Topic: Religion and Government
Scientology: What is Fair Game? "Fair Game" is one of the key attack points for scientology critics. What they usually mean is that they feel inconvenient if someone checks out what they are actually doing and how this violates other people's rights. I understand that especially those who have something to hide so not like this approach, but it has nothing to do with "Fair Game". Here is what "Fair Game" was when L. Ron Hubbard used the term forty years ago.by Louanne Lee
(centrist libertarian)
Monday, September 22, 2008
"Fair Game" is one of the key attack points for scientology critics. What they usually mean is that they feel inconvenient if someone checks out what they are actually doing and how this violates other people's rights. I understand that especially those who have something to hide so not like this approach, but it has nothing to do with "Fair Game". I wrote an article about this on some other occasion. Here is what "Fair Game" was when Scientology-founder L. Ron Hubbard used the term forty years ago:
What is "Fair Game"? (by Louanne Lee, also on scientologymyths.info)
There is a rumor around that a former member of Scientology could be declared "Fair Game", meaning that illegal actions could be taken against this person with Church officials closing both eyes. This is nonsense and has no evidence at all.
A policy of "Fair Game" does not exist within the Church. There was an early policy called "Fair Game" that was cancelled in 1968. The purpose of that policy was to make it known that a person who has left the Church was no longer entitled to the privileges of membership. L. Ron Hubbard himself testified on this in 1976 (link below), making clear that nothing of this meant to violate the law. And that did not happen either.
Scientology critics sometime interpret any lawful action the Church takes to defend itself against their claims or treatment as "harassment" and "Fair Game". The Church does use the same legal tools that anybody else can use, such as lawful information gathering and evidence collection, to defend themselves from unfounded suits, to enforce a legal right or to guard against infiltration and sabotage. This is so common amongst religious organizations as to be routine.
The Church is also within its rights to question the motives of people who would seek to destroy it and to defend itself with lawful means. Other religions also question the motives of those who would seek to destroy them, as well as taking lawful measures to protect themselves, as these examples illustrate.
Basically, Scientology defends itself from attack, by legal means. Just like any other religion would do.
And the misinterpreted policy of "Fair Game"? It is used as an attack method by apostates and hatemongers. It is not a policy used by the Church, it was cancelled 40 years ago. And when it was used, it was not used as is alleged.
Event adamant critics of the Church of Scientology have testified to that. For example, in a most interesting set of declarations an ex-Scientologist said:
"...it has become a routine practice of litigants to make accusations against the Church, including even false allegations of threats of murder, which would be summarily thrown out of court as unsupported and scandalous in other litigation. They do it because it works, and they do it by deliberately mischaracterizing the term "Fair Came". They do it as an intentional means to destroy the reputation of the Church in the context of litigation so that they can win money or force the Church to settle."
and
"The term "fair game" has become a catch phrase for those who attack the Church. When I was in the Church I never heard it referred to as a policy to be used, the only time it was discussed was in reference to litigation in which it was being alleged by Church adversaries. When I was in the Church, I knew that litigants opposing the Church were constantly making fair game allegations against us and that those allegations were nonsense. I also know the frustration those allegations caused because of the willingness of courts and juries to embrace them. From my experience in litigating against the Church, I can see that nothing has changed in this regard. I also know from my experiences in suing the Church and from my association with other litigation adversaries of the Church that they know that "Fair Game" as they portray it is not Church policy. "Fair Game" exists only as a litigation tactic employed against the Church."
The views expressed in this
article are those of Louanne Lee only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Louanne Lee is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Hubbard wrote it. You do not tell the truth and are careless as to your credibility. See link and quote below. Look up "Pauline Cooper" and "Operation Snow White". Case closed.
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
HCO Policy Letter of 18 October 1967, Issue IV [...] ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed. [...] LRH:jp L. RON HUBBARD Copyright (c) 1967 Founder by L. Ron Hubbard ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Posted By: Person WithABrain
Date: 2008-09-22 16:54:43
If you believe a word of this article, please get your head checked.
The fact that this was even written should raise over 9000 red flags.
Fair game happens EVERY DAY. It isn't a rumor - it is somply in the public record. THIS HAS BEEN TESTIFIED IN COUNTLESS RECENT COURT CASES. Scientology harasses critics *every day*. Simply go to forums.enturbulation.org and click on 'fair game' for daily examples.
The nerve of these people! Seriously... It is unbelievable what a dangerous cult can do to someone's mind.
Fredrickz Mcgillacutty, to the contrary. Anonymous is using stalking tactics and blame it on scientology (your video proves that, actually). One of the reasons they insist on being anonymous is that they don't have to have consequences for their illegal activities.
Linda, the guy you are talking about has a court order not to spread lies about Scientology. He did so numerous times (the court confirmed to that) and now he whines about the fact that he has to pay the fine. He could simply choose to stick to the truth, couldn't he.
I read your tired little spiel, Louanne. I've read the same spin about a dozen times. Are you calling Hubbard a liar? Am I a liar for quoting him? You are not winning this little game your are playing.
Posted By: Martin Welbourne
Date: 2008-09-22 20:42:13
I don't care what scientology, the mafia-like cult of greed and power, *thinks* was cancelled by its psychotic founder but something fitting the description of Fair Game continues to this day. Semantics and nomenclature is unimportant. Your cult is abusing people and it is doing all under a pseudo-religious cloak in the hope that it will somehow protect you.
Here you are, on the internet, with a vast resource of critical material on your cult at your fingertips right now and yet you choose to remain willfully ignorant of it.
There are more ex-scientologists than there are scientologists. Ever wondered why? One reason is because your cult cannot stand the test of open critique. Unfortunately it takes some of your members the best part of their lives to discover all this. When will you?
The endgame is near. Popcorn anyone? I just hope it isn't another Waco.
Yeah, that's the azanaran affidavit that bernie.cncfamily, the Scientology apology site run by a former(?) member of OSA, uses. I'd take anything form that place with a truckload of salt. Lucky Scientology payed off Larry Wollersheim the day before his
case was going to trial, we'd have a ton of fresh affidavits to contradict this one.
Scientology was fair-gaming the BBC a year ago, now it's Anonymous, so I think this article is at best an obfuscation.
Y'know, it amuses me to see people with no direct interest making so large of a brief policy letter that was created and cancelled 40 years ago.
Even more amusing is how critics misunderstand the cancellation policy letter that clearly states "Fair Game is Cancelled". That policy letter too was later cancelled. No hint of Fair Game exists as policy today. No mention of it in current Church published policy letters at all. But, to make the situation completely clear, about 1998 (or thereabouts) the Church included "no Scientologist should ever do anything against the laws of the land". The situation is amusing because Critics so clearly stick, get stuck in, are infatuated with, certain phrases. And no matter that the world marches on, critics focus on what they think is a threatening phrase from long ago. Almost as if Hubbard had designed it that way, don't you think? Heh!
If things that were written 40 years ago by L Ron Hubbard, the man you think to be the greatest man ever born, are of no consequence to you, I am glad to hear it. You ignore what you like. Allow me to assist your comprehension before you do your word-clearing. The so-called cancellation letter stated that the term "fair game" was not to be used but the policy of treating so-called "suppressive persons" as sub-humans deserving of destruction was specifically stated to remain unaltered. You should read some of L Ron's works. It will help you understand.
Dear Louanne,
For your benefit, the fair game policy was never cancelled in 1968. Mr Hubbard directed that the term "fair game" was no longer to be used. You have to go to Source. You can't write off the words of Mr Hubbard like you are Source.
The more you play at this game the more you lose and the more scientology is discredited. If that's what you want, excellent.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2008-09-23 00:53:11
It's blindingly obvious to anyone who reads the so called 'cancellation' letter that it clearly states that only the NAME 'fair game' is to stop - the POLICY carried on.
Anyway, regardless of letters or policies or Hubbard's ravings, FG still exists and is happening now, and is well documented.
Keep burying your head in the sand. Meanwhile, the criminal and dangerous practices of the cult continue to be exposed.
I would say something about your credibility, but... I think it's already been said, by everyone.
Even the Church of Scientology admitted to the Fair Game policy, they also claim that it has been canceled or at least, renamed. HCO Policy Letter dated 18 October 1967... Also Tommy Davins mentioned it on nightline, but I'll double check.
So, if I may ask, what are the lower condition penalties? and who decides the punishment?
Factually neither "Fair Game", nor this penalty for being in a condition of enemy of the Church have been part of any Church policy for 40 years or so. They form no part of any course or training done in the Church to day. So can we please at least talk about the policy which is taught today.
What this meant 40 years ago is certainly of historical interest. It must be noted that "fair game" and the penalty for the lower condition were different things. "Fair game" meant its ordinary dictionary meaning: "a thing or person one may legitimately pursue". The lower conditions referred to staff only. At that time the Church was subject to huge efforts to infiltrate and destroy it. I suspect the strong language was a reaction to that and to deter infiltrators.
A sensible debate now could certainly look at illegal or anti-social activities being done by anyone - and trying to redress that. The most notable features of the debate to date are the use of false or misleading references, inflammatory language and a complete refusal (on all sides) to consider matters from different viewpoints.
"The official policy of the "anonymous" cult is that Scientologists are fair game."
O RLY?
Please quote the official policy of Anonymous and provide links to any policies of Anonymous that Scientologists may be "tricked, sued or destroyed."
Sorry, Louanne. The party line on the suppression of fair game is fail as pointed out above: name suppressed for PR purposes; policy intact and fully operational now.
Since all critics of Scientology have been declared suppressive persons and may be lied to, logically no statement in response to criticism of Scientology can be trusted and all must be suspected of mendacity.
The fact is that Scientology does attack its critics, as do Republicans, Democrats, private corporations, public corporations, other religions, and individuals who are themselves attacked. It is not illegal or immoral to counter-protest. There is nothing wrong with investigating a critic to see if he has other motives. It is completely appropriate to reveal a critic's true intentions and motivations if discovered. Overstepping the bounds into illegal actvities would be wrong, but that is not what is being given as examples of supposedly "current" fair game actions.
If you attack someone, anyone, you should expect to be attacked in return. The attempts to discredit the Church for doing what anyone would do is silly. The mis-labeling of these attacks with the phrase "Fair Game" is a reach at sensationalism.
"The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.
"FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
"This P/L [policy letter] does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP." = (May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.)
The only thing they canceled was the use if the words "Fair Game", not the actual treatment. Scientology claims to help you live in total freedom but if you can't have Freedom of speech, then one should know something is not quite right.
The fact is that Scientology does attack its critics, as do Republicans, Democrats, private corporations, public corporations, other religions, and individuals who are themselves attacked. It is not illegal or immoral to counter-protest.
And this comes from the Most Ethical group in the planet?? To trick, lie and destroy falls in the realm of what many people would call... "Evil". Can you really blame them? or Do you see people counter-protesting abused children who speak out against catholic priests? Only fanatics and extremists do, because they belief that their organization is NEVER wrong.
"If you attack someone, anyone, you should expect to be attacked in return. The attempts to discredit the Church for doing what anyone would do is silly. The mis-labeling of these attacks with the phrase "Fair Game" is a reach at sensationalism."
The RPF (Rehabilitation Project Force) is not what anyone would do and is not silly. We cannot blame others for caring for the Human Rights of these people (I mean both Critics and people in RPF). Critics are trying to save as many as they can and if someone wishes to silence these critics they are violating even more Human Rights. It's a full circle...
The Church's policies concerning the handling and treatment of SPs have undergone considerable change and development by Hubbard since 1968. What is relevant is what the policy is which is applied today.
"May be tricked, sued or lied to" is not part of any policy concerning SPs. This comes from the short-lived lower conditions policy for staff - about which see my earlier posting.
Hmm, my previous message seems to have gotten deleted, so I'll try to rewrite it in a way that it no longer offends.
I think that we can all agree that Hubbard said that SP's make up approx 2.5% of the population. This is referenced in his public writings.
This would mean that there are currently 168,137,014 active SP's at this time. (2.5% of 6,725,480,558). At the time that hubbard spoke that, there would have been only 97,805,776 active SP's.
Given the growth in population, does that mean that the number of SP's will continue to rise every year?
It's been claimed that only a scientologist can be declared an SP. I would have to say that this is either untrue, or there have been some terrible Scientologists in history. The CoS website ([link edited for length]) claims that Hitler was an SP, as well as Napoleon.
Posted By: Linda Weiland
Date: 2008-09-23 07:48:37
The order for Armstrong not to speak of Scientology did not come until December 1986, when Scientology paid him $800,000. The fair-gaming events decribed in Stacy Young's letter and shown in Armstrong's videos transpired several years prior to this.
Linda, the guy you are talking about has a court order not to spread lies about Scientology. He did so numerous times (the court confirmed to that) and now he whines about the fact that he has to pay the fine. He could simply choose to stick to the truth, couldn't he.
Perhaps semantics are at cause for this debate. If the term "fair game" is no longer in place, what would be a better term for distributing fliers in individuals neighborhoods, showing up to protest their private residences at 5:45AM, sending letters to the parents of people that were in the vicinity of a protest, etc?
And please don't say that this is all part of some sort of "family togetherness" service that the church provides- I've heard that claimed before :)
I can only hope that the general population (us) can see what's going on here.
$cientologist have there own one way approach which is not up for discussion. As they grow with the church (?) they begin to see how ludicris the behaviors and statistics are supporting their cause.
It is entirely legitimate for people to complain about "distributing fliers in individuals neighborhoods, showing up to protest their private residences at 5:45AM, sending letters to the parents of people that were in the vicinity of a protest, etc", and to debate the rightness or wrongness of any such actions, and also whether this is an acceptable response to whatever was done in the opposite direction. It is also legitimate to debate any current Church policy which led to this action if it occurred. That is a sensible debate.
With regard to your earlier posting a believe that Hubbard said that he had found that 2.5 per cent of people had a majority of 12 anti-social characteristics which he identified and included such things as speaking only in broad generalities, dealing mainly in bad news, critical or hostile remarks, not taking responsibility for crimes, supporting destructive groups and so on. The 2.5 per cent is not stuck in stone - it may be more or less people today. Although these people can be said to be suppressive people in the sense that their anti-social behaviour has a supressive effect on offers, the action of declaring a person a Supressive Person is a specific justice action in the Church for people who have violated specific ethical codes. It is the equivalent of ex-communication in the Catholic Church.
SORRY MY PREVIOUS POSTING WENT OUT WITHOUT MY CORRECTIONS - PLEASE IGNORE
mark tomles,
It is entirely legitimate for people to complain about "distributing fliers in individuals neighborhoods, showing up to protest their private residences at 5:45AM, sending letters to the parents of people that were in the vicinity of a protest, etc", and to debate the rightness or wrongness of any such actions, and also whether this is an acceptable response to whatever was done in the opposite direction. It is also legitimate to debate any current Church policy which led to this action if it occurred. That is a sensible debate.
With regard to your earlier posting Hubbard said that he had found that 2.5 per cent of people had 12 anti-social tendencies which he identified and included such things as speaking only in broad generalities, dealing mainly in bad news, critical or hostile remarks, not taking responsibility for crimes, supporting destructive groups and so on. The 2.5 per cent is not stuck in stone - it may be more or less people today. Although these people can be said to be suppressive people in the sense that their anti-social behaviour has a supressive effect on others, the action of declaring a person a Supressive Person is a specific justice action in the Church for people who have violated specific ethical codes. It is the equivalent of ex-communication in the Catholic Church.
Hey, maybe LouAnne is just a bit confused about the definition of "canceled" in her cult. You see, L. Ron invented many new words, or changed their existing meanings to fit his invented "science". "Having-ness", "beingness", "MEST", "Thetan", "ARC-Break", "Half-ack", are all words that existed previously, but have been altered to fit his pedantic worlview and lend scientific credence to his ramblings. Maybe in Scientology's Technical Dictonary "canceled" means "to cease referring to" or "rabidly disavow knowledge of in light of documented evidence". Hubbard's enmity for the actual English language ran so deep as to attempt to deliver a coup de grace to its proper usage, via his own made-up definitions. As for Hubbard "discovering" that 2.5% of the world consists of "SP's", well, just show us the demographic studies he uses to make this claim. Fifty years later and we STILL can't see his homework? Laughable, really laughable, LouAnne.
There was no court order in the Armstrong case prohibiting the "spread of lies." Rather, he agreed not to speak of scientology *at all* as a condition of settlement. Therefore, your statement below that "he could simply choose to stick to the truth" is inaccurate. *Anything* he utters or writes concerning his experience in Scientology arguably violates the order at issue.
Posted By: Louanne Date: 2008-09-22 17:53:22
Linda, the guy you are talking about has a court order not to spread lies about Scientology. He did so numerous times (the court confirmed to that) and now he whines about the fact that he has to pay the fine. He could simply choose to stick to the truth, couldn't he.
I appreciate your statement that the complaints (5:45AM, letters, etc) are worthy of debate. Did you have an opinion on these matters?
Regarding the number of SP's, hubbard was very clear about that point, while modern literature has watered it down a bit. Even still, the most conservative estimates would find more SP's (by the original definition) than any of the CoS membership estimates.
If I understand you correctly, you're agreeing that one has to be a Scientologist in order to be declared an SP, just as one has to be a Catholic to be ex-communicated?
fair game is for real, i seen it an action and is happening with me. not only that but it has been well documented in the past the actions of fair game, and you just sit there and say we made it up as a way to attack scientology? you disgust me
How many homes did the Catholic Church picket because someone dared to speak out about sexual abuse?
You're really terrible at this, you know. You're not convincing anyone. It's obvious to any free-thinking individual that you're simply towing the line of the cult that holds you captive, and for what? So you don't get routed out and stuck with a freeloader debt, or even worse, sent to the RPF.
It's pathetic, really. This is a major flunk on your part. You may as well just give up.
Everyone knows Fair Game is still in effect. We have video documentation of your ilk spreading misinformation, assaulting peaceful protesters, destroying private property, and preventing little girls from entering a sandwich shop. You can deny it all you want, but the truth is out there.
What other religion protests the homes of critics? What other religion sends intimidating C&D orders to peaceful protesters? What other religion has attempted to have someone incarcerated or committed, simply for writing about it?
The other Scilon who posts here (under a dozen names) will always come to your defence and insist that this is normal behavior for any religion. It's not. Every time you post your pathetic pieces of propaganda, anyone who's capable of thinking clearly can see right through it.
What effect is publicly identifying Anons going to have? It doesn't intimidate them. Bystanders who see it don't care, and it makes you look even more creepy. You're seriously shooting yourself in the foot here. All in the hopes of being upstat on Thursday. It's not working.
As an ex-scientologist i can honestly say mrs .Louanne Lee article if full of lies.
While in the church if we knew the identities of people criticising us, we would call their employees and try to get them fired with false information. We would poster their neighborhoods with fliers defaming their character and usually spreading lies abou them.
If the "Fair Game" policy was cancelled in the 1960s, why did the Church of Scientology try to claim in court in 1989 that it was a constitutionally protected "core religious practice"? The court document linked here is long and dense, but you can do a search for the relevant passage, which begins, "Appellants argue these 'fair game' practices are protected religious expression."
For more information about the case in question, in which former scientologist Lawrence Wollersheim was awarded $2.5 million, you can read this excellent article by Tony Ortega of the Village Voice. The Church of Scientology eventually paid the full $2.5 million—plus interest, bringing the full payment to $8.6 million—in 2002.
I am honestly curious about how you reconcile these two claims—that the “fair game” policy was cancelled in the 1960s and that it was, in 1989, a protected religious practice of the Church of Scientology—made by your church.
Posted By: Linda Weiland
Date: 2008-09-23 13:03:40
Also, during the cult's 1984 vendetta against Gerry Armstrong, Scientology paid "Catholic religious scholar" Frank K. Flynn many thousands of dollars to write a report arguing that Fair Game was a "core practice" of Scientology and thus should be considered a constitutionally protected activity.
I'd say that this other article by Luana1980 is a good example of fair-game currently in effect,
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4802.html
It's interesting how it references a site called anonymous-exposed. Last year when BBC Panorama was running a story on Scientology, there was a BBC-exposed or a Panorama-exposed, or maybe both. Those sites contained footage of John Sweeney with some extra audio dubbed in to make him look more boisterous than he might have been in the real video.
I feel sorry for you, Lou/Gloria/whatever you want people to call you.
Look at what's going on here. You keep writing articles here so you're upstat by Thursday. They aren't convincing anyone, but you do it anyway, because the point is, as I said, to be upstat. This is what you do. This is your life. You live week to week trying to keep your stats up, but you're not making any long-term difference. Not that long-term stats really matter to you. Why should they?
Every week is exactly the same. Post an article that makes no difference to anyone and report it as a win. Your goals end with Thursday at 2:00, and you start over on Friday. Doing the exact same thing and making no difference.
Is that really how you want to live? Is that really what you want your life to be for the next 6 billion years? Is that what you got involved with Scientology for?
But you're saving the world, clearing the planet. You are the elite, the courageous.
