I think my point was not understood.

What I was trying to say was that many people seem to be here as curiosity seekers. Which is fine. Though I don't personally understand why someone who has had no previous involvement with Scientology would spend hours posting here.

But that's just me.

Which is what I originally said.

My point was regarding someone who was "critical" of Scientology who never was a Scientologist, never had Scientology in their life in any way (be it a friend or family member or whatever), didn't actually know anything about it from any kind of experience and was here making statements and passing them off as "fact" about Scientology because they felt like it, because they could, and for purely entertainment purposes ("a hobby").

Many of the people who read this group don't know any better than to believe everything they read. It's pretty much impossible to know just by reading the message board who knows anything and who's making it up, especially if you are new here.

And there are definitely people here who make things up.

Making things up and presenting them as fact about Scientology does not help the cause of "undressing Scientology". It hurts it. Even if what you say is critical, it hurts it. Because when what you have said is clearly shown to be bullshit, it colors everything every critic here has to say as bullshit.

And it turns people off and drives people away who really do know what's going on.

The XSO group has over 200 people who have signed onto it. Almost none of them ever post here. Maybe 2 or 3.

Wonder why that is?

One point we shouldn’t lose in all this:

There is a group on this board dedicated to getting the spotlight off of the cult and onto the critics anyway it can.

It had gained some traction for a while but let’s not fall for it again. This is an Opinion and Debate Board. Topic: $cientology. It is not the Documented Proof Board, Sworn Affidavit Board, Only Properly “Cleared” Information Can Be Discussed Board, The Do Not Speculate Board etc.

Folks, the Tigger Op is out of gas.

Swift, you need to do more research.

Here we see gunnm in "prevail mode", posting as his edgy self:

http://www.harknell.com/search.php?search_author=Gunnm

And here we see him posting in more ok a "KG" mode with a movie review:

http://poll.imdb.com/title/tt0193253/us ... s?start=20

And here is a very "KGish" gunnm:

http://gunnm.deviantart.com/journal/

He uses a certain language to portray a certain "self". Granted the Miho character bunged it on much more than you see in the above examples but there is quite enough there to prove that he had different personalities at different times.

IMO he arrived here as HoO in "KG mode" - kind, caring , wise etc.

Then he got sick and had an operation and was away for some time.

He said that he wanted some sort of a buffer when he returned to online life after his operation and so invented KG. A very similar character to HoO.

After a while he started to get the shits with people, but didn't want to upset the applecart and have KG turn into a harsh "no bullshit" type character. So he asks Andreas to resurrect his HoO account. Thus prevail was born.

Using the two accounts he was able to keep his established relationships as KG, but also to get a little rough with those he disagreed with as prevail. A classic use for sockpuppetry.

Unfortunately for Swift, he was able to use the info he had gathered as Miho (or KG) and, acting as prevail, was able to make the outing threat.

This opinion is taking into account everything I know and have spoken about with all the "characters" involved, including George, being just George.

It's funny though. After months of speaking extensively with either "prevail" or "KG", I finally got to talk to the real George when I confronted him. He is different again to either of these two other characters. The real shame is that I believe George, as himself, is far more likeable than either of the make believe characters. If only he had just been George all along he could have actually made a difference and made real friends. Instead, all that will be remembered is a deceiptful act.

Lulu_belle speaking at OCMB on May 22, 2005:


ref: http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?p=117652&highlight=#117652

Lulu_belle speaking at OCMB on May 22, 2005:


ref: http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=13491&postorder=asc&start=150

*****

Lulu_belle, you have said that Sea Org members have an overinflated idea of their own skills. You then said that Sea Org members look down on publics due to their being the highest echelon in a caste system. Your posts above indicate that these ways of looking at things are not correct.

Based upon these posts you made, I don't understand why you would promote the idea that any criticism of Scientology is only worthwhile if it comes from former members. I don't understand why you would think less of OCMB members who never did Scientology. Andreas Heldal-Lund, the founder and owner of OCMB, has never done Scientology. Is he therefore unqualfied to speak of Scientology?

*****

If we agree that Scientology is a criminal enterprise that harms people mentally and spiritually, then the ideal scene would be to never have anybody go into Scientology. The ideal scene would be for people to become educated about Scientology and then warn others.

I have never sold drugs nor been a member of an organized crime syndicate. Yet, by the arbitrary standard that one has to have experienced something in order to discuss it or fight against it, I am unfit to discuss and warn people about the dangers of drugs or organized crime because I never participated in these activities. I guess that no one in the world can discuss bird flu or have the opinion that bird flu is bad unless they have actually had bird flu and lived.

If only tech-trained former Scientologists are qualified to discuss Scientology, then very little discussion will take place. I say this because many former Scientologists were declared SP's and all of their certs have been revoked. Technically speaking, they would be unqualified by Scientology's standards to discuss the tech because their certs have been pulled and they are SP's. Indeed, anyone who posts at XSO is by definition an SP and therefore unqualified to speak about Scientology if we use arbitrary standards.

So who does that leave? Who is qualified to discuss Scientology if only certified, tech-trained, Scientologists with current certs are the only people who are qualified to discuss Scientology?

Do we all need to go to scientology.com for the truth about Scientology? After all, anyone else is not qualified due to being declared, PTSness, lack of experience, or speculating!

How strict should the rules be about who can even talk about Scientology? And who determines the rules? David Miscavige?

*****

You don't have to have been in Scientology to know about what it is or about what goes on inside. There is a wealth of books, websites, and former members who have written extensively on the topic. Based on studying these sources, a person can form an educated opinion of Scientology. Dr. Dave Touretzky, for example, is an example of an expert who never did Scientology. Likewise with Andreas Heldal-Lund.

Some people complain that some of the information presented on OCMB is not 100% LRH standard tech. From what I hear, the Church of Scientology itself is not offering 100% standard LRH tech either and hasn't for decades. This begs the question: Does Scientology exist in any pure and unadulterated form? Or has it all been squirreled since 1950 because Hubbard was the ultimate SP?

//////

lulu - I did not mean to say it rested solely on exes. Most critics work with the best information they have and (some) from personal experience about what they see going on firsthand.

Though I suppose that will teach me to post while half-asleep.

Emma, thank you for the additional data. I will certainly look at it. I don't have all the facts and you were/are in a much better position to know more about the matter.

Where on earth did Lulu say anything like that? Could you please post the url so that I may be corrected.

Thanks.

///////////////////////////////!

lulu_belle,

In general, I think that I know what you are talking about concerning fact versus fiction.

I think that if you posted a SPECIFIC example of what you are talking about - this might be easier for people to understand what you mean by this.

Although a specific example might offend someone who's post is the example. If you want to - use me - I'm pretty thick skinned. (For example, I was never in the Sea Org.)

Best regards

Emma, LB just said:


That is one lulu of a statement! "Many people" who read OCMB, "don't know any better than to believe everything they read." Lulu_belle, upon what is such a statement based? That insults the intelligence of people who come here to read OCMB.


OCMB has ten years of extensive archival files on Scientology. It is not "pretty much impossible" to ascertain the truth of any given statement. Furthermore, a new member can post and ask, "Is John Doe's statement about Xenu being green correct?"


To what is LB referring? What has been made up and presented as a fact? I will tell you this: People will rip your head off here if you present something that is inaccurate. OCMB has a ruthless QA system full of experts who can cite chapter and verse. OTOH, speculation is allowed and even needed because Scientology hides everything. If LB does not like speculation, I understand that completely. However, when a theory is presented as such that is perfectly legitimate.

We certainly do not want to discourage free-thinking or the use of thought-stopping techniques. And you can count on being called on any nonsense here. A person will beaten repeatedly, and mercilessly, with the
big ugly Xenu Stick if you say something that is demonstrably untrue at OCMB. That is in the Darwinian nature of this place. I don't think LB has to worry so much. The asskickers are always at work here.

///EMMA!////

You didn't answer my question.

I can't find anywhere that lulu says:



She has made other points, but has never said that.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Emma, if you are unable to understand what I just posted using LB's quotes, then I will send you to cramming to word clear several words.

