Customize

CO$ Complaint

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Boris Korczak, Feb 16, 2011.

  1. Herro Member

    Those things happened some time ago. Come up to present time perhaps?
  2. Anonymous Member

    My true initials are RK and my tits are 34C. Come at me.
  3. xenubarb Member

    Scientology didn't change after Snow White. Somehow you're missing the connections we've found between politicians who are bedfellows, and politicians who've been misled by happy shiny Scilons into speechifying at Grand Openings, warned about speechifying at Scilon events and canceled, and politicians and religious leaders being used as cover in "interfaith" events.

    They're still pursuing "opinion leaders" and trying to influence policy. These things have happened in the last three years, so I'm sure you can find them online if you try.

    They don't change. FFS, their main book is a classic example of 50's "future fever."
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Scatman Member

    Like Rex Fowler who goes on trial for first degree murder in Adams County, Colorado on 22 February.
  5. Yeah I don't get it either, there still seems to be people out there who have a problem with that Hitler fella and his Nazi movement, it happened so long ago, why dwell on the past?

    Can't we just pretend WWII didn't happen to pacify the batshit crazy apologists of assholes with vision of world domination and totalitarianism?
  6. Herro Member

    Terrible analogy. I'm not talking about giving Scientology a free pass for Snow White. I'm saying it's unjust to hold people accountable when they had nothing to do with it.

    Scientology is hardly the only group that tries to influence opinion leaders. So long as they do it within the bounds of the law then that is their right. And it certainly is not evidence of them actively trying to subvert the government. I don't think the fact that some mayor spoke at some scientologist event somewhere is really grounds to not hire a scientologist.

    We do not have any evidence that Fowler's time in Scientology flipped a switch that caused him to kill his business partner.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Boris Korczak Member

    He is Scientologist and a f.....g loser.
    If he upsets me enough I might divulge his name.
    Stay safe.
    BK
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Anonymous Member

    They say that they don't do it any more.
    Experience shows that they don't do it any less.

    Credit reports, medical information, employee data, vanishing files...
  9. Scatman Member

    [strawman argument]
    [/strawman argument]
    Of course not!
    L. Ron Hubbard Quote of the Day for 18 February 2011: "Dispose of them quietly and without sorrow."
    L. Ron Hubbard Quote of the Day for 19 February 2011: "Ruin them utterly if you can."
    L. Ron Hubbard Quote of the Day for 20 February 2011: "Never fear to hurt another in a just cause."

    Herro's approximate response: "Bwell, you can't prove that Hubbard's advices caused OT VII scientology minister Rex Fowler to kill his business partner." (Social influence does not exist and ignore any and all historical and scientific evidence to the contrary).
    View attachment images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRU7dCSX65m15X_smeDp1q5j5TDPdCDp
    "I endorse Herro and I approve of this message."
  10. Anonymous Member

    Scuse me? Are you threatening to out herro?

    He may be a troll, but he's OUR troll and sometimes is the ONLY protection from rampant moon-battery. Thank heavens for herro. <3
    • Like Like x 2
  11. xenubarb Member

    Silly monkey. While Scn is hardly the only group, etc. etc. It happens that this forum is sort of fuckussed on Scientology so take your other groups and argue their points somewhere relevant. Which really isn't here, because yanno...Chanology and all that. Chanology, btw, kind of focuses on Scientology issues. That other stuff about other groups influencing opinion leaders, I'm sure there's a relevant forum for that.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  13. xenubarb Member

    hahahaha Ballast Point Imperial Stout FTW bitches! Sunday rocks!
  14. Boris Korczak Member

    I think I had it for tonight. It started 4 days ago ans still goes on.
    I sign off.
    Stay safe.
    BK
  15. Herro Member

    Ohhh come on now Scatman, you have to know how easily I can play that game too. Here are some other choice LRH quotes:

    “Happiness and strength endure only in the absence of hate. To hate alone is the road to disaster. To love is the road to strength. To love in spite of all is the secret of greatness. And may very well be the greatest secret in this universe.”

    "Freedom for man does not mean freedom to injure man"
  16. Diablo Member

    how does TD have the time to respond to all these posts? I thought he was too far up DM's Asshole to come out to get air....FUCKING DICKHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  17. xenubarb Member

    If I push this button, you will go to sleep. Why should I not push this button, Herro?
  18. AnonyVix Member

    An even more widely applicable lesson is if you have been an idiot on public and you end up on YouTube making a fuss only draws more attention to yourself and only serves to make you look even more like a complete idiot.
  19. Herro Member

    Because you'd miss my warm embrace.
  20. AnonyVix Member

    For the benefit of national security in the UK and USA (and I bet most other countries) you're wrong. It is common practice to exclude "risky" individuals from sensitive positions. As part of the vetting process for high security Government positions a person's character, associations, beliefs and group membership or affiliation is carefully looked in to and potential risks assessed.

    If an individual is a member of or associated with a recognised extremist / radical group there well be an issue with them holding certain key positions and this will be assessed however merely being a Hindu, Muslim or Christian would not automatically preclude someone from a vetted position. Muslim Okay but associates of or sympathisers with Al-Qaeda = not okay.

    For security vetting The church of scientology (as oppose to independent Scientologists or Freezoners) should be recognised as radical extremist group because it sets itself up against the establishment and instils beliefs that allegiance to it supersedes all else. Any individual under the church of scientology's sway would need to be treated with great care because they cannot be counted on to not compromise themselves for the organisation calling itself the church of scientology. This is not bigotry, this is simple logic and risk assessment based on the history of the organisation calling itself the church of scientology.

    And to remind you, the organisation calling itself the church of scientology perpetrated the largest ever infiltration of US Government offices because it used (abused) otherwise "ordinary" people to do it. In practice is achieved what the KGB failed to do mainly because the Government weren't looking. Also, it continues this practice today; the organisation is aware of all its members and subscribers and where they work and are able to command them as required. If you're a critic (Anonymous or otherwise) and they decide you need to be swatted and one of their members works at the same place as you do you can be sure they will do anything in their power to make life awkward for you under the instruction of the organisation; even if it's only to tell them what is most likely to get you fired.
    • Like Like x 4
  21. Anonymous Member

  22. Scatman Member

    [IMG]
    And we approve of this message!
    Bunga, bunga!

  23. Herro Member

    But this is exactly what you're doing. You're saying that all scientologists are security risks because of what some scientologists did. There is not evidence that we should expect all scientologists to be willing to subvert the government or to be easily coerced into doing so. Nor is there evidence that the Church of Scientology is actively pursuing such a campaign. I hope that you can see this.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Anonymous Member

    Part of the reason we're having this particular discussion is the fact that, even after Operation Snow White was exposed, the US authorities did not ban the CoS outright as a criminal conspiracy intent on seizing political power by covert means.

    They could have frozen their assets, sequestered their funds, and uncovered all of their other illegal Black Ops.

    Perhaps it was believed there wasn't enough evidence for such measures, or a lack of 'political will' to do so, but there definitely existed a prima facie case for a more systemic investigation, rather than allowing a few patsies to take the fall for the organisation, while it carried on much as before.

    Of course, when you had All The President's Men carrying out identical Ops on their opponents around the time these offences were committed, it isn't so surprising if the political will wasn't that strong.

    I wonder if the present FBI investigation will have the political support it needs to uncover the full evidence this time around?
    • Like Like x 1
  25. Anonymous Member

    It's the POLICIES, stupid.
  26. Anonymous Member

    Given how many times this pathetic strawman has been pointed out to you it is fucking pathetic that you are still employing it.
    Yes it is Herro. It was a delightful proof of concept in how ordinary individuals could be influenced/coerced to do this shit.
    That Italy raid never happened. Or will you come back with the claim “they just happened to have detailed files on politicians and the judiciary”. Would be as robust as any other shit you have offered.
    • Like Like x 1
  27. Anonymous Member

    The Church of Scientology indeed earns its criticism through its dishonesty and aggressively litigious pursuit to suppress descent and factual information. That being said, Operation Snow White was outright infiltration, however. That was them literally getting people hired into these organizations and stealing official documents. Getting friendly with politicians isn't the equivalent. It is an avenue to build up better P.R., however dishonest it may be with how they present themselves, but it isn't a Operation Snow White.

    Senators giving grand speeches at openings or for their organizations is just a sign that they are too lazy to do any critical research themselves. In terms of influencing policy, though what they want to change can be disagreeable, is also not Operation Snow White. Many organizations do this. You can take comfort in that because these aspects are much more easily combated through outreach, both by Anonymous and ex-Scis. You recall Anonymous contacted a House Representative and prevented him from giving a speech for a Scientology front group? That is a perfect example.
    • Like Like x 3
  28. xenubarb Member

    Silly rabbit. Scientologists are security risks, nob because of "what some scientologists did," but because of what they're taught. What I can see is you trying to keep life going in this fail argument.

    In San Diego in the 70s, a lieutenant in the SDPD who was also a Scientologist was fired for forging parking tickets (placing a target somewhere at a specific time) and giving sensitive files to the org.

