"You have zero effect"

AryaZ

Seeking truth and retribution
I like when the records are straight
Nobody here is against criticizing any critics or proeminent former top management exec.

This is false

I am member here for over for 9 years and have read decent people had decent discussions about critics ,for example Rathbun and Rinder. I participated and have never seen anyone being muzzled, intimidated, smeared, or whatever, for questioning those critics..whatever their opinion was.. A good example is Tony Ortega some are fans some not, another example was Debbie Cook. Concerning Marty as well as Rinder, some were opened to give them a chance while some don't trust either of them. Each one their own opinion. ( especially when some members had their personnal experience with them)

Regarding those topics, there was many very enlightening discussions with other exes who, for example could add in bringing their own experience with the guys..but in no way with an intent to smear, defame or even push an agenda.

What is happening here, is the result of a guy trying to stir shit with insults, smearing, lies, false accusations, and yes, most decent people don't like it because it doesn't fit with a discussion. If ESMB has become the right place for such behavior, it is not the right community (people) to push one's belief and agenda. The community is made of wise and mature people, not kids in a kindergarten. People make their own mind and are very reluctant to be enforced whatever and usually base their discussion on facts, instead on false premises or wrong assumptions.

Why your friend? has so much problems here, (teice) with so many people, may be the right question to ask.
(apparently on other sites too)

How do you know what happened here, years ago since you were not member , neither reading???

I'm happy to answer your questions replying to my post reply.

But first, and so I get the record straight, and don't make any false assumptions, who is the "guy trying to stir shit" you're talking about?
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
The Unreliability of Stories and Rumors by Apostates

The vast majority of false allegations put forward, primarily on the Internet, to attempt to stigmatize the Church of Scientology, have been concocted by a handful of disgruntled former Scientologists—apostates—who commonly have “an ax to grind.”

Courts, scholars and objective and responsible government bodies routinely discard testimony by apostates of any religion because their credibility is always suspect, their anecdotal allegations inevitably motivated by personal interests, and their claims frequently fueled by greed to support outlandish and unwarranted demands in legal actions for monetary compensation from their former faiths.

It is unfortunate that some government officials and media continue to rely on discredited apostates to justify discriminatory policies against the Church of Scientology and its members. Virtually all punitive government actions targeting Scientology in the past decades were based on unsubstantiated anecdotal testimony from disgruntled apostates. When the evidence was finally reviewed by objective government officials or judicial bodies, the Church emerged completely vindicated while the false allegations of apostates were exposed and discredited.
From: https://www.standleague.org/facts-v...ility-of-stories-and-rumors-by-apostates.html

I'd say this "paper" is highly biased. If we were to believe Mr. Bromley, then the multitude of stories told here on this board are to be discounted. Let's not look at the high commonality among such stories, these are just people with an ax to grind, incompetent to report facts and worthy of dismissal.

Yes, this is perfect material for STAND League's web-site. It's refreshing and highly reassuring that Alanzo has brought Mr Bromley to our attn as a role model for truth, justice and the American way. Thank you Allen.

It is also just the perfect paper for a newly out to read so that they are properly prepared. Let them understand that should they post their stories of disgruntalment that they too can be dismissed and derided as mere disgruntled apostates unworthy of being heard - so just don't bother why don't ya. Yes, that would be so healthy for their future life outside the confines of the co$.
 
Last edited:

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
From: https://www.standleague.org/facts-v...ility-of-stories-and-rumors-by-apostates.html

I'd say this "paper" is highly biased. If we were to believe Mr. Bromley, then the multitude of stories told here on this board are to be discounted. Let's not look at the high commonality among such stories, these are just people with an ax to grind, incompetent to report facts and worthy of dismissal.

Yes, this is perfect material for STAND League's web-site. It's refreshing and highly reassuring that Alanzo has brought Mr Bromley to our attn as a role model for truth, justice and the American way. Thank you Allen.
This statement Bromley makes:

"Courts, scholars and objective and responsible government bodies routinely discard testimony by apostates of any religion because their credibility is always suspect, their anecdotal allegations inevitably motivated by personal interests, and their claims frequently fueled by greed to support outlandish and unwarranted demands in legal actions for monetary compensation from their former faiths."

Is it true?
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
This statement Bromley makes:

"Courts, scholars and objective and responsible government bodies routinely discard testimony by apostates of any religion because their credibility is always suspect, their anecdotal allegations inevitably motivated by personal interests, and their claims frequently fueled by greed to support outlandish and unwarranted demands in legal actions for monetary compensation from their former faiths."

Is it true?
Is any proof provided? Any statistics? Anything?

...

"Bromley says" so it's true.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Is it true? I would say no, its not true.

And to your challenge earlier:
Could you please provide any evidence at all that David Bromley, for example, as a professor of sociology at the university of Virginia is "heavily influenced by SJW agendas" ?
The article above may not be evidence of SJW agenda, but it sure as hell is evidence of a pro-Co$ agenda.

Who is he talking about? Mark and Claire Headley? Do you think their claims were false? Do you agree with Bromley's paper Alanzo?

How about the settlement reached in the forced abortion case earlier this year? The courts sure took her seriously.
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Note also that Bromley quotes another paper written by Lonnie D. Kliever

In the footnotes there is a link to the paper. Where does the link direct you? http://www.scientologyreligion.org/...ability-of-apostate-testimony/assignment.html

And what does Dr Kliever tell us in this paper:

I have been asked by the Church of Scientology to give my expert opinion on two broad issues: (1) The incidence of apostasy in new religious movements and (2) The reliability of apostate accounts of their former religious beliefs and practices.
You really think this is an unbiased paper Alanzo? Do you think this paper was written for free or did Kliever get paid by the co$ to write it?
 

Veda

Sponsor
Here's a 2 March 2012 ESMB post by James Beverley who is friend of Gordon Melton. Beverley states that, "Once in a while Gordon has said things in court that sound like he discredits all apostate testimony. However [privately] he does not..."

Lying under oath is serious business, but it's not treated that way by some professional "religious scholars."

They don't necessarily believe what they testify in court as paid "experts."

Some of these "experts" are playing a very cynical game.

Elsewhere, in a continuation of this conversation two years later, some light was shown on Scientology Inc. "whales" - ultra-rich Scientologists - supporting pro cult scholars and academic programs by donations to institutions that employ them.

There is definitely money flowing from cults to their enablers in academia.

From 2012:
Once in a while Gordon has said things in court that sound like he discredits all apostate testimony. However, he does not, in fact, believe the popular view against him that he completely discredits ex-member views. I have talked to him about this many times over the years, and just talked to him today about the topic to make sure my view was correct. His view is that both member and ex-member testimony has to be evaluated in a critical way.

By the way, common sense would suggest that no one can possibly think that all ex-member testimony is always untrustworthy. All, every time, every person? Not a chance.

My own view is the same as Gordon's in general. Ex-member testimony is sometimes true, sometimes false, always important to consider...the same with member testimony.

Also, sometimes the ex-member testimony is far, far, far closer to reality than the members. One factor that complicates this is that the same group can produce opposite impacts on people and so the testimony can differ in two people who were in the same group at the same time.
 

AryaZ

Seeking truth and retribution
I was in the same boat as you after receiving the debbie cook email. And I visited ESMB, Marty's blog, OCMB, and everything available at the time in 2012 and coming forward. I read a lot.

Doesn't matter what anybody says in the long run. The only thing that matters is whether hubbard's religion could produce a clear or OT.

And yet, there still are varied opinions (within the ex community) on whether Hubbard's tech produces clears or OT's,
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gib

Caroline

Patron Meritorious
This statement Bromley makes:

"Courts, scholars and objective and responsible government bodies routinely discard testimony by apostates of any religion because their credibility is always suspect, their anecdotal allegations inevitably motivated by personal interests, and their claims frequently fueled by greed to support outlandish and unwarranted demands in legal actions for monetary compensation from their former faiths."

