Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Since some of the materials which describe the $cientology cult could be considered to be copywritten materials, I have censored myself and The Skeptic Tank by deleting any and all possible text files which describes the cult's hidden mythologies. I have elected to quote just a bit of the questionable text according to the "Fair Use" legal findings afforded to those who report. - Fredric L. Rice, The Skeptic Tank, 09/Sep/95 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.onramp.net!dal35.onramp.net!user Wed Jul 19 09:29:16 1995 Path: news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.onramp.net!dal35.onramp.net!user From: visnet@onramp.net (Sri Changiana Saar) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.legal,misc.legal.computing,misc.taxes,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: The Noose is Tightening on CoS (was Big Suprise - 79K) (LONG) Date: 18 Jul 1995 15:26:16 GMT Organization: United Rulers of Mankind, Local 112 Lines: 166 Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <3u8enc$e34@castlsys.demon.co.uk> <19950718.001310.70@holsoft.demon.co.uk> <3uf5mk$3nj@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dal35.onramp.net X-Newsreader: Value-Added NewsWatcher 2.0b24.0+ Xref: news.interserv.net alt.religion.scientology:76596 misc.legal:62389 misc.legal.computing:10300 misc.taxes:18951 comp.org.eff.talk:57160 In article <3uf5mk$3nj@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, esi_inc@ix.netcom.com (Tim Johnson) wrote: > Dear Sister Clara Pardon me for jumping in even though I'm not, technically, Sis Clara... > > Being a Scientologist myself doesnít mean that I believe in Scn or L. > Ron Hubbard, Then you, sir, are a "squirel". Congrats. > and I donít know of any others frankly who do believe > something as if in a cult or a faith even. Then why do they call it a "religion". > What I consider about the > CoS is based on what information I have read, studied, examined, tested > and evaluated for myself - not the claims of others, not the reports > (purported false or otherwise), but what I have experienced to be true > for myself. You yourself have studied, examined, tested, and evaluated the Whole Track[tm]? Do tell. While you were auditing past lives, did the Weepers and BooHoos give you trouble? Did you confront your Gorilla Goals? Have you blown off your fear of snakes and falling that you acquired when your GE was a Sloth? How many Bazillions of years does your Whole Track[tm] go back? What was your evidence that you weren't completely fooling yourself? > I notice how rare it is that anyone attempts to claim that Dianetics > doesnít really work. The reason is, itís too easy to prove that it > does. Just do it. If a person dared actually evaluate it for > themselves, that is. Jeez, I keep hearing about Dianetics "working". What do you mean by "working"? That he makes you feel "better" and all bright and shiney inside? By the way, there ARE countless valid, peer-reviewed, authoritative studies on how the mind works. They are ongoing, the data accumulated is vast, and your enemies the PsYChS are the ones who are doing beneficial work in the field of mental health, NOT your deluded lying fraud of a leader. > But of course much as the media operates: ĎOh no, > donít look, itís dangerous; donít dare look for your self; we have > looked [apparently] and we know it is dangerous, believe us; take our > word for it Ď So, people are coerced *out* of looking. Oh no, don't get into Scientology! It's dangerous (evidenced by plentiful court records), believe our evidence (evidenced by plentiful court records), take our word for it (evidenced by plentiful court records, depositions and testimonies). Take our word for it, you don't have to be a deluded mark and find out the HARD WAY that Scientology is an evil cult. Go ahead and take advantage of the phenomenom known as "vicarious knowledge" and LISTEN to the people who have been mind-raped by Scientology. > The Scientologists I know have not taken anyoneís word for anything. Bull. They take Lafayette Ronald Hubbard's word as SCRIPTURE, as stated by EARL COOLEY in COURT. I believe he used the words "Sacred Scripture", and I think you can find that quote on the Scientologist's OWN WEB PAGE in the Freedom Magazine reposts. BUT DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, FIND IT YOUR SELF. > They have evaluated the data for themselves and found it to be true. They have been brainwashed and scared into never criticizing their "superiors" (evidenced by plentiful court records). > All this distasteful anti-CoS information spread around the Internet is > deliberately intended to communicate to people that they should not look > for themselves. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!! All this distasteful CoS SKriPTuRE is spread around the Internet is deliberately inteneded to communicate to people that they should FREELY, FREELY LOOK FOR THEMSELVES what $cientology ACTUALLY TEACHES (evidenced by plentiful court records) and DOESN'T WANT THE MARKS TO KNOW ABOUT UNTIL THEY'VE PAID THROUGH THE NOSE!!! (evidenced by plentiful court records) > Well, if you donít evaluate (that is, think) for > yourself, you had better know very well the character of those you are > allowing to think for you, those you are allowing to evaluate and align > and represent the information for you. Are you even reading what you're posting? Here, let me hold up this mirror for you.... Okay, now try it again... > Well, if you donít evaluate (that is, think) for > yourself, you had better know very well the character of those you are > allowing to think for you, those you are allowing to evaluate and align > and represent the information for you. See what I mean? Hurts, doesn't it. > I think we have all probably been led astray at one time or another by > people we have trusted. I donít do that any longer. We can tell. You STAYED astray. > I know what I know > because itís what I myself have evaluated with my own experience and > found to be true by my own test, and retest and retest over and over; > and it still holds to be true for me. How in Hawaii (see OTIII) can you test, retest and retest over and over that which is not only fiction, but wholecloth hogwash (if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor)? > If you know something to be factual for yourself, if you know all the > particulars and details, so you can be certain there are no distortions > or alterations of fact or of relative importances concerning something - > then I think you would not be swayed by contrary claims or opinions, or > information aligned such as to make the greatest negative impact. > > My own personal experience with the news media, for instance, has been > around 8 different occasions in my life where I had first hand knowledge > of some event which the media reported on. In each and every case > there were incorrect names, dates, places, accounts inconsistent with my > first hand information, etc. > > That is my own personal experience with how reliable second-hand > information is. > > I weigh this against what I myself have experienced to be true. I > consider this to be rational, sane behavior. There is little going on > on ARS that is rational or sane. It is fear, hatred, anger, and the > intention of destroying something on the basis of second and third hand > information, the distortion and alteration of facts (many which I know > personally to be other than are being represented). > > According to Websterís Unabridged dictionary a bigot is: 1. a person who > holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc. Finish the definition. We've seen it posted before, and I have a Webster's ALSO. You clams will twist ANYTHING to suit you. Not even Webster's confuses the act of Discernment with that of Bigotry. You, on the other hand, are incapable of making a reasoned judgement (evidenced by your current cult allegience) so naturally anyone you encounter who is capable of truely weighing evidence and then rejects that which is found wanted is going to seem like a bigot to you. Read the definition again... Scientologists fit the bill perfectly. You have to, you see, it is commanded of you in your own scriptures. > Draw your own conclusions. We have. Your people, on the other hand, have drawn the battle lines. -Changii -- Sri Changiana Saar, Merchant of Chaos, SP2 Crown Supplier to the Knights of Xenu "I think, therefore I'm overqualified to be a $cientologist." "I am afraid their [Scientology's] claim of teaching 1.5 million children in South Africa to read is just another fabrication." - Johan Klopper, Second Secretary, South African Embassy. "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." 17 USC 107

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank