ScnTO's Very Own Last Chance Thread

When I read this thread, I knew I had outgrown this forum.

Anonymous hides behind a mask

Scientology hides behind "religion"

Anonymous is not parasitic

Scientology needs the funding of it's members

Anonymous demands freedom of speech

Scientology cannot allow freedom of speech

Anonymous isn't perfect and admits it

Scientology claims to be perfect

Anonymous members can leave anytime

I rest my case

I didn't bother watching your linked video because side effects from a particular flu vaccine doesn't say much about the value of vaccines generally. But I think I get your point: you don't believe in vaccinating children.

I haven't seen any specific LRH teachings against vaccines so I'm curious about the reason for anti-vax sentiments among Scientologists. I know that chiropractors and naturopaths are usually anti-vax, and that Scientology is friendly with both groups. So maybe that's why.

Bye then.

Not sure what your point is here. Aren't you sort of making ours?

Hate it to break it to you guys but this dude isn't a Scientologist. OSAbots are ordered to observe WWP, not interact with SPs on their home turf. If this user was really a Scientologist, he'd be declared out of ethics in seconds and we wouldn't be seeing him online again. If guys remember Tom Newton (aka Jonathon Barbera), he's been trolling Scientology critics for years and even he was not a Scientologist.

You say that illegal actions committed by Scientologists shouldn't be held against you yet are happy to associate people here with the illegal actions of others.

What gives?

Still would like an explanation as to how it is possible that Anonymous still exists Scnto?
DM declared victory over Anonymous a while ago. Remember?
So I guess it would have to be one of these explanations?

1. DM was not telling the truth? (why would a church leader lie on such a huge issue?)
2. OT's do not extist? (if they did exist, Anonymous would not exist or this forum)
3. All of the above?
4. Other reason? (please explain)
Which one is it?

Lesson of this thread: A troll is a troll; act accordingly.

ScnTO says it is here because it wants us to stop protesting so it can read in silence.
ScnTO seems to believe that having ideal reading conditions is more important than helping people who are suffering as a result of the organization it supports.

ScnTO argues that said organization denies harming people.
ScnTO fails to consider the fact that the organization knows that if it were to admit to harming people, individuals like ScnTO would not continue to support it.

ScnTO fails to convince anon to stop protesting.
ScnTO's time would be better spent convincing the organization it supports to stop giving anon reason to protest.

WHy doesn't ScnTO just do his own research, anyone can walk up to their DSAand ask them why 2 spokespeople Tommy Davis and Mike Ferris have conflicting Data about Xenu's involvement in the Church. Ask to get these things cleared up and see what kind of ethics you get put on you.

I have suggested that in earlier posts. Since many Scientologist's argument is that you can't believe everything you read on the net, I suggested that ScnTo go to different orgs unannounced and see how dead they are in person. Ask ScnTO to go the courts and ask for documentation of court cases we listed or request them by mail. Like I said, Hubbard was very big on going and touching something in person, and telling people to experience things first hand. So ScnTO should listen to Hubabrd and go find out for themselves!

"A degraded being is not a suppressive as he can have case gain. But he is so PTS that he works for suppressives only. Degraded beings,taking a cue from SP associates, instinctively resent, hate and seek to obstruct any person in charge of anything." - L. Ron Hubbard

ScnTO, your continued failure to use your own words does not help convince others that you are capable of being able to think for yourself.

It's still built up a good store of arguments to use against $cientology. Which is why it shouldn't be domed.
(looks at Slobeck)

wonder if COS would grant us the permission to go on one of their forums and be free to post our views and why we perotest?
oh that's right, there isn't any COS forums.
and if there was, we wouldn't be able to. why is that?
that doesn't seem fair now does it?
Besides the fact that no Sea Orgers, no staff and any publics who had "net nanny" installed on their computers unknowingly from a COS DVD they were sent way back when, ( so I heard) would never get to see that forum anways. again why is that?
Why silence or block out "entheta" if COS spends so much time teaching members how to confront it? curious

Also, I'm still betting on this being a double bluff by Herro, just FTR.

Dood, you talk so much shit you need a bib.

I hope for your own sake you're a troll and not a clam. Coz you make the likes of Lightfield and Louanne look like lightweights.

