List Of Former Members Who Have Spoken Out

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
User avatar
I'mglib
Posts: 5745
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:17 pm

Post by I'mglib » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:26 am

For the record, it seems that a lot of effort on the part of people creating and maintaining the list, to be accurate.

Cynthia Kisser was removed from the list.

I repeat, CYNTHIA KISSER WAS REMOVED FROM THE LIST.

There is even discussion about whether to accept people whose names are only initials. I believe they currently are not accepted.

I suggested someone on this board, but after researching my link, the person maintaining the list decided that it wasn't clear enough whether the person was speaking out.

So, accuracy is certainly a goal, and inferring otherwise is baseless griping from someone who has done no fact-checking before making such a claim.
"A man may build himself a throne of bayonets, but he cannot sit on it." -William Ralph Inge

Watch the Los Angeles press conference here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScilonTV#p/

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

Post by Wieber » Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:44 am

Bleat all you want. The list is up.
“Think wrongly if you please, but in all cases think for yourself.”
Doris Lessing

Image

Ball of Fluff
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 2:23 am
Location: Cyberspace
Contact:

Post by Ball of Fluff » Thu Jul 30, 2009 7:01 am

Tigger wrote:Someone on a.r.s. (a Scientologist of course) is pointing out that the list is not credible
and the title is not accurate because the list contains some who are not ex-Scientologists.

He does have a point. So should those ex-Co$ who still claim to be Scientologists
be removed or should the title be changed to
include both ex-SCN and ex-COS?

Is there an e-mail addy available for questions, corrections, additions and/or deletions?

Tigger
I think they certainly could do that but in the long run it probably doesn't matter. Although it's my understanding that anyone can register and edit the list. In fact, DOF from ESMB has said he's already done so.

User avatar
Sponge
Posts: 14692
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:23 am
Location: U.K.

Post by Sponge » Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:53 am

Ball of Fluff wrote:
Tigger wrote:Someone on a.r.s. (a Scientologist of course) is pointing out that the list is not credible
and the title is not accurate because the list contains some who are not ex-Scientologists.

He does have a point. So should those ex-Co$ who still claim to be Scientologists
be removed or should the title be changed to
include both ex-SCN and ex-COS?

Is there an e-mail addy available for questions, corrections, additions and/or deletions?

Tigger
I think they certainly could do that but in the long run it probably doesn't matter. Although it's my understanding that anyone can register and edit the list. In fact, DOF from ESMB has said he's already done so.
On the wwp wiki you can register and edit. The OP on the WWP thread indicated that it could be going back to the WWP forum for editing if it didn't work out on the wiki (presumably the wiki then being locked due to scientologists and trolls etc. messing it up).

Hubbard's Mushroom
Posts: 8290
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:02 pm

Post by Hubbard's Mushroom » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:13 pm

"So should those ex-Co$ who still claim to be Scientologists
be removed or should the title be changed to include both
ex-SCN and ex-COS?" - Tigger

ex-SCN = wised up

ex-COS but still SCN = still deluded

Ball of Fluff
Posts: 8106
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 2:23 am
Location: Cyberspace
Contact:

Post by Ball of Fluff » Thu Jul 30, 2009 5:23 pm

Hubbard's Mushroom wrote:"So should those ex-Co$ who still claim to be Scientologists
be removed or should the title be changed to include both
ex-SCN and ex-COS?" - Tigger

ex-SCN = wised up

ex-COS but still SCN = still deluded
ex-CofS but taking the advice of anonymous critics= fool

:lol:

User avatar
Tigger
Posts: 9148
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 7:06 pm

Post by Tigger » Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:29 pm

Sponge wrote:
Tigger wrote:Someone on a.r.s. (a Scientologist of course) is pointing out that the list is not credible
and the title is not accurate because the list contains some who are not ex-Scientologists.

He does have a point. So should those ex-Co$ who still claim to be Scientologists
be removed or should the title be changed to
include both ex-SCN and ex-COS?

Is there an e-mail addy available for questions, corrections, additions and/or deletions?

