Slashdot Mirror

Because it worked so well for Scientology.Yeah, I can't see this going wrong in any way at all.

Overpaid geeks reading this: GIVE WIKILEAKS MONEY.

I know Julian Assange slightly. He used to be the sysadmin at Suburbia.net. That's where my critic of Scientology website lives. He and Mark Dorset of Suburbia have assiduously defended that site against baseless legal threats from Scientology for the past fifteen years. The guy's got balls of titanium.

The newspapers whine about "who's going to do journalism without us around?" The answer is the same as who'll do it with them around, i.e. someone else. So far it's Wikileaks.

I gave 'em GBP50 (~US$100) last pay and will again this pay. So should you.

Overpaid geeks reading this: GIVE WIKILEAKS MONEY.

Thank you.

Overpaid geeks reading this: GIVE WIKILEAKS MONEY.

I know Julian Assange slightly. He used to be the sysadmin at Suburbia.net. That's where my critic of Scientology website lives. He and Mark Dorset of Suburbia have assiduously defended that site against baseless legal threats from Scientology for the past fifteen years. The guy's got balls of titanium.

The newspapers whine about "who's going to do journalism without us around?" The answer is the same as who'll do it with them around, i.e. someone else. So far it's Wikileaks.

I gave 'em GBP50 (~US$100) last pay and will again this pay. So should you.

Overpaid geeks reading this: GIVE WIKILEAKS MONEY.

Thank you.

Sorry, but much of Scientology is crap - Hubbard's ramblings dressed up as scientific research.

Scientology claims Hubbard's techniques work all the time but they don't, and are actually quite a good way of siphoning money from the user. Scientology doesn't submit Hubbard's writing for independent analysis because the organisation in fact is deeply anti-scientific. Their claims of a scientific basis for Hubbard's techniques are about as strong as those of the "psychics" who write horoscopes for the newspaper. It impresses people who have heard of Science and think its kinda cool, but who have no idea what actual Science is.

Scientology the organisation is paranoid, litigious, deceitful, cruel -- sharing many of Hubbard's personal characteristics -- and is ultimately a blight upon humanity. This is the aspect which Anonymous is targeting. Scientology kills people, it harasses, it's a bully who will plant fake evidence on you and then call the cops. It drives its members insane - and runs a forced-labour camp called the RPF.

The antagonism to Psychiatry is because it's a competitor to Scientology in the "healing the mind" market, and because Psychiatry, proceeding according to actual scientific principles, is in probably the best position to know what nonsense Scientology is.

Scientology, like many cults, preys on peoples' need to be part of a group. They use standard cult tactics like smothering new members with attention and building up of dependence upon the group. Bait and Switch is used to increase income from services as there is always another course which needs to be done, or some "urgent" problem in the member's psyche which needs to be "handled" (for a price). The auditing process provides the member with the desired "fix" of attention, and the probing personal questions of a Security Check provide Scientology with excellent blackmail material.

Finally, if you were wondering about my handle ... no, I've never been a Scientologist. But they threatened to sue me, and so I investigated them, and was disgusted by what I found. This is an evil organisation if ever there was one. Calling myself 'elronxenu' is just a small thing; they're very sensitive to the name Xenu and often self-censor it, so they'd probably refer to me in their dossier as 'elron****'. Yes, they do keep dossiers on people who criticise them. Mine is probably pretty thin, as they'd probably consider me only a minor nuisance, unlike a full-blown enemy such as David Gerard.

Where in Dianetics does Hubbard use the word "Xenu"?

Dunno. Maybe you have to pay the big bucks to get the document containing that particular bit of pulp SF. I guess if "Revolt In The Stars" had been finished and filmed, you could have gotten it much cheaper on DVD.

And it's destruction article confirm's the use of Bart Simpsons voice at the launch...

Let's hope scientology will be banned here.

Is this really what we want?

It's an idea that won't work anyway. Australia tried banning Scientology in the '60s, and it just didn't work to get rid of them. You can read some press articles from the '60s on the subject here.

My main critics' page is here.

Also: going up against $cientology is entertaining and invigorating. They make out that they are the toughest bullies around, but stand up to them and they shrink away.

Let's hope scientology will be banned here.

Is this really what we want?

It's an idea that won't work anyway. Australia tried banning Scientology in the '60s, and it just didn't work to get rid of them. You can read some press articles from the '60s on the subject here.

My main critics' page is here.

Also: going up against $cientology is entertaining and invigorating. They make out that they are the toughest bullies around, but stand up to them and they shrink away.