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!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!demon!holsoft.demon.co.uk!clara Wed Jul 19 09:29:23 1995 Path: news.interserv.net!news.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!demon!holsoft.demon.co.uk!clara From: clara@holsoft.demon.co.uk (Sister Clara) 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: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 07:02:55 +0100 Organization: None Lines: 78 Distribution: world Message-ID: <19950719.070255.75@holsoft.demon.co.uk> References: <19950718.001310.70@holsoft.demon.co.uk> <3uf5mk$3nj@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> <3uhke9$gri@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: clara@holsoft.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: holsoft.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: holsoft.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: Archimedes TTFN Version 0.36 Xref: news.interserv.net alt.religion.scientology:76913 misc.legal:62552 misc.legal.computing:10330 misc.taxes:19000 comp.org.eff.talk:57261 In article <3uhke9$gri@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, esi_inc@ix.netcom.com (Tim Johnson) wrote: > In visnet@onramp.net (Sri > Changiana Saar) writes: > > > >In article <3uf5mk$3nj@ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, esi_inc@ix.netcom.com > (Tim > >Johnson) wrote: > > > >> Dear Sister Clara > > > >Pardon me for jumping in even though I'm not, technically, Sis Clara... > > So, as quick as someone might speak out and say, “Hey, I’m a > Scientologist and this is my point of view,” he would get vehemently and > viciously attacked religiously and personally from many sides; issue > taken with each paragraph - and all of the above based on... "Viciously attacked"???????? Since when was simple questioning of your assertions designated as vicious? Look back through the thread. I see criticism, sure, but your response to the criticism betrays the Scientology mindset completely. Any criticism or questioning is labelled "persecution" and is met with cries of anguish about the viciousness of Co$ critics. You use emotive language to try and assert harassment. But people here can see what form this "harassment" takes for themselves. First hand evidence you see. > second and third hand information as I said; allegations, claims, > reports of apparently incriminating court records (much of such > inflammatory information is the result of Mr. Erlich’s activities, who > was thrown out of the Church for theft and Squirelling - that is, > altering the technology). You know this at first hand, do you? That is interesting, considering that there has never been a suggestion that Dennis was thrown out for anything other than seeking to change some of the practices in the organisation in which he had been a senior member for around 15 years. Where does this "theft" charge come from? Actually, the vast majority of the reports on ars do not emanate from Dennis. They are in the public record. Dennis is simply being harassed in an attempt to silence all the other critics. Won't work, I'm afraid. But keep dreaming if you want to. > Of course, someone will dutifully take exception to all these > statements, again. The rancor with which this occurs is my evidence. > So blast away. Another emotive word - "rancor". You have clearly never participated in a Usenet debate before. You think things are tough here? Try some other newsgroups. > The responses would have me in an endless debate on every minor point, > yet they all avoided the major premise completely. So I'll be more > succinct: > > What do you know to be fact, personally, yourself, with firsthand > knowledge - what do you *actually* know about the CoS? Answer that. Having never been attacked by the Mafia, or subject to ethnic cleansing by Bosnian Serbs, I am not in a position to criticise their actions? Give me a break! Much of the information we receive is bound to be second-hand. I have seen the affidavits from ex-members, I have read the newspaper reports, I have read the books, I have seen the television documentaries, I have seen the actions of the Co$ in respect to the net, I have seen their public behaviour towards critics. What would you have me do next? Of course, you would like me to submit myself to the brainwashing techniques employed at my nearest org! Get a life and stop being so silly. -- Sister Clara - SP2.5 ************************************************************************ * Little Sisters of the Perpetually Juicy * ************************************************************************

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank