and distasteful:

>>Thank God Arnie and others have spilled the church's beans, whether illegal or not. I might have spent the rest of my life anticipating good things from this abusive church. Arnie and the others have courageously given me the discriminatory data I need to dispell the church's possessive lies. From the realm of religion and truth the Law is a Whore! If the Law opposes my pursuit of salvation, then Fuck the Law! I consider that anyone who would side with the Law over the rights to the Truth is a Whore!

>'Da Bump would be proud to be as obstructionist as this woman has dedicated herself to being. Unable or unwilling to supply useful material in researching the crimes, history, behavior, or dangers of Scientology, she focuses exclusively these days in trying to ensure that no one else does any better. Now, in the <snipped> material you quoted, all is explained: Her sense of morality, ethics, appropriate behavior, is all subordinate to the One Important Thing-- legality. If something is legal, it is acceptable to her, obviously, and if it is Not legal, it must be opposed. Since it is not illegal for her to produce off-topic rants about those who are still trying to discuss the cult, such rants are obviously moral, ethical, appropriate, etc. And if a judge orders someone to suppress evidence of a deadly crime, such as the "church" <spit> has been accused or convicted of over and over in the last year or two-- and, of course, very often before that as well, then no matter how many deaths may be caused as a result, it is obvious that the law is more important than life-- or, one supposes, either liberty of the pursuit of happiness.

>In short, if it is illegal, it IS wrong, immoral, unethical, and inappropriate. But may the god help anyone if she can find something to them that is Not explicitly illegal, because such behavior would obviously be acceptable. Thus, no matter how many lives Arnie's brave (and it seems to me, Unintentionally illegal) posting may have saved, she gets to sit around on her high horse and condemn him. People who have their ethics dictated by the law, and not from some better source, are indeed victims whose acts are controlled by others and must waver with the wandering wind rather than act as a beacon to others, an example of conscience in the face of, say, Jim Crow laws, Apartheid, political arrests, book banning (What if the courts condemned Huck Finn? What would a librarian do-- defy *gasp* the law?), the mandatory wearing of a Star of David or a pink triangle. Yes, there are those who would defy those laws. And there are the quislings who would file Knowledge Reports on them, berate them in public long after they had confessed, and shove others aside to be first in line at the stoning.

>Is there any possible doubt which of these two classes the hatemongering pseudo rationalist falls into? And in that case, why bother to attempt to engage someone whose agenda has no credibility, whose morality is secondary to wriggling within the law and smiling as sweetly as ever Sid smiled when he went running to tell Ma that Tom did not whitewash the whole fence himself, and who has such a powerfully, repeatedly demonstrated ability to tear at people's lives at any cost with all the tenacious bile of a rabid Hubbardite going upstat on a church-ordered mission to destroy and leave behind some kind of warning message, "something witchy," to be remembered by. The difference between Di and Chuck's followers is that she doesn't need to be ordered into action by some Manson type; she boldly strikes out all on her own.

>>What fucking interest can you possibly have in Scientology issues?, you brainless fucking Bitch!

>Now, now. Obviously her interest in Scientology issues is to impose her views on those who are discussing those issues and attempting to destroy those who dare to cross her OR who are demonstrating their effectiveness in bringing to justice the international criminal conspiracy disguised as a church. Other than her bloody savaging of Factnet, Arnie, Rob, Paulette Cooper, and others, she has contributed nothing of value for a couple of years now. Just do what almost everyone else has done-- killfile her. It may astonish you how much more useful and productive this newsgroup becomes when you eliminate her hatespew and focus on the issues, keep up with the news, and join in the camaraderie that helps people hold on in the face of Evil-- the face seen in the mirror each morning by the woman who, when she touches pitch, defiles it.

 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement

news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:35:10 +0100

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement
Message-ID: <B01F356E966848F9E@0.0.0.0>

Diane:
>I have left a.r.s. in disgust more than once. I have also left a.r.s. more than once because of the press of other obligations. Sometimes I've left a.r.s. out of both disgust and because of other obligations.
 

The same tired posters reciting the same tired flames.


I'd add *boredom* to that list. The same tired posters reciting the same tired flames and actually *objecting* to people coming up with new and verifiable information doesn't make for the most interesting group in the world.

 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement

news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:35:11 +0100

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement
Message-ID: <B01F356F96684900A@0.0.0.0>

Bernie:
>On top of that, Diane is hard to counter, either with rhetoric or with facts and references. As a matter of fact, they may find it almost impossible. The only thing that therefore remains for them, is to make out of her some kind of monster by pure unsubstantiated ad hominem.

Yup, that's my take on it as well. The more sensible among them take her on and she fucks them up in public. All they are left with is demonizing her on some imaginary grounds.

Witness Zane's recent example. He takes a shot at her, but as he finds nothing he can beat her up over in her argument, he starts whining about her remarks - despite the fact that she'd passed over remarks of a similar tone that he'd made several times in the course of the thread.

>So that's another of the reasons that may explain the virulence that is sometimes displayed against Diane, simply because she is successful, and often have many interesting things to say. If this wasn't the case, and if indeed she had all the faults they attribute to her, then they would simply ignore her, like they mostly do with Scarff and Koos.

Yup. Even those who claim to have plonked her don't seem able to ignore her. She's one of L. Ron Newman's 'obnoxious three' so she's 'fair game'.

>BTW, Is there actually any chance for a real change to be brought about in the group? I am somewhat sceptical about that. It seems that dissidents, those who can think away from the largely accepted thought pattern within the group, and who have the strength of character to sustain the social pressure their attitude would inevitably engender (and the stronger the cultic aspect, the stronger the reaction), are few. The majority prefer to indulge in the easy and ready made general agreement prevalent within the group. They tend to follow opinion leaders who exemplify for them this thought pattern.
 

When I stopped reading ARS around two years ago, it was for precisely this reason. I was the first person to express my doubts about Arnie Lerma's toothbrush, and I found the responses to my posts to be extremely disturbing. The consensus seemed to be 'Shut up and say nothing. You don't criticize the critics'.

Since then, the situation seems to have gotten even worse. It appears as though OSA have dehatted those people who were charged with posting here to counter the arguments, my guess is because the critics themselves are doing a far better job of making themselves look like crazy people than they ever could.

Which has to be the first real Big Win I've seen Scientology take with regard to the internet.


I doubt it. When I stopped reading ARS around two years ago, it was for precisely this reason. I was the first person to express my doubts about Arnie Lerma's toothbrush, and I found the responses to my posts to be extremely disturbing. The consensus seemed to be 'Shut up and say nothing. You don't criticize the critics' but I resent being fed bullshit and expected to swallow it with a smile *whoever* might be holding the spoon.

Since then, the situation seems to have gotten even worse. It appears as though OSA have dehatted those people who were charged with posting here to counter the arguments, my guess is because the critics themselves are doing a far better job of making themselves look like crazy people than they ever could.

Which has to be the first *real* Big Win I've seen Scientology take with regard to the internet.

 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement

news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Wed, 20 Aug 1997 14:27:39 +0100

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: FACTNet's Database and Copyright Infringement
Message-ID: <B020AF5B966816C53@petermc.demon.co.uk>

Bernie:
>Seems like you don't gain much by trying to speak sense to those who obviously can't make any. Somehow, they will always try to turn it against you at the end of the day. A good lesson, methink. Better ignore them.

>>Yup. Even those who claim to have plonked her don't seem able to ignore her. She's one of L. Ron Newman's 'obnoxious three' so she's 'fair game'.

>I am surprised Ron has chosen to heat up a flamefest, he who usually try to cool things up. I wonder why.

I must say that it surprised me as well.

>>I doubt it. When I stopped reading ARS around two years ago, it was for precisely this reason. I was the first person to express my doubts about Arnie Lerma's toothbrush, and I found the responses to my posts to be extremely disturbing.

>Yes. I think that this is the point when you start to realize that some "critics" aren't better than what they criticize, sometimes they are even much worse. But I think that we just have to live with that. They populate the newsgroup and they probably have the right to make a fool of themselves just as well. The best is probably to ignore them most of the time. They do serve a purpose also, as a negative illustration.
 

A few years ago, ARS was a credible source of information on Scientology that an objective reader could turn to for discussion. I just don't see that it could fulfil that function anymore, and that has to be a very sad loss to the world indeed.


I hate to agree with you on this. A few years ago, ARS was a credible source of information on Scientology that an objective reader could turn to for discussion. I just don't see that it could fulfil that function anymore, and that has to be a very sad loss to the world indeed.

>Luckily, there are enough other posters as well, or it wouldn't be worth staying at all.

>>The consensus seemed to be 'Shut up and say nothing. You don't criticize the critics' but I resent being fed bullshit and expected to swallow it with a smile *whoever* might be holding the spoon.

>I think Damon Cheston share your opinion on that point, as do I.
 

The dominant response was that it was enough for it to be consistent with allegations of past Scientology behavior for people to accept that it happened.

What puzzles me is how so few people seem to realize that their apparent gullibility on these issues destroys any credibility as objective over the issue.


It's true. I'd forgotten just how staunch Damon was on the issue. There were a couple of others as well, but I believe that the dominant response was that it was enough for it to be consistent with allegations of past Scientology behaviour for people to accept that it happened.

What puzzles me is how so few people seem to realize that their apparent gullibility on these issues destroys any credibility as objective over the issue.

 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: DIANE RICHARDSON - ENOUGH

news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Sun, 24 Aug 1997 17:48:29 +0100

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: DIANE RICHARDSON - ENOUGH
Message-ID: <B026246D966819D455@0.0.0.0>

Sister Clara:
>> >Of course the poster has not noticed the tiny 1 watt bulb light up within what passes as a brain, warning hier that the post above has both wasted further "ink" and granted more "air time".

Dennis Erlich:
>> 4 is a guest celeb on ars, Sis.

Sister Clara:
>I could not give a toss who he is. Being a guest celeb does not prevent the posting of tripe. We've all done it at one time or another Dennis and it is not unreasonable for it to be called.
 

It was a post of a session where fauxskin was chatting to a scieno on IRC titled 'ClamSex' that clued me in to the fact that the behaviour of some of the critics here had dropped *way*, *way* below the standards of most of any of the active scienos that I'd seen posting.

It was the first time I'd *ever* felt instinctive sympathy for the scieno and revulsion at the critic's tactics. Sadly, it was far from the last.


Curiously enough, it was a post of a session where fauxskin was chatting to a scieno on IRC titled 'ClamSex' posted here a few weeks ago that clued me in to the fact that the behaviour of some of the critics here had dropped *way*, *way* below the standards of most of any of the active scienos that I'd seen posting.

It was the first time I'd *ever* felt instinctive sympathy for the scieno and revulsion at the critic's tactics. Sadly, it was far from the last.

 

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: Knowledge?

news@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

 Fri, 05 Sep 1997 23:29:54 +0100

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Knowledge?
Message-ID: <B03646729668180F51@petermc.demon.co.uk>

Peter:
>>argue and debate. If Diane's arguments are weak, there's no shortage of people here to jump all over her and point that out. In fact, even when they aren't weak, there are enough people here who lack the insight into the difference between a 'good' (ie, logical and coherent) argument and a poor one to take a shot at it anyway. It hardly seems reasonable to whine about 'semantic pummelling' because she tends to decisively defeat such people in argument.

drink@yourown.risk.com (bc):
>Whine? Would you care to clarify that little statement, Peter? I

You're right. I erroneously assumed that your 'semantic pummelling' reference referred to Diane, largely because I've seen her arguments dismissed as 'semantic trickery' before.

Have an apology for my error,

>have yet to concede defeat to Diane, Bernie, or anyone else. As a

You don't need to concede it. It's there for anyone to see on the threads on mind control.

>matter of fact, I don't see my presence here as a competition with anyone. I'm not out to "defeat" anyone, or be "defeated" by anyone.

That's funny, because you really don't strike me as someone who is interested synthesizing the useful stuff in opposing viewpoints and moving forward.

In light of that, why else would you argue with an opponent?

> I'm not even sure why I'm responding to this. But if you insist on taking this to a personal, third-grade level and throwing out an accusation of "whining", rather than discussing the issues involved in a rational fashion, I'd have to invite you to FOAD. Politely, of course.

Um, Pot-Kettle-Black

>>Anyway, my point is that what BC calls 'semantic pummelling' is really the best tool that we have. ie the ability to ask questions, to challenge basic assumptions, to point up the flaws in each other's logic. If we don't subject *all* claims to the same rigorous testing, then we have to accept $cientology's argument that critics are biased, bigoted and operate a double standard.

>If you read the entire newsgroup,
 

Not enough of interest here anymore, I'm afraid.

To be quite honest, I only popped in because I saw a brief reference to Ginger Breggin's wife being a Scientologist in "Week in Review". I hadn't really intended to stick around, but I found myself intrigued by Diane's transformation from ARSCC Kha Khan to OSA plant. It's still relatively new and interesting to me, whereas most of the other stuff being discussed here hasn't changed at all in the last two or three years.

Perhaps I'll go back to reading Week-in-Review once a week.


Maybe if I didn't have a life, I'd have the time. But actually, I don't have the inclination any more. Not enough of interest here anymore, I'm afraid.

To be quite honest, I only popped in because I saw a brief reference to Ginger Breggin's wife being a Scientologist in "Week in Review". I hadn't really intended to stick around, but I found myself intrigued by Diane's transformation from ARSCC Kha Khan to OSA plant. I know that the regulars here profess to be bored with it (despite continuing to perpetuate the threads on the topic) but it's still relatively new and interesting to me, whereas most of the other stuff being discussed here hasn't changed at all in the last two or three years.

Perhaps I'll go back to reading Week-in-Review once a week.

 

Peter McDermott on ARS On Mind-Control On Bernie



Random Quote :

Disclaimer :

This web site is NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.

Quick Map :

About Myths Bigotry Anti-Cultism Criticism Third Way Links
Home
Site map
Search
What's New
Contact

Story
Q&A

 

Overview
2Questions
3Types
What

Doctrine
Xenu
Gays

Control
Kills
McPherson
Bashaw
Manson
RPF

Harrassment
Bomb
Sporgeries
Earthlink
Profit
Legal

 

Logic
Cat
Critic

 

Attacks
Clams
Hate
Christmas
Invasion
Trolling
Harassment
Violence
Award
OSA


Dissenters
Attacks
IRC
Plants
ARS

Tenets
Mind-Control
Subliminal
ACM

Discrimination
Jews
Kids
Germany
France
Trafalgar
Deprogramming

Who's Who
Cooper
Minton
Henson
Hartwig
Who

 

Experiences
Pro&Con
Dream

Questions
What Is?
Works?
Scam?

Testimonies
Sasha
Robin
Unindoctrinated

Cultism
Mirrors
Manhatan

The Tech
Key
Medical
Excalibur

Celebrities
Cruise
Celebrities

 

Scholars
Article
FBI
Papers

Moderates

Critics
Rebecca
Diane
Peter
DeadAgent1
Judy
Newbies

Ex-Members
Wolf
Jack
Claire
David
Kymus
Bernie
Interviews 

Scientologists
Enzo
Freddie
RonsAmigo
Wonderflur
Whippersnapper

Scientologists Speak
Freddie
EJ

 

ACM
Personal
Pathless