Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

$cientology programe on at 8:30pm

FabricLiveBaby! said:
surley though people must be very wary of Scientology now?

If they are corrupt and wierd (which IMHO they are), and there are people like Tom Cruise and Travolta advocating it. Joe Public will get intrested and do a bit of research. And it's not that hard to find reams and reams of nast stuff on scientology.

Surley they are just diging their own grave with this constant secrecy/publicity discrepancy?


ETA: I don't know ANYONE who doesn't think that scientology is a bit crock of shite and would be that gulliable to fall for it given the heaps of publicity it has reacently obtained.

Well, I can think of one: that senior City of London policeman.

And, sadly, all too often, officialdom WILL take the line of least resistance - if it weren't for a fairly constant level of awareness and lobbying from anti-Scientology protesters, I think that the clams would have made many more inroads into UK society than they have. Narconon got pretty close to being used in the Prison Service (indeed, it might actually have got involved at some point), and the carrion birds that are the "touch-assist" merchants who turn up at any catastrophe STILL aren't told to take their snake oil and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

It's that old thing "all that requires for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". Scientology is evil, there's no doubt about it - any organisation that exercises the level of undue influence Scientology uses on its members, and that exercises the level of blackmail, slander, and threats that we saw on the Panorama programme cannot really be anything other than evil.

Their beliefs are just so much cod sci-fi hokum. The tactics they use to get people to pay money to share those beliefs, and to silence anyone who criticises or even asks the wrong questions, are something else altogether.
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
they'd not dare come here for fear of having to respond to the editors questions about website theift...
As the ed has come up against them once I'll bet everything I own that one or more scientologists monitor this site. This thread will be being watched with interest.

This isn't paranoia, it's what I know will be true having had dealings with the fuckers in the past.

<waves to the cunts>
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
As the ed has come up against them once I'll bet everything I own that one or more scientologists monitor this site. This thread will be being watched with interest.

This isn't paranoia, it's what I know will be true having had dealings with the fuckers in the past.

<waves to the cunts>
*makes sign of the clam - snapsnapsnap - and whispers "xenu" at the cunts*
 
Hey, you guys are quite welcome to come here and discuss things, you know. You really are. It's quite safe, we won't try and get you sacked from your job, or have you beaten up in the local park, honest we won't. Nor will we "kidnap" you and talk to you or anything horrid like that. Nope, we'll just talk.

If you've got your doubts about what you've gotten yourselves into, well, let's talk about it, see how it goes eh?

But, hey, maybe you're seething and angry and want us to see the light? That's OK too. Have the courage of your convictions and talk to us -- who knows, maybe you can make a few converts.

(that goes for the E.V. folks etc etc as well, of course :) )
 
pembrokestephen said:
No it's not. It's pretty marginal.

I don't understand why you are going to so much trouble to big up the other side of the argument - are you just being contrarian (nothing necessarily wrong with that), or do you have an agenda to declare? ;)

I'm referring to Christianity in that quote. Are you a Christian by any chance?
 
Jonti said:
I think it is important that we are able to use our language accurately, and not be intimidated from describing things as they are.

The word "cult" is apposite. In recent years it's meaning in British and American English has shifted slightly. Now it's most often used in the third of its senses listed in Webster. That, I suggest, is in response to the need for a word to describe these rackets, and to distinguish them from sincere* religions.

* if mistaken

Jonti you berk - all you are doing (apart from sucking ass) is saying that Scientology is bad which is stating the bleedin obvious. This thread is meant to be about the Panorama prog. So what did you think of it? Did you watch it?
 
Brockway said:
I'm referring to Christianity in that quote. Are you a Christian by any chance?


Christanity doesn't have a compulsory charge for salvation. It doen'st cost you any money to go to church, it doens't cost you any money to join. It doens't cost you money to go in the confession box of to be blessed by a preits.

Scientlolgy effectivley charges for salvation. Which is wrong.

I think people should be alowed to belive in whatever religion they want to. Religions can't be corrupt - ti's the organisations and the people behaind them that can be.

I don't agree that the organisation charge.

If scientology is the awnser - it doesn't sit right with me that these people would charge for it.

wrong wrong wrong.

The other thing that doesn't sit right with me - again different to christianity (or any other religion) for that matter - is that they don't tell you what you are signing up for. They don't tell you that to progress you will have to pay more, and they don't actually tell you what they belive in and what they stand for.

Which is very odd. I can't think of any other religion that doesn't tell you what they are realy about when you join.

It just seems all a little too decietful. Much more so than these mainstream religions.
 
FabricLiveBaby! said:
Christanity doesn't have a compulsory charge for salvation. It doen'st cost you any money to go to church, it doens't cost you any money to join. It doens't cost you money to go in the confession box of to be blessed by a preits.

Scientlolgy effectivley charges for salvation. Which is wrong.

I think people should be alowed to belive in whatever religion they want to. Religions can't be corrupt - ti's the organisations and the people behaind them that can be.

I don't agree that the organisation charge.

If scientology is the awnser - it doesn't sit right with me that these people would charge for it.

wrong wrong wrong.

The other thing that doesn't sit right with me - again different to christianity (or any other religion) for that matter - is that they don't tell you what you are signing up for. They don't tell you that to progress you will have to pay more, and they don't actually tell you what they belive in and what they stand for.

Which is very odd. I can't think of any other religion that doesn't tell you what they are realy about when you join.

It just seems all a little too decietful. Much more so than these mainstream religions.

What did you think about the programme?
 
Brockway said:
What did you think about the programme?

Personally, I watched the original programme from 1986/7 the day before (downloaded from UKNova) - I found it better to be honest (if rather pompous and christian centric) but I was surprised by the growth of Scientology in the later programme.
I thought they lost it a bit in Monday's programme but did a fine job of showing their coersive and manipulating tactics which hopefully should prevent them getting religious status (with the tax breaks).
 
Brockway said:
What did you think about the programme?

I thought that that Tom cruise wanna be was blatnely egging him on.

Thought it could have been a bit longer - and a bit more in depth. maybe with interviews of ex scientologists.

Perhaps would have been nice to have had a private interview with a scientologist - but that was never going to happen.

Gave scientology a bad name- simply because of the way the tom cruise dude was conducting himslef. And the whole car following. Distincly creepy. Don't understand what their logic behind doing that was.

Perhaps if the scientologists wqanted a nice review they would have treated john sweny nicer. That guy was blatently in his face all the time.

Now I have awnsered your question. I would just like to say that it was you that first bought up the "scientlolgys is like any other religion.... etc". So I was in effect replying to your own post. Tis the nature of discussion. It moves on.

Innit.
 
FabricLiveBaby! said:
Gave scientology a bad name- simply because of the way the tom cruise dude was conducting himslef. And the whole car following. Distincly creepy. Don't understand what their logic behind doing that was.
"Noisy investigation". Hubbard was of the view that any critic of scientology was guilty of hidden crimes. So, if you "noisily investigated" him, he'd realise that the jig was up and "shudder into silence" (another Hubbardism).

They probably don't even mind how sinister it looks, because that'll put other Suppressives and people with hidden crimes off from investigating them, too. But with modern mass media, it's pretty appalling PR, and that is where Scientology falls down: since the "tech" is Hubbard's, it can't be changed, but times do change, and they are stuck with their 1970s media management toolkit in a world which has changed astonishingly.

Their inept attempts to silence a Usenet newsgroup are a classic example of how their approach backfires...
 
pembrokestephen said:
"Noisy investigation". Hubbard was of the view that any critic of scientology was guilty of hidden crimes. So, if you "noisily investigated" him, he'd realise that the jig was up and "shudder into silence" (another Hubbardism).

They probably don't even mind how sinister it looks, because that'll put other Suppressives and people with hidden crimes off from investigating them, too. But with modern mass media, it's pretty appalling PR, and that is where Scientology falls down: since the "tech" is Hubbard's, it can't be changed, but times do change, and they are stuck with their 1970s media management toolkit in a world which has changed astonishingly.


Quite, the term "noisy investigation" was used on the documentary wasn't it?

Appalling Appalling PR.

What does the term "tech" mean when refering to scientology? Would that be the instructions laid out by hubbard.

AAnother thing that I would quite like to know is how Hubbard found all this thetan stuff out? Did it come to him in a dream? did he research it? what's the scientology line on it? cos it seems quite baffling to me that one man would suddenly wake up and go "OMG I have the awnser"

And what happened with the usernet group?
 
FabricLiveBaby! said:
Quite, the term "noisy investigation" was used on the documentary wasn't it?

Appalling Appalling PR.

What does the term "tech" mean when refering to scientology? Would that be the instructions laid out by hubbard.

AAnother thing that I would quite like to know is how Hubbard found all this thetan stuff out? Did it come to him in a dream? did he research it? what's the scientology line on it? cos it seems quite baffling to me that one man would suddenly wake up and go "OMG I have the awnser"

And what happened with the usernet group?
Yes, the "tech" is basically all the Hubbardspew.

He claimed to have researched it. Which, when it comes down to it, probably means he pulled it out of his arse. A remarkable achievement, since I'm not sure he could find that with both hands and an atlas...

It's supposed to be all scientifically proven and everything, but if you start to challenge them on the science, they suddenly come over all religious; if you pick them up on the belief system, they insist it's scientific.

It's a dessert topping AND a floor wax!!

Good description of the a.r.s. wars here: http://www.skypoint.com/members/gimonca/usewar.html, search for "Scientology".
 
Brockway said:
<unprovoked sewermouthery removed>. So what did you think of it? Did you watch it?
I made a point of watching it. It didn't advance my knowledge as such, but then I've got a considerable amount of empirical and theoretical background, so that would be asking a bit much :) .

All knowledge is connected, and it's amazing just how far believing in miracles will take people. But hey, I'm kinda idiosyncratic, y'know. Maybe I'm just saying I would have liked more of a science documentary.

So, more generally, and as others have commented, it was deeply shocking, at least to most British sensibilities. But they should remember that the Constitution is implicitly designed to deal with the most outrageously militant religiousity. We, the people, left this country so that we could build intensly religious societies of our own choosing, intolerant of others. And the Constitution is designed to cope with that. So I have every faith that the view of BlackLightning on the constitutionality of his actions will be the one that eventually prevails. This stuff is real you see. I've seen it happen online, over days and weeks, months and years too often to doubt it. There is such a thing as brainwashing. Caught early, the person can be brought round, as if in a Derren Brown show. Far out stuff, eh?

I seem to have touched a nerve, Brockwell. What's your poison, old chum?
 
Jonti said:
I seem to have touched a nerve, Brockwell. What's your poison, old chum?
I think the worst problem Brockwell has is a bit of a tendency to jump rather too quickly to the wrong conclusions.

If he doesn't go back and carefully re-read his contributions to this thread, he's going to find that out the hard way.

*kneels and prays for the immortal soul of Brockwell*

;)
 
FabricLiveBaby! said:
Another thing that I would quite like to know is how Hubbard found all this thetan stuff out? Did it come to him in a dream? did he research it? what's the scientology line on it? cos it seems quite baffling to me that one man would suddenly wake up and go "OMG I have the awnser"

A weird acid trip I reckon. ;)

Total nutter, totally lost the plot IMHO.
 
From The Battle for Usenet ...
Scientology as an organization has a long history of using heavy-handed tactics to silence its critics, especially when those critics are former members. Church officials were none too thrilled when the Usenet group alt.religion.scientology started turning into a forum for critics of the Church, some of them skeptics, some of them former members who are now non-believers, some of them former members who still hold to Scientology's tenets but disagree with how the Church is managed.

The legal premise that the Church of Scientology has been using is copyright infringement: post Church documents, and you get threatened with a lawsuit. With zombie-like persistence, the Church hierarchy has pressed this sort of legal harassment against many people who have spoken out against them on Usenet. In February of this year, Scientology attorneys managed to get a court order against former member Dennis Erlich of Glendale, California which, among other things, allowed them to enter his house (along with the Glendale Police) and search his personal computer files. As Erlich himself put it: "This is not happening in cyberspace. This is happening in my house." Lawsuits are still pending against Erlich, and as the legal bills pile up, a defense fund has been established.

Faced with this sort of hounding, many Scientology critics turned to anonymous remailing services in order to get their message out. As a result, Scientology lawyers turned their attention to the remailer operators. Their most chilling manipulation of the legal system occurred on February 18 of this year, when Church attorneys working through Interpol managed to get Helsinki police to serve a warrant on Julf Helsingius, the operator of the popular anon.penet.fi remailer in Finland. The police could have seized his hardware, but Helsingius managed to satisfy them by giving up the one name that they were looking for--the identity of one anonymous user who had been posting criticisms of Scientology to Usenet. In April, Scientology lawyers continued their campaign of harassment by threatening lawsuits against operators of other remailers, notably Homer Wilson Smith, who was running an anonymous remailer at rahul.net. Mr. Smith, in refusing to turn over records from his remailer to Scientology attorney Helena Kobrin, said that the privacy of his users was "sacrosanct". The remailer crisis may have set some disturbing precedents, particularly in how easily law enforcement officials who know nothing about the Internet can be manipulated. For the most part, the remailer operators have stood their ground in spite of the threats, and the remailers are still operating, including anon.penet.fi.

The current conundrum is that Scientology enforcers have taken up the cancelbot technique to silence critics. Cancel messages are entered into Usenet through security holes in poorly-managed news servers. Instead of cancelling messages that threaten to destroy Usenet as a discussion medium, Church of Scientology "clams" as they are now called are sending out forged cancel messages to erase posts that criticize the Church. These forged cancels, unlike those of the Cancelmoose, are done without the consent of the Usenet site that they're posted from--Church "clams" have to sneak through site security to post them. Tracking down the source of these forged cancels has involved Usenet defenders in some serious detective work. As recently as the first week of July of this year, Ron Newman of MIT traced the source of some Scientology forged cancels to University College in Dublin, Ireland.
 
Back
Top Bottom