Scientology Stuff PLUS, Website Review: Scientology Myths

It's a post chocka block full of Scientology goodness. So watch out for engrams, and strap your thetans in for this wild ride through the world of Scientology.

Firstly, according to Anon SA the theme for the next raid will be known as Operation Reconnect. I'm quite sure that Scientology already knows this considering their rather pervasive presence on the internet in regards to this.

Secondly, take a look at this from thunderf00t:



I hope that you enjoyed watching it. I know I did.

Thirdly, I found that Ex-Scientology Kids has a wall of shame.

By the way, if you haven't already, please check out some of the stories from ex-Scientologists but preferably after you have read this post, I still have more to say.

Anyway, the wall of shame links to a site called Scientology Myths (which is apparently a front site, and I can see why, and you will too without losing most of your IQ).

But to be fair the homepage does say the following:

"ScientologyMyths.info wants to find answers to the questions that are being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church and L. Ron Hubbard. Our goal is to find answers from independent sources, not only from Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology sites either. We pull our information mainly from court documents and other neutral sources and lay out the information for you to come to your own conclusions."

So they want you to think of them as another Operation Clambake but they fail. Unless they want you to find answers without any impartiality at all, then they succeed quite well.

This is the Scientology Myths page on Anonymous.

The very first thing they mention on their "Anonymous" page is a link to the Wikipedia article on hate crimes. If you can be bothered to read the article at all, you will find the "seedy origins" of Anonymous, mentions of bomb and death threats, and take this little gem:

"One could say that Anonymous fails to clean its ranks from psychos and criminals but - without morals to protect it and cowardice as “party line” - is actually actively supporting terrorist activities."

So in other words, a decentralised organisation with no membership requirements, no member lists, and limited knowledge of who is a member of the organisation is supposed to have strong centralised leadership, membership requirements, member lists and the ability to check criminal and medical records?

Right?

And then they provide the Scientology Propaganda Video that "details" "death threats" against Scientology members by "Anonymous".

I've mentioned it many times before, but Anonymous provides the same protection as you would get with login names/forum names/avatars etc. on the internet.

And the other thing is that all the links provided support CoS. There is no evidence provided that supports Anonymous or even details what Anonymous is and does. Not even a Wikipedia link.

The Clambake section provides more evidence of the inherent bias in this site, and also shows a poor grasp of biology.

The Lisa McPherson page.

Ultimately can be summed up by:

"Some corrupt individuals tried to profit from the death of this girl and make a lot of noise about it. That's why you know about it."

The entire page supports Scientology, but they don't seem to mention some of the other things, like say Lisa being bitten by cockroaches.

But as evidence they supply the death certificate. I'll raise them some autopsy photos (WARNING: NOT SAFE FOR WORK, PEOPLE OF CERTAIN FAITHS, OR MINORS). As a side note, the blemishes on her back and the underside of her legs/arms is caused by livor mortis, where the blood has settled to the lowest parts of her body.

Now based on the pictures and the rather large number of wounds on her body, it seems rather odd to ignore this evidence and make it look like she was in a livid mental state.

On internet censorship. All you get is a quote from Scientology (this I would suggest you read, note the blatant hypocrisy) a mention of Operation Clambake (at least I think it is) with a pro-Scientology spin on it.

Operation Foot Bullet from Operation Clambake has a mention of it as well.

And you get a lovely link to the DCMA from the Scientology Myths site as well.

To close I will leave you with one last page. The page on Freezone.

Especially this snippet:

"Freezones are not religious in nature, they are money making ventures, originally started by Captain Bill Robertson."

So when the Freezoners were talking about keeping the tech free, they actually meant that you should charge people for it?

Or how about this (same page):

"I understand the largest Freezone group is in Germany, which makes sense, since Germany is well behind the curve in supporting religious freedom."

Because it doesn't count when it isn't your religion that is being practised right?

Oh wait, I forgot this.

Notably:

"The "Cult of Greed" statement very much false. The Internal Revenue Service agrees that the Church of Scientology is not a for-profit organization."

I'm quite sure you can claim to be a non-profit organisation while actually being a for-profit organisation. It all comes down to what you show them, and who you blackmail.

It's good that someone, somewhere has mentioned to ESK, and probably other websites about this one, although it was quite clear anyway when you read certain pages that there is an inherent, and clear bias, on this site.

At least Operation Clambake provides links to Scientology sources.

Yay!

Yay!

I finally managed to get trackbacks working using a Greasemonkey script.

Now to start pinging everything and anything that I can.

Mwahahaha.

English

I need to learn English. Ever since German learning, I can't sentences in English writing. And now can't I sentences in German writing either. When I sentences write, I have to about what I want to say think more.

Must. Make. This. Viral.

Must make this viral.



Panda's Thumb said so.

Viralify it. Send it out as spam if you have to.

Are They Getting Stupider?

I've stayed out of the PZ Myers getting kicked out of the Expelled screening while Richard Dawkins got in, but now I have more of an opinion rather then "Silly Creationists, you're acting like hypocrites".

Panda's Thumb reports that Uncommon Descent has added their own Argument from Ignorance to the whole thing.

Apparently you are not allowed to use identification which does not have your actual name on it.

This is actually assuming that Dawkins was actually registered at all. Or that he "sneaked" into a private screening.

Panda's Thumb once again shows us that the people who supposedly knows what is going on don't. Unless a public website that you can RSVP to is actually some ruse to get people to sign up to a movie that they might not be allowed to go to...

Now here is where I would like to point to many, many sites that point out that PZ was in the right but I fear that I will lose my train of thought, instead I'll let you read it from the pen (How can it hold a pen?) of a PZ Myers.

Now if you haven't bothered reading the UcD blog. I would say that the funniest part has to be:

"Dawkins was fully aware he was sneaking into a private screening to which he wasn’t invited and attempted to hide his presence by using his legal first name in the registration."

Really?


So if I were to say go to his Wikipedia page and look at what is immediately on the screen will I find that his first name is Clinton?

Hmmm...

Did you know that he was born in Nairobi?

And that he holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science?

Not going to well at the moment...

What's this bolded text at the start of the article?

Clinton Richard Dawkins

Well I'll be, it is.

And the point of that rather pointless set of words that will grace the infinite internet until it blows up or I decide to delete it?

Well it's like complaining that someone used their legal first name by registering with their legal first name. I would have at least thought if there was such a problem with using your first name instead of the name you use more often there would be some law preventing you from using your actual name.

I wonder if J.E.B. Stuart ever had that problem?

Random Guy: "Uh, you're not on the list"
J.E.B. Stuart: "Yes I am, I'm right there" *points out name on list*
Random Guy: "No, that's for Jeb Stuart, the General. This says 'James Ewell Brown Stuart'"
J.E.B. Stuart: "I implore you, the name I pointed out is me"
Random Guy: "Please leave before I call the police"

It only gets stupider from here.

I could write one about L. Ron Hubbard (the "L" stands for "Lafayette")

Why is it that if it was supposedly a "private" screening that PZ Myers family, Dawkins and and assorted other group of people that were accompanying them were allowed in?

Must be a selective definition of "private" which probably means something along the lines of "Not public, as in people who appear in the movie they are trying to get in to can't enter but everyone and their dog can".

So in the end we come down to two possibilities:

1. Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers are scheming lying people who sneaked into a private screening of Expelled for mischievous purposes.

Or

2. The whole ID Movement is now in damage control because they royally screwed up and acted rather hypocritically considering their view that mainstream science supposedly censors their proponents but their actions at this one screening managed to get a story in The New York Times, and are trying to find a way to discredit the people involved who don't support their viewpoint.

I'll let you decide.

It Makes You Wonder...

A 29 year old mentally disabled woman was tortured to death.

She was pregnant.

Her captors beat and abused her and they stole her money. The woman, Dorothy Dixon, faced this abuse from several captors, including a 12 year old boy, and the daughter of the woman who abused her the most, who was 15.

My own opinion at this time is that I wish that the captors could face the same treatment as they treated this poor woman, who has left behind a 1 year old boy.

Unfortunately that cannot happen because it is an abuse of the human rights of these sub human people.

Right now is Easter, the most important time in the whole of Christianity.

It is when Jesus died for our sins on the cross.

For those who know anything about me it is that I am agnostic, so this religious bent is perfectly fine for me.

At this time I really wonder if Jesus died for everyone's sins, including people like Michelle Riley.

In a way it saddens me to think that Jesus probably did.

He forgave people who sinned and helped those who needed to be helped. Unfortunately there is nothing there that talks about him forgiving a sadistic murderer.

I really wonder if he would have.

It is situations like this that make me wish that there is some form of afterlife, complete with punishments for those that do such evil like torture people who cannot defend themselves and steal their money, for they would have a welcome place in the pits of hell.

This is where using the Bible gives me contradicting ideas. Should I think of them in ways that they have shown how they would like to be treated, or should I think of them in ways that I would like to be treated? Or should I, like everyone who shows outrage over what happened in the US, try to turn the other cheek and forgive them?

I'm Learning About What Now?

Because I am usually late to internet related things I sometimes feel like I shouldn't write about things, but in this case I don't really care.

I found this.

Videos speak louder then links so I say watch this:



Apparently she is teaching us about words. Apparently.

Now if there was only an equivalent for Maths then I would be very happy.