bump

starcraft said: Phendrana said: That's not my interpretation. That's not an accusation. It's just how they work. Like Christians going to church on Sunday, Scientology charges money, has a disconnection policy, forbids medication, and attacks critics. Jesus Christ, why is this so hard for you to understand? Did you miss the part of my post where I said there are protesters who aren't anonymous, or are you just ignoring that so you can keep saying the same thing over and over again? And it was a freaking joke, get over it. But it is your interpretation.  Are you a former member?  Do you own their official policy guide?  Because unless the answer to at least one of those questions is a definitive yes, everything you have posted is your interpretation. I didn't miss the part about non-anonymous protesters at all.  The reason I didn't comment is because I have already made reference to them numerous times in this thread.  I will repeat it once more for you.  I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, LOOK THE CoS IN THE EYE AND MAKE AN ACCUSATION!!!!

Phendrana said: http://lisatrust.freewinds.cx/scientology/snow-white/index.html Here you go. A link about the FBI raids on the church, where they found documents on infiltrating government agencies as well as documents on framing people who opposed them. http://www.clambake.org/archive/disk/fairgame.htm And a link that has the text of the policy with the "tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed" quote. You don't have to be a former member to know they do something like charge money or forbid medication. On that note, I'm done with this thread forever.

Unless I missed something starcraft you never responded to this.  I understand that this person left the thread but considering the relevancy and your continual requests for proof from other people I think it's important that you respond to this.  Otherwise you do nothing but strengthen Sqrl's (and my) suspicions.  

In particular, the clambake link contains the extremely important information that the "Fair Game" policy was repealed in name only and continues to this day (or at least 1989) so unchanged that many official documents still refer to it by the old, discontinued name!  I was aware that that was the case but I didn't realize it was proven by leaked documents.

you know it is because he is either to lazy to reply or just can't. =P

The great thing about Scientology is really what it is haha. I'm not making fun of it, but when you look at Scientology from an unbias view, you see a mainstream religion. And that's the funny thing. As insane as it's beliefs sounds, its followers may be, it's organization may be, its the exact same insanity you get from every other religion. Including judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Now the mainstream media doesn't look at them and say the same thing because it doesn't seem awkward to them because they are within the perspective.

But looking at all of them from an omnious perspective there are no differences. So I always find it funny when people will make fun of scientologists when they are part of a religion themselves, when really they are looking at a parody of them.

Disclaimer: this post is not discounting anyone's beliefs or ideologies just simply giving my perspective on other's opinions. I don't have any disdain for any religion or their followers, just stating opinion. We all have our own beliefs and we are entitled to them. But there is nothing wrong with openly discussing them.

Final-Fan said: starcraft said: Phendrana said: That's not my interpretation. That's not an accusation. It's just how they work. Like Christians going to church on Sunday, Scientology charges money, has a disconnection policy, forbids medication, and attacks critics. Jesus Christ, why is this so hard for you to understand? Did you miss the part of my post where I said there are protesters who aren't anonymous, or are you just ignoring that so you can keep saying the same thing over and over again? And it was a freaking joke, get over it. But it is your interpretation. Are you a former member? Do you own their official policy guide? Because unless the answer to at least one of those questions is a definitive yes, everything you have posted is your interpretation. I didn't miss the part about non-anonymous protesters at all. The reason I didn't comment is because I have already made reference to them numerous times in this thread. I will repeat it once more for you. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, LOOK THE CoS IN THE EYE AND MAKE AN ACCUSATION!!!! Phendrana said: http://lisatrust.freewinds.cx/scientology/snow-white/index.html Here you go. A link about the FBI raids on the church, where they found documents on infiltrating government agencies as well as documents on framing people who opposed them. http://www.clambake.org/archive/disk/fairgame.htm And a link that has the text of the policy with the "tricked, sued, lied to or destroyed" quote. You don't have to be a former member to know they do something like charge money or forbid medication. On that note, I'm done with this thread forever. Unless I missed something starcraft you never responded to this. I understand that this person left the thread but considering the relevancy and your continual requests for proof from other people I think it's important that you respond to this. Otherwise you do nothing but strengthen Sqrl's (and my) suspicions. In particular, the clambake link contains the extremely important information that the "Fair Game" policy was repealed in name only and continues to this day (or at least 1989) so unchanged that many official documents still refer to it by the old, discontinued name! I was aware that that was the case but I didn't realize it was proven by leaked documents.

"When brought up, they try to change the subject to you, asking what criminal acts you have on your conscience. According to Scientology all critics of Scientology are criminals, that's why they are critics... Nice logic"

Thats a quote from the clambake article.  Notice how I have been willingly engaging the subject matter of this thread, without changing the subject?  That's substantially contradicts the notion rasied by sqrl that I am simply employing CoS tactics in "attacking my attacker by changing the subject" wouldn't you say?  Bear in mind the fact that it was ssj12 that accused me of murder and aggravated assault because I disagreed with him, not the other way around.  Why do you accuse me of CoS tactics but not him, when he so clearly conformed to their ideas?  I might add that the thrust of sqrl's argument appears to be that because I don't think it is fair to do a hatchet job on all members of the CoS without accountability and without a court judgement, I'm clearly a member of the CoS or at least a sympathiser?  Wouldn't you say he is adopting the very same tactic Scientologists do in the last sentence of that quote?

At the end of the day all I have done in this thread is defend two facts:

1.  Everyone has the right to question their accuser, and everyone should be innocent until proven guilty (by a legal entity, not by a mask-wearing mob).

2.  It is not official Scientology policy to murder and extort it's critics (note that I didn't once say that this means they don't do it, or that it isn't unofficial policy.  I just objected to the stupidity of people like PooperScooper that claimed to have read "official" CoS policy that declared it was cool to murder detractors)

 

I thank you for not attacking me like the others did and simply putting your query to me.  Is there any other confusion over or questions about my opinion Final-Fan? 

 

Zucas: you have a point regarding the beliefs of Scientologists, but the actions of the Church of Scientology are another matter altogether. They act as a very aggressive and unfortunately well-organized cult.

Oh come the fuck on starcraft stop making yourself look like an idiot. quote me where i said it was official policy to murder people.

Sqrl said: starcraft said: Once again you redirect the issue away from the CoS, not surprising, actually I expected it. And yes I think its perfectly fine for them to maintain anonymity under the circumstances. Documented above by the FBI is a case where they did exactly what these people fear they might do to them and they have every right to fear for their safety as any reasonable person would see, you haven't even made an argument to the contrary which makes me believe you agree but wish not to address any part of it. I love how you paint Anonymous as if there is zero accountability despite the fact that they have not broken the law, and to my knowledge continue to file permits for their protests. As soon as any protestor breaks the law he will lose his anonymity and be held accountable for his actions, beyond that CoS has no right to hold any of them accountable for anything or even know who any of these people are and they have good reason and right to fear a situation in which CoS does learn their identity. Now, are you going to continue to sidestep the heart of the issue as outlined in hubbards "attack the attacker" policies or are you going to acknowledge the wrongdoing of CoS and by virtue of that repeated and widespread wrongdoing the necessity for Anonymity? Actually let me rephrase that, are you a reasonable person who admits when he was wrong after being shown evidence? Are you capable of recognizing when circumstances dictate that anonymity is the prudent action? Or are you obstinate and unwilling to admit error, stuck in the first thought pattern you fall into on any subject?

I'm not entirely sure what your doing?  Are you agreeing with Ssj12 when he says that I am without doubt a murderer or at the very least a perpetrator of assault, simply because I don't believe Anonymous protestors should remain anonymous?  I'm going to post a few quotes from myself right here.  These are the many examples of times in this thread when I have adamantly asserted that I do not in any way agree with the CoS as a religion or as an organazation, whilst you continue to directly imply that I do.

"Yes, I agree that the religion is complete crap, but people are perfectly permitted to believe it free from persecution. If people wish to be seperated from non-believers, that is their choice."

"Whilst I would still take issue with many of the groups methods, my primary problem with Anonymous is their total lack of accountability." (This was one of my earlier posts, highlighting the fact that my problem with Anonymous is not their point or beliefs, but their methods and lack of accountability)

"Do you not realize that in declaring anyone who disagrees with him guilty of the same crimes he is accusing the CoS of, ssj12 adopted the very same tactics he is accusing the Church of. "

"I'll say again.  Anonymous' reasons for wearing masks may have started out due to concerns for physical safety when it was a tiny number of people, but now there is no remotely credible physical risk to member's safety (even if everything you say about CoS is true) it is abundently clear that it's all about protecting yourselves from litigation. "

"I fully realize and accept that there is substantial circumstantial evidence that the CoS is dodgy.  I said in my post above that their should be a Senate or Judicial enquiry into the organisation."

"At the end of the day it is wrong for people to throw around accusations without being willing to back them up, and it subverts the free world's entire judicial process. "

"I simply happen to believe that human beings have a few inalienable rights and should never be tried and sentenced by the media.  If you don't agree with that belief, feel free to state that, but stop acting like I'm supporting the CoS when I have said and done nothing of the sort."

"You people need to calm down for a moment and think before you post.  Everything your saying about the CoS could be absolutely true.  But that doesn't make it their official policy."

" I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, LOOK THE CoS IN THE EYE AND MAKE AN ACCUSATION!!!!"

 

There are more but lets leave it there with the quotes.

Here is what I am NOT saying.  "CoS is justified in everything they do."  "CoS hasn't done anything wrong."

Here is what I AM saying.  "There is substantial evidence CoS has committed numerous crimes, but that should be determined by a legal entity, not by a mob that has no accountability."  "The Anonymous claim that they need to hide their faces for protection has been well and truly debunked."

The clambake link provided earlier claims to have definitive proof that the CoS is a murderous organization.  If that is so, lobby police and politicians to do something about it in a calm and open manner.  You drastically increase the credibility of your argument if you don't hide behind a mask. 

 

 

PooperScooper said: Oh come the fuck on starcraft stop making yourself look like an idiot. quote me where i said it was official policy to murder people.

PooperScooper said: man I always labeled you as a biased fanboy but now i can see that you are just an ignorant person that doesn't know an ass from a face. Like many said before its church policy all the people need to do is bring that up and there is no deformation. They had a policy that even said take any means necessary against anyone who talks against the church at one point.

starcraft said: PooperScooper said: Oh come the fuck on starcraft stop making yourself look like an idiot. quote me where i said it was official policy to murder people. PooperScooper said: man I always labeled you as a biased fanboy but now i can see that you are just an ignorant person that doesn't know an ass from a face. Like many said before its church policy all the people need to do is bring that up and there is no deformation. They had a policy that even said take any means necessary against anyone who talks against the church at one point.   Quoted as requested.

thanks for proving my point. now shut your yap and dont put words in my mouth.