Whether you believe it or not doesn't matter to me but I am here because I watched someone commit an assault on free speech (i.e. Tom Cruise blackmailing the replay of the "Trapped" South Park episode) and when I found out it was because of the policies of a "supposed" church I was incensed to look further.

When I read about what happened to Lisa McPherson and the other webbed casualties of the cult that is CO$ I was angered that something this insidious could exist in this time and it pushed me to learn more.

Is it you are saying is that you don't understand the concept of compassion? What you are saying equates to the healthy well fed people should not be not giving a damn about the starving in other countries because they aren't or that they always have ulterior motives in helping them!

I apologize in advance if I’m coming across strong but you make it sound as if the only people who can be passionate about something have to have been involved directly in it!


Sounds like you still have some hubbard think to get rid of.

Best Regards,
RWT

The point I'm getting from posters re: their interaction with "Prevail/KG" is it was about gathering personal info, coupled with the 'op' of silencing J Swift. Which failed obviously.

"Prevail/KG" deceived a lot of people into giving personal info through PM'ing.

Call that 'entertainment' if you see it that way, I see it with an ulterior motive somewhere in it.

I know what "Prevail" wanted from me via PM'ing. He wanted full and open 'real-time' comm, he wanted to "put our heads together".

I declined that offer...

L o v e,
Charles

I agree with Fanboy. This type of critic dead agenting by "critics" SHOULD be ignored. However, ignoring it does not always make it go away. It may fade for awhile, but it may and many times does, live to surface another day. Even shooting it down is no guarantee that it won't pop up again and that some people won't believe it. It's like being between the devil and the deep blue sea....you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

I have never been a Scientologist but I have a legitimate reason for being here.....an OT 8 who disconnected from his family. I take exposing the abuses of COS seriously. I consider knowing about what CO$ is "doing", where it's doing it, what CO$ "says" it is doing and what front groups it is using to do it to be of the utmost importance.

What Antique Hoax has reactivated is his BS from some weeks ago and to which I had already responded.

On this thread, Antique Hoax wrote:

I have no doubt to your sanity by any definition if it matters. I'll link the thread I'm talking about, let people look for themselves. I don't expect everyone to 'see' it. I don't expect you to 'see' it. In fact, I don't think you really know much about subliminal messaging or input, you are just on the same team as those who do is my guess.

O.K. so that is what you were talking about. I already responded to your crap on the next page of that thread:

Operation Clambake Message Board :: View topic - C$I: PRESS RELEASE: Announces Record $CN Expansion in 2006
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php ... c&start=15

You "guess" wrong and your attempts to prove you're some sort of Joe Friday or Elliott Ness are ridiculous. What I see are absurd conspiracy theories based on looneytune speculations and crazy conclusions that strongly suggest they were written by a hallucinating very sick puppy or, heaven forbid, the dreaded OSA.

added: Here is Tigger's thread. Note the OFFICIAL title, the reference at the top in CAPS to stats day,
... look at how it is presented and perceived by a visiting Scientologist.

It is presented as being truthful.

It was not presented as being "truthful". There were dollar signs in the title.....the It's Thursday.....It's Ssttttaaattts day
was a reference to Scientologists mocking up stats for their weekly reports on Thursdays. And at the bottom there was a reference to "BALONEY".

Who's "a visiting Scientologist"?

Look at the posts on that thread. AFAICT...Everyone, even Lt. Rich, got the point and responded in the appropriate, expected manner....POINTING OUT THE BS IN A CO$ Press Release......except YOU and Pitbull. Pitbull IMO loves to play devil's advocate and can never be expected to respond in a sensible manner.

Then watch Pitbull come in and start working...

Hey I have no control over what Pitbull does or does not do. There is no connection between him (heck I don't even know if Pitty is a guy or a gal) and me except that we post on the same message board. Pitbull jumps on a lot of threads to "strut his stuff". Does that mean that Pitbull is in cahoots with the person or is the person who started the thread and that he/they are OSA? H*** NO.

Please click here

lulu belle,

Apologizing ahead of time doesn't make your post less offensive or true for that matter. The truth is that non ex-$cios have done quite a bit of the heavy lifting when it comes to exposing the cult and attitudes like yours only makes "us" think: "Why the fuck should I put my neck out on the line to help expose the crimes and abuses of this cult when our efforts aren't even appreciated by the people we're trying to help?".