Tigger
Yeah, It figures that some won't be happy.

Of course the list won't always be perfect all of the time and there are people who are just tossing the odd name in without too much thought. The odd inaccuracy does not condemn the whole list as the person you quoted on ARS suggests. It's not a big problem, except for pedants. This is a project in progress, not the finished article, and there is an honest drive for accuracy (given that maintaining this list is not anyone's full time job). All the the links have been provided for anyone to have names considered for justifiable removal/addition.

Since chanology is about "removing the church of Scientology in it's present form" I think it is perfectly OK to have on the list ex-church members who still practice unofficially outside the church and have of course spoken out against the practices of their former church. Maybe there is justification to indicate with an asterisk and a general footnote pertaining to those particular names. That will be left for the hive to decide and anyone who still doesn't like it can talk to the claw.

Also, I understand that there is no desire to piss people off and if someone who's name is on the list doesn't want to be on that list, for whatever personal reasons, can ask to have it removed. Of course I expect that dox will need to be provided to verify that it is not some cult operative trying to supress critical information.

The person bleating on ARS should perhaps voice their concerns to the source if they think they can genuinely help with the project. (See previous links in thread). Barking at the sky doesn't help.
Good advice. I've already told him most of what you're posted, Songe, but I'll carry your post to a.r.s. to reinforce it.

Thanks,

Tigger

User avatar
Tigger
Posts: 9148
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 7:06 pm

Post by Tigger » Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:01 pm

Dorothy wrote:
The person bleating on ARS should perhaps voice their concerns to the source if they think they can genuinely help with the project. (See previous links in thread). Barking at the sky doesn't help.
The person bleating on ARS only buys his info from the One Source, and that would be LRon. All other sources would be invalid. The person bleating along with them apparently did not bother to read the thread before bleating.
Are you referring to me? Do you mean this thread? If so, I did read the whole thread. Did you? And I am not "bleating along with them". I told him on a.r.s. in no uncertain terms that it was a work-in-progress and to notify them of any errors that he felt should be corrected.
Dorothy wrote:
And apparently, finding two errors on a list of over 400 people, then saying because of a margin of error of .005%, the entire list is "invalid" and passing that opinion around, is not "carrying on" at all. But pointing out the illogic of that, is? He-He.
What in the world, Dorothy, are you bleating about? I never said any such thing.
Pointing out the "illogic" of what? Your post, which was carrying on, made assumptions about the "scientologist" which you, in no way, know. It also made a ridiculous personal attack on me, which IMO, is "carrying on.".
IMO critics should not be like "church" members and make up bullshit or promote information which is not accurate. -Tigger
Dorothy wrote:
This Ad Hom attack against critics in general is getting so overused, cliché and is getting soooooooo old, its like that old chewed up rag doll that my dog has dragged through the dirt for so long you can't even tell what the original thing was any more. And calling a critic, someone who lost 20 years of their life to it, who suffered from that, a "scientologist" just to be vindictive, WTF? Why do you even bother? What good are you? You serve no purpose that I can see, other than to expel your own inflated sense of yourself.
I did none of that. You are making up and bleating a bunch of bullshit to indulge in an AD HOM attack. GROW UP.

Tgger
COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS

"If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation, you are ahead of 500 million people in the world."

User avatar
Tigger
Posts: 9148
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 7:06 pm

Post by Tigger » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:21 pm

August, 2007

What is an ex scientologist? - Ex Scientologist Message Board
http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1679

[QUOTE=Emma;24396]

I have been wondering about this for a while.

I presume most of you consider yourselves "exes" (excluding those who were never in) considering you post here, but what exactly is an "ex"?

It seems to be a loose term because we have all sorts of people here. I'd like to get some sort of an idea of what defines an ex (if possible).

Maybe you don't consider yourself an ex but post here anyway - which is fine too.

What are your ideas on this?[/QUOTE]




[QUOTE=fluffy;24409]

Well, I suspect it means different things to different people.

