John wrote:

>
> Zinj <zinjifar@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1887b7e2aa0a08a998969d@news.101freeway.com>...
> > In article <14a41af3.0301091534.3532b276@posting.google.com>,
> > cstimpsonj@yahoo.com says...
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree, I can really see people posting to this newsgroup to "take
> > > on" the critics and protesters. I would suspect that it might even be
> > > encouraged by the "Church" since this newsgroup must not be seen in a
> > > favorable light (possible major understatement).
> >
> > To start with, it'd be good practice to leave enough of the 'header' from
> > the msg you're replying to so we could identify who it's from. Also, we
> > do indeed get trolls, both of the standard usenet variety, and some
> > official 'Church' operatives. Hope you didn't mind being confused with
> > one; especially given that you *still* might be either kind :)
>
> :) Sorry about the header, I was trying to make it look neat. However,
> I can see how it might have caused some problems. Anyway, how often do
> you get trolls and operatives? Is this newsgroup #1 on the Church of
> Scientology's "Hit List"?
>
> I don't mind being confused or accused of being either kind. I'm not
> really anti-Scientology or pro-Scientology either. For the most part,
> I don't care - a "to each their own" attitude. I assume that people
> like myself do not frequent this newsgroup often. :)
>
>
> > We also do get sincerely curious people, and even the rare 'blue eyed
> > Scientologist' who just happened in by mistake, and can usually be
> > recognized by the look of horror their every typestroke demonstrates.
>
> :)
>
> > Both of those are good excuses to answer even *trolls* questions 'as if'
> > they were real. At the very least it's good practice, and sometimes
> > generally informative.
> >
> > Of course, real Scientologists, who are *not* 'hatted' to 'handle' the
> > 'entheta' here by the Church of Scientology's Office of Special Affairs
> > (OSA)/the secret police, are quckly warned off by OSA, once it identifies
> > them. (I'd say pardon the Scienospeak, but, it's something you'll pick up
> > here, is probably comprehensible in small doses, and does give a bit of
> > the flavor of the Scientology mindset. What's confusing is when *real*
> > words are redefined; such as 'ethics' and 'research')
>
> Thanks for warning! :)
>
> > It's somewhat dubious how 'popular' a book DMSMH is, since the Church of
> > Scientology resorts to any number of (wog) ethically dubious machinations
> > to hype it, and claim more popularity.
>
> I don't doubt that.
>
> > Or how useful it is to
> > understanding Scientology, but hey, if you can actually stagger through
> > reading it, you'll either be left quizzically wondering what the hell the
> > point was, or looking around for a fake sailor suit and plastic hubbard
> > bust to 'Hip Hip Hooray!' :) (the latter being a very worst or best case
> > scenario depending on whether you think the cult is the bugshit crazy
> > revival of Thugeee or 'Mankind's Only Hope')
>
> I severely doubt anything I can read, hear or see would make me
> religious.
>
>
> > To get back to how *useful* reading Dianetics is, ignoring for the moment
> > the florid prose, hyperbolic claims, dogmatic inanities and logical
> > inconsistencies, in understanding Scientology®; it isn't.
> >
> > As the thin edge of the salami tactic 'gradient' bait and switch, very
> > little of DMSMH has anything but a remote relationship to the Cult as it
> > exists now, or even to what it was back in the halcyon days when Hubbard
> > *first* abandonded Dianetics as his vehicle in order to escape his
> > creditors (mostly believing Dianeticists).
> >
> > Someone recommended 'The Road to Xenu' by Margery Wakefield, and I
> > couldn't agree more, for getting a quick immersion into the language,
> > motices, actions and tenor of Scientology. It's worth remembering though
> > that her experiences, however positive or negative are of a Scientology
> > ages ago and in a much 'nicer' place. Current Scientology lacks almost
> > all the charm of the original cult, but is leaner, meaner and nastier.
>
> How so? Aren't all "religions" lean, mean and nasty? :)
>
>
> > > This newsgroup is far from being a forum for dispassionate debate.
> > > More so, it appears to be mainly for advocacy. There are two sides to
> > > every coin, so I don't expect to get the "full picture" here. However,
> > > the knowledge is invaluable.
> > >
> > > Thanks again.
> >
> > This is indeed a *political* forum... and a social venue, and an
> > anthropology experiment, and and and :)
>
> LOL. Yes, all that too! :-)
>
>
> > It's a cliche that the 'truth' is always somewhere in between. In the
> > case of Scientology®, the truth is still hidden. What critics say about
> > it here sometimes actually *does* go beyond the realm of real into black
> > helicopterland: But; Scientology is worse than even *we* think.
>
> I have little doubt that this is the case with most religions in the
> world. There are a vast number of child rapes we will never hear
> about. There are a vast number of ministers who have robbed their
> followers, etc...
>
> Thanks for the information.

Your assumption that scientology is a religion is causing you to have a Misunderstood Word. (MU) This is similar to your mistaken impression that Dianetics is a "popular" book. These are perfectly normal mistakes, given the reams of PR material pumped out by the "church."

Scientology adopted the cloak of religiosity for obvious reasons, a "religious" practice won't be subject to FDA scrutiny, whereas Dianetics was getting in hot water for practicing medicine without a license. Plus there's the added benefits of tax-exempt status. Some people here were in back in the day when Scientology decided to become a religion.

Suddenly they were "ministers," and had to wear dog collars like priests. However, if you look at the *behavior* of the organization, you'll see a closer parallel to the Mafia than any religion.

Prison camps? An army of PIs? An armed compound in Hemet?

At some levels, members truly believe they're involved with a religion.

That's because they're not allowed to know what goes on outside their tiny sphere of courses and events. Scientology is actually only 1% artificially religious-flavored product, and 99% criminal enterprise.

-- Barb Chaplain, ARSCC http://members.cox.net/bwarr1/index.htm

"Comparing Scientology to a motorcycle gang is a gross, unpardonable insult to bikers everywhere. Even at our worst, we are never as bad as Scientology."

-ex-member, Thunderclouds motorcycle "club"

Go Back