SCIENTOLOGY (TM)

[Anonymous]

Paul you are annoying as shit. How fucking dare you appropriate the Straight Survivors forum, making this retarded thread stay on top. FUCK YOU.

[Paul]

On 2005-06-26 10:11:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Paul you are annoying as shit. How fucking dare you appropriate the Straight Survivors forum, making this retarded thread stay on top. FUCK YOU."

I just looked at this thread from the beginning.

It was started in July 3, 2003 by Wes Fager.

There was only three posts until I posted the results of this question here, so it would be
easy to find the topic of Scientology, appropriately in the Scientology thread:

"Ginger, has no one ever done searches on these "resources" Deborah uses and Scientology before?

OK, here is on on Ablechild.org that Deborah uses to post on the thread:"

Since that post, eight days ago there has been
this activity:

75 posts, minus the first 3 = 72 posts

753 views

This activity, all me, I don't think so.

If people are interested that is their voluntary
choice. Please give up the censorship activism.

The 90 or so views per day since June 19 should
not be controlled by you, Ginger, nor anyone
else.

Please let people voluntarily choose to look and
read what they want!

[Carmel]

Its my personal opinion that Paul should be able to post whatever he wants about Scientology...he is obviously against it and I assume thats a sight better in all our eyes than someone who is trying to PROMOTE it.  Not that it matters per se, but you get my meaning.  Just the other day I had to explain to someone about the true doctrine behind Scientology because they actually thought it was based on Christian doctrines.  Some people really dont know what its all about you know?

Secondly.....I think most can agree that this thread has room for meaningful discourse, as opposed to say, the FUCK YOU threads, or the I HATE WOMEN threads or the LET ME TELL EVERYONE HOW BLITZED OUT OF MY MIND I AM TODAY THREADS.

And PLEASE dont jump all over me for singling those out, they have a right to be here too....but there is worse bullshit slathered all over this forum than Paul's article posting.

[ This Message was edited by: Carmel on 2005-06-27 07:32 ]

[001010]

I agree. I had no idea the detailed history of COS and found the articles informative and interesting. Regardless of how old they are.

It is my understanding however, that Paul has been banned for his postings, and I simply do not understand that.  

 ::

They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is, remarkably, their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=18' target='_new'>Michael Moore

_________________
EST (Lifespring) '83
Salesmanship Club '84-'86
Straight, Inc. '86-'88

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ~ Edmund Burke

[Paul]

I am no longer banned.

Ginger was nice enough to explain to me some etiquitte on this, or any board. In the past
I was only used to listservs.

What I need to do is make my point, post the
reference, if any, and not engage in a negative
dialogue that ends up in unintentional flooding.

Actually, that is a relief to me. It was very
uncomfortable being attacked here.

I clicked through some more of the articles and they are as long as the first couple. If they are more than 3k I will post in sections.

I won't do more than one a day, nor will I engage in flooding.

I think this will work out ok.

If not, I will stop.

Thanks for your support!

[Froderik]

It would be NICE if he would have linked to these articles instead of pasting the whole fuckin' thing in there.....however, I reluctantly agree that he should not have been banned.....I guess...but hell, this isn't my forum...

[Antigen]

Paul, just post the whole list of links along w. any excerpts an/or your thoughts that make your point. That's fine.

Are we still talking about the New Freedom Init? Exactly why are we talking about the clams, anyway.

The lust for power, for dominating others, inflames the heart more than any other passion
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140440607/circlofmiamithem' target='_new'> Tacitus

[Paul]

Are we still talking about the New Freedom Init? Exactly why are we talking about the clams, anyway.

Why did this discussion start?

Good question.

I would have to research the database to get the exact cause which I am not going to do, I hope that is ok.

Basically, Deborah called me paranoid for mentioning psychiatry and Scientology. She also said they had no implact. Or she implied, whatever.

So I started doing google searches on Scientology.
I was stunned and learning what I did about the COS in general and they certainly do influence poeple's choice of treatments utilizing front groups and invalidating any experiences patients may have had other than their own belief syste. There was no, hey we have an alternative method if you want to check us out, type of evangelism.

Then regarding Deborah, I chose to start doing simple searches to check her "references + Scientology". When her references came up as front groups for the COS, according to the search results, I posted them.

I figured it was time for a history lesson, and the right place was this article was thread called Scientology TM.

I didn't want to burden anyone by posting the numberous articles in this one LA Times series, so I decided, on my own, to post one a day. Members of Fornit's got inflamed and posted insults and the issue rose to everyone's attention, according to the number of views.

I thought initially I would just post the articles and people would read them, that is all. I guess because it became popular to read and in vogue to insult me that attention came upon this thread.

It wasn't until yesterday that I learned that I was flooding the fornits server.

Although, in reality, it still seems to me that it is ok for Deborah and others to pile on a topic by posting numerous same informtion articles over and over again. But, I will observe and learn and it probably is not flooding.

Regarding just posting reference links, without the whole article, there is a danger there also. I realize yesterday for instance that Deborah posted a link as a reference, and obviously did not read it. She was using it to reveal questions sent to to the AMA by ablechild.org, which had no link to them.

I questioned her, she then posted the portion of the original link that I knew would have inflamed her, proving BTW, to me, in my opinion that she didn't read her refernce in the first place. Then, as she always does, ignored my question and posted yet another rant. Whatever, I am not going to dialogue with her anymore anyhow, and that is a relief.

So, ok, if you don't want the whole articles and would like me to choose a relevant point, when I believe the articles are completely relevant, and well written then ok, no problem. That is not my first choice, and truthfully I am uncomfortable editing and already finely edited series. But for the sake of putting up some historical information to counter Deborah's misrepretention of Scientology's impact on anti-psychiatry advocacy, then ok.

[Paul]

This article is about the current leadership of the Church of Scientology, or rather one of the, or the, organization that conrols COS.

http://www.xenutv.com/print/LAT-1G.htm

The article is 856 words in length.

[Antigen]

Paul, we were talking about the New Freedom Init. Please don't try and tell me you don't remember that. And yes, Deb did cite ablechild as a source. But I'm guessing she didn't know it was a clam front. She has also posted numerous other sources that have nothing to do w/ the clams. (you do know why the COS is sometimes refered to as the clams, right? It's a funny story)

Anyway, yes, COS is a big scarry cult w/ subtle influence all over the place. And one of their primary rants is against any type of medical or psychiatric treatment that competes w/ their own methods. Though they don't make clear the connections between themselves and their front groups (obviously, or they wouldn't fit the definition of front groups) they certainly do offer alternative treatments. They call them Narconon and the Purification Rundown and Auditing and management training seminars, etc.

But, regardless of how wacked out or how subversive and sneaky the clams are, that doesn't change the fact that forced psyche treatment is a horrible idea. And it doesn't change the fact that they've already implimented similar programs in some states w/o anything approaching meaningful informed consent. Most people don't know when they send their kids off to school to tell them to be skeptical of their teachers and to not participate in any sort of medical or psyche programs w/o letting them know. Hell, as I've pointed out, most people don't even know that DARE is a psychiatric program, not a curriculum.

Here, try this link:
http://www.google.com/search?biw=953&hl ... initiative

Once you get past the government sites, try x-referencing scientology w/ the organizations opposing this neostalinist plan. I have looked into it lightly as I routinely do. When I find something of interest, I at least look around the rest of their website and maybe google their org name for context. I've found religious fundies of various stripe, education interest groups (including homeschoolers), medical professional organizations and many other interest groups all critical of this policy.

Even though the Clams come down against it--on the same side of the issue as a lot of us--that doesn't mean we're all wrong. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

In all history, there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. Only one who knows the disastrous effects of a long war can realize the supreme importance of rapidity in bringing it to a close. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war who can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.
--Sun Tzu (author of The Art of War

[Paul]

On 2005-06-27 10:05:00, Antigen wrote:

"Paul, we were talking about the New Freedom Init. Please don't try and tell me you don't remember that.

*** I don't remember that as the reason I went to this thread to post the articles.

And yes, Deb did cite ablechild as a source. But I'm guessing she didn't know it was a clam front.

*** Check Deborah's last post, she is harassing me on this issue. I chose not to engage her, and referred her back to my search resource.

She has also posted numerous other sources that have nothing to do w/ the clams.

*** I believe that.

(you do know why the COS is sometimes refered to as the clams, right? It's a funny story)

*** I have been meaning to ask you that, seriously, I would like to know.

Since I don't use the quote feature to well, please refer to the *** coments above.

Ginger, I think you mis-understood my last post.

My principle concern with Scientology is that they invalidate peoples experiences that are not members of COS. That is it, that is all.

They are deceptive, and that is unfair to the one's that are unkowing. That is it, that is all.

The right to practice Scientology is ok with me.

The right to do whatever one wants is ok with me,
within the context of US law, of course.

Regardless, if this is a reference to Deborah and her flooding. I do believe you allow her plenty of liberty. She has posted over and over on the same topic since I joined Fornit's. You seem to have no problem with her version of flooding. That is all.

Hey, no complaints here though, I am enjoying not engaging in potential flooding dialogue, as I said in my prior post, it is a relief.

Will I ever change my mind that not posting the full article from the LA Times on Scientology based on how I arrived at Scientology TM, no.

Do I have a problem with disagreeing with you - no.

Do I have a problem with obeying the no flooding rules - no.

I am ok. Seriously, thank you.

Paul

PS - Now you have me very curious as to the origins of the "clam" moniker?

[Paul]

Ginger,

Check this out, this is my first post here,
not in refernece to the New Freedom Initiative.

Certainly we talked about it, but I don't think
it lead me to post on this thread.

I am sure that talk contributed overall to
leading me to start googling scientology to
learn more than I knew when we first started
this whole episode.

Here is my first post:

On 2005-06-15 18:31:00, Antigen wrote:

"Oh, are you shittin' me? Deb provides a great deal of background and research info to these discussions.



Ginger, has no one ever done searches on these "resources" Deborah uses and Scientology before?

OK, here is on on Ablechild.org that Deborah uses to post on the thread:

"Mental Health Screening in Schools Signals the End of Parental Rights"

Search: Ablechild.org Scientology

...

The rest of the post snipped to avoid flooding.

[Carmel]

I would just like to say that I am glad Paul is back posting...however, I  would like to call foul on him being banned for so-called flooding.  It took someone like Animals months and months of massive bullshit.... not to mention decidedly improper etiquette....before he got booted.  

I dont think its necessary for Paul to have to apologize for anything....he hasnt been rude or obscene.....not like the two legendary intellects posting now about his "obsession" and the infinite value of the phrase "fuck off".  May I ask why they arent to apologize or implement  proper ettiquette?

I have seen people post articles this long if not longer many times before and with no reprimand.

I guess it doesnt matter now since he is no longer blocked...but it still just floors me that something like this would merit such action when others wouldnt.

Just makes me question the legitimacy of the forum.  Ive never felt that way before.

[Anonymous]

First it was just him and Timoclea and Deborah on an asinine thread on the Teen Help that no one but them had any interest in because it turned into a bicker thing. Then Paul starts posting replies and threads in other forums specifically calling out Deborah. It was getting creepy. Creepy, I tell you, his obsession with Deborah's posts. Not only creepy, but absurd, telling Deborah she had some ethical obligation to reveal her beliefs or say her source was related to Scientology. THEN he comes over here and bumps ANOTHER thread about Scientology, and KEEPS ON calling out Deborah, and he was posting long ass cut and pastes that were about nothing but his obsession with posting long ass cut and pastes about Scientology just to make more noise than Deborah, so Ginger politely requested that he just post links to such long ass articles so he wasn't leaching off her server with his obsession. THEN he kept on cutting and pasting and posting these articles!

Anyhoo, that's the background story. Maybe you'd have seen it differently if you had seen the whole thing unfold over a period of days.

[Paul]

On 2005-06-27 14:50:00, Anonymous wrote:





Anyhoo, that's the background story. Maybe you'd have seen it differently if you had seen the whole thing unfold over a period of days. "

Anonymous,

Isn't it nice that you have the choice and freedom to have your own take on how these posts evolved.

If you don't want to take my version of how I got involved, and my corrective action since emailing
with Ginger yesterday, then you don't have to. Cool eh!

Perhaps if Deborah didn't insult me and was not such an expert on the mentally ill, even though she stated she has nothing to do with the mentally ill, this Bipolar person would not even be mentioning her now! Just think ...

Paul