But do you have the courage to do the Data Series on Scientology itself? Do you have the fortitude to look at all the data? My guess is no.
roger gonnet is in no way anon. I'm an ex-regional leader and founder of a cult's profit center and working since 25 years to dismantle the fraudulous scam. And whatever I'm saying is based not only on my experience, but on precise orders given by Hubbard and followed by his adepts. "Kolman", you're going nowhere by trying to detract anons or non-anonymous people when they criticize your cult. Because your issue here leads people to try to obtain that people do not read anything about scientology crimes. Gift for you: http://www.xs4all.nl/
by: roger gonnet 08/14/2008 07:47 AM
Re: Roger acts anonymously? No Roger, you're not very anonymous. In fact you seem proud of your work against religions. "I've been sentenced to-day (civil, not penal)" http://www.holysmoke.org/ and http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/
by: terryeo
Here's another example of "something", Religiousfreedomwatch is a nasty site that many people say is run by Scientology to fair-game people. I think Scientology has publicly disowned that site but when the dos'ing was going on a few months back , I believe the DNS servers got messed up and it became apparent that Scientology owns the religiousfreedomwatchsite, Android Cat mentioned this on alt.religion.scientology, I could find the exact details if need be.
modemac - pardon - bob dobbs, roger gonnet has been booted from scientology in about 1982 when he was holding a Scientology Mission (a group of about 5-15 members) somewhere in France. True, he is not Anonymous, but I bet you that it is more likely that Anonymous members have seen a Church of Scientology from the inside and in operation than that Roger has anything valid to say about what scientology is in 2008.
You (and Dave and Terry) seem to be saying that no one should pay any attention to anything that happened before 2008, because scientology in 2008 is different.
Are you saying that scientology run in 2008 is better than scientology in the time when Mr Hubbard was around and running the show?
(Note to other anonymous - I'm not insulting you, that's the name he chose for himself.)
I'm glad you picked up on my reference to fourth generation warfare, wherein a highly centralized top-down structured force is facing a decentralized leaderless force, and how the benefit is always to the decentralized force. I didn't come of with it however.
The originator of the concept of the fourth generation of modern warfare is a William Lind. I tried to solicit a comment from him on the conflict between anonymous and scientology, but I'm not important enough for him to notice me unfortunately.
I brought it up as a contemplative point. I think it's interesting. Top-down structured forces, such as a second generation military or scientology, cannot adapt quickly. Every new tactic is a surprise. They also want to try to force the opposing leader to surrender, and that cannot be done against a fourth generation force such as geurilla fighers or anonymous.
Every time I read a comment by Louanne about the "organization of anonymous" I realize that Scientology really does not understand this conflict. This isn't CAN again. CAN was an organization that could be fought using traditional methods. Anonymous isn't an organization.
As long as scientology keeps trying to find the leaders and attack the organization then scientology will keep hitting nothing. That's why you can't beat a 4th generation force by traditional methods.
You gotta be kidding me! Louanne, do you really expect people to believe that load of nonsense?!
everyone knows you're lying, and the really funny part is everyone here knows that none of you have a choice, you have to follow the tech. you've been programed to harrass critics. if you don't stop them from speaking out, by tricking them, lying to them, injuring them, or depriving them of their property, than you're just not being a good scientologist are you?
oh but that's fine, because it's a religious practice right? well not in the free world it's not. just because it's in your scripture, does not make it acceptable behavior. other cults use polygamy, human sacrifice, kidnapping, extortion, none of which are legal and all for a very good reason.
This has actually been a very productive conversation, and an enjoyable one at that.
I think that we've established, and we could all agree, that "fair game" was called "fair game", and used to bar and punish certain types of Scientologists. Also, the term was cancelled, but H. specifically stated that the treatment was to continue.
I think we can also agree that cartain practices have been identified that occured to non-s's under the fair game time period, and that certain things that could be considered harassment still occur today, although it's debatable as to the direct source of the events.
Are we all in agreement on those points? Have we achieved some common ground here?
The irony here is that ANONYMOUS and it's cohorts ARE FAIR GAMING SCIENTOLOGY. Anonymous, who hack and harrass people routinely on the internet for fun (lulz) are attempting to "destroy" Scientology, "harrass" Scientologists, encourage "suits", wear masks and thus are being "deceptive", have used "violence" (and been arrested for it). These are facts. but ANONS and their friends don't like turning the spotlight back onto them. They go nutz! Pot calling the kettle black indeed! More irony is that most ANONS aren't even the real Anonymous, but just kids trying to have fun, or disgruntled ex-members. We don't mind the pranksters really. We've posed in pictures with them and talked. In the end, we're both just people. It's the ones with a chip on their shoulder that never seem to be satisfied that need to get a life. And I don't care which side of the fence they're on. That statement applies to anybody.
@Mark Tomles, you say "I think that we've established, and we could all agree ... the term was cancelled, but H. specifically stated that the treatment was to continue"
Nope, no one who understands the written word on the page will agree with you. He established Fair Game via policy letter and he cancelled Fair game by cancelling that policy letter, with a policy letter. Period. End of Fair Game.
Of course I do understand that certain persons (not meaning you, personally) are unable or unwilling to separate these two concepts from each other.
1. Fair Game and 2. Suppressive Person information (SP)
Suppressive Person technology is a small portion of the larger study of emotion that Scientology calls the Tone Scale. The SP who happily stabs you in the back while smiling in your face has a feeling. He lives with a feeling, there is an emotion that he feels when he does that. Commonly that is described as "cold as ice", or "showing no emotion", but there is a feeling the guy has and it isn't especially pleasent. However, it is just how he feels and he's stuck in it and rarely feels anything else. Hubbard makes quite a point of the small percent of people (2.5%, he estimated) who feel and behave in that way.
And the Church has a specific method, a specific pathway to spiritual enlightenment for people who find themselves stuck in that feeling. But my point here is why a Scientologist won't agree with you and I don't mean to create an education about SP technology. I merely point out that there is a difference. And it isn't secret, high level information, either.
I won't even address your first few ridiculous if not completely bonkers assertions, but you are particularly incorrect about Anonymous having "used violence and been arrested for it." This is false. I defy you to point us to even one news source that could corroborate these assertions -- and I mean a real news source, not a Scientology-related spin machine. You can't do it, because it isn't true. Go on, try. You CANNOT find such a thing because it is false, and your "tech" is lousy.
The irony here is that ANONYMOUS and it's cohorts ARE FAIR GAMING SCIENTOLOGY. Anonymous, who hack and harrass people routinely on the internet for fun (lulz) are attempting to "destroy" Scientology, "harrass" Scientologists, encourage "suits", wear masks and thus are being "deceptive", have used "violence" (and been arrested for it).
where to start; there's a lot to address in your well-worded argument.
Please reference the policy letter where it was specified that the "fair game" TREATMENT was cancelled? I am not, in this case, referring to the term.
Your description on an SP is quite vivid. Would you say that all of the individuals that have been "declared" by the CoS could be described that way?
Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, 2.5% of the world population is an insanely large number. If accurate, that's a very large number of emotionless sociopaths!
Mr Hubbard dictated that people he deemed fair game "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
I have two questions for you that I would be glad if you could answer.
Q1. Do you think that a person who would
(a) try to injure or destroy you by any means, while
(b) tricking and lying to you,
sounds like this "ice cold" Suppressive Person you have described?
Q2. Have you ever suspected, or considered the possibility, that Mr Hubbard, the person who wrote that order, is the Suppressive Person?
And Terry, in your answers, I would be grateful if you didn't solely rely on the argument that the dithering Hubbard was only a suppressive person between issuing the order and, as you claim, 'cancelling' it.
"Have you ever suspected, or considered the possibility, that Mr Hubbard, the person who wrote that order, is the Suppressive Person? "
good question! Scientologists strive to emulate LRH on as many levels as they can, unfortunately they are only allowed to look at one side of the story. they are taught that LRH tech is all encompassing and no other source of info is valid. if they knew what he was before they even took that first free stress test they never would have set foot in an org to begin with. it's been shown time after time that his resume was highly embellished, and that a majority of his so called accomplishments were simply tall tales.
What kind of a person views anyone with opposing views to his own to simply be evil? I'm no expert but that sounds paranoid and schitzophrenic to me.
a repectable authority can accept outside challenges and scrutiny and adapt accordingly, that's what legitimate scientists do everyday in their research. and yet here we have a man who simply writes off any competing ideas as evil and leaves it at that.
Scientology on the whole is its own PTSness, and it is rife with true SP's. LRH pulled anonymous in the day he wrote the Fair Game Policy, the day he created the RPF, and the day he came up with the idea of disconection.
guys like LRH are their own worst enemy, and this whole situation has been a long time coming. and the harder they apply "fair game" (or however they wish to call it now) the worse their situation will get and the more enemies they will create. their conduct is deciding their own fate.
Responding to Mark: The Policy letter cancelled the practice of fair game. In order for anyone to be treated as fair game, someone would have to be practicing fair game at or on them. You can not have a victim of fair game treatment, unless someone is practicing fair game on the victim.
I'm glad my brief description of what "Suppressive Person" means, communicated. But it was brief and not meant to be comprehensive. The people the Church has declared were declared because they were behaving suppressively at the time of declare. However, declares are not permanent. Included as part of a declare is a list of corrective actions to perform. (I think this is always true, but don't know everything). When performed, the person once again becomes in good standing with the Church.
Let me illustrate this difficult concept. Saddam Hussain became president of Iraq - and immediately had about 100 rivals shot dead. What do you think he felt as he suppressed opposition? Do you think he felt nothing? Felt cold, removed? Myself, I use that example in order to consider how a suppressive person feels, when he has successfully suppressed. Saddam, of course, was an extreme example of a man who suppressed, and not just his opposition, but the Iraqi people, too. Probably not every SP, given the powers he held, would be so extreme. - And yes, only 97.5 % of the population of Earth would rather help you, than suppress you, according to Hubbard. Of course the same applies to me, hey?
Responding to Lex, Q1 - yes. Q2 - yes, I entertained the idea, examined the idea and dismissed the idea. As for "dithering", I would say there are few people in history that "dithering" applies less to, than Hubbard. I do understand the point you are attempting to make, that he first created a policy, "Fair Game" and then several years later cancelled the same policy. I suspect it had served its purpose, myself.
Responding to Rocky. It is entirely true that a Suppressive Person will do evil things, harmful things and think he is right to do them. That is, after all, just about the definition of "suppress". But you see, we all have an opinion, many times we have contrary opinions based on different information. Having an opinion is one thing. Opposing an opposite opinion is one thing. But opposing people having any opinion but your own is a different (and smelly) kettle of fish. It is attacks that the Church replies to. It is not opinion that the Church replies to. Were you, or I, or anyone, to spend every waking moment opposing all contrary opinions, hey, we would never get any sleep. It is attacks that one must deal with. An opinion is not an attack, not necessarily an attack. I do hope you notice no one has counter-attacked you for expressing an opinion? After all, what attack have you made, you've but stated your opinion. But I disagree with your opinion (shrug).
You agreed that the very conduct described by Mr Hubbard in the Fair Game order - trying to injure or destroy people by any means, while tricking and lying to them - described the conduct of an ice-cold Suppressive Person.
Considering that Mr Hubbard ordered this conduct that you deem suppressive, by what process did you, as you said, entertain and dismiss the idea that Mr Hubbard was a Suppressive Person?
Terryeo - the use of the term was cancelled; no policy was cancelled. Hubbard is quite clear on that. You refer to a policy created in the late nineties making it clear to Scientologists that they should operate within the law of the land. Don't you find it strange that the Church can't take that as a given?
Sadly CoS continue to break laws - make fraudulent medical claims, flout employment laws such as submitting their employees to lie detector tests, seek to mislead people by lying about critics of the church or the church's own belief systems, or make outlandish claims about its own activities. Some illegal activity is perpetrated by members and staff of the church who are then summarily dropped by the organisation, others are more systemic.
"Responding to Rocky. It is entirely true that a Suppressive Person will do evil things, harmful things and think he is right to do them. That is, after all, just about the definition of "suppress". But you see, we all have an opinion, many times we have contrary opinions based on different information. Having an opinion is one thing. Opposing an opposite opinion is one thing. But opposing people having any opinion but your own is a different (and smelly) kettle of fish. It is attacks that the Church replies to. It is not opinion that the Church replies to. Were you, or I, or anyone, to spend every waking moment opposing all contrary opinions, hey, we would never get any sleep. It is attacks that one must deal with. An opinion is not an attack, not necessarily an attack. I do hope you notice no one has counter-attacked you for expressing an opinion? After all, what attack have you made, you've but stated your opinion. But I disagree with your opinion (shrug)."
I'm not sure Paullette Cooper would agree. nor would Russell Miller, or most recently Andrew Morton.
No, I do not think they would agree with that at all.
they gave their oppinions on the church, and there is alot of evidence that they were subjected to fair game.
they created conditions of doubt. there are a great many scientologists who have no wish to apply a doubt formula to their own organization, instead they sought to silence them. have you noticed that? have you noticed that many scientologists will not address a single allegation made against the organization unless it's a prefabricated response straight from the top execs? when a protester asks a question or makes an allegation about David Miscavige, have you noticed they say little or nothing in response to that? show me one protest video or line in a forum where they say "COB is a good guy".
Instead, they only want protesters to go away. they only dismiss anything critical as a lie. if what's true for you is the truth, than why can't someone publish a book saying "LRH was a pathological liar, and a conman" without facing a tremendous amount of harrassment?
I realize I'm only a mere homo sapien, a far inferior being to homo novis. but don't you think it's time that homo novis started being a little more honest and transparent about things? I think our tiny homo sapien minds can handle it. we might be a little more accepting to scientology if homo novis's owned up to their shenanigans, turned in their criminals (granted, it would be to inferior wog justice system), and actually started genuinely talking with us. if homo novis is as advanced as they say, then they might be capable of spotting flaws in their system, asking questions, and addressing their doubts instead of quashing them. or attacking critics.
If "Fair Game" does not exist, then why is it my employer knows about my protesting od Scientology? I didn't tell them. How is it I get phone calls and voice mails asking about my "crimes"? How is it my personal info, including my address, phone number, and ALL my personal email accounts on anti-anon/pro-Scientology websites? Learn to read the context of Hubbard's Policy Letters and to not accept what Scientology says is 100% true.
@terry: Just because they say do no illegal action doesn't mean they still don't manipulate the law to destroy a surpressive person mentally and finacially.
It is clear you are a Scientologist Terry. I suggest you pay for the PTS/SP course. It will tell you how to "deal" with SPs
It's interesting that Louanne writes an "article" about Fair Game and never actually uses the original language of Fair Game.
If a person can be "destroyed" under Fair Game, how is that compatible with the law?
L. Ron's "cancellation" of Fair Game referred to use of term only. He was very clear that Fair Game was to continue, something that every Scientologist knows full well.
If Fair Game ended after it's cancellation, why did COS attempt to defend it as a religious practice in a court case in 1989?
Fair Game is alive and well, as just about every Anonymous protestor can tell you. COS continues to harrass it's critics to this day.
To put the issue in context, let's look at some hypothetical examples:
1. Anon protestors show up to the private residence of an active Scientologist at 6:00 in the morning in order to protest their home and distribute fliers.
2. An Anon mails letters to the family of a Scientologist claiming that their son or daughter is in a cult that has commited crimes
3. Anons put fliers on the mailboxes of neighbors of a CoS facility naming individual Scientologists and claiming that they are involved in crimes
What would you call it when Anon does those things?
I would call that distateful. At 6 AM such actions might fall under disturbing the peace, maybe. Mailing letter that allege crimes, I don't know, but distateful. It is my impression that mailboxes can not be used for anything but U.S.Mail, and it is a crime to do otherwise, but I'm not a laywer.
I've got an older Modern Management Technology Defined. It says:Fair Game, by fair game is meant, may not be further protected by the codes and disciplines of Scn or the rights of a Scientologist. It is a definition dealing with Scn's internal justice Fair Game offered him protection if he was performing Fair Game actions (within the Church, protecting him Scn discipline actions). Louanne said the same, earlier, without this direct quote from years ago.
So I asked around, I asked some staff members if they had heard of fair game (heard of it being declared or practiced) They uniformly said that had not, but older, long time staff members said they had heard rumor of it. None responded with any instance from personal action or personal knowledge, of fair game in use.
So I am left with the possibility that somewhere, sometime, someone used fair game. But even if some instance of that happened 40 + years ago, attributing that individual(s) action to all Scientologists today (most of whom never heard of Fair Game, except from protesters) seems silly and counter-productive.
Posted By: Linda Weiland
Date: 2008-09-24 09:12:49
Terryeo:
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Right, you don't CALL it "fair game" anymore. We get that.
The "hypothetical examples" posed by Mark Tomles, which you deem merely "distasteful," are REAL LIFE examples of actions taken by Scientologists against anons as recently as three days ago.
Those are real life, modern-day examples of what Scientologists formerly CALLED "fair game." And those are VERY mild examples. There are many that are much worse, and yes, these many are even from our current year of 2008.
Fair Game is still alive today. Louanne, using scientologymyths.info as a reference does not further your cause, as it is a website which pretends to be a third-party opinion when in actuality it is run by the Church of Scientology.
Scientology will be treated like a religion once it starts acting like one. When it spawns people like yourself, people incapable of critical thought, people incapable of looking at the other side and defending your church at the cost of your soul ... it's just not right. There's a difference between a "troll party" and people who just disagree with you using well-sourced evidence, refuting you to the point where you call us trolls and hatemongers (like the typical ad-hominem spewing Scientologist you are).
An amusing topic, if you ask me. Hubbard thought up and originated and wrote a policy with the words "Fair Game". Then cancelled same, several years later. Now, 40 years later, people are still talking about their misunderstanding of the term. You don't find it fascinating and amusing?
It addressed how a member might, within the Church and not outside of the Church, how a member might use the Church's justice system to redress grievences against another member. Really, how many ways can the written word be misunderstood?
The question, I believe, centers around "Why" Hubbard put such a policy in place, and why it was used for so long (although your fellow staff seems to have forgotten about that time period?). Could you please explain WHY you feel that the policy only applied to Scientologists, and also why the terms "lied to" and "destroyed" were necessary?
I was hoping that you would have a reply to my message from Date: 2008-09-24 09:20:53?
It's an amusing topic, so you say. If you are amused about growing negative views of scientology, you will probably be amused 7 days a week, until the end of your days.
How many ways can the written word be misunderstood, you say? For you, it is quite clear that literal words "lie", "trick", "destroy", and "injure by any means" clearly mean that "a member might, within the Church and not outside of the Church, [...] use the Church's justice system to redress grievences against another member".
That is so frightfully clear to you, Terry. I am amused that no one but a scientologist can see it.
The only trouble is that this Louanne Lee cannot see it, either.
Louane states that the Fair Game policy relates to actions against "a person who has left the Church" not as you say, "grievances against another member." A person who has left the church is still a church member, you say, yes? All very clear. Never mind.
You haven't seen my earlier question, perhaps.
Could you please answer it? One rarely gets to communicate with a scientologist, and you put in a creditable effort. I would really like to know your opinion.
Question for Terry:
You agreed that the very conduct described by Mr Hubbard in the Fair Game order - trying to injure or destroy people by any means, while tricking and lying to them - described the conduct of an ice-cold Suppressive Person.
Considering that Mr Hubbard ordered this conduct that you deem suppressive, by what process did you, as you said, entertain and dismiss the idea that Mr Hubbard was a Suppressive Person?
But this is exactly what members of your church are doing to Anonymous protestors, terryeo.
Here are videos that show 2 members of your church picketing at 5:45 am a house of an Anon protestor and distributing flyers with alleged crimes of Anonymous.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EStFFTLxfUE&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS233Z5excM See also pt 3-9 of this series.
See http://forums.enturbulation.org/122-fair-game/lawfags-new-c-d-letter-specifically-states-what-laws-anon-has-broken-29483/
for images of the Ceise and Desist letters and "Anonymous hate crimes" DVD that attorneys of your church send the parents of Anonymous members.
And this is happening all around the world, not only to one Anon protestor. Anons from Australia have received similar letters. It is therefore a globally coordinated operation of your church.
So do you still find it distateful or is it suddenly ok,just because the roles are changed?
Posted By: Terryeo Date: 2008-09-24 08:00:53
I would call that distateful. At 6 AM such actions might fall under disturbing the peace, maybe. Mailing letter that allege crimes, I don't know, but distateful. It is my impression that mailboxes can not be used for anything but U.S.Mail, and it is a crime to do otherwise, but I'm not a laywer.
hax0r, you allege that memebers of my Church are doing the things you say, which I have said, are distateful. I've no idea about that. From where I sit, you could as easily allege that you witness the sun rising in the West, do you know what I mean?
Lex, I state that the topic amuses me. Granted, the topic was closed 40 years ago, I still find it today's misunderstandings to be amusing. You suggest I am amused by "growing negative opinions". While I appreciate your effort to stuff words into my mouth, you fail. That isn't what I said and isn't my source of amusement. The element that amuses me is the quantity of misunderstanding a small handful of sentences has created.
No, I didn't agree as you said I did, and stated I did. Nope. I briefly described a Suppressive Person and attempted to communicate that idea by using commonly known phrases, often associated with people like Saddam Hussian and Hitler, people willing to stab you in the back while smiling in your face.
It sounds to me like you have not understood that "Fair Game" refers to an Internal - to - the Chuch justice action. It didn't apply anywhere else. If 2 people were members of the Church and person A had been declared Fair game, then the person B (or any member) could lie and trick Person A without fear the Church would punish him. The Church has its own, internal justice system, do you see?
Answer to your question: My reasons and reasoning are sufficient unto my own peace of mind. I don't feel I can communicate that to you because we are just barely in communciation and far, far from "good communication".
mark tomles - I agree that an answer to "why" or "what did Hubbard want to achieve" would be germane to the discussion. But I don't have a clue and haven't found anyone who has a clue. Nor do I know why he included "lied to" and "destroyed". It only applied to Scientologists in good standing with the Church because that is what the policy that established Fair Game talks about, and the policy that defines lower conditions is talking about.
Your question of Date: 2008-09-24 09:20:53 asks: Does this mean that the majority of Scientologists outright ignored and/or failed to read Hubbard's personal order? It wasn't a personal order, it was a Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter (HCO PL), Those are found on (very roughly) 9000 pages. different ones apply to different portions of the organization. A public Scientologist rarely reads any of them, although as a student progesses he'll read some that apply to his student status, or his auditor acitivity, etc. The Fair Game policy addressed member to member Justice. And justice isn't implemented every day. you simply don't see a lot of justice actions within the Church. People are studying, people are doing things, but applying justice (which is controlled by policy letters) doesn't happen every day. Most simply didn't know about Fair Game, most of those who heard about it didn't use or practice it because they weren't in any way connected with people who had been declared Fair Game.
It works like this, someone gets declared "suppressive person" and gets a correction list to do. Off they go to do it, (or not). At that point they can not walk through the Church, they do not have access to the Church as members in good standing do. In general, they have but one Church person who will communicate with them and that person (or office) does work with them to get their correction list done (if they do their correction list). The idea is this; the guy is disrupting production, until he cleans his act up, he is not allowed to disrupt other people's production (study and auditing, normal Church activities).
I've never seen any "personal order" from Hubbard, although I understand that when he passed, he left some personal orders to the Church. As for the remainer of your question of 2008-09-24 09:20:53, I think I've answered in this reply.
What it sounds to me like, Lex, after viewing a couple of the videos that you link. It sounds to me like you have confused the term "Fair Game" to mean something entirely different than the meaning Hubbard used it for. An anonymous is not a member of the Church. Therefore he can not be "fair gamed" because Fair Game was a member-to-member, Church justice defence. You use "Fair Game" to mean something quite different, having nothing to do with member-to-member Church justice or Church membership. Might I also say, those videos are not at all self-explanatory.
Clearly, you're not arguing the fact that "fair game" was a policy (Although it would reflect very poorly on the leadership if such a significant policy were able to be instituted without Hubbard's knowledge).
Although you and Louanne seem to disagree, I think that you're saying that only the CoS can "declare" someone an SP, although I don't think you're arguing that non-scions could be defacto sp's.
I don't understand why you're saying that it's "ok" for one church member to trick and lie to another, which doesn't sound very ethical to me.
So, back to the heart of it, I'm assuming that you saw the videos. I'm assuming that you've seen the pictures. If not "fair game", what is that called?
these protesters have a legitimate greivance against your church. the very thing you said would be very distasteful, you now dismiss, even after being provided with evidance of it. do yourself a favor and stop diluting yourself.
let me ask you something, have you been asking questions about the church to the church? if you did ask questions, do you think they'd answer you honestly, or would they just dismiss your questions?
will you allow doubt to even enter your mind? would you just quash it immediately, or would you investigate those doubts? what would you do if you were to discover that the protesters were actually telling the truth? are you still capable of thinking critically?
do you believe in the creed of scientology? are you practicing the part where it says that all men have the right to think freely, to speak freely, and to write upon the oppinions of others? because I can assure you CoS doesn't. don't believe me? the evidance is out there, there is a very clear pattern of it. if you're still unconvinced about what you're being told, than please look into it.
if you want to mince words over a policy that you claim is strictly intended for internal affairs, that's fine. go ahead and word clear the hell out of this one. when you're done doing that, then perhaps it's time you took a good hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have been decieved or not, if your church is as ethical as it claims to be, and what will you do if you were to find undesireable answers to those questions.
how ever we view things, and whatever words we put on the conduct of the church, these are not important. what is important are the facts. and if you actually look at the facts, not prefabricated responses, but facts...I don't think you'll like what you see.
I don't want to misrepresent your statements. You accused me of trying to stuff words into your mouth. I don't think I could do that. I really don't suppose you are amused by the growing negative views of scientology, at all. I stated that if you were amused by growing negative views of scientology you would have a long-lasting source of amusement.
You, on the other hand, stated that you were amused by people not understanding the clear and unambiguous words of Fair Game. Each to their own.
Having cleared that up, thank you for your response.
I asked you (Q1) if you thought that "a person who would (a) try to injure or destroy you by any means, while (b) tricking and lying to you, sounds like this "ice cold" Suppressive Person you have described?"
Your answer I quote - "Responding to Lex, Q1 - yes. "
Now you say "No, I didn't agree as you said I did, and stated I did. Nope."
I'm not 'stuffing words in your mouth'. You are flipping like a burger.
Have you realised that you agreed that Hubbard ordered, under Fair Game, actions equivalent to those of a Suppresive Person?
Now, it looks like you are backing away from your beliefs because you cannot maintain consistency.
Now, it seems you are rewriting history for yourself with the same zeal with which you rewrite it regarding Mr Hubbard.
You're welcome to have it both ways. But don't think anyone will regard that as credible. I don't think you are trying hard enough. I think you could do a better job for scientology. There's a resolution to your thoughts if you put your mind to it, yes?
There was some means by which you decided that the person who ordered scientologists do those very acts that characterise a supressive person, was not a Suppressive Person.
But you won't tell us how you worked it out! You know, but you're not telling! Cool! It must be great, knowing the secret. You could know that black is white if you know stuff like that.
Your reasons and reasoning are sufficient unto your own peace of mind, you say.
Are you just on this board for your own peace of mind? Don't you have a mission to acheive? Could you be so bold as to rise to the challenge of communicating? Have you noticed you are not doing much good at this?
You say "I don't feel I can communicate that to you because we are just barely in communciation and far, far from "good communication"."
Well, don't worry about me, Terry, if I'm too much for your communciation skills.
Why don't you take the opportunity to explain this to the world?
It seems to me that you have an opportunity to explain yourself, defend scientology and clear things up, rather then beg-off doing so because you can't communicate. Why don't you take it?
The world wants to know.
If you state it clearly, we people on the net can read it. Give them your knowledge. You will have acheived something.
Care to explain why fair game is going on 40 years after you claim it was cancelled? There is your proof. Care to talk more smack about there being no Fair Game now Terry? Or are you done lying bald faced to the world about what is really going on inside Scientology.
mark tomles - No, I don't deny that Fair Game once existed as policy. The article's title doesn't deny that Fair Game once existed. The article talks about what it was and when it was cancelled. And I have give my personal experience with it - zero. And mentioned that out of curiosity, I asked long time Scientologists who, likewise, told me they had heard of it, years ago, but none of the people I talked with had contact with its use.
The Church's chosen task is to disseminate philsophy, not to go about society declaring people SP. But if a guy who is active in the Church, is preventing the Church from performing its task, if the Church is being stopped, then there is this procedure to clear the lines so production can continue. The guy gets a corrective action assigned and he can perform it or walk, that's up to him. In those situations where it is a continued, more major problem, he might be declared SP and given a correction list to perform. A few walk, others do their correction list and proceed with their spiritual study. I hope this explains the situation.
Can non-scientologists be SP? Yes, Hitler was, Saddam (my opinion) was, there are people, I'm sure anyone would agree, who suppress, who cut your reach, who make you small. And I'm not speaking of "He isn't supporting my effort". I'm speaking of "He is suppressing my effort".
I don't understand why you're saying that it's "ok" for one church member to trick and lie to another, which doesn't sound very ethical to me.
That doesn't sound ethical to me either. I don't support that idea. I am saying that Fair Game was once Church policy. I have never been involved in any practice of Fair Game and can not find anyone who ever was. Church Policy (at worst) declares a guy to be a suppressive person and he doesn't continue his study or auditing until that is cleared. Which means he doesn't mingle with other Church members who are studying or auditing. That sure seems to work, what need for "Fair Game" in addition to that?
The videos, frankly, confuse me. The things said imply food for criticism, but is the situation real or a staged? There isn't enough there to be certain of what is going on, or why it is happening . I see an altercation without enough surrounding information to make my own conclusion. Whatever the altercation should be called, "fair gaming" would not be descriptive because the policy was long ago cancelled. Anonymous is making huge of a fantesy. If hassles were to happen then they would be hassles or altercations or something, but they wouldn't be Fair Gaming. That term only applied to member-to-member justice. And within member-to-member justice, the situation only applied if the person had previously been declared to be a suppresive person, had walked, had attacked the Church and had then been declared "Fair Game".
Om Nom Nom - Nope, I don't care to watch that video and don't care to explain what is happening, thanks for the invite, I'll pass because I'm running out of patience. I've pretty much said the same message in 1/2 dozen different, patient ways and am going to pass on your (eyeroll) exciting video.
Posted By: Om Nom Nom Nom
Date: 2008-09-26 04:52:53
@mark
Look at Terry's last reply to you and then look at his reply to me below that. He refuses to watch the video of fair game in action, video taken just last March. Scientologists are out holding up signs showing a young man's name and address up on the street for the world to see in retaliation for his being part of the protests. How did they get this information? They had someone follow him to his car after the February protests. This is video proof that "Fair game" exists in policy. The name itself is forbidden to speak inside the cult because it is "bad PR". So they just use euphamisms for it or operation this or that now. Operation Freakout (against Paulette Cooper) and Operation Snow White (against the US government!). What kind of church acts like this? This smacks more of organized crime than religion.
Posted By: Om Nom Nom Nom
Date: 2008-09-26 05:00:20
@Terry's reply on 9/26
Terry, that is because there is no excuse you can come up with or valid reason for members of Scientology to show up with a young mans name AND address and photo on a sign. There was no valid reason for them to follow him to his car. There was no valid reason for them to get his license plates run when they have no valid business being able to do so. Who ran those plates? There was no legal reason to do so. This is why we protest. This very reason. It isn't the beliefs, it is this kind of action taken against anyone who QUESTIONS anything about Scientology publically. It is because Scientology wants to quell our rights to speak out openly and ask the kinds of questions that need to be asked. If they have nothing to fear or hide, why the sometimes violent and unlawful reactions by Scientology staff and officials?
It appears to me that actions being labelled as "fair game" are not such per Hubbard's original policy. The policy stated, "May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
The video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exwIGGaztx4 is being pointed to as an example of Fair Game in action. No where do I see this individual being deprived of property, injured, tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed. The action in this video does not meet the definition of Fair Game. Yes, he is being exposed, and perhaps he is being harrassed, but that is not the practice of Fair Game.
In fact, when I review other videos I don't see actions that fall under the definition of Fair Game as above. Yes, people seem to be investigated, followed, perhaps harrassed.
The only item in the list of actions from Fair Game that I can see any evidence of occuring is the fact that the Church sues people. But I believe any reasonable person would agree that merely suing people is not evidence of the practice of Fair Game. Winning a law suit before a public court by itself is not discreditable.
The constant claim from members of Anonymous that Fair Game is still practiced seems to be a false claim, based on their attempts to label any form of criticism, harrassment or attack as someone practicing Fair Game. The Church has a right to defend itself. Anonymous is trying to quelch any defensive actions by labeling them as Fair Game.
If you wish to claim that Fair Game is still in practice, please show definitive evidence of people being:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again- I'm not out to "get" or "destroy" Scientology. My only concerns are issues like these. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs, and it's not up to me to decide what's true or false- but everyone also has a right to safety at home and to peacefully protest legitimate issues.
I can agree, when you say that there is no term "fair game" in current CoS . But, I also have to add that we use the term because it once existed and it's an accurate term to describe what happens today. No one is denying that the term itself was devalued by a Hubbard Policy, but the discussion centers around the activities today. For the sake of conversation, it's referred to as "fair game".
Regarding the videos, I think that it's human nature to doubt things that we don't want to believe. I would believe that if you saw a video of an anon protest, you would assume it's legit. That's normal.
Now, Terryeo, I know that I've asked you some difficult questions that remain unanswered. Now, if you'd rather, we could discuss them in private at mark.tomles@yahoo.com (ask Louanne and Roadrunner if I'm good for my word).
If you'd like to talk about them here, I'll sum them up:
The wording of the original "fair game" order is quite harsh- do you feel that the policy reflects an underlying malice coming from the leadership?
You say "what need" for fair game in addition to a sort of banning from church activities. I simply say "what need" indeed!
You agree that non-scientologists can be and have been declared SP's. Did this expose them to fair game while the policy was in place?
When you say, "the situation only applied if the person had previously been declared to be a suppresive person, had walked, had attacked the Church and had then been declared "Fair Game", where is that clarified in the policy? I'm assuming that Hubbard, who spent a great deal of time studying communication skills, would have foreseen this and written something to clarify the situation. Could you help me find that?
Lastly, do you believe that members or leadership within the CoS conduct certain activities that COULD BE called fair game, if the policy were still in place today and was applied to non-scientologists?
There is some confusion over the term, much like when some claim that "anonymous" did "xyz", without mentioning that it was something done "anonymously".
The CoS NO LONGER has a term in use called "fair game". I have two objections: the fact that one existed in the first place, and was surely used, and also the actions today which are CALLED "fair game", although it's not the same as the "fair game" of the 60's.
Mark - It WAS objectionable that the term existed in the first place. The term was cancelled for this very reason. Hubbard made a mistake and then tried to correct it. Hubbard cancelled or revised many policies and techniques over the years because they were incorrect. He was not infallible, and one could say that it was to his credit that he when he saw a mistake he made he would correct it. For example, for many years he forwarded a technique called "creative processing", and then reversed his position saying it shouldn't be used. If you look at the books containing Hubbards policies and technical bulletins (the "OEC Volumes" or the "Technical Volumes") you will see many, many revisions where corrections were made.
Call the actions you observe the Church doing today by their proper names: Investigation of critics, exposing of people's identities, placing legal pressures on those that attack the Church, protecting copyrights, etc. Calling something by its proper name allows a more balanced debate. If you disagree with these actions you can then debate them on their specifics, rather than trying to argue why they are wrong with mis-direction to a lable that doesn't apply.
The mis-labeling of these actions as "Fair Game" is similar to a Conservative labeling anyone who disagrees with him a "liberal". If one thinks liberals are bad than anything that critic said must be bad. It's a sweeping generality that obfuscates the underlying arguments.
mark tomles, you are asking me for my opinion; 1."do you feel that the policy reflects an underlying malice coming from the leadership?" - No, I believe Hubbard's direction with Fair Game was to make it clear to a handful of attackers that they could not receive justice from the Church, they could not attack the Church and expect to then receive justice through the Church's justice system. Hubbard wanted people who were attacking the Church to quit attacking so the Church could get on with its work.
2. No need and the policy was cancelled.
3.You agree that non-scientologists can be and have been declared SP's. I don't know all there is to know about an SP declare. Where did I say that non-scientologists have been declared SP's? Yes, some people are suppressive to other people, but the Church doesn't go about seeking out SPs and publically declaring them to be SPs. That isn't Church work., except where they are attacking the Church. While the policy was in place if you weren't seeking a redress of grievences within the Church's justice system, from another Scientologist (both of you were members), then the policy didn't apply to you.
4. I've got a problem with responding about that. I don't have the Fair Game policy in hand. I don't have access to what I can call a reliable copy of it. So I am not certain there were two separate declares. You might be right that there was only one declare and if you were declared SP then you were automatically Fair Game. I uncertain.
5. I don't believe that members or leadership does, no. The whole intent is to get attackers off the lines so that normal Church activity can continue normally. If John isn't attacking, John doesn't get reacted to. Not by leadership, which has better things to do, and not by members, who are busy with study, auditing and day-to-day living. But if John does attack the Church, policy provides direction and guidence about how to get the attack off the lines. Anonymous is in a game of attacking, and when reacted to, falling down and screaming "fair game". I guess that's amusing but "fair game" didn't apply to non-members, even when it was in force.
I believe that I specifically stated that the modern term "fair game" is for simplicity's sake, and describes the behaviors that we've highlighted. This is because the actions of today are eerily similar to the description of the term as used in the 60's.
Let me, if I may, ask you a very direct and simple question. Do you feel that the actions in the referenced videos were warranted and morally correct?
Om Nom Nom Nom - Is the discussion we have here public enough? Or Wikipedia? Or Allexperts.com ? Or any of the 100s of the comments sections on news sites? Agreed, discussions like this are not grandstanding, emotionally invective altercations, but they surely are public. Doing it this way we can compare conservative views to liberal interpretation and mutually broaden our understanding, hey?
Rather than circle the drain, perhaps we can put it in a different context:
Do you have an opinion as to why the CoS is so heavily opposed? I know the official line, that all new religions are opposed, but we're all grownups here and can see that that's not accurate. Of course, they may be refencing the fact that many religions are born out of reformation, but then the position is misleading.
Also, when the Catholic Priest sex abuse scandal broke, there were countless protests and very angry individuals opposing the Churches. Why didn't they have to wear masks, and why didn't the Catholic Church feel the need to send letters to parents and other actions (that I think that we can all consider agreed-to?)
Perhaps this would help clarify things; in your opinion or experience, what does the CoS consider to be an "attack"?
We have a very significant disagreement in viewpoint. You want to use the "Fair Game" term to describe certain activities, and I do not see that these activities fit the definition of "Fair Game". You say today's actions are "eerily similar" to those described in "Fair Game", and I do not see the similarity. Even if it is somehow similar, a similarity to something does not make it the thing. Your mis-identification of these actions as "Fair Game" sidetracks the conversation to the subject of "Fair Game" - is it correct, is it ethical, it is defensible - rather than to the specific actions themselves.
Another example for you from politics - white americas were once highly bigoted against blacks, kept them as slaves and made laws limiting their rights. They also made critical remarks against blacks. If today a white american, say John McCain, made critical remarks against Obama and people started saying this was evidence that John McCain was a bigot and supported slavery because his remarks were eerily similar to things said by slave owners and southern bigots would that be an appropriate attack on McCain?
I see no evidence that Scientology practices fair game today. You and others are using this term to divert the debate.
To your second question - do I feel the actions in the referenced videos are warranted and morally correct? Let's be specific.
Is it warranted and morally correct to reveal the identity of someone who is attacking you from behind the mask of anonymity? Absolutely yes.
Is it warranted and morally correct to try to find out who these anonymous attackers are, by hiring private detectives, following them, tracing their public license plates and photographing them? Absolutely yes.
Is it warranted and morally correct to counter-protest, publish information countering the attackers claims, hand out leaflets during their protests stating the other side of the story? Absolutely yes.
Put the shoe on the other foot. Let's say someone stood outside your home in a mask holding a sign that said "Mark Tomles is a Pedophile." What would you do?
your comparison to racism and fair game is flawed, although I respect your underlying point.
If McCain said something to the effect that "Obama should be picking cotton" (disclaimer- I do not believe that to be the case, that statement was for the sake of argument only), then I would say that "John McCain was a bigot and supported slavery". However, your comparison relies on a pro-slavery sentiment. If he made a racist comment without the slavery aspect, I would merely say that he was a bigot.
To put it in context, I think that any action perpetuated by the CoS that falls in any of the categories could be called similar to "fair game", and I see no reason why you would want to limit my use of the word, especially after I readily volunteered a distinction between historical and modern fair game. Language and "slang" changes over time, especially in the English language, and "fair game" has become a term to reflect particular and perceived abuses from the CoS. I would say that many categories are met, such as lawsuits ([link edited for length], and the youtube controversy), lies (such as the letters that reference alleged crimes by "identified" individuals- honestly, I think that even one category being met is enough to justify a comparison.
When you say, "Is it warranted and morally correct to reveal the identity of someone who is attacking you from behind the mask of anonymity", I think that reveals a great deal about the perceptions of the CoS. Why are "we" not allowed to protest anonymously, when it's been a right that's been upheld countless times? Or, to be more specific, when it's legal to do so? The CoS, in your stated opinion, would seem to be attempting to deprive people of that legal right.
"Is it warranted and morally correct to try to find out who these anonymous attackers are, by hiring private detectives, following them, tracing their public license plates and photographing them?" Why, if no crimes are being committed? That in and of itself robs them of their established rights.
"Is it warranted and morally correct to counter-protest, publish information countering the attackers claims, hand out leaflets during their protests stating the other side of the story? Absolutely yes." Yes- we agree on that. What's more, "Anons" won't try to restrict that right.
"Put the shoe on the other foot. Let's say someone stood outside your home in a mask holding a sign that said "Mark Tomles is a Pedophile." What would you do?" Funny you mention that... Protesting a home (which so far only Scientologist members have been known to do, no "Anon" has done this) is wrong, and I would strongly condemn that, whenther Scion or Anon.
Although, to be blunt, if it were true, I would feel it's "less" wrong, but you're getting into kids here and that's an emotional subject for most people.
Now, if I ran a daycare center, and there was credible reports that I were a pedophile (which, for the record, I'm not), I would EXPECT protests. But protesting a home is wrong, in my humble opinion. Would you agree?
Merrill, you raised a valid question that needed answering in terms of what Fair Game is per definition, so here point by point (this is brief I can't type everything cuz I'm lazy):
1) Deprived of property - In England a protester had his protest sign taken from him by the leading church official for the town. Stolen government files (so technically CoS stole from America and its citizens). Canada protester lost her job due to CoS calling her employer. Why would they call the place she works?
2) Injured - CoS members pushing/hitting protesters. Anonymous nicknamed "FormerlyIN" a former OSA officer until she was told to track Anonymous, and subsequently escaped and is involved with FBI investigation against COS has been run off the road by a Scientologist, as well as having wires clipped in her car. (and we've got the guys picture) FI's case is a current event, ran off the road, wires cut, CoS is suspect. We are all gonna have to wait and see on this one....but that guy we have the pic of, suddenly cant be found in Cincinnati (where hes been seen ofter). I wonder where he went.
3) Tricked- this is so vague, and a claim critics use for so much other than protest. Like Operation Normandy, saying Narconon is secular, not letting schools know Applied Scholastics is tied to CoS, lying about a person given an award by the NY Fire Dept (when that award is only given to dead firefighters) and using that clout to spread CoS to central american countries since this man has been basically kicked out of speaking in the US. Pretty much trickery is one of the biggest beefs have with CoS, outside of Fair Game. This was a poor choice of Hubbard to add to Fair Game cause its so unintimidating, like "haha, i got you!" but I digress. Oh how bout this trick, telling someone there is a free stress test but in reality it doesn't judge stress at all and actually breaks Federal Court Orders? I guess the practice of bullbaiting goes into trickery, tricking someone to strike you so you can cry assault. I especially like the church head in New York telling a protester that, and I quote the Reverend "I smell pussy" in a reference to the protester.
5) Lied to - critics kinda say you lie all the time, not just in Fair Game practicing. So we can move on yes?
6) Destroyed - Paullette Cooper, whom you say thats the past get over it. I bring her up because she has voiced her support to Anonymous and thanks them for all they are doing in the forums at enturbulation.org. She hasn't forgotten because she still knows the pain. Should she just get over it? Litigations against two protesters, a Gregg and a certain Angry Pope. Assault claims against a handicapped man when the Scientologist repeatedly put her foot under his scooter to pull the assault charge. Use of police intimidation, specifically around Gold Base. As well as the general things that can hurt a person mentally and emotionally of flyering their neighborhoods, protesting their houses, having PIs follow them, and worst of all: 'telling on them' to their parents.
Tricked: The Oxford Personality Test has nothing to do with Oxford, but the name was used in order to lend creedence to the tool? Heck, Oxford couldn't even use it if they wanted to, since it's licensed by WISE!
"Ron asked me whether it would be possible to write a test that was more general in nature, and would enable him to see in the test what he was looking for. He also wanted it to be in the same general format as the APA and if possible to have both tests interchangeable in the matter of what he wanted to see as information. Quite a task. As a result of quite a few months works, I eventually devised the Oxford Capacity Analysis (OCA). Note that it did not test personality, but rather the capacity of any person with respect to various traits and syndromes."
Why the Church is opposed – You have to seek Scientology out, to get it. And you have to study it carefully, to understand it. But that isn’t enough for some opponents. Some are alarmed to find people can improve their lives; Big Pharma, Psychiatry, and Psychology find their daily bread threatened. Some people in big government find that a Church advocating greater individual judgement and freedom is disturbing. And some people make money by posting and protest.
Why does Anonymous wear masks when other religious protests do not? Anonymous wears masks because it is an appealing way to join a group, a piece of plastic over the face and you’re a member. From Anonymous leader’s point of view, a unified face is created and this aids them in their effort.
What does the Church consider an attack? Disruption of internet service, sending anthrax – like threats in surface mail, stealing, the illegal actions you would think. I don’t believe it is an attack to state an opinion.
(ack and noted that these are your opinions, and I understand that these are not the official policies of the CoS)
1. If, for instance, I claimed that the CoS was motivated by greed, members would not accept that without any sort of evidence, or even a credible explaination. The same standard, then must be applied in order to avoid the impression of a "conspiracy theory". I don't think that most people would oppose something solely because it provides self-improvement and freedom, else this claim would be made over many other religious groups. I would also believe that pharma would not consider it a legitimate threat until the claims of benefit are validated by independant analysis. Simply put, who's making the money and how?
2. Recall that there is no membership in anonymous, plastic or no plastic. The effect is certainly beneficial to the point one makes, but, again, why did they start wearing the masks? Clearly, there is an impression that they are put in some sort of danger, which the protestors of other groups. This is certainly not conclusive, but cause for concern.
3. I agree on all fronts. Have there ever been any credible reports to link the protestors with these actions? Of course, it goes without saying, that I suspect much of this is perpetrated by the CoS, given the Paulette Cooper incidenct, but the burden of proof lies on the CoS and, if applicable, Law Enforcement.
Terry, if Anon's are being paid then I want my check! Still haven't gotten it. Isn't it weird that, your organization claims we are all being paid to protest, and we take that idea and make it into a joke? We laugh about it, and talk about our bosses in Big Pharm mockingly because that opinion is so incredibly wrong and yes laughable. There is zero evidence of this other than you were told it by CoS.
Thing is, what you think of Anonymous, doesn't matter TO Anonymous. We can be your hackers on steroids, or your Pharm reps, or the Marcab fleets. Point is, we are your SPs and thats all that should matter. When you get out (watch the Jason Beghe video or the videos from Hanburg), you'll get support. Theres a ton of it on the outside for you Ex's and its a very caring community helping Scientologists remember, or learn, what its like to live in the normal world.
Hey, TG, check your email. BigPharm isn't mailing out the paper checks any more, they're using paypal now ([link edited for length]). You might want to call your BigPharm Handler to check on any backpay.
By the way, did you opt for the dental coverage? I was thinking about signing up.
TG - I don't have a boss. I don't work for anyone. I wasn't told that anonymous is paid. I don't see how you get that out of what I did say, but I'll say what I do know, more specifically.
Xenu.net (or clambake.org if you prefer) has considerable web traffic, it is a large site. The owner of the site doesn't say how much he pays every month for bandwidth or computers. Most people couldn't afford those costs out of their own pocket. Where does that money come from? He travels, he shows up here and there at protests, who pays the bills?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narconon&oldid=86755199 leads you to a wikipedia discussion. The author of Narconon Exposed appears in the first line, where he accepts a thank you and explains what he did to the Wikipedia article about his site. Several months later, after narconon-exposed was built, the site is no longer his, he has given or sold it to David Touretzky who uses Carnegie Mellon University to host those webpages. That site, "Stop Narconon", and others are parts of Touetzky's personal university webspace. As a faculty member he can put anything he likes on his personal webiste, even directions about building and deplaying a bomb into a police car. Which he does. But perhaps he doesn't get paid to do that. Perhaps ChrisO didn't get paid for building and hosting his website that is today hosted and controlled Touretzky.
What I am sure of is that Anonymous sent me a message discussing their motivation, it said.
"Long has suppression been fought. First a vigilante group must form. Then it may begin to selling its services to the highest bidder. This is how people grew wealthy before governments adopted freedom of speech, religion, and written words. Anonymous too, is protected by these laws. If you wish to see them stand as they are, desist your action. If you wish to change them by force, you run your own risk."
My conclusion is, some people make money by protesting. You draw your own conclusions.
You might be surprised at how inexpensive webspace is these days. You can own a domain name for a few bucks a year, and the most expensive package that xenu.net's webhost provides is less than $20/month. If he's taking bribes to pay this small amount, the price of bribes has gone down!
I've heard you quote that statement before- do you have a screenshot or a link for that statement?
@terryeo: So if some anonymous person on the internet sends you an email with a cryptic message that might imply, that Anonymous gets paid by someone, you believe it immediatly without any further evidence. Maybe because it fits into your view of the world: You don't believe that any criticism of the Church of Scientology that is made by Anonymous or other non-scientologist critics is justified.
But if some anonymous person sends you a link to a video, where you can see 2 members of your church engaging in activity that you have described yourself as distasteful before, if the roles were changed, you don't believe it or you want to have more background information, before you can come to a conclusion. But you don't seem to be actively looking for this background information yourself, unfortunately.
Didn't Hubbard say something along the lines, that you always have to look at all the data until you can come to a conclusion and that you should build your opinion only on this pure data, i.e. what you see, and not on any presumptions you might have?
Then you should apply this principle not only to the claims that you don't like, but especially to claims that you would want to be true and even to claims that L.Ron Hubbard made himself. IMHO you have to be the most critical of the claims that you would want to be true, because they are the easiest to be believed.
hax0r - Well yeah, ok. I went through the list of videos on you tube - parts 2-9. Can't see much until part 7. It sounds like a couple of scientologists appeard in the parking lot near the residence of a scientology protester. He had protested several times and was getting a counter-protest in his face, so to speak. When police arrived and asked them to leave, they left. Anyway, that's what I saw. Oh, they talked and, to some degree joked, and have opposite opinions.
I would rather not have people in front of my property protesting me. I would call that situation "distateful", although it might not be illegal. Where's the lulz to all of that, anyway?
I'm getting a little bit concerned that you don't seem to draw a distinction between a daylight protest of a business facility on a public street in daylight and two individuals locating and "protesting" a private individual in the dark at their own home.
What did that person do that warranted that response? Is it wrong for him to engage in legal protest? You said that the CoS only cares about attacks- how did he get on their radar?
So, at least you would agree that the actions of these two Scientologists was distasteful? Would you call it ethical?
Who is this person they protested? Did he attack them personally? Maybe it would be good to get the full story. Though I would not resort to it myself I can understand people who get sick and tired with being harassed and choose to make a point by doing a counter-protest.
mark tomles - Yeah, I understand perfectly. You're concerned, you care, you're outraged, you're important. I understand. I searched nolanchart.com for your editing identity so I could understand what topics you create, post on, what sorts of things you say that eventually lead you to be concerned about other opinions. Yes, my opinion is of concern to you. I understand perfectly. I'll say something like and the children were playing in the sunshine and you'll be concerned that a pedophile is watching but won't say that. Instead you'll be concerned for the chidren's safety. I understand perfectly marc, perfectly.
I'm not sure if you're starting to get personal, or if it's just a form of a strawman argument, but I've clearly struck a nerve that brought out a part of you that isn't becoming and far from your usual style.
You're implying that my point (regarding your tacit form of approval for an illegal protest is ok) is devalued because of your incorrect judgement that I would react wildly in a different situation. One has nothing to do with the other.
I stand by it- it is not normal to protest at the private residence of an individual.
Consider this. When anons protest, they get permits and are careful of obeying local laws. I this case, the scientologists were run off by the police. I can't accept that that action was ethical in any way. How can that possibly be considered an acceptable action by a religious body?
Likewise, if they had reason to "punish" this individual, why not let the police do their job by reporting the crimes that waranted the protest, rather than attempting to dole out justice in the name of the church?
Like I said before, I strongly support the rights of individuals to share both their beliefs and criticisms, but I always stress that it should be done legally. These individuals had to be removed by police presence, which (at risk of upsetting a proverbial apple cart) is a geniune concern, because it would indicate either an ignorance or disregard of law.
Please note that I'm not claiming that these two acted under color of law, or "are" the CoS, but their actions reflect poorly on an organization that has an already bruised public image.
Like I said before, it's an easy fix. For the CoS to be universally accepted, it would greatly benefit by acknowledging and denouncing past "crimes", exposing their financial records and allowing inspection of key facilities. I'm assuming that there's nothing to hide, so this would effectively silence most criticism.
Denials notwithstanding, individuals outside of the Church can and have been labeled "suppressive" and are therefore legitimate targets of “Fair Game.” There are numerous cases of this, such as those of Paulette Cooper, Graham Berry, Mark Bunker and many more.
Scientologists seem to require extraordinary amounts of information when discussing the actions of their Church, while little or no evidence is required to attack critics, or their claims.
For context, it’s important to recognize what Hubbard meant when he said that targets of Fair Game may be “destroyed” (a statement that even the Scientology apologists here won’t even touch). He did not mean that they should literally be killed (that’s actually covered under a different order, “Auditing Process R2-45;” I’d love to see Louanne write an article about that one).
What he meant was that the character of the critic should be assassinated, so that no one would take them seriously or believe their claims.
In this framework, Scientologists picketing at the homes of Anonymous members and handing out “Black PR” flyers to neighbors attempting to link these individuals with various crimes can be seen as part of “Fair Game.”
It’s also important to keep in mind what the intent of “Fair Game” is, vis-a-vie external critics; to make them stop speaking out against the church and to serve as an example to others who might say something.
These techniques have largely proven effective for most of the Church’s history, especially with regards to quashing any sort of large scale protests.
Unfortunately for the Church, that is no longer proving to be the case.
Thank you, Louanne, for illustrating my point about the levels of proof required by Scientologists.
Someone can be labeled “suppressive” without having an official “SP” declare. For proof of that, I would refer you to Scientology’s own website that provides their definition of an SP; [link edited for length]. Interesting to note that this description doesn’t refer to an SP as being a Scientologist in need of handling, the way you’ve described it here.
I don’t know that it would be necessary to provide an “SP” declare to demonstrate “Fair Game” against a Scientology critic. For the reason that I mentioned above, such a document may or may not exist. However, we know what “Fair Game” is and there are a number of Church documents that do in fact show this practice in action. Additionally, the Church attempted in 1989 to defend it as a “religious practice.”
Here are some internal Church documents seized by the FBI that show “Fair Game” in action against Paulette Cooper:
Now, given that I provided the documentation you requested to back up my statements, let’s hear from you. After reading these documents, the only level of proof you stated you would accept, do you deny that “Fair Game” was practiced against Paulette Cooper:?
Marc Abian - You seem to suggest that Fair Game is still in effect, although long ago specifically cancelled. You state outright that the Church makes suppressive person labels. You state non-members are declared (by the Church) to be suppressive persons, but give no instance of it. What then, do OTs go about invisilbly sticking them on people's psyche? You do document with three links to holysmoke org.
The first link begins by saying: This is one of Jeff Lee's Paulette Cooper pages. He did the work to make it appear as the original document.
That is interesting, but we see no glimpse of the original. Why not photograph the captured document as a PDF file so we can look at it? As it stands on the page it looks like a typed (on a typewriter) sort of page. The author might have been writing a mystery thriller or a dective story. There's no indication that your characterization of the words on the page apply to the subject you say they apply to.
So too with all three, the 1 Apr, 5 Apr and 11 Apr 1976 "documents", they appear as typewritten pages. WOOT! If you're going to make up such stories, why stop at "Freakout"? Why not "Atomic Attack" or "Buddhist Spores Attack Singapore"? On the other hand, if you have evidence of crime or misbehaviour, why doesn't the site use a PDF format so that people can understand there is a source of information that isn't a made-up thriller?
There's more, I believe, but this covers the gist of it.
Again, I maintain that the church does make SP labels for scientologists. Rather than specific labels, it would seem that there is an entire class of people that are considered "supressive", based on Hubbard's writings. Where did he write that "those" Sp's are to be exempt from the policy? I've heard your opinion, and respect it, but what do you offer as evidence that your opinion is correct, or at least shared by management?
Thank you for providing the PDF versions of the documents that Terryeo requested.
It seems amazing to me that we’re quibbling about whether documents are word for word transcriptions or PDF files, but then again, we’re dealing with Scientologists here.
My challenge to Louanne remains (and is now extended to Terryeo); please read the documents in question and tell the readers of Nolan Chart whether or not Paulette Cooper was a victim of the Church of Scientology’s “Fair Game” policy.
Here also is the judgment rendered by the California Court of Appeals in the case of Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology rejecting the church’s attempt to defend “Fair Game” as a “religious practice.” Please read the judgment and tell us why the Church would attempt to sanction something it supposedly long since abandoned?
Happy to help out! I think that those items should help to establish the fact that "it" happened, if nothing else.
I believe, if the past is any indication, that they may admit that fair game was indeed applied, but that it was a) not sanctioned and b)too far back to care about.
First of all, I do not seem to suggest, I emphatically state that Fair Game is still in effect today. Proof of this have been already provided to you; yes, I consider Church members protesting outside of Anonymous member's homes and spreading “Black PR” to be part of the practice of “destroying” a person’s credibility, as urged by L. Ron Hubbard’s order.The “cancellation” was a non-cancellation, according to Hubbard’s own writing that has been quoted on this page, though I’ll reiterate it again for you:“The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease."FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations."This P/L [policy letter] does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP." = (May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.)”Yes, the Church makes suppressive person labels. Here are several pages of scanned originals for you: http://freezone.najbjerg.info/dokumentation/david_mayo_sp_declareDid you not read my post? I gave several examples of non-members that have been targets of “Fair Game;” I doubt that these individuals were presented with SP declares, as I suspect that is an “honor” reserved for Church members (as they most likely are the only ones who would attach any significance to the event). No, I don’t believe OTs actually have any special powers. Apparently, by your sarcasm, you don’t either, which is interesting, since you apparently consider yourself a Scientologist in good standing. Odd, to say the least.
I have already addressed the issue of the format of the documents previously. While I appreciate the effort to supply you with the PDF format, these documents have already appeared in enough different forums that their authenticity shouldn’t be of issue among individuals capable of doing independent research.
Mark Tomles,
Well, of course, you and I are sane, rationial adults. We know that "Fair Game" not only happened, but that it is still in effect today.
The Scientologists of course know it as well, but they're caught in a quandry; L. Ron Hubbard says it was cancelled, even if he said at the same time ("wink, wink, nudge, nudge") that it wasn't.
Of course they're going to deny it or maybe admit that it has been applied, but probably by people who were "out ethics' or "misapplying tech" or some other such nonsense.
You'd win that bet, so I'm going to take a pass . . .
DISCLAIMER: This comment consists of reader opinion and does not reflect the view(s) of nolanchart.com, it's authors or any affiliated third parties.
Fair game no longer exists as a label but use of mind games against Scientology's greatest critics still continues on to this day.
Scientology doesn't waste every waking minute stalking people but it is undeniable that many Scientologists who are fanatical about Scientology do stalk and harass individual critics of Scientology - this is interpreted by such critics as being a "fair game" attack. Rightly so, after all it does resemble the "fair game" policy which apparently no longer exists in modern Scientology.
Unlike other religions which have put in a highly visible effort to root out and boot out extremists, Scientology appears to have done very little about their own problems.
So I had an answer to each point above as to how fair game exists today. No comment from Terryeo of Louanne. Then those were backed up by the PDFs for Terryeo because he can't believe anything not from COB. To Martyn, the problem is that Scientology in its current form is a totalitarian organization run by one man. Scientology works the way it does by following orders. Miscaviage gets what he wants, Scientologists don't step out of line or they are punished. Terryeo has been filling the internet with pro-Co$ spin since long before Anonymous. He has heard all the arguements and has made teh concious decision to never listen. He has been given the proof. He chooses not to listen. Lou is the creator of the Co$ spin site and this article is nothing but regurgitated lies from her site. Really, the site is pretty funny as it denies everything, even all the stuff that can 100% be proven.
I know there are Scientologists that do not get the scheme or hierarchy of the working organization, but these two are in it bad. And now they will deny me and say I'm misinformed. Please, when you flame me try and counter any point with something to back it up from your side. Our side has dox'd. Where are your doxs?
Of course thye aren't replying. They always shut up once they have lost the argument due to irrefutable proof being posted. They may even be getting punished for failing to "handle" anyone who even discusses Scientology in a way they don't like.
Let them spin their lies. We have the ultimate come back, the truth. That is why their cult continues it's downward spiral. A little while ago, about 40 high ups in Australia walked out of the cult for good and many of them joined the ex-sci boards and the anon boards and have started to tell their stories of life on the inside. And I'll tell you, it's not pretty at the moment for those who fail to stop the constant bad PR Anonymous and some brave souls in the media continue to heap upon Scientology.
Sure TG, I understand perfectly. By careful and through search, you have found a small handful of instances demonstrating each point. And fhat, from your point of view, demonstrates that all scientologists everywhere and the Church itself supports, espouses, and daily gets up in the morning to perform actions just like that. Get a clue TG, you have mis-evaluated the significance of a tiny sliver of data.
Much as other critics who generalize a single instance to -all people of that kind everywhere and the horse they rode in on, too!
Good luck with your mis-evaluation of the imporatance of your data. And I'm not so sure those instances are valid, anyway.
How many examples is enough for you, Terryeo? How can you ignore and tacitly devend even one?
When most other churches have crime or unethical behavior in their midst, they are all too eager to expose it and distance themselves from it. What's happened, that you're so able to dismiss these acts?
Remember, these were the acts that you seemed to feel much more passionately about when you thought they were anons doing them...
Terryeo, I love ya man, your posts always end up making me smile. Never once did I say "all Scientologists everywhere". Thank you to, I said you'd tell me I'm mis-informed and you wrote I "mis-evaluated". You can be so predictable. I found a small handful of instances that I posted here as arguement because, hey, there are too many to list here, thats why there are sites dedicated to abuses of Scientology. Why I stated my examples were brief. I misevaluated a tiny sliver of data like how your organization tried to destroy Paulette Cooper. Or the tiny sliver of data of how your organization had the largest governement breach ever. And sorry, it is relevant because while many went to jail, one Kendrick Moxon who happens to be your prize lawyer was the unindicted co-conspirator to the whole thing. Its relevant because of the actors still doing the same type of thing today. This is inrefutable fact. Moxon, CoS lawyer, involved with largest governement breach of all time. Fact. My data is better than your data. Now, to stoop to your level, Terryeo, get a clue. I'm not generalizing a single instance, A poster asked for instances of Fair Game, and I gave them. Nothing you have said has countered them other than, I don't believe it. Still where are your dox?
"someone" complained enough about the anti-scion articles, and even the pro ones that were soundly refuted and "won", so they've been removed.
We're pretty much down to terryeo posting the same denials, and even that only once in a while. It's a shame that the conversations have been removed, but they exist in the archives, at least.
In a declaration from Vicky Aznaran that she made one month before the declaration, that you are referring to, she is claiming the opposite of what she is claiming in the declaration from May 1994, that you are citing:
See http://www.lisamcpherson.org/cos/ftp/aznaran.txt
Quote:
SUPPRESSIVE PERSONS AND FAIR GAME
22. The legal strategy of Scientology and the existence of numerous potential legal problems, some of which are set forth below, were known to me when I was a staff member in Scientology.. Enemies of Scientology are deemed to be "suppressive persons" ("SPs"). One becomes a "suppressive person" by doing a suppressive act, such as suing Scientology as a litigant or lawyer. In the jargon of Scientology, when one is "declared" this means that one has been declared a "suppressive person" and, therefore, may be harassed, hurt, damaged or destroyed without regard to truth, honesty or legal rights. It is considered acceptable within Scientology to lie, cheat, steal and commit illegal acts in the name of dealing with a "suppressive person."
23. This practice or policy is sometimes referred to as the policy of "fair game." In the jargon of Scientology, a person who is declared is understood to be a suppressive person ("SP") . This means that the person is "fair game." The fair game policy was issued in the 1960s. It was never canceled. A document was issued for public relations reasons that purportedly canceled "fair game"; however, that document stated that it did not change the manner of handling persons declared "SP." In reality, the purported cancellation of fair game is at most a matter of semantics. Enemies of Scientology are treated as fair game.
24. Because of my position and the regular reports that came across my desk I know that throughout my presidency of RTC, fair game actions against enemies were commonplace. In addition to the litigation tactics described below, fair game activities included burglaries, assaults, disruptions of enemies' businesses, spying, harassive investigations, abuse of confidential communications in parishioner files and so on. I specifically recall seeing one report regarding attacks against Bent Corydon after Scientology became aware that he was writing a book against Hubbard.
I don't know Vicky Aznaran, nor the exact background of this case. But it makes me wonder, why she would change her claims from one month to another.
Rule 34 E-Meter scribbles: Of course thye aren't replying. mark tomles asks; How many examples is enough ? TG expresses humor -hey, cool- and asks “Where are your docs”.
My intent is to discuss the article, hopefully toward a glimmer of understanding the Church’s use of the word. Fair Game didn’t work and Mr. Hubbard cancelled it. According to LilyDate: 2008-09-23 07:02:55 Hubbard said: "The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.
But it has become clear, Anons twist its original meaning and arrive (approximately) at “If a scientologist hassles me, they are fair gaming me”. The documents and testimonies have made me aware of that even though I never met the word within the Church, and when I specifically asked long term members, they have not met an instance of its use. That’s my personal experience with the word. But that isn’t what you all wish to believe. You don’t see any twisting, you plough along on a path which has been laid out to appeal to your emotions. The documents Mark worked so hard to respond about refer to a portion of the Church (the Guardian’s Office), don’t they Mark? Which was dissolved. Looking at those, I would say the Church should dissolve such a group and shouldn’t allow that kind of thing.
David: 2008-09-23 05:39:40 – Gives you the best realism on this page. He tells the actual story. But you know, I’ve chatted with people who, after extensive discussion, understood the word “thetan”, understood the idea the word stands for. But even though they understood, they preferred to use it as a razz term, to misuse the word rather than to add it to their vocabulary. Scientology is intended to bring you greater understanding -- of what you already know. From my point of view, critic’s position is not greatly different than the people who criticized Galileo -- suggested the Earth was not the center of the Universe. There is something to understand. By refusing to understand that there is something, you hold yourself in a less able position.
You know, despite how this argument keeps this article near the top, most people are going to say TL;DR and scroll down to see the trainwrecks that are Terry and Louanne trying to defend the indefensible parts of Scientology. It's kind of sad really, but you can't look away. You just have to see what twisted illogic they will come up with next as to why Scientology is worth joining let alone taking buying a TL;DR book by LRH.
You know, they are trying to sell his pulp fiction from the 30's and 40's now, you know when he was almost as much a failure than before he started the cult of fail to attract the stupid and gullible so he could live it up on their money.
David Miscaivage does the same thing, I mean why not use what "just works". He and Tom and Will and the other celebs who joined party hard on your "donations" all the time. LOL.
You are no longer arguing that it occured, and I'm proud of you that you recognize that- no sarcasm. That's a big step.
So now that we can agree that it did occur, and it was official, we can move on to the GO portion of the debate.
Yes, much of it was GO. However, much of it was Hubbard. The origin of the idea, as you can see in his writings, was mandated by Hubbard and it was not GO superceding him, nor doing it without his knowledge. That's the relevant portion to the GO dissolution, that they didn things without his awareness. This was not one of those things- they merely echoed his policies.
Since it was not a GO-originated policy, it was not effected by the GO dissolution.
There's a certian kind of logic to your praise of David- he agrees with you. Again, just because someone disagrees with you, doesn't mean that they're in a less able position.
You're an intelligent person, so I'm sure you understand the "rules" of debate.
I understand that you, and your unnamed friends, claim that they've never "met an instance of its use". However, this is not evidence- it is simply your word, undeniably colored by your beliefs.
Are you able to provide dox showing that FG declaration only applied to members? Or that those that practice it today are disciplined in any way? Or anything by Hubbard saying that it was wrong, beyond "bad pr"?
Well, I guess that's as close to a straight answer as I'm going to get on this.
It amazes me that you will still refer to Hubbard's "non-cancellation" cancellation. We've all read it and the intent is obvious. It's been posted here and you still refuse to even acknowledge its clear message, which was that "Fair Game" was to continue.
Regarding the Guardian's Office; after the Cooper flap (and others less publcized instances as well), they were renamed the "Office of Special Affairs," which is the new hub for ops against critics. So it was hardly disbanded, "renamed" is more like it.
By the way, our point about "Fair Game" is not that it is practiced by all Scientologists. Indeed, it is not practiced by most Scientologists, who are, for the most part, decent and ethical people.
Having said that, it has been and is being employed by the Church against its critics. I believe that Scientologists should know what's being done in the name of their "religion," just as Catholics needed to know about the molestation scandals being perpetrated by theirs.
Finally, here's another question for you, Terryeo. If the practice of "Fair Game" was cancelled in 1968, why did the Church attempt to defend it as a "religious practice" in its court case against Larry Wollersheim in 1989? Here's a link to documentation regarding this:
Marc Abian, your bigotry is so obvious now. To say all Catholics molest children is crazy. Where is your evidence? Sure in the past, like the middle ages, there was man/boy love but the Catholic Church was such a different entity then. Lets talk about 2008! Has there been any child molestation today? Not yesterday, or the day before, but TODAY Marc. Where is your evidence? Sure, you can post about it online but you Catholic critics will find anything. You see a priest smile at the altar boy when the child brings him the bible to read and you critics cry pedophile. Get a clue Marc, there is no child love! To say all Catholics have boy love is insulting! The document you are obviously referring to is the Instruction on the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani in 1962 ordering priests into silence should they abuse a child. The church since revoked that document in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. DUH! So since 1983 child love is not condoned by the church so no faithful has done it since. Argue that know it all!
There is a simplicity. You might study history or engineering, or you might study Scientology. Data about Fair Game is present here on this page. You understand it or not, your choice. You misuse the words or not, your choice. Some do quite well studying history and others suceed as engineers, but some fail and say things like history is boring and engineering requires too much math. Rare would be the individual who sails through an education without some difficulty. There's the simplicity, some get it, and others don't.
Rule 34 E-Meter chooses not to get it and uses opportunity to discredit polite replies, although he has begin to spell a little better. I'm not defending, I'm making the situation of 40 years ago as obvious as I can.
mark appears to feel this discussion has established that Fair Game has always been in effect. By implying the Guardian's Office used Fair Game, he suggests a meaning quite removed and different from its policy letters. -shurg- Get it or don't, that's up to you mark. I'll give you this one clue. If you practiced looking up words in a dictionary and creating sentences with them, you would have better use of language and might better understand that Fair Game was briefly practiced, but cancelled 40 years ago.
Thanks Terryeo, I like the ad hominems this time around! But in your statement about Rule 34 it should be "has begun", not "has begin". Since you want to talk about people's understanding of reading. I know I have misspelt in my posts, but oh well, I guess I don't get it.
TG, I hearby surrender to your superior logic and highly developed argument.
Terryeo, please, feel free to find fault with my arguments, but don't characterize me as "implying" them; I have stated them emphatically and several times for the record. At the risk of being repetitious, I’ll do so again; the evidence clearly shows Fair Game has never really been cancelled and the Church continues the practice to this day.
Are we playing semantics here? That the Guardian’s Office couldn’t have practiced “Fair Game” against Paulette Cooper because the term wasn’t allowed to be used?
It’s an absurd argument that is laughable in the extreme. But I'll play along; what do you call it?
BTW, you still didn't address Scientology's position in the Wallersheim case.
Q. "mark appears to feel this discussion has established that Fair Game has always been in effect."
A. Yes, I feel that this was set forth in early tenants. I have also shown that the same practice, now called "defense", is still in use.
Q. By implying the Guardian's Office used Fair Game, he suggests a meaning quite removed and different from its policy letters.
A. I believe that it was you, Terryeo, that brought up the GO, when you said, "The documents Mark worked so hard to respond about refer to a portion of the Church (the Guardian’s Office), don’t they Mark?" I merely replied to it. correctly, I might add.
Q. Get it or don't, that's up to you mark.
A. I belive that you won't accept that I "get it", unless I start agreeing with you.
Q. If you practiced looking up words in a dictionary and creating sentences with them, you would have better use of language and might better understand that Fair Game was briefly practiced, but cancelled 40 years ago.
A. You're still claiming this? That's fine. I have an excellent graps of the English Language, but you don't seem to think so. That's fine, except that the only reason that you think that is because I don't agree with you completely. In fact, you seem to think that my criticism denotes a form of ignorance, which would be insulting if I were to dwell on it.
Q. Rule 34 E-Meter chooses not to get it and uses opportunity to discredit polite replies, although he has begin to spell a little better. I'm not defending, I'm making the situation of 40 years ago as obvious as I can
A. Again, choosing not to get it is not the same as believing something to be untrue.
I'll tell you what- here's a unique perspective. When a member of the CoS commits a crime in the name of "Scientology", and goes so far as to stalk and harrass a person- what would you like it to be called?
Marc Abian - The words on the page say what they say. They say and mean; the practice of declaring a person Fair Game ceased 40 years ago.
A sane man would hope the written word could be understood. However, I understand, critics lump that 40 year ago practice with other events and arrive at an emotionally stimulating presentation. Of course, with the internet's copy and paste, such messages can repeat endlessly. If you call this "semantic play", fine, but when you do, you remove yourself from the action. What action? Well, the action of an expanding Church, the action of more and more people saying "Scientology has been helpful". The actions of progress in human rights, education, disaster relief and drug reform.
The Church could not have practiced Fair Game with Paulette Cooper (as I understand the situation) because Cooper was not a member and because no Fair Game policy was practiced at that time. She alleges things, what do I call that? I don't call it.
I didn't address the Church's position in what you call the Wallersheim case because I don't work for the Church but am an individual who knows some of the philosophy. If you want a statement of the Church's position, they have a website and they, variously, accept email. Likewise you could contact that branch of the Church that handles such matters by asking (probably) at any Church. Good luck in your pursuit of knowledge.
Thanks TO! I try, I even had to go to wikipedia to look up those things Catholism has written. Gawd, research! Yuck! Its cause I never took the tech of study I guess. Two things though, you say Paullette Cooper alleges what happened to her. The facts of the story has no alligation. The federal government has the dox proving she was targetting for destruction by CoS. So, do you deny these docs as lies, like a conspiracy theorist that the government is lying and can't be trusted? Also, Please DO comment on the Wallersheim case. What is your point of view as to the church saying its their religious property, surely you must have an opinion of some kind. Whenever we try to call the orgs they don't want to talk to us because we are SPs. A few protesters even tried to talk to David M over the weekend and he just blared loud music at them. Not very nice.
TG - So, do you deny these docs as lies? You're asking me to confirm an online site has a realistic presentation. Knowing you from previous posts, in addition, you would like a comment about content. I've haven't the faintest clue about authenticity or valid content.
The Wallersheim case - The link Marc put up presents something that kinda looks official. But Googling brings up other information implying that Marc's analysis link's information was not the main point of the case and was not the basis of judgement. Find my information as the third case mentioned here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/114646/1.ashx (I can't seem ot make links, is it because I'm using firefox or because I'm not using Yahoo Toolbar).
If I understand, anonies are saying that Church people testified Fair Game was in use in 1986, therefore Fair Game had not been cancelled 40 years ago. Maybe that happened, maybe not. But I don't see actual testimony, instead only analysis of testimony. So I understand, you and other anonies worship by chanting those analysis over and over at evening devotions. Heh.
Terryeo- honestly, I didn't look to close, but I followed the link that you provided (to a forum, which in this case you seem to consider acceptable evidence. Irony.). Did you footbullet, or did I miss something?
The only reference to Scientology is as follows (remember, this is in the link you provided, so I'm only trying to clarify):
"the law of this jurisdiction it would not support a constitutional shield for Scientology's retribution program. In the instant case Scientology went far beyond the social "shunning" of its heretic,Wollersheim. Substantial evidence supports the conclusion Scientology leaders made the deliberate decision to ruin Wollersheim economically and possibly psychologically. Unlike the plaintiff in Paul v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of New York, Wollersheim did not suffer his economic harm as an unintended byproduct of his former religionists' practice of refusing to socialize with him any more. Instead he was bankrupted by a campaign his former religionists carefully designed with the specific intent it bankrupt him. Nor was this campaign limited to means which are arguably legal such as refusing to continue working at Wollersheim's business or to purchase his services or products. Instead the campaign featured a concerted practice of refusing to honor legal obligations Scientologists owed Wollersheim for services and products they already had purchased."
If intentional, I think that this is a good example of a modern version of "fair game".
That's what it says, Mark. It compares Scientology's practice as documented in the Wollersheim case (it says) with other shunning actions. Both links also present that a practice of religion can edge into civil liberties. The point was earlier being made that Fair Game was part of the testimony. "My" link presents what was important about the case, a little differently, but doesn't mention any testimony of Fair Game.
Yes, it does. It compares it negatively. It says that other religions practice shunning in a legal way, but Scientology takes it to some extreme. This sample is discussing a different trial relating to shunning. If it was a case about another church practicing fair game, they would mention that part of scientology. This was about disconnection.
I still can't figure out why you presented something which makes scientology look so bad. Your tactic is unusual, but you brought up a good point about how others feel that the Scientology disconnection practice is dangerous.
JCA-45. Frank K. Flinn testimony in Church of Scientology of California, 1984, vol.23, pp.4032-4160.
JCA-147. Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Court of Appeal of the State of California, civ.no.B023193, 18 July 1989 (upheld by the U,S. Supreme Court, 7 March 1994).
Is this enough? Note that the CoS tried to defend this practice as a "core religious belief".
Mark - well sure, I understand. You go to Mark Goldowitz’ Slap site where you find cases he defended to read his documents that present his case, his way and count up the words. I understand perfectly, of course. No problem. Why do I say that it was his case? Because of his declaration:
“I, Mark Goldowitz, hereby declare: I am an attorney, duly admitted to practice in California, and am special counsel for defendant Lawrence Wollersheim” http://www.whyaretheydead.net/misc/Factnet/GOLD1.TXT
Fine, have a nice time with that. I’m pretty much through saying again and again that Fair Game existed for a few years, 40 years ago and was cancelled. I thought maybe you need some explanation of what a policy letter is, what its power is, how one policy letter can cancel another and so on. Nope, that’s not the situation. You are completely convinced of a “fact” and no amount of anything is going to shake it out of your head. Fine, enjoy your fairy tale.
what do you want, Terryeo? You've seen videos. You've seen court cases. You've seen hubbard's writings. You've seen examples. Yuo have not refuted any of them with fact or documentation, only your opinion that it's over, because that's what you believe.
At what point do you accept anything as a fact? Do you believe that the earth revolves around the sun? or that the sky's sometime's blue?
Seriously, what on earth would it take for you to believe this? If you can offer any sort of evidence of your beliefs, I'd be very happy to discuss it. If you can't, then perhaps there's no point in continuing to draw from the bag 'o proof.
You keep referring to the cancellation of "Fair Game" that took place. However, the only cancellation that I'm aware is the the one that's been quoted here and I'll cite again:
"The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease.
"FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations.
"This P/L [policy letter] does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."
Since this obviously didn't cancel the policy, maybe you can supply us with a PL that actually did?
Isn't ironic that the SP's are quoting Hubbard and you and Louanne assidiously avoid doing so? I don't know how you can make an argument on the subject without going to source, which is exactly what we've done here.
I've asked Terryeo to support his position, but he has not yet done so. Could you provide any documentation in which LRH or the CoS specifically stated that the "treatment of SP's" (referencing the FG document) was to be cancelled, or that it was "wrong" to practice in the first place?
Marc Abian - It is pretty obvious to even the most casual observer that Scientology and critics say nearly the same words. Therefore, it must be clear that the two understand something differently. One says the sky is blue, the other says the sky is grey, but locations can be found with both of these colors. I've attempted to address the point of (critics) confusion that your post mentions. I'll try again.
"The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease."
Meant than no more people could be delcared FAIR GAME. "The practice of" - is an activity. As another example, take the practice of eating desert after dinner. If the practice of eating desert after dinner were cancelled, people would not eat desert after dinner, do you follow? No people could be declared FAIR GAME after that policy's date.
"This P/L [policy letter] does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."
Suppressive Person (SP) identification, treatment and handling is a fair bit of technology. It existed before FAIR GAME, Hubbard added to it from time to time and it is in use today. It is an important element of the Church (my opinion here) because it prevents the difficulties that one or two people can cause, from spreading widely.
You imply that SP treatment and/or handling included and includes: "deprived of property, injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist, May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."
No. That is just plain wrong. There is nothing like that (that I know of, or anyone I have talked to knows of) within the tech about Suppressive Persons. Quite the contrary. An SP is fouling up your lines of action, you first identity the SP, then you go through a check list to be sure of yourself about it, then you take actions so that you can proceed with what you want to do, without being fouled up by the SP. Destroying someone is no part of that equation. It is possible you might have to attack or sue, or take other legal action if the SP is attacking you so that he won't keep attacking you. But that is only if he is attacking you. You just go about your business, if an SP get on your lines you identify and remove him from your lines so you can go on about your business. If he attacks you then you handle him. Sometimes that means attacking him back. There is a fair bit of tech on the subject, but no part of the tech is Fair Game, and no part of the tech allows a Scientologist to do anything contrary to the laws of the land.
This is cute little trick Anonies are using. At the slightest sign of any aggressive come-back, anonies fall to the ground, attempt to bleed, and scream "fair game" while thrashing about on the ground. It is a silly ploy. If you find an SP, you handle the SP. If you want to know HOW to handle an SP (beyond my very brief sketch here), you would have to read the tech.
Ok, we can go back and forth about this. I understand your INTERPRETATION of the policy, while we're discussing the intentions and the specific orders that are stated, but you interpret it differently.
That's fine. But let's come up to present time here for a second.
If it's easier, we can call the same tactics that were used then, and are still used today, something different. We can call it silly-happy-fun-time, if it would enable you to discuss it, if the phrasing is what's blocking this conversation.
So, to rephrase, the current practice of silly-happy-fun-time, in which individuals have been sued (including the DCMA issues tracked by the EFF), lied to, harassed, followed, stalked, etc... can you talk about those ones?
To add to it, and digress for a moment, you've stated your opinion, your own analysis of Hubbard's words. Do you have anything, anything at all, to support your views?
I lead you to the pool of understanding everyone drinks from. I spell out specifically, line by line, how Fair Game has not been in use for years and tell the how and why. And then I do it again and again. But what you understand is up to you.
No, actually, you repeat the same thing over and over, which makes sense to you, and those that already agree with you. I'm a bit more skeptical, I suppose, and require actual evidence. Still don't have any, aside from your opinion?
In order to address the confusion about “fair game”, I have done some amount of research and presented it in this forum. Everyone has the right to ignore the evidence, but, as they say, “All that is required for evil for flourish is for good men to do nothing”.
So, to do something about it, I present some of my findings.
First, to address the issue of the phrasing. Some claim that phrasing of the cancellation order referenced here cancels out the treatment, despite the phrasing that no treatment was to change. That may be true, but would require additional documentation to be accepted as true. In other words, it would require a great deal of apologetics in order to reach that conclusion. In other words, we have one hypothesis (“the PL cancelled fair game”), which requires a great deal of analysis and ignoring established facts (via video, picture, etc), and another hypothesis (“fair game was not cancelled, only the treatment was”). Applying Occam's razor (“one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.”), it is clear that hypothesis B, fair game is still applied, is the simpler and more likely scenario.
If this is true, cancelling fair game was far more insidious. Rather than a common belief system that would be open to (at least internal) scrutiny, the act was forced underground, as a sort of “black ops”, and far more dangerous.
I think it’s far more likely that the treatment was designed to stay in place. Although he was many things, LRH was an accomplished writer. He understood words and how to use them. Leaving such an important policy so vague would be very foolish, if unintentional. To address a previous point, where examples were given as to the phrase “the practice of declaring”; the examples given were slightly out of context. Other similar phrases could be, “The practice of declaring the meal taken in the evening as dinner will cease”, or “the practice of declaring an individual that ends another life with malice as a ‘murderer’ will hereby cease”. You can see that in each of those examples, meals are still given and individuals are still murdered, semantics mean nothing.
I believe that we can accept that the term fair game was cancelled, for the questionable reason of PR, but we must explore its uses past 1968, when it was allegedly cancelled.
First, we have the Paulette Cooper documents from 1976. This is a clear example of fair game using Hubbard’s original methods. We also have a $300,000 award paid to L Gene Allard ([link edited for length]) in 1974 for his “fair game” treatment. Although not exactly “fair game”, this is an example of the CoS “poisoning the well” at [link edited for length]. In 2002, fair game was discussed in a court interview with Roger Gonnett ([link edited for length])
Please note this early example of fair game tactics, before it was known as such, in Hubbard’s writings
“"The purpose of a lawsuit is to harass and discourage rather than
to win.... Don't ever defend. Always attack. Find or manufacture
enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Originate
a black PR campaign to destroy the person's repute and to discredit
them so thoroughly they will be ostracized..."
"The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment
on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, will knowing that
he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his
professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."
-- A Manual on the Dissemination of Material (1955) by L. Ron
Hubbard.
I can see no evidence that fair game is no longer in use. Ending the declaration of the term, again, has only forced it to be done from darkened rooms and false fronts. I would like to close with these many examples:
You may be wondering why the CoS has targeting Professor Kent, Professor of Sociology at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. It’s because of quotes like these:
“The HCOPL of 23 December 1965RB appears in this new volume, but it had been revised on 8 January, 1991. The revised version contains much of the wording from the original, but it is reorganized in places, and it has deleted reference to "Fair Game." I will return to the debate over the role that the old "fair game" doctrine plays in Scientology after 1991. I will argue that its continued place in Scientology legal strategy increases the likelihood that the organization would use the threat of litigation against perceived opponents.”
“In the 1991 "Department of Special Affairs[,] Investigations Officer[,] Full Hat Checksheet," a person on this course was required (on p. 26 #25) to read "HCO Exec Ltr [Hubbard Communications Office Executive Letter] 27 Sept[ember] [19]65, "Amprinistics." This Executive Letter discusses a number of people and "splinter groups" that supposedly took Dianetics and Scientology material. On the first line of p. 3 of that document, it says, "Treatment: They are fair game, can be sued or harassed." I realize that the Church of Scientology International reissued a revised version of this Executive Letter on 24 September, 1983, and that the revised version omits mention of "fair game" and accompanying suits and harassment. The "Full Hat Checksheet," however, did not list this revision (as it did with other items) when identifying the required reading, but instead listed the earlier version containing the "fair game" statement.”
“30. The paragraph instructing Scientologists to defend only by attacking, even in a court of law, outlines the behaviour that I believe explains the current and future fate of Mr. Erlich. It states:
31. The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that, then you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in, whether it is in terms of personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law. NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO, yourself, much MORE CHARGING, and you will WIN. Don't ever let them have any other thought than that Scientology takes all of its objectives (p. 157).
32. Moreover, the second-last paragraph on that same page contains two key sentences for understanding Scientology's attitude toward lawsuits:
33. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will be generally sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, ruin him utterly (p. 157).
34. I note that on p. 5 of the Executive Directive Office of Special Affairs International (1991), Investigations Officers were instructed to study the Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter from August 15, 1960 entitled, "Department of Government Affairs." That Policy Letter instructed Scientologists:
35. [i]f attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Peace is bought with an exchange of advantage, so make the advantage and then settle. Don't ever defend. Always attack. Don't ever do nothing. Unexpected attacks in the rear of the enemy's front ranks work best (p. 484 in old OEC 7).
Under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the United States, I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.
“Also in my Leipzig presentation I documented instances of probable neglect of children by their Sea Organization parents (Kent, "Scientology--Is This a Religion," pp. 19-21). Living and play conditions for Sea Organization children seemed poor (at least in the past in some locations), and some children seemed to have been neglected while their parents fulfilled their Scientology responsibilities. Many more examples of probable instances of child abuse and neglect within Scientology are available on the World Wide Web at <[link edited for length]> on a site entitled, "Scientology & Dianetics: Tax Exempt Child Abuse and Neglect?"”“On September 21, 1961, L. Ron Hubbard produced a document entitled, "Security Check Children," and specified it for children whose ages range from six to twelve years old. It contained ninety-nine questions (by my count), and it leads into them with the statement, "[t]he first question is the most potent." That first question is, "[w]hat has somebody told you not to tell?" Other questions include, "[d]o you have a secret?," "[h]ave you ever done anything you were very much ashamed of?," and "[h]ave you ever cried when you shouldn't have?" Presumably Scientology adults put children through this security check while the children were on the reputedly spiritual counselling device, the E-Meter. I have never seen this children's security check cancelled, and its existence raises important questions about the extent to which the Scientology organization believes it has the right to intrude into the lives of its children.”“In the paper that I delivered in Leipzig, Germany in 1997, I documented how the Scientology organization itself becomes, functionally, a new family for Sea Organization members, often at the expense of their spouses and children (Kent, "Scientology--Is This a Religion?," pp. 15-19). In essence, evidence exists that, at least in the past, Scientology's long and harsh work demands forced many of its most committed members to perform tasks that kept them away from their children. When an organization such as Scientology apparently places its most committed members under arduous work-hours, then concerns exist about similar kinds of time demands placed upon Scientology parents who are not Sea Org members but nevertheless are on staff at local Scientology offices.”
"I realize that the Church of Scientology International reissued a revised version of this Executive Letter on 24 September, 1983, and that the revised version omits mention of "fair game" and accompanying suits and harassment. The "Full Hat Checksheet," however, did not list this revision (as it did with other items) when identifying the required reading, but instead listed the earlier version containing the "fair game" statement.”"
This really clears up the "retraction" of the use of the term "fair game". Put out a policy letter to show the world that you fixed the problem, then never actually refer to the new policy letter. Brilliant, if not frightening.
I just can't tell you how amusing it is. hinteresting quotes an Executive Letter - those aren't published but of course we can certainly take hinteresting's word for its content, eh? And of course, since we know he is right about his stolen, quoted document, he must also be right about the "Full Hat Checksheet", from similar source. -HA
The practice of declaring people Fair Game shall cease. Gosh, what does that mean, what a mystery. It means no one will declare anyone Fair Game, do you follow? And as if there were any doubt about the statement, Hubbard's original intent is linked in the article and spells it out. Briefly, the justice available to Church members would not be available to those who quit the Church, a person declared Fair Game could not seek Church justice against another Church member.
At one time I was fustrated when individuals refused to understand the printed word on the page. I would work my butt off to point out the obvious. These and other issues are covered well at http://www.scientologymyths.info.
The practice of declaring people Fair Game shall cease. Gosh, what does that mean, what a mystery. It means no one will declare anyone Fair Game, do you follow? And as if there were any doubt about the statement, Hubbard's original intent is linked in the article and spells it out. Briefly, the justice available to Church members would not be available to those who quit the Church, a person declared Fair Game could not seek Church justice against another Church member.
If this is so clear, then why did Hubbard need to add the sentence " This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP." to the cancellation policy?
According to you, fair game has nothing to do with the treatment or handling of an SP anyway. So why does he even have to mention it in this policy? The cancellation policy would have been perfectly clear without any mention of this.
Again, I would like to let everyone know the website Terryeo just referenced is a bunch of lies and spin and propoganda. Not a valid source. If a person used that site to write a report on Scientology they would flunk for bad resources. Also TO, stuff, like failboats, leak. The executive letter leaked just like the now infamous OTIII, or the recordings of Hubbard being a racist and general batsh%t crazy. Whatever fair game really is all about is still going on. You may refuse to call it such, but to quote someone much wiser than anyone here, "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet." In other words it doesn't matter what you choose to call it, it is what it is and a name doesn't change it. Also what justice do you mean the CoS gives? Sending people to RPF when they are bad? or disconnection? People actually reading this, which I doubt is anyone outside of the posters, don't worry about links here. Just google "Scientology" and look at the sites it gives you for info about it. Yep TO, I just told people to look at the Co$ main site. But after that look at OCMB too, and XenuTV and so on. Look at all the info there is and make your own mind up. Don't you agree TO that people should look at all sides of the issue and make up their own minds?
Your comment re: hinteresting shows that you did not read my posting. I can't blame you, it's long, but very relevant. H quoted me. I quoted Professor Kent, Professor of Sociology at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, who reached this conclusion after researching Scientology. I posted more, if you get a chance to read it.
Again, and again, and again, I would like to ask you for ANY proof of your belief. You've provided your analysis of the wording, but have not been able to back it up with any further policy or example. I have, and would like to offer you a chance to provide a reputable counterpoint.
you might be surprised about the readers, TG- this article's still in the Google news service, so I'm certain it's been followed several times. You might say that this is a rather public (and hopefully civil) debate.
Ya know, Terryeo may not answer questions the way you want him to, but hes gonna talk directly to the Jo Six packs and Hockey moms out there about what David Miscaviage really wants him to talk about.
I hear ya, it's just a little bit frustrating, because I would really like to meet a Scientologist that's able to answer such questions without merely repeating the same non-answer time and time again.
Louanne was actually pretty good at that, I miss the ol' gal.
mark tomles - If an organization ran themselves as you feel they should, they would surely bog themselves senseless and suffer a death by paperwork, You as me to convince you of my "belief" by "prooving" certain things to you. No organization can run itself that way.
Fair Game was designed to address an issue that rarely came up. For example, a scientologist sells another scientologist a car and isn't making payments as agreed by both. The Church provides a Chaplin's court, wherein the two can arrive at agreement, at justice for both parties. Fair Game excluded the Church's justice from applying to people who were declared Fair Game. - You can't expect to act against your group, and at the same time, manipulate their justice system for your gain. It was never a permission to harm anyone. And it was cancelled 40 years ago. Now, prove that to you? You see, "proof" exists only in the mind of the beholder, like beauty, "good taste", "poor taste", etc., it is a self-assigned quality.
If you meet 100 scientologists who independently give you one "non-answer", isn't it time to re-consider and allow that at least one of them has given you the answer he understands is true?
How do you mean, if an org ran the way I thought they should? You mean with clear policies and documentation? Supporting documentation? That seems to be a pretty good way to run an organization, if you ask me.
Of course, I have provided CoS documentation showing that fair game was still ack after supposedly "cancelled", which is why you can't find documentation showing that it was no longer practiced.
I must disagree with your thought, that proof is in the eye of the beholder. (I'm assuming that you're referring to evidence). Evidence stands alone, and is used to support a thesis. A thesis without evidence is a guess, at best. That's why I provide evidence- my thesis is supported by more than opinion.
While 100 is an extreme number, and not what I had said, I would go so far as to say that this points to an institutional tendancy towards avoiding certain questions and subjects. You have done it here, which would be what they call a "case in point".
Please read your replies- the same thing, reworded, over and over. I've read it, and understand your point, and can't find verifiable merit to it. Do you have anything to add to what you've already said? Or, perhaps, addressing some of my unanswered questions?
You have a lot of sincere posters. Then you have a couple of others.
Did anyone here perform "debates" at school?
By "debate" I mean a formal exercise where two teams are given contrary propositions to support. Each team has to argue their assigned proposition as well as they can, whether the facts back it up or not.
It seems that scientologist PR agents are obliged to argue that manure is effectively cheesecake, in the most convincing way possible, and damn the evidence to the contrary.
Where I come from, we know what it means when someone says
"This manure I'm selling is cheesecake. Can't you see it? This is pretty clear to Scientologists. You are all so amusing to think otherwise. It's clear as day to anyone and I'm just putting it out there for you. If you are wise enough, you will buy it. Otherwise, poor fool you."
You can put the manure and cheesecake side by side and they'll insist they are the same.
They don't care if you know they are insincere. They are not going to fool most people. People who've seen through them are not their audience.
They know there's a chance that someone will think that their bloody-mindedness means there must be something to what they say - "Hey, maybe manure is cheesecake. There are arguments both ways. This guy seems pretty sure about it... I think I'll buy some."
Yeah, and maybe Scientology isn't a scam that plays dirty when it thinks it can get away with it. Yeah, and maybe a purported religious leader who high-handedly authorises his followers to deceive, injure and destroy isn't a megalomaniacal sociopath. Yeah, and even if he was insane, he stopped being insane when he cancelled the order. But I can see how that order might have been appropriate 40 years ago in the circumstances of dealing with used car sales. Yeah, right.
This page has to be the greatest advertisement against the mental prison of scientology. The fact that they argue so disingenuously has to be a great window into the way they think.
Ironically, they brought this PR disaster on themselves. They actually posted this article that so perfectly shows up scientology as a desperate house of cards.
My advice: write this Scientology rubbish off. There are much better things to do with your life.
Marc, a situation exists within the Church of Scientology. What is that situation? That is the question being addressed by the article. Several, the author, myself and a couple of other people familar with what goes on within the Church, have said what we know about the situation.
But you, and not just you but several other comments too, hint toward "proving it" and "convince me!" and so on. Well, talk to you yes, tell you what I know about the situation, yes. But convince you? Prove it?
We have science today and we have a good standard of living today because people demand "proof" and demand "evidence" and demand that knowledge be "demonstrable". Which is all well and good.
But Hubbard noticed that "knowledge in recall" is a different situation than "throughly understood, immediately useable knowledge". And on that basis, that single datum, built Scientology. His Church writings are something you must understand, you must try out for yourself, and then use or dismiss. Fair Game was written by Hubbard and addressed to Church administrators as a Church Policy Letter. If understood within context, and by context I mean within the frame defined by policy addressing suppressive persons and the handling of suppressive persons, it makes sense. However, it was misunderstood by public because it used the words "Fair Game". Hubbard thererfore cancleed the practice of declaring people Fair Game.
It is well beyond what I am willing to do, to attempt to "prove" the written word to you. Nor am I a Church employee, or "shill" or "strawman" or any of the other things implied constantly by Anonies and critics. Those terms are rather offensive, really.
It had to do with a Church member, who had damaged the Church, but was trying to use Church justice. It had to do with member-to-member Church justice and didn't address itself to the public at all. Apparently you see the words "lied to" and "destroyed" and think Hubbard was demanding that persons declared Fair Game should be lied to and destroyed by Church members. No, that wasn't the situation. And the policy didn't address non-members in any way. And it was cancelled. I think I said that, didn't I?
So... We have two different theories about the subject at hand.
One person says, "here's my position, here's evidence through videos, pictures, anecdotes and court documents", and another person that says, "here's my position. I can't prove it in the least but you have to take my word for it".
I would say that if you can't offer up ANY sort of evidence, your position needs to be re-evaluated.
So, as King Arthur said to the black night: "Let's call it a draw, then". (Those that have seen the Monty Python movie would get the joke).
Terryeo- if your position was true, you'd be able to offer up something to back up your claim. Apparently, what you're saying, is that the only way to believe this concept is to spend some time under the mental bombardment of the CoS! If it were independantly true, it should be understood without someone needing to have it drilled into them.
I was neutral before this thread... Now I realize that the "anonies" as you call them have it together.
Well, Terryeo, it looks like that's your closing argument... I've already offered mine. Best we can do now is repeat what we've said.
I'm not sure why you hold the position, as does the CoS that "it doesn't happen", rather than, "here's what we've found, and here's what we will do about it". That, in and of itself, is bad PR. But, that's the way things are, and while the ostrich has it's head in the sand, the body is consumed.
Believe it or not, that's what I'm trying to avoid. Like I said before, I don't want to dismantle the church, I want to see it reformed. But, if they continue to deny the problems within, that can't happen, and the CoS will continue to lose public support, as the people see things like fair game continuing without being addressed.
Doomguy is 100% right. Those things are happening currently. Lou, perhaps you should be trying to convince the governments of the world fair game doesn't exist so your leaders can stay out of JAIL! Oh wait, CoS told those governments that Fair Game is a protected practice of the church already, whoops!
But Terryeo, you didn't answer me, don't you think someone wondering, "What is Scientology?" Should look at it objectively at first from all angles. There obviously are multiple angles to see it, and for a person to make a well informed decision they need to see all sides right? After someone goes to the fancy CoS video site Scientology.org, and watches Mark Bunker's videos of his own harrassment on XenuTV.com, and reads the sad stories on ExScientologyKids.com, and reads the PR releases about the Volunteer Ministers, and reads Xenu.net; if someone wants to go get a class from CoS then great for them, they made a decision after proper research.
So again, Terryeo or Lou for that matter, don't you agree the internet is a wonderful place to learn about Scientology and they should look at ALL the information to make a good choice. You know get the Knowledge first?
When I used the term "strawman", as you referenced in your last email, that was not intended as an insult, and was not addressing you. "Strawman" refers to a strawman argument, in which a difficult to defend position is replaced by a simpler one in order to gain a foothold in the debate.
An example of this may be found in a marijuana legalization debate, where the con side might say something to the effect of, "well, legalizing drugs will only lead to problems, because many of them are dangerous and addictive". This may be true, but is outside of the scope of the debate, which is specifically related to marijuana. However, it's far easier to attack "all" drugs.
TG & mark tomles -It seems at least possible that you might obtain better answers in a format designed for asking questions and receiving public answers. Allexperts.com is set up that way. Laurie Hamilton responds to questions addressed to her and other experts likewise. http://www.allexperts.com/ep/1751-30534/Scientology/Laurie-Hamilton.htm
Awww, TO you won't even say if you agree or disagree that people should research on their own by examining all sides closely. That's too bad. What's that tell you though folks? Critics say read everything, Scientologists don't. Please correct this if you actually do agree. Looking for common ground here guys.
As for Louanne's question, yes there are shreds of evidence.
As for the FBI thing and the Cincinnati thing they are linked. See a few months back an ex-CIA operative and American Hero informed Anonymous that he had worked with the FBI to open a case looking into the alligations against CoS. The word spread quickly and many critics and former members have been speaking to the Feds. No news yet because case is ongoing, and building. The Cincinnati tie in is in a woman who escaped CoS recently with a ton of documents (100+). She gave them all to the government and has given a recorded testimony. All this is ongoing and will take time. The fair gamey part of it all is she is continually harassed (her words), in fact today evidently 'somone' flipped off her circuit breaker to make her think she lost power. Only problem is 'someone' did this before to her so she knew what to do. Also, 'someone' got into her car and cut the wiring of the vehicle. 'Someone' who is a Cincy Scientologist also allegedly ran her off the road with his vehicle. She got his picture. This man has been seen numerous times in Cincinnati at the CoS, but now that the cops are looking for him, hes gone. I'd say thats fair game. And yes, before you say can I prove this, its an ongoing item that has not hit the news and all accounts of it are firsthand accounts through forums like ExScientologyKids and Scientology-exposed.
I actually just replied to Laurie Hamilton over on allexperts.com. She was talking about the France Anti-Sect law, and that it is biased towards Scientology. This may be true, but the overall thrust of the law is that it gives judges greater authority to ban sects in which the leadship is convicted of a crime. This, obviously, applies to the CoS and explains their objections.
Note, also, that the law names 100+ "dangerous" sects, including certain Christian groups. Contrary to CoS claims, it's pretty even, depending on the groups' actions.
Two weeks ago, Anonymous Netherlands was invited by the Rotterdam police to talk about Scientology. With only a few days to prepare we didn’t quite know what to expect, but we decided to drop all the dox we could and pretty much hope for the best. It turned out a flawless victory.
At first the police were a bit hesitant, and explained the reason they’d invited us was the increase of both stress tests and anon protests in Rotterdam. Apparently, they’d been worried there may be some conflict in the future and wanted to talk to both sides. On account of Scientology being a creepy fucking cult Anonymous got invited first. Which means the lovely people of OSA Amsterdam are going to have some explaining to do again soon. :D
Although they’d only planned to interview us for an hour at most, we ended up staying for nearly two hours as the guys we talked to kept asking more questions. They wanted to read every document and flier and watch every video we had. When we left, they asked if we’d be up for a second chat soon, to see what could be done about the stress tests in Rotterdam and Scientology in general. They told us they admired Anonymous’ morality (heh) and bravery, kept wondering why on earth the government wasn’t doing anything to stop CoS, and in the end they even offered to copy our dox and hand them back to us just to save us cash (we declined).
TG, your "evidence" for Germany is dated 1997, eleven years ago and I could not find any shred of evidence that there is something open. To the contrary I find recent information with the German Secret Service asking their boss, the Federal Government, not to ban Scientology because there would be no evidence for any wrongdoing at all.
As for France and Belgium, there is a lot of hot air involved and another "no shred of evidence" situation. Try again.
Doomguy, ROFL. So Anonymous talks to the police, fills them up with the usual yap-yap and you ca;; this what? A police investigation? IANAL, but I know for sure what a police investigation is. For example what the FBI does with Anonymous right now.
Louanne, you fail to understand a few basic things.
Keep in mind that unlike Scientology we have no leadership. Anyone can do anything and claim to be part of Anonymous. There is no roll call, there is no fees to pay, there is no membership roster. There is no central point of command. If someone who is part of the Anonymous group be it with the chans or with the protestors does something stupid, we will call them out for it. Unlike Scientology we won't claim that something is fake without evidence. and we won't cover up for the stupidity of individuals if they do something dumb.
I will say though that FBI sending a letter to someone telling them they are under investigation is a rather strange tactic for a law enforcement agency. Such a letter gives a suspect time to destroy evidence. Normal law enforcement procedure is to get a warrant and notify the person at the same time that their equipment is taken that they are a suspect.
That said, if anyone in anon was guilty of any DDOS, then it is their cross to bear if they get caught. There is no leader who stood up and told them to do this. No one handed them an order and told them to do this. But with Scientology, very little happens without approval of management. As someone inside, you should know the level of control that Scientology has on it's members. It is possible for Scientologists to commit crimes on their own, but it is suspect when there are multiple instances of it in an organization that has such strict control over it's people. Anonymous has no such controls. Anyone could put on a mask and shoot up a mall and say they are Anonymous and there is no one to stop them. But if someone dressed up in a Scientology volunteer minister outfit and did the same, one could easily find out if they were in fact a Scientologist or not. So far the FBI has said that there is nothing to the claims that Anonymous is an organized terror or criminal group. This was even pointed out on CNN when Tommy Davis tried to claim that we were a terror group. So unless the media is in on this too, you might have to question the claims of your management that we are some comic book like group of villians.
The police in Netherlands came to Anonymous, not us to them. How come they are listening to Anonymous then if it is all yap yap? You have called Anonymous terrorists. Are you saying that the Netherlands police agencies are in cahoots with terrorists now? The FBI? Local police forces in cities that are observing us and telling us we are the best behaved protestors they have ever seen?
Obviously these government agencies are seeing something in Anonymous that makes them want us to come in and talk to them. We come when asked and we present our evidence. I find it interesting that few seem to be willing to hear your side of it but are willing to see Anonymous. The same goes with the public. When we got out, we are greeted with smiles and thumbs up and honks of approval. People talk to us and they are not scared to approach us even when masked. If we are so bad, why are we getting the support of the people and those in power? You should research to learn the answers to these kinds of questions. You can take the word of Scientology leadership, but are they right? They are human too. They could easily be wrong. You need to find out for yourself what the truth is.
I'm still waiting for any evidence, outside of that single picture provided by the alleged target that the letter is even legitimate. I could make the same thing in a few minutes with photoshop, if I were so inclined.
And? Anonymous is nowhere mentioned in this letter. I know that you try to paint Anonymous as a terrorist group, but if the FBI would see Anonymous as a terrorist group they would have probably already shut down 4chan.org :-D .
Scientologist soon to face trial for assault on a former member. The victim had his hotel room ransacked shortly after filing charges, yet another case of witness intimidation and fair game, yes... fair game being used just weeks ago.
The attack is on video, and now witnesses are being sought to help with the case. It is interesting to note that the victim is the same guy who got out along with his wife when she was raped by a senior Scientologist and then Scientology tried to cover it up. The rapist did go to jail, but the victim was fair gamed in retalitation for that as well. More evidence of Fair Game being a real living thing. This same thing is being done to a woman and her two children living in Cincinnati, all for talking to the FBI. So it seems when a Scientologist does the ethical thing and follows the law, yet that action causes any possible bad PR, even just by association with Scientology, the dogs are let loose on them.
But hey Hubbard canceled the name of fair game right? So call it what you want. Witness intimidation , criminal conspiracy and racketeering come to mind.
Haha, Lou...someone asks for a shred of evidence, and I give links to news articles, REAL NEWS ARTICLES FROM UNBIASED SOURCES!!!! and you say there is still no evidence. There really is no hope for you. Again, critics back up what we say with outside resources, you don't. Maybe in Scientology schools when students write reports they don't have to use references when they write a paper. If so I'd blame your education system....oh wait, still Scientology!
What we're forgetting to mention is that there've been multiple investigations for their illegal activity. Look at these FBI documents, for instance: [link edited for length]
You'll not several interactions, including the FBI files on Operation Snow White and Hubbard's complaints against his allegedly communist wife and staff.
The IRS and FBI have been debriefing Scientology defectors for the past three years, in part to gain evidence for a major racketeering case that appears to have stalled last summer. Federal agents complain that the Justice Department is unwilling to spend the money needed to endure a drawn-out war with Scientology or to fend off the cult's notorious jihads against individual agents. "In my opinion the church has one of the most effective intelligence operations in the U.S., rivaling even that of the FBI," says Ted Gunderson, a former head of the FBI's Los Angeles office.
Foreign governments have been moving even more vigorously against the organization. In Canada the church and nine of its members will be tried in June on charges of stealing government documents (many of them retrieved in an enormous police raid of the church's Toronto headquarters). Scientology proposed to give $1 million to the needy if the case was dropped, but Canada spurned the offer. Since 1986 authorities in France, Spain and Italy have raided more than 50 Scien- tology centers. Pending charges against more than 100 of its overseas church members include fraud, extortion, capital flight, coercion, illegally practicing medicine and taking advantage of mentally incapacitated people. In Germany last month, leading politicians accused the cult of trying to infiltrate a major party as well as launching an immense recruitment drive in the east.
Sometimes even the church's biggest zealots can use a little protection. Screen star Travolta, 37, has long served as an unofficial Scientology spokesman, even though he told a magazine in 1983 that he was opposed to the church's management. High-level defectors claim that Travolta has long feared that if he defected, details of his sexual life would be made public. "He felt pretty intimidated about this getting out and told me so," recalls William Franks, the church's former chairman of the board. "There were no outright threats made, but it was implicit. If you leave, they immediately start digging up everything." Franks was driven out in 1981 after attempting to reform the church.
The church's former head of security, Richard Aznaran, recalls Scientology ringleader Miscavige repeatedly joking to staffers about Travolta's allegedly promiscuous homosexual behavior. At this point any threat to expose Travolta seems superfluous: last May a male porn star collected $100,000 from a tabloid for an account of his alleged two-year liaison with the celebrity. Travolta refuses to comment, and in December his lawyer dismissed questions about the subject as "bizarre." Two weeks later, Travolta announced that he was getting married to actress Kelly Preston, a fellow Scientologist.
News is written to sell. News writers are less interested in what is or was, than selling news. Emotionally appealing news puts butter on their bread, sells more news, endears them to their editors who in turn, attempt to increase website hits. It is all about attracting attention. Given a rainstorm and only one street in a city flooded, news will photograph the street (at its worst possible flooding) and run a frightening headline. But the population of the city simply drives around that street until the water receeds. Because news is internationally published, we common readers gain little understanding about the rainstorm. Indeed, we see the most emotionally disturbing element, and even that gets exaggerated.
Take the fairly recent (google) news headlines about France, court and Scientology. Actually, the case has been in the works for 10 years, the prosecution had the information for 10 years. And the prosecutor (in some news articles) said he didn't feel there was enough evidence to prosecute. But what kind of headline would that make? A judge suggested prosecution would be appropriate. And the resulting headline?
Scientology on trial in France -or similar
So then, a French judge (who had not fully studied the evidence) recommended (over the objection of the prosecuter, who professionally studied the evidence) that the case come to trial. On the basis of a single, partially informed opinion, the news carried such headlines. A similar situation popped up in Germany at least twice, There's no actual trial, the situation doesn't come before any court, but a headline that reads something like:
Scientology to be prosecuted in Germany
Gets carried by a number of online news sites. And similar in Amsterdam, the news makes a prediction or a rumor. Such headlines are based on one or two people's declarations. Those people tend to be long time Scientology critics, or have vested economic interests in preventing new religions in their country. That is the situation in Germany where there are economic forces in place that work against new religions being recognized (in Germany).
That's a very broad generalization, that I'm sure you can't believe is entirely true. In this internet age, we have the power to verify such claims, and awareness of this is what seperates reputable news sources from trash rags.
Professor Steven Kent has a very insightful explaination of the french case:
"Well there's two ways to support this judge's unusual decision to go ahead in context. One is that Scientology in France has had a somewhat difficult year. Early on in 2008 a French citizen in the island of Sardinia in Italy was forcibly confined and her brother was a high-ranking Scientologist, and apparently under his direction, four French Scientologists were forcibly confining this particular woman, in an upstairs bedroom in Sardinia. She literally got discovered by the police because she was rolling up calls for help in pieces of paper and throwing them out the window over through her neighbour's yard. It appeared that the high-ranking Scientologist in France was concerned about her sister's mental health and did not want her to stay in a psychiatric institution. And then later on in the Spring, the daughter of a Norwegian Member of Parliament committed suicide after she had taken a Scientology personality test. And of course it was all over the media that the suspicion was - but of course it's very difficult to prove - that this young woman had committed suicide because her ranking, her ratings on this so-called personality test were so low. So just in the context of this year there's been a lot of questionable activities involving Scientologists. But in the larger picture, the French government in 2001 passed a law against mental manipulation, so a group can be convicted and eventually outlawed for mentally manipulating vulnerable people. And this law was specifically targeting cults. Arguably the reason that France is so concerned about so-called cults and sex, on the one hand it experienced Nazism in the Second World War and on the other hand France portrayed itself as a secular State, that religion really has no place in the activities of the French government, and indeed the French government has an obligation to regulate activities and protect its citizens."
Particularly in this statement from the German Embassy in Washington DC:
"After having conducted thorough studies on the Scientology organization, the Federal Government has come to the conclusion that the organization's pseudo-scientific courses can seriously jeopardize individuals' mental and physical health and that it exploits its members. Expert testimony and credible reports have confirmed that membership can lead to psychological and physical dependency, to financial ruin and even to suicide."
and that "Scientology utilizes "inhuman and totalitarian practices" (quoting a German court decision:
Well hey. You wanna depend words to incite your fear, distrust and general peace of mind, hey. Feel free, believe utterly every word ever written. Oh hum. It is so obvious a caveman can see it. News is written to sell more news. That doesn't happen by dry, factual news. That happens best when the reader feels fear or any low, lasting emotion.
However, when the events degrade government, or put common people into a less free condition, then the news presents those events as the greatest thing since popped corn. Take the recent economic crisis, as an example. Government is intervening into private enterprise with both hands, right and left. This makes government - banking into a single entity and insures, guarentees, our future government(s) will be a tool of big business. How do news publishers present this information? As the greatest thing since popped corn. Use your own wisdom, it is as obvous as the nose on your thumbnail. heh.
Terry... I'm a caveman you insensitive clod! What a racist and bigoted statement you make there. Geeze... First Geico and now Scientology! When will it end!?!?!?!!?
Sure Hax(zero)r - German has 2 recognized, state recognized religions. You don't put your offerings into the offering plate, indeed, you don't take your offerings to Church at all. Instead, you route your offerings to your Church of choice (2 choices) through the German government. In practice, this means the money flows through an organization (the government) that would prefer money continue to flow through its hands. Or, as I said, vested interests (the German government) would prefer to continue that practice.
I don't know if it would be possible to count up those millions of dollars, to count up how many jobs are involved in channeling and disbursing those offerings, but clearly, a number of people's daily bread depends on the situation remaining in place. I've no idea how many people, I've no idea exactly how many millions are funnelled in this way, but that's the practice in Germany, according to everything I've read.
In America, you go to your Church of choice and drop your offering into the plate, at the your Church. I don't mean to imply any wrong doing. I'm simply saying the German method tends to be solid, inflexible and tends to prevent the goverment from recognizing yet another religion.
I see now why Scientology doens't like this. It would show the government just how much money is flowing from it's members hands. I think the amounts of donations a religion gets should be documented and made public via the web. No need for names, but amounts collected per place. That is likely what Germany is doing. I'm not German so I don't know but I'm sure the German anons could clear this up.
But that doesn't explain why Germany wouldn't recognize new religions. They wouldn't have to abolish this system. New religions could just use the same system.
Haxor, I know that, any new religion can, but they have to go through the government so they can account for their donations. This is likely to prevent abuse like tithing most a persons wealth or charging excessive fees for religious ceremonies and courses. Scientology does not want to have to go through that kind of disclosure because then the cat will be out of the bag on how much they fleece their members for.
It is the German goverment refusing to flow Scientology's offerings! It must first recognize Scientlology as a religion, then it could channel Scientology's offerings.
Yes, but the reason for Germany's refusal to recognize Scientology as a religion or even a non-profit organization has nothing to do with any economic forces or their system to account donations, but rather with their stance on Scientology as an organization that is incompatible with fundamental democratic values and human rights.
Hax(zero)r - Indeed, that is the publically approved message created by Germany's state-religion sponsered government. Indeed. The message is held in place by vested interests.
Maybe that is because from their point of view Scientology is a business and not a religion. That certainly seems to be the way it is run. When I go to church, they don't hand me a price list with the collection plate.
Hax(zero)r - Indeed, that is the publically approved message created by Germany's state-religion sponsered government. Indeed. The message is held in place by vested interests.
But you seem to be incapable to give me a plausible explanation for your conspiracy theory, while the german government on the other side is able to provide me with a detailed, evidence based explanation of their stance.
hax0r - Conspiracy theory? But I said vested interests, not conspiracy. And further said no wrong-doing. I'm saying the situation that has been in place for many years and is stable. Further, its nature discourages the recognition of any other religion in Germany.
I don't see what any "official" recognition is needed for. There is none in the United States despite what you claim. You can get non profit status but you aren't recognized as a religion because there is a complete separation between church and state. Why can't Scientologists just practice in groups they form on their own, in their homes or have get togethers in public place? You don't need lavish buildings to worship. Wiccans don't need buildings. Why do Scientologists? Can't people pick up the books and learn Scientology on their own without the need to visit a building?
Sure NomNom, anyone can pick up a book on their own and learn Scientology however they choose to. Or check out books from a library, or purchase online. The Church has found good reason to widely sell its books and lectures. Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health, or Scientology, a New Slant on Life, are good first books.
The need for buildings has less to do with personal impovement than it has to do with a stable platform where you can continue to study, where you can get questions answered, or meet people who practice the ideas.
You know, an even more interesting idea... given how cheap it is to publish massive amounts of material online, why not just put it all online for anyone to read and study?
There is some of it online, certainly. Hell, there is more of it online than a genius could assimilate in a day of hard study, probably more than an average person could assimilate in a week. Here's one that anyone who takes Student Hat uses to look up words, and Student Hat is the beginning of the professional auding courses.
http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/CHAPTER1.HTM
That handbook site has more information about study and about becoming a volunteer minister, to succor and help others in time of disaster. On YouTube is (I think) the entirety of the Anatomy of the Human Mind Congress, wherein Hubbard talks about how a mind functions, what events lead to abberations (less than straight line functioning) and how an individual may handle such past moments of difficulty.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ronsavelo
Then there is Church's presentation on youtube, about the religion.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ChurchofScientology
Jojofisher's presentation of Human Rights
http://www.youtube.com/user/jojofisher123
And lots more. Hubbard did to-the-public lectures called "Congesses". And did to-Auditor-lectures call "Professional Auditor Lectures", did lectures about administration and many subjects. Why doesn't the Church put all of everything online? Well, that would be a whole lot of stuff. I suspect it won't happen because to go very far beyond basic information ,pretty much insures the information won't be widely understood. Even in the basic books, critics don't understand what he says, but prefer to see a problem with what Hubbard said. Whereas I keep saying (as other Scientologists do) that if you understand what he says, it not only makes sense, but it helpful. Still, anyone can purchase any or all of the published material from any Church.
Well, then why the secrets? Why not make the lot available online as well for those who want to read it. They would still need to come in for courses right? They could still make donations if they felt this stuff was helping them right?
Why not at least outline what the OT courses are really about.
NomNom, I've tried to say it several times. A piece of Scientology information does no one any good unless it is understood. This study of knowledge is not about memorizing, it is not about literal reacall but is instead about understanding it as you go along. Hubbard said, "Scientology is better than 50% application". All this should point out that an OT level's documents are of no use to anyone - unless you are doing the level. Of course, I understand perfectly will, you don't view the situation as I spell it out. ok, BTW, do you like root beer? Just trying to keep it light here, y'know?
It seems you like to quote dates to back up your arguement. Let me attach another couple of dates for you.
1967: Fair Game policy (SPs have no right as scientologists and are thrown out of the organization).
1968: Fair Game policy canceled (SPs still have no rights as scientologists and are thrown out of the organization).
1976: Operation Freakout begins. Paulette Cooper is the target.
1977: FBI raids Scientology HQ and finds evidence of Operation Freakout
1985: Scientology settles out of court with Paulette Cooper to settle the matter.
So, if we assume you are correct in your interpretation of what LRH wrote Louanne, explain to me why the CoS would still engage in a "Fair Game" attack when it's been told in no uncertain terms not to? And since the CoS violated Hubbards orders in this case (according to your description of the HCO), isn't it fair to say that they could still be performing fair game?
So, which is it Louanne? Either the Church disobeyed the HCO letter's intent as you described or the HCO letter doesn't actually end the act of "Fair Game".
This is what we call a no win situation Louanne. I'm interested in seeing how you handle it.
> NomNom, I've tried to say it several times. A piece of Scientology information does no one any good unless it is understood. This study of knowledge is not about memorizing, it is not about literal reacall but is instead about understanding it as you go along. Hubbard said, "Scientology is better than 50% application". All this should point out that an OT level's documents are of no use to anyone - unless you are doing the level. Of course, I understand perfectly will, you don't view the situation as I spell it out. ok, BTW, do you like root beer? Just trying to keep it light here, y'know?
.
Terryeo, it appears you're attempting to explain why the later doctrines are not told to new members. Allow me to quote a term for you. You can go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong in my thought process after it.
.
Fraud: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
So, as long as I can provide proofs of deception and show that the church benefits from such deceptions, it fits the legal definition of FRAUD.
The Oxford Capability Test: This was not developed at Oxford and was pioneered by LRH himself. At the time of the tests writing, the test was evaluated and shown to be a haphazard and flawed system.
.
Is it a Deception: You bet. LRH took the name to lend credibility to this absolutely ridiculious test. The test's methods are so flawed that it can produce a "detailed graph" about your personality even if you answer all 100 questions as MAYBE.
.
Does CoS benefit: You bet. With the name Oxford Capability Test instead of Hubbard's Weird Voodoo Test, people generally put more stock into the results. Because people are more likely to believe the test, the Scientologist can more easily convince them to buy services.
.
Is this Fraud: Absolutely. This is no different then putting a PhD, MD at the end of your name and selling herbal remedies that you have seen work. You're lying about your credentials so that people are more likely to believe your analysis.
Withholding Information about Xenu: Supposedly (as proven by court documents actually), Scientology believes in a evil space tyrant named Xenu.
.
Is it a Deception: Of course it is. It's withholding information that a person needs to make an informed choice about what he/she will believe. By denying or withholding the information about Xenu, the CoS intentionally leaves out information.
.
Does the CoS Benefit: Undoubtedly. It's not hard to imagine that the knowledge of Xenu would turn away many potential members (the sane ones anyways). So, by not telling about Xenu, they actually increase their membership and thereby, their cash flow.
.
Is this Fraud: Absolutely. This is no different then selling your car and not telling the person it has a brake problem. You are holding back information to increase the chances of a favourable outcome for you (the sale of the car).
CoS Propaganda: You only need to watch Tom Cruise's video about Scientology to witness the level of propaganda that is involved in their videos. Claims such as "Only Scientologists can help in a car accident." Other propaganda involves psychiatry claims, LRH biography claims, Scientology Benefit claims, the Growth of Scientology, etc.
.
Is it a Deception: Absolutely. There are no scientific claims to back up the majority of Scientologist claims (I'd say damn near close to all of them). So, when they represent these during conventions they are directly misleading people to believe in the success of the methods and the success of the organization.
.
Does the CoS Benefit: Of course it does. Having people believe you're making signifigant strides when in fact you're losing members and orgs means they're more likely to stay. More people staying in the faith means that there is more cash filling the coffers.
.
Is it Fraud: Yes. Intentionally misrepresenting belief as fact is actually fraud. It's entirely one thing to say "I believe ginger root will cure cancer." is totally different then saying "I know ginger root will cure cancer."
The CoS misrepresents itself in an effort to recruit more members and hold onto as many as possible. This action is reprehensible and surprising that it comes from "the most ethical organization on the planet".
Ghost Bear, I am a little short on time this week, sorry. On Paulette Cooper, what did the settlement say? That she stops spreading lies on the Church? Or what. Just saying that there was a settlement does not have any information value in this context.
> Ghost Bear, I am a little short on time this week, sorry. On Paulette Cooper, what did the settlement say? That she stops spreading lies on the Church? Or what. Just saying that there was a settlement does not have any information value in this context.
The settlement was an agreement that Paulette Cooper would stop legal proceedings against the church. Which she did.
I have just one statement to you guys. Doesn't anybody find the term 'Fair Game' the least bit creepy? I mean, if a group of people called me 'Fair Game' for any reason, I would usually think they are out to give me a beating and steal my lunch money.
So for a religion created in modern times to even use the term 'Fair Game' for people it don't like, speaks a lot about the religion's behavior and ideals of its founder.
1978 isn't the dark ages. A religion of the modern era should not have language or directives that brings to mind the Spanish Inquisition.
GB, thanks. I didn't see the $400,000 before but found it now. Certainly Operation Freakout was a criminal thing, with heads rolling and all (in 1977). And the Church decided to settle with Cooper instead of dragging the case on in court. Obviously there was no criminal proceeding pending (only civil cases can be settled out of court).
There is no discussion about the fact that some parts of the Guardian's Office, allegedly caring for Legal and PR matters since 1966, had gone out of control and did criminal things. This is one of the reasons why the GO was disbanded and everyone involved got dismissed. I can't quite see the relation to "Fair Game".
> GB, thanks. I didn't see the $400,000 before but found it now. Certainly Operation Freakout was a criminal thing, with heads rolling and all (in 1977). And the Church decided to settle with Cooper instead of dragging the case on in court. Obviously there was no criminal proceeding pending (only civil cases can be settled out of court).
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." A powerful concept. Basically it says that just because you cannot observe an event it does not prove the event didn't occur. Did Scientology engage in criminal acts against Paulette Cooper? I don't know. I haven't seen any evidence to show as such. Then again, I haven't looked very hard.
But what I do know is that the CoS is regarded as the most litegous organization in the world by many legal experts. I personally feel that your suggestion that "the CoS didn't want to drag this case in court" is inconsistent with this demonstrated behaviour by your organization. From reading CoS court cases and seeing their motions, it's my opinion that your organization would only pay someone if they were on the hook. Again, personal opinion, but based on what I've seen the CoS do time and time again.
> There is no discussion about the fact that some parts of the Guardian's Office, allegedly caring for Legal and PR matters since 1966, had gone out of control and did criminal things. This is one of the reasons why the GO was disbanded and everyone involved got dismissed. I can't quite see the relation to "Fair Game".
The relation to Fair Game is due to the end effect on Paulette Cooper and what Hubbard described in his writing of Fair Game. One would be hard pressed to find anything in the Paulette Cooper case that was inconsistent with Hubbards work on the subject. That's why people draw the reference. And I can't say I blame them.
When you consider the evidence in it's entirety, that being the actions of several people, the complexity of the plan, Hubbard's previous writings, the fact that the people were in one of Hubbard's most trusted offices and that they kept records of their events on site in the org, one would find it very, very difficult to believe that these people were working as rogue agents. At least, that's the way I feel after looking at the event. (excuse the run on sentence :D).