So...I would personally think that if a person was an FZer or an indie Scn'ist or anything where they think of themself as being a Scn'ist but have left CofS, that they'd be an ex CofS member who currently is a Scn'ist.

If they've ditched the whole dang thing, then I think they'd be an ex Scn'ist, no qualifiers.

I think it would be whatever that person considers him or herself to be.[/QUOTE]

User avatar
I'mglib
Posts: 5745
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:17 pm

Post by I'mglib » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:49 pm

Did you not notice that Dulloldfart already changed the title?

Do some research before bawwing, pls.
"A man may build himself a throne of bayonets, but he cannot sit on it." -William Ralph Inge

Watch the Los Angeles press conference here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScilonTV#p/

User avatar
Tigger
Posts: 9148
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2000 7:06 pm

Post by Tigger » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:21 am

I'mglib wrote:Did you not notice that Dulloldfart already changed the title?

Do some research before bawwing, pls.
Would you care to explain what you're bitching about? This is the last page and it has the same title, doesn't it?

What is an ex scientologist? - Page 47 - Ex Scientologist Message Board

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p ... post275462

Besides the title and the posts contained the information I wanted to post, because I agree with them.

Why don't you address the message instead of attacking the messenger? Do you think it should be up to the person what he/she considers him/herself to be and how he/she wants to be known?

Tigger
COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS

"If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation, you are ahead of 500 million people in the world."

User avatar
I'mglib
Posts: 5745
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:17 pm

Post by I'mglib » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:34 am

I am talking about this post:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=2 ... tcount=123


If you are going to jump from board to board bawwing about *accuracy* in regards to this list then you will need to do some research.

Accuracy involves research.

Try it.

For instance, say a person was going to accuse a whole message board of causing a person to commit suicide. Then the accuser might want to establish that the supposed dead person actually existed through, say, a name, address, phone number, general geographical location, etc, that a phone call was actually made, say through phone records, and that a death had occured, say through an obituary or death record.

That's what I think a person concerned with *accuracy* would do. But that's just me.
"A man may build himself a throne of bayonets, but he cannot sit on it." -William Ralph Inge

Watch the Los Angeles press conference here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ScilonTV#p/

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

Post by Dorothy » Fri Jul 31, 2009 4:13 am

BTW the guy bleating all over ARS about the *accuracy* of the list, is our dear old friend, Roadrunner.
BEEP-BEEP. BLEAT-BLEAT.

Thanks, Tigger. You must have sensed that we were all homesick for the old RR, and were just trying to help us all out.

And btw Tig, your question that was part of your original post that got me all stirred up:
Is there an e-mail addy available for questions, corrections, additions and/or deletions?
was answered by the OP:
(See previous links in thread).
“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
Sponge
Posts: 14692
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:23 am
Location: U.K.

Post by Sponge » Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:27 am

This is more of a "get shit done" kind of thread, to help the project on WWP, and not a "is this list a good idea or not?" thread. However, it's still always interesting to hear general opinions, even pasesd along from elswhere, and its sometimes fun to hear the clams go snap-snap-snap, but only up to a point. That point being when it ceases to be helpful and starts to be a flat-out repetitive hinderance.

---

Thanks for the PMs with names so far. They have been passed on and some already added.
Another piece of information to remember when adding names to the list, with regard to media interest, is to state the number of years that person was in the cult (which has been bolded on the wiki version where that info is known). Of course the number of years in the cult doesn't always equal experience or usefulness when talking to media again. For example a Sea Orger who cleaned David Miscaviges toilet for 5 years may have had access to more critical information than a 15year public OT in Sleepytown, depending on the requirements of the media at the time.

User avatar
Mewba
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:56 pm
Location: The Golden State

Post by Mewba » Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:59 am

The list would be much longer in reality. I am an ex-co$ and have protested outside of co$ buildings but I still would not feel safe putting my name on the list. There are probably thousands of people that feel the same way.
Ron Hubbard's the kind of person that would just as soon tell a lie as tell the truth.
--Me

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests