Customize

$cientology is giving our details out to reporters and possibly police! UK Please read.

Discussion in 'Scientology and Anonymous' started by Lacelotte, Jun 24, 2011.

  1. jensting Member

    And yet in another case, the laywers for the criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientology referred to everything LRH wrote as "religious scrupture."

    Referred to in http://www.lermanet2.com/reference/wollersheimsupremecourt.htm (this is not the Co$ speaking, mind you)
    Plus of course, this reference (there, see what Google can do for you?). I'll let someone else highlight "all."

    See, that's why I say things like that.

    Best Regards

    Jens
  2. Ann O'Nymous Member

    Scientology saying it is not a surprise. Juges saying it is slightly more surprising.

    The question was and is: why are you saying it ?
  3. jensting Member

    Ehr, are you asking why I repeat the statement made by the Co$ that everything Hubbard wrote is religious scripture? Why would I not?

    I happen to have no problem with the idea that the Co$ is a religion, albeit a religion which is a cult. I do not have a problem with the notion that everything that Hubbard wrote about $cientology is considered scripture by the members. A judge has a right to disagree with that opinion, and I hope I have a right to disagree with him.

    Best Regards

    Jens

    PS, or are you missing the "considered by clams to be" in "considered by clams to be religious scripture?" Did you think I was making a statement about Absolute Truth rather than repeat the opinion of clams?

    I think the question is: why would you think that? j/k
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Anonymous Member

    It's viewed as an occupational hazard. All the tabloids have money set aside to cover payouts fot stuff like that.
  5. xenubarb Member

    I just want to point out that distinguishing between policy letters and scripture is HUEG. This is fucking huge and, afaik, has never been done before. This should be repeated in court after court. Religious protections don't extend to the more egregious of Hubbard's directives? Oh hawt diggity dawg!

    All the best Hubbard quotes are outside of scripture! His exhortations to lie, cheat, steal from enemies of Scientology, his observations on removing that "2%" who rejects Scientology due to insanity or evil, his "blood, sex etc" policy that says if you can't find something about someone, make it up, and so on.

    This one little distinction could turn the tide in courtrooms worldwide, and I am excited about it. There is now a precedent set by Sparrow's judge, which got Fair Game policy into the court record, along with the judge's comment, "Does this mean you'd lie to me?"

    Laura Decrescenzo has added harassment and intimidation which encompasses 2006-2008 iirc. It would be to her benefit to get the fair game policy before that court as well. While Sparrow's case was larded with humor, her case is dark and srs bsns, full of the real horrors Scientology, Inc. can impose on a 12 year old child shipped away from home and set to work in Dickensian circumstances.
    • Like Like x 6
  6. Ann O'Nymous Member

    - I respect your opinion, but disagree: scientology is a cult and not a religion (two distinct notions); it would be interesting to discuss this, but it does not seems to be the right place in this thread.
    - your second statement is problematic, IMHO, as this confusion is at the core of what makes scientology a cult: the policy letter about how to clean your teeth properly has the same status as his books, as an example. To take counter-examples in religions: the papal infallibility defines strictly its extend and catholics can criticize what he says beyond that without a risk of excommunication; a presbyterian pastor telling you to steal has not to be obeyed as it is not in "religious scriptures" and somebody obeying could not hide behind its religion. TL;DR This confusion is part of the manipulation process.
    FTR The text I quoted was

    that was reponding to this


    The brackets might have been sarcastic, but your recent post quoted first tends to prove otherwise.
  7. Given this is a thread about the UK. It may be worth reminding people that in the UK, $cientology has never been considered a religion over here. And as much as they may bawww to the contrary don't have the same protection they've blagged in yankie doodle land.
    In contrary, the legal precedent was set by Justice Lacey that scientology is a Dangerous and Sinister organisation.
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Anonymous Member

    It simply is not a religion. It qualifies for religious tax exemption in retarded countries that need to be better informed, but a religion it is not, never was, and never will be.
  9. Anonymous Member

    Scientology is a Cult. Look up the word 'religion' then look up the word 'cult'.

    Scientology is an extremist group that radicalises people it recruits.
  10. grebe Member

    In the US we have the 1st amendment which effectively makes it impossible for the Federal government to define the boundaries of the word "religion." So there's no benefit to time spent in the is/is not a religion debate.

    Imagine a religion that prescribes smoking pot every morning and a follower of this religion who drives school buses. When he gets fired he claims religious discrimination. In response, the comunity might:

    1. argue that pot smoking is actually not a true religious practice, like other stuff that is, or

    2. reassure the the chap that we value his freedom of belief, whatever that means for him. However there's to be no pot smoking.