Maybe you can elaborate on what you mean by the word "bullshit"? First, we do need to agree what is and isn't bullshit. I mean, Scientologists always say that the Xenu story is "bullshit".

Is it bullshit?

Say we come to an agreement about what is and isn't bullshit. ONLY THEN can you say people should be more responsible than to desseminate bullshit. Unless there is a clear defintion of what is and isn't bullshit, people are not going to know when they are passing it off.

So, on this board- WHO IS THE BULLSHIT POLICE? Whose job is it to counter the bullshit that gets desseminated here if not the people who "been there, done that"?

I guess you don't think the Scientologists should be doing it, and I agree.

Of course, we all know that Scientology is compartmentalized. Or do we? We all know that some Scientologists do not know what is happening in their own religion. Or do we? What is or isn't bullshit? I don't know. I only know what people who claim to be ex Scientologists are saying about their experiences, and what current Scientologists say, and what is posted in the materials distributed by Scientology, and what is on the records of numerous courts across the world, and the numerous articles that have been written on the subject.

But I am not a Scientologist. And in one of your posts, you implied that people who were not in Scientology should not post bullshit. Now, some non Scientologists won't realize that what they are repeating is bullshit. What about the Scientologists who post bullshit? Without knowing it? Repeating what they have been told in Scientology? Or having been insulated from the dark corners, the shining happy world they were exposed to or bought into?

I wish I had a dime for every Catholic who denied vehemently that a priest could molest a little boy. I wish I had a dime for every friend and acquaintence of the paedophiles I personally have known who thought that they were the pillar of the community, including their wives and children. In the real world, there is no such thing as the Bullshit Police. The victims of the paedos I knew were afraid to speak out because the entire community sided with the sociopath- and if the victim spoke up, he or she would be labeled "insane", "vicious", "extortionist" and other worse appellations.

Sorta sounds like what happens to ex Scientologists who speak out. But let's get back to the idea of defining what is bullshit to begin with:

I wish I had a dime for every Scientologist who is denying the Xenu story. DM is collecting all their dimes, so I am S. O. L. on that account. Is the Xenu story bullshit? Can you tell me lulu_belle? Or is that not your job? Oh yeah, you said it's not your job.

So, please please please tell me who is going to set any of the records straight here when somebody thinks something is "bullshit"? Who is the ultimate authority? Only Scientologists? That is, people who have been mind controlled, hypnotized, manipulated, and dissociated from consensus reality should be made the monitors of the consensus reality on this board?

I don't think that's wise. Take XXX (name redacted because I don't want to embarrass her) for example. I love XXX, bless her heart. But mama mia, she has seen a much better angle of Scientology than some, or she would not hold onto or justify any part of it. She would see how many times L. Ron prevaricated and understand that this kind of behaviour is exploitative and pathological. She would understand that L. Ron Hubbard was a hot air generator that inflated a balloon of fantasy that has so little weight it would all collapse if the hot air didn't keep filling it.

On the authority of a proven charlatan, Scientologists vouch for the "tech". People enjoyed their time in Scientology on different levels. Yes, people experience esprit de corps in Scientology, but that happens even in PRISON and CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Is that a reason to hold onto any part of it?

In Christianity Jesus spoke of a vine. A bad vine cannot bear good fruit. If Scientology is corrupt at the foundation (the Source is a Pathological Prevaricator), how can anything built on that foundation be worth keeping?

Now, THIS is why people in Scientology need critics. Critics are a "Reality Check". Reality Checks are what L. Ron tried so hard to prevent from happening, so the concepts of "PTS", "SP" and "Disconnection" were institutionalized.

Did L. Ron himself institutionalize PTS, SP, Disconnection? Did he lie whenever his lips were moving? Especially about himself and his credentials? Did he tell people that they were becoming more free while enslaving them to the benefit of the CoS?

Am I incorrect in anything I have said here?

Then send in the "Bullshit Police" to slap me around a bit and perhaps I may see the error of my ways.


Love,

Os

Err no, you are wiggling. You need to go to cramming to learn how to wiggle harder.

In fact, we have a kiddies pop group over here that might be able to help you.

This is correct.

Emma.....The wiggles are scary!