PooperScooper said: 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.

Er.....right.....

Of course you won that one Pooper

*pats poopers head in a patronizing manner* 

 

Zucas said: 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.

Your right it was pretty funny when Lisa Mcphersion was killed. Wait no it wasn't your missing the point.

"metaphore" people aren't saying unions are bad they're saying the mafia infultration is.

Also saying all religions are the same is a pretty hasty generalzation.

starcraft said: 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?

I think we can all agree that ssj12 lost his head a bit and said things he does not in fact stand by. I'm confident ssj12 will agree with that, if not now then tomorrow. You, on the other hand, have been quite calmly and levelheadedly steering this debate consistently away from the actual subject of the CoS's misdeeds and towards the faults of its accusers. Including in this very response!

You said Phendrana was only interpreting/opining and asked him to provide proof otherwise, i.e. that he was stating facts instead of opinion or interpretation. When he did you ignored it. When I asked you to stop ignoring it you found a quote that you decided to use to turn the conversation yet again to UNRELATED things like what some other dude implied you did in your spare time.

You declined to respond to the specific damning evidence I mentioned, either to agree that the CoS is in all likelihood guilty or to attempt to defend it, instead falling back on two personal defenses of yourself, both of which fail for one reason or another:

1. Everyone has the right to question their accuser in a court of law. Which street protests are not. And for the record (again!), just because a large group of people participate in a protest does not mean that all of them are safe from a ruthless organization such as the CoS; it could decide to make a brutal example of a few people via harassment, frivolous suits, poisonous accusations or whispering campaigns in the victims' neighborhoods/businesses, etc. -- standard CoS protocol against "SPs". The CoS's goal might be to make protesters fearful of being the unlucky victim just like a single sniper can stop hundreds of soldiers by killing only a few of them.

2. Actually it IS official CoS policy last we heard to "trick, sue, lie to or destroy" anyone critical of it. They just filed the serial numbers off of the "Fair Game" label it originally had. That continuing policy easily covers such things as extortion and could be interpreted without difficulty as including murder. You have FAILED UTTERLY to address this point and the documents supporting it and the way they contradict your claims that we don't have any reason to think the CoS might condone such acts. Whether or not PooperScooper had any basis for what he said.

As for Sqrl's posts, despite his voicing his suspicions about you, the vast majority of his post was clearly to present the well-documented alleged and proven crimes of the CoS and ask you to finally discuss that instead of specific individuals and tactics of the CoS's detractors. Which you declined to do.

In the end, my only question is whether you truly suffer from the delusion that your post even began to respond to Phendrana's.

"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. "

Do you so completely fail to understand that litigation is a weapon the CoS eagerly uses and has used to great effect to ruin the lives of many people who chose not to wear masks, even when they were guilty of nothing but an opinion the CoS disliked?

[edit: And if Sqrl ever did such a thing as you describe, I might say he was guilty of that tactic; fortunately, your description is a ridiculous caricature of what he ACTUALLY said, which is that based on his observations your posts appear to be skilfully designed to deflect attention away from the CoS's misdeeds and onto the misdeeds or ill-advised words or even less-than-impeccable sportsmanship* of its accusers; and that he invites you to prove him wrong.

[*And by that last I mean that since the right to question your accusers face-to-face does NOT extend to the streetcorner, and since I believe you have conceded that unmasking WOULD expose Anonymous protesters to the CoS's forte of frivolous lawsuits, all I can think of is that you want the CoS to be able to "shoot back" at the people unfairly not making big fat targets of themselves.]

Oh, and since you've baselessly suggested that Sqrl accused you of committing assault or murder, does that mean you'll stop cudgeling us all with ssj12's lapses of judgement? Or does this simply mean we get to cudgel you back?

Final-Fan said: starcraft said: I think we can all agree that ssj12 lost his head a bit and said things he does not in fact stand by. I'm confident ssj12 will agree with that, if not now then tomorrow. You, on the other hand, have been quite calmly and levelheadedly steering this debate consistently away from the actual subject of the CoS's misdeeds and towards the faults of its accusers. Including in this very response! You said Phendrana was only interpreting/opining and asked him to provide proof otherwise, i.e. that he was stating facts instead of opinion or interpretation. When he did you ignored it. When I asked you to stop ignoring it you found a quote that you decided to use to turn the conversation yet again to UNRELATED things like what some other dude implied you did in your spare time. You declined to respond to the specific damning evidence I mentioned, either to agree that the CoS is in all likelihood guilty or to attempt to defend it, instead falling back on two personal defenses of yourself, both of which fail for one reason or another: 1. Everyone has the right to question their accuser in a court of law. Which street protests are not. And for the record (again!), just because a large group of people participate in a protest does not mean that all of them are safe from a ruthless organization such as the CoS; it could decide to make a brutal example of a few people via harassment, frivolous suits, poisonous accusations or whispering campaigns in the victims' neighborhoods/businesses, etc. -- standard CoS protocol against "SPs". The CoS's goal might be to make protesters fearful of being the unlucky victim just like a single sniper can stop hundreds of soldiers by killing only a few of them. 2. Actually it IS official CoS policy last we heard to "trick, sue, lie to or destroy" anyone critical of it. They just filed the serial numbers off of the "Fair Game" label it originally had. That continuing policy easily covers such things as extortion and could be interpreted without difficulty as including murder. You have FAILED UTTERLY to address this point and the documents supporting it and the way they contradict your claims that we don't have any reason to think the CoS might condone such acts. Whether or not PooperScooper had any basis for what he said. As for Sqrl's posts, despite his voicing his suspicions about you, the vast majority of his post was clearly to present the well-documented alleged and proven crimes of the CoS and ask you to finally discuss that instead of specific individuals and tactics of the CoS's detractors. Which you declined to do. In the end, my only question is whether you truly suffer from the delusion that your post even began to respond to Phendrana's.

I think it is time for us to start agreeing to disagree on some things, but I'll take your post in order.

Firstly, I'm am not steering the conversation away from ANYTHING.  Not one person in this entire thread, least of all me, is arguing the toss over what CoS has done.  What I have argued about is whether it is fair to apply the misdeeds of a few to the whole organization and all it's followers.  Of course I haven't discussed what CoS has done as my primary issue because it was my understanding that their past misdeeds were not in dispute?

Your arguing against an opposition that doesn't exist on that point, because I am not opposing you on the vast majority of the links that have been posted here.  Please, PLEASE read what I'm typing.  I'm NOT supporting the CoS or trying to downplay what they HAVE done wrong.  I'm arguing against what you consider to be the justified generalization of these misdeeds and application of guilt to the entire organization and all of it's followers.  A few people have come into this thread, thoroughly read my posts and immediately understood what I have said.  why is it you cannot?  Have you read the thread from start to finish.  As for why I didn't immediately respond to Phendrana's post (the one with the clambake link), it is simply a case of my not seeing it.  When I did respond, I based it on the actual topic we are discussing, rather than CoS's specific misdeeds because NOONE INCLUDING MYSELF IS ARGUING THAT THEY DID NOT HAPPEN!!!!

1.  In response to this I direct you too one of my earlier posts.  The first scenario is the one we currently have.  Anonymous protests in masks which has two problems.  One, it limits their credibility as they are not accountable for their own opinions.  Two, if CoS finds out who one of them is, it can kill them and say "it wasn't us, they wear masks, we didn't even know they were in the group.  In the second scenario, they could not wear masks.  One, this would increase their credibility as they would now be accountable.  Two, if any of them turn up dead, the finger IMMEDIATELY points at the CoS.  It would be an absolutely monumental DISASTER for CoS PR.  That is why the whole "staying masked for our own safety" argument falls through. 

2.  The link you refer too is from the 1980's.  It is an internal memo.  What I'm asking is this.  If you ask a senior CoS member if it is official policy to murder detractors, what do you think they will say?  Seriously?  Thats my point.  I don't know how that argument ever got so big in this thread. I simply pointed out the difference between official and unofficial.  If you want to stand unmasked in the middle of Times Square and scream at the top of your lungs that it is unofficial CoS policy to take any means necessary to try and quell dissent, be my guest.  I would stand up for your right to say it, so long as you were willing to back it up.

As for Sqrl's post?  Once again, he like you has completely (and perhaps deliberately) misunderstood what I have said.  I have not once defended CoS's past actions.  The reason I didn't argue the toss over the links he provided is precisely because I agree that each one highlights abhorrent events.  What the argument in this thread has moved into is a debate about due process and natural justice, which I believe should be accorded to everyone in and out of the courtroom.

But I'm sure, despite the fact that I haven't denied the truthfulness of a single event in a single link in this thread, you or Sqrl will find a way to paint me as a Hubbard-humping Scientology defender that is desperately trying to change the subject and defend myself by means of aggression. 

Final-Fan said: Oh, and since you've baselessly suggested that Sqrl accused you of committing assault or murder, does that mean you'll stop cudgeling us all with ssj12's lapses of judgement? Or does this simply mean we get to cudgel you back?

WTF???? Where the hell did I suggest that?

And even if I had, why would I decide that what ssj12 said was ok?  

After the murder comment he essentially said, "sorry I didn't mean to say that, maybe your only guilty of aggravated assault."

But apparently you consider that to be something of an apology. 

 

starcraft said: 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.

Seriously? I made a small comment and you've latched onto it and are now trying to put words in my mouth(see first paragraph of your responce). Apparently a suspicion is now an accusation of murder....when did that happen? Thats pretty weak man, not much else I can say about it.

ON TOPIC:

 

I challenge you to a point by point rebuttal of Sqrl's post where he spent 20 minutes of non-effort finding CoS wrongdoing. Then I believe Final-Fan has other posts he would like an answer to. Once you've done that we can move on normally, until then I encourage everyone to stop engaging starcraft in conversation in this thread. It only affords him the opportunity to dodge the issue.

 

 

PS - If he makes another dodge post feel free to paste this section above as the only responce. If he wants to ignore the points made by others our only recourse is to do the same in kind.

starcraft said: Final-Fan said: Oh, and since you've baselessly suggested that Sqrl accused you of committing assault or murder, does that mean you'll stop cudgeling us all with ssj12's lapses of judgement? Or does this simply mean we get to cudgel you back? WTF???? Where the hell did I suggest that? And even if I had, why would I decide that what ssj12 said was ok? After the murder comment he essentially said, "sorry I didn't mean to say that, maybe your only guilty of aggravated assault." But apparently you consider that to be something of an apology.

"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?"

If I ask you "Do you rape children?", there is a suggestion that you do, or do some related activity such as perhaps child porn, even if I haven't made a statement.  You say that Sqrl MIGHT agree with accusing you of murder and that a reasonable person could interpret his words that way.

ssj12:  "I used the "have done similar" part as a way to display that something along those lines could, be reasonable reason for why you arent displaying any sort of emotion to the C0$ crimes.  I'm not saying murder, morealong the lines of beating the crap out of someone or something that falls under voilent terms."

So he said 'Oops, what I meant was that being a person who is guilty of assault or some such thing would explain why you don't seem to be outraged at the CoS's actions.'  Basically reverting to the same suggestion of wrongdoing (but specifically excluding murder) that you are making, if less eloquently put.

I don't in fact think that's a full enough apology because as I said I am waiting for him to come back with the rest of it.  But apparently you ignored or misread that part.

I merely meant to say that since you now are guilty of the same sort of behavior as ssj12 (even if not quite as egregious), that you would refrain from continuing to hypocritically berate the kettle for being black -- being yourself a black pot.

[edit:  hmm, looks to me like you've basically accepted everything Sqrl said but said it doesn't apply to your arguments.  Well, let's see if that's true...]

Well, Sqrl, he seems to be accepting 90% of your post as unchallenged fact. If that's a "dodge", it's a damn bold one. I'd like to see where this goes.

"Not one person in this entire thread, least of all me, is arguing the toss over what CoS has done. What I have argued about is whether it is fair to apply the misdeeds of a few to the whole organization and all it's followers. Of course I haven't discussed what CoS has done as my primary issue because it was my understanding that their past misdeeds were not in dispute?"

So you're saying that you don't dispute what the CoS has done, only that it's the organization at large (i.e. CoS) that is to blame? No one here seriously thinks that ALL Scientologists participate in the very worst of the CoS's stunts, even if they all have the same ideology that supports those actions and support the Church that perpetrates them.

1. Yes, because there aren't any suspicious deaths ALREADY of the CoS's detractors.

2. You seem to be confusing "official policy" with "PUBLIC policy". Maybe we're using the term differently. I am using it to say that the CoS has formally authorized its followers to use such tactics. (And, by the way, that's NOT "formerly" misspelled.)

On a side note, I believe that your apparent use of "official" is actually a misuse, if I understand your meaning correctly. "Sony has officially confirmed its Q4 profits [to reporters/the public]" is the type of usage that might have led you to such a misconception. In this case, they are officially making public the numbers. The "public" part is not part of the term "official", though most official numbers in the news are public as well, as it's such a bother to get leaked reliable numbers in a timely manner. As you can see, Phendrana's evidence is not from this year or even the last.

Moving on: You paint yourself as never having questioned the reality of the CoS's actions, when in reality you have done so throughout. The posts between yourself and Phendrana show that you engaged specifically in questioning his assertions about the facts of what the CoS has done.

P.S.  "What the argument in this thread has moved into is a debate about due process and natural justice, which I believe should be accorded to everyone in and out of the courtroom."

According to you, it's been your sole purpose in this entire thread to force it on to that track. You have been the ONLY one moving it in that direction. It puzzles me why you would do so; if you feel so strongly, why not make your own related thread instead of spending so much effort trying to hijack this one?