Is it true?
No, it is not true. But it seems idiotic.

No apostate's credibility is always suspect. And the idea that all apostates' testimonies are always suspect is madness. Anyone who flees some hellish situation shouldn't be believed because they're apostates from that hell.

I don't know whether, and do not believe that, courts, scholars and objective and responsible government bodies routinely discard testimony by apostates of any religion. Judge Breckenridge certainly did not discard the testimony submitted in Armstrong 1. In fact he said this:

Judge Breckenridge said:
As indicated by its factual findings, the court finds the Testimony of Gerald and Jocelyn Armstrong, Laurel Sullivan, Nancy Dincalcis, Edward Walters, Omar Garrison, Kima Douglas, and Howard Schomer to be credible, extremely persuasive, and the defense of privilege or justification established and corroborated by this evidence. Obviously, there are some discrepancies or variations in recollections, but these are the normal problems which arise from lapse of time, or from different people viewing matters or events from different perspectives. In all critical and important matters, their testimony was precise, accurate, and rang true. The picture painted by these former dedicated Scientologists, all of whom were intimately involved with LRH, or Mary Jane Hubbard, or of the Scientology Organization, is on the one hand pathetic, and on the other, outrageous. Each of these persons literally gave years of his or her respective life in support of a man, LRH, and his ideas. Each has manifested a waste and loss or frustration which is incapable of description. Each has broken with the movement for a variety of reasons, but at the same time, each is, still bound by the knowledge that the Church has
-7-
[CT 5955]
in its possession his or her most inner thoughts and confessions, all recorded in “pre-clear (P.C.) folders” or other security files of the organization, and that the Church or its minions is fully capable of intimidation or other physical or psychological abuse if it suits their ends. The record is replete with evidence of such abuse.
http://legal.gerryarmstrong.ca/1984/06/22/memorandum-of-intended-decision-june-22-1984/
 

Veda

Sponsor
This statement Bromley makes:

"Courts, scholars and objective and responsible government bodies routinely discard testimony by apostates of any religion because their credibility is always suspect, their anecdotal allegations inevitably motivated by personal interests, and their claims frequently fueled by greed to support outlandish and unwarranted demands in legal actions for monetary compensation from their former faiths."

Is it true?
Does Bromley really believe this?

"Courts, scholars and objective and responsible government bodies routinely discard..." "Their [the apostates] credibility is always suspect..."

Does Bromley actually believe this? Or, like Melton, is he just telling the cult(s) what they want to hear?
 
Last edited:

Gib

Crusader
Hm. Made me think of the Dissemination formula, where the disseminator gets the prospect to cough up a "ruin" and then sells him Scientology as the solution, no matter what the supposed "ruin" is. What a scam.

Hubbard was quite clear in All About Radiation about what he intended be understood as brainwashing:


Elsewhere, we know Hubbard was familiar with Edward Hunter's Brain-Washing in Red China, in which the author goes into considerable detail about the Chinese "criticism sessions." It's a fascinating and very informative book. You can read it here: https://archive.org/details/Brain-
Washing_in_Red_China_Edward_Hunter


This Hubbard definition of brainwashing is quite similar to his definition of "Black Dianetics." (Main references) It is also very similar to how Dr. Natalie Feinstein described gaslighting in the Aftermath episode that aired on August 26, 2019:


We all, if we're being honest, have to admit that Hubbard got us to see and do things we never saw or did. Planet Farsec comes to mind... How about the Xenu incident? Or the Coffee Grinder? Or the Coitus Chain, Cousin?
well, the Dissemination formula was just the beginning. Once you get a person to agree to that, and get them to get services and some simple wins, why they are then introduced to the so called gains to be had on going up the Bridge to total Freedom, The gains to be had are all steps up the bridge, all the EP's of each step up the Bridge,

of course, each EP is but rhetoric and even sublime. For nobody has been able to reach the EP's of each step up the Bridge, but they may feel like they have done so.

But the ultimate truth is what?

and yah, what a scam.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Don't make foolish, offhand statements. I know BB and knew him personally very well for years in the SO and so have dozens of others who are out. We worked together, FYI. He is an honest, forthright man with an outstanding memory and his word is GOLD. BB has integrity. Always did, always will.

On the other hand, nobody seems to know much of anything about you, like who you really are and your actual history with Scientology and why you are so incredibly interested in it to confirm you know anything at all about it, were on staff or not, were public or not, and when or where. You are a voice in the air with a fake ID, where BB is a known real person, so you're in no position at all to question anyone else's integrity. It's like a vapor questioning whether a statue everyone sees and knows is there and has been around for years exists.

I'm not saying you have to come forward, Alanzo. In fact, I wouldn't recommend it. But I would think by now after all your years of posting that SOMEone who knew you well IRL that has come forward could verify SOME thing about you. BB is for real. End of story.

No more ad hom digs at a person's honesty or recollections, please. It's ridiculous.
Hello Sheila,

You are and always have been a real sweetheart! I appreciate your coming to my defense. Honestly I was beginning to wonder if I was picking on Alanzo too much so it's nice to know there are some people who are supportive on the basis of my character even if some of my points are off and some of my posts rambled.

I'm finding that having Alanzo do his thing here has inspired some interesting observations and conclusions. I know there is a lot of history but I have been a relative Alanzo virgin and playing catch up. Veda said something that clicked for me so now this is how I am looking at it.

Scientology Corporate hates the "cult" appellation. That is understandable since it totally undermines their religious cloaking. I have friends who have participated in the Indie zone and I have respected this and refused to rat them out even though I was still in active and in good standing but I personally have never been active as an Indie. So now it is occurring to me that people who still adhere to and respect elements of Scientology even though they disapprove of the corporation share a common goal with corporate to not have Scientology perceived as a cult but rather as a respected religion. They probably sincerely consider that it is their religion. Even when I was in the Sea Org and thereafter I was very self-conscious of my involvement and beliefs in Scientology and I didn't even tell the person who would become my closest friend that I was a Scientologist until I knew him for 3 years. We were co-workers and worked side by side every day and spent our weekends together and did road trips. That's saying a lot about how embarrassing it is even when you still adhere to it. I can appreciate that having all these exes speak out and calling it a cult has probably become a very strong point of contention with people like that.

It's just my opinion but I think Alanzo came here wanting to have a pitched battle with Karen and probably some other personal reasons and to press his crusade against the cult moniker. He has been at this a long time apparently so knew he would be getting a lot of push back. I think he latched onto this whole Tribal thing as a preemptive attempt to neutralize that push back by blanket characterizing opposing opinion as bias but wasn't expecting anyone to know the origins of this and other similar isms that Marxists have permeated into academia. Tribe theory has been around since the 70s but the leftist academia and media really resurrected it to explain away the heartland's rejection of Hillary. That is why it is now recognized for what it is by so many. Marxism is basically a revolutionary doctrine but they know direct revolution doesn't work. They needed to be more sneaky sneak and play the long game. You don't need to be a Marxist to use sneaky revolutionary doctrine. It can be used by Marxists against other Marxists or by anyone against anyone just like anyone can use Black Dianetics. If academia was concerned about preserving their credibility in general then maybe they shouldn't have embraced this kind of thinking so pervasively and culled their ranks of people with different political orientations so thoroughly. And if someone doesn't want to walk and talk like a Marxist then maybe they shouldn't toss around their buzz words in the midst of a cultural revolution because that is exactly what is going on right now.

But I don't think this is about left vs right politics. I suspect that Karen and Alanzo's politics are actually much closer to each other than to mine. Easily half of my friends and family do not share my politics but they are still my friends and family and I consider Karen to be a friend. If anything I suspect this has more to do with Karen's transition from being relatively neutral on the religion thing to an emphatic user of the cult word. Again, it's just my opinion and if it's wrong then Alanzo should have done a better job selling whatever he's selling. He had 10 minutes to make the close and he blew it.

I am getting to the point where I don't care about being UTR so much. For personal reasons it has served it's purpose but things have changed in my life since I first started posting here and if I were outed or came out I doubt I'd care. In fact, for the possible exception of the mods, you are the only person who I know for sure who knows who BB is so you sort of outed yourself. I'm OK with that as long as you are. You were my backup. If I got hit by a car or OSA tossed me in a dark basement there would be one person who might be able to notice me missing or write my epitaph. I hope you don't feel used. It's only because I like and trust you. I have corresponded with Mike, Stephen Kent, Karen and Jeffrey and others as myself but not as BB. It probably wouldn't be too hard for them to put it together if they thought about it but again, I don't think I care. I have been discussed, the things I did in Scientology, and even my picture has been posted at OCMB, The Bunker and even here. On the whole I think I had real friends there and I'm remembered favorably. I wish all I did was Estates related stuff but that isn't the case and there are some things that I sincerely regret. Hopefully I've helped other people avoid my mistakes.

Best,

TOBB
 

JustSheila

Crusader
Hello Sheila,

You are and always have been a real sweetheart! I appreciate your coming to my defense. Honestly I was beginning to wonder if I was picking on Alanzo too much so it's nice to know there are some people who are supportive on the basis of my character even if some of my points are off and some of my posts rambled.

I'm finding that having Alanzo do his thing here has inspired some interesting observations and conclusions. I know there is a lot of history but I have been a relative Alanzo virgin and playing catch up. Veda said something that clicked for me so now this is how I am looking at it.

Scientology Corporate hates the "cult" appellation. That is understandable since it totally undermines their religious cloaking. I have friends who have participated in the Indie zone and I have respected this and refused to rat them out even though I was still in active and in good standing but I personally have never been active as an Indie. So now it is occurring to me that people who still adhere to and respect elements of Scientology even though they disapprove of the corporation share a common goal with corporate to not have Scientology perceived as a cult but rather as a respected religion. They probably sincerely consider that it is their religion. Even when I was in the Sea Org and thereafter I was very self-conscious of my involvement and beliefs in Scientology and I didn't even tell the person who would become my closest friend that I was a Scientologist until I knew him for 3 years. We were co-workers and worked side by side every day and spent our weekends together and did road trips. That's saying a lot about how embarrassing it is even when you still adhere to it. I can appreciate that having all these exes speak out and calling it a cult has probably become a very strong point of contention with people like that.

It's just my opinion but I think Alanzo came here wanting to have a pitched battle with Karen and probably some other personal reasons and to press his crusade against the cult moniker. He has been at this a long time apparently so knew he would be getting a lot of push back. I think he latched onto this whole Tribal thing as a preemptive attempt to neutralize that push back by blanket characterizing opposing opinion as bias but wasn't expecting anyone to know the origins of this and other similar isms that Marxists have permeated into academia. Tribe theory has been around since the 70s but the leftist academia and media really resurrected it to explain away the heartland's rejection of Hillary. That is why it is now recognized for what it is by so many. Marxism is basically a revolutionary doctrine but they know direct revolution doesn't work. They needed to be more sneaky sneak and play the long game. You don't need to be a Marxist to use sneaky revolutionary doctrine. It can be used by Marxists against other Marxists or by anyone against anyone just like anyone can use Black Dianetics. If academia was concerned about preserving their credibility in general then maybe they shouldn't have embraced this kind of thinking so pervasively and culled their ranks of people with different political orientations so thoroughly. And if someone doesn't want to walk and talk like a Marxist then maybe they shouldn't toss around their buzz words in the midst of a cultural revolution because that is exactly what is going on right now.

But I don't think this is about left vs right politics. I suspect that Karen and Alanzo's politics are actually much closer to each other than to mine. Easily half of my friends and family do not share my politics but they are still my friends and family and I consider Karen to be a friend. If anything I suspect this has more to do with Karen's transition from being relatively neutral on the religion thing to an emphatic user of the cult word. Again, it's just my opinion and if it's wrong then Alanzo should have done a better job selling whatever he's selling. He had 10 minutes to make the close and he blew it.

I am getting to the point where I don't care about being UTR so much. For personal reasons it has served it's purpose but things have changed in my life since I first started posting here and if I were outed or came out I doubt I'd care. In fact, for the possible exception of the mods, you are the only person who I know for sure who knows who BB is so you sort of outed yourself. I'm OK with that as long as you are. You were my backup. If I got hit by a car or OSA tossed me in a dark basement there would be one person who might be able to notice me missing or write my epitaph. I hope you don't feel used. It's only because I like and trust you. I have corresponded with Mike, Stephen Kent, Karen and Jeffrey and others as myself but not as BB. It probably wouldn't be too hard for them to put it together if they thought about it but again, I don't think I care. I have been discussed, the things I did in Scientology, and even my picture has been posted at OCMB, The Bunker and even here. On the whole I think I had real friends there and I'm remembered favorably. I wish all I did was Estates related stuff but that isn't the case and there are some things that I sincerely regret. Hopefully I've helped other people avoid my mistakes.

Best,

TOBB
:arose:

Oh man, you leave me speechless. Of course I'm your friend! I'll email you privately. :bighug:

I'm with you on some of the FZers and Indies not being cultists. There are a few groups that are an exception to that, though, and religiously follow cult procedures and doctrine. Were you here when an Indie group had an SO style nursery with unqualified nannies, overcrowded conditions and one of the children died? :omg: That was in their Thailand group, but the same group also has/had an LA group. They also wouldn't help a young girl who had literally broken out of isolation and in about six months in the SO had her mind broken, even though she had no signs of mental illness before that. No, no, for all their brags about Scientology being so wonderful, not one person would help her or her family UNLESS THEY PAID FOR THE VISIT. I made quite a few calls there. They were flippant, told me, "Life is a game!" :omg: I'm sure that poor young lady didn't feel that way.That's not a church, that's a business. It has no compassion for the young, the old, the infirm, those down on their luck. I'm too busy to look up the links to that right now.

Those are cults, not churches. Churches get tax breaks to help the needy and do charitable good works. Cults pretend to do so, but use their status to underpay and abuse staff and usurp any donations for extravagant, lavish living. Cults fit the defined characteristics of a cult. The Church of Scientology fits all of them.

On the other hand, some of the FZ and Indie groups and individuals are friendly, helpful, truly compassionate and don't use cult indoctrination and cult practices. They shouldn't be grouped together with the Church of Scientology Cult that way. The other groups may have some similar beliefs, but they refute the beliefs or practices that are abusive and cultish that the Cult of Scientology does not.

As for me, I've already gone public on television a couple of times and at protests some years ago and prefer to stay private these days. On ESMB, I have expressly asked not to be outed on the Board. Most people here know who I am, but I've had a touch and go family situation and also a relentless malicious stalker for years who may or may not have worked for COS so don't want to be public anymore. I've told my stories and my stories are too old to be legally actionable anymore. Yours probably are, too, but that doesn't mean they don't matter. Do what you feel is best FOR YOU.

And there are plenty of people left who would know and remember you, btw. I've never told a soul who you are, never would, but I know who we all worked with there.

So you weren't an angel all your life after all? :omg: Well, you were always a good person anyway and trying to do the right thing. You're honest and good. That matters. :heartflower: More by email. :blowkiss:
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
:arose:

Oh man, you leave me speechless. Of course I'm your friend! I'll email you privately. :bighug:

I'm with you on some of the FZers and Indies not being cultists. There are a few groups that are an exception to that, though, and religiously follow cult procedures and doctrine. Were you here when an Indie group had an SO style nursery with unqualified nannies, overcrowded conditions and one of the children died? :omg: That was in their Thailand group, but the same group also has/had an LA group. They also wouldn't help a young girl who had literally broken out of isolation and in about six months in the SO had her mind broken, even though she had no signs of mental illness before that. No, no, for all their brags about Scientology being so wonderful, not one person would help her or her family UNLESS THEY PAID FOR THE VISIT. I made quite a few calls there. They were flippant, told me, "Life is a game!" :omg: I'm sure that poor young lady didn't feel that way.That's not a church, that's a business. It has no compassion for the young, the old, the infirm, those down on their luck. I'm too busy to look up the links to that right now.

Those are cults, not churches. Churches get tax breaks to help the needy and do charitable good works. Cults pretend to do so, but use their status to underpay and abuse staff and usurp any donations for extravagant, lavish living. Cults fit the defined characteristics of a cult. The Church of Scientology fits all of them.

On the other hand, some of the FZ and Indie groups and individuals are friendly, helpful, truly compassionate and don't use cult indoctrination and cult practices. They shouldn't be grouped together with the Church of Scientology Cult that way. The other groups may have some similar beliefs, but they refute the beliefs or practices that are abusive and cultish that the Cult of Scientology does not.

As for me, I've already gone public on television a couple of times and at protests some years ago and prefer to stay private these days. On ESMB, I have expressly asked not to be outed on the Board. Most people here know who I am, but I've had a touch and go family situation and also a relentless malicious stalker for years who may or may not have worked for COS so don't want to be public anymore. I've told my stories and my stories are too old to be legally actionable anymore. Yours probably are, too, but that doesn't mean they don't matter. Do what you feel is best FOR YOU.

And there are plenty of people left who would know and remember you, btw. I've never told a soul who you are, never would, but I know who we all worked with there.

So you weren't an angel all your life after all? :omg: Well, you were always a good person anyway and trying to do the right thing. You're honest and good. That matters. :heartflower: More by email. :blowkiss:
Thank you for all that Sheila,

Sounds like former execs and SO members trying to relive the glory days. What could possibly go wrong?

I guess for brevity I sort of used "Indie" too broadly. To rephrase, I expect a lot of people who consider themselves Scientologists take the religious cloaking too seriously and follow the corporate PR line too literally. It was always a tax and legal dodge. I knew it when I was in the SO and any Scientologist who doesn't know that is a useful idiot. Still, even if you know that, it does provide cloaking for individuals who want to be known as Scientologists in public regardless of their corporate affiliations and it must be extremely aggravating to have so many people with such strong Scio street cred constantly hammering the cult meme home.

If I were one of these people I'd probably be irked to watch someone like Karen start out relatively neutral on the religion angle and evolve into a dedicated supporter of the cult word. I'd expect that would be grounds for diligently pursuing a bashing and division campaign for years or decades. But to avoid that looking like a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing with OSA Corp it would be important to wrap your agenda in some kind of fancy high brow intellectual study that the rest of us rubes couldn't understand and that seems to be where we are now with this discussion.

Best,

TOBB
 

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
I think he keeps bumping this thread hoping that Alanzo will answer my questions :D

Is it true? I would say no, its not true.

And to your challenge earlier:

"Could you please provide any evidence at all that David Bromley, for example, as a professor of sociology at the university of Virginia is "heavily influenced by SJW agendas" ?"
The article above may not be evidence of SJW agenda, but it sure as hell is evidence of a pro-Co$ agenda.

Who is he talking about? Mark and Claire Headley? Do you think their claims were false? Do you agree with Bromley's paper Alanzo?

How about the settlement reached in the forced abortion case earlier this year? The courts sure took her seriously.
Note also that Bromley quotes another paper written by Lonnie D. Kliever
In the footnotes there is a link to the paper. Where does the link direct you? http://www.scientologyreligion.org/...ability-of-apostate-testimony/assignment.html
And what does Dr Kliever tell us in this paper:
"I have been asked by the Church of Scientology to give my expert opinion on two broad issues: (1) The incidence of apostasy in new religious movements and (2) The reliability of apostate accounts of their former religious beliefs and practices."​
You really think this is an unbiased paper Alanzo? Do you think this paper was written for free or did Kliever get paid by the co$ to write it?
 
Top