Having watched with interest the initial pack-like mentality of ars in
attempting to link Phil Gale's suicide to CofS, I am, like most of you,
pleased that friends of his have come forward to stand up for Phil. In
essence, what they have said is that Phil was not under the thrall of
Scienology or any other ideology. Given his apparent interest in the
Subgenius material it would be just as easy for a pack of anti-Bob
crusaders to latch onto that as the source of his decision.
Keith Henson accurately points towards memes as an area of contemplation
to further understand suicide and Tallulagh asks that ars reduce it's
rabid frothing and finger-pointing in this case out of respect for a
young man who met an end only he might have understood.
And now, it seems, the post mortum has begun. ARS will mulch through a
discussion of prozac vs. BT's and the ludicrous attacks by CofS on
psychiatry and, as always, end up right back where it started: with the
spreading of the "clam meme" and the stupidity of the "we're
they're wrong" tautology. How long before boring threads discussing
other suicides dominate the group? Though suicide is a rare event from
within the ranks of CofS, I see no reason why the more vehement amongst
you shouldn't trot the Quinton mystery out again.
The only thing I'm curious about - now that it's obvious that the ars
androids can't hang Phil Gale's death on CofS is - how long before CofS
is blamed here for not preventing his suicide.
Keep up the good work friends, remember, Hubbard was bright enough to
realize that you only stop expanding when no body is talking about you
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
> In article <3523F7F8.A24@micron.net>, Wolf
> >The only thing I'm curious about - now that it's obvious that the ars androids can't hang Phil Gale's death on CofS is - how long before CofS is blamed here for not preventing his suicide.
> Wait a sec, clam-droid.
You see Nico, there's that 'clam' meme you've been stricken with. Rather
than read what I actually said, your programming automatically
identifies anything that you don't like as being 'clam-powered'
> solid questions, such as "why did he jump on L. Ron Hubbard's
Believe it or not, March 13th is just another day. It's you and the rest
of the chorus who decided to attach that particular significance.
> he grew up with as a 4th generation $cientologist) and reality (such as he learned about at MIT and the rest of the real world) have?
I'm pretty sure there are not yet any 4th generation Scientologists of
that age. Give it another 20 years or so and you'll be correct though.
As for reality vs CofS or MIT or the view from your bathroom, stridently
denying that a reality other than the one you accept is somehow less, is
the basis of what ARS attacks CofS on in the first place.
> >Keep up the good work friends, remember, Hubbard was bright enough to realize that you only stop expanding when nobody is talking about you any longer.
> And bright enough to invent space aliens stuck to us as the source of all our bad thoughts and illnesses and call it "science", when even his own experiments on "clears" failed miserably.
You'll find little disagreement from me on that count Nico. But they do
smile a lot and they photograph so nicely.
> It's still reasonable to ask questions about Mr. Gale's fate, and to
remember that even an incredibly brilliant person, exposed to $cientology all his
life, can die of suicide and have his mother blame the people who exposed her fraudulent cult for his death.
And your point is what? That he committed suicide because of (pick
one)-> ARS? Scientology? His mother's activities against psychiatry? The
shock of reality (as per Nico) when he entered the real world (as
defined by Nico)?
The fact is, ARS and the bleating sheep who parrot one another's posts
endlessly, love a good death. It lends a air of gravity to the
'mission', so-to-speak, of ridding earth of that horrible clam-church.
Young Mr. Gale and the circumstances of his death have apparently little
or nothing to do with either ARS or Scientology.
When you people stop ranting about Xenu and BT's and calling people
clams and carrying on about dead dogs and other meaningless crap, you
might make some progress. The arrogance of ARS since it's inception,
that it has unmasked the church (as if CofS had never before been
attacked or unmasked until the internet came along) is stupid. CofS has
a long history of withstanding assualt and has rarely had it's walls
breached. ARS is not even close to shutting the church down. And it
won't get close as long as the focus is on name calling and hyperbole.
I'm pretty sure DM and his henchmen read ARS for grins... while lounging
about drinking 75 year old scotch and smoking Cubans. And why shouldn't
they like this forum? It keeps the name out there and most people who
lurk through here don't get the jokes.
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
> >You see Nico, there's that 'clam' meme you've been stricken with.
Rather than read what I actually said, your programming automatically identifies anything that you don't like as being 'clam-powered'
> What's a matter? Can't take it? I read what you said. You're a clam or talking like one.
The tendency to use name calling or to ~demonize~ entire groups through
derisive verbal attacks speaks volumes about the people using the tactic
and says nothing about the target of their anger.
> >Believe it or not, March 13th is just another day. It's you and the
rest of the chorus who decided to attach that particular significance.
> Oh. So if I impale myself to death with a christmas tree angel while my family is at Midnight Mass on Christmas, it's "just another
It's certainly possible. The math here is pretty straight forward. I
might suggest you wipe up the spittle from your keyboard and apply what
skills you might possess to do the numbers.
> >I'm pretty sure there are not yet any 4th generation Scientologists of that age. Give it another 20 years or so and you'll be correct though.
> Another clam gets it wrong! Remember that *ADULTS* are usually the ones who join. Marie Gale, Philip's mother, herself described her life in
$cientology involving her parents and grandparents and son.
> If you mean "fourth generation born and raised in $cientology",
you're right, there probably aren't any yet.
An interesting exchange. First you attack using the clam-meme and then
upon reflection, you consider, accurately, that I might have meant 'born
and raised', which I did. Yet you chose to keep the attack in the post.
Keep at it Nico, you're begininng to show early signs of actual critical thinking.
> ??? What are you smoking, and where can I get some? The concept that "what is true for you is true" is only part of the problem. The
key to the problem is that $cientology ***LIES***, deliberately and with malice, to defraud others and conceal their own behavior.
This goes way off-topic and is actually better suited to philosophy or
religious debates. I think you'd agree (if you 'd just calm down and
think about it) that most religions or idealogies require that members
adapt a reality that serves the purpose of the group itself. That
Hubbard phrased it the way he did is what seems to upset you. But, for
the record, the idea of ~true for you~ is more a part of the selling of
Scientology than it is a LIE, as you put it. The key to the problem with
Scientology is not lying or criminal behaviour as most Scientologists
are no more liars than are Muslims, Mormans or Democrats. The fact is
that actual number of active members may be disputed, but the majority
of Scientologists (or Muslims for that matter) are law-abiding and
wholesome people. At least in their view.
> >> And bright enough to invent space aliens stuck to us as the source of all our bad thoughts and illnesses and call it
"science", when even his own experiments on "clears" failed miserably.
> >You'll find little disagreement from me on that count Nico. But they do smile a lot and they photograph so nicely.
> Hmm. Maybe you're not a clam, since you are publicly disagreeing with the hidden core of Mr. Hubbard's frauds. Actually, I think they do *not* photograph well. Not enough expression, after all those "Comm"
courses teaching them to stare like robots.
TR's do cause a certain level of intensity. But then, have you ever had
an insurance salesman get a death-grip on you?
> >And your point is what? That he committed suicide because of (pick one)-> ARS? Scientology? His mother's activities against psychiatry?
The shock of reality (as per Nico) when he entered the real world (as defined by Nico)?
> My point is that these are all possibilities, and open to discussion. And
not to accept by silent acquiescence *blame* for the boy's death that his
mother tried to lay on us, when her own organization's actions more likely contributed strongly to his fate. Not definitely: I don't know what was in
his mind. But how can we encourage others who may need counseling in similar situations to seek and accept it with the CCHR slanders and libels
littering corridors and laundromats?
She was upset. It's obvious (if his friends who posted here are to be
believed) now that P.Gale didn't make his decision based upon either ars
> ARS is not about shutting it down. ARS is about exposing the fraud, among other things, and having the freedom to speak.
Whether that's the purpose of all of the more frequent and vocal posters
on ars remains to be seen. ARS for some is more about self-promotion and
occupying the time that an affluent society has rewarded us with. As for
the freedom to speak - we already have that. It's not likely that CofS
will be able to accomplish what other, more powerful groups have already
failed at doing.
> Wolfie, baby, you are definitely a clam or a troll. The lawsuits being
filed against Dennis Erlich and Larry Wollersheim are *not* cheap. Their
membership is, apparently and according to recent exiting members, dropping. The
"Xenu" trade secrets are *blown* and all semblance of confidentiality about body thetans and funky exorcisms called "auditing" is *gone* and
published all over the Net unlike past publications that have been stolen from bookstores, sued into silence, or had their authors criminally harassed.
You are the victim of a partial history and personal blindess when it
comes to the effects ARS has actually had on CofS. Cheap is relative in
the instances of both Erlich and Wollersheim. ARS readers of years past
may well recall my thoughts concerning them both. Needless to say, CofS
can easily afford to keep any larger number of lawsuits rolling.
As for confidentiality: the truth is that every OT level easily made
it's way into the field as early as 1968. All one had to do was ask. As
I predicted in 95, CofS realized that it could not keep the more
theatrical aspects of OT3 lore off the net and so began a campaign of
advertising within the group that gently revealed all but the specific
details. The expected shock and loss to CofS from internet publication
never occured except in the egos of the ars clam-meme brood. This, btw,
is what ars'ers so knowledgably refer to DA'ing.
> $cientology's fraudulent behavior is DOA, baby. We're just cleaning up the corpse and making sure it doesn't leak and stink up the Internet.
I'm not sure how you earn a living Nico, but if you happen to be a
stockbroker let me know what you're buying so I can sell it short.
One final point. During every major public attack on CofS, be it the
early 60's raids on the DC org for emeters or the 70's raid in Hollywood
or more localized attacks, the claims of the attackers have always been
that membership is falling at an alarming rate. This is merely pr in the
same sense that CofS uses pr when they claim their membership at 8
million. The only thing that really matters here is actual facts and
numbers, which neither you or I or anyone here has. But the CofS does
have those numbers. That's why I think most of this is humorous and
somewhat silly. Pretty much any claim an attacker cares to make
concerning membership will almost certainly be incorrect, so it's an
area of weakness for you folks, not strength.
But then, what's true for you is true for you. Eh Nico?
> Wolf wrote:
> > As for the idea that religious truth isn't unclear because it draws on revelation (which we all know to be a subjective phenomena), I disagree, as do most of the ARS critics who deny that Scientology offers even the merest gain because it can't be lab tested.
> While there are probably a few critics who maintain that, I believe that your sentence above does not apply to the overwhelming majority of the critics.
Okay. I really need to get a newsreader with a filter then.
> The Church of Scientology[tm] maintains that their "gains" *are* scientific and *can* be scientifically tested.
Actually, the CofS maintains that IQ's can be raised and that Purif
therapy is healthy. No doubt CofS has had some doctors agree on both
counts. But that's not the point. The point is that Scn services are not
sold or promoted with a feature being that they have been scientifically
proven to do anything.
> After more than forty years, the Church of Scientology[tm] has not backed up *any* of these claims with *any* evidence whatsoever. Given that information, and given Hubbard's complete lack of qualifications, I remain highly skeptical of the claims.
No doubt with good cause. CofS made stronger claims in the 50's and 60's
than they have the last 30 years. Heat from outside critics back then
along with FDA interest in them were likely the reasons for not only the
grade chart, but for the shift in entry level marketing to happiness and
well-being rather than unprovable god-like abilities.
> The burden of proof rests with the individual or organization making the claims. To date, the Church of Scientology[tm] has not met that burden of proof.
And why should they? At least to you or any other critic? You're not
buying what they're selling so it's not a productive use of time. The
ploy of hurling an accusation at a target and then demanding the target
prove it's not true is showmanship and PR on either side of an argument.
Politicians do it every election cycle and historically we all know it
as a 'witch hunt'. As long as CofS maintains cash flow and
constitutional protection as a church they are under no obligation to
prove anything to you or any critic. What they *must* prove though, to
their customers, is that it's worth the money - subjectively or
> > Simply put, the subjective gains, truths and beliefs of a confirmed CofS'er do appear irrational, incoherent
and unclear and this ng is merciless in it's attacks on those beliefs.
> Not really. Most of us don't give a damn what Scientologists believe. I don't care if they believe in Xenu or body thetans or engrams or anything like that.
Excuse me? Have you filtered out 99% of the posts on this newsgroup? The
bulk of posters on ars enjoy the
clam-cootie-brainwashed-clambot-$ciendroid name calling and derision of
not only the CofS materials, but the ars posters who claim to be
members. If they doesn't give a damn about the beliefs, then why
> What I care about is fraud, lies, and bait-and-switch, all of which are perpetrated by the Church of Scientology[tm].
Paul, you seem like a nice fellow, intelligent and interested in CofS
and what threat (real or imagined) it may pose to whomever. But, because
you, me or anyone else calls something a fraud, or a bait-and-switch
doesn't mean that it's true. Has CofS defrauded people? I'm certain that
specific reg's and other staff, in specified cases throughout the
history of CofS have done so. The same for bait-and-switch. But does
that mean the entire membership, all it's staff, and each and every
person who is involved in selling these services is, by association, a
criminal? Nope. Not even close. When you read a headline about a
Catholic priest debauching himself with young boys do you immediatly
rush to the alt.religion.catholic ng and demand they be exposed as a
worlwide cult of pedophiles who have defrauded their members by asking
for donations in exchange for eternal salvation while secretly just
wanting to diddle their kids?
Whatever CofS's actual membership is, it's considerable. In there among
the majority are a few liars, cheats and crooks. So what? Same holds
true for ars most likely. And from time to time people who are also Scn
die. So what? Not every death is a 'cult death', nor, for that matter,
has it been proven yet that any deaths are 'cult deaths' (whatever that
Many Ars posters will continue to demonize and degrade any who disagree
with them, citing the fraud&lies belief as the basis of their attacks.
Claiming that Scn has to prove anything is a dead horse. The burden of
proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of the accusers, not the accused
in all but tax law, environmental law and labor law (to name a few) and
no matter how loud you yell, how long you howl or how many "Scientology
Kills" pickets you make, CofS is much more experienced and well versed
at this game and will very likely outlive the usefulness of this ng.
> No hypocrisy, here, Wolf.
That remains to be seen. How pious do you claim to be? <grin>
Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.
> > Scn services are not sold or promoted with a feature being that they have been
scientifically proven to do anything.
> I don't think that's correct. At least, at my local org, the claims being made are that Scientology[tm] is scientifically valid and has been scientifically tested.
This is the second time I've heard this on ars w/in the last week.
> I've been told that "the tech[tm] always works." I don't think my experiences are unique. It's probably the one differentiating factor about the Church of Scientology[tm] and I believe they push it for all it's worth.
There's never bad tech, just non-standard auditors or PTSness. The tech
is 100% standard, which means if you blow, you were PTS or your auditor
sucked. Here's a story:
Flag sent various FSM's and made many calls to me after 82 to get me to
go on with the upper levels. Their hole card was that my NOTS was
*Mayo-NOTS* and therefore squirrel. I repeatedly told them that I was
not unhappy with what I received and they could check and see if I was
on refund lines to verify it. No dice Wolf, I had received squirrel
tech. So I changed my tack, "Mayo NOTS!" I would exclaim, "Why,
violates the Service Policy. I didn't get what I paid for." Whereupon I
told whomever was calling/visiting at the moment that as soon as I had a
letter in hand from CO Flag that I would receive, free of charge,
exactly what I paid for in 1980, I would be on the next plane. Never got
<snip false claims dialog>
> > No doubt with good cause. CofS made stronger claims in the 50's and
60's than they have the last 30 years.
> I'm not sure that's correct, either. What I think has gotten stronger is the disclaimer that the Church of Scientology[tm] asks you to sign,
Oh? I haven't been in an org since 83, that may explain a lot.
> > And why should they? At least to you or any other critic? You're not buying what they're selling so it's not a productive use of time.
> They should meet the burden of proof for two reasons:
> 1) if the Church of Scientology's claims are false, then are guilty of fraud.
> 2) they want my tax money for their programs (e.g., Narconon, the
"study tech," Criminon).
#2 is valid. Is CofS actually obtaining public funds? Is this heresay or
> Once again, we differ. The burden of proof, in my opinion, is always on
> the side of the person making the claims. If I claim that the Church of Scientology[tm] is a criminal organization, the burden of proof is on me to back up that claim. Until I do, you should view that claim with great skepticism. If the Church of Scientology[tm], on the other hand, claims that they can raise my IQ, the burden of proof is on them. Until they back up that claim with hard evidence, I should (and do) view that claim with great skepticism.
I think we're splitting hairs. I can see that if you bought a service
and didn't get an IQ increase (assuming that there were written promises
to that effect) you'd at the least have a case for refund. I'm not sure
you could get any court to seriously consider investigating a religious
organization for failing to deliver a subjective reality.
> Insisting that someone back up their rather extravagant claims with some hard evidence is not a "witch hunt," in my opinion.
And you're entitled to it. To the CofS it is, and they will use it to
> Until they start going to the public till to maintain that cash flow. At that point, they are under an obligation to prove their claims--to me and to every other taxpayer.
I'm assuming that hasn't happened yet. I doubt it will except possibly
in the Narconon scenario.
> > What they *must* prove though, to their customers, is that it's worth the money - subjectively or otherwise.
> I concur with that, but I still maintain the right to point out to their prospective customers the complete lack of documentation or evidence. As long as a customer is fully informed, then I have no problem with them joining the Church of Scientology[tm]. But I insist that they be fully informed.
Your right to free speech remains unmodified by the Constitution. I'd be
leery though, the right to free speech does not give one the right to
libel or slander. What you may call your right and duty, CofS might
consider illegal (if you do it illegally) and then you'd be defending
yourself in court. That's their right... under the same laws that
protect you and I.
> > The bulk of posters on ars enjoy the clam-cootie-brainwashed-clambot-$ciendroid name calling and derision
of not only the CofS materials, but the ars posters who claim to be members. If they doesn't give a damn about the beliefs, then why ridicule them?
> Because they're funny?
And so are Polish jokes, Nig--r jokes and Jewish jokes. But on a public
forum they can quickly turn into malicious harrasment and, as has
happened on ARS, attract flies and all other manner of scat-loving
degenerates. In the end, you're known by the company you keep.
> Perhaps I have filtered out too much--I've certainly been accused of that in the past. My impression, though, is that the vast bulk of the mockery comes from half a dozen posters or so. When you consider that several hundred critics post here each week, that isn't really a significant percentage.
The worst does come from just a few, but most, including some who
suprise me, have adapted the clam-meme into their basic dialog. At what
point does ars, as a group, become exactly what they accuse
Scientologists of being -> attenuated zombies who denigrate their
opponents and spout nothing but the lingo of their own group?
<snip- Wolf's bait-n-switch lecture>
> True, and those words are, perhaps, too strong. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that the Church of Scientology's claims are, in fact, fraudulent. Given the complete lack of evidence to support them, I stand by that belief. If the Church of Scientology[tm] were ever to provide evidence to support the claims or were to completely drop them, I hope that I'm openminded enough that my position would change.
It's not within them to ever *lower* themselves to even attempting to
show evidence. That's the Achilles heel of all such groups. Personally,
I'd not be satisfied, nor would I care. All I'd like to see is for CofS
to lose the *C*.
> As for the bait-and-switch, that is perhaps the wrong choice of words, but I don't know what else to call it. I'm referring, of course, to the story of Xenu and the body thetans, which is only told to those who have spent a great deal of time and money "going clear." Subsequently,
they find that it was all for naught and that they have to spend a great deal more time and more money dealing with body thetans.
There is that. If we were talking aluminum siding sales they could be
brought up for charges. But hey, we're talking religion here aren't we?
Who's going to put a church on trial? See why I could care less about
their claims than I do their Church status?
> My opinion is that over 90% of Scientologists are decent, well-meaning people. I reserve my anger for those at the top.
Tell me about it! I was making six figures selling the stuff for years
and then along comes DM, and pow! Wolf has to go get a real job. Henson,
Paper Tiger and others know my view on this. The *tech* (I learned to
hate that meme) is highly effective as long as it's kept away from all
the bt, OT, Clear Planet, marching-and-singing crap. Easy to sell, easy
to deliver, very few dissatisfied customers and - being a service-
start-up costs are negligable. When DM wrested control his first real
target (after Bill Franks) was the field. And why not? He was certainly
jealous. We were driving Porsches, living in big houses, wearing Italian
suits and had classrooms full of smiling faces. All he ever had was was
a home on a rotting cattle-boat and a sweat-stained hat. He never got to
drive fast or get laid by a chick with a tan. I sat through his little
party in SF in 82'. I know a sociopath when I see one and he is very
willing to hurt whomever keeps him from whatever goals his childhood
angst drives him towards.
[end of rant]
> > citing the fraud&lies belief as the basis of their attacks. Claiming that Scn has to prove anything is a dead horse.
> "I'm not dead yet!" Sorry, but we disagree on this issue.
Okay... I was just suggesting fighting on a front where you have the
> > The burden of proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of the accusers,
> I agree, but that's not the whole picture. If the Church of Scientology[tm] wants my money, the burden of proof is on them to justify what they're asking me to pay for.
Oh they want your money. In fact, so do I. That's the basis of my
personal desire to see CofS and the upper structure dismantled. If not
for them, Ron's hare-brained Sea Org and the meglomania that working in
isolated, degenerate work-groups spawns, I'd have had a shot at it
> >Actually, the CofS maintains that IQ's can be raised and that Purif therapy is healthy. No doubt CofS has had some doctors agree on both counts. But that's not the point. The point is that Scn services are
not sold or promoted with a feature being that they have been
scientifically proven to do anything.
> If claiming to be the "modern science of mental health", a
"discovery" equivalent to that of the discovery of fire or the wheel, with more "scientific research" than any other field doesn't claim to be
science, I don't know what does.
Hubbard, like thousands of other pitchmen, wrote what he figured would
sell the most of his books and services. Ad copy doesn't always qualify
as fraud just because it's hype.
> The blatant false claims of curing disease, solving problems with life, etc. with the "scientifically proven" E-Meter are sold as a proven science. The end result is sold as the "Homo Novis", a new species of human with super-human powers.
The e-meter does do something. And it has been proven that whatever that
something is, it is definitly happening. It's certainly a matter of
opinion exactly what the e-meter is registering. As for curing disease,
solving problems, etc., so what? That's what faith healing, herbal
medicine, exorcism, prayer, copper bracelets, chiropractic, channelling
and a host of other beliefs and practices claim to do also.
> The claims are still made, just not as boldly where the FDA among others can see them. NOTS 22 and 34 market the same things, and the members are given to believe that "we can't advertise the things we can really do because the 'evil' government is trying to stop us, but 'we all know that' we can really cure disease, etc.".
Your point is what? That CofS ought not to have the right to promote
within their membership an alleged spiritual gain? Or that because they
have the idea that the gov't is evil and working against them that they
should be restricted from transmitting it? This is where many on the ars
become self-appointed dispensers of 'truth'. My question then might be
this: who annointed you (collectively) to save others from choices they
make of their own free will?
> They "should" provide proof, even to us degraded beings who have
the audacity to criticize them for the simple reason that we wouldn't call it a fraud if it wasn't one. Either they are selling a fraud with no evidence of it providing what they sell it to be, or they are covering up the evidence, "pulling in" the charges of fraud. The criticism would go away if they could show any evidence.
No they shouldn't. Not unless it can be proven, legally, that CofS does
not have the right to pursue their goals and growth. My contention is
that CofS is in actuality a for-profit service organization that ought
be be stripped of the religious shield it operates under. At that point
it would be required to tailor it's advertising to laws governing the
> Unfortunately, the US government is so overprotective of the public (ie. forcing manufactures to put labels on products that detail essentially "don't be stupid when using this product"), that the public has come to _expect_ the government to be their babysitter ("but nobody _told_ me the coffee was hot and not to spill it on myself"). The fact that the government does not do this for "religious" claims leaves a public that is gullible to believing them purely because they expect their babysitter to protect them.
Fair enough. Now that you've sourced the real evil SP's (the gov't),
then it seems to me that attacking CofS serves little purpose. OTOH, I'd
suggest that if the gov't stripped religion of it's protections under
the constitution that a few other problems would befall us. The solution
is not to change the constitution, but to be more restrictive of what is
protected by it.
> When the "church" lies to their recruits about their core
beliefs, the recruits cannot possibly determine for themselves on a rational basis whether or not to join.
This is one of the more arrogant and false accusations on ars. Xenu,
BT's and Marcabs are not a 'core belief' of CofS. They are specifically
a background filler to CofS's reason that one ought to pay for NOTS and
OT3. For you, me or anyone else to determine from a distance that
because we don't believe it then anyone who does is not capable of
making an informed decision, is the worst sort of arrogance. Tomorrow
millions of people will celebrate the notion that a man died and then
rose from the grave. I personally don't believe that but I don't
consider that I'm entitled to determine that people who do are not
capable of determining on a *rational* basis whether to donate to their
> When they charge huge sums of money for discovering these beliefs, the person going in should be allowed to know that the "modern science" they are signing up for
believes that space aliens are the cause of their problems. If they still want to exorcise dead space aliens, it's up to them, but not telling them what they are signing up for is bait-and-switch in my opinion.
I'm sorry, but bait-and-switch is not what you think it is. CofS is not
advertising one thing at a low price to lure customers in and then
claiming they are out-of-stock on the sale item in order to switch the
buyer to an overpriced item. That IS bait-and-switch.
> >When you read a headline about a Catholic priest debauching himself with young boys do you immediatly rush to the alt.religion.catholic ng and demand they be exposed as a worlwide cult of pedophiles who have defrauded their members by asking for donations in exchange for eternal salvation while secretly just wanting to diddle their kids?
> I don't see any _policy_ of the catholic church to diddle kids. I _do_ see _policy_ of Co$ to lie, harass, hi-pressure "sell", commit
criminal acts and generally be anti-social. Even at that, I would protest when the catholic church tries to cover up for their priests, but it's not at all like when a "church" covers up for their active and
written _policy_ of those kinds of actions.
If indeed CofS had a policy of committing crimes in order to hawk it's
wares, then no doubt it would have been prosecuted many years ago. In
essence, you have confirmed my point in your paragraph above. That is
that CofS has been aggressively investigated by a plethora of gov't and
private sources for over 40 years and it has not been proven that it is
a criminal conspiracy or that it has perpetuated a policy of malicious
fraud in order to sell it's offerings. The same holds true, I would
assume, of instances where Catholic priests, teachers in public schools
or elected officals have broken laws. Branding an entire group, class or
market segment as 'criminal' by citing antecdotal instances of criminal
behaviour is (sorry) both uninformed and stupid.
> The problem as I see it is that the "liars, cheats and crooks"
are the ones directing the thing, and the lying, cheating and stealing are the core of the church's policies.
I'll restate the obvious: since only upper management *can* direct
things in CofS, it's easy to see that when a criminal act might occur,
that it's from within the management structure. The suggestion that
lying, cheating and stealing are at the core of their policy is
ludicrous. I'll point out here that there is a world of difference
between the Sea Org and what goes on there and the bulk of mainstream
Scientology. I'm not about to defend the existence or rideculousness of
SO policies or the effects on SO members, I dislike utterly that aspect
> If they don't want me to criticize, they can stop lying and covering up the problems. When they fix the problems, I won't have to criticize. It's like the catholic "problem" above, allowing the problems to
be solved clears up criticism. Screaming that anyone who criticizes is a "hateful, lying bigot" and continuing to do the things that
are being criticized will keep the criticism active.
It's my view that CofS could care less whether you, or the bulk of
posters on ars, criticize them. In fact, they could care less who you
are or that you even exist. In short, you're moot. That's because you're
not a prospect. What the CofS does care about is the state of mind of
their customers. To the extent that ars can disway potential customers
from buying service, ars becomes a problem. But from the perspective of
one who has long experience with CofS and who is not (like many *weeping
victims* on ars) blaming CofS for decisions I made of my own free will,
it's easy to see that CofS has little to worry about from ars as long as
the focus of this group is name-calling, paranoid conspiracy rants,
accusations of murder squads and pet disposal teams and endless
offensive posts from boring know-nothings. Present company excepted, of
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.