Since you like LRH pasta, have some of mine

OK. I'll just keep on fucking yer mom instead.

fify

soooo....
what if a person is bi- polar or has some other mental issue, say like a compulsive disorder and he was a gay man or women and protested COS too and acted soley on their own?
He woudn't be considered a suppressive? Just PTS?
Hubbard gobbeldy- goop is such fun

Geez, you've been in there for hours. Let somebody else have a turn, willya?

ScnTO, if you were to find out for yourself that what anon says is true, would you continue to support the scientology organization?
It would be much appreciated if you were to answer this (and other people's questions) with your own words.

If we can't ban this thread, can we ban quotes? Has ScnTO internalized anything he (I suspect she) has been taught to the extent that he can actually build on an idea?

Though I prefer the Dome. Because I am weak. Because I keep clicking on this damn thread even though I know it is spew.

SncTO ear's perk up. I know a course that can help you with that. lol

It says male when you click on his avatar. Just saying.

I foresaw that one as I typed. Glad you beat him to it.

IMO no ban, but I think a collapsible text thingy could help.

I find it easier to just refer to it as an "it."

Why won't ScnTO admit that it was wrong about protests against Catholicism? It doesn't seem like a particularly loaded question to me. Is there something in Scientology that forbids or discourages such an admission, or is this just ordinary human embarrassment at being caught out?

Admitting a mistake is a gesture of trust. It signals a willingness to take in new information and invites reciprocity. Refusing to do so indicates that this isn't really a conversation but a verbal incursion. Obviously, ScnTO's mission is simply to inject this thread with information promoting a predecided agenda--or, perhaps, with random information just to mess with us. My guess is that it (or they) doesn't even read many of our posts but instead copies and pastes from approved material, thus avoiding interaction with scary SP's.

The more interesting question is, knowing this, what compels us to keep trying in the face of persistent nonresponses? I'm guessing some evil psych has probably researched this. Anyone know? Maybe something about intermittent reinforcement? Or, we're programmed for normal social interactions, but that programming becomes dysfunctional when we encounter someone who isn't able or willing to interact? I'm definitely curious about this.

Edit: Just saw the recent posts. Mods discussed this at length last night, and while opinions varied the consensus at this time is not to censor or tamper with ScnTO's posts other than breaking links, etc. It is up to the community to find a useful response to this troll.

And this means?

I don't know about anybody else, but what compels me is an opportunity to bring negative things about the cult to light again... and again.

L. Ron Hubbard defined the Second Dynamic like this:

"The second dynamic is the urge toward existence as a sexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself and the second dynamic (b) is the family unit including the rearing of children. This can be called the sex dynamic."

The above is the main definition, but there is also another one which is a bit broader:

"The second dynamic is creativity. Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity. The second dynamic contains the family unit and the rearing of children as well as anything that can be categorized as a family activity. It incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival."

In Science of Survival Hubbard states that a person who is high on the emotional tone scale -cheerful, excited, enthusiastic - has a high sexual interest but it's often sublimated to creative thought.

from encarta sublimated means 1. transitive verb psychology redirect: to channel impulses or energies regarded as unacceptable, especially sexual desires, toward an activity that is more socially acceptable, often a creative activity
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861716482

L. Ron Hubbard is trying to convey a concept...the idea of what the second dynamic is...if you get the concept no further definitions are needed...the 2 definitions don't conflict...with either definition that is given you get the idea of what he is talking about so you can understand the context.

Right, and I feel the same way, but the question is, why do we continue to assume, against a lot of indications, that this an effective conversation in which to do that? I include myself in this--there's something irresistible about gnawing on a troll chew toy. But I don't think it's rational. Rational thought would tell us not to perpetuate this individual's monologue-o-spam--? So, in this situation I get the lulz part but I can't see any other valid reason to persist, and I wonder why we do. It makes me think of cocaine rats, especially as we don't seem to learn, from troll to troll.

We're actually interacting with each other around the troll at this point, that's my take (although s/he was delighfully if subtly responsive last night). I'm still impressed, although personally I'm getting bored now. I also agree it's not a Scientologist.

How's that working out for ya?

Despite efforts to suppress it, Scientology has shattered suppression and since the 1950s has expanded, flourished and prospered.

This. But we can back away and learn if we want while continuing to play with this person, if that's an interesting or entertaining thing to do. Also things are a bit slow right now in Anonyland; maybe if there were something more attractive going on people would bail on ol' ScnTO.