    I see moar win in skipping right by the is/is not religion debate.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. jensting Member

    I see you're discussing Absolute Truth and The One True Defintion of What is a Religion and How A Cult Can Never be a Religion.

    I was not.

    I was simply pointing out that if the criminal organisation known as the "church" <spit> of $cientology wants to claim TR-L, the OSA network orders, the RPF programme definitions etc etc as "religious scripture" then I don't see why I should disagree.

    Whether the Co$ can get way with keeping these documents secret or the actions caused by these documents out of the remit of courts because of the "religion angle" as LRH put it, was beside my point.

    I'm basically saying "look at the cult with the scripture dictating violating the law - why is this permitted, let alone subsidised by tax payers?!?" If I did have a subtle point, unlikely as this is, it would be about how claiming - in court - the status of religious scripture for all LRH writings can be counter productive for the cult from an estoppel viewpoint.

    Best Regards

    Jens
  12. Herro Member

    Ann what is your definition of a religion?
  13. Anonymous Member

  14. Anonymous Member

    How does one set about getting potentially defamatory material removed from Facebook?
  15. anonymous612 Member

    By reporting it, genius.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. @JohnWood, obviously suffering from some form of OCD that requires him to post every wall item twice.
    Could somebody enlighten mandi to which bit of the tech prescribes them to keep repeating stuff till they delude themselves into believing it? I've never understood that freaky behaviour. It's creepy when they do it IRL, but just makes them look retarded doing it on an fb wall.

    It's also telling how he posted the cached link, shortly after I had posted it here.
    *Tips her tin foil cap in a salute towards the lurking OSA*
  17. Ann O'Nymous Member

    What about: a group of people following a specific understanding about how and why humanity exists and does not see the need to copycat others on things that have nothing to do with said understanding ?
    http://www.scientology-cult.com/religious-cloaking.html
  18. Herro Member

    Well we better get rid of Judaism and Islam to start with. They have all those regulations on what food can be eaten and how it is to be prepared. Among other things. Hell, read Leviticus some time. It's a bunch of laws, half of which the Israelites cribbed from other cultures and tribes they conquered. Don't even get started with Buddhism. They've got codes and regulations for absolutely everything. Buddhist sects also have a tendency to adopt and or assimilate all kinds of new cultural practices they encounter. I mean, humans in general do it, but Buddhist sects take a particularly active approach to it.

    Conversely, but equally as funny, your definition of religion would include scientific disciplines such as Cosmology and Biology.

    Doesn't seem to be a good definition.
  19. Herro. Member

    Ann, your use of the word 'copycat' in this sentence troubles me.
  20. Anonymous Member

    Ann, your use of the word 'copycat' in this sentence troubles me.
  21. Herro. Member

  22. Herro. Member

    The melancholy of the world is troubling me.
  23. Private Eye is on this one. As the main page has been taken down, it may be best to go softly on this, but file a report with google to have it removed from their cache.
  24. Um, it's cached by Bing. Not google ;-)
  25. AnonyVix Member

  26. AnonyVix Member

  27. Oh, that's okay then. No one gives a fuck about that.
  28. Anonymous Member

    Twitfag and douchebag. Some dox are upthread
  29. AnonyVix Member

    hey I may be old but I'm up with the tommes and have the same attention span as any teen. Also I'm reading this on my mobile which I can assure you makes reading whole threads tedious at best. My excuse and I'm sticking to it whether twitfag or douchbag.
  30. Anonymous Member

    i'm pretty sure Anon meant that Scott Hesketh is a twitfag and douchebag - rather than you. because he is.
  31. Anonymous Member

    Yes, Anon did indeed mean that.
  32. I don't believe 'twitfag or douchbag' was aimed at you.
    MLPfim_ep0437.png
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Hmmmmmmmm.
    sarcasm-detector.jpg
  34. Anonymous Member

    given that the Daily Star has printed 700,000 copies of it, some of which have been stored in libraries nationwide, and that the electronic text is now in databases such as Factiva, I think that ship - the good ship "they've pulled it from their website so now no-one can read it" - has pretty much sailed, don't you?
  35. Anonymous Member

  36. Do we know that it was in the print edition?
  37. Anonymous Member

    Yes, Anon who was doxed in it confirmed it was in print.

    Also, pulling the online version wouldn't halt libel proceedings. Papers got sued long before the net, but it does show The Star realises it has fucked up and is in damage limitation mode.

    Good work whoever tipped off Private Eye.
  38. AnonyVix Member

    Ah. In that case what I said still applies. Was also slightly drunk at the time. :)
  39. Any other evidence for this?

    If anyone's got any further info or is in touch with any of the folk affected - they've not been here for ages, have they? - then give me a shout and I'll see what else I can do.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins