eaglecage, I didn't mean to be accusatory at all. It's hard to communicate nuance online.

I'm truly just genuinely astonished you're having a hard time finding info on Scn, because there's nothing easier to find than info on Scn. There's so much online about this very dangerous cult that I thought it was impossible for anyone to miss it.

Here are some links to get you started. The extremely important interview David Miscavige's niece Jenna Miscavige Hill gave to Nightline is a good place to start. Tory Magoo44, an ex-OT7 who is an fount of info on Scn, had a great YT channel. The actor Jason Beghe did an informative and entertaining interview about why he left Scn that is not to be missed.

Xenu.Net is the website that started it all, and Xenutv.net is the home of the Wise Beard Man. Why We Protest is the centralized message board for anti-Scn activism and has tons of links.

These are just of the top of my head. Arnie Lerma's site, lermanet.com, is also an incredible resource. Plus, there's all the great info Rick Ross has right here.

[xenu.net]
[www.youtube.com]
[www.youtube.com]
[www.whyweprotest.net]
[xenutv.wordpress.com]
[www.blogtalkradio.com]
[www.metacafe.com]

Christa, thanks for reposting the links from xenu.net and others as it is all great stuff. Those heathen fools who think we all evolved from ape-like creatures are mistaken...we are all CLAMS! (sarcasm off).

eaglecage, I agree that Wikipedia needs to have a neutral bias as well so CoS critics should not be able to change the CoS info...to a point. I think facts are facts, but emotion should be excluded in a "neutral" setting. As long as "anyone" can change things, that neutrality is out the window which is why Wikipedia is not considered a valid scholarly source for information. I don't think Wikipedia seriously considers itself a valid scholarly source, either. If they do, they need their head(s) examined IMO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/02/2009 08:46AM by Sparky.

Quote
Christa
eaglecage, I didn't mean to be accusatory at all. It's hard to communicate nuance online.

I'm truly just genuinely astonished you're having a hard time finding info on Scn, because there's nothing easier to find than info on Scn. There's so much online about this very dangerous cult that I thought it was impossible for anyone to miss it.

It is very difficult to communicate nuance online. For one, your post makes it sound like I have extreme difficulties with finding information online about Scientology. I have no such difficulties. Like I said before, I have no significant interest in Scientology per se, but rather, a more generalized interest in cults. There are a lot of cults out there for which there isn't a lot of information, compared to $cientology, however. But that is not a topic for this thread.

Thank you for the links that you've provided to everyone.

Here's one more for the list:

[www.clambake.org]

[www.clambake.org] has the answer to the question:

"Why would anyone in their right mind join $cientology?"

--eaglecage

Quote
Christa
eaglecage, I didn't mean to be accusatory at all. It's hard to communicate nuance online.

I'm truly just genuinely astonished you're having a hard time finding info on Scn, because there's nothing easier to find than info on Scn. There's so much online about this very dangerous cult that I thought it was impossible for anyone to miss it.

I know what happened now. I was looking around, and I found some quotes of mine that were posted, and from reading them, I sound like an uninformed idiot. But the quotes I posted are taken from a different context.

Ultimately, what I write cannot be fully understood outside of its original context.

So the primary reason why one of the posts I wrote sounds pretty moronic is due to the fact that I took my own post out of its original context, because I wanted to cut out extraneous information. This extraneous information is not useful to anyone, except perhaps, to make me not look like an idiot. I'm not sure if that's a good enough reason for me to include it though. It may be, depending on how much I care.

I do care enough though, to rectify a misperception. However, if I really am wrong about something, I'll just go ahead and admit to it.

E.g. My position on Wikipedia's ban of CoS cheaters has changed from 'I don't know if it's right or wrong for Wikipedia to ban CoS spam-cheaters' to 'Wikipedia took the correct action when they banned the cheaters.'

--eaglecage

wiki probably got that fed up of the fighting. From what Ive seen scientology are using all the money theyve got to take people to court. So even when they read a wiki article theyll be threatening to sue. Wiki probably got fed up of the threats.

My understanding from the research Ive done of the religion is that it is very nice to people who are celebrities so that the celebrities say the religion is good.
But the normal people it first of all teaches them they have stress caused by 'issues' which makes most people feel humiliated or embarrassed after all thats huma nature. Then the 1st course I saw was about someone wetting their pants & staring into someones eyes. These 2 especially being stared at make the person feel self conscious & incapable. IE it confirms that they have these 'problems'. Then they feel that there must be a solution. Scientology know these problems so they must know a solution!

So then they do this auditing & once theyve done this the organisation has the power. They confess personal things about themselves which are recorded. From this point onwards if they complain or become unhappy they end up with the stuff they told in confidence being published everywhere. So they are trapped in a way but as long as they are enjoying it & have lots of money they keep going. The publishing is shown in that they broadcast what former members told their auditors to everyone who listens. You can see them doing it in videos on youtube. Raising the topics that the person told the auditor in confidence in the middle of the street with a loud voice & handing out their confessions to passers by as leaflets.

Its basically got a big problem with blackmail and betraying confidences. The scientologist criticises the former member saying 'what are your crimes'. What are your dirty secrets. But the crucial point is that the scientologist saying this will also have a file about them with all their dirty secrets locked away. And they will probably in a few years time be in the same position as the person they are criticising. So the attacker & attacked in reality have both the same amount of crimes & the main crime is being human it seems. Well thats what I see as a calm outsider. So Im pretty neutral as an observer

I notice you the new forum opened in italy against Gregorian Bivolaru and MISA, and italian branches. You all are kindly requested to post your contributes to help us in this important action.

exatman.forumfree.it

Thanking you,