Don't get me wrong, it's not my intent to beat CoS over the head for crimes that occured nearly 30 years ago. One could point to many well established religons that in fact have much larger crimes occuring in the past 5 years.
What I'm saying is that from what I've seen and the reasons I've listed above, I simply do not buy into the concept of the Paulette Cooper event was not a "fair game" attack. And to be honest, I don't think you can blame me for such a standpoint.
This is why I do not accept the HCO letter that is presented as proof against "fair game" occuring today. Furthermore, one only needs to look to how Scientology "handles" critics outside their orgs. Calling them and I quote "criminals" "child molesters" "wife beaters" "terrorists" "bigots" and the list goes on and on. This to a smaller extent is actually fair game as well. They are attempting to destroy the person's repuation.
Attack the attacker it would seem. Pity Hubbard didn't write "Attack the Idea", as I'd actually have something that I could respect in the man.
Operation Freakout began in 1972, got Cooper facing the Federal grand jury till 1975 where the charges were eventually dropped. Operation Freakout was eventually uncovered by the FBI in 1977. Scientology continued to file lawsuits against Cooper (who file counter lawsuits) until 1985.
So even with the original leaders removed, Scientology continued to wage a legal war against Cooper for another 8 years. Scientology eventually settled with Cooper in 1985, paying her $400,000 with an agreement whose details are not disclosed to the public.
Scientology's extended legal battle with Cooper after the supposed 'extremist' elements of Scientology were removed shows that there was no change in the operations of Scientology. It continued to pursue Cooper, even with 'moderate' Scientologist at the helm. From 1970 to 1985, 15 years, Scientology filed 19 lawsuits against Cooper. One after another, in a continues barrage.
History. The dates and the events do not endear Scientology.
> Buried me in tl;dr , don't know about anybody else.
Allow me to translate. I cannot defeat your arguements so I'm going to claim I didn't read them. I'm no longer going to post in this thread because furthering this discussion will attract more people and I can't have people seeing how wrong Terryeo and I actually are.
Louanne, how is a WOG managing to soundly defeat scientologists in the realm of logical thinking? How is it possible?
Don't worry, I have my hypocricy meter going. I'll let you know when you put your foot in your mouth again.
Operation Dynamite (a subset of Operation Freakout) and the 15 year legal war (19 lawsuits from Scientology) between Cooper and the Church of Scientology were two separate entities. Operation Dynamite caused Cooper to be indicted for making bombing threats (A criminal case). Simultaneously the Church of Scientology filed multiple lawsuits against Cooper, mostly for libel (Civil case).
If one dismissed Operation Freakout as extremist elements within the Church of Scientology, how does one explain the 8 years of further legal battles that Cooper endured after the Guardian Office was closed and the Scientology leaders involved with Operation Snow White arrested (1977)? The Church of Scientology eventually settled with Cooper in 1985, paying Cooper $400,000 with an agreement whose details are not disclosed to the public.
“And the Church decided to settle with Cooper instead of dragging the case on in court. - Louise
Thus I would claim your assertion is incorrect. The Church did drag out its legal war with Cooper, even with the extermist element. removed. 8 years is a long time.
“I can't quite see the relation to "Fair Game". - Louise
Perhaps the following with show how the concept of Fair Game can be applied to Cooper.
Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.
(Without any discipline of the Scientologist ) Did the Church of Scientology ever take disciplinary actions against elements behind Operation Freakout? No. Only with the arrest by the FBI were these elements removed by being trial for crimes by the Federal Court, found guilty and imprisoned.
May be tricked and lied…. Operation Freakout was aimed to fabricate crimes to remove Cooper (A lie), going so far to steal paper from Cooper with her finger prints (A trick). Simultaneously 19 lawsuits were field against Cooper, each demanding millions if any one won (To destroy).
When discussing Operation Freakout, we often only discuss the false bomb threat (Operation Dynamite). However we often forget that the false bomb threat was only the initial part of Operation Freakout. Had Operation Snow White not been uncovered by the FBI, the following phases of Operation Freakout would have been carried out.
1. First, a woman was to imitate Paulette Cooper's voice and make telephone threats to Arab consulates in New York.
2. Second, a threatening letter was to be mailed to an Arab consulate in such a fashion that it would appear to have been done by Paulette Cooper (who is Jewish).
3. Third, a Scientologist volunteer was to impersonate Paulette Cooper at a laundrette and threaten the President and then the Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. A second Scientologist would thereafter inform the FBI of the threat.
4. Fourth, called Scientologist agents to gather information from Cooper so that the success of the first three plans could be assessed
5. Fifth, was for a Scientologist to warn an Arab consulate by telephone that Paulette Cooper had been talking about bombing it.
6. Sixth, Requiring Scientologists to obtain Paulette Cooper's fingerprints on a blank piece of paper, type a threatening letter to Kissinger on that paper, and mail it.
Guardian's Office staff member Bruce Raymond noted in an internal memo: "This additional channel [the sixth plan] should really have put her (Cooper) away.
> I answered your question, no need to turn into a hypocrite now. Obviously you did not read my last posts.
I suggest you look up the word before you throw it around. This statement makes you look foolish.
In this specific case, you'd have to prove that I acted counter to this statement in the past...
> Allow me to translate. I cannot defeat your arguements so I'm going to claim I didn't read them. I'm no longer going to post in this thread because furthering this discussion will attract more people and I can't have people seeing how wrong Terryeo and I actually are.
So, you'd have to do the following to prove me a hypocrite:
A) Show me a time where I claimed not to read a person's arguements yet still responded to them in a sarcastic manner.
B) Show that I'm no longer going to post in a thread to prevent people from seeign how wrong Terryeo and Louanne are.
Obviously, due to the specificness of B, you can't prove that, but A may be possible. I wish you luck on your quest fair knight!
Brave Sir Robin ran away. Bravely ran away, away! When danger reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about And gallantly he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet He beat a very brave retreat, Bravest of the brave, He is packing it in and packing it up And sneaking away and buggering up And chickening out and pissing off home, Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge... Sir Robin!
And speaking of Monty Python, you know what, you guys remind me of the Black Knight that dueled King Arthur. The more I think about it, the more it applies really.
You come in ready to fight anyone at a moments notice. Due to your general lack of skill in debating and bunk conclusions based on little to no fact, you quickly have the limbs of your arguement severed. Unable to assault the other person's point at all, you protest that your arguement is still on equal footing, appealing for someone to believe what you're saying.
Seriously, this is almost a perfect match.
Oh! Had enough, eh? Come back and take what's coming to you, you yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!
JayCKat - It is real cute how you present events with words similar to a long cancelled policy letter. Cute. Yet utterly, completely inaccurate. Fair Game referred to, exclusively referred to, the potential that a member of the Church might become declared (by the Church) a Suppressive Person and then refuse to correct themselves so as to get back into the good graces of the Church. And then, while holding the status of Suppressive Person, attempt to use the Church's internal justice system. That is where and how the Fair Game policy letter once applied. Cooper wasn't a Church member. Cooper didn't attempt to use the Church's internal justice system. Therefore it would not be possible for Cooper to have been declared Fair Game.
Fraud: A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. - ok, that's an almost reasonable definition of fraud.
The Oxford Capability Test: -- At the time of the tests writing, the test was evaluated and shown to be a haphazard and flawed system. Oh, evaluated? By whom, and for what purpose? The test is used by the Church, but only within the Church and has proven useful to the Church and its parishioners.
Is it a Deception: The test's methods are so flawed that it can produce a "detailed graph" about your personality even if you answer all 100 questions as MAYBE. -- If you honestly answer all its questions then it indicates accurately. If you don't honestly answer then you have not been tested. Rope your own broncs, guard your own honesty.
.
Does the Church benefit: Parishioners benefit, possibly the Church benefits. It can not prevent the fraud you allude to because it can not force honest answers, its design does not trick you into inconsistancy.
.
Is this Fraud: Absolutely. This is no different then putting a PhD, MD at the end of your name and selling herbal remedies that you have seen work. You're lying about your credentials so that people are more likely to believe your analysis. -- Happy to note your opinion, good luck with your broncs. Google oxford and find 164,000,000 links, do you really think the word is similar to PhD and MD?
"The Oxford Capability Test: -- At the time of the tests writing, the test was evaluated and shown to be a haphazard and flawed system. Oh, evaluated? By whom, and for what purpose? The test is used by the Church, but only within the Church and has proven useful to the Church and its parishioners."
Bull, I got this in the mail. Not within the church at all. You are full of lies good sir. Full of lies. Stress Test tents are not in the church either, but they are at the fair, at the mall,etc.
Scientology apologists offer specious reasoning and ad hominem attacks. Scientology critics provide peer-reviewed, objective information to debunk the cult. Their skewed "personality test " thoroughly skewered here:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/oca/oca.html#3
Relevant excerpts (inb4 "out of context" bawwwing - read in full at the link):
"To aid his official Enquiry into Scientology in 1971, Sir John Foster asked a group of eminent psychologists to visit British Scientology churches ("orgs") to take the OCA. The Working Party was composed of a clinical psychologist, a consultant in psychological selection, and a university lecturer in psychology, all members of the governing Council of the British Psychological Society (incorporated under Royal Charter in 1965) and all distinguished experts in their field. This is what they reported:
...
It should be noted that the Oxford Capacity Analysis is not a personality test known in psychological circles; it is not distributed by reputable test agencies in this country; there is no research literature available about it, nor is it listed in the Mental Measurements Year Book which is internationally accepted as the authoritative source on psychometric devices. While any one of these points does not in itself indict a psychometric instrument, the failure of the Oxford Capacity Analysis to meet all of them does, in our opinion, constitute an extremely strong case for assuming it to be a device of no worth. The scientific value and useful nature of the profile apparently derived from completion of the Oxford Capacity Analysis must consequently be negligible. We are of the opinion that the Oxford Capacity Analysis and the profiles derived from its completion are constructed in such a manner as to give the appearance of being adequate psychometric devices, whereas, in fact, they totally fail to meet the normally accepted criteria. "
Unfortunately, WK, you probably don't understand what you preach. Scientology is based on the successful action of Dianetics. Simply stated this premise is: You can better understand what you already know. For example, a boy hurts his foot and as he grows older he finds he has all kinds of troubles with that foot, it sprains easily, when he is tired he limps on it, etc. etc. Dianetic methods encourage his understanding of what he already knows. Many have found this helpful, very helpful. And Scientology is but refinement of this method of helping another person understand what they already are aware of.
You seek out and present criticisms. If your knowledge is as extensive as others who do likewise, you have never understood that Scientology intends to be helpful for the individual and, by extension, for society. Were you to understand a few things about what you criticize, a couple of things would logically follow. One, you would better communicate because you would understand broadly, what you were talking about. And two, people might then listen to you. But, as it stands you ignore the obvious. The very useful Oxford Analysis "test" has a specific use which it excells at. But, since you don't understand what is tested or why it would be tested, your criticims have little depth. Saying the test is not accepted by Psychology is an applause to Scientology. Speaking for myself, I can tell you that no element of approval is wanted by the Church. They are in different spheres, don't you see? Different areas, different fields, different in ethic, different in goal, different in purpose and different in action.
Yes, Scientology is a money making scheme, and Psychology is a science.
The OAT does excell at getting people into a cult (but not telling them its part of said cult.) Anyone can find the test online and read the ludicrous questions it asks. If only this girl would have known more about it before she killed herself:
Apparently these guys think people will think it's legit if they slap the word "Oxford" in front of it. LOL. That's all Scientology can do can't it? Ride on other people's coat tails.
As you can see, we run the internet, as well as the Macy's parade. This is what Anonymous did for Thanksgiviging. What did scientology do? What they do every day. Fail.
Posted By: International Post OTIII Day
Date: 2008-12-05 16:09:40
The following is the sacred document in Scientology known as OTIII. Scientologists deny it exists as part of their Operating Thetan literature. It was written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1967. Hubbard wrote that if you read this document before you have achieved a level of scholarship, you will get pneumonia and die. The cost to get to that level: $360,000.
“The head of the Galactic Confederation (76 planets around larger stars visible from here) (founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera) solved overpopulation (250 billion or so per planet -- 178 billion on average) by mass implanting. He caused people to be brought to Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H Bomb on the principal volcanoes (Incident 2) and then the Pacific area ones were taken in boxes to Hawaii and the Atlantic Area ones to Las Palmas and there "packaged." His name was Xenu. He used renegades. Various misleading data by means of circuits etc. was placed in the implants. When through with his crime (R/)Loyal Officers (to the people) captured him after 6 years of battle and put him in an electronic mountain trap where he still is. "They" are gone. The place (Confed.)has since been a desert.” - Hubbard
See it in his original handwriting at xenu.net. Learn more about the fight against the criminal cult of Scientology on whyweprotest.net. Make a difference by copy-pasting this and posting it somewhere else as part of International Post OTIII Day and in honor of Lisa McPherson, who died on Dec 5 1995 after being starved to death by Scientologists.
Psychology is hardly a science. The word means, "study of the Psyche". But if you'll take a moment to look up "Psych-" or "psyche" in a good dictionary, you'll find that Psychology does not study that. Instead, psychology is divided into two broad areas. One area actually attempts studies. For example, with taxpayer money, we learn how quickly rats run a maze when given a food reward, compared to how the run a maze with shock (punishment) directing them toward the end of the maze.
Unfortunately almost all of taxpayer paid "studies" have little application toward making people better. There is some study toward controlling people, but very little toward helping people who have problems. In any event the whole of it is far from a science.
For example, psychology can not tell you whether people remember colors, or not. What percent of people recall sounds, colors, smells, and do those fade with time, or simply become less accessible? And then there is the potentially positive element that Psychology won't dip its fingers into, either. How does a person become better, a happier, more productive member of society? Psychology doesn't study this area, but studies how to control people so they won't stray. Good luck in viewing the actual situation, because too much government money has been spent with very little reward for anyone. Instead we have this control -ology creeping into public schools, controlling our children who need a little bit of freedom to become educated.
I like you Terry, I really do. Yet, when you write of a field of study so inaccurately and dismissively, you do not do Scientology or yourself any credit. You might as well say that astronomy is not a science because you looked up "aster" in your handy little dictionary and it didn't mention planets at all.
Real scientists, with real education, with real books on their shelves - not just a dictionary and the works of LRH - perform real study and research. Some scientists pursue a study of the mind and psyche of humanity. They study these things with all their intellect and all the resources available to them. They publish their findings and their peers critique them. They disagree on some things and agree on some things.
(Yes, scientists do research memory of colors, sounds and smells. Scientists do research human happiness and productivity. Their research is scientifc and useful.)
But, as far as you're concernced, the moment a scientist steps outside the bounds of Scientology or "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", the 1950's amateur-hour psychology book, it's all downhill from there.
I understand that you believe that all worthwhile knowledge on the mind has been given to you by L Ron Hubbard, and that there is no need for more research because Ron found out all about it and wrote it down. E-meter, thetans, Xenu, the Marcabians, daydreams, patina of science and all.
Have "Scientologist researchers" discovered anything about the mind and the psyche since LRH died? Is there even such a thing as "Sientologist researchers"? What have they published? Have they gone beyond the work of LRH? Critiqued it?
LRH claimed to have visited Venus, and other galaxies. Do you prefer Ron's views on Venus to the results of actual research by astronomers?
Oh gosh, you want to compare researches because I pointed out that science has not studied various elements of the human mind that could easily be studied.
Under optimum conditions, what percent of people have color in their recalls? What percent Sound? What percent remember their body's position in a recall? These are easily studied things about human memory and are the fringe of the human mind. But Psychology doesn't study the area. If you know otherwise, feel free to post up answers to these questions.
Ron Hubbard's reseaches into the human mind had a direction and purpose. It was not to impress acadamia with facts. Instead, it was toward an individual understanding himself better. Acadamia doesn't trod in the direction Hubbard walked. Psychology doesn't trod in that direction. Psychiatry doesn't trod n that direction. That direction is, to provide a means for man to better himself by understanding first, his own mind and then his own spirtuality.
Every individual who trods the path Hubbard laid out, explores the area for himself. Yet the elements of the path are invisible to the eye and present day instruments. So don't expect established "studies" (psychology, psychiatry, sociology), to explore Hubbard's path.
But I understand, you are saying, "there is no path, I know it because no one else has documented it". And Hubbard's claims are completely impossible, therefore there is nothing. Fine, have a nice day.
As you say, Terry, “Ron Hubbard's reseaches into the human mind had a direction and purpose. It was not to impress acadamia with facts.”
Clearly, and clearly.
If its purpose was to impress academia with facts, it failed in that purpose. I am glad you realise it. The Raelians similarly failed to impress academia, but those adherents had the strength of their beliefs to console them, too.
Terry, as you know, being a scientist is not the same job as being a sect leader, booster, or member. So don't be disappointed that L Ron Hubbards trips to Venus and the Van Allen belt don't impress scientists either.
If the scientific study of memory is important to you, I invite you to study the considerable scientific literature. There is not one sole, “source”, that you find in Scientology.
Memory is a topic of huge interest to psychologists. You are welcome to read any of the hundreds of research papers on it. This is what scientists do – read hundreds of research papers. You can read them, and understand them.
If you find deficiences in the scientific studies of memory, and I can assure that there are deficiencies, you are welcome to become a scientist and add to the world's knowledge about memory, colors and sounds etc. You can carry out your research, and you will be free to contradict or agree with whatever L Ron Hubbard said.
However, if you are a Scientologist, it would not be wise to attempt to study things scientifically. You do not have this freedom. As you are aware, for a Scientologist, all worthwile study on the mind was carried out by L Ron Hubbard. It is not there to be contradicted.
Scientology, as you say, is invisibile and considers itself immune to conflicting studies. Unlike Scientology, science is capable of advances.
One of the differences between science and Scientology is that all of the knowledge relevant to Scientology is found in the works of one man. If you have all of L Ron's works, you have all the knowledge in the world on the topic. There is no need to search beyond it. Let's see a scientist match that sort of 'achievement'. Einstein doesn't get close.
But, it must be galling for you that, outside the ranks of Scientologists, L Ron Hubbard is more known as a liar and braggart, rather than as a source of valuable knowledge. Of course, you might reject mainstream views on the topic. I presume you have views on why it is not significant that Scientology is the most disliked religion.
However, I think the implication that L Ron Hubbard, the man you revere, is regarded by many people as a man whose primary purpose was to make things up in order to decieve people, must be a cause for serious reflection.
You say “But I understand, you are saying, "there is no path, I know it because no one else has documented it". And Hubbard's claims are completely impossible, therefore there is nothing. Fine, have a nice day. “
Here you are cleary wrong, and petulant, Terry. What I said was that your dismissal of science from an your position of ignornance did you and scientology no credit.
Scientology commands a world of imagination and delusion that is immune to contradiction. You are welcome to reject science for not fitting in with that imaginary world. I don't deny that you are the expert on your imaginary world view.
You say “And Hubbard's claims are completely impossible”. But you go on to say that because Hubbards claims are impossible, “therefore there is nothing”. Is that what you fear, and what keeps you in this charade, the belief that without Hubbard's mad drivel “there is nothing?” Do you think people reading your words really think the choice is between Hubbard and oblivion?
If the choice for you is Hubbard or oblivion, I feel compassion for you. There is no way out for you, while you are been convinced of that. You are awaiting for the cognition.
Gregory - You first underscore what I said, Hubbard's purpose. Since you do, I'll oversimply it into a few words. A method to help people become more able. His result continues today. Elements of Acadamia have recognized Scientology as a religion, but haven't commented about Hubbard's foundational purpose.
As it comes to science and memory, a problem arises. Science is based on demonstrable results. Which is turn is based on repeatable beginnings, the same quantity of material, the same amount of energy bombardment, the same amounts of chemcal mixed in specific order under the same tempreture, and pressure, and so on.
In no specific does science require spoken information from a "test subject" from a person, as an element of result. Where science treds into this area, in psychiatry and in FDA drug testing, results are subject to interpretation. And subject to misleading results because not every human reaction can be guaged from a few thousand "test subjects".
Scientific method has great difficulty when one of its experimental parameters is human communication. Further, thoughts are fleeting, once examined, an individual might not recall exactly the same thought in exactly the same way. I don't expect science to become adept in the field of memory.
You are completely mistaken about what I can or can not study. Nor did I say: "Scientology, as you say, is invisibile and considers itself immune to conflicting studies". The Scientology philosophy is visible in printed books and lectures in many languages. The Church is visible in 1000s of Churches.
The spirit, an individual spirit, is invisible to human eyeballs.
The whole of your post misunderstands, misinterprets, misquotes, and misapplies earlier discussion while insisting on a tone of bemused belittlement, disparaging and degrading selected misquotes. As an academic, your post uses words appropriately. But as a communication, lacks integrity.
Posted By: David Miscavige
Date: 2009-09-09 14:10:53
The only demonstrable and repeatable results produced by Hubbard's fraudulent "tech" are the emptying of Scientologists' wallets. That and the eventual mental and sometimes physical harm that they suffer. And hey, if the Xenu story doesn't make you crack when you hit OTIII and think "WTF?", if trying to mentally free yourself of the possibly hundreds of dead alien souls attached to you does not drive you nuts, you'll probably blow anyway once you get to the "top" of the Bridge. Look how many OTVIIs and OTVIIIs have left Scientology just recently.
Last one to leave the cult, please turn out the lights!
Posted By: jay neal welch III
Date: 2009-12-31 03:04:52
i got punched in the face for having a guy forkes mask on by a scientologist isnt that fairgame all i did was stand there, go to operation clambake and find everything you need to know about the science club... and feel free to write me i would love to listen to you whine and complain about me
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
![[link edited for length]](http://img218.imageshack.us/my.php?image=5bblog5dmultitaskfraudfdn1.gif){kind=link}