How many ex-$cios participated in the summer of the picket last year compared to non ex-$cios? Do you actually think society as a whole would believe or care about ex-$cios' personal horror stories if many "wogs" hadn't taken the time to research the topic and use their objective credibility to help in telling the true harms of $cientology?

If it weren't for Paulette Cooper, Andreas, Trey and Matt, Bob Minton, Dave Touretzky, Vince Daniels, Mark Bunker, (to name just a few), etc..., the world would still have an ambivalent attitude towards the cult. Is that what you want? Do you want Dainty Dave to get away with this BS for another 20 years? If so, please keep making these kinds of posts. They really do a great job of making "wogs" feel like their time would be better spent elsewhere.

PS. You could very well be right about KG/prevail's reasons for posting on critic boards. I'm addressing your post in general...

PS: I agree with what you said, RIPODB, re the critics.

To me the critics are a VITAL arm of exposing Scientology. Without the critics, errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, we wouldn't be talking right here.
Hellllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooo

I know many critics who have learned a great deal about Scientology. There's the old saying, "Do we have to be a black person (Ok, Afro-American!) to be against the KKK or speak out FOR Human rights and Free speech for all Afro-Americans? Answer: Of course not.

Scientology breaks up famiiles and many critics have helped expose that.
Scientology has snuck "Narconon" into our public School systems,
and it is mostly Critics who helped expose that.
Scientology locked up Lisa McPherson---in a room--for 17 days---and
she ended up D E A D at their hands, and it's a critic who exposed that.
Scientology is coning people...and many critics have helped expose that.

The list goes on and on. Scientology *hates* the critics and there's one simple reason why: They're NOT brain-washed. Scientology doesn't have all their buttons, life histories, etc. Plus, many of them are far more advanced technically than Scientology, so they KNOW how to create WEb pages, network, send on communications fast and furiously around the world, and SCIENTOLOGY DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO STOP THE CRITICS!
To me, I look at the Critics as the best body guards I could possibly have.
He's right: Without the critics, MUCH of the exposure would have never occurred. For one person, I wouldn't be here speaking out....I promise you that, and quite possibly would still be suffering inside of the CULT.

Here's a FACT:

Make sure you learn the facts for yourself---then no matter what someone says, you'll be speaking from FACTs you know to be true, and there are TONS of them here.

If you've missed "The Unfunny Truth" about Scientology, please watch that, too. It isn't funny, at all, however it's quite true.
http://theunfunnytruth.ytmnd.com/

My best to all,

Tory/Magoo~~

I see your point.

I think you are right that there are people who have never been in Scientology who have contributed to exposing Scientology.

But that doesn't mean that people who sit around posting thousands of posts to Usenet and message boards are in that category.

If you'll notice, the people you mentioned rarely post or never post here.

(Paulette Cooper, Andreas, Trey and Matt, Bob Minton, Dave Touretzky, Vince Daniels, Mark Bunker)

Most of them have posted here and other places, for sure, off and on.

As Robert Vaughn Young said, "Fighting Scientology is like a relay race---
you do it as long as you can, or want to, and then pass on the batton to someone else".

Each person does what they can. Some people are not media people, others don't know how to make videos, but many of the public people have learned things from those that do make posts, exposing Scientology.

I know this: Scientology would much rather have LESS people speaking out about them, than more. That's a FACT.

So I say rock ON critics!

And that's it for this thread, for me.

Have a great week-end, one and ALL

Tory/Magoo~~

Lulu_Belle -

I'm not offended by your statement that you don't understand the motivations of people who have never been in Scientology who post here.
But understand this: if the cult hadn't taken adverse action against my family I wouldn't be posting here either. The point is, CoS held us accountable to their beliefs, the sticking point being their rabid viewpoint on psychiatry, which I consider spiritual trespassing. Three members of my family were declared as a result - I being one of them. It has happened to a number of other families who have never "been in" some whose members lurk or post here, but probably the majority of them don't, and I can understand why. It takes energy and concentration away from other things. Right now I should be working on other stuff but here I am again.

Also, they don't want the grief. They've already had enough. But whether they post here or not, pain is the common denominator and the dues that they have paid to qualify as a critic. They shouldn't be lumped in with those who play the board for their own idle amusement and need to get a life.

So there's that. I don't want to divert the topic further, but I felt it needed to be expressed.

I don't put someone whose family has been attacked by Scientology in the same category as the people I was talking about.

Or someone else who has had some actual connection, like Tigger, whose ex-husband is a Scientologist.

Scientology is relevant to you for some real life reason.

I'm talking about people who just happen to wander in here for whatever reason and become permanent fixtures. It's some kind of weird hobby to them.

Like I said, I don't get it. (And I know of other exes, especially other ex-SO, feel the same way. But they never post here.)

I'm not trying to get anyone to agree with me. I'm just stating my viewpoint on it as a person who really knows something about Scientology and who has actually personally experienced it.

This is on of my issues with people who post who have never been actually involved in Scientology.

They often post speculations and fabrications in the same way that someone would post an actual fact.

Which causes a lot of misinformation to be posted.

There may be tons of "facts" here.

But there are also tons of fabrications parading as "facts" here, too.

Just because Hubbard taught you not to care about wogs
doesn't mean wogs don't care about you.

Damn right it is not going to be a popular opinion. I don't agree with almost all of it but, unlike Co$, I won't sue you for it.

What is wrong with having something to do? Some people collect stamps, dolls, baseball cards or play with model railroads. Some people like to champion a good cause such as criticising a vicious lying cult scam and defending freedom of speech. Seems like a good hobby to me.
Except for the proven sockpuppets and perverts who clearly have personal issues, I can't think of anyone that comes here soley "for something to do" in the way that you imply and I certainly would not tar them with the same brush.

On the whole, people are good. That's the baseline one has to work from if you want to get anywhere.
People like to do good things because it makes them feel good.
Good people don't like seeing their fellow human beings treated unfairly and badly, especially when bullied by a large group such as the Co$.
Good people don't like their freedoms being eroded by underhand means for nefarious purposes, whether it be governments, corporations, religions or fake religions like the Co$.

When the Co$ get my attention by trying to mess with "my" precious internet (re: causing the shut down of the anonpenet.fi anon remailer in finland, and attempting to remove an entire newsgroup from existence - e.g. alt.religion.scientology) then it kinda gets my attention somewhat. When $cientology comes out of its box and messes with people who have nothing to do with it then why on earth should you be surprised when those people go on the offensive or defensive. Since those times I have lurked for years, reading horror story after horror story. I didn't go looking for this of my own bat. It was thrust in front of my face every now and again simply when visiting various mainsteam websites totally unrelated to it (such as I.T. websites, general news media etc etc.) when a horrendous news article would pop up along with a link or two.

Like a good few others, when it starts to persist on our TV screens such as the cruise couch jumping and the South Park situation then it is bound to attract more of the general public who feel more comfortable about expressing themselves amongst the long time critics. The good people. Not just people who have been in a cult for years but people who just basically "care about stuff". No qualification is required. I expect that many long time critics who had been in scientology welcome the attention because it is the result of their cause finally being recognised and more people are learning about it.

It would be naive of me to assume that there aren't people who just like the fight but hey, that's good too and there's nothing wrong with having a fighting spirit if most of time it is well directed. It is also fun. What's wrong with making it fun too? South Park made it fun and look at the impact they had. Look at the site this message board sits on, xenu.net. Some of it is very very serious and some of it is fun. I think that if anyone sees this as nothing but total drudgery and does not get any kind of satisfaction out if then they are the ones with the problem.

I don't expect you to thank people like me for being here but I don't expect you to rubbish us either. None of us are 100% perfect 100% of the time but if you think we are a pest then send your complaint to Co$ because they are the ones to blame.
If you want the kind of messageboard/newsgroup that you imply then start your own. Others have done that, for other reasons and some with great sucess, and good luck to them.

Since you mentioned newsgroups, post your opinion on ARS and see what response you get there.


edited: typos.

Frankly, your statement kind of proves my point.

The problem is when people who come here as a "hobby" actually start spouting "facts" about Scientology, and do it in a way that others who are equally as ignorant who don't know that you don't know think that it is "fact". Because it's on a message board about "undressing Scientology".

And that's how misinformation gets spread.

In the end, it does more harm than good to spread false information. It hurts the credibility of "critics" in general and the message board in particular.

And - back to my original point - prevail probably creates believable sockpuppets as his "hobby".