Mary DeMoss Panton's Blog

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
User avatar
Dorothy
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Location: Kansas

Post by Dorothy » Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:35 pm

J.Swift wrote:
I would like to see, and participate in, a Summit for Peace in which Scientologists and Critics meet for three days and begin to talk out our differences. Prices are way down for meetings. Everyone pays their own way and both sides mutually declare whatever resort we meet at to be neutral ground, a Geneva.

I suggest Palm Springs or Rancho Mirage in April. We could have a lunch on top of Mount San Jacinto.

Is it possible that Scientologists and Critics could meet and communicate? I say yes. There is no reason why a Summit could not be held.
You must have been in a very forgiving mood when you wrote this.

You are an enigma, J. Swift. One minute you can slice scientology into a delicious, tasty snack for all to enjoy, and the next minute you can calm the tide in perfect Zen formation. You never cease to amaze me. In stealth perfection, constantly moving between worlds, from bare knuckle, scientology "unreasonable", to gentleman diplomacy, you travel in style, my man. I can't help it, I'm an unabashed fan.

Or, maybe you were being facetious.
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt

User avatar
J. Swift
Posts: 10214
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Los Feliz, California
Contact:

Post by J. Swift » Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:11 am

Dorothy, I am not enigmatic at all, and, you are very kind to me. Thank you. Sea Horse, I object to your making me wrong because our points of view do not align. Still, I can understand how this would upset you given what you have had to endure. I do not want to upset you. In order to make myself better understood, then, here is my argument and logic for a suggested Summit for Peace:

1. History has shown that the continuous application of maximum pressure against an opponent can drive them to the peace table. The losing side needs to be made to understand the logic and benefits of Peace and Reform as opposed to a continued attrition that will surely lead to its ultimate collapse. It is clear to me that Scientology has been financially and internally staggered by the relentless, non-violent onslaught of its critics. CoS is hemorrhaging members and money. The infrastructure of Scientology has collapsed in crucial areas as evidenced by its need to pay for expensive outside law firms, PI's, corporate crisis management firms, property development and management firms, and various PR consultants, etc.

2. Scientology has utterly failed to sway public opinion with respect to Anonymous. Aside from morons with dubious and murky motive such as Supervisor Jeff Stone, the public does not see Anonymous as a dangerous group. The public sees Anonymous as a group that uses non-violent protest and the internet to expose Scientology's lies and to educate the public and the media about the dangers of this pernicious Cult. Even Law Enforcement, where it has not been unduly influenced by COS (and here I am thinking of LAPD and the RSD), has largely rejected Scientology's false claims about Anonymous as evidenced by the diminished police presence at the monthly protests. As a parent, I am pleased that Anonymous cares enough, and is dedicated enough, to immunize and protect countless millions of young people worldwide against Scientology. I am certain that parents everywhere share my sentiments. No parent wants to lose a child to a Cult. Even Scientology parents have been known to sabotage SO's efforts to recruit their children.

3. To your point Dorothy, I firmly believe that critics need to continue to apply maximum and unrelenting pressure against Scientology. However, there comes a moment in a conflict when the winning side -- and this would be Scientology's critics -- needs to ask their opponent:

3A. Have you had enough?

3B: Are you willing to reform and become a peaceable, humane, and law-abiding group?

3C. Are you willing to peacefully co-exist in this world as the religion that you claim to be?

3D. Are you willing to make the key changes that have been requested?

If CoS remains obdurate and is not amenable to change and Peace, then the critics simply continue in their maximum application of unrelenting, non-violent pressure. But at least it is worth asking Scientology in an open internet post if they would consider a Summit for Peace. By my asking this question, the critics can say that one of their members openly asked for a Summit for Peace and that Scientology accepted or declined. I therefore serve a useful purpose by at least asking the question. CoS knows exactly who I am and how to get in touch with me. I am at scienowriter@gmail.com.

Dorothy, it is this simple: Scientology can do it the easy way or the hard way. Given the critics' continued victories and Scientology's stunning and continuing series of setbacks, footbullets, and losses, why not make a post in which I ask CoS if it has had enough and wants to talk? Scientologists are supposedly, allegedly, all for communication. I know that Scientology's rank and file are extremely stressed; they must be wondering why all of the mass, agreement, public opinion, and power is on the side of Scientology's critics. They must be wondering why CoS' leaders and the Tech is so powerless. Surely, they must want Peace. If so, they must demand change from within as an act of their own self-determinism -- and damn the consequences!

Perhaps this post will cause lurking Scientologists who have doubts to see that there are Scientology critics who are open to Peace and are asking to set down at a table and talk. It seems to me that CoS might want to talk to its critics given that its very survival is at stake. Tom Cruise sent out a very public signal that he was no longer willing to evangelize for Scientology and would only refer people to its website. Mary De Moss Panton expressed her regrets for her past actions. I saw in these two actions a possibility for a conversation. Why not ask to talk about Peace? The worse that can happen is that the other side will say no. Yet, there is always the possibility that someone will contact me and say, "Okay, let's set up a Summit and talk rationally on neutral territory with a neutral moderator."

I am genuinely interested in what the outcome of such a conversation would be at this moment in history.


/////
Last edited by J. Swift on Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/SurvivingScientology
http://www.survivingscientologyradio.com/
http://scientologymoneyproject.com/
contact: scienowriter@gmail.com

User avatar
Dorothy
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Location: Kansas

Post by Dorothy » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:52 am

You're right, Swift, that is not at all enigmatic. But your spiritual generosity is off the map. My needle is floating.
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10238
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:16 am

I can see where you are coming from, J. Swift. For one thing I don't know how you would arrange such a meeting as the critics do seem not to have a leader that represents them across the board.

For another there are, I think, many critics, exes, and activists who, like myself, are not interested in negotiating a peace with scientology. But keep talking as I am not so "closed minded" as I once was though I cannot speak for anyone else but myself here.

One of the things that scientology would be required to jettison in such a negotiation for it ever to get anywhere at all would, in my opinion, be the "keeping scientology working" policy. I do not see that happening, but then at one point I never saw myself as one who would leave scientology, so what do I know?

(Incidentally those are two luxuries I now revel in - not being certain and not knowing. Any person lurking who is still "in" scientology will think I am completely insane for saying such a thing. That's OK. They're entitled to their opinion.)
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Dorothy
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Location: Kansas

Post by Dorothy » Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:29 am

Weiber wrote:
(Incidentally those are two luxuries I now revel in - not being certain and not knowing. Any person lurking who is still "in" scientology will think I am completely insane for saying such a thing. That's OK. They're entitled to their opinion.)
Weiber I have heard Exes express that same idea in different ways. "I'm so glad I do not have to solve everything" was one of them. I can totally relate.

Swift wrote:
I am genuinely interested in what the outcome of such a conversation would be at this moment in history.
I think many of us would be. Unfortunately I don't see it ever happening. That said, I too think the question still must be asked of them. Such a gesture defines us, as a peaceful movement. Not all of us are peaceful players in this game. Some want War. Some want Revenge. But overall, our worst crime against scientology has been our communication. They cannot say the same thing. They are not defined by peaceful gestures. They are defined by a harsh, restrictive policy that says never, ever speak to the Espees. Never grant the enemy one iota of your blessed wonderfulness. Alas, scientologists, politically, are much like Israelis. They don't do peace talks. All they know how to do is roll out their big guns and shoot 'em. Their self-imagined superiority to us is limitless. They would never stoop so low as to speak to any critic. This will be their undoing. The War of attrition is upon them. And they are helpless.

I would like to communicate to scientology that they do not have to be the effect of their own Karma. They can be cause over it. They can change. They can confront their situation and apply their own conditions formulas to themselves and end the attacks by taking responsibility. They can recreate their own destiny, that destiny which they have bestowed upon themselves. Instead of the fail that is upon them, they can win. They could collect all the millions of lemons that have been thrown at them, and they make a giant Xenu sized vat of lemonade. And we could all drink a toast to their success with it. Would they do it? Those who know scientology intimately know that this is a near impossibility and it would take a miracle to make it happen.
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt

User avatar
Wieber
Posts: 10238
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 10:57 pm

Post by Wieber » Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:55 am

If people in authority in scientology were to agree to make the reforms that critics asked for then it wouldn't be scientology any more.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

User avatar
Dorothy
Posts: 1957
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:03 pm
Location: Kansas

Post by Dorothy » Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:58 am

Weiber wrote:
If people in authority in scientology were to agree to make the reforms that critics asked for then it wouldn't be scientology any more.
Oh, I don't know about that. If they just got rid of David Miscavage, Fair Gaming, enforced abortions, RPF imprisonment, illegal labor practices, disconnection and charging exorbitant amounts of money for their spirits to be free, I think there would still be plenty enough scientology technology left to make the clams happy. And critics and would be mightily satisfied with just those things.

Its a little weird discussing reforms out here, since we are now out, and it really doesn't concern us. I feel like it concerns me because I have people I love in there. It should really be up to the people inside. But they're not allowed to discuss it or even think about it on the inside or the thought police will get them. We would have to convince their management to ask them. To stop using them as pawns and really care about them and ask them. Stop dictating every inch of their lives, stop choking the life out of them. Let them breath for a minute and then ask them how their lives could be improved. Not in terms of how many BTs can they get rid of today but in terms of their actual quality of life. Their relationships, their health, their personal dreams, etc.

If they really wanted to they might be able to reform to the point of becoming an actual religion. Personally, I dk how you can consider a very whacky alien-based mental health practice a religion. But when you look at the various myths and stories and strange rituals that many religions are based on, I can see it. I don't think it is so much their basic beliefs that this critics movement has a problem with. Its more their insane, criminal, dictatorial management that is the problem.
“The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
― Hannah Arendt

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by caroline » Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:23 pm

Sea Horse wrote:
TheEvilOfScientology wrote:Don't you think the CoS would have some objections to the reconciliatory way she wrote that? Seems she's disagreeing with the way the cult handles protesters.
EDIT
: I just read your edited post SH. Maybe it could be a bit of PR. I think this needs to be looked into some more.
No, they wouldn't object. Look at what Tom Cruise is saying now... oh sorry about the couch jumping, sorry about ripping a new one for Brooke Shields. Don't ask me about Scientology now, just go see the website. Oh sorry. I'm all better now.

It must be CofS's new procedures for people in the spot light. No fantastic/fanatic behaviors. Blend in with the rest of the world. Make small apologies for earlier "enthusiastic" behaviors and promise to be more civilized from here on out. Pretend to be like everyone else. Remember always that the world is watching you, and those "damn SPs" (Anons et al) are watching so closely, videoing everything, and putting it up on the Internet. PR is everything.

Danny Dunigan: Did you miss the memo?
Where did TC come out and say, "Sorry, I had it wrong about the SP doctrine? I don't really want to kill SPs"? What I've seen is meaningless gestures and lame apologies.

Tom Cruise, Scientologist knows that the "Price of Freedom" prohibits him from making real peace with an Suppressive Person or Suppressive group. But a "Peace" sign for Anonymous, a designated Suppressive group. What a gimmick. What a coward.

Image

According to the SP tech, on which Tom Cruise has been proselytizing about for years, people with evil purposes pretend to be PTS, i.e., they pretend to have gone the effect of others' black PR or false data." (Ref. HCO PL 18 Feb 1984R C/S 118 Pretended PTS Cover-up and Justification of Black PR and Evil Purposes. This policy is on the "How to Confront and Shatter Suppression Course.")
HCO PL 18 Feb 1984R C/S 118 Pretended PTS by L. Ron Hubbard who wrote:APPARENT SEQUENCE

Apparently, the sequence with such persons is:

a. They "get off overts" but then continue committing them.

b. When overt products and flaps in their areas get investigated, they palm it off as having "gone effect of others' black PR or false data." In other words, the person appears to be PTS.

c. They manage to convince those doing the investigating that that's the end of the investigation.

d. If something flaps, they get off some overts and start the cycle again at (a).

In other words, they were actively committing suppressive actions while pretending to be PTS. And were busy making people around them feel PTS. While apparently the effect of suppression or black PR, they were actually generating it themselves: originating black PR to cover their own overt acts.

What had been omitted in the handlings these persons had gotten previously was the full follow-through, because routine PTS tech would of course not handle someone who was on the other side of the coin—and by pursuing it all the way through, it would have exposed the pretense.

We have in the (a) through (d) sequence above, the exact mechanism by which such people skid through the lines undetected. This may explain a great deal to many executives who have ordered staff handled and then have had to conclude that the tech didn't work because the staff wasn't handled. What had actually occurred is that evil purposes had been omitted from Sec Checking tech with malice aforethought and that PTS checks did not include checks for evil purposes.

This sequence shows the exact "failure" to handle people in RPFs, etc.
Cruise may be trying to mimic what his training tells him his enemies are doing; i.e., he's apologizing for his overts but continues to commit them.

DeMoss may have been expressing similar "apologies." If she's still a Scientologist and in any way under DM's control, she's willing to lie about fair gaming her victims, and is in fact compelled to lie about them.

No Scientologist in good standing will come out and honestly renounce the SP doctrine. DM is going to have to cancel it, or someone is going to have to cancel DM. And he or his replacement is going to have to make meaningful reparations to convince me of his rehabilitation as a human being.

User avatar
Simonymous
Posts: 1155
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:48 am

Post by Simonymous » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:18 am

Sea Horse wrote: It must be CofS's new procedures for people in the spot light. No fantastic/fanatic behaviors. Blend in with the rest of the world. Make small apologies for earlier "enthusiastic" behaviors and promise to be more civilized from here on out.
I think that's it... only difference being, "Keep doing these things, but if you get busted in a big enough stage, apologise."

Every action against a critic a Scientologist takes is (IMO) a direct order from uplines. Notice how the attacks against protestors got worse as 2008 progressed, no matter the city or even country? Now, whether they're Tom Cruise or our Mary, they're ordered to apologise if enough people talk about it.

It is my hope that the comments on her blog will act as a cyber-alarm clock and wake her the F up!
“...the injuries that {Hubbard} handled by the use of Dianetics procedures were never handled, because they were injuries that never existed; therefore, Dianetics is based on a lie; therefore, Scientology is based on a lie.” --Tommy Davis

User avatar
'Alert'
Posts: 5219
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:09 pm
Location: Bondi Beach
Contact:

Post by 'Alert' » Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:19 am

How can a 'reformation' of something occur, when said "something" demands it be the harbinger of all things in life and death?

It can't.

The primary problem with Cof$ is scientology itself, by design.

Scientology ala hubbard is the Moonchild Hubbard sought to create with Parsons and their Babalon Working.

Strip away everything bad/evil about scientology, leaves no sign/remnants of scientology.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shel ... -pref.html
‘There are some features of Scientology which are so ludicrous that there may be a tendency to regard Scientology as silly and its practitioners as harmless cranks. To do so would be gravely to misunderstand the tenor of the Board’s conclusions. This Report should be read, it is submitted, with these prefatory observations constantly in mind. Scientology is evil; its techniques evil; its practice a serious threat to the community, medically, morally and socially; and its adherents sadly deluded and often mentally ill.’
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shel ... index.html

THIS PLANET IS OURS.
--LRH's final words in
The Introspection Rundown--HCO BULLETIN 1974
"If anyone talks about a "road to Freedom" he is talking about a linear line. This, then, must have boundaries. If there are boundaries there is no freedom." - Dianetics 55

User avatar
caroline
Posts: 2315
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by caroline » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:07 am

J.Swift wrote:Tom Cruise sent out a very public signal that he was no longer willing to evangelize for Scientology and would only refer people to its website.
That's not exactly true. Cruise clarified his "signal" on the Lauer show.
MSNBC interview 15 December 2008 wrote:(Transcribed from this video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/1 ... 51034.html )

Cruise: I'm, I'm here to entertain people. That's, that's who I am and what I want to do, and I went Okay, ah, certain issues and things, when I'm you know, my humanitarian issues were, were, that's when you know I'll have a time and a place and proper environment, and that's when I'm going to talk about that, and when I'm promoting films, that's when I'm here, you know, that's what I want to talk about.

Lauer: That's one of the other things I want to talk about. It's my understanding now you decided you don't want to talk about Scientology any more, which is fine, and I'm just--

Cruise: No, no, that's, that's actually not true, that's --.

Lauer: No? Because I'm--

Cruise: -- no, because I mean it's something that, I've been a Scientologist for 25 years. As I've said when I'm -- I think there's a time and a place for it.

Lauer: --Right--

Cruise: --and I, and because when things got, you know things can get misunderstood and twisted, so I go okay, when, when I'm discussing, you know, my humanitarian issues but also when people are tuning in to hear about my movie, and to hear about that, that's what I'm hear to talk about.

Lauer: --

Cruise: It's interesting you know I've said it on other things, because, if you talk about it, you know if I don't talk about it, it's like, "Why don't you talk about it?"--

Lauer: --"He's avoiding it"--

Cruise: Right, if you talk about it, "Oh you're proselytizing." So I said okay, look. I-- and I'm, I'm here to entertain people. That's, as I said, that's what I want to do.
Cruise wants to choose the time and place for talking about Scientology, which includes his "humanitarian" issues and the SP doctrine. I see no signal here that anyone is anxious to start a "peace process." Let's firmly keep in mind that it's Scientology and Scientologists who are at war.

Here's Tom's "apology," btw, from the same interview:
MSNBC interview 15 December 2008 wrote:Lauer: We, we have talked a lot about --

Cruise: Yes.

Lauer: This is not a rematch. This is not Rocky II. Without going into the subject matter, I'm just curious -- what was the reaction on your end to the last time we sat down? We usually get a couple of hundred e-mails for an interview. We got about ten thousand.

Cruise: Laughing. Is that right?

Lauer: What were you hearing?

Cruise: I think probably pretty much the same thing, you know. Ah, you know I mean it was, ah, I went back and I looked at it, it's like you know, (shakes head),it was, it was interesting and I think that, yeah I kinda thought, at first you know, you kind of go, how or why, and I thought, you know I thought about it a lot, obviously, and, and I was split -- it was ah, a subject matter that, that's important and now it's something that's ah, being debated in the public and that's, that's where it should be, but actually after looking at it, I really thought (shakes head) you know it's not what I had ah, intended. You know, I thought, ah in looking at myself I thought, "Man, that, that, that came across as arrogant," you know, I felt, by myself. And ah, you know that's one of those things you go, "Okay. I could have, I could have absolutely handled that better."

Lauer: Did-did you read a lot of the comments, where you know, did --

Cruise: And I talked --

Lauer: -- did they affect you?

Cruise: -- Yeah, and I talked to people and I felt that ah, I thought, you know it didn't, I didn't communicate it the way that, that I wanted to communicate it. And that's, that's also, that's not who I am. That's really, that's not the person that I am. Ah, in that, in that way, I mean in coming across in that way, that's, you know?
Cruise did not apologize for his arrogance. He apologized for his acting flub, that resulted in the "misperception" that he's arrogant. Big difference.

RedPill
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:33 am

A false reformation

Post by RedPill » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:47 pm

Some of you might have been "in" back in 1980, and you might recall that there was a false reformation.

1980 was the last of the scheduled, monthly "donations the solution to inflation" price increases. You might remember the 5% per month increases that dramatically boosted Cof$ income, at the expense of squeezing public bigtime and eventually driving people away in droves. Those who were onboard did whatever they had to to get their "bridge" before it totally got away from them. The policy started in the fall of 1976. There was a brief respite from May of 1978 thru fall of 1978. The policy was started up again because income started to fall off, as people breathed a sigh of relief. But with the policy put back into place, things became increasingly nuts through 1979 and 1980. In addition to the price increases, there were espee declares left and right. It reminded me, at the time, of how Stalin's old revolutionary friends were purged with declarations of treason and revisionism. Income suffered greatly ... THEN...

In the fall of 1980, management realized that something had to be done, so a false reformation was staged. The "real" espees were declared/purged out, some cosmetic reforms were instituted, prices were rolled back to be "within LRH policy", etc. AND A MAJOR EFFORT WAS MADE TO RECOVER PEOPLE WHO HAD FALLEN OFF LINES. The reformation was horseshit as evidenced by what happened next, that is, the mission holder's rebellion in Dec. 81 and Jan. 82, perhaps the last gasp of sanity within Scientology, followed by the crackdown in fall of 82 and the emergence of the so-called "freezone".

Cof$ is incapable of REAL reform, BUT ... it is very, very capable of STAGING a major reform. In order to survive in its current incarnation, Cof$ needs to start getting in a lot of raw meat. Thanks to the web, that is in very short supply. BUT... there are TONS of disgruntled ex members, some of whom are away but not truely OUT. Therefore, short of morphing into an entirely different critter as per J. Swift's scenarios, their next major play would be a staged reform designed to recover the field.

They will need to find a boogie man, an evil espee who is responsible for all of the negative stats. The only logical choice at this point would be DM. DM would have to either go voluntarily, with a very generous golden parachute, which would be kept totally silent because the other part of the deal is that he would have to take the heat, i.e., an espee declare and all of the blame. OR, a coup would have to be staged. There would need to be some minor pay increases/time off for sea ogres and outer org staff. Much noise would need to be made about the so-called "reforms" which would be of little substance. They could actually be fairly major in terms of quality of life for sea ogres, but, if that is the case, then they will last only as long as there is major public scrutiny. Otherwise, things will go back to business as usual. The bottom line is that a Cof$ cosmetic reform would have to come from a level higher than DM, the only other scenario that works would be a coup, but who is left who could accomplish that? About the ony way that DM would relinquish financial control would be under torture.

There is one other POSSIBLE factor, and that is intel agency involvement, as discussed by Larry Wollersheim. Wollersheim believes that the CIA and/or other intel agencies have essentially co-opted Cof$ at some level, because it is a useful tool in producing the ideal agent, that is, someone who is idealistically motivated and believes he is spying for "mother church", plus the other aspect of using confessional folder information for direct intel or blackmail purposes. IF this is true, and IF the intel agencies believe that the Cof$ is still useful, then they will find a way of keeping things going, i.e., removing DM and staging a false reformation. On the other hand, IF this is true (intel agency involvement) and IF it is determined that Cof$ has outlived its usefulness, THEN there is one final service that Cof$ will perform, which is to be the poster boy case for reigning in freedom of religion. Some sort of atrocity event will be staged, the press will carry on for weeks with the horror stories, public outcry will be stirred up, and shit4legislation will be passed with some really nasty "oh by the way" clauses.

In any case, 2009 will be a very interesting year regarding the fate of the happy happy joy joy fun cult.

Pete

User avatar
scout77
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:52 am
Location: In my cottage

once a cult always a cult

Post by scout77 » Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:00 am

The rantings of a lunatic, l. rono, is the basis and foundation
of the cult.
They can't survive without total adherence to the dogma.
There is no grey in CO$, no critical thinking, voicing your
opinion (unless in agreement with co$), come on it's a
cult, what is it suppose to morph into "cult light"?

It was pegged a hate group and I think it is the most
appropriate description I've heard so far.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do Nothing.
By Edmund Burke

Once you were tethered now you are free that was the river this is the Sea.
The Waterboys

julenissen222
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 2:01 pm

Post by julenissen222 » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:04 pm

For those waiting for a reply from Mary, you will have to wait until you meet her. Because she has just deleted her blog and BAWWWWED out. Damn she is such a coward. What is up with the $ci-fi cult in 2009, they have lost every confront they used to have. They are like a minority kindergarden of people not able to confront outside their own classroom. Who wants to learn that kind of communication?

I wonder if maybe 2009 will see the end of Scientology, maybe 2010. But damn there cant be many new people willing to put money into this cult.

User avatar
Sea Horse
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:05 pm
Location: Clearwater Florida USA

Post by Sea Horse » Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:25 pm

Mary Demoss is such a panty-waist to cow-tow to Scientology by removing her blog. If she was "out", she would have left it there. There was obviously pressure put on her to remove it.

Yoo hoo! Liz Adams, are you out there? Were you the pressure point? Your daughter is being put through hell. You already know that Scientology has gone off the rails and David Miscavige is out of control. Get out now while you still can!
We are the architects of our own lives. Design and build the life you want.

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests