Some people in these forums have a little too much time on there hands . . .

Sometimes a fish is a fish, regardless of its color.

Patterns are an invaluable tool in investigation and definitely should be made use of. Just as long as the patterns are interpreted correctly. In the case of the C.O.S. there is an undeniable pattern of ill will toward the C.O.S. And there is also an undeniable pattern of reports of offensive behavior by members of the church.

So the actual patterns are in "reports" and "ill will".

So where is the "control"? Where is the statistical sampling that indicates the reported events are any more or less than the purely random events associated with all other groups?

How about making a per-capita comparison between the C.O.S and the largest and most powerful group in the country, whose alleged aim is "the betterment of man". Go check out the abuses of the mental health industry and then talk about patterns!

No doubt about that.

And some people in these forums don't have enough time on their hands.

And sometimes there are bigger fish to fry.

Why are you guys defending Scientology? Its clear that many posts here in this thread are designed to bring doubt as to the events in question . . . why?

The same idea holds true on both sides of stories like these, you can accept that the people who made these stories public are being truthful, or not, or remain neutral.

If you know no more then the OP, or the originator of the story . . . then why post such obvious statements as to call into question the motives, or truthfulness of the story tellers? Everyone should know that any story is subject to being truthful, or without truth or any in-between . . making statements like this that are soo obvious are only done for reasons . . .

Conflicting Agenda's . . . that is the only reason . . .

I actually know quite a bit about it.I have been interested in Hubbard and C.O.S. for many years.I have always been a big fan of science fiction and I read Hubbards 10 part Mission Earth series when I was 15 and I began researching Hubbards life. The guy may have been evil,brilliant, or crazy,but he is very interesting. So I read Dianetics. I was knowing and talking about Scientology way back in the early 90s.

Mirror that makes sense, but you where not really who I was referring to . . .

Its posts like this . . .
. . that make me shake my head . . . everything anyone says about anyone's beliefs is in the same category of it could be propaganda . . so why even state the obvious?

An attempt to discredit, due to an agenda, or to shelter a personal belief, or to set straight without actually setting straight a misnomer.

Either you are, or are not a representative of what we are talking about, if you are then just tell us if this is what you believe, if you are not then quit stating the obvious like its some kind of revelation that anything anyone says about another persons beliefs could in fact be wrong lol, and could in fact be deliberate to cast a certain light on those that believe such . . . stuff.

It really just makes it look like you are trying to defend a group without actually coming out in its defense, which is either a weak attempt or again, just stating the obvious in such a way that you have not only said nothing, but made yourself look like a follower.

this may explain why some seem too beat around the bush for no reason...

"THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM." — L. Ron Hubbard, "Off the Time Track," lecture of June 1952


"The student should be coached on a gradient until he/she can lie facily." — L. Ron Hubbard, "TR-L"



So you can see that they have no reason, or underlying responsibility to tell the truth. Maybe that why they doubt everything they see. They live in a society where lying is approved of and back by the Church and its founder.

Scientology is true and real! I have proof in my basement, I just cant tell you what it is . . . .

Well I have to agree with that. But neither the quoted post nor the one to which it was intended as a reply, had anything whatsoever to do with beliefs.

So far “what we are talking about” has been almost exclusively crimes, misrepresentations, rumors and bigotry. So I will flatly deny being “a representative of” that.

Here again, the conversation has had virtually nothing whatsoever to do with beliefs. And in the one case where it did I made my beliefs known.

If you are confused about whether or not I have been defending Scientology, I submit that you haven't been reading what I've been posting. Pretty much everything I've posted has been in defense of Scientology. So there’s no need for you to be trying to accuse me of defending them without actually accusing me of it.

I have already stated that I have studied a considerable amount about the philosophy. And it is obvious to me that I have had more personal experience with and knowledge of, the philosophy, the organization and individual members, than anyone else on these forums. So I guess that would make me the closest thing to a “follower” around.

However, I don’t work for C.O.S or attend any meetings or classes or receive any services.

So you go ahead and pick whatever label you want.

Anyone who is interested in finding out for themselves about what lies are being spread, who is spreading them, and why, is invited to look up those quotes and examine their true context.

Its the frozen body of L.Ron Hubbard isnt it?

So what's the deal here Billy? Why are you objecting to me defending Scientology? I am certain that I know more about it than the OP in this case. You've never objected to me defending any other viewpoint. Why this one? Everyone has an agenda. What's your agenda my friend?

It's probably just in statsis waiting to be revived to champion the fight against Xenu when he returns.

Thats what is supposed to happen according to the prophecy. Hubbard will revive from his cryostasis and lead the "Loyal officers" in a battle against Xenu. Kinda like "Return of the Jedi".

Except that in the world in that movie, the ones that inprision people, take there belongings enslave, and kill people are on the side of Darth Vader.


As to this an over riding theme that is coming from some here. You do not have to join the KKK to be an expert on them and to know that they are a bad organization with bad intent. We have a right and a duty to point out the things that our wrong in our society. Speak truth to power.

I was just joking. Didn't mean to hit the nail on the head blindfolded. I always thought his body was creamated.

The C.O.S. has Hubbards body frozen in a refrigeration machine.

It just appears you really have no more knowledge of the events in questions then the OP/Rabbit or you would actually state some information instead of just asking questions that infer invalid information.

Any time that tactic is used it is a great gong of clarity that the person doing the questioning of the story does not have any direct information, but does not believe the story for personal reasons and so calls its truth into question without any validating info.

So basically if you or JB the grand investigator have some kind of info, it would probably help make your case to actually show it rather then to beat around the bush like some pseudo followers pointing out how its not hte organization just a few bad apples, or the stories are not credible, but I cant say why . . . . .

Just calling it like I see it, show your cards or have what your doing called out for what it is: obvious. It is about beliefs, its about the stories in question and whether anyone believes it or not . . .

Basically to call into question someone's story without any evidence on your side is not only crass but makes it look like you, or the organization has something to hide.

Its not me objecting to you defending a view point, its my objecting to you dismissing the truthfulness of these peoples claims without a shred of counter evidence but your own knowledge of said organization which in the case of these events means nothing . . .

You can drag out all the good that has ever been done by the catholic church that does not change the fact that in certain cases abuse has happened, and the church should have been more responsible about it . . . .
Here is an example, you claim these reports are ALWAYS bias, without showing why they are always bias, and without any direct information. You also deny the link that is made in the actual stories that show why church officials should be held responsible . . .

The only bias I see right now is yours.

Ok, if you can't see any bias in anything anyone else has said and can only see bias in what I've said, then I must admit to having failed miserably and bow out of the conversation.