    Who stole the court files from the notebooks in the secure area of a Paris court house?

    Some old news, some new news that suggests the cult hasn't changed from the Snow White days. Why should society even bother to give these chumps a chance to screw it over once again?
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Anonymous Member

    Critics and blowing members tracked by Scientologists using their job access to airline reservation systems.
    Credit reports, ditto.
    And what about random people in Clearwater in 2008 who had Scientologists show up at their door from license plate information? Is license plate to home address lookup publicly accessible information?
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Anonymous Member

    yes, home addresses and license plates are accessible on the net. i found the faggot little weasel from the tustin org spying on us as we left a protest and when i ran the plate it was found that it was a rental car. mainly because they can't afford their own fucking cars since they make NO money!!!!!
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Anonymous Member

    What now?
  32. Anonymous Member

    Before I settle for agreeing to disagree with the "all Scientologists are alike" bigotry, here is something I hope you'll consider.

    A lot of folks regard the Church of Scientology's long-term indoctrination process as dehumanizing, yes? To a point, I agree with this. On a more fine level, I acknowledge its not absolute given how many leave Scientology and how many have varying levels of loyalty and adherence to the cult's goals and leadership.

    Many Anons seek to encourage Scientologists to leave the cult. But for those Anons who try while still believing this bigotry: "all Scientologists are alike," I advise you to give up and just concentrate on trolling the cult.

    If you want to help a Scientologist leave or see they are being deceived, you have humanize that Scientologist first. It takes the Church of Scientology months to a year to suppress individualism in a person. Even worse within the Sea Org. What is sad as some of you are dehumanizing these people in seconds.

    Treating them all the same is like removing their individuality, a key factor in thinking for yourself. This, in my conversations with many Ex-Sci's was a key factor for why many have left.
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Herro Member

    Again. That is not evidence that Scientologists are security risks by virtue of being Scientologists.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Anonymous Member

    herro, fuck off
    • Like Like x 2
  35. Anonymous Member

    Correct. Some posters in this thread need to Google 'guilt by association' and then do some serious thinking.

    Should someone who simply read Dianetics 20 years ago, which the cult "counts" as a member, be precluded from government service? Of course not, right? Then what precisely is your criteria?

    Is it X number of published service completions on the web that are needed to reach some sort of blacklist threshold? And what about ex-scientolgoists, some of whom have been known to fall back into the cult? Are they instantly trustworthy the moment they publicly recant sci, but blacklisted again when they start making amends with the cult?

    How exactly does that whole discrimination thing work, in YOUR mind?
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Anonymous Member

    Herro, yet again, ignoring group affiliation. And ignoring how much of the information within those files was obtained.
    When the CoS has sufficient influence over its members, whether that be by virtue of other family members, the CoS having a folder of confessionals, etc. to be able to control those members for its own end.

    By misframing your question in the manner you have you are simply trying to sidestep the legitimate basis for concerns being expressed. And the wealth of evidence for the above being sufficient to get members to act against their own interests and those of personal conscience are extensive and well documented.
    I think this is being extremely disingenuous to be honest. Recognising the hold CoS has over members, and trying to show those members this hold and the deception being used to maintain it, is hardly ‘dehumansing’ anybody. And to throw your conversations with ex-scis back at you – my experience with ex’s seems to reflect my attitude quite well, and I think you have projected an approach/opinion on others that doesn’t actually exist in the form you are trying to imply.
  37. Herro Member

    And once again you are skipping the crucial step where you demonstrate that the CoS does have that sufficient influence over its members. You keep claiming that and yet there is no evidence of systemic criminality among Scientologists, to say nothing of systemic efforts at government infiltration and subversion.
  38. Anonymous Member

    Apart from the numerous examples where the threat of disconnection was sufficient to control a given member, where the threat of freeloader was sufficient, where the threat of releasing confessional material was sufficient, etc. And all of this in addition to members where no coercion was required.

    Herro, yet again, burying his fucking head in the ground.
  39. Anonymous Member

    Seems like you're the one avoiding the real issue of employment discrimination in America under Title VII of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964

    Religious Discrimination

    Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.
    Religious discrimination can also involve treating someone differently because that person is married to (or associated with) an individual of a particular religion or because of his or her connection with a religious organization or group.


    Religious Discrimination & Work Situations

    The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.
    /snip

    more
    http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
    http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
    • Like Like x 1
  40. Anonymous Member

    I’m not discriminating on the basis of religion, but group affiliation. This point has been repeated ad nauseum, and is still a pathetic a strawman as it was when first raised. To see why ask why your reasoning doesn’t defend Al Qaeda members from similar